Issue - meetings

11.1 - 36C323 - Awel Haf, Llangristiolus

11.2 - 48C182 - Bryn Twrog, Gwalchmai

11.1 36C323 - Awel Haf, Llangristiolus

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

11.2 48C182 - Bryn Twrog, Gwalchmai

It was resolved to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the application was automatically deferred to the next meeting to enable officers to prepare a report on the reasons for approving the application.

11.1 36C323 - Outline application for the erection of a dwelling together with the construction of a vehicular access on land adjacent to Awel Haf, Llangristiolus

The application was reported to the Committee as the applicant is related to a Local Member. The application has been scrutinised by the Monitoring Officer as required under paragraph 4.6.10.4 of the Constitution.

The Chair invited Mr Rob Hughes to address the Committee in support of the application.

Mr Hughes spoke to the Committee on the following points –

·       The application clearly falls within Policy 50 of the Ynys Môn Local Plan and Policy  HP4 of the Stopped Unitary Development Plan. The applicant deems it to be a reasonable minor extension of the defined settlement of Llangristiolus.

·       Single plot applications on the edge of a settlement are considered acceptable under Policy 50. It is considered that the application complies with Policy 50 in that it is situated within the already defined, natural and logical boundary of the settlement. There are 3 dwellings that extend beyond the proposed application on the other side of the B4422 and within the established 40mph zone.

·       Although it is accepted that the plot is in an open agricultural field, the applicant does not consider it to significantly contribute to the character of the locality. The Officer’s evidential view on this point would be appreciated.

·       The fact that the application could result in future development of this agricultural land cannot be a material consideration as all applications must be determined on their own merits. Future land usage should not be a deciding factor.

·       The Officer’s opinion as cited in the report is that the application would extend the build form further into the countryside, thus creating an undesirable intrusion into the landscape which would harm the character and amenity of the locality. However the applicant would compare this application to other nearby sites e.g. Capel Mawr – defined as a cluster not a settlement, which has seen five similar developments permitted in the past few years.

·       Planning Policy Wales 5^th edition cites that new developments should be well integrated and connected to existing patterns of settlement. It is the applicant’s opinion that this complies with the PPW in that the existing boundary extend far being that proposed under this application. Ribbon development cannot therefore be a material consideration in this case.

·       The applicant further considers that coalescence should not be considered in this application due to the fact that the already defined boundary of the settlement is established and extends considerably further than that proposed under this application.

·       The applicant would query how this application would prejudice the implementation of Policy 50 since each application should be considered on its own merits.

·       Llangristiolus is a popular well situated village with excellent services. The proposal fits with scaling, mass and design of the locality. In addition there is a call for quality housing within this area. This development can only enhance the entrance to the village through the use  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11