Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Chris Bithell indicated that he did not have a personal or prejudicial interest in the following application but as he had been a member of the Task and Finish Group for the hub, he had sought advice from the Monitoring Officer.  The Monitoring Officer had advised that member of the Working Group was not a personal interest under the Members’ Code of Conduct.  However, in the interests of transparency and probity he would nevertheless withdraw from the room following the discussion but before voting took place on the application:-

Agenda item 6.7 – Erection of a Post 16 Education Centre and associated works at Deeside College, Kelsterton Road, Connah’s Quay (051722)

            In line with the Planning Code of Practice:-

                        Councillor Marion Bateman declared that she had been contacted on more than three occasions on the following application:-

Agenda item 6.5 – Retrospective change of use of land to residential purposes in connection with No. 21 Llys y Wern and erection of a boundary fence – land at Llys Cae’r Glo, Sychdyn (051497)

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 12 March 2014.

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 12 March 2014 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

RESOLVED:

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

That applications 6.1 (Upper Bryn Coch, Mold) and 6.8 (Aldi Foodstore, Mold) be deferred. 

The Head of Planning advised that deferment of the following applications was recommended:

Agenda item 6.1 – Full application – Erection of 23 No. dwellings and associated works on land at (side of Ffordd Hengoed), Upper

Bryn Coch, Mold (051105)

The Head of Planning explained that the application had been deferred at the previous meeting of the Committee to allow a site visit to be undertaken.  Following the site visit, potential improvements for highways had been suggested which officers had not had the opportunity to discuss and there had been some confusion about which plan had been consulted on. 

Councillor Alison Halford referred to the amended plans reported in the late observations and queried why the issue of gaps between the houses had not been included in the report.  She also asked if the amended plans complied with Council’s policies on distances between houses.  The Development Manager explained that following receipt of objections on the application, discussions had taken place with the applicant who had offered to increase the distances from what was shown in the original plans.  He advised that the original application had complied with policy so the proposed increases were a bonus and that deferral of the application would allow officers the opportunity to speak to the applicant.  Councillor Richard Jones asked that the Local Member, Councillor Robin Guest, also be included in any negotiations on the application. 

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

Agenda item 6.8

            The Democracy & Governance Manager advised that deferment of the following application was recommended:-

Agenda item – 6.8 – Retrospective application for the erection of automatic number plate recognition cameras at entrance/exit to control the length of stay in car park and variation to Section 106 agreement of planning permission ref: 028289 to allow the above development at Aldi Foodstore Ltd, King Street, Mold (051655)

He explained that due to recent correspondence received from an objector who had raised a number of points, the issues raised needed to be considered in more detail to establish what was material and what was not. 

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

RESOLVED:

That applications 6.1 (Upper Bryn Coch, Mold) and 6.8 (Aldi Foodstore, Mold) be deferred. 

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the inclusion of a Grampian style condition regarding connection to the existing pipe located on Network Rail land before any work was carried out on the site. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 7 April 2014.  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 late observations where additional comments were reported.  Four letters of objection had been received and these were detailed in the report but the recommendation was for approval of the application. 

                        Mr. A. Jones spoke against the application.  He acknowledged the need for a permanent site but he felt that a more appropriate site had been refused.  He referred to the narrowness of the bridge access to the site and the visibility of the access and raised concern about highway safety.  He said that there was no indication of the number of people that could live on the site and it was possible that each site could contain three families.  Mr. Jones said that the issue of the right of way to the site had not been addressed and Welsh Water had not been consulted.  He felt that the site was unsuitable for human occupation and he raised concern about the density of the site and added that if housing had been proposed on the site, it would have been refused.  He explained that he was the owner of the garage near the site which employed 37 people and added that access across the bridge was vital to his business.  The Democracy & Governance Manager advised Members that the private right of way was not a material planning consideration.   

                        Mr. J. Salt spoke in support of the application as the proposal was in line with planning policy.  Approval of the proposal would address the issue of need of Gypsy and Traveller pitches in Flintshire which was for the provision of 16 pitches by the end of 2016.  The existing access was adequate for the level of development and Highways had not submitted any objections and no accidents had been reported.  The proposal would seek to improve the site which had been a storage yard which was adjacent to the settlement boundary of Flint.  Mr. Salt added that the soft landscaping proposed would be an improvement to the site and the site would be screened from public areas and would not cause any harm. He said that there were no flooding issues and that the applicant ran an existing site with the Council. He concluded that it complied with all national and local policies and he urged Members to approve the application.   

            Councillor Derek Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that there were no planning reasons for refusal and that with conditions it was a suitable site which would assist in meeting the needs for Gypsy and Traveller pitches.  Councillor Ian Dunbar said that there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 177.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning, the conditions reported in the late observations, the extra condition requiring removal of superfluous tanks/equipment from the site and subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement under the terms of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Section 106 to:

- Provide a commuted sum of £5100 for additional funding required for the delivery of Phase 2 of the Saltney and Saltney Ferry ‘Sense of Place’ Riverside Walk Project. 

If the Section 106 Agreement (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the Committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 7 April 2014.  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 if the application was approved, the large amount of waste outside the building on the site would be removed and all processes would be undertaken in the existing building.  No objections had been received from statutory consultees and the Local Member had not objected to the application but had raised concern about odours from the site.  The officer drew attention to the late observations and said that the main issues that had been considered included the principle of development, need, flood risk, drainage, amenity and habitat.  There was no reason to refuse the application and the officer advised that environmental permitting would also regulate the operations on the site. 

            Councillor Alison Halford proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  She welcomed the application which had been well thought out and which would bring employment to the area.  Councillor Chris Bithell said that the Local Member had been involved in discussions on the proposals and that any issues which had been raised had been addressed.  He asked that an additional condition to remove any superfluous equipment from the site be included if the application was approved.  Councillor Halford agreed to include the condition in her proposal for approval. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Richard Lloyd thanked the officer for her excellent report and said that all of the issues that he had raised had been covered by conditions.  His main concern had been the odours from the waste outside the building but if the application was approved, this would be moved inside and any existing waste would be used before any more waste was brought on to the site.  Another concern was for the residents of Saltney and those that bordered the site.  It was reported that Saltney Town Council had not responded but Councillor Lloyd indicated that they had replied and had requested that all conditions be enforced.  He asked the officer to explain what was meant by the comments in paragraph 3.07. 

            Councillor Richard Jones said that a permit from Natural Resources Wales (NRW) would be required and the site would be monitored by NRW and he queried whether a condition to monitor the site by the Council was also required on the application.  He referred to conditions 9 and 10 and queried how they could be enforced and managed and also asked how it could be ensured that there would be no detriment to the residents from leachate from the site.  Councillor Derek Butler said that it was a comprehensive report but felt that there was a need to co-ordinate with NRW to ensure that the conditions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 178.

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of:-

                        - overbearing impact

                        - overshadowing

                        - loss of amenity

                        - overdevelopment. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 7 April 2014.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained the main issues for consideration.  A number of objections, which were detailed in the report, had been received but the application was reported for approval. 

                        Mr. D. Fizsimon spoke against the application on behalf of the residents of the neighbouring property.  The principle was acceptable but the proposed dwelling was much taller than nearby dwellings and was closer to the boundary than the current dwelling.  He highlighted paragraph 7.08 which reported the impact on the lounge window of the neighbours at Hill Green but there was also the main bedroom window on the same wall which had not been considered in the report.  Mr. Fitzsimon said that Council guidelines indicated that there should be a separation distance from habitable rooms of 12 metres but there was only a gap of 5.5 metres so this was insufficient and did not comply with the guidelines.  The patio area was also important to the residents of Hill Green, but this would be overshadowed by the proposed dwelling.  He urged Members to refuse the application due to the overbearing nature of the development and its non-compliance with policies HSG1 and GEN 1.    

            Councillor Alison Halford proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  She referred to the proposed increase in floorspace of 324% and the lack of compliance with guidelines about distances between dwellings.  There was no mention in the report of the loss of light on the neighbouring dwelling and she queried the design which appeared to show that vehicles had to drive through the building to access the garage.  Councillor Halford felt that the application should be refused as the size of the dwelling was unfair to residents and did not comply with Council guidelines. 

            Councillor Marion Bateman raised concern about the loss of amenity for the neighbours and queried whether a single storey extension could be included on the side of the dwelling nearest to the bungalow to reduce the height of the building.  She referred to paragraph 7.11 which she felt was misleading as the feature of the parking/turning provision was not typical of the area, as was suggested in the report.  Councillor Gareth Roberts felt that the proposed dwelling was in keeping with the area and added that the guideline for percentage increases in footprints applied outside the settlement boundary in the open countryside, so was therefore not appropriate for this application as the site was within the settlement boundary. 

            In response to a query from Councillor Richard Lloyd about increases over 50% of the original footprint, the Planning Strategy Manager explained that the existing dwelling covered 72 sq. m. and the proposed dwelling was 168 sq. m. but the plot was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 179.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 7 April 2014.  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 seven objections had been received which were detailed in the report.  He added that no objection had been received from Highways. 

                        Mrs. J. Butlin spoke against the application on behalf of residents.  She said that the original plan which had been approved in 1991 had included two visitor parking spaces.  She raised concern that a hedge had been removed which had destroyed a nesting site and indicated that the applicant had used the land for commercial purposes and the site was now obtrusive and an eyesore.  Mrs. Butlin commented on the loss of the two visitor parking spaces which were for the whole area of the development and said that this would result in visitors parking in the road which would reduce the access for any emergency vehicles.  Removal of the visitor spaces had also created a hazard for the safety of children and others in the community and it was felt that the parking spaces should be restored. 

                        Mr. D. Fitzsimon spoke in support of the application and said that the land in question was shown as visitor parking on the original plans.  However a condition had not been placed on the application for them to be retained and they had never been adopted by the Council and had always remained in private ownership.  The number of parking spaces per dwelling was in accord with national policy and Highways were satisfied with the level of parking provision on site.  Mr. Fitzsimon indicated that removal of the hedge did not require planning permission and the replacement fence fitted in with the streetscene.  He added that the Council could not enforce the use of the land for visitor parking and that third parties did not have a right to park on the land. 

            Councillor Marion Bateman proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  She felt that ownership of the land was not a material consideration and in referring to paragraph 7.2, she suggested that the retention of the parking spaces was crucial, and a condition should have been imposed when the application was approved.  Councillor Bateman referred to a letter from the architect on the application in December 1990 indicating that the visitor spaces were for the occupants of 1, 2 and 3 New Brighton Road with the officer reply indicating that the parking for visitors was crucial but had not been conditioned because the issue had been dealt with at the pre-application stage.  She referred to paragraph 4.01 in the support statement which included the approved layout for the site but did not formally lay out the position of the two visitor parking spaces.  Councillor Bateman asked that residents or visitor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 180.

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

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning 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 explaining that this was a revised scheme to the previous application reference 050430 which was refused by Committee in July 2013.  The recommendation of refusal of this application was on the grounds of scale and the impact on the dwelling.

            Mr. M. Price, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the extension to the dwelling, that he and his family had lived in for ten years, was required to allow extra space following the birth of their baby daughter.  There were three houses in the complex and the others had been extended.  The principle of development had been accepted and permission for a single storey extension had been granted in 2002 but this had now lapsed.  He felt that the revised proposal complied with planning policy and the 38% increase in the floorspace was below the recommended guideline of 50%.  Mr. Price said that the proposal was respectful of the existing building and he commented on the slope of the land which was the reason for the proposed height of the building, which had been reduced since the refusal of the previous application.  He indicated that there had not been any objections to the application and it would not affect anyone as it could not be seen.  In conclusion, Mr. Price said that the height of the proposal had been reduced and the application complied with the policy guidelines for extensions to dwellings and he therefore requested that the application be approved.   

            Councillor Alison Halford proposed approval of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  She concurred that the proposal complied with policy and reminded Members that the applicant had reduced the ridge height and had complied with the guidelines for extensions to dwellings.  She said that refusal of this application with a 38% increase when an earlier application for a much larger increase in footprint had been reported for approval was not consistent.  Councillor Halford asked for clarification on paragraph 2.01 and said that the applicant had worked hard on the application including the suggestion to remove the balcony from the proposal. 

            Councillor Richard Jones concurred and said that this application was preferable to the earlier proposal which had been refused.  The applicant had tried his best and the materials suggested would blend into the countryside and Councillor Jones felt that the proposal was acceptable.  Councillor Derek Butler felt that approval of the application would go against the Council’s policies and would set a precedent.  He said that the application did not comply with policy and the scale of the dwelling needed addressing.  Councillor Chris Bithell said that the original building was of historic and architectural merit and worthy of retention.  He said that there would have been certain constraints on the alterations that could be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 181.

            That planning permission be granted subject to:-

- the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning;

- the conditions reported in the late observations including a Section 106 obligation to fund a Traffic Regulation Order and traffic calming measures; 

- submission of a framework and full travel plan; and

- an additional condition requiring cycling provision within the site.

After the vote had been taken, Councillor Bithell returned to the meeting.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning 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 referred Members to the late observations where comments of the Head of Assets and Transportation were reported.  The officer suggested that a framework also be included along with an additional condition for a scheme for cycling provision.  The proposal which would accommodate 700 students would be contemporary in design and would also include parking provision on site.

            Councillor Ian Dunbar proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He thanked the officer for the report for the long awaited development for the post 16 education centre on the site which was currently a surplus Coleg Cambria sports field.  He referred to the new access off Golftyn Lane and said that the proposal would create a centre of excellence that students would want to attend. 

            Councillor Derek Butler welcomed the application but referred to highways issues which were being investigated.  Councillor Chris Bithell said that concerns had been expressed about parking on the highway but this application included parking on site so would alleviate the concerns raised.  Councillor Richard Jones felt that the proposals did not accord with the Council’s plan for Lifelong Learning and suggested that the application could not be approved because of this.  He also queried why the Lifelong Learning Directorate had not been consulted on the proposals and suggested that the application be deferred.  The Democracy & Governance Manager advised that whether the application complied with Lifelong Learning policy should not concern the Committee and added that the application should be considered on its planning merits.  Councillor Bithell responded that the proposal was in line with Lifelong Learning policy and that discussions had taken place as part of the Hub Task and Finish Group.  He added that a report on the proposal was being submitted to the meeting of the Lifelong Learning Overview & Scrutiny Committee the following day. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that it was not a requirement for the applicant to consult with Lifelong Learning Directorate on the application.  However, he had spoken to Head of Development & Resources who was in support of the scheme. 

            Councillor Jones queried why application 6.1 had been deferred because consultation had not been undertaken when he had been advised that this application could not be deferred because Lifelong Learning had not been consulted.  The Democracy & Governance Manager responded that application 6.1 had been deferred to allow the public to be made aware of plans for the application but it was not necessary to consult with Lifelong Learning on this application and therefore the application should not be deferred to allow consultation with the directorate. 

            In summing up, Councillor Ian Dunbar said that the development would complement the 21^st Century School programme and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 182.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the additional condition for an on site traffic management plan.

Prior to consideration of the item, the Chairman advised that he would vacate the Chair to allow him to speak on the application.  The Vice-Chairman took the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.      

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 7 April 2014.  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 indicated that it was an amendment to the scheme which had previously been approved in 2009.  The site area had reduced by approximately half for this application when compared to the previous site and a revised layout and scheme were reported.  The site would be on one level and would be split into a public area and a service area from where the skips could be removed without conflicting with the public area.  There would be a 1.2 metre wall between the public and the skips and the access to, and exit from, the site were detailed.  A portakabin would also be included on the site for the operatives of the civic amenity site.  No statutory objections had been received but two objections had been received from neighbours due to concerns about increases in traffic and odours and noise from the site.  The officer felt that the objections had been addressed in the report. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  Councillor Derek Butler had reservations about the capacity as the site was a replacement for both the Queensferry and Saltney sites.  He felt that the site was in the correct location but asked whether there was any potential to expand the site if required. 

            The Local Member, Councillor David Wisinger, welcomed the report and thanked the officer for including him in the consultation on the application.  He indicated that he had been advised of a number of concerns from residents about increases in traffic and noise as a result of the proposal. 

            Councillor Marion Bateman asked for an explanation of how the traffic would be managed on the site.  Councillor Veronica Gay welcomed the new site and the removal of any steps to the skips but she also had concerns about the diminished size of the site.  She asked that safeguards be put in place to prevent the previous site in Saltney from becoming an area for fly-tipping.  Councillor Gay also raised concern about the exit from the site onto a smaller road which would be used by vehicles removing the full skips from the site.  She felt that vehicle movements on the site would be an issue and queried whether vehicles could enter through the proposed exit and leave the site through the proposed entry into the site.  Councillor Lloyd also asked for details of the hours of operation and queried whether anyone  ...  view the full minutes text for item 183.

                        There were 29 members of the public and 2 members of the press in attendance.