Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused and a report be brought back to the next meeting with draft reasons. 

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 10 February 2014.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Amendments to two paragraphs in the the report were circulated at the meeting. 

                        Mr. E.C. James, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He explained that other sites had been explored before this site was selected and when planning permission had been granted previously there were no dissenting voices. He stated that only five burials had occurred in the last five years so it was not felt that the use of the site would be excessive.  A right of way was required to access the land and only hearses and maintenance vehicles would be permitted to use the access as space for parking for vehicles would not be provided on the site.  There were only four graves remaining at the churchyard and therefore this site was required. 

                        The local Member, Councillor Phil Lightfoot, spoke against the application.  He said that the map included with the report was incorrectly marked as to the location of the playing field.  He raised concern about safety of children with hearses and maintenance vehicles using the access through the play area, which would be difficult to police and said that parking would be an issue on Park Avenue.  He queried the definition of a maintenance vehicle and in referring to Policy SR4 on play areas, said that all of the concerns had not been addressed.     

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that there was no reason to refuse the application and reminded Members that funeral processions passed by Bryn Coch School on a daily basis and that the Mold Alun Grammar School had been situated on the road to Mold Cemetery.  He felt that the grounds for refusal were groundless and petty and reiterated that there was no sound reason to refuse theapplication.  Councillor Ron Hampson concurred with the comments made. 

            Councillor Alison Halford raised concern about the proposal which required an uphill walk to get to the site and said that parking would also be an issue as none was to be provided.  She felt that there should be a form of boundary hedging or screening to prevent the children in the playground from seeing the funeral processions and queried whether the application included any disabled access.  Councillor Halford felt that other sites would be more suitable for a graveyard. 

            Councillor Carolyn Thomas concurred and said that there was a need to reconsider the scheme for one that did not cross the play area and asked whether the Play Unit had been consulted.  She referred to an access for a bowling club through a play area in her ward which caused concern and which was dangerous. 

            Councillor Mike Peers queried whether the play equipment on the playground was maintained by Flintshire County Council and queried whether it was in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and whether it was classed as open space.  He asked how the use of the access would be policed and in highlighting the lack of segregation between the site and the play area, said that he was not able to support the application.  Councillor Richard Lloyd requested that a screen between the access and play area be provided if the application was approved along with parking for vehicles of those attending funerals or visiting the graves.  Councillor Christine Jones said that it was not an appropriate site for a graveyard and that there were health and safety concerns.  Councillor Halford queried whether the Council would be responsible if a child was injured or killed if the application was approved as it was a Council owned play area.   

            In response to the comments made, the officer advised that Highways had not submitted any objections to the scheme about traffic generation.  The site was outside the UDP and was outside the village envelope.  Planning permission had been granted for an identical scheme in 2008 with the only difference being the request for access in this proposal.  At that time the Environment Agency had no objections to the scheme and Natural Resources Wales had not submitted any objections subject to conditions for this proposal.  The officer confirmed that the Play Unit had not been consulted.  The Democracy & Governance Manager advised that liability of the Council was not a relevant planning consideration. 

            The Development Manager referred to Policy SR4 and said that this proposal would not result in the loss of the play area or any interference with the play equipment on the site and therefore was not in conflict with Policy SR4. Negotiations with Flintshire County Council had taken place about the access and as the Play Unit looked after the play area, they would have been aware of the proposals.  In land use terms, the scheme was acceptable and consideration could be given to planting a hedge to screen the play area from the access. 

            Councillor Ray Hughes raised significant concern about the parking situation saying that the church was four or five hundred metres away and disabled people would not be able to walk to the graves. He queried the access to the allotments and said that the safety of the children was paramount.

            In summing up, Councillor Bithell moved approval of the application with an additional condition about the provision of a hedge to screen the play area from the access.  In response to the suggestion that a fence should be provided, the Development Manager said that a hedge was more suitable to the open environment of the area and that a fence would look intrusive.  He suggested that the detail of the screening be delegated to officers, which Councillor Bithell agreed with.

            RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused and a report be brought back to the next meeting with draft reasons.