Agenda, decisions and minutes

The apologies for absence were noted as listed above.

To receive any declaration of interest by any Member or Officer with regard to any item of business.

The Chair informed the Committee that Councillor Trefor Lloyd Hughes, although not present at this meeting, had declared an interest with respect to applications 12.6, 12.7 and 12.8.

To submit, for confirmation, the minutes of the Planning and Orders Committee held on 5 July, 2017.

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Planning and Orders Committee held on 5th July, 2017 were presented and confirmed as correct subject to noting that Councillor John Griffith had declared a prejudicial interest with regard to application 7.3 and had withdrawn from the meeting during the discussion and determination thereof.

None.

No site visits were undertaken following the 5th July, 2017 meeting of the Planning and Orders Committee.

There were Public Speakers in relation to applications 10.1,11.2, 12.1, 12.3, 12.4 and 12.7.

6.1  20C310B/EIA/RE – Rhyd y Groes, Rhosgoch

6.1       20C310B/EIA/RE – Full application for the construction of a 49.99MW solar array farm together with associated equipment, infrastructure and ancillary works on land adjacent to Rhyd y Groes, Rhosgoch

The Planning Development Manager informed the Committee that the applicant has now lodged an appeal on the basis of non-determination. The Planning Inspectorate is currently assessing the validity of the appeal. The intention is to report on the application to the Committee’s September meeting subject to the confirmation or otherwise of the appeal.

It was resolved to defer consideration of the application for the reasons set out in the Officer’s written report.

None to be considered by this meeting.

None were considered by this meeting of the Planning and Orders Committee.

None to be considered by this meeting.

None were considered by this meeting of the Planning and Orders Committee.

None to be considered by this meeting.

None were considered by this meeting of the Planning and Orders Committee.

10.1 34C556B – Gwernhefin, Glanhwfa Road, Llangefni

10.1    34C556B – Outline application for the erection of a dwelling together with full details of the access on land adjacent to Gwernhefin, Glanhwfa Road, Llangefni

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee because it is a departure from the Ynys Môn Local Plan which the Local Planning Authority is minded to approve.

The Chair informed the Committee that she had been notified by Councillor Dylan Rees, a Local Member that he was requesting that a site visit be carried out. She invited Councillor Dylan Rees to give his reasons for wanting the Committee to visit the site.

Councillor Dylan Rees said that residents in the immediate locality, although they did not object to the development itself had contacted him because of concerns about the access to the proposed development site off Glanhwfa Road.  Two previous applications on this site have been refused due to highway safety issues; he therefore considered it important that the Committee’s Members view the access for themselves to assess whether the conditions proposed in the report are sufficient to address potential highways issues.

Councillor Nicola Roberts, also speaking as a Local Member said that she took a different view in considering the conditions outlined in the Officer’s report to be adequate to ensure highway safety thereby making a site visit unnecessary. The proposed development will be served by an existing access that is already in use.

The Highways Officer confirmed that the access is a matter for concern because of sub-standard visibility to the North East. However existing permission for the adjacent Park Mount site is conditional upon ensuring the boundary is kept no higher than 1m and that nothing within 1m of the boundary can be higher than 1m at any time. This is an enforcement matter which should secure satisfactory vision splay in that direction. The Highways Authority therefore raises no objection to the proposed development.

The Legal Services Manager advised that despite having received consent, there is no guarantee that the Park Mount development will go ahead or that consequently the visibility will be improved to conform to the Highways Service’s requirements. It is a consideration that the Committee needs to bear in mind.

Councillor Ken Hughes proposed, and was seconded by Councillor John Griffith, that the Committee proceeds to determine the application. Councillor Robin Williams proposed and was seconded by Councillor Dafydd Roberts that the site be visited in accordance with the Local Member’s request. In the ensuing vote the proposal that the application be determined was carried.

Public Speaker –

Mrs Rhian Williams (for the proposal) spoke on behalf of her son, the applicant who was born and bred in Llangefni and who ran a small business employing six local young men. The first application was submitted in 2006 following which a static caravan was put on site to afford her son a measure of independence from the family home and to conduct his business with his employees. This arrangement is no longer suitable especially as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

13.1 13C194 – Llwyn Llinos, Bodedern

13.1    13C194 – Outline application for the erection of three affordable dwellings which include details of access, appearance, layout and scale on land opposite Llwyn Llinos, Bodedern

The Planning Development Manager reported that the Committee approved the application at its 26 April, 2017 meeting subject to conditions and subject to a Section 106 agreement to ensure the development is delivered as affordable housing for local needs. The Inspector’s report in relation to the JLDP proposes no change to the boundary of the village and the application continues to be considered an exception site.

The developer has made inquiries with the Highways Authority regarding the necessity of providing a pavement to the frontage of the properties. The Highways Authority has confirmed that the provision of such a pavement which it previously sought from the developer is not necessary as there is a pavement on the opposite side of the road and as the application is for affordable housing where the costs of provision would be prohibitive. However, it remains necessary to set back the frontage of the site to the width of a pavement to ensure pedestrian safety. The Section 106 agreement is being prepared and it is proposed to amend the conditions accordingly.

The Committee sought clarification of the timing of the request given that the pavement opposite existed at the time of the scheme’s approval when provision of a pavement was sought by the Highways Authority.

The Highways Officer said that although the provision of a pavement would be beneficial, the case for insisting on such is weak in the context of a challenge. The developer did at the time put forward reasons for not having to provide a pavement. The Officer confirmed that the visibility in relation to the proposal is satisfactory and provides the maximum 90m on either side.

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed and was seconded by Councillor Vaughan Hughes that the conditions be amended in accordance with the Officer’s report.

It was resolved that the conditions attached to the consent be amended in accordance with the Officer’s report.