Agenda item

12.1 12LPA983/AD/CC – Gallows Point, Beaumaris

 

12.2 22C211C – Yr Orsedd, Llanddona

 

12.3 23C268B – Uwch y Gors, Mynydd Bodafon

 

12.4 30LPA/978/AD/CC – Red Wharf Bay

 

12.5 34C648A – Pwros, Rhosmeirch

 

12.6 34LPA982/CA/CC – The Stilts Building, Llangefni

 

12.7 47LPA966/CC - Ysgol Gynradd Llanddeusant, Llanddeusant

12.1  12LPA983/AD/CC – Application for the siting of an interpretation panel at Gallows Point, Beaumaris

 

The application is presented to the Committee at is made by the Local Authority.

 

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the application be approved and 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 listed in the written report.

 

12.2     22C211C – Full application for the erection of one wind turbine with a maximum hub height of 25m, a rotor diameter of 19.24m and a maximum vertical upright height of 34.37m on land at Yr Orsedd, Llanddona

 

The application is reported to the Committee as it has been decided that delegated powers will not be used in connection with wind turbine developments.

 

The Planning Development Manager said that the report specifies three key issues in connection with the proposal in respect of the principle of development, the landscape and visual impact and residential amenity. Whilst it is recognised that there is support within policies for renewable energy projects it is considered that in this instance the proposed development would create unacceptable harm to this environment and it is on those grounds that the Officer’s recommendation is to refuse the application.

 

The Chair invited Mr John Alexander, an objector to the proposal, to present his views to the Committee.

 

Mr Alexander highlighted the following as points of objection to the proposal:

 

• Anglesey is not listed as a strategic zone for onshore wind energy and according to TAN 8 it was never intended that these machines should spread willy nilly all over the Island.
• This turbine application should not have passed the screening process. The Planning Authority should have checked with the transmitter users – Police, BT and Aquiva for problems with interference. There is a major problem and a number of objections pin pointed this possibility. An investigation at the time of screening would have saved time and costs.
• The noise assessment figures are guesswork as there has not been an anemometer erected in the location. 
• The site is too close to 3 dwellings, the AONB, ancient and historic sites and 18 designated sites. It will impact on Beaumaris and the Snowdonia National Park. The location is surrounded by high value landscape and an area that is geologically outstanding and of international importance. It would therefore ruin one of the most spectacular views on the Island.
• The location is very close to the Grade II listed building, Rhos Isaf and the associated dairy used as holiday accommodation. It would also adversely affect Hafoty, one of the oldest properties on the Island.
• The CCW states that an EIA is not required and that it does not have records of any statutory protected species in the locality. The Council should contact the RSPB and its own Ecological Advisor. An EIA would be required due to the height of the proposed development and the presence in the area of bats, otters, goshawks, hobbies, peregrine falcons and buzzards.
• The A5109 is on the main tourist route to the ancient and historic sites and to the Blue Flag Beach so there would be significant adverse effect on tourism.
• There is no community benefit deriving from the development as the electricity generated will go straight to the National Grid. The expensive electricity costs to the dairy farm could be offset by a 12m microgeneration close to the farm buildings and which has been suggested to the applicant.
• The proposal does not meet many of the conditions of the recent SPG.
• Currently Anglesey has the highest number of onshore wind turbines in Wales given the size of the Island and its population.
• The Island needs a nuclear power station and efficient renewable energy projects such as solar energy and tidal turbines that will create jobs.
• There is no point to having nearly all the Island’s coastline designated an AONB and establishing an internationally renowned coastal path if the interior of what is a small island is to be filled with massive industrialised wind turbines. These ugly and inefficient machines will be visible from all over the Island and from the Snowdonia National Park. It would lead to an industrialised landscape.

 

Mr Alexander concluded by saying that he supported the recommendation of refusal.

 

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

 

The Chair than invited Mr Delwyn Owen-Parry to address the meeting in support of the application.

 

Mr Owen-Parry explained that his family represent the third generation of dairy farmers at yr Orsedd and that they wish to diversify. Currently, the farm uses about 50,000kw annually and ways of reducing costs are being considered. The process of producing milk uses a great deal of electricity. Mr Owen-Parry said that he foresaw that the amount of electricity used by the farm each year will increase to 120,000 kw during the next 5 years. The proposed turbine would generate 180,000kw per annum thus making the farm self-sufficient in the long-term. It will also create additional income and will help to ensure the farm’s future.

 

Mr Owen-Parry went on to say that the Officer’s report proposes refusal of the application because of the harm it would cause to the landscape. The location of the proposed turbine has been chosen because it is on land in the family’s ownership at a point farthest away from the village, the AONB and the Heritage Landscape Area of Penmon. Although consideration was given to a smaller turbine capable of generating 10 to 15,000 kw of electricity, it is unlikely to be affordable given the distance from the National Grid. Another option is to locate the turbine closer to the farm but that then would mean that it would be located within the Heritage Landscape Area of Penmon, it would be closer to the village and on slightly higher ground. This option would offer fewer advantages in terms of renewable energy on site.

 

Mr Owen-Parry drew the Committee’s attention to the fact that national policies support small scale community renewable energy projects. Wales needs to support such projects especially when the advantages are of benefit to the community in question. He said that he believed that this is true of the application – the electricity will be used locally and will contribute towards reducing the carbon footprint.

 

Mr Owen-Parry highlighted that the Officer’s report makes very little mention of the advantages offered by this development which is a shortcoming as regards putting both sides of the case. He therefore asked the Committee to consider very carefully the advantages deriving from this scheme.

 

Wind turbines by their very nature are things which are visible from various sites but it must be noted that the location is dependent on the need to harness the wind power. Sites which are suitable for this purpose have to be used. The Committee will know that there aren’t many employment opportunities on Anglesey with many young people having to travel far to work or move away altogether. The proposed wind turbine will be funded by the family personally and will enable the family to remain employed in the local area. It is a matter of two young families asking Members to give them an opportunity to live and work in their rural village where they have been brought up.

 

Mr Owen-Parry concluded by saying that he did not believe the proposal should be refused on the basis of effect on landscape alone. He again emphasised that the proposed turbine will not be within an AONB or within the Heritage Landscape Area of Penmon. Moreover it will not affect wildlife and it is within an acceptable distance to nearby dwellings. He thanked the Committee for hearing him and asked Members to consider the application fairly and not to allow the minority to divert attention from the facts.

 

There were no questions to Mr Owen-Parry from the Committee.

 

Councillor John Griffith pointed out that previous proposals of this nature have been the subject of a site visit and in the interest of fairness he proposed that the application site in question be visited by the Committee’s Members. Councillor Nicola Roberts seconded the proposal for the same reason.

 

The Planning Development Manager reminded the Committee that site visits are governed by a protocol the main criterion being that a significant advantage must be gained from conducting a site visit. The Committee therefore will have to state what that advantage is likely to be in this case.

 

Councillor John Griffith said that the Committee wishes to satisfy itself regarding the potential effects of this proposal on the landscape and AONB and its proximity to other dwellings.

 

It was resolved that a site visit be undertaken for the reasons given.

 

12.3     23C268B – Full application for the conversion and extension of an outbuilding to form a residential dwelling together with the installation of a package treatment plant at Uwch y Gors, Mynydd Bodafon

 

The application has been referred to the Committee by the Local Member who considers that the proposal complies with the conversion policies.

 

Having declared an interest in this application, Councillor Vaughan Hughes withdrew from the meeting and did not take part in the discussion thereon.

 

Sioned Edwards was invited by the Chair to put her case to the Committee in support of the application.

 

Ms Edwards addressed the Committee by saying that the applicant is a local man who is at present living in a caravan within the curtilage of his father’s house at Uwch y Gors. Last year the applicant and his wife adopted two young boys and the four hope to be able to continue to live locally in Mynydd Bodafon following the conversion of the outbuilding into a residential dwelling. The outbuilding was used as a storeroom and workshop but hopefully the building can be returned to a more beneficial use as a home for Richard Williams and his family.

 

Ms Edwards said that it is recognised that the current outbuilding is fairly small in size and in order to ensure that it provides a habitable dwelling, it is necessary to extend the building. The proposed extension is a modest one providing a dwelling of 70m square comparable to a two bedroom flat. The outbuilding as it is, is not attractive and does not contribute at all to the designation of the area as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The extension that is being proposed would substantially improve the appearance of the building and provide a home to a young local family.

 

Ms Edwards pointed out that Policy 55 of the Local Plan and Policy HP8 of the Anglesey Stopped Unitary Development Plan provide for flexibility in the size of extensions when converting outbuildings providing that the proposal substantially improves the appearance of the building. The policy also favours the adaptation of rural buildings when otherwise those buildings would fall into ruin to the detriment of the local landscape.

 

Ms Edwards sad that the landscape around the building has been carefully considered as part of the design process and the proposal offers a design that makes the most of the space below the current building and builds downwards. She concluded by saying that she hoped greatly that the Committee would support a young local man to convert the outbuilding at Uwch y Gors into a home for himself and his family.

 

The Planning Development Manager said that he acknowledged the personal circumstances in support of the application. However, the application site is in a countryside location in an area not recognised as a hamlet. Conversion policies do allow the conversion of outbuildings into dwellings with the proviso that the vast majority of the existing building must be structurally sound and should remain to be incorporated into the scheme. Only a minor extension would be permitted to the building. The Officer said that in this particular instance, approximately 26.8m square of the existing walling is to remain and 122 m square will be created giving an 80% addition. The proposal as presented cannot be reconciled to the polices on conversion and, given the extent of the new works involved amounts more to a new building in a countryside location. The Officer’s recommendation is therefore one of refusal.

 

Councillor Kenneth Hughes said that unfortunately personal circumstances are not a planning consideration and that he concurred with the Officer’s viewpoint; he therefore proposed that the application be refused. His proposal was seconded by Councillor Raymond Jones.

 

It was resolved to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

 

12.4     30LPA978/AD/CC – Application for the siting of an information panel at Red Wharf Bay

 

The application is presented to the Committee as it is made by the Local Authority.

 

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the application be approved and 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 listed in the written report.

 

12.5     34C648A – Outline application fro the erection of a dwelling together with alterations to the existing access on land at Pwros, Rhosmeirch

 

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

 

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr Richard Owen addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Mr Richard Owen said that the proposed dwelling was meant for his daughter and her husband and their one year old daughter. Should the outline application be approved Mr Owen said that they would conform with any conditions imposed by Planning Officers as the family is keen that the dwelling should be in keeping with the local environment as they have lived in Rhosmeirch for generations and would not wish to impair the appearance of the village. The site is within the management boundary of Llangefni Town Council and does not extend into the countryside – the boundary is beyond where the development site is to be situated. Mr Owen explained that his own house of Pwros although set back from the road is within the village and therefore this proposal does not extend farther – the site is between Pwros and the village’s community centre. There is a building nearby which serves as the community hall and which caters for the youth club, Merched y Wawr etc so there won’t be any substantial gap between the proposed new dwelling and the existing building of the community centre. The family therefore does not believe that the proposal will lead to ribbon development as it is under the management of Llangefni Town Council. Mr Owen said that he understood that personal circumstances are not a consideration but notwithstanding he was at a funeral recently when the talk was of “old faces” disappearing and he would ask where will the old faces come from in future. There are few young people in Rhosmeirch currently – his own family have had a connection with Rhosmeirch for nearly two centuries and although people of his age in the family are still living in Rhosmeirch, there is only one from a younger generation and that only because she has been bequeathed land by her late grandfather. The village, the chapel, the local community centre and village association committee all support the application. His daughter and her husband are already members of various organisations in the village even though they do not at present live in Rhosmeirch. The land on which the application is made is a part of land owned by himself and is not land on which he would want to see further development but only for the purpose of having his daughter close by to himself and his wife.

 

Councillor R.O.Jones inquired about the location of Pwros on the map. The Planning Development Manager referred Members to a picture of the application site forming a corner of a plot adjacent to Pwros . The Officer proceeded to say that personal circumstances have again been cited in support of an application and he reminded the Committee that the use of the land is the consideration from a planning perspective. The fact that the land is under the management of Llangefni Town Council is not material to the decision on land use which will be made at today’s meeting since that assessment is made on the basis of current policies and the application site, which is in a field. In addition to that set out in the written report, 4 further letters of support have been received and those can be seen in the correspondence pack. The Planning Officer’s standpoint on the application is that it does not conform with policy even though Rhosmeirch is identified as a hamlet in the Development Plan. The policy stipulates that single dwellings will be permitted on infill sites or other acceptable sites that are immediately adjacent to the developed part of the rural hamlet and clusters. It is considered that the proposal under consideration intrudes into the countryside and would serve to extend ribbon type development into an open countryside location to the detriment of the location’s character and appearance.  The Officer’s recommendation is therefore one of refusal.

 

There followed a brief discussion about the picture of the site as shown. The Planning Development Manager referred Members to an alternative perspective which showed the application site relative to the community centre and other dwellings up the road. Councillor John Griffith inquired how far from the village is the application site ; the Officer said that that information is not available as there is no boundary to the village and that it is a matter of infill sites or utilising sites that are immediately adjacent to the developed part of the village. Whatever the distance, the issue is that the application site is within a field that extends into the countryside.

 

Councillor Nicola Roberts speaking as a Local Member emphasised the local connections of the applicants and the family over decades as well as the full part they play in what is a close community. The landowner is supportive of the applicant’s intentions as he wishes to have his daughter and her family back home.  The purpose of erecting this dwelling is to allow Bethan Jones to move home to lend assistance to her mother and father as they get older. The intention and priority for the family is to erect a dwelling that is in keeping, and empathises with the local environment. The access to Pwros which is in use will also be used as the main access to the new dwelling. Neither the dwelling nor the access will impair current travelling or walking patterns within the area nor traffic, public footways or cycle paths. Permission has already been given for a connection to nearby water and sewerage facilities. The land in question is agricultural land with a low value and which the landowner and family have no intentions of further developing for any financial gain. The proposed dwelling being situated on land between Pwros and Rhosmeirch community centre will not impair anyone’s views and any effects on the landscape will be minimal. The development land is within the boundary of Rhosmeirch which is within the Anglesey Local Plan for development and is therefore only a reasonable extension to the village. There is no objection locally to the development – the community is in fact supportive of the proposal with letters of support having been received from a number of sources including the local town councillor who resides in the village. The application brings with it language considerations given that the family is very supportive of the Welsh Language and would wish to see its use being developed in the village which is very important in the light of the deterioration in the use of the language on Anglesey. In conclusion Councillor Roberts asked the Committee to consider the application very carefully and if possible to undertake a site visit in order to see how close the application site is to the village.

 

The Planning Development Manager said that the application is made on a piece of land and cannot be restricted to any individual. If consent is granted than that consent will be on the land in question and not the person making the application. The Officer reiterated that who the applicant is, is not a factor in relation to granting planning consent on a piece of land and that no restrictions can be placed on who would live in this dwelling if the application is granted as it would be a house on the open market. Therefore to determine an application on the basis of who the applicant is rather than on the application’s planning merits is dangerous. The applicant’s personal merits and the strength of their contribution to the community are not factors that outweigh policy considerations.

 

Councillor Ann Griffith sought clarification regarding the village’s boundary given that the Local Member had said one thing and the Officer another. The Planning Development Manager said that Rhosmeirch does not have a development boundary; there is a policy under the Local Plan that permits single dwellings on infill sites or on the reasonable limits of the village and the same kind of provision carries through to the Stopped Unitary Plan and the same criteria apply. It is planning fact that there is no definite boundary to the village.

 

Councillor Jeff Evans said that he believed that the first picture of the application site shown was disadvantageous to the proposal and that showing it from another viewpoint which includes the community centre and other developments close by makes the situation clearer. There have been no local objections to the proposal and although it may well be technically against policy, Councillor Evans thought that local conditions, the people and the intentions of individuals having been born in an area and wanting to live there have to be taken into consideration. He said that sometimes the real issues have to be taken into account i.e. the retention of people in their own village speaking their own language and supporting their own community.

 

The Planning Development Manager reminded the Committee of the need to be consistent in dealing with applications given that it had already refused an application in which personal circumstances featured. He again emphasised that applications should be determined on the basis of planning policy considerations and not on the basis of the applicant. Councillor Nicola Roberts acknowledged the need for consistency but pointed out that each application is different to the one before and should be determined on its own merits.

 

Councillor Richard Owain Jones said that having heard all the arguments presented and in seeing the map of the development site and its surroundings and if it is within reasonable limits of the village he was prepared to support the application.

 

Councillor Vaughan Hughes said that the First Minister for Wales has recently expressed concern regarding the erosion of Welsh communities and has said that the language factor should be a planning consideration in future. Whilst he recognised that Officers have to work under current conditions, he emphasised that the Welsh language will die out on the Island unless young people such as the applicants, are able to live in their communities.

 

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

 

Councillor John Griffith proposed that a site visit be carried out as suggested by the Local Member and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Ann Griffith.

 

In the subsequent vote, Councillors Jeff Evans, Raymond Jones, R,O,Jones and Vaughan Hughes voted to  approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

 

Councillors Ann Griffith, John Griffith and Kenneth Hughes voted for a site visit to be undertaken.

 

It was resolved to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation on the grounds that the application is deemed to be within reasonable development limits of the village of Rhosmeirch.

In accordance with the requirements of the Constitution the application will be automatically deferred to the next meeting to allow the Officers to respond to the reason given for approving the application. (Councillor Nicola Roberts as a Local Member did not vote on the matter).

 

12.6 34LPA982/CA/CC – Conservation Area Consent for the demolition of the existing building at The Stilts Building, Llangefni

 

The Planning Development Manger explained that the application has been submitted due to the fact that the building exceeds 115 cubic metres meaning that Conservation Area Consent is required for the demolition of any building/structure which exceeds this amount. When funding becomes available the building will be demolished and the land will be turned into parking spaces thus allowing for more room to manoeuvre around the bend when entering the car park and improving visibility to and from the site.

 

Councillor Jeff Evans proposed that the application be approved and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Kenneth Hughes.

 

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

 

12.7 47LPA966/CC – Outline application for residential development together with the demolition of the former school on land at Ysgol Gynradd Llanddeusant.

 

The Planning Development Manager informed the Committee that the Officers are recommending that consideration of the application be deferred to allow them appropriate time to consider the language assessment in connection with this application which has just recently been received.

 

Councillor Kenneth Hughes said that he was in favour of a deferral but for reasons of democratic renewal which is meant to ensure that the public who pay taxes and salaries have their say and be listened to. He added that he felt strongly that there is a duty on the Property Section to at least acknowledge that there is room for further discussions on this matter to seek a way forward that is acceptable to all parties.

 

It was resolved to defer consideration of the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.