Agenda and minutes

Councillor Marion Bateman declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item number 6.1 – Full Application – Erection of 43 No. Dwellings and Associated Works at Ffordd Eldon, Soughton (054548).

                        Councillors Carol Ellis, Mike Peers and Neville Phillips declared personal and prejudicial interests in agenda item number 6.2 – Renewal of Outline Planning Permission Ref: 046545 for Residential Development at Hillcrest, Mount Pleasant Road, Buckley (055936).

                        Councillor Derek Butler declared a personal interest in agenda item number 6.4 – Full Application – Swap Out and Relocation of the Existing 10m High Monopole for a 12.0m High Alpha Monopole, Installation of 3 No. Equipment Cabinets and Associated Development at Land Opposite Fair Haven, Ruthin Road, Gwernymynydd (056287).

                        The Solicitor advised that the officer taking the minutes would be replaced with another officer for agenda item number 6.3 – Full Application – Erection of Single Storey Extension to Provide Children’s Nursery Facilities at 10 Aughton Way, Broughton (056279) as she was a friend of the applicant.

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 18 January 2017.

The draft minutes of the meeting held on 18^th January 2017 were submitted.  Councillor Mike Peers referred to the number of members of the public which were recorded in attendance at the meeting and said this was misleading as the majority of the public left after it was resolved that agenda item number 6.1 – Full Application – Erection of 43 no. Dwellings and Associated Works at Ffordd Eldon, Soughton would be deferred.  It was agreed that the minutes would be amended to reflect that.

RESOLVED:

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

The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that the deferment of the following application was recommended:

                        Having earlier declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, Councillor Marion Bateman left the meeting prior to the discussion.

Agenda item number 6.1 – Full Application – Erection of 43 no. Dwellings and Associated Works at Ffordd Eldon, Soughton.  He explained that it had become apparent that not all of the interested parties who had made representations to the Authority had received details of the item being considered at the Committee today.  He felt that it was prejudicial to those people and it was not safe for the Committee to determine the application on that basis and apologised for the administrative error.

                        Councillor Bithell moved deferment of the application and was seconded by Councillor Wisinger.

                        Councillor Richard Jones commented on the large number of people that were in attendance for that item and said it was unfortunate that they had not been informed of the deferral.  The Chief Officer explained that a Member decision could not be pre-judged and until deferral was voted on, the item was still for determination.  He acknowledged the point made by Councillor Jones and suggested that it could be a matter for discussion at a future Planning Strategy Group meeting.

                        On being put to the vote, deferral of the application was carried. 

            RESOLVED:

            That agenda item number 6.1 – Full Application – Erection of 43. no Dwellings and Associated Works at Ffordd Eldon, Soughton (054548), be deferred.

                        After the vote had been taken, Councillor Marion Bateman returned to the meeting and was advised of the decision.  At this point a number of the members of public left the meeting.

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.  Councillors Ellis, Peers and Phillips, having earlier declared personal and prejudicial interests in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion.

                        The officer explained that this was a renewal of outline planning permission for residential development to the rear of Hillcrest, Mount Pleasant Road/Drury Lane, Buckley.  It needed to be established whether there were any new material considerations since the previous grant of planning permission with the main considerations being the impact of the development on the adjacent Deeside and Buckley Newt Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and the mining history of the site.

                        In order to try to bring development forward on the site, a 2 year outline permission was proposed with a 12 month time limit to submit the reserved matters.  Issues relating to land contamination could be dealt with by condition.  Details of the required bat mitigation needed to be provided at reserved matters stage and could also be secured by a condition.  The impact on the SAC would be met through the mitigation land secured through the S106 agreement.

                        The officer added that condition 5 in the report should read ‘Mount Pleasant Road’ and not Lower Mountain Road.

                        Councillor Richard Jones moved the officer recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He commented that it was an application for renewal with a 2 year permission which he supported.

                        In response to comments from Councillors Bithell and Butler, the officer explained that the permission was outline at this stage and the total number of dwellings would be detailed in the application for reserved matters when submitted.  The numbers shown in this report were indicative only with all matters reserved.

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the following:

            Prior completion of a S106 agreement to provide for:

·         Open space provision - £1,100 per dwelling to enhance toddler play provision at the existing children’s play area on Mount Pleasant Road, Buckley

·         Education provision - £12,257 per primary school pupil generated towards Mountain Lane Primary School

·         Mitigation land to overcome indirect impacts on SAC through provision of informal recreational space and provision of ecological mitigation including long term management for both areas

And subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) which included an amendment to paragraph 4.0 of the report as detailed in the late observations.

          After the vote had been taken, Councillors Ellis, Peers and Phillips returned to the meeting and were advised of the decision.

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 gave an overview of the application and explained that the proposals were for the extension and alteration of the existing garage to provide accommodation to run a children’s day nursery.  She outlined the reasons for recommending approval, subject to conditions controlling the scale of the development and making it personal to the applicant.

            Mr. S. Sutton spoke against the application on the following grounds: the detrimental impact of increased levels of traffic in a quiet residential area; increased noise levels for residents; limited access to the property; the lack of available parking at the property; concerns around flooding near the property which occurred during prolonged periods of bad weather which could worsen with the proposed extension.         

            Councillor Mullin proposed refusal of the application on the grounds of parking concerns and impact on residential amenity, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  Councillor Mullin reiterated the concerns raised by Mr. S. Sutton and commented that no assurances had been given by the applicant that children would be picked up and returned to their homes at the end of the day. 

Councillor Butlercommented that the property was in an area that was prone to flooding and raised concerns around the proposed parking at the property which he felt was unsuitable.

            Councillor Richard Jones questioned the brief comment made by the Highways Department and raised concerns around the proposed increased number of vehicles which would undermine safety in a cul-de sac.

            Councillor Peers said that he had attended the site visit and shared the concerns of Councillor Mullin.  He questioned whether 5 vehicles would fit onto the proposed parking area and raised concern with the increased number of vehicles for neighbouring residents and the impact on the amenity with the increased noise levels.  He also commented on the report, which outlined that if the use of the extension ceased, the building could be used as a residential annex or other ancillary accommodation, and asked if this would require further planning permission.  

            Councillor Thomas commented on the demand for nursery facilities and spoke in support of the application on the grounds that the proposal was for a small scale extension.  He also said that he did not envisage all parents arriving to pick up their children or drop off their children at the same time.  Councillors Bithell and Roberts also spoke in support of the application and said that there were no planning grounds for refusing the application.

            The officers responded to the concerns raised and explained that the parking standards set out a maximum parking provision and the application met that standard.  Any residential property could run a child-minding business from the property without requiring planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.2

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. 

The officer explained that this was a full application for the replacement and relocation of the existing 10m high monopole with a 12.0m high alpha monopole, installation of 3 no. equipment cabinets and associated development.  The proposal was to improve the level of coverage in the vicinity.

Due to the increased height and design of the new mast it would be more prominent than the one it replaced.  However the additional impact was such that the development would not have a significantly greater or detrimental impact upon the street scene and surrounding townscape.  Views of the mast were largely obscured by buildings and mature vegetation.  Dwellings to the north of the site were over 35 metres away and the dwelling to the south was 75 metres away from the site.           

Some concerns had been raised on potential public health concerns which were detailed in the report.

                        Mr K. Hughes spoke against the application on behalf of Gwernymynydd Community Council on the following grounds: siting of the mast; economic benefit should not outweigh health concerns of the community; radiation splay at the same level as the bedrooms of the dwelling opposite; non-ionising radiation; height of the mast; inconclusive evidence on health issues from the effect of mobile phone masts but there was evidence of cancer clusters that had been found around phone masts; and other health problems.

                        Councillor Wisinger moved the officer recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He commented on the health concerns that had been raised and said there was no proof of any health hazards.  He also commented on the benefit to the local community that the monopole would bring.

                        Councillors Bithell and Butler also said there was no medical evidence on the health concerns raised, as was outlined in the report.  At the site visit, Councillor Butler noted there were a large number of street lights in close proximity and therefore felt the monopole would not be out of keeping in the area.

                        Councillor Matthews said she had looked at monopoles throughout the country and they were not usually so close to dwellings.  On non-ionising radiation, she said the radiation from a monopole was constant so she felt there would be damage to human cells.  The radiation emitted would be level with the first floor of the property adjacent to the monopole. 

She said the International Commission on Non-Ionising Protection issued guidelines which were adhered to by applications for any monopole but that the most recent published research was from 2008.  It claimed the radiation diminished in strength as the distances increased but she felt this was a flawed view.  There had been no further published papers as there was not enough evidence due to the significant use of mobile phones only being over the last  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.3

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.           

The application was for a single storey extension to the existing two storey dwelling and the formation of a new vehicular access with parking and turning area at Coed Issa Cottage, Llanfynydd.

Mrs A. Beesom spoke against the application on the following grounds: inaccurate plans that did not display Coed Issa Farm and Coed Issa Cottage were linked together; proposed rear door egressed into Coed Issa Farm utility building, not an open area; internal door served as rear door to Farm; rear door used as thoroughfare for the two properties when it was under single ownership but had not been used in many years; the septic tank was located 1 metre into her boundary and there was no current arrangement for dispersal of overflow water; no mention of sewage disposal in the report; retaining wall of the outbuilding should remain untouched as if removed it would undermine her land; the road was 40mph, not 30mph as stated in the report; there were two natural water courses that flowed through the site which fed the farm outbuildings.

Councillor Wisinger proposed the officer recommendation for approval which was duly seconded. He commented that it was clear from the site visit that the current dwelling would benefit from the proposed extension.

Councillor Thomas said the application was within the policy guidelines of a 50% guide for approving an extension.

Councillor Richard Jones queried whether the application should be deferred pending clarification on the speed limit of the road which he felt was a key factor to the application.

Councillor Butler commented that the report did not include any information on access and egress, overflow of water or a septic tank and queried whether they would be dealt with via conditions.

Councillor Roberts said there was a highway gain if the application was approved as there would be a provision for off road parking.

The officer explained that the application was for an extension to the right hand side of the dwelling which met the requirements of the relevant policy.  All other issues would be dealt with by conditions.  He clarified it was for an extra bedroom and bathroom facility.

The highways officer explained that visibility splays did not meet the guidance set for a 30mph limit and did not meet them for a 40mph limit either. However, the highways authority was keen to encourage parking within the site and was satisfied that an access could be created which was sufficient to protect the safety of highway users.

In summing up, Councillor Wisinger concurred that any parking on the site as opposed to the highway could only be of benefit.

            RESOLVED:

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the report of 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, which included the conditions also detailed in the late observations.

            The proposal was for the erection of a waste transfer building on an existing waste management site within an established industrial estate.  The proposal would comprise the erection of a waste transfer building, construction of concrete push walls and the retention of fencing.  The proposal would not result in any change to the nature and tonnage of waste types which could be managed at the site.

            The proposal would see significant improvements to the operation of the site, reducing the impact of the current operation on local amenity by bringing the management of residual household black bag waste within a fully enclosed building.

            The site was located well away from residential properties and whilst distant views of the site would be possible from residential properties along Liverpool Road and Smithy Lane, any impact was not considered sufficient to cause significant harm to residential amenity and the proposed hours of operation would help to minimise the impact of the proposed development on residential amenity.

            The use of the building to accommodate the processing of waste and using machinery would help minimise noise from activities within the site. 

             The activities undertaken at the site had the potential to generate odour and dust and the management of wastes within the proposed building would help the operator control dust and minimise odour.  The building itself would also act as a barrier to dust leaving the site.

            Mr N. Foxhall spoke in support of the application on the following grounds: the company had operated the facility for a number of years and improved and enlarged the site to process waste; fully enclosed building with roller shutter doors; delivery via existing access and no increase to waste delivered to site; improvement to current facility based on enclosed building which would reduce noise, dust and vermin and a hard standing concrete area which would reduce debris from the site; and no objections from statutory consultees.

Councillor Butler proposed the officer recommendation for approval which was duly seconded. He commented on the conditions outlined in the report, particularly in relation to the wheel washing.  Those were also outlined in the comments received from Welsh Government (WG) as outlined in the late observations which he welcomed.

Councillor Wisinger added the proposal would benefit the site as it would be undercover and a good barrier against noise and smell.

Councillor Ellis explained that the complaints about the site had been well documented.  She commented in particular on the mud on the roads, which had been particularly bad over recent weeks, and welcomed the condition on wheel washing for the safety of all road users.  There had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.5

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 following deferral at the last meeting. 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 proposed Integrated Waste Management Facility (IWMF) comprised: a commercial and industrial waste materials recycling facility, a construction waste recycling facility, and a contaminated soils treatment facility.

All of the issues raised at the last meeting which formed the basis of a deferral were addressed in the report.  The officer made particular comments on the concerns that had been raised on the impact of the development on the Public Right of Way (PROW) by the Ramblers Association at the last meeting.  The PROW ran along the private estate road which would serve the development, and which also served a number of different industrial uses including Pinfold Lane Quarry which was owned by the applicant.  The road was already used by Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) and would have accommodated quarry traffic in addition to industrial traffic whilst Stoneybeach quarry was operational.  The Public Rights of Way (PROW) officer had not objected to the proposal on the basis of the impact of the PROW and advised, in particular, that it was common for a PROW to be used by vehicles where a right to do so existed.  Due to the width of the road it was considered that the development would have no greater impact on users of the PROW than existing users.  The applicant proposed to install a weighbridge and office facilities along the private road which could impact on the PROW and may necessitate a temporary closure whilst construction works were being undertaken.

Mr H. White spoke against the application on the following grounds: public rights of way (PROW) users would be affected by the quantity of lorry traffic; applicant failed to consider the issue in the environmental statement originally submitted and was not proposing any mitigating actions; impact of lorry traffic was unacceptable on the path; up to 12 lorries per hour on the path; modern policies supported PROW; 400m access track was recorded as a public path which was the width of former track and been progressively widened over time; constructive meeting with officers on site and clarified site history, definitive path line and how it had altered over the years by the developer.  Also he had drafted a condition should Members wish to have sight of it.

Councillor Butler proposed the officer recommendation for approval which was duly seconded. He said whilst he supported the application he did have some concerns on the weighbridge and agreed with the mitigation measures as outlined in the report.

Councillor Ellis also agreed with the areas of mitigation in relation to the weighbridge and suggested a barrier to protect to the public from vehicles turning.  On the highway improvement works which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 135.6

Councillor Roberts referred to the reasons for dismissal by the Inspector in that they considered that the proposal would intensify built development in the open countryside to the detriment of its character, regardless of its visibility.  He felt this reason could be used to the benefit of the Authority at any future appeals.

            The Development Manager responded to say the decision embraced the Authority’s policy position.

            RESOLVED:

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

Councillor Lloyd expressed his disappointment at the decision of the Inspector to allow this appeal and said his concerns on car parking remained.

            RESOLVED:

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

RESOLVED:

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

                        There were 32 members of the public and 1 member of the press in attendance.