Transcript

A little bit of information before we begin, this is a hybrid meeting with some members and staff joining us virtually. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you of the arrangements for the meeting. First of all, this is a public meeting which is being recorded and broadcast live, and all members are expected to adhere to the hybrid meetings protocol. If you are joining us virtually, make sure that your camera is switched on throughout the meeting, so that we know who is in attendance and available to vote. Let me know if you have to leave the meeting early or temporarily. And let me know also when you have returned. Raise your hand if you wish to speak during the meeting, or raise your virtual hand if you are joining us on screen. When you are invited to speak, make sure that your microphone is switched on before you begin, so that the public, your fellow members and translators can hear you. Switch your microphone off once you have finished speaking. Make sure that your mobile phones and any other devices are on silent during the meeting. And then finally, if any technical issues do arise during the meeting, we will consider taking a short break to solve those issues. And if problems persist, we will consider adjourning the meeting to a later date. And with that I'm going to ask everyone to introduce themselves, beginning with the members of the committee today. The other members and then officers. We will begin with myself, Councillor Ken Taylor, broadband noise chair. And the front row, please. The front row, please. And the first of all. Good afternoon. And Watson, but what? Good afternoon, Councillor Trevor Lloyd, who's in his cubby. Good afternoon. Jackie Lewis, Tala Bolion Ward. Then the back row, Councillor Robert Llewellyn-Jones. Robert Llewellyn-Jones, Park Carmine, Hollyhead. Councillor Trev Cubby Ward, Hollyhead. Good afternoon, everyone. Johnnie Van Jones. Robert Frow Ward, Councillor. Good afternoon. Garett Beb Ward, Cairney, Councillor. Good afternoon. David Roberts. But our word. Good afternoon. Robin Williams, Eastwood Ward. There is another one member of the committee joining virtually. Liz Wood. Good afternoon. Liz Ward, so Turkellon Ward. And the remainder of elected members now begin with the two members who are virtual. Good afternoon. Councillor Caroline Jones Sariel Ward and Derek Owen, Turkellon Ward. Thank you. And the members in the chamber. Yeyann. Councillor Yeyann Williams, Liguille Ward. Councillor Allard Morris-Jones representing Turkellon Ward. Arban Wynn, Barbara Fraw Ward. And thank you. I'm going to turn to the offices, please. Good afternoon. Stephen Owen, Enforcement Manager for Planning. I'm Robin Jones, the Legal Officer for today. Good afternoon. I'm Alan Roberts, Highways Officer. Craig Paris-Durgis, Planning Officer. Good afternoon. Shannon Bartisley, Planning Assistant. Also in attendance, we have Mrs. Maidwen-Hooze, Committee Officer, Fian Thomas, Webcast Officer, and also the Translation Team as well. And with that, we'll continue to the agenda. First of all, apologies. I've had two apologies. One from Councillor Neville Evans, and the other from Councillor Nicola Roberts, the Portfolio Holder for Planning. Any other apologies at all? No? Sorry, can I apologize on behalf of Councillor Dougie Fowley as well? Thank you. That's noted. Thank you. Councillor Edmonds-Jones. Also note, Chair, I'm not sure that it's in the minutes that Councillor Doug Fowley was in attendance at the last meeting also. I'm sure the officer will look into that. Thank you. Yes, okay. No one else. So the second item of the agenda, declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of interest at all today? Councillor Johnnie van Jones. Thank you, Chair. On item 7.2, Taldr verse lawn vine Dweeran, this application hasn't been for us for months, but in the first meeting, I had to express an interest that a member of my family was friends with the applicant, but we did have a discussion, and it's not a prejudicial interest, so I can't take part in the items. I'd just like to repeat that. Thank you. That's been noted. Any other declarations of interest at all? Councillor Trevor Lloyd-Woods? Item 12.8, Tyler Bay Football Club. I am not linked to the club at all, just in case people think that I am, or a member of any type of football club, I am not currently. Thank you. Thank you. That's noted as well. We'll go on there for item 3, the minutes. Anyone willing to propose the minutes of a meeting on the 9th of May correct, please? Do we have a proposer? Councillor Geraint Beb proposes, and Councillor Robin Williams second, if you can all show you an agreement. Thank you. Accepted. So there was a meeting of the committee of the 21st of May 2024, following the annual meeting of the council, and that was just to elect a chair and vice-chair again for this year. If you could accept that as a true record of the minutes, please. Councillor Jaculaves proposes Councillor Robin Williams second. Thank you. That's been accepted. Going on there for site visits, and we had two site visits on the 22nd of May. Do we have a proposer for the minutes being a true record? Councillor Geraint Beb proposes, and Councillor Jonny van Jones seconds. If you could show, please. Thank you. That's been accepted. While we are on the site visit subject, we do have requests for site visits today. First of all, I'm going to go to Councillor Geraint Beb, I think. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I'd like to ask for a site visit on application 12.4, FPL 2023181, the Shire Hall development. This is a case which is causing a lot of concern locally. It's quite a narrow area, and I would like the committee to visit the site physically to see exactly how much room there is to develop there. Thank you. Anyone proposing that? Well, we have a proposer. Proposed by Councillor Robin Williams and seconded by Councillor Jonny van Jones, if you could show, please. Thank you. That's been accepted. The next application, Tillinde levos tinna gongle. I'm going to turn to Councillor Jan Williams. Thank you. A simple request for a site visit, please. Thank you. Physical. Yes, physical, I think it's important. It's quite a rural area. It's important that the site is visited physically. So that's proposed by Councillor Geraint Beb and seconded by Councillor Alwyn Watkyn, if you could show, please. Thank you very much. And I have two requests and I'm speaking on behalf of Councillor Neville Evans who can be here today because of illness. And the first one is on 12.6 HHP 2024/56 to site L'Athénti Creus. And he is asking for a site visit on that application. Any proposal? I hear he proposes and seconded by Liz Wood, if you could show please. Thank you very much. That's been accepted. And also from the same member 12.7 FPL 2020/24/40 Anglesey Golf Club site visit request. Do we have a proposal? Councillor Beb proposes and seconded, if you could show please. Thank you. That's been accepted. So those are the foresight visits have been dealt with. Councillor Doug Fowley wanted to ask for those as well. I did try and draw your attention when you went to vote. Thank you. Apologies for that. I received the request from Councillor Neville Evans, that's why I gave his name for clarification. I'm sure the officer will note that. Thank you. So we go on now to, where were we? Public speaking. First of all, we go to application 7.3 on the agenda FPL 2020/31/18 Worm Farm, Pentryth Road, Menai Bridge. And I have two public speakers I think on this application. No apologies. One public speaker. And I'm going to invite Mr Elved Williams to the front to speak, please. Thank you, Mr Williams. You've got five minutes to give your comments and the time begins when you're ready. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. My name is Elved Williams. I'm a planning consultant for this application. The applicant is grateful to the committee for visiting the site recently to get a better understanding of the intentions. And as you saw, a worm is already established as a holiday site. And as you saw also, there are dense trees surrounding the sites and high walls and hedges, which make it totally hidden from the public. And as you know, also, there is an intention to plant additional trees and forests and hedges to further enhance the screening and to close a couple of gaps that exist and this will also add to the additional nature that exists on the site that are known by houses being affected, only open land and trees. There are, there is a bus stop within a stone's throw away from the entrance and the safe path leading up to it, like the path of the old road. And as you see from the report, the application includes a number of technical inputs, which are quite technical, which have totally satisfied the offices and Natural Resources Wales, as well as all other authorities. During the public consultation, we twice invited members of the Brockadnance and Sariel to visit the site, but we didn't get any response. Having said that, and a big thank you to both of them, following their original call in, Councillors Alan Roberts and Karen Jones did attend the site. On the 4th of October, they walked the land and following consideration, they said honestly that they did not object and that they appreciated the opportunity to see the hidden qualities of the site and they left quite satisfied. Regarding the question of need, there is a specialist report which does confirm the need and the commercial viability of the site and of course, the entrance. We know that transport is quite quick in that area, but this entrance and the visibility displays do conform perfectly with the necessary measurements, which is 250 metres to both directions and they are set exactly as they were given permission in 2016. That's now totally acceptable to the Highways Department as well as any inspector, I'm sure, if there was an appeal. I do emphasise the entrance has never caused an accident. Also, there's no effect on the Welsh language here. There will be no permanent residence, but visitors on holiday only, spending money in the local economy. If you look at the wording of Chair at the Condition 02 of the draft permission, respectfully we think we have justified and satisfied in full every relevant policy to enable officers to be able to recommend approval. We have worked in close collaboration with the senior officers, who are consistently conscientious and careful and I do pay tribute to the report that is in front of you today, which is comprehensive and gives detailed consideration and totally correct consideration to offer a recommendation of approval, which recognises the compliance of the application with all relevant policies. Finally Chair, there is no one planning policy or other sufficient reason to object this application. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr Williams. If I can ask you to go back and I'm going to invite the officer to come in. Thank you, Chair. This application has been called in to the committee by two local members, due to the strong opinions of the Community Council about the scale of the development. On 9 May, members of the planning committee recommended a site visit and that site visit took place on 22 May and members are now aware of the site and its settings. And to those of you not familiar with the site, it's a farm to the east of the A5025, about 2 kilometres from Men-a-bridge, and the land is currently used for agricultural purposes. As reported in the previous meeting, this is a major planning application, which has already been subject to the statutory pre-application consultation and the main policy consideration is Tour 3 of the JLDP and overall the proposal does comply with the policy and the reasons have been noted in detail in the report. Just to remind you of the main issues under Tour 3, developments are allowed outside of the AONB or areas of only if they conform with criteria 1 to 3. With regard to compliance with criteria 1, it can be proved that there's no intensification of the provision in the area, although it's a big, large-scale development. It relates to the environmental urban land cover and there's no view of the site from the A5025 apart from the owners of the Warren Farm and Holiday Unit. There's no other residential view of the proposal, clearly. The second criteria of policy 2 or 3 requires that the proposed development is of a high quality as regards design, layout and appearance, and that it's sited in location, which is well screened. The site is very well screened by the woodland here and other trees surrounding the site and the local planning authority has worked with the applicant to ensure that there is an effective landscaping scheme, which has been brought forward and that is a plan that can be achieved. The proposal includes tree planting on site, wildflower, meadow, amenity grass, infilling hedges when needed, as well as extensive woodland planting in two main areas. The planting scheme is achievable and will have a positive impact on biodiversity and ecology and although some trees will be cut as noted in the report, most of these are ash trees, which show signs of ash die pack. New trees will be planted as well as landscaping on site and the condition will be placed on the permission to ensure that full details of all new trees will be submitted to the local planning authority before work commences on the site and all ecological mitigation will also be conditioned accordingly and it's considered that the proposal will bring positive ecological benefits to the site. The third criteria states that the site should be close to the main highway network and adequate access should be provided without significantly harming landscape characteristics. Access to the site is obtained directly from the existing vehicle access with a visibility display of 215 metres in both directions. Only minor work will be required to the access, so that it's 5.5 metres, but that work won't have a significant harm on the landscape and characters and features. The proposal will be connected to a new sewerage treatment plant with a reed bed filtration system to improve water quality and natural resources whales have already confirmed that they are satisfied with the information provided with the planning application and no concerns were raised. Having said this, an environmental permit will be needed in addition to any planning permission because of the scale of the proposal, the SAB approval will be needed prior to the commencement of any building work. Also a Welsh language statement was provided and the council Welsh language officer provided comments and has no objections and all signs will have to be bilingual, giving priority to the Welsh language, and the agent has confirmed that they are satisfied with this. This will be conditioned to ensure compliance within the development. As regards the effect on amenities, 10 letters of objection came and one in support. There are no immediate neighbours to the application site. The closest are Merden i Gróis, about 305 metres away and Trefos Lodge is about 320 metres away. The traveller site is about 480 metres to the south west and because of the intervening uses as well as the mature woodland and fields, it's considered that the development is located far enough from the residential properties so it won't harm their residential amenities. In summary, therefore, the proposal aligns with the material policies and is acceptable having weighted the details in the report, it is acceptable. It is in a sustainable location and there's a public right of way across the site which links the site to Tladekwa and Menai Bridge. The transport network is located nearby to Menai Bridge where there are a range of shops, restaurants and visitor attractions. The development will be located on low ground with hedges and trees around and significant plan would be linked to develop biodiversity even better. There's no further enhanced landscaping work and they will not have adverse impact on residential amenity, the Welsh Language Office has no objection and the Highways Department have confirmed that the proposal is acceptable with appropriately worded condition. Therefore, on balance Chair, I would recommend that the application is approved subject to the conditions listed in the report, thank you very much. Thank you to the officer, before I open it out to the committee, I'm going to ask Mr Robin Jones to go to the area and read the letter from the local member Alan Roberts, if I can ask Mr Williams to stand down, if you can. Good afternoon, thank you very much, as you say this Councillor Alan Roberts has apologised, can't be in attendance and but he has sent a statement in and asked it to be read out, so here it is. This is a planning application for WEN form FPL 2023118. Thank you again for the opportunity to share some words on this application. The application is again asked a number of questions locally and some objections from a number of individuals including the local community council. Simply looking at this application there are a number of questions being asked and need to be answered before giving an opinion one way or the other. These questions include, and not in any specific order, is the entrance from the main road safe, even though with adaptations noted in the documents, cars travel at some speed and there would be a potential between 50 and 100 cars coming in and out of this entrance at different times of the day including at times of darkness which significantly increased the number of accidents. The visibility display can be seen clearly from the road here as well and a number of accidents including at least one fatality has happened not far from this entrance over the years. As noted already, users of the caravans of these cabins will have to use cars to come and go from this site as there is a lack of public services such as bus stop and the dangerous nature of the roads in this area for walkers. There are no shops or local services within easy reach either without a car to this site. A similar application was rejected for the planning committee and on appeal for this reason. There is a question, is there a true need for the development of this site and is there a need for this type of resource? That's a matter of opinion of course and is it making the best use of agricultural land whatever the true standard of this land is. As you'll see this application has raised a number of questions that need answering before coming to a decision if it should be approved or not. Thank you for your time and again I'm confident you will make the correct decision in this case and that's in the name of Councillor Alan Roberts thank you. Thank you to Mr Robin Jones for that I'm going to invite another local member, Carowyn Jones on screen do you have any comments? Thank you very much chair and thank you for the opportunity to say a comment or two. As noted I did attend the site with Councillor Alan Roberts and we did were welcomed by the agent and the owner who showed us around and answered our questions and showed us the plans etcetera. We are grateful of the opportunity to have that open conversation on the site I'll have to just correct one fact we didn't say that we support the application on the site visit we did listen we did receive feedback but we didn't say we were supportive per se as a statement we didn't state that on the site visit but we did ask questions and we did receive answers. As you've heard there are feelings in the community council and Councillor Alan Roberts have expressed those tidily in the letter that's been read out to you. I think it is appropriate that this does come to the planning committee and the type of questions we asked on the day were things like how quickly and what's the investment scheme and the timeline to put the 55 cabins or caravans on the site. The site has been screened well without doubt I don't think anybody would see the site in the field in the back there so that's definitely screened well and I think the biggest question I asked on the site and the one I would like you to investigate really is is there enough jam around to create a new site of 55 caravans and I think that is the big question. The sustainability to build this site if you are happy that there is that I'm satisfied and if you're not I will respect your opinion as a planning committee today but I think that's a big question for consideration is there enough jam is there requirements for this type of site and as Councillor Alan Roberts said there would be a need for a car to travel to the restaurants etc that the officers refer to so thank you for the opportunity to speak and best wishes with your deliberations. Thank you Councillor Carolyn Jones I'm going to open it out to the committee do you have any comments or anyone wish to come in. Councilloriegerllaime Watkins please. The biggest concern I have with this application is the entrance to the site. When we did go on the site visit it was said that there was a pavement going from the entrance towards Menai Bridge and that's not factually correct there is no pavement there is a side of a road a verge if you like but it's a very busy road and there is significant cars speeding on that road I accept that there is 215 meters visibility splay to be seen but on the day of the site visit at the speed of traffic is going there even though that you can see the entrance was very dangerous in my opinion and also I do raise the question if there is a need for 55 caravans like this on the site what's the effect of that's going to be I accept it's being hidden and screened but I am definitely think that that's will have an effect on the Welsh language locally. The second thing I'd like to raise is when we talk about Tour 3 in the JLDP what exactly is the definition of the departments of local let's say there's no similar developments locally but what exactly does local mean in this context is it's in so many miles so many yards I don't know I just like to answer to that question because definitely when you look at Anglesey on the coast as a whole there are a number of developments that are similar which exist already and definitely of putting 55 additional caravans on that site I see the risk as regards accidents. Thank you very much to the Councillor does the officer want to come in or do you want to go on to the next person? No come in thank you. The parts as regards the access obviously we have consulted with the experts in the highways department and it's fair to say that this is quite a new entrance in relation to this matter and there's no objections which I've received to the entrance we have to have the comments of the experts on the matter and maybe the highways officer would like to come in on this point but as regards the like to need we have to consider the fact in relation to the policies and again it does conform with the policies there's a strong business case which has been presented a number of professional reports which supports the venture now we have to accept those as they are of course and the other point that's been raised by you is the location and the locality what is local that answer well I don't have that answer personally but the policy officers have been part of the consultation process with its application and in their professional opinion that is justification to permit this and it's not against policy thank you thank you to the officer for that answer anyone else want to come in Councillor Robert Llewellyn Jones was first thank you thank you is other any red squirrels in the location and how many trees are going to be felled and what type of cheese are they and what type of cheese will be planted instead of those that are cut down and that will disappear I'll bring the officer in thank you there's no red squirrels on the site but there are signs in the area and the planting scheme does give consideration to that and species will be planted that are supportive of the red squirrel species as regards biodiversity so that is a positive step from what we can see on the planting scheme trees are being felt yes there is one tree being cut down to create the access into the sites maybe you'll remember we discussed that on the site visit but in fairness the reporter to be presented do show clearly that's a lot more trees are being planted compared to what's being cut down on the site there's a net gain I think is the best way of putting it as regards who well sorry which species we do have a condition on the permission ensuring that the location are the numbers and type of trees are approved by the planning department and the experts in the department in due course if permission is granted thank you can I just come back chair the trees that they're going to plant usually they are very small trees they wouldn't be able to plant fully matured or five-year-old cheese they're just like twigs that are being planted but with planning now we as a council are trying to get zero carbon by 2030 and there's no mention in anything that comes before us how much carbon is exhumed from everything on the island and I think it's very important as a planning committee are there officers looking into this and giving some kind of figures together or just to show what the carbon effect this will have on the environment sorry chair I'm not sure if you want me to repeat that at all or did the officer hear what I had to say thank you just to answer your question there I think the office in the last committee Mr. Hayes Jones did answer that question for you with the carbon measurement it's not possible to measure carbon about every particular case it doesn't happen and that question has been answered to you in the last committee to be fair it's not possible that question has been answered in the last committee out of respect to yourself chair this is an important matter we do understand councilor thank you just to add to that council chair I think it's a fair point as regards to the species that are being planted on the carbon offsets but to be fair to the applicants in this case when you look at the plan that has been presented as regards the planting that's going to take place on the site it is significant and to add to that I'd also like to draw your attention to the fact that there are very strict conditions in place to ensure that whatever is going to be planted is presented to as as officers to pass on to the experts so that they can then decide if the size etc is acceptable I do understand what you're saying as regards the size and I'm not an expert in that area but there is a condition in place to make sure that we can manage that and if needed for species that are bigger than others in different areas that we can manage that thank you one other question if I can chair if you are quick yes other members want to come in as well. Well this is an important matter you say that this isn't going to have an effect on the Welsh language how do you say that they'll be 100 people English speakers coming and going how won't that have an effect on the Welsh language in the area. Thank you once again we have consulted with the Welsh language office and the appropriate offices in the council and they have done that assessment they have come to the opinion that this development won't have an effect on the Welsh language can we have the information how they came to that conclusion. I can't offer more information to you than that has been presented in the report well I can't see that at all in the report there is a statement from the the Welsh language statement has been presented in support of the application and the assessment has been made by the offices and the result of that is that there won't be an effect a negative effect on the Welsh language and I can't expand more on that unfortunately I'm not happy with whoever's put that it needs to be looked at again that information thank you thank you I'm going to go on anyone else want to come in Councillor Jackie Lewis thank you thank you very much I did attend the site visit and having listened to what's been said here today and the questions that have been raised and I'm happy with the answers that have been given so I propose that we accept the recommendation of the officers on this one thank you thank you so there's a proposal to allow is there a second to this Councillor Liz Wood seconds is there a counter proposal at all Councillor Robin Williams thank you very much chair can I just make a few comments first of all please I am very familiar with this site even though I wasn't on the site visits I live at the top of my bridge and I passed the site very regular I have two concerns as councillor Alwen Watkins what skin has mentioned already in relation to the entrance we're talking here about over 50 movements from cars which will become additional on every day of the week more than likely the entrance here is in a situation where the road is a road where cars do go quickly there have been accidents on this road over the years unfortunately at least one or two of those accidents have been fatalities and I do have a serious concern about putting 55 additional cars and additional movements in and out of that entrance day after day there was a similar application that came before us as a committee quite a while ago now in the Kargeljog area and with that application the decision was made that the site wasn't sustainable I'm having difficulty to see what the difference is between that application and this application before us today there's talk that there's a bus stop within a stone throw away and it's a bit more than a stone throwers way I couldn't throw a stone that far to be honest there's no appropriate path to walk from this site to many bridge along the road there's no path there at all and for those of you who may not be familiar with the site it's not far from the pensions automotive garage and there's no path there and there's no path from pension automotive down to the forced crosses perp and I find it very difficult to understand how the officers have decided that this is sustainable on this site so I have serious concerns about the application and for because of my concerns about the access entrance and the additional traffic movements I'm going to propose that we refuse this application today thank you thank you councillor Robin Williams therefore there is a proposal that has been seconded and another proposal is there a seconder to that latest proposal councillor Alouan-Watkins seconds that does the officer want to come in finally before we go to a vote thank you chair except the points and maybe the highways officer would wish to come in after I finish what I have to say on this matter but the visibility is played to both sides of the access is over 200 meters and while accepting accidents have happened on the road itself on the a5025 there's no evidence showing that any accidents have been caused as a result of this entrance also the fact has to be accepted there is a public footpath which goes along the side of the site which serves san dek van manna bridge and the facilities available there except there's no pavements but there is a refuge if somebody wants to walk on that refuge and the highways department haven't raised any objections to the development thank you thank you thank you to the officer does the highways officer want to come in at all the relevant guidelines do states on a 60 mile an hour road as noted here that's 215 meters is the visibility display needed so on that basis that's why we haven't subjected to the application and additionally refer to the accidents that have happened in the area including the fatality the fatality wasn't linked to this entrance and just based on the evidence of lack of accidents linked to this access that's why we didn't have any objection with the current entrance and the increase that will be made because of this development thank you thank you to the officer so there are two proposals and i'm going to go to a vote on the robin williams's proposal seconded by alvin walking to object and refuse first of all if you could show on that please six votes there's another proposal and council jackie lewis proposed that and seconded by councilor liz wood to permit this application could you show on permitting please five votes therefore the applications committee thank you 12.1 fpl 2023 339 and I'm going to invite mr davit griffith from klenn league community council to speak you will have five minutes the time will start when you begin thank you the comments from the community council and and from us i understand from the public speakers it's possible that there may be questions i'm more than happy to answer those in welsh in english but the presentation will be in english the council did not object to the original boathouse planning application linked to the domestic property lane ends it was to be a high quality boat shed building to include a double height boat storage area and a workshop with the general storage area above when a building was constructed it did not have the functional attributes that would be expected of a boat shed and a very different visual appearance to the plans granted permission the community council objected to both applications that were lodged to retain the changes and the delegated powers offices refused application they are to 2021 91 to retain the changes and the applicants chose to appeal the community council made representations during the planning and environmental decisions wales pedal appeal process the applicants appeal to retain the changes to the original planning application was dismissed on receipt of the current planning application to change the design the community council prepared two detailed response documents the second document updated the first as more details became available the document included comments objections to some specific aspects areas where changes were acceptable to condition suggestions and requests for clarifications and assurances the committee council made a request to the planning department a copy of the response to the planning application be shared in full rather than in summary with members of the planning committee the community council understands from the planning department that this is not the normal procedure the members of the planning and orders committee are only able to see this summary within the agenda reports back as a statutory consultee the committee council disappointed that the planning committee have not had sight of the full version of the documents the community council continued to be concerned about two aspects of the proposed design changes the boat storage area and the access ramp to the building whilst in general the summary of the community council's document notes the issues and comments raised the section on the boat storage area does not capture an important aspect of the community councils response the community council formal response to the planning application noted the following and I quote visually having the main door to the boat store space more imposing due to both its height and width was an important feature of the original planning application in the community council view any reduction in the height of the main boathouse aperture is unacceptable both visually and functionally as is the removal of the void for the reasons that were outlined by the planning inspector at appeal that's the end of that quote the summary does not record that the community council quoted the relevant parts of the pedo appeal decision document to support the community council's objection to this aspect it's the community council's view that the comments of pedo inspector claire mcfarland in the appeal decision document about the impact on the future use of the boat house by the reduction in height of the boat store aperture and the loss of the void space should be given significant weight by officers when making a recommendation and the planning committee when taking a decision the planning history of a particular site including previous application decisions and planning appeal decisions is a material planning consideration and consistency of design sorry and consistency of decision making is important the community council requests the planning committee members are provided with the pedo appeal decision document in order to familiarize themselves with its content before making a decision last wednesday the community council became aware of further information about access to the boat shed the planning officer notes in the agenda report pack that and i quote the planning officer's view the site level on the proposed site plan show a 150 millimeter step from the finished floor level of the building to the site adjacent with the site sloping gradually in all directions further away from the building the 150 millimeter step is not considered to impact the use of the building with the applicant proposing to use a temporary ramp for access due to the infrequent use of building this is considered appropriate and will allow the building to be used for its intended use as a boat store end of quote apologies mr griffiths your time is up i have to ask you to finish there can i just say the the last sentence yes one sentence asked the planning committee to defer making decision until a future date to give sufficient time for members to familiarize themselves with all the relevant information thank you for listening thank you very much i will now invite mr davitt jones from russell hills to speak in favor of the application same for you five minutes and the time will begin when you start thank you chair good afternoon i'm here today to speak on behalf of the applicants in support of this representation i'm sure you are familiar with the planning history of this site since the right to wreck the building was approved back in 2019 under reference 24 c 352 which was submitted by the original owner of the site the use that was approved in accordance with the plans was the change of views from a paddock to residential and the construction of a boat storage garage and the workshop since the land trained hands the new owners have submitted planning applications to change the appearance and internal layout of the building to include a shower room and toilet as well as introducing a private sewer treatment plant so that they can make better and more comfortable use of the building while they attend it but like to emphasize that the applicants have never tried to change the use of the building at all in any planning application their intention is to continue using the building as a boat store and workshop the external size of volume of the building has not been proposed to change in any planning applications by the applicants either we have considered that the inclusion of a washroom and toilet in the building is acceptable as the public facilities adjacent are not open throughout the year the private sewer treatment tank included in the planning application is the smallest tank in terms of size and capacity on the markets by considering that the applicants will be using boats etc on the sea opposite the site it is feasible that they will need a place to wash within the building after coming out of the water since the concerns regarding the use and changes to the building came to light we have worked closely with the planning enforcement department and the planning officers to try and reach a satisfactory proposal for the building's appearance the aim of this collaboration is to ensure that the applicants can use the building so it's full potential and that the planning department is comfortable that the building is being built as close as possible to what was originally approved and that the building is not going to be used as anything other than the boat store and workshop concerns have been raised by the community council regarding the use of the building the size of the tank and the number of parking spaces for the building the step into the workshop and the parking spaces the applicants understand fully that they are not used the building as anything other than the boat storage and the workshop and the sewer tank is one of the smallest available on the market and the number of parking spaces and parking area has been moved the lowest depth is necessary to keep surface water out of the building especially because this is on the coast the depth of the building of 5.3 meters limits the size of the boats that can be stored there and they will need to be on dinghies they will be similar to dinghies enterprise rip boats kayaks 4.8 meters only these are the kind of boats that can be stored in this building they're not high so they don't need a large door and also the masks folds to store also this will allow them to sew rows spirits wetsuits and so on and all the equipments required and linked to sailing the number of parking areas includes space to turn around on a trailer and to store the trailer the enforcement department said that this is appropriate and recommend approval I would like to strongly emphasize once again that there is no intention to change the use of the building the applicant has received advice and understand that if they use the building as anything other than a boat saw that the enforcement department will issue a notice they also understand that if they were to submit a planning application that it will be refused in conclusion I would like to summarize this information to you the applicant understands as they have made a mistake by installing windows and glass doors to the building and fallen their fault they have therefore submitted a planning application to change the external appearance of the building to be more like what was originally approved and to include the washroom in the building they have acknowledged or a mistake and have worked closely with the planning department and the enforcement department to reach this reasonable solution thank you thank you Mr Jones and just in time I'm now going to invite the officer thank you very much chair so the application has been called in to the planning committee at the request of councillors I let the modest Jones and this would due to concerns of overdevelopment and local concerns surrounding the application the application is a two-storey detached building located on a parcel of land to the west of a dwelling known as lane ends at the edge of the settlements of the site planning was granted for the boats as in 2019 although the proposal was not built in accordance with the approved plans following an enforcement investigation which ultimately resulted in a breach of condition notice and amended submission was presented in an attempt to regularise the change the application was refused however and subsequent can subsequently dismissed on appeal the current submission incorporates the external external amendments which are now reflective of the functional purpose of the building which was originally approved on the site this is considered suitable for its incentives with minor variations to what was originally approved a condition has been imposed upon any approval to make sure that all the building works are completed within a two-year timeframe in terms of its impact on residential amenity the principle of a boat store on the site has previously been established it will still be used as a boat store and will have no greater impact than that which was originally approved furthermore no objections have been received in response to the publicity afforded to the application in terms of highways the highways departments don't have any objections to the alterations and to the access the alteration will allow improvements to the access and provide new parking on the sites as a result of the updated device a device in chapter six of planetary policy wales ecological enhancements have now been secured and as a result of the submission and conditions have been imposed as parts of any approval granted to ensure that ecological measures and landscaping are carried out before the building is used similarly a condition has been imposed which restricts the use of the building as a private boat store the proposal complies with all the relevance policies because of this mr chairman recommendation is warned of approval thank you before opening up i'm going to invite councilor allard morris jones to speak as a local member thank you mr chairman first of all can i thank the community council for bringing my my attention to this application this is why i've called this application into the committee because the community council and as you can imagine a community council they don't often come to speak in front of the planning committee but there is huge concern in the chanelian area that the development isn't being used and that it may be in the future it will be used as an annex i take on board what the officer have said regarding the conditions that will be imposed but i asked respectfully chair please can we delay this application so that we can make sure that all the information as requested by the community council can we defer it for a month before you come to a decision because this application has gone to appeal to try and keep the windows and has failed what the community council is trying to ensure here is that it will never be used in the future as a residential house so i ask you respectfully to delay your decision until you've seen all the documents the reason for that is because there is so much history behind this planning application thank you chair thank you councillor allied morris jones would the officer like to respond thank you very much i think it's important to stress that the authority in this case when they looked at the site there were issues with the clay being removed from the site and being thrown more or less onto the beach the enforcement department of this authority looked into the matter and they made sure that the that it was cleared up and that that waste was dealt with in the appropriate manner after that there was a complaint that it looked different to what was permitted once again the enforcement department quickly responded without delay and issued a notice breach of condition notice the applicant appealed against the council's decision to keep the changes because the authority um wasn't happy with the changes but pedo decided to agree with the authority and the appeal was dismissed since that decision another application has been presented the one that we're looking at today which is more or less reflects what was permitted originally for the site what we're looking at now is that the aperture to the boat storage is 900 millimetres lower and that there is a step of around six inches in old many many 150 mill into it and for the reasons explained today by the agents there are technical issues behind the SAP and justification given as well because of the uh for the aperture you've mentioned the appeal but the appeal decision was shared with the members when that was published so the members will be aware of the appeal and i'd also like to say that the department has worked closely and in collaboration with the community council throughout the process from start to finish and the evidence is there in the report in front of us there are strict conditions to make sure that it is kept for this specific purpose as a boat storage and that the building work is completed within two years thank you chair thank you to the officer for that i'm going to ask councilor derrico when the other local member if he has any comments thank you very much chair i think it's really important that we try and listen to community councils as well chair they've been elected to speak on behalf of the people of the area so i'd like if the committee would listen to the community council thank you thank you for that i'm now going to open up to the committee and first of all i'm going to turn to the local member councillor liz wood thank you chair just to say i agree with everything that i led and derrick and david griffiths from ch Matcha community council has said and i propose that we defer this application until the next meeting to make sure that we as a committee are aware of all the history behind this application thank you thank you for that for give me for a second i'm just going to turn to the legal advisor thank you to the solicit it was just making sure that we do things right here it is possible to defer and ask for the pedal reports to be shared as requested so there's been a proposal so of course you have to have a reason for deferring so this would are you happy to propose for that reason yes so you're so there's been a proposal for deferment is there a seconder councillor robert welling jones had his hand up first so are you happy to defer until next month until the pedal report has been shared with you can i have a show of hands please thank you very much so that's been deferred we'll now move on there are two public speakers but unfortunately but because there are site visits for 12 on 12.4 and 12.5 um you won't be possible to speak on those today so you'll have to wait until next month so we'll continue with the agenda so item six deferred applications learned today so next is seven point one fpl kapocha to salam thank god and i'm going to ask the officer to give his reports thank you very much chair so the plan and application is presented to the committee by local members because of parking and traffic problems and over concentration of holiday lights in the area on the 9th of may members of the committee recommended a site visit the site visits happened on the 22nd of may and the members are now familiar with the site and its settings after after advertising the proposal several letters of objection were received as well as warning support the site is located within the development boundary of shankite and the building used to be used as a chapel which falls under use class d1 it's also worth noting that a similar scheme for four holiday units was refused in 2022 the scheme has been reduced to provide four or three rather than four units and highway technical notes have been provided to confirm that it's adequate parking within the vicinity of the development also the application included a business plan which demonstrates that the the proposable is viable it is acknowledged that the proposal exceeds the 55 threshold for holiday homes 15.36 currently however this is a marginal increase and will help to bring back a vacant building into use it's also necessary to consider the lawful use of the building with the one use it could be used as a community hall or a crash and this may have a greater impact on traffic than holiday homes there will be conditions as well in terms of highway concerns the highway authority has considered the proposal and the technical highway notes have been submitted because the latest proposal is for three units rather than four we are now satisfied that the parking associated with the proposal can be accommodated in the area identified as zone a if a problem if there was a problem as a result of this application the highest department should review the situation and consider a traffic regulation order to manage the parking outside the shop in terms of residential amenities the proposal has been amended during the course of the application to ensure that the developments won't overlook the immediate neighbouring property to the south all windows of the south and rear elevation will be obscure glazing also the proposal is in line with the amg 5 policy the environment wales act and the latest changes to chapter 6 of planning policy wales that discusses maintenance and enhancing biodiversity so after considering all the planning considerations including the adoption objections the proposal is considered to be acceptable and the recommendation is the chairman is that the proposal is permitted subject to conditions thank you thank you to the officer so the local members aren't present can i ask robin jones to read out letters one from council gary prichard and one from council gary roberts thank you i'll the roberts thank you chair so this is uh from council albert's so this is the controversial application that's and there's been a lot of objection locally including a number of local members of the community council in several meetings of the community council the objection was unanimous so why all the objections i'm going to concentrate on the debate in front of you today and ask you to object contrary to the office's recommendation there aren't there's lack of parking for for this development the applicant has tried to greet these concerns in several ways in their supporting documents according to local people that the problem hasn't been resolved in the documents there are several ways being proposed to deal with the issue but unfortunately they don't resolve the issue of lack of parking in the area especially near the shop anyone who lives and who drives through this part of the village will be aware of the lack of parking and all the cars that park on the streets in this part of the village it's a nightmare to drive along the streets with all the vehicles especially large vehicles by the shop at different times and having extra vehicles linked to this development would add to the problem it would make it much worse despite proposing the zone for parking they aren't realistic and don't consider the rights of local people who live here and who themselves are finding it difficult to park their cars because a lot of them don't have parking they don't have drives or personal garages secondly the number of holiday lights in the area it's above the threshold in the figure is 15.36 percent in sanguine which is above the 15 percent threshold the planning departments are saying that the figure is only slightly over the threshold this is mathematically correct of course but even so it's clear that it's over the threshold and if you permit this application today that number will go up again there is a danger that we will be setting a precedent here by allowing another application of its kind and it could open be only two of several similar applications in this ward and across the island we have to stick to our guns today and if there is a threshold we should stick to it and not divert from it just because of a similar application if you will permit this application today you are setting a very dangerous precedent for future planning applications in serial and beyond thank you for listening and I hope you'll make the right decision today Councillor Alan Roberts. and also Councillor Gary Pritchard has apologised that he can't be present today but has asked for this statement to be read out in relation to application FPL 2023. 328 apologies as I am unable to attend today but thank you for allowing me to present my comments via letter that the development of Jerusalem Chapel is totally unsuitable and it's will add to the parking and traffic problems that already exist in the village of Frankfurt. As became apparent during the sites visits last month the site is opposite the only shop in the village which is extremely busy there are no other suitable parking places either in the direction of the village hall or in the other direction towards the football field. Concerns were raised by the highway department in relation to the original application at the end of 2023 and I find it difficult to see what has changed in the application that's going to alleviate these concerns and I would suggest that it is obvious to everyone who attended the site visits that the traffic assessments does not reflect the reality of the situation. As well as the parking concerns I'm also aware that we have gone over the 50% threshold which is suggested as the maximum number of holiday units in every cluster while I accept that the 50% is a recommendation I believe that we should stick to the figure in this case or we will soon end up with a much higher threshold which is much less acceptable to our communities thank you for your time Councillor Gary Pritchard serial ward. Thank you to Mr Robin Jones for reading out those letters, I'd like to invite Councillor Karen Jones in as well as the other local member. Thank you very much chair, thank you for your time and thank you to Councillors Gary Pritchard and Ellen Roberts for their comments and I agree totally with what they've said. There are three points that I'd like you to consider today. First of all this is a residential area, not a tourism area, people live here on both sides of this chapel. It's a place for people to live not a holiday area and what about the noise and everything associated to that. Secondly like Councillor Gary Pritchard mentioned in his letter, it's the over provision in the area already. The official figures is 15.3% which is over the recommendations in our own policies but that doesn't include Airbnb's. If you included Airbnb's into that figure it would mean that's nearly a quarter of the properties in the area are holiday lets. We don't need any more holiday lets. Over a quarter are holiday lets already we have to remember this is a residential area for people to live. Clangbe Dan Penman is a residential area and not some holiday village so there is certainly an over provision and what's the point of having a policy if we're not going to stick to the policy. We're just opening the flood doors and saying it's a free for all. And then thirdly and the most important point is transport. We met with the planning committee on the 22nd of May for site visits and as it happens, it was during the quietest time where everyone is in work but as it happened the three zones A, B and C that I mentioned here they were all full at that time at the quietest time of the day in the village. What will happen in the summer months when the population of Anglesea is over a quarter of a million a day? There's no hope we'll have jet skis holiday makers and they don't just land with one car as we've seen them in B DIRECTON everywhere they've got two cars. You're talking about four flats here down to three. You're still talking about six extra cars, huge jet skis. We see them landing in the area, huge trailers and track desks don't know where they're going to park. And I can't see how we rejected four the last time but now we're happy to pass three with zones A, B and C. It's ludicrous. Zone A is in front of a terrace and it's always full. Zone C, are they proposing that they park on the morrisons car park, on the pavement in front of morrisons? And then Zone A again that was also full during the site visits. There isn't any room for these cars to park. It was dangerous during the site visits. A car nearly ran over somebody's foot, it was chaotic. There was a tractor and a trailer trying to get through and couldn't. So I'm begging you today, please refuse this application on that basis. It's totally unsuitable in the middle of Frankfurt and there are three morrisons man a week that are bringing goods to the shop. Where are they going to go with all the cars and all the holiday makers and jet skis? Thank you, thank you Councillor Karen Jones. I'm going to ask the officer to respond. Thank you, chair. I think the report in front of you speaks for itself to be honest with you. We accept that it is higher than the threshold and it goes but it is marginal 15.36. We have to remember. But if you are refusing on that basis that we might be on dangerous ground here considering other appeals that have been decided by PETA, PETA and they have been approved by PETA. And there was one quite recently in Shandona where it was 2.5% over the threshold. You have to have the best evidence to show that it's will impact communities. No evidence has been presented with this application. That it will be detrimental to the community because it is 0.36% over the threshold in this instance. And then with parking I accept yes. It is a busy area with a lot of residents. There's a shop nearby. But I went to have a look at the site after the site visit just as of interest and to challenge the report presented. And zone A as it's referred to was clear of cars. And the car pack also had spaces. This is 200 metres from the site. There's a free car pack there. I'm not sure if I've missed the other point raised by Councillor CABRINICH-JONES there. I have those two points. Have I forgotten anything? I can't think of anything else. So thank you to the officer. I'm now going to open to the committee, Councillor Jackie Lewis. Thank you very much. I also went to the site visit. And to be honest with you, the traffic was horrendous at 11 o'clock in the morning. I didn't see any parking spaces. I want to ask the question. It's been refused two years ago for four units. So a reduction of one. I don't understand how you expect us to accept that. If people are bringing more than one car, and they will do, two years have gone by, I'd say there's even more people coming to the area. There is an overprovision, of course, to what was said two years ago. So by now there's even more of an overprovision because we know of the trend, more Airbnbs and so on. And I did ask on the day and I don't know if Eileen can answer, when was the traffic assessment undertaken? Because we know that there are times in villages where it's busier and people live there. People don't have off-road parking, so they have to park on the road in front of the terrace. So to be honest with you, I think it's dangerous. And they think there is an overprovision there. So I'd just like to ask Alan when the traffic assessment was done during the day. What time of day? Thank you Alan. According to the reports that was presented in the original application two years ago, where are we? There were periods between seven and half past nine in the morning, and then between four and eight. So that's when it was undertaken by the developer back in September. So can I come back? So this is two years ago, so there hasn't been one recently, there hasn't been one this year. So since this application has come in for the three units, we have revisited the location and we've looked at what the developer noted in his reports. So there were eight vehicles in zone A during the site visit. Later on in the day at seven o'clock, there were two vehicles. On the 22nd of May, a quarter to eight, there were five cars in the location last night. For example, at half past seven, there was one car. So the use of zone A varies. So because of the number of visits done at different times, we think that there is a capacity here to deal with the additional cars that will be linked with this development. Can I just come back quickly? But if this was done in summer, when it's really busy, of course, you know, things have changed since COVID as well. We're back to the traditional seasons of spring and summer and so on. But I think there would be a difference during the summer here, especially if there are more Airbnbs. And from what I've heard, there is. So to be honest with you, I'm not sure on this one. I thought it was dangerous. There's no pavements in front of the chapel. And no changes there from what I've understood. So I'm not sure. I don't feel comfortable with this one to be honest with you. Would anyone else like to come in? Councillor David Roberts? Something that was raised by Carwin. Talk about the statistics of 15 per cent. It doesn't include Airbnbs. And that wasn't a phenomenon years ago, was it? But it's a huge thing now. I think we're all familiar with villages having problems parking. Maybe there are, you know, four different families going to stay in a house at one same time. So it does lead to problems. So if you don't consider that in the percentages, so it might be 15.36 per cent in the report, but the true number is much higher. But you don't have to register an Airbnb, do you? So the figures don't include Airbnbs, do they? Thank you. Would the officer like to respond, please? No. You don't have to register an Airbnb, so we can't control that situation at all. Thank you. Yes, Councillor Geoff Evans first, thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Airbnbs are not before us anyway. It can be made a relative issue, if we want to make it that. I'm more concerned that the property is semi-derrilict. What do the people want? What would I prefer? Because I don't see many alternatives. This is a devil in the deep blue sea. Do we want an empty derelict building? Because I don't see any options. I don't see anybody coming up. I heard them saying that it could be made into a so-called village hall or it could be somewhere where there's a crash. I have never seen those applications. I don't see any other applications. The only applications I've seen before us is one where they wanted to have four units and now has been reduced potentially to three. And there is an argument whether there's suitable car parking in the area, and we've heard the variations and I've listened to other members who say, Well, it could be different in the summer. It's different as COVID falls off and more people come in. But the issue as is presented to us by I-Ways is that there is suitable car parking space, albeit one of them is a public car park. So what all I'm saying is at the end of the day, Mr Chairman, is what alternatives do we have? If we turn it down, we're left with a likely old derelict building, which I wouldn't want to be in front of my house or adjacent to my house. Or do we opt for supporting an all-day unit for three or three all-day units, which also brings problems with it, which annoys people fetching bits of equipment as they need an all-day. Me personally, I would opt for the latter because I would prefer to have the building used as opposed to it becoming derelict. And if I saw a good proposal for some other purpose, which doesn't appear to be before us, maybe the public should put the cash together and buy it and put it to a good public use. Until it happens, unfortunately I am going to vote to support the opportunity to have three units placed there. Thank you, Councillor Evans. Is that a proposal? Was that a proposal, Councillor Evans? Mr Chairman, it's not one I want to really make, but in this case I don't see many options, dereliction or usage. I prefer usage. Thank you. So, that's a question really. Is it better to have an empty building for another 20 years, which would create more problems as it deteriorated? And Councillor Evans has made a very fair point there. So, there is a proposal, is there a seconder to that proposal to approve the application? The email list. No seconder? Is there a counter-proposal then? Yes, Councillor Robin Williams. Thank you, Chair. I have listened intently to everything that has been said. We hear that the 15%, the figure of 15% is just a guide, but my question is, when will we say that enough is enough? I have just done a very quick search on my phone now, looking at AirBnBs from Bumaris towards the east, which covers the Tlaingoye, Daria, Penmon and up towards Llandona. And 102 Airbnb units are being advertised, that are available from the 23rd of September to the 27th of September this year. So, if we're already over the threshold of 15%, are we talking about an additional three units? If we take into account that there are 102 holiday units in addition to that figure also available. Well, I think that strengthens the argument made by, I think it was Councillor Catherine Jones, that the true figure in the serial area is probably 25% or higher. And we have to ask ourselves, what legacy do we want to leave as councillors? Do we want to leave more empty villages here on the island where you have nothing apart from holiday homes and AirBnBs? Or, for once in our lives are we going to say enough is enough? The serial area, and I'll use the English word here, it's overrun with holiday units. And we need to stop this. So, I'm going to propose today that we refuse this application, because we have gone over the threshold of 15%, this will take us further over the 15% threshold. As I say, it doesn't take into account the AirBnB units already in the area. So, I propose that we refuse the application, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Robin Williams, a fair point once again. Is there a seconder? Well, Councillor John Yvonne Jones said this hand first. Yes, I'm happy to second, Chair. Thank you. So there's a proposal that's been seconded to refuse, so please show if you're in agreement. Chair, if I may come in. I wasn't on the site's visit, so I won't be voting. Yes, thank you, Councillor Liz Wood. So please show again if you want to refuse the application. So that application has been refused. Thank you. So the application has been refused. Before we move on, I'd like to take a short break, a five-minute break, so we'll have a five-minute comfort break, thanks. I'd like to bring the officer in, please. Yes, thank you, Chair. So the application is presented to the planning committee at the request of local member, Ror van Ween, at the committee meeting held on the 1st of November, 2023. Members voted to conduct the physical site visit. The site visit took place on the 15th of November, 2023, and therefore members will be familiar with the site. At the committee meeting held on the 6th of December, 2023, members refused the application country to offer the recommendation. The reasons given were insufficient drainage information provided to allow members to make a decision. Although surface water matters are outside the remit of the planning process, the developer has agreed to provide this information for the benefits of the planning committee so a decision may be made. At the time of writing the report, the developer has obtained said approval from the local authority as the SAB approval body. Following discussions with Doug Cymru and the SAB team, the drainage scheme was satisfactorily amended, and as such the previous concerns were overcome. At the committee held on the 6th of December, 2023, members resolved to refuse the application on the sole basis that there was insufficient drainage information to allow them to make a decision. As SAB approval has been granted, it is considered that the single reason or sole reason for refusal has been overcome, and there is no reason for members to continue with their resolution to refuse. Thank you, chair. Thank you to the officer. I'd like to invite the local member, Councillor Arvin Wayne, to speak. You have five minutes, Councillor Wayne, and the time will start when you're ready. Thank you, chair. The main reasons we should refuse this application is this area without doubt is one of the wettest areas in An Frau Zee. There is a Floyd and flood partnership which keeps an eye on the situation on a daily basis and on a voluntary basis. You've all received an email, a comprehensive email from Nigel a man under this who were members of the flood group. These aren't complainers. They are intelligence people who know the area well, and most of them live very close to the Tell Tro site. So how on earth can we ignore their advice, their concerns and worries? Can I stop for a minute? I can't hear myself because the headphones are on. The officer is on the way to help you. So how on earth can we ignore experiences? There is, again, a strong possibility that sewage will flow to their homes from so-called ways on this site. What rights do we have in spoiling their lives and their property? And this could happen during periods of heavy rain and flooding. How would we feel if our homes were ruined, due to negligence and the impact of the use of water from toilets in these chalets? It's endangering people. What's the main this road? This two narrow homes of schools, children who use the road as well. This is the road to the housing estates above Taltaros, and overuse could result from this site. If cars approach each other on long vine, the visibility towards Njupra is very poor. And the road to Njupra is a very busy road, with lots of speeding on it. And three, saturation of this area with similar holiday units. And also saturating the whole of Ankelsi, as we've already heard this afternoon, with too many of these tourist developments. Only a few yards down the road, you have a large holiday developments near the old church. There are two others in the same area. They're full of caravans. And a mile up the road in Njupra, there are two chalet developments. One on the road to Landoin, and another on the road to Zangafo. In a radius of five miles, there are eight holiday developments, including Plascoch and others. Certainly, we must consider our duty as part of our own joint local developments plan and its rules, towards the areas of outstanding natural beauty. The location of the182 shelters shall be over the road to an area that has been designated as such and needs to be safeguarded. Fourth, we have a responsibility for the quality of the life of local residents. The site is surrounded by homes and this development will affect the quality of their lives in many ways, especially during the holiday periods with noise emanating from those staying in the chalets. It's bound to have an impact on residents. Vehicles will be coming and going late at night. The peace of the area will be completely spoiled. It's also noted that the flooding wardens are very concerned about the risk because the field in question is on the top of the hill which runs down to the highway and there's a risk of a sewerage overflow as has happened in the past because the soaker waste should be at least 1.3 metres into the ground but it's not possible in this field because the rock underneath the bedrock is only 0.8 metres on average. This is a major concern for residents living along the road, the A480, because they have had sewerage coming into their homes previously. We must remember that if flooding does happen as a result of this development, the residents affected will have the right to claim compensation from the Council. Please let us refuse the application. I'm sorry, Councillor, I must ask you to finish. I'll just finish the sentence. Please let us refuse this silly application for the benefit of the island and the benefit of the residents of Douiran, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Owen. Does the officer want to respond? Yes, thank you, Chair. Of course, I respect the concerns and the comments made by the Councillor and one reason for refusing given was based on drainage issues and the information has been presented to overcome the previous reason for refusing. So today we're here to discuss the report in front of you. Thank you to the officer. Before I turn to the committee, I'd like to bring the solicitor in, Mr Robin Jones. Yes, thank you, Chair. Just to remind the committee, you know, this is an extended period for you to consider your decision to refuse the application and, you know, the officers have addressed your reason for refusing in the report. You know, there's no -- the officers aren't allowed to discuss any of the issues. Thank you to Mr Robin Jones. Yes, Councillor Johnnie Van Jones is a local member first of all. Thank you, Chair. I would like to go back to the meeting we had a few months ago, the first meeting when we discussed this application for the first time. I myself discussed many more problems for refusing this application apart from the Saab issue. So I think it's wrong to say that there's only one reason for refusing this application previously and that, you know, that single issue has been resolved. I'd like to bring the solicitor in. Yes, you're right, all sorts of things in every planning committee and everybody can choose their own reasons for refusing, but what's been recorded as the committee's decision is the Saab issue, the drainage, and those are -- that's the issue you need to concern. I accept that you might have other reasons for refusing, but we can't reopen the discussion on the application because this is being considered for the second time. Can I continue with my comments then, Chair? I know that there's not so much time, but as Councillor have been saying that you can see on the map, you can see that the access opens out to a very narrow road. And you know, it's a single track road. I leave that there. And we are talking about up to 26 parking places within the development. So, you know, you'll have a significant number of vehicles entering the road in that location. And then they'll come down to the junction and visibility from the right, from the Newborough Road is really dangerous. Can I just ask Councillor Geoff Evans to switch off his mic? There's an echo. Thank you, Councillor Evans. Yes, carry on, Councillor Jones. So, 13 chalets. There's a possibility that we could have 50 to 70 additional people staying in these chalets. We're talking about a 10% increase in the population of the village. When I finish what I have to say, you know, perhaps the officer could respond. You know, the surgery in the village might have to deal with people from this site. You know, I wonder whether they've been consulted, whether they've said if they can deal with that increase in the population over the summer. You know, these developments can put lots of pressure on local services. We've already discussed drainage and the SAB approval, but I'd like to give you more information about the Dweerem flood group. Recently they've been working really hard and you'll see on the picture in front of us how many puddles are in the area or pools. They've worked very hard over a number of years to try to improve this area in terms of flooding. But I can assure you that the Menai Strait comes in twice a day. It fills in the river brine, so when it reaches its highest point, people are really worried in this area, whether or not the water is going to cross the road or not. And recently, as an example, we met Natural Resources Wales and their location at the moment, and despite the work already that has already been done, it scores 90% in terms of concern that more money needs to be spent on flood prevention in the area. And to put that in perspective, when a place scores 91, they receive an immense amount of funding to improve flooding. That is for 91. And at the moment, Dweerem has a figure of 90, so a lot of work needs to be done in this area to improve things in the area before these sorts of developments can be approved. I understand that the site itself is not in the flood zone, but we're only 15 metres away from the flood zone. And this year, the rainfall has been 200%, double the rainfall has fallen in this area and there's a lot of work that needs to be done. I'm going to refer to P curve 2 and P curve 3. In terms of P curve 3, these long-term neighbours are going to suffer terribly if their site is approved. It is definitely damaging to the residents' health. We're talking at the peak of P curve 3 that there will be a hedge, there is a hedge around the site, but the thing will screen views of the site from the main road in winter. So I think there are problems in terms of P curve 3 as well. What attracts people to this area is Nubra Beach and Denise Sandlin, and what we've seen recently on the TV and the newspapers is the huge problem that Arvon and myself are trying to tackle at the moment of the traffic congestion in Nubra during the holiday period. Again, as with previous applications today, there have been two good examples today, which have been refused. You know, there's no payments that runs from this site or somewhere for you to ride a bike or walk safely to the beach or the model village or the attractions in the area. There's nothing. All you have is a rope. It's a mile-long road where cars can travel at speeds of up to 60 miles per hour with a gas verge. And some cars travel at over 100 miles an hour on that road. So there's no clear footpath to local attractions. If we're talking about 26 holiday vehicles in addition to local traffic, well, the village of Nubra can't cope. It can't cope anyway. So there's a big problem there. Everybody has to use cars from this site. And, you know, we have terrible congestion already in Nubra. We do border the AOMP here. And soon we'll be calling these national landscapes. And these designations are being established. I'd be very worried if we're going to approve something like this and somewhere that's going to be a national landscape in future. We've talked about the saturation of tourism and we need to move tourism around the island, across the island. We've discussed surface water issues already. There was no objection to the applications that we've already refused today. But what you have is an objection from two local members, the Community Council and the whole community living in the village. If you could please take that into account. Everybody in the village, two local members, the Community Council. Nobody has approached me in support of this application. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Johnny Van Jones. I wouldn't applaud so much. I'm not happy that a note has been passed to a member of the committee as has happened this afternoon. That isn't acceptable, I'm afraid. I sympathise with your feelings, but you have no right to do something like that. I hope that doesn't happen again, ever. Not whilst I'm chair anyway. It isn't acceptable. I'm going to invite another member of the committee to speak. Yes, Councillor Geoff Evans, thank you. Yes, thank you again, Mr Chairman, for giving me this opportunity. I was confused by this as I am on various other applications. And the reason I'm confused is that this had already been discussed by this committee previously. And as the Councillor Sallister rightfully said, those matters are not really for debate again. And I'm going to read off a part of the minutes. The developer agreed to provide information for the benefit of the planning committee so a decision may be made. At the time I'm writing this report, the developer obtained said approval from the local authority as the SAB approval body. Following discussions with Doore Cymru and the SAB team, the drainage scheme was satisfactorily amended and as such, the previous concerns were overcome. At the committee held on the 6th of December 2023, members resolved to refuse the application on the sole basis that there was insufficient drainage information for them to make a decision. As SAB approval has been granted, it is considered the single reason for refusal has been overcome. And thus there is no reason for the members to continue with the resolution to refuse. All I'm saying there is there was ample opportunity to put forward the reasons for or against this application, when it was previously heard. There was ample opportunity to put in reasons why it should not be granted. But there was one decision taken and that was to refuse it because there wasn't enough information, which has now been overcome. So again, although I don't necessarily agree with it, I would prefer it for all the items, as has been put forward, to it to be put on an open platform again. But we can't do that. We've already discussed it. It's already been quite vociferously discussed and as much as I don't like it, that is where we are. And I have to agree now with the council solicitor, that it is the single reason for refusal has been overcome and there is no longer any reason why members can continue with a resolution to refuse. If that's not the case, then I don't know why we have continued meetings. We put in a reason, it's been overcome. We have to adhere to it whether we like it or not. Thank you, Councillor Geoff Evans. I think it's important as I bring the officer in to respond as well. Yes, thank you, Chair. I think the situation has been articulated by the council solicitor. We're here today to consider what's before us in the report and it is clear that the search approval has been granted, which overcomes the reason for refusal. I can't add anything more to that, but of course, I respect that it is the committee's decision at the end of the day and there's nothing more I believe we can present from a planning perspective. It's detailed in the report. Recommendation is clear. Thank you. Yes, thank you to the officer. The officer has submitted his report. The solicitor has given you appropriate advice, so I'd like to carry on. Is there a proposal? I'm afraid, Councillor O' east, that you can't speak again. You've had your opportunity. Yes, Councillor Jones. Thank you, Chair. I'll be quick. I just want to make a comment that there have been applications that we've already considered today that have been really simple for holiday developments by a roadside where you don't have any pavements. I think it's really important today that we treat, that we behave equally on the committee and I'd like to propose that we refuse the application. So there's a proposal to refuse. Is there a second? Yes, Councillor David Roberts first. I wanted to raise one point if possible. In the report it says that surface water issues are outside the planning process but I was reading the Wales Planning Policy Edition 12. It does discuss surface water and climate change in detail and in the Wales Planning Policy there's a number of points. Is that policy enforced? It says that development should reduce the risk of flooding on the development site and beyond and it should not increase as a stranger the priority is to safeguard areas that haven't been developed and prevent the increased effects of step-by-step developments. I take it that planning policy Wales February 2024 is in force? Yes, thank you, that's a valid point. Those matters have been considered and according to reports that have already been presented to the committee, the planning authority is satisfied with information received. The search issues go beyond that information and it's outside the remit of planning. It's controlled by other services and not by planning and the report does explain that SAP approval has been given, you know, that is a lengthy and strict process in itself and SAP approval has been given and the process has been scrutinised by external consultants working with the County Council at the time. So SAP approval was given on the 15th of May this year. What I'm looking for is it says here the development should reduce the risk of flooding so you're telling me that the steps taken will reduce the risk of flooding, you know, according to the experts? Well the experts have given them permission and, you know, they haven't done that slightly. Thank you. So there's a proposal by Councillor John Iman-Jones. Is there a second to the proposal to refuse the application? Yes Councillor Alwyn Watts-Kane, and there's a proposal by Councillor Geoff Evans to approve the application. Is there a second to that proposal to approve? That I am making, Mr Chairman, I would prefer not to have made a proposal but I do it because I think in this case, with that before us, with previous meetings, with SAP approval, I think we are safeguarding now the interests of Council as well because I fear that this ultimately will go to appeal and in my personal view, no way that we can potentially win it. Yes, thank you Councillor Evans, that's the danger of course, that's the danger with these issues, that's why experts, advisors as committee members, it's really important that we heed what they have to say. So Councillor Geoff Evans has proposed that we approve. Is there a seconder? Yes, Councillor Jacqui Lewis. I'm sorry, I take it that Councillor they are seconding, thank you. So there are two proposals. So we'll vote first on Councillor John Evan Jones' proposal, seconded by Councillor Alan Watts-Kane to refuse the application, but you need a valid reason for refusing. So you don't accept the search report, is that the reason? Because that's why it's being considered by the committee. Well we're talking a lot about experts, but I think the experts are people who have lived in the area throughout their lives for over 50 years, but they're not experts where planning is concerned. It is a complicated issue. So there's a proposal by Councillor John Evan Jones, seconded by Councillor Alan Watts-Kane to refuse. Will you please show if you agree to refuse the application? So that's six. And then the proposal by Councillor Geoff Evans, seconded by Councillor Leszlo, to approve the application. Please show if you're in favour. So that's four. So the application has been refused. Yes, Councillor Jones, I need a reason for refusing. It's really important. Thank you, chair. I think it's contrary to P curve 2 for nuisance for local people, and contrary to P curve 3 because there won't be a hedge around the site 12 months of the year. And then P curve 4, we have major problems with the attractions in the area, and the traffic in the area. And I think that the access to the site and to the main road is a really dangerous one for vehicles. It's only a single-track road which joins a really busy junction. So there are a list of reasons. I'd like to invite the solicitors in, but none of those reasons were reasons for refusing originally. Is the committee asking for a further cooling-off period? So that you can have a report to explain the implications of the reason you've just stated this afternoon. Well, I don't need a further cooling-off period. It's a matter to the committee, not to you, Councillor Jones. Any comments about another cooling-off period? Are you happy to go to appeal for the reasons you've given about 'certs'? Are you happy with that? Because that's what's going to happen. You know, you refuse the application today because of the 'certs' issue. You don't accept the 'certs' report. And that's what will be included in any appeal. Well, I'd like all the matters I've raised today to be considered as reasons for refusing. And I'd also like to add that recently we've had a score of 90 by NRW in the area in terms of flood prevention. There's lots of work that needs to be done in the area before we can permit an application. So Geoff Evans, if he wants to come in. Yeah, I only wanted to come in again because I agree that maybe. And we don't want to have second, third, fourth deliberations. But now we're in the position we are, with the, what I would say, some confusion as to process, I think a further cooling-off period could and would be advisable because we have to understand that it was turned down for x reason. That was overcome. Unless we're given valid reasons why the overcome has now declared their point of view, I don't know what we're fighting it on. And do I think we have to then go back to them and say, will you please give us a clear indication on the reasoning behind why you made such a decision? I agree. I'd like to bring the officer in, please. Yes, thank you. I think the situation has been articulated by the council solicitor in this instance, and in order to do justice to the constitution, as has been pointed out, then the cooling-off period would be the appropriate way of dealing with this matter in my mind. However, it is a matter ultimately for yourself as a committee to decide on. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Evans. Is there a seconder to that proposal? Yes. Councillor Trevor Lloyd has the seconded. A counter-proposal, I have to ask. Well, Chair, I think we've discussed this application enough. We've gone through the process today. I proposed that we refuse, there's a second that we voted in favour of refusing, so I propose that we don't have another cooling-off period. I understand what you're saying, but this is part of the process as well, we have to accept that. So, as Chair, I have to accept the proposal that's being made. It's been seconded, and I have to vote on it. But there's a counter-proposal as well. Is there a seconder to Councillor Jonathan Jones' proposal not to have another cooling-off period? No. Okay, so we'll vote on Councillor Geoff Evans' proposal for a cooling-off period, and that we can have time, you know, we'll come back in a month, I'd imagine. We can consider the reasons that you've raised today, and that the committee needs time to consider those issues. So please show if you're in favour of Councillor Evans' proposal. Okay, that's been accepted, so this application will come back again next month. With that, we'll move on. Yes, Councillor Trevor Leiter, how many times are we going to defer these issues, items, you know, to the next month? Although I agree with the decision we made as a committee, I see it's building up more and more. As councillors, we need to show the way forward. As the solicitor said, I agree with the cooling-off period, but please don't do this every month. Yes, I agree 100 per cent, Councillor. With that, I'd like to move on. So we're going to eight economic applications, none to be considered. Nine affordable housing applications, none to be considered. Ten departure applications, none to be considered. Eleven development proposals submitted by councillors and officers, none to be considered. And we're going to 12 remainder of the applications, and I'll just wait until the audience has left the chamber. Thank you.

Thank you. >> Thank you. [Applause] Thank you. So we'll move on to 12.2 FPL 2024-43 Benwenserhirr Cemetery Kemais. The officer, please. Thank you. This is an application to extend the existing cemetery located on the outskirts of Kemais, near Capel Bethesda. And it's presented to the committee because the land is owned by the council. The proposal is located immediately adjacent to the development boundary. It's appropriate in terms of scale and type, and is easily accessible by foot, cycle and public transport, and therefore it's a cause with the relevant criteria of the ISATU, which is the principal policy to consider when considering the application. Whilst acknowledging that the site is greatly a agricultural land, there is an overriding need for the development to provide additional burial facilities in the area of the site, immediately adjacent to the existing cemetery, and it's the most appropriate and logical application. The current cemetery is now at 20% occupancy, and there are no other alternative local sites. No objections are being received to the proposal as a result of publicity, and all consultees have confirmed that they have no objection to the proposal. The council's property department have also confirmed that the land in question has been retained specifically for the purpose of extending the cemetery in its capacity as a burial authority. On balance, Mr Chairman, the proposal is considered acceptable, and the recommendation is therefore one of approval subjects to the conditions listed in the report. Thank you to the officer. I'd like to bring the local member in, Councillor Layswood. Do you have any comments? No, I just want to say that this is an important issue for the Kenmars area, and the Kenmars Community Council and residents in the area are aware of what's happening, and everybody's happy with it. Thank you. With that, it's Councillor Trevor Lloyd-Heales. proposed by Councillor Trevor Lloyd-Heales that we approve. Is there a seconder? Seconded by Councillor Layswood. Please show if you're in favour. Thank you. That is being approved. We'll move on then to 12.3 VAR 2024/26 English Presbyterian Church Telford Road, Menai Bridge. And again, I'm going to invite the officer to speak. Thank you. This application is presented to the planning committee as the original planning application was approved by the committee. The arborcultural report has been submitted and that expresses that the trees have been inappropriately managed historically, and that some planting choices have been unsuitable, with the effect that the trees have become congested and are spoiling each other's form. The emergent survey has also confirmed that the removal of two trees from the rear boundaries is unlikely to have a significant effect in the long term on the conservation status of bats in the area. There are plenty of other trees for them to forage habitat. The shed or garage is going to be relocated about a metre to the east, and also the size of the shed is going to be reduced from 30.2 m2 to 28 m2. And in line with the Planning Policy Wales guidance, the proposal also provides biodiversity enhancements in the form of additional hedgerow and two bat boxes and two bird boxes. There's no change of policy since the previous application was approved, Chair, so the recommendation is one of approval in line with the conditions in the report. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm going to turn to the local member, Robin Williams. Thank you, Chair. Yes, it must be said that the applicants here have pleased the residents of the area, and therefore I'm happy to propose that we approve this application. Thank you. As a proposal to the seconder, Councillor Johnnie when Joan seconds, if you could show therefore you're in agreement. Thank you. That's been accepted unanimously. And we come to the final application, 12.8 FPL 2024/60, the football field in South Bay and I'll bring the officer in. Thank you. Once again, this is as the Ankeny Council own the land in this case. And in line with the description, this is an application to locate a container on the site as a food and drinks cabin. It's a small scale structure which will serve the football ground and which is adjacent to the near pavilion. The container will be finished with light grey cladding to improve its visual appearance and ensure that it integrates into the area. The probe will be connected to the existing private drain that serves the pavilion. I will have two bird boxes attached to comply with the changes to chapter six of Planning Policy Wales. No adverse representations were received as a result of publicity and the conditions requested as a result of the consultation process and no objections were raised by the professional consultees. The recommendation therefore is one of approval. Thank you. Thank you to the officer, Councillor Trevor Lloyd Hughes. You're the local member. Do you have any comments? No comments. Agree with the officers. Thank you. Are you proposing then? There is a proposal then. Is there a second? Councillor Geoff Evans seconds. Apologies for that. If you could show on the application. Excellent. That's been passed unanimously and that brings us to the end of the committee. Thank you very much to you all. The next committee will be on the 24th of July. There's about six weeks until then. So thank you very much for your time and we'll bring the meeting