Agenda item

7.1 – FPL/2021/349 - Caerau,

Llanfairynghornwy, FPL/2021/349

 

7.2 –  FPL/2022/7 - Mornest Caravan Park, Pentre Berw

FPL/2022/7

 

7.3 - FPL/2022/63 - Ocean's Edge, Lon Isallt, Treaddur Bay

FPL/2022/63

 

7.4 – FPL/2021/266 - Garreglwyd Road, Holyhead

FPL/2021/266

 

7.5 – FPL/2021/336 - Llanfairpwll Health Centre, Ffordd Penmynydd, Llanfairpwll

FPL/2021/336

 

 7.1  FPL/2021/349 – Full application for the creation of a private equestrian ménage together with the change of use of agricultural land into an all year camping site at Caerau, Llanfairynghornwy

 

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of a Local Member who expressed concern that the scheme would be tantamount to overdevelopment of the site.  At its meeting held on 15 June, 2022 the Committee resolved to visit the site.  A virtual site visit was subsequently conducted on 29 June, 2022.  At the meeting held on 6 July, 2022, members resolved to defer the application to allow the Officers to revisit the application and to make comparisons to application FPL/2019/22.

 

Public Speaker

 

Mr Marc Whyatt, in support of the application, said that some comments that were made by the objectors to the application were factually incorrect, misleading and confusing. He would like the opportunity to settle any confusion and uncertainty that may have been caused by these comments that could have inadvertently lead to the wrong decision being made. He hoped that enough time has now been given for the committee members to make a professional justified decision from a planning perspective. The application was first submitted back in October of last year, 9 months ago, and we have been working closely with the council to satisfy any areas of concern. Prior to the application, we constructed 2 passing bays on the road which have since been approved, accepted and adopted by the council – this was part of a previous application. We have also conducted a traffic survey, at our expense – as recommended by the council, to satisfy any concerns relating to the flow of traffic on the roads. Councillor Llinos Medi raised a concern about the level of traffic from previous applications that have not yet been developed. Being a family with small children that attend the local Welsh schools and use the local roads, the traffic levels are also a concern to us. He confirmed that the satisfactory traffic survey actually included all of the previous applications as a collective volume of traffic – not just for the campsite. In the previous Committee meeting on 6th July, the planning application was said to be a “carbon copy” of a recently rejected application leading to the idea that this application should also be rejected on the same grounds. The planning application which was used is not comparable to the development. Unlike application FPL/2019/223, their development was considered by the relevant authorities and documented in professional reports satisfying that it does not propose any harm to the AONB. The report was compiled by the Senior Planning Officer and the Senior Landscape and Tree Officer. Application FPL/2019/223 was also rejected because of the negative impact on the residential properties facing and in close proximity to the development. Once again, our development is not comparable as we do not have any residential properties in close proximity to our campsite. The planning application submitted has satisfied the concerns that were raised by the local committee, whereas application FPL/2019/223 had not. The Officer was questioned by Llinos Medi about his statement that there was no response from the community council regarding the application.  This is actually true, there was no response during the permitted guidelines. Because the objections were raised outside of the guidelines, the late call in for the application to go to a committee was actually requested by Councillor Llinos Medi. There was never any such meeting between the developer and the Community Council to discuss the development or raise concerns – had this been the case, the concerns would have been satisfied without the application going to a Committee. Based on the assumption that it is acceptable to accept or reject an application based on a previous application of a “similar” nature, we easily found 9 applications that have been approved. Each of them also comparable by the same method, however more invasive on the AONB as they are all consisting of caravan parks, touring caravans and pitches. He stressed that the application should be considered by its own merits and not be decided based on the personal opinion of a councillor who is failing to be impartial.

 

The Development Management Manager reported that as mentioned in the report, the Committee resolved to defer the application until comparisons had been made between this proposal and application FPL/2019/233 which was refused in 2019.  Application FPL/2019/233 was made for the creation of a seasonal camping site at Pen-Wal Bach at Newborough and refused on the 3 grounds as noted in the report.  It is acknowledged that both sites are located in an AONB area, however the character of the AONB in these two locations are vastly different. Pen-Wal Bach is located in the Penlon area of Newborough and in close proximity to the highway leading to a public carpark and also closely adjoining the Newborough Warren sand dunes.  The landscape in this area is flat and open in nature, with little topographic features aside from hedgerows which provide screening.  The area also includes a number of other established camping and caravan sites and did not propose any additional screening.  The local authority Landscape Advisor objected to the proposal at Pen-Wal Bach as it was contrary to planning policies TWR 5, PCYFF 4 and AMG 1 in the Joint Local Development Plan.  The application at Caerau, Llanfairynghornwy is within an area that is typically characterised by a highly undulating topography, with the site of proposed camping pitches being in a natural depression in the land and the land beyond the site rising in elevation to a hill. The site also includes mature vegetation to a substantial height.  The site is distant from the nearest public highway and the boundary with which is also defined by a mature hedgerow.  The proposal would not harm the sense of openness of the AONB as was the case with the Pen-Wal Bach application.  Whilst the site includes a substantial amount of screening, a comprehensive landscaping scheme was submitted by the applicant and the Landscaping Officer has no objections.  The schemes are incomparable in their context and settings and due consideration was given in each circumstances to the AONB and the effects the respective schemes would have upon it.  The Development Management Manager further said that the application has been submitted since October 2021 and the applicant has addressed concerns raised to assure that it is acceptable before submitted to the Committee for a decision.  As it has been noted, the site has been visited and deferred to be compared with another application in a totally different area.  The recommendation was to approve the application subject to the planning conditions contained within the report.

 

Councillor John I Jones said that 14 letters of objection have been submitted as regards to this application and comparison has been made to another application in Penlon, Newborough..  However, as noted within the Officer’s report it is noted that the land at Caerau is in a natural depression. Councillor Jones did not believe that consideration has been given, during the consultation period to the risk of flooding.  NRW’s flooding maps of the site is highlight the site in purple which equates to the land being at high risk of flooding due to rain water.  The maps also show that the middle of the site is of medium risk of flooding.  Councillor Jones further said that the site could have been used as a camping site during the summer months and the reviews on the internet of the site notes that the fields become wet after it has been raining.  He noted that this application is to have the camping site open for all the year round and it may be suitable for parking during the summer months on site but the evidence on the NRW flooding maps that the site is unsuitable to be open all year.  Councillor Jones questioned as to why the Ecology Officer has not made comments as regards to the application due to the nature of the gradient of the land at Caerau.   The Development Management Manager said that it is important to note that this application is for a campsite and no building will occur on site and the tents will not be a permanent feature on the site.  During the consultation process with the statutory consultees, NRW has not raised any concerns as to the application due to the proposed use of the site.  Councillor John I Jones referred that there is reference within the Officer’s report that there is a risk of flooding on the site. 

 

Councillor Llinos Medi, a Local Member said she called-in the application to the Committee following a meeting with the Cylch y Garn Community Council who had concerns as regards to the application and following receipt of a number of letters objecting by local residents of the nearby village.  She highlighted the role of the Elected Members as they represent their local communities and she has been asked by the residents of the local communities to represent them as to the objection to this application.  Councillor Medi further said that as was reported at the last meeting of this Committee a number of previous applications for holiday use had been approved for this site which have yet to be developed and which will increase the traffic in the area.  She noted that it is appreciated that the applicant has commissioned a Traffic Management Plan as regards to this application has not taken into account the previous applications on site which have been approved and yet to be developed.  She further said that the highway network near the site are narrow rural lanes and there will be considerable movement of traffic from the site as the tourists will be staying on the site for a short period.  Councillor Medi asked the Committee to give careful consideration to the application with regard to the cumulative impact both of the proposal and movement of visitors on the AONB and the road network. 

 

The Development Management Manager said that a Traffic Management Plan has been submitted with the application and 2 passing places have been afforded by the applicant and the Highways Authority has not raised concerns as regards to the application.

 

Councillor R Ll Jones ascertained as to the amount of caravan sites on the Island.  The Development Management Manager responded that this application is for a camping site and not a caravan site and each application needs to be considered on its own merits.

 

Councillor Ken Taylor said that the application complies with planning policies and proposed that the application be approved.  Councillor Liz Wood seconded the proposal.

 

It was RESOLVED to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to the planning conditions contained within the written report.

 

7.2  FPL/2022/7 – Full application for the redevelopment of existing caravan par to accommodate static caravans and extension to site to accommodate touring caravans, together with the erection of a toilet/shower block at Mornest Caravan Park, Pentre Berw

 

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of a Local Member. At its meeting held on 15 June, 2022 the Committee resolved to visit the site. A virtual site visit was subsequently conducted on 29 June, 2022.  At its meeting held on 6 July, 2022 resolved to approve the application in totality contrary to the Officer’s recommendation on the grounds that the static caravan site extension element was deemed to comply with Policy TWR 3.

 

The Development Management Manager reported that the static caravan element of the scheme was recommended for refusal as the increase of 190% in the numbers is not considered a minor extension as is permitted under the policy.  It is acknowledged that a certificate of lawful use has been granted on the site for the year round siting of the touring caravans and this may indeed allow some additional units over the 10%, however it is not considered that this is sufficiently material consideration to permit a 190% increase in numbers, which is substantially over the guide figure of 10%.  The local members stated that the 190% increase was acceptable and complies with relevant policy as it would not create any unacceptable visual impact and would not be visible from the public realm.  Whilst this is correct, planning policy TWR 3 does not include any mechanisms which allows extensions over the minor level based on the visual merits.  The recommendation is to refuse the extension of the static caravans on the site.

 

Councillor Alwen P Watkin, and a Local Member said that the caravan site at Mornest, Pentre Berw was established over 50 years ago and the business is to be taken over by the third generation of the family.  The applicant has worked closely with the Planning Authority over the course of the last 5 years so as to conform with the planning policies within the Joint Local Development Plan.  Several site visits have occurred with Planning Officers to make the application acceptable and many amendments have been made to the application; slate roof on the toilet block, relocation of the touring site and significant design work on the site.  As a Local Member, Councillor Watkin considered that it is legally possible to approve the application as the planning policies does not refer to certain elements of planning issues and is ambiguous. She referred to section 4 of planning policy TWR 3 and explained, how in her view, the proposal complies with the criteria listed in this section.  She referred to the statement in TWR 3 that each application will be assessed on its merits due to the considerable variety in size, nature and location of sites and said that this was key in the instance.  The application site does not impair the amenities of neighbouring properties.  Sections 6 and 7 of TWR 3 refers that any increase in the number of units and chalets are small and are in keeping; the applicant has approval to allow the tourers to be on site throughout the year.  Councillor Watkin further said that the applicant has sought legal advice from Mr Gwion Lewis QC, who is an expert in planning law, and he has afforded his comments on the application to the Local Members and the applicant and has noted that the site has a Certificate of Lawful Use for higher number of tourist on the site and this application would results in having less static caravans and have an upgraded landscaping of the site; this should be a material consideration as is noted within legislation and therefore it is justified to approve the application contrary to the TWR 3 planning policy.  Councillor Watkin said that she has previously said at the last meeting of this Committee that not all applications needs to be considered within the Joint Local Development Plan but the law refers that decisions should be made on a planning basis in line with the Joint Local Development Plan unless there is relevant material consideration which justifies making a decision contrary to the Joint Local Development Plan (Section 38, Part 6, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004). In the opinion of Mr Gwion Lewis QC this is the law in this case.  As the applicant has a Certificate of Lawful Use for permanent tourers already, the Committee would not set a precedent in approving the application.

 

Councillor Watkin said that she referred to an application at Nant Newydd, Brynteg which was permitted on appeal. Mr Gwion Lewis QC has reviewed that application as well and has reviewed that the process undertaken by the Planning Inspectorate; he considered that the application before the Committee at Mornest, Pentre Berw should also be rationalised in a similar manner.  She noted that as a member of the Planning and Orders Committee she did not wish to see the Committee being challenged through appeal as was the case in Nant Newydd, Brynteg.  She asked the Committee to consider the application carefully and that this is a Welsh family trying to make a living in their community.  Councillor Alwen Watkin proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

 

The Development Management Manager responded that the Planning Authority must work within the planning policies; the Joint Local Development Plan was implemented in 2017.  Whilst it has been said that the applicant has been working with the Planning Authority for 5 years in respect of this application the policy has been implemented for a number of years.  Reference has been made to Criterion 4 and Criterion 7 of TWR 3 and the Development Management Manager noted that the policies refer to the increase of 10% figure in allowing the extensions of caravan sites.  He further said that reference has been made that the applicant has a Certificate of Lawful Use for keeping tourers on the site throughout the year; this does not stipulate that the tourers need to be on the site throughout the year as static caravans would need to be.  The Development Management Manager referred that reference made to Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 by Mr Gwion Lewis QC is a matter of opinion and not law.

 

Councillor Dafydd Roberts, also a Local Member said that the tourers element of the application was approved at the last meeting of this Committee.  The local concerns as regards to the tourers has been addressed. As regards to the static caravan element of the application, he considered that the site is out of sight and would not harm the amenities of the neighbouring properties.  Councillor Dafydd Roberts seconded the proposal of approval of the application. 

 

Councillor Ken Taylor said that the application is contrary to planning policy TWR 3 and he proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.  Councillor Robin Williams seconded the proposal of refusal of the application.

 

Following the vote of 3 for approving the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and 7 in refusing the application:-

 

It was RESOLVED to refuse the extension to the number of existing static caravans on the site as it was contrary to the provision of Planning Policy TWR 3 of the Joint Local Development Plan in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation contained in the written report.

 

7.3  FPL/2022/63 – Full application for the erection of a food and beverage sales kiosk for ice cream, waffles and soft drinks at Ocean’s Edge, Lon Isallt, Trearddur Bay

 

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of a Local Member.   At its meeting held on 15 June, 2022 the Committee resolved to approve the application.  However, at the meeting the Officer inadvertently reported that the Highways Authority had been consulted and had raised no objection to the proposed development whereas in fact, the Highways Authority had not been consulted.  Given the highway concerns raised by Members at the June meeting, the Planning Service on discovering that the Highways Authority had not been consulted, informed the Chair and the two Local Members who participated at the June meeting that Highways would be consulted and the matter reported back to the Committee.  Having now been consulted, the Highways Authority confirms it has no objection to the scheme.  The application was reported again to the Committee in the interest of completeness, openness and transparency and to ensure that all matters have been taken into account in determining the application.  At the subsequent meeting of 6^th July, 2022 members resolved to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and it was considered that the proposal was contrary to planning policy MAN 6, with specific reference to criterion 2 which states ‘The shop will not significantly harm nearby village shops’. 

 

The Development Management Manager reported that specific reference was made to an ice cream van situated nearby to the application site.  He noted that an ice cream is not a village shop as is noted within planning policies as it is a temporary facility that can be relocated.  The Local Member, Councillor Dafydd R Thomas has previously said that the ice cream van departs the site every evening and returns every morning.  The Spar shop in the vicinity would be considered as a village shop within the planning policy. Nevertheless, Trearddur Bay is a popular tourist destination and the Local Members have noted previously that the village is gridlock with traffic during the summer months.  Due to the scale of the unit, it is not considered that the volume of generated business would be of such extent as to significantly harm nearby village shops and other businesses.  He further noted that the location of Ocean’s Edge is unique as it is outside the development boundary but within the village of Trearddur Bay.  Section 119 of Planning Policy Wales (11^th edition) refers that ‘it is not the function of the planning system to interfere with or inhibit competition between users of and investors in land’ and again it is reminded that competition is not a material planning consideration.  The Development Management Manager said that there is a risk of costs if the application was refused and overturned at appeal.  The Planning Authority maintain their stance that the proposal is in accordance with all relevant policies as set out in the previous report to this Committee.  The recommendation is of approval of the application. 

 

Councillor Dafydd R Thomas, a Local Member said that the development is a small wooden shed and questioned whether planning policies contradicts each other in respect of this application.  He noted that the ice cream van nearby does pay a fee to the local authority to be sited on the site.  A small café has recently opened around the corner to this application site.  Whilst he acknowledged that there is ample business for all the facilities at Trearddur due to the high number of tourist visiting during the summer months it will be difficult for some businesses in the village in the winter months. 

 

The Development Management Manager said that the proposal is for the erection of a retail kiosk with a proposed floor area of 13m2 which is considered to be minor in scale.  He addressed the comments by the Local Member as regards as to whether the planning polices contradict each other; the intention of the MAN 6 policy is to deal with selling within the open countryside which stops the detrimental effect on other businesses and to limit what is sold in rural area, Ocean’s Edge is within the Trearddur Bay area as regards context.  

 

Councillor Robin Williams ascertained whether Trearddur Bay was defined in a rural area or a village.  The Development Management Manager responded that Ocean’s Edge is within the Trearddur Bay area but is located outside the development boundary within the Joint Local Development Plan and is therefore contrary to MAN 6 planning policy.  Councillor Williams whilst accepting the reasoning that the locality of the development is within MAN 6 of the Joint Local Development Plan he considered that it should be within MAN 5 as Trearddur Bay is a large village and extremely popular during the summer months.  He did not consider that the impact of approving the proposal will have an impact on other retailers in the village.   Councillor Robin Williams proposed that the application be approved.  Councillor Ken Taylor seconded the proposal of approval.

 

Councillor Dafydd Roberts said that development boundaries has a significance and this proposal is within MAN 6 of the Joint Local Development Plan.  Councillor Roberts proposed that the application be refused contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.  Councillor Alwen Watkin seconded the proposal of refusal.

 

The Legal Service Manager said that the site is outside the development boundary but within the settlement of Trearddur Bay and it is impossible to leave the site without crossing the development boundary.  He noted that the ice cream van is not defined as a village shop within planning policy context and offering a range of services.  He further said that it would be difficult to argue on appeal that village shops would be affected by this proposal.

 

Following the vote of 8 in approval of the application and 2 for refusal of the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation:-

 

It was RESOLVED to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to the planning conditions contained within the written report.

 

7.4  FPL/2021/2022 – Full application for the erection of 8 affordable residential apartments, construction of new vehicular access, construction of new road on site together with soft and hard landscaping on land adjacent to Garreglwyd Road, Holyhead

 

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of a Local Member amid local concerns as regards to highway safety, overdevelopment of the site and the development’s appearance in the locality.  At its meeting held on 15^th June, 2022, the Committee resolved to visit the site.  A virtual site visit was subsequently conducted on 29^th June, 2022.  At the meeting held on 6^th July, 2022, it was resolved to defer the application to allow for further highways information to be consulted upon.

Public Speaker

 

Ms Sarinha Farook, Cadnant Planning spoke in support of the application and said that the application site is a vacant area of land within the development boundary of Holyhead and within a built-up residential area. The site is unkempt and unsightly in appearance and when viewed within the street, it forms a break in the building line and appears quite out of character with the remainder of the area. This proposal seeks to re-use this parcel of previously developed land for the provision of eight affordable dwellings for local people. The development would improve the appearance of the street scene and bring the site back into use to provide much needed housing in the area. There is a clear demand for affordable housing in the area. The Council’s Housing Strategy department has expressed their support for the development.  Following recent comments from the Highways department, a Transport statement has been provided which demonstrates that the development would not result in any significant impact upon the existing road network. It is acknowledged that there is a school close to the development site, but it also normally acknowledged that schools should be located in residential communities that they serve and that the short-lived problems should not frustrate an otherwise acceptable development proposal.   Given the sustainable location of development, it is expected that occupiers of the development will make use of the public transport in the area. Concerns have also been raised in regard to the impact of construction on existing dwellings in the vicinity. However, it should be noted that the Local Planning Authority have recommended a condition for the submission of construction method details for their review prior to the commencement of works. The applicant is willing to provide these details prior to works commencing. As the Committee report states, the initial scheme was withdrawn and redesigned so that the proposed apartments would have a better relationship with neighbouring properties, with no adverse overlooking, overshadowing or overbearing impacts. Additionally, given the range of dwellings and variety of designs of buildings along the street, including Ysgol Cybi to the east, it is considered that the proposed development would not appear out of keeping with the local area. The scale of the building would be two storeys in height, which is in keeping with surrounding dwellings in the area. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would make good use of a vacant plot in a residential area, providing eight affordable dwellings to help meet the high demand for local housing in the area. The development would improve the site visually, and would not have any adverse impacts on the highway network or neighbouring properties.

 

The Development Management Manager reported that following the highways assessment of the application the Highways Authority had no concerns in regards to the scheme.  However, the required spaces in line with the local authority parking standards is 10 spaces, but only 8 are provided by this scheme.  Despite the shortfall of 2 parking spaces, it is considered the proposal is acceptable as it is located in a sustainable location which is accessible by bus and rail with local amenities also within walking and cycling distance. The site layout of the development was shown to Members at the Committee which showed 8 parking spaces to the north of the site together with bicycle and bin storage.  He further said that the revised scheme has been amended by reducing the level of the site so as to ensure the finished floor levels of the proposal and the neighbouring dwellings are similar and thus will not be overbearing upon the neighbouring properties.   The Development Management Manager further reported that the Holyhead Town Council had expressed concerns in regards to the effect of the proposal on the privacy of the bungalows in the locality of the site; due to the orientation and distance of the building to these properties, it is not considered that any overlooking that would occur would not be unacceptable.  A 1.8m boundary fence will also be provided on the boundary to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring properties.  It is considered that the scheme conforms with planning policies PCYFF 2, TAI 1, TAI 8 and 15 of the Joint Local Development Plan as is highlighted within the Officer’s report.  The recommendation is to approve the application subject to conditions contained within the report.

 

Councillor T Ll Hughes MBE and a Local Member said that there are immense parking and highways issues in the area of this proposed development and especially when children are taken to school in the morning and collected in the afternoon.  He noted that Ysgol Cybi and Holyhead High School are nearby to the proposed development (pictures taken by a local resident were viewed by the Committee of cars parked along Garreglwyd Road).  Councillor Hughes said that over 400 houses have been built in the Llaingoch area over the last few years and the traffic issues are concerning in the area.  He referred to the transportation plan commissioned by the developer and ascertained as to whether the SCP Transportation had visited the site to compile the transport assessment.  Ms Farook, Cadnant Planning confirmed that SCP Transportation had visited the site.  Councillor Hughes further said that planning permission was given recently on the site for 2 bungalows which was acceptable to the neighbouring properties but now the site is for 8 flats which is causing concerns as regards to traffic issues and the overbearing and overlooking on the Maes Cybi residents. Councillor Hughes considered that the application should be refused due to overdevelopment of the site and traffic issues in the area.

 

The Development Management Manager said that reference has been made to the effect on the residential amenities of the residents of Maes Cybi estate.  He noted that the development does meet the requirements of the planning guidelines as there is a distance of 19m from the development and the neighbouring properties at Maes Cybi; obscured glazing will be on the windows facing neighbouring properties.

 

The Development Management Engineer (Highways) said that a transport statements was afforded with the application due to highways concerns by local residents.  He noted that the level of traffic is higher during school hours with children been taken and collected from the nearby schools. 

 

Councillor R Ll Jones said that there is traffic issues in the area following the development of the large housing estate in Llaingoch.  He noted that the highways structure in the area needs to be reviewed due to the effect of emissions from vehicles near the schools in the area.

 

Councillor Dafydd R Thomas, a Local Member agreed that there are traffic issues in the area with parking on the side of the road near this development when children are taken and collected from the nearby schools.  He considered that approving this application would contribute to the highways issues in this area. 

 

Councillor Dafydd Roberts said that the Local Members are aware of traffic issues in the area but the Highways Authority consider that the development would not contribute to the traffic in the area.  He accepted that the Highways Authority conforms to national policies as regards to traffic management. 

 

Councillor Robin Williams whilst sympathising with the comments of the local members as regards to the traffic in the area when children are taken and collected from the nearby schools.  However, he said that similar issues are experienced in many areas where there is a school.  Councillor Williams proposed that the application be approved and Councillor Liz Wood seconded the proposal of approval.

 

Councillor Trefor Ll Hughes MBE proposed that the application be refused due to overdevelopment and traffic issues.  Councillor R Ll Jones seconded the proposal of refusal. 

 

Following the vote of 6 of approval of the application and 4 against:- 

 

It was RESOLVED to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to the planning conditions contained within the written report and a planning obligation to secure affordable housing.

 

7.5  FPL/2021/336 – Full application for alterations and extensions to health centre, the construction of new parking spaces together with soft landscaping at Llanfairpwll Health Centre, Ffordd Penmynydd, Llanfairpwll

 

The application was reported to the Planning and Order Committee at the request of a Local Members.  At its meeting held on 6^th July, 2022 the Committee resolved to visit the site.  A virtual site visit was subsequently conducted on 20th July, 2022. 

 

The Development Management Manager reported that the application is for an extension to the existing Health Centre at Llanfairpwll with other associated development comprising of the creation of five additional car parking spaces together with soft landscaping in the form of a paved path.  The proposal is for a rear extension to the Health Centre and the Llanfairpwll Health Centre is located along Ffordd Penmynydd, within the development boundary of Llanfairpwll as defined in the Joint Local Development Plan.  Concerns have been raised regarding the parking arrangements at the Health Centre and the Highways Authority had no objections as regards to the development.  However, the Highways Authority has requested a Traffic Management Plan during the construction period of the development.  He further said that the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board has confirmed that the number of patients has reduced following the pandemic and the consultation rooms will assist with virtual patient consultations and there is no need for additional parking spaces beyond the 5 already proposed.  There are 28 parking spaces currently on site and the 5 additional parking spaces conform to the relevant parking standards.  He noted that having additional parking spaces to the 5 already proposed would entail having to fell additional trees which the Ecological Officer would reject.  The recommendation was of approval of the application.

 

Councillor Alun Mummery, a Local Member read out an email sent by Mr Wyn Thomas, Area Director, Betsi Cadwaladr Health Board in 2016 to the Chair of the Llanfairpwll Community Council and to Councillor Mummery.  Mr Wyn Thomas had visited the site of the Llanfairpwll Health Centre in November 2016 due to concerns by the Community Council as regards to parking on the site.  Mr Thomas had agreed that there was adequate space to extend the car park and to extend to Health Centre at the rear of the building when funding became available.   Councillor Mummery referred to the letters of objection to the application as regards to plans in 2019 to create 21 parking spaces at the Health Centre whereas this application is for only 5 car parking spaces. An application FPL/2019/284 was returned to the applicant as it was considered unacceptable from an ecological perspective and from the point of view of the Environment Wales Act.  He noted that in the initial version of the Officer’s report stated that there was a potential for bats in the woodland behind the surgery but Councillor Mummery said that he lives 200 yards from the Health Centre and he is not aware of any siting of bats in the area.  However, there have been siting of rats in the vicinity but no reference is made within the report as regards to this matter. Reference has been made to ecology issues but when the site was fenced in without access to the rear of the site this has caused problems for the Community Council due to overgrowth of trees and having to complain regularly to the Health Board for them to be cut back as it encroaches onto the playing field and a footpath near the site.   Councillor Mummery ascertained whether the hedgerow and trees at the rear of the building will be maintained by the applicant.  Councillor Mummery further said that the Highways Authority have no objection to the application as Llanfairpwll has public car parks within short walking distance to the site. He ascertained as to the formula used as regards to adequate parking space for such a site.  The Development Management Engineer (Highways) responded that the formula used is 1 parking space of each consultation room.   

 

The Development Management Manager responded that the extension to the building is at the rear of the current building and there is inadequate space for the creation of further parking on site.  He noted that 5 parking space are proposed which is in accord with the parking conditions.  In response to the maintenance of the hedgerow and trees at the rear of the building it would be a matter for the Community Council to discuss with the Bestsi Cadwaladr University Health Board in respect of this matter.

 

Councillor Jackie Lewis questioned whether more trees could be felled at the rear of the Health Centre to allow for further parking space on the site and new planting could occur thereafter.  The Development Management Manager responded that this is not part of the application before the Committee.

 

Councillor Ken Taylor said that parking issues is the main problems in every village.  Councillor Taylor proposed that the application be approved.  Councillor Jackie Lewis seconded the proposal of approval. 

 

It was RESOLVED to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendations subject to the planning conditions contained within the written report.