Agenda, decisions and minutes

To appoint a Chair for the Committee.

That the appointment of Councillor David Wisinger as Chairman of the Committee be noted.

The Housing & Planning Solicitor advised that this item had been included in the agenda in error as the appointment of Councillor Wisinger as Chairman of the Committee had been made at the Council’s Annual Meeting (AGM).  He also read out a list of the Members on the Committee as this was the first meeting of the Committee since the AGM.

RESOLVED:

That the appointment of Councillor David Wisinger as Chairman of the Committee be noted.

To appoint a Vice-Chair for the Committee.

That Councillor Ian Dunbar be appointed Vice-Chair of the Committee.

The Chairman sought nominations for the appointment of Vice-Chair and Councillor Ray Hughes nominated Councillor Ian Dunbar.  The nomination was duly seconded and on being put to the vote, was CARRIED.  Councillor Dunbar thanked the Committee for their nomination. 

RESOLVED:

That Councillor Ian Dunbar be appointed Vice-Chair of the Committee.

Councillor Dave Mackie declared an interest indicating that he had predetermined his stance on the following application and would therefore be speaking on application for up to three minutes and would then leave the Chamber:-

Agenda item 8.1 – Full application – Proposed individual vehicular access points for plots 2, 3 and 4 of previously consented Gypsy site at Magazine Lane, Ewloe (054322)

Councillor Carolyn Thomas indicated that she had a prejudicial interest in the following application as she was a school governor and would leave the chamber following addressing the Committee:-

Agenda item 8.2 – Outline application for the erection of 8 No. dwellings at Conway Street, Mold (054670)

Councillor Dave Mackie declared an interest indicating that he had predetermined his stance on the following application and would therefore be speaking on application for up to three minutes and would then leave the Chamber:-

Agenda item 8.1 – Full application – Proposed individual vehicular access points for plots 2, 3 and 4 of previously consented Gypsy site at Magazine Lane, Ewloe (054322)

Councillor Carolyn Thomas indicated that she had a prejudicial interest in the following application as she was a school governor and would leave the chamber following addressing the Committee:-

Agenda item 8.2 – Outline application for the erection of 8 No. dwellings at Conway Street, Mold (054670)

The Chairman allowed Members an opportunity to read the late observations which had been circulated at the meeting.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 20 April 2016 (copy enclosed).

            That the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The draft minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20^th April 2016 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

            RESOLVED:

            That the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that none of the items on the agenda were recommended for deferral by officers.

The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that none of the items on the agenda were recommended for deferral by officers.

                        Councillor Mike Peers referred to agenda item 8.1 (Full application – Proposed individual vehicular access points for plots 2, 3 and 4 of previously consented Gypsy site at Magazine Lane, Ewloe – 054322) and indicated at the site visit, it had been felt that consideration of the application should be deferred as an appeal on another application for Plot 5 on the Magazine Lane site was pending.  It was felt that the comments of the Appeal Inspector on that application should be considered in determining this application.  The proposal to defer was duly seconded. 

            The Development Manager indicated that the application was recommended for approval and advised that the officer and the third party representatives should be allowed to speak and then if it was still felt that deferment was appropriate, it could be proposed at that point.  Councillor Peers accepted the advice provided. 

            That the application be refused as the creation of new access points consisting of the erection of wooden gates and the loss of 18 metres of mature hedgerow would have a detrimental effect upon the character of the open countryside and the green barrier in this location contrary to policies GEN3 and GEN4.                 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 23^rd May 2016.  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 this was an application for a new vehicular access for plots 2, 3 and 4.  If permitted it would mean that there were four points of access to the site.  The day rooms would remain in the same positions but the static caravan on plot 2 would need to be re-sited if the application was approved.  The owner of plot 5 had submitted an appeal following refusal of an application in February 2016 for an access to that plot only and the reasons for refusal were reported in paragraph 7.06.  Approval of the application for accesses for plots 2, 3 and 4 would require the removal of two sections of hedge both nine metres in width and the insertion of two pairs of wooden gates and a close boarded fence would be erected behind the existing roadside hedgerow within the site.  A condition would also be imposed to ensure that the remaining hedge was enhanced to screen the boundary fencing.  The officer advised that there were no objections from Highways colleagues subject to conditions reported at paragraph 3.01 and therefore the application was recommended for approval. 

                        Mr. J. Golledge spoke against the application.  He indicated that he was a member of Northop Hall Community Council but that the comments he was making today reflected his own views.  He objected to the application on the grounds that it did not comply with the recommendations and conditions of two separate planning appeals.  The application for the site had been approved by the appeal Inspector despite it being recognised by the Inspector that the site would have an impact on the green barrier and an urbanising effect on the open countryside.  However, the report failed to acknowledge the fact that at the appeal hearing, the Inspector had stated that all trees and hedgerow should be retained in the course of construction and the applicant had committed to improve the screening.  Mr. Golledge said that maintenance of the natural screening was important to local residents and failure to recognise this in the report to the Committee was a serious omission.  The Inspectors at both hearings had required the retention of the hedgerow and natural screening and any breach of the natural screening therefore contravened this.  He felt that had these accesses been required they should have been taken into account when considering the application for the site on appeal and Mr. Golledge felt that they would have a harmful impact on the rural environment. 

                        Mr. M. Nickson, Landscape Architect for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He indicated that the five plot site under construction already had planning permission and would be built so it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

            That planning permission be granted subject to conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and subject to the applicant entering either into a Section 106 agreement, providing a unilateral undertaking or the making of an advance payment which provided for the following:-

1.    Ensure the payment of a commuted sum equivalent to £1100 per dwelling in lieu of on site play and recreation provisions.  Such sum to be paid to be used as a contribution towards the upgrade of play facilities at the existing children play area at Llys Pont y Garreg, Mold.  Such sum to be paid upon occupation of 50% of the approved dwellings. 

2.                  Ensure the payment of a commuted sum of £24,514 as a contribution to the provision of additional external areas for the teaching of physical education as part of the national curriculum at Glanrafon C.P. School.  Such sum to be payable before the commencement of development.                             

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 23^rd May 2016.  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 he explained that the site was in a flood risk area and the applicant had submitted a Flood Consequences Assessment which had been considered; no objections had been raised.  There was an error in paragraph 7.07 and the officer explained that the words ‘not only for vehicles emerging from the site’ should be replaced with ‘not only for vehicles entering the site’.  When considering the design and amenity of the site, the design and access statement provided indications of the parameters of scale of the proposed dwellings but all detailed design issues, except access, were reserved for future approval.  The officer provided details of the Section 106 obligations attached to an approval of the application and the compliance with Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations was reported.  The main issues were access and highways impact.  The Senior Engineer – Highways Development Control confirmed that there were no objections from Highways, subject to conditions.  She added that Conway Street was part of the adopted highway and the layout of the road was adequate for simultaneous passing of two vehicles.  It had been noted on the site visit that there was parking by residents of the terraced properties on the opposite side of Conway Street.  A question had also been asked about the number of buses to the school that accessed the street and the Senior Engineer confirmed that this was nine in total.  The site was not dissimilar to any other site in close proximity to a school in that there were peak times in the morning and afternoon but generally the area was quiet outside of these times. 

                        Councillor Carolyn Thomas declared that she was Chair of the Buildings Committee and a School Governor at Ysgol Maes Garmon.  She said that many of the Governors would be pleased that the site was to be developed but strongly opposed this application on access and highway safety grounds.  Conway Street was narrow and the traffic could only move in one direction because of parked vehicles and there were no pull-ins or turning points.  She said that school buses often had to mount the pavement to make the turn from Wrexham Road into Conway Street because of the narrow junction.  There was no traffic or pedestrian management system in place and Councillor Thomas raised concern for the safety of the students who walked along Conway Street to access the school or the sports centre.  She spoke of the eight coaches, taxis and a minibus that accessed the area in the afternoon to collect pupils from the school and she commented on the staff cars that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

                        That the application be refused for the reasons reported in paragraphs 6.03 and 6.04 of the report.  

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application. 

                        The officer explained that the report had been submitted to the Committee to clarify the reasons for refusal which were reported in paragraph 6.03 and 6.04. 

                        Councillor Richard Lloyd proposed the recommendation in the report but asked that an additional reason for refusal be added due to the problems that could be caused to pedestrian safety by the recycling and waste collections.   

                        In referring to paragraph 6.02 where it was reported that there were no specific policies relating to Houses of Multiple Occupation (HMO), Councillor Mike Peers asked if this issue could be considered by the Planning Strategy Group to provide some guidelines or policy.  The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) confirmed that HMOs could be considered by the Planning Strategy Group. 

                        Councillor Gareth Roberts supported the recommendation for two refusal reasons as it was felt that to add any additional reasons that may not be as strong, could weaken the Council’s argument at appeal.  The Service Manager Planning Strategy concurred and said that the refusal reasons had been drafted as it was felt that they were defensible at appeal.  Councillor Richard Lloyd accepted the advice and withdrew his request for an extra reason for refusal. 

            RESOLVED:

            That the application be refused for the reasons reported in paragraphs 6.03 and 6.04 of the report.  

Agenda items 10 to 12 were reported to Members for information.

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application. 

                        The Chief Officer explained that the report informed Members of the First Minister’s decision in relation to the called-in decision of the Planning and Development Control Committee of 17 December 2014 where planning permission was approved.  The application was called in by the First Minister and an informal appeal hearing took place on 7 October 2015 where the Inspector recommended that planning permission be granted.  However, the First Minister disagreed and concluded the planning permission should be refused.  The main issues that had been considered were:-

·         The effect on the open countryside

·         Development Plan Policy

·         Previously developed land

·         Proximity to the settlement

·         Changes since the previous Call-in decision

In the conclusion at paragraph 6.12, it was reported that the First Minister reached a different decision to the Inspector on the issue of sustainability and it was suggested that as they had reached different views, the decision was finely balanced.  It was felt that the First Minister had not acted unreasonably and therefore there was little prospect of a successful challenge of the decision and the period to request a judicial review had also passed. 

            Councillor Owen Thomas said that the professional opinion of the Appeal Inspector had been to approve the application and he expressed significant concern about the involvement of the First Minister for a site for 12 dwellings which he felt were much needed.  Councillor Richard Jones said that he thought he knew what was classed as sustainable applications but this decision had made him doubt what he knew.  He referred to the application at Warren Hall and sought clarification on why there were differences in the determination of approval for that application and refusal for this site. 

            In taking a different view, Councillor Gareth Roberts said that he was encouraged that the First Minister had looked at this application in detail and on balance had determined that it should be refused.  He commented on some decisions made recently by the Planning Inspectors and welcomed the opportunity to be able to challenge the decisions made by Appeal Inspectors.

Councillor Mike Peers highlighted paragraph 6.07 on previously developed land and in referring to the Meadowslea site, queried whether the First Minister would have made the same statement on the application. 

There were 7 members of the public in attendance.