Agenda item

7.1 20LPA962/CC – Fron Heulog, Cemaes

 

7.2 34LPA121Q/CC – Llangefni Secondary School, Llangefni

 

7.3 42C321 – The Sidings, Pentraeth

7.1   20LPA962/CC - Retrospective application for the recently constructed track together with improvements to the existing access on land opposite From Heulog, Cemaes

 

The application is presented to the Committee as the Isle of Anglesey Council is the applicant and land owner.

 

Councillor W.T.Hughes having declared a personal interest in this application did remain at the meeting and provided background information in his capacity as a Local Member but did not take part in the voting thereon. Councillor Ann Griffith as Vice-Chair took the Chair for this item.

 

The Development Control Manager informed the Committee that the application is made for alterations and improvements to an existing agricultural vehicular access onto the A5025 together with the retention of a stone track agricultural access, set back from the public highway. The principal considerations relate to highway safety, and the applicant has submitted a report which makes submissions as regards highway safety as documented in the written report. The applicant’s report has been objected to and questioned by the objectors to the proposal, and the points of objection are detailed in the report. The objections have been forwarded to the Council’s Highways Section. The Council’s Highways Officer has assessed the applicant’s submission together with the issues raised in the objections and considers the proposal to be acceptable. It should be noted that the landowner could utilise the existing access without making any improvements to it. The Officer’s recommendation is one of approval.

 

Councillor John Griffith enquired about the access and whether it had been determined how far east it is sited for visibility purposes. He said that he had asked about this at the time of the site visit but that he had not had a definitive answer whether the visibility was within requirements.

 

The Development Control Officer (Highways) said that visibility from the access is currently poor from both directions towards Cemaes Bay and Amlwch. The modifications proposed as part of the application will widen and improve the access and will also broaden and extend visibility in the direction of Cemaes up to 215m. The access will still not provide as great a visibility towards Amlwch but will allow those exiting the access to have good visibility towards Cemaes and in coming out further onto the highway to be able to see the road in the direction of Amlwch. The Officer said that as the situation stands at present the visibility is very poor towards Cemaes. The Officer added that improvements are being proposed as part of the application and, bearing in mind that the access could be used without any improvements, the Highways section’s viewpoint after weighing up the situation is that that the improvements are well worth accepting.

 

Councillor John Griffith wished to know the precise extent of the visibility towards Amlwch and whether a visibility of 160m is required by the Highways Section.

 

The Development Control Officer (Highways) confirmed that it is currently 50m extending to 120 to 150m on coming out onto the highway. He confirmed that in this situation the required visibility would be 160m.

 

Councillor John Griffith asked whether a similar application from new would be considered acceptable. The Development Control Officer (Highways) said that it is reasonable to accept the improvements as proposed.

 

Councillor Aled Morris Jones as one of the Local Members said that whilst he thanked the Highways Officer for his comments he was very concerned that the Officer acknowledges that it is necessary to come out into the highway to achieve visibility in the direction of Amlwch. He pointed out that this entrance has been created from new – there was an access point to the field lower down the road in the direction of Cemaes which was safer .The name given to this area is the “Betws Bends” and it is a very fast section of road. Whilst acknowledging the professional opinion, Councillor Jones said that he still had grave concerns about this issue. He said that it is a matter of creating a new access to the highway at a point where accidents do occur and which will possibly create additional problems in future. The Member pointed out that the three Local Members have asked the Council to address this matter.  He emphasised that the old access was lower down the road – this access is new notwithstanding that it might not have been used for some time. He reiterated the concerns regarding road safety and the volume of traffic on the highway. The Council has not taken action on this matter and yet is prepared to allow another access onto the highway in what is a potentially hazardous place.

 

The Development Control Manager reiterated that there is an existing access on site which can be utilised unhindered and unchecked and that the Highways Officer has said that the application proposes improvements which would enhance road safety.

 

Following discussion about the siting of the access the Development Control Manager referred Members to the area’s layout as illustrated by the site map. Councillor Victor Hughes asked whether it would be possible to re-site the access towards Cemaes in order to achieve a visibility of 160m. The Development Control Officer (Highways) explained that the lower down the road the access is sited the worse the visibility up the road becomes. He referred Members to the site map and layout.

 

Councillor W.T.Hughes said that the area in which the access is situated is regarded as a potentially dangerous area and that there are concerns regarding possible accidents. He confirmed that the three Local Members have been asking the Council to take steps to improve the highway at that section in the interest of road safety.

 

The Development Control Manager again emphasised that the access has and does exist and can be used  without any improvements or control on the part of the Council. He said that he understood Members’ comments about it not being in the most ideal location, but the only changes proposed by the application are to improve the access thereby making it safer.

 

Councillor Nicola Roberts said she feared that the changes would also mean increased usage of the track and were not just a matter of improving the access to the field. She further inquired how what appeared from the map to be improvement work had been allowed to go ahead prior to consent being given.

 

The Development Control Officer (Highways) replied that a condition is proposed on planning consent that no part of the development shall commence until a visibility splay has been provided in the westerly direction in accordance with given specifications. The Officer said that the application is a retrospective application.

 

The Development Control Manager reminded Members that the access can be freely used without any constraints on traffic in and out. That remains the position albeit that the access has been improved.

 

Councillor John Griffith said that although he accepted that the access has and can be used he was worried by the prospect of a tractor and trailor wanting to turn right onto the highway on exiting the access with traffic coming at speed from the direction of Amlwch. He was concerned by the possible implications for the Council in terms of road safety of granting the application.

 

Councillor Jeff Evans said that if the application was a new application then it would likely be rejected, but the access is there and has been there for some time and can be used. He tended to agree with the Planning Officer that all that is going to happen is that there will be a better and improved access with highways conditions. Therefore he was not able see what the argument is about given that the access that is there can be used at any time. He believed that if it can be improved then the improvements should be agreed thus improving lives also.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes said he concurred with Councillor Jeff Evans’s viewpoint. He said that although the situation is not ideal he pointed out that septic tanks in use by the nearby council houses are in this location and Dwr Cymru and the Council’s tankers have been using the access for a generation He was concerned about possible increased usage, but the alterations as proposed are an improvement on what is there currently and will make the situation safer.

 

Councillor R.O.Jones as one of the Local Members said that any proposed improvement could only make the situation safer. He echoed previous comments about the road being hazardous and inquired whether it was possible to impose a 40mph speed limit on that particular section of the road.

 

The Development Control Officer (Highways) said that it was a suggestion that the Highways Authority could examine but as a separate process to that of granting planning consent.

 

Councillor Aled Morris Jones, a Local Member urged that the matter of the speed limit be looked into and dealt with expeditiously.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes proposed that the application be approved. There was no seconder to the proposal.

 

Councillor John Griffith proposed that that the application be refused. There was no seconder to the proposal.

 

Councillor Nicola Roberts inquired whether the application could be deferred to allow the Highways Authority to consider the proposal for a 40mph speed restriction on the relevant section of the highway.

 

The Development Control Manager said that deferral for that reason could place undue pressure on the Highways Officer and Section given that the process for changing a speed limit is a very different one to the planning process and is likely to take longer than the period from now until the next Planning Committee meeting. As a way forward, the Officer suggested that Planning Officers could request the applicant (the County Council) to amend the proposal in light of the Committee’s comments regarding visibility and safety. Members found the suggestion amenable and Councillor John Griffith proposed that that course of action be adopted and Councillor Nicola Roberts seconded the proposal.

 

It was resolved to defer determination of the application to allow the Planning Officers to consult with the applicant on the feasibility of amending the application in order to improve visibility and safety on entering the existing public highway. (Councillors Jeff Evans, Vaughan Hughes and Raymond Jones did not vote on the application as they had not been present on the site visit. Councillor R.O.Jones did note vote on the application as he was a Local Member)

 

7.2   34LPA121Q/CC - Installation of a biomass wood pellet boiler unit in connection with the new school to be erected on land at Ysgol Gyfun, Llangefni

 

The application is reported to the Planning and Orders Committee because the Isle of Anglesey County Council is the applicant and the landowner. A site visit was carried out by Members of the Committee on 19^th June, 2013.

 

The Planning Development Manager said that Planning Officers are satisfied with the principle of development in terms of the use of renewable energy and energy conservation as according with planning policies and he reminded Members that planning permission has already been given in August 2012 for a biomass wood boiler in connection with the school with a flue height of 11.5m.This is a revised full planning application for a wood pellet biomass boiler unit. The proposal would entail the siting of a steel container (12m by 3.7m by 3.5m high) centrally within the site which would be clad to match the existing school. Wood pellet fuel would be stored within the container. As part of this planning application, the proposed flue would be increased in height by 3.5m to 16m in order to be clear of any turbulence caused by wind to enable the exhaust gases from the boiler to disperse without causing nuisance or harm and taking into account the proximity and height of adjacent buildings. The Officer confirmed that the Council’s Environmental Health Section has not raised any objections to the proposal subject to the conditions recommended and specifically conditions 2,3 and 4.

 

In terms of the proposal’s visual appearance and relationship with its surroundings, the flue is a relatively slim structure and it is not considered that the increase in height would be unacceptable in the context of the overall school development within an urban area. The Officer went on to say that a number of issues were raised at the time of the site visit with regard to traffic in connection with the delivery of the wood pellet fuel and the storage thereof. He could confirm that the latter would be delivered at 3 to 4 week intervals during the winter and at 8 to 10 week intervals during the rest of the year. The delivery vehicle will be a 14 ton vehicle equivalent to, or smaller than a bus. He was confident that the school’s health and safety policy would apply during those times. The resultant ash generated by burning the wood pellets will be stored in a purpose made container on site and emptied every fortnight to be used as fertiliser on site on ground to be landscaped. As regards the possibility of integrating the use of the boiler unit by extending the electricity supply generated to other units on site, it has been confirmed that this is not possible due to the fact that those other buildings have upgraded their facilities recently and also because the proposed biomass boiler has not been designed to serve anything other than the school building .So that option is not technically or financially feasible. Having regard to all the material planning considerations, the recommendation therefore is one of approval.

 

Councillor Jeff Evans said that from the information presented, he could not see any major detrimental effects on nearby households and that the health issues do not appear to be problematic. The delivery of the pellets will take place about ten times a year and the ash used on site, so he believed that everything had been done to meet requirements to ensure that it is a successful application. 

 

Councillor Nicola Roberts as a Local Member said that possible health effects is a major concern and despite increasing the height of the flue,  residents remain worried that with a prevailing wind fumes will be carried to their properties. She asked if the Officers could respond to this concern and give assurance in terms of people’s health that there will be no problems caused by smoke and fumes. In the event of any subsequent difficulties after the flue has been built she asked what would residents be expected to do.

 

The Planning Development Manager said that the Council’s Environmental Health Officers have considered the proposal carefully and have concluded that emissions will not create health problems in the area. In the absence of any other evidence, as a Planning Officer he would favour that interpretation.

 

Councillor Nicola Roberts asked if the Environmental Health Officers’ report could be made available to residents in the area who have concerns about potential health problems. The Planning Development Manager confirmed that reports on file are publicly available.

 

Councillor Kenneth Hughes pointed out that consent has already been given previously for a wood boiler in relation to the school and that many of the issues raised should have been addressed at that time. He said that he was happy to second Councillor Jeff Evans’s viewpoint – Councillor Jeff Evans confirmed that he was formally proposing that the application be approved and Councillor Kenneth Hughes seconded the proposal.

 

It was resolved to approve the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation and subject to the conditions listed in the written report. (Councillor Nicola Roberts as a Local Member did not vote on the matter and Councillor Richard Owain Jones did not vote as he had not been present on the site visit).

 

7.3   42C231 - Full application for the erection of 13 new dwellings together with creation of a new access on land at The Sidings, Pentraeth

 

The application is a departure from Local Plan Policy but can be permitted under the Unitary Development Plan.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes having declared an interest in the application withdrew from the meeting during the discussion thereon.

 

The Planning Development Manager confirmed that a site visit had been undertaken meaning that Members will now be familiar with the site. The main issues arising relate to the access to the site and the density of the development. He noted that during the Committee’s previous meeting, questions were asked about land ownership; the Officer said that the report clarifies that the applicant has confirmed that the application site is owned and there is a covenant which does not encroach on the part to be developed and that its removal is being negotiated. With reference to the number of affordable homes to be provided as part of the development, the Officer confirmed that that provision will be 30% but that he also understood from discussions taking place that due to the nature and size of the development, the remainder of the proposed dwellings are likely to be relatively low cost as well. The Officer said that having taken into account the material planning considerations, the recommendation is one of approval.

 

Councillor Vaughan Hughes, a Local Member said that he was concerned that a local gentleman who runs an electrical business on the site had during the pre-committee briefing been refused permission to speak at this meeting. He believed that the person in question did have information that would be of benefit to the Committee to hear prior to its determining the application. Notwithstanding the rules, and in the interest of transparency it was a matter of regret to him that someone who in his opinion possessed relevant information was not allowed to have his say.

 

The Legal Services Manager confirmed that the Chair at the briefing meeting held earlier that morning had refused the request to speak at this meeting on the grounds that the public speaking rights with regard to this application had been exercised at the previous meeting of the Committee. The Legal Officer explained that there was nothing to prevent the individual referred to by Councillor Vaughan Hughes providing his observations either through Councillor Hughes as a Local Member today or otherwise in writing to the Planning Authority. The Officer confirmed that Councillor Hughes could speak on behalf of the person as a Local Member.

 

Councillor Vaughan Hughes reiterated his wish that the person wishing to speak be allowed to address the Committee. The Legal Services Manager confirmed that that request had been rejected by the Chair as the public speaking process on this application had taken place at the previous committee meeting. Councillor Hughes said that Mr Riley Walsh as the person wishing to address the committee was not aware that he did not have the right to speak at the time and that one of the objectors registered to speak had not taken up that right. Therefore Mr Riley Walsh’s testimony has not been heard by the Committee and he asked whether there would be any consequences if the public speaking rule was relaxed to allow Mr Walsh to share his information with Members at this meeting. He suggested that the rule provides guidance and that it is a matter for the Committee whether it wishes to follow the guidance.  The Legal Service Manager said that the rules are there for a purpose and that under the Constitution the Chair can exercise his discretion in this matter.

 

The Chair said similar circumstances had arisen previously namely individuals not perhaps taking advantage of the opportunity to speak soon enough and that it was not a matter of refusing Mr Walsh the opportunity of making his views known to the Committee but of acting in the interest of fairness and consistency to those who might have lost the opportunity to speak in the past. Councillor Vaughan Hughes said that he felt that considerations of transparency and of the public being able to see that justice is being done at the meeting are more important than rules which do not necessarily have to be adhered to.

 

The Chair replied that Councillor Hughes could speak for Mr Walsh as a Local Member. Councillor Hughes agreed to do so with the proviso that as Mr Walsh had only been made aware that he could not address the meeting that morning, his presentation would be far less powerful than that which Mr Walsh would have been able to make himself as a person who works on the site.

 

Councillor Nicola Roberts asked whether it would be possible to defer consideration of the application to allow Mr Walsh to address the committee at the next meeting thus showing respect to both parties and fair play to all Members in terms of allowing them the opportunity to obtain the information in full. Councillor Kenneth Hughes said that the Chair had come to his decision and that decision should be respected – the rules exist and in the interest of fairness to all, the rules need to be kept.

 

Councillor Vaughan Hughes speaking as a Local Member informed the Committee that contrary to what the developer has said according to the Planning Officer, two sections of the development site are on land which according to Mr Riley Walsh belong to him and his family and not to the developer and that consequently, the number of parking spaces available are 4 less in number than that referred to.  Moreover, a covenant exists which prevents building on an area of the site amounting to 150 feet. Councillor Hughes emphasised that the matter of ownership does contradict what the developer has said, and whilst he personally could not confirm the matter one way or the other, the statement of ownership by the developer is being challenged.

 

The Legal Services Manager said that he would suggest that Mr Riley Walsh provides written evidence to the Planning Authority to corroborate his assertion which the Planning Officers can then consider. If the applicant has made an application to develop a piece of land not in his ownership and without giving appropriate  notice to the rightful owner, then there is place to consider whether the application is valid. However, the matter cannot be addressed until written evidence is provided in support of the allegation made.

 

Councillor Jeff Evans pointed out that when he questioned the area of ownership and development at the Committee’s previous meeting he was informed that neither was a consideration and that issue to be considered was the planning application. He felt that it amounted to a travesty to be asked to consider a planning application when there is no proof of land ownership and that he personally did not believe in passing something without that knowledge. He believed it to be a relevant consideration at the time of considering the application. On a further point, Councillor Evans sought an explanation of what “affordable” housing means in real terms and to whom are affordable housing deemed to be affordable and whether a specific monetary value applies.

 

The Legal Services Manager said that the Welsh Government’s Technical Advice Note 2 provides a definition of affordable dwellings and the whole concept of affordable dwellings and is available on the Welsh Government’s website. As a way forward with the application under consideration, the Officer suggested that if the Committee is satisfied with the application’s planning merits, it can delegate approval subject to the receipt of proof of ownership. Should the evidence received not prove the allegation made then the planning consent can be released. If it is the case that the evidence does support the allegation and that what is being said is accurate, then the situation is that whilst land ownership in itself is not crucial to the planning process, giving notice to the rightful owner of the relevant section of the site is a legal requirement. Therefore in effect it is the process rather than the substance of the matter that is under question. The Committee would need to determine a timeframe within which Mr Riley Walsh would provide proof of ownership.

 

Following a brief discussion where it was suggested that proof of ownership be provided within two weeks, it was agreed through Councillor Vaughan Hughes that that timescale was acceptable to   Mr Riley Walsh. Councillor Jeff Evans said that it would be equally possible for the developer to provide evidence that he has bought the land in question and therefore owns it.

 

The Planning Development Manager explained that as part of the planning application process, every applicant has to submit a certificate of land ownership. The applicant has provided the same with his application in confirmation that he is the landowner. Customarily that is deemed sufficient in order to be able to proceed. Following questions raised at the Committee’s previous meeting confirmation was sought that the site in question is indeed in the applicant’s ownership and he has confirmed that that is the case. Therefore it would appear that it is a matter for the person challenging that ownership to provide evidence to support the challenge.

 

Councillor Nicola Roberts proposed that the application be deferred until the Committee is in full possession of all the information with regard to land ownership. Councillor John Griffith seconded the proposal.

 

It was resolved to defer consideration of the application to allow the Planning Officers to obtain evidence of land ownership. The evidence to be supplied to the Officers within two weeks of this meeting. (Councillors Jeff Evans and Raymond Jones did not vote on the matter as they had not been present on the site visit. Councillor Vaughan Hughes did not vote as a Local Member)