Agenda item

12.1 19C845H – Holyhead Hotspurs, Holyhead

 

12.2 19C587C – Parc Felin Dwr, Llaingoch, Holyhead

 

12.3 39C18Q/1/VAR – Plot 22, Ty Mawr, Menai Bridge

 

12.4 40C323B – Bryn Hyfryd, Bryn Refail

12.1    19C845H – Full application for the siting of a Porto cabin on the site for use as a football club merchandise shop at Holyhead Hotspurs, Holyhead

 

The application is reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as the land on which it is made is owned by the Council.

 

Councillor Raymond Jones proposed that the application be approved and the proposal was seconded by Councillor Nicola Roberts.

 

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to the condition set out in the written report.

 

12.2    19C587C – Full application for the erection of 1 bungalow and 2 semi-detached dwellings together with the formation of a vehicular access on land adjacent to Parc Felin Dwr, Holyhead

 

The application is reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as it has been called in by a Local Member.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that the application site is located within the development boundary of Holyhead as designated under Policy 49 of the Local Plan. The whole field enclosure is specifically allocated for housing development under the Local Plan. The principle of the development is therefore established in policy terms. Moreover, the site already has the benefit of planning permission for two dwellings. The scheme as originally submitted under the application was for 4 dwellings as two pairs of semi-detached units, and has been amended following discussions to address amenity concerns in relation to the adjoining property. In design terms the proposal reflects surrounding development and is not considered out of keeping with the residential estate development in the vicinity. The recommendation is therefore one of approval.

 

Councillor R.Llewelyn Jones speaking as a Local Member voiced concerns about the effects of the proposal in relation to the playing field which will be overshadowed by the proposed pair of semi-detached two storey buildings and which will also detract from the open aspect of the field – two bungalows would be better suited to the area and would have less of an immediate impact. He asked the Committee to refuse the application as presented in favour of amending the scheme to allow the erection of two bungalows which would sit better within the confines of the plot.

 

The Committee sought clarification of the plot site relative to the playing field and the neighbouring properties as well as the distance between the playing field and the proposed development.

 

The Committee was shown illustrations of the plot area and how the proposal would sit within the area. The Planning Development Manager confirmed that the plot remains the same in size and that the only change is that the application is now for a bungalow and a pair of semi-detached two storey units where previously it had been for two pairs of semi-detached two storey units. All the housing in the immediate area overlooks the playing field.  In response to a question whether there is a sufficient buffer between the plot and the playing field, the Officer said that from the rear of the property to the rear of the plot there was judged to be a distance of 7 to 8m. Taking all matters into consideration, the proposal is not deemed unreasonable.

 

Councillor Jeff Evans said he could not see what the loss of amenity was in this instance given that the proposal would not have a direct effect on the football field or playing area, and he proposed that the application be approved. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Nicola Roberts.

 

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

 

The Legal Services Manager advised at this juncture that as the Committee had now been in session for three hours (application 13.1 having been brought forward for consideration earlier in the Committee’s order of business and applications 7.1 and 12.4 having been considered under Item 5 – Public Speaking), under the provisions of paragraph 4.1.10 of the Council’s Constitution, a resolution was required by the majority of those Members of the  Committee present to agree to continue with the meeting. It was resolved that the meeting should continue.

 

12.3    39C18Q/1/VAR – Application under Section 73 for the variation of condition (09) from planning permission reference 39C18H/DA (erection of 21 dwellings) so as to change the designs at Plot 22, Ty Mawr, Menai Bridge

 

The application is reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of a Local Member.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that the application is for a change of design from that of the scheme approved under application 39C18H/DA in 1996 for 21 dwellings on land at Ty Mawr. The development originally proposed to raise the level of Plot 22 but the proposal was amended subsequent to the receipt of objections and the call-in and now entails the erection of a dwelling with a detached single garage (as opposed to the original approval under the aforementioned application in 1996 for dwellings with an integrated garage). The floor level has reverted to the original level as approved under the scheme in 1996. The material pallete will match that of neighbouring Plot 23 which was approved recently under an application to amend the external appearance of the development on Plot 23. The change in design is not considered unacceptable since the Ty Mawr estate consists of properties of various sizes, designs and layouts and the development will continue the material palette as approved for Plot 23. The recommendation is therefore one of approval.

Councillor R.Meirion Jones gave his perspective as a Local Member and said that the Ty Mawr estate has been established since twenty years and that its character is consistent and the properties which make up the estate form a family of properties having the same appearance and characteristics. He said that he thought the proposed development would have an impact on the estate in having a separate rather than integrated garage which is out of keeping with the remainder. An amendment to the design and appearance of Plot 23 has already been granted and a further amendment to the design and appearance of Plot 22 will continue the piecemeal changes that are being made to the original approved plans thus undermining the unity of the whole. Councillor Jones asked the Committee to carefully weigh the application against the objections to it or alternatively, consider a site visit.

 

The Planning Development Manager said that the perception of design can be subjective and that the estate has evolved over time in such a way as is reflective of the use of new materials. Whilst what is proposed is slightly different to that approved originally, it is the Officer’s view that the proposal is not unacceptable in its context.

 

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the application be approved and the proposal was seconded by Councillor Jeff Evans.

 

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

 

12.4    40C323B – Full application for the erection of a dwelling, installation of a sewerage treatment plant together with the construction of a vehicular access on land opposite Bryn Hyfryd, Brynrefail

 

The application is reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of a Local Member.

 

The Chair invited Ffiona Hughes to address the meeting as an objector to the application.

 

Miss Hughes highlighted the following points of objection with regard to the application –

 

•           That local residents are disappointed that an outline application for a dwelling on the site was granted in the first place.

•           That the proposal will front the neighbouring properties instead of the A5025 highway and in so doing, will have a negative impact on privacy and  will overshadow Bryn Hyfryd. If the proposal was to face the A5025 it would continue the natural flow of the village.

•           Whilst accepting that there is no right to a view, it is disheartening to be living in a recognised area of natural beauty and to have paid for a property advertised as one with a view, and then not to be able to see the natural greenery whilst relaxing at home. The proposed new dwelling as applied for will face Bryn Hyfryd and will completely obscure the view it currently enjoys.

•           The Officer’s report notes that there is sufficient distance from the A5025 to the access to the proposed dwelling. However it is the residents’ view that that distance needs to be more than 11m. It is a matter of concern to residents that the siting of the access is so close to the highway as there have been several accidents in the area. A recent accident resulted in two being taken to Ysbyty Gwynedd.

•           A petition in support of the proposal is based on the erection of a cottage on the site, but the application presented to the Council is for a two storey dwelling.

•           For reasons of loss of privacy, loss of natural light and loss of view and due to concerns around road safety, residents are opposed to the application and the Committee is asked to consider those concerns and the effects the proposal will have on Bryn Hyfryd and on the neighbouring properties.

 

The Committee questioned Miss Hughes on the original intention with regard to the erection of a cottage. Miss Hughes said she understood that the intention originally was to erect a single storey bungalow but that she now understood that the scheme involves a two storey dwelling. A smaller scale dwelling of lesser height which would allow continued access to the views from Bryn Hyfryd would have been more acceptable. As it is, the proposal along its whole length will face Bryn Hyfryd, whereas it would be more natural, would make more sense and would be in keeping with the existing pattern of development in the area were it to face the A5025.

 

Mr Geoff Brown, as the architectural designer of the proposed property and agent to the applicant spoke to the Committee in support of the application as follows:

 

•           The application has full Officer support and is fully compliant with the existing outline permission on the site which was for a house and not a bungalow.

•           Access arrangements remain the same as those approved in the outline permission.

•           The proposal is lower in height and has a smaller footprint than that approved under the outline consent.  It is smaller in scale than what it could have been to minimise the impact on the neighbourng properties. The property is aligned to present the smallest possible area towards the surrounding properties.

•           The closest neighbouring property is Bryn Hyfryd which at 35m minimum distance is far in  excess of the minimum standard of separating distances between dwellings. The house is offset to the West so it is not directly overlooked from any windows in the proposed house.

•           Due to the orientation of Bryn Hyfryd, the direct line of vision skirts the frontage of the proposal so there is no impact as regards natural light or privacy.

•           The proposal is designed as regards materials used, to blend in with surrounding properties   and those details have been agreed with Planning Officers.

•           The petition submitted in favour of the proposal include signatories from among the residents of the three properties situated directly opposite the application site.

 

The Committee sought clarification of the dimensions of the proposal in comparison with those approved at outline stage and was informed by Mr Brown that the proposal is now for a dwelling which measures 7.3m to ridge height (as opposed to 7.75m under the outline permission) and has a total footprint of 130m sq. (as opposed to 144m sq. under the outline permission) and upon request, it was shown the plan of the site.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that the proposal is smaller in scale than the two storey dwelling for which outline planning permission was granted in 2013 under delegated authority. Four letters of objection have been received, three of which are by the same person and the only new matter raised therein is a reference to a road traffic accident in the village. The principal planning considerations that apply in this instance are the proposal’s compliance with policy and its impacts in terms of matters of acknowledged importance i.e. on the amenities of the surrounding properties, on the AONB and highway safety. It is the Officer’s view that the proposal is compliant with the requirements of Policy 50 of the Ynys Môn Local Plan and Policy HP5 of the Stopped Unitary Development Plan as outlined in the report and that it will not harm the amenities of adjoining properties; it will not look out of place at the corner of the road junction and nor will it erode the wider landscape quality of the area to such a degree as to warrant refusal. The Highways Authority does not have any objections to the proposal on road safety grounds. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval.

 

The Highways Officer confirmed that the Highways Authority had not received a Police accident report with regard to the reported traffic accident in the village, but understands that driver error was a factor rather than the junction itself.

 

Councillor Ieuan Williams (a Local Member) said that this was a matter of amenity and consistency and that he could not understand, when the written report states that the properties in the area face the A5025 or to the North East towards Moelfre, how the proposal is being recommended for approval when its orientation is contrary to that of those properties. It will be incongruous within the area. It is a case of splitting hairs to say that the proposal would be so situated so as to only partly front Bryn Hyfryd, when it clearly does so thus raising issues of privacy and amenity. He asked the Committee to refuse the application and to ask the applicant to re-submit the application so that the proposal faces the A5025 or in the direction of Moelfre consistent with the existing cluster of properties in the area.

 

The Planning Development Manager clarified that the written reports states that properties in the area front a highway, but do not all necessarily front the A5025 highway. With regard to privacy and amenity, it is a matter for the Committee to weigh the considerations as reported and to come to a conclusion thereon.

The Committee was divided as to the merits of the application;  some Members were in favour of approval based on the extant outline planning permission on the application site whilst other Members expressed doubts on the basis of what they interpreted as non-compliance with Policy 50 and the criteria therein given that the application site is within an open field in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Still other Members thought further information was required ahead of determination.

 

Councillor Jeff Evans pointed out that outline permission had already been granted and proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation .The proposal was seconded by Councillor Kenneth Hughes who although sympathetic to the argument about loss of natural views, said that that was not a planning consideration.

 

Councillor Nicola Roberts proposed that the application be deferred to allow the Committee to obtain further information prior to determination and the proposal was seconded by Councillor Richard Owain Jones.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes proposed that the application be refused contrary to the Officer’s recommendation because he was not satisfied that the application meets Policy 50 criteria and the proposal was seconded by Councillor Ann Griffith.

 

The Legal Services Manager advised that a refusal for reason of non-compliance with Policy 50 would be difficult to support as outline permission already exists on the application site.

 

In the subsequent vote, Councillors Jeff Evans and Kenneth Hughes voted to approve the application; Councillors Nicola Roberts and Richard Owain Jones voted for a deferral and Councillors Victor Hughes, Ann Griffith, John Griffith, Raymond Jones and W. T. Hughes voted to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. The reason cited for refusing the application was that the development by virtue of its proposed orientation will have a detrimental effect on the amenities of the neighbouring properties, and visually on the AONB.

 

It was resolved to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the reason set out.

 

In accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution, the application will be automatically deferred to the next meeting to allow the Officers to respond to the reason given for refusing the application.