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.

The officer detailed the background to the report explaining that it had been deferred at the 12 December 2012 meeting of the Committee pending the applicant submitting further information with regard to a pre-determination archaeological evaluation and local/affordable housing provision.  The information had not been received and the recommendation was therefore for refusal of the application. 

Mr. S. Hatherall, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the first reason for refusal was on the grounds of scale and massing but he did not feel that this reason was appropriate as it was an outline application and all matters had been reserved.  The application was for a moderate dwelling with two parking spaces which would comply with the space around dwellings policy.  Caerwys had reached 19.7% growth which exceeded the 15% growth band for a Category B settlement, although there was some flexibility in those figures, which showed that applications of this nature could be approved.  The development offered the chance of a dwelling to cater for a proven local affordable housing need although Mr. Hatherall said that this was unreasonable as it amounted to 100% affordability.  He added that the cost of the archaeological assessment was more than £3,000 which did not guarantee approval of the application so the applicant could be left with approval on an unviable site.   

            Councillor Jim Falshaw proposed approval of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  He said that the application had been deferred twice for further discussions and that the dwelling proposed was for the parents of the applicant.  Other houses in the street were well established and maintained and this site was the only unmaintained site.  The site had previously been for a taxi office and for the maintenance of vehicles and was therefore a brownfield site.  He said that he had attended a meeting with officers where he had been advised that an archaeological survey would only be required if the application was approved.  There had not been any house growth in Caerwys for seven years and there were sites smaller than this one on which three terraced properties had been built.  Councillor Falshaw supported the application and could see no reason to refuse it. 

            Councillor Owen Thomas said that there was lots of infill in Caerwys and added that this was a piece of derelict land that could be cleaned up by having a bungalow built on it.  He felt that local need had been established and that it was an ideal site for the proposal. 

            Councillor Derek Butler said that there was no reason to go against the officer recommendation as it did not comply with Policy HSG3 and he referred to the comments of Caerwys Town Council who were also against the proposal.  Councillor Mike Peers referred to paragraph 7.10 which referred to the special character of the Conservation Area, but paragraphs 7.3 and 7.4 stated that the harm was already there. He agreed with the local Member that it was a brownfield site.  He added that it was a vacant plot in the settlement boundary and that the proposal would not harm the special character or the area. 

            Councillor Alison Halford commented on the second and third reasons for refusal and asked if there was a balance for officers to help the applicant and point them in the right direction.  Councillor Gareth Roberts felt that a dwelling could be built that was in keeping with a neighbouring property but said that a bungalow on the site was not suitable.  He said that if this application was approved in an area that exceeded the 15% growth, how could other applications in other villages be refused.  In response to a question from Councillor Richard Jones, the Principal Solicitor said that if the application was approved, delegated powers would be given to the Head of Planning to include any appropriate conditions. 

            In response to the comment from Councillor Alison Halford, the Development Manager said that discussions had taken place with the applicant and he had been advised of the information that he needed to submit, but to date it had not been forthcoming.  He added that each of the reasons for refusal were valid and would stand alone.  The officer said that there was no proof that the property was required for local need and evidence about the impact of the development upon subsurface archaeology had not been submitted.  He referred to paragraph 7.06 and the comments from Highways officers about setting the dwelling further back into the site to enable a set back of 2.5m from the adjoining highway, which would further compound the limited plot depth.  The officer added that there was no history of a taxi office being on the site and that there was no reason to approve the application. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager said that just because the site was derelict, it was not a reason to grant permission.  The growth percentage being over the limit for the settlement was not in dispute and an exceptional case had to be made to permit an application in this situation.  The applicant had been advised of this but the information had not been forthcoming.  He spoke about Policy HSG3 and the comments of the Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust in relation to what was an important archaeological area.  It had been reported that a pre-determination archaeological evaluation needed to be completed to supply information about the site and to allow subsequent discussion on mitigation.  Nothing had been provided. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve the application was LOST.                  

            RESOLVED:

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