Agenda, decisions and minutes

Though he was not a Member of the Committee, Councillor R.P. Macfarlane declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application:-

Agenda item 6.1 – Full application – Erection of Kelsterton Converter Station comprising valve halls, a control building and a spares building together with outdoor electrical equipment and associated infrastructure, security fencing, landscaped areas and habitat creation at Connah’s Quay Power Station, Kelsterton Road, Connah’s Quay (049981)

                        Councillor D.I. Mackie declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application, even though he was also not a Member of the Committee:-

Agenda item 6.3 – Full application – Change of use from agricultural to caravan park with 27 No. spaces including the conversion of barn into residential and agricultural shed into campsite facilities, demolition of existing outbuildings, formation of an access, construction of three fishing pools, parking and ancillary works at land opposite Stamford Way Farm, Stamford Way, Ewloe (049803)

The Chairman allowed Members an opportunity to read the late observations which had been circulated at the meeting.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meetingheld on 5^th September 2012.

That subject to the suggested amendments, the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 

The draft minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 5 September, 2012 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

Councillor A.M. Halford referred to minute number 60 on Croes Atti, Chester Road, Oakenholt and said at the meeting she had stated that the application was back before the Committee because the applicant had said that the decision taken in December 2011 was ultra vires.  This had also been mentioned by Mr. J. Yorke when he had addressed the Committee.  She added that the Democracy and Governance Manager, who had been the legal adviser at the meeting, had confirmed that the decision taken in December 2011 was not ultra vires. 

The Principal Solicitor advised that he would speak to the Democracy and Governance Manager to insert an amendment into the minutes to reflect the discussion.   

RESOLVED:

That subject to the foregoing, the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. 

The Head of Planning advised that none of the applications were recommended for deferral by officers.  

The Head of Planning advised that none of the applications were recommended for deferral by officers.  

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of the potential effect on residential amenity by way of noise and visual impacts by virtue of the scale and design of the development in proximity to residential properties, particularly in that alternative sites had not been fully explored. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 8 October 2012.  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 drew Members’ attention to the late observations. 

            Mr. G. Bennett spoke against the application on behalf of Golftyn Residents’ Association.  He stated that the Association was not opposed in principle to the development but was against its siting being so close to residential properties.  He referred to information on the web from National Grid and others which indicated that converter stations should not be close to residential areas due to factors which included noise and dust; he felt that National Grid were going against their own advice, being driven purely by cost.  Mr. Bennett also raised concern about the visual impact and the noise which would be generated by the converter station 24 hours per day, referring to the outline application which had been refused for these reasons.  He also referred to the contaminated nature of the site and to dust of an unknown nature which had appeared on cars in the locality.  In referring to Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention he considered that alternative sites should be explored on the other side of the river to this site. 

            Mr. M. Williams, the Project Manager from National Grid, spoke in support of the application.  He referred to the increased challenges to provide renewable energy and said that there was a history of power generation on this site.  He said that other sites had been explored but they were not technically viable for the western link.  The converter station was of a bespoke design, having the support of the Design Commisssion for Wales, which reflected local materials and on-site landscaping would also be provided to make the area more visually appealing.  He stated that there would be no increase in the prevailing background noise as a result of the converter station, even at night and when the station was at production levels.  He added that there was a need for the development and that a significant amount of work had been undertaken since the application was refused in February 2012 significantly to reduce the footprint and height of the building. He concluded that this was the best site for the site scheme and that this would be the most advanced converter station in the world. 

            One of the ward Members, Councillor P. Shotton spoke against the application as he felt that the noise and visual impact which had been the reasons for refusal of the outline application would still cause a detrimental impact to residents.  Golftyn residents felt that the building was still too high and would be a blot on the landscape.  The noise levels were still a concern as the levels would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and to the amended conditions 4 and 5 as detailed in the late observations. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 8 October 2012.  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 referred Members to the late observations where a letter of support and one of objection were reported along with two points of officer clarification. 

            Mr. I. Betts spoke against the application as a nearby resident of the site.  He referred to the profound detrimental impact of the application on residential amenity and spoke of problems of poor site design, noise, dust, fumes, traffic and pedestrians.  He requested that Members visit his property to see the effect for themselves.  He also did not feel that the site complied with the Unitary Development Plan.  He suggested that a solution to the problems could be to use fields to the side of Hendre Lane, which could include the use of the existing large buildings as facilities for the site and the use of a different access/egress.  Mr. Betts referred to the Section 106 agreement which was in place in respect of the application approved in February 1993 for 25 caravans on the site which had been requested to protect the amenity of neighbours; he felt that the agreement had been ignored.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application until the alternatives had been explored.    

                        Mr. J. Williams, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the applicants wanted to diversify and that he felt that other businesses would benefit from the tourism brought into the area.  He said that the reputation of the site had been built up on the basis of a family business.  He said that 75% of clients stayed on the site on a repeat basis.  He recognised that the other element to the application, the facilities for campers and backpackers, had the potential for anti social behaviour but this had been addressed by CCTV which operated for 24 hours per day and a strict curfew was in operation.  He added that the site boundary had been moved 150 metres away from the residential property. Mr. Williams said that there had been no objections from statutory consultees and the 85 objections had been submitted by one family on grounds which were unsubstantiated.  He commended the officer’s report to the Committee.   

Prior to speaking on the application, Councillor W.O. Thomas said that he had in the context of an earlier application signed an affidavit to confirm that the caravan park had been in place for a number of years but that he had had no involvement with the caravan park.  In order to put Councillor Thomas's remarks in context, the Principal Solicitor drew Members’ attention to application 049598 for a lawful development certificate for an existing use as a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 77.

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of unacceptable use within this area of open countryside designated as green barrier which would lead to coalescence and erosion of the open character. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 8 October 2012.  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 the main issues to be considered and drew Members’ attention to the late observations where the matters raised at the site visit were addressed.  She felt that the application did not cause unacceptable harm to the open countryside location and therefore approval of the application was recommended. 

            Mrs. J. Angell spoke against the application on behalf of residents.  She said that the application site was outside the settlement boundary of Ewloe.  She felt that it was not in accordance with the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and that there was no need for the development in its entirety, although some elements were acceptable.  Although she acknowledged that some controlled development might be suitable within green barriers, she considered that the overall development did not fall within any of the acceptable categories.  The proposed development would harm the openness of the green barrier and she asked whether there had been compliance with the conditions of the sale of the land at auction.  Mrs. Angell also queried whether it was a requirement for the land to be advertised for 12 months before the change of use could be considered.    

One of the ward Members, Councillor A.M. Halford, proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  She thanked the officer for her report which she felt was methodical and thorough.  The report indicated that the application would be good for tourism and she felt that the facilities were greatly needed and would bring business to the shops and other establishments in Ewloe.  

In seconding the proposal, Councillor J. Falshaw said that the development would benefit the local economy and provided for the retention of two buildings on the site.

Councillor D.I. Mackie, the other ward Member, spoke against the application.  He said that any development in the green barrier should not harm its open character and appearance as detailed in Policy GEN 4.  He referred to an earlier application for an access which had been dismissed on appeal in October 2010 where the Inspector considered that a 5.5m wide access with 10m. radii would represent an urbanising and incongruent feature that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area and therefore conflicted with policies in the UDP.  Councillor Mackie said that even though the Inspector’s comments could be viewed in two ways, he felt that the application should be refused for the same reasons.  He urged Members to do so.  Councillor Mackie, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

Councillor P.G. Heesom urged the Committee to take the advice of Councillor Mackie and refuse the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 78.

That planning permission be refused on the grounds of:-

• visual impact
• highway safety issues on the wider road network
• the existing permission not being fully implemented and should not therefore release any more land
• setting a precedent for unjustified development in the open countryside

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning 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 reminded Members that the application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 5 September 2012 to allow consultations with Whitford Community Council and Councillor C. Dolphin to take place. 

            Mr. T.M. Bond, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the application was in accordance with Policy T4 in the UDP.  The golf club already had permission for 15 units with six timber-clad units having been sold and the remaining nine for sale for long-term private ownership.  That development had not provided that anticipated level of income.  The applicant now wished to attract tourists seeking holiday lets to the site and was seeking permission for a second site to be marketed for letting for short breaks.  The golf club had put in a significant investment to bring tourism into the area and it was felt that the caravans would be used by those also wanting to play golf.  Mr. Bond said that Highways had raised no objections to the application, visual impact had been carefully addressed through screening and the development would not affect residential amenity. 

            Mr. B. Hughes spoke against the application as a representative of Whitford Community Council.  He felt that the use of the narrow roads in the area by those using the golf club was a problem.  There was no bus service in the area and no shops, with the nearest town being 2.5 miles away.  Mr. Hughes said that the applicant did not own the entrance or driveway to the site and that the owner had not given his permission for its use.  He said that tourism was important but not at the expense of losing green fields in the area.  The Council had approved a barn conversion and new riding stables nearby which had increased the level of traffic on the surrounding roads.

            Councillor P.G. Heesom moved refusal of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  He said that there was a need to look at the policy of caravans in the open countryside and said that the site was very exposed and impossible to screen.  Only six of the permitted 15 spaces had been used on the other part of the golf club and he felt that the application was premature or speculative.  In referring to the “Proposed Development” section of the report, he commented that the site was to be separately commercially managed.  Councillor Heesom said that it was virtually impossible for two cars to pass on the feeder roads to the area and proposed that the application be refused as it would set a precedent in the open countryside for caravan parks, and create landscape, environmental and highway safety  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

            That planning permission for a temporary period of two years be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the following additional conditions:-

·         Supports/materials to be agreed

·         Net to be maintained in the interest of appearance/effectiveness. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 8 October 2012.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The officer detailed the background to the report and said that the net barrier as originally submitted measured 10 metres but the application had since been amended to propose a 7.5 metre high net.  He detailed the consultation and publicity responses and advised that the recommendation was to approve the application. 

Mr. J. Clewarth spoke against the application.  He said that Members at the site visit would have note that the 14^th green on the golf course was only 10 metres away from his property.  Consequently, golf balls frequently ended up in his garden arising from the second shot from the top of the hill to the green and had resulted in damage to his roof.  He felt that neither the 7.5 nor 10 metre net would solve the problem and asked if there had been any expert advice about its effectiveness.  He said that nets had not been successful at other golf clubs and were now redundant at the Northop golf club as the hole had been moved.  Mr. Clewarth said that net would not be sympathetic to the area as it was to be 50 metres long and supported by stanchions, having the appearance of an institution and would cause overshadowing on his garden.  He felt that the problem was not of his making but was the result of a badly designed golf course: that the situation could be resolved by moving the green. 

Mr. J. Scott, Captain of Mold Golf Club, spoke in support of the application.  As a result of recent complaints the risk assessment had been reviewed and had identified that the likelihood of injury from the golf balls was very low.  The number of complaints had only increased following the removal of a beech tree and the regular trimming of the hedges by Mr. Clewarth .  Signs had been erected, the 150 metre marker had been moved back, out of bounds markers had been put in place to discourage balls being hit in the direction of Mr. Clewarth’s property, and a hardstanding path had also been removed to reduce the risk.  Mr. Scott said that the erection of a net was a last resort and that environmental issues such as the impact of the netting on birds and bats was key to the proposal.  

            Councillor W.O. Thomas proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that it was difficult to move the holes around on the long established golf course but added that safety was a key issue.  He said that the net and the supports should be in a material that blended into the area and that they should be maintained to prevent them becoming unsightly. 

            Councillor I. Dunbar proposed an amendment that temporary permission be granted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The officer detailed the background to the report and highlighted the consultation and publicity sections where the objections which had been received were detailed. 

            Councillor J. Falshaw proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that the objections had been addressed and that the application complied with policy.  

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.

            That planning permission be granted for a further 6 month period subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the mast had originally been sited on the Shotton Lane Social Club, but had been relocated to this site when the club burned down.  A temporary mast had been put on this site for a period of six months to allow a permanent site to be found.  This had now expired and an alternative location had not yet been secured.  It was recommended that a temporary consent be granted for a further six months or until a new site was ready.   

            Councillor R.C. Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.

            Councillor C.M. Jones read out a statement from Councillor A. Minshull who had been intending to speak as local Member, but had had to leave the meeting to attend a prior engagement.  She said that the residents had been willing to allow consent for six months but that a further six months, as proposed, was unacceptable.  There were now four masts on the site and she queried whether there was a policy of mast sharing.  She asked that the application be refused by Committee. 

            Following a query from Councillor W.O. Thomas, the officer explained that the moving of the mast to this site had been under emergency powers and that there was a reasonable distance between the housing and the masts.  It had been hoped that the mast would be relocated to a site of a garage but this had not been possible. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted for a further 6 month period subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.

            That the decision of the Inspector to dismiss this appeal be noted.

RESOLVED:

            That the decision of the Inspector to dismiss this appeal be noted.

                        The meeting commenced at 1.00 p.m. and ended at 4.13 p.m.

There were 36 members of the public and 2 members of the press in attendance.