PLANNING AND ORDERS COMMITTEE

Minutes of the meeting held on 6 April, 2011

PRESENT: Councillor J.Arwel Roberts (Chair) Councillor Eric Roberts (Vice-Chair)

Councillors E.G.Davies, Lewis Davies, Jim Evans, Kenneth Hughes,W.T.Hughes, R.L.Owen, Hefin W.Thomas, J.P.Williams, Selwyn Williams

IN ATTENDANCE: Chief Planning Officer (EGJ) Planning Control Manager (DFJ) Planning Assistant (MG) Planning Assistant

Principal Engineer (Development Control & Public Right of Way (JRWO) Development Control Officer (RE)

Legal Services Manager (RJ) Committee Officer (ATH) Administrative Assistant (SWJ)

APOLOGIES: Councillors W.J.Chorlton, Thomas Jones

ALSO PRESENT: Local Members : none

1 APOLOGIES Apologies for absence were submitted and noted as shown above.

2 DECLARATION OF INTEREST Declarations of interest were received and recorded under the respective items.

3 MINUTES The minutes of the previous meeting of the Planning and Orders Committee held on 2 March, 2011 were submitted and confirmed as correct.

4 SITE VISITS The minutes of the site visits undertaken on 16 March, 2011 were submitted and confirmed as correct.

5 PUBLIC SPEAKING The Chair informed the Committee that there would be a public speaker in respect of application 11.4 on the agenda.

1

6 DEFERRED APPLICATIONS

6.1 11C557B – Erection of two wind turbines with a maximum rotor diameter of up to 71 metres and a maximum blade tip of up to 92.5 metres together with the erection of a sub­ station and control building, new access track and associated hard standings and developments on land at Ysgellog, The officer’s recommendation was that a site visit be undertaken as it was considered necessary that members appreciate the scale and context of the proposal before coming to a resolution in respect of the application. It was resolved to undertake a site visit in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

7 APPLICATIONS ARISING

7.1 31C210G – Outline application for the erection of a dwelling house on land at Craig, Lôn y Craig, Llanfairpwll Mr Richard Eames, Highways Development Control Officer declared an interest in this application and withdrew from the meeting during the discussion thereof. The application was reported to the Planning and Orders Committee at the request of the Local Member who had cited above ridge height, amenity and traffic issues as concerns. The Planning Control Manager reported that members had carried out a site visit on 16 March, 2011 during which they had viewed the site from different perspectives and had seen the proposed access point. The main concerns of the Local Member were in relation to traffic issues and the siting of the proposed development on an elevated and highly visible point and consequently, its potentially adverse impact on residential amenity. The Officer was satisfied that that notwithstanding the elevated location of the proposed development, the site could accommodate a single storey dwelling which, with the inclusion of screen fencing, would not cause such harm to amenity by way of overlooking as to warrant refusing the application. Councillor J.P.Williams stated that he would address the meeting on this application in his capacity as Local Member only and would not vote on the matter. He drew a comparison between the planning approach to the application above and that in respect of the application under item 11.1 on the agenda. He stated that he was concerned that unlike the report in item 11.1 where the measurements are noted and the height of the development to which the Officers object is specified, the Officer’s report on the application above does not refer to the height of the proposed dwelling. Councillor Williams referred to the fact that there is a dwelling already on the site at a lower level than the development proposed, and he pointed out that being sited in an elevated position, the floor level of the proposed dwelling will be higher than the roof of the dwelling on site which will lead to overlooking. The height of the proposed dwelling will be approximately 0.5m to 1m higher than the roof ridge of the dwelling below. Moreover the outline plans indicate that the dwelling will have dormer windows which in Councillor Williams’ view meant that the dwelling was in effect a two storey building. Taking into account the roof and windows, the proposed dwelling will most likely be in the region of 5m higher than the existing dwelling on site. He stated that whilst the additional height is not in this case deemed sufficient by the Officers to recommend refusal, in the application under 11.1, an additional height of 4.5m is considered excessive. Even though he recognised that the application above was outline only, Councillor Williams was worried by the apparent inconsistency in the process whereby the two applications had been dealt with. He observed that a strictly single storey dwelling without dormer windows would be more acceptable as regards effects on amenity. However, as the proposal stands, the height remains an issue in terms of overlooking and he asked the Committee to refuse the application on those grounds. The Planning Control Manager reminded members that the proposal in item 11.1 on the agenda is a full application which by its nature provides detailed information in respect of dimensions. In contrast, the proposal above is an outline application meaning that it only has to provide an indication of the location and type of building proposed which accounts for the difference in Officers’ ability to furnish the Committee with precise information. However, he could confirm that the floor level of the proposed dwelling will be 1m higher than the ridge height of the dwelling nearby as mentioned on the site visit. According to the outline plan, the ridge height of the proposed dwelling above will be approximately 4.5m meaning that the building will be about 5m to

2

6m higher. The site is encompassed by trees meaning that the building will be less visible than it might have been bearing in mind its location. With reference to overlooking, the plot is a sizeable one thus allowing some distance between the proposed site and the other surrounding dwellings. He reiterated that he was satisfied that the site will take a single storey dwelling without creating problems of overlooking, and that the report does refer to screen fencing and landscaping in order to ensure that such problems do not occur. He emphasised that the application presented above has been dealt with differently to that presented under 11.1 for the reason that it is a different application in a different place, and he reminded members of the principle of approaching each application on its own merits and according to the factors applicable in each case. In response to a further question regarding the inclusion of dormer windows, the officer explained that the prevailing issue is that of ridge height and that there are no problems in making use of the roof if the ridge height is low. Councillor Jim Evans raised concerns to do with highway safety. The Planning Control Manager responded by saying that the report does deal with this issue in some detail and there is previous approval for an access on this site. Therefore, the issue of highway safety is not a valid reason for refusing application. The Principal Engineer (Development Control and Public Right of Way) stated that the Highways Authority had considered both the current application above and a previous application in 1998, which having been refused by the Committee, was granted on appeal. The Planning Inspector was satisfied with the access at that time. The Highways Authority sees no reason to object to the proposal above. By way of final reply, Councillor J.P.Williams stated that members had not seen the proposed development from the perspective of the dwelling that will be affected by it. He also referred to the distance between the dwelling proposed and that opposite. The Chair reminded members that they had undertaken a site visit during which that point was made. Councillor R.L.Owen proposed that the application be accepted and he was seconded by Councillor Kenneth Hughes who although he stated that he appreciated that there were objections locally to the proposal, saw no reason why refusal could be justified. It was resolved to accept the Officer’s report and recommendation of approval subject to the conditions contained therein. (Councillor J.P.Williams did not vote on the matter, and neither did Councillors Lewis Davies or Selwyn Williams, the reason being that the two had not been present on the site visit).

7.2 35C87C – Conversion of existing outbuildings into 7 residential units together with the installation of a private treatment plant at Tros y Marian, Councillors Lewis Davies and Hefin Thomas declared an interest in this application and they both withdrew from the meeting during the discussion thereon. The application has been brought to the attention of the Committee at the request of the Local Member. A site visit was undertaken by the Committee’s members on 16 March, 2011. The Planning Control Manager informed members of the Committee that additional information in respect of the application above had been received in the last few days a copy of which had been made available to the members in the correspondence presented. The correspondence raises several factors which the officers will need time to consider. In light of this additional information, he recommended that consideration of the application be deferred for one month to allow the officers to give attention to the issues arising. Whilst members supported the Officer’s recommendation, Councillor J.P.Williams referred to the fact that some dissatisfaction had been expressed subsequent to the site visit undertaken on 16 March, on account that members did not actually view the site itself, but rather the access roads to the site only. He was concerned that this might undermine the Committee’s position when it came to determine the matter especially as some of the objections to the proposal are to do with the proposed design treatment of the buildings on site and he suggested therefore that a further site visit might be advisable. The Chair acknowledged the point made and stated that he was amenable to the arrangement of another site visit. Councillor Selwyn Williams also concurred with Councillor J.P.Williams on this point.

3

It was resolved that a further site visit be undertaken in light of the fact that new additional information in respect of the application has been received.

8 ECONOMIC APPLICATIONS There were none to be considered at this meeting of the Planning and Orders Committee.

9 AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPLICATIONS There were none to be considered at this meeting of the Planning and Orders Committee.

10 DEPARTURE APPLICATIONS

10.1 38C180C – Outline application for the erection of a dwelling together with the creation of a new vehicular access at land at Gilfach Glyd, Mynydd Mechell The Planning Control Manager informed members that an amended application in respect of the proposed access has been received regarding which the Planning Department will have to re­ consult. He therefore recommended that consideration of the application be deferred pending the completion of the consultation process, and that the application be reported to the next Planning and Orders Committee. It was resolved to defer consideration of the application in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation.

11 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS SUBMITTED BY COUNCILLORS AND OFFICERS

11.1 19C222D – Demolition of the existing property together with the erection of 9 apartments at Old Scout Hall and land adjacent to 2 Old Garreg Domas, The Chair informed members that the application above had been withdrawn. The Planning Control Manager reported that discussions with the applicant regarding the objections to the scale and design of the proposed development are ongoing. The two parties are agreed on the withdrawal of the application above and that an application be submitted anew.

11.2 19C659 – Demolition of the existing property together with the erection of 3 two storey dwellings on land at Old Smithy, Mount Pleasant, Holyhead The Planning Control Manager stated that a previous application in 2005 for the demolition of the existing building together with the erection of 4 terraced dwellings and the construction of a new vehicular access had been refused and a subsequent appeal was dismissed. However, the current amended application for 3 dwellings is considered acceptable by the Officers in terms of its design and scale, and in being in harmony with surrounding dwellings. Councillor Hefin Thomas proposed that the application be approved and he was seconded by Councillor R.L.Owen. It was resolved to accept the Officer’s report and recommendation of approval subject to the conditions contained therein.

11.3 27C33N – Alterations and extensions together with the erection of a detached double garage at Ffermdy Llanfigael, Llanfigael The Planning Control Manager stated that the application is considered acceptable as regards its design and siting and is being reported to the Committee because the applicant is related to officers working within the Planning Department. Councillor R.L.Owen proposed that the application be approved and he was seconded by Councillor Selwyn Williams. It was resolved to accept the Officer’s report and recommendation of approval subject to the conditions contained therein.

4

11.4 31C19N/AD – Amendment to the current double sided advertisement sign together with the erection of a further advertising sign along the A5 frontage at Gwesty Carreg Môn, Llanfairpwll Mr Richard Eames, Highways Development Control Officer declared an interest in this application and withdrew during the discussion thereof. The Chair welcomed Ms Ruth Hogan to the meeting and he explained that she would be speaking in support of the proposal above. He invited Ms Hogan to address the Committee. Ms Hogan introduced herself as having run the Carreg Môn Hotel for the past 5 years. She emphasised how difficult it was to run a business and to make a living in the current financial climate. Although the Carreg Môn Hotel is less than a minute’s drive from the main A55, it was not visible from any road. She proceeded to explain that the large sign at the top of Church Lane was approved for planning permission 7 years ago and had been essential in ensuring that Carreg Môn keeps trading. Notwithstanding, many people have still not been able to find the hotel or have become lost en route. A local sign company suggested that the word HOTEL be written on the rear of the existing sign to be visible from the main A55. Ms Hogan stated that she now understood that this was not acceptable and following a meeting with the Development Control Manager, the plans as re­ submitted accord with the suggestions he had made. The sign remains the same size as the one previously approved and is in exactly the same spot, the only difference being the improvement of the wording. The original sign did not affect the AONB and she was sure the new wording of the proposed sign would not affect it either. Ms Hogan referred to the importance of the sign written on both front and rear to Carreg Môn’s trading in terms of advertising where the hotel is, and she mentioned that despite there having been much investment in tourism on Ynys Môn recently, there remain few hotels to accommodate people. Without signage to Carreg Môn how would people be able to find the hotel? She drew attention to the fact that she had 100 signatures from previous visitors to Carreg Môn testifying to the importance of the large sign in having helped them locate the hotel. The occupancy level at the hotel currently stands at 35% which contrasts with an occupancy level of between 85-100% at the Premier Inn in Parc Menai with a central reservation system and good signage. This Ms Hogan felt, proved that the hotel’s current signage needed to be improved and that the Council needs to support local businesses such as Carreg Môn in doing so. There needed to be co­ operation to ensure that the general public is being offered a good service in the hope that they will return to visit Ynys Môn in the future thus generating business for the island and in the long term, generating more jobs for the local sector. Ms Hogan stated that amongst the letters of support she had received was one from Mr Gethin Morgan, the Council’s Principal Development Officer for Tourism and Marketing. Ms Hogan pointed out the fact that Carreg Môn currently employs 25 local staff, many of whom choose a career in the industry. Four current employees have studied hospitality and hotel management at colleges and the hotel offers these individuals an opportunity to improve their skills and move up the trade ladder. She again emphasised that without signage Carreg Môn would be forced to close, thereby making a further 25 local people unemployed. She stated that she was asking for assistance to ensure her business remains open and that she knew of no other way to guide people to the hotel than by good signage. She concluded by thanking the Committee for the opportunity to speak at this meeting. Councillor Hefin Thomas sought confirmation that Ms Hogan had discussed the matter of the signage with the Planning Department and had come to an agreement thereon. Ms Hogan confirmed that she had discussed the matter with a senior planning officer, and that he had given advice regarding the changes that needed to be made to the application which changes she had carried out. The Planning Control Manager confirmed that a petition in support of the application above had been received as well as an e-mail from Mr. Gethin Morgan, the Council’s Principal Tourism Development and Marketing Officer declaring his support for a sign, albeit not unconditionally. The e-mail reads, “The Tourism Team here would support your application for double sided signage providing that it was sympathetic to its surroundings, bearing in mind that it is positioned within a designated area.” The Planning Control Manager stated that there is therefore no fundamental disagreement between the Planning Department and the Principal Tourism

5

Marketing Officer on this matter: the Planning Authority is amenable to signage in the area as long as it is of an acceptable size. A meeting between himself and the applicant had been held and a compromise reached in respect of the sign’s appearance, and whilst the Planning Department recognises that there has been compromise, and whilst it is happier with the amended sign in its being painted green and yellow, rather than black on white and with the wording, HOTEL in reduced lettering, in the opinion of the Planning Officers it still remains too large for the location in which it is situated, and that is why the recommendation is to refuse the application. Councillor Lewis Davies sought advice regarding the need to declare an interest having taught the applicant at school many years ago. The Legal Services Manager advised Councillor Davies to consider whether any reasonable person would believe that the member’s opinion would be swayed on account of that connection. On the basis of what the member had said regarding the connection being one of pupil-teacher, he did not believe that a reasonable person would come to such a conclusion and that a declaration of interest was therefore not necessary. There was consensus amongst the Committee’s members that the Council should be endeavouring to support businesses on the Island where possible and that signage was crucial to this particular business. They noted that there had been a compromise on the part of the applicant in this matter and they were concerned that if reduced further, the signage would not be doing the job it is meant to do, and that no signage might lead to possible adverse consequences for the business in question and for local employment. Councillor Hefin Thomas wished to know what was different in the sign as applied for, to that which was agreed in the discussion held, and what in the Officer’s opinion would be acceptable in terms of the size of the sign. There was also a question as to whether the sign as proposed, posed a hazard to users of the highway. The Planning Control Manager explained that the basis of the discussion with the applicant were suggestions which he had made regarding how the application might be improved, and not an agreement that the sign was acceptable. The proposal as presented does reflect the suggestions for improving the sign. However, he was not in a position to stipulate by exactly how much the sign should be reduced as it depends on how the sign sits within the landscape. The Officer confirmed that there was no objection to the sign as a danger to motorists. Several members tended to believe that all things considered, the issue of the signage and its still being too large was a case of “splitting hairs.” Mention was made of the fact that there are signs for another local hotel on the A5 and it was queried how those signs compared with that proposed for Carreg Môn. The Planning Control Manager observed in response that that was irrelevant since a large sign which is acceptable in one particular area, might not be acceptable in another area. The crux of the matter in the case of the application above is the location of the sign, and that what makes its size unacceptable. Councillor E.G.Davies made the point in response to the objection made by the Built Environment Section of the Council regarding the site being within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, that the AONB covers the area down the field to the bank of the Menai and does not apply to the verge of the A5. Councillor Hefin Thomas proposed that the application be approved contrary to the Officer’s recommendation and he was seconded by Councillor E.G.Davies. The reasons for approving the application were that members considered the proposal acceptable in terms of scale and design; that the signage is necessary to promote a local business and that it poses no hazard to users of the highway. In the voting on the matter, Councillors Lewis Davies, E.G.Davies, Jim Evans, Kenneth Hughes, W.T.Hughes, R.L.Owen, Selwyn Williams and J.P.Williams voted in favour of the application. It was resolved to approve the application contrary to the Officer’s recommendation. In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the application was automatically deferred to the next meeting to enable officers to prepare a report on the reasons for approving the application.

11.5 34C615/DA – Detailed plans for the erection of a dwelling on plot 28 Cwr y Coed, The Planning Control Manager reported that outline planning permission was granted on 10 February, 2010 for affordable housing on 4 plots at Cwr y Coed including plot 28. The application above therefore is for approval of the reserved matters, and the design proposed is similar to the new dwellings already built on the estate.

6

Councillor Eric Roberts proposed that the application be approved and he was seconded by Councillor Hefin Thomas. It was resolved to accept the Officer’s report and recommendation of approval subject to the conditions contained therein.

12 REMAINDER OF APPLICATIONS

12.1 19C924B – Deletion of conditions (02), (03), (04) from planning consent 19C924A so as to connect to the public sewerage system at 709, and 11-13 Market Street, Holyhead The Planning Control Manager reported that whilst approval had been granted regarding the use of the building on the previous planning consent, Welsh Water did not permit the connection of the system for disposing of foul drainage to the main public sewerage system. The problem has by now been resolved and the connection can be made. The application above therefore is to delete the conditions so as to enable the connection to the public system to be made. Councillor R.L.Owen proposed that the application be approved and he was seconded by Councillor Eric Roberts. It was resolved to accept the Officer’s report and recommendation of approval.

12.2 28C232E/AD – Siting of a non-illuminated sign at Bryn Du Football Field, Bryn Du The application was reported to the Committee due to the fact that the Local Member acts as an agent for the applicant. This being so, the Chair suggested that the application might have been included in section 11 of the agenda. Councillor R.L.Owen proposed that the application be approved and he was seconded by Councillor Hefin Thomas. It was resolved to accept the Officer’s report and recommendation of approval subject to the conditions contained therein.

12.3 34C97U – Erection of bin store at town Hall, Llangefni The application was brought to the attention of the Committee as it is made on Council owned land. Councillor E.G.Davies proposed that the application be approved and he was seconded by Councillor W.T.Hughes. It was resolved to accept the Officer’s report and recommendation of approval.

12.4 34LPA418H/ECON/CC – Retention of temporary offices at Council Offices, Llangefni The application has been presented to the Committee as it is being made by the Local Authority. Councillor R.L.Owen proposed that the application be approved and he was seconded by Councillor Jim Evans. It was resolved to accept the Officer’s report and recommendation of approval subject to the condition contained therein.

12.5 46LPA783C/CC – Improvements to the coastal amenity area at , Holyhead The application has been reported to the Committee as part of the application site is owned by the Local Authority and the application has been submitted by the Local Authority. Councillor Eric Roberts as Local Member observed that the proposal represents an improvement to the coastal amenity area and forms part of the Coastal Environmental Project. Some work in respect of part of the project which did not require planning approval has already commenced, but planning consent is required to enable the improvements proposed above to go ahead. Councillor Roberts proposed that the application be approved and he was seconded by Councillor Hefin Thomas.

7

It was resolved to accept the Officer’s report and recommendation of approval subject to the conditions contained therein. (Councillor J.P.Williams abstained on account of his not having heard the comments made by the Local Member).

13 OTHER MATTERS

13.1 12C266C – Demolition of existing boat sheds and erection of new boat sheds, together with alterations and extensions to the petrol filling station shop and fishing tackle shop at ABC Powermarine, Gallows Point, The Planning Control Manager reported that the policy in respect of the completion of Section 106 agreements following resolution to approve by Committee, stipulates that in the event of non completion of the agreement within six months, the application is referred back to the Committee for determination and it is on this basis that the application above and the application under 13.2 have been brought to the Committee’s attention. A Section 106 agreement pertains to the applications in both 13.1 and 13.2 and the terms of the agreements restrict the sale of materials on site to materials relating to the use of the site, namely boating, angling or maritime activities and that no sale of food takes place on site and that there is no effect to the petrol station. The Officer confirmed that there had been no material change in circumstances since the applications were granted planning consent, and he asked the Committee to authorise the completion of the legal agreements. Councillor R.L. Owen proposed that the legal agreement be completed and he was seconded by Councillor Hefin Thomas. It was resolved to authorise the completion of the legal agreement.

13.2 12C266D – Demolition of existing boat sheds and erection of new boat sheds, together with alterations and extensions to the petrol filling station shop at fishing tackle shop and installation of a treatment plant at Gallows Point, Beaumaris It was resolved to authorise the completion of the legal agreement as per the discussion in 13.1.

13.3 30C674 – Outline application for the erection of eight, two bedroom town houses with associated parking at former Railway Sidings, The Planning Control Manager informed the Committee that the principle of non-completion of the section 106 agreement within a 6 month period following resolution to approve by Committee applies to the application above and that is the reason for presenting it to the Committee. The difference is that the agreement in the application above is to do with affordable housing. Councillor Hefin Thomas queried whether the delay was attributable to time issues or to problems that had arisen. The Legal Services Manager explained that the six month limit had been exceeded partly due to its taking time for matters to be processed by the bank. Councillor Hefin Thomas proposed that the legal agreement be completed and he was seconded by Councillor Kenneth Hughes. It was resolved to authorise the completion of the legal agreement.

13.4 34C326C/ECON – Erection of a resource centre on Old Cross Keys Site, Llangefni The Planning Control Manager reported that the application above formed part of a list which had been presented to the Committee which consisted of applications that had been closed and finally disposed of. Since that time, the applicants in this case have confirmed that they wish to proceed with the application. The Committee’s decision originally was one of approval and the Planning Officers are satisfied with that and following receipt of the required details, are amenable to reactivating the application and to approving the development. It was resolved that the development be permitted to proceed.

8

13.5 A report in respect of the policy on the completion of Section 106 agreements was submitted for members’ consideration and acceptance. The report proposed that the current policy whereby applications granted by the Committee subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement are referred back to the Committee for determination where there has been a 6 month delay in concluding the agreement be amended so that it provides that uncompleted agreements are only referred back to the Planning and Orders Committee if there has been a material change in circumstances (as determined by the Chief Planning Officer); the developer indicates that the terms of the agreement are not acceptable if it becomes apparent that the terms need to be amended. Councillor Hefin Thomas proposed that the report and recommendations therein be accepted and he was seconded by Councillor Eric Roberts. It was resolved to accept the report and the recommendations therein.

13.6 A report in respect of the review of planning decisions as undertaken on the 17 November and 15 December, 2010 in accordance with the requirements of the Council’s Constitution was submitted for members’ consideration and approval. The report summarised the outcome of the review of those sites visited and concluded that although the number of members who participated in the reviews was low, the exercise was deemed useful in raising awareness of design issues, and in enabling members to better appreciate the importance of building in quality into the decision making process to ensure that acceptable high quality developments are delivered. Councillor Kenneth Hughes proposed that the report and the recommendations therein be accepted, and he was seconded by Councillor R.L.Owen. It was resolved to accept the report and the recommendations therein.

13.7 A report in respect of public speaking at the Planning and Orders Committee was submitted for members’ consideration and acceptance. The report outlined the findings of a review of the practice of public speaking at the Committee following a twelve month trial period in terms of the number of speakers who had participated and the outcome of the applications regarding which public speakers had addressed the Committee. Based on feedback from the participants in the public speaking process via a questionnaire circulated to all concerned, all respondent considered that public speaking had been a valuable and a worthwhile addition to the process of determining planning applications. The twelve month trial period also allowed officers the opportunity to monitor the system and to identify areas where improvements to the process are required and those were outlined in the report. The officers recommended that the protocol be amended to reflect these changes and that the practice of public speaking be adopted permanently as part of the Constitution. Councillor R.L.Owen proposed that the report and the recommendations therein be accepted and he was seconded by Councillor Eric Roberts. It was resolved to accept the report and the recommendations therein.

14 DELEGATED APPLICATIONS The report of the Head of Service (Planning Service) in respect of delegated applications determined since the previous meeting of this Committee was submitted and noted by members.

15 APPEALS A copy of the summary of decisions taken by Inspectors appointed by the National Assembly for in respect of the applications listed below was submitted and noted by members.

15.1 Gerlan, Holyhead – appeal upheld 15.2 Maes y Garnedd, – appeal dismissed 15.3 Eithin Aur, Cerrigman, – appeal dismissed

Councillor J.Arwel Roberts Chair

9

10