Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor R.G. Hampson declared that he had been contacted on more than three occasions on the following application:-

Agenda item 6.11 – General Matters Application – Outline – Erection of 12 no. dwellings including demolition of existing outbuildings and creation of new access at Bank Farm, Lower Mountain Road, Penyffordd (050003)

Councillors D. Butler and W. Mullin declared that they had been contacted on more than three occasions on the following applications:-

Agenda item 6.1 – Full application – Multiplex cinema, restaurants(5) and associated works at BroughtonShoppingPark, Broughton (049857)

And

Agenda item 6.2 – Outline application – Erection of a cinema, hotel (up to 80 bedrooms) and Class A3 food and drink units, together with car parking (up to 454 spaces), landscaping and ancillary works on land to the north of BroughtonShoppingPark, Broughton (049943)

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 20 March 2013 (copy enclosed).

That the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The draft minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 March 2013 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Head of Planning advised that none of the items on the agenda were recommended for deferral by officers. 

The Head of Planning advised that none of the items on the agenda were recommended for deferral by officers. 

            HUT application (049857)

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning, with condition 14 amended as set out in the late observations.

Prior to the introduction of the first application on the agenda, the Chairman indicated the procedure on how agenda items 6.1 and 6.2 would be determined.  The Democracy & Governance Manager explained that he had been contacted by the Solicitor of one of the two applications raising concerns if the Committee’s normal practice was followed as the reports referred to the two applications as competing with each other.  He then contacted the representative for the other application who was of the same view that these were competing applications.  Therefore he had discussed with the Chairman the option to identify a procedure which would allow both officers to introduce the reports, the third party representatives to speak on both applications, a proposer and seconder to speak on each application and then for the Local Members and the Committee to speak on both applications.  However, a vote would be taken separately for each application.  The Chairman had accepted his advice to follow this procedure.   

Councillor P.G. Heesom raised concern about the process identified and felt that the applications should be dealt with in a different way.  The Democracy & Governance Manager confirmed that it was not a decision for the Committee to make as the process had been set by the Chairman. 

188.         Full Application - Multiplex cinema, restaurants (5) and associated works at Broughton Shopping Park, Broughton, Chester (049857)

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 15 April 2013.  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 for the Hercules Unit Trust (HUT) (application 049857) and referred to the late observations where a letter in favour of this application and against the Development Securities (DS) application was reported.  A letter against the HUT application had also been received from a Councillor at Cheshire West and Chester Council.  Plans of the site were shown to identify the area of the application site and photo montages were also displayed.  The main issues for consideration were detailed in the report and the recommendation was for approval of the HUT application subject to conditions.  Both applications were reported as departures from the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) as the shopping park was not in the settlement boundary of Broughton.  The officer commented on the material considerations and explained that it had been necessary to apply two key tests to the application which were the need for a cinema and a sequential assessment, both of which were detailed in the report.  He commented on the HUT proposal in comparison to the DS proposal and said that the HUT application fitted in well with the current shopping experience but the DS proposal did not as it would be situated behind the superstore and would be away from the shopping park.  The views of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 192.

            DS application (049943)

            That planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Head of Planning. 

            Please see minute number 192 for further information.

RESOLVED:

            DS application (049943)

            That planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Head of Planning. 

            That planning permission be granted subject to the additional condition referred to in the late observations, the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering in to a Section 106 Obligation, Unilateral Undertaking or advance payment of £1,100 per dwelling in lieu of on site play provision. 

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 drew attention to the late observations where the response from Councillor M.J. Peers and an additional condition were reported. 

                        Mr. K. Shone, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the site had previously had two dwellings on it which had been converted into one property.  It was a brownfield site and he said that policy STR of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) promoted development of this type. The proposal was for three detached houses and one bungalow and all would be built to a high standard.  The development was in accordance with policies HSG8 and HSG9 and was not overdevelopment of the site and would comply with space around dwellings guidance.  The dwellings would not overlook existing properties so would not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring residents.  Access to the dwellings would be from a private driveway.     

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

            Councillor Peers highlighted paragraph 7.07 and the main planning issues which had been considered.  He said that an identical scheme for four dwellings had been refused in 2001 on highways grounds and that the concerns were still apparent.  On the adequacy of the access to the site, he said that the surface of Tram Road was in poor condition as reported in paragraph 7.11.  He said that a number of concerns had been raised by Buckley Town Council on the potential for overdevelopment, the potential for traffic problems in respect of access and egress and the increased traffic as a result of the development.  He said that nothing had changed from the application submitted in 2001 and that he could not support approval of the application. 

            Councillor C.A. Ellis asked whether the access road was adopted and raised concern about the number of applications which were being submitted on unadopted roads.  The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control advised that the section of Tram Road was maintainable by the Authority.  In response to the comments from Councillor Peers, she said that the visibility standards had changed for TAN 18 and were less onerous than in 2001.  Tram Road served 23 units and having considered accident data, she advised that there was no evidence to support refusal on highway grounds. 

            The officer said that the proposal equated to 20 dwellings per hectare and this density showed that the privacy and amenity could be safeguarded.  The layout was less dense than it could be and did not amount to overdevelopment of the site.             

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the additional condition referred to in the late observations, the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject  ...  view the full minutes text for item 194.

            That planning permission be deferred to allow discussions to take place with the applicant to negotiate an amended scheme. 

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 15 April 2013.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

The officer detailed the background to the report for the erection of a two storey extension.  One letter of objection had been received and the recommendation was for refusal due to the scale, design and impact. 

Mr. M. Price spoke in support of the application and explained that the extension was required to the family home following the arrival of his baby daughter.  The two other properties in the area had been extended following approval of planning applications.  He said that the application complied with policy HSG12 and that he would be happy to reduce the length of the extension to eight metres from ten metres which would amount to an increase in 60% floorspace instead of the 96% increase currently proposed.  He did not feel that the additional impact justified refusal of the application and said that to refuse this application when others had been approved would not be consistent. 

            Councillor A.M. Halford proposed approval against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  She could not understand the reason for refusal of the application and asked for further information on the definition of agricultural character.  She felt that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the area.   

            Councillor D. Evans said that the applicant had agreed to reduce the length by two metres which he felt was a compromise.  He also felt that the proposal would not impact on the character of the building and said that he would support approval of the application. 

            Councillor R.C. Bithell raised concern at the proposed 96% increase in the floorspace compared to policy guidance of 50% increases and he felt that the increase would destroy the character of the dwelling.  He said that reference had been made to other dwellings in the area but these had been changed without major extensions to them.  He said that many applications had been refused on this basis and that this should also be refused as it did not comply with policy.  Councillor P.G. Heesom commented on policies HSG5 and HSG12 stating that the scheme could be made acceptable but added that family matters were irrelevant. 

            The Head of Planning was mindful of the reduction in scale suggested by the applicant, but reminded Members that they needed to consider the application before them.  However, Members could propose deferment to allow discussions to take place with the applicant about the proposal. 

            Councillor A.M. Halford proposed deferment of the application which was duly seconded. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to defer the application was CARRIED. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be deferred to allow discussions to take place with the applicant to negotiate an amended scheme. 

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and the additional condition in the late observations.

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 explained that the application was a renewal of planning permission 047979 to allow the continuation of the use of the land as a paintballing centre and retention of ancillary development.  He highlighted the additional condition referred to in the late observations.   

Mr. D. Fitzsimon spoke in support of the application.  He said that Members had been satisfied that the previous application was appropriate but had been granted temporary permission.  The site had been operated in accordance with the conditions and no complaints had been received about noise from the site.  Highways had not objected to the application and Mr. Fitzsimon said that the traffic movements were negligible.  He requested that the application be approved.    

            Councillor P.G. Heesom proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He added that the local Member was satisfied with the application.  Councillor W.O. Thomas said that no complaints had been received during the period of temporary permission.  

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and the additional condition in the late observations.

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the late observations, the additional conditions proposed by Councillor M.J. Peers, the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the imposition of the terms of previously completed Section 106 Obligation(s) in respect of highway, ecological, affordable housing and open space in respect of this current application. 

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 drew attention to the late observations where additional conditions were requested if the application was approved.  Approval was also subject to the imposition of the terms of previously completed Section 106 Obligations. 

            Councillor M.J. Peers proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He referred to paragraph 7.07 on vehicular access and raised concern about vehicular access between the northern and southern parcels of the site.  The officer explained that bollards would be put in place to prevent vehicular traffic movement between the two parts of the site.  Councillor Peers commented on parking on Church Road which made this a single carriageway for other vehicles and referred to paragraph 7.18 where it was reported that the proposals included an alternative area of car parking to the rear of properties on Church Road to compensate for the future loss of existing on-street parking at this location.  He requested that this be conditioned to start at the earliest opportunity.  He raised concern at the affordable housing provision of 15% which was against policy but was agreed at the appeal stage.  Councillor Peers also asked for assurance that the standard of the affordable and market value homes were identical as evidence that this was not always the case had been provided during discussions at a meeting of the Planning Strategy Group.  He felt that all roads in the site should be offered for adoption and asked for clarification on this issue.  The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control responded that the main infrastructure would be highway maintained but she spoke of the policy to allow the provision of five dwellings off a private driveway without being adopted.   

            Councillor P.G. Heesom raised concern at the 15% affordable housing provision on the site and felt that it was not sufficient. 

            In response to the comments from Councillor Peers, the officer said that a condition could be included for the early completion of the parking area to the rear of the existing properties.  He explained that 15% affordable housing was less than normal but the inspector took account of the clay holes on the site and the groundwork required, concluding that only 15% was required. 

            In summing up, Councillor Peers said that he was proposing approval of the application but was requesting additional conditions that the car parking area be completed at the earliest opportunity and that the standard specification for the affordable homes be the same as for the equivalent properties for sale at market value.  The Development Manager said that the wording of the conditions could be discussed with the local Members and if no agreement reached the application could be brought back to Committee.   

RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 197.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning, the conditions from the Head of Assets and Transportation as detailed in the late observations and subject to the applicant entering into either a Section 106 Obligation, Unilateral Undertaking or the making of an advance payment to provide the following:-

a.         Payment of £24,514 towards educational provision/improvements at Perth Y Terfyn Infants School.  This contribution shall be paid prior to the commencement of development upon the site. 

b.         Payments of £9,900 towards the upgrade of existing recreational facilities within the locality.  This contribution shall be paid upon completion of the sale of the second dwelling upon the site. 

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 explained that the site would be served by two points of vehicular access and that there would be no internal connection in the two access points.  He highlighted the additional conditions referred to in the late observations from the Head of Assets and Transportation which would be included if the application was approved. 

Mr. R. Jones, the agent for the applicant, said that the application had been ongoing for a number of years and asked that the application be deferred so that the applicant could consider the options for the Section 106 obligations.  The applicant felt that the amounts proposed were excessive particularly in relation to the educational contribution as the site was being designed for people over the age of 55.  He said that the site was challenging and the cost of the development would be high.  He was willing to make a payment to the Section 106 Obligation but wanted to consider his options first.      

            Councillor H.G. Roberts proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  Councillor D. Evans proposed deferral of the application, as requested by the agent for the applicant, which was also duly seconded.  Councillor H.G. Roberts felt that there was no reason to defer the application as it would not achieve anything as deferral would not make Councillors change or compromise the policies.  Councillor R.C. Bithell concurred and said that well established policies were in place and the sums calculated were what was required and should be applied.  He added that deferment would not alter this. 

            The Head of Planning said that said that the applicant did not have to sign the Section 106 Agreement and if he did not do so, the application would be referred back to Committee.  Deferring the application would not reduce the amounts requested. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to defer the application was LOST.  Councillor Roberts then proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that he would have liked to see both accesses off Fron Park Road but added that this was not possible.  Perth Y Terfyn infants school adjoined the site and he sought assurance that there was satisfactory boundary treatments between the two sites.  The officer explained that a scheme had been designed so the tree boundary would be retained and the existing boundary would be protected which was conditioned in the report.  Councillor W.O. Thomas welcomed the application which included bungalows.    

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning, the conditions from the Head of Assets and Transportation as detailed in the late observations and subject to the applicant entering into either  ...  view the full minutes text for item 198.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering into a supplemental Section 106 Agreement which links the permission granted under this planning application to the provisions of the Section 106 Agreement entered into under Permission Ref: 048892 providing the following:- 

a.         the provision of 6 no. affordable homes to be presented to the Council as gifted units and allocated in accordance with a local lettings policy to pilot the Council’s Rent to Save to Homebuy scheme to applicants on the affordable Homeownership Register. 

b.         Ensure the payment of a contribution of £261,560 towards affordable homes provision.

c.         Ensure the transfer of wildlife mitigation land to a suitable body, together with the precise methods and means for the securing of its future management, monitoring and funding.

d.         Payment of £73,500 towards primary level educational provision/improvements at St. John the Baptist VA school and £52,500 towards secondary level educational provision/improvements at CastellAlun High School.

e.         Payment of £2,500 for costs incurred for amending Highway Access Restriction Order. 

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 explained that there were no proposed alterations to the layout of the site as a result of this application.  . 

            Councillor D. Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.

            Councillor W.O. Thomas raised concern that building on the site was going ahead before the highway was completed.  The officer responded that this was not a planning consideration and that the works on the road had been finalised. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering into a supplemental Section 106 Agreement which links the permission granted under this planning application to the provisions of the Section 106 Agreement entered into under Permission Ref: 048892 providing the following:- 

a.         the provision of 6 no. affordable homes to be presented to the Council as gifted units and allocated in accordance with a local lettings policy to pilot the Council’s Rent to Save to Homebuy scheme to applicants on the affordable Homeownership Register. 

b.         Ensure the payment of a contribution of £261,560 towards affordable homes provision.

c.         Ensure the transfer of wildlife mitigation land to a suitable body, together with the precise methods and means for the securing of its future management, monitoring and funding.

d.         Payment of £73,500 towards primary level educational provision/improvements at St. John the Baptist VA school and £52,500 towards secondary level educational provision/improvements at CastellAlun High School.

e.         Payment of £2,500 for costs incurred for amending Highway Access Restriction Order. 

            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 explained that the Environment Agency had been consulted and they had no objections as the proposed new store complied with Nitrate Vulnerable Zone Regulations. 

            Councillor J. Falshaw proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.

            RESOLVED:

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

            That the recommendation in the report to support refusal of the application for the reasons given be agreed. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

The Senior Minerals and Waste Officer detailed the background to the report and explained that a number of factors had arisen since the application was refused by Committee in 2011.  She added that it was the subject of an appeal.    The purpose of the report was to provide Members with an update in relation to the site, including policy changes, so that Members could review, and if necessary, reconsider their recommendation in light of these changes.  The officer recommendation on the application in 2011 was for approval but the Committee refused the application as there was no identified need for the landfill element of the proposed development.  In light of the changes to national policy and guidance, officers had reconsidered their recommendation and considered that, were the application to be considered again today, it should be refused due to a lack of need for the landfill element of the proposal, as it was contrary to both national and local policy.   

            Councillor P.G. Heesom proposed the officer recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.

            The local Member, Councillor C.A. Ellis, welcomed the report and said that what was said in 2011 by the Committee was correct.  The Committee had been told at that meeting that there was a need for additional landfill site but the site was still not operating.  She paid tribute to the members of the public who had expressed their concern about the proposal.  She raised concern about what the land could be used for instead of landfill as she felt that this decision should be made by the owner of the land. 

            Councillor P.G. Heesom paid tribute to Councillor Ellis and expressed his thanks to the Senior Minerals and Waste Officer for her work which confirmed the wish of the Committee in line with policies.  He welcomed the recommendation in the report and the officer’s persistence with the statement of case.  Councillor R.C. Bithell welcomed the report and the recommendation before the Committee.  Councillor A.M. Halford echoed the thanks of Councillors Ellis and Heesom and the excellent report of the officer, who had agreed to meet with Members to discuss the proposals. 

            Councillor R.B. Jones queried whether the new guidance would be taken into account by the Inspector for the appeal which was scheduled for June 2013.  He also commented on the targets set by Welsh Government for levels of landfill for Flintshire.  The Officer responded that the Inspector would consider policy at the time of the appeal.  The statement of case which had been sent to the Inspector outlined the Council’s case and provided evidence in light of the changes in policy.             

            RESOLVED:

            That the recommendation in the report to support refusal of the application for the reasons given be agreed. 

(a)       That the Inspectorate be advised that the Local Planning Authority requests an informal hearing; and

(b)       That representation proceed on the basis of option (b) (to engage consultants/legal representatives (as appropriate) to represent the Authority). 

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 Head of Planning detailed the background to the report and explained that outline planning permission had been granted by Committee in December 2012.  The terms of the permission were established at the subsequent committee in January 2013 when Members were advised that on 15 January 2013 Welsh Government (WG) had issued a direction on the Authority not to grant planning permission for the development proposed in the application.  Members were advised at the meeting on 20 February 2013 that WG had called-in the application for determination.  The Inspectorate had written to the Authority to ask for the Authority’s comments on the procedure for dealing with the application (namely written representations, informal hearing or local public inquiry).  The applicant would also be given these options but the ultimate decision will be down to the Inspectorate.  The reasons for calling in the application were reported.  A decision was also required on how to progress the application and the options (shown as (a) to (d) in paragraph 6.07) for representation in the event of a Hearing or an Inquiry were reported.  The Head of Planning explained that the two decisions to be made by the Committee today were for the process and representations going forward. 

                        Councillor P.G. Heesom suggested that an Informal Hearing was the way forward and proposed option (c) (nominate Members of the Committee to represent the Authority’s stance), which was duly seconded.  Councillor R.C. Bithell moved an amendment that the application be dealt with by written representations which was also duly seconded. 

            Councillor M.J. Peers noted that the report failed to identify the local Member for this application and reminded Members that it was Councillor P. Lightfoot and not Councillor C. Hinds or D. Williams as shown in the late observations.  He referred to paragraph 6.06 which reported that consultants were normally engaged for appeals which followed a refusal of planning permission contrary to officer recommendation and felt that this should be the case for this application.  He also highlighted paragraph 6.04 which he felt showed that the Minister had pre-determined some aspects of the application.  He said that an Informal Hearing was needed to hear out the anomalies of the application.  Councillor R.G. Hampson also supported an Informal Hearing. 

            On being put to the vote the proposal to request an Informal Hearing was CARRIED.

            On the issue of who would represent the Authority, Councillor Heesom reiterated his earlier comment that option (c) was appropriate as it would allow for the benefit of independent Counsel advice; the proposal was duly seconded.  Following a comment from the Head of Planning, Councillor Heesom clarified that he meant a consultant and nominated himself and Councillor Peers to attend the hearing along with assistance from consultants.  Councillor R.C. Bithell felt  ...  view the full minutes text for item 202.

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

Councillor P.G. Heesom said that this site was in a volatile traffic area and that there had been many deaths and tragedies on this road.  He said that developers needed to take account of highway implications.

RESOLVED:

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

            (a)       That the decision of the Inspector to allow this appeal be noted; and

(b)       That the Head of Planning provide the requested information on costs when it was available. 

Councillor P.G. Heesom indicated that a complaint was to be submitted to the Ombudsman about how the applications for Croes Atti had been processed. 

            Councillor A.I. Dunbar asked for details of the total cost to Flintshire County Council of the development when all applications and appeals had been finalised.  The Head of Planning responded that there were three elements to costs which were:-

1)         costs which had been awarded against the Council for unreasonable behaviour – this information could be provided by the Head of Planning

2)         costs of legal representatives and consultants at appeals – this information could be provided be the Head of Planning

3)         officer and committee time – it was not possible to put a figure on this

The Head of Planning confirmed that he would provide the information requested when it was available. 

RESOLVED:

            (a)       That the decision of the Inspector to allow this appeal be noted; and

(b)       That the Head of Planning provide the requested information on costs when it was available. 

There were 21 members of the public and 3 members of the press in attendance.