Agenda item

Report of Chief Officer (Governance) enclosed.

            That planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 Agreement and to the conditions to be agreed under agenda item 7.1 at this meeting.  

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Governance) in respect of this application.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

                        The Democracy & Governance Manager detailed the background to the report and explained that following the vote to approve the application at the November 2014 meeting, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that he would be seeking legal advice as he felt that the decision was a significant departure from policy.  The Democracy and Governance Manager detailed the procedure as reported in paragraph 2.03 where he had considered written representations from the proposer and seconder (Councillors Mike Lowe and Richard Lloyd) and the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).  The decision of the Democracy and Governance Manager that the decision reached by the Committee on 12^th November 2014 was a significant departure from policy and his reasons were detailed in paragraph 3.01.  The report was therefore back before the Committee to allow them to give further consideration as to whether planning application 052369 should be granted or refused. 

                        The Planning case officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the full application which included five affordable homes related to a site within the settlement boundary.  This was the former compound site and had been allocated in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for housing and the adjacent site had an outline planning permission for 24 dwellings.  The Council had recommended that this part be retained as green space to provide a buffer for the neighbouring residential properties but the UDP Inspector had felt that there was no reason why a residential site would not provide the same buffer.  The officer referred to Technical Advice Note 1: Joint Housing Land Availability Study and stated that as at April 2013, the Council only had a 4.1 year land supply which was below the required five year supply.  A recent Planning appeal for another site which was allocated for housing, but had a proposal for a petrol filling station, had been dismissed by the Inspector who concluded that the site was required for housing because of the deficiency in housing land supply.  Officers considered that the same principle should be applied to this application and the recommendation was therefore one of refusal.  Considerations on the retail impact of the development were reported in paragraphs 7.20 to 7.26.  A Noise Assessment had been submitted with the application and had been reviewed by the Public Protection Manager.  He had raised no objections to the siting of a food store subject to imposition of conditions for noise reduction measures, which would include a 2.5m high acoustic screen and a fully enclosed delivery bay, as set out in the Noise Assessment.  The officer added that the existing bund around the site would be enhanced. 

                        Mrs. J. Richards spoke against the application.  She spoke of the applications at the previous meeting where it had been implied that Aldi would only develop the store in Buckley if approval was given to the store in Broughton.  She said that Aldi had confirmed on 11^th December 2014 the Buckley store would go ahead even if this application was refused.  She referred to the number of objections received to the proposal and said that Aldi had spoken of the large amount of support on social media that they had for the proposal, but Mrs. Richards felt this could not be proved.  She also spoke of the development brief for the site.  There was a shortfall in the housing supply even if this application was approved and there was no reason to allow affordable housing on the site as it could be located elsewhere.  Mrs. Richards said that the site was unsuitable for the proposal and would create noise disturbance and a visual impact for the neighbouring residents.

                        Ms. J. Gabrilatsou, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  She said that the report to the 12^th November 2014 had been fully debated and discussed and the decision had been reached in spite of the fact that the Council had a less than five year land supply.  Aldi had sought other sites in the area but none had been available and officers had not recognised any. The proposal would produce a sustainable development if approval was granted.  She reminded the Committee of the wider allocation for the site which was for 48 houses and that the adjacent site had outline planning permission for up to 29 houses; therefore the loss of houses would be modest if the retail store was built.  Ms. Gabrilatsou said that she considered the vast majority of residents in Broughton were in support of the proposal which would provide 5 affordable homes, £6m investment to the area and bring £1m to the economy.  No objections had been received to the design of the building and Ms. Gabrilatsou referred to Section 38 of the Planning and Compensation Act.  She said that the material considerations had not changed since the last meeting.

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He said that the application should not be judged in a popularity contest but based on planning policy and the UDP which had been voted upon democratically and the public should be able to rely upon it for assurance.  He felt that a retail store in this location was unsuitable and that Aldi had purchased the site knowing that it was allocated for housing.  Residents had purchased the nearby houses on the understanding that this site would be used for housing and not for a retail development which would create noise.  Councillor Bithell added that he was not against Aldi but he felt that the store could be located within the retail park.  He spoke of the lack of five year land supply and referred to the challenge regarding this issue on an application later in the agenda.

            In indicating that circumstances had changed since the Inspector made the decision to allocate the site for housing, Councillor Ron Hampson said that the amount of housing in Broughton had increased but the facilities to support it, such as the proposed retail store, were not in place.  He felt that there was a strong economic case for the proposal as Aldi had indicated that they would also be looking to provide stores in Buckley and Connah’s Quay as well as this store in Broughton.  This would result in an £18m investment in Flintshire and would create 120 jobs.  The store in Broughton was needed and he expressed his disappointment that the Committee had been asked to reconsider their decision to approve the application. 

            Councillor Mike Peers referred to the 4.1 year housing land supply that the Council had at April 2013 and said that there was sufficient housing available from windfall sites or sites already granted permission but not developed.  He felt that density of sites lower than the 30 dwellings per hectare guidelines had added to the problem and said that the proposal would result in the loss of only 25 houses if this part of the application was permitted for the retail store.  He drew attention to Policy HSG1 and highlighted the significant growth rate for Broughton which was a Category B settlement.  He referred to the Category A settlements of Mold, Holywell and Flint which all had a lower number of houses allocated for the area.  Councillor Peers commented on the Planning Policy Wales where it was noted that developments should meet society’s needs which he felt this proposal would.  He queried whether there was a problem with the housing allocation formula and said that there was overwhelming public demand for the store.  Councillor Owen Thomas concurred and said that existing sites were not being maximised because lower density rates were being applied.

            Councillor Derek Butler referred to the large amount of emails that he had received on the proposal, some polite and some offensive.  He felt that Aldi had not handled the planning process well and had spent 3.5 years bombarding the public, which he was appalled at.  He said that if the site was to remain as an allocation for housing, this could take the growth figure for Broughton to over 23% which was an overprovision for the area.  Councillor Butler spoke of two other options for the siting of the store; one in the retail park and the other opposite the Glynne Arms public house.  He commented on the support for the scheme by Bloor homes but he felt that this was a red herring as they were preparing an application for 49 houses to replace the allocation on this site.  He spoke of the overwhelming public demand for the store and said that the proposal could still be called in by Welsh Government if the scheme was approved. 

            Councillor Richard Lloyd said that he had been contacted by the Democracy & Governance Manager following the 12^th November 2014 meeting.  He said that a meeting had been requested but this had been refused.  He felt that it was unfair that he and Councillor Mike Lowe as proposer and seconder of the proposal had been singled out to provide their reasons of why they felt that approval was not a significant departure from policy.  The reasons that had been given for approving the proposal was that there were enough houses in Broughton, there were no surplus places in the schools, residents had difficulty in getting appointments at the local doctor’s surgery and the proposal would create 40 jobs.    

            In response, the Democracy & Governance Manager said that the meeting that Councillor Lloyd had requested was a full Committee meeting, which following consultation with the Chairman had been refused.  He explained the procedure that he had followed was his normal one in such situations and he had also explained to Councillor Lloyd why he had been asked for representations.

            Councillor Gareth Roberts said that approval of the application was a significant departure from policy and that the meeting would give the Committee the opportunity to reconsider its decision.  He agreed that this was not the correct location for a retail store and asked how other applications for proposals other than housing on sites allocated for housing could be refused if this was permitted.

Councillor Carol Ellis said that the previous decision had been made democratically and that she would vote for approval as before.  She agreed that granting permission was a departure from policy but the proposal was to meet society’s needs and should be permitted as Broughton had too many houses with limited facilities.

            On the issue of a call-in by Welsh Government, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that he had just received notification [a note had been brought into the Council Chamber by an officer] that the decision would not be called-in if approval was granted at this meeting.

            In response to the comments made, the officer confirmed that the Council currently had a 4.1 year land supply.  She added that the same principle had been applied for this application as for the appeal decision in Connah’s Quay referred to earlier which the Inspector had dismissed so the land could be retained for housing.

            The Interim Team Leader Policy said that the calculation for the land supply was based on the residual method but if the past completions method was used then the Council had a land supply in excess of five years.  However, the fact that the Authority were not currently shown to have a sufficient land supply was a material consideration in the determination of the application.  He reminded Members that over 800 units would need to be permitted for Flintshire County Council to achieve its five year land supply.

            The Development Manager reiterated the fact that the objections were not to an Aldi store in Broughton but to the development on this site. He said that there were alternative sites available and that the lack of a five year land supply was a critical consideration. He added that most Members would be faced with proposals for development on unallocated sites within their areas at some stage and that if allocated sites for housing were given up for other development it would make it very difficult to refuse these.

            Councillor Carol Ellis requested a recorded vote and was supported by the requisite five other Members.    

            In summing up, Councillor Chris Bithell reiterated his earlier comments that the proposal was against UDP policy and that other land was available for the siting of the store. 

On being put to the vote, planning permission was granted by 13 votes to 7 with the voting being as follows:-

            FOR – REFUSING PLANNING PERMISSION

Councillors: Chris Bithell, David Cox, Christine Jones, Mike Reece, Gareth Roberts, David Roney and David Wisinger

AGAINST – REFUSING PLANNING PERMISSION

Councillors: Marion Bateman, Derek Butler, Carol Ellis, David Evans, Jim Falshaw, Ray Hughes, Richard Jones, Richard Lloyd, Ron Hampson, Mike Peers, Neville Phillips, Carolyn Thomas and Owen Thomas

            Councillor Richard Jones sought clarification on the timing of the response from Welsh Government about the decision not being called-in.  In response, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) said that he was aware the application had been referred to Welsh Government but that the response from them had not been received until after the start of this meeting.  They had stated in their letter that it was felt that the proposal was ‘not considered to be of more than of local interest’.  The Democracy and Governance Manager said that WG applied a different test on whether to call in an application than the Council’s test for referring it back to Committee as a significant departure from policy.

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 Agreement and to the conditions to be agreed under agenda item 7.1 at this meeting.