Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in paragraph 2.01 of 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 15 December 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background to the report and in referring Members to the late observations, explained that Natural Resources Wales had withdrawn their objection and therefore the reason for refusal in paragraph 2.02 should be omitted. 

            Mrs. L. Dainty spoke against the application.  She felt that the proposal would not enhance or harmonise with the area and would be more appropriate in an industrial area.  It would be out of character and screening would not address the concerns that it would impact on the visual amenity of the area.  It was felt that the amenity of the residents would be affected because of the opening hours and the noise that the business would create.  She said that traffic leaving the site would not be able to rejoin the A55 westerly direction without either going to junction 29 on the easterly side to rejoin the A55 or by using a small country lane and crossing a bridge.  This was a cause for concern along with the design of junction 29 which would require improvements for heavy goods vehicles to access. 

            Mrs. J. Coxon, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  She said that the site, which was enclosed on three sides with the fourth side being the A55, was currently a garden centre and café.  The proposal would allow an existing business to expand and would create eight new jobs.  Mrs. Coxon said that the site would be screened off from public view, would not have an impact on residential amenity or highway safety and complied with Policy EM4.  The concerns of NRW had been addressed and the proposal would significantly reduce the number of vehicle movements when compared with the current use.  

Councillor Jim Falshaw proposed approval of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He felt that the proposal would safeguard the future of the site and would allow the business to expand.  The site had been marketed since 2011 but there had been little interest in continuing the business as a café and garden centre.  The existing café building would be used as an office and the proposed building for this scheme would be on a smaller footprint than the existing garden centre.  The site was 2.3 metres from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) but would not have an effect on the AONB.  The scheme had been designed to ensure that concerns about potential contamination run off had been addressed. 

The Chairman advised Councillor Falshaw that as he had predetermined his position on the application and confirmed that he would not vote on the application, although he could speak as Local Member he could not move a proposition.  He then sought a further proposal. 

Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation of refusal which was duly seconded.  He said that the proposal did not lend itself to this location and would be more suited in an industrial setting and that the land could not be classed as a brownfield site.  The site could not be screened, particularly from the A55 and the proposal would result in an industrial building in the open countryside which was not acceptable. 

Councillor Gareth Roberts said that the current use of the site was appropriate but the proposal before the committee today was not.  The site would be visible from the AONB which was a material consideration and he concurred with the earlier comments about the difficulty of joining the A55 in a westerly direction. 

   Councillor Owen Thomas felt that there would not be an issue with the height of any proposed new building if the current building was removed and replaced.  He felt that the access was ideal access to the A55 as vehicles could use a nearby road to cross the bridge over the A55 near to junction 29.  He added that the current business use was no longer viable and that in his opinion, it was an ideal site for the proposed purpose.   

Councillor Richard Jones agreed that the application should be refused but felt that it was a brownfield site and did not comply with Policy EM4 because it was not in keeping with its immediate surroundings.  Councillor David Cox spoke about the egress of the site and concurred that re-joining the westerly direction of the A55 would be a problem.  He said that the road and bridge referred to by Councillor Thomas were narrow and would be difficult for larger vehicles to use.  He agreed that the proposal would be more appropriate in an industrial setting. 

In response to the comments made, the officer highlighted paragraph 7.13 where the details of Policy EM4 were reported.  The proposal did not meet the policy, particularly on the issue of highways and what was proposed was a more industrial style building compared to what was currently in place and would be out of character with the area. 

The Development Manager added that paragraph 7.12 reported that as the application site had an established existing lawful use as a garden centre, the area could be considered as brownfield land.        

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in paragraph 2.01 of the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).