Agenda item

11.1 - 36C323 - Awel Haf, Llangristiolus

11.2 - 48C182 - Bryn Twrog, Gwalchmai

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 of high quality materials and a highway gain due to the realignment of the perceived Highway boundary by extension of the existing footway.

·       There have been no public objections to this application and both the Community Council and the Local Member, Councillor W.I.Hughes support the application.

The Chair drew attention to a correction to page 23 of the Officer’s written report where the recommendation in the English version should read “Refuse” and not “Permit”.

The Planning Development Manager updated the Committee on representations received since the publication of the agenda in the form of 2 letters objecting to the proposal on the basis of drainage problems; the coming and going of vehicles to and from the development and the possibility that planning consent would lead to further development of the site. In terms of the material planning considerations, the Officer’s viewpoint is that residential development of the site would constitute an intrusion into the countryside beyond the logical boundary. Policy 50 of the Ynys Môn Local Plan does allow for single plot applications as long as they do not have a harmful effect on the landscape. Moreover the application site lies outside the development boundary of Llangristiolus as defined under Policy HP4 of the stopped Unitary Development Plan. In the Officer’s opinion the hedgerow forms a clear and definite boundary to the village and that extending further than this boundary would create an undesirable intrusion into the countryside. Contrary to what was stated by the applicant and supporter, the Planning Authority can consider whether or not the application constitutes a precedent in terms of creating a set of circumstances which would make it difficult to resist further development of the field.

Councillor W.J.Chorlton said that he found determining this application to be a difficult task since the plot and application seemed to him to be reasonable. He pointed out that there is also pressure on the Council to keep the countryside and rural communities viable and if applications such as this are rejected then he wondered where people are to go. His view was that the crossroads represents a more logical boundary than the hedgerow. Councillor E.G. Davies shared Councillor Chorlton’s sentiments and was similarly uncertain as to how to determine the application. Councillor R.LOwen queried whether the issue of potential ribbon development might be overcome by imposing a condition to the effect that no further development can take place on the site. The Planning Development Manager responded by saying that the application has to be dealt with on its own merits and the attachment of a condition as suggested does not address the policy issues arising in this case.

Councillor Kenneth Hughes took the Officer’s stance on the matter in accepting the hedgerow as a definite boundary and in thinking that the erection of 1 dwelling could create problems in terms of ribbon development. He therefore proposed that the application be refused and he was seconded by Councillor Jim Evans.

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

11.2 48C182 – Outline application for the erection of an affordable dwelling, construction of a vehicular access together with the installation of a treatment plant on land at Bryn Twrog, Gwalchmai

The application was presented for determination by the Committee as the applicant is related to a relevant officer .The file has been reviewed by the Monitoring Officer.

Councillor R.G.Parry, OBE addressing the Committee in his capacity as Local Member drew the Members’ attention to the site map and illustration in order to highlight the fact that there are houses along the road from the clock to Gwalchmai and that planning permission has been given for a bungalow as well as an application to convert into a dwelling a building situated at the end of the road. The applicant in this case is a young girl from Gwalchmai who has just completed her college course and is seeking an affordable home within her locality. He asked Members to consider that there is a need to help young people to remain within their communities to keep those communities alive, and he emphasised the lack of affordable homes within Gwalchmai and its environs. This application is an opportunity for a young local girl to remain within her community.

The Planning Development Manager confirmed that the Highways Authority is satisfied with the application with conditions; the Drainage Section has also indicated that the application is acceptable and a response has been received from the Housing Department indicating that the applicant’s personal circumstances put her in housing need. The Officer also drew Members’ attention to the fact that the expiry date for the receipt of representations regarding the application runs until 10^th April and not 5^th April as specified in the report. In terms of the material planning considerations, the Officer referred Members to page 28 of the written report which sets out the relevant points. He confirmed that there are planning polices which allow for the release of additional land for the purpose of affordable housing in addition to land available to meet general housing demand in circumstances where local people are unable to compete in the open market and their need for affordable housing cannot be met by other means. However such applications must apply to appropriate sites within or immediately adjoining existing settlements. The Officer’s report clearly states that the application site as proposed does not lie within nor does it immediately adjoin the development boundary of Gwalchmai and is instead located in a countryside location where strict policies apply and justification for new housing development must be demonstrated. Exceptions to those in housing need do not apply under such policies. No details of the actual dwelling have been provided nor requested given that the application falls at the first hurdle due to the non-compliance of the site with relevant policies. In conclusion therefore, the application site does not meet policy requirements and the recommendation is one of refusal.

The majority view within the Committee was that the application is a reasonable and deserving one. Members pointed out that the Council has a responsibility to preserve and promote rural communities and that supporting and assisting young people in their endeavour to remain on the Island within their communities forms part of that responsibility. Bearing in mind the lack of available affordable housing in Gwalchmai and the existence of other dwellings on the road leading to and within the area of the application site, the predominant feeling was that the application should be permitted. Councillor Eric Roberts proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Richard Dew.

Councillor Jim Evans took the Officer’s view on the matter and he proposed that the application be refused. Councillor J.Arwel Roberts seconded the proposal.

The Planning Development Manager reminded the Committee that the application is a departure from the Council’s housing policies.

Councillors Jim Evans and J.Arwel Roberts voted to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillors Richard Dew, Kenneth Hughes, R.LOwen, E.G.Davies, Vaughan Hughes and Eric Roberts voted to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor W.J.Chorlton abstained.

The reason cited for approving the application was that it provided an affordable housing opportunity for a young person wishing to stay within her community.

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 reason for approving the application.