Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning (with draft condition 5 amended as suggested), the additional condition detailed in the late observations and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to provide the following:-

a)         Payment of an educational contribution of £10,500 towards primary educational provision/improvements to local education facilities at Hawarden Infants School and £7,000 towards similar secondary education level provision at Hawarden High School.  The contributions shall be paid prior to occupation of the first dwelling. 

b)         Ensure payment of a commuted sum payment in lieu of on site recreation/open space provision of £12,100 with such monies to be used to enhance existing play and recreation facilities within the community.  Such sum payable upon sale or occupation of the fifth dwelling. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning 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 following deferment at the previous meeting, the requisite amendments to the planning application form had been made and submitted to the Local Planning Authority and the requisite Notice of Application had been served upon the Council as both landowner and Local Highway Authority. 

                        Councillor A.M. Halford said that she was declaring an interest as a School Governor and that she would not take part in the debate but would not be leaving the meeting.  The Democracy & Governance Manager requested a short adjournment to allow him to advise Councillor Halford. 

                        Following a short adjournment,Ms. K. James spoke against the application on behalf of residents.  She queried the presumption in favour of development under Policy HSG3 as she felt that other employment uses had not been fully considered.  The site was not needed for housing and the scale of the development would have a detrimental impact on residents and the density was too high at 53 dwellings per hectare.  The application would overdominate the area and would be detrimental to highway safety and in her opinion was considered to be inappropriate.       

                        Councillor Cheryl Carver on behalf of Hawarden Community Council spoke against the application.  She felt that the application should be refused on the grounds of the development being out of character for the location and the density on the site being too high. She said that the development should mirror the properties in the immediate vicinity and referred to the listed building situated across the road from the site and to the rear of the site was Birch Rise which consisted of Georgian style detached houses.  She could not see any resemblance to the layout being reflective of the Queen Mary Cottages which were located to the east of the site, as was indicated in the report.  Councillor Carver said that the density of dwellings would add to the parking problems of residents’ cars in Hawarden as she felt that some of those living in the development, and any visitors, would not park in the gated courtyard.  She asked Members to refuse the application.   

                        Councillor D. Evans proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded. 

                        The local Member, Councillor C.S. Carver spoke against the application.  His main concern related to the density of the development and explained that six of the dwellings in terrace form would front on to The Highway with a further terrace of three dwellings fronting onto Birch Rise with a pair of semi detached dwellings fronting onto a private road which was accessed off Birch Rise.  He felt that the proposal was out of character with the immediate area as even though there were areas in Hawarden which had high density terraced housing abutting the highway, those properties were not in the vicinity of the application site.  He also raised concern about the development harming the setting of the Grade II listed building which was located opposite the application site.  The development would provide for two parking spaces for each dwelling which would lead to increased on street parking and Councillor Carver felt that the parking courtyard was too small to accommodate the required number of parking spaces and an adequate turning area.  He felt that the layout of the parking court could impede access for emergency services and would be detrimental to the free flow of traffic and highway safety.  He also raised concerns about drainage issues on the private road behind the application site leading to 101 and 103 The Highway.  He had provided Members with copies of photographs showing that the existing soakaway road drainage gulleys, despite being interlinked, did not work.  Councillor Carver highlighted paragraph 7.10 where it stated that whilst Welsh Water would allow a foul sewer connection, they would not allow for a surface water connection into the public surface water sewer which implied that a soakaway system was needed; he queried where this would be located.  He asked Members to refuse the application.        

                        Councillor R.C. Bithell said that the site was within the settlement boundary, the application met the space around dwellings requirements and there were no highway objections.  He said that there were no objections to the mix of properties on the site and there were two parking spaces allocated per dwelling which complied with standards.  However, he raised concern about the density on the site as it was 0.21 of a hectare and in line with guidance of 30 dwellings per hectare, there should be six dwellings on the site.  He felt that due to overdevelopment of the site, the application should be refused.

                        Councillor M.J. Peers asked for clarification on Policy HSG8 and highlighted paragraph 7.08 where the issue of density was reported.  He also referred to paragraph 7.04 on the provision for growth of 8-15% in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for the settlement and asked what the figure would be if these 11 properties were included. 

                        Councillor H.G. Roberts commented on drainage issues which he felt would increase if the development was permitted.  He said that there was a need to ensure proper provision for surface water drainage and queried whether a ‘Grampian Style’ condition would be put in place.  Councillor R.B. Jones raised concern about the density and drainage issues and said that to comply with guidance there should be six affordable dwellings on the site.  He referred to the wording on the draft conditions (which had been copied to Members prior to the Committee) and suggested that condition 5 should be amended to replace the reference to “first occupation of any of the dwellings” with “prior to commencement”. 

                        In response to the comments made, the officer said that the surface water could be dealt with by a soakaway condition and by an appropriate ‘Grampian Style’ condition and if the applicant could not comply, then the scheme could not be implemented.  He said that no issues had been raised by Highways and the application complied with parking standards; he referred Members to paragraph 7.12 of the report.  On the issue of density, the officer said that Birch Rise had larger detached properties which was not reflective of all properties in the area and that the density did vary in the locality. 

                        The Interim Team Leader (Policy) referred to Policy EM6 stating that as the site had been marketed for employment use it would be difficult to argue that its loss would be harmful and it was not located within an area identified for commercial or employment uses nor was it a building which would, in itself, merit retention for architectural or historic reasons in a commercial or employment function; it was therefore reasonable to assume that it could be used for residential development. 

                        In response to comments made on the issue of housing supply and the comment that the housing was not needed on the site, he said other sites had not come forward so there was a need for flexibility and that windfall sites were an important part of the supply.  On the issue of density, there was a need to make the most efficient use of the land and because of this, density figures could be more or less than the guidance figure.  The properties met all of the Council’s standards and this development would only cause a slight increase in the growth rate figure for the settlement. 

                        Following a question from Councillor C.A. Ellis on whether the application complied with space around dwellings standards, the officer referred Members to paragraph 7.07 where it was reported that the layout had been the subject of discussion between the applicant and officers and had been amended in response to concerns such as separation distances complying with those required by the Council’s standards.  He added that standards had been reduced for private amenity space but overall it was an acceptable scheme. 

                        On the issue of drainage, the Head of Planning said that this would be dealt with by ‘Grampian Style’ condition prior to commencement of the development.              

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning (with draft condition 5 amended as suggested), the additional condition detailed in the late observations and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to provide the following:-

a)         Payment of an educational contribution of £10,500 towards primary educational provision/improvements to local education facilities at Hawarden Infants School and £7,000 towards similar secondary education level provision at Hawarden High School.  The contributions shall be paid prior to occupation of the first dwelling. 

b)         Ensure payment of a commuted sum payment in lieu of on site recreation/open space provision of £12,100 with such monies to be used to enhance existing play and recreation facilities within the community.  Such sum payable upon sale or occupation of the fifth dwelling.