Agenda item

12.1 11C617 – DP Welding, Unit 1, Site 3, Amlwch Industrial Estate, Amlwch

 

12.2 12LPA1003/FR/CC  -  Beaumaris Castle, Beaumaris

 

12.3 15C116F – 5 Bythynnod Gwenllyr, Malltraeth

 

12.4 15C212 – Tyddyn Cook, Hermon

 

12.5 20LPA962B/FR/CC – Cemaes  North Beach, Cemaes

 

12.6 28C12D – Broadsands, Belan, Rhosneigr

 

12.7 28C497 – Queen’s Head, Ty Croes

 

12.8 34LPA1006/CC – Glan Cefni Flats, Llangefni

 

12.9 36C336 – Ffordd Meillion, Llangristiolus

 

12.10 39LPA1007/CC – Maes y Coed Flats, Menai Bridge

 

12.11 45C89A – Rhos yr Eithin, Newborough

12.1  11C617 – Full application for the change of use of vacant area to create a storage compound on land at D P Welding, Unit 1, Site 3, Amlwch Business Park, Amlwch

 

Councillor Richard Owain Jones proposed that the application be approved and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Nicola Roberts.

 

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

 

12.2  12LPA1003/FR/CC – Full application for flood alleviation works comprising of the construction of a stone faced secondary flood defence wall along the eastern part of the Green, increasing the height of the existing sea wall and gabion protection between Townsends Bridge and Gallows Point and associated landscaping together with construction of earth bunding on Castle meadow on the north side of Beaumaris Castle, Beaumaris

 

The application is reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as it has been made by the Council and is on part of Council owned land.

 

The Development Control Manager reported that there are three main elements to the proposal. The key issue is the impact the proposal will have on the heritage receptors in the area weighed against its public benefit in reducing flood risk. A Heritage Impact Assessment has been submitted with the application and extensive consultations have been conducted with the statutory public bodies and with Beaumaris Town Council. Whilst the statutory bodies, and specifically CADW and Gwynedd Archeological Trust have raised a number of points with regard to the potential impacts of the scheme, no opposition in principle has been expressed, and only one letter of objection has been received. Beaumaris Town Council has confirmed that it recommends approval of the application. In balancing the public benefit of the proposal in reducing the risk of flooding in the area and to the heritage assets themselves against the need to have regard to the setting of those assets, it is the Officer’s view that it is possible to alleviate any impacts arising from the development. The recommendation is therefore to approve the application.

 

Councillor Lewis Davies as a Local Member said that he was supportive of the application given that the town is prone to flooding; and, although Beaumaris is a World Heritage Site and is dependent on tourism he was satisfied that the statutory public bodies will keep a watching brief over the development. He proposed that the application be approved. Councillor John Griffith seconded the proposal of approval.

 

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

 

12.3  15C116F – Full application for alterations and extensions together with the erection of a garage at 5 Bythynod Gwenllyr, Malltraeth

 

The application is reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as it has been called in by a Local Member.

 

The Development Control Manager reported that the key issue is whether the proposed development complies with the provisions of the Council’s policies on rural conversions. A similar application was rejected by the Committee in May 2014. Criteria iii of Policy 55 of the Ynys Môn Local Plan and Policy HP8 of the stopped Unitary Development Plan state that a conversion scheme should respect the character, scale and setting of the existing building and involve only minor external alterations unless it can be demonstrated that significant enhancement of the appearance of the building will secured. The scale of the current building is 100.7 square metres. The overall scale of the proposed extension is approximately 97.5m forming an increase of at least 97% and doubling the scale of the existing dwelling. As planning permission would not be required to convert the garage into living accommodation, it is considered reasonable to incorporate its volume into the calculation. The applicant’s agent disputes this, and he calculates the extension at 59% of the existing building having discounted the double garage in that calculation. There has been no material change since the application was refused in May and whilst the proposal is on a lesser scale than that previously submitted in May it is still sizeable, and cannot be regarded as constituting minor alterations. The recommendation is therefore to refuse the application.

 

The Chair invited Mr Berwyn Owen to address the Committee in support of the application. Mr Berwyn Owen highlighted the merits of the proposal in being an application made by a family who require more space in order to be able to look after their two grandsons who have special needs. . The domestic element of the extension is not large being only half the size of the original cottage. The extension has been planned so it is to the rear of the current building and will not therefore be visible from the road running through Malltraeth; neither will it impede the amenities of those few people who use the public footpath which runs alongside the application site. The Council’s Footpaths Officer does not have any objection to the proposal.  The present cottage is not within a conservation area and neither is it a listed building. The cottage is not isolated but forms part of a cluster of similar cottages and no one in the vicinity has objected to the proposal.

 

There were no questions to Mr Berwyn Owen from the Committee’s Members.

 

Councillor Peter Rogers spoke to the Committee as a Local Member in favour of the application and he stated that after the previous refusal, the applicants had sought to re-think the proposal in order to meet the requirements. He acknowledged the discrepancy in terms of the size of the proposal but stressed that that relates to whether the garage is included within the calculations and is not related to the proposed alterations to the living accommodation. There are no objections to the proposal from any of the neighbours in the area. There is a letter of support which demonstrates an important point. There is a very real regard for the way in which the family and the applicants have taken on their responsibilities towards their grandchildren who have autism related needs thereby providing their daughter with essential respite care.

 

Councillor Ann Griffith also a Local Member confirmed that she supported the comments made by Councillor Peter Rogers.

 

In response to a request by Members of the Committee, the Development Control Manager showed the proposed plans and what those entailed compared to the present building on site. Councillor R. O. Jones asked whether the application would be considered permissible if this was a building plot. The Officer said that in that case, the policy context would be different and an application in those circumstances would be considered under a different policy with different requirements.

 

Councillor Jeff Evans expressed his support for the application given that there were no local objections to it and because he felt it did not involve any major impact on the surrounding area. The proposal had been amended and he did not deem it to be overly large in terms of living space as he too took the view that the garage should be discounted from the calculations. He proposed that the application be approved. Councillor Vaughan Hughes seconded the proposal being of the opinion that this was intervention for intervention’s sake and that the family was trying to shoulder its responsibilities without seeking local authority support.

 

The Officer said that the same policy considerations and principles apply to this application as to the previous application which was refused.

 

Councillor Lewis Davies proposed that the application be refused on policy grounds and because he believed the design to be out of keeping with the landscape and as such to be detrimental to an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. His proposal of refusal was seconded by Councillor Kenneth Hughes in the interests of consistency.

 

In the subsequent vote, Councillors Jeff Evans, Ann Griffith, Vaughan Hughes, R.O.Jones and Nicola Roberts voted in favour of the application. Councillors Lewis Davies, John Griffith, Kenneth Hughes, Victor Hughes, Raymond Jones and W. T. Hughes voted to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

It was resolved to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation for the reasons given in the written report.

 

12.4  15C212 – Full application for the restoration of the existing cottage and the conversion of the outbuilding to form 2 dwellings at Tyddyn Cook, Hermon

 

The application is reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of a Local Member.

 

Councillor Ann Griffith speaking as a Local Member said that she had called in the application because of local concerns in the village. She read out to a letter of objection by a resident of the village which set out  those concerns as relating to the inadequate vehicle access down the lane to Tyddyn Cook; noise and general disturbance which the proposal would generate which are contrary to the Council’s Local Plan; the threat to the physical and social character of the village and its Welshness posed by the proposal and also, its potential threat to a wildlife species of significance, Tyddyn Cook being  home to several soprano pipistrelle bats which are legally protected in the UK by both domestic and international legislation.

 

The Development Control Manager confirmed that since the report was drafted four letters of objection have been received in the same vein as that referred to by the Local Member. The Officer reported that the key issues relate to the proposal’s compliance with policy; its effects on the amenities of the neighbouring properties and whether it will have a detrimental effect on highway safety. There is a building on site which is suitable for conversion without the need for major building works as confirmed by the Structural Report. There are no immediate properties situated next to the proposal and it is not considered that the dwellings situated at the junction to the site will be detrimentally affected by the development by way of traffic. During the course of dealing with a pre-application enquiry for the proposal, the Highway Authority raised no objection to it. At the time of writing the report, a response by Natural Resources Wales was awaited and it is recommended that any issues that may arise from the presence of bats on site be dealt with by way of delegated authority to the Officers.

 

The Senior Engineer (Development Control) confirmed that the Highways Authority had not had sight of the letters of objection and the issues raised with regard to the access. However whilst recognising that the access road is narrow, it is a private road and it does become wider where it joins the highway. The visibility from the junction is acceptable and meets the standards. The Highway Authority is satisfied as regards access and highway safety.

 

Councillor Ann Griffith asked that the application be deferred to allow consideration of the letters of objection. The Development Control Manager said that albeit the letters were received after the report had been drafted, their contents have been considered.

 

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the application be approved and his proposal was seconded by Councillor John Griffith. Councillor Ann Griffith proposed that the application be refused on the basis of inadequate access; effects on amenities and on the Welsh language, and wildlife concerns. Her proposal of refusal was seconded by Councillor Lewis Davies.

 

In the subsequent vote Councillors Ann Griffith, Lewis Davies, Raymond Jones and Victor Hughes voted to reject the application. Councillors Kenneth Hughes, John Griffith, Jeff Evans, R.O.Jones, Vaughan Hughes, Nicola Robert and W. T. Hughes voted to approve the application.

 

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to the conditions set out in the written report, and to delegate to the Officers the authority to deal with any issues that may arise from the presence of bats on site.

 

12.5  20LPA962B/FR/CC – Full application for the creation of a seating and picnic area, car parking improvements together with improvements to the access ramp at Cemaes Bay North Beach, Cemaes Bay

 

The application is reported to the Planning and Orders Committee because it is a Council application involving land owned by the Council and National Trust.

 

Councillor R. O. Jones proposed that the application be approved and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Lewis Davies.

 

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

 

12.6  28C12D – Full application for the demolition of the existing house together with the erection of a replacement dwelling which consists of the installation of solar PV integrated tile roofing at Broadsands, Belan, Rhosneigr

 

The application is presented to the Planning and Orders Committee as the land on which it is proposed the pipe work to connect to the main sewer is laid is Council owned land.

 

Councillor Vaughan Hughes proposed that the application be approved. His proposal was seconded by Councillor Lewis Davies.

 

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

 

12.7  28C497 – Full application for the erection of 12 dwellings together with the construction of a new vehicular access on land adjacent to Queen’s Head, Ty Croes.

 

The application is presented to the Planning and Orders Committee as it is made on land in the ownership of the Council.

 

The Development Control Manager reported that that key issues relate to the principle of the development of affordable housing as an exception site and the impacts on adjoining occupiers. The application site is located outside, but immediately adjoining the development boundary of Bryn Du as delineated under Policy HP4 of the Stopped Unitary Development Plan. Policy 52 of the Local Plan and Policy HP7 of the stopped UDP allow, as an addition to land to meet general market housing need, the release of additional land to meet affordable housing needs in a locality as exception sites solely for the purpose of local affordable housing need where a demonstrable need for such housing exists. A local housing needs survey conducted in the Llanfaelog ward (Llanfaelog, Rhosneigr, Pencarnisiog and Bryn Du) in 2013 showed that the overall housing need is 34 households so the application is supported by policy. The scheme’s layout and design has been amended to that originally submitted to address the concerns of local residents. Despite the receipt of objections regarding loss or privacy and amenity, it is not considered the development will affect amenity or privacy to such an extent as to warrant refusal. The recommendation is one of approval with conditions; a section 106 agreement is not required as the land on which the application is made is Council owned.

 

Councillors Richard Dew and G. O. Jones as Local Members both spoke in favour of the application and they affirmed the need for affordable housing in this locality.

 

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

 

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation subject to the conditions set out in the written report and as reported to Committee, and to no new issues being raised in representation on the amended scheme.

 

12.8  34LPA1006/CC – Full application for alterations and extensions at Glan Cefni Flats, Llangefni

 

The application is reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as the application is on Council owned land. 

 

Councillor Nicola Roberts proposed that the application be approved. Her proposal was seconded by Councillor R. O. Jones.

 

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

 

12.9  36C336 – Outline application for the erection of a dwelling with all matters reserved on land adjacent to Ffordd Meillion, Llangristiolus

 

The application is reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of the Local Member.

 

The Development Control Manager reported that the key issues relate to policy compliance and effects on the amenities of the surrounding properties. Llangristiolus is defined as a Listed Settlement under Policy 50 of the Ynys Môn Local Plan and as a village under Policy HP4 of the stopped UDP. Single plot applications within or on the edge of a settlement are considered acceptable under Policy 50 of the Local Plan. The Stopped UDP which is a material factor in respect of planning decisions shows that the development boundary follows the road through the residential estate which is immediately to the front of the application site. It is therefore considered that there is a policy justification for recommending approval of the proposal as the application site is clearly on the edge of, if not within the village. It is also the Officer’s view that there is ample space within the site to accommodate the proposed dwelling without resulting in the overdevelopment of the site to the detriment of the surrounding area. The recommendation is one of approval.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes speaking as Local Member drew attention to the following matters:

 

•  The impact which he believed the application of Policy 50 of the Ynys Môn Local Plan had had in changing the character of Llangristiolus and the surrounding area.

•  The cumulative effect which allowing successive planning applications such as this month by month has had on the Welsh language and the Welsh character of the area. The village of Llangristiolus used to be amongst the most Welsh in Anglesey; today there are 93 children in the village primary school, 58 of whom are from Welsh homes and 35 of whom are from non-Welsh homes.

•  If such properties were affordable homes (and the proposed property is not) it would be so much easier for local couples to purchase them.

•  The futility of making policy provision for the Welsh Language when that is then ignored in practice. The Planning and Orders Committee has over the course of the past 15 years changed the nature of the village albeit there have also been some positive influences. The balance is extremely delicate.

•  The Committee did not determine where the development boundary lies but must recognise that it exists. To the left of the application site there is space for another dwelling and to the right of it there is space for four or more further dwellings. The boundary follows the route of the applicant’s land all the way around and there are other potential sites for development on that boundary all of which could be brought to the Committee under Policy 50.

•  A similar application within a stone’s throw from the current application site was recently refused under the same Policy. The application was also rejected on appeal. Consistency should apply.

•  The proposal that was refused did not extend as far into open countryside as the current proposal.

•  That he opposed the application and asked for the Committee’s support in bringing planning order back to the village of Llangristiolus by developing within boundary and by putting an end to sporadic development in every corner of the village.

•  The rapidity with which the application has been dealt with and brought to Committee regarding which clarification was sought.

•  The omission from the Officer’s report of any reference to a letter by the Community Council.

 

He proposed that the application be refused.

 

The Development Control Manager said that the Development Plan in evaluating the effects of policies has taken account of potential effects on the Welsh Language so as to render such assessment on an application by application basis unnecessary. The Committee should consider the weight of evidence before it. Other applications may or may not ensue. One of the assessments to be made under Policy 50 is whether a proposal intrudes visually beyond the village or whether it sits within the village. In this case as opposed to the proposal rejected on appeal to which the Local Member refers, the Officer has assessed that the current proposal does sit neatly within the village. Whilst the Planning Service endeavours to deal with all applications as promptly as possible, the speed with which an application is dealt with is not material to determining it. The Officer confirmed that no correspondence had been received from the Community Council.

 

Councillor Nicola Roberts clarified a statement she made at the previous Committee meeting with regard to the Welsh Language. With regard to the proposal she suggested that the illustration of the boundary which the Committee was shown was outdated and did not include all the developments that now exist within the village.

 

Councillor John Griffith referred to a map of the development boundary of Llangristiolus and he suggested that the site on which Ffordd Meillion lies is an extension to the original development boundary of the village meaning that the Committee is considering an application on a site that forms an extension to an extension, thereby raising the question of where will the development end. He believed it inevitable that a development proposal would be presented either side of the current proposal. He seconded Councillor Victor Hughes in his proposal of refusal.

 

Councillor Lewis Davies said he had concerns regarding the application site and the potential for further development. The village has been extended lineally by developments that are not for local people. He said that he could not support the application.

 

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. His proposal was not seconded.

 

In the subsequent vote, Councillors Lewis Davies, Jeff Evans, John Griffith, Ann Griffith, Victor Hughes, Raymond Jones, R. O. Jones  and Nicola Roberts voted to refuse the application contrary to the Office’s recommendation for the following reasons –

 

•  No local need for the development

•  Allowing the proposal  would set a precedent for further future development

•  The proposal lies outside the development boundary of the village, and

•  The proposal does not form  a logical extension to the village

 

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.

 

12.10  30LPA1007/CC – Full application for alterations and extension at Maes y Coed Flats, Menai Bridge

 

The application is reported to the Planning and Orders Committee as the application is on Council owned land.

 

Councillor Lewis Davies proposed that the application be approved. His proposal was seconded by Councillor R.O.Jones.

 

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

 

12.11  145C89A – Retrospective application for the use of land as a touring caravan site for up to 12 touring caravans from 1st March to 31st December each year together with the provision of winter storage for up to 12 touring caravans at Rhos yr Eithin, Newborough

 

The Chair informed the Committee that an e-mail had been received stating that the application was being withdrawn.

 

It was resolved to note that the application had been withdrawn.