Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused due to the proposal not satisfactorily addressing concerns over stability/integrity of the slope to the south of the site. 

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 17 June 2013.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

                        The Development Manager detailed the background to the report explaining that the main issue was the site’s structural integrity.  Information had been submitted with the application and an assessment had been undertaken by the Council’s structural engineer of the excavations and structures on site.  He had confirmed that the gabions and fences were sufficient for the purpose intended and therefore the application did not warrant refusal.  Consultation had also taken place with Drainage Engineers and they had not made any objections to the application.  It was reported that planning permission had been granted for the erection of the dwelling under reference 038572 before the Unitary Development Plan boundary was changed and the gabion wall and fencing were within the plot.  The Development Manager explained that the site had been the subject of coal mining in the past but any problems for the site relating to this would have been encountered at the time the dwelling was erected.  He added that as the land comprised in the application lay within the residential plot and was effectively garden area, any ecological impact was minimal, despite the application being partly retrospective. 

                        Mr. E. Newell spoke against the application.  He explained that he was the resident of the adjacent property and that part of the site was not owned by the applicant and had encroached onto Mr. Newell’s land, which had been confirmed.  He said that on the issue of the site’s structural integrity he did not understand how gabion walls were suitable for part of the site with fencing being put in place for the remainder of the bank.  On the issue of coal mining he said that a report had been provided by a mining engineer which indicated that there was one shaft in the bank and a further six or seven on the land.  Mr. Newell said that no assessments had been carried out on the ecological damage to the site which included the removal of bluebells.  He said that the applicant had claimed that there was no water course within 20 metres of the site when in fact it was only three metres away.  He concluded that he had sought the protection of the land through its removal from the Unitary Development Plan boundary.

                        Mr. F. Taylor, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He welcomed the report and the recommendation by the officer for approval of the application.  He said that he had not been aware of the concerns raised by Mostyn Town Council until he had seen the report and said that he was disappointed that this was based on a single objection and they had acted in a non-democratic way and had not sought to obtain the facts.  He said that the report addressed all of the concerns raised by the objector.  He said that prior to the site visit the objectors had strimmed the bank which they had not done in the past and queried why they were now maintaining it.          

            Councillor Patrick Heesom proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  He raised concern about the slope of the land and the integrity of the slope.  He said that the coal mining report indicated that there were seven mine workings in the bank and that it did not provide assurance of the integrity of the bank.  He recognised that the issue of land ownership was not a planning consideration but he raised concern about this being a retrospective application.  Councillor Heesom said that the main issues were the nature of the slope and the integrity of the bank and that even though some earth had been dug away it had not dealt with the whole slope which was still more than 25%.  He said that PPG (Planning Policy Guidance Note) 14 was relevant in Wales but was not referred to in the report which he was concerned about.  He felt that the gabion wall was not effective and that the bank was not supported by trees and was therefore not stable.  He said that the application could not be deferred as it was retrospective and therefore he felt that for the reasons specified earlier, the application should be refused.       

            On the issue of there not being a retaining wall, Councillor Carolyn Thomas said that she was aware of a similar site where an inspector at an appeal had indicated that a retaining wall should be put in place.  Councillor Derek Butler raised concern about the tree roots hanging out of the bank and said that the gabion wall should be extended and built up as he felt that it was currently a health and safety issue. 

            In response to the comments made, the Development Manager agreed that the main issue was the integrity of the bank behind the site and whether the works that had been carried out were sufficient.  He referred to Policy EWP15 of the Unitary Development Plan which set out that the responsibility for establishing stability lies with the developer who should submit the relevant information with the application. This information had been received and had been assessed by the Council’s Structural Engineer who had indicated that the gabion walls were sufficient.  It was the applicant’s intention to backfill in the area behind the gabion walls and soil could then be placed on top and planted up to soften the impact, but he had stopped work when he had been asked to do so due to it requiring planning permission.  In cases such as this expert advice had to be relied upon and the Council’s Structural Engineer was confirming that what had been done was fit for purpose He advised Members that if they were considering refusing the application on the grounds of instability in the face of this evidence it would be difficult to defend this if the applicant appealed the decision. 

            Councillor Heesom felt that the policies in the UDP were inadequate and disagreed with being advised of the possibility of costs being awarded against the Council.  He felt that what was in place was inadequate and insufficient and that a retaining wall of some substance should be put in place.  He said that the response of the structural engineer did not provide assurance of the stability of the bank and he felt that Members were being asked to accept something which was inappropriate.  He confirmed his proposal to refuse the application. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager said that the stability of the bank had been assessed by an impartial engineer who had indicated that it was sufficient for the purpose.  If the Committee refused the application on that basis, he said that the Council could be liable for costs.  He quoted from the circular about costs in particular where Members took a decision without adequate evidence.

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application against officer recommendation was CARRIED.  

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused due to the proposal not satisfactorily addressing concerns over stability/integrity of the slope to the south of the site.