Issue - meetings

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment), the additional condition referred to in the late observations and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation, Unilateral Undertaking or advance payment of £1,100 per dwelling and £733 per apartment in lieu of on site recreational provision.  

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

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 22 June 2015.  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 explained that the application site was in the ownership of Flintshire County Council and accommodated a number of garages, the majority of which were unused.  He highlighted section 5 of the report which explained that a previous application on the site had been refused on 26 January 2015 due to overdevelopment and the adverse impact of the proposed site layout on trees which were the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.  It was considered by officers that this application addressed the concerns raised and an additional condition had been suggested to safeguard the footpath-link through the site during construction works and its retention thereafter in perpetuity.  

            Councillor Ian Dunbar proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He indicated that the proposed parking for the apartment block was sited adjacent to the common site boundary with an existing property at 43 Hillside Avenue and he commented on the proposals for boundary treatments.  Councillor Dunbar added that the erection of barriers to ensure that the root protection areas of the trees were safeguarded during construction works and the acknowledgement that a footpath which crossed the site which allowed for pedestrian access into the adjacent recreational area and provided a link to existing residential properties at Lon Derwen was welcomed by residents.  In moving the recommendation, he said that the proposal would provide a residential development that would provide affordable housing and much needed housing stock for rent or sale. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell referred to the original application and said that the number of properties had been reduced in this proposal and therefore the concern of overdevelopment had been addressed.  The issues about the footpath and the trees protected by the Tree Protection Order had also been addressed. 

            In referring to the Section 106 Obligation in lieu of on site recreational provision, Councillor Richard Lloyd asked whether the monies would be used for a nearby play facility and what the area consisted of.  The officer responded that there were landscaped areas included in the site but there was no usable or definable open space.  The site was immediately adjacent to an area of open space and could be easily accessed from the site and this element of the Section 106 obligation would be used to improve the existing facilities in this area.  He highlighted paragraph 7.14 where it was reported that the erection of a 1.8m high brick wall to safeguard privacy/amenity due to the site being adjacent to the common site boundary with an existing property at 43 Hillside Avenue could be covered by condition if the application was granted. 

            On the issue  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29