Agenda item

7.1 19LPA434B/FR/CC – Jesse Hughes Community Centre, Holyhead

 

7.2 29LPA/996/CC – Maes Maethlu, Llanfaethlu

 

7.3 31C14V/1 – 31 Cil y Graig, Llanfairpwll

 

7.4 34C553A – Ty’n Coed, Llangefni

 

7.5 36C328A – Bodafon, Llangristiolus

 

7.1   19LPA434B/FR/CC - Full Application for the refurbishment of the existing buildings, demolition of the link extension together with the erection of a two storey extension at Jesse Hughes Community Centre, Holyhead

 

The application is presented to the Committee as it is made by the Council on Council owned land. At its meeting held on 2nd July, the Committee resolved to defer consideration of the application as the incorrect local members had been consulted. This omission was subsequently rectified.

 

Councillor Jeff Evans sought advice in relation to the interest which he had declared at the outset of the meeting in respect of this application as to whether it necessitated his leaving the meeting. He clarified that his son was employed on a part time basis at the current Jesse Hughes Centre and that he deemed his interest to be in connection with part of the existing building although his son might potentially work in that part of the Youth Club where changes are proposed.

 

The Legal Services Manager advised that the interest is prejudicial if a reasonable person in possession of all the facts would incline to take the view that the interest of the Member’s son will be the prime motive for the Member’s participation in this matter as opposed to the public interest.  Having regard to the Officer’s advice, Councillor Jeff Evans withdrew from the meeting during the discussion and determination of the application.

 

The Development Control Manager reported that the key planning consideration is the proposal’s potential effect on nearby residential amenities. There is approximately 17m between the proposed extended building and the dwellings at the rear of the site which back onto the play area and it is the Officer’s opinion that increased daytime use of the site will not intensify amenity impacts to such a degree as to warrant refusal of planning consent and that the development is a reasonable and appropriate extension of the centre. Since the Committee’s previous meeting, further plans have been received that propose re-siting the bin store at a greater distance from the residential properties; the consultation period on these further plans expires on 1 August, 2014 and should any issues arise therefrom, they will be reported back to the Committee. The Highways Authority has confirmed it is satisfied with the proposal subject to the attachment to the planning consent of a condition for a traffic management plan.

 

Councillor Trefor Lloyd Hughes addressing the Committee as a Local Member said that whilst he did not wish to lose the grant funding opportunity connected with the proposal which is time limited, he did have serious concerns regarding the current traffic situation in and around the area of the Jesse Hughes Centre, and in particular parking and access issues including access for emergency services which he elaborated upon. There are local concerns that the proposed new extension to the Jesse Hughes centre will create more difficulties with regard to traffic and parking. He could not support the application without having satisfied himself that the Committee’s Members have had an opportunity to see the traffic problems for themselves. For these reasons, he requested that the Committee undertake a site visit.

 

The Senior Engineer (Development Control) acknowledged that the situation with regard to traffic was difficult but notwithstanding, the Jesse Hughes Centre is already in extensive use as an educational and community facility, and the proposed extension and changes to the current centre are deemed reasonable. The choice is between rejecting the application thus meaning current traffic issues will remain, and will not be addressed, or approving the application conditional upon imposing a sustainable travel plan to encourage staff and users of the centre  to travel in more sustainable ways in order to mitigate the traffic and parking situation. The Highways Authority recommends the latter course because rejecting the application will do nothing to improve the existing traffic situation.

 

Councillor Nicola Roberts sought clarification of whether the issue of the grant funding deadline mentioned by the Local Member impacts on the Committee’s decision. The Development Control Manager said that that was not material planning consideration as regards determining the application.

 

Councillor Ann Griffith questioned whether further traffic problems would arise during the proposal’s construction phase. The Senior Engineer (Development Control) said that the Highways Authority has also requested a construction phase traffic management plan as a condition of consent.

 

Councillor R. O. Jones proposed that the Committee visit the site in accordance with the Local Member’s request. Councillor Raymond Jones seconded the proposal.

 

Councillor Kenneth Hughes said that he felt the Local Member and the Highways Officer had provided sufficient evidence of the traffic problems in the locality of the Jesse Hughes Centre to make a site visit unnecessary, and that the decision was to reject or approve the application. He proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Lewis Davies with the proviso that a robust traffic management condition to manage traffic in and out of the centre be attached to the planning permission. Councillor Nicola Roberts indicated that she was supportive of the application but that she wished it to be noted that the matter of grant funding and related timescale does not have a bearing on the decision.

 

Prior to the vote on the matter being taken, Councillor Lewis Davies said that he was withdrawing as seconder to the proposal of approval in favour of conducting a site visit.  In the subsequent vote, Councillors Lewis Davies, Victor Hughes, Vaughan Hughes, Raymond Jones, Richard Owain Jones and Nicola Roberts voted to undertake a site visit.

 

It was resolved that the site be visited to allow Members to assess the traffic situation in and around the area of the proposal.

 

7.2   29LPA996/CC – Outline application for the erection of 5 dwellings on land at Maes Maethlu, Llanfaethlu

 

The application was presented to the Planning and Orders Committee as it is submitted by the Council and is on council owned land.

The Development Control Manager informed the Committee that the application was withdrawn on 15th July, 2014.

 

It was resolved to note the information.

 

7.3   31C14V/1 – Full application for alterations and extensions at 34 Cil y Graig, Llanfairpwll

 

The application was presented to the Planning and Orders Committee as it had been called in by Local Members. The site was visited by Members on 17th July, 2014.

 

The Development Control Manager reported that in terms of its siting and design, it is the Officer’s opinion that the proposal is appropriate for its context and that the materials to be used are acceptable as they would harmonise with the existing dwellings and as such would not look out of place. Neither is it considered that the proposal would affect any neighbouring properties nor impact on the surrounding area to such an extent as to warrant a refusal. The recommendation is therefore to approve the application.

 

Councillor Alun Mummery commented as a Local Member that the application had been called in because there were local objections to the proposal.

 

In response to a request by Councillor Lewis Davies, the Development Control Manager showed photographs of the existing dwelling along with the plans for the proposed alterations and extensions.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes said that having viewed the application site he thought that the intended extension to the front of the dwelling is in keeping with the other properties in the vicinity and will bring it visually into alignment with the properties on either side. The proposed finished dwelling will harmonise with the remainder of the estate. He said that he had taken notice of the fact than many properties on the estate already feature extensions. He suggested that should an issue arise with overlooking then that could be addressed by a condition regarding obscure glazing.

 

Councillor John Griffith said that he could not see anything policy wise to object to the application and he proposed that it be approved. Councillor Raymond Jones seconded the proposal.

 

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to the conditions listed in the written report and with the addition of a condition with regard to obscure glazing.

 

7.4   34C553A – Outline application for residential development including extra care facility, highway and associated infrastructure at Ty’n Coed, Llangefni

 

The application is presented to the Planning and Orders Committee because it has been advertised as a departure from the development plan, and is being recommended for approval. The site was visited by Members on 21st August, 2013.

 

The Development Control Manager reported that the key planning considerations are in relation to the adequacy of the existing residential land supply and the compliance of the respective proposals with the development plan and other material policy considerations. Llangefni is identified as a defined settlement under the provisions of policy 49 of the Local Plan and the application site lies outside this settlement boundary hence the advertisement of the application as a departure from the provisions of the development plan. In February 2011 the Council adopted an interim planning policy for large sites immediately adjacent to the development boundaries of main centres with the objective of ensuring the availability of sufficient housing land to maintain a 5 year land supply until the Joint Local Development Plan is adopted. This policy can be used to consider applications for 50 or more residential units immediately adjacent to Llangefni.  A significant upturn in the completion rate over the next year to 18 months could result in the land supply falling below the minimum 5 years supply thereby leaving the Council open to applications in potentially less sustainable locations being approved. The granting of permission in this instance would assist the Council in maintaining a 5 year supply of land until the Joint Local Development Plan is adopted. Therefore there is a policy basis to the residential dimension of the application.

 

With regard to the proposal for an extra care facility, the development plan and other material policy considerations do not require that such developments are located within settlements boundaries in the same way as housing developments. Analysis of demographic changes indicates that the older population will increase at an accelerating rate and the provision of specialist care services will have to expand to meet increasing levels of need. The location for this element of the application is considered suitable and sustainable being on the outskirts of one of the Island’s main centres. The recommendation therefore is to approve the application subject to a section 106 agreement containing the provisions listed in the report.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes said that he was concerned by the proposal for an extra care facility because he deemed it to be premature on the basis that the development of extra care provision in the Llangefni area is currently under consideration by the Council, and other potential locations for siting such a facility are being considered, and no decision has been made. The application site for the extra care facility is being proposed by the developer and due regard must be had of whether the proposed site is the most suitable for such a facility.

Councillor Nicola Roberts requested that consideration of the application be deferred to the September meeting to enable representatives of the local community to address the Committee given there have been many changes in the seven years since the application was initially considered. She referred to difficulties which members of the local community had had in seeking to speak publicly on this issue at the committee meeting. Councillor John Griffith seconded the proposal of deferral. Councillors Kenneth Hughes, Vaughan Hughes and Jeff Evans indicated that they supported the request for consideration of the application to be deferred to the next meeting.

 

The Legal Services Manager advised that should the Committee so decide and in order to be equitable, an invitation to address the Committee should also be extended to the applicant and/or his representatives. The procedure for public speaking at meetings of the Planning and Orders Committee is managed as part of the process for publicising applications locally, so in this case a mechanism needs to be identified whereby the interest to speak at the committee can be registered and a spokesperson for the local community subsequently nominated without having to re-publicise the application. Additionally, in light of the fact that this is an application for a sizeable development, the Chair of the Committee might wish to exercise the discretion that he has under planning procedure rules to allow additional speakers from each party and to grant them equal time to speak at the committee.

 

Councillor Nicola Roberts also asked that the observations of the Lifelong Learning Service regarding the likely demand on the local education provision which the residential aspect of the proposal might create and the available capacity to meet that demand be sought and presented to the next meeting.

 

It was resolved to defer consideration of the application to the Committee’s September meeting and with the agreement of the Chair (which was granted), to allow public speaking for up to the first three members of the public who register in writing with the Planning Service an interest to speak on the application at that meeting and to issue a corresponding invitation to speak to the applicant and/or his representative for an equivalent amount of time.

 

7.5   36C328A – Outline application with some matters reserved for the erection of a dwelling and the creation of a new vehicular access together with demolition of the existing garage and land adjacent to Bodafon, Llangristiolus

 

The application was presented to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of the Local Member. The site was visited by Members of the Committee on 17th July, 2014.

 

The Chair invited Miss Sioned Edwards to address the meeting in support of the application. Miss Edwards made the following points:

 

•  A previous application was refused because it proposed the removal of the majority of the trees and hedges along the boundary of the site to the detriment of the integrity of a landscape feature and the character of the area.

•  Detailed discussions have ensued with Highways Officers and the Council’s Tree Officer to overcome this problem and to ensure the proposal is acceptable in terms of not impacting on the landscape and ensuring the safety of the access.  The proposal now entails the removal of only two groups of trees to create the access, along with the planting of additional trees and it is now being recommended for approval.

•  The application is considered compliant in policy terms as it conforms to Policy 50 of the Ynys Môn Local Plan which permits single plot applications within or on the edge of a listed settlement which includes Llangristiolus.

•  There are two development boundaries to Llangristiolus, the one surrounding the upper part of the village and the other the lower part. The application site borders directly on the latter where there is a cluster of 7 dwellings.

•  Careful consideration has been given to minimising the effects of the proposed new dwelling on neighbouring properties, principally Bodafon. The height of the proposal has been restricted to 6m and further consideration will be given at detailed application stage.

•  From a highway safety perspective, a speed survey has been undertaken which confirms that the visibility splay proposed is acceptable and is in line with the advice contained in the Manual for Streets document.

 

Members of the Committee sought clarification of the speaker in relation to the current usage of the existing dwelling known as Bodafon and the siting of trees to both the north and south west of the application site and their type. Councillor John Griffith said that he thought that a new development such as that proposed was out of character with the cluster of 7 dwellings within which it is deemed to lie. Miss Sioned Edwards said that Bodafon is used occasionally by the applicant. She clarified that there are other developments within the vicinity and that the proposal is not the only new development in the area.

 

The Development Control Manager reported that with reference to the policy context, Llangristiolus is defined as a Listed Settlement under policy 50 of the Ynys Môn Local Plan. Single plot applications within or on the edge of a settlement are considered acceptable under Policy 50 of the Ynys Môn Local Plan. The erection of a dwelling on the site proposed is considered acceptable because the site lies immediately adjoining the property known as Bodafon and lies within a cluster of 7 dwellings. The proposal is therefore is justified in policy terms. A previous application was refused because it proposed the removal of a significant portion of the roadside boundary. Following discussions, the application has been amended to reduce the visibility splay to the access meaning that the majority of the roadside boundary will now be retained. A speed survey has been undertaken by the Highways Authority which confirms that the visibility splay is sufficient and conforms to the requirements. The recommendation is to approve the application.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes speaking as a Local Member said that the application site lies outside the development boundary of Llangristiolus. The only difference between the current application and the previous application which was refused is that less of the roadside boundary will be removed under the current application – 44.5m compared with 100m previously. The proposal makes no mention of the trees on the westerly side of the application site. Due to the narrowness of the site, the proposed new dwelling will back onto the stream at the rear of the site where there are ancient trees that will have to be removed or extensively trimmed. The access road to the site is an exceptionally narrow and winding road and the site is altogether an unsatisfactory location for an additional new dwelling being beyond the village boundary and about half a mile beyond the 30 mph highway speed restriction. There is ample land available within the village boundary on which to site a development. There is an existing dwelling known as Bodafon which has not been in regular use for many years meaning the need for a new dwelling in this area has not been proved. Another application under policy 50 in another location on the periphery of the village but within the speed restriction area was refused and was also rejected at appeal .The proposal represents development for development’s sake which is an issue that concerns the locality, and it extends the village boundary to an unacceptable extent. For these reasons he asked the Committee to refuse the application.

 

In response to Members’ requests for clarification of the dimensions of the application site in order to establish how narrow it is, along with the proposed location within the plot of the intended new dwelling, the Development Control Manager showed the Committee a photograph of the application site along with the existing dwelling of Bodafon and he illustrated the trees that would be removed to accommodate the access by reference to the site Plan. The Officer said that the site encompasses 1 hectare, and that the plot measures approximately 25m in width by 60m in length.

 

Councillor Nicola Roberts queried whether the proposal complies with Policy 50 of the Ynys Môn Local Plan and she asked the Officer to clarify the policy by reference to the relevant section. The Development Control Manager said that Policy 50 states that planning permission will normally only be granted for single dwellings within or on the edge of the villages and hamlets as listed provided that a proposal would not harm the physical or social character of the area and  bearing in mind the criteria set out which he noted.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes proposed that the application be refused contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Lewis Davies. Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the application be approved on the basis that the site is served by the main sewerage system. Councillor Richard Owain Jones seconded the proposal to approve.

 

In the subsequent vote, Councillors Jeff Evans, Kenneth Hughes, Vaughan Hughes and Richard Owain Jones voted to approve the application. Councillors Lewis Davies, John Griffith, Victor Hughes, Raymond Jones, Nicola Roberts and Ann Griffith voted to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the reasons that the proposal constitutes over-development in the open countryside and is deemed not to comply with Policy 50 of the Ynys Môn Local Plan.

 

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.