Agenda item

            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 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to provide the following:-

(a)       Ensure the payment of a contribution of £17,592 to the Council in lieu of on site play and recreation provision.  Such sum to be paid to the Council prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved and to be used to upgrade existing facilities within the community at Lyme Grove Play Area;

(b)       The precise methods of Social Rental via which the units are to be made affordable and provisions for their continued affordability thereafter;

(c)        The payment of £4000 as a contribution to the cost of amendments to existing on-road parking restrictions and the provision of related signage and road markings via a new Traffic Regulation Order on Padeswood Road

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

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 said that the main issues for consideration included the principle of the development in planning policy terms having regard to the Buckley Masterplan 2011.  It was reported in paragraph 7.10 that the question as to whether a 100% residential scheme unacceptably conflicted with the Buckley Master Plan must be weighed against the existing economic position within the town centre.  The officer, in his report, had concluded that this proposal was acceptable in policy terms and had considered the design impact of the application.  The scheme would also be required to protect amenity and reduce noise levels and a condition had been included that a scheme of enhanced glazing be submitted and agreed.  A drainage scheme was also to be submitted and agreed and a condition prohibiting the commencement of development until this matter had been satisfactorily addressed had been included.  Approval of the application was recommended subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 obligation/unilateral undertaking which was Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) compliant. 

            Mr. B. Davies spoke in support of the application for the applicant Grwp Cynefin.  The applicant had a stock of 4,200 properties and had been offered the vacant site by Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (BCUHB) for affordable housing in an area of proven local need.  Extensive pre-application discussions had been held on the proposal for 24 No. affordable apartments for 18 two bed units and six one bed units.  The timetable for the scheme had already been extended by BCUHB and now permission was needed for the site to progress.  Concerns had been raised about the lack of commercial units in the proposal but it had not been proven that there was a lack of commercial units in Buckley.  Mr. Davies said that he felt that the proposal would bring people back to the area of the town.          

            The Local Member, Councillor Richard, Jones proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He did not feel that the application complied with the Buckley Masterplan as it did not contain any retail units. 

            Councillor Mike Peers recognised that the site needed to be developed but added that it should be in accordance with the Buckley Masterplan which this proposal was not.  He felt that it was important to grow the retail sector and that it was not sufficient to suggest that the vacant retail units in the precinct meant that there was no need for commercial units in this scheme.  The Masterplan was a plan for growth for the future and should be complied with when considering new development in Buckley.  It was also important to protect the retail area that had been identified and Councillor Peers added that the residential units were welcomed but there was also a need for the inclusion of commercial units.          

              Councillor Derek Butler said that there were elements of both the Buckley Masterplan and the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) in the proposal.  He commented on the new health centre being located out of the town and that the advantage of people living in the town was that this would increase footfall.  He said that there were a lot of historical empty commercial properties and that the Co-op was not trading well.  He added that he was aware of plans to expand the precinct and this would need people to shop there on a daily basis to ensure its sustainability.  Councillor Butler felt that the provision of all residential units on the site outweighed the proposals in the Buckley Masterplan for part commercial and part residential units on this site. 

            In referring to paragraph 7.03, Councillor David Evans sought clarification on the number of one and two bed units on the site as the speaker Mr. Davies had indicated differing figures to those reported.  In response, the officer indicated that the proposal would provide 14 No. 2 bed units and 10 No. 1 bed units as reported in paragraph 7.03.   

            Councillor Chris Bithell felt that the area was not part of the current retail centre of Buckley and queried whether the provision of commercial units on this site would attract customers to the area.  He agreed with the comments of Councillor Butler that the need for affordable housing was greater than the requirement for retail units.  Councillor Gareth Roberts commented that the site was very close to the retail centre of Buckley and agreed with Councillors Jones and Peers that there should be a mix of retail and residential units on the site.  

            The Planning Strategy Manager understood the views of Members because of the significant amount of work that had been put into the Buckley Masterplan.  Regeneration colleagues had also been part of the team working on the Masterplan and for this application they had deemed the site to be outside the core retail area.  The Masterplan referred specifically to food retail units on this site and the Regeneration Team did not have evidence that there was any demand for such units in this location. 

            Councillor Jones commented that there were no empty retail units on Brunswick Road but there were vacant outlets in the precinct.  He said that the agents of the precinct were doubling the size of the units to over 4,000 metres to attract national providers.  Councillor Jones felt that the area of the site would be ideal for the smaller units for local independent and start-up shops and added that 43 affordable units had already been provided in Buckley on the Redrow site.  He said that it was important to have facilities in place for the people who lived in Buckley to shop locally and that this site in the Buckley Masterplan was intended to provide the required mix of commercial and residential units close to the town centre. 

            On being put to the vote, the application to refuse the application was LOST.  As Members queried the number of votes, there was a re-count and the proposal to refuse the application was LOST.           

            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 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to provide the following:-

(a)       Ensure the payment of a contribution of £17,592 to the Council in lieu of on site play and recreation provision.  Such sum to be paid to the Council prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved and to be used to upgrade existing facilities within the community at Lyme Grove Play Area;

(b)       The precise methods of Social Rental via which the units are to be made affordable and provisions for their continued affordability thereafter;

(c)        The payment of £4000 as a contribution to the cost of amendments to existing on-road parking restrictions and the provision of related signage and road markings via a new Traffic Regulation Order on Padeswood Road

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application.