Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to:-

·           the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment),

·           the three additional conditions requested by the Independent Planning Consultant (photographic survey, limit number of dwellings to 12 and implement permission within 2 years of approval)

·           the completion of a Section 106 Obligation to cover the payment of commuted sums in respect of Education Provision (in accordance with the provisions of SPG 23), on site play provision (in accordance with the provisions of LPG 13) and the construction of a footpath link between the site and the village of Penyffordd

·           the application being referred to Welsh Government under the Direction. 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  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 themeeting.  Councillor Ray Hughes, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

                        The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) explained that for consistency with recent applications, the proposal had been assessed by an Independent Planning Consultant; his recommendation to approve the application was supported by the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).  He referred Members to paragraphs 7.06 and 7.07 where it was reported that a Direction remained in place directing the Council not to grant planning permission on application 050003 or “any development of the same kind as that which is the subject of that application on any site which forms part of, or includes the land to which that application relates”.  Therefore should the Committee grant approval of the application, it would have to be referred to Welsh Ministers under the Direction. 

                        Mr. Rhys Davies, detailed the background to the report and highlighted paragraph 1.03 where the main issues for consideration in determining the application were reported.  He highlighted the late observation on the issue of drainage and explained that a response had also been received from Mr. D. Parry who was the Chair of Penyffordd and Kinnerton Labour Group who felt that the proposal did not comply with policy.  He detailed the responses received to the consultation exercise which were in section 3 of the report and highlighted the site history section where all applications on the site were detailed.  Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust had asked that an additional condition be included that a photographic survey be carried out if the application was approved.  Mr. Davies said that the applicant had indicated that there had been material changes since the 2005 refusal of the called-in application by Welsh Government particularly on the issue of sustainability as bus stops were now in place outside the site and a footpath was proposed to link the site to Penyffordd.  Other factors included that the Council could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply and the site was now classified as previously developed land.  Light industrial permission had been implemented which was not the case in 2005 so that was a significant material change since the previous refusal.  He referred to Planning Policy Wales guidance about permitting sustainable developments which this site now was due to the provision of the bus stops, half hourly bus services and the proposed footpath link to Penyffordd.  Mr. Davies commented on an appeal decision in South Wales which was allowed for a site on the edge of a village which provided an idea of how policy for such sites was now viewed. 

                        Mr. Davies also spoke of an additional change in the approval of the strategic business park at Warren Hall in Broughton which included provision for a cycle route; this was also a significant change since 2005.  He highlighted paragraph 7.12 of the report about Meadowslea Hospital and also referred to the 4.1 year land supply (using the residual method) that the Council was deemed to have.  Mr. Davies requested that a time limit of two years for the commencement of the development be imposed along with limiting the maximum number of properties on the site to 12 if the application was approved.  He also referred to the light industrial/commercial use but said that there was no evidence to question the information provided that there was no market for such a use.  In summary, he said that:-

·         the site was not viable for light industrial use;

·         the Council had a shortfall in the five year land supply;

·         there had been a change to planning policy since the previous refusal in 2005    

·         the site was now classed as being in a sustainable location

He recommended approval of the proposal pending the call-in from Welsh Government. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager confirmed with Mr. Davies that the three extra conditions being requested were:-

1.         Photographic survey (as requested in the comments from Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust

2.         Implement the decision within 2 years of approval

3.          Limit the number of dwellings to 12

Mr. D. Parry spoke against the application.  He said that the site was outside the settlement boundary, did not comply with planning policy and the Local Member for the Penyffordd ward was against the proposal.  He said that the site could not be classed as previously developed land as no work had been undertaken on the site.  He raised significant concern about whether there was need for more houses in the area and on the issue of the sustainability of the site, he said that the bus stops would have been provided outside the site anyway so could not be connected to the proposal.

            Councillor Chris Bithell moved refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He referred to the history of the site and said that the original application in 2000 was also for 12 dwellings, so in that respect, the proposal was the same.  He felt that what was being proposed was a new hamlet in the open countryside which the Council’s policies did not permit.  Councillor Bithell spoke of the proposals for light industrial use on the site which would then allow the area to become brownfield land and raised concern that the report did not include any evidence of whether the site had been marketed for such uses.  He felt that the comment that the site was now on a bus route was not a material change as this service had been in place at the time of the 2005 refusal decision. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts spoke of other sites which had bus stops and footpaths in the locality but said that this did not make them sustainable.  He felt that the application should be refused and tested on appeal as if it was permitted, it could result in similar proposals in the open countryside.  He added that as the site was outside the settlement boundary, it could not be classed as brownfield land.  He queried how landbanking could be prevented and said that it was not appropriate to allow an application just because the site was untidy.  He felt that a condition to restrict to 12 dwellings could not be imposed and that based on the Council’s guidelines of 30 dwellings per hectare, upto 27 properties could be built on the site.  Councillor Roberts said that if the application was approved, it would throw the UDP into confusion and he raised concern about the 4.1 year land supply when in fact the Council had approximately 14.2 years supply if the past completions method of calculation was used. 

            Councillor Owen Thomas felt that the report of the officer indicated that the application complied with policy and should therefore not be refused.  He added that this was an opportunity to add 12 houses to the 4.1 year land supply for the County. 

            Councillor Derek Butler felt that the report contained red herrings particularly on the issue of the Meadowslea Hospital site which he felt this proposal could not be compared to.  He concurred that the bus service was in place in 2005 and that the issue of Warren Hall Business Park should not be considered when determining this application.  He felt that there were no policy reasons to permit the application and he referred to lack of evidence about the light industrial use of the site. 

            Councillor Richard Jones said that the site was outside the settlement boundary but was not in the open countryside and as it was now sustainable, accessible and was a previously developed site, it should be permitted.  There were bus stops now outside the site and Councillor Jones did not feel that the proposal would create a new hamlet.  The site would be linked by a footpath to the village of Penyffordd and complied with policies.  Councillor Mike Peers said that the site was located in the Kinnerton Ward, not Penyffordd as earlier stated, and the Local Member was in favour of the proposal.  He felt that the report was factual, highlighted paragraphs 7.11 and 7.12 and commented on the need to consider the site as sustainable which was different from the application in 2005.  The site was not in the open countryside and was acceptable in planning policy terms. 

            Councillor Ron Hampson said that the common sense approach was to approve the application.  He referred to its close proximity to the former White Lion public house development and said that the proposal for 12 houses was acceptable.  Councillor Carolyn Thomas felt that an affordable housing element had not been explored in the report.  She queried what policies needed to be applied to the development which had been referred to as a new hamlet in the countryside.  She also felt that the sustainability of the bus stops near the site should not form part of the planning consideration as they could be removed at any time.  Councillor Carol Ellis commented on the references to Meadowslea hospital and the proposals that the bed places as a result of the closure would be split between Wrexham and Deeside hospitals; both wards had since been closed, so she felt that the proposal had not benefitted local people.  She added that the application should be approved. 

            In response to a comment by Councillor Roberts about whether all sites within a one mile distance of a village would be permitted, Mr. Davies spoke of the interpretation in Planning Policy Wales guidance used by an appeal inspector on a specific application that a one mile walk with a footpath from one site to another was acceptable.  In referring to comments made by the Planning Inspector during the Meadowlea hospital application process that the site was “in and around the settlement boundary”, Mr. Davies had felt that even though the site was not within the settlement boundary, it was sustainable because of the bus stops and proposed footpath.  The site was now previously developed land and was sustainable which he reiterated was different to the 2005 application.  He did not have any evidence that the bus stops would be removed and felt that the investment in the new bus stops was an indicator that the route was a key route that was not under threat.  With reference to the trigger in the UDP for affordable housing, the threshold was 25 dwellings or a site of 1 hectare; neither of these factors applied to this proposal.  He commented on the evidence provided on the marketing of the site and he confirmed his earlier comment that the site was previously developed land. 

            In summing up, Councillor Bithell felt that the brownfield designation did not apply to this site and that the information that the site had been used for light industrial use was questionable.  It had not been proved or demonstrated that the site had been marketed and the building did not have any architectural merit.  He felt that approval would create a new hamlet in the countryside and should therefore be refused.              

            Councillor Gareth Roberts requested a recorded vote but was not supported by the requisite five other Members.    

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application was LOST.  Councillors Gareth Roberts and Chris Bithell asked that it be recorded in the minutes that they had voted for refusal of the proposal. 

            The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) reminded the Committee that the application would be referred to Welsh Ministers under the Direction. 

            RESOLVED

            That planning permission be granted subject to:-

·           the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment),

·           the three additional conditions requested by the Independent Planning Consultant (photographic survey, limit number of dwellings to 12 and implement permission within 2 years of approval)

·           the completion of a Section 106 Obligation to cover the payment of commuted sums in respect of Education Provision (in accordance with the provisions of SPG 23), on site play provision (in accordance with the provisions of LPG 13) and the construction of a footpath link between the site and the village of Penyffordd

·           the application being referred to Welsh Government under the Direction. 

After the vote had been taken, Councillor Hughes returned to the meeting and the Chairman advised him of the decision.