Issue - meetings

            That planning permission be refused as the site was outside the settlement boundary, was an inappropriate development in the open countryside and would have a landscape impact due to its close proximity to Wat’s Dyke.  

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 the meeting. 

The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the site was adjacent to the new medical centre which was currently being constructed.  The period for monitoring growth of a settlement ended on 1 April 2015 and as at that date, the settlement had a growth rate of 10% over the plan period which was within the indicative growth band of 8 to 15% for a Category B settlement.  The application, which was in a sustainable location, complied with policy and was considered acceptable as the Council did not have a five year housing land supply.  Other issues for consideration included the impact on the open countryside and on Wat’s Dyke.  Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust (CPAT) had indicated in their consultation response that the proposal for four dwellings on the site took account of pre-application advice to limit the size and orientation of the layout.  Access to the site would be from the A550 and Highways had not raised any objections in relation to parking or turning of vehicles.  On the issue of impact on residential amenity, the officer explained that the properties on Queensway, which this site was adjacent to, had long gardens and therefore the space around dwellings guidelines had been exceeded. 

Mr. D. McChesney, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He felt that there was overwhelming demand for starter homes in the area and that this development would provide this type of property.  The design met the economic and social needs and guidance from CPAT on the impact of the development on Wat’s Dyke had been taken into account.  The properties would have three bedrooms and were all north/south facing and would include solar panels on the roof and the site was in a sustainable location with easy access to the local schools and amenities.  Mr. McChesney felt that the proposal was for an infill development and was a sustainable development and was sensitive to its surroundings.  He therefore requested that the Committee approve the application.    

            Councillor Mike Peers proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He said that the application site was outside the settlement boundary and added that the plans displayed appeared to look like four bedroomed homes rather than houses for affordable local need.  He asked whether the site had been put forward as a candidate site in the Local Development Plan (LDP) and added that the growth rate within the settlement for the plan period was 10% which meant that 5% was still available within the boundary before the growth rate of 15% was reached.  Councillor Peers queried why the application had been put forward for approval when other sites outside the settlement boundary had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 156