Issue - meetings

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Head of Planning. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 18 February 2013.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and highlighted the reasons for refusal reported in paragraph 2.01. 

            Mr. H. Evans, as agent, spoke in support of the applicant.  He commented on the four proposed reasons for refusal.  He said that the site was in the open countryside but was part of a continuous built-up frontage joined to the community boundary; it was an appropriate infill site as referred to in policy HSG5, as it was a gap in a frontage of a number of large dwellings; there was no reference to policy STR10 which required best use of resources by the use of brownfield land; and the 12 hectares of housing land allocated in Broughton, which would meet the need for affordable housing, did not provide for executive-style dwellings: this development would do so.  He said that the proposal complied with policy and did not constitute a departure from the UDP. 

            Councillor W.O. Thomas proposed approval of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  He felt that the building on the site would end up being derelict if the application was refused.  He said that he could not see how it could not be classed as infill and said that it would improve the area.  It was a brownfield site which could be adapted for housing.

Councillor H.G. Roberts said that the site was in the open countryside, was outside the settlement boundary and was not infill.  It did not mean that the application should be approved just because it was a brownfield site.  He said that he would be voting against the proposal to approve the application.  Councillor P.G. Heesom said that ribbon development was not a reason for refusal and asked whether the new dwelling would sit on the same footprint as the current building.  The officer explained that as the application was for outline permission, the siting of the building had not yet been agreed.

Councillor R. Lloyd considered that the development would be an improvement on the existing situation.

            The Planning Strategy Manager said that it was not the case that because the site was brownfield that it should be allowed in policy.  The site was in the open countryside and the exceptions in the UDP had been considered.  Whether the application was suitable infill had been considered and was premised by whether there was proven local need.  There was none here.  Criterion C of the infill policy said that an application must respect adjacent properties and the surrounding area.  To grant permission would be to perpetuate sporadic and unsustainable infill.  He spoke of the separation distances to the next nearest building and added that there was no need for an executive-style dwelling as there was planning permission for nearly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 160