Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning, the reduction in the ridge line of the proposed apartment Block B to approximately 0.2m above the height of the existing Calcot Arms building and subject to the applicants entering into a Section 106 Agreement, providing a unilateral undertaking, or otherwise making payment in respect of:-

• The sum of £733 per dwelling in lieu of on site open space towards the upgrading of existing play facilities within the locality
• The sum of £24,514 for the additional capacity at Perth y TerfynInfants School. 

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

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 in referring to the late observations explained that amended plans had been submitted showing the ridge line of proposed apartment Block B reduced in height to approximately 0.2m above the height of the existing Calcot Arms building.  He detailed the areas for consideration and explained that it was considered that the development was acceptable in planning policy terms. 

                        Mr. P. Jones spoke against the application.  He said that Block A was 30 foot high and was invasive and would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties.  An application for the demolition of the building and replacement with 9 apartments had been refused in July 2011 and Mr. Jones said that what had been unacceptable for that application was the same for this application.  He said that page 7 of the Design and Access Statement referred to 12 parking spaces but the remaining pages identified 11 spaces.  He queried this and said that the size of the spaces was below a standard size.  Mr. Jones said that the Highways Department had accepted the application without question and added that the development would create additional highway problems due to the lack of a pavement in the area.  Holywell Town Council had objected to the application and Mr. Jones asked the Committee not to accept the application just to clear up the site. 

                        Mr. R. Lomas, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the application had been designed to respect the privacy of neighbouring residents.  The key issue was whether there was a material change to the application which had allowed an application for eight dwellings on the site following an appeal and whether the inclusion of an additional apartment was contrary to policy; the officer was satisfied that the proposal was acceptable.  Following discussions with the local Member and officers, the applicant had agreed to reduce the height of Block B and amended plans had been submitted to reflect this.          

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He spoke of the dwellings nearby (1 & 3 Stamford Way and Ness View) which would be affected by the development.  He explained that an application for eight apartments had been refused by Committee in June 2006 but had been allowed on appeal in December 2006.  He said that there had been a concern about development adversely affecting the amenity of the bungalows in Stamford Way.  He felt the amended application preserved their amenity and that of Ness View.  The residents of 3 Stamford Way were satisfied with the proposals and had not objected to the application and the residents of Ness View had withdrawn their objection to the proposals.  Councillor Roberts raised concern at what could be permitted on the site if this application was refused by the Committee and added that if it was refused, it could be overturned on appeal and that an alternative proposal may cause more problems for the residents.  He paid tribute to the applicant and agent for submitting a design which was acceptable to the residents and he thanked them for the discussions which had taken place.      

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning, the reduction in the ridge line of the proposed apartment Block B to approximately 0.2m above the height of the existing Calcot Arms building and subject to the applicants entering into a Section 106 Agreement, providing a unilateral undertaking, or otherwise making payment in respect of:-

• The sum of £733 per dwelling in lieu of on site open space towards the upgrading of existing play facilities within the locality
• The sum of £24,514 for the additional capacity at Perth y TerfynInfants School. 

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application.