Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused as the site was outside the settlement boundary, was an inappropriate development in the open countryside and would have a landscape impact due to its close proximity to Wat’s Dyke.  

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 site was adjacent to the new medical centre which was currently being constructed.  The period for monitoring growth of a settlement ended on 1 April 2015 and as at that date, the settlement had a growth rate of 10% over the plan period which was within the indicative growth band of 8 to 15% for a Category B settlement.  The application, which was in a sustainable location, complied with policy and was considered acceptable as the Council did not have a five year housing land supply.  Other issues for consideration included the impact on the open countryside and on Wat’s Dyke.  Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust (CPAT) had indicated in their consultation response that the proposal for four dwellings on the site took account of pre-application advice to limit the size and orientation of the layout.  Access to the site would be from the A550 and Highways had not raised any objections in relation to parking or turning of vehicles.  On the issue of impact on residential amenity, the officer explained that the properties on Queensway, which this site was adjacent to, had long gardens and therefore the space around dwellings guidelines had been exceeded. 

Mr. D. McChesney, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He felt that there was overwhelming demand for starter homes in the area and that this development would provide this type of property.  The design met the economic and social needs and guidance from CPAT on the impact of the development on Wat’s Dyke had been taken into account.  The properties would have three bedrooms and were all north/south facing and would include solar panels on the roof and the site was in a sustainable location with easy access to the local schools and amenities.  Mr. McChesney felt that the proposal was for an infill development and was a sustainable development and was sensitive to its surroundings.  He therefore requested that the Committee approve the application.    

            Councillor Mike Peers proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He said that the application site was outside the settlement boundary and added that the plans displayed appeared to look like four bedroomed homes rather than houses for affordable local need.  He asked whether the site had been put forward as a candidate site in the Local Development Plan (LDP) and added that the growth rate within the settlement for the plan period was 10% which meant that 5% was still available within the boundary before the growth rate of 15% was reached.  Councillor Peers queried why the application had been put forward for approval when other sites outside the settlement boundary had been recommended for refusal and suggested that approval of this application would set a precedent for other developers to submit applications outside the settlement boundary.  He recognised the issue of a lack of five year housing land supply but he felt that there was still capacity within the area through the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and that this application should be refused to comply with the Council’s policies.  Councillor David Roney concurred and commented on other applications outside the settlement boundary which Members had been recommended to refuse and he expressed concern that this application was being reported for approval.   

            The Local Member, Councillor Tim Newhouse, said that he regularly asked for applications to be dealt with by delegated powers rather than be considered by the Committee, even if there were a number of objections from residents.  He commented on other applications in the area such as a development in Stryt Isa for 19 dwellings on a site within the settlement boundary which was also a windfall site.  A further 58 homes had been built off Fagl Lane and 35 in Abermorddu which was part of the Hope settlement.  These three applications totalled 112 dwellings and assurance had been sought that development beyond these sites would not be permitted as the land was outside the settlement boundary and this assurance had been provided by the Planning Officers.  Councillor Newhouse added that there had also been a number of successful applications within the settlement for developments of between one and three new homes.  Applications for sites outside the settlement boundary were permitted if they were for developments of a community benefit such as a medical centre or sports pavilion and should only be permitted for housing if a settlement was not meeting its target for new housing; Hope was meeting its target.  Councillor Newhouse quoted from Planning Policy Wales guidance and asked the Committee to refuse the application rather than setting a dangerous precedent for approving an application outside the settlement boundary.   

            Councillor Chris Bithell concurred that the site was outside the settlement boundary.  He indicated that there was a policy in place to provide for affordable homes outside the settlement boundary but added that there was still capacity within the growth figure for additional homes and therefore this proposal was not appropriate.  He raised concern about the closeness of the dwellings to Wat’s Dyke which was a local and national feature and in suggesting that the site could be a candidate site, he felt that this proposal was premature.  Councillor Gareth Roberts agreed and commented that assurance had been provided that the UDP was the plan that consideration needed to be given to when considering applications.  He added that policies were in place to prevent inappropriate new build outside the settlement boundary and expressed concern about the close proximity of the site to Wat’s Dyke.  He agreed that the application should be refused. 

            Councillor Alison Halford referred to the third paragraph on page 184 and the comments from CPAT and sought assurance that an archaeological assessment would take place.  She also referred to the public footpath 64 which the Public Rights of Way officer had indicated appeared to be unaffected by the development.   

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that the growth rate for the area was 10% which included allocations and in line with Technical Advice Note (TAN) 1, the four proposed dwellings in a sustainable location would contribute to the housing supply for the County.  On the comments by Councillor Halford, the officer advised that CADW did not object to the proposal and therefore neither did CPAT.  She added that the response from Public Rights of Way was a standard response but it confirmed that the footpath was unaffected by the development. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager did not think that the site had been submitted as a candidate site but even if it had, this would not have any weight over the determination of the application.  A unique situation had been created because of the health centre site and in referring to Section 38 of the Act, he reminded Members that the lack of housing land supply was a material consideration when determining this application.  He advised that the planning application that Councillor Roney had referred to had been determined by different policies and therefore required different consideration.  On the comments made by Councillor Newhouse, he spoke of the application for the health centre and said that each proposal needed to be considered on its own merits.  He felt that it was incorrect to say that there was 5% capacity within the settlement boundary and queried where such sites were and said that there was no evidence for the existence of white land.  He added that there was no evidence of the harm that permitting this application would create. 

            In response to a comment from Councillor Bithell about whether the dwellings were ‘starter homes’, the officer advised that they would be sold at market rate but the applicant considered them to be ‘starter homes’. 

            In summing up, Councillor Peers felt that the suggestion of starter homes was a ploy to get the application approved, as had been the case for the Aldi application in Broughton.  He spoke of policies in place for the provision of affordable homes and reiterated his earlier comments that the application should be refused as it was outside the settlement boundary.  He said that 112 new homes had been provided in the area and therefore there was no justification for these dwellings. 

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

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused as the site was outside the settlement boundary, was an inappropriate development in the open countryside and would have a landscape impact due to its close proximity to Wat’s Dyke.