Empty Menai Bridge waterfront pub could become a 10-bed care home

Anglesey councillors will consider the redevelopment of the derelict Mostyn Arms on St George’s Road.

Anglesey County Council has received a full application for the change of use from a public house (Use Class A3) to a 10 bedroom residential care facility (Use Class C2) – together with alterations and extensions.

The application made by Garry Poole through agents Russell Hughes Architects will come before the island’s planning committee on Wednesday, September 4.

MORE NEWS: Calls to demolish luxury home on Anglesey’s millionaire’s row

The 19th century property has been vacant since 2009, and plans say it is now in “a poor state of repair.”

The applicants claim there “is an increasing desire from an aging population for developments adapted to the needs of older persons”.

It would be for the over 55s, offering facilities for residents with “a range of needs.”

The changes are recommended for approval, with conditions, by the planning officer who considers the plan “acceptable” and  in accordance with  policies.

TOP STORIES:

Where you'll find speed cameras in North Wales this month from A483 to A525

‘Violent and abusive’ Holyhead man left ex-partner living ‘in constant fear’

11 people arrested on Anglesey on 'busy weekend' for police

“It is not considered that the proposal would give rise to a significant detrimental impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties, highway safety or upon the character and appearance of the designated Conservation Area,” the planning report stated.

However, the matter is being brought before the committee for debate, by local members Councillors Robin Williams and Sonia Williams, after it stirred local opinion.

Planners state: “At the time of writing this report, a total of 16 representations have been received, with 10 objections and six in support.”

Proposed plans for the Mostyn Arms at Menai Bridge (Image Anglesey Council Planning Documents)

Public concerns included “lack of detail” over the planned use and  “no prior consultation with local residents”.

In response more  information had been supplied by the applicants, who had stated there was “no statutory requirement” to undertake a public consultation, before applying and the application had been “subject to statutory publicity.”

Other public concerns included not meeting CQC (Care Quality Commission) requirements, the suitability of the property and worries that the development could become a house of multiple occupation.

There were  also queries over enforcement of the use of the development and its need.

The site was also considered not to be within easy walking distance to the town’s services and facilities, due to “the nature and topography of the road network”. Traffic, parking and highway safety, over-development and being “out of character” and giving a negative impact to nearby Listed Buildings were also raised.

The applicants’s responses included a letter from the intended care provider.

The applicants cited that the application had been reviewed by Social Services claiming it was “satisfied” with the information provided and confirming there was “a need for such facilities”.

If approved, the permission would be for a C2 residential care home, “subject to appropriate conditions.”

Any further planning permission would be required for any other uses, including as an HMO, noting any breach was subject to enforcement action, applicants argued.

“The Social Services Department have confirmed that there is a need for such facilities locally,” the plan stated.

The highways department had been consulted. It was acknowledged that the parking provision was “slightly below required standards” –  with five rather than six parking spaces. But this was considered  “sufficient” due to “ample” public parking and  public transport access, applicants had stated.

They also claimed  there was “satisfaction” with the Construction Traffic Management Plan, did not considered the proposal an “over development”  nor “out of character””

There were no Listed Buildings close to the site,  and it would not be “harmful to the character and appearance of the  Conservation Area, they stated.