Issue - meetings

            That planning permission be refused for the amended reasons detailed on the late observations sheet. 

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 18 January 2016.  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.    Councillor Ray Hughes, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the site was 1.4 hectares in size and was outside the settlement boundary for Penyffordd and Penymynydd.  Details of access had been provided but all other matters were reserved.  The officer referred to paragraph 7.05 where the comments of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Inspector were reported and she explained that the site had been considered by the Inspector as part of the UDP Inquiry as an ‘omission site’.  However, the Inspector had not allocated this site due to the visual impact and also as no further land was needed at that time to meet the growth of the settlement in terms of the UDP strategy.  Paragraph 7.09 provided details of an appeal for a previous application on the adjacent Rhos y Brwyner Farm which included the provision of a new access off Rhos Road.  The appeal was dismissed as the Inspector felt that the creation of a new access route could set a precedent for further development. 

                        There had been a number of objections to the application and these were detailed in the report.  The officer explained that the settlement had an indicative growth band of 8 to 15% for a Category B settlement but it was reported that as at April 2015 the settlement had a growth rate of 27.1% over the plan period.  This figure took account of the commitments for developments in the area but the growth rate for completions was 21%.  Consideration had been given to Policy GEN3 in the determination of this application and also to Technical Advice Note 1, which required each local planning authority to maintain a five year supply of housing land.  As the Council was currently unable to demonstrate a five year land supply, consideration of TAN1 should be given considerable weight in the determination of the application.  Due to the current land supply situation and the timeframe for the UDP housing strategy, the Council had produced a developer guidance note in order to provide some clarity which had been endorsed in June 2015. 

The officer explained that an agricultural land classification survey had confirmed that the site was subgrade 3b and not ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land.  A Transport Statement had accompanied the application and Highways had raised no objection to the proposed development subject to standard highways conditions covering the details of the access and detailed design of estate roads.  A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) had also accompanied the application and this had been assessed by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112