7.1 HHP/2022/46 - Tan Yr Allt Bach, Llanddona
7.2 VAR/2022/48 - Madryn House, Pen Dref Street, Newborough
7.3 HHP/2022/171 - Awel Y Bryn, Trigfa, Moelfre
7.4 FPL/2022/66 – Porth Wen, Llanbadrig
7.1 HHP/2022/46 – Full application for demolition, alterations, and extensions at Tan yr Allt Bach, Llanddona
The application was reported to the Planning and Orders at the request of the three Local Members. At its meeting held on 5 October, 2022 the Committee resolved to visit the site; a virtual site visit subsequently took place on 19 October, 2022.
The Legal Services Manager read out a statement by Mr Richard Sandbach of JAR Architecture in support of the application which highlighted how the clients had engaged with the planning process through taking on board the issues raised by the consultation response and making adjustments to the proposal accordingly; the modest nature of the proposal as regards scale, form and materiality in order to minimise any detrimental visual impact on the local context, and the purpose of the renovations and improvements which were to meet family needs and to make the existing building safe, liveable an sustainable beyond its current capabilities.
The Planning Development Manager outlined the main planning considerations as detailed in the Case Officer’s report in relation to the proposal’s siting and design and its impact as regards Dark Skies and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty designations. He advised that based on the Officer’s view that the proposal is acceptable in land use planning terms, that it is subservient to the existing property in respect of scale and size and does not dominate the original elevation and is considered appropriate to the dwelling and its surrounding area, the recommendation is to approve the application.
Councillors Alun Roberts and Carwyn Jones spoke as Local Members to convey the many concerns of the locality and the Community Council about the siting, scale and design of the proposal which they felt would have a detrimental effect on the character of the village and a negative visual impact on the landscape and surrounding area particularly the AONB as well as potentially generating light pollution. There were also concerns about highway and construction issues the application site being located at the top of a hill adjacent to the narrow and steep road down to Llanddona beach. Councillor Carwyn Jones thought that these aspects had not been sufficiently captured by the virtual site visit that was conducted. Issues around potential usage as a holiday home/let; the creation of two dwellings with a glass link and the lack of sustainable housing for local people were also raised.
The Planning Development Manager responded to the points made by the Local Members and confirmed the following – that planning consent would be conditional upon the submission of a traffic management plan; that the application is for the demolition of the existing uPVC extension and the erection of a glass linked single storey extension not two dwellings; that a Dark Skies Strategy has been presented to address and mitigate light effects and that a proposed Landscape Strategy has also been submitted in response to comments and advice given by the Landscape Officer.
Councillor Ken Taylor, although sympathetic to the concerns of the community and Local Members said that the application had to be considered in terms of planning policy and that the Officer’s report confirms its acceptability as regards land use. Councillor Robin Williams agreed and proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation; the proposal was seconded by Councillor Ken Taylor.
Councillor Jeff Evans in saying that the Committee should be apprised of what might transpire with regard to potential use read out paragraph 22.214.171.124 of the Council’s Constitution about open and transparent decision-making. He referred to the Local Member’s comments about the virtual site visit not being able to show all aspects of the site and said that he did not therefore believe the Committee could be familiar with the site on the basis of a visit that had been conducted virtually. This being so he proposed that a second, physical site visit be held to enable Members to gain a better appreciation of the application site within its context. Councillor R. Llewelyn Jones seconded the proposal.
In the ensuing vote, the proposal to carry out a second site visit was carried.
It was resolved to undertake a second site visit for the reason given.
7.2 VAR/2022/48 – Application under Section 73 for the variation of condition (04) of planning permission reference 45C260B (Full application for change of use of the existing building from A1 (retail) to mixed use A1 and A3 (retail and food and drink) so as to change the existing opening hours at Madryn House, Pen y Dref Street, Newborough
The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of a Local Member. At its meeting held on 5 October, 2022 the Committee resolved to approve a temporary permission to extend the opening hours of the premises until 10:00 p.m. each day contrary to the Officer’s recommendation on the grounds that there are three other establishments in close proximity to the application site with later opening times therefore what is the difference between the current application and adjoining premises.
The Planning Development Manager referred to the Case Officer’s report which addressed the reasons given by the Committee for approving the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and he confirmed that it remained the Officer’s view that extending the opening hours of the premises until 10pm each day, albeit temporarily for 2 years cannot be supported as the proposal would by reason of the noise and number of visitors to the establishment as well as the use of the outside seating area detrimentally affect the amenities of the neighbouring residential properties and as such is contrary to Policy CYFF 2 of the Joint Local Development Plan.
The Committee discussed the merits of the proposal and what it might entail especially as regards the impact of the outside seating area on nearby residential amenity and the numbers that might be involved. Councillor John I. Jones speaking as a Local Member described the character of the local area and the businesses operating in close proximity to the proposal. He said that he wanted to ensure a level playing field with regard to trading hours with most of the other businesses operating to around 8pm which he thought acceptable; he could not see why the proposal should operate to later hours and that he was particularly concerned by the likely effects of the outdoor seating area on the residential neighbourhood in terms of noise, disturbance and visual impact should the opening hours be extended to 10pm even temporarily. Car parking was also an issue.
Councillor Robin Williams said that supported the proposal for the same reasons as cited at the previous meeting and he proposed that the Committee adhere to its decision to approve the application. Councillor Jeff Evans said that individual choice within regulations influence opening hours and he did not see why restrictions should be imposed with regard to the proposal if no such restrictions applied to the other business such as the fish and chip shop. He further suggested that people are likely to gather outside the other business premises nearby those being a fish and ships shop and public house, especially in summertime.
Councillor Ken Taylor proposed, seconded by Councillor Dafydd Roberts that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation; the proposal was carried by the Committee.
It was resolved to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation for the reasons set out in the written report. (Councillor Jeff Evans abstained from voting)
7.3 HHP/2022/171- Full application for alterations an extensions with Juliet balconies at Awel y Bryn, Trigfa, Moelfre
The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee having been called in by a Local Member. At its meeting held on 5 October, 2022, the Committee resolved to visit the site and a virtual site visit was conducted on 19 October, 2022.
Having declared a prejudicial interest in the application, Councillor Jackie Lewis withdrew from the meeting during the discussion and voting thereon.
Mr Peter J Hogan, the owner of Wyncae, the property to the immediate right of Awel y Bryn in addressing the Committee as an objector to the application described the changes which the subject property had already undergone since its purchase in late 2020 which had resulted in a two bedroom bungalow sleeping four becoming a property able to sleep anywhere between 10 and 12 people. The further developments now proposed would mean the property could sleep between 14 to 16 people – the question of whether it has been overdeveloped has to be asked. Mr Hogan said his objections were based on the criteria outlined in Policy document PCYFF 7 in relation to restricting the light available to his own property; potential access and parking problems should there be 16 occupants at the subject property and potential noise pollution with that many people present and availing themselves of the facilities at the property. Mr Peter Hogan referred to changes to the planning regulations in Wales that would come into force later in the month which would see the introduction of three new use classes for primary homes, secondary homes and short term holiday accommodation. This being so he referred to Policy document TWR2 which deals with the concentration of such accommodation in an area and to the fact that Council Tax records show that the concentration of second homes and short term holiday lets in Moelfre at 27% is considerably higher than the 15% threshold. In light of this, the suitability of the proposal should be carefully considered.
Mr Philip Mc Cormick, Architect spoke in support of the application saying that the comments and objections raised by members of the public have been carefully considered and responded to in the Justification Statement dated 16 August, 2022. A response has also been made to the queries raised by Local Members following the virtual site visit and confirms that the Council’s own policies do not require a turning space to be provided within application site in such a location with the majority of the properties on the estate not having a vehicular turning space within their curtilages. The Council’s own Highways Officer has no objections to the proposal as submitted. The foul drainage is to a private drainage system capable of accommodating the proposal and the drainage aspects will be considered in detail as part of a Building Regulations application in due course; the lane fronting the application site is privately owned with the applicants having full rights of way over it. Mr McCormick said that there seemed to be two types of objections to the proposal – those which are relevant to planning matters which have been considered by the applicants who have provided their views with evidence to back those statements, and those which appear to be based on false rumours that bear no relation to planning issues and are not factual nor relevant for the purpose of making a planning decision. The Justification Statement refers to details of a similar proposal for the subject property that was earlier approved by the Council as well as an approval in 2020 for substantial extensions to form a two storey dwelling only 3 properties away from the application site. The proposals as submitted are reasonable and appropriate and are supported by the Council.
The Planning Development Manager reported that the application is for the erection of new dormer windows to the front and rear elevation of the property to create a new 1st floor living space at the roof space of the existing single storey property. A number of objections to the proposal have been received many of which refer to the number of bedrooms which the property would have should the latest application be approved leading to concerns it may be used as an Airbnb or “party house ” with insufficient parking available for 12 or more occupants. The property is use class C3 (dwelling houses) with the agent confirming it will be used as a residential dwelling; this being so the application has to be considered in terms of relevant planning considerations around design, effect on amenity and parking. Given that the proposal will not increase the overall roof height of the property nor extend beyond the main external walls it is considered acceptable as regards design. As a similar scheme at the property was previously approved in 2020 and as there are other dormer roof extensions in the immediate vicinity, it is not considered that the proposed development would give rise to an unacceptable visual effect in the local landscape. It is also considered that any overlooking issues will be kept to a minimum given the positioning of the new dormers and Juliet style balconies away from neighbouring properties. No objection has been raised by the Highways Authority and a Parking Diagram has been submitted as part of the Justification Statement displaying space for up to 5 cars on the driveway of the property in compliance with parking standards for Class 3 Dwellings which require 4 car parking spaces for a 5 bedroom dwelling on any new development. The recommendation is therefore to approve the application.
Councillors Margaret M. Roberts and Ieuan Williams both spoke as Local Members to express their concerns about the proposal from the perspective of the number of occupants it would be able to accommodate, its potential usage as an holiday let/Airbnb (the property having been previously advertised as a holiday let) and the resulting impact on the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties as well as parking and access issues. Councillor Ieuan Williams thought the application premature given the imminent implementation of new regulations in respect of use classes which are meant to help local authorities manage the impact of second homes and short-term holiday lets on communities which is a particular issue on Anglesey where many local people are unable to buy properties in their communities because the number of second homes are driving up prices. He referred to criterion 10 of Policy PCYFF3 which requires that proposals create a healthy and active environment and consider the health and well-being of future users; he thought that the proposed development in being able to accommodate up to 16 people and in potentially being used as a holiday let/Airbnb would have an adverse effect on nearby residential amenities and as such is contrary to Policy PCYFF3. The sufficiency of the proposed parking arrangements is also an issue with local concerns around access contributing to the belief that the proposal will have a negative effect on the well-being and quality of life of the immediate neighbourhood. Councillor Ieuan Williams believed the application should be refused on the grounds of non-compliance with Policy CYFF3, Policy TRA2 and in potentially leading to the loss of permanent housing stock, because it is contrary to Policy TWR2; or otherwise, the site might be re-visited as with a previous application.
The Planning Development Manager advised that as the application submitted is for Use Class C3 Dwelling, it has to be considered on that basis and in that case Policy TWR2 does not apply. He outlined the change in planning regulations which amends Use Class 3 to cover primary homes and which introduces Use Class 5 secondary homes and Use Class 6 holiday accommodation. Whereas currently, change of use from Use Class C3 to Use Class C5 or C6 is allowed as permitted development, the Council is considering issuing an Article 4 Direction that would remove those permitted development rights. In the meantime as the applicant has indicated that the property will remain as Use Class C3 Dwelling, a condition could be imposed on consent to ensure the usage stays as such.
Councillor Ieuan Williams, Local Member said that he did not believe current arrangements were sufficiently robust in requiring applicants where they are seeking to make changes to their property to provide evidence that the property is their primary home and he thought that current processes need to be changed. He asked that should the Committee be minded to approve the application, consideration be given to imposing a condition limiting the use of the property to Use Class C3 Dwelling.
Councillor Jeff Evans thought the position unclear as to whether the subject property is a five bedroom home for a family or a holiday let. He did not wish to have to decipher intent in relation to an application. The Planning Development Manager advised that the applicant’s agent had confirmed that the property will be Use Class C3 Dwelling.
Councillor Dafydd Roberts proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation with the addition of a condition to restrict the use of the property to Use Class C3 Dwelling. The proposal was not seconded.
Councillor Ken Taylor said that an additional condition regarding use class does not remove the parking and access issues in connection with the proposal. The Planning Development Manager advised that the Highways Authority has confirmed that the proposed parking scheme conforms to parking standards for a 5 bedroom house.
Councillor John I. Jones referred to the relevance of Policy PCYFF2 to the proposal which he believed could be more appropriately applied as grounds for refusing the application rather than approving it given that it states that planning permission will be refused where the proposed development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the health, safety or amenity of occupiers of local residences, other land and property uses or characteristics of the locality due to increased activity, disturbance, vibration, noise, dust, fumes, litter, drainage, light pollution or other forms of pollution or nuisance. On that basis he proposed that the application be refused contrary to the Officer’s recommendation; the proposal was seconded by Councillor Ken Taylor and was carried in the subsequent vote.
It was resolved to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation as the proposal was deemed to be contrary to Policy PCYFF2.
In accordance with the requirements of the Constitution the application will be automatically deferred to the next meeting to allow the Officers to respond to the reason given for refusing the application.
7.4 FPL/2022/66 – Full application for the change of use of land into a car parking area at Porth Wen, Llanbadrig
The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of a Local Member. At its meeting on 5 October, 2022, the Committee resolved to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation because it was deemed the proposal would combat existing parking and highway safety problems by providing a safe off road parking area; it would protect the landscape (a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and highway verges from damage and on condition that overnight parking is prohibited and that the site is cleared and locked overnight.
The Planning Development Manager referred to the Case Officer’s report which addressed the reasons given by the Committee at its previous meeting for approving the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and he confirmed that Officers remain of the view that a car parking facility in this location would likely lead to an increase in visitors to the area; that the proposal would result in unacceptable and unjustified development in the open countryside unrelated to any existing tourist attraction and that the development neither enhances nor conserves the special qualities and features of the designated AONB. This being so the proposal is considered contrary to local and national planning policies and the recommendation remains to refuse the application.
Councillors Aled M. Jones and Derek Owen spoke as Local Members and reiterated their support for the application believing that the proposal would facilitate access to and from the coastline as well as to a number of other places of interest in the area which draw in visitors. The proposal would also make access easier for emergency vehicles and would alleviate the problems caused by vehicles parked on the side of the road and on verges thereby improving road safety. The solution proposed is a sustainable one the protection mesh intended for part of the field that would accommodate the car park being designed to allow the grass to grow through.
The Committee discussed the proposal from the perspective of the impact of parking charges on the use of the proposal and the effect on the local environment. Those Members in favour of the application though the proposal could be managed sensitively to minimise the effects on the AONB and that it has advantages not only for the local area but potentially in easing traffic pressure on Cemaes. Members opposing the application raised concerns about the potential for increased littering in the countryside and believed that approval could set a precedent for similar proposals in other rural areas of the Island.
The Planning Development Manager in acknowledging that traffic and parking are problematic in this locality advised that the proposal in developing a car parking facility in the countryside in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty does not provide an acceptable solution. Charging for parking will likely mean that vehicles will continue to be parked on the road thereby exacerbating the problem; car parking charges cannot be controlled through the planning process.
Councillor Ken Taylor proposed, seconded by Councillor Jackie Lewis that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Jeff Evans, seconded by Councillor Liz Wood proposed that the Committee reaffirm its previous decision to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. In the ensuing vote, the proposal to reaffirm approval was carried.
It was resolved to reaffirm the Committee’s previous decision to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the reasons given and to authorise the Officers to impose planning conditions on the consent as appropriate.