Agenda item
Applications Arising
7.1 – FPL/2023/173 – Mostyn Arms, St George’s Road, Menai Bridge.
7.2 – FPL/2022/289 - Ynys Y Big, Beaumaris Road, Glyngarth, Menai Bridge
Minutes:
7.1 FPL/2023/173 – Full application for the change of use of the former public house (Use Class A3) to a residential care facility (Use Class C2) together with alterations and extensions at Mostyn Arms, St George’s Road, Menai Bridge
The application was presented to the Planning and Order Committee at the request of a Local Member. At the meeting held on 4 September, 2024 the committee resolved to undertake a site visit which subsequently took place on 18 September, 2024.
Public Speaker
Mr Owain Hughes, Russell Hughes Cyf., Architects, spoke as Agent to the application and said that the application is to re-develop an unoccupied public house. The building has been empty since 2009 and the condition of the building has slowly deteriorated and has become and eyesore and a local nuisance. The development is for a residential care facility – not a HMO as claimed locally – it will be a home for vulnerable elderly people who need a little certainty, some assistance or extra care. The intention fully conforms with Planning policy TAI 11 as the site is within the development boundary. The site is within easy walking distance of the town centre and its services and facilities including transport to other locations and the Social Services Department have been consulted on a number of occasions and they are supportive and confirm that such a facility is needed. The Conservation Officer, is supportive of the intention to restore the building to its original form while removing the bay windows and creating a more attractive building which replicates the original building. The Highways Department have been consulted and they are supportive of the intention, it is considered that the parking spaces are sufficient considering the previous use as a pub had no parking provision and that it is in a sustainable location with plenty of parking spaces within the town. A number of letters of support have been received by the planning department ; it is clear that local businesses and local people want to see this building developed. The developer has a proven history of working closely with the authority on high quality developments in Menai Bridge. Without doubt, the proposal will get rid of what is currently considered to be a public nuisance and an eye sore in what is considered as a jewel in the crown of Menai Bridge. It will reduce the number of complaints to the Authority, local councillors and the Police and will therefore reduce the pressure on public services. The development is in line with the planning policies, highways requirements, character of the conservation area and ecologists.
The Planning Development Manager reported that the application site is located within the development boundary of the local service centre of Menai Bridge. The building has been empty for 15 years and will continue to deteriorate as it is currently in poor condition. The proposed use is for a 10-bedroom residential care facility (Use Class C2). Policy TAI 11 of the Joint Local Development Plan relates to ‘Residential Care Homes, Extra Care Housing or Specialist Care Accommodation for the elderly’ and is the most relevant policy for this proposal. The site is located within a reasonable walking distance to services and facilities within the town centre and also has a high frequency public transport service. Therefore, the proposal conforms with Criterion 1 and 3 of planning policy TAI 11. The proposal is not for specialist care accommodation, consequently Criterion 2 of TAI 11 is not relevant in this instance. In terms of the requirements of Criterion 4, the Social Services Department has been consulted on the proposal and who have confirmed that there is a local need for such a facility and have no objection to the proposal. The development will not result in an over provision of care accommodation compared to the needs of the locality. Planning Policy PCYFF 2 relates to development criteria and requires that proposals comply with relevant plan policies and national planning policies and guidance. Criterion 7 states that where a development would have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the health, safety or amenity of occupiers of local residences it will be refused. Having regard to the previous public house use of the site (which could be recommenced) and the likely levels of activity associated with that use, it is not therefore considered that the proposed use is unacceptable or will give rise to unacceptable or detrimental impacts upon the privacy and amenities of nearby properties. As the proposal is within the Conservation Area of Menai Bridge, planning policies PS 20 and AT1 are relevant. The proposed alterations and extensions, comprising alterations to the frontage, a second floor side extension with pitch roof above the existing two storey flat roof area and a three storey hipped, pitch roof rear extension in lieu of the existing 2 storey rear extension are considered to be acceptable in terms of design, appearance, scale and materials and will be an improvement to the current building which will preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the designated Conservation Area. Consequently, it is considered that the development accords with the provisions of the Joint Local Development Plan policies, PCYFF 2, PCYFF 3, PS 20 and AT1.
The Planning Development Manager further reported that the Highways Department have been consulted on the application and are satisfied with the proposals. Whilst acknowledging that the parking provision is slightly below the required standards, provision of 5 rather than 6 parking spaces, this is considered sufficient in this case having regard to the previous use of the site as a public house and sustainable location of the development with ample parking in the locality and access to public transport. The Highways Department are also satisfied with the submitted Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) which will be conditioned. The Social Services Department have confirmed that the proposed development conforms with requirements of the Care Inspectorate Wales and the provider will be registered with Care Inspectorate Wales. The recommendation was of approval of the application.
Councillor Sonia Williams, a Local Member said that her concerns are parking and traffic issues. The development is for residents over the age 55 (as is noted on the signage outside the building) and there will be a provision for 5 parking spaces on the site, with 2 spaces near the entrance and 3 in the garage on site. She did not consider that there is ample space to accommodate 3 cars within the garage as two small garage doors and a small access door has been created which limits space for parking. The small door was not permitted on the approved planning permission. She noted that there are no parking facilities near the site with yellow lines on the road nearby. However, staff and contractors seem to be parking on these yellow lines daily and she questioned as to whom will be monitoring people who continue to park on the yellow lines following any approval of the application. During the site visit, it was mentioned that there were parking facilities at the Pier, but an annual parking permit is required to park at this facility and local residents already complain that they are unable to purchase a parking permit due to limited availability. Whilst it has been stated that there are adequate parking facilities in Menai Bridge, it must be realised that the town is very busy, and availability of parking spaces is an issue with numerous complaints by residents. Councillor Sonia Williams referred that the previous use of the building was a public house and noted that the use of car was limited as people walked or used taxis to frequent the facility and this did not raise parking issues. She further said that the proposal is for residential facility for vulnerable people, but the building is on two levels with no mention within the planning application that a lift is to be installed.
In response to the comments made by the Local Member, the Planning Development Manager responded that the signage on the facility is for a residential development. The parking provision on site meets the needs of the parking standards and a Traffic Management Plan has been presented and approved by the Highways Authority. Whilst accepting that parking is an issue in every town and community on Anglesey, the requirement of 6 parking spaces as part of this application has been reduced to 5 parking provision as there is adequate parking facilities in the town of Menai Bridge which has one of the best public transport provisions on the Island. It is considered that the loss of one parking space on site would not have a significant effect. He said that monitoring the parking on yellow lines is not a material planning consideration and would be a matter for Highways and other agencies to monitor. He referred to the garage on the site which must conform to the application plans presented and it is considered acceptable that the site affords sufficient parking spaces on the site. The provision of the lift can be seen on the floorplan submitted with the application which is sited on the rear extension which meets the requirements.
Councillor Jeff Evans said that he was supportive of the application as the former public house has been empty for 15 years and he welcomed that a developer wishes to develop the site for much needed care facility. Councillor Jeff Evans proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Robert Ll Jones seconded the proposal of approval.
Councillor Dafydd Roberts said that it is the parking issue that is a concern as regards to this application. He said that residents of such a facility will not be able to walk far and there will be a need for vehicles to transport people from the site; if there is a need for a wheelchair it does take additional time to transport people from and into the facility. The Planning Development Manager responded that whilst accepting that a ‘stopping’ place is important, there is adequate provision outside the building for ‘stopping’ and parking will be outside the extension to the building.
(Councillor Trefor Ll Hughes MBE abstained from the voting as he did not attend the site visit)
7.2 FPL/2022/289 – Full application for the demolition of the existing dwelling together with the erection of new dwelling and garage together with associated works at Ynys y Big, Beaumaris Road, Glyngarth, Menai Bridge
The application was presented to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of Local Members. At the meeting held on 4 September, 2024 the committee resolved to undertake a site visit which subsequently took place on 18 September, 2024.
Public Speaker
Mr Rhys Davies, Cadnant Planning spoke as Agent to the application and said that the application includes a revised design along with additional information after the two previous applications were refused in 2019 and 2021. The applications that were refused were for a much larger house. The current design is for a 2-storey house rather than a 3-storey house and the footprint of the new house has been moved back on the site mainly on the current footprint of the existing dwelling. The Planning Officers support the application and there has been many discussions to ensure this is a high-quality development. The site is not visible from the Menai Straits as there are a lot of trees between the Straits and the house and there is also a lot of trees on Ynys y Big. The application has been called in by local members, but this is mostly based on concerns regarding the previous applications. The applicant has discussed the plans with neighbours prior to putting in the application and because the house has been moved back on the site there will be no visible impact on the amenities of the neighbours. The existing house is a single storey house, and even though this application is for a traditional 2-storey house, the roof ridge will only be 2 meters higher. As a result, the house will not be visible from Beaumaris Road, which is above the site. There are a lot of trees between the road and the proposed house, and the applicant has been working with countryside department to manage and protect the woodland on the site to ensure the longevity of the trees. The Highways Department does not have any objections as the access is deemed acceptable and will not be changed as part of this application; this was of concern during the previous applications. The Officer’s report confirms that the design is of a high standard, the house is well screened by the existing trees and will not lead to an unacceptable visual impact. The scheme is acceptable and complies with the policies in the Joint Local Development Plan and is in line with the Applicant and the Council’s desire to replace the existing house, that is in a bad state of repair and not suitable for renovation or extensions, with a sustainable property. Therefore, demolishing and rebuilding the property is the most sustainable option. He further said that the Members of the Committee did not entre the dwelling during the site visit, however, there are pictures within the Structural Report showing the internal condition of the current property.
The Planning Development Manager reported that the application is made for the demolition of the existing dwelling together with the erection of new dwelling and garage together with associated works at Ynys y Big, Menai Bridge and is located near the A505 in Glyn Garth and within a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The application site is near a designated SSSI and contains a number of trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order. This application comprises an amended scheme along with additional information following refusal of two previous applications in 2019 and 2021. The main relevant policy in the consideration of this application is planning policy TAI 13 : Replacement Dwellings. The current dwelling has lawful residential use, the building is not listed and has no architectural or historic nor visual merit for which it should be conserved. It is considered that the proposal conforms with criterion 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the policy as noted within the report. Criterion 4, within the policy, states that application can be granted ‘outside development boundaries of the existing dwelling is not capable of retention through renovation and extension and/or it is demonstrated that the repair of the existing building is not economically feasible’.
A Structural Survey has been submitted as part of the application which confirms that the existing building needs extensive upgrading. It confirms that there is excessive dampness throughout areas of the property indicating either failure of damp-proof courses/membranes, or lack of those in the original construction. It also advises, that due to the age of the property, asbestos is likely to be present. There is also some differential movement noted between both the conservatory and porch structures and the original building with no surface water drainage between the rear of the property and the retaining wall and that considerable groundwork/drainage works would be required externally. It also notes, that whilst performing adequately at present, roof timbers are unlikely to meet current structural requirements. Cost comparisons by qualified persons have also been provided and have been reviewed by the Authority’s Valuation Officer which demonstrates that the repair of the existing building would not be economically viable. The works necessary to bring the property to an acceptable standard are significant, consequently it is therefore accepted that the renovation and retention of the existing dwelling is not economically feasible in this instance and its replacement is an appropriate and sustainable long-term solution, in accordance with criterion 4 of policy TAI 13. In relation to criterion 6 which requires that the siting of the replacement dwelling should be within the same footprint as the existing building unless it can be demonstrated that relocation within the curtilage lessen its visual and amenity impact in the locality. On the site visit to the site, the proposed dwelling was ‘marked-out’, and whilst even though it would not be on the exact same footprint as the existing dwelling, being slightly forward and oriented slightly more towards the East, there would be an overlap of the building footprint which would ensure that the existing dwelling would need to be demolished in order to erect the replacement dwelling, furthermore it is not considered that the proposed siting would give rise to significant greater or unacceptable landscape or visual impacts upon the designated AONB or upon the amenities of adjoining property. Criterion 7 requires that outside development boundaries, the siting and design of the total new development should be of a similar scale and size and should not create a visual impact significantly greater than the existing dwelling in order that it can be satisfactorily absorbed or integrated into the landscape. In exceptional circumstances a larger, well-designed dwelling, which does not lead to significantly greater visual impact could be supported. The proposal would replace the existing single storey dwelling with a larger, two-storey property. Whilst it would increase the total floor area by approximately 124%, the overall increase in building footprint would only be approximately 12%. The ridge height will be only 2.3m higher than the current property, which is not considered significant within this location with mature trees surrounding and the slopping of the land towards the Menai Straits. Whilst the proposal would lead to a larger dwelling than currently exists, it is of a high-quality design incorporating the use of natural materials which along with appropriate landscaping would ensure that the proposal would integrate well into the landscape.
Councillor Alun Roberts, a Local Member said that two previous applications been refused in 2019 and 2021. Whilst accepting that the proposed dwelling on the site is smaller in scale than the previous submitted applications, there are still local concerns as regards to this application. He noted that the proposed dwelling would be nearer the Menai Straits with a 12% increase in the footprint of the building. The proposed dwelling will be prominent compared to the current property and more visible to the neighbouring properties and the properties across the Menai Straits. The site is within an AONB area which needs to be considered when evaluating this application. Whilst accepting that the design of the proposed dwelling will be of high quality, he referred that reference has been made within the Officer’s report as regards to demolishing the existing building due to damp, possibility of asbestos and problems with the roof. Councillor Roberts questioned whether the Officer’s have investigated the nature and the alleged deterioration of the existing property to merit demolition, and this would alleviate local concerns.
In response, to the comments by the Local Member, the Planning Development Manager said that it is considered that this application can be supported due to its design, quality and location. On the site visit to the site, the proposed dwelling was ‘marked-out’, and whilst even though it would not be on the same footprint as the existing dwelling, being slightly forward and oriented slightly more towards the East, there would be an overlap of the building footprint. The overall increase in building footprint would only be approximately 12%. Whilst it would increase the floor area by approximately 124%, the proposal would replace the existing single storey dwelling with a larger, two-storey property. He referred to the comments as regards to the visual impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties and noted that it is considered that it will not have a detrimental impact as there are currently mature trees and substantial properties near the site. He further said that a Structural Survey has been submitted by an independent qualified surveyor which shows the current internal poor state of the building.
Councillor Neville Evans said that during the site visit the visual condition of the current property from the outside seemed to be acceptable. He questioned whether objections had been received by neighbouring properties to the left of the property due to the increase in size and height of the proposed dwelling. The Planning Development Manager responded that the new development will be a similar distance from the neighbouring property. The residents of the neighbouring property originally had concerns that it would have an impact on their property due to the view and amenities but as the current proposal is on a similar footprint they have not objected to the proposal.
The Chair said that there was a proposal by the Agent that Members should view the internal condition of the current property but due to Health and Safety issues it was decided not to enter the building.
Councillor Jeff Evans said that the property is in a poor state and has been unoccupied since 2017. He noted that the applicant has submitted applications to demolish the dwelling and has submitted a high design application following a Structural Survey been submitted that the dwelling is not sustainable due to its poor state and needs to be demolished. Councillor Evans proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Geraint Bebb seconded the proposal of approval of the application.
It was RESOLVED to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to the planning conditions contained within the written report.
Supporting documents:
PDF 1 MB