Agenda item

12.1 17C518 - Penterfyn, 24 Frondeg, Llandegfan

12.2 19C1204 – 3 Ffordd Jasper, Holyhead

12.3 24C345 – Tregarth, Llaneilian

12.4 28C541/ENF – Glyn Garth, 10 Beach Road, Rhosneigr

12.5 33C315 – Tros y Marian, Lôn Groes, Gaerwen

12.6 46C52D – Tir Nant, Lôn St Ffraid, Trearddur Bay

12.7 46C254C – Ael y Bryn, Lôn Penrhyngarw, Trearddur Bay

12.8 46C578 – The Pavilion, Lôn Isallt, Trearddur Bay

12.1    17C518 – Full application for alterations and extensions which includes a balcony at Penterfyn, 24 Fron Deg, Llandegfan

 

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as it had been called in by two Local Members.

 

Public Speaker –

 

Mrs E.A. Morris (against the proposal) spoke specifically against that part of the application which would involve double doors opening out from the proposed bedroom above the garage onto a balcony. The balcony would look directly down onto her property and bedroom window and would constitute a total invasion of privacy. If approved it would set a very dangerous precedent for others to follow. As regards Penmaen property which does have a balcony at present, this property is not classified as being in Fron Deg estate. The application in question is not in keeping with any of the properties on the Fron Deg estate of bungalows. Mrs Morris said that she already experienced a degree of scrutiny and intrusion from an attic window; if the balcony is approved the opportunity, level and degree of scrutiny and intrusion would increase twofold.

 

The Committee questioned Mrs Morris on the view over her property from a neighbouring property with a balcony which the Officer’s report says is considerably larger than the one proposed by this application. Mrs Morris said that Penmaen property is a standalone house outside Fron Deg estate; the property has always had a balcony which does not invade her privacy. She explained that she had grown and maintained her hedge at a certain level and the balcony is therefore not a problem. She could not see the balcony from her own property although the residents of Pen Maen could probably see the roof of her property at 26 Fron Deg from their balcony.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that two of the Local Members had called in the application because of issues of privacy and because they considered the proposal would affect the character of the area. The Officer is not of the view that the balcony will have an unacceptable effect on the property at 26 Fron Deg there being sufficient distance between the two properties as well as the estate road. Where it is considered the proposal might give rise to overlooking in relation to the adjoining property a screening condition is proposed to mitigate the effect. The Officer does not consider that the proposed extensions and alterations would form an adverse impact on the surrounding properties or any of the neighbouring properties to such a degree as to warrant refusal.

 

Councillor John Griffith proposed, and was seconded by Councillor Vaughan Hughes, that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

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

12.2    19C1204 – Full application for alterations and extensions at 3 Ffordd Jasper, Holyhead

 

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee because part of the site extends onto Council owned land.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that the proposed development is deemed acceptable to the Local Planning Authority in scale, character and design and it is not considered that it would have an adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining properties such as to warrant refusal.

 

Councillor Robin Williams proposed and was seconded by Councillor Vaughan Hughes that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

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

 

12.3    24C345 – Outline application for the erection of a dwelling with all matters reserved on land adjacent to Tregarth, Llaneilian, Amlwch

 

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

 

Public Speaker –

 

Mrs B. Jolleys (for the proposal) spoke of the need for the proposed dwelling on account of its location. She explained that she and her husband are registered peripatetic carers which enables them to support children in their own home. They have provided support for her sister who has adopted three severely disabled children. Being only 3 miles or less from their home is important in terms of the school run, hospital visits and emergencies. The area of land is also on a quiet road and the intended dwelling would be well set back from the road making it safe for the two boys with severe autism for whom she and her husband are respite carers. There are only two neighbouring properties, the nearest whose residents know of the family’s fostering commitments and are happy for them to continue and the other which is a holiday home. If there were any issue with the latter, the respite care could be undertaken when the property is vacant. The need for the plot of land is not the family’s but the children and their families who have come to rely on their support. Special consideration is sometimes given to farmers and forestry workers on account of their occupation. She and her husband’s continuation as peripatetic and respite carers very much depends on securing planning consent for the proposal.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that the site is located within a Special Landscape Area within the JLDP and is adjacent to the AONB. It is the Officer’s view that the proposal would lead to a ribbon development which would result in an intrusive and incongruous feature to the substantial detriment of the character and amenities of the area. It is therefore considered that the development would be contrary to the provisions of Policy 50 of the Local Plan and Policy HP5 of the Stopped Unitary Development Plan. Additionally, due to the significant weight that can be given to the JLDP, regard should be had of the fact that the application site lies in the open countryside where development would have to satisfy national planning policy and TAN 6 which provides justification for isolated dwellings in the countryside when the accommodation is required to enable a rural enterprise worker to live at or close to their work place. The Officer said that although the applicant has made a case for special consideration on the grounds of occupation as carers, it does not meet the requirements of TAN 6. The recommendation is that the application be refused.  Furthermore, insufficient details relating to highway, drainage and ecology have been received in order to provide a recommendation in relation to these matters.

 

Some Members of the Committee considered the application to be deserving of support because of the valuable service rendered by the applicants and because they deemed the proposal to be acceptable under Policy 50 of the Local Plan and Policy HP5 of the stopped UDP. Other Members took the Officer’s view that the proposal is in the open countryside and as such it would detrimentally affect the Special Landscape Area and would be harmful by reason of its proximity to the AONB and thereby was contrary to the aforementioned policies. 

 

Councillor Eric Jones proposed and was seconded by Councillor Kenneth Hughes that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor John Griffith proposed and was seconded by Councillor Dafydd Roberts that the application be refused in line with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

The Planning Development Manager reminded the Committee in the interest of consistency that it had earlier refused an application in Llangristiolus that was acceptable under Policy 50 of the Local Plan because it was contrary to the policies of the JLDP.

 

Councillor Shaun Redmond proposed and was seconded by Councillor Glyn Haynes, that determination of the application be deferred to the next meeting when the status of the JLDP as the prevailing policy consideration will have become clear, and also because highway, ecology and drainage details have not been received. In the subsequent vote the proposal to defer was carried.

 

It was resolved to defer determining the application for the reasons given.

 

12.4    28C541/ENF – Application for the retention of a balcony at Glyn Garth, 10 Beach Road, Rhosneigr

 

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

 

Public Speaker –

 

Mr Peter Williams (against the proposal) spoke as a neighbour of 10 Beach Road and he said that the balcony for which consent is sought is about 1.5m above the balcony/roof terrace at his own property which has permission. He had e-mailed the department with comments on the 12th July which are not included in the report; these set out his objections on the grounds that the screening shown on the drawings only obscures part of the terrace which to a layman appears to be the wrong section which has a view over the garage and the applicant’s garden. Mr Williams said that when he had applied for permission for a balcony at 3 Beach Road, he had been advised that it would have to be screened to a height of 1.8m on all sides to prevent overlooking yet the same is not required in relation to the proposal in question.  Mr Williams added that he had no objection to the balcony at 10 Beach Road as long as the same requirement applies to this as to the balcony at his own property i.e. it must be screened on all sides to ensure privacy and prevent overlooking.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that Mr Williams’s comments were received after the written report was drafted. She said that the consent for the balcony at Mr Williams’s property required that the balcony be screened to three sides whereas the recommendation for the proposal is for screening to two sides. This is because it is the Officer’s assessment that screening is required to the South Eastern corner of the balcony to mitigate overlooking into the property at 9 Beach Road, but that further screening along the Western wall of the balcony facing the rear of Beach Terrace which includes Mr Williams’ property at 3 Beach Road is not necessary due to the existing screen around the  balcony at 3 Beach Road and the separation distance between the subject balcony at the rear of the properties along Beach Terrace. Consent is subject to a screening condition but it is a matter for the Committee to decide whether it wishes to extend the screening beyond the requirement set out.

 

Councillor Richard Dew speaking as a Local Member said that the balcony

had been erected without consent and therefore no conditions had been applied. The Community Council usually recommends appropriate screening in such applications in order to protect the amenities and privacy of neighbouring residents. The subject balcony overlooks the rear of the properties at Beach Terrace and therefore no views would be lost with screening.  Councillor Dew said that a level playing field is required and he asked the Committee to impose a condition on consent requiring all-around screening of the balcony to a height of 6ft.

 

Councillor Robin Williams proposed and was seconded by Councillor Kenneth Hughes that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and that screening condition (01) be amended to require that a 1.8m high privacy screen be erected on all sides of the balcony.

 

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to the conditions outlined in the written report and subject to amending condition (01) to require that a 1.8m high privacy screen be erected on all sides of the balcony.

 

12.5    33C315 – Full application for the creation of a new vehicular access track on land adjacent to Tros y Marian, Lôn Groes, Gaerwen

 

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee because part of the development is within land which is owned by the Council.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that the proposed development is part of a wider programme of works being undertaken by Welsh Water as a statutory undertaker to alleviate flooding in the area. These entail works to the public sewer and by the placing of an underground storage tank to store excess flows from the system. The vehicular access and timber boundary proposed as part of the application are required to provide access to the tank for routine maintenance. The scheme has been amended to meet with the requirements of the Highways Authority.

 

Councillor Vaughan Hughes proposed and was seconded by Councillor Eric Jones that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

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

 

12.6    46C52D – Full application for the erection of a dwelling to include a new vehicular access on land adjacent to Tir Nant, Lôn St. Ffraid, Trearddur Bay

 

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of two Local Members due to concerns regarding the vehicular access.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that an additional 3 letters of objection to the proposal have been received. The Officer said that whilst the application site is predominantly within the development boundary of Trearddur under the Ynys Môn Local Plan and under the stopped UDP, it is outside but adjoining the settlement of Trearddur Bay under the provisions of PCYFF 1 and TAI 5 of the Joint Local Development Plan (JLDP). The age of the development plan and the existence of the more up to date provisions of the JLDP means that the principle of development is not considered acceptable in this instance. The recommendation is therefore to refuse the application. The Officer said further that the applicant has requested a deferral in order to be given time to amend the scheme; this is a matter for the Committee to decide on. However, from an Officer perspective, it is difficult to see how the proposal can be sufficiently amended in order to comply with policy.

Councillor Robin Williams proposed, and was seconded by Councillor John Griffith that the application be refused in line with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

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

 

12.7    46C254C – Full application for the demolition of the existing dwelling together with the erection of two new dwellings in lieu at Ael y Bryn, Lôn Penrhyngarw, Trearddur Bay

 

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as it has been called in by a Local Member because of concerns regarding over-development on a very prominent site and adverse effects on the neighbouring property.

 

Public Speakers –

 

Alaw Griffith (against the proposal) spoke on behalf of the residents of the neighbouring property Bryn Eithin. She said that the proposal would lead to the overdevelopment of an open headland area and is out of character with properties in the vicinity. The proposal does not adhere to the separation distances between dwellings set out by Planning Guidance Note 8 and as such would have a detrimental effect on the amenities of the occupants of Bryn Eithin as well as any potential occupants of the proposed dwellings. A similar application was refused previously on the grounds of overdevelopment and it is not considered that the current proposal overcomes the reasons for refusal at that time. There are also drainage issues that need to be resolved.

 

Mr Owain Evans (for the proposal) said that the written report is contradictory in what it says about the space around the proposed dwellings. The character of dwellings in the area is varied and four dwellings opposite the subject plot have been approved in the past few years.

 

Councillor Dafydd Rhys Thomas, a Local Member reiterated his concerns in calling in the application and said that the proposal constitutes unacceptable over-development in a sensitive area.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that Councillor J. Arwel Roberts, a Local Member is also opposed to the proposed development. Of the two previous applications to demolish the existing dwelling and replace it with a new dwelling, one was refused and the other was withdrawn. The scheme has been amended since the withdrawal of the application in April, 2017 to extend the separation distance between the proposed dwellings and the neighbouring property so the objections on the grounds of effects on amenity have been mitigated. However, the proposal is still considered unacceptable as it does not comply with JLDP Policy TAI 5 in relation to Local Market Housing which seeks to maintain Welsh speaking communities and applies to settlements within the plan where it has been demonstrated there are pressures. It is also considered that it will have negative impact on the character of the area.

 

Councillor Robin Williams proposed and was seconded by Councillor John Griffith that the application be refused in line with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

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

 

12.8    46C578 – Full application for alterations and extensions to The Pavilion, Lôn Isallt, Trearddur Bay

 

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as it is made on land in the Council’s ownership.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that the application site is located partially within flood risk Zone C2 and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) has requested that a flood consequence assessment be prepared to demonstrate how the development would deal with the consequences of flooding. Whilst a document was prepared, NRW considers its content insufficient to demonstrate that the pavilion extension adequately deals with the risks. Furthermore, the creation of a parking area introduces a new vulnerable use to the site and increases the flood risk. Although the Highways Authority raises no technical objection, the flood consequences assessment fails to demonstrate that the risk can be acceptably managed. The Officer said that the applicant has been given the opportunity to address the outstanding concerns and that the response received to date has proved insufficient to remove NRW’s concern. The statutory consultee recommends refusal in line with national planning policy.

 

Councillor Dafydd Rhys Thomas speaking as a Local Member said that the extension proposed is modest and does not entail a significant change. The Pavilion is used as changing rooms by the local football team which is at the heart of Trearddur Bay. Local residents recall the Pavilion being flooded only once previously. Permission has recently been given to a small shop at the rear of the Lifeboat Station right by the seaside the building of which he did not believe entailed any mitigation measures.  In addition, the Pavilion involves recreational rather than residential use. The proposal has involved the use public funds which it would be a great shame to waste and a disappointment to the community should the proposal be refused.

 

The Planning Development Manager clarified that whilst the proposal in itself is considered acceptable, the concern relates to the flooding risk. The Officer said that the applicant’s report from which she read out the relevant extract confirms the flooding risk on site. Paragraph 6.2 of TAN 15 sets out the criteria whereby development can be justified in Zones C1 and C2; the proposal meets those criteria with the exception that the assessment does not demonstrate that the consequences of flooding can be adequately dealt with.

In the ensuing debate on the application the Committee sought to establish the nature and extent of the flood risk and its likely effects. It was pointed out that the Pavilion building has existed for many years and with it the risk of flooding so the proposed extension does not create a new situation. The Planning Development Manager said that the proposal does create a new element in the form of the car park and as such the applicant must demonstrate how the development mitigates against the risk to an acceptable level.

 

The Legal Services Manager advised that as NRW has not specified what it requires as mitigating measures an option for the Committee would be to defer determining the application to allow the applicant to submit proposals to this end. The Planning Development Manager said that the applicant has responded, but that the response to date which involves trying to manage games and to keep a list of the car park’s users has proved unsatisfactory to NRW.

 

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation on the basis that the Pavilion building has existed on site for many years and the proposal does not change the flood risk. The Planning Development Manager said that approval contrary to NRW’s recommendation would need to be supported by technical evidence. The proposal was not seconded.

 

Councillor Dafydd Roberts proposed and was seconded by Councillor John Griffith that the application be deferred to allow the applicant further time to provide a response that will satisfy NRW.

 

It was resolved that determination of the application be deferred for the reason given.