Agenda item

7.1 15C30H/FR –  Pen y Bont Farm, Malltraeth

 

7.2  34C681 – Ty’n Coed Estate, Llangefni

 

7.3 36C338A – Ysgol Henblas, Llangristiolus

7.1       15C30H/FR – Full application for change of use of agricultural land to extend the existing caravan park to site a further 14 touring caravans with the installation of a septic tank on land at Pen y Bont Farm Touring and Camping, Malltraeth

 

The application was presented to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of a Local Member. At its meeting on 2nd November, 2016, the Committee resolved that a site visit be undertaken and this took place on 16th November, 2016. At its meeting on 7th December, 2016, the Committee resolved to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation the reasons being that the Committee considered that the flood risk is not of a level that the proposal cannot be supported and that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the ecology of Malltraeth Marsh.

 

Councillor Ann Griffith stood down as Chair of the Committee for the consideration and determination of the application in order to speak as a Local Member. The Vice Chair, Councillor Richard Owain Jones chaired the item.

 

The Chief Planning Officer reported that a call-in request has since been made to the Welsh Government for the application to be determined by Welsh Ministers. Consequently, the Local Planning Authority is prohibited from approving the development pending a decision by Welsh Ministers on whether or not the application should be called in. This means there are two options open to the Committee at today’s meeting, either to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation or to defer it.

 

Councillor Ann Griffith speaking as a Local Member reiterated the views she had expressed at the previous meeting, namely that the application site has not been affected by flooding even during the worst of weathers such as at Christmas, 2015 . She asked the Committee to consider deferring the application pending the outcome of the Welsh Ministers’ deliberations.

 

Councillors Lewis Davies, John Griffith and Nicola Roberts were in favour of refusing the application because of concerns around flooding and because they deemed the Committee should be guided by the professional opinion of Natural Resources Wales which had raised objections to the proposal as the flood maps confirm that the application site lies within the extreme flood outline. Councillor Lewis Davies proposed that the application be refused and the proposal was seconded by Councillor John Griffith.

 

Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the application be deferred to see whether or not the Welsh Ministers decide to call in the application to determine it themselves. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Jeff Evans who nevertheless repeated his support for the application based on there not having been any actual flooding on this site for the past 20 years.

In the subsequent vote, the proposal to defer the application was carried by five votes to three.

 

It was resolved to defer the application for the reason given. (Councillor Ann Griffith did not vote on the matter having stood down as Chair for this item).

 

7.2       34C681 – Outline application for the erection of 8 dwellings and 2 affordable dwellings with all matters reserved together with the construction of a new vehicular access and associated works on land to the rear of Tyn Coed Estate, Llangefni

 

The application was presented to the Planning and Orders Committee as it is a departure application for which the recommendation is one of approval.

 

Public Speaker

 

Mr Steve Moore (Against the proposal) speaking on behalf of himself and fellow  residents in Bryn Coed and Tyn Coed raised concerns in relation to the following matters  –

 

•           Access. The proposed new access entails a plan for a single carriageway with prioritised direction constructed over an attenuation tank. This is a complicated plan which would create a sharp right hand junction with limited visibility at the bottom of a bank where 4 driveways already meet. The Highways Department has failed to comment on the plan; neither has it made any comments on its long term suitability especially if the development is to be extended further thereby creating a “rat run” from the Talwrn to Benllech roads. Also, the space required for any access road, pavement and retaining wall is subject to the use of land the ownership of which is in dispute.

•           Flooding. Excessive surface water is a long standing problem raised by several residents in their original objection letters of May and June, 2015. These letters cite incidents where the Council has had to intervene to protect properties from being flooded. The surface water drainage from the area is also a contributing factor in the flooding of the Benllech road.

•           Planning. The Planning Officer in his report has identified the need to ensure that sufficient land is genuinely available or will become available to provide a 5 year supply of housing on Anglesey. The Officer’s calculation is based on 2014 data since when approval has been given for in excess of 455 homes. Reference is made to the draft Joint Local Development Plan which is yet to be formally approved. Land for 673 potential new homes in Llangefni alone has been identified meaning there are no planning criteria on the lines suggested to warrant permitting the application. Moreover the draft Joint LDP shows that the application site is outside the proposed development area for Llangefni and is not required for the number of homes identified. A formal objection to its non-inclusion by the then landowner was rejected by the Joint Planning Policy Unit and was the subject of a further hearing by the Welsh Government Inspector.

 

Councillors Dylan Rees, R.G.Parry, OBE, FRAgS and Nicola Roberts addressed the meeting as Local Members and they highlighted the issues of concern to them in relation to the application as follows –

 

•           That the Officer’s report states that although the development is outside the settlement boundary of Llangefni, the proposal being sited immediately adjacent to the boundary could be acceptable as an exception site under current policies with 100% affordable housing. However what is proposed is that 2 of the 10 new dwellings or 20% only are to be affordable properties which quota does not meet current policy guidelines.

•           The calculation showing that Anglesey has a 4.7 years land supply for housing (instead of the required 5 year supply) is outdated being based on data from the 2014 Joint Housing Land Availability Study. Since that time, an application for 139 homes has been granted permission on land adjacent to the application site and a proposal for residential development of 157 dwellings as part of a Coleg Menai application is in the offing.

•           The application site is not incorporated within the draft proposed Joint LDP; a subsequent appeal by the previous landowner was rejected with the adjudication stating that the response and recommendation in the consultation report to the JDLP published in March, 2016 published by the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Planning Unit was that “the representation seeks the inclusion of a new site not included within the Deposit Plan. Having considered the policy context, plan strategy, the JDLP provision and other relevant material factors, it is considered there is no demonstrable need to include the site within the plan.”

•           The site visit undertaken by the Committee showed the proximity of the proposal to existing properties; these will be subject to overlooking to an unacceptable level as well as being affected by loss of light.

•           There are highway safety concerns over this application. The proposal for a prioritised direction scheme can be problematic on those occasions when people do not conform to the priority direction and is potentially more hazardous in this instance as it is downhill. Neither does the proposal make any mention of any cycle path or walkway to school.

•           There are serious concerns over drainage and flooding. Surface water does run down because of the incline from Tyn Coed and Bryn Coed; further development at this location will add to the problem. To the rear of some of the properties near the application site is a bank of clay and porous limestone which is in danger of eroding.  The collapse of this bank would potentially be catastrophic for the residents of these properties in Tyn Coed.

•           The weight of local opinion including the Town Council is firmly opposed to the development.

 

(Having spoken as a Local Member, Councillor Nicola Roberts subsequently withdrew from the meeting)

 

The Chief Planning Officer reported on the principal planning considerations; the Officer said that the application site is outside but immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary for Llangefni and as such could be accepted as an exception site if the housing proposed was of an affordable type. However, what is pertinent is the position with regard to the 5 year housing supply which the Council has a duty to identify and which it does not have currently, the 2014 Joint Housing Land Availability Study (the latest published study) having indicated a land supply of 4.7 years only and the Joint LDP having yet to be adopted formally. In light of the guidance set out in TAN 1 regarding how an authority must act when it does  not have a 5 year land supply, it is considered that the application will contribute to the shortfall in the housing land supply. Additionally, the proposal is considered acceptable in this location. The Joint LDP to which reference has been made in the representations above is not a material consideration having not been formally approved at this stage. If the Council was able to show that it had a 5 year land supply consideration could only be given to the application as an exception site requiring 100% affordables; as the Council is not in that position, the homes proposed as part of the scheme do not have to be affordable and the guidance states that they can be considered as open market properties. As it is, the applicant is offering 2 of the 10 proposed dwellings as affordable homes.

 

The Highways Officer said that the application site has been assessed by Highways Officers and they do not object to the scheme. With regard to the priority direction system, the applicant’s agent has presented 3 options; while it has been accepted in principle, confirmation of which system will be deployed is awaited and a condition could be imposed to the effect that this is agreed prior to building work commencing. The Manual for Streets advocates the promotion of narrow carriageways over short distances as a means of reducing speed particularly within estates such as that in question. A reduction in forward visibility is also associated with reduced driving speeds meaning that vehicles coming down the hill on the priority system would naturally be expected to slow down to negotiate the bend at the bottom.  The road is considered more than adequate in terms of space being wider than both the average estate road and the width stipulated by national guidance; there will be a pedestrian footway running alongside which will link to the site. The layout is acceptable in principle to the Highways Department subject to the approval of the priority system by Highways prior to work commencing. Highways Officers would support a link to the school but the omission of the same from the proposal is not considered a sufficient reason to refuse the application. Highways officers have also asked that a Grampian condition be attached to the consent if given requiring the developer to improve the visibility splay to the Benllech road junction to 90m.

 

There was a consensus of opinion among the Committee’s members that the proposal was unacceptable for a number of reasons, including the strength of local opposition, highway and access safety issues, concerns about drainage and surface water flooding; insufficient affordable housing provision and because the Members deemed the proposal to be outside policy parameters the site being outside the settlement boundary for Llangefni and not included within the draft Joint LDP. Councillor Jeff Evans proposed that the application be refused contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and the proposal was seconded by Councillor Lewis Davies. There was no proposal in support of the application.

 

The Legal Services Manager advised that the draft Joint LDP can be considered a material consideration; however there remains a question as to what weight should be attributed to it. The application site has been offered as part of the process of agreeing a Joint LDP but was rejected. As the adoption of a new Joint LDP is imminent thereby providing the Council with a 5 year housing supply there is a case for considering whether sufficient weight has been given to this in the written report as a material consideration.

 

It was resolved to refuse the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation for the following reasons –

 

•           The strength of local opposition to the proposal;

•           The application site is outside the settlement boundary of Llangefni and is not included in the draft Joint LDP

•           Access safety issues;

•           Surface water drainage issues

 

(Councillor Richard Owain Jones abstained from voting)

 

(In accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution, the application was automatically deferred to the next meeting to allow Officers the opportunity to prepare a report in respect of the reasons given for refusing the application)

 

7.3       38C338A – Full application for the erection of a dwelling and detached garage on land opposite Ysgol Henblas, Llangristiolus

 

The application is presented to the Planning and Orders Committee as the applicant works within the Planning function of the County Council. The application has been scrutinised by the Monitoring Officer as required under paragraph 4.6.10.4 of the Constitution. Consideration of the application was deferred at the Committee’s meeting on 7th December, 2016 to allow the Highway Authority and the Drainage Section to consider the amended and additional information received.

 

Having declared an interest in this application, the Chief Planning Officer withdrew from the meeting during the consideration and determination thereof.

 

The Planning Development Team Leader reported that additional and amended information regarding the access and drainage has been received and is considered acceptable by the Highways Department and the Drainage Section respectively. The scheme has been amended and the existing access that serves the site is to be improved as part of the proposal which will improve the visibility splay meaning there will be no detrimental impact on highway safety. The Drainage Section affirms that additional supporting details submitted as part of the application confirm that the site can be adequately drained. The Officer said that there is outline permission for a dwelling on this site which if the current application is refused provides a fall back development meaning that the developer could submit a detailed application which complies with the requirements of the outline permission which would not provide the improvements proposed under the current application. The outline permission also allows a larger dwelling than that which is currently proposed. The Officer added that two additional letters of objection have been received along with a letter of support from the agent.

 

Councillor Victor Hughes speaking as a Local Member said that he had a number of concerns with regard to this application. While the Planning and Highways Services have considered the proposal acceptable it had befallen to him as a Local Member to point out issues with regard to access and drainage matters in relation to the application site when he believed it should have been the place of the relevant departments to have identified them. As a result, the scheme has been amended to address the access and drainage matters which he had highlighted.  Councillor Victor Hughes said that he still had reservations in respect of the application and he referred to an e-mail from the Drainage Officer proposing a solution to the drainage problem with which he still had an issue. He said that drainage problems on this and on the neighbouring land are of long standing and are well known. Added to that are amenity issues in relation to neighbouring properties most notably Rhoslan and Caeau Bychain. Councillor Hughes said that he remained dissatisfied with many aspects of the development and given so he proposed that it be subject to the following additional conditions:

 

•           A Grampian condition requiring the access to comply with Scheme 229 116 11 B and to be completed in its entirety prior to the commencement of works on site.

•           A Grampian condition requiring the submission, approval and completion of drainage matters prior to the commencement of building works.

•           The provision and the maintenance of screening along the boundary of the development with Rhoslan

•           An agreement as to the operational hours of any external works on site e.g. 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday to Friday in order to minimise disruption to neighbouring residents.

 

The Planning Development Team Leader said that imposing Grampian conditions on the planning consent is appropriate e.g. to ensure that the improvements to the access are made prior to the commencement of work on the actual building. Likewise, the drainage details with regard to a soakaway system that could work on the site have not been received in full - a Grampian condition would ensure that those are submitted and agreed upon prior to works commencing so that there is a workable system in place that does not affect anyone in the vicinity. In the event of the soakaway solution not proving viable, Part H of the Building Regulations also deals with drainage matters as referred to in the Drainage Section’s response. While imposing a condition to restrict operational hours could be considered unreasonable and is not usual practice, Environmental Health legislation does cover issues such as noise etc. As regards the effect on the amenities of Rhoslan the distance between the latter and the proposal is in line with the supplementary guidance for separation distances.

 

Councillor Nicola Roberts suggested that while an operational hours condition might be too severe, she considered that some form of traffic management plan should be implemented because of the traffic situation especially at the time of the school run twice daily.  The Planning Development Team Leader confirmed that a condition to that end would be acceptable.

 

The Committee was in general agreement with the proposal by the Local Member that the conditions specified be placed on planning consent with the exception of the condition to regulate operational hours which some members found impractical. Councillor Lewis Davies proposed that the application be approved with the additional conditions as set out by Councillor Victor Hughes and the suggestion made by Councillor Nicola Roberts. Councillor Jeff Evans seconded the proposal apart from the operational hours condition.  Councillor Nicola Roberts proposed an amendment to the effect that a condition requiring a traffic management plan in the interests of the amenities of the school be substituted for the condition regarding operational hours. Councillor Victor Hughes said that he believed that any such plan must stipulate specific times.

 

The Planning Development Team Leader said that while it is not the practice to impose a schedule on the applicant, the applicant could be asked to submit a schedule of how and when he intends to organise the works which would then be consulted upon with the relevant agencies to confirm its acceptance.

 

Following further discussion, there was agreement that the application be approved with the following additional conditions –

 

•           A Grampian condition requiring the access to comply with Scheme 229 116 11 B and to be completed in its entirety prior to the commencement of works on site.

•           A Grampian condition requiring the submission, approval and completion of drainage matters prior to the commencement of building works.

•           A condition to provide and maintain screening along the boundary of the development with Rhoslan

•           A condition requesting the applicant to submit a Traffic Management Plan which would include likely hours of working.

 

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 those listed above.