Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of:- 

• Detrimental impact on highway safety
• Unacceptable risk of flooding
• Inadequate drainage capacity
• Loss of amenity and overlooking of surrounding properties
• Overdevelopment

            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 4^th November 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 officer detailed the background to the report, explaining that the construction was a form of backland development but it was not unacceptable.  He referred to paragraph 7.14 where it was reported that proposals for backland development on two sites in Mynydd Isa which had been allowed on appeal contrary to the Local Planning Authority’s decision to refuse permission and that the circumstances here were similar,.  He added that the principle of the backland development was considered acceptable and the site was capable of locating two dwellings served by an acceptable access. 

                        Mrs. G. Fletcher spoke against the application.  She said that the proposal was for two dwellings in the back garden of the property and that the applicant had tried to purchase parts of other gardens to undertake the proposal.  She felt that the entrance to Tata Steel across the road from the site was already dangerous and that the danger would be increased by the addition of a further access.  There had been problems with drainage this development would put more demands upon drainage and the provision of gas and electricity in the area.  Light and privacy would be taken away from the neighbouring properties.  She commented on the hedgerow and the birds that visited the gardens and highlighted the number of objections to the application.  Mrs. Fletcher referred to a letter received from Mark Tami M.P. and said that the Northern Gateway project would provide plenty of housing for the area and that this commercial venture by the applicant showed a total disregard for residents. 

                        Mr. D. Barker, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application and thanked the officer for the report.  He said that the application was for outline approval only and that the planning officer had given consideration to all of the objections which had been received and which could be overcome by conditions.  It was sustainable development for a site which could accommodate two dwellings with off road parking, would provide good quality housing and was located close to transport links.  The roofs would be no higher than those of neighbouring properties.  The proposal complied with policy HSG9 and was of a lower density than was suggested in policy HSG8.  Mr. Barker said that the properties were in keeping with the area and had appropriate space around the dwellings.  He said that the site was for a low density, high quality development which was in accordance with policy and there were no objections from statutory consultees.  He also referred to the recent sites in Mynydd Isa that had been permitted on appeal and asked that the Committee approve the application.  

            Councillor Christine Jones proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  She said that the proposal was not acceptable in that it was development in a back garden and would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties which would be overlooked.  She referred to the 44 letters of objection and that part of Welsh Road by the Blue Bridge was an accident blackspot.  There had been two fatalities in the vicinity in recent years.  The houses were not required in Garden City as 1000 properties were proposed on the Northern Gateway site.  She said that work was being undertaken on the issue of flooding on the Northern Gateway site but queried whether it would alleviate the flooding problems in this area as some of the gardens were often waterlogged.  Councillor Jones added that all planning applications should be assessed individually and not compared with other sites which had been allowed on appeal. 

            Councillor Ian Dunbar said that it was a well known flooding area and added that an additional entrance could cause problems for the traffic exiting the Tata Steel site.  There had been a number of fatalities and crashes in the area and an additional access would increase problems. 

            Councillor Alison Halford agreed with the concerns of the third party speakers about the wildlife in the area and the hedgerows.  She raised concern about whether the proposal was for backland development or not and about comparing the site to applications in Mynydd Isa which were allowed on appeal.  She asked that the Planning Strategy Group look at the issue of backland development and the views of the Inspectorate on the issue. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts said that the application appeared to meet all the criteria and queried the reasons for refusal.  He felt that backland development was not in itself a reason for refusal, that there was a speed limit of 30mph in the area, and the visibility onto Welsh Road was appropriate.  He said that the application should be approved. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that the proposal met the definition of backland development and all that was sought to be done in paragraph 7.14 was to show that sometimes backland development was acceptable.  The proposal met with space about dwellings guidance and he explained that a significant amount of work had been undertaken to identify a solution to address the concerns about flooding in the area. 

            The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control said that there was no objection from Highways subject to conditions which would deal with the visibility from the site which would far exceed the standard in TAN 18 for a 30pmh area.  She had looked at the accident statistics for the area which indicated that one accident was as a result of the driver losing control of the vehicle and others were due to positive breath tests, so these were not grounds to refuse the application. 

            Councillor Jones reiterated her concern about flooding in the area and whether the work being undertaken in the area would solve the problems.  She felt that surface water was also an issue and drainage in the area was inadequate. 

            The Head of Planning sought clarification of the reasons for refusal which Councillor Jones provided.  These were:-

• Detrimental impact on highway safety
• Unacceptable risk of flooding
• Inadequate drainage capacity
• Loss of amenity and overlooking of surrounding properties
• Overdevelopment

The Planning Strategy Manager cautioned against the ‘kitchen sink’ approach and suggested that the Committee only put forward reasons for refusal that could be defended in an appeal. 

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

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of:- 

• Detrimental impact on highway safety
• Unacceptable risk of flooding
• Inadequate drainage capacity
• Loss of amenity and overlooking of surrounding properties
• Overdevelopment