Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Nancy Matthews indicated that she had sought legal advice and as it could have been deemed that she had pre-determined her stance on the following application, she would speak as Local Member only and not as a Committee Member and would therefore not vote on the application:-

Agenda item 6.4 – Full application – Change of use of land from paddock to a touring caravan facility (24 touring caravans) and erection of amenity block at Ty Hir, Ffordd Glyndwr, Nercwys (054629)

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 24^th February 2016.  

That subject to the suggested amendments, the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 

The draft minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 24^th February 2016 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

Councillor Chris Bithell referred to page 29 and asked that the words ‘fencing and’ be added to the ninth line of the second paragraph before the words ‘an additional camera’.  On being put to the vote, the amendment was agreed.

Councillor Mike Peers also referred to page 29 and suggested that the words ‘the agent for Aldi’ be added after the words ‘Ms. Gabrilatsou’ in the seventh line of the final paragraph.  On being put to the vote, the amendment was agreed.

In referring to page 33, Councillor Peers asked if the letter seeking a community benefit in connection with the development on Spencer Industrial Estate had been sent.  The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) confirmed that it had been sent and added that discussions on an appropriate scheme would be held with the Local Member. 

RESOLVED:

That subject to the suggested amendments, the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 

That application 054607 (Albion Social Club, Pen y Llan, Connah’s Quay) be deferred.

The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that deferment of the following application was recommended:

Agenda item 6.7 - Full application – Erection of 33 No. apartments with associated car parking at Albion Social Club, Pen y Llan, Connah’s Quay (054607) – Deferred due to concerns raised at the site visit about access to the site and waste collections.  Deferment was proposed by Councillor Gareth Roberts and was duly seconded. 

On being put to the vote, the application was deferred. 

RESOLVED:

That application 054607 (Albion Social Club, Pen y Llan, Connah’s Quay) be deferred.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and subject to the completion of a supplementary Section 106 (S106) agreement to attach the obligations contained in the S106 agreement dated 16 December 2008 in relation to planning permission 042468 to the permission arising out of this 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 Senior Minerals and Waste Officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the application had been deferred from the previous meeting to allow clarification on the conditions to be provided.  She explained that the proposal was for a Section 73 application to vary conditions 2, 14 and 18 which she detailed.  Appendix 1 to the report provided details of the original wording, the proposed wording and the reason for the changes and the proposed changes were broadly grouped as detailed in paragraph 1.02 of the report.  Condition 32 had been added to secure a traffic management plan.  The officer referred Members to the late observations where comments from Councillor Richard Jones were reported which included a request for an amendment to condition 4, clarification on the use of a tail piece and seeking clarification on the differences between conditions; officer responses had been provided.  The recommendation was for approval of planning permission and the officer indicated that there had been no objections from statutory consultees. 

            Mr. S. Amos spoke in support of the application.  He said that transport consultants had been employed by the applicant and they had reviewed personal injury traffic accident data which demonstrated that no accidents had been recorded on the A494/Pinfold Lane junction over the past 10 years.  It was therefore felt that there were no road safety issues that required the provision of any road widening scheme but a scheme had been proposed by the applicant which it was felt would be a significant improvement to the ability of two vehicles to pass.  There were no outstanding objections nor conflict with planning policy and therefore Mr. Amos asked the Committee to approve the application.   

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.

                        The Local Member, Councillor Carol Ellis, said that most of her concerns had been discussed at the previous meeting but she still had concerns about condition 12 relating to an approved dust scheme and condition 15 about the prevention of mud, dust, debris and litter onto the public highway.  She sought clarification that all of the schemes would be in place before any waste was brought to the site and said that there were no details in the report about the control of odour from the site which she also felt was a concern. 

                        At the previous meeting, Councillor Owen Thomas has referred to the ditch being concreted over to allow the development of the access to the site; he queried whether the ditch would be reinstated.  Councillor Richard Jones thanked the officer for the responses provided in the late observations and the descriptions in the appendix of why the conditions were to change.  In relation to condition 4, Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

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 Senior Minerals and Waste Officer detailed the background to the report.  She explained that the applicant was in the process of implementing the planning permission granted for the site and this application was for the erection of a waste transfer building which would reduce the impact on the amenity for issues such as noise.  She provided details of the size and height of the building which had been revised and compared the building with a nearby telecommunications mast which was 23.5 metres high.  Concerns had been raised about the height of the building but the officer stated that the nearest residential properties were 140 metres away and the distance was considered to be too large for the transfer building to be overbearing on these properties.  The views from Liverpool Road and Smithy Lane, which were between 700 and 1,000 metres away, would be more distant and would only be of the top of the building.  The provision of the building would reduce the impact of the site on the area and would therefore be an overall planning gain.  The officer added that the applicant could operate without the transfer building but its provision would allow them more control.    

            Mr. S. Amos, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  It was felt that the facility would improve the efficiency of the site and the reduction in vehicles accessing the waste tipping area would reduce the potential disturbance in terms of dust and noise that may otherwise occur.  All of the delivery vehicles would use the new HGV access and there had been no objections from statutory consultees and the application was compliant with planning policy.   

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that the proposal would be an improvement and would reduce some of the problems that could otherwise have occurred and would be a planning gain.  The height of the building was a concern but other buildings and structures in the area were more prominent.  The site would be used for industrial purposes and screening was already in place and therefore there would not be an impact on the neighbouring residents.  Councillor Ian Dunbar sought clarification on the distance of the building from the nearest residents. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Carol Ellis, noted the conditions but said that she still had a number of concerns relating to the visual impact from Liverpool Road and Smithy Lane.  On the issue of noise control, she asked that all schemes be submitted to the Council before any work commenced on site.  She hoped that the compliance with conditions would not need to be undertaken by herself, the adjoining Ward Member or members of the public as she felt it was the Council’s responsibility to ensure that the conditions were all complied with. 

            Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 150.

            That planning permission be refused because of the potential for additional impacts on residential amenity from increased working hours and Sunday working.  

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 Senior Minerals and Waste Officer detailed the background to the report and explained that this was a Section 73 application to vary three conditions (4, 10 and 26) attached to planning permission 052359 which had been approved in October 2015.  Since the application had been submitted, the applicant had withdrawn the request to vary conditions 4 and 26 and therefore only variation to condition 10 remained.  The applicant had asked for a temporary permission of six months to allow the impact of the requested changes to be assessed.  The original submission had requested working hours of 7am to 6pm Monday to Saturday with no Sunday working and the variation of condition was seeking working hours of 6am to 7pm Monday to Saturday and 10am to 5pm on a Sunday.  The officer explained that concerns had been expressed by Buckley Town Council and neighbouring residents about the impact on the amenity.  A noise assessment had been submitted with the application and had included spot noise assessments at Parry’s Cottages, Liverpool Road and Smithy Lane and these had been found to show that the noise associated with the workings would not exceed background levels.  It was felt that the proposals would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity.  A condition had been included to limit the noise levels which would be monitored and enforced by the Planning Authority and the officer suggested that the condition attached to the original permission also be carried forward to this proposal if approved. 

            In response to a question from Councillor Chris Bithell about the request for temporary permission, the officer confirmed that the working hours would revert back to those currently permitted at the end of the temporary period and a further application would need to be submitted to vary the condition on a permanent basis.

            Councillor Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that a temporary permission of six months was appropriate to assess any impacts and that a request for a permanent change could be refused if necessary. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Carol Ellis, expressed significant concern that the public needed to advise the Council of any issues with the site and suggested that the applicant was not complying with the current working hours imposed.  She said that there had been a number of complaints about the site relating to the height of the stockpiles which she felt was a fire hazard.  She added that the site had previously accepted food waste from the Council for which they did not have a permit or planning permission and she said that this was a health hazard and had been reported by the public.  Councillor Ellis had also raised the issue of receiving food waste by letter to the Council but had not yet received a response.  She  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) with an amendment to condition 3 to read occupancy restricted to 1^st March to 14^th January in the following calendar year.   

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 21^st March 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 referred Members to the late observations sheet where comments from Welsh Water, Natural Resources Wales, the Council’s Biodiversity Officer and an adjoining resident were reported.  Clarification on the use of the existing access and an amendment to condition 3 were also reported. 

            Ms. K. James spoke against the application on behalf of local residents.  She said that whilst policies within the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) allowed for new tourism developments in the open countryside, these required that the development should not have an unacceptable impact.  She felt that it would have an unacceptable impact and stated that the main concerns related to the impact on residential amenity, drainage, highway safety and visual amenity.  She said that 16 letters of objection had been received and none in support of the application.  The proposed site was in close proximity to Godrer Foel and would result in direct overlooking to the rear of the property which would cause significant and undue harm with respect to privacy.  The use of the site would cause additional noise and disturbance due to the change from agricultural and the development wouldbe in breach of the human rights of nearby residents.  Limited information was available about the drainage for foul and waste water in the area and there was no evidence that a satisfactory scheme had been provided.  The site was accessed by a single track lane and Ffordd Glyndwr was a busy through road.  Ms. James felt that a traffic management plan could not overcome the deficiencies in the highway and was not enforceable.  The density of the development would cause considerable visual harm and would be detrimental to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and could not be protected by the provision of screening. 

            Mr. J. Williams, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He commented on the extremely comprehensive report by the Planning Officer which he felt addressed all the issues raised and therefore had a recommendation of approval.  There had been no objections from statutory consultees and the proposal could be justified by being a benefit to the area and was in accord with local and national policy. 

            Councillor V. Hinstridge, from Gwernymynydd Community Council, said that the Community Council had objected to the proposal for reasons which included issues of the safety of pedestrians and local traffic movements.  The area was popular with horse-riders and approval of the application would be a danger to them because of vehicle movements to and from the site on narrow country lanes.  The proposed site was in open countryside and did not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment). 

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 21^st March 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 said that he was aware that the applicant had circulated a letter to the Committee Members, which had been summarised in the late observations.  The site was in open countryside, in the green barrier and was on best and most versatile agricultural land (BMV) and that there was therefore no precedent made in granting permission for a solar farm at Weighbridge Road, Shotwick.  

            Mr. J. Owens spoke against the application on behalf of the 11 families in houses which formed ‘The Bowry’ which were the nearest properties to the site.  He felt that there were a number of errors in the original documentation and some misleading photographs of the site which he detailed.  He commented on hand delivered leaflets which none of the residents at The Bowry had received and neither had any residents on Deeside Lane and suggested that there had not been any two-way communications on the application.  He spoke of a property that had been reported to be nearest to the site at over 400 metres away but The Bowry was only 50 metres from the site boundary; on the new diagram the site came right to the boundary of The Bowry.  He said that it was been reported that the site was on land to the east of Deeside Lane but it was to the west.  He added that the main issue was that the area was not an industrial area and residents wanted it to stay that way.              

            Mr. E. Ramsey-Smith spoke in support of the application.  He said that he was optimistic that the Committee would use its privileged position and independent judgement in order to future proof job creation and solve the power shortage problem on Deeside which was currently a barrier for future investors considering relocating to the area.  He trusted that common sense would prevail and that Members would vote positively on the application.  He spoke of the planning officer’s comments on the site being best and most versatile land and the green barrier impacts as a reason to recommend refusal of the application although this contradicted the recent approval on the grounds of economic benefit of the solar farm at Weighbridge Road which was ten times the size of this site.  In the unlikely event of a refusal, the applicant had robust legal opinion that the applications would be allowed on appeal.  The location process was driven by it being sited close to the 11kv grid location in Deeside and the Local Planning Authority officers had offered no alternative sites nor had they conducted a sequential analysis study or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 153.

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment). 

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 21^st March 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.  

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He felt that the same reasons for refusal applied to this application as to the previous application on the agenda and as there was no identified end user for the power, the application should be refused. 

            Councillor Ian Dunbar read out comments from the Local Member, Councillor Christine Jones which were summarised as follows:

‘The application was for a site in the open countryside and on green belt land.  It would have a detrimental impact and harm the landscape and even though an expression of interest for the power had been received from the Airfields development at Northern Gateway, that site had not yet been developed and therefore there was no end user for the power.  Solar farms should be on brownfield sites not on grade 2 land which Councillor Jones felt should be used for farming’.

            In referring to the site which would provide renewable energy, Councillor Owen Thomas commented on the grading of the land and suggested that it was possible to transfer the power from the site.  He felt that renewable energy should be considered and that alternative sites had not been put forward by the Council. 

            Councillor Derek Butler spoke of the two landfill sites in Buckley that had been approved for solar farms.  He felt that there was a need for renewable energy and queried whether the policy determined that there had to be an end user for the power.  He commented on an employment land review and indicated that the Deeside Enterprise Zone was the first carbon neutral Enterprise Zone in North Wales, which he felt was a material consideration.  Councillor Richard Jones felt that the use of grade 2 quality land for such a proposal outweighed the issue of economic development.  Councillor David Roney referred to the comments about an end user not being in place and said that this had not been an issue when the Committee was considering the proposal for the incinerator on Deeside Industrial Park which also did not have an end user but was approved.  He felt that this type of proposal was the way forward and indicated that he would vote in favour of the application.   

            In response to the comments made, the officer confirmed that it was not the responsibility of the Council to find sites but that did not mean that there weren’t any alternatives in the county.  In referring to the policy, he added that the suggestion to approve the application for economic benefits was not possible as there was no ‘end user’ for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 154.

            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 obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to provide the following:-

a.         Payment of £49,028 towards educational provision/improvements (toilets) for Croes Atti Primary School;

b.         Contribution of £1,100 per dwelling in lieu of on-site open space provision to fund improvements to the adjacent play area at Croes Atti Lane.

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) 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 which had been the subject of a site visit on 21^st March 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 explained that this was an outline application with all other matters except access reserved for future consideration.  The site had had a number of industrial uses and the main issues for consideration related to archaeological implications of the development, flood risk and highways.  The site lay within flood zone C2 and there was a pond located to the west of the site.  A flood consequences assessment had been submitted with the application and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) had no objections to the proposals subject to conditions relating to surface water and finished floor levels.  On the issue of archaeology, Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust (CPAT) had advised that the site fell within an area of high archaeological sensitivity and it was therefore considered that due to the brownfield nature of the site, it would be reasonable to condition any archaeological investigations to part of the reserved matters submission in order to inform the proposed layout. 

On the issue of access, it was proposed to create one access point to the centre of the site frontage to serve the proposed residential development and this had been accepted by Highways who had not submitted any objections to the proposals subject to the imposition of conditions as set out in their response.  Welsh Water had objected to a new connection in this location into the foul network as there was insufficient capacity in the existing network.  However, there were a number of businesses on this site which had connections into the network which would be replace those flows; calculations could be undertaken at the reserved matters stage.  Concerns had been raised about the impact on the residential amenity and any detailed layout would need to take account of the adjacent dwelling Rubern to ensure that there was no detrimental impact in terms of overlooking and to achieve a layout and design that was in scale with the adjacent property.  The Section 106 obligation related to educational contributions for Croes Atti Primary School and a contribution in lieu of on-site open space provision to fund improvements to the adjacent play area at Croes Atti Lane.         

            Councillor Ian Dunbar proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that Highways had provided assurances on highway issues and screening would be considered at the reserved matters stage to ensure that the neighbouring property was not overlooked. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Rita Johnson, raised concern about the nearby reservoir which was higher than the ground level of the site which was in a known flood risk area.  She quoted from Planning Policy Statement 25 which indicated that developments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 155.

            That planning permission be refused as the site was outside the settlement boundary, was an inappropriate development in the open countryside and would have a landscape impact due to its close proximity to Wat’s Dyke.  

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 site was adjacent to the new medical centre which was currently being constructed.  The period for monitoring growth of a settlement ended on 1 April 2015 and as at that date, the settlement had a growth rate of 10% over the plan period which was within the indicative growth band of 8 to 15% for a Category B settlement.  The application, which was in a sustainable location, complied with policy and was considered acceptable as the Council did not have a five year housing land supply.  Other issues for consideration included the impact on the open countryside and on Wat’s Dyke.  Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust (CPAT) had indicated in their consultation response that the proposal for four dwellings on the site took account of pre-application advice to limit the size and orientation of the layout.  Access to the site would be from the A550 and Highways had not raised any objections in relation to parking or turning of vehicles.  On the issue of impact on residential amenity, the officer explained that the properties on Queensway, which this site was adjacent to, had long gardens and therefore the space around dwellings guidelines had been exceeded. 

Mr. D. McChesney, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He felt that there was overwhelming demand for starter homes in the area and that this development would provide this type of property.  The design met the economic and social needs and guidance from CPAT on the impact of the development on Wat’s Dyke had been taken into account.  The properties would have three bedrooms and were all north/south facing and would include solar panels on the roof and the site was in a sustainable location with easy access to the local schools and amenities.  Mr. McChesney felt that the proposal was for an infill development and was a sustainable development and was sensitive to its surroundings.  He therefore requested that the Committee approve the application.    

            Councillor Mike Peers proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He said that the application site was outside the settlement boundary and added that the plans displayed appeared to look like four bedroomed homes rather than houses for affordable local need.  He asked whether the site had been put forward as a candidate site in the Local Development Plan (LDP) and added that the growth rate within the settlement for the plan period was 10% which meant that 5% was still available within the boundary before the growth rate of 15% was reached.  Councillor Peers queried why the application had been put forward for approval when other sites outside the settlement boundary had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156.

            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 Obligation or Unilateral Undertaking, or making advance payment  to secure the following:-

a.         Ensure the payment of a contribution of £11,728 in lieu of on site recreation provision, the sum to be used to enhance the children’s play area at Deeside Leisure Centre.  The contribution shall be paid upon 50% of occupation or sale of the apartments hereby approved.

b.         Ensure the payment of a contribution of £3,000 towards the cost of amending existing Traffic Regulation Order to amend existing street parking bays and provide ‘H markings’ across the site access.  Such sum to be paid prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved.  

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 the application had been considered by the Committee in 2015 but had been refused as the Section 106 agreement had not been signed by the applicant. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that the application was for appropriate use for such a prominent building and said that any issues raised had been addressed.  Councillor Ian Dunbar indicated that the building was in a commercial area but there were other residential properties in the area.  The building had been vandalised and the application was welcomed to bring the building back into use. 

            In referring to the Council’s policy for provision of parking spaces, Councillor Mike Peers felt that the issue should be reconsidered by the Planning Strategy Group.  The maximum standards for this site would require 24 parking spaces but as it was deemed that this site was within walking distance of the town centre and had excellent public transport provision and nearby public car parks, only five spaces were being provided on the site. 

            Councillor Derek Butler asked whether the telecommunication equipment was to be removed from the roof of the building.  The officer confirmed that it was to remain in place and added that the maintenance of the equipment was not a planning consideration.   

            Councillor Richard Jones sought clarification that no more than five Section 106 (S106) agreements had been requested for Deeside Leisure Centre, to ensure that the request complied with Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations.  The officer confirmed that the S106 obligation for enhancement to the children’s play area at Deeside Leisure Centre was CIL compliant.       

            In summing up, Councillor Bithell said that he had also been concerned about the small number of parking spaces being provided on site compared to the maximum standards in the Council’s policy.  He agreed that it needed to be reconsidered by the Planning Strategy Group and the concerns addressed in the production of the Local Development Plan.  He felt that residents would still own cars and even though the report stated that there were public car parks nearby, the Council were now charging for parking in these areas.      

            RESOLVED:

            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 Obligation or Unilateral Undertaking, or making advance payment  to secure the following:-

a.         Ensure the payment of a contribution of £11,728 in lieu of on site recreation provision, the sum to be used to enhance the children’s play area at Deeside Leisure Centre.  The contribution shall be paid upon 50% of occupation or sale of the apartments hereby approved.

b.         Ensure the payment of a contribution of £3,000 towards the cost of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 157.

            That planning permission be refused because of the perceived detrimental impact of the use on residential amenity and because it was in close proximity to schools. 

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 21^st March 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 explained that the main issues for consideration included the principle of development, highway implications, and effects upon the amenities of adjoining residents and upon existing health facilities in the area. 

            Mrs. Y. Bird spoke against the application on behalf of residents in neighbouring properties.  She expressed significant concerns raised by herself and her neighbours which she felt should be taken account of when considering the application.  She said that this was an extremely complex issue and she felt that there had been a lack of clarification and transparency about the intended users of the facility and the impact that this would have on the area.  It was felt that the proposed small group residential children’s home could have a negative effect on the neighbourhood which could have long lasting detrimental effect.  Many residents had moved to the area because it was a quiet location and Mrs. Bird referred to the lack of consultation and reassurance provided as part of the application.  The third concern related to the proposed use of the building which Mrs. Bird felt had not been made clear.   

            Mr. J. O’Leary, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He thanked the officer for the positive recommendation in the report and provided clarity for the committee of the comments in the late observations.  He explained that there were only three types of registration for such facilities, which he detailed, and initially it had been intended that the home would be for young people subject to Child Sexual Exploitation but following a meeting with officers, it was preferred that the registration was not specialised.  It was intended to close the facility in Flint if this application was approved.  On the issue of the impact on the wider community, he said there would be high staffing levels and it was not intended that there would be any impact on the community and added that the applicant operated nine other homes and there had not been any neighbour issues.  This facility would replicate a family environment and said that one of the issues that had to combatted was the exclusion of looked after children and it was hoped that the community at large would be supportive of the need to safeguard the wellbeing of these children. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He said that the site was in a residential area and backed on to two primary schools and overlooked a smaller children’s play area.  Any perceived threat would inhibit the use of the play area and the children would have to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 158.

            That planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment). 

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 21^st March 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 application and drew Members’ attention to the late observations where the size of the park home was clarified. 

            Mr. J. Williams, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He felt that there were two issues in relation to the application which were the urbanisation of the open countryside and the need for the park home.  He referred to the intended siting of the park home which Members had seen on the site visit and suggested that approval of the application in this location would not lead to the urbanisation of the countryside.  On the issue of need, he said that it was a family run rural enterprise and the location of the park home was important to allow the continuation of the equine nature of the business. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He felt that the relative that wanted to retire could live elsewhere to allow those running the businesses to live in the farmhouse.  He queried why the application had required consideration by the Committee as he felt it was unwarranted and unnecessary and should have been refused under delegated powers.  Councillor Gareth Roberts said that it had been suggested that the park home was needed to be close to the horses but he felt that the farmhouse was suitably located for this purpose.  He felt that approving this application would set a precedent and refusing other applications in similar locations would be difficult. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Chris Dolphin, spoke in support of the application.  He felt that the proposal complied with Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6 and concurred with the agent that it would not lead to the urbanisation of the countryside.  He felt that the provision of the park home was appropriate and it contributed to the rural enterprise which employed local people.  Paragraph 7.03 referred to the reasons for the provision of the park home and why it was unreasonable for all of the family members to share the farmhouse and the report also provided details of the financial reports that had been submitted by the applicant which justified the need for a worker to live on site to be close to their work.  Councillor Dolphin referred to the proposed location of the park home which would be closer to the stables than the farmhouse and was therefore necessary. 

            Councillor Richard Jones disagreed with the need for the park home and felt that approval would set a precedent.  Councillor Owen Thomas agreed with Councillor Dolphin that the application should be approved and that there was a need to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 159.

            That the application be deferred to allow further consultation to take place. 

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 the Local Members had not objected to the proposal but the adjoining Ward Member had concerns about the application.  The site had been granted permission for 23 dwellings and this application was seeking to vary the house types of some of the properties. 

            Prior to speaking against the application, Mr. J. Yorke asked whether the application could be determined as the site notice did not show a date on it. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed deferral of the application to allow further consultation, which was duly seconded.

            RESOLVED:

            That the application be deferred to allow further consultation to take place. 

            That planning permission be granted subject to conditions to include the removal of permitted development rights and requiring planting and retention of hedge of appropriate species on the outside of the fence. 

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 21^st March 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The officer detailed the background to the report and advised that this was a retrospective application as the fence had already been erected.  

            Mr. R. Grace, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He felt that the two issues for consideration were the change of use to a garden area which he felt was misleading as paragraph 7.02 implied that the applicant had changed the use from countryside to garden; the area had always been garden even though it had not previously been maintained as such by the previous owner.  He had not sought prior planning permission from the Council when purchasing the land adjacent to his property as when it was sold by the Council to the previous owner of the property as garden, he had applied for planning permission for three detached dwellings but as outline permission had not been approved, the area had remained as garden.  The land registry documents from when he purchased the land in 2015 indicated that a fence should be erected on the land.  The second issue was the fence which had been suggested would have a detrimental impact on the area which Mr. Grace also felt was confusing as both this property and the next door property had been granted permission for a two metre fence to secure their boundary.  It was recommended that the fence would need to be moved back one metre and plant a hedge although it was already two metres from the highway.  He commented that the two metre rule was not published by theCouncil although many other Councils had published guidelines on the issue.  He was willing to plant a hedge in front of the fence if appearance was the issue and referred to an issue in 2012 where a car crashed through the fence and into his property. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He felt that the report suggested that the fence could remain if appropriate hedging was planted in front of it.  In referring to the site history, Councillor Derek Butler spoke of a similar application that had been refused but the fence had been erected by the applicant.  He said that there should be an open aspect to the area and that if the application was refused, then the fence would need to be removed. 

            Councillor Richard Lloyd sought clarification on whether the applicant owned the land up to the boundary as a streetlight was situated on the area.  He suggested that the planting of other hedging in front of the fence could reduce its impact.  Councillor Gareth Roberts spoke of the area and said that there were properties across the road which had fences and hedges higher than what  ...  view the full minutes text for item 161.

That the reason for refusal, as detailed in the report, be agreed.       

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The Chief Officer indicated that the wording had been discussed with the Local Member, Councillor Owen Thomas.   

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed the recommendation for the reasons for refusal of the application, which was duly seconded. 

            RESOLVED:

That the reason for refusal, as detailed in the report, be agreed.       

            That the reason, for refusal as detailed in the report, be agreed.       

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The Chief Officer indicated that the wording had been discussed with the Local Member, Councillor Owen Thomas.   

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed the recommendation for the reasons for refusal of the application, which was duly seconded. 

            RESOLVED:

            That the reason, for refusal as detailed in the report, be agreed.       

            That the decision of the Inspector to dismiss this appeal be noted.

RESOLVED:

            That the decision of the Inspector to dismiss this appeal be noted.

            That the decision of the Inspector to dismiss this appeal be noted.

RESOLVED:

            That the decision of the Inspector to dismiss this appeal be noted.

                        There were 40 members of the public and 1 member of the press in attendance.