Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused due to non-compliance with the Unitary Development Plan. 

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 22 July 2013.  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 Development Manager detailed the background to the report explaining that the main issues for consideration were the principle of development in terms of the planning policy context, the impacts on visual/residential amenities, highways issues and drainage.  He explained that the land was allocated for housing (approximately 15 houses) in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).  He highlighted paragraph 7.02 which reported the considerations which had been taken into account such as the published housing land supply undertaken in 2011 which demonstrated that the Flintshire Housing Land Supply was in excess of five years and given the site would only add 15 dwellings, it was not significant in terms of housing supply.

           He added thatthe development would be adjacent to a newly built substation, which would further reduce its suitability for housing and the proposed commercial development would be complementary to the existing neighbourhood centre. The existing trees/hedging would be retained and further planting would also be included to screen the site from the residential properties on the three sides of the site.  The Development Manager commented on the coal mining, highway and  drainage issues and explained that proposed development had been advertised as a departure to the adopted UDP.  On the issue of health and safety, he said that a number of residents had raised concerns about vapours and emissions and added that these had been addressed.  The fuel tanks would be located underground and would be monitored by means of a leak detection system and were designed to collect a minimum of 85% of thevapour. 

In conclusion, the Development Manager said that the principle of development was acceptable and subject to the conditions in the report, the recommendation was for approval.  He advised that during consultation, it had been requested that the opening hours of the petrol station not exceed the hours of the store.  He referred Members to condition 9 about the proposed opening hours and said that even if the store was opening for longer than the times shown, the petrol station would be tied to the hours in condition 9. 

                        Mrs. S.A. Wilcox spoke against the application as the representative for over 90 local residents.  She raised concern about noise and pollution and said that it was incorrect to suggest that only those visiting the store would use the petrol station.  She felt that the traffic congestion would increase and expressed concern about the coal mining features in the area which could cause catastrophic damage if they moved.  Mrs. Wilcox felt that the kiosk would encourage the use of alcohol and cigarettes and queried why it was proposed to be built only 50 metres from neighbouring properties.  She spoke of the impact on health and property values and said that even though residents had welcomed the shopping centre, a petrol station was not required.  She asked the Committee to refuse the application. 

                        Councillor A. Dunbobbin from Connah’s Quay Town Council spoke against the application.  He raised concern about the effect of the noise and increased traffic on the local residents and the effect on the environment; he felt that a risk assessment was required.  Ffordd Llanarth was a busy road particularly at school times and he felt that the petrol station would increase the risk of school children being involved in a traffic accident if the proposal was approved.  

The Democracy and Governance Manager advised Members to disregard the reference to property values in their determination of the application.             

            Councillor Ian Dunbar proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He felt that the proposal went against policy as it was allocated for housing and acknowledged the fears of residents, reiterating that the application should be refused. 

            Councillor Mike Peers felt that the comments of the Town Council should be taken into account and queried whether the UDP Inspector had to be notified about the departure from policy.  He felt that low cost housing would benefit local people and that a commercial use should not be considered over the allocation in the UDP. 

            Councillor Owen Thomas felt that the public would want to see a petrol station on the site and that it would be well used and added that the site did not suit houses.  Councillor Billy Mullin said that the residents were opposed to the application and queried whether there was a need for a petrol station on the site.  Councillor Chris Bithell asked when the last mining took place in Connah’s Quay.  Councillor Gareth Roberts referred to properties in his ward located near to petrol stations and said that the residents had never experienced any problems; he supported approval of the application. 

            In response to the comments made, the Development Manager said that on the issue of coal mining, a condition had been included for submission of intrusive site investigation works but added that any coal mining works were less likely to have an impact on this proposal than on housing.  He felt that the petrol station was an extension of the existing retail park which would compliment what was already in place but advised Members against refusing on the grounds of need.  It was felt that the proposal was acceptable in the area and the Development Manager spoke of the distances to neighbouring properties and the screening which was to be undertaken. 

            The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control confirmed that Highways did not have any objections subject to appropriate conditions and added that following completion of a detailed transport assessment, there were no capacity issues on the existing network. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager said that the retail centre had been welcomed by residents and reminded Members that this site was part of a larger allocation and the principle of commercial development had been established.  On the issue of low cost housing mentioned by Councillor Peers, he reminded Members that the site was only for 15 units so affordable housing regulations did not apply.  In response to a question from Councillor Neville Phillips on the need for opening hours referred to in condition 9, the Development Manager said that it had been included to protect the residential amenity and was appropriate for the location. 

            In summing up, Councillor Dunbar raised concern about the narrowness of the road up to the mini roundabout and felt that it would be impossible for petrol tankers to turn into the site.  He spoke of the increased traffic which would be generated if the proposal was approved and asked the Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control to comment on the traffic audit which had been undertaken.  He said that a petrol station which was open 24 hours a day was situated less than a mile from the site.  Councillor Dunbar felt that this proposal would be an added danger to residents as they used the land to cut across to the retail centre. 

            The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control said that the existing arrangement for the access road and roundabout and pedestrian refuge were the subject of a traffic assessment and met the requirements set so there were no special measures to be put in place to facilitate this application. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager asked Councillor Dunbar to clarify that his reason for refusal was non-compliance with the UDP; Councillor Dunbar confirmed the reason.              

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused due to non-compliance with the Unitary Development Plan. 

Councillor Gareth Roberts indicated that he wished it to be recorded in the minutes that he had voted against refusal of the application.