Agenda item

7.1 15C91D – Ty Canol, Malltraeth

 

7.2 21C40A – Penrhyn Gwyn, Llanddaniel

 

7.3 40C233B/VAR – The Owls, Dulas

 

7.4 44C311 – 4 Council Houses, Rhosgoch

 

7.5 46C129B/FR – Dinghy Park, Porth Castell, Ravenspoint Road, Trearddur Bay

7.1  15C91D – Full application for the demolition of the existing garden room together with the erection of a swimming pool building in its place at Ty Canol, Malltraeth

 

The application has been called in by a Local Member for determination by the Planning and Orders Committee. At its meeting on 5th November, the Committee resolved to defer determination in order to receive a porosity test relating to the drainage, and to receive observations by the AONB Officer.

 

The Development Control Manager confirmed that the AONB Officer had not raised any objections to the proposal. Drainage matters can be addressed by conditions attached to the planning consent. The recommendation is to approve the application subject to the conditions listed and subject to the receipt of details prior to consent being issued. Should those not be forthcoming, or prove unacceptable to the Planning Authority then the application will be re-submitted to the Committee.

 

Councillor Vaughan Hughes proposed that the application be approved. His proposal was seconded by Councillor Richard Owain 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 and as reported to the Committee.

 

7.2  21C40A – Full application for the erection of an agricultural shed to house livestock and a slurry pit on land at Penrhyn Gwyn, Llanddaniel

 

The application has been called in by a Local Member for determination by the Planning and Orders Committee. At its meeting on 3rd September, 2014, the Committee resolved that a site visit be undertaken and the site was visited on 17th September. At its meeting on 1st October, the Committee resolved to defer determination of the application following the receipt of the Environmental Health consultation response and additional objections. These were forwarded to the applicant to allow them to be considered before a decision is made. At its meeting on 5th November, the Committee resolved to again defer determination of the application to allow the applicant an opportunity to make comments.

 

Mr Rhys Davies addressed the Committee in opposition to the application on the basis of serious local concerns regarding the proposal. He said that the Officer’s report recommends approval conditional upon screening and an odour management plan which mitigating measures it is considered will be too late once the proposal has been implemented given its close proximity to the nearest property of Penrhyn Gwyn. A noise and odour impact assessment should have been conducted prior to determining the application which is a guideline which other authorities in Wales follow when the proposed development is within 200m of the nearest property. In this case it will be sited within 100m of Penrhyn Gwyn. Planning guidelines state that buildings to house livestock or slurry pits can be erected without planning permission if they are sited more than 400m from the nearest dwelling, making it clear therefore that 400m is the benchmark in proposals such as this. The Environmental Health Officer comments to the effect that reasons should have been given for discounting other locations, and notes distance as an important mitigating factor saying that that the greater the distance between the proposal and the nearest property then the less likelihood of  complaints arising. The absence of national guidelines places officers in a difficult position, but notwithstanding, the Environmental Health Section response makes clear the possibility of problems occurring in future with little recourse to remedial action. In a similar case to this where a proposal was allowed at a similar distance to nearby properties, the Public Services Ombudsman found the authority concerned guilty of maladministration and in that case the problems persist for the applicant, local residents and the authority alike. The occupants of Penrhyn Gwyn do not oppose the principle of the development on another part of the land and have discussed that possibility with the applicant. They understood that the scheme would be amended but that has since been withdrawn. He asked the Committee to reject the application.

 

There were no questions to Mr Davies by the Committee’s Members.

 

Councillor H. Eifion Jones, Local Member echoed the sentiments of Mr Rhys Davies and said that he believed that given the evidence, it would be unwise to allow the proposal.

 

The Development Control Manager reported that the key issues are the proposal’s effects on landscape impact and residential amenities. The Officer is satisfied that the scheme as amended will help to alleviate noise and visual impacts thus making it acceptable. As there are no national guidelines, a balance has to be struck between the needs of the farming unit and residential amenities making it a difficult decision either way. He confirmed that here have been discussions regarding re-location but no proposal made to that end.

 

The Committee sought clarification of the location of the proposal relative to the nearest property and were shown the site plan. Councillor Vaughan Hughes said that in light of there being no national guidelines, evidence of the Ombudsman’s intervention and the potential for adverse effects he thought that approval would be a risk. He proposed that the application be refused contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. His proposal was seconded by Councillor Ann Griffith.

 

Councillor Ken Hughes pointed out that the scheme is on agricultural land and what the application proposes is part and parcel of living in the countryside. The buildings have to be near to the road for access purposes. He proposed that the application be approved and his proposal was seconded by Councillor Richard Owain Jones.

 

In the subsequent vote, Councillors Lewis Davies, John Griffith, Vaughan Hughes, Nicola Roberts, and Ann Griffith voted to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation due to the proposal’s proximity to the nearest dwelling and the potential for noise and odour impact. Councillors Ken Hughes, Victor Hughes, Richard Owain Jones and W. T. Hughes voted to approve the application.

 

It was resolved to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation due to its proximity to the nearest dwelling and the potential for noise and odour impact.

 

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

 

7.3  40C233B/VAR - Application to vary condition (01) (The track hereby approved shall be retained for agricultural purpose only) from planning permission 40C233 to allow the track to be retained for the purposes of agriculture and vehicle movement for the operational requirements of Tyddyn Isaf Caravan Park only at The Owls, Dulas

 

The application has been called in by a Local Member for determination by the Planning and Orders Committee. At its meeting held on 5th November, 2014 the Committee resolved to visit the application site, and the site visit was subsequently undertaken on 19th November.

 

The Planning Control Manager reported that the key issues relate to the acceptability of the proposal in terms of its impact upon the amenities of nearby residential occupiers, the visual impact upon the locality and designated AONB and highway safety. It is the Officer’s view that the proposal will not create an unacceptable impact upon the amenity of the local residents that it should warrant a refusal since the track currently already allows unrestricted and unconditional use for any agricultural vehicle and the proposed additional use for the operational requirements of the Caravan Park would be on an occasional basis only. Given that the use of the track would be relatively intermittent and infrequent, it is not considered that the increase in use would have an adverse impact on the AONB or on the character of the locality that it should warrant refusal. The Highways Department has confirmed that the proposal is acceptable from a highways safety perspective. Therefore the recommendation is one of approval.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes was concerned that the existing track with its sharp turns is difficult to pass and would be especially so for caravans particularly as they would have to go by nearby properties. He raised the issue of compliance and suggested that it would be difficult to ensure and monitor adherence to conditions placed on the track’s usage.

 

Councillor Richard Owain Jones said that having visited the site he was happy to propose that the application be approved. Councillor Kenneth Hughes seconded the proposal.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes proposed an amendment to the effect that use of the track for the operational requirements of the Tyddyn Isaf Caravan Park be restricted to 4 hours per day (either a.m. or p.m.) only. The amendment was seconded by Councillor Nicola Roberts.

 

Councillor Lewis Davies further proposed that the applicant be required to contact the Planning Department as to when the track is to be used for the requirements of the caravan park. Councillors Kenneth Hughes and Richard Owain Jones said they were happy with the amendments.

 

The Legal Services Manager advised that the proposal with regard to notifying the Planning Department when the track is to be used will place an administrative burden on the Planning Service and is likely to be impractical to implement. The Development Control Manager acknowledged the concerns raised in relation to managing the use of the track and the reliance on the receipt of local complaints for information about any breach of conditions. He said that he was happy that the conditions for the use of the track be made more stringent but was doubtful as to whether notifying the Planning Service in advance regarding the use of the track could be administered in practice.

 

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 subject to restricting the use of the track for the operational requirements of the Caravan Park to 4 hours per day (either a.m. or p.m.)  for 5 days per week.

 

7.4  44C311 – Outline application with some matters reserved for the erection of one dwelling on land adjacent to 4 Council Houses, Rhosgoch

 

The application was submitted to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of a Local Member. At its 5th November meeting, the Committee resolved to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation on the basis that it deemed the proposal to be compliant with Policy 50 and that it would not cause unacceptable harm to the appearance and character of the landscape.

 

The Development Control Manager reported that Officers have real concerns regarding the proposal’s adverse effects on the appearance and character of the landscape, and that as such the proposal is contrary to the Development Plan landscape policies and to Policy 50 of the Ynys Môn Local Plan which provides that a proposal should not constitute an undesirable intrusion into the landscape or harm the character and amenities of the locality. The recommendation remains one of refusal.

 

Councillor Aled Morris Jones spoke in favour of the application as a Local Member and he emphasised that it was made by a local couple who wish to raise a family locally. He said that the reasons put forward by the Committee for approval are acknowledged as capable of being genuine and material planning reasons. He therefore asked the Committee to adhere to its previous decision of approval.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes voiced his concerns in relation to the interpretation and implementation of Policy 50 in this instance. He said that settlements are listed within the Policy because they include a closely knit group of at least 10 houses which is not the case in the area of the proposal where there are only 6 houses with 4 of them in a close group. It is the cluster of houses by the Ring Public House on the western side of the train line that meets the policy criteria. A further three houses lie close by on the eastern side of the line and the applicant’s familial connection is with one of these properties. He could not therefore see any reasons for proposing to develop within another area of the village on an elevated and prominent site where it will impede on the character of the area. He was also concerned about the size of the development plot and about establishing a precedent if approval was ratified. He proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. Councillor Lewis Davies seconded the proposal of refusal. Councillor Aled Morris Jones clarified that another site had been discounted because it was marshy.

 

In response to a request by a Member for clarification of whether the proposal falls within a Policy 50 settlement area, the Development Control Manager said that Policy 50 lists settlements but does not designate boundaries for those settlements. In this case, whilst the proposal can be described as being on the edge of the settlement of Rhosgoch, the Officers have concerns regarding other aspects of it.

 

Councillor Richard Owain Jones proposed that the application be approved as he deemed it to be a matter of interpreting Policy 50 and because a similar application at Mynydd Mechell was approved. Councillor Ken Hughes seconded the proposal on the basis that he believed it satisfies the requirements of Policy 50 and meets a local need for housing. Councillor Nicola Roberts agreed that it was important to support local people.

 

In the subsequent vote, Councillors Lewis Davies, Victor Hughes and Ann Griffith voted to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. Councillors John Griffith, Ken Hughes, Vaughan Hughes, Richard Owain Jones, Nicola Roberts and W.T. Hughes voted to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation.

 

It was resolved to reaffirm the Committee’s previous decision to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation on the basis that it is deemed to comply with Policy 50 and will not cause unacceptable harm to the appearance and character of the location.

 

7.5  46C129B/FR - Full application for the placement of rock armour to the front of the existing gabion wall structure at Dinghy Park, Porth Castell, Ravenspoint Road, Trearddur Bay

 

At its meeting held on 5th November, 2014 the Planning and Orders Committee resolved that a site visit should take place prior to determining the application and that was carried out on 19th November.

 

Having declared an interest in this application, Councillor Victor Hughes withdrew from the meeting during the consideration thereof.

 

The Development Control Manager reported that a letter of objection had been received after the written report was drafted which relates more to how the development will be effected than its appearance. The site visit was undertaken to assess the proposal’s effect on the coast and on the AONB. The Officer confirmed that the proposal site lies outside the AONB. The key issue is the proposal’s effect on the surrounding landscape. It is the Officer’s view that the effects of the proposal will be confined to the Porth Diana area and will not be detrimental to the coast in general. The scheme is not an unusual feature in a coastal location. The recommendation is therefore one of approval.

 

Councillor John Griffith inquired whether it is appropriate to grant permission without first having secured confirmation by the Crown Marine Estate. The Legal Services Manager advised that as the written report confirms that the Crown Marine Estate has been consulted, but has yet to respond, it is in order to proceed to determine the application.

 

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

 

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