Agenda item

            That condition 14 not be removed due to issues of stability and potential contamination of third party land. 

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.  Councillor Mike Peers, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting whilst it was considered.   

                        The officer detailed the background to the report explaining that condition 14 of the existing permission (047624) stated “As part of the reserved matters application no development shall take place to the north of the hammerhead as illustrated on the submitted illustrative layout drawing J002220 02 21^st June 2010”.  Paragraphs 7.03 and 7.05 provided details of the planning history and reported that application 047624 sought to overcome the issues of uncertainties in relation to the nature of the contamination within the site and the stability of the ground.  The illustrative layout that accompanied the application showed a significant landscape buffer around the northern boundary of the site extending along the western and eastern boundaries with no development in the area to affect the stability of the structure.  It showed two houses to the north of a hammerhead at the northern end of an internal estate road but Members had imposed an additional condition to restrict any development to the north of the hammerhead.

The applicant had subsequently submitted an engineering report which reported no reason why the developer could not develop on the land to the north of the hammerhead and therefore this application had been submitted to remove condition 14; Building Control officers were satisfied with the findings of the report.  The officer also advised that the Section 106 obligation had been amended to increase the educational contributions due to the changes in the formula in the Supplementary Planning Guidance.    

            Councillor Carol Ellis proposed refusal of the removal of condition 14 against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  She said that the condition had been put in place to support the view of the Inspector at the appeal inquiry about the nature of the contamination within the site and the stability of the ground.  She indicated that the site had been used for landfill between 1935 and the 1960s and the authority did not have any records of the materials that were put into the area, and she highlighted paragraph 7.07 of the report about the 1899 Ordnance Survey Map of the area.  The condition had been proposed by Members to support what the Inspector had said about the safety of the environment.  In referring to adjoining Site of Scientific Interest (SSSI), Councillor Ellis asked if third parties had been involved in consultation about the site.  She added that if the condition was removed, then the application would be identical to application 043626 which was refused and dismissed on appeal.

            Councillor Richard Jones said that a previous application had been refused by Committee in 2009 and dismissed at appeal because of the risk of contamination and land stability issues.  He concurred that the authority was unaware of what had been infilled at the site and commented on leachate potentially leaking into the Trap as a result of removing part of the old tramway which acted as a barrier.  He felt that condition 14 should remain in place to protect the area.  Councillor Alison Halford asked whether officers had sufficient expertise to issue guarantees about the proposal by the developer to use piling on the site and asked for further information on piling.  She also requested more details on the ‘shallow solutions’ referred to in paragraph 7.10.  Councillor Neville Phillips referred to the educational contributions requested as part of the Section 106 Agreement and queried whether Elfed High School was nearer to the site than Mountain LanePrimary School.  Councillor Derek Butler said that the Inspector had made his decision based on the information that was available at the time and that further details had subsequently been submitted with which Planning and Building Control Officers were satisfied. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that the applicant had submitted the engineering report which indicated that the land stability issues could be overcome.  The removal of condition 14 would not necessarily mean that the applicant would develop the land up to the site boundary.  An indicative plan had not been received but she understood that two properties were proposed for the site north of the hammerhead.  Building Control officers were satisfied with the technical solutions that had been identified in the submitted report.  She explained that when looking at contributions as part of a section 106 agreement, Education colleagues would consider the current situation at the nearest primary and secondary schools, and at the time of their considerations, a contribution was required for Mountain Lane Primary School not Elfed High School.  The Development Manager said that an important factor was that the Inspector had insufficient information at the time to decide if the development was acceoptable.  He advised that the details that had been submitted indicated that piling was an acceptable method of building and Building Control officers were satisfied with the proposals in the report.  As and when a reserved matters application was received, that could be brought to the Committee for Members to consider the acceptability of the layout.  

            Councillor Richard Jones commented on the tramway, the clay buffer and leachate and possible contamination between the two sites.  The officer referred to paragraph 7.05 which reported on the remediation scheme that had been taken forward and the groundwater monitoring which had been undertaken which showed no contamination of the groundwater in the boreholes.  It was considered that there was no issue in relation to groundwater movements and the SSSI.

In summing up, Councillor Ellis said that she strongly believed that removal of condition 14 should be refused and reminded Members of land contamination issues on a site in Leeswood.         

               Councillor Richard Jones requested a recorded vote and was supported by the requisite five other Members.  On being put to the vote, removal of condition 14 was refused by 12 votes to 7 with the voting being as follows:-

FOR – REFUSING THE REMOVAL OF CONDITION 14

Councillors:, David Cox, Carol Ellis, Ron Hampson, Christine Jones, Richard Jones, Richard Lloyd, Mike Lowe, Neville Phillips, Gareth Roberts, Carolyn Thomas, Owen Thomas and David Wisinger

AGAINST – REFUSING THE REMOVAL OF CONDITION 14

Councillors: Derek Butler, Ian Dunbar, David Evans, Jim Falshaw, Alison Halford, Brian Lloyd and Billy Mullin

            RESOLVED:

            That condition 14 not be removed due to issues of stability and potential contamination of third party land. 

                        After the vote had been taken, Councillor Peers returned to the meeting.