Agenda item

7.1 44C320 – Gorslwyd Fawr, Rhosybol

7.2 45LPA605A/CC – Dwyryd, Newborough

7.1       44C320 – Outline application for the erection of a dwelling with all matters reserved on land near Gorslwyd Fawr, Rhosybol

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

Having declared a prejudicial interest in this application, Councillor Nicola Roberts withdrew from the meeting for the discussion and determination thereof.

The Planning Development Manager reported that when the application was originally considered by the Committee at its January, 2016, meeting the Officer’s recommendation was to refuse the application because of the location of the proposal. The Committee resolved to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and when under the terms of the Council’s Constitution the application was re-presented at the following month’s meeting it was deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken as resolved by the Committee, and was deferred again at the March, 2016 meeting at the request of the applicants in order to give them further time to address issues raised by the Committee’s Members. The applicant has now confirmed that the reason for deferring was in order to fully investigate issues in relation to a connection to the existing public sewers before proceeding. The Officer said that the applicants have since confirmed that the investigations have found that a connection to the existing public sewers is not a feasible option for the reasons outlined in the written report. The additional information provided by the applicant does not change the Officer’s recommendation of refusal on the basis that the application site will be identifiable as an isolated feature in the landscape and will not form an integral part of the existing developed part of the village.

Councillor Richard Owain Jones, speaking as a Local Member said that he did not believe the proposed development would be especially visible and that it would not add to the existing effect already created by the two dwellings in the vicinity. He said that he was therefore supportive of the proposal.

Councillor Jeff Evans agreed with the Local Member and said that assessing whether or not the proposed development forms a reasonable minor extension to the village is a matter of judgement and that it was his opinion that in this instance the proposal is capable of being so considered and would not constitute an undesirable intrusion into the landscape. Given that Planning Policy Wales states that each application should be considered on its merits, he did not believe the proposal would necessarily set a precedent for further future proposals. He proposed that the Committee’s original decision be reaffirmed and the application approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Kenneth Hughes was also in favour of the proposal for the same reasons and because he deemed it would not be detrimental to the character of the area, nor would it make it difficult to reject future development proposals in that area. He said that as far as planning policy allows, and in this case he believed it does, there is a duty on councillors to support young families wishing to settle within their community. Arriving at a decision on the application is a matter of judgement and in his opinion there was no reason to refuse the application. He therefore supported the proposal of approval.

Councillors Lewis Davies, Ann Griffith, John Griffith and Victor Hughes took the opposite view   and were against the application due to the following issues which they had noted during the site visit –

•           The application site is situated on a hillock and is surrounded by open countryside

•           Potential drainage/sewerage issues requiring further investigation

•           A less than ideal access to the application site along a single, unlit farm track

•           Imperfect visibility caused by overgrown hedges above a stone wall on the one side and four utility poles on the other side thus making the access to the highway potentially hazardous. The access also connects with the main highway at a point where there are sharp bends.

•           The proposed development in addition to the two relatively new dwellings in the vicinity (approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation in 2008 and 2010) will lead to increased usage of the track thus raising issues of highway safety.

•           The proposal will extend the village beyond the developed part of the settlement in an inappropriate way up a farm track and into the countryside and is likely to set a precedent for further future development in this area.

Councillor Victor Hughes said he strongly opposed the application and proposed refusal in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Lewis Davies supported the proposal.

In response to a request by the Committee for clarification of the Highways Department’s view, the Highways Officer said that it was a condition of the approval of the application in 2010 that the applicant should improve the access so as to ensure the maximum possible visibility under current standards which the applicant undertook.  Ensuring that the hedges are managed and cut back regularly so that the optimum visibility level is maintained is a matter for the Enforcement Section. That being done, then the access is compliant with standards. The proposal cannot be refused on those grounds because the visibility was accepted as part of the approval given in 2010. The first 5m of the access is sufficient to accommodate two vehicles. As the road is a private road the Highways Authority is not able to insist that improvements are made to it. The Highways Department is not in possession of any information to indicate the occurrence of accidents or near misses on the highway, so on that basis the access cannot be said to be hazardous. Should an accident occur then it would not be the responsibility of the Council as the access has been designed in accordance with rural standards which form part of Planning Policy Wales.

In response to clarification whether approving the proposal would set a precedent for possible future development, the Planning Development Manager said that the proposed development reinforces development within the countryside thereby undermining the application of Policy 50. There are two existing dwellings in the area which in themselves have led to a change in the character of the area which forms a consideration; should this application be approved and were a further proposal to be submitted in future then the existence of another dwelling would be a factor to be assessed at that time.

In the ensuing vote on the matter, Councillors Jeff Evans, Kenneth Hughes, Richard Owain Jones and W.T. Hughes voted to reaffirm the Committee’s approval of the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. Councillors Lewis Davies, John Griffith, Victor Hughes and Ann Griffith voted to refuse the application. Councillor Vaughan Hughes abstained because he had not been present on the site visit. The proposal to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation was carried on the casting vote of the Chair.

It was resolved to reaffirm the previous decision to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

7.2       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 on Council owned land. Both Local Members have indicated that they wish to call in the application for determination by the Committee.

Having declared a prejudicial interest in this application, Councillor Ann Griffith withdrew from the meeting for the consideration thereof.

It was resolved to note that the application had now been withdrawn.