Agenda item

11.1 16C119B – Pen yr Orsedd, Engedi

11.1 16C119B – Full application for the erection of a building to provide a workshop and office at Pen yr Orsedd, Engedi

The application was presented to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of the Local Member and because the applicant is related to a Councillor.

Councillor R.G.Parry, OBE addressed the Committee as a Local Member to the effect that the application site is not visible for the A55 as it lies in a valley. The application is for a small workshop to keep tools, garage and other household sundries – there is no storage facility in Pen yr Orsedd at present. The applicant is a young man who is also a carpenter and craftsman and who currently works from the garage of his old home and who specialises in woodwork. His father intends to demolish the garage meaning that the applicant will not subsequently have any place to keep his carpentry tools. The workshop would also allow the applicant to keep his van under cover. Councillor Parry said that he did not consider the proposed building to be large at 10m by 10m by 4m approximately and that if the application was for a double garage then that would have posed no problem. The applicant has been honest regarding his intentions for the building. The applicant cannot afford to rent a unit on an industrial estate and to be able to work in the vicinity of his home would be a great advantage to him. Councillor Parry pointed out that there is a large chicken shed unit in the vicinity and a proposal for a large shed to the left of the application site has been granted permission. There are also a builder’s yard and farm with a variety of buildings not far away. The proposed development will not stand out. Councillor Parry said that he thought that there would be reduction in traffic as the applicant would not have to travel to and fro for his work. The applicant does not intend to use the site for sale purposes. He asked the Committee to support the application by a young carpenter who wishes to remain in his community to do his work.

Councillor Victor Hughes asked if the proposed shed would be on the back of the house. Councillor R.G.Parry explained that the proposed building would be located in the garden and will not be attached to the house.

Councillor Jeff Evans remarked that the proposal appeared to be a very large building for a shed and he queried whether its purpose is for the use of a joinery business – if that was so he would be happy to support it as a local business. Councillor Evans highlighted that the report however states that the information provided indicates that the proposed workshop would be used partly for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and partly in connection with the applicant’s joinery business. He asked therefore whether the development is a shed or an extension to the dwelling and he said that he was trying to imagine what it was for and what it would contain. He said that he was inclined to regard it as a small extension rather than as a shed and he queried why would the applicant need so large a building.

Councillor R.G.Parry explained that the building would contain office space in one corner to keep paperwork and that it would also house bicycles and other household items etc. as well as a carpenter’s work bench which takes up some space.

The Planning Development Manager showed the Committee an illustration of the proposed workshop’s design and said that what was proposed is a steel building with an office and that the applicant’s intention is to relocate his office. The Officer explained that when such a proposal is within the countryside there are specific policies that need to be adhered to – Policy 2 of the Ynys Môn Local Plan requires that on sites outside existing settlements, the Council will permit employment developments only in exceptional circumstances where the applicant has been able to demonstrate specific locational requirements and economic benefits which would justify allowing the proposal. However the argument put forward in this case are personal circumstances which is not compliant with the policy’s criteria. Personal circumstances are not considered a material factor in determining the use of land and a decision should not be made on that basis. The Highway Authority is of the view that the road network leading to the site from the main highway is substandard in terms of its width and there are insufficient passing areas with restricted forward visibility and has recommended that there should not be an increase in traffic to the site other than the applicant entering and exiting the site for the purpose of his business. The Officer said that he found it difficult to reconcile the assertion that there would be less traffic in the area with locating a business there. For the reasons given, the recommendation is one of refusal.

Councillor Lewis Davies referred to Policy 2 of the UDP and to the fact that developments such as that proposed by the applicant will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances and he said that there are large agricultural sheds in the countryside whereas the workshop proposed is smaller in comparison. He suggested that a condition could be attached to the consent to the effect that the development is for business use only in perpetuity in order to promote industry.

The Planning Development Manager reiterated that the policy prescribes that such developments are permitted in exceptional circumstances only where specific needs have been demonstrated.

Councillor Victor Hughes said that he was saddened by the Planning Authority’s stance on the application. He pointed out that every craftsman requires a workshop and that a carpenter requires such a facility more than most in order to work with large pieces of wood.  Councillor Hughes said that he had doubts as to whether the policy was right and he pointed out that the applicant had been honest as regards his intentions. Moreover, the applicant might engage an apprentice in future thereby developing the business. Councillor Hughes said that he was therefore uncomfortable with the recommendation.

Councillor Jeff Evans proposed that the application be refused. There was no seconder to the proposal.

Councillor Raymond Jones proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Victor Hughes seconded the proposal.

Councillors Lewis Davies, John Griffith, Victor Hughes, Vaughan Hughes and Raymond Jones voted in favour of the application. Councillor Jeff Evans voted to refuse the application.

The reason given for approving the application was that it safeguards and retains employment in the locality and Anglesey.

It was resolved to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation on the basis that it safeguards and retains employment in the locality and Anglesey. (Councillor Nicola Roberts as a Local Member did not vote on the application) 

In accordance with the requirements of the Constitution the application will be automatically deferred to the next meeting to allow the Officers to respond to the reason given for approving the application.