Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment due to the proposals being 50% over the indicative density envisaged by the UDP and being out of character with the area. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 18 February 2013.  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 there had been lengthy and detailed negotiations in relation to the viability of the site in terms of its ability to yield the level of planning gains identified in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for affordable housing, educational contributions and recreation provision.  An independent assessment had been carried out by the Valuation Office Agency which had concluded that the viability assessments were accurate. 

            Mr. H. Jones spoke in support of the application which was an allocated site for housing in the UDP, of which there were relatively few in the north of the county.  Permission was being sought for 71 dwellings of 3 or 4 bedroom and the design scheme had been consulted on with officers and the Design Commission, and was sympathetic to the surroundings.  Highways, landscape and nature conservation interests were not adversely affected.  Commuted sums were proposed to be paid to the Council towards educational provision and upgrade of existing recreational facilities within the locality.  The Valuation Office Agency had confirmed that the proposed sums were reasonable.        

            Councillor P.G. Heesom proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  He said that the application was for 50% more than the allocation in the UDP and urged Members to refuse the application.  He felt that the development was totally alien and was not in character with the area; was overdevelopment of the site, with 50% more housing than would be allocated by the UDP; and that further work on highways issues was also required. 

            In response to a question from the Head of Planning, Councillor Heesom advised that he was proposing that only the first two matters referred to above should be reasons for refusal.

            Councillor A.M. Halford reiterated the concerns and said that the development exceeded the 30 dwellings per hectare required in the UDP as referred to in paragraph 7.09.  Councillor M.J. Peers asked whether it was a Category B Settlement and what the growth figure had been since 2000.  He agreed that 71 dwellings on the site was too high and that the reasons for the high density reported in paragraph 7.10 were unacceptable.  He felt that the layout of the site could have been more imaginative to reduce the density and said that he would be unable to approve the application.  Councillor H.G. Roberts said that he was also concerned about the density but added that the 30 dwellings per hectare referred to in the UDP was a minimum guideline not a maximum.  He said that the proposed development was representative of the whole of Maes Pennant.  Councillor R.B. Jones raised concern that it was proposed that there were anticipated pupil numbers of 18 but that the commuted sum suggested was much lower than the £220,000 which would be required under the Supplementary Planning Guidance Document No. 23 – Developer Contributions to Education (SPG) for this number of pupils.  Councillor C.A. Ellis asked about the numbers on the housing waiting list for Mostyn. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that the provision in the UDP for density was a minimum figure not a maximum.  The layout of Maes Pennant had separation standards which far exceeded what would be found today, but the buildings were grouped together.  It was considered that the proposal was not out of character.  In relation to Councillor Halford’s query, he said that Maes Pennant was the lowest cost housing area in the county.  He confirmed that it was a Category B settlement and that he did not know the details of growth figures but said that he was confident that they had not been exceeded.  He said that there was an issue of viability and accepted that educational contributions were lower than the SPG but reminded Members that the assessment of the viability case was undertaken at a time pre-dating the adoption by the Council of the SPG. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager advised that the policy allowed for good design to achieve a higher density, referring to the existing density in Mostyn. He confirmed that this site was part of the planning commitment for the area. 

            In summing up, Councillor Heesom said that the application should be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment due to the proposals being 50% over the allocated site and being out of character with the area.  He said that it was an interesting site with a number of challenges.        

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of overdevelopment due to the proposals being 50% over the indicative density envisaged by the UDP and being out of character with the area.