Agenda item

That planning permission be refused.

The Chief Officer advised that a report would be brought to the next meeting to clarify the proposed reasons for refusal.

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 18 July 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

The officer advised that although the application was outside the settlement boundary, it complied with all the UDP policies and Planning Policy Wales guidance.  He considered the lack of a five year land supply to be a material consideration in this case and recommended that conditional planning permission be granted, subject to the Section 106 provisions outlined within the report.  As a point of accuracy, condition 14 should have indicated that no dwelling was to be occupied until the works in condition 13 were completed.

As the Local Member, Councillor Phil Lightfoot spoke against the application.  Whilst he had a number of concerns, he specifically questioned the adequacy of drainage due to the presence of freshwater springs.  He acknowledged the advice given by Natural Resources Wales (NRW) about the increased potential for flooding, adding that the increased flow of water from the development increased the risk of flooding downstream to Lower Kinnerton.  He referred to flooding concerns raised by a number of local residents and sought assurances that the drainage system removing water from the site would be subject to regular maintenance by NRW, which had not been the case over the past five years.  Councillor Phil Lightfoot then withdrew from the meeting.

Mr. J. Brautigam spoke against the application on the basis that it represented a significant departure from the UDP, was outside the defined settlement boundary and within open countryside.  He stated that failure of the Council to have a five year plan was not a reason to grant approval and that the development did little to address the shortage in affordable housing.  He pointed out that Higher Kinnerton had delivered its quota through its 10% growth over the planned period and therefore there was no reason to deliver the next phase of the development.  He highlighted the range of housing available in the area where some properties had remained unsold for some time.  He described the proposals as impractical and dangerous, citing no safe access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities and no easy safe pedestrian access from Kinnerton Lane to the village.

Mr. P. Lloyd, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application and thanked the officers for their assistance.  He referred to the Inspector’s decision to allow the appeal under Agenda Item 6.15 and drew a number of comparisons with this application such as it being outside the settlement boundary, compliance with the Council’s approach to housing site releases, the five year supply and the need to release such land outweighing any open countryside harm.  He said that the ongoing need to deliver housing was a material consideration and that the officers had given considerable weight to providing supply in line with national policy.  He said that the development offered enhancement to local facilities together with a range of community benefits including off-site highway improvements and contributions towards facilities at local schools, as well as gifting five units to the Council and providing five affordable houses.  He advised that all proposed conditions could be met with positive measures to manage surface water as part of the flood consequence assessment and that Flood Zone A should not hinder approval of the development.

Councillor Derek Butler proposed refusal of the application, which was duly seconded.  He expressed concerns about the perceived lack of land supply, as a result of TAN1, and that the Welsh Government should be challenged on this, given the number of other applications made solely on that basis.  He said that comments on the site not being included as a candidate site in the next round for the UDP showed the application was speculative.  He did not think that the applicant was even the owner of the site.  He pointed out that national press reports had identified Broughton as an area of reducing housing demand and that there was other land available for development.  He expressed particular concern about the presence of natural springs on the site and the potential for flooding and sought clarity on the grading of the land which, if identified as subgrade 3a (best and most versatile agricultural land), would be protected by planning policy.

In seconding the proposal, Councillor Mike Peers agreed that the lack of five year supply should not outweigh the fact that the development was outside the settlement boundary, and that this should be discussed in more detail as this undermined the determinations of the Committee.  He spoke about the risk to other sites in the county if this situation was to continue and thanked the Cabinet Member for sharing these views.

Whilst Councillor Gareth Roberts shared these frustrations, he proposed acceptance of the officer’s recommendation to approve the application, pointing out that it accorded with policies and the inevitable outcomes if it was refused.  He went on to refer to the potential negative impact of ‘Brexit’ on the economy and housing developments.

Councillor Chris Bithell agreed with all of the comments made by Members that national policy should not allow the continuation of these types of speculative development to be considered.  He said that the current 3.7 years of supply within the UDP could more than satisfy housing needs in the county and that the LDP was due to be adopted in 18 months’ time.  He agreed with Councillor Roberts that there was no option but to accept the officer’s recommendation and called upon residents to challenge the Welsh Government on its TAN1 policy as the Council would continue to do.  In relation to the concerns on surface water drainage, he questioned whether the capacity of the tanks would be adequate and was dismayed that NRW did not require the scheme to be submitted until a later stage.

The officer shared the concerns raised about the restrictions of TAN1 but confirmed that the application complied with other policies and was a sustainable form of development.  In relation to the flooding concerns, he explained that surface water would discharge from the site at the greenfield rate so there would be no increased risk of flooding elsewhere downstream.  NRW had raised no objections on the basis that a scheme was submitted and approved before the development commenced; an approach that was in line with other applications.  The officer confirmed that the grading of the site was 3b and that it was a candidate site, advising that the applicant not being the owner was immaterial.

The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control confirmed support for the application, subject to the conditions set out in the report.  In referring to a range of highway improvements to be gained from the development including a 1.5m footway to the village, she confirmed that the width of the carriageway met requirements.

Members’ concerns were acknowledged by the Service Strategy Manager who gave reassurance that the Council would continue to make representations to the Welsh Government on national policy.  He advised against the Committee refusing the application on that basis alone, as demonstrated in Agenda Item 6.15, as the decision must be based on evidence-based material factors.  He referred to the amendment of the LDP timetable by Cabinet and advised that a report on land supply would be brought to the Planning Strategy Group.  He went on to outline the major changes to TAN1 in calculating land supply in the UDP and the fact that land supply could not be demonstrated until adoption of the LDP.  In response to comments raised, he said that the site was not in the UDP and did not need to be a candidate site in the LDP.  He advised the Committee to consider the sustainability of the development and whether there was any planning harm in allowing it.

Councillor Richard Jones asked whether the officer’s recommendation would remain the same in the event of there being a five year land supply.  The Service Strategy Manager said that, in that situation, the Council would be in a stronger position as housing policies in the UDP would provide the supply and that other policies in the development plan could be applied with the possible outcome of recommending refusal.

In response to a question from Councillor Bithell, explanation was given on the potential for ‘windfall’ sites to improve supply in the LDP and reduce the amount of residual new sites to be identified.

Councillor Butler thanked Members for the debate which had highlighted the challenges on national policy.  He spoke against the Inspector’s decision on Agenda Item 6.15 and felt it was important to make a stance as each application should be considered on its own merits.  He referred to the current land supply and stressed the importance of reaching the stage of adopting the LDP to establish whether housing supply requirements could be met.  He confirmed his proposal to refuse the application as this was not a candidate site and on the basis of the agricultural land grading and waterlogged nature of the site due to the natural springs.  He added that the development was speculative and that it was not sustainable.

In respect of the LDP timetable, the Service Strategy Manager clarified that an additional 18 months had been added to the original four year programme.

Councillor Butler clarified his reasons for refusal as flooding concerns, based on the existence of natural springs on the site and the agricultural land classification of the top part of the site as 3a.  The officer clarified that the land was in fact grade 3b and that Councillor Butler was perhaps referring to another site which had been the subject of a site visit at Leeswood, where indeed there was such a split between the grades.  Councillor Butler maintained.  However, that he believed that the top part of this site was 3a whilst the lower part was 3b.

On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application was carried.

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused.

The Chief Officer advised that a report would be brought to the next meeting to clarify the proposed reasons for refusal.

After the vote had been taken, Councillors Ray Hughes and Phil Lightfoot returned to the meeting and were advised of the decision by the Chairman.