Agenda item

7.1 -  FPL/2021/136 – Wylfa, Bangor Road, Benllech

https://ioacc.force.com/s/papplication/a1G4H00000OKf7JUAT/fpl2021136?language=en_GB

7.2 – FPL/2021/302 - Bunwerth, Trearddur Bay, Holyhead

https://ioacc.force.com/s/papplication/a1G4H00000QbN4uUAF/fpl2021302?language=en_GB

7.3 – FPL/2021/304 - The Lodge, Capel Bach, Rhosybol

https://ioacc.force.com/s/papplication/a1G4H00000QbNP3UAN/fpl2021304?language=en_GB

7.1  FPL/2021/136 – Full application for the conversion of the outbuilding into a holiday letting unit together with alterations and extensions thereto at Wylfa, Bangor Road, Benllech

The application was presented 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 Council’s Monitoring Officer as required under paragraph 4.6.10.4 of the Constitution.  At its meeting held on 1 December, 2021, the Committee resolved that a virtual site visit be undertaken to the application site.  A virtual site visit subsequently took place on 15 December, 2021.  At the meeting held on 12 January, 2022 the Committee resolved to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as it was deemed that the development conforms with planning policies PCYFF 1, PCYFF 2 and PCYFF 3 and it was considered that the development would not lead to an over-concentration of holiday accommodation within the area.  The Development Management Manager wished it be recorded that the Welsh version of the report notes that the application was refused contrary to the Officer’s recommendation rather than the application was approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. 

Councillor Margaret M Roberts, a Local Member said that she was reiterating her comments as at the previous meeting of this Committee that the application is for the conversion of an outbuilding at the rear of the property for a one bedroomed holiday unit.  The location of the outbuilding is within the applicant’s curtilage and there is adequate parking to accommodate such a development.  She asked the Committee to reaffirm its decision to approve the application.

The Planning Development Manager reported that the site is sustainable within the village and the Local Planning Authority have raised no concerns in relation to the sustainability of the site and concur that the site is in a suitable location, this however, is only one consideration against which the development must be considered.  No other planning factors against the proposal – such as traffic concerns.  Development proposals must be acceptable having regard to all relevant development plan policies and material planning considerations.  A development which is contrary to a specific policy or policy criterion will not necessarily be acceptable simply because it may conform with other relevant policies.  The socio-economic and cultural impacts of second homes and short term holiday lets on communities is highly controversial and sensitive at present, which has further intensified since the beginning of the Pandemic; Welsh Government are currently consulting on proposals to introduce new planning legislation and policy to tackle the negative impacts of second home ownership and short-term holiday lets.  At the last meeting Members referred that the current provision of 18.47% is only slightly higher than the threshold of 15% contained in the SPG and that this is only a small development of one, one bedroom holiday unit which would constitute only a small increase in overall provision which would not have a significant impact or undermine policy objective.  Whilst acknowledging that the current provision of 18.47% in the area is only slightly above the threshold of 15%, it must be considered in context, that it equates to almost 1 in every 5 properties being second homes or short-term holiday lets.  Furthermore, approval of the application could set a precedent which would give rise to difficulties in resisting similar application in the locality and other areas where there are high concentrations of second homes and short-term holiday lets. The development is contrary to Criterion v of TWR 2 as the development should not lead to an over-concentration of holiday accommodation within the area.    The recommendation was still of refusal of the application.

Councillor Dafydd Roberts said that the over-concentration of holiday unit in the Benllech area is not specifically the result of conversions of outbuildings to holiday lets.  He further said that the authority has no powers to prevent existing dwellings being used as ‘Air B&B’s’.   The local problem with second homes and holiday lets is not related to the conversion of small outbuildings into one bedroom holiday lets.  The problem will not be addressed by refusing applications of this kind.

Councillor K P Hughes referred to the Welsh Government initiative ‘Croeso Cymru’ which promote the economy and visitors to Wales.  He further said that he considered that it is a duty on the Authority to improve the economy of the Island and he proposed that the application be approved.  Councillor Vaughan Hughes seconded the proposal of approval.

Councillor John Griffith said that approving the application could set a precedent which would give rise to difficulties in resisting similar application in the locality and other areas and he proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Nicola Roberts seconded the proposal of refusal. 

Councillor Ieuan Williams said that the Committee is reminded to consider each application on its own merits.  He further referred that he disagreed that approving the application would set a precedent in having to approve similar application in the future.  The Chair ascertained legal opinion as to whether approving the application would set a precedent as regards to future similar applications.  The Legal Services Manager responded that he did not consider that approving this application would set a precedent as this proposed holiday unit is within the curtilage of the owner’s property and it is for a one bedroomed letting unit.

It was RESOLVED to reaffirm the Committee’s previous approval of the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

7.2  FPL/2021/302 – Full application for the change of use of land from agricultural to accommodate 10 touring caravans at Bunwerth, Trearddur Bay

The application was presented to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of two local members.  At its meeting held on 12 January, 2022 the Committee recommended that a virtual site visit be undertaken to the application site.  A virtual site visit subsequently took place on 26 January, 2022.

The Planning Development Manager reported that the application site comprises agricultural land within an AONB area.  The application is located in an open countryside location on the outskirts of Trearddur Bay.  He referred that an application to accommodate 10 touring caravans on the site was refused in December 2020.  Planning policies require that the proposed development needs to be of high quality in terms of design, layout and appearance and is sited in an unobtrusive location, well screened which can be readily assimilated in to the landscape in a way that does not significantly harm the visual quality of the landscape. 

The Planning Development Manager referred to Supplementary Planning Guidance – Tourism Facilities and Accommodation – Paragraph 3.1.3 as was noted within the Officer’s report which defines the need for high quality development in terms of land use considerations.  He further referred that as existing screening on the site which has gaps in the hedgerows and is low in height; the north east of the site would be most visible in views from a short portion of the highway.  As the proposal is for tourers, which are predominantly white, the LPA’s assessment is that views of the site lean towards it being obtrusive, even if not all the tourers would be completely visible.  There is scope for part of each to be visible indicating the breadth of the proposed development.  A landscaping scheme has been provided with the planning application; the landscaping scheme would reinforce the existing screening and is predicted in the assessment to take 5 – 10 years to become substantially effective.  The application site is also rocky and concerns have been raised as to whether the trees will grow on site as regards to the proposed screening of the site.  The Planning Development Manager further said that the landscaping details received with the planning application states that the site is presently well screened,  however the Local Planning Authority disagrees and therefore the development is contrary to Criteria 1 of the Policy TWR 5 which states that developments should be sited in an unobtrusive location, well screened which can be readily assimilated into the landscape in a way that does not significantly harm the visual quality of the landscape.  It is not considered that the proposal comprises of high quality development and it would also be harmful to the character and appearance of the area which form part of the AONB.  It would be contrary to provisions of policies TWR 5, PCYFF 3 and AMG 1 of the Joint Local Development Plan, Planning Policy Wales and the Supplementary Planning Guidance. The recommendation was to refuse the application.

The Chair read out an email received by Councillor Dafydd R Thomas, a Local Member as he was unable to attend the meeting.  Councillor Thomas had referred that the application site is a distance from the highway and would not be harmful to the character and landscape of the area.  He had noted that there are other similar caravan sites which have recently been approved on the Island and are in much higher sensitive areas.  The applicants are local to the area and are Welsh speakers and have two sons who wish to farm the land and stay within their local community; approving this application would contribute to supporting the family for the future. 

Councillor J Arwel Roberts, a Local Member said that only Natural Resources Wales has expressed concerns as regards to this proposed development.  There has been no objection by neighbouring properties nor any objections by the Trearddur Community Council.  Reference has been made as to the visual impact of the development but the applicant has submitted a landscaping scheme, which over time will screen the site.  He further said that part of the land in the ownership of the applicant is SSSI area and the applicant has planted trees to protect the area.  Councillor Roberts further referred that he disagreed with the Officer’s report that the development would have an effect on the AONB as it is only one agricultural field that the proposed caravan site will be located which is not visible from the highway.  He further said that there is a caravan site and storage area opposite the site which is visible; approving the application be support the local family business.  

Councillor T Ll Hughes MBE said that this proposal will be a seasonal touring caravan site.  He further said that the site is not visible from the highway and there is a large caravan site opposite this site.  Councillor Hughes proposed that the application be approved.  Councillor Glyn Haynes seconded the proposal of approval. 

Councillor John Griffith said that whilst he was in support of local families who wish to enhance their businesses, as the site is within an AONB he proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.  There was no seconder to the proposal of refusal. 

It was RESOLVED to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as it was considered that the caravans will not be permanent on the site and further screening of the site will be undertaken by the applicant.

(In accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution, the application was automatically deferred to the next meeting to allow Officer’s the opportunity to prepare a report in respect of the reasons given for approving the application).

7.3  FPL/2021/304 – Retrospective application for the use of a static caravan for holiday purposes at The Lodge, Capel, Bach, Rhosybol

(Having declared a personal interest with regard to the application, Councillor Robin Williams withdrew from the meeting during the discussion and determination thereof).

The application was presented to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of a Local Member.  At its meeting held on 12 January, 2022 the Committee recommended that a virtual site visit be undertaken to the application site.  A virtual site visit subsequently took place on 26 January, 2022. 

Public Speaker

Mr Mark Davies, the applicant’s agent, said it should be noted that the caravan exists on the site and is lawful and can remain onsite irrespective of outcome of this application; it is the use of the caravan that is in question not its physical presence.  The Officers report gives one reason for refusal and that relates to whether the proposal is of high quality.  The report also quotes Supplementary Planning Guidance on holiday accommodation stating that standalone caravans in people’s gardens cannot be considered high quality. It must be noted that this is guidance and not the policy.  Notwithstanding this it should be noted that though there is no mention in the report that the applicant has a caravan club licence for 5 caravans on the site.   Additionally there is another holiday unit, a conversion, which was granted planning permission in 2019 next to the caravan in question. Furthermore there is a hairdressers salon next to the caravan; the hairdressers salon was granted planning permission in 2018.  The contention in the Officers report that this is a standalone holiday unit in a garden is not accurate, it forms part of an existing holiday/commercial use.  The relevant Policy in the Development Plan is TWR 3 main points include; (i) It doesn’t lead to a significant intensification in the provision of static caravan or chalet or permanent alternative camping sites in the locality.  This will not lead to such an intensification and no mention of this in the officers report –(ii)  It is of high quality in terms of design, layout and appearance, and is sited in an unobtrusive location where it is well screened by existing landscape.  This is an unobtrusive location and it should be noted that the caravan is lawful and can remain on site. (iii)That there is adequate access - No objection from highways.

Mr Davies further said that it is clear that the proposals are compliant with the relevant policies and Supplementary Planning guidance, this is a sustainable form of development and it is respectfully requested that it be supported.  This development will provide employment in the locality and will benefit local businesses in the area.

Councillor Aled M Jones, a Local Member ascertained whether the Committee would allow for the recording of the virtual site visit to be viewed at the meeting as it will show the high standards of the current business located on the site and the proposal would be an integrated part of the current business on the site.  Members considered that the virtual site visit has been viewed previously and the request was refused.

Councillor Aled M Jones said that the caravan is located on the site and it must be considered that the caravan is part of the business on site.  The site is a registered caravan club, has a letting unit and a hairdressing salon on site.    The location of the site is sustainable as it is in the village of Rhosybol and will afford employment opportunities.  He further said that the proposal is not harmful to the landscape and the access to the site is safe and of high standard.  Councillor Jones said that there are planning policies that support such applications and asked the Committee to approve the application.

The Planning Development Manager reported that the application is made for the change of use of an existing static caravan used for incidental purposes into holiday accommodation.  The application site is located in the open countryside, outside any defined development boundary or identified cluster.  The application site is not located within a development boundary and does not therefore accord with planning policy PCYFF 1.  It is therefore necessary to consider whether the proposal conforms with relevant plan policies and national planning policy and guidance.  Planning Policy TWR 3 of the Joint Local Development Plan relates to Static Caravans and Chalet Sites and notes that the approval of such applications must demonstrate that it does not lead to a significant intensification in the provision of static caravans or chalet or permanent alternative camping sites in the locality and that the proposed development is of high quality in terms of design, layout and appearance, and is sited in an unobtrusive location where it is well screened by existing landscape features and/or where the units can be readily assimilated into the landscape in a way which does not significantly harm the visual quality of the landscape. Furthermore, that the site is located close to the main highway network and that adequate access can be provided without significantly harming landscape characteristics and features.    The Planning Development Manager further said that the proposed application relates to the continued use of a single static caravan for holiday purposes.  Applications for new permanent caravans must comply with Policy TWR 3 (Static Caravan and Chalet Sites and Permanent Alternative Camping Accommodation) of the Joint Local Development Plan.  Policy TWR 3 allows for new permanent caravan development provided that the proposal conforms with the relevant criteria as noted within the Officer’s report; this is further explained under guidance in relation to ‘high quality’ which is stated in the ‘Tourism Accommodation and Facilities’ SPG under section 5.2.1.   Although it is acknowledged that the site has a Caravan Club Licence for 5 touring caravans and a converted single holiday let on site these are considered to be alternative holiday accommodation options as opposed to being associated facilities, therefore the proposal would fail to comply with the guidance provided within the SPG.  The recommendation was one of refusal of the application as it was considered to be contrary to the provision of TWR 3 of the Joint Local Development Plan. 

Councillor Ieuan Williams said that he considered that the application site is within a sustainable location.  He noted that the applicant’s agent has noted that the only reasons for refusal is whether the static caravan is of high quality, but it was evident on the virtual site visit that the proposal is contained within a sustainable area and would conform with the current holiday enterprise on the site.  Councillor Williams proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as it is part of a current tourism enterprise and is of high quality and it therefore complies with planning polices PCYFF 1 and TWR 3 of the Joint Local Development Plan.   Councillor K P Hughes seconded the proposal of approval of the application. 

It was RESOLVED to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as it was considered that it is part of a current tourism enterprise and is of high quality and it therefore complies with planning polices PCYFF 1 and TWR 3 of the Joint Local Development Plan.

(In accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution, the application was automatically deferred to the next meeting to allow Officer’s the opportunity to prepare a report in respect of the reasons given for approving the application).