Agenda item

12.1 34LPA1015E/DIS/CC – Former Môn Training Site, Llangefni

12.2 39C355B – Former Primary School, Pentraeth Road, Menai Bridge

12.1 34LPA1015E/DIS/CC – Application to discharge conditions (02) (surface water) and (03) (drainage scheme) of planning permission 34LPA1015B/CC at the former Môn Training, Llangefni

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as it is made by the County Council.

The Planning Development Manager reported that the Council’s Technical Section (Drainage) finds the submitted drainage satisfactory and Welsh Water has confirmed that it has no objections to the conditions being discharged. The Officer’s recommendation is therefore to approve the application.

Councillor Bryan Owen proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation; the proposal was seconded by Councillor Nicola Roberts.

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and report.

12.2 39C355B – Retrospective application for the erection of 8 apartments together with car parking and associated works on land at Former Primary School, Pentraeth Road, Menai Bridge

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as part of the application site is located on Council owned land.

Public Speaker

Mr Jamie Bradshaw (for the proposal) outlined how he considered the proposed scheme to be compliant with national and local polices in being for a brownfield site set within the development boundary of Menai Bridge in a highly accessible location. The assumption in national and local policies is that the site is suitable for development in principle and that its use should be encouraged as confirmed by the Officer’s report. In response to the Officer’s concerns regarding the density of the development and its suitability for the setting, the proposal meets a key national and local policy priority of utilising sites such as this in an accessible location, close to transport routes for higher density development. The proposal would meet this objective by making the best use of land to accommodate a higher density but still appropriate development for the site and its setting thereby easing pressure on greenfield sites to meet housing needs. Although the proposed building is three storeys in height, the land levels and careful design approach mean that the height of the building would reflect that of surrounding properties and will actually be 2.5m lower in height than the three-storey dwelling approved to the north. Mr Bradshaw said that he did not believe the development was cramped as the proposal would only occupy 30% of the area of the site with a good amount of space around the building which complies with the Council’s own separation distances and allows for landscaping. The concerns over the building having several high level windows and obscure glazing in bedrooms and living areas which the Officer believes creates an oppressive outlook for future occupants are unfounded as these will only serve secondary rooms such as bathrooms and studies.

Mr Bradshaw said that the proposal is a high quality modern design which ensures the development has a varied and interesting appearance; the aim throughout has been to create a high quality development that would complement its setting and respect the visual and residential amenities of the area.

The Planning Development Manager reported that two additional letters offering comments on the application have been received; comments have also been received from the applicant’s agent clarifying that the access widening work which has been done as referred to in the Officer’s report making part of the application retrospective, is health and safety work which is unconnected with the proposal that is the subject of the application. The Officer’s view is that the proposed development is unacceptable in its setting and notwithstanding the amendments that have been made in an effort to overcome the issues in relation to separation distances, overlooking, parking arrangements and variations to the access, the Planning Department continues to have concerns over the proposal and is of the opinion that by virtue of its scale, design and siting, it is not well integrated into its surroundings. The recommendation is therefore one of refusal.

Due to the points of concern raised with regard to setting, scale and its proximity to neighbouring properties, Councillor John Griffith proposed that the application site be visited so that Members can better appreciate the proposed development within its location. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Eric Jones. In the ensuing vote, the proposal for a site visit was not carried.

Councillor Bryan Owen proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Robin Williams who said that he had called in the application because of the concerns of the Town Council and the residents of the locality.

It was resolved to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and report.