Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Ian Dunbar declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application:-

Agenda item 6.1 – Full application – Erection of 37 No. dwellings and associated external/drainage works and part-reconfiguration of existing road at Fair Oaks Drive, Connah’s Quay (051266)

Councillor Mike Peers declared a personal interest in the following application:-

Agenda item 6.2 – Full application – Erection of 2 No. wind turbines (110m to tip) and ancillary infrastructure and access at Kingspan Limited, 2-4 Greenfield Business Park 2, Greenfield (049300)

            In line with the Planning Code of Practice:-

                        Councillor Christine Jones declared that she had been contacted on more than three occasions on the following application:-

Agenda item 6.4 – Outline application – Erection of 2 no. town houses, construction of means of access and associated works at 6 Welsh Road, Garden City, Deeside (049531)

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 9^th October 2013. 

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

The draft minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 9^th October 2013 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

Councillor Mike Peers referred to the minute number 84, saying that he and Councillor Billy Mullin had been recorded as leaving the meeting prior to the determination of the application. He asked that the minute be amended to reflect the fact that they had returned to the meeting after the discussion.  

RESOLVED:

That subject to the suggested amendment, 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. 

That planning permission be refused on the grounds of inadequate provision of affordable housing, lack of parking and overlooking from the 2.5 storey houses.

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 4^th November 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.  Councillor Ian Dunbar, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting during its discussion. 

The officer detailed the background to the report and drew Members’ attention to the late observations where responses from consultees and an additional letter of objection were reported.  An additional condition and the replacement of condition 26 were also reported.  Following the site visit, clarification had been provided that the type C houses would have dormers on to the front and the rear.  The development was acceptable in principle and the main issues for consideration, which included the provision of open space and affordable housing, were reported in paragraph 1.01.  An education contribution requirement would be met through a section 106 obligation if the application was approved and the public open space was considered acceptable.  The development was not of executive style homes but provided a reasonable mix and balance of house types and sizes so as to cater for a range of housing needs.  There had been no objection on the issue of drainage by NaturalResources Wales or D?r Cymru/Welsh Water subject to conditions and Highways had not objected to the proposals.  The officer explained that space around dwellings guidance had been met and the mitigation measures proposed had been assessed by the Ecologist who had advised that, with conditions and the £40,000 proposed payment for the enhancement of the wildlife area, there would be no detrimental impact on wildlife.  The recommendation was therefore for approval subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement. 

Mr. I. Davies spoke against the application.  He said that residents were extremely frustrated by the developer due to his not completing works that should have been undertaken on the existing site.  He said that existing residents, who had not been advised that there would be a reduction in the specification on the proposed site, strongly objected to living on a building site.  Mr. Davies raised concern at the obvious lack of parking which he felt would force residents to park on adjacent roads.  He commented on the badgers which were to be relocated to wetland which was not their natural habitat.  He questioned the adequacy of the  report dealing with that aspect.  Mr. Davies felt that the proposed houses were not in keeping with the current homes and the 167 letters of objection reflected the feeling of local people.  The development would detrimentally alter the character of the estate forever.  He felt that the site did not comply with policies D1 and D2 and asked the Committee to refuse the application. 

Mr. P. Moren, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 101.

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and the additional reason in the late observations. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 4^th November 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, and drew Members’ attention to the late observations where an additional reason for refusal was reported.  It had originally been felt that the objection from Airbus and Liverpool JohnLennon Airport could be mitigated against but having taken further legal advice, it was now felt that this could not be done.  He detailed the main issues which included the principle of development in planning policy terms, the impact upon the setting of scheduled ancient monuments, listed buildings and conservation areas, and the effects on wildlife and the adjoining bridleway. 

                        Mrs. G. Harrison spoke against the application saying that she was on the Board of Trustees of the Greenfield Valley and lived 750 metres from the proposed site.  She felt that it was contrary to policies GEN1, EWP4 and STR7 and TAN 14 and that it would impact on a nearby care home which also provided a bat roost.  Mrs. Harrison felt that GreenfieldValley HeritagePark provided peace and tranquillity which would be affected; the site was within 500 metres of houses and was in close proximity to the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), the Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and RAMSAR site, all close to the coastal path.  She felt the wind turbines would provide health and safety issues and would cause upheaval to the local community.  She referred to competition and said that water and other natural resources should be used.  The turbines would not enhance or benefit the area and would be a blot on the landscape. 

                        Mr. M. Harris, from the applicant company, spoke in support of the application.  He explained that Kingspan was in the business of saving energy and the number of jobs at the site had increased from 30 to 388. He felt that the proposal would have two major benefits which were safeguarding the existing jobs and creating additional jobs, and the financial benefits that it would bring to the local economy.  He said that the wind energy project was a critical part of the company achieving its targets and would allow the upgrade of the plant at Greenfield.  He spoke of the benefits to the local economy which he said could be £500,000, and that it would attract business rates of £1.3m for the Council.  Mr. Harris said that the project would transform the site and would safeguard jobs and bring financial benefits.  He proposed that, if the application could not be approved, it be deferred to allow Members to undertake a detailed site visit.       

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.

                        Councillor Mike Peers read  ...  view the full minutes text for item 102.

            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 Section 106 agreement to ensure payment of a commuted sum payment in lieu of on site public open space provision of £8063, such sum to be used to upgrade existing open public open spaces within the locality.  This sum shall be paid upon the occupation of the fifth apartment. 

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 4^th November 2013.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

The officer detailed the background to the report explaining that there were no objections to the principle of the development and the only issue was one of parking.  Consultation had been undertaken with the Head of Assets and Transportation who advised that subject to the imposition of conditions, no adverse impacts upon highway and pedestrian safety were anticipated.  Whilst the proposals provided for only three no. additional car parking spaces, regard had been had to the location of the site within the town centre of Mold and its proximity to public transport links.  In line with the guidance set out in Local Planning Guidance 11 Parking Standards, the normally applied standards were not deemed required in connection with this proposal.  He said that the local Member had spoken at the site visit and had drawn attention to the close proximity to the school in the area.  The officer highlighted paragraph 7.11 where it was reported that, having regard to the proximity of the schools and the associated peak traffic flows, a Construction Traffic Management Plan was requested to avoid the conflict of traffic movements. 

Mr. J. Williams, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the building was a significant landmark in Mold and in the past had been a public house and a retail business.  The adjacent school had been built on the former bowling green and the proposal would bring the building back into a productive use.  It would allow much needed one bedroom properties and it was the intention that the residents would not rely on cars as parking was limited.  In conclusion, he said that it would give the building a new lease of life and commended the report and recommendation to Members.      

            Councillor Brian Lloyd proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  On the issue of parking, he said that this had never been an issue when it had been a retail site and he felt that any problems about traffic would be restricted to the start and end of the school day. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts said that problems with parking had been recognised but felt that issues about parking standards and criteria needed to be raised with the Planning Inspectorate.  He added that if the application was refused on the grounds of parking, then the application would be allowed on appeal and possible costs awarded against the Council. 

            Councillor Mike Peers said that he was in favour of supporting the application.  He highlighted paragraph 7.13 on the issue of the location of bins associated with the apartments.  He felt that the application should have included information on where they would be sited.  Councillor Marion Bateman asked if parking was available on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103.

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of:- 

• Detrimental impact on highway safety
• Unacceptable risk of flooding
• Inadequate drainage capacity
• Loss of amenity and overlooking of surrounding properties
• Overdevelopment

            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 4^th November 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, explaining that the construction was a form of backland development but it was not unacceptable.  He referred to paragraph 7.14 where it was reported that proposals for backland development on two sites in Mynydd Isa which had been allowed on appeal contrary to the Local Planning Authority’s decision to refuse permission and that the circumstances here were similar,.  He added that the principle of the backland development was considered acceptable and the site was capable of locating two dwellings served by an acceptable access. 

                        Mrs. G. Fletcher spoke against the application.  She said that the proposal was for two dwellings in the back garden of the property and that the applicant had tried to purchase parts of other gardens to undertake the proposal.  She felt that the entrance to Tata Steel across the road from the site was already dangerous and that the danger would be increased by the addition of a further access.  There had been problems with drainage this development would put more demands upon drainage and the provision of gas and electricity in the area.  Light and privacy would be taken away from the neighbouring properties.  She commented on the hedgerow and the birds that visited the gardens and highlighted the number of objections to the application.  Mrs. Fletcher referred to a letter received from Mark Tami M.P. and said that the Northern Gateway project would provide plenty of housing for the area and that this commercial venture by the applicant showed a total disregard for residents. 

                        Mr. D. Barker, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support of the application and thanked the officer for the report.  He said that the application was for outline approval only and that the planning officer had given consideration to all of the objections which had been received and which could be overcome by conditions.  It was sustainable development for a site which could accommodate two dwellings with off road parking, would provide good quality housing and was located close to transport links.  The roofs would be no higher than those of neighbouring properties.  The proposal complied with policy HSG9 and was of a lower density than was suggested in policy HSG8.  Mr. Barker said that the properties were in keeping with the area and had appropriate space around the dwellings.  He said that the site was for a low density, high quality development which was in accordance with policy and there were no objections from statutory consultees.  He also referred to the recent sites in Mynydd Isa that had been permitted on appeal and asked that the Committee approve the application.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 104.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning.

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 4^th November 2013.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report, explaining that the application was for a change of use to provide a garage for the existing dwelling and for minor alterations to the dwelling.  The application was reported for refusal on highways grounds due to the lack of adequate visibility from, and of, emerging vehicles, obstruction of the footway and adjoining highway due to the use of the proposed garage, and an unacceptable detrimental impact on highway safety.  

            Councillor Mike Peers proposed approval of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He felt that the visibility was unrestricted and that when the property was a post office, the area was always busy as vehicles could park on the highway without restrictions.  He said that the implication that one vehicle stopping on the highway to use the garage would have a detrimental impact on highway safety when it was acceptable for several vehicles to park there when it was a post office.  Councillor Peers felt that the alternative of the vehicle parking on the highway would create worse conditions than stopping the traffic to access into or exit from the garage.  He said that public consultation had been held in the village and it had originally been proposed that a speed cushion would be placed in the highway outside the property.  Following the consultation, the plans had been amended to move the speed hump further up the highway.  He spoke of a nearby property which had an adjacent high hedge in third party ownership adjacent to the property but visibility was not an issue there or at the access/egress to the chapel which required cars to access or exit between parked cars.  He felt that the visibility was better in this application than at either of these sites.  Councillor Peers said that off street parking was at a premium in the area and that a common sense approach should be taken, and the application be approved. 

            Councillor Neville Phillips supported the recommendation of Councillor Peers stating that the reason for refusal was not planning but highway safety.  He referred to neighbouring properties with garages and concurred that those attending the chapel would have to block the highway to access or exit the chapel car park, just as the applicant would have to do on this application. 

            Councillor Ian Dunbar said that the applicant had indicated that he would take down his wall to improve visibility and added that he felt that stopping to open the garage would have no consequence to the highway.  He agreed with the proposal to approve the application. 

            The Principal Solicitor reminded Members that highway and road safety considerations were material considerations in the same way as other planning matters and that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 105.

            That the condition be discharged in accordance with the submitted details. 

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 explaining that the application was seeking to discharge condition 6 of permission 049320 which was granted in January 2013 to deliver an employment-led mixed use regeneration scheme, comprising a range of employment generating uses, local shops, residential development, public open space, surface water drainage improvements and new site access arrangements as part of the strategic development allocated in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) under policy HSG2a known as The Northern Gateway.  All matters were reserved for future consideration and the outline permission was subject to a number of conditionsrelating to principles of how the site would be developed.  Applications were now coming forward to discharge the pre-commencement conditions prior to the submission of reserved matters applications to bring the site forward for development.  It was agreed at the consideration of the outline application by this Committee that the discharge of condition applications which dealt with the Masterplan of the site should come before the Committee.  She also explained the requirements of condition 6.

The discharge of pre-commencement conditions was the first stage in the process that would feed into and inform the detailed design of the first phases of development which would be the subject of subsequent reserved matters applications.  This process complied with the requirements of Policy HSG2A of the UDP.  The Design Statement set the principles for the illustrative land use Masterplan with subdivision of the site into proposed land uses in a series of plots and pods.  The officer reminded Members that the Masterplan dealt with on site issues and that off site issues would be part of any reserved matters applications.  Whilst the Design Statement and Masterplan set out the phasing in general terms, the detailed phasing of each parcel was required to be submitted under condition 5 prior to the development of that phase.  The level of detail provided as part of this application was therefore deemed sufficient at this stage. 

The Flood Mitigation Plan submitted as part of the application to discharge condition 6 was part of the overall site Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA) submitted to discharge condition 12.  Natural Resources Wales in their assessment of the Flood Mitigation Plan element of this application had therefore also assessed the FCA as a whole.  However, they had highlighted that the FCA had not shown the site was fully compliant with TAN15 with respect to off-site flooding.  These conditions would need to be addressed as FCAs were produced for individual phases of the development in accordance with condition 12 of permission 049320. 

The Masterplan provided for five hectares of public open space.  The Council’s requirement in terms of Local Planning Guidance Note 13 Open Space was four hectares.  However, the designation of this, as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

            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.

            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 allow this appeal be noted.

RESOLVED:

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

There were one member of the press and 33 members of the public in attendance.