Agenda item

            That the application be refused on the grounds of irretrievable harm to the  character of the area, including the AONB, due to its visual impact, and the overbearing impact in relation to neighbouring properties. 

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 provided further information about the height of the retaining walls and the level of the site which would require some filling.  He also drew Members’ attention to the two additional conditions proposed in the late observations. 

                        Mr. D. Fitzsimon, on behalf of the neighbouring owner, spoke against the application and raised concern about the design, the importation of materials to maximise the development potential of the site, and the impact on the character of the area generally and in relation to the adjoining haulage site.  He referred to Planning Policy Wales and commented on the duty to have regard to the area designated as the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).  Mr. Fitzsimon spoke of the four metre retaining wall and said that an assessment had not been undertaken to establish whether this was sustainable and the impact that it would have on the character of the area.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application. 

                        Mr. M. Gilbert, agent on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that there were already houses in the area at higher levels to those proposed on the site so the proximity to the AONB and the impact on its setting were no different for this development.  Mr. Gilbert confirmed that the existing boundary hedges were mostly to be retained andalso referred to the Committee’s determination of the previous item on the agenda which was also for a site of differing levels which had been permitted. 

            Councillor P.G. Heesom proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  He said that the application damaged the AONB and the landscape and the site was one of the last remaining pieces of open space in Gwernymyndd.  He said that, in taking into account the guidance in the policies, the overriding principle was the irreversible harm the application would have on the open site area.  He felt also that a danger would be created on the highway. 

            Councillor M.J. Peers said that the site visit had been useful particularly on the issue of the sloping site.  He referred to page 138 of the report where it was reported that on the north–west boundary of the site it was structurally practical for the retaining wall to be situated closer to the boundary.  However, he referred to an email which reported problems with the north eastern boundary of the site.  He raised concern at the proposal to include retaining walls and considered that a development should be drawn up to fit the topography of the site.

            The local Member, Councillor N.M. Matthews said that the application did not contain any details of the site and raised concern at the number of conditions which required submission of further details, assessments or further information which required approval by the authority.  She highlighted conditions 4, 10 and 17 which all related to drainage.  The surface water system was already at capacity in Gwernymynydd.  At the site visit, the officers had referred to a connection on agricultural land, but no discussions had taken place with the owner.  The Mold Flood alleviation works engineers had identified that the watercourse as being at full capacity and so was not an option.  Any overflow would cause problems at St. Mary’s Park in Mold.  Councillor Matthews hoped for a development that would recognise the topography of the site.  The current proposal was for a 20 foot high wall, and infilled land with houses on top, and she asked whether a structural report had been undertaken to assess the strength and reliability of the retaining walls and also raised concern about the problems of highway access on to the A494.  She also said that there was no mention in the report on the mine shaft on the site. 

            Councillor W.O. Thomas said that the site was, in a way, in open countryside and raised concern about the potential for flooding in the area as he felt that approval of the site would create additional drainage problems.  Councillor A.I. Dunbar sought clarification on the comments at the site visit about discussions with the landowner about diverting the drain on the site.  Councillor H.G. Roberts said that this was an allocated site within a settlement boundary and met the highway requirements for a visibility splay.  He said that the issue of drainage had been commented on by Welsh Water who intended to complete planned improvement works on the waste water treatment works by 1 April 2014. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that the site was in a village and not in the open countryside.  He explained that the lower elements of the site would be separated by hedging and reiterated that it would be a difficult site to develop due to the levels.  The separation distances form properties at the haulage yard had been complied with and were in line with council policies.  On the issue of highways, he said that the A494 was a fast road but the access and egress to the site also complied with policies.  Statutory consultees had not objected to the application and the Drainage Engineer had indicated that a Grampian style condition was required so that the development could not commence until full surface drainage details had been submitted and approved. 

            The Principal Solicitor said that it was his understanding that the drainage solution involved land in the ownership of a third party.  This did not prevent the local planning authority from imposing a Grampian condition and whether the development proceeded was down to negotiations with the affected landowner. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager said that sustainability and community impact were essential parts of the the UDP and reiterated the approval by Committee of the previous application which was also on a sloping site.  He said that it was not unusual for a developer to use retaining walls where the topography of the site allowed for them. 

            On the issue of highways, the Head of Planning said that two highways consultants had said that there was no evidence to support refusal of the application on highway grounds.  In response to a query from Councillor W.O. Thomas, he said that the settlement period for the land would depend on how compacted the infill was. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application on the grounds of irretrievable harm to the character of the area, including the AONB, due to its visual impact, and the overbearing impact in relation to neighbouring properties was CARRIED.       

            RESOLVED:

            That the application be refused on the grounds of irretrievable harm to the  character of the area, including the AONB, due to its visual impact, and the overbearing impact in relation to neighbouring properties.