Agenda item

7.1 14LPA1010/CC – Cefn Trefor, Trefor

 

7.2 16C197A – Dridwen, Bryngwran

 

7.3 19C690C – 14 Cae Braenar, Holyhead

 

7.4 34C553A – Ty’n Coed, Llangefni

 

7.5 34LPA1009/CC – Saith Aelwyd, Rhosmeirch

 

7.6 36C338 – Ysgol Henblas, Llangristiolus

 

(Report to follow)

7.1       14LAPA1010/CC – Outline application for the erection of a dwelling with all matters reserved on land at Cefn Trefor, Trefor

 

The application is presented to the Planning and Orders Committee as it has been submitted by the Local Authority and is on Council owned land.

 

The Development Management Team Leader reported that the application was deferred by the Committee at its 13 May meeting pending the receipt of further information from the applicant regarding the visibility splay from the proposed access. That information has since been provided and confirmed by the Highways Department as acceptable. The application is an outline application for a dwelling in a Policy 50 area; a policy implementation note on a new interpretation of Policy 50 has been issued but following discussion within the Planning Service and the receipt of legal advice, no weight is being given to the implementation note at present so the application is being considered under Policy 50 as it stands. The Officer added that in accepting the visibility splay a Certificate B has been completed and notice subsequently served on the landowner which runs until 18th June, 2014. Should the application be approved therefore, the consent will not be released until the expiration of the notice period and any new matters that may arise as a result will be reported to the Committee.

 

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the application be approved and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Lewis Davies.

 

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to the conditions listed in the written report.

 

7.2       16C197A – Full application for the demolition of the existing shed together with the erection of a new dwelling and creation of a new vehicular access on land adjacent to Dridwen, Bryngwran

 

The application is presented to the Planning and Orders Committee as the applicant is related to a serving councillor as defined in paragraph 4.6.10.2 of the Council’s Constitution. The application has been scrutinised by the Monitoring Officer as required under the said paragraph.

 

Having declared a prejudicial interest in this application, Councillors Victor Hughes and Nicola Roberts withdrew from the meeting during the discussion and determination thereof.

 

Mrs Beryl Dickinson, an objector to the application  was invited by the Chair to address the Committee as a public speaker. Mrs Dickinson said that she was speaking on behalf of the Well Street Committee and the owner of Dridwen and that they were concerned by the proposal for the following reasons :

 

•           Overdevelopment of the site by a building that is out of character in both size and style being a modern town house.

•           Severe detriment to the amenities of the residents of neighbouring properties due to the height and siting of the proposed new dwelling being in close proximity to those properties and giving rise to privacy and loss of light issues .

•           Unresolved issues regarding a party wall and land ownership.

•           Access issues with regard to the private road that is Well Street

•           Large discrepancies between the proposal and  the recommendations contained in the SPG – Design Guide for the Urban and Rural Environment with regard to separation distances between secondary aspects.

 

The Committee asked questions of  Mrs Beryl Dickinson in clarification of the condition and responsibility for the upkeep of  Well Street, and her objective in making enquiries to the Land Registry in relation to the ownership of part of the application site.

 

Mr Owain Evans spoke in support of the application to the following effect –

 

•           That the initial application on this site was for  two, two storey dwellings but, following discussion with the Planning Service it was decided to apply for a bungalow in order to respond to concerns raised by the neighbourhood.

•           The plot is located on the road leading from the A5  known as Lon Ffynnon which is a road with a number of architectural themes comprising of  houses and buildings of various shapes and styles.

•           Some local residents have concerns which are addressed by the Planning Officer in the written reports and these focus on the following -

 

•           Access to the application site. The applicant has right of access to the original garage and the Highways Department is satisfied with the proposal. There is already a garage (not shed) on site.

•           Sewerage. This will run to the main foul water pipe.

•           The correct notices have been published.

•           The applicant will be working reasonable hours during the construction stage thus minimising any noise disturbance that may occur

•           The Senior Tree and Landscape Officer has assessed the tree on site and does not consider that it is suitable for a preservation order.

•           With regard to overlooking, although the proposal is not fully compliant with the recommendations of the SPG, it is close to being compliant and it must be remembered that the SPG provides guidance only.

•           From Dridwen there is 14m to the rear of the dwelling with a fence in between, and from the property of Mrs Dickinson there is 5.6m at eaves height to the side elevation.

 

The Committee asked questions of Mr Evans in relation to the ownership of part of the application site which was disputed, and the size of the development which was of concern to local residents and who at the time of the site visit, had placed markings on the road to show the extent of the proposal. Mr Evans confirmed that a copy of the applicant’s Land Registry title was submitted to the Planning Department in January, 2015 which shows that the land is presently in the applicant’s ownership as indicated by the red line. Legally, and according to the Land Registry deed the disputed piece of land amounting to approximately 4 metres square is owned by the applicant. As regards the size of the development, the Planning Service has been provided with a new plan which responds to those concerns. Mr Evans said he could not account for what the markings show but following the receipt of a letter from Mrs Dickinson on this issue he had checked the original measurements on site and could confirm that they are correct and that the proposal can be accommodated on the intended plot with a further 3m allowance for parking at the side of the proposed dwelling.

 

The Development Management Team Leader confirmed that the Planning Service had received  further plans by the applicant which in terms of the dimensions of the proposal are acceptable. Information in relation to drainage matters has also been received and is acceptable to the Technical Department. With regard to the issues raised in representations made in opposition to the proposal, the Officer confirmed that the  Planning Service has received a copy of the Land Registry title and is satisfied as to the land’s ownership and that everything is in order as regards certification. The report details the separation distances between the proposal and nearby properties and in clarification, the proposal is for a bungalow, not a modern town house, which is in keeping with its surroundings. It is also intended as part of the application to erect a 2m screening fence around the plot site to ensure privacy. It is the Planning Officer’s view that this intention needs to be formalised by a condition on any consent to the effect that the fence is erected before the proposed dwelling is lived in.

 

Councillor Dylan Rees spoke as a Local Member and reiterated the serious concerns locally and as highlighted by Mrs Beryl Dickinson that the proposal will affect the quality of life of the occupants of nearby properties. He referred to the boundary and party wall disputes  which do impact on the application and added that there are further issues that need to be taken into consideration in relation to the safe removal of asbestos in the roof of the shed on site; access to the A5 road and the inadequacy of the visibility splay for traffic joining the trunk road; drainage and soakaway issues; the proposal  is out of character with the locality, separation distances do not comply with the recommendations of the SPG and right to light issues.  Councillor Rees made particular reference to a recent review of Policy 50 and a revised interpretation of Policy 50 settlements arising from concerns about the rate of development seen in certain listed settlements. The revised interpretation seeks to impose stricter control over future growth in overdeveloped settlements until the Joint Development Plan is adopted and to take an approach whereby any open market application will be refused in settlements where current growth has exceeded three times the anticipated growth level. Subject to suitable justification, affordable housing to meet an identified local need might be supported. Notwithstanding the revised interpretation came into effect in April, 2015 and the application  pre-dates the implementation date, under the provisions of the revised guidance the Committee would have been invited to refuse the application because the anticipated growth for the settlement was for 11 dwellings under the UDP while the actual build has been 35 – a growth level of 318%.The proposal  is  not an affordable housing application but a property speculation and on that basis and on the grounds of  overdevelopment and no local need for it , he asked the Committee to refuse  the application.

 

The Development Management Team Leader responded to the issues raises and said that party wall issues and asbestos removal are subject to their own separate legislation. The Highways Authority is satisfied with the proposal and likewise the Drainage Section finds the proposal acceptable. With regard to the revised Policy 50 implementation note, since the agenda for the meeting was published there have been discussions at Planning Service level and following the receipt of legal advice, the position is that no weight is to be given to the implementation note at present and it will not apply to any of the applications under Policy 50 that form part of this meeting’s business. Should the Council wish to implement a new interpretation of  Policy 50 there is a formal process to be followed which entails publishing any proposed change and inviting representations thereon prior to deciding whether or not to adopt the revised interpretation.

 

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the application be approved because it complies with local and national policies and, having visited the site he believed it would not have a detrimental effect on the amenities of the residents of the neighbouring properties. Councillor Lewis Davies seconded the proposal as he found the application to be an acceptable infill application.

 

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to the conditions listed in the written report and as reported at the meeting.

 

7.3       19C690C – Full application for alterations and extensions at 14 Cae Braenar, Holyhead

 

The application is presented to the Planning and Orders Committee because it has been called in by a Local Member. A site visit was undertaken on the 20th May, 2015.

 

Mrs Suzanne Roberts, the occupier of 1 Digney Close, addressed the Committee as a public speaker in opposing the proposal and she highlighted the following concerns –

 

•           14 Cae Braenar is one of four properties that adjoin the boundary wall at the back of 1 Digney Close’s garden all of which are built on higher ground and overlook into the garden to a certain degree.

•           The proposed extension represents an un-neighbourly form of development that would have an overbearing impact resulting in a further loss of privacy. It would directly overlook the patio area onto which the doors of one bedroom open out, and where the children play. It would be intrusive and would impact on the family’s enjoyment of outdoor life.

•           The proposed extension would bring the applicant’s property closer to the boundary wall and, with any future addition in the form of a balcony or decking area, will be wholly overbearing resulting in an unacceptable loss of privacy and amenity.

•           The proposal if approved will set a precedent for the other neighbouring properties.

•           It is noted from the Planning Officer’s report that it the Officer’s view that 14 Cae Braenar does not overlook the garden of 1 Digney Close. This is disputed as the windows of 14 Cae Braenar can clearly be seen and the property does overlook the patio and garden of 1 Digney Close.

•           The proposed screening wall by its scale, length and height of 10m is unacceptable and raises health and safety concerns.

•           The Council has responsibilities under the Human Rights Act which states that a person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions which includes the home and other land. Article 8 states that a person has substantive right to respect for their private and family life.

 

The Committee questioned Mrs Roberts on the issue of potential loss pf privacy given the proposed extension will only extend about 3 to 4m into the applicant’s garden and will be at the same height as the main property, and also given the mitigating impact of the proposed screening. Mrs Roberts reiterated that she was already able to see into the applicant’s garden from her property and vice versa and that the extension will bring the applicant’s property closer to her property. To counter the loss of privacy the applicant’s agent recommends a 10ft screening wall (as opposed to the current 6ft wall) which raises other issues.

 

Councillor J. Arwel Roberts spoke as a Local Member and he said that normally he would not call in an application for an extension but on this occasion he had seen reason to do so because of the privacy concerns which this application raises which he believed were unacceptable to the family of 1 Digney Close. He referred to the planning history of the site including two applications refused in the last 11 months and an application granted in 1998 which has already extended the property. He also referred to the written report as being ambiguous in terms of how it describes the overlooking issue and said that if the occupants of 1 Digney Close are able to see the windows of the proposed extension then it follows that the reverse is also true.  As for screening there is already a 2m high wall in place; to be effective it is proposed that the screening wall be raised to 3m which raises the question of whether it is acceptable to have a surrounding wall on that scale. He asked the Committee to reject the application on grounds of intrusion and loss of privacy.

 

The Development Management Team Leader acknowledged that the written report might give a misleading impression and that due to land levels, with 14 Cae Braenar being higher than 1 Digney close, there is overlooking from 14 Cae Braenar into that property and likewise 1 Digney Close will be able to see the windows of the proposed extension . There is an intention to erect screening between the two properties to safeguard privacy. The Human Rights Act applies universally, and includes as well as a right to privacy, an individual’s right to develop subject to consent. However, Planning Policy Wales recommends that planning decisions should not be based on the personal interests of one individual against those of another. Two previous applications have been refused because they would have set a precedent within the estate in proposing to raise the roof height of the current building to create an extension. The current proposal is a response to those refusals and seeks to site the extension to the rear of the property. Whilst a proposal for a screening wall forms part of the application, there are concerns as to its proposed height on grounds of health and safety. There will be a condition to require the submission of a scheme detailing the type and nature of the proposed screening to ensure it is safe and that it is effective. There is already a degree of overlooking between the properties as evidenced on the site visit. The recommendation is one of approval.

 

While some Members of the Committee were in agreement with the views of the Local Member that the proposed extension would infringe the privacy of the occupants of 1 Digney Close to an unacceptable degree meaning they would not be able to enjoy amenities in the same way, the   majority thought that the application was acceptable in planning terms and that screening sympathetically and thoughtfully designed, would alleviate any overlooking issues.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes proposed that the application be approved and his proposal was seconded by Richard Owain Jones. Councillor Jeff Evans proposed that the application be refused and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Raymond Jones. In the subsequent vote the proposal to approve the application was carried.

 

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to the conditions listed in the written report.

 

7.4       34C553A – Outline application for residential development, highway and associated infrastructure at Ty’n Coed, Llangefni

 

The application was refused by the Committee at its 13th May, 2015 meeting contrary to the Officer’s recommendation on the basis that the Committee deemed it to be an overdevelopment in terms of the housing proposed and lack of need; in terms of intrusion into the countryside and also in terms of inadequate infrastructure.

 

The Development Management Team Leader reported that the application site now comprises 3.9 hectares. Policy HP2 of the stopped UDP advocates development to a maximum density with an average level of 30 units per hectare, and possibly a greater density might be expected in a town such as Llangefni as a larger town and a sustainable area. On 30 hectares the anticipated housing level would be 117 units and the proposal is for 138 units as an outline application. It is therefore believed that defending a refusal on the grounds of overdevelopment in respect of the extent of the housing proposed is difficult given the nature of the location and also given the need for housing as corroborated by the Policy Section as part of the 5 year land supply requirements. With reference to intrusion, the location of the application site attached to the existing settlement means that a refusal on the basis of intrusion could not be sustained at appeal; and with reference to infrastructure, it was reported at the previous meeting that a contribution towards infrastructure will form part of a Section 106 Agreement to enable the application to proceed.

 

The Officer informed the Committee that the applicant’s agent has indicated that in the event of the Committee’s affirming its previous refusal, an appeal is likely to be lodged and an application for costs  will be made  against the Council if it is not able to present at appeal, compelling planning reasons for refusing the application. The applicant’s agent estimates that costs could be in the region of £50k.  In conclusion, the application conforms to the interim policy on large sites on the edge of existing settlements to ensure sufficient housing provision in line with the 5 year land supply requirements and it is located in a sustainable area. The recommendation is strongly to approve the application.

 

Councillor Dylan Rees speaking as a Local Member said that while he acknowledged the need for housing in Llangefni, the proposal is excessive and  it is inappropriate  to site so many housing units in one area. He remained of the view that the infrastructure is inadequate to be able to cope with the scale of the development in this area. He asked the Committee to adhere to its previous decision of refusal. Councillor Nicola Roberts as a Local Member agreed with those views and she referred to Policy A3 and the factors therein which proposals for new housing developments are meant to take account of which she read out. She said that she did not believe adequate consideration had been given to some of those factors particularly those in relation to availability of services, availability of social and community facilities and accessibility to employment, and she pointed out that there are pressures already on schools and GP practices in the locality.

 

Several Members objected to the reference made to the potential costs which the Council might incur in the event of its losing an appeal, and especially to the specific quantification of costs as putting pressure on the Committee. It was pointed out that the reasons put forward for rejecting the application were recognised in the report as capable of being genuine and material planning reasons.  The Planning Officer said that an applicant does have a statutory right to appeal a decision and that the applicant in this case is putting that possibility to the Committee which is material to the Committee’s deliberations. The report is clear regarding the Officer’s standpoint for recommending approval and the advice is that it would be difficult to support a refusal at appeal.

 

Those Members of the Committee who favoured the application cited the need for housing in Llangefni and the contribution the development will make to the local economy; the proposal will ease development pressures on the surrounding villages and it will provide affordable housing units and will help sustain services in Llangefni. However it was suggested that a phased development would be preferable and would alleviate the impact. A suggestion was also made regarding splitting the development into three parts and reference was made  to the need to ensure the affordable housing provision is well integrated within the development and is not treated as a separate element.  The Planning Officer referred the Committee to condition (16) which stipulates that the development shall be in accordance with a phased scheme. She referred also to Planning Policy Wales which states that affordable housing provision should not be located in one part of a development scheme and open market provision in a separate part and that a “pepperpotting” approach should be taken.

 

The Legal Services Manager advised that a condition with regard to phased development also deals with the open market element as in the event of the properties being sold at a faster rate the developer has the right to come back to change the condition and to change the scheme for the phase which the condition covered. He added that although the reasons given for refusing the application are planning reasons, it is the Officer’s view that they would not be able to withstand close scrutiny because of the policy context. Should the Committee wish to stand by its decision from the previous meeting to refuse the application for the reasons given at that time then Officers would find it difficult to give evidence at appeal to defend those reasons. He advised the Committee to give careful consideration to whether it is satisfied that the case for each reason for refusal is robust enough to withstand an appeal. His advice to the Committee was to accept the recommendation of approval.

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Richard Owain Jones. Councillor Lewis Davies proposed that the application be refused and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Ann Griffith who wished it to be noted that she too was unhappy about the reference to specific costs against the Council.

 

In the subsequent vote, Councillors Kenneth Hughes, Vaughan Hughes, Victor Hughes, Raymond Jones, Richard Owain Jones and W.T.Hughes voted to approve the application in line with the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Lewis Davies, Jeff Evans, Ann Griffith and Nicola Roberts voted to refuse the application. Councillor John Griffith abstained from voting.  The vote to approve the application was therefore carried.

 

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to the conditions listed in the written report.

 

7.5       34LPA1009/CC – Outline application for the erection of a dwelling with all matters reserved on land near Saith Aelwyd, Rhosmeirch

 

The application is presented to the Planning and Orders Committee because the land is owned by the Council.

 

The Planning Development Team Leader reported that the determination of the application was deferred at the Committee’s May meeting due to concerns regarding the size of the proposed dwelling. The Council’s Property Section has now confirmed that the height of the dwelling has been reduced from 8.4 to 7.4 metres which is lower than that of the neighbouring property which is under construction. She said that the proposal complies with Policy 50 and confirmed that no weight is being given to the Policy 50 implementation note in this case. The application in any case pre-dates the implementation note. The Officer highlighted an amendment to the planning conditions to the effect that the reference to scale in condition (01) be deleted and, in light of the discussions about the scale of the proposal, a specific condition stipulating the scale of the building be added to the list of conditions. The recommendation is to approve the application.

 

Councillor Lewis Davies said that he had concerns regarding the proposal on the basis that the village of Rhosmeirch is being extended and its character adversely affected by large scale dwellings and that he was worried the Council is creating the wrong impression that it is selling land to this end.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes believed that the proposal intrudes into an open field thus potentially opening up the enclosure to further development. He referred to a similar proposal in Llangristiolus which was rejected on appeal because it was deemed to intrude into open countryside. He proposed that the application be refused contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. His proposal was seconded by Councillor Nicola Roberts.

 

Councillor Richard Owain Jones proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Kenneth Hughes.

 

In the subsequent vote Councillors Jeff Evans, Kenneth Hughes, Vaughan Hughes and Richard Owain Jones voted to approve the application; Councillors Lewis Davies, John Griffith, Victor Hughes and Nicola Roberts voted to refuse the proposal. Councillor Raymond Jones abstained from voting. The proposal to approve the application was carried on the casting vote of the Chair (Councillor Ann Griffith having already left the meeting).

 

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendations subject to the conditions listed in the written report and the amendment thereto reported at the meeting.

 

7.6       33C338 – Outline application for the erection of a dwelling with all matters reserved on land opposite to Ysgol Henblas, Llangristiolus

 

The application is presented to the Planning and Orders Committee because the applicant works within the Council’s Planning and Public Protection Department. The application has been scrutinised by the Monitoring Officer as required under paragraph 4.6.10.4 of the Council’s Constitution.

 

The Planning Development Team Leader reported that the application is now being recommended for a deferral on the grounds that a recent proposal within a short distance of the application site was refused and the outcome of an appeal is awaited based on the interpretation of Policy 50.

 

Councillor Richard Owain Jones proposed that consideration of the application be deferred and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Vaughan Hughes.

 

It was resolved to defer consideration of the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation for the reason given.