Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment). 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 1 September 2014.  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 and drew Members’ attention to the late observations and highlighted paragraph 7.08 about development at the shopping park.  The outline application was to the north of the retail park and all matters were reserved.  This was a resubmission of a previous application which the applicant had now appealed against on the grounds of non-determination which was item 6.2 on this agenda.  Part of the site was allocated for non-retail designation in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and it was important to note that the western part of the site was outside the retail allocation being ‘white’ land within the UDP.  The central/eastern part of the site was within S1(6) and was proposed for the medical centre, contact centre and hotel.  The officer explained that there was no evidence to confirm any potential interest or commitment from operators of the hotel, medical centre or contact centre and these elements were therefore at this stage purely speculative.  Without these commitments, the application would become an A3 led development outside the S1(6) allocation and was therefore recommended for refusal. 

                        Mr. M. Krassowski, the agent for the applicant spoke in support of the application.  He said that the applicant had been encouraged for a number of years to bring forward a proposal for this site and an original application which included a cinema had been refused in 2013 when another application for similar provision on the other side of the retail park was approved.  The developer had been requested by the Local Member to include a contact centre on the Council owned land and it was felt that the restaurant uses would complement the existing site.  Mr. Krassowski said that A3 allocation was compliant with the policy allocation for the wider site.  He said that it was incorrect that the A3 allocation would be retail as it could be conditioned to restrict the uses or be subject to a section 106 Agreement. He added that there was interest for an operator for the hotel element of the site, which complied with policy.  On the issue of the provision of the medical centre and contact centre, he said that the applicant had included them in the application based on a request from the Local Member but that the developer could not take responsibility for land outside their control.                

            Councillor Billy Mullin, the Local Member, proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He spoke of the need for a contact centre but did not understand how it was proposed on land which was outside the applicant’s ownership.  He also raised concern about the access and said that he preferred the access off the service road.

            The Democracy and Governance Manager advised Members that issues of land ownership were not relevant to their determination of the application. 

            Councillor Derek Butler felt that the application was premature as the end users for the medical centre and contact centre had not yet been identified and without these two elements, the proposal would only be a ‘bolt on’ fast food park.  He felt that there would be overprovision on the site as four food and drink units were being developed in connection with the cinema.  He raised concern about the significant highways issues in Broughton and added that the contact centre could be built by the developer on their own land and would be beneficial in the future as it could be used by shoppers visiting the Retail Park as well as those who lived in Broughton. 

            Councillor Mike Peers referred to the access which he felt was unacceptable from the main Broughton to Saltney road.  On the issue of the medical centre, he said that the Marches medical practice had been approached about the proposal but had indicated that they did not have future expansion plans.  Councillor Peers said that the hotel was the only element not already available in the retail park and concurred about the prematurity of the application.  Councillor Richard Jones said that if there was no requirement by Flintshire County Council for a contact centre and Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board for a new medical centre, then he did not feel that the development was required and should therefore be refused. 

            The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control advised that a full Highways assessment had been submitted.  Highways would prefer the access from the minor road but there was no reason to refuse the application on highway grounds. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer stated that the deliverability of a contact centre or medical centre was a key factor and the lack of feasibility would leave the application as an A3 led development. 

            In summing up, Councillor Mullin reiterated his concerns about the access to the site. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application was CARRIED unanimously.     

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).