Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Marion Bateman declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item number 6.1 – Full Application – Erection of 43 No. Dwellings and Associated Works at Ffordd Eldon, Soughton (054548), and agenda item number 6.2 – Full Application – Demolition and Relocation of existing Cricket Pavilion with Associated Parking and Erection of No. 91 Dwellings, Associated Infrastructure and Landscaping at Northop Cricket Club, Flint Road, Northop (055807).  Councillor Marion Bateman said that she was a governor at Ysgol Sychdyn and Ysgol Owen Jones which were due to receive financial contributions from the applications.

The Solicitor advised that Councillor Marion Bateman had been granted dispensation to speak on agenda item 6.1. for five minutes and would leave the room after speaking.

            Councillor David Wisinger declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item number 6.4 – Full Application – Erection of Two Storey and Single Storey E$xtension to Rear of Dwelling at 5 Church Cottages, Old Sealand Road, Sealand (056436). 

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 22^nd February 2017.

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

The draft minutes of the meeting held on 22 February 2017 were submitted.

Matters arising

Councillor Mike Peers referred to the number of members of the public which were recorded in attendance at the meeting and said this was misleading as the majority of the public were not present throughout the meeting but had left during the meeting.  It was acknowledged that the number of members of the public in attendance would change throughout the meeting.

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.

                        Councillor Richard Jones queried whether agenda item number 6.3 – Full Application – Construction and operation of a Household Recycling Centre at land off Chester Road, Oakenholt, should be deferred due to the additional comments and officer’s recommendation in the late observations which had been circulated at the meeting.  The Solicitor explained that the statutory procedures had been complied with and provision had been made, as stated in the late observations,  for the Chief Officer, with delegated authority,  to consider any further representations received prior to 25 March 2017 before issuing a decision.  On this basis he advised that there was no reason why the application could not be considered by the Committee at the meeting.

That conditional planning permission be granted subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation to provide for:

(a)       Control the provision and occupation of 4 No. bungalows within the development which are proposed to be gifted to the Council to meet     affordable housing needs.

(b)       Ensure the payment of an educational contribution of £49,028 towards school places at Sychdyn Primary School and £129,283 towards improving facilities to increase capacity at Argoed Secondary School.

And 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 which had been the subject of a site visit and was deferred at the last meeting. 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 gave an overview of the application and explained that the proposals were for the erection of 43 No. dwellings and associated works on land at Ffordd Eldon, Sychdyn, Mold.  The site was allocated for residential development in the Flintshire Unitary Development Plan by virtue of Policy HSG1 (38).  A Development Brief for the site had previously been produced and adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance in 2012.   Amended plans had been received in progression of the application on which further consultation was undertaken.   The officer outlined the reasons for recommending approval, subject to conditions and to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation.

                        Councillor Marion Bateman spoke against the application on the grounds that  it did not comply with its site-specific Development Brief (the Brief).  She said that the Brief had been advised because of the sensitive nature of the site due to the locally important Wats Dyke archaeological remains and the additional restrictions on the site, resulting in a requirement to build at an appropriate density.  She said that the Brief had been approved by Council in September 2012.  She referred to the need for compliance with the Brief which should be afforded considerable weight as a material planning consideration.  She said that the Brief attached to the Sychdyn site had weight behind it and that there were examples in the report where it was stated that the Brief was a guidance document and not prescriptive which was misleading. 

Councillor Bateman said that the proposed number of dwellings were affected by the constraints of the site.  The net development area was 1.3 hectares; a low density of 25 per hectare would produce 33 dwellings and an average density of 30 dwellings per hectare would produce 39 dwellings.  She said the Council did not consider it appropriate to exceed the levels given the circumstances of the site. The application was for 43 dwellings which was between 4 and 10 extra dwellings than in the Brief.   Referring to site description Councillor Bateman said a public right of way ran along the southern edge of the site which formed part of the Wats Dyke Heritage Trail.  She stated that bungalows primarily surrounded the site and that it may be appropriate to use this type of building design within the development at the southern side of the site where it interfaced with the existing village.  Councillor Bateman also referred to the proposals in paragraphs 7.19 and 7.20 of the report which she said were misleading and not compliant with the Brief. 

Councillor Bateman drew attention to paragraph 7.36 of the report and said that the Brief provided an indicative plan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 150.

That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out at paragraph 2 of 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 gave an overview of the application and the main issues.  She  explained that the proposals were for the repositioning of the existing cricket pitch and erection of new pavilion at Northop Cricket Club with associated parking, and erection of 91 No. dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping.  She explained that although further responses from Statutory Consultees were awaited as part of the application, the applicants had lodged an appeal on the grounds of non-determination.  The officer outlined the reasons for recommending refusal. 

Councillor Marion Bateman spoke for 3 minutes against the application on the following grounds:  the development would be on the edge of a conservation area which had a number of listed buildings and next to the Grade 1 church of St Eurgain and St. Peter; the site was located outside the settlement boundary of Northop but within a Green Barrier as defined in the Flintshire Unitary Development Plan;  the development would be detrimental to the character and setting of Northop and its conservation area; the application has failed many of the principles of sustainable development; the application  is a large scale development for the size of the community and would impact on the character and appearance of the village.

Having earlier declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, Councillor Marion Bateman left the meeting prior to the matter being debated by the committee.

Councillor J Roberts, on behalf of Northop Community Council, spoke against the application on the following grounds; the proposed development did not comply with the Flintshire Unitary Development Plan Policy GEN 4 and was contrary to the UDP in circumstances other than overwhelming need; the development was outside the village envelope and adjacent to a conservation area which included the Grade 1 church of St Eurgain and St. Peter, further listed buildings and their settings; the development of the site for housing would create a significant and unacceptable increase in housing development in the area which had already been subjected to a 22% increase; the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the local facilities and would place a substantial strain on local infrastructure and services; the additional traffic would create a risk to highway safety.  

Councillor Chris Bithell moved the officer recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He said the site was not within the UDP or the settlement boundary of Northop and was against local and national policy.  He stated that the proposed development would have a serious impact on the village which was adjacent to a conservation area and would be detrimental to its character and appearance.  Councillor Bithell commented on the scale of the proposed development which was in addition to that which occurred during the UDP and would result  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions listed in the report  and with delegated authority for the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment) to consider any further representations received prior to the 25 March 2017 before issuing a decision.

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. 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 gave an overview of the application and explained that the proposals were for the construction and operation of a Household Recycling Centre (HRC) to the east of the existing ‘Dependable Concrete’ batching facility on land off Chester Road (A548) in Oakenholt.  The facility would replace the existing HRCs currently located in Flint and Connah’s Quay.

The officer advised that the recommendation was to grant planning permission subject to the condition contained in report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) with delegated authority for the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) to consider any further representations received prior to the 25 March 2017 before issuing a decision.

Mr. J. Yorke spoke against the application on the following grounds: the application did accord with the Council’s approved development plan; the proposal was outside the settlement boundary; the proposal would be an intrusion of landscape and would have significant adverse impact on protected sites and species.  Mr. Yorke continued that the proposal would extend industrialisation of the A548 conflicting with UDP requirements of the green strip between Connah’s Quay and Oakenholt.  He commented on the odour which permeated from the Greenfield site at the A548 roundabout and the further problems of noise, ground vibration, and traffic pollution in the parameter area.  Mr. Yorke commented that there were failings in the transport assessment around the proposed junction design and location. He also outlined concerns around the signal installation and design of the signalised site junction which he said failed to meet Government design minimum standard requirements.  Mr. Yorke expressed further concerns around road realignment and speed limits.

Mr. A. Hoyle, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application and said a new HRC facility would being numerous  benefits to the residents of Connah’s Quay and Flint.  The new HRC would  provide a modern purpose designed facility to replace the two existing HRC sites.  He explained that the existing facilities located in Flint and Connah’s Quay were difficult to access, limited in space and facilities, and did not offer full opportunities for waste segregation and recycling.  The proposed site was situated centrally between Connah’s Quay and Flint, would be easily accessible by the general public and was ideally positioned to serve its catchment area.  Mr. Hoyle stated that there were no suitable alternative sites to locate the new facility.  Outlined the many benefits of the new HRC, Mr. Hoyle referred to improved safety, a wide range of skips and storage bays, and increased  opportunities for waste segregation and recycling.  In conclusion Mr. Hoyle commented on the suitability of the site access arrangements and reiterated that the proposed site was the right location for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 152.

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & 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 officer gave an overview of the application and explained that the proposal was for the erection of a single and two storey extension to the rear of 5 Church Cottages, Old Sealand Road, Sealand.  The main considerations were the impact on residential amenity and the visual appearance of the proposal.

Councillor Derek Butler moved the officer recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  On being put to the vote, the proposal to grant permission was carried.

RESOLVED:

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

After the vote had been taken, Councillor David Wisinger returned to the meeting and was advised of the decision.

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

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been subjected to a site visit. The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

The officer gave an overview of the application and explained that the proposal was for the change of use and conversion of the existing chapel to form a single dwelling and to utilise the area to the side of the chapel for the parking of vehicles and to set back the existing front wall and railings by 1metre.  He outlined the reasons for recommending approval, subject to conditions, as detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning & Environment).

Mr. P. Bevan, the applicant, spoke in support of the application and said that the proposed change of use and conversion of the existing chapel was to form a single  residential dwelling for family use.  He stated the concerns which had been raised that the proposed scheme was also intended for commercial use were unfounded and reiterated that the application was solely for a residential dwelling.  He addressed the concerns which had been made around the parking of vehicles and proposed alterations to the boundary wall and explained that the provision for parking to the side of the building was viable.  Mr. Bevan said that the proposal would utilise an existing building which was likely to continue to deteriorate in the future. 

Councillor David Roney proposed that the application be refused.  The proposal was not seconded.

Councillor Gareth Roberts moved the officer recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said there was no planning reason to refuse the application.

Councillor Chris Bithell supported the application and said the proposal would secure an existing building from potential loss or further deterioration and would retain the existing historic and characteristic appearance of the building.  Regarding the concerns which had been raised around the creation and use of the proposed parking provision he said highway officers had assessed the application and had raised no objection to the proposal.  He commented on the previous use of the building as a Chapel and said there was adequate parking provision in close proximity to the building without restrictions and easy access to public transport services.

Councillor David Roney spoke against the application.  He said there had been a number of objections to the proposal from local residents concerning the impact on parking in the area which was a specific problem during in the evening.

Councillor Owen Thomas spoke in support of the application and commented on the benefit in terms of safeguarding a local building of historic character and appearance for the future.  He referred to the building’s former use as a Chapel and said there had always been availability for residents to attend Chapel services by car and to park in proximity to the building without objection.

On being put to the vote, the proposal to grant permission was carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 154.

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

RESOLVED:

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

                        On commencement of the meeting there were 29 members of the public and 1 member of the press in attendance.