Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Carolyn Thomas declared a personal interest in agenda item 6.2 because she was the Interim Chair of Clwydian Range & Dee Valley AONB Partnership.  Councillor Derek Butler declared a personal interest in agenda item 6.2 because he was a Board Member of the Joint Committee AONB.  

Agenda item 6.2 – Full application – Erection of a single wind turbine (45m hub height, 67m blade tip height) two metering units, access track, assembly and crane area at Ty Coch, Crossways Road, Pen y Cefn, Caerwys (051826)

Councillor Carolyn Thomas declared a personal interest in agenda item 6.3 because she was the Interim Chair of Clwydian Range & Dee Valley AONB Partnership.  Councillor Derek Butler declared a personal interest in agenda item 6.2 because he was a Board Member of the Joint Committee AONB.  

Agenda item 6.3 – Full application – Erection of wind turbine (26m high to blade tip) at Park View Garage, St. Asaph Road, Lloc (052396)

                        Councillor Neville Phillips declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 6.5 because a member of his family had objected to the proposal. 

Agenda item 6.5 – General Matters – Outline application for the demolition of Sunnyside and 66A Mold Road and the erection of 58 houses including details of access, appearance, layout and scale at land rear of 66A Mold Road, Mynydd Isa (048042)

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 17 December 2014.

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

The draft minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 December 2014 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

Accuracy

Councillor Mike Peers referred to the fourth line in the first paragraph on page 6 and suggested that the words ‘lower than the 30 dwellings per hectare guidelines’ be included after the words ‘density of sites’. 

Matters Arising

In referring to the first paragraph on page 8, Councillor Richard Jones asked for copies of the tests applied by Welsh Government (WG) on whether to call in an application and the Council’s test for referring applications back to Committee as a significant departure from policy.  The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that he could provide a copy of the Call-In criteria by WG and added that officers looked at each application on its merits to decide if it was a significant departure from policy.

RESOLVED:

That subject to the suggested amendment, 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 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 19 January 2015.  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 an indicative layout had been provided for the site.  He also highlighted the late observations where additional information from the Council’s Valuation and Estates office was reported. 

                        Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He commented that the site would amount to 22 dwellings per hectare which was below the Council’s guidelines of 30 but added that the indicative layout had been designed based on the locality.  There had been some concern about the access to the site but Councillor Bithell felt that the previous uses would have resulted in higher vehicle movements than the proposed development.  Councillor Christine Jones concurred and said that the details of the application could be considered at the reserved matters stage. 

                        Councillor Derek Butler referred to the additional information provided in the late observations and raised concern that Housing colleagues had not been consulted on whether the site could be included in the SHARP programme. 

                        One of the Local Members, Councillor Alison Halford, felt that Hawarden had lost an asset and raised concern about the narrowness of the entrance and that a requirement for affordable housing had not been sought as part of the application.  She also felt that the Local Members should have been advised by officers that the property had been put up for sale. 

                        Councillor Mike Peers referred to the growth rate of 9.9% for Hawarden which was a Category B settlement and said that it was reported that the site was located in the settlement boundary.  He commented on Policy HSG8 on density and suggested that the policy had not been adhered to as the number of proposed dwellings on the site would be at a figure lower than the 30 dwellings per hectare reflected in the policy.  He felt that the Council should be setting an example and including 30 dwellings per hectare as a minimum.  Councillor Peers raised concern about the response from the Valuation and Estates office in the late observations and concurred that Housing colleagues should also have been consulted.  He felt that including affordable housing on the site would have resulted in lower vehicle movements than the previous uses.  He also highlighted paragraph 7.11 where the lower than guidelines density was reported. 

                        In response, the officer said that the number of units fell below the threshold for requiring affordable housing on the site.  He added that one issue considered by the Valuation and Estates office was the value of the site and as a result of land value, it had been determined that a development of affordable housing would result  ...  view the full minutes text for item 124.

            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 19 January 2015.  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 highlighted the late observations where a response from Natural Resources Wales was reported along with clarification on connection cables to the local grid.  The main issues included the effects upon the landscape and character of the area and the impact on nearby listed buildings. 

                        Mrs. C. Williams spoke against the application and of the concerns raised by local residents.  She highlighted the poor access to the area and indicated that the lane was used by walkers, cyclists, horse riders and cars.  She felt that it was not suitable for heavy goods vehicles and any construction traffic would create a significant hazard.  She was not against renewable energy but felt that to allow a wind turbine in this location would have a detrimental impact on people and wildlife in the area.  The proposed site was adjacent to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the A55 and would therefore create a hazard for traffic passing the site.  Mrs. Williams spoke of the Police and Rescue helicopters and migrating birds that regularly flew through the area of the proposed wind turbine and she raised concern at the precedent that would be set if the application was approved.          

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He felt that the height of the proposed wind turbine would have a significant impact on the landscape and the view to the Clwydian Hills and the AONB.  He highlighted the comments of Caerwys Town Council and Denbighshire County Council about the impact that the wind turbine would have on the area.  Councillor Gareth Roberts concurred and commented that the recommendation for refusal was consistent with a recent nearby application for a similar structure that had also been refused.

            The Local Member, Councillor Jim Falshaw, spoke of the significant impact on the AONB and the narrow road that led to the site.  He commented on the removal of soil from the site by large vehicles which could result in damage to the hedgerows.  He added that the proposal would create substantial harm and would have a significant impact on the visual amenity of the area. 

            In response to the comment by Councillor Roberts about a previous application on a nearby site, the Development Manager advised that this application had been for an anemometer mast which had been refused but allowed on appeal.  He added that Members should not take account of that application in consideration of this application and pointed out that the Inspector on the anemometer mast appeal had not considered that it might be followed by a wind turbine.                     

            RESOLVED:

            That planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125.

            That delegated powers be given to the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) to grant planning permission subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and subject to no objections being received from the consultee.  

            That delegated powers be given to the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) to grant planning permission subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and subject to no objections being received from the consultee.  

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

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the application had been considered at the 12^th March 2014 meeting of the Committee.  It had been resolved to approve the application subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement.  Despite repeated attempts by the Planning and Legal Departments, it has not been possible to secure the required agreement and the application remained undetermined.  As the Section 106 Agreement had not been signed, the recommendation was for refusal of the application.   

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He felt that the proposal of refusal was correct and in commenting on parking issues on the site, said that the road adjacent to the site was a feeder road for the A55 and was very busy.       

            RESOLVED:

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

            That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that the Local Planning Authority does not intend to rely on reasons for refusal no. 2 and 4 and that a planning consultant be engaged in respect of reasons for refusal no. 1 and 3. 

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 Neville Phillips, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

                        The Development Manager detailed the background to the report and explained that the application had been refused by Members on 24 July 2013.  A report had then been considered by the Committee in September 2013, which had resolved the four reasons for refusal which were: lack of affordable housing; increase in volume of traffic; not making adequate provision for public open space, and a shortfall in the maximum parking standards.  The appeal had been submitted by the applicant but had been delayed to allow for an Environmental Impact Assessment to be undertaken.  It had now been reactivated and the Statement of Case by the Council and the applicant had to be submitted by 28^th January 2015.  The Development Manager explained that where a decision contrary to officer recommendation and the resultant appeal was to be considered by way of an Inquiry, it was current practice to engage consultants to act for the Authority.  Five consultancies with the relevant expertise to deal with such an appeal had been approached but none were either willing or able to take on the appeal, some did not feel that all four of the reasons for refusal were defendable.  The purpose of the report was to ask Members not to defend the reasons for refusal based on increase in volume of traffic and a shortfall in the maximum parking standards, both of which referred to highway safety concerns, as evidence could not be provided to counter the appellant’s case in relation to these matters. The Council should therefore proceed only with the remaining two reasons at the appeal.  The Development Manager reminded the Committee that if the Council could not produce evidence to substantiate a reason for refusal, the Council will be at risk of an award for costs against the Authority. 

A consultancy had been approached on the reasons of not providing 30% affordable housing and lack of adequate provision for public open space and they had agreed to act for the Council.  If the Committee accepted that only two reasons for refusal be put forward by the Council at the appeal, it did not prevent local residents attending the hearing to put their points across on the issue of road safety and highway issues.  The Development Manager said that Officers were not stating that Members had been incorrect in their consideration of the four reasons for refusal but as the case had developed there was now a need for a pragmatic approach to maintain reasons one and three and remove reasons two and four.  

                        Councillor Richard Jones proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He agreed with the recommendation of the officer and felt that in his view if evidence could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 128.

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

The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that a decision had been made to refuse the application but it had been allowed on appeal.  He added that there had not been a submission by the applicant for costs.  The main issues in the case had been identified by the Inspector as the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling.  The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) explained that the appeal decision would be submitted to a future meeting of the Planning Strategy Group for further consideration. 

                        Councillor Alison Halford said that the applicant had complied with all that had been asked of him during the application process but the application had still been recommended for refusal.  She raised significant concern about comments made about her by Councillor Chris Bithell at the meeting in July 2013.  The Chairman advised Councillor Halford that such issues should be discussed following the meeting.  Councillor Halford also questioned the officer’s knowledge of HSG1 guidance and said that officers had made an incorrect recommendation.  She added that the applicant had not sought costs as part of the appeal. 

                        Councillor Derek Butler expressed significant concern at the serious allegations made by Councillor Halford and added that the Inspector had provided his opinion and interpretation of the policies to reach his decision of approval of the application.  He concurred that Planning Strategy Group should consider the appeal decision in detail. 

                        In response, Councillor Bithell stated that he had indicated at the July 2013 meeting that the applicant could appeal the decision to refuse the application, which he had since done and had won the appeal.  He said that the Committee and Inspectors sometimes got decisions wrong. 

                        Councillor Richard Jones felt that there should be an appeal process when an Inspector’s decision was different to an officer recommendation and Committee determination.  Councillor Carol Ellis spoke of the Inspector’s decision and said that the Committee decision had been based on local knowledge, which she did not feel that the Inspector had applied.  She also felt concerned by some of the earlier comments in the meeting during the discussion on this application which did not need to be discussed in the Committee.

                        The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) reminded Members of the Planning training from the Planning Inspectorate which was due to take place the following week.  In response to the comment from Councillor Halford about officers getting the decision wrong, he said that just because the appeal had been allowed it did not mean that the recommendation had been incorrect as it was based on an interpretation of policy.  He reiterated that the appeal decision would be considered in detail at a future meeting of the Planning Strategy Group.  It was significant that costs had not been sought as this indicated that the applicant and his agent did not feel that the Council had acted unreasonably.              

            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.

The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) said that the main issue included the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the street scene.  

            RESOLVED:

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

                        There were 14 members of the public and 2 members of the press in attendance.