Agenda item

12.1 10C118J/VAR – Bryn yr Odyn, Soar

12.2 14C171H/ENF – Stryttwn Farm, Ty’n Lon

12.3 19C1147A – St.David’s Priory, Llanfawr Road, Holyhead

12.4 28C116U – Maelog Garden Centre, Llanfaelog

12.1    10C118J/VAR – Application under Section 73 to vary the condition specifying the approved plans under permission 10C118H/MIN in order to make amendments to the scheme previously approved under planning permission 10C118A/RE to incorporate changes to substations, equipment monitoring house, inverters, transformers, switchgear building, security measure including CCTV cameras and changes to security fencing on land adjacent to Bryn yr Odyn, Soar

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

Mr Richard Jenkins, a Public Speaker spoke for the application and said that the amendments which he specified, are necessary for the successful and safe operation of the site which Lightsources acquired and developed after the original approval was given. The amendments are standard; do not cause any additional impacts to those considered originally and because some aspects of the infrastructure will be reduced, the impact is less. The Landscape Officer is satisfied that the amendments are suitable and there have been no representations made by the public or consultees. The applicant is liaising with the landowner to agree a permanent sheep grazing licence, and following construction, road repairs were agreed with the Highways Department and have been completed to its satisfaction.

Councillor Ann Griffith speaking as a Local Member said that the residents of Soar are aggrieved and feel that no one is listening to them. They do not object to renewable energy but are fed up with developments and feel there is nothing for them locally and no work locally. They have put up with a lot of inconvenience – construction traffic toing and froing with damage to roads, hedges and ditches and consequent cost to the public purse. Residents feel it reflects a lack of consideration for local people and for the planning process in being retrospective.

The Planning Development Manager informed the Committee that the application is made under Section 73A (rather than Section 73) of the Planning Act as the development has been completed. It is not considered that an EIA is required for the site. The principle of the development is established in the previous granting of planning permission and the site is operational. The application seeks to regularise the development by varying a condition of the original planning permission requiring the development to be implemented in accordance with the approved plans. It is not considered that the proposal causes undue harm in terms of landscape, biodiversity or cultural heritage.

Councillor Jeff Evans proposed that the application be approved and the proposal was seconded by Councillor Richard Owain Jones.

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to the conditions set out in the written report. (Councillor Ann Griffith abstained from voting)

12.2    14C171H/ENF – Retrospective application for the erection of a new build holiday accommodation at Stryttwn Farm, Ty’n Lon

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

Mr Peter Jones, a Public Speaker, addressed the meeting in support of the application and said that after planning permission to convert a stable into a dwelling was granted in 2014, the Building Control Officer was invited to the site and advised that the plasterwork on the internal walls be removed to expose the original walls. The Officer subsequently advised that the walls were unsuitable for the work that needed to be carried out and instructed they be taken down, that footings be produced and they be lifted in breeze blocks. Mr Jones said that he was later advised by Planning Officers that he was in breach of the planning consent and was advised to reapply from new for holiday accommodation as a possible way forward. A holiday let is an opportunity and would benefit the local community given there are facilities in the area in the form of stables and public footpath thus creating the potential for high quality holiday accommodation.

The Committee asked questions of Mr Peter Jones in clarification of the advice he had received and whether he was aware or had been advised of the need to contact Planning Officers to seek approval for the changes made.

Councillor R.G. Parry, OBE, a Local Member said that this was a sad case involving a young couple who had acted upon the advice of a professional officer and who have spent a great deal on the proposal in an endeavour to create a building of quality. The proposal is on a brownfield site, does not cause harm to any one and offers tourist facilities. The application site does allow access to public transport there being a bus stop at the end of the road. He asked the Committee to give careful consideration to the application.

The Planning Development Manager acknowledged that this was a difficult case and said that planning consent was given in 2014 to convert a stable into a dwelling on the basis of details received with the application that the building’s structure was sound and suitable for conversion. He noted the comments made by the Public Speaker regarding a visit to the application site by the Building Control Officer and the advice provided. Contact with the Planning Authority would have been expected to be made at that point. A visit to the site in March, 2015 revealed the works which were a breach of planning consent. Following discussion between planning officers and the applicant to explore the options available, the current retrospective application has been submitted for the retention and completion of the development as new build holiday accommodation in an effort to regularise matters. However, in this case the proposal is considered to be in conflict with current policies as it is located in the open countryside unrelated to and far removed from any settlement or other facilities and neither is it well located in terms of accessibility to public transport. For those reasons the recommendation is to refuse the application.

Members of Committee expressed sympathy with the applicant’s predicament and were divided as to the merits of the case. Those Members in support of the application thought the applicant had acted in good faith upon the professional advice of an Officer. Members opposing the proposal did so because the application site is in a remote area, that approval could set a dangerous precedent as regards regularising unauthorised works and that the Planning Authority is responsible for conserving building structures where appropriate.

Councillor Jeff Evans proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Ann Griffith. Councillor Lewis Davies proposed that the application be refused and the proposal was seconded by Councillor Victor Hughes. In the subsequent vote, Councillors Jeff Evans, Richard Owain Jones, Nicola Roberts, W.T. Hughes and Ann Griffith voted for the application and Councillors Lewis Davies, John Griffith, Kenneth Hughes and Victor Hughes voted against. The vote to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation was therefore carried.

The reason given for approval was because it was considered that the existing consent on the site to create a residential unit to the same footprint and appearance as the current proposal outweighs the specific policies and guidelines which officers have used to assess the application. That being so the Committee is minded to approve the application because it considers the impact on the landscape would be the same as that of the proposal  under the existing consent.

It was resolved to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the reason given.

(In accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution, the application was automatically deferred to the next meeting to allow Officers the opportunity to prepare a report in respect of the reason given for approving the application.)

12.3    19C1147A – Full application for the demolition of the existing building together with the erection of six dwellings with the construction of a vehicular access and car park on land at St David’s Priory, Llanfawr Road, Holyhead

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

Councillor Lewis Davies proposed that the application be approved and the 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.

12.4    28C116U – Application under Section 73 to vary preconditions (05), (06), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15) on appeal decision reference no.APP\6805\A\07\2053627so as to allow for their discharge following commencement of works on site together with the deletion of condition (16) at Maelog Garden Centre, Llanfaelog

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

Mr Julian Rylance, a Public Speaker spoke in his capacity as the applicant for the application and explained the background to the acquisition of the site and the financial difficulties he had encountered after the recession took hold in 2008, the reasons for the application and in particular the request to delete the affordable housing condition. He confirmed that he wished to complete the build in order to meet financial obligations and because the site in its existing incomplete condition is an eyesore. A development in Bryn Du does provide for affordable housing.

The Committee questioned Mr Rylance with regard to the type of dwellings to be built, their value and the likelihood of his being able to complete the development.

Councillor Richard Dew spoke as a Local Member against the deletion of the affordable housing condition. He read an extract from the Planning Inspector’s report following the successful appeal in 2008 for planning consent vis à vis the importance of the affordable housing provision as a condition to create a mixed community and meet local need. Approving the application now could set a precedent for developers in future to seek to discharge affordable housing obligations because of profit considerations. The development in Bryn Du consists of affordable houses for rent and not for purchase. He asked the Committee not to approve the deletion of the affordable housing condition. His comments were supported by Councillor G.O. Jones, also a Local Member who pointed out the Community Council’s wish that the original conditions be retained.

The Legal Services Manager advised at this juncture that as the Committee had now been in session for three hours (Applications 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 10.1, 12.1, 12.2 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.

The Planning Development Manager informed the Committee that the application is made under Section 73A (rather than Section 73) of the Planning Act as the development has commenced. Whilst the request to vary a number of pre-conditions as specified to allow time for the submission of details is considered reasonable, the 12 month timescale requested is considered excessive and Officers instead recommend a 3 month period. With regard to the deletion of the affordable housing condition it is the Officer’s view that sufficient justification has been provided as detailed in the report to demonstrate that the development is unviable and that it may therefore be highly unlikely that the developer would proceed with the development if the requirement for 30% affordable housing remains in place.

There was a majority view within the Committee that the retention of the affordable housing condition on the site is necessary to meet the needs of people in the locality who may wish to gain a foothold on the housing ladder and may otherwise be unable to do so. The business of the Committee is to deal with planning issues and not to lend a hand to developers who may find themselves in financial difficulties.

Councillor Lewis Davies proposed that the application be refused contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and the proposal was seconded by Councillor Victor Hughes. The reason given for refusing the application was the need for affordable housing in this area.

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

(In accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution, the application was automatically deferred to the next meeting to allow Officers the opportunity to prepare a report in respect of the reason given for refusing the application.)