Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Alison Halford declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application because she was a School Governor at Hawarden High School:-

Agenda item 6.1 – Outline application – Residential Development at Boars Head Inn, Holywell Road, Ewloe (054163)

            In line with the Planning Code of Practice:-

                        Councillor Chris Dolphin declared that he had been contacted on more than three occasions on the following application:-

Agenda item 6.4 – Full application – Changes to the layout of 25 No. touring caravan pitches (previously approved under planning permission Ref: 049102) and temporary retention of 2. No. ‘Porta-cabins’ for use as a temporary toilet/amenity block to serve the touring caravan site (retrospective) at Misty Waters Caravan Park, Lloc (053731)

Councillor Alison Halford declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application because she was a School Governor at Hawarden High School:-

Agenda item 6.1 – Outline application – Residential Development at Boars Head Inn, Holywell Road, Ewloe (054163)

            In line with the Planning Code of Practice:-

                        Councillor Chris Dolphin declared that he had been contacted on more than three occasions on the following application:-

Agenda item 6.4 – Full application – Changes to the layout of 25 No. touring caravan pitches (previously approved under planning permission Ref: 049102) and temporary retention of 2. No. ‘Porta-cabins’ for use as a temporary toilet/amenity block to serve the touring caravan site (retrospective) at Misty Waters Caravan Park, Lloc (053731)

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 18^th November 2015.

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 18^th November 2015 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

            Councillor Mike Peers referred to page 11 and the information that he had requested on whether the 28% return figure was correct and the amount of affordable housing that would be achieved on site.  He indicated that he had not yet received the details and asked when these would be available.  The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that he would provide the information to Councillor Peers before the Christmas break.  

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. 

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment), the additional condition relating to the retention of the plaque in the reserved matters application and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking or earlier payment to provide the following:-

(a)       payment of monies based on the school pupil multiplier formula towards educational provision/improvements in the form of ‘internal accommodation alterations/refurbishment and resources for IT provision’ at Ewloe Green Primary School and towards educational provision/improvements in the form of ‘additional toilets’ at Hawarden High School

(b)       An off-site commuted sum of £1,100 per dwelling or £733 per unit in lieu of onsite provision to improve the quality of play provision at Circular Drive, Ewloe

            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 14 December 2015.  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 outline application with details of three points of access provided.  All other matters were reserved for future consideration.  The site of the former Boars Head public house was in a residential area with commercial units in the vicinity and it was proposed that the existing building be demolished.  An indicative plan for 11 dwellings on the site had been provided and an ecological survey had been undertaken and submitted with the application.  This was a brownfield site in the Category B settlement of Ewloe and the proposal was in accord with Planning Policy Wales and the principle of development had been accepted.  Policy S11 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) allowed the loss of a public house where similar facilities existed in the neighbourhood and in this instance the site was opposite a social club and near the St. David’s Park Hotel and Running Hare public house.  The officer advised that comments had been made about the historic interest of the building.  However demolition of the building had been put forward as it was unsuitable for conversion to residential dwellings and this would be controlled by condition.  The officer explained that a condition was also included for a noise assessment to be undertaken as part of the reserved matters submission.  A sewer crossed the site and a condition to discuss appropriate works was also included.  Paragraph 7.16 reported that the Coal Authority records indicated that there was a recorded mine entry within 20 metres of the boundary and therefore appropriate conditions relating to a scheme for shallow coal workings prior to the submission of a reserved matters application were required.  A Section 106 obligation had been included as part of the granting of planning permission for educational contributions and in lieu of on-site play provision and the officer confirmed that this was Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) compliant.

            The Local Member, Councillor Alison Halford, referred to the Boars Head public house that had been in place since 1704 and a plaque that was in place on the front of the building.  Councillor Halford agreed with the recommendation to approve the application but added that the public were concerned that the pub could not be saved.  The developer and agent were aware of the hostility around the application but Councillor Halford reiterated earlier comments that the building was unsafe and could not be converted.  However, the front of the Boars Head would be reflected in the new building.  Councillor Halford, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He commented on the brownfield site in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97.

            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)       Ensure the payment of a contribution of £17,592 to the Council in lieu of on site play and recreation provision.  Such sum to be paid to the Council prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved and to be used to upgrade existing facilities within the community at Lyme Grove Play Area;

(b)       The precise methods of Social Rental via which the units are to be made affordable and provisions for their continued affordability thereafter;

(c)        The payment of £4000 as a contribution to the cost of amendments to existing on-road parking restrictions and the provision of related signage and road markings via a new Traffic Regulation Order on Padeswood Road

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.  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 the main issues for consideration included the principle of the development in planning policy terms having regard to the Buckley Masterplan 2011.  It was reported in paragraph 7.10 that the question as to whether a 100% residential scheme unacceptably conflicted with the Buckley Master Plan must be weighed against the existing economic position within the town centre.  The officer, in his report, had concluded that this proposal was acceptable in policy terms and had considered the design impact of the application.  The scheme would also be required to protect amenity and reduce noise levels and a condition had been included that a scheme of enhanced glazing be submitted and agreed.  A drainage scheme was also to be submitted and agreed and a condition prohibiting the commencement of development until this matter had been satisfactorily addressed had been included.  Approval of the application was recommended subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 obligation/unilateral undertaking which was Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) compliant. 

            Mr. B. Davies spoke in support of the application for the applicant Grwp Cynefin.  The applicant had a stock of 4,200 properties and had been offered the vacant site by Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (BCUHB) for affordable housing in an area of proven local need.  Extensive pre-application discussions had been held on the proposal for 24 No. affordable apartments for 18 two bed units and six one bed units.  The timetable for the scheme had already been extended by BCUHB and now permission was needed for the site to progress.  Concerns had been raised about the lack of commercial units in the proposal but it had not been proven that there was a lack of commercial units in Buckley.  Mr. Davies said that he felt that the proposal would bring people back to the area of the town.          

            The Local Member, Councillor Richard, Jones proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He did not feel that the application complied with the Buckley Masterplan as it did not contain any retail units. 

            Councillor Mike Peers recognised that the site needed to be developed but added that it should be in accordance with the Buckley Masterplan which this proposal was not.  He felt that it was important to grow the retail sector and that it was not sufficient to suggest that the vacant retail units in the precinct meant that there was no need for commercial units in this scheme.  The Masterplan was a plan for growth for the future and should be complied with when considering new development in Buckley.  It was also important to protect the retail area that had been identified and Councillor Peers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

            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.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and drew Members’ attention to the reference in the first page of the report and in paragraph 2.02 to a Section 106 agreement which was not referred to in the body of the report.  It was not possible to attach a Section 106 agreement to the conditions as the site was owned by Flintshire County Council and could therefore not enter into an agreement with itself.  The issues that would normally be covered by an agreement were included as conditions 17 and 18.  The officer explained that the site was the first to be delivered as part of the Council’s Strategic Housing and Regeneration Programme (SHARP).           

            Councillor Derek Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He referred to the late observations and queried why the figure of £733 was to be sought for upgrading the nearby play area facilities rather than the £1,100 suggested by the Public Open Spaces Manager.  Councillor Ian Dunbar welcomed the proposal and said that the SHARP project had been long awaited.  He commented on the condition relating to the removal of the zebra crossing and he felt that the footpath had been well designed. 

Councillor Chris Bithell felt that the proposal would help the Council meet its need for affordable housing in the county and enable the land to be utilised and put to good use. 

            In response to the query from Councillor Butler, the officer advised that the usual amount requested for contributions to public open space was £1100 per dwelling for market value but for affordable dwellings, this was reduced to £733 per dwelling. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager felt that the Council should be proud of the scheme and said that it was worth noting that this was the start of an exciting programme of work. 

            In summing up, Councillor Butler also referred to the set-up of a training academy as part of the SHARP programme.               

            RESOLVED:

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

            That planning permission be refused as the application did not comply with relevant criteria of policies, GEN1, D1, D2, D3 and L1 of the UDP.

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 in 2013 the Committee had approved an application for 25 no. pitches which had conditions attached.  The site had not been developed in accordance with the consent granted and the amenity building approved had not been installed resulting in the two portacabins remaining in place.  This application was recommended for approval with the applicant being asked to enter into a Section 106 agreement to rescind the right to site 25 touring caravans in accordance with planning permission reference 048006.  In consideration of the application, the officer had not revisited the principle of the site as he had previously considered compliance against Policy T6 and there had not been any reason to revisit it.  He had focused on the changes between the permission granted and this application and the impact of the temporary siting of the portacabins. 

                        Mrs. J. Hughes spoke against the application and expressed significant concern as she felt that it did not comply with Policy T6.  Application 049102 reported an increase of 30% but she felt that this was 66% and added that the portacabins also did not comply with Policy GEN1 and should be immediately removed.  The highest point of the site was 210 metres and the lowest was 194 metres at the access to the site and Mrs. Hughes also referred to a footpath which crossed the site.  She also felt that the proposal did not comply with Policy L1 and said that the applicant was mindful that the grass would be churned up in the winter and commented that the pitches had originally been grass only.  She spoke of two further applications that had been submitted and of the appeal that had been refused by Welsh Government on a nearby site because of the impact on the area; that site had a highest point of 194 metres.  

            The Local Member, Councillor Chris Dolphin, proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He felt that the proposals did not comply with Policies T6, GEN1, GEN3, D1, D2, D3 and L1 and added that the principle of development had also not been complied with.  He said that the site was in a rural location in the open countryside and would have a significant impact on the area and that the application should be refused to allow the site to be cleared.  He had been opposed to the original application as he felt that it had not complied with policy and indicated that the site had been the subject of continual enforcement action and additional applications to regularise the site.  He commented on the condition about no external lighting pointing out that it was currently installed on the site and had resulted in a number of complaints to Councillor Dolphin.  He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 100.

            That planning permission be granted with delegated authority be given to the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) to set the required conditions and Section 106 agreement if appropriate.  

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 14 December 2015.  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 was for a replacement dwelling on the site which was in a countryside setting.  The main issues for consideration were the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area.  It was felt that the massing of the development would have an increased detrimental impact and therefore the recommendation was for refusal of the application.  The total floorspace was 140 square metres including the extensions and the proposal was for 354 square metres excluding the attached garage and three storey element of the proposal.  This would result in an increase of 153% over the original dwelling.  Application 051526 for the demolition of rear areas of the existing dwelling and erection of a new two storey extension to the side and rear had been granted in March 2014 which amounted to a 121% increase.  An application for the erection of a replacement dwelling had been refused in June 2015.  The officer felt that this application would be out of scale with existing properties in the area and there were no other dwellings of the scale and massing of this proposal. 

            The officer explained that the Local Member, Councillor David Roney, in his consultation response had indicated that the new dwelling was to meet the needs of a disabled person but there had been no mention in the application of a medical need for a design of this scale.  It was felt that there was scope to adapt the property without the scale of development proposed. 

            Mr. R. Gratton, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the proposal would meet the needs of the applicant and the demolition of the dwelling and erection of a new property had been discussed with the planning officer who had indicated that refusal of the application was proposed because it was out of scale and character with the area.  The design was redrafted and following lengthy negotiations, it was felt that the application was deemed to be acceptable.  Mr. Gratton referred to Policy HSG6 and commented that existing permitted development rights had not been removed.  The floor space for the proposed dwelling was very similar to that of the existing property but was a better design for the applicant.           

            The Local Member, Councillor David Roney, proposed approval of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  Following advice from the Housing & Planning Solicitor Councillor Roney and Councillor Mike Peers, as proposer and seconder respectively, agreed to add that delegated powers be granted to the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) to include appropriate conditions and a Section 106 obligation, if such an obligation was appropriate..    

             Councillor Roney said  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

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

The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) explained that the application had been refused by Committee and the appeal had been allowed as the Inspector concluded that the proposals would not harm highway safety.  The appeal had been held by written representations so there had not been any application for costs.                        

            RESOLVED:

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

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

In response to a query from Councillor David Evans, the Development Manager explained that this appeal related to the original application which officers felt was unacceptable.  Two other schemes had been submitted, both of which had been granted and following this appeal decision, the applicant had now started to implement one of the two approved schemes which had less impact on other properties.        

            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.

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

The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that the Inspector had made a split decision on this appeal, with part being allowed and part being dismissed.  The proposed two storey extension had been dismissed as it conflicted with the relevant policies of Flintshire’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP).  However the appeal on the demolition of the garage and the proposed first floor extensions was allowed.  A Judicial Review was an option available to the Council but it had been decided that this was not appropriate.  The Chief Officer added that the Inspector could make a split decision but the Committee could not. 

                        Councillor Chris Bithell indicated that he had discussed this issue with the Planning Inspector as Members were always advised to deal with the application before them.  He spoke of the constraints of the UDP and said that the comments of the Inspector was their opinion and interpretation.  He hoped that the comments would be challenged.  Councillor Gareth Roberts raised concern at the ability of the Inspector to be able to make a split decision on an appeal.         

            RESOLVED:

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

                        There were 10 members of the public and one member of the press in attendance.