Creation of new vehicular
access to the road
LOCAL MEMBER:
Councillor Gareth Williams
Decision:
DECISION:
To approve
Standard
conditions including:
Five years
in accordance with the plans, levels, materials and landscaping
Minutes:
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.
- 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
Supporting documents: