Agenda item

7.1 – 19C313A – Pentrefelin and Waenfawr Estate, Holyhead

7.2 – 20C289 – Foreshore adjacent to the Harbour, Cemaes

7.3 – 42C61G – The Caravan, Ty’r Ardd, Pentraeth

7.1 19C313A – Outline application for the erection of 22 dwellings together with the construction of a new access on land between Pentrefelin and Waenfawr Estate, Holyhead

Councillor John Griffith having declared an interest in this application withdrew from the meeting during the discussion and voting thereon.

The Planning Development Manager informed the Committee that the application above dates back to the former Planning and Orders Committee in situ prior to the May local government election. Consideration of the application was deferred at the Committee’s previous meeting on 24^th April as it was considered that determination of the application prior to the election could be potentially contentious locally. The Officer explained that the difficulty arising at this meeting is that there is not a quorum of members from the former pre May Planning and Orders Committee serving on the current Committee to allow a decision to be made. The Officer’s recommendation previously had been that the former Committee undertake a site visit and that therefore is the recommendation to the Committee at this meeting – that Members visit the site prior to determining the application.

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the Committee visit the site in line with the Officer’s recommendation and Councillor Lewis Davies seconded the proposal.

It was resolved that consideration of the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken anew.

7.2 20C289 – Full application for the installation of a “Time and Tide Bell” with supporting frame at Foreshore, adjacent to the Harbour, Cemaes

The application was reported to the Committee for determination as it is on land leased by the Council from the Crown Estates. The application has previously been deferred as letters of objection were received by the Department and as the Environmental Health Section also objected to the application. The points raised in the objections have been discussed and since resolved.

The Planning Development Manager said that the bell is a public artefact and he explained its purpose and the manner in which it would work. He explained that consideration of the application was deferred at the previous meeting of the Planning and Orders Committee because there was local opposition to the proposal on the grounds of potential noise nuisance and because the Environmental Health Section’s Officers also had similar concerns at the time. Further investigations have since been carried out by Environmental Health Officers particularly with regard to the noise levels which the bell can potentially generate and, as a means of overcoming the problem they are prepared to give temporary planning consent only. This in practice means that planning permission would be given for a period of one year during which any noise nuisance issues arising can be dealt with by the Environmental Health Officers under relevant Environmental Health legislation and, if it is found that the bell has resulted in noise nuisance the planning consent would not be renewed. This therefore is the Officer’s recommendation.

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the Officer’s recommendation of temporary planning consent be approved and he was seconded by Councillor Vaughan Hughes who thought it a most reasonable way of proceeding.

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. The planning consent given to be effective for one year in the first instance. (Councillor W.T.Hughes as a Local Member did not vote on the matter)

7.3 42C61G – Removal of existing residential caravan and erection of a 2 storey dwelling within the residential curtilage at the Caravan, Ty’r Ardd, Pentraeth

Councillor Victor Hughes having declared an interest in this application, withdrew from the meeting during the discussion and voting thereon.

The application was been presented to the Committee originally at the request of a former Councillor. Consideration of the application was deferred at the previous meeting of the Planning and Orders Committee following the receipt of legal advice regarding its status. It is now considered that the application constitutes a departure, contrary to Development Plan policies. This being the case, the application has been publicised as such.

The Chair invited Mr Rhys Davies to address the Committee in support of the application.

Mr Rhys Davies explained that the application before the Committee is for the removal of an existing residential caravan on the site and its replacement with a new residential dwelling. The Officers are recommending refusal of the application and he believed that the difference of opinion between them and the applicant is based on the policy in relation to replacement dwellings in terms of being able to change units such as caravans which is a residential unit into a permanent dwelling. There are two relevant policies namely Policy 54 in the Local Plan which states that “The Council will favourably consider proposals for the replacement of an existing permanent dwelling only where it can be shown that the new dwelling can significantly improve the area’s appearance.” Mr Davies said that what the policy refers to here is the change of one dwelling for another dwelling and he went on to refer to Policy HP9 of the Unitary Plan which provides that “replacement dwellings located in a cluster, hamlet or in open countryside will be permitted where the new dwelling incorporates the original footprint of the existing dwelling and is suitable to the location and exhibits a high quality design.” The intention of this application is to change the caravan which is a residential unit and which is supported by a certificate of lawful use which confirms that the unit is a permanent dwelling; the curtilage of the caravan is also incorporated within the certificate of lawful use. Therefore there is a legal right for a residential dwelling on the site. Mr Davies proceeded to say that the applicant wishes to replace the caravan which has been in situ for 10 years or more with  a traditional residential dwelling with slate roof and render which will suit the character of the area as an area of outstanding natural beauty. The description of the application in the report refers to a 2 storey dwelling – this is an outline application and if the Committee’s Members are in any doubt whatsoever whether a 2 storey dwelling is appropriate for this site then he would encourage them to visit the site to see where the caravan is presently situated and where the proposed new dwelling is to be sited and how the two sit together. As mentioned, the existing caravan has been on the site for over  10 years – there is in line with the policy requirement a certificate of lawful use which proves that this a permanent dwelling so it is a case of changing one for the other for a more purposeful dwelling. It must also be borne in mind that national policy now encourages more sustainable developments and that the Planning Policy in Wales says that the planning system provides a presumption in favour of sustainable developments. This a change of a caravan that has been  a home for the applicant for over 10 years for a more appropriate dwelling that is more energy efficient – effective under the Code of Sustainable homes, Level 3. Mr Davies concluded by saying that he hoped that changing one caravan that is a permanent dwelling to a new home that is more appropriate and more suitable to the site in respect of design is something that Members will be able to approve today. Should there be any doubts then it would be worth the Members visiting the site before determining the application.

Councillor John Griffith inquired of Mr Davies whether permission had been given for a caravan on the site.

Mr Davies replied that the caravan has been in its present location for more than 10 years and has been used as a residential home for that time and more .What has been confirmed on this site is that the caravan has been used lawfully as a home for more than 10 years

Councillor Griffith clarified his inquiry by asking whether permission had been given by the Council to put a caravan on this site in the first place.

Mr Davies said that the caravan was within someone else’s garden historically but given that it was used purposely as a home for 10 years or more  a certificate of lawful use has been issued on the caravan  a little over a year ago.

Councillor R.OJones wished to know whether there were any other properties in the vicinity.

Mr Rhys Davies explained that there is a cluster of about 4 dwellings to the north of the site and then to the south and south east there is a further cluster of about 5 to 6 dwellings. Altogether there is a cluster of around 10 dwellings around the area.

The Planning Development Manager said that as the report explains the application is a departure and is contrary to Development Plan policies. There is planning history of refusing several applications for permanent dwellings on this specific site. With regard to some of the points made in the presentation, the Officer explained that notwithstanding that planning permission is not required for a caravan within a garden, permission is required to live in a caravan in a garden and he could confirm that that planning permission had never been given in this case. Whilst the Officers accept that a certificate of lawful use has been granted for a residential caravan on the site they do not accept that this establishes the principle for a house on the site. The policies that deal with replacement dwellings have not been designed to deal with this kind of development – they are meant to apply to the rebuilding of old houses which are no longer suitable for that use. The site in question clearly lies outside of any development area marked out in development plans and whilst there are other houses in the locality the area is not recognised as a hamlet or village; it is designated as countryside in the Development Plan and moreover it also lies within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The report sets out three principal reasons for rejecting the development in relation to policies, adverse effects on the character and amenities of the area as an AONB and the fact that the principle of residential development within the countryside does not accord with the provisions of local and national planning policies. The position with regard to the caravan is accepted – it has been legalised but the fact remains that it is a caravan and not a permanent dwelling. The issue is one of principle not design and in terms of principle the policy guidance is clear in this respect. The recommendation is therefore one of refusal.

Councillor Lewis Davies inquired when the certificate of lawful use was issued and the basis on which it was granted. The Officer said that the certificate was issued on 9 February, 2012 on the basis that the applicant had been able to prove that residential use of the caravan had been made over a period of time. Councillor Davies inferred therefore that there had been no objections to someone living in the caravan over the course of the 10 years.

Councillor Ken Hughes said that he did not accept the argument that the caravan can be used as a house given that at the end of the day a caravan is a caravan despite the fact that it has been lived in. Furthermore, the application runs contrary to policy and he therefore proposed that it be refused. Councillor Lewis Davies seconded the proposal of refusal.

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