Penderfyniad ar yr Apêl Appeal Decision Ymweliad â safle a wnaed ar 7/11/17 Site visit made on 7/11/17 gan Iwan Lloyd BA BTP MRTPI by Iwan Lloyd BA BTP MRTPI Arolygydd a benodir gan Weinidogion Cymru an Inspector appointed by the Welsh Ministers Dyddiad: 15.12.2017 Date: 15.12.2017

Appeal Ref: APP/L6805/A/17/3182330 Site address: Ty Dora, Llangristiolus, Bodorgan LL62 5PY The Welsh Ministers have transferred the authority to decide this appeal to me as the appointed Inspector.  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Michael Symmons against the decision of Isle of Anglesey County Council.  The application Ref 36C17D, dated 4/05/2017, was refused by notice dated 27/07/2017.  The development proposed is to remove existing condemned derelict row of three cottages and to erect a three bedroom bungalow in a style sympathetic to surrounding properties.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Application for costs

2. An application for costs was made by Mr Michael Symmons against Isle of Anglesey County Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

Procedural matter

3. The planning application is submitted in outline with all matters reserved for later determination. On 31/07/2017 the Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Local Development Plan (JLDP) 2011-2026 was adopted. The JLDP supersedes all former adopted and emerging development plans which were considered in the Council’s reason for refusal. Planning Policy Wales (PPW) Edition 9 (paragraph 2.1.2) indicates that ‘Planning applications must be determined in accordance with the adopted plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise (Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004)’.

4. This appeal must therefore be determined in accordance with the adopted JLDP unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Council’s reason for refusal and statement includes references to JLDP policies and therefore no prejudice would arise in dealing with the appeal on this basis.

Main Issue

5. This is whether there are other material considerations sufficient to outweigh any conflict with local and national planning policies.

Appeal Decision APP/L6805/A/17/3182330

Reasons

6. The appeal site lies outside the development boundary for Llangristiolus. The boundary is reported to be some 260m from the appeal site. The JLDP being a recently adopted development plan has been through an independent examination process and found to be sound. The settlement strategy and hierarchy and the supply of housing set out in the development plan determines where new residential development should be located having regard to the presumption in favour of sustainable development. An up-to date LDP is a fundamental part of a plan-led planning system and sets the context for rational and consistent decision making in line with national policies.

7. JLDP Policy PCYFF 1: Development Boundaries identifies urban and local centres and services and rural villages where development would generally be approved, and outside boundaries development will be resisted unless policies in the Plan or national planning policies demonstrate that its location is essential. Policy PCYFF 2 indicates that proposals should demonstrate compliance with relevant policies in the development plan and national planning policies.

8. The appellant refers to pre-application advice from the Council indicating that the former development plans supported the proposal for infill and edge of settlement dwellings. However, the circumstances have changed and the site is now regarded as countryside where residential development could only be approved if it were essential at that location. No such justification has been provided, and the development therefore conflicts with the relevant development plan policies noted above.

9. The appellant also refers to the costs incurred in submitting the planning application based on the earlier pre-application advice. This is a matter for the costs decision which is a separate matter from the planning considerations. The appellant also refers to the derelict condition of the site and that this factor should outweigh other considerations. The fact that the site is in a state of dereliction does not add weight in favour of the proposal. If this argument where to succeed then derelict buildings in any location could be candidates for re-development regardless of their sustainability credentials.

10. The development plan forms the rational basis for deciding the location of new development and through that process this part of the village is now outside the development boundary for the village, where special justification is now needed for new residential development. I note the concern about the advice given and that the application was determined under delegated powers. These matters are not within the scope of deciding a planning appeal.

11. The appellant indicates that there is a housing shortage and that this should weigh in favour of the development. However, the housing land supply requirements of the County are now likely to be met following the adoption of the JLDP.

12. I have considered the duty to improve the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales, in accordance with the sustainable development principle, under section 3 of the Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 (the WBFG Act). In reaching my decision, I have taken into account the ways of working set out at section 5 of the WBFG Act and I consider that this decision is in accordance with the sustainable development principle through its contribution towards one or more of the Welsh Ministers’ well-being objectives set out in section 8 of the WBFG Act.

2

Appeal Decision APP/L6805/A/17/3182330

13. I conclude that other material considerations are insufficient to outweigh the conflict with local and national planning policies.

14. The planning balance is against allowing this appeal. Iwan Lloyd

INSPECTOR

3