Agenda item

            That the application be deferred to obtain information from the applicant on the archaeological investigation and local need/affordability. 

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.

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the application was reported to Committee in December 2012 when its determination was deferred as the applicant had indicated that an archaeological investigation was to be undertaken.  As no further information had been received, the application was presented back to Committee with the original recommendation of refusal.                  

            Councillor R.C. Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He said that the reasons for refusal were sound and that the nature of the plot would be lost if the application proceeded. 

            The local Member, Councillor J. Falshaw, spoke in support of the application.  He commented on each of the reasons for refusal and said that the site was more than adequate for a two bedroomed bungalow, was not a cramped site and would not harm the character and appearance of the Caerwys conservation area.  He said that the site had previously been used as a taxi business and the taxi office still stood on the site.  He felt that a bungalow on the site would not be out of keeping with the area.  On proposed reason for refusal 2, he said that the dwelling was intended to be occupied by the elderly parents of the applicant to enable them to be cared for and that the application had been submitted as there were no new builds being undertaken in Caerwys.  He commented that there had never been any suggestion of the plot being archaeologically important until the submission of the application. He felt that refusal of the application would be overturned at appeal.

            Councillor W.O. Thomas said that it was reported that the site was too small for the proposal and quoted from an appeal decision on a similar plot.  He referred to space around dwellings guidance from January 2005 and said that the Inspector had indicated that there was no evidence that it had been consulted on and adopted.  The plot was not within the Conservation Area, and there had been a number of houses knocked down in Caerwys in recent years.

            Councillor A.M. Halford referred to two earlier applications on this agenda which were for similar sized plots but which were both recommended for approval by officers as they complied with space around dwellings guidance.  She queried why this application had been recommended for refusal.  Councillor P.G. Heesom felt that the site was of sufficient size for the proposal but added that the architectural issues should be considered.  He said that the test was whether the plot was capable of having an attractive building on it and on balance he felt that it did and that the application should be approved.  Councillor D. Butler drew Members’ attention to the comments of Caerwys Town Council who did not feel that the site was adequate and could be contrary to policy on density of development.  Councillor H.G. Roberts felt that it would be possible to put a dwelling on the plot which would be in keeping with the streetscene and could be dealt with at reserved matters stage.  He supported approval of the application. 

            In response to the comments made, the Development Manager reminded Members that there were three reasons for refusal and the application had been deferred at an earlier committee to allow the submission of archaeological information, referring to the comments of the Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust.  That information had not been received but he was also aware that the applicant had been in touch with the Council’s Housing Officers in relation to the local need issue   The applicant’s agent had acknowledged that these matters needed to be addressed but had requested that the application be considered at this meeting.  He advised Members that it would be premature to determine the application without resolving these issues  In particular, if the applicant satisfied the local needs requirement, there would be a need for a Section 106 Obligation to ensure that the property remained affordable.  He acknowledged that if these two issues were resolved the decision was then down to the acceptability of the development in terms of scale and character.  He affirmed that in officers’ opinion it was not acceptable in these terms but it would then be a matter of judgement for Members.

            Councillor Heesom proposed that the application be deferred, which was duly seconded. 

On being put to the vote, the proposal to defer the application to obtain information from the applicant on the archaeological investigation and local need/affordability was CARRIED.                     

            RESOLVED:

            That the application be deferred to obtain information from the applicant on the archaeological investigation and local need/affordability.