Agenda item

That planning permission be refused on the grounds of the proposal being out of character with the streetscene, overdevelopment in terms of height and its impact on amenity, and flood risk issues.

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 explaining that the application had been deferred from the 12^th November 2014 meeting in order for a site visit to be undertaken and to obtain comments from Welsh Water.  She referred the Committee to a number of late observations that had been received which included objections on the grounds of the 3 storey buildings being higher than the current dwellings in the area, whether the properties would be connected to a septic tank system and whether the New Inn was a listed building.  A petition of 218 signatures objecting to the proposal had also been received.  In response, the officer confirmed that the building was not listed.  Welsh Water had provided a sewer plan and the applicant’s agent had indicated that discussions with Welsh Water were being undertaken about connecting to the mains or a private treatment plant would be installed if this was not feasible.  The apartments would be in two blocks of two and three storey and because the site was within Zone C1, the proposals indicated that the ground floor of the development would be used solely for vehicle parking.  In response to a query from Queensferry Community Council about access to Boughton Brook, Natural Resources Wales (NRW) had provided a plan of how they could gain pedestrian and vehicular access when needed and had asked for an additional condition that access for NRW maintenance operatives to Boughton Brook be maintained in the future.   

            Mrs. S. Stevens spoke against the proposal as she felt it did not comply with Local Planning Guidance note 2 on Space around dwellings as the separation distances should be over 22 metres, which they were not.  The guidance did not relate to three storey properties but did cover differing height levels which indicated that the distances should be a minimum of 27 metres which would not be achieved.  She raised concern at the overlooking aspect from the living rooms on the first and second floors which would have an impact on the amenity and the building would overshadow the gardens of existing properties.  Mrs. Stevens felt that adequate screening could not be provided and that the proposals were not in keeping with the character of the area.  The drainage issues had not been resolved and the installation of a private treatment plant would not address the concerns raised.  She suggested that two storey buildings would reduce the impact on the area and added that there were no other three storey dwellings in the village. 

            Mr. E. Roberts, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He felt that the proposal complied with all of the relevant planning policies including space around dwelling guidance and no objections had been received from statutory consultees.  The concerns that had been raised about the flood risk area had been addressed. He referred to the lack of a five year supply stating a specific need for 1 and 2 bed homes, which would benefit local people and meet demand from Broughton Park and Airbus. 

Councillor Derek Butler proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  Whilst he was not against the development in principle he felt that the middle section of the proposal was out of character with the area and that two storey buildings would be more in keeping. 

Councillor Mike Peers was not in favour of the application in its current form and raised concern at the overlooking into neighbouring properties from the second floor of the building because of the design which included ground level parking.  He suggested that a dormer roof with velux windows would resolve some of the issues raised and said that he was not against the principle of development on the site but disagreed with the current proposals on the grounds of overlooking and the impact on the area.  Councillor Chris Bithell raised concern at the comments in paragraph 7.14 that residents could be trapped in the upper floors in the event of a flood.  Councillor Richard Lloyd concurred that the proposals were not in keeping with the area and would result in properties of differing heights to existing dwellings.  He also agreed that space around dwellings was insufficient due to the height of the proposed building. 

In referring to paragraph 7.10, Councillor Richard Jones queried whether the properties should be built in flood zone C1 as he did not feel that it had been demonstrated that they had been justified in relation to TAN 15.  He added that three storey dwellings were out of keeping with the area.

In response to the comments made, the officer commented on the impact on the character of the area.  It was reported that the three storey element would not be out of character with the overall streetscene because of the varying roof heights in the area.  She provided details on the pedestrian and vehicular access to Boughton Brook requested by NRW.  She also explained that because of the angle of the building to existing properties, the separation distance at the furthest point was 34 metres with only a small part of the development only achieving 23 metres, so it was considered that the distances adequately addressed the concerns raised about amenity and overlooking. 

In summing up, Councillor Butler said that his reasons for refusal were that the proposal was out of character with the streetscene, and because of issues relating to height, flooding and impact on the amenity of existing residents.         

            RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused on the grounds of the proposal being out of character with the streetscene, overdevelopment in terms of height and its impact on amenity, and flood risk issues.