Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Head of Planning. 

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 reminded Members that planning permission was granted in 2009 but that the applicant had failed to enter into legal requirements and obligations, which were a pre-requisite of granting planning permission, despite ongoing discussions.  In February 2011 contact was made by a new planning agent but progress had still not been made on the signing of the legal agreements but in August 2012 an alternative access was proposed.  Consultations were undertaken but the relevant certificates were not submitted.  The late observations detailing a recent alternative access to the site from Station Road was submitted by the applicant and correct certificates of ownership were submitted.  It was also reported that the applicant was seeking deferment of the application to allow for consultation on this proposed alternative access into the site from Station Road.  The officer explained that if the application was deferred, mitigation measures would still be required on land within BHP Billiton Petroleum Limited’s control and as reported in paragraph 7.07 of the report, BHP were not willing to enter into any legal agreements with the applicant.  She urged Members not to defer the application and to deal with the report before them as the applicant had already had more than sufficient time following the 2009 decision. 

                        Mr. P. Lloyd, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that Delyn Metals Limited had agreed to various details which included signing a Section 39 agreement but said that to date they had not received a draft of the agreement so could not be asked to agree to something they had not seen.  He confirmed that Delyn Metals would comply with the conditions requested and said that they had also confirmed that they had a right of way over colliery land and that this had only been finally confirmed on 18 December 2012.  He requested that Members confirm the use and put on a new time limit for the use on the site. 

            Councillor R.C. Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  Councillor A.M. Halford agreed with the officer recommendation and she queried a comment in paragraph 8.03 about the very low bridge and the bridge strike which had occurred with the use of large vehicles and asked whether the cost of repair would be the responsibility of the local authority if the bridge was damaged.  The Democracy & Governance Manager said that this was not a material planning consideration and should not be taken into account.  

            Councillor P.G. Heesom suggested that agreement of the application could be considered based on BHP reaching the end of the tenure of the site. 

            In response to a query from Councillor M.J. Peers on whether enforcement action would be taken if the application was refused, the officer responded that a refusal notice would be issued and the applicant would be written to querying their intentions.  If they appealed against the decision to refuse, then enforcement action would be taken.       

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.