Agenda item

That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

·         Departure from the UDP

·         Outside the settlement boundary

·         Did not comply with policies GEN3 and HSG3

·         The need of residents not being addressed

·         Duty to protect planning policy. 

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 7 September 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 the application had been submitted to Committee for determination due to the size of the development, the requirement for a Section 106 Agreement and Local Member request.  The site was outside, but adjacent to, the settlement boundary for Mynydd Isa and had previously been allocated by the Council for residential use during the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) process and therefore the principle of development had been accepted.  However, the UDP Inspector, having considered the site’s location, shape, landscape and the surrounding topography, and incursion into the rural area, de-allocated the site.  The application had therefore been advertised as a departure from the UDP policy.  However, it was considered that the absence of a five year land supply was a material consideration which outweighed the fact that the development was not within the settlement boundary. 

Observations had been made by ‘Flintshire Land Use Needs Care’ and a number of objections had been received from individual objectors and ‘Bryn Residents Against New Development’ (BRAND), along with a petition of 209 signatures.  Five letters of support for the proposal had also been received.  The officer provided details of the location of the site and advised that the site would be accessed from Llys Gwynant via Parc Issa from Bryn Road with a proposed pedestrian/cycle way connecting the site with Llys y Graig.  The proposal consisted of two, three and four bed properties and the site would include 30% affordable homes which totalled 18 two and three bed properties.  The planning history was detailed in the report which explained that the UDP Inspector had de-allocated the site but had not extended the green barrier to include this site.  At the time of the UDP inquiry, an allocation at Rose Lane, Mynydd Isa along with other completions and commitments gave Mynydd Isa a 6% growth rate but the site at Rose Lane had not yet come forward and was the subject of an appeal.  The issue of drainage and highways that had been considered by the UDP Inspector were also reported. 

Mynydd Isa, as a Category B settlement, had an indicative growth band of 8 to 15% over the plan period but as at April 2014 the settlement had a theoretical growth rate of 7.2%.  If the Rose Lane application did not come forward this would result in a growth rate of 4.3% for the area based on completions and a small number of commitments.  The latest published Housing Land Supply for Flintshire showed a 3.7 year land supply using the residual method and it was unlikely that the Council would be able to demonstrate a five year land supply until the Local Development Plan (LDP) was adopted.  It was reported that Technical Advice Note (TAN) 1 stated that considerable weight should be given to applications that complied with the development plan and national planning policies where the current land supply was below the five year requirement and therefore this had been considered in the determination of the application.  Details of the growth rate for Mynydd Isa and other category B settlements were reported and the officer explained that the Council had developed a Developer Guidance Note due to the current land supply situation and the timeframe for the UDP Housing strategy and this application had been assessed in line with that guidance note, which it had met.  The agricultural land was Grade 3b and therefore did not need to be protected and on the issue of highways, BRAND had carried out a survey and the outcome from this was reported.  Highways colleagues had been consulted as part of the determination of the application and they did not consider the proposal to cause a problem on the network. 

An independent landscape architect had been consulted on the application and she had considered that the approach taken by the Council was acceptable and followed current guidance.  It was also considered that the proposed planting to the site boundaries would mitigate any potential views of the site from the north and east.  No objections had been received from Welsh Water and work was to be undertaken on the pumping station which would take five months to complete and would be secured by condition.  Surface water was to be dealt with by a sustainable drainage system.  Consideration of affordable housing and open space had been undertaken and were detailed in the report.  The application was considered to be sustainable and therefore the recommendation was for approval with conditions which included a two year time limit and a Section 106 obligation, as detailed in the report. 

Mr. R. Madders spoke against the application as secretary of BRAND.  He felt that the drainage system in the area could not cope with any additional dwellings and said that the schools in the area were full.  He raised concern that the application, which was a departure from policy, was being recommended for approval.  He felt that the lack of five year housing supply was not a reason to accept the application and he spoke about other sites owned by the applicant which had been approved but had not been developed.  Mr. Madders commented on the issue of noise that would be faced by the existing residents in the area during construction of the site.  He also expressed concern that approval of the application would be contrary to the UDP which was the current plan in place and had been accepted by Members.  He said that the application should be refused. 

Mr. D. Jenkins of Argoed Community Council spoke against the application.  He said that the greenfield site was protected in the UDP and reiterated the comments that the schools were oversubscribed.  The proposal would result in a considerable increase in traffic which would include construction traffic and this would add to the poor state of the roads in the area and could lead to the sewer collapsing.  He referred to the provision of a play area which was included as part of the Section 106 agreement and queried whether this could be used by all children in Argoed or whether it was solely for the use of children from the development.  On the issue of affordable housing, he felt that there should be a specific number of properties on each development and that they should be built and sold at cost without any profit to third parties.  He also felt that they should be a range of two, three and four bed properties to be interspersed across the development.  Mr. Jenkins also felt that the proposal was not specific about a requirement to employ local contractors or labourers.

Mr. M. Waite, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He explained that the application process had commenced in January 2015 and pre-application discussions had also taken place.  Bloor Homes had built many properties in Buckley and Broughton and if the application was approved, it was their intention to bring forward the site as soon as possible.  He endorsed the report submitted by the officer and concurred that the site had initially been included in the UDP but had been deleted by the Inspector.  The applicant had originally consulted on an application for 67 dwellings and had received a number of responses and following the consultation had reduced the proposal to 59 dwellings.  He welcomed the comments of the independent landscape consultant that the development could be achieved.  Neither Welsh Water nor Highways had any objections to the application which would include the provision of 18 affordable dwellings, contributions towards schools in the area and the provision of a play area. 

Councillor Alison Halford proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  She congratulated the officer for her excellent report but added that she felt that she had come to the wrong conclusion.  The site was a departure from the UDP, was outside of the settlement boundary and was in the green belt and no consideration had been given to the impact on the character of the open countryside.  In referring to the weight that should be given to planning policy and the UDP, Councillor Halford felt that the application did not comply and even though she was not against dwellings being built in the area, she did not feel that they should be on a green field site.  She spoke of the comments of the Welsh Minister in June 2014 about the need for housing in Wales and she suggested that no piece of land was safe from development.  She felt that the Committee should adhere to the Council’s policies and refuse the application. 

In referring to the lack of a five year housing land supply, Councillor Gareth Roberts commented on the last item on this agenda which was an appeal for one dwelling which had been refused by Committee and the appeal had been dismissed.  He quoted from the report about the Inspector not feeling that the lack of a five year land supply justified setting aside the UDP spatial distribution of growth.  He also referred to an appeal on an application in Northop Hall and to a report submitted to the Council’s Planning Strategy Group which indicated that Welsh Government owned a site in Buckley but had not brought it forward for development.  In conclusion, Councillor Roberts felt that the Committee was justified in refusing the application and that in his view if the applicant appealed the decision, costs would not be awarded against the Council. 

Councillor Hilary McGuill, who was speaking as Local Member, in the absence of Local Member Councillor Amanda Bragg, spoke against the application.  She said that the site was outside the settlement boundary, was in the green belt and was a clear departure from the UDP.  She explained that in 2007, residents had fought hard to have the site removed from the UDP and she referred to the comments of the UDP Inspector that she found the site to be poorly related to the existing pattern of development and was an incursion into the rural area.  Councillor McGuill spoke of policies HSG1 and HSG4 which permitted dwellings in such an area for farm or forestry workers only and commented on GEN3 which related specifically to the protection of the countryside.  The proposed site would have a single access and would cause a detrimental impact on existing residents with a minimum of 59 extra vehicle movements each day.  Bryn Road had been a cause for concern for a number of years and even though the speed limit had been reduced to 30mph there had still been a number of accidents in the area.  Councillor McGuill said that Bloor Homes had indicated that there had only been two accidents in five years but she had been advised that there had been five recorded accidents.  The road was already congested due to Bryn Road being where the Argoed High School was situated.  Councillor McGuill said that Bloor Homes had indicated that the site was in Mynydd Isa but it was in Bryn y Baal and concern had been raised that the proposal would cause the villages to merge and would result in Bryn y Baal losing its identify.         

Councillor Derek Butler felt that the main issues for consideration were the Inspector’s decision to remove the site from the UDP and the Council’s lack of a five year housing supply.  He commented on the problem of developers land-banking and said that a large number of properties had been built in the early years of the plan.  He concurred that it was a departure from policy and spoke of the weight that had been given to the lack of five year land supply.  The appeal that Councillor Roberts had referred to had been for one property which would only make a minimal contribution to meeting the shortfall but this application was for 59 properties which was significant.  Mynydd Isa was well below the growth rate for a Category B settlement, having achieved less than half of its proposed growth for the plan period, and he queried where housing land would come from if applications such as this were refused. 

In referring to the lack of five year housing land supply, Councillor Richard Jones queried whether approval of applications which did not comply with policy could be justified.  He felt that policies should be adhered to and concurred with the comments of Councillor Roberts on the appeal decision included in this agenda.  It was reported that Mynydd Isa was a large settlement which was close to Buckley but he felt that Buckley did not have the appropriate infrastructure and that approval of this application should not be permitted, which would take into account the views of local people. 

Councillor Mike Peers concurred that the site was outside the settlement boundary and sought clarification on the weight attached to the lack of five year supply to recommend approval of the application against policy.  He commented on the growth rate in the area which was currently 4% and suggested that the area would need to take its share of growth and he referred to a site in Drury which was a greenfield site which had been approved by an appeal Inspector for 51 dwellings.  In referring to the UDP, he said that one of the principles was that the Council had a five year supply and suggested that this was as a result of developers not developing sites.  He spoke of the balance between refusing the application as it was contrary to the UDP or approving it because of the lack of a five year housing land supply.  He felt that if the application was permitted, any piece of land could be put forward for development.  Councillor Neville Phillips concurred and said that the LDP would not be adopted until 2017 and therefore the Committee could face another two years of defending applications that Members felt were inappropriate but were reported for approval because of the reduced land supply.  He agreed that policy should be adhered to and therefore the application should be refused.  Councillor Jim Falshaw spoke of land-banking undertaken by developers and suggested that a condition should be included in recommendations of how long developers could retain land without developing it; he suggested that the figure for banked land currently stood at 6.5 years supply. 

Councillor Carol Ellis felt that the policy needed to be changed by Welsh Government to prevent land being banked and spoke of the growth rate of 16% in Buckley for the plan period.  There were a large number of houses in the area and she regularly received complaints from residents about the number of dwellings but the lack of infrastructure to serve the area.  Councillor Ellis spoke of the successful bid to obtain funding for a footpath to the Argoed School and suggested that approval of the proposal would put additional pressure on adjoining towns such as Buckley. 

In response, the Planning Strategy Manager said that national planning policy outweighed local planning policy and even if Welsh Government changed the policy in the future, it would not apply when considering this application.  A recent change had meant that only the residual method of calculating land supply could be used which resulted in Flintshire having a 3.7 year land supply and he added that where there was a lack of a five year supply TAN1 was a significant factor in that it contained a shift to a presumption in favour of sustainable development.  He referred to the comments of BRAND that the housing could be built elsewhere but he queried where that would be as other areas had more than achieved their predicted growth rate.  He provided details of the percentage rates achieved which were between 16 and 27%; Mynydd Isa had so far contributed 3.5%.  He spoke of the comments by Councillor Roberts on the appeal decision by the Inspector but he said that as that application was only for one dwelling, it could not be compared to this proposal.  He also referred to an application in Ewloe for 49 dwellings outside the settlement boundary which the Inspector approved on appeal because of the lack of five year housing supply.  The Planning Strategy Manager added that there had not been any objections from statutory consultees and Members had not given any reasons why the proposal was not sustainable.  Therefore there was no reason to refuse the application and there was a likelihood of costs being awarded against the Authority on appeal.  He added that the land was not in the green barrier as had been indicated earlier but it was outside the settlement boundary. 

In summing up, Councillor Halford said that the decision was finely balanced and agreed that Argoed needed a play area but suggested that if one was provided, it would not be adopted by the Council and therefore the residents would have to pay to maintain it.  She commented on the growth rate in Ewloe which was greater than in Flint or Holywell.  She spoke of the appeal decision referred to by the Planning Strategy Manager for 41 dwellings in Ewloe and said that she did not care if costs were awarded against the Council if refusal of this application went to appeal.  She clarified the reasons for refusal which were:-

·         Departure from the UDP

·         Outside the settlement boundary

·         In the green belt

·         Did not comply with policies GEN3 and HSG3

·         The need of residents not being addressed

·         Duty to protect planning policy

The Housing & Planning Solicitor advised that the site was not in the green barrier.  Councillor Halford agreed to remove this as a reason for refusal. 

On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application, against officer recommendation, was CARRIED.

In response to a comment from the applicant that he did know why the application had been refused, the Chairman advised him to speak to officers following the meeting. 

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for the following reasons:-

·         Departure from the UDP

·         Outside the settlement boundary

·         Did not comply with policies GEN3 and HSG3

·         The need of residents not being addressed

·         Duty to protect planning policy.