Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment), subject to the additional condition requiring submission and approval of a security fence to prevent public access to the bund to the rear of the store and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 obligation/unilateral undertaking to provide the following:-

• Payment in the sum of £210,000 towards to provision of, or to facilitate access to, affordable housing in the community
• Payment in the sum of £15,000 towards a community art project or projects for the public realm.

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within three 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 explained that the application had been deferred from the meeting on 20^th January 2016 in order for issues of site security, impact of the site on the amenity of residents and the loss of the affordable housing on the site to be addressed.  The report had been updated to address the concerns and a summary of the issues was included.  On the issue of site security, Aldi had confirmed that an additional camera at the rear of the store had been erected and signage advertised the fact that CCTV was in operation.  The proposed landscaping was in excess of what was required in an ordinary landscaping scheme and any additional planting would not leave sufficient room for the proposed scheme to grow and establish.  Officers had considered that no additional planting or fencing was required in the interest of residential amenity.  The trolley bay had been relocated to the front of the store.  Aldi had undertaken their own noise readings following complaints from a neighbouring resident and this concluded that there were no issues with the plant equipment and it was within the agreed levels as predicted in the noise assessment which accompanied the planning application.  The increased delivery times would not have an impact on residential amenity as these took place in an enclosed bay and there had not been any complaints in respect of any issues relating to the opening hours or delivery times.  On the issue of affordable housing, there were a number of people on the Affordable Housing register for Broughton and the report detailed how the commuted sum for affordable housing had been calculated. 

            The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that he would read out a statement prepared by Mrs. J. Richards (who had registered as an objector), as she did not want to appear on the webcast.  Her statement was summarised as follows:

When Aldi had obtained planning permission, they had built what they wanted, not what had been approved.  She felt that Flintshire County Council had made an error by not including the words ‘for approval’ and Aldi took advantage of this.  She expressed concern about the monies for public art and the amount for affordable housing as she did not feel that it was sufficient to build two properties.  The lack of provision for affordable housing on the site had resulted in an additional 31 car parking spaces and the building of a larger store which was nearer to the residential properties than had originally been approved.  Mrs. Richards expressed significant concern about the provision of the landscaping which Aldi had indicated would be enhanced but Mrs. Richards said that it had been completely removed in some places.  She also raised concern about the issue of security to the rear of the store which was located near her property and urged the Committee to refuse the application.   

            Mr. G. Brown, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  Following the previous meeting he had spoken to Mrs. Richards to try and address her concerns.  The main issue related to the positioning of the trolley bay and he had agreed that this would be relocated to the front of the store, which had since been undertaken.  At the Committee meeting, Councillor Derek Butler had also referred an issue of noise.  The noise monitoring that was carried out did show an increase in noise at the times referred to by objectors but it appeared that this was from Hawarden Airport, not from the Aldi store and was therefore out of Aldi’s control.  Another area of concern had been site security and Mr. Brown confirmed that an additionalCCTV camera had been installed to the rear of the store.  Mrs. Richards had also asked why the north side of the site was not fenced off but Mr. Brown confirmed that it was already fenced off and he added that there had not been any evidence of anti-social behaviour on the site.  Mrs. Richards had also felt that individuals would be able to access her property from the rear of the store but Mr. Brown commented on the steps that such intruders would need to take to be able to do this.  He suggested that access could be gained more easily to the property through her front gate.  He indicated that landscaping of the site had been undertaken and particularly concentrated on an area to the boundary of Mrs. Richards’ property and this had now been replanted.  Mr. Brown felt that all concerns raised by Mrs. Richards had been addressed and he added that no other objections from residents had been received.    

            Councillor Ian Dunbar, having earlier declared an interest in the application, indicated that he would speak for three minutes and would then leave the meeting prior to its discussion.  He suggested that some of the conditions imposed on the permission had been ignored by Aldi and Mrs. Richards’ statement also highlighted concerns about the bund and the security of residents in their homes.  He felt that what was currently in place was an open invitation for individuals to climb on to the bund and access the neighbouring properties.  Councillor Dunbar suggested that an extra gate be included to increase security and asked that the landscaping be replaced to reflect what was previously in place.  He felt that streetlights would be a deterrent to any intruders trying to access the front of the residential properties and that the inadequate bund was an easier way to enter Mrs. Richards’ garden.      

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that Aldi had taken measures to address the concerns and had installed CCTV to the rear of the building and even though some of the bund had been removed, additional planting had been put in place which would provide screening in time.  The trolley bay had been moved and the noise issues that had been raised were not in the control of Aldi.  The officer had advised that the amount for affordable housing was acceptable.  Prior to the store being in place, there had been an open bund on the site but Aldi had now provided fencing and an additional camera which Councillor Bithell felt addressed the issue of security of the neighbouring properties.  He raised concern about problem with the measurements for the location of the site and suggested that this needed addressing for the future. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts said that the original application had been approved by Committee and expressed significant concern about some of the comments made when the application was considered at the previous meeting of the Committee as what had been provided, was what had been requested.  He felt that Aldi should be commended for the work they had done, particularly in relation to the loading bay.  He noted that Welsh Government had not objected to the application even though the site had originally been allocated for housing.  Councillor Roberts said that there were no grounds to refuse the application as it complied with planning policy and approval was the correct decision.  Councillor Derek Butler said that the original proposal that had been approved was for a store and five affordable dwellings but only the store element had been delivered.  On the letter sent by Aldi, he said that he had not received it at his home address so it had been sent to County Hall where it had only recently been passed to him; he added that he was not the Local Member for the ward.  He said that the Committee was making representations for Mrs. Richards and indicated that Aldi had built the store in the wrong place and had removed the bund.  Councillor Butler requested that Mrs. Richards’ concerns on the issue of security be addressed. 

            Councillor Mike Peers commented that at the previous meeting he had sought clarification on whether officers had discussed an extension to the car park with Aldi; he asked that this be answered.  He supported Councillor Butler’s comments on the lack of delivery of affordable housing on the site and referred to an email from Aldi to Members which had not indicated that the affordable housing was no longer part of the proposal.  He referred to the November 2014 Committee meeting when Ms. Gabrilatsou (the agent for Aldi) had indicated that the application allowed for the delivery of five affordable houses and had referred to the growth for Broughton of 15%.  One of the seven objections to the proposal had indicated that the affordable housing element had been a ploy to get the application through.  Councillor Peers sought clarification on the calculation of the commuted sum in lieu of affordable housing on the site and suggested that the figures were incorrect.  He highlighted paragraph 7.34 on the location of houses within a retail environment accessed through a car park not being an attractive environment and commented that this had not appeared to be an issue for Aldi in November 2014 when the proposal was discussed.  Paragraph 7.39 of the report before this Committee indicated that this was not a desirable location for the siting of the affordable homes; Councillor Peers felt that the affordable dwellings should be provided and that refusal of the application was the correct decision.  Councillor Owen Thomas said that the Committee had voted for the application, against officer recommendation, in November 2014.  He said that the Committee had listened to the residents of Broughton who wanted an additional supermarket with the provision of five affordable dwellings.  On the issue of the security to the rear of the store, Councillor Thomas felt that if the bund had not been touched then the nearby resident would not have complained.  He said that Aldi had built the store in the wrong place and queried whether Aldi should be asked to take the store down and build it in the correct location. 

            Councillor Marion Bateman said that her main concern was the issue of security for Mrs. Richards’ property.  She had been unable to attend the site visit with the Committee but had attended the site since and suggested that access could currently be gained to the rear of the properties from the Aldi site.  She requested that the side of the store nearest to Mrs. Richards’ property be blocked off to prevent public access.  Councillor Richard Jones referred to application 052369 where the opening hours had been agreed but this application indicated that the opening hours would revert back to the original hours requested by the applicant which he felt should not be permitted and that a condition should be included to confirm the opening hours proposed for application 052369. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer indicated that officers did not have any objection to the use of the area previously approved for affordable housing as car parking spaces.  On the issue of opening hours, the Public Protection Officer did not have any objection to the hours proposed as part of this application.  There was no longer an issue relating to noise as the trolley bay had been relocated to the front of the store and the deliveries would take place within an enclosed bay and the proposed delivery hours had also not received any objections from Public Protection officers. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager advised that it was important for Members to consider the proposal before them and said that substantial improvements had been made since the application was first submitted.  He expressed significant concern about the suggestion to refuse the application and ask Aldi to demolish the store.  He queried whether the concerns raised by Mrs. Richards were material in planning terms and said that the bund was not in place as a security measure but was intended as a form of separation.  Additional landscaping had been put in place but it was not appropriate to request more planting at this stage as the plants needed room to grow and mature.  However, replanting would take place if required in the future.  On the issue of the affordable housing element, it was for Members to judge whether the applicant was appropriate or not but reminded the Committee that the predominant use in the area was for food retail.  The Planning Strategy Manager advised that Aldi had approached Registered Social Landlords to take on the affordable housing element of the original scheme but they did not want to take up the opportunity and therefore it was considered that a commuted sum was more appropriate which could assist those in need of affordable homes in a number of ways.  The initial figure proposed by Aldi was lower than what had finally been achieved and that this had been as a result of discussions between officers and Aldi.  He felt that the suggestion for fencing off the area nearest to Mrs. Richards’ property was sensible but said that the increased opening and delivery hours would not generate any extra noise for the residents as the loading bay was located away from the boundary.  The stores in Mold and Buckley were open for the hours proposed in this application and therefore a reduction in hours for this store was not appropriate. 

            The Housing & Planning Solicitor asked Councillor Bithell if he was willing to accept the conditions suggested by Councillor Bateman for a security fence and Councillor Jones for opening hours as agreed for application 052369 as he had made the proposal to accept the officer’s recommendation.  He agreed to add the condition suggested by Councillor Bateman. 

            In response to a query from Councillor Roberts on paragraph 7.26, the officer confirmed that the store could be opened on a Sunday for a six hour period between the hours of 10am and 6pm. 

            The Housing & Planning Solicitor advised that the first vote needed to be on the amendment proposed by Councillor Jones for reduced opening hours to those proposed.  On being put to the vote, the proposal was LOST.  The proposal by Councillor Bithell for the officer recommendation with the additional condition for security fencing was voted on and was CARRIED.                   

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment), subject to the additional condition requiring submission and approval of a security fence to prevent public access to the bund to the rear of the store and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 obligation/unilateral undertaking to provide the following:-

• Payment in the sum of £210,000 towards to provision of, or to facilitate access to, affordable housing in the community
• Payment in the sum of £15,000 towards a community art project or projects for the public realm.

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

After the vote had been taken, Councillor Dunbar returned to the meeting and the Chairman advised him of the decision.