Meeting documents

Extraordinary Meeting of the Isle of Anglesey County Council 

Minutes of the meeting held on 5th December, 2008 (2:00pm)

_________________________________________________________________________________

The afternoon meeting was opened with a prayer by Councillor Lewis Davies

     Officers recommended that the application be permitted subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement and appropriate planning conditions. The draft Heads of Terms for the legal agreement together with a broad indication of the type and scope of conditions were listed at Para 9.2 and 9.3 of the report to this Council.

     The Head of Planning Control updated members that 3 extra letters had been received. One was a letter of support from the applicant and two letters of objection. There was also a petition with 124 signatures objecting to the proposal.

     He also referred members to paragraph 5.1 on page 7 of the report which dealt with the response of Llanfair Community Council. The report mentioned that they had concerns but by now a letter had been received confirming that they favoured refusal on the grounds mentioned in the letter.

     Welsh Water did not object to the proposals for drainage of the development.

     He also confirmed that the Authority had received a detailed analysis of the jobs to be created for each phase of the development.

     In summary, the officer confirmed that the recommendation was one of approval due to this being an exceptional application, the application being a positive response to the economic future of the Island and that the creation of between 700 and 1500 new jobs was a consideration of such significance such as to make the application exceptional.

     A heads of terms agreement for a planning obligation under section 106 and topic areas for the imposition of planning conditions were outlined in the report.

     Mr. Dylan Williams, Principal Development Officer stated that leakage of expenditure was considerable on the Island and also to the fact 300 job losses had been announced quite recently on the Island. There was also the uncertainty facing Wylfa and Anglesey Aluminium. The Council could not just depend on a new development at Wylfa in order to safeguard the future viability of the Island. The GVA for Anglesey, a measure of wealth, was only 53% of the British average even with Wylfa and Anglesey Aluminium operating. The Employment Sites & Premises Development  Plan for the Island acknowledged the need for a high quality Business Park within the Menai hub. The location was attractive to tenants in that it was very near Bangor University. It would not be possible to relocate such a development to any other sub-region on the Island. This development if approved had also received provisional financial backing from the European Convergance Programme towards the cost of building new office premises on site. The Council had commissioned two independent companies to look at the accuracy of figures presented with the planning application.

     Following this work, the potential employment prospects could be summarised as follows:-

     Phase 1 - November 2009 - May 2011 - It was forecasted that there would be between 378 - 800 posts created.

     Phase 2 - November 2010 - November 2011 - between 175 - 375 posts.

     Phase 3 - November 2011 - November 2012 - between 147 - 315 posts.

     The approximate employment breakdown between type/ uses on the site was summarised as 49% offices, 26% retail, 12% cinema and 12% restaurants.

     If approval was given, conditions would have to be set to maximise jobs for the local people of Anglesey. There would be between 183 - 390 construction posts, and between 515 and 1099 posts once operational, creating a total of between 700 and 1500 posts.

     Based on projections, it was likely that the development would have a positive impact on the economy of the Island and raise living standards. New employment was necessary and it was projected that the development would have a minimum additionality of 3% on the Island’s GVA raising the figure to 56% GVA.    

     There were also Leisure opportunities for young people as part of the development offering the same provision as other adjoining areas. Visitors to the Island enjoyed the heritage and environment but there were not enough opportunities and activities during inclement weather.

     The Head of Service (Highways & Transportation) stated that the Department had originally expressed their concern as regards the junction with the A55. The matter had been drawn to the Assembly’s attention who also had the same concerns initially. Consultants had been appointed by the developer to ascertain how those concerns could be overcome. They came up with a traffic light system on the bridge over the A55 with 4 lanes.

     This Council then employed consultants specialising in traffic matters, to look at the solutions proposed and they were happy if those lanes could be widened to 3.65m in width with 4 lanes in total. The developers would also build a footbridge for pedestrians and cyclists 3m wide on the South Side of the current bridge.

     Officers had asked whether it was possible to include as part of the development a ‘park and share’ facility where people could leave their cars and share car rides to their places of employment. The developer had agreed to such request. As regards public transport, the Department had asked for additional services and agreement had been reached in that respect.

     There would be an additional shuttle-bus running every 15 minutes to Menai Bridge. The Highways and Transportation Service were happy with the development from a Highways point of view.

     The Corporate Director (Environment & Technical Services) was of the opinion that this development was extremely important with regard to the future of the Island. Officers were aware that Cineworld were a part of the development and very recently they had confirmed this to be the case. In terms of employment, offices, etc, a Business Plan had been referred to WEFO with European money already allocated. End users were in agreement that this was an ideal location for them. Officers had looked at how the travelling infrastructure could be improved so that job seekers could gain employment in this area. This was a strategic application which offered a large number of jobs for the Island.

     Councillor J. Penri Williams, local member stated that when Tesco moved to Holyhead there was a 30% decrease in expenditure on the High Street with resulting shop closures. He quoted the developer when asked about this, stated that, “it was not that type of development and that it would be one of discretionary spend, i.e. the kind of money one did not spend on mortgage, groceries, utilities etc. Seventy eight percent of  Anglesey’s discretionary spend occurred off the Island,” and he referred to such places as Cheshire Oaks. Councillor Williams found that the 78% figure was seductive. He then referred to the fact that he had come across a renowned highways engineer who called the site an absolute ‘non-starter’.

     He referred to the minutes of a meeting held between officers of this Authority and the Welsh Assembly which stated that there was only a 30% chance of gaining planning approval. Even though the Highways and Transportation Service had come up with answers to the highway problems, those answers were not acceptable and should be re-addressed in order to satisfy the rate-payers of Ynys Môn.

     He considered that the bridge area would become a bottleneck and nothing had been proposed in order to assist traffic flow through this area. The problem was that traffic trying to reach Holyhead would be held back at this point resulting in traffic diverting to the port of Liverpool and the possibility of Stena moving away from Holyhead. He did not consider that the shops would materialise, since the retail industry was decomposing in front of everyone’s eyes. Anglesey County Council was now going to do the same thing as Gwynedd Council did 50 years ago in going after an industry that was dying on its feet - the textile industry. One shop in 5 on the High Street was likely to close and for that reason he thought that the Council was putting all its eggs in the wrong basket. If there were no shops there then no-one would make use of the Leisure facilities. It was different at Llandudno Junction since there was a large catchment area with people coming from as far as Prestatyn, Blaenau Ffestiniog and Holyhead. The site in question did not have such a catchment area. It would ultimately depend on the quality of shops there at the end of the day.

     He was also concerned that Members had not been given the opportunity of considering alternative sites mentioned in the report. He considered that the site to the North of the A55 at Gaerwen would have been ideal from a traffic perspective and to not consider other sites fully was a weakness in the report.

     The application was a departure from the Development Plan and yet officers were proposing approval. The Local Development Plan had only just gone out for consultation. Yet today, officer’s were suggesting a change in policy direction before that Plan had even been accepted. Although he had no objection to the design, job opportunities, etc, he considered that the people of Anglesey and the developers deserved a better site and better resources than currently proposed.

     The Corporate Director (Environment & Technical Services) explained that a large amount of work had been done in this respect not merely on highway issues. There had been numerous meetings, and consultants on both sides had reached agreement based on the evidence provided. Highway issues had been given serious consideration and a scheme was in place to overcome any problems. What affected the free-flow of traffic to Holyhead was the Britannia Bridge and not this particular junction. Ways of overcoming the Britannia Bridge traffic flow were currently being considered by the Welsh Assembly. Officers had looked at other sites but in terms of the end users those sites from a professional viewpoint were not acceptable.

     Councillor C. Ll. Everett welcomed the interest shown. However, at the end of the day it was a departure application. He referred to Welsh Assembly documents which referred to the Parc Cybi / Ty Mawr Business Park which was currently under construction as a major strategic business investment site for Anglesey and a key component in the 10 years Holyhead Forward Regeneration Partnership launched in 2003. He described what was intended for the Parc Cybi site, which in his opinion was more or less the same type of application being discussed at today’s meeting, which he considered was a greenfield site and a departure.

     Parking had been set aside for 1800 vehicles which equated to 3,600 vehicle movements per day. This, together with the problems currently encountered at the Britannia Bridge would intensify traffic flow in the area.

     The report referred to planning gain in improvements to the highway network and public transport services. He did not consider this to be planning gain but merely infrastructure works in order to access the site. He considered that the application before Members was one of the biggest departures in the history of this Council.

     The Corporate Director (Environmental and Technical Services) in response stated that this was a strategic site and the developers were keen to proceed. As regards planning gain, he considered that at the end of the day it would be the creation of jobs for the people of Anglesey. Policy 2 of the Development Plan allowed, where there were exceptional circumstances, to look at something which would be of exceptional benefit to the Island and which could be supported.

     Councillor W.J.Chorlton stated he did not consider that this development would help retain funds on the Island. This was a major departure and in the past this Authority had been taken to task on this, yet today, Officers were condoning approval. He referred to the fact that over the years numerous applications had been turned down in this area and they at the time would have created employment opportunities. The problems at the Britannia Bridge would create a major bottleneck.

     The Corporate Director (Environmental and Technical Services) stated that Officers had been extremely careful to ensure that there was evidence to support highway implications. The Council were pressing the Welsh Assembly for an early decision as regards the Britannia Bridge traffic flow problem.      

     Councillor Barrie Durkin requested legal clarification as to hand written minutes he had recently received in relation to a meeting that had taken place between officers of this Council and the Welsh Assembly in that this Council had given commitment to the developer for £3m initially for improvements to the A5025 between the site and the Four Crosses roundabout. He stated that members of the public at the site visit this morning had banners referring to this comment.

     The Legal Services Manager in reply stated that he had also received a copy of this letter at the beginning of the week making the accusation outlined by the Councillor. Whoever paid for any highways improvement was not, he stated, a planning consideration. What was relevant was whether any improvements were required, what they were, whether they were to be provided and, if so, how could they be secured? He had made further enquiries as regards the letter, which showed that an officer in the Highway Section of the Welsh Assembly had taken this note and that he had perhaps misunderstood the position. After enquiring with the Council officers present, no commitment was made by this Council as a Highways Authority to contribute any sum towards such improvement and that this was an expectation falling on the developer. This sum of money would have been a considerable sum in the Council budget and could not have been committed without Committee and member approval. This appeared to be a misunderstanding by an outside officer and nothing more.

     Councillor B. Durkin thanked the officer for his explanation. There had been mention previously as to the amount of extra traffic using this facility and by his calculations to make an operation like this viable with that amount of car parking spaces (1800) would need some 10 - 12,000 car movements per day. That would be a considerable amount of extra traffic and he hoped that any works required to the A55 overpass would be looked at more strenuously than at present. Consideration was being given to erecting a new bridge and a set of dumb-bell roundabouts and he considered that this would be the very least required to facilitate such a massive operation. Before this application could be determined, he was of the opinion that the traffic problems at the Britannia Bridge needed to be addressed. He was concerned as to the erection of 20m high buildings and the impact they would have on the environment. He concluded that the application was premature and in the wrong place.

     The Corporate Director (Environment & Technical Services) replied that the evidence submitted, analysed and tested by not just the officers, but by consultants on behalf of this Council and on  behalf of the Welsh Assembly had concluded that the highway improvements could accommodate the development. As regards the landscape and the impact thereon, the report clarified that any development of such a scale, wherever located, would change the character of an area. The balance was the impact on the landscape and the positive elements of the development. This was an exceptional application in view of the numbers of jobs to be created.

     Councillor Keith Evans expressed concern that if planning approval was given for the development, the sewerage arrangements would be via Menai Bridge. He challenged that very strongly on the basis there was flooding whenever there was excess rain in certain parts of town. This was because of a lack of capacity in the system. Welsh Water had been challenged by the Town Council on this issue in the past and they had conceeded the fact that the system at Menai Bridge was at capacity. He considered that the officers should seriously challenge this point. He also considered this application to be very divisive, in that Menai Bridge Town Council, Menai Bridge Civic Society and the Menai Bridge Chamber of Trade all objected to the development.

     He stated that when he was canvassing for the Cadnant Ward last May, he had handed out a voting slip requesting the thoughts of residents on the project. The results were 29% in favour; not sure 17% and against 54% and he was therefore going to vote in accordance with the wishes of his electorate.

     The Planning Control Manager stated that the original proposal was to link with the Llanfairpwll system but Welsh Water objected to that link because of capacity  issues. 8 months of consultation had taken place with Welsh Water to see whether this problem could be overcome . It was possible to link with the Menai Bridge system. It was not possible to challenge this since Welsh Water were the statutory authority in this respect. On the basis of the evidence available to officers there was no basis to the objection by Councillor Evans. Also, the report did not state that the application was contrary to every policy as had been suggested by Councillor Evans.

     Councillor J. V. Owen reminded members that the Council had recently decided upon a no-departure policy. He referred to the problems at the Britannia Bridge at certain times. There was also a similar type development at Holyhead and approving this development at Llanfair would affect the other. The end user had put all their weight behind a cinema on site which was primiarily going to be used by students at Bangor University.

     He considered that the residents of Anglesey did not have the necessary finances to frequent cinemas and leisure facilities and that they were struggling to pay to go into the Island’s own leisure facilities.

     Councillor Eric Jones stated that an element of consistency was required in that the Council on the one hand were pressing the Welsh Assembly to address the traffic problems on the Britannia Bridge, whilst on the other hand exacerbating the problem with this development. He was concerned as to the number of people from the mainland not being able to visit the development as a result of traffic issues, the effect it would have on the emergency services in not being able to reach Ysbyty Gwynedd in good time and the possible effect delays may have on making use of Holyhead port to visit Ireland. He also referred to the fact that public money had been spent on the regeneration of Llangefni. By now there were 13 empty shops in Llangefni. What effect would this new development have on towns and villages across the Island. He also stated that the proposal was contrary  to the Development Plan (Page 49, Policy CYF 5 - Vibrant town, district and local centres) which sought to ensure that established centres remained the primary focus for a range of retail, commercial and public offices, community facilities and institutions, entertainment and leisure. He drew members attention to the fact that only 2 shops remined in Gaerwen as opposed to 12 in his childhood. He was not able to support the proposal as it stood.

     Councillor R. G. Parry, OBE sympathised with the officers in that it was a difficult application to determine. The report listed that it was a departure from numerous policies in the Development Plan. What had surprised him was that there were only 6 objectors at the site vistit that morning and only approximately 20 in the Council Chamber this afternoon.

     Contrary to previous speakers, he was of the opinion that the development should proceed. Residents of Anglesey were travelling to places such as Cheshire Oaks, Broughton Retail Park, Trafford Park etc, where these were ample parking spaces. He could not accept the argument that it would create problems for small local businesses. Most of the shops  at such developments were specialist shops and not the type of shops one would find in towns and villages. He stated that more shops and services had opened in Llanfairpwll as a result of the number of visitors to the Pringle store. He hoped that the Britannia Bridge problem would be addressed by the Welsh Assembly before this development was up and running. Neither could he accept the argument that hauliers would make use of the port of Liverpool as opposed to Holyhead. There were significant time savings to be made using Holyhead. He considered in order to keep young people occupied and off the streets, that a cinema and bowling complex was required on the Island. He did not believe 1500 jobs would be created, more likely in the region of 800. This Island had the lowest GDP throughout Wales and the numbers of unemployed was higher than any other Authority in North Wales. This development would create badly needed employment on the Island. He implored members to give careful consideration to the application and not allow this Island to die on its feet.

     Councillor H. W. Thomas thanked officers for their work in this respect and he acknowledged the time taken to process the application. He considered that it was vitally important to the Island for this development to proceed. Although a departure, he considered this to be an exceptional case where circumstances outweighted those concerns. This was a firm application by people who were serious about proceeding. This Council’s priority was to boost the economy, provide employment and look after its youngsters. He considered the location to be acceptable. If the development was moved to Holyhead or Gaerwen, traffic would still have to cross Britannia Bridge. Such a large development would retain the workforce on the Island and thus lessen the volume of traffic crossing the bridge. He was firmly of the opinion that this was a sound application which met all the criteria. Consultation had taken place with the Welsh Assembly regarding the highway aspects and these had been resolved. Talking of the green environment, he stated that surely it was better to proceed with this development than seeing the residents of Anglesey crossing to the mainland in order to gain better shopping opportunities. He urged members not to lose the opportunity of attracting such a development to the Island.

     Councillor Raymond Jones stated that he was not impressed with the proposed location following this morning’s site visit. He could not understand why we did not use the facilities already in existence at Parc Cybi, Holyhead. He did not consider that traffic delays would cause Stena to leave Holyhead port.

     Councillor Ken Hughes stated that he had an open mind as to the development until members visited the bridge during this morning’s site visit. He was disappointed with the proposals put forward and considered that officers had gone for the second best option and for that reason he was not prepared to support the proposal.

     Councillor R. Ll. Jones as Portfolio Holder stated that he was happy in the way that officers had presented their case and to the fact that the report was an open report. He referred members to Para 3.1 of the report entitled “key issues” which he thought was the crux of the matter. Last month he had the priviledge of launching the pre-deposit Local Development Plan which called on the people of Anglesey to consider their future and how they wanted the Island to develop until the year 2021.

     This particular application was a departure from the Development Plan. However, it was a development that claimed it could provide up to 1500 jobs for the Island. Over the years the Council had accepted a number of large companies onto the Island such as Wylfa, Anglesey Aluminium, Great Lakes and Morrisons of late. The Council had not in the past paid too much attention to the possible effects that these industries had on the environment. He was disappointed with officers in that they had not asked the CCW to be present today to address environmental issues. There needed to be a balance between economic development and environmental concerns. CCW in their objection stated that they were opposed to the development which if permitted would undermine national and local planning policies concerning developments in the open countryside and the Government’s thrust towards achieving sustainable developments.

     He considered that the environment of Ynys Môn was paramount and this Council needed to retain this beautiful Island for future generations. The officers had recommended granting planning permission on economic grounds whilst admitting that it was contrary to the Development Plan. He questioned whether the Council should be considering a large development such as this prior to the completion of the LDP? Whichever way the vote went today he queried whether this would be the final decision or would the Welsh Assembly ultimately determine the application?

     The Chair in reply stated that this Council had every right to debate this matter and to reach a decision. Whatever the Welsh Assembly decided was up to them.

     Councillor G. W. Roberts, OBE considered that there had been fair and open debate in the Council Chamber. He stated that as Councillors their responsibility was for the whole of Anglesey. He enquired whether there was a right over planning in this area in that there was an end user? He was aware that an appeal had stated that one could use land with an end user.

     The Corporate Director (Environment & Technical Services) in reply stated that he was aware of previous appeal decisions and he felt that it was important that the person making the decision was confident the actual development would take place and that it was not a speculative application.

     Councillor G. W. Roberts, OBE referred to the delays at the Britannia Bridge and he was aware that discussions were on-going with the Assembly as to a new bridge or a third lane. He felt that the development was important for tourism on the Island since at present there were no all-weather facilities available. He could understand Bangor objecting to the proposal. He was aware of Anglesey residents who did not have a car and working at Parc Menai, having to leave home at 6:30am in order to catch the bus and then arrive home from work at 7:00pm in the evening. Why should residents have to travel to the mainland. The location would in his opinion be ideal for people seeking work there from such places as Newborough, Llangefni and Beaumaris. Why should people have to travel to places as far as Llandudno to do their shopping when fuel was so expensive. Every week on Anglesey businesses were closing and this development was sorely needed. Who knew what the future held for those currently employed at Wylfa and Anglesey Aluminium. He considered that a cinema and bowling alley, were very important for young families on the Island.

     Councillor H. Eifion Jones thanked officers for the detailed report before members today. He considered that it was important for members to note that officers had drawn attention to the fact that it was contrary to some policies but the report also highlighted that the immediate and overwhelming economic need for development of this type was a material consideration of significant weight. He referred members to Para 7.5.7 of the report which stated that the Assembly were satisfied that highway considerations could be overcome.

     This application was an unique opportunity to create 1500 jobs for Anglesey. The GDA for Anglesey was the lowest in Wales and could rise as a result of this development. There would also be less need for residents to leave Anglesey in order to do their shopping. Young people required leisure services on the Island. In order to remain here they required jobs on the Island and a quality of life. Tourism was a big industry on the Island and this type of development would draw money from their pockets and ensure the viability of the development.

     He considered that the development would also attract people from the mainland. He considered that some members were being too parochial and that this was a special opportunity for the whole of Anglesey. He was prepared to propose approval once the Chair was ready to take a vote.

     Councillor W. I. Hughes drew members attention to the first page of the report (Para 1.2) which  stated that the application was a departure from a number of policies in the Development Plan. Members of the Planning Committee had previously been criticized for approving applications in breach of policy and that the Welsh Assembly would be prepared to take over the planning functions of this Authority. Yet officers were recommending approval. Yes, employment was required on Anglesey but he asked members to consider whether people losing their jobs at Wylfa would be prepared to work here for a Mexican grill and bar? Was this the type of employment members wanted on Anglesey? He considered that proper jobs were required in order to retain people on the Island.

     He referred Members to Para 7.3.9 of the report where Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners, who had been commissioned by this Authority an an independent audit of the submission, had stated that “if there is a political, economic or social desire for Anglesey to become more self-sufficient in terms of retail provision, then in our opinion Ty Mawr does not represent the best location for such development.”

     Councillor Clive McGregor stated that despite his acute concerns regarding traffic in this area, he did accept that the agreed plan would faciliate and alleviate things. However, he still had concerns regarding the situation around the bridge area. Members were all aware that employment was required on the Island and if one was unemployed, a job was a job, whatever it was. The majority of people wanted to work and people were prepared to take whatever was offered, even for a temporary period. There were good posts however as part of this development. Members also needed to consider not only the summer visitors, but those who visited throughout the year. Unfortunately, the weather on the Island was not always favourable and there was a requirement for wet weather facilities and he considered that this development met that criteria during inclement weather. He also felt that members should not be too parochial. Yes, there was an argument that there was land available at Holyhead ripe for development but the developers had set their sights on this area as their preferred site. Having heard the discussion today, he was happy to second the proposal by Councillor H. Eifion Jones to accept the recommendation of approval.

     Councillor G. O. Parry, MBE expressed his concern following the site visit, as to the number of trees that would have to be felled in order to accommodate the development. He requested officers to make every effort to safeguard those trees. He remained concerned as to the volume of traffic to the site. He could not sympathise with the concerns expressed by Gwynedd Council bearing in mind the large number of retail centres that had been erected on the Bangor Road site. He felt it important to have corresponding employment with the Parc Menai Site on the mainland. He was aware of the development at Holyhead, but this development was an opportunity to proceed and offer security of employment. This was also an opportunity to provide wet-weather facilities during inclement weather and extend the tourist season on the Island. The development would create employment and that money would then be circulated on the Island. He hoped that members would support the development.

     Councillor R. Ll. Hughes thanked the officers for such a balanced report. Although considered to be a departure, he considered that within Council policies there was some flexibility as well, which members ought to take note of (Local Plan Policy 2). He would argue that this was an exceptional case and that exceptional times demanded an exceptional deed. He was not convinced that such a development would have an impact on the Island’s towns and villages. He considered that it was the lack of parking facilities that had created these problems. He was happy to accept that highway issues could be addressed but he agreed with Councillor Everett that these were enabling works as opposed to any planning gain.

     There was an end-user ready to take up this development and a commitment was in place to that effect. He did not consider it to be sustainable for the residents of Anglesey in having to travel to the mainland in order to do their shopping and make use of leisure facilities. He was supportive of the recommendation in view of the employment opportunities that would ensue and to the fact that it would raise the Island’s GDP.

     Councillor Dylan Jones drew members attention to the uncertainty in his Ward as regards the future of Wylfa and to the job losses that were occuring on a day to day basis. Amlwch was 20 miles away from the bridge and it was difficult to attract any form of business to the area. He also considered that the bus time-table from Amlwch was absolutely appalling and if this development did proceed he requested officers to seriously look at a new bus timetable to link to this site. He urged members to support the application and provide employment for the people of Ynys Môn.

     Councillor J. Penri Williams as local member thanked the Chair for the discussion that had taken place and thanked the Officers for their work in respect.

     The Corporate Director (Environment & Technical Services) once again re-iterated that the traffic problems could be addressed. This was an exceptional application and could be accepted although contrary to policies. Half of the jobs to be created would be substantial and not of necessity jobs created in food stores. There was a very good mix of jobs being offered.

     As regards sustainability, the development would hopefully slow down traffic leaving the Island. The development would provide a destination for tourists visiting the Island. The legal agreement referred to the need to improve public transport and he stated that bus timetables would be improved from outlying areas.

     The Chair took the opportunity of thanking Officers for their professional work in preparing the report.

     It was proposed and seconded that a recorded vote be taken on the matter and in accordance with the Council Constitution, ten members of the Council stood on their feet for this to take effect.

     Councillor H. W. Thomas enquired whether it was in order for those members who had left the Chamber during the course of the debate to take part in the vote?

     The Legal Services Manager, in reply, stated that he was not aware that there was any rule in the Constitution to that effect. It was a matter for individual members to decide whether they were aware of all the facts before they voted.

     The recorded vote was as follows:-

     For the recommendation: Councillors B. Durkin, R. Ll. Hughes, A. M. Jones, Dylan Jones,

     G. O. Jones, H. Eifion Jones, O. Glyn Jones, C. McGregor, R. L. Owen, G. O. Parry, MBE,

     R. G. Parry, OBE, E. Roberts, G. W. Roberts, OBE, H. W. Thomas.

     Total - 14

     Against (i.e. refusal): Councillors W. J. Chorlton, E. G. Davies, L. Davies, C. Ll. Everett, K. Evans, Ff. M. Hughes, K. Hughes, W. I. Hughes, Eric Jones, Raymond Jones, R. Ll. Jones, T. Jones,

     J. V. Owen, Rhian Medi, J. Penri Williams.

     Total - 15

     Abstention: Councillor Jim Evans

     The application was therefore refused.

     (Councillor Jim Evans wished to make it clear that he had abstained from voting following legal advice).

     At the invitation of the Chair, the Legal Services Manager stated that Members needed to state their reasons for refusal and that in accordance with the Council Constitution, the application would be brought back to another meeting in order to allow officers the opportunity to prepare a report on the reasons for refusal.              

     RESOLVED to refuse the application contrary to officer recommendation for the following reasons:-

     (a) The application is a departure from a number of policies in the Development Plan;

     (b) Anglesey’s town centres and villages were suffering as a result of shops closing.

     In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the application was automatically deferred to a further meeting to allow Officers the opportunity to prepare a report on the reasons for refusing the application.          

     The meeting concluded at 5:00pm

COUNCILLOR ALED MORRIS JONES

CHAIRPERSON