Agenda item

7.1 11C500A - Mona Safety Products, Wesley Street, Amlwch

7.2 19C895E - Millbank Community Centre, Holyhead

7.3 19LPA875B/CC - Breakwater Country Park, Holyhead

7.4 45LPA605A/CC -  Dwyryd , Newborough

7.1       11C500A – Full application for the change of use of the building into 6 flats together with alterations thereto and partial demolition of the building at Mona Safety Products, Wesley Street, Amlwch

The application is presented to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of a Local Member. At its meeting held on 4th November, 2015 the Committee resolved to undertake a site visit which was subsequently carried out on 18th November, 2015.

The Planning Development Manager reported that the application site is located within the settlement boundary for Amlwch. It is the Officer’s view that as the proposal is in a residential area, the removal of the current industrial use and change to six, two bedroom flats is more appropriate. It is not considered there will be any adverse effects on the amenities of nearby residents and moreover, the use of 8 flats was previously granted at appeal making a refusal of this application which is on a lesser scale, difficult to defend at appeal.

Councillor Aled Morris Jones, a Local Member highlighted concerns in relation to the additional traffic which the creation of six flats is likely to create assuming that the occupiers of each flat will own at least one car and the adequacy of parking facilities. He pointed out that the roads skirting the site are narrow. Safeguarding the privacy of the residents of nearby properties is also an issue.

The Planning Development Manager said that the proposal provides for nine off-road parking spaces which are considered sufficient in terms of parking standards.

Councillor Richard Owain Jones proposed that the application be approved on the basis that the proposal is a more fitting use of the site.  His proposal was seconded by Councillor Kenneth Hughes.

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       19C895E – Full application for the demolition of the existing building together with the erection of a new community centre in its place at Millbank Community Centre, Holyhead

The application is presented to the Planning and Orders Committee as the applicant is a Member of the Authority. The application has been scrutinised by the Monitoring Officer as required under paragraph 4.6.10.4 of the Council’s Constitution. At its meeting held on 4th November, 2015, the Committee resolved to defer determining the application pending receipt of the correct certificates of ownership.

Councillor Trefor Lloyd Hughes speaking as a Local Member referred to concerns which had been raised in respect of the application which related to parking, amenity and loss of light issues and he described how these had been addressed including by the submission of amended plans. The Local Member said that in making the application, his objective has been to create a new, improved resource for the area’s older residents.

The Planning Development Manager reported that the proposal is considered acceptable to the Local Planning Authority and the recommendation is therefore one of approval. The Officer also confirmed that the correct certificates of ownership had now been received.

Councillor Lewis Davies proposed that the application be approved and the proposal was seconded by Councillor John Griffith.

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

7.3       19LPA875B/CC – Full application for change of use of part of the land into a touring caravan (28 pitch), erection of a shower/toilet block together with the formation of a new access road at Breakwater Country Park, Holyhead

The application is presented to the Planning and Orders Committee as the application is made by the Council on Council owned land. A Local Member has requested that the application be referred to the Planning and Orders Committee on the grounds that the site is a public park which should be protected from overdevelopment. At its meeting held on 4th November, 2015, the Committee resolved to visit the site prior to making its determination. The site was visited on 18th November, 2015.

The Planning Development Manager reported that the main issues relate to policy compliance and impact on the locality including impacts on residential amenities. Planning policies allow the creation of new touring caravan sites provided that the scheme has no unacceptable impact on the surrounding area. The application site is located in an enclosed and relatively unobtrusive area of the Country Park. The area is gated and is not currently accessible to the public as part of the Park. The application also includes planting and landscaping works to create an integrated and acceptable development. It is the Officer’s view that the proposed touring caravan site is unobtrusively positioned in the Park and is considered compatible with approved uses. The scheme is considered acceptable in its context and in terms of land use. The recommendation is therefore to approve the application.

Councillor R.Llewelyn Jones, a Local Member sought clarification as to whether the Council has a vested interest in this matter as the landowner, which should be declared. The Legal Services Manager advised that the Council is not required to declare an interest as the owner of the land and that the application is presented for the Committee’s determination by virtue of the Council being the land owner.

Councillor R.Llewelyn Jones proceeded to outline his concerns regarding the proposal which he believed would have an unacceptable influence on the Country Park. He pointed out that Holyhead Town Council also objects to the development on account that it would have an adverse impact on the Park and is in the wrong place in what is a conservation area and an area of outstanding natural beauty. He referred to Planning Policy Wales which states that if any proposed development will conflict with the objective of preserving or enhancing the character of a conservation area or its setting, then there will be a strong presumption against it. Councillor R.Llewelyn Jones further drew attention to the potential for light pollution and to additional concerns regarding the narrowness of the access road to the site. He asked the Committee to take a stand against overdevelopment and to refuse the application because the proposal will detract from the beauty of the area.

Councillor Raymond Jones, speaking as a Local Member echoed the concerns about the road which he felt was hazardous for pedestrians let alone vehicles. Councillor Raymond Jones was advised by the Legal Services Manager that as he had declared strong objections to the proposal beforehand, he had thereby prejudiced his position and should therefore declare a prejudicial interest and not participate in the discussion and voting thereon. The interest does not however affect his entitlement to address the meeting as a Local Member. After speaking in his capacity as a Local Member, Councillor Raymond Jones declared an interest and withdrew from the meeting for the determination of the application.

Councillor Lewis Davies concurred with the view of the two Local Members and he said that the purpose of a country park is to preserve the environment and to afford the public the freedom to fully enjoy it. As he believed the proposed scheme to be in conflict with this purpose, he proposed that the application be refused. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Ann Griffith.

Councillor Jeff Evans said that he was torn between supporting the proposal because of its potential long term benefits in terms of income generation and in potentially contributing towards the park’s future viability, and opposing it because of its possible negative effects.

Several Members acknowledged the strength of feeling locally, but felt that on balance the application site is the site of least impact within the Park for a development of this kind which might contribute towards safeguarding it for the future. Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the application be approved and the proposal was seconded by Councillor Victor Hughes. 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. (Councillors Jeff Evans and W.T. Hughes abstained from voting)

7.4       45LPA605A/CC – Outline application with all matters reserved for the erection of 17 new dwellings, demolition of the existing toilet block together with the creation of a new vehicular access on land adjacent to Dwyryd, Newborough

The application is presented to the Planning and Orders Committee as it is made by the Council and is on Council owned land. Both Local Members have indicated a wish to call-in the application for determination by the Committee. At its meeting held on 2 September, 2015 the Committee resolved to visit the site and site visit took place on 16 September, 2015. At its meeting held on 7 October, 2015, the Committee resolved to defer determining the application to allow the applicant time to consider alternative proposals for the site which could include retaining the public car park and toilet facilities.

Diane Broad, a resident and business owner in Newborough addressed the Committee as an objector to the proposal and she cited the ongoing issue with parking spaces within the area as a basis for objection. She said that the proposal does not have sufficient regard for recent developments in Newborough in the form of the establishment of new businesses and growth of existing ones – if these are to flourish further then the retention of toilet and car park facilities is essential to serve the tourists they attract. There are limited on-street parking spaces in Newborough and these are used by residents of nearby homes leaving little or no spaces for business customers, passing trade and tourists. The car park is needed for this overspill since there are parking restrictions on the junction which there will be a temptation to flout resulting in possible accidents, injury and damage to pedestrians and road users. She referred to a compromise solution which would entail the retention of the toilet block area and 12 parking spaces and one disabled parking space but with the loss from the proposal of one of the terrace of houses. However, having studied the plans further she believed that a reconfiguration of the plans could mean that both terraces can remain along with the toilet block and 12 car parking spaces.

The Committee asked questions of Ms Broad with regard to usage of the existing car park which at the time of the site visit was minimal with people choosing to park as near as possible to the shops; the proposed provision of 23 parking spaces as part of the proposal and the extent of the risk to the viability of the area if the car park was lost. Ms Broad said that visitors do tend to follow parking signs and that the loss of facilities as proposed will be detrimental to the growth of businesses and to the village as a whole.

The Planning Development Manager reported that determination of the application has previously been deferred to undertake a site visit which has now taken place and to consider other options and to ask for additional information which has now been received and is incorporated within the papers provided to Members. The application site falls within the development boundary of the village part of which was allocated as a bowling green under the Local Plan. However the site was not developed and under the policies of the stopped UDP the site is a vacant site located within the development boundary. It is not considered that the development of housing would prejudice the development plan and the proposal incorporates an affordable housing provision. There is no objection from a Highways perspective subject to conditions or any technical issues arising and it is not considered that any landscape or amenity impacts will result, with the proposed two storey developments deemed to be in keeping with the character of the area.

The Committee sought clarification of the parking issue and whether the parking spaces provided as part of the proposed development will also be available for use by the public. The Planning Development Manager confirmed that the applicant indicates that 28 parking spaces are to be provided but that he was not able to say they will be available to the public all of the time. 

Councillors Ann Griffith and Peter Rogers both spoke as Local Members.

Councillor Ann Griffith said that she was disappointed that discussions with the applicant with regard to an alternative scheme that would allow the retention of the car park and toilet block had not taken place. She reiterated that problems with parking exist and will become more acute if the proposal as presented proceeds especially with the expected renewed interest in Llys Rhosyr given there is no mention of provision for coach parking. The 28 parking spaces to be provided as part of the proposal will for the most part be for the usage of the residents of the new housing. She asked the Committee to consider an amendment to the plan to ensure there remains a car park for the village and for visitors. Councillor Peter Rogers re-emphasised that housing developments need to be supported by investment in business and infrastructure and in the creation of jobs especially for the village’s young people.

Having declared a prejudicial interest in the application, and addressed the meeting as a Local Member, Councillor Ann Griffith then withdrew for the remainder of the discussion on the application and the determination thereof.

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the application be approved. There was no seconder for the proposal. Councillor Jeff Evans proposed that the application be refused because of the highways issues and loss of amenities in this case, and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Victor Hughes.

Councillor Richard Owain Jones suggested that a compromise proposal could be considered which would involve developing one part of the site only in order to retain the toilet facilities.

The Legal Services Manager advised that whilst the proposal can be physically divided into two parts, the rejection of one part i.e. the loss of a terrace does have implications for the composition of the affordable housing provision which the Officers will need time to consider especially if it is accepted there is a local need for affordable housing. Consideration needs to be given to whether 30% of what would remain of the development (having removed one terrace) is an affordable housing provision that accords with the profile of those deemed to be in need of affordable housing in this catchment area.

Councillor Lewis Davies proposed that determination of the application be deferred to allow Officers and the applicant to consider the viability of amending the proposed development on the lines discussed particularly with regard to the affordable housing element. Councillor Jeff Evans said that he was happy to withdraw his proposal of refusal in favour of a deferral and he seconded the proposal made by Councillor Lewis Davies.

It was resolved to defer determination of the application to receive further information regarding the viability of amending the proposal as outlined.