Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Mike Peers declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following applications because he was Chair of Governors at Mountain Lane School:

Agenda item 6.7 – Outline application – Erection of 5 No. dwellings at Withen Cottage, Alltami Road, Buckley (051567)

And

Agenda item 6.11 – General Matters – Erection of 9 No. houses at the Three Piece Suite Centre, Chester Road, Buckley (049096)

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

                        Prior to consideration of the minutes, the Chairman welcomed Councillor David Roney to his first meeting of the Committee. 

                        He also advised the Committee that Declan Beggan, one of the Planning Officers was leaving the Council and that this would be his last meeting.  Councillor Owen Thomas wished him well and said that he had always been willing to speak to Members to discuss planning applications.  Councillors Marion Bateman and Gareth Roberts echoed the comments. 

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 23^rd July 2014.

That subject to the above 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 23 July 2014 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

Councillor Mike Peers referred to the second paragraph on page 19 and proposed that the word ‘right’ be included after the word turning in the third line.  On being put to the vote the amendment was CARRIED.

Councillor Peers also proposed that the words ‘i.e. one way traffic movement’ be included after the words ‘Broughton Hall Road’.  On being put to the vote, the amendment was CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

That subject to the above amendments, 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. 

            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 1 September 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 and highlighted paragraph 7.08 about development at the shopping park.  The outline application was to the north of the retail park and all matters were reserved.  This was a resubmission of a previous application which the applicant had now appealed against on the grounds of non-determination which was item 6.2 on this agenda.  Part of the site was allocated for non-retail designation in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and it was important to note that the western part of the site was outside the retail allocation being ‘white’ land within the UDP.  The central/eastern part of the site was within S1(6) and was proposed for the medical centre, contact centre and hotel.  The officer explained that there was no evidence to confirm any potential interest or commitment from operators of the hotel, medical centre or contact centre and these elements were therefore at this stage purely speculative.  Without these commitments, the application would become an A3 led development outside the S1(6) allocation and was therefore recommended for refusal. 

                        Mr. M. Krassowski, the agent for the applicant spoke in support of the application.  He said that the applicant had been encouraged for a number of years to bring forward a proposal for this site and an original application which included a cinema had been refused in 2013 when another application for similar provision on the other side of the retail park was approved.  The developer had been requested by the Local Member to include a contact centre on the Council owned land and it was felt that the restaurant uses would complement the existing site.  Mr. Krassowski said that A3 allocation was compliant with the policy allocation for the wider site.  He said that it was incorrect that the A3 allocation would be retail as it could be conditioned to restrict the uses or be subject to a section 106 Agreement. He added that there was interest for an operator for the hotel element of the site, which complied with policy.  On the issue of the provision of the medical centre and contact centre, he said that the applicant had included them in the application based on a request from the Local Member but that the developer could not take responsibility for land outside their control.                

            Councillor Billy Mullin, the Local Member, proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He spoke of the need for a contact centre but did not understand how it was proposed on land which was outside the applicant’s ownership.  He also raised concern about the access and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41.

            That the Council appear at the public inquiry and challenge the appeal on the grounds 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 1 September 2014.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The officer explained that the refusal of the outline application for the site, which had been considered as the previous item on the agenda, would have a bearing on this application and that for consistency, the recommendation for the Council to appear at the public inquiry and challenge the appeal should be followed. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation that the Council appear at the public inquiry and challenge the appeal on the grounds in the report, which was duly seconded.

            RESOLVED:

            That the Council appear at the public inquiry and challenge the appeal on the grounds in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment). 

That planning permission be refused due to there being no justification for buildings of the proposed scale outside the settlement boundary within open countryside.      

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 1 September 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 the application had been deferred from the meeting on 23 July 2014 to allow a site visit to be undertaken.  The Local Member had indicated his concerns and objections had been received as a result of the consultation.

                        Mr. C. Davies spoke against the application and said that applications for the same site had been rejected as they were an unacceptable intrusion in the open countryside.  He commented on the proposals and did not feel that the agricultural nature of the proposal justified the stable and agricultural storage building.  He said that the applicant repaired horse boxes and it was reported that the applicant would forego permission for a detached garage within the curtilage of the dwelling, which had not currently been built, if permission for an agricultural building was granted.  Mr. Davies queried why the applicant would do this if he did not intend to use the proposed building as a garage/workshop.  The new building would overlook into his property and the size of the proposed building would be out of character with the area.     

            Councillor Owen Thomas proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  He concurred that the building could not be justified and added that the type of haylage feed needed for horses did not need to be kept indoors.  He highlighted paragraph 7.02 where the consent for the erection of a large garage was reported which was still valid.  He also felt that the three acre paddock area did not warrant the size of the proposed building.  He referred to the comments in the report that there would be limited visual impact from the front of the site but added that it could be seen from the neighbouring gardens.  He felt that the application should be refused due to it being in the open countryside. 

            Councillor Billy Mullin raised concern about the size of the building which was only partly within the current garden area and agreed that the application should be refused. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell said that all of the properties in the row had extended their gardens into the open countryside and queried whether the permission included permitted development rights in the rear gardens.  He said that policy did not prevent building in garden areas and agricultural buildings were permitted in the open countryside.  He felt that it was important to identify whether permitted development rights were granted when the gardens were extended.  Councillor Derek Butler spoke of the land to the right of the property which was a large garden area and referred to previous refusals of applications for extensions to gardens to increase the residential boundary.  He felt that the existing boundary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43.

            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 Section 106 obligation to secure the payment of a sum of £4,000 to the Council in lieu of the dwelling being ‘affordable’ as defined in the Council’s policies.

            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 1 September 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 Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) detailed the background to the report and explained that all matters were reserved but an indicative layout had been provided.  He highlighted the objections from Gwernaffield Community Council and the four letters received from local residents and explained that no objections had been received from statutory consultees.  The main issues were the principle of the development, whether the plot could accommodate a dwelling and the impact the proposed dwelling would have on the character and appearance of the street scene and the considerations were reported in paragraphs 7.14 and 7.15.  The Chief Officer added that the matter of design could be considered at the reserved matters stage but that the plot could accommodate the dwelling proposed in the indicative plan.  He referred to policy HSG3 which allowed development in Category C settlements if it was for the renovation or replacement of an existing dwelling or was to meet proven local need and did not result in over 10% growth since 2000.  Gwernaffield currently had a growth rate of 3.8% and no local need had been identified and it was acknowledged that policy HSG3 may be restricting growth in the area.  He commented on the issue of viability and the reasons why a commuted sum of £4,000 to the Council in lieu of the dwelling being ‘affordable’ would be requested if the application was approved.   

            Mr. D. Lloyd spoke against the application.  He said that the site was on Cothy Farm and had nothing to do with Avondale, which was where he lived.  The site was agricultural land and had cattle grazing on it.  He referred to the number of houses and bungalows for sale in Gwernaffield and raised concern at the need to facilitate another dwelling which he felt was neither wanted nor needed.  In highlighting the triangular section on the map, he queried why this was included in the proposal when it was in the green barrier.  He lived in the bungalow next door and one of his windows was overlooking out on to the site.  It was reported that the window was affected in terms of daylight by a large boundary hedge but Mr. Lloyd said that the hedge could die or be removed.  He added that he wanted to be able to see light from his window, not another dwelling. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager advised that the Local Member, Councillor Adele Davies-Cooke had a personal and prejudicial interest in the application and had appointed Councillor Jim Falshaw to act as Local Member. 

            Councillor Jim Falshaw proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He said that the site  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

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 which had been the subject of a site visit on 1 September 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 the application had been deferred from the Committee meeting on 23 July 2014 to allow a site visit to be undertaken.  The report had been updated with consultation responses received since that meeting which included comments from Natural Resources Wales on the flood consequences assessment.  The new building would be situated in the car park of the public house and the main issues included access and parking.  Highways had agreed that the access and egress to the site was suitable and as the bakery and public house would have separate opening hours, the reduction in car parking spaces to accommodate the new building was acceptable.      

            Councillor A. Parsonage from Hope Community Council spoke against the proposal.  He raised concern about the reduction in parking spaces and suggested that the new business could be accommodated into the existing public house to avoid any issues if the two businesses fell into separate ownership.  He felt that the access was too narrow for vehicles other than cars and vans and traffic parking in the splay was a concern for local residents.  Councillor Parsonage added that it was a turning point for lorries which were too large to go under the nearby railway bridge. 

            The applicant, Ms. H. Tou, spoke in support of the application.  She explained that the new build would include a ground floor café/bakery with a first floor flat above.  The café and the public house would have separate opening hours so there would not be a conflict for parking spaces.  There was an area of the car park which was currently mossy due to lack of use and therefore a reduction in parking spaces would not be an issue.  She added that it was not possible to extend the existing public house to accommodate the café/bakery.  There would be two deliveries a week to the café/bakery and even though the access was narrow, there was sufficient space for two vehicles to pass before entering the access to the car park where this building would be located.  The café/bakery would bring a unique proposal to the area and extra staff would be employed to work in the family business.      

Councillor Richard Jones proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He welcomed the application and said that there was no issue about access. 

Councillor Mike Peers felt that local businesses should be encouraged and reiterated that access was not a problem.

The Local Member Councillor Stella Jones’ main concern was the narrow access to the site and concern that emergency vehicles would not be able to gain access.  She highlighted paragraph 7.23 which indicated that public view would be restricted to those customers entering  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45.

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) which would include an amendment to condition 7 and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement for the following contributions:-

-       £1,100 per unit for recreation enhancements in lieu of on-site provision

-       Funding to the sum of £2,500 to provide for the case of a traffic Regulation Order for the provision of double yellow lines across the frontage of the application site (along Queen Street) on the development side only. 

            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 three objections had been received to the proposal on grounds which included flood risk and noise.  A flood risk assessment had been submitted as part of the application and Natural Resources Wales and the Council’s Emergency Planning department were both satisfied with the response.  The proposed properties were not significantly higher than the original dwellings and it was therefore considered that the properties would not look out of character in the street scene.  A noise assessment had also been undertaken as the site was adjacent to the A494.  Welsh Government was satisfied with the application subject to a scheme of acoustic mitigation such as double glazing and condition 7 would be amended to reflect this if Members were minded to grant approval.    

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that the proposal would make the area entirely residential and queried whether triple glazing would be more appropriate.  Councillor Christine Jones said that residents welcomed the proposal.  

On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve the application was CARRIED unanimously.

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) which would included an amendment to condition 7 and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement for the following contributions:-

-       £1,100 per unit for recreation enhancements in lieu of on-site provision

-       Funding to the sum of £2,500 to provide for the case of a traffic Regulation Order for the provision of double yellow lines across the frontage of the application site (along Queen Street) on the development side only. 

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of desecration of the SSSI, loss of wildlife and the amenity impact on the common land.         

            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 1 September 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.    Councillor Mike Peers, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the main issues included the access over Common land and ecological impact.  She referred Members to the late observations sheet where an additional condition from Highways was requested for the access from Alltami Road to be a minimum of 5m in width for a minimum of 10m into the site.  The site was partly within the boundary of the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the Section 106 obligation would include a sum of £2,500 for indirect impacts due to the recreational pressures on the Special Area of Conservation (SAC).  There had been some objections due to the access being over Common Land and other accesses had been explored but were not suitable.  No objections had been received from statutory consultees. 

            Councillor Carol Ellis proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  She referred to the history of the site and said that Flintshire County Council had been trying to obtain planning permission on the site since 2001.  Buckley Town Council had objected strongly to the application due to the SSSI and the access over the Common Land and two previous applications had been withdrawn due to the large number of objections submitted.  She felt that residents were under the impression that the dirt track would be used to access the site, but this was not the case.  Councillor Ellis referred to the Devil’s bit scabious which it was reported would be translocated to another area but she did not feel that this would be possible as it required a certain type of land to grow.  She also referred to other plant species in the area which would also be damaged if the application was approved and the access established across the Common Land.  She spoke about Great Crested Newts on the site and a very rare orchid for North East Wales which had been identified as growing in this area.  Councillor Ellis raised concern about the hedging and trees which would have to be removed to develop the site and, in referring to other developments in the area totalling more than 100 houses, added that she felt that the area was overdeveloped. 

            Councillor Richard Jones referred to By-laws which allowed for protection of the Common Land and added that the land should be maintained for Buckley residents to enjoy. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell said that to put an access across the Common Land was unacceptable and was a desecration of the land, even if the damage would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

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 agreement/ unilateral undertaking or earlier payment for the following contributions:-

-       £733 per unit for recreational enhancements in lieu of on site provision

-       £24,514 to Sandycroft Primary School

            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 currently vacant.  She spoke of the layout and said that three of the properties would have driveways off Ash Lane and added that the application had been accompanied by an Ecological Assessment, Code for Sustainable Homes Pre-assessment, Flood Risk Assessment and a Drainage Statement.  There had been one objection on the grounds of drainage and an objection from the Bowling Club who used the site as a parking area even though they did not have any right to park on the land.  

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

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve the application was CARRIED unanimously.

            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 agreement/ unilateral undertaking or earlier payment for the following contributions:-

-       £733 per unit for recreational enhancements in lieu of on site provision

-       £24,514 to Sandycroft Primary School

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 officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the main issues for consideration were the principle of development/planning policy context, visual/amenity, and drainage and highway issues.  He highlighted paragraph 7.05 and advised that Natural Resources Wales had now responded but had submitted no objection to the proposal subject to a number of standard conditions being applied. 

            Councillor Christine Jones proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.

            Councillor Derek Butler echoed the earlier sentiments about Mr. Beggan and Councillor Christine Jones also wished him well.  Mr. Beggan then thanked the Members for their kind words. 

            In response to a question from Councillor Mike Peers about the comments of the Rights of Way department, the officer confirmed that protection of a public footpath would not normally be conditioned but the applicant would be informed of the comment.   

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve the application was CARRIED unanimously. 

            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 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.  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 Committee had resolved to grant planning permission in March 2014 subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement/Unilateral Undertaking for payment of a commuted sum for an educational contribution for Castell Alun High School and Abermoddu Primary School.  The applicant had challenged the need for the contribution and having reassessed the contribution, the Council were still of the opinion that it was required.  The applicant was refusing to enter into the Section 106 obligation and therefore the application was reported for refusal. 

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

                        Councillor Derek Butler asked how enforceable Section 106 agreements would become in the future and Councillor Owen Thomas queried whether refusal of the application meant that the site did not have planning permission.  Councillor Mike Peers highlighted paragraph 6.05 about the request for change of house types to a number of units.  Councillor Carolyn Thomas queried whether the public open space was outside of the development area. 

                        In response, the officer said that in the future, requirements for contributions were likely to be through a Community Infrastructure Levy rather than through a Section 106 obligation.  He confirmed that the site did not have planning permission if the Section 106 obligation was not signed.   

On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application was CARRIED unanimously.

            RESOLVED:

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

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.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Councillor Mike Peers, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the Committee had granted planning permission in January 2012 subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement/Unilateral Undertaking in lieu of open space provision.  It had become apparent that the applicant was not in a position to provide the necessary legal Obligation due to complications with regard to ownership/title of the site.  It was therefore recommended that as no progress was being made, that permission be refused. 

            Councillor Richard Jones proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He spoke of the scheme which had not been progressed and the history of the site. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse to application was CARRIED unanimously.  

            RESOLVED:

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

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

            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.

            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 allow this appeal be noted.

            RESOLVED:

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

            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.

            There were 20 members of the public and 3 members of the press in attendance.