Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Hilary McGuill declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item number 6.1 – Minute Number 80.

Councillors Ellis, McGuill, Peers and Thomas declared personal and prejudicial interests in agenda item number 6.5 – Minute Number 83.

Councillor Ray Hughes declared a personal interest in agenda item number 6.8 – Minute Number 86.

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 7 September 2016.

The draft minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 7^th September 2016 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

Accuracy

            Councillor Peers requested that the words “secured by a commuted sum” be added to his comment on minute number 59 which was agreed.

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 deferment of the following application was recommended:

            Agenda item 6.3 – Full Application – Proposed Development of a Hospital and Re-Ablement Centre for People Disadvantaged by an Autistic Spectrum Disorder and/or Learning Disability Including Proposed Residential Blocks and Independent Living Building (Previously Approved Under Planning Permission 045395 at Alyn Works (Former) Kinsale Golf Course (Part), Mostyn – Deferred at the request of the applicant agent in order to allow the budgetary  implications of the proposed development on local health care providers to be clarified.   

                        Councillor Roney said at the site visit Members had been informed that they would receive copies of the letters from the NHS and he requested that they be provided prior to the meeting when the application would be considered.

            RESOLVED:

That application 053310 be deferred.

The report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) is enclosed. 

That planning permission be refused, against officer recommendation, on the grounds of lack of provision of affordable housing; insufficient level of residential density and an inappropriate mix of housing type. 

After the vote had been taken, Councillor Hilary McGuill returned to the meeting and was advised of the decision by the Chairman.

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.  Councillor Hilary McGuill, having earlier declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion.

            The officer explained that the application was deferred at the meeting on 20^th July 2016 pending clarification of some matters.  The application was subsequently deferred on 7^th September 2016.

That information was now contained in the report before the Committee.  He added that concerns had been raised that a direct footpath link between the site and the footpath that ran to the south of the site was not provided for within the scheme.  He explained that access to the footpath and the play area beyond could be obtained via the link from the southern end of Argoed Avenue to the east of the site.  That link was within easy walking distance of the site and did not involve any need to cross any major roads.  He added that the introduction of a footpath link in the southern part of the site would result in a further reduction of the dwellings.

On density, he explained that the site was proposed to be developed in compliance with Policy HSG8 and at a density that reflected the density of nearby and recently approved developments.

The Councils Housing Strategy Manager had commented on the issue of affordable housing in that the demand for intermediate affordable housing was minimal in New Brighton and therefore affordable housing provision should not be sought in this scheme.

Councillor Sara Parker, as the local Member, spoke in support of the application which she felt would benefit the village.  She welcomed the proposed development of the site which had not received any opposition from local residents.  She also concurred with the view that affordable housing was not required on the site.  She provided reassurance to the Committee that the bungalow on the site would not be developed as part of the application.

Mr White spoke against the application on the following basis: he did not accept that the introduction of a footpath link to the southern part of the site would reduce the number of dwellings; it was unacceptable for school children to walk around the perimeter of the site as opposed to the inclusion of a 20 metre footpath. 

Mr Connolly spoke in support of the application based on the following:  paragraph 7.21 of the report referred to the size of site which was incorrect as it included the part of the site which was occupied by the owner of the bungalow; there had never been any intention of that home being part of the proposed development therefore, the size of the site was 0.94 hectares - this meant that affordable housing was not required on the development; the site would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.

That Section 106 Agreement, dated 27^th April 1992 be removed to allow unfettered occupation of the dwelling. 

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 advised that the application sought permission to remove the Section 106 Legal Agreement associated with the 1992 permission for erection of a bungalow and stable block for the care of horses and ponies at land now known as ‘Field House’ Platt Lane, Penyffordd.

                        Councillor Roberts proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said every effort had been made by the applicant to advertise and sell the property in the required manner to no avail.  Those comments were concurred with by Councillor Dunbar.

                        Councillor Bithell said this demonstrated a case whereby an application had been approved based on the personal needs of an applicant and said Members needed to be cautious on approving such applications in the future. 

            RESOLVED:

That Section 106 Agreement, dated 27^th April 1992 be removed to allow unfettered occupation of the dwelling.

That planning permission be granted for a 2 year temporary period 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 on 10^th October 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

                        The Officer explained that the application was for the siting of 1 yurt and 3 shepherds huts for use as holiday accommodation which was deemed acceptable in the location.  It would not give rise to any significant adverse impacts on the amenity of nearby residents or adjacent land users.

                        The proposed yurt would accommodate 4 guests and the shepherd’s huts would accommodate 2 each, making a total of 10 guests at full capacity.  A shed would house the shower and toilet for the yurt visitors.  All of the units would be equipped with log burning stoves and have a small outdoor fire pit.  The site would be accessed via the existing private drive with parking for 5 cars within the existing application site.  The application was for operation from mid-February to 1 January but the recommendation by officers was for operation from 1 March to 1 January which was deemed more appropriate.

                        Mr Peace spoke against the application on behalf of local residents on the following basis: access would be required via his land; the application was not compliant with many aspect of the UDP, citing access issues, impacts on local residents, loss of privacy and disturbance; the nature of the application encouraged outdoor living which by its very nature would be intrusive.   The Solicitor explained that any issues relating to Rights of Way were not for consideration by the Committee.

                        Mr Levy spoke in support of the application based on the following: a small glamping facility which was eco-friendly and back to nature; the site had been significantly improved following a planting programme of willow hedging which would provide appropriate screening; maximum occupancy on the site was 10 people; any noise issues would be dealt with immediately by them as they resided on site; contractual agreement at the time of booking would be specific about levels of noise.

                        Councillor Roberts proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  Following attendance at the site visit he felt the application could not be refused on highways ground and the issue raised by the objector the Right of Way access was a civil matter.  The application site would also not result in any windows overlooking neighbouring properties.

                        Councillor Bithell said that people booking such a facility would be seeking a quiet retreat and it was also in the interests of the applicant to promote a peaceful site as they also resided on the site.  He felt that, on balance, the objections listed in the report were outweighed by the proposal.

                        The local Member, Councillor Carolyn Thomas said she had received numerous phone calls and emails from residents about the application.  She had also met the applicant on site but still had a number of concerns which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

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

After the vote had been taken, Councillors Ellis, McGuill, Peers and Thomas returned to the meeting and were advised of the decision by the Chairman.

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, McGuill, Peers and Thomas, having earlier declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion.

                        The Officer explained that the site was elevated in its surroundings and had some small blocks of woodland on the hillside.  There were 15 residential properties within a 1km radius of the turbine location with the nearest properties being approximately 600 metres to the east and 600 metres to the south west.

                        Policy EWP4 of the Adopted Flintshire UDP set out the criteria for assessing the impacts of wind turbine development.  It was considered that the main issues to be taken into account, which were covered in full in the report were:

·         The principle of development

·         Impact on the character of the landscape

·         Impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Historic Landscapes

·         Impact on Aircraft Safety

·         Impact on Residential Amenity

·         Adequacy of access to serve the development

·         Impact on ecology

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) had been involved in prolonged discussions between the applicant and Hawarden Aerodrome/Airbus as a mediator.  The CAA supported the view of Hawarden aerodrome and the operator and competent authority in safeguarding their aerodrome.  The CAA considered that since the proposed turbine infringed the approach and take-off climb slopes and that it was not shielded, that went against international standards and certification specifications as well as UK CAA policy.  However, the CAA did state that the wind turbine should not adversely impact upon the airport and would not affects its continuing certification under the relevant regulations.

Mr Hughes spoke against the application on behalf of the local residents in Llanfynydd based on the following reasons: objected to at the Community Council meeting three years previous; ultra-low frequencies emitted from wind turbines and the link to depression; shadow flickering; prevailing wind would result in noise pollution; under the flight path of the Beluga aircraft; impact on wildlife; all letters of support appearing to be from a standard template which could be traced back to the company submitted the application.

Mr Fearnley spoke in support of the application, explaining that the most contentious issue was the one relating to aviation activity.  He explained the following points: the number of turbines had been reduced following discussions with Hawarden Airport; the size of the proposed turbine had been reduced; appeal submitted to the CAA – he accepted it exceeded the height of an acceptable turbine but where it would be situated was hilly, with many of those hills being higher than the proposed turbine; it would not adversely impact upon Hawarden Airport.  He concluded by repeating the comment from the Officer that the CAA did state that the wind turbine should not adversely impact upon the airport and would not affect its  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

That Planning Permission be granted subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement / unilateral undertaking of earlier payment for the following contributions, and subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment):

·         £733 per unit for recreation enhancements in lieu of on-site provision towards improvements at Brynford Village Green; and

·         Ensuring that the properties are sold at 70% of the market value at time of sale; or

·         The properties are rented at an affordable rent at the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rate for the area.

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 application was for the erection of 3 two bedroom affordable dwellings at land to the rear of the Llyn y Mawn public house in Brynford and it was considered that there was an identified local need for the proposed 3 dwellings.  The affordability of the dwellings could be secured by legal agreement.  It was not considered that the siting of the dwellings would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of surrounding occupiers.

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

            RESOLVED:

            That Planning Permission be granted subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement / unilateral undertaking of earlier payment for the following contributions, and subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment):

·         £733 per unit for recreation enhancements in lieu of on-site provision towards improvements at Brynford Village Green; and

·         Ensuring that the properties are sold at 70% of the market value at time of sale; or

·         The properties are rented at an affordable rent at the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rate for the area.

That planning permission be refused, against officer recommendation, on the grounds of being out of keeping with the area; creation of traffic problems; creation of access issues for the existing nearby supported living accommodation; and the impact on residential amenity. 

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 10^th October 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

                        The application was made in retrospect for the change of use of a 6 bedroom dwelling to a 7 bedroom house of multiple occupation.

                        Mr Cox spoke against the application on behalf of the residents of The Brackens.  He commented on the following: The Brackens was quiet cul de sac; the property had multiple inhabitants and had been rented for the past 4 years without permission; insufficient parking spaces, including when friends and family visited, and the removal of a wall to provide additional parking would still not be sufficient; supported living accommodation next door but one to the proposed site which emergency vehicles struggled to gain access to; newly built flats and apartments within 250 metres; each room was rented out to young adults and teenagers which resulted in trouble in the area.

                        Councillor Hampson proposed refusal of the application which was against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He said this was not a suitable area for a house of multiple occupation, explaining that the access was poor and there was insufficient parking.  On the same estate there were two blocks of 1 and 2 bedroom flats which had vacancies and based on that, he felt this application was unnecessary.  There had been no permission for the dwelling of multiple occupancy over the last 4 years.  There were no fire doors installed at the property and the Police had been called to incidents on a number of occasions.  The supported living accommodation on The Brackens was there due to it being a quiet area however this was no longer the case because of this property.  Councillor Dolphin said he was substituting for Councillor Phillips but asked that the views of Councillor Phillips in supporting refusal of the application be noted on a human and social conscience level.   The Solicitor advised that the committee should consider planning land use and issues, and not human and personal levels.

                        Councillor Peers commented on the useful site visit that had taken place.  The road was a quiet one and he had concerns on the impact on amenity due to the residential area and the supported living accommodation on that road.  He accepted that people needed to live somewhere but said that needed to be considered carefully; he felt the impact on amenity outweighed that need.

                        Councillor Ellis supported the views of Councillor Hampson in an area of which the houses were built as family homes.  She also raised concerns on the parking facilities, highlighting the comment from the Head of Assets and Transportation in the report which said there was an issue with parked cars obstructing the highway.  She expressed her concern on the access for emergency vehicles attending the supported living accommodation and concluded that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

That full planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

1.    In accordance with the approved plans

2.    Personal permission to the owner

3.    Restrictions on hours of operating

4.    Landscaping scheme

5.    Restrictions on the commercial and agricultural vehicles to be parked on site

6.    Facilities shall be provided and retained for parking and turning of vehicles

7.      Lighting details and position to be agreed

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 10^th October 2016.  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 application sought consent for the change of use to a mixed use including, residential and business use and the replenishment of an existing stone hardstanding (in retrospect).

                        The business was well established and involved carrying out of works off site including hedge cutting and slurry spreading.  The owner operated tractors and a commercial van, all of which were stored on the application site.  Equipment and machinery for the tractors were stored on site which consisted of cutting equipment, ploughs and a slurry tanker.

                        Objections had been received from local residents on the grounds of safety; potential fire hazard; change of use; noise and light pollution and ‘replenishment’ being used deceptively in the application.  Responses to each of those objections were detailed in the report.

                        Mrs James spoke in support of the application and provided details covering the following: full permission was being sought for agricultural, residential and business use; the business served local farms and other rural businesses; small scale sole trader; one transit van, two tractors and other usual agricultural machinery was on site;  clarification of the hours of operation, which was not 24 hours a day; Welsh Government guidance advised against temporary permissions when the application accorded to the development plan which this did; highway concerns could be dealt with by condition; support received from the immediate neighbour to the application site and full planning permission was sought as opposed to the 18 months recommended.

                        Councillor Thomas proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He knew the area well which previously was a smallholding.  Much of the area of Flintshire was agricultural so vehicles such as tractors were to be expected and associated storage.  He recommended that full permission should be granted, not a temporary permission for 18 months.

                        Councillor Peers said there was not a lot of equipment on site and the applicant provided a service to the local community.  Only one objection had been received and the business had been operating successfully for the past 12 months.  He duly seconded the approval of a full application.

                        Councillors Bithell and Butler both commented that whilst agricultural businesses were encouraged by the Authority, a condition in the report related to the restriction of commercial vehicles to be parked on the site.  Agricultural vehicles were not small by their very nature and they asked if the business grew, was that condition sufficient to restrict large agricultural machinery moving on and off the site.

                        Councillor Roberts said he knew the site which he felt was suitable for what was being considered.  He also supported full approval of the application.

                        Councillor Lloyd said he encouraged sole traders and following  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

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

The Development Manager explained that the Inspector considered that the main issues were: the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and the countryside; and whether there was a 5 year supply of housing land and, if not, whether any detriment to the open countryside would be outweighed by the need to increase housing supply.

            RESOLVED:

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

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

The Development Manager said this was an example of appeals that saw a trend of Inspectors supporting ancillary accommodation.

            RESOLVED:

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

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

The Development Manager said this was an example of how Inspectors viewed decisions taken on perception, in particular how that could be evidenced. 

            Councillor Roberts said he was surprised at the outcome of the Inspector as he felt his representation at the appeal was based on strong evidence which he detailed. 

            RESOLVED:

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

                        There were 17 members of the public and 1 member of the press in attendance.