Agenda item

7.1  31C170D – Hen Lôn Dyfnia, Llanfairpwll

 

7.2  42C127B/RUR – Ty Fry Farm, Rhoscefnhir

 

7.3  45C432C – Graig Fawr, Dwyran

 

 

 

7.1       31C170D – Full application for the erection of 17 dwellings (12 with 2 bedrooms, 4 with 3 bedrooms and 1 bungalow with 3 bedrooms) together with the construction of a new vehicular and pedestrian access on land adjacent to Hen Lôn Dyfnia, Llanfairpwll

 

The application is reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as the application site is located outside, albeit adjoining the Local Plan development boundary for Llanfairpwll and the application has been advertised as a departure from the Local Plan. Two of the Local Members have also requested that the application be determined by the Committee. At its meeting held on 11th May, 2016, the Committee resolved to visit the site ahead of determining the application and the site visit took place on 18th May, 2016.

 

Mr Gwynne E. Owen, a Public Speaker addressed the Committee in opposition to the application and he referred to photographs included as part of the representations made with regard to the application which illustrate the congestion and crowding in terms of parking and traffic in the Ffordd Penmynydd area which problems are particularly acute at weekends giving rise to issues of highway safety. The road is hazardous to which he could attest from personal experience. The lack of visibility at the corner of the junction is dangerous. A pavement from the corner of the bridge in a previous version of the application has since been omitted. Mr Owen referred to the Planning Policy Wales document which sets out the Council’s responsibility as regards road safety which the Officer’s report does not mention. Another concern for the residents of nearby properties is flooding; residents of properties on Lôn Dyfnia have twice experienced water ingress in their homes. A soakaway is proposed in the latest application but no mention is made whether the developer or the taxpayer will be responsible for its maintenance.

 

The Committee sought clarification of Mr Owen regarding the ownership of the land which will accommodate the planned soakaway. Mr Gwynne Owen said that it was his understanding but that he could not be absolutely sure that the fields beyond belonged to the owner of the development which is also a concern in terms of potential further development in future. Mr Owen said that taking a holistic approach is relevant in this instance being mindful of the possibility of additional development in this area and its effects.

 

Mr Rhys Davies, a Public Speaker spoke in support of the application and he said that it was important to note that the development takes its access from the old Lôn Dyfnia and not from Lôn Penmynydd. As part of the application, improvements are proposed to Lôn Penmynydd including a footway even though the developer did not consider this necessary as the development is not accessed from Lôn Penmynydd. This is one of the compromises the developer has made. The application has been over a year in the making and has been subject to extensive discussions with officers regarding highway and drainage issues which have resulted in definite improvements which will be at the cost of the developer. The scheme proposes a soakaway to the field to the north of the development site in which there will be a tank to deal with surface water from the development. Taking the development site in its entirety the density is less than 30 units per hectare which is acceptable as regards policy and in comparison with nearby developments. It will offer the people of Llanfair a mix of dwellings for which there is a waiting list especially among young people.

 

The Committee asked questions of Mr Rhys Davies with regard to the details of the drainage scheme for the development and in particular the siting of a proposed holding tank and its capacity to be able to serve the 17 new dwellings in a flooding event.

 

Mr Rhys Davies said that a detailed drainage scheme is included as part of the application. Water will ultimately drain to a culvert to the A55.It will initially drain to a field to the south from Hen Lôn Dyfnia where the tank will be situated. In the event that the holding tank reaches its capacity i.e. in an extreme weather event the gardens of the proposed dwellings may retain water to a depth of ½ ft. - this is an option of last resort. There is no capacity in the culvert which runs towards Llanfair hence the use of the culvert running in the direction of the A55.The holding tank will have a capacity of thousands of litres. Advice with regard to drainage matters is being provided by a consultant. Furthermore, the Authority’s Officers have been insistent with regard to the adequacy of the drainage scheme which issues have been discussed thoroughly and in detail.

 

Councillors R. Meirion Jones, Alun Mummery and Jim Evans all addressed the Committee as Local Members and they brought the following considerations to the Committee’s attention:

 

•           That planning rules are meant to assist with the planning of communities so the underlying principle is the benefit of the community and not the benefit of an individual or a developer. The developer’s approach in this instance has not chimed with this principle, and the feeling is that the amendments made to the scheme have been done simply in order to obtain approval and that has been the principal motivator.

•           An appeal has been submitted ahead of its consideration by the Committee. The Committee should not feel pressurised into approving the proposal.

•           The key issues are residents’ disquietude; the implications for road safety, drainage concerns and the density of the proposed development. The roads at Lôn Penmynydd and Lôn Dyfnia are problematic as is the junction; the proposed new footway is shorter and narrower; there is no certainty that the late drainage plans will be successful and it is difficult to have faith in them. The Officer’s report states that the site would expect to accommodate 12 and not 17 units and the application is capable of being refused solely on the grounds of density.

•           Cadnant Planning highlights as at paragraph 1.11 that the arrangement will be described to prospective buyers so that they are aware that their gardens may flood to a shallow depth during a severe rainfall event.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that the key issues with regard to this application are the principle of development, the acceptability of the current scheme for the erection of 17 dwellings in terms of design and layout along with highways and drainage issues. The principle of development has been accepted in the previous issuing of outline planning consent for 11 dwellings and the application site is within the defined boundary of the stopped Unitary Development Plan. The application site is also surrounded by other housing in the area. Although the proposal is for 17 units which is higher than the 12 units the site would expect to accommodate, it is not dissimilar to other developments in the locality. Moreover, the Council does not at present have a 5 year housing land supply; the scheme in question will contribute towards meeting this obligation as well as providing much needed affordable housing in what is a sustainable location on the edge of one of the largest villages on the Island. Officers are satisfied that notwithstanding the scheme seeks to deliver a higher than expected number of units, it is on balance acceptable. Concerns expressed by the Highways Authority regarding the proposal as originally submitted have now been resolved in the amended scheme to the satisfaction of highways officers. There have been extensive discussions in respect of drainage matters with the outcome that the Council’s Drainage Officers now deem the drainage provision to be acceptable. There has been much work involved in overseeing the plans and assurance provided by officers with the professional expertise that they are acceptable. Planning Policy Wales is cited in the report as one of the main planning policy reference documents to which regard has been had in considering the application. The Officer said that an appeal against non-determination has been made by the applicant and as a result of legislative changes a dual jurisdiction procedure applies for a period of 4 weeks during which time the local planning authority may still determine the application. The Officer confirmed that the Authority is within that timeframe. The Officers strongly recommend that the application be approved. If the application does proceed to appeal it is the Officers’ view that presenting an argument against the development would be difficult given the evidence available. The Committee would have to base its refusal be that on whatever grounds on a sound planning argument. Likewise, should the Committee refuse the application for reasons of density then it would have to demonstrate that the density of the development would actually result in harm.

 

The Highways Officer confirmed that the proposal is acceptable from a Highways perspective and that as part of the scheme significant improvements are being proposed to the highway network. The footway does not go as far as it did originally because use of the site will not extend to Ffordd Penmynydd. The access arrangements are also considered acceptable.

 

Having considered the information presented in the written report and orally by the Public Speakers and Local Members, the Committee noted the following:

 

•           That it had concerns about the impact of the development in terms of density. The Committee noted that the proposal for 17 units is higher than the number of units expected for the site and took the view that it is excessive.

•           That it also had serious concerns about the scheme’s drainage impacts and the adequacy of the drainage provision as proposed. The Committee found the prospect that gardens may be under water to a depth of ½ ft. at times of severe rainfall to be unacceptable and was worried about the risk of flooding and the consequent effects on the properties and their residents as well as the wider implications as a result of having approved the proposal.

•           The Committee noted a lack of clarity around the capacity of the holding tank and was not sufficiently assured that the drainage arrangements as proposed were appropriate or adequate for the scale of the development and the land on which it would be sited. The Committee consequently was not persuaded that drainage issues had been properly addressed.

•           That the Committee had  further concerns regarding the highway impacts of the proposal and the additional traffic which 17  housing units would generate and the effects it would have on road safety in an area where there are already parking and traffic issues.

 

The Planning Development Manager further advised the Committee that planning officers in arriving at their conclusions and recommendation of approval have been guided by the professional expertise within the Council’s Highways and Drainage sections and the officers from those sections have confirmed that the arrangements are acceptable from both a Highways and Drainage perspective. Those conclusions have been reached over the course of several months of discussions.  The Committee, if mindful to refuse the application on the basis of the concerns expressed should be clear that the professional officers do not concur with those views.

 

There was no support for the application within the Committee and no proposal that the application be approved was made.  Councillor Lewis Davies proposed that the application be refused contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. His proposal was seconded by Councillor Victor Hughes. In the subsequent vote, nine of those Members present voted to refuse the application. The reasons given for the refusal were the density of the development, the risk of flooding and that the Committee was not persuaded by the information presented that the drainage arrangements as proposed are suitable.

 

The Legal Services Manager advised that under the terms of the Council’s Constitution the application would be re-presented at next month’s Committee meeting. Should the applicant proceed with the appeal in the meantime then the appeal timetable may make it necessary for the Authority to respond and that response would be on the basis of the decision taken at this meeting. However, should the timetable allow, the Committee may be able to reconsider the application at its July meeting under the “cooling off” arrangements.

 

It was resolved to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the reasons 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 reasons given for approving the application)

 

7.2       42C127B/RUR – Full application for the erection of an agricultural dwelling together with the installation of a private treatment plant on land at Ty Fry Farm, Rhoscefnhir

 

The application was presented to the Planning and Orders Committee because on the date of submission, a person with close connections to the applicant was a close relative of a “relevant officer” as defined by paragraph 4.6.10.2 of the Council’s Constitution. The relevant officer is no longer employed by the Council. The application has been scrutinised by the Monitoring Officer as is required by the said paragraph. At its meeting held on 29 July, 2015 the Committee resolved to defer the application in order undertake a site visit which took place on 19 August, 2015. Consideration of the application was subsequently deferred in order to receive and consider further submissions.

 

Kate Barker, a Public Speaker who opposed the application cited the size and proportions of the proposed development, irregularities and inaccuracies in relation to the application, impact on the setting of Ty Fry listed house, and the availability of alternative, more suitable locations within the farm as grounds for objection. She also referred to the unsuitability of the proposed dwelling as a starter home.

 

The Committee sought clarification of Ms Barker why she took the view that the applicant should have a starter home. Ms Barker said that a Local Member had expressed support for the application as a starter home which she believed was not an accurate description of the proposal as presented.

Mr Gwilym Jones, a Public Speaker spoke for the proposal as being essential to secure the future of the farm as a family enterprise which he helps run in partnership with his parents. Properties in the village are priced beyond his reach and it is essential that he and he wife live on the farm to care for and oversee the stock. The proposal is compliant with the national and local policies governing such dwellings and the need for it is accepted by the Council’s independent agricultural consultant. The dwelling will be subject to an occupancy restriction linking its use directly to the farm. Several locations were considered for the siting of the proposal but the options were limited because of the proximity of the park and gardens at Ty Fry. The application site as proposed is believed to  be suitable in being a distance of 400m from the listed house of Ty Fry, and in not being visible from the building itself. The proposal has been carefully considered, is reasonable and would provide a home for the next generation of Welsh farmers.

 

The Committee questioned Mr Jones on the size and location of the proposed dwelling. Mr Jones confirmed that the proposal is in the most suitable location available and that in terms of size it has a footprint of 180m sq. and is within the guidelines for agricultural dwellings.

 

The Planning Development Manager informed the Committee that since the report was written a further objection has been received drawing attention to the availability of a two storey dwelling on a plot nearby meaning there is no need for the proposed development as well as the availability of more suitable plots within the farm. The Officer reported that the key issues relate to whether the rural enterprise justifies the residential accommodation proposed in the context of national and local planning policies and whether it would harm the setting of the Listed Building and Historic Park and Garden. National and local policies set out the circumstances in which proposals of this kind are considered permissible as outlined in the written report. TAN 6 indicates where exceptions can be made to the general presumption against residential development in the countryside including where management of a farm business is to be transferred to a person younger than the original worker. The Council’s independent agricultural consultant has accepted that the exception criteria set out in TAN 6 have been met in this instance and that the proposal also meets the financial and other normal planning tests contained in TAN 6 and that the enterprise is financially sound, and the access arrangement and siting and design of the proposed enterprise dwelling are acceptable. In terms of the impact on Ty Fry listed building and historic gardens, it is the Officer’s opinion that the proposed dwelling is sufficiently distanced and physically separated from the listed building so as to ensure that the building and its setting are preserved. Although the proposed dwelling will be a feature in the landscape, its impact will be no greater than that of other existing buildings in the vicinity and it would over time be integrated within its surroundings without appearing incongruous or as a prominent feature causing unacceptable harm.

 

The Committee sought clarification of the occupancy condition and its duration and stressed the importance of ensuring that the proposed dwelling is kept available to meet the farming need for as long as Ty Fry Farm remains viable as a rural enterprise. The Officer confirmed that the conditions run alongside the planning consent  and will apply to it in perpetuity or until such time  as an application be made to the Council to discharge that particular condition. Moreover, a section 106 agreement is also proposed in this instance which will also apply for the lifetime of the consent unless an application is made to discharge or to amend it. Should such an application be made in future, then the situation would have to be reconsidered at that time.

The majority of the Committee’s Members were in favour of the proposal as essential to the continued success of the farm enterprise and as acceptable in terms of its design and location. Councillor W.T. Hughes proposed that the application be approved and the proposal was seconded by Councillor Kenneth Hughes.

 

Councillors Victor Hughes and Lewis Davies, although supportive of the Ty Fry Farm business and its continued prosperity, had reservations regarding the location of the proposed dwelling as being in the open countryside and therefore liable to be read as an isolated and incongruous feature in the landscape contrary to the provisions of Policy 53. Councillor Victor Hughes referred to reports issued by Reading independent agricultural consultants whose advice the Authority had sought wherein specific issues were raised concerning the proposal. Both Councillor Victor Hughes and Lewis Davies deemed the proposal capable of being sited in a more favourable location closer to Ty Fry Farm and on that basis Councillor Victor Hughes proposed that the application be refused contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, and he was seconded by Councillor Lewis Davies.

 

The Planning Development Manager said that consultation with the independent agricultural consultants has progressed and evolved over a period of months during which time reports were issued in which questions were asked, and points raised by the consultants to which the Officers have responded. As regards policy, Policy 53 does not allow development in the open countryside except in circumstances where it can be demonstrated that such a development is necessary to the continued success of a rural enterprise. Officers have assessed the location of the proposed development and have considered whether other options are available and are satisfied that the needs of the farm business cannot be met in any other way. The closer the development is sited to Ty Fry listed building and gardens, the greater the potential impact on those features. The Officers are satisfied that as regards the location of the proposed dwelling a balance has been struck between meeting the needs of the rural enterprise and preserving the listed building and associated gardens.

 

In the ensuing vote on the matter, 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 execution of an obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) containing the provisions set out in the written report and subject also to the planning conditions listed therein.

 

7.3       45C432C – Full application for the erection of two dwellings together with the construction of a vehicular access on land at Graig Fawr, Dwyran

 

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

 

At its meeting held on 11th May, 2016, the Committee resolved to undertake a site visit and the site was visited on the 18th May, 2016.

 

Sam Kennelley, a Public Speaker said that she and forty others locally objected to the proposal on the basis that it does not accord with the surrounding area because of its size, design and layout; for reasons of scale and consequent impact; loss of privacy and overshadowing effects on the bungalow opposite; road safety issues; risk of flooding and because there is no demonstrable need for the development locally.

 

Mr Dafydd Jones, a Public Speaker spoke in favour of the application and he said that the application has been made following the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings by the applicant approved in September, 2013, due to the suitability of the adjacent development site as an infill site under Policy 50 of the Local Plan. The safety of local residents has been considered and improved by the inclusion of a new pedestrian footway to the front of the site facing directly onto Lôn Fain as part of the development and at the cost of the developer. The approved access onto the public highway is to be used as part of the development to reduce vehicle access points directly onto Lôn Fain from the site – no new access is provided as part of the application. The site is not located within a flood zone and all site surface water will be contained within the development site. There is a number of varying house types along Lôn Fain and no local character of dwelling may be ascertained from this area. The aforementioned recently constructed semi-detached affordable dwellings have already been sold thus proving the need for this type of dwelling in the area. There are no valid planning reasons for refusing the application.

 

The Committee questioned Mr Jones on the approach taken by the developer and given the layout of the site why the application was not for an estate which would have delivered a proportion of affordable housing. Mr Dafydd Jones said that the advice was that the approach taken is the best way in terms of the proposal meeting infill requirements under Policy 50. Any application for further development is a matter for the developer.

 

Councillor Ann Griffith, stood down as Chair of the Committee to speak in her capacity as a Local Member regarding the application. Councillor Richard Owain Jones, Vice-Chair took the chair for the remainder of the discussion and the determination of the application.

 

Councillor Ann Griffith said that there are concerns locally in relation to the proposed development because of standing surface water on the application site and the risk of flooding – this area did suffer flooding as a result of the severe rainfall at Christmas. There are questions as the adequacy of the infrastructure to deal with further housing. The proposed development in scale and design is out of keeping with surrounding housing and Lôn Fain is a narrow, single road on which parking is already a problem. Councillor Griffith said it was her view that there is no local need for this development there being existing properties on sale in the village. The developer however does wish to make it known that he employs local people and makes use of locally sourced materials.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that the key planning issues relate to the proposal’s compliance with policy, its effect on neighbouring properties and surrounding area and highway safety. Dwyran is defined as a listed settlement under Policy 50 of the Ynys Môn Local Plan and being located immediately next to residential dwellings and opposite residential properties, the proposal is considered acceptable as an infill application under the provisions of Policy 50 which allows for single plot applications within or on the edge of a settlement. It is not considered that the proposal will harm the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties or have a detrimental impact on the surrounding areas or on highway safety. In response to a question regarding local concerns about flooding, the Officer said that he could confirm that the Council’s Drainage Section find the drainage details acceptable.

 

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 receipt of satisfactory drainage details with regard to the proposed soakaway and to the planning conditions listed in the written report.