Issue - meetings

That planning permission be refused.

The Chief Officer advised that a report would be brought to the next meeting to clarify the proposed reasons for refusal.

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 July 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

The officer advised that although the application was outside the settlement boundary, it complied with all the UDP policies and Planning Policy Wales guidance.  He considered the lack of a five year land supply to be a material consideration in this case and recommended that conditional planning permission be granted, subject to the Section 106 provisions outlined within the report.  As a point of accuracy, condition 14 should have indicated that no dwelling was to be occupied until the works in condition 13 were completed.

As the Local Member, Councillor Phil Lightfoot spoke against the application.  Whilst he had a number of concerns, he specifically questioned the adequacy of drainage due to the presence of freshwater springs.  He acknowledged the advice given by Natural Resources Wales (NRW) about the increased potential for flooding, adding that the increased flow of water from the development increased the risk of flooding downstream to Lower Kinnerton.  He referred to flooding concerns raised by a number of local residents and sought assurances that the drainage system removing water from the site would be subject to regular maintenance by NRW, which had not been the case over the past five years.  Councillor Phil Lightfoot then withdrew from the meeting.

Mr. J. Brautigam spoke against the application on the basis that it represented a significant departure from the UDP, was outside the defined settlement boundary and within open countryside.  He stated that failure of the Council to have a five year plan was not a reason to grant approval and that the development did little to address the shortage in affordable housing.  He pointed out that Higher Kinnerton had delivered its quota through its 10% growth over the planned period and therefore there was no reason to deliver the next phase of the development.  He highlighted the range of housing available in the area where some properties had remained unsold for some time.  He described the proposals as impractical and dangerous, citing no safe access for pedestrians, cyclists and people with disabilities and no easy safe pedestrian access from Kinnerton Lane to the village.

Mr. P. Lloyd, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application and thanked the officers for their assistance.  He referred to the Inspector’s decision to allow the appeal under Agenda Item 6.15 and drew a number of comparisons with this application such as it being outside the settlement boundary, compliance with the Council’s approach to housing site releases, the five year supply and the need to release such land outweighing any open countryside harm.  He said that the ongoing need to deliver housing was a material consideration and that the officers had given considerable weight to providing supply in line with national policy.  He said  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35