Agenda, decisions and minutes

In speaking as local Member, Councillor Dennis Hutchinson declared a personal and prejudicial interest on agenda item 6.2 (minute number 123) as he owned land within a mile of the site which had been granted permission for residential development.  Councillor Hutchinson had received dispensation from the Standards Committee to speak on the item for five minutes and would leave the room for the debate and vote.

Councillor Richard Jones declared a personal and prejudicial interest on agenda item 6.5 (minute number 126) as he was a neighbour of the property and would leave the room for the item.

In speaking as local Member, Councillor Dennis Hutchinson declared a personal and prejudicial interest on agenda item 6.2 (minute number 123) as he owned land within a mile of the site which had been granted permission for residential development.  Councillor Hutchinson had received dispensation from the Standards Committee to speak on the item for five minutes and would leave the room for the debate and vote.

Councillor Richard Jones declared a personal and prejudicial interest on agenda item 6.5 (minute number 126) as he was a neighbour of the property and would leave the room for the item.

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 meeting held on 14^th December 2016.

That, subject to the amendment moved by Councillor Peers, the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2016 were submitted.

On minute number 117 (055725), Councillor Mike Peers asked that the wording ‘and rebuilding’ be removed from the seventh paragraph.

RESOLVED:

That, subject to the amendment moved by Councillor Peers, the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

None of the agenda items were recommended for deferral by officers, however agenda item 6.1 (055188) would not be considered due to the developer’s decision to withdrawn the application.  In response to comments, the Chief Officer advised that the applicant intended to re?submit the application to respond to the objections which had been raised.  The applicant had been told to cease work on site and that failure to do so would be at their own risk.  Councillor Richard Jones commented on the need to ensure that work does not continue, to which the Chief Officer reiterated the risk to the applicant.

Councillor Chris Bithell referred to the late observations and questioned whether agenda item 6.2 (minute number 056023) should be deferred.  The Chief Officer explained that officers were not recommending this item for deferral.

None of the agenda items were recommended for deferral by officers, however agenda item 6.1 (055188) would not be considered due to the developer’s decision to withdrawn the application.  In response to comments, the Chief Officer advised that the applicant intended to re?submit the application to respond to the objections which had been raised.  The applicant had been told to cease work on site and that failure to do so would be at their own risk.  Councillor Richard Jones commented on the need to ensure that work does not continue, to which the Chief Officer reiterated the risk to the applicant.

Councillor Chris Bithell referred to the late observations and questioned whether agenda item 6.2 (minute number 056023) should be deferred.  The Chief Officer explained that officers were not recommending this item for deferral.

That Planning Permission be refused for the reasons outlined in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

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.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since preparation of the report were set out in the late observations.

The officer explained that the application was unusual in that it proposed the demolition of an existing property and the formation of an access without any further development.  The accompanying Design and Access Statement and Transport Assessment made reference to the access serving a potential housing development on land to the rear of the property which did not form part of the application.  A request for more time to consider the application had been refused by the applicant who had stated their intention to appeal if the application was not considered by the end of the month.  Since publication of the report, a revised plan had been submitted by the applicant to address one of the officer’s three recommended reasons for refusal which were detailed in the report.  An initial response by Highways officers was included in the late observations.  The revised plan had not been subject to public consultation due to the late stage at which it had been made available to the Council and the applicant remained unwilling to agree to an extension of time, therefore the Committee was asked to determine the application on the basis of the original plan.  As such, the officer recommended refusal of the application for the reasons set out in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

On behalf of local residents, Mr. J.L. Keig spoke against the application on the following grounds: the need to retain the property due to its heritage and the fact that it was already habitable; the range of new housing already in the area and inability of the local infrastructure to support further developments; the detrimental impact of increased levels of traffic along this heavily used route and the safety of pedestrians; and concerns about the impact on a nearby elderly resident.

The applicant, Mr. S. Bourne, spoke in support of the application on the following grounds: the Inspector’s decision to include this land within the settlement boundary which could make it available for future development; contributing to the shortfall in the Council’s five year housing land supply; the Muller Group agreeing to a condition allowing implementation of the access permission only if the housing development was granted approval; the revised plan having been issued within 24 hours of the published report which contained consultation responses; the access complying with Highways standards and relevant guidance; and supporting information to address concerns on safety and traffic.

As a Local Member, Councillor Dennis Hutchinson had been given dispensation to speak for five minutes, having declared a prejudicial interest.  He spoke against the application on the following grounds: concerns of local residents that this was an opportunist application with no evidence to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

That the application be deferred to consider (i) potential issues regarding the Rights of Way; (ii) potential issues with traffic improvement and proposed Grampian conditions; (iii) clarification of need for the facility; and (iv) clarification of the hours of operation.

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 including officer agreement to the removal of Condition 10.

The officer explained that the application comprised three main elements - a construction and demolition waste facility, a commercial/industrial waste facility and a contaminated soil treatment facility, accompanied by an environmental statement.  She summarised the responses to the comments and concerns raised, included in the late observations, and clarified the restriction of permitted development rights in Condition 4, noting that there was a risk of this being appealed by the applicant.  The officer considered adequate controls to be in place and recommended approval of the application subject to the Conditions set out.

On behalf of the Ramblers’ Association, Mr. H. White spoke against the application on the following grounds: that greater consideration be given to path users from the unacceptable impact of lorry traffic on the public path forming access to the site on safety and amenity grounds; no proposed mitigation measures to safeguard path users; questions over whether changes previously made to the access track had received planning permission; and inconsistencies in the report (dealt with in the late observations) such as the possible need for a temporary closure order and no reference to Welsh Government guidance on Public Rights of Way.  For these reasons, Mr. White suggested that the report either be refused due to the impact on path users, deferred for a site visit or for further negotiation to provide an adequate route for the public path.

In an attempt to encourage debate, Councillor Gareth Roberts moved the officer recommendation for approval.

Councillor Derek Butler proposed that the item be deferred on the grounds of exploring all available options for the path.  This was seconded by Councillor Chris Bithell who supported the suggestion for deferral for a site visit.

Councillor Carol Ellis sought the opportunity to speak on the item and was permitted to do so by the mover and seconder.  She supported the objections raised by Mr. White and felt that a further reason for deferral would be to clarify highway implications which were highly dependent on a third party, Parry’s Quarry, whose environment permit had been refused.

Councillor Richard Jones felt that the application should demonstrate the need for a commercial and industrial material recovery facility due to similar facilities nearby.

Councillor Richard Lloyd supported deferral, citing the lack of information on operating hours.

In response, the officer explained the purpose of imposing a Grampian style condition which prohibited the start of works on site until the highway improvements were completed and approved, whether by the applicant or Parry’s Quarry.  Need for the facility had been demonstrated through the waste planning assessment which complied with national guidance, and changes to operating hours were set out in the proposed conditions to protect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 124.

That the application be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

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.  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 outlined the reasons for recommending approval of the application and explained that whilst some degree of visual impact from a wind turbine was inevitable, the application met the criteria of EW4 by the removal of a second turbine.  A balanced view had been taken in recognising the wider benefits of renewable energy schemes and aerodrome concerns had either been resolved or were being addressed by a radar mitigation scheme through a Grampian style condition.

For the applicant, Mr. M. Harris, Divisional Building Technology Director of Kingspan Insulated Panels, spoke in support of the application on the following grounds: safeguarding and creation of local jobs and financial benefits to the local economy; the generation of power to local homes and offsetting of carbon emissions; mitigating steps taken to address the concerns raised; the aim of Kingspan in seeking to power all its manufacturing sites by renewable energy by 2020 to facilitate further business growth and protect jobs; and significant investment including local contracting.

Councillor Chris Bithell moved the officer recommendation for approval which was duly seconded by Councillor Gareth Roberts.  He commented on the location of the scheme, the benefits in producing renewable energy and the reduced carbon footprint.  He felt that the amended application could be accommodated and whilst there would be some visual impact, there would be no lasting detriment to the landscape.  He spoke of his support for renewable energy schemes and noted that all concerns raised had been dealt with.

As adjoining ward Member, Councillor Rosetta Dolphin spoke against the application on the following grounds: concerns about the location, height, size and movement of the wind turbine; the visual and noise impact on the 58 new homes located closer to the site than where noise monitoring had been undertaken; potential impact on users of the coastal path; concerns on the migration flight path; the precedent set if the application was approved; the unknown effect on TV reception; the impact of shadow flicker particularly on the residents of a nearby property for adults with learning disability including epilepsy; and the lack of detail on the radar mitigation scheme.  Whilst supportive of renewable energy schemes, she noted that the energy generated would only serve the applicant and not homes.

In support of approving the application, Councillor Derek Butler praised the community benefits of the scheme, adding that surplus energy would benefit local residents.  He said that each application should be considered on its own merits and pointed out that all concerns had been addressed.  Whilst acknowledging objections to the height of the wind turbine, he could see no further reason for objection.

Also speaking in support, Councillor David Roney said that further renewable  ...  view the full minutes text for item 125.

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to provide for the following:

The applicant rescinding of the lawful use of the existing dwelling upon the site.

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.

The officer explained the proposal for the erection of a replacement dwelling and partial demolition and change of use of the existing dwelling.  He outlined the reasons for recommending approval, subject to the applicant rescinding the lawful use of the existing dwelling via a Section 106 Agreement.  An additional comment from Natural Resources Wales relating to land contamination was included in the late observations.

In agreement with the officer recommendation, Councillor Ian Dunbar welcomed the reduced height of the replacement building which he felt would enhance the area.  This was seconded by Councillor David Roney.

Councillor Derek Butler expressed reservations about the application and questioned how the existing building had received permission as a dwelling.  In response, the officer referred to paragraph 7.09 of the report which clarified this point.

Whilst accepting this explanation, Councillor Chris Bithell queried the circumstances which had led to this.  Following similar questioning by Councillor Neville Phillips, the officer gave a brief overview of the planning history of the site, involving a change of use to livery stables in 1990.  Subsequently during the inquiry, it had been found that the management accommodation in the central part of the building was instead being used as a single dwelling house.

Councillor Mike Peers raised concerns that the application was a way of seeking conversion of local use via a new build and questioned the need for replacement as the existing building was habitable.  He also questioned how no objections had been raised by Natural Resources Wales (NRW) when they were unaware of the historic contamination issues.  In essence, he felt that the scheme was an attempt to seek approval for the entire site by rescinding the habitable use and creating a new build outside the settlement boundary, not on the original footprint, thus resulting in additional capacity on the site.

Concerns were also raised by Councillor Owen Thomas on the circumstances which allowed lawful use rights as a dwelling.

In response to a question from Councillor Nancy Matthews, the officer provided clarification on the proposed changes to the building.

Councillor Phillips recalled a site visit around 1997 where the building had been used as livery stables.

Councillor Richard Lloyd called for a site visit to help determine the application.  Councillor Carol Ellis agreed, saying that this would enable a view from the road.  Members were then shown relevant photographs of this view, together with drawings of the current building and the proposed changes.

In response, the officer stated that this was a replacement dwelling in open countryside and that although criterion (e) of EWP4 had not been fully met, there were other planning benefits to the proposed location.  On the points raised by Councillor Peers, he said that the property had a lawful use as a dwelling house and that the UDP policy catered for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

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

RESOLVED:

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

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

Councillor Chris Bithell commended the case officer on his handling of the application at the inquiry.  He also requested that all future appeals reports indicate whether the decision was made by the Committee or the officer, and that the name of the relevant Inspector be included for information.

RESOLVED:

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

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

The Development Manager expressed her frustrations over the outcome due to the Inspectorate being able to consider supporting information at a late stage.

RESOLVED:

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

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.

There were 27 members of the public and one member of the press in attendance.