Agenda, decisions and minutes

                        Councillor Christine Jones indicated that she had been granted dispensation by the Standards Committee to speak and vote on the following application.  She declared a personal and prejudicial interest because a family member was an undertaker.

            In line with the Planning Code of Practice:-

                        Councillor Marion Bateman declared that she had been contacted on more than four occasions on the application. 

The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised those present that in addition to the late observations sheet, amendments to the report and a letter from Welsh Government (WG) had been circulated.  He explained that the letter from WG indicated that if the application was approved at this meeting, then a decision notice could not be issued until WG had taken a view on the application.  The letter did not prevent either consideration of the application at this meeting or a decision of refusal of the proposal. 

Councillor Chris Bithell queried whether this meeting should continue as any decision to approve the application would be taken out of the hands of the Planning Authority.  The Democracy and Governance Manager confirmed that the debate and determination of the application should take place and reiterated that a decision notice would only not be issued if the application was approved pending a decision by WG whether to call in the application. 

Councillor Richard Jones queried who had contacted WG and why they had done so before the meeting had taken place.  Councillor Mike Peers raised concern about the letter and asked if any officers had requested that a decision of approval be called in; he felt that the letter undermined the Committee determination.  The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that the request had not been made by officers and added that he had only received the letter after the Committee had left for the site visit. 

In response to a query from Councillor Carol Ellis about whether the application should be deferred, the Democracy and Governance Manager said that there was no legal reason to defer but that this could be considered by the Committee if they felt that there was a planning reason for doing so such as another application for a similar proposal being processed. 

Councillor Gareth Roberts raised concern that WG had been contacted prior to the determination of the proposal which he felt was unusual.  He felt that the letter was a further move to undermine the democratic process.  Councillor Alison Halford concurred and said that it took away the Committee’s power to decide.  Following further remarks from Councillor Richard Jones about the letter from WG, the Democracy and Governance Manager reiterated his earlier comments that the decision notice could not be issued only if it was resolved to approve the application at this meeting. 

            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 which had been the subject of a site visit earlier that day.  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 covered approximately 4.1 hectares of existing agricultural land and was within the Green Barrier and open countryside.  Paragraph 7.13 reported that independent consultants with experience of dealing with crematoria applications had been commissioned to appraise various aspects of the proposal.  It had been identified that the need for a crematorium in Flintshire existed but given that the site was in the Green Barrier, exceptional circumstances would be needed to support approval of the application. The officer referred to paragraphs 7.31 to 7.34 on site selection where it was reported that there must be sufficient evidence that alternative sites not in the Green Barrier had been considered before the Authority could be reasonably satisfied that very exceptional circumstances existed to justify granting planning permission on a site in the Green Barrier.  It was the view of officers that this evidence did not exist and the recommendation was therefore for refusal of the application. 

                        Mr. S. Jones, representing the Northop No Crem Group, spoke against the application.  He said that the Planning Authority could not be satisfied that no suitable alternative site existed and he therefore felt that the application should be refused.  As an application for a similar development had been submitted, Mr. Jones felt that this proposal was premature.  He reminded the Committee that the applicant had been able to appeal on the grounds of non-determination of the application but had chosen not to do so.  Mr. Jones referred to an appeal, which had been dismissed, on land in the Vale of Glamorgan which related to development of a crematorium on land within a Green Barrier.  In this case the Inspector had not been satisfied that there were no other suitable sites outside the Green Barrier/Green Wedge.  Mr. Jones highlighted the comments of the consultants on the approach taken by the applicant to reduce the number of sites from 23 to eight and that the assessment was flawed as it had been undertaken after the application to show that the site selected was the most suitable.  He added that the proposal did not accord with any planning exemptions to allow development in the Green Barrier.  Mr. Jones concluded by asking Members to refuse the application. 

                        Mr. J. Williams, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application and detailed the background to the proposal.  He explained that additional information had been requested by the Planning Authority in December 2013 and it had been confirmed that the alternative sites assessment had been received in February 2014.  This needed to be considered along with land quality and any constraints on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

                        There were 83 members of the public and 2 members of the press in attendance.