MIL­LION­AIRE IN CCTV ROW

Wales On Sunday - - NEWS - MARI JONES news­[email protected]­line.co.uk

ALANDOWNER who in­stalled CCTV with­out plan­ning per­mis­sion dur­ing a row over ac­cess with his neigh­bours might have to take the cam­eras down. Mil­lion­aire Ian Jones, who owns a golf club, fell out with his neigh­bours when he told a group of res­i­dents they had to pay him up to £5,000 to ac­cess the backs of their own homes with their cars.

Mr Jones bought the track be­hind a row of homes last April.

He said he sent let­ters to the 14 house­holds ask­ing them for £350 each so he could wi­den the track and trim trees and hedges, say­ing in re­turn they could con­tinue to use it.

But he says no-one re­sponded and so he put a gate at the bot­tom of the track, which runs up to his house.

The res­i­dents say they can no longer park their cars at the backs of their houses.

He then in­stalled the CCTV cam­eras af­ter the pad­locks on the gate were van­dalised with su­per­glue four times.

But now, an ap­pli­ca­tion to keep the cam­eras in place be­hind the Mount Pleas­ant cot­tages in Pen­rhyn­side, near Llan­dudno, has been re­jected, the Daily Post re­ports.

In Au­gust, Mr Jones ap­plied for ret­ro­spec­tive plan­ning per­mis­sion to re­tain the mast with the CCTV cam­eras, but the ap­pli­ca­tion was re­fused by Conwy coun­cil on Oc­to­ber 24.

The coun­cil said: “The mast and as­so­ci­ated cam­eras form an ob­tru­sive in­tro­duc­tion to an open ru­ral site which is lo­cated with a green edge, the Great Orme and Creud­dyn Penin­sula Spe­cial Land­scape Area and the Bryn Py­dew His­toric Land­scape.

“The mast and as­so­ci­ated cam­eras would re­sult in an un­ac­cept­able ad­verse im­pact on res­i­den­tial amenity.”

Llan­dudno Town Coun­cil rec­om­mended re­fusal on the grounds of pri­vacy, and six let­ters of ob­jec­tion were re­ceived by Conwy’s plan­ning depart­ment. Neigh­bours protested on the grounds of lack of pri­vacy and said the mast was an in­tru­sion and not in keep­ing with the area.

One neigh­bour asked: “Why so many cam­eras needed to mon­i­tor a gate?”

An­other wrote: “There ap­pears to be a clus­ter of five or six cam­eras and two flood­lights. Sev­eral of the cam­eras are di­rected at the rear of the ter­race prop­er­ties and one in par­tic­u­lar seems to be di­rected at the rear of our prop­erty.

“One flood­light il­lu­mi­nates the rear of our prop­erty by night. This in­tru­sion of pri­vacy is un­ac­cept­able to us.”

Mr Jones is able to ap­peal Conwy’s plan­ning de­ci­sion.

It’s un­der­stood a num­ber of neigh­bours have paid an undis­closed sum of money so that they can park at the back of their prop­er­ties. They have re­ceived keys to the gate.

Mr Jones did not re­spond to re­quests for a com­ment.

Mount Pleas­ant Ter­race, Pen­rhyn­side, and the gates and ac­cess road and CCTV mast at the rear of their prop­er­ties

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.