Agenda item

            That (subject to the current stop direction by Welsh Government being withdrawn) delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning to negotiate the detail of the Section 106 Obligation in conjunction with the local Member. 

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 Head of Planning detailed the background to the report explaining that this report was an update following determination of the application at the December 2012 meeting of the Planning and Development Control Committee.  A resolution was sought for a Section 106 Obligation to cover the commuted sum payments in respect of educational and leisure provision and the carrying out of off site highway works.  He highlighted paragraph 6.03 where it was reported that there was no longer a need to refer an application to Welsh Government for residential development which constituted a departure from policy if it was for less than 150 dwellings.  However he referred Members to the late observations sheet where a letter from Welsh Government was attached directing the Council not to grant planning permission without the prior authorisation of the Welsh Minister. 

            The Development Manager confirmed that an element of affordable housing was not required as the development fell below the threshold.  He added that the material issues were the educational contribution, play provision and a footpath to Penyffordd.  The late observations sheet included a comment from the applicant’s agent challenging the requirement for the construction of the cycleway pointing out that what was proposed as part of the application was a footpath link to Penyffordd.  Further advice had been taken from the Highways officer and the recommendation was now to change the requirement for the cycleway to that of a footpath to Penyffordd.  This would require a section 106 agreement to provide for the linking of what was proposed to the existing footpath infrastructure in Penyffordd in accordance with what was specified in the planning application.  Condition 14 in the report needed to be amended to reflect the requirement for the 1.8 m footpath link from the site to Penyffordd and removing the reference to the cycleway.  The issue of play provision was a standard requirement of £1,100 per dwelling in lieu of on site provision which would total £13,200.  Supplementary Planning Guidance note 23 on Developer Contributions to Education had been used to calculate the funding for educational contributions and these totalled £73,729 for the relevant primary and secondary schools.          

            The Democracy & Governance Manager explained to Members that under normal circumstances, the applicant or his agent would not be permitted to address the Committee once they had already done so, but due to the exceptional circumstances because the section 106 obligation had not been the subject of the original report, the Chairman had exercised his discretion to allow the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. 

            Mr. S. Goodwin spoke in support of the application and said that the applicant had no objections to the suggested conditions except for the reference to the cycleway in conditions 14 and 15.  He said that it was unnecessary to request his client to provide a footpath/cycleway to link to Penyfforddd as this formed part of the Warren Hall application and this request would result in duplication.  Mr. Goodwin said that the applicant had no objection to the payment in lieu of on site play provision but said that he had not been provided with details of capacity in the schools in the area.  He spoke of the Kinnerton primary school and Elfed high school which he felt could meet the requirements of children from the development.  He said that under the Community Infrastructure Levy, contributions could only be requested where there was a need and he did not feel that the need had been demonstrated.  He said that on the issue of land cost, if the £73,729 was not paid the site would break even but if the educational contribution was required the site would not be viable.  He asked the Committee to allow delegated authority to the Head of Planning to negotiate a figure with the applicant for the section 106 obligation. 

            Councillor P.G. Heesom proposed that the Head of Planning be given delegated authority as suggested by Mr. Goodwin to discuss the terms of the section 106 in conjunction with the local Member for Kinnerton and this was duly seconded. 

            Councillor D. Butler queried whether other local Members should also be involved in the negotiations as the schools in their area could also be affected.  Councillor R.C. Bithell said that the policy referred to the nearest school which he said could be Pentrobin, Penyffordd or Hawarden, all of which were near or over capacity. 

            The Capital Projects and Planning Manager (Education) provided details of the schools in the area which included St. John the Baptist, Kinnerton, Penyffordd and Castell Alun as reported in paragraph 6.05.  She reiterated that the policy related to the nearest school to the development. 

            Councillor M.J. Peers referred to the footpath which had not formed part of the original application stating that any issues should have been known at the time of the previous report.  On the issue of the educational contributions he said that the Local Planning Guidance (LPG) note 23 did not identify whether it was adopted or not and did not show when it was included on the website, both of which he felt were material considerations.  He said that funding for the nearest schools had already been provided as part of the Wood Lane Farm and White Lion applications and he therefore felt that they had already been catered for and should not be requested as part of this application. 

            In response, the Head of Planning said that the LPG note 23 was adopted and had been consulted on and approved by County Council so was relevant to this application.  He added that the document would be amended to reflect when it had been adopted. 

            The Development Manager said that the formula in the LPG note 23 had been used and the request for educational contributions was a blanket requirement for any development where need had been established.  He added that it would be wrong to require a contribution from one developer and not from another.  Referring to the footpath, he advised that at the stage of the original application, the footpath was not a highway requirement but it had been offered by the applicant and there was therefore a need for it to serve a purpose by linking to the existing footpath infrastructure in Penyffordd, hence the need for the Section 106 Obligation.

            Councillor R.B. Jones spoke of educational contributions and the LPG note 23 and said that it was important that consultation with the local Members for all of the schools affected by the development take place.  Councillor R.C. Bithell referred to the comments of Councillor Peers and said that until the development was in place the monies for the education contributions would not be forthcoming and therefore to say that the schools had already been catered for was incorrect.  Councillor R.G. Hampson said that he felt that to ask for the educational contributions was heavy handed and that the issue of viability of the site should also be considered.  Councillor W. Mullin said that the Council’s policies were clear and should be adhered to. 

            In response to a further comment from Councillor Peers about educational contributions, the Development Manager said that the LPG note 23 said that contributions would be requested for the nearest/suitable primary or secondary school.  Details were provided for Members of the size of the sites at Wood Lane Farm and White Lion and the calculations used to identify the amount of funding requested.    

            Councillor Heesom reiterated his point that the Head of Planning should discuss the issues of the section 106 obligation with the local Member for Kinnerton.  He added that the footpath/cycleway proposed formed part of another application so it was not necessary to duplicate the request.  He also said that Penyffordd schools had already benefited from educational contributions from previous applications and he felt that this was also duplication.  Councillor Heesom added that policies were in place for guidance. 

            The Head of Planning reminded Members of the three aspects to the section 106 agreement which were educational contributions, play provision and the footpath to Penyffordd.

            Councillor Heesom said that he was satisfied that the educational contributions could be resolved by the Head of Planning and the local Member for Kinnerton.  The Development Manager asked whether it was being suggested that the requirement for the footpath was not needed as it was to be provided for by the Warren Hall application.  He pointed out that condition 15 of this recommendation indicated that the footpath link had to be provided prior to the occupation of any dwellings, so this site could not be occupied until the footpath link was completed.  The Head of Planning reminded Members that the footpath had been offered by the applicant and the section 106 obligation would secure the provision of the footpath. 

            On being put to the vote, Councillor Heesom’s proposal was CARRIED. 

            RESOLVED:

            That (subject to the current stop direction by Welsh Government being withdrawn) delegated powers be given to the Head of Planning to negotiate the detail of the Section 106 Obligation in conjunction with the local Member.