Issue - meetings

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment), subject to the additional condition requiring submission and approval of a security fence to prevent public access to the bund to the rear of the store and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 obligation/unilateral undertaking to provide the following:-

• Payment in the sum of £210,000 towards to provision of, or to facilitate access to, affordable housing in the community
• Payment in the sum of £15,000 towards a community art project or projects for the public realm.

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within three 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.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the application had been deferred from the meeting on 20^th January 2016 in order for issues of site security, impact of the site on the amenity of residents and the loss of the affordable housing on the site to be addressed.  The report had been updated to address the concerns and a summary of the issues was included.  On the issue of site security, Aldi had confirmed that an additional camera at the rear of the store had been erected and signage advertised the fact that CCTV was in operation.  The proposed landscaping was in excess of what was required in an ordinary landscaping scheme and any additional planting would not leave sufficient room for the proposed scheme to grow and establish.  Officers had considered that no additional planting or fencing was required in the interest of residential amenity.  The trolley bay had been relocated to the front of the store.  Aldi had undertaken their own noise readings following complaints from a neighbouring resident and this concluded that there were no issues with the plant equipment and it was within the agreed levels as predicted in the noise assessment which accompanied the planning application.  The increased delivery times would not have an impact on residential amenity as these took place in an enclosed bay and there had not been any complaints in respect of any issues relating to the opening hours or delivery times.  On the issue of affordable housing, there were a number of people on the Affordable Housing register for Broughton and the report detailed how the commuted sum for affordable housing had been calculated. 

            The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that he would read out a statement prepared by Mrs. J. Richards (who had registered as an objector), as she did not want to appear on the webcast.  Her statement was summarised as follows:

When Aldi had obtained planning permission, they had built what they wanted, not what had been approved.  She felt that Flintshire County Council had made an error by not including the words ‘for approval’ and Aldi took advantage of this.  She expressed concern about the monies for public art and the amount for affordable housing as she did not feel that it was sufficient to build two properties.  The lack of provision for affordable housing on the site had resulted in an additional 31 car parking spaces and the building of a larger store which was nearer to the residential properties than had originally been approved.  Mrs. Richards expressed significant concern about the provision of the landscaping which Aldi had indicated would be enhanced but Mrs. Richards said that it had been completely removed in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132