Transcript

the meeting this morning of the planning taxi licensing and rights of way committee. I'd like to welcome everyone here. There are members in the chamber, there are members online and also we have a number of officers with us today. A warm welcome to the officers in the back who are joining us and any officer who will be taking part I will introduce them as we go through today's agenda. Swiftly moving along, apologies and roll call please. Carol. Thank you chair. Councillor Gareth D Jones. I'm at. Councillor Adrian Jones. Present. Councillor Tom Colvert. Present. We have an apology from Councillor Angela Davies at a d-day commemoration service. Councillor Deb Edwards. Present. Councillor Claire Hall. Present. Councillor Peter James. Councillor Ed Jones. Present. Councillor Gareth E Jones is abroad and we have permission to bring him in so if he is online I'll try and bring him in before we start the first application. Councillor Karina Kenyon-Wade. Present. Councillor Karl Lewis. Present. Councillor Geoff Morgan. Nope. Councillor Gareth Pugh. Present. Councillor Edwin Roderick. Nope. Apologies from Councillor Elwynn Vaughan. Councillor Jonathan Wilkinson. Present. Councillor Hugh Williams. I'm at. Yeah, thank you very much Carol. Moving on item number two minutes of the previous meeting. I believe these are on pages five, six and seven and eight of our pack. I'm looking for a proposer please for accuracy a proposer and seconder. Thank you Councillor Jonathan. Thank you Councillor Peter. I'll take it by every silence that we're all happy to accept these minutes for accuracy. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Hugh. Councillor Hugh. Yeah, just for our main purposes there are a couple of typos on page eight under the enforcement update. It's a trivial matter but it's just to note there's a couple in the second paragraph and in the last paragraph but please move on Chair. Thank you Councillor Williams. I'm sure Carol will just amend those slightly and we'll move on. Thank you. We also have the minutes for accuracy to approve please that was held on the 30th of May last week. So for accuracy again I'm looking for a proposer please. Councillor Adrian. Thank you and a seconder. Thank you Councillor Jonathan. Any comments from anyone? Are we happy to accept them for accuracy? I'll take your silence for that. Thank you very much. Right, item number three before us this morning, declarations of interest. To receive any declarations of interest from members relating to items to be considered on the agenda. Councillor Adrian please. Yes Chair, thank you. I'd like to declare an interest in application 24/0251/full. Thank you Councillor Adrian. Councillor Jonathan. Yeah I'd like to declare an interest in agenda item 4.3 24/0251/full. Thank you very much. Anybody else on the declarations A, no and B to receive members requests that a record be made of their membership of Town of Community Councils where discussions have taken place of matters for the consideration of this committee. I don't believe we have any. C to receive declarations from members of the committee that they will be acting as a local representative in respect of an individual application before being considered by the committee. Again I don't believe we have any and finally to note the details of members of the County Council who are not members of this committee who will be acting as a local representative in respect of an individual application being considered today by the committee. Councillor Arroll Jones, thank you very much. Right moving on to the business of the meeting, planning applications to be considered. 4.1 updates were emailed out yesterday I believe Carol. Have all members had a chance to read the updates? I take it by everyone nodding that you all have had an opportunity and that you are happy for me to move on. Right item number 4.2 Land at La Burnham House Bryn Mawr of Stan and Munnach it's on pages 13 to 46 of our agenda pack. Officer who is going to be guiding us through the application is Kate Bowen so Kate all over to you please. Just having a couple of issues sharing the screen. Everyone happy that everyone can see the screen at home. Thank you here. All yours. Thank you chair, good morning members and members of the public. Yeah so application 24279 full is for the siting of four geodome tents on decking areas installation of four number associated decking areas for outdoor seating baths and barbeque areas, siting of three number geotempts and decking areas retrospectively in the relocation of one existing geotempt and associated decking area. It also includes a retrospective formation of access pathways and car parking, proposed installation of four structures to house toilet facilities, installation of a sewage treatment plant and the construction of two passing places at La Burnham House Bryn Mawr, Stan and Munnach. Kate could you just pause for a second please when we try and bring in the agent if that's okay. Mr Oliver Evans, we're trying to bring him in. Can you hear everything Mr Evans? Is he with us Carol? Yes he is. Thank you. Sorry for that to locate me. That's okay. Thank you. Right yeah so this slide shows the application site. It's located in the open countryside approximately one kilometres northwest of Four Crosses in the area known as Bryn Mawr. This slide shows the application site edged in red and the applicant's land ownership edged in blue. The public rights of way are shown dashed green. This slide shows the proposed site obviously as mentioned previously it's the sighting of four domes which have a six metre diameter and 3.5 metres in height. They're sort of domed frames with a vinyl covering on top and they're sighted on top of timber decking. There's toilet structures for each dome and outdoor baths on some decking and they're proposed to be screened by fencing and hedging. There's a small solar array for each dome as well. The proposed planting is shown on this slide in green. It's hedges and trees. Some of the existing vegetation is also shown in black. The parking is located next to an existing building in the southern part just above the highway. If you can see that I'm just pointing to the parking area with the cursor and the access is located in the southern part of the slide just where my cursor is pointed now. So I will pause there now for speakers. Thank you very much. Yeah we have four public speakers with us this morning and the first to speak please is County Councillor Arwell Jones if you kindly take a seat up here and you have five minutes to speak and you may start when you're ready. Thank you chair. Good morning members. I refer to the application for all four geodrome tents and associated works. This is an application for when a refused retrospective planning application which over the past 12 months has commenced without planning permission. Following the refusal of the application in January 2024 the applicants were given until the 20th of February 24 to remove the structures. One was removed and the others remain in situ to this day. Reason for refusal of the application adverse impact on the landscape and two failed to demonstrate adequate sewage and waste disposal. The proposed development does not contribute towards the preservation of local distinctiveness. The site does benefit from an existing annex holiday let which was agreed in November 19 and a further three wooden cabins which was agreed in July 2022. The cabins to my knowledge have not been occupied due to the non-compliance of building regulations. There are many reasons to reject this application. Impact on highways, parking does not allow safe and efficient flow of traffic, landscape to name a few. But members only have to read the representations in the officer's report which highlights the concerns of local residents. It mentions two additional passing places which are in the wrong place completely. They should be on the narrow section of the unclassified single track road but this would not be possible. The only difference with the previous rejected application is that one geodome has been relocated and that they are now going to paint the canvases green to reduce visual impact. I don't believe that the agent and the applicant have addressed the landscaping issues with these proposed slight changes. Outside bathing areas and on the decking area which is visible to the adjoining properties. I personally would not be happy sitting in my garden with a holiday maker taking a bath a few metres away in the adjoining field. If you checked on document SK08 Amendment D Planting Plan and the application dated 17 May 2024 you will think with the existing hedges and the additional planting that they would not be visible. But what it does not show is the steep gradient of the field and that the domes are visible to adjoining properties. It mentions in the report also that the occupiers will continue to have an open and attractive outlook but it's the adjoining properties nearby that will be affected. Two other speakers will give further detail but given the above I would urge members to either refuse or certainly defer the application pending a site meeting. To clarify the view of the proposed site and the narrow unclassified single track road which is access to the site. This will give members a much better picture of the issues which are not highlighted in the report. I am sure if you have seen the photographs sent to you prior to the meeting which again highlights the issues of the narrow single track access. If the applicants want additional holiday lights I cannot understand why he hasn't concentrated on the existing arrangements for the three cabins. So can I thank members for your time this morning. Thank you very much and thank you Chair. Thank you councilor Jones. Thank you very much. Next speaker we have is Carol Davis speaking on behalf of the community council. Just for members information we do have officers with us today. We have Mr Simon Crewe from highways and Dan Stockett from the environmental health as well if members so wish to use time to question them later. Carol if you are ready the time is yours and you also have five minutes to speak. Good morning members and thank you for letting me as a representative of Landis Iliou community council address the planning committee today. What councillors are concerned about is the impact on the landscape, insufficient parking space and the extra traffic. They want to safeguard and protect the existing amenities and the existing residents. You will have been told that planning permission has already been granted for three holiday lodges. How can we stress enough that this is the maximum that should be allowed in this location due to the constraints of a narrow single track lane with limited passing places. Yes you can always request another couple of passing places but in reality motorists using these facilities are not used to reversing around blind corners to find these passing places. It is also important to note that no guaranteed location has yet been found for these bays so it is not acceptable to grant permission today and simply add a condition requesting that these be built. These domes appeared on our landscape as giant golf balls visible from many miles around as they were so prominent. It is frankly ridiculous to now suggest that they can be coated in green paint and that the applicant must ensure that these are maintained and repainted every six months. The only thing that we have learned in the last nine months is that the applicant does not comply with any enforcement or planning conditions. He's been asked to dismantle the pods when the previous planning application was refused on the 20th of February and has only gone so far as removing the white plastic. What we will be left with is four mottled golf balls which will have an unacceptable adverse impact on the landscape. The planning officer is not included in her report that concerns over whether there is adequate parking space as the space allocated in this application is exactly the same space as that allocated to the holiday chalets. Plus only four spaces have been identified yet environmental health have requested that calculation should be done based on a maximum of eight people so surely there should be eight parking spaces plus another six for the holiday chalets. Yes, we encourage tourism in our area as witnessed by the several caravan parks and camping sites but not tourism up a cul-de-sac with limited parking. At the bottom of the planning application the applicant states that he looks forward to continuing to grow his business. What safeguards are there that if you grant permission today that another five golf balls will not appear on our horizon? It has taken nine months for this planning application to come before you today as planning enforcement is lengthy and often considered not expedient. In other words why should Powis County Council spend money on protecting the hamlet of Bryn Mawr and its residents? Powis County Council will need to employ another enforcement officer simply to look into the breaches that will arise from the development if permission is granted today. Thank you for listening. Thank you very much Colonel Davies. Our next speaker please is Mr. Tim Penny. Mr. Penny you have two or five minutes to speak and you may start when you are ready. Good morning, thank you all for giving me the opportunity to speak to you. I'll just give you a little bit of my background. Born and bred in Welshpool, fifth, sixth generation of that family. My wife, her family are I think fifth generations of farming families in Thallannemannock. They bought quite a sizeable chunk of Bryn Mawr in the early 50s. We were fortunate enough to obtain planning permission to build a house on Bryn Mawr in the mid 80s. We moved there. I've worked nationally, but I've lived locally all my life. We then subsequently moved into the property known as Aniff, which is now at the bottom of Bryn Mawr. It is at the dead end. Although highways do advise me that... Can I advise you that you're using up your five minutes and it'll be beneficial if you get to... Yes, I'm quite all right. We live at the bottom of the green lane, at the end of the lane, at the top of the green lane. Highways say that the green lane is passable by four by fours, but it isn't. So everything that comes down the U2226 goes back the same way. There's 11 houses on Bryn Mawr. I have spoken to the owners of eight of these properties and they are all against the development going on. The new retrospective planning has come in that they're going to paint them green. A little bit of history. I know an awful lot about paint. I know that paint will not stick on those canvases. It will stick there for a very limited time. The applicant has got an extremely good history of not complying with things. There are a number of breaches that he has. He has an annex in his house that he had planning permission for a holiday let. It is now a residential let and has been for five years. It's been reported to planning, but nothing is done about it. The cabins that has been brought upon with Carol and Errol, they're just going there. They're sitting plotting, nothing is being done, no planting that should have been done over 18 months ago has been done. The situation for the septic tank that he is now proposing, there is no way that any vehicle can get to that septic tank other than the tractor and the trailer. It's not a good way and there are natural streams running under that ground. But my main concern is the highway, which Carol has touched on. It just is not suitable for any more traffic. You have allowed one annex to be let as a holiday let. You have allowed three holiday lets in the cabins, which can go on because they're done. And you have allowed another holiday let. There is planning for another holiday let on the 226 at Corner House. That hasn't been developed, but the planning is there and it has been granted so it can be developed. That is doubling the size of the traffic down the 226 and the 225 and there's countless numbers of accidents on these roads. So I very much hope that you will vote to reject the application. Thank you very much. Our final speaker this morning on this application is the agent Mr. Oliver Evans. He's online. Mr. Evans, are you able to speak? If you are, you two have five minutes and may start when we're ready. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you loud and clear. Thank you. Perfect. So my name is Oliver Evans and I'm working for Morris Marshall and Paul acting as the agent on behalf of Mr and Mrs Pownall at Laburnum House. As you know, in September 23, Mr and Mrs Pownall submitted a retrospective plan application for the installation of four geodome tents. They were unfortunately refused in February 24. From reading Catherine James's delegated report at the time, she considered that the development was one which was acceptable under the tourism facility, but noted there were two main points for refusal. The first point was due to the adverse impact upon the landscape. As you can see from our proposal, we are now proposing to paint them green with a special canvas paint, which will be topped up every six months and is specifically designed for outdoor use. The main aim for this was to blend the geodome tents in. There was concern raised about the white golf ball look, so hopefully the green will blend them into the landscape. As well as this, we propose new planting across the site which will break it all up and improve the visual impacts. As well as this, the new planting will help enhance the biodiversity across the site as outlined within the green infrastructure statement. The final point which we have made to reduce the adverse impact upon the landscape was to move the hilltop dome. Previously this was sited on top of the hill and above the other three. It was in close proximity to Brimmell Camp. You'll see that the dome has now been moved down the site which reduces the visual impact upon the landscape and erases any issues relating to Monument MG 158. The second point of concern within Catherine James' delegate report was the method of foul drainage. As you're aware, originally the application proposed for the use of compost toilets with the spreading of solid compost across the applicant's land. However, we accepted the concerns raised and addressed it by following the Welsh Government Circular 008 2018 and went on to propose the installation of a suitably sized package treatment plant which would discharge all clean effluent into a closed loop drainage field. As per protocols required the necessary percolation tests were undertaken which proves that the drainage field can correctly drain with that system. I believe there was a few complaints about the position of the test holes being in the wrong place but after environmental health officers visits the site concluded that they were positioned correctly and that there was sufficient space available for the implementation of the treatment plant and its drainage field. We understand this has resolved issues surrounding Catherine's previous report with receiving the backing of NLW and environmental health. There have also been a number of complaints from neighbouring properties in regards to the increase in traffic due to the development. However, we have looked to address any issues raised with the highways officer and are proposing the construction of two passing bays which we're hoping to agree through condition approval after this application. I think as you can see from Mr Cruz from his report he is confident that there is two locations on the site which can be used for the correct passing bays. You'll also see that we're proposing the installation of two EV charging spots which will help the site and development meet EV charging strategies for Wales and you'll also see that there is ample room around the site or around the area where we're proposing for the car parking to be positioned for further parking if necessary. The final point to raise is the proposed screening of the outdoor baths. I understand there's been again a number of complaints around these and we have proposed some much improved planting and screening around these baths. As you can see from revision D of the of the geodome plans we're proposing a 1.8 native hedgerow planting and 1.8 metre high closed boarded fence which should provide ample screening around all areas. Thank you for allowing me to speak and I look forward to hopefully a positive outcome with the application. Thank you very much Mr Evans. That concludes our public speakers this morning. I'd now like to hand back to Kate to take us through her report and to her recommendation. Thank you. Thank you chair. Just before we start just to advise members we have received an additional public representation of objection this morning. We have read and taken note of the contents of that letter and I will address some of the points further within my presentation. So as noted by the speakers the previous application was refused on two grounds one being the landscape impact and two being inadequate provision for foul drainage. The principle of development was considered acceptable in that previous application is still considered acceptable now because LDP policy TD1 for tourism development supports tourism development in the open countryside of Powis. The policy does refer in particular to situations where tourism accommodation facilities etc may be particularly supported such as supporting an agricultural holding or existing tourism accommodation. However the policy does not preclude tourism development by you if you're not in connection with those sorts of existing facilities. So tourism developments in the open countryside are supported via LDP policy TD1 subject to considerations such as landscape impact. This slide shows hilltop dome the most northerly proposed dome. This is the dome that's proposed to be relocated to the lower position to the east. So if I just refer back to the previous slide this previous the previous location is shown on the slide on the left of the slide just edged in black and it does say previous position of hilltop dome. The proposed position is to the northeast slightly and obviously labeled hilltop dome. So that's the relocated dome. This slide also indicates as do the other slides you will see the window visibility in red dashed so occupiers of the dome that is the window visibility obviously with the view coming out of the window. The existing and proposed planting is also shown in more detail on this slide so you've got proposed planting green circled hedgerows and existing landscaping hedgerows and trees edged in black. This slide shows the floor plans and elevations of hilltop dome obviously there you can see the decking as a square the dome as a circle and the separate toilet block. This is the most southerly positioned dome oak tree dome there's existing trees to the east this is the dome that is closest to the neighboring properties to the south. This slide also shows the location of the proposed treatment plant so obviously if you heard from the speakers the foul drainage has been amended from the previously proposed compost toilets to a proposed sewage treatment plant drainage field calculations and percolation test results have been received and reviewed by environmental protection environmental health and natural resources wales an environmental health officer visited the site and inspected the test holes members the public have referred to a spring being in the vicinity of the proposed treatment plant the environmental health officer has advised that there is no reference to such a spring on the maps in their possession and they did not note such when they were on site however they have advised that if there is a spring in the location the building regulations require that the drainage system is at least 10 meters away from a spring it is assumed obviously also the speaker mentioned that it would be difficult to empty the treatment plant it's assumed that emptying would be carried out as it i suspect it is across a lot of powers i.e via a lorry with a pipe this slide shows obviously floor plan and elevations of oak tree dome very similar obviously to the previous this is the most westerly dome meadow dome obviously there's some so this slide shows hillside dome so obviously this is between hillside dome and hilltop and oak tree domes and it benefits from screening of trees to the east and hedges and there is the elevations and floor plan for hillside dome this is meadow dome which is the most westerly dome with some proposed planting to the south and again elevations and floor plan for meadow dome this slide shows proposed toilet block which is a timber structure and there would be one adjacent to each dome this slide shows the proposed plan proposed planting in a bit more detail we have recommended a condition for the proposed planting but this slide just gives you an idea of in green what is proposed and in black what is existing this slide shows the constraints of the site so the application site is shown with the red arrow and annotated the scheduled ancient monument is to the left hashed blue ancient woodland areas are dotted green the areas dotted green the public right-of-ways are dashed black there's obviously one traveling through the site originating at the site access the highway the u226 highway is shown pink which provides access to the site so the it is an unclassified road and as the speaker mentioned past the site the site is pink dashed line which indicates according to our system that the highway is an unclassified and un-surfaced highway the black dots to in the bottom left of the slide indicate the three listed buildings at Bryn Mawr farm which referred to in the report in terms of setting or impact on the setting of those listed buildings the built form intervening built form and topography blocks the views and it's considered there's no harm to the setting and we have considered the requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of a list of buildings in accordance with section 66 of the planning and listed building and conservation areas act 1990 and then in terms of the scheduled monument obviously shown hashed blue there views are blocked by topography and vegetation as confirmed by CADU in the previous application the hilltop dome is being relocated further away from the scheduled monument and therefore we consider that there's no further impact unacceptable impact upon the setting of the scheduled monument by the proposed changes. So I've got a series of slides here which I took when I drove to the site so along the U225 and U226 highways this slide shows the highway the U225 highway close to the junction with the B4393 highway traveling towards the site this is a bit further along that highway obviously as you can see it is a highway typical of many in Powis which is narrow with fairly limited passing places. Further along the U225 towards the site and again further along the U225 this is traveling down towards the junction with the U226 and then this is at the junction or approaching the junction with the U226. Here I am now on the U226 so this is the highway which then ends up being an un-surfaced highway just past the site. Further along the U226 highway and this is where I've arrived at the site access so here visitors to the site return left into the site and this slide just shows the view back up to the access from the U226 highway. Yeah so in terms of highway access obviously highway authority have not objected to the development subject to the provision of two passing bays proposed along the highway network. The highway authority are confident that two passing bays two suitable and appropriate passing bays can be located and have recommended condition to that effect. The highway authority did not object to the previously refused application and obviously have continued their position of no objection so they've not object in terms of highway safety access or parking provision. This slide shows the site itself looking southeast to the existing chalets from the existing chalet so I was standing close to the existing chalets and close to the route of the public right of way. In terms of amenity all so you can see the neighbouring properties in the distance there and the two domes in the front here. In terms of amenity and in terms of amenity to the neighbouring properties all the domes are over 50 metres distance from the neighbouring properties and the windows of each dome as shown on the previous slide by the red dashed area would be positioned away. The proposed fencing around the outside baths has been proposed at a height of 1.5 metres and additional screening has been proposed so therefore in terms of privacy outlook and noise impacts these are all considered acceptable to officers subject to conditions for the for example for the installation of the fences and proposed planting. This is from inside the site itself just showing this would be the site of hilltop dome obviously looking down to the valley there as you can see the site is sloping. This site shows meadow hill side and oak tree domes from the south so the residential properties are in at the rear of me as I was taking a photograph here but I was standing in the field between properties and the highway and the and the chalets. So here I've just taken some longer view shots so you can consider landscape impact. This is the view from the B4393 highway so the road between four crosses and clanson fried. You can just see the chalets by the yellow arrow so the existing chalets the scheduled monument is sort of behind sort of in amongst the trees at the backdrop there. This is again a view from along the B4393 highway and again it's a sunnier day this time so you can see the chalets there quite close to the yellow arrow. Another shot just from the B4393 highway showing the view. This is the site I was walking along the Montgomery canal path here and it's also designated as Offersdyke National Trail so obviously the yellow arrow shows shows the site. And again another view of the site Montgomery canal and Offersdyke with the site shown in yellow just another one along the canal there as well. So in terms of landscape impact the site is located in a rural area on the eastern side of a hill with a hill foot on the hill. The site is visible from rights away highways and Montgomery canal as it's located on an open aspect on a slope. As we've heard from the speakers to seek to overcome the previous concerns in respect of landscape impact the application proposes a relocation of the hilltop dome lower down the slope. Painting of the vinyl covering green rather than the current light grey and additional planting. Officers have concluded that these measures are sufficient to overcome the previous refusal reason on landscape impact grounds. So in summary the principle of tourism is supported by local and national planning policy and it's considered that the amendments to the scheme have overcome the previous reasons for refusal therefore the recommendation is one of conditional consent as set out in the officer's report. Thank you. I don't think you're not allowed to come back I'm sorry Admiral I'm sorry. There's nothing within planning committee that allows anybody to come back at the officers I do apologise for that but that I'm right aren't I Rachel so I can't allow anyone back in apologies but that is where we stand today. Thank you very much Kate for your report just before we move on to questions from members. Councillor Geoff Morgan I think you've joined us halfway through the opposite presentation so just to remind you that you won't be able to speak or vote on this application and carol has informed me that unfortunately Councillor Gareth E Jones has not has not been able to join us so he's not present at the meeting. Right members I'm over I'm in your hands I'm looking for who I've lost my Councillor Gareth Pugh I've got and then Councillor Peter James please so Councillor Gareth Pugh over to you sir. Yeah thank you chair just before we start and open this debate I just wanted to declare that I have received a package in the post this week from one of the objectors I just want to make it clear that that I have I don't know has anybody else received it or have you received one yourself and if so is it something that should be done? I think we all did and as the protocol states we should have just dismissed it as we would be predetermined had we read that so hopefully all members have abided by that. Just come in chair yeah quickly if I may yeah we've had correspondence forwarded to to to myself so just just really a reminder I think the one I've seen I've had this morning I've shared it with officers so we've seen it it contained two letters from residents just a reminder when we do have them please send them on because we need to see them they arrived I think once we had this morning we hadn't seen until this morning so last minute scramble from our side so just a polite reminder please send them in because we need to see them okay but we've seen those thank you very much yeah just to confirm and share that doesn't make no there's no bearing on us making decisions today no no no we've read them I think Kate's addressed the points through a presentation it may inform questions for you to ask us as as officers now anyway so if there's any clarification points it's really up to you chair to manage that yeah right yeah yeah I'm happy with that thanks I just want to clear it up thank you you've got no questions Councillor Galliff you just wanted to state that yeah just before we start yeah thank you thank you thank you very much right Councillor Peter James please thank you chair and can I thank Kate for a presentation as well I've got a couple of observations one being that is there any provision for grey water to be used on this site because there is quite a resource on the 11 homes and the Brimel Reservoir and I'm just wondering how much water is needed to be used by the actual pods that they're putting up and are the toilets now because they were going to be soil fed are they now connected to the mains or are they where's that water coming from to feed those toilets thank you please Kate as far as I understand it so concerns have been raised during the application process in terms of potentially the reservoir near to the site drying up in the summer months so I did clarify with have enjoyed we if they were aware of this we've had any comments in that respect and they responded by saying that any new connections they would consider and if they need to upgrade they would program it in as far as I understand it they didn't raise any concerns in terms of this development I wouldn't obviously be able to clarify how much water is proposed for the use however obviously there's four outside baths that will use a quantity of water as we all know and I assume they will be connected to the mains water but yeah each individual toilet would be the outfall would be piped to the treatment plant can I just come back on that as well under the climate change you know we're it's trying to sort of reserve water and that's why I'm quite interested in the grey water situation but with like sort of hot tubs and things like that is there any restriction on them because they are exchanged by I think law they have to be drained down each time they're used by another person so yeah from the planning side I think we've got to we haven't had any adverse comments as Kate said I'm just checking having to vote always comments that they've basically not raised any objection here I think if there were issues what they've said just reading from their comment they responded 8th of May they expect or need a formal application to be made to them regarding water supply so it's obviously controlled by another authority not this authority if there were capacity issues they would have to be resolved through that so again the applicant will be listening that's very much a matter that rests with them I if there was capacity issues there might be something we could do but they just haven't raised those here so it might be that we be seek further information or some form of reassurance but they haven't raised an issue yeah okay Councillor Peter are you content thank you I think that'll be noted yeah Councillor Claire Hall please thank you chair yeah thanks for the presentation and the the detailed report I can see the differences between the previous scheme and the current one but I've got a couple of questions arising from some of the issues raised by some of the speakers mainly to do with the conditions actually what so one is the provision of passing bays I was a little bit concerned to sort of say that they weren't specified where they were going so I think it's quite like some reassurance do we we got an idea where they would be and whether the applicant is in a position to be able to deliver that from a you know land ownership and and control of land point of view and the other one is regarding the I'm assuming that the the the dark green condition is obviously part of the lands to make the landscape impact acceptable given what the the objectives have said about previous non-compliance with conditions are on the land I'm just wondering whether or not condition 11 rather than just requiring it to be painted every six months whether it could be worded to such a way that it requires that vinyl covering or external finish to be dark green and maintained that way so we're not necessarily saying you have to keep painting gives the applicant the option of maybe replacing the vinyl covering that was there before and and just having a new one that is dark green for example and yeah so those are the my main points really is it sort of location of the passing basin and how sure we that that we can maintain that sort of dark green impact from a visual point of view thank you chair thank you very much Councillor Clare we do have Mr Simon Crewe with us from highways so would you be willing please to address Councillor Clare's concerns sure thanks yeah yeah as far as the highway authority are concerned there's plenty availability within the highway virtues to construct passing bays and we don't offer conditions and scenarios where the residents sufficient highway verge available to answer your question so to clarify you are content that there are there's enough place within the verges to be able to the passing bays that's required yes that's correct thank you sorry Councillor Claire are you happy with that response yeah can I ask the officers on the the green question now yeah thank you that answers the first question and then the second point raised was about condition number 11 and the green paint and the possibility of making it a green by a permanent green vinyl yep thank you that question Councillor certainly we could consider amending the condition I think your point related to yeah I get the point if design is considered not you know not to use the vinyl anymore but maybe some other type of covering that that would just be green in colour so yeah we could amend the condition I believe with agreements to reflect that if that's what members wish thank you okay yeah I think that would be beneficial Councillor Clare would you like to come back with that would that satisfy your concerns yes thank you I just think it's just giving the applicant more more options and also maybe reassuring the objectives in terms of you know that long-term maintenance of that that that appearance thank you thank you Councillor Claire next our apologies I've got these in the wrong order but next on my screen is Councillor Deborah Edwards followed by Councillor Adrian Councillor Deborah please thank you chair I just want to raise the parking facilities a couple of the speakers did sort of put that in their worries and put it forward to us that there will be sufficient parking spaces for the pods and whatever the other other things that are already on site I would like to thank you yeah there's sufficient land available within the application site for both the existing uses and the proposed development Councillor Deborah yes thank you very much I'm sorry does that conclude conclude your question yes thank you chat thank you right move on Councillor Adrian please thank you chair well mine is falling up a bit around the car parking because I'm the visual impact because I can can see that possibly cars are going to park by these pods in the summer weather so it's going to add to the overall view and picture from a distance not just the domes but you're going to have possibly a couple of cars by each dome you know shiny in the sun sunlight is that something we could put in as a constraint they are parked on site and not on the field because it will look like a quite a lot in my view could you bring up the slide of where where we are in relation to parking in relation to where the domes are sited and maybe we can get a better idea so that the Councillor Adrian's concerns can be addressed so hopefully that that slide probably shows it so the parking there's some cars showing yeah so there's some parking shown there above this existing building access is here so that's the existing parking area the idea is that people park there and then walk along these paths to get to each dome these are pedestrian sort of pathways I'm not aware that we can control that people don't drive over the fields do park next to the domes the only thing I would say is I don't think this is shown as a they'd be quite pushed to maybe squeeze along that that pathway but I don't feel we don't feel as officers but we can manage if people do wish to drive along over the fields to get there but obviously it is set up that parking would be at that central location so we can't control it so it happens it happens yes thank you very much thank you are we anybody else wishing to speak members I'm in your hands Councillor Corina followed by Councillor Jonathan place I'm just it says if members are minded to grant consent conditions recommended to remove permitted development rights says that in the text does that mean that this is it you can't add any more chalets or that's my first question thank you yeah no what that means is we would normally attach these to every tourism accommodation it means that because tourism accommodation is classed as a c3 residential use so normal it's so like a normal house really but obviously this is not a normal house but in a normal house householders would have permitted development rights to construct extensions sheds etc to safeguard obviously the size of these domes and additional you know having additional structures on site etc we've recommended that those normal rights to erect extensions like buildings etc are removed and that is quite normal for developments of this nature and just wanna thank you very much and just one other question you mentioned that the septic tank well might be emptied by means of a pipe where is that point going to be on the plan I'm afraid I don't have that level of information that's not the level of detail that we would request within an application process it just is well one of the objectors mentioned it that's all thank you yeah thank you thank you Councillor Carina Councillor Jonathan Wilkinson place thank you chair we've seen a history of a level of compliance in this application which has fallen short historically of what we normally expect as a as a planning authority are we to discount that in our considerations I mean or you know it's impossible not to believe to imagine that that poor compliance could continue in the future and I'm thinking for example we've mentioned this before the the request to or requirement that the covers should be painted you know I'm struggling at the moment in my mind to be believes that that would be adhered to by looking at previous behaviour and that is a concern for me thank you Councillor Jonathan can I bring in Rachel to address this please I'm I think if you share your concerns and Rachel will address it now thank you chair yep you're reminded that obviously you are considering what's before you the application before you judge on its own merits irrespective of those other matters so it's just what's before you yeah that is the correct advice we've got to determine each application on its own merits in line with the policies of the development plan so another material considerations other actions and other issues are outside of that at the moment wouldn't be appropriate to go through those now in this format if you need to know any information happy to speak afterwards okay thank you Councillor Jonathan I think perhaps we could look at like item seven later or maybe look at this um Councillor Jonathan Councillor Gareth Pugh please and then I have Councillor Hugh Williams thank you chair yeah I think we we've heard a good debate here now this morning but yeah when you're ready I I would go along with the officer's recommendation that of conditional consent thank you thank you very much Councillor Gareth Pugh um Councillor Hugh Williams please yes thank you chair it's it's just a a question really regarding the the screening and the and the the approved landscaping scheme um for the officer uh sort of um clarify exactly what's needed because there's a five five-year time limit before this mature was to an extent um where it will be uh of cover and um that condition needs to be held to and I'm afraid the history indicates that may not be the case can the officer reassure me that the planting is adequate thank you Councillor um yeah you're correct um obviously it's proposed planting we have recommended um a sort of standard planting condition um my thoughts when you were speaking then is perhaps um again perhaps we could amend the condition slightly to require um more mature more mature planting to go in in the beginning so obviously then it matures at a quicker rate if that was sort of something that would address members concerns in terms of landscape impact because it is retrospective I think that possibly could be justified um but I'll leave that up to you but yeah otherwise um I consider that additional planting has been proposed in this application from that proposed previously um obviously it's shown shown on the slide there and I think we consider that will help to um mitigate the landscape impact so check neck and back can it be conditioned in that case that more mature trees are planted due to the fact that it is a retrospective one and these should have gone in when the application should have been uh sent in members would you would your wish be if we were to approve this or that condition suggested by Councillor Hugh and be put forward I'm just looking I can see some nodding heads here Councillor Clay is that hand is up so yeah I was just going to say I'd second what Councillor Hughes just said yeah good have we got any other councillors wishing to speak on the matter I can't see anybody I I've had a proposal who amended conditions there yeah I've got a proposal I'm in your hands members how do you wish to proceed mic please sorry check um the other amended condition was the vinyl covering being of a green color yeah yeah so it's been more definitive in what the color must be um yeah and maintain that that color yeah yeah yeah yeah okay so there's two members I've heard from the committee two suggested amendments so I think okay can I go back to Councillor Gareth Pugh and just confirm that your proposal with your proposal you were happy to include the two amendments surrounding the vinyl the coloring of it and also the planting of more mature plants yeah I'm happy with that thank you Councillor Garrah chair in that case it's Councillor who I am willing to second that thank you Councillor Hugh so we've got a proposal we've got a seconder I think that's exhausted the debate here this morning so in that case Carol are you happy to take it to the vote please so there you are it's in the chat box now at 11 12 so I'll give everyone 20 seconds just to process the vote in right I'll close the electronic vote has everyone had a chance to vote yes chair so 12 members are eligible to vote and we've had 12 votes through on the system so nine members have voted for the with the officer's recommendation with the additional conditions no members against and three abstentions thank you very much carol so we have approved the officer recommendation this morning in relation to the application before us can I thank members of the public who've given up the time and come here today I appreciate you may not be happy with the result but that is how we have concluded so thank you very much the officers as well for their time as well right moving on to the second application before us this morning 240279 forward slash ful before we proceed can I ask council Jonathan and council Adrian if you'd be so good as to leave the room if you have declared an interest and can I also ask Rachel Moll just to talk us through the legalities of this application Councillor Jeff you are now able to take part in this two Councillors left the room Rachel please thank you chair and yeah just to say given the reason why this application is before you this morning I have an obligation to review the file to ensure it has been processed correctly and I can confirm that to you this morning thank you chair thank you my apologies members I read up the wrong numbers before this is for 240251 ful dufferin thank you Rachel just to confirm that sure can I also confirm that with the two Councillors leaving the the room we are still qua rate for this application thank you good to know so busy morning for Kate this morning I believe she is also guiding us through this application so Kate in your good hands thank you thank you chair yeah so this is an an application for an extension to an existing agricultural building at dufferin my VOD the application site is located on the eastern side of the a 4 9 5 highway just to the southwest of my VOD you can see my VOD indicated by the arrow on the screen and the application site also the proposed building measures approximately 42 meters by 18 meters and 4.7 meters in height to the ridge this slide shows the application site edged in red obviously just to the southeast of the existing group of agricultural buildings just to clarify as well we have received a new application in the last couple of weeks for a another building just adjacent to this proposed building so just to the southwest so it would be cited immediately adjacent to it and just to advise members that to consider the application here before you on its merits we we haven't had any consultee comments on that other application to date so we are considering just this application before us to date this slide shows the proposed footprint of the building this slide shows the floor plan and it would be open-sided on one side so it's a metal profile clad walls under a fiber cement sheeted roof so fairly typical of agricultural buildings in powers this constraints map that shows the application site with the arrow in yellow it is in the open countryside but agricultural buildings are generally supported by planning policy my VOD obviously is shown to the northeast so the top right of the slide the black line shows the development boundary and the blue within the development boundaries the conservation area of my VOD the list of buildings at Dufferin there's four on the opposite side so to the north so on the sort of on the road opposite there's four listed buildings there at the friend the blue across the site is the c2 flood zone i couldn't show the new flood zones two and three of the new flood map for planning because it it was too dark to even see the application site but it generally follows the same line it's slightly reduced from the edge of the c2 flood zone but it does cover the application site and the surrounding area because the river vernier is on the right hand side of the slide of the side this slide shows the view from the a495 on the my VOD side so the building would be at the end of those buildings on the left-hand side of the slide this slide is taken from a bit of a field gate along the a495 with Dufferin farmhouse and the associated listed buildings on the right side of the slide and the a495 between the site or between the modern agricultural buildings and Dufferin so in terms of the setting of the listed buildings the built heritage officer has provided comments and considers that because there's modern agricultural buildings between the site and the listed buildings there will be no impact on the setting and we've had special regard to the setting as required by the legislation this is a google street view image of the a495 because it's quite a difficult road very fast to get photographs but obviously the complex is in the center of the slide there photograph with the buildings coming out to the rear of those buildings in the right hand side of the slide this is the actual site itself and the building would be attached to the existing building protruding out and again another google street view just closer to the access from the myvard side so the access is on the left hand side there to enter the site and again as traveling towards myvard the access into the group of modern farm buildings is on the right hand side so in terms of access the highway authority prepared an additional response in the update report just just clarifying there are no objection and there are no comments that they did not wish to comment because it's an exist it's an extension to an existing agricultural building and farm complex and it's not proposed to increase stock numbers therefore there's considered no detrimental impact upon the highway net at this location so the key issue for the application is the location within the c2 flood zone on the dam maps and the flood zones two and three of the flood map for planning rivers it is a low classed as a low vulnerable use however welsh government guidance in the form of technical advice note 15 flood risk states that even low vulnerable developments are subject to justification and therefore developments need to comply with that justification so it is policy compliant in terms of the ldp however the welsh government guidance does say that they prefer well that development on brownfield sites previously developed land is preferred agricultural buildings and land are not considered to be previously development land according to the guidance however in this case nrw have advised that because um it's an existing well-established farm uh complex and because there's no detriment to third parties in terms of flood risk and that it's difficult to quantify the loss of flood plain storage and that there's no there's limited opportunity to put a building elsewhere because obviously as we saw from the map it's a large area within the flood risk and otherwise across the road you'd be taking um dairy crisis across the road which has its own risks therefore nrw haven't objected on in terms of consideration of all the issues and on the basis of nrw's advice we consider that the level of flood risk management flood risk is manageable and proportionate to the development being located at an existing farm so in summary the principle of the building is acceptable as is the visual landscape impact ecological impact as well as the impact on the historic environment residential amenity and highway safety whilst it's not strictly previously developed land in consideration of the information received justifying the location and the advice from natural resources wales it's considered that it's acceptable in terms of flood risk and the recommendation is one of approval as set out within the officer's report thank you very much kate for your report we have no speakers so members it's over to you i can't see any hands up currently councilor claire hall please thank you chair i'd just like to move the officer's recommendation thank you claire councilor garth pew seconded please sir sorry i missed that council garth yeah i second that please sir thank you very much anybody else wishing to contribute i'll ask any questions i've not missed any hand is that my carol no if everybody is quiet and content we've had a proposal and a seconder in that case i'll ask carol can she please take it through to the electronic vote there we are members it's in our chat box now hopefully you've all had a chance to see it yeah we'll close the electronic vote and hand over to yourself carol please thank you chair so 11 members eligible to vote 11 have voted with the officer's recommendation zero against and zero abstentions thank you very much so um yeah we've gone with officer recommendation and approved the application 24 forward slash 0251 forward slash ful thank you again kate for for your work right we'll pause for a few seconds to allow counselor jonathan and counselor adrian back in thank you all i take it everyone's back in in the room right we're moving on swiftly now we go to item five on our agenda decisions of the head of property planning and public protection of delegated applications to receive the delegated list has anyone got any observations to make in relation to the delegated list which are on pages 65 to 132 if not can i have a proposal in a second that we receive these councilor peter thank you councilor jonathan thank you i'll take it on silence that everyone is happy thank you very much all item number six moving on um the appeal decisions um i think there's one there peter will just give us a brief talk on that you did say yesterday yeah it's an unusual one in the sense that um it it it's a redetermined appeal decision by the planning inspector so the first we refused a certificate of lawfulness there it was appealed um it the appeal decision um um supported the authorities decision it was then judicially reviewed um and that was successful which then rewound uh the process uh back and a second inspector's looked at it um and redetermined the appeal uh and arrived at the same conclusion so it supports the council's decision it's an interesting one because it sort of relates to the importance of um discharging conditions uh and and the sensitivity of that particular environment when it comes to its landscape so it's an interesting one if you wanted to read um one paragraph in particular i'll just i'm not going to read it out but i'd suggest having to read a paragraph 22 of that decision notice okay thank you very much any observations from members are you happy to move on i take it we're happy to move on so final item before us this morning planning protocol hopefully members will have received and read the email that carol sent out on tuesday um and there's some updates to that as well since um that was originally sent out so um if i could hand over now to rachel here who will guide us through the recommendation uh thank you chair uh yes the um planning protocol uh as members may be aware it is reviewed periodically as and when circumstances um arise uh which has been the case recently so what you have before you are proposed amendments mainly to the calling procedure uh for members so currently we we are what we have is uh members uh are not entitled to make a request for calling in relation to resubmitted applications unless there is a substantial change what we are proposing is for that to be removed so that effectively you have the right to exercise the call-in for a resubmitted application so that's the the first proposed amendment then we have um the position with regards to uh a counselor has exercised their calling um right if you like but then they have not been re-elected uh so what we are proposing is that that is covered off in the protocol so if you look here at 19.61 i would just further add to that to say where a counselor requests determination by the planning committee and at an election is not re-elected what i would add is or after a by-election is not re-elected the new counselor for that ward um shall be advised by the professional lead of the call-in and can either exercise the right to confirm the call-in or effectively withdraw it and thirdly it's just firming up on the public speaking procedures to make it clear that a physical presentation isn't permitted but they can verbally refer to to any plans or documents or what have you happy to take any questions on what is being proposed or clarify anything further thank you thank you rachel has everyone got sight of the paper but they all have that yeah any questions coming from members in relation to the proposals for changing the protocol um counselor carl please thank you chair um this has come about from a few anomalies in my time uh in your position and uh it just ties off a few loose ends chair and uh i'll be happy to propose that this committee accepts them please thank you thank you counselor carl any other observation counselor tom please and then counselor jeff yeah thank you chair um i think the first uh proposal was mentioned that uh call-in can be so reignited i think that's maybe a little bit dangerous because once it's once it's come to uh the committee they often get fresh rose to take these things to committee and they come to committee and there's a decision i think the danger is if we can keep bringing it back then we'll just keep getting uh constituents coming to us and saying can you just keep putting this up until we get the right answer uh so i think that's maybe something we need to think about i bring peter in here please yeah just come back chair for may um i think it's probably from my perspective it's a very positive move for members this it puts more gives you more power more more ability to call in more applications so it is about resubmitted applications so uh with with the calling procedure um you're all notified of when an application arrives so it's so it's the same thing the resubmitted application arrives with us we undertake the consultation as local members you are all notified by email of that application you then have 21 days within which to call it in with and have to provide planning reasons for doing so so previously what we've done is said you can't call in a resubmitted application unless there's that substantial change to it which has caused debate and discussion it's caused it amongst officers let alone between officers and members um and i just think this simplifies it makes it much clearer as members you have the ability to withdraw call in as well so if you weren't um if you're happy with the way it's heading and the officer will be in contact with you and can advise you the proposed decision or recommendation um you may wish to withdraw anyway that's always your right so i think it's just adding more um power as i say to you as members when it comes to the call in and takes away a discussion that's not really needed thank you peter council tom would allow you to come back okay thank you peter that's a good point you make there uh so thank you for that clarification i think indeed one could take that route thank you thank you council tom council jeff please i'd like to second the proposal thank you anybody else wishing to ask any questions to rachel to peter in relation to what we have here if not we've had a proposal a second are we happy to take it by show of hands carol or do you want to take it to do a vote of an electronic vote yet so if you would look in your chat again i it will shortly appear so there we go 1133 um 13 members eligible to vote uh 13 for none against and no abstentions thank you very much carolyn thank you to rachel and peter on the team for putting that together hopefully i'm a few more applications coming for our committee um peter's asked me to remind you all that on monday at 2 p.m there's the ldp briefing it'd be good if we had a strong representation from the planning committee there um do you want to say anything more um no no microphone yeah my catching chair of council uh afterwards if i can on that one but that's that's fine i think we've promoted it yes as a member seminar thank you and date to the next meeting please carol yes chair the next meeting is on the 27th of june and as previously advised last week this will be an online meeting only because the chamber is being used by the election team so to be online only that's it so online for the meeting on the 27th of june that concludes everything before us this morning so all that's left to do thank you all very much and i close the meeting at 11 35 thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you