Agenda item
Applications Arising
A copy of a letter to Richard Buxton Solicitors for information
8.1 46C427L/COMP - Land and Lakes, Penrhos Coastal Park, Holyhead
8.2 S106/2020/3 - Land and Lakes, Penrhos Coastal Park, Holyhead
8.3 COMP/2021/1 - Land and Lakes, Penrhos Coastal Park, Holyhead
8.4 HHP/2022/342 - Islwyn, Holyhead Road, Llanfairpwll
8.5 FPL/2022/173 - Lôn Penmynydd, Llangefni
8.6 – FPL/2020/247 – Y Bryn Estate, Llanfaethlu
Minutes:
Submitted for the Committee’s information - A copy of a letter to Richard Buxton Solicitors dated 28 March, 2023 by Burges Salmon LLP addressing issues raised with regard to the implementation of the Land and Lakes permission under reference 46C427K/TR/EIA/CON.
The Legal Services Manager was invited by the Chair to explain the context to the letter by Burges Salmon LLP.
Councillor Jeff Evans raised a point of order saying that he wanted to speak about a deferral of applications 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 and that he believed this should be heard before anyone else spoke on the matter especially as he had indicated an interest in those applications and would therefore be withdrawing from the meeting if they were discussed.
The Chair ruled that the Legal Services Manager would be speaking in advance of the consideration of applications 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 and he assured Councillor Evans and other members of the Committee that they would be able to speak when those substantive items actually came to be considered.
The Legal Services Manager explained that Land and Lakes were granted planning permission to develop the Penrhos, Cae Glas and Kingsland sites several years ago. In January, 2023 the Council received a letter by Richard Buxton Solicitors which he understood was available on social media channels and was therefore public, which challenged the permission. In recognition of the significance of the application to local residents, the Council sought to respond to the letter in a way that was transparent and available to all interested parties. Working with Burges Salmon who have been engaged by the Council for many years to provide advice with regard to the Land and Lakes application, the letter which has been published as part of this meeting’s documentation, was drafted. The Legal Services Manager said that he would not go into the letter in detail only to say that it was technical in its contents and that it responded to matters that were also technical in their nature. However, the conclusions set out at the end of the Burges Salmon letter are couched in less technical terms and are clear, and they represent the Council’s standpoint on the matter. A further letter from Richard Buxton Solicitors was received on 3 April, 2023 which he understood was also available on social media; this letter has been considered by Officers and has been discussed with Burges Salmon and the Officers are satisfied that it does not raise any new issues of substance nor alter the conclusions set out in the letter by Burges Salmon.
The Legal Service Manager advised that the matters raised in the letters do not involve applications 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 on the agenda for this meeting, since these are about specific, detailed issues under the planning permission and Section 106 agreement. He clarified that the Council had not published the correspondence by Richard Buxton Solicitors as not having ownership of the correspondence it has not the right to do so, the correspondence in any case being accessible on social media.
8.1 46C427L/COMP – Submission of Community Liaison Group Scheme (CLGS) to comply with the Terms of Agreement as set out in Schedule 8, Section 7 and Penrhos Public Access Land Scheme (PPALS) as set out in Schedule 8, Section 13.1 of the Section 106 Agreement attached to planning permission reference 46C427K/TR/EIA/ECON at Land and Lakes, Penrhos Coastal Park, Holyhead
The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as it related to the discharge of obligations of a Section 106 Agreement attached to the consent of an application which was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment. It was therefore referred to the Committee for determination in accordance with paragraph 3.5.3.10 of the Council’s Constitution.
Councillor Jeff Evans was at this point invited to speak by the Chair; Councillor Evans reiterated that he had declared an interest in this and subsequent applications 8.2 and 8.3 and would be leaving the meeting should they be discussed. He said that he would not be participating nor voting on the applications until all the legal arguments, issues and challenges had been fully considered and resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. He thought that taking this course was right, honest and fair and would allow everyone to be confident that planning matters take full and unbiased consideration of all persons’ views whether they be for or against. That is why he was asking that applications 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 be deferred until all the legal teams consider it right and appropriate to proceed. As there was not a joint opinion on how to proceed he felt he could not go forward on this matter as he thought it would be unfair to the public, to those who were for or against the proposal and to the Committee in being asked to vote on it.
In response to a question by Councillor Jeff Evans about whether it was appropriate for him to ask for a deferral, the Legal Services Manager advised that a proposal to that effect could be made and voted upon if it was seconded. Councillor Jeff Evans proposed that consideration of applications 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 therefore be deferred and the proposal was seconded by Councillor R. Llewelyn Jones.
Councillor Robin Williams referred to an allegation made in a recent e-mail to the Committee’s members about there being evidence to show what work had or had not been undertaken on the site and he asked that such evidence be made available to the Committee’s members before the matter is considered further especially as the original consent for the Land and Lakes application and the discussions around it took place before the current Committee’s membership was formed and he felt that he and most of his fellow members were therefore flying blind on this issue.
The Development Management Manager advised that the legal issues are outside of the three applications under consideration; a legal opinion has been obtained from Burges Salmon and the Council’s standpoint has not changed. He confirmed that evidence regarding work undertaken was available and is on file with the developer having submitted reports to demonstrate the work done; this has been taken into account by Burges Salmon in coming to their conclusions. The three applications presented to today’s meeting are in connection with specific issues under the Section 106 agreement only and have nothing to do with the legality of the permission which has been considered and addressed by the Burges Salmon response to Richard Buxton Solicitors.
In response to a request for clarification by the Chair regarding the proposal to defer, specifically the deferment period, Councillor Jeff Evans said that he was asking that the three applications be deferred until such time that the legal issues on both sides have been considered be that for a month or longer. He wanted the solicitors on both sides to come to a conclusion that it is appropriate to move forward so that the Committee can then fairly come to a determination. Currently there remains a difference of opinion about the rightness or otherwise of the permission and what work has or has not been undertaken.
The Legal Services Manager advised that the proposal is in effect for an indeterminate deferral since planning process does not allow for some form of compromise over a permission that has already been issued. He explained that it had taken some months to come to this point because Officers had been carefully scrutinising the permission and conditions to establish whether there were are any weaknesses and the conclusions are as outlined in the Burges Salmon letter. Land and Lakes have a right in law to their permission and the only mechanism available to challenge that would be by way of a judicial review of the decision through the courts which is not a matter before the Committee. To defer is therefore tantamount to not making a decision with regard to the three applications as a compromise between those who object to the permission and think it invalid and the Council which is of the view that matters pertaining to the permission are valid and proper, is improbable.
Councillor Robin Williams who had indicated his support for a deferral clarified that he did not appreciate that it might be indefinite thinking that any deferment would be for a month until the next meeting to allow the evidence to which he had referred to be presented and he was therefore withdrawing his support for the proposal.
Councillor Jeff Evans said that he thought a month should be a sufficient and would commit both sides to resolve matters at the earliest opportunity and he amended his proposal accordingly.
The Legal Services Manager further advised that he thought it would not be possible to act on a deferral on the terms proposed as it would be asking Officers to negotiate on something that is contrary to the requirements of the system and procedure and would place them in an impossible position and might even conflict with their professional standards requirements as legal and planning officers.
Councillor Trefor Lloyd Hughes, MBE referred to the original application being a hybrid application with three elements to it namely Kingsland, Cae Glas and Penrhos and he sought clarification about the status of the Kingsland and Cae Glas elements and whether these had fallen through.
The Development Management Manager confirmed that the consent granted is a hybrid consent as although the majority of the consent is outline, some elements are for full consent the reason being that change of use i.e. for the listed buildings on the site cannot be dealt with under outline consent so those elements come under the full consent. The three applications submitted as part of the business of today’s meeting refer to Penrhos alone; for the Kingsland and Cae Glas developments to go ahead would require a legal agreement between Land and Lakes and a new developer for the Wylfa Nuclear site which is unlikely in the short-term.
Councillor Trefor Lloyd Hughes, MBE therefore asked and it was confirmed that the matters under consideration today are the discharge of conditions in relation to the Penrhos site only and not the matter of the Land an Lakes planning consent. He further commented about correspondence that had come through to the Committee’s members and felt that a month’s deferral was required.
Councillor Robert Ll. Jones said that that the situation involves two sets of solicitors with two completely different opinions about the Land and Lakes consent with the Council taking the opinion of Burges Salmon because it keeps the consent alive. He referred to the letter by Burges Salmon as being complex saying that he could not come to a conclusion on the basis of the letter and emphasised that Members have to understand what they are being asked to determine. He felt that the matter was being pushed through when there is a great deal of local concern about Penrhos and that not enough regard had been paid to the correspondence and viewpoint put forward by Richard Buxton Solicitors.
The Legal Services Manager advised that Members did not have to fully understand all the legal points set out in the Burges Salmon letter as they were not required to come to any determination regarding them or the letter which had been submitted for information only. The applications to be determined relate to specific matters within the planning consent in respect of the Penrhos site and have nothing to do with the matters raised in the letter.
On being asked to confirm his proposal, Councillor Jeff Evans said that it was for a deferment of applications 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 for a period of a month; Councillor R. Llewelyn Jones confirmed that he was seconding the proposal. In the ensuing vote on the matter, the proposal to defer applications 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3 for one month was carried.
It was resolved to defer consideration of the application for the reason given.
8.2 SI06/2020/3 – Submission of “Penrhos Coastal Park Welsh Language Scheme” under Section 1 (Welsh Language Scheme) of schedule 12 of the Section 106 Agreement completed in connection with planning permission 46C427K/TR/EIA/ECON and the submission of a Deed of Variation to vary the following provisions of this legal agreement: paragraphs 2.2.2 Schedule 8 (Cae Glas Nature Reserve and Visitor Centre Specification), Appendix 2 Bond Table Penrhos Visitor Centre (including the Penrhos Visitor Centre Toilets) and their maintenance, paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of Schedule 12 (Welsh Language Scheme) and the substitution of Plan 2 Penrhos Land Drawing – Plan 2 drawing reference PL1114.VW008/Rev.03 dated 03/03/2016 at Land and Lakes, Penrhos Coastal Park, Holyhead
The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of a Local Member.
It was resolved to defer consideration of the application for the reason given.
1. 8.3 COMP/2021/1 – Submission of information necessary to discharge sections Schedule 8, Section 1, Clause 1.1 Car Parking and Public Access Strategy – Penrhos Coastal Park Phase; Schedule 8, Clause 12.2 Ancient Woodland Scheme – Penrhos Coastal Park Phase; Schedule 8, Section 15, Clause 15.1 Green Linkages Scheme – Penrhos Coastal Park Phase; Schedule 8, Section 17, Clause 17.1, SSI Management Scheme – Penrhos Coastal Park Phase; Section 8, Section 19, Clause 19.1 Ecological Survey and Monitoring Scheme – Penrhos Coastal Park Phase; Schedule 8, Section 19, Clause 19.4 Ecological Compliance Audit – Penrhos Coastal Park Phase; Schedule 8, Section 20, Clause 20.1 Existing Tree Management Scheme – Penrhos Coastal Park Phase; Schedule 8, Section 21, Clause 21.1 Warden Service Appointment/Warden Service Annual Reporting – Penrhos Coastal Park Phase; Schedule 8, Section 21, Clause 21.2 Warden Service Security Obligations/AONB Impact and use of Green Linkages monitoring assessment – Penrhos Coastal Park Phase; Schedule 8, Section 21, Clause 21.3 Warden Service, AONB Impact Annual Report commitment – Penrhos Coastal Park Phase; Schedule 9, Section 3, Clause 3.1 Penrhos Leisure Village Phasing Plan – Penrhos Coastal Park Phase; Schedule 11, Section 1, Clause 1.1 Local Labour Plan – Penrhos Coastal Park Phase of the S106 agreement obligations attached to planning permission 46C427K/TR/EI/ECON at Land and Lakes, Penrhos Coastal Park, Holyhead
2.
The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of a Local Member.
It was resolved to defer consideration of the application for the reason given.
3.
4. 8.4 HHP/2022/342 – Full application for alterations and extensions at Islwyn, Holyhead Road, Llanfairpwll
The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee having been called in at the request of Councillor Robin Williams due to concerns that the development would impact the neighbouring property. At its meeting held on 1 March, 2023, the Committee resolved that a physical site visit be undertaken. However the application was withdrawn before the site visit was due to take place on 15 March, 2023.
Application withdrawn.
5. 8.5 FPL/2022/173 – Full application for the change of use of agricultural land to site 32 holiday lodges, reception building, construction of new vehicular access, construction of new on-site roads and parking areas and associated works on land adjacent to Lôn Penmynydd, Llangefni
The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of a Local Member. At its meeting held on 1 March, 2023, the Committee resolved to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation the reasons being that the proposal would not enhance the site and would be contrary to Policy PCYFF3 of the Joint Local Development Plan; the ecological report accompanying the planning application does not address the proposal’s impact on red squirrels; the chalets could be used as residential dwellings in future and concerns regarding highway safety.
The Development Management Manager addressed the reasons cited for refusing the application at the previous meeting and described how the proposal complies with the criteria of Policy PCYFF 3 as set out in the report in being a high quality development on a site that is considered to be well designed incorporating a woodland to the North and South boundary of the site as well as planting around the site, a wildflower meadow, amenity grass and woodland planting. The landscaping scheme will provide a buffer to the existing treeline and will be a positive contribution towards biodiversity; if the site remains grazed by animals the existing trees and hedges would most likely degrade with little benefit to biodiversity on the site.
The proposal also provides a public footway from the site which would link to the existing public footway near the link road. The site has excellent connectivity to a bus route, cycle route and many shops within Llangefni town centre. The proposal is therefore considered to be compliant with Policy PCYFF 3 and a refusal on that basis cannot be justified.
As regards the concerns raised by the Committee about the proposal’s impact on red squirrels the applicant has submitted a further ecological report. The Council’s Ecologist and NRW were consulted, and it was noted that it is unlikely that the proposal will affect red squirrels as all but two trees on the site will be retained and the development is confined to an open agricultural field. The Ecologist makes further comments about the positive impact of the proposal on red squirrels as a result of new planting. A squirrel survey was undertaken on 12 March, 2023; the survey for dreys was negative and concluded that there will be no negative impact on red squirrels. The survey goes on to note that there will be an improvement in habitat connectivity as a result of new planting which will also be of benefit to the red squirrel. It is therefore considered that the proposal improves the biodiversity of the site and will have no impact on red squirrels.
The concerns raised at the previous meeting about the possible future use of the chalets as permanent residential units will be addressed by a planning condition which restricts their use to holiday use only and requires the applicant to keep an up to date register of all the chalets’ occupiers. The applicant has confirmed that the site will be used for holiday letting use only and that there is no intention to sell the units, and he is willing to enter into a Section 106 agreement to keep the site as one planning unit. It is therefore considered that the Committee’s concerns on this point have been addressed and is not a reason for refusing the application.
In terms of highway safety, following concerns raised about the timing of the original traffic survey conducted, a further speed survey was arranged by the applicant which was undertaken in February and was based on a worst case scenario. This survey showed that speeds were lower than those recorded in the original survey and that the visibility splay is adequate for the development. Part of the existing hedge to the east of the access will be moved back to ensure adequate visibility and the roundabout to the west will naturally slow traffic speeds in both directions. The Highways Service have confirmed that they are satisfied with the access and visibility arrangements. Consequently, it is not considered that highway safety is a sufficient reason to refuse the application and the Officer’s recommendation remains one of approval.
Councillor Dylan Rees spoke as a Local Member and said that while the proposal is for 32 holiday lodges the further ecology report refers to a holiday lodge and caravan park development which intimates that the applicant has further designs in terms of what will be located on the site. Although he was glad that this report did consider the impact on red squirrels, he still had concerns on this point as the report cites the only evidence of a red squirrel as being a dead red squired found over 600m from the proposed development whereas local residents have seen red squirrels regularly coming to their gardens at much less distance than 600m from the site. The report states that 3,500 new native trees will be planted as a mitigation measure but does not specify whether any of those will be mature trees, as saplings will be of little or no benefit to red squirrels or other species for many years. He asked therefore that in the event the proposal is approved, any new tree planting will be of mature trees. Despite the comments of a member at the last meeting that the proposal complies with policy and legislation he maintained otherwise and was of the view that it fails to meet the requirements of Planning Policy Wales’s TAN 5 in respect of Nature Conservation and Planning. He also highlighted one of the seven goals of the Well-being of Future Generations Act which was to promote a resilient Wales; according to the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, this should be focused on enhancing a biodiverse natural environment with healthy functioning ecosystems as well as protecting natural green spaces. Councillor Rees said that the application is outside the permitted development boundary the whole point of which is to protect natural green space. One reason given for approving the proposal at last month’s meeting was the economic benefits that it would bring to the area. However, his fellow ward member, Councillor Paul Ellis, a local businessman spoke against the application and has said that he cannot see the local area benefitting economically from it. He therefore asked the Committee to adhere to its previous decision to refuse the application.
The Development Management Manager responded to the points made saying that the further ecology report recognises that red squirrels do move around; the application site is an open agricultural field defined by existing trees and hedgerows which are of poor quality. It is the Officer’s view that the proposal and the landscaping and woodland scheme which forms part of it will enhance the biodiversity of the site and also contribute to achieving the goals of the Well-being of Future Generations Act. Policy does not require holiday accommodation to be sited within a development boundary which requirement applies more specifically to housing developments. Proposals such as that under consideration would usually be located outside the development boundary but would be expected to demonstrate good connectivity with the surrounding community.
Councillor Nicola Roberts, Portfolio Member for Planning referred to the local objections to the proposal saying that although she thought the development was a quality development, local residents believe it is in the wrong location.
Councillor Jackie Lewis thought that the proposal in being a high-quality development would improve the site; the Highways Authority was accepting of the proposal and it was likely to create employment opportunities. It had sustainable links with Llangefni and could bring visitors into the town. She therefore proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Liz Wood.
Councillor Geraint Bebb proposed that the Committee’s previous refusal of the application be reaffirmed as he believed the proposal to be contrary to criteria 6, 9 ,10, 11, 12 and 13 of Policy PS5; Policy PS14 in not protecting the natural environment and being over reliant on tourism which also goes against Policy TWR 1; Policy PCYFF 1 in being outside the development boundary; criteria 3 and 4 of Policy PCYFF 2; Policy PCYFF 3 in not giving sufficient consideration to its natural environment context nor improving the character or appearance of the site; Policy PCYFF 4 and Policy AMG 5. Councillor John I. Jones seconded the proposal of refusal.
The Development Management Manager reiterated the merits of the proposal as regards its green and environmental credentials saying that the Council’s Highways Authority, Ecologist and Landscape Officer as well as Welsh Water and NRW were satisfied with the proposal. The policy context has been considered by the Planning Service as well as the Joint Planning Policy Unit and the proposal is considered compliant.
Councillor Dafydd Roberts thought the proposed development did not comply with criterion 2 of Policy PCYFF 3 in not respecting its context and place within the local landscape and in changing the character of the area. He felt the proposal was inappropriate for this location.
Councillor Jeff Evans thought the benefits outweighed the disadvantages the proposed development being more than a standard development and likely to attract visitors who more than likely would shop in Llangefni town and make use of its facilities.
In response to further comments the Development Management Manager confirmed that the proposal’s impact on the Welsh language had been considered and due to the holiday usage involving temporary stays it was not considered that it would have an impact on the community.
In the ensuing vote, the proposal to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation was carried.
It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and report subject to the planning conditions listed therein.
8.6 FPL/2020/247 – Full application for the erection of 9 dwellings together with associated works on land adjacent to Y Bryn Estate, Llanfaethlu
The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as it had originally been called in for the Committee’s determination by a former Councillor and Local Member. The planning application was approved by the Committee at its meeting in April, 2021 subject to conditions and the completion of a legal agreement. Following this resolution an amended ownership Certificate C was submitted by the applicant giving notice to the Council as landowner. The application was subsequently referred back to the July 2021 meeting of the Committee at which it was approved. The legal agreement has yet to be completed. However, as amended plans have been received, it is considered necessary to publicise, consult and further report to the Planning and Orders Committee in light of these proposed changes.
Councillor Llinos Medi, a Local Member referred to the planning history of the application site and said that it had over time been discussed extensively by the Community Council. She highlighted that the amended plans had only been issued for consultation and publicity on 17 March and that a meeting of the Community Council had taken place on 3 April, after which she was beginning to receive expressions of concern by neighbours saying that the application had been unclear. Councillor Llinos Medi also spoke about historic drainage and sewerage problems in the village of Llanfaethlu and said that there were serious concerns within the community on that basis. She felt that neither she nor the community had had sufficient time to formulate a viewpoint and case regarding the application and she was therefore requesting that consideration of the application be deferred for a month to allow the community council time to scrutinise the application in accordance with timescales.
The Development Management Manager acknowledged the point being made and confirmed that he had no objection in principle to a deferral recognising that the consultation/publicity period did not expire until the 7th April. He explained that the Officer’s recommendation would have been to approve the application subject to no new matters being raised before the expiry of the consultation period. He advised however that the proposal for 9 dwellings has been granted planning permission with the legal agreement remaining to be completed. The application submitted to today’s meeting is for amended drainage plans only which have already received SAB approval. The Development Management Manager said that nevertheless he would be willing to hear local concerns about drainage.
Councillor Robin Williams was supportive of a deferral saying that the scheduling of community council meetings does not always coincide with consultation timescales e.g. a community council may receive notification of a proposed development in its area on a specific date but may not be due to meet for some time afterwards thereby curtailing the time it has to consider the proposal. He recognised that the consultation timescale ran for 21 days but asked that consideration be given to timing when issuing details of an application. He proposed that consideration of the application be deferred; the proposal was seconded by Councillor Jeff Evans.
It was resolved to defer consideration of the application for the reason given.
Supporting documents:
PDF 3 MB