Agenda item

11.1 31C10K – Tyn Lon Garage, Llanfairpwll

11.2 36C228A – Shop Sharpe, Llangristiolus

11.1    31C10K – Full application for alterations and extensions at Tyn Lon Garage, Llanfairpwll

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as the applicant is related to a “relevant officer” as defined within paragraph 4.6.10 of the Council’s Constitution. The application has been scrutinised by the Monitoring Officer as required under paragraph 4.6.10.4 of the Constitution.

The Planning Development Manager reported that the proposed development is considered acceptable to the Local Planning Authority as regards design, scale, effects and materials to be used.

Councillor John Griffith proposed, and was seconded by Councillor Vaughan Hughes, that the application be approved.

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

11.2    36C338C – Outline application for the erection of a dwelling with all matters reserved on land to the rear of Shop Sharpe, Llangristiolus

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as the applicant is related to a “relevant officer” as defined within paragraph 4.6.10 of the Council’s Constitution. The application has been scrutinised by the Monitoring Officer as required under paragraph 4.6.10.4 of the Constitution. In addition, the application was called in prior to the local election by one of the Local Members at that time.

Public Speakers –

Mr P. Antrobus (against the proposal) spoke of concerns regarding overdevelopment, scale and effects. The proposal would have an unacceptable adverse impact both on the properties immediately adjacent and on the surrounding area by reason of overlooking, loss of privacy and by being visually overbearing. It is out of scale and character with other properties in the vicinity. Mr Antrobus pointed out surface water and drainage issues as well as issues regarding the vehicular access with several near misses having occurred adjacent to the plot which is sited opposite Ysgol Henblas.

Mr Owain Evans (for the proposal) said that the application is being recommended for refusal not on grounds of location, appearance nor overlooking but on the basis of the new JLDP which in terms of timing is unlucky for the applicant and is the only reason why the Officer objects to the proposal. Mr Evans said that back in January, 2017 a proposal for a dwelling next door was recommended for approval by the Officer because it was deemed acceptable under Policy 50 of the Ynys Môn Local Plan as an infill development. Greater weight was given to the Local Plan then even though the proposal was outside the development boundary of the village under the stopped UDP.  The proposal in question is also an infill development. The JLDP although significant weight is to be given to it the meaning of which is itself unclear relative to the weight to be given to the other plans, has not been adopted. In mid-June, the Inspector was still approving appeals saying that no weight was attached to the new policy document. How can the policy now tip the balance? For that reason, he was asking the Committee to reconsider the Officer’s recommendation.

The Planning Development Manager reported that 4 letters of support and 1 letter of objection had been received in addition to those in the representations documentation. The proposal has been amended in response to objections about its size and although in height it remains the same, the area which it occupies has been reduced. Llangristiolus is identified as a Listed settlement under Policy 50 of the adopted Ynys Môn Local Plan which allows for single dwelling applications on infill sites or sites deemed to be a suitable extension to the settlement subject to the detailed criteria within the policy being satisfied. The proposal does meets the criteria. However, the application site lies outside the development boundary in the stopped UDP and it also lies outside but immediately adjacent to the Llangristiolus development boundary in the JLDP.The Officer confirmed that appeals were being accepted under the JLDP but with the proviso “until such time as the Inspector’s binding report has been received”. That is now the case. The Inspector’s binding report brings significant weight to the policies of the JLDP. The application site is located outside the development boundary of the village and is therefore contrary to the provisions of the JLDP. The recommendation to refuse the application is made for reasons of policy.

Councillor Dafydd Roberts proposed and was seconded by Councillor Robin Williams that the application be refused.

It was resolved to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation for the reason given in the written report.