Agenda item

7.1 19C1136 – Ysgol Gynradd Kingsland, Caergybi

 

7.2 22C40A – Cae Maes Mawr, Llanddona

 

7.3 38C237B – Careg y Daren, Llanfechell

 

7.4 44C294B – Plas Newydd, Rhosybol

 

7.5 – 46C38S/ECON – Sea Shanty House, Lôn St Ffraid, Trearddur Bay

 

REPORT TO FOLLOW

7.1       19C1136 – Full application for the siting of a mobile building to provide a nursery at Ysgol Gynradd Kingsland

 

Councillor Jeff Evans declared an interest in this application; he remained at the meeting but did not vote or participate in the matter.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that consideration of the application was deferred at the previous meeting of the Planning an Orders Committee in May, 2014 because of Highways issues. Those issues have now been overcome with a supporting letter received from Caban Kingsland confirming parking arrangements. Since receiving the supporting letter, the Highways Department has confirmed that it has no objections to the proposal. The recommendation is therefore one of approval.

 

Councillor Lewis Davies proposed that the application be approved and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Victor Hughes.

 

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to the conditions listed in the written report.

 

7.2       22C40A – Full application for the demolition of existing dwelling and garage, together with the erection of a replacement dwelling and garage, stables, installation of a package treatment plant and alterations to the vehicular access at Cae Maes Mawr, Llanddona

 

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as it had been called in to the Committee by two of the Local Members.

 

Having declared an interest in this application Mr John Alun Rowlands, Highways Technician withdrew from the meeting during the discussion thereon.

 

The Committee noted that Mr Ifan Rowlands who had requested to speak at the meeting in support of the application was not present.

 

Councillor Carwyn Jones addressing the Committee as a Local Member said that he was speaking to convey the views of a number of concerned residents of Llanddona as well as the unanimous viewpoint of the Community Council in opposing this application for a large dwelling on a coastal site within an AONB. He highlighted the following issues as matters of concern:

 

•           The preservation of the character of the historical landscape around the Blue Banner beach of Llanddona is important to the community of Llanddona and the Community Council. The coastal area is replete with a patchwork of fields with a cottage here and there; Cae Maes Mawr was one of these ancient cottages before its conversion to a bungalow.

•           The development on the scale proposed comprising of a five bedroomed dwelling with 5 ensuite bathrooms complete with garage and stables will tarnish the view from the beach and will stand out like a sore thumb.

•           The slopes of Llanddona Beach are a known area of land slippage of which there has been a serious occurrence two year ago. Part of the coastal path has been closed recently and cracks in the road to the beach are currently under investigation by the Highways Department. Serious consideration must be given to the possibility of further land slippage as a consequence of this large development.

•           The applicant wishes to excavate to a considerable depth because the proposed development is substantially taller than the original bungalow with possible effects to the road above which is on a steep slope.

•           The application site is clearly visible from Llanddona Beach up to Traeth Coch and will also be clearly visible when visitors are sitting outside the Ship and enjoying the views.

•           The Welsh Government’s Planning Policy accords the same status to AONBs as to national parks in terms of their beauty, landscape and views and both must be protected from inappropriate developments. This equal status means that both must be treated in the same way in development control policies and decisions.

•           Section 5 of Planning Policy Wales deals with safeguarding and improving AONBs and states that the main aim in the designation of an AONB is to protect and to enhance its natural beauty. Development control policies and decisions which affect AONBs should presume in favour of their natural beauty and should give weight to the protection and the enhancement of the beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of these areas.

•           The Committee is asked to consider the unanimous view of Llanddona Community Council in opposing this proposal and is asked to reject the application and to protect the AONB which once ruined, cannot be restored.

 

The Planning Development Manager said the principal issue arising with regard to the application is its potential effect on the AONB. The Planning Authority is aware of the strength of feeling locally in opposition to the proposal and is not disregarding of it. The Officer in the written report acknowledges that in the case of this application, a finely balanced judgement is required and having regard of the policy considerations, is of the opinion that the proposed replacement dwelling is of high quality and design which will accord with its natural surroundings without harming the natural beauty of the area. The recommendation is therefore to approve the application.

 

Councillor Jeff Evans said that having been present on the site visit he personally could not see any issues arising so as to warrant rejecting the application although he could understand that there are issues locally given the beauty of the area. He thought that due regard must be had of the unanimous views of the Community Council as reflecting the feelings of the locality which are often paramount. Therefore he was more inclined to vote against the proposal because of the public objections; the Community Council’s objections and because of the very fine balance between approval and refusal due to consideration of the AONB.

 

Councillor Lewis Davies, as a Local Member reiterated the concerns expressed in relation to the scale; height and density of the proposed development; the potential for further land slippage in the area of the development and its effects in terms of visual impact on the AONB and consequently,  the unfavourable impression for tourists on the other side of Traeth Goch. He also referred to the substandard access and the potential for accidents on a narrow road which is particularly busy during the tourist season. He emphasised that the community of Llanddona does not object to the principle of development on the site but rather to the scale of the current proposal which will be intrusive in the AONB. Consideration must be given to the expert view of the AONB Officer who refers to the adverse effects of the proposal on the surrounding landscape especially in winter when it will be especially visible. He suggested that the proposal’s design be reconsidered and amended to a single storey dwelling which better harmonises with the surrounding historical landscape of the AONB.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes asked whether it would be appropriate to impose a planning condition to the effect that the development be restricted to a single storey dwelling. The Planning Development Manager explained that that does not meet the criteria for a condition as it constitutes too radical a change from the original proposal.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes said that he was of the view that there were insufficient reasons to refuse the application and that it would be difficult to defend a refusal at appeal. The proposal represents an improvement on the current situation. There are several other dwellings on the slope in this area albeit they are less visible than the proposed development but this situation is ameliorated by a range of stringent conditions proposed by the Officers. Although the land is prone to slippage, new dwellings can be more robustly anchored to the ground than older structures. For those reasons he supported the application.

 

Councillor John Griffith said that he shared the concerns regarding size and scale and he inquired whether a development that is so much larger than the original dwelling on site is acceptable. The Planning Development Manager showed the development plans which illustrated the scale of the proposed new dwelling in being taller and lower in level compared to that of the original.

 

Councillor Lewis Davies proposed that the application be refused because of its scale and effects on the AONB. Councillor John Griffith seconded the proposal on the grounds of the unacceptable scale of the proposed development.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes proposed that the application be approved and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Raymond Jones.

 

In the subsequent vote, Councillors Victor Hughes and Raymond Jones voted in favour of approving the application and Councillors Lewis Davies, Jeff Evans and John Griffith voted to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor W.T.Hughes did not vote on the matter as he had not been present on the site visit and consequently did not feel he was sufficiently informed to be able to make a judgement.

 

It was resolved to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation because of the adverse effects of the proposal on the AONB due to the scale and design of the proposed new dwelling and its prominence within the landscape.

 

In accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution, the application will be automatically deferred to the next meeting to allow the Officers to respond to the reasons cited for refusing the application.

 

7.3       38C237B – Outline application for the erection of a dwelling together with the construction of a vehicular access on land adjoining Careg y Daren, Llanfechell

 

The application was originally presented to the Committee at the request of a Local Member. At its May meeting, the Committee resolved to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. The report is presented at the end of the required one month period and responds to the resolution made and the reason for it.

 

The Planning Development Manager reported that the Officer’s recommendation remains one of refusal for the reasons given previously. However, should the Committee reaffirm its previous decision to approve the application, the Officer proposed that in addition to the standard planning conditions an additional specific condition be imposed to the effect that  the application site and the adjoining field be separated by a hedge in order to reinstate the boundary to the village.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes proposed that the previous decision to approve the application be reaffirmed and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Lewis Davies.

 

It was resolved to reaffirm the previous decision to approve the application and that in addition to the standard planning conditions, a specific condition be attached to the consent to require that the application site and the adjoining field be separated by a hedge.

 

7.4       44C294B – Full application for the erection of a 20KW wind turbine with a maximum hub height of 20.5m, a rotor diameter of 13.1m and a maximum vertical upright of 27.1m on land at Plas Newydd, Rhosybol

 

The application was originally presented to the Committee as it has been agreed that all applications for wind turbines be reported to the Planning and Orders Committee for determination. At its May meeting, the Committee resolved to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. The report is presented following the required one month period in response to the reasons given for refusing the application.

The Planning Development Manager reported that the Officer’s recommendation remains one of approval for the reasons outlined in the written report and because it is the view that the reasons for refusal cannot be supported at appeal.

 

The Legal Services Manager referred to one of the reasons cited by the Committee at its previous meeting as a ground for refusal in relation to the proximity of the application site to the AONB, and he advised that being 3km away from the AONB, there is no policy basis to justify that as a bare reason for refusal. The SPG on wind turbines makes reference only to a distance of 2km. Therefore that particular reason does not reinforce the Committee’s case for refusal should it wish to adhere to that position and could even detract from it.

 

Councillor Lewis Davies said that he remained of the view that the proposal adds to the cumulative negative effect of wind turbines in the area and that it adversely affects the landscape. Councillor John Griffith proposed that the previous decision to refuse the application be reaffirmed because of the proposal’s cumulative negative affect on the landscape and on the views from Mynydd Parys. His proposal was seconded by Councillor Lewis Davies.

 

It was resolved to reaffirm the previous decision to refuse the application based on the proposal’s cumulative negative effect on the landscape and on the views from Mynydd Parys.

 

7.5       46C38S/ECON – Full application for the erection of a restaurant on land adjacent to Sea Shanty House, Lôn St Ffraid, Trearddur Bay

 

The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as part of the application site is located on land in the ownership of the Council. The application was also called in by a Local Member.

 

The Chair invited Mr Eric Roberts to address the meeting in opposition to the application.

 

Mr Eric Roberts made the following points on behalf of the residents and Community Council of Trearddur Bay:

 

•           Legal issues surrounding land ownership. It is understood that land was placed in trust under the management of the Valley Rural District Council with the condition that it be used for the amenity of the public. Enquiries to clarify the position and to verify the legitimacy of the trust   are ongoing.

•           The application site is close to the coast and is prone to flooding especially in winter storms. The proposal is in the wrong place.

•           An application for a residential development on the site would not be permitted because it is located in a Flood Zone.

•           The Community Council objects to the development and asks that it be reconsidered because of the flood risk.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes pointed out to the speaker that Natural Resources Wales has confirmed that it is satisfied that the proposal’s finished floor level is set above the flood threshold and that he concurred with this opinion.  Mr Eric Roberts replied that the level of the site opposite is to be raised by 3 to 4 feet which will make the situation worse in terms of water retention as regards the application site. Councillor John Griffiths sought further information of the speaker with regard to the landownership issue.

 

Councillor Jeff Evans as a Local Member said that the complicated legal situation has to be resolved. Notwithstanding the land ownership question the application site is on a serious flood plain which is likely to deteriorate further as the weather and associated storms become more severe. He said that an application for a residential development would not be permitted and that he could not see the difference between that and a commercial proposal. Whilst the flood situation alone should justify refusing the application, there are issues regarding the access from the application site to the main road as well as parking issues in the immediate vicinity. He said that he opposed the application.

 

Councillor R.G.Parry OBE addressed the Committee on behalf of a Local Member, Councillor Trefor Lloyd Hughes to the following effect –

 

•           That there are serious concerns in Trearddur Bay regarding the flood plain and the application site sits in the centre of the flood plain. The development of the cricket field directly opposite the application site has added to the flood problems and the situation will be further exacerbated by another development of 80 houses behind the cricket field with the land filled to a very high level.

•           These developments together prevents the flow of  water to the inland sea which is taken out approximately 2 hours later on high tide from the site where it is proposed the Sea Shanty development is located. Photographs shown on the site visit illustrate the severity of the flooding in the area.

•           Disappointment regarding comments made by Natural Resources Wales which states that it is   satisfied with the proposal’s finished floor levels of 4.65m which Councillor Hughes felt to be inadequate.

•           That he would dispute the assertion that the proposal will bring investment and employment opportunities to the area given that similar businesses in Trearddur Bay are for sale and/or are only now re-opening following previous closure.

•           Reduced public car parking availability leading to parking on the road with the potential hazards that is likely to bring.

•           That the following considerations are paramount –

•           The location is on a flood plain

•           Loss of car parking facilities in one of the most visited beach facilities on Anglesey which should be a concern for the Highways Authority but to which no reference is made in the written report.

•           The need for a meeting with all agencies to look at the issue of flooding in Trearddur Bay.

•           Should the land be sold to the developer then advice needs to be sought regarding compensating the residents of Trearddur Bay by planning gain to be awarded to the community council for the amenities of those residents.

 

 The Planning Development Manager confirmed that since the Committee’s previous meeting the applicant has submitted revised plans which raise the finished floor level from 4.6m to 4.65m. As the closing date for the receipt of representations is 6th June, 2014 any planning consent would be subject to no new information being received or new issues being raised before the expiry of the consultation period. The principal concerns relate to flood risk and loss of parking amenities. The written report addresses those issues and shows that the proposed development will not be at risk of flooding nor will it aggravate the situation in the area. The Officer referred to TAN 15 and quoted from the advice where it defines the differentiation between zones C1 and C2 and the uses related thereto. The TAN advice is not to locate highly vulnerable developments such as residential or holiday lets within such areas. However a commercial development such as the proposed restaurant is considered less vulnerable than a residential development. Natural Resources Wales has provided its opinion on the proposal based on its expertise. A flood consequences assessment has been undertaken at the request of Natural Resources Wales and the proposal amended as a consequence. Based on the evidence, the recommendation is to approve the application.

 

The Planning Development Manager then proceeded to show photographs of the flooded car park in response to a request by Councillor Lewis Davies, and he said that the application is designed to ensure that the level of flooding in the car park does not exceed the development’s floor level and that the development will not encroach onto the park thus reducing its capacity to hold floodwater.

 

Councillor Lewis Davies said that he could not support the application because of its location in a flood zone and particularly because the site is uniquely situated between the Irish Sea and the inland sea in Holyhead and is at risk from flooding as the tide ebbs and flows twice a day. He referred to the geographical and meteorological characteristics which make the site particularly vulnerable to flooding and said that the situation is likely to worsen as a result of climate change and the more intense storms that that will bring.

 

Councillor Raymond Jones proposed that the application be refused and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Lewis Davies.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes proposed that the application be approved because he believed the development would be protected from flooding, and also in the interests of consistency because a development of apartments in the area at a lower level than that of the current application was approved at the previous meeting. Councillor John Griffith seconded his proposal of approval.

 

In the subsequent vote, Councillors Victor Hughes and John Griffith voted in favour of approving the application and Councillors Lewis Davies, Jeff Evans and Raymond Jones voted to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor W.T.Hughes did not vote on the matter as he had not been present on the site visit.

 

The reasons cited for refusing the application were loss of public car parking amenity; health and safety of the access onto the main road and the risk of flooding based on the fact that the application site is in a unique area located between the open sea on the one side and the inland sea on the other thus creating a set of circumstances that make it especially vulnerable to flooding.

 

It was resolved to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the reasons given.

 

In accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution, the application will be automatically deferred to the next meeting to allow the Officers to respond to the reasons cited for refusing the application.