Agenda item

Creation of new vehicular access to the road

LOCAL MEMBER: Councillor Gareth Williams

 

Link to relevant background documents

DECISION: To approve

 

Standard conditions including:

 

Five years in accordance with the plans, levels, materials and landscaping

 

Creation of vehicular access to road

a)      The Planning Manager highlighted that this was an application to create a new vehicular access to an existing residential site from a class 3 road that runs south from Sarn Mellteyrn, from Tanrallt to Tŷ Fair. It was explained that the access would be located 7.8m to the south of the existing outbuilding with a gate set back 5m from the road, with a soil/stone clawdd measuring 1m high on both sides of the access's "bell". The intention was to create a link road from an existing parking space to the rear of the property.

It was noted that the application was submitted to Committee at the request of the Local Member.

Although the site was within the development boundary, it was reported that it had a countryside, agricultural nature and that the development would basically extend the village's developed area to the countryside, thus changing the nature of the landscape in a significant way. It was acknowledged that it was intended to erect new cloddiau to replace the lost clawdd, however, it was not considered that this would be sufficient to compensate for the visual change to the landscape caused by the substantial engineering work that would be essential to create the new access.

 

It was highlighted that the site had already been the subject of three unsuccessful planning applications for similar developments, including one application that was refused on appeal, where the Inspector had noted;

 

"Policy PCYFF3 expects high quality design and that development contributes to the creation of attractive sustainable places that complements and enhances the character and appearance of the site, the building or area, and respects the context of the site and its place within the local landscape.   Policy AMG 2: Special Landscape Areas (SLA) seeks to ensure that there is no significant adverse detrimental impact on the landscape and that development should aim to maintain, enhance, or restore the recognised character and qualities of the SLA. I consider that the proposal would conflict with these forementioned policies."

 

It was noted, although this proposal involved taking less land than originally intended, the principle of the plan had not changed significantly and the need to remove the existing boundary with the highway, clear vegetation and infilling to ensure a vehicular link between the garden and the new access, would continue - this would happen in a countryside site beyond any existing development, which would mean that the urban feel would extend to the Special Landscape Area (SLA).  It was reiterated that developments, wherever possible, should contribute to maintaining, improving or restoring the recognised character of the SLA - it was considered that the development would be detrimental to the quality of the SLA and thus would be contrary to policy AMG 2.

 

In the context of transport and access matters, although no response had been received to the consultation on the application, the Transportation Unit expressed their satisfaction with a similar plan that was part of a previous application. It was considered that the proposal met the objectives of Policy TRA 4 of the LDP.

 

In the context of biodiversity matters, it was highlighted that the Biodiversity Unit did not object to the development, although they noted that the cutting of vegetation should be restricted to outside the bird nesting season and requested wildlife enhancements such as tree / hedge planting to be a part of any permission. In doing so, the development would be acceptable under policy PS19 of the LDP.

 

Having assessed the current proposal against the relevant planning policies, it was considered that the development would cause an unacceptable change in the nature of the landscape that would be detrimental to the area's visual amenities when approaching the village of Sarn Mellteyrn and therefore it was recommended to refuse the application.

 

b)    Taking advantage of the right to speak, the local member made the following points:

·         That this was not an application for an additional access - it was intended to close the existing access.

·         The existing access was dangerous - difficult to see before pulling out - the access was located between two buildings on an angle and a bend.

·         Impossible to turn to the direction of Rhiw - one would have to turn towards Sarn and then turn back.

·         A new access would improve the situation and light the space that was currently dark and narrow.

·         That neighbours adjacent to the site had agreed that the proposal was safer and had better visibility.

·         That the photographs submitted did not highlight the land levels clearly and that there would be no need for substantial work to restore the work.

·         That there was no intention to create a new parking area.

·         Soil would not be moved from the site - it was needed to create cloddiau and infill.

·         There was an intention to plant trees.

·         Although four applications had been submitted, no objections had been received - the Community Council supported the application as the proposed access was better, and the community was supportive.

 

A letter of support from a neighbour who lived adjacent to the access was read out.

 

c)    It was proposed and seconded to approve the application, contrary to the recommendation.

Reasons: supported the views of the Community Council; the application was reasonable, the proposed access was safer.

 

ch) In response to the refusal reasons, the Head of Legal Services, considering that an appeal had been dismissed on a previous application, that there was a need to consider what was different on this occasion, and that supporting the views of the Community Council was not a planning matter - there was a need to consider reasons that reflected planning matters.

 

Reasons:

-     The visibility would improve if the access was moved.

-     That the proposed access would not create a harmful impact on the landscape.

-     That there had been an increase in traffic levels following the development of tourism in 2020-2022.

 

dd) During the ensuing discussion the following points were made by members:

·   That the transportation unit had not expressed concern.

·   That a site visit would be beneficial.

·   That safety needed to be considered.

·   An urban feel extending to the rural area?

·      That the application had been refused a number of times - the situation was the same.

 

RESOLVED To Approve

 

Standard conditions including:

 

5 years in accordance with the plans, levels, materials and landscaping