Issue - meetings

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement or Unilateral Undertaking to secure a visibility sight line in perpetuity in a westerly direction, with no obstruction in excess of 1.00m above the level of the nearside channel. 

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that that the application was to be considered by Committee due to the requirement for a Section 106 Obligation as the existing private access road required visibility improvements over adjoining land. 

                        Mrs. P. Roberts spoke against the application.  She raised significant concern that the road was dangerous and about the access to the site which she felt was inadequate.  The road, which provided access to Gronant and Prestatyn, was frequently used by commercial vehicles for a nearby business and was narrow and did not have a footpath.  There had been a number of vehicle collisions in the area and it had once been deemed a traffic blackspot.  Mrs. Roberts felt that traffic had increased in the area due to the provision of a retail park in Prestatyn and as a result of nearby planning applications being approved.  She referred to the issue faced by cars on the lane and commented on the impact of the proposal on the properties North Pines and Orchard End, in particular the separation distance to North Pines which she felt was only 12 metres to the conservatory which was below the required standard.  She added that the elevated position of the plot in relation to neighbouring properties could result in a reduction in privacy.  Mrs. Roberts felt that the application was out of context with the surrounding dwellings and requested that the application be refused.       

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that there did not appear to be any compelling reasons to refuse the application.    

            In acknowledging the comments that traffic in the area was a concern, Councillor Derek Butler said that this was not sufficient to refuse the application on planning grounds.  He also sought clarification on the issue of land levels.  Councillor Mike Peers asked for further information on the separation distances between the proposed property and the dwelling at North Pines. 

            The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control confirmed that Highways did not have any objections to the proposals subject to conditions and the Section 106 Agreement.  She explained that the access was an existing access serving two existing properties and complied with policy TAN18.  The provision of securing a visibility sight line in perpetuity in a westerly direction as detailed in the Section 106 obligation would give a vast improvement to the existing and new properties. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer explained that the issue of levels had been addressed in the consideration of the application and was reported in paragraph 7.09 where it was noted that the difference in levels was not detrimental to amenity.  The properties at Orchard End and North Pines were situated side on to the site and the guidance for separation distances indicated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59