Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Christine Jones declared a personal interest in the following application as her son-in-law was an Undertaker:-  

Agenda item 6.3 – Full application – Change of use of agricultural land to a graveyard on land rear of Crompton Close, Higher Kinnerton (051534)

Councillor Mike Peers declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application as his son was an employee of the applicant:-

Agenda item 6.4 – Erection of 16 No. dwellings to include 6 No. 2 bed houses, 6 No. 1 bed apartments and 4 No. 2 bed apartments at Starlights Social Club, Sealand Avenue, Garden City (051518)

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 15 January 2014.

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 15 January 2014 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. 

            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 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to provide a commuted sum of £733 per unit to enhance recreation provision in the area in lieu of on-site open space provision. 

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE the 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 explained that there would be minimum change to the exterior of the building.  The site was in the settlement boundary of Buckley and Policy S11 indicated that the development which would lead to the loss of a public house which performed a social as well as an economic role would only be permitted where similar facilities existed in the neighbourhood or where this was not the case, the property had been advertised at a reasonable price for sale or lease in its existing use for a period of at least one year without success.  A petrol station and associated facilities situated across the road from the site performed a social role and whilst there were no public houses in the close proximity, there were several public houses within Buckley and Ewloe.  The officer referred to the additional marketing information in the late observations but as it was considered that criteria A of the policy was met it was not necessary for the property to satisfy the marketing test of criteria B or to assess its commercial viability.  On the issue of access and parking, the proposed parking area would be sited to the front of the public house and improvements would be carried out to the highway and the existing bus stop.  There was minimal change to the exterior of the building which would be retained and there was therefore no reason to refuse the application. 

                        Mrs. S. Smith spoke against the application and indicated that she had been advised that planning permission was a foregone conclusion.  She queried whether the land proposed for additional parking belonged to the Red Lion or the Council and raised concern about the access to the site which was on a blind bend.  There was no provision for disabled parking and if the building was converted into flats, the proposal would not provide employment that had been available when it was a public house.  It was a great loss to the community and even though it had been extremely popular in the past, it had recently been allowed to become run down.  Mrs. Smith felt that the building was of historic interest only yards from the Buckley Heritage Trail and the Red Lion public house had been an asset to the community for 200 years. 

                        The Democracy & Governance Manager reminded Members that the issue of land ownership was not a material planning consideration. 

                        Mr. David Williams, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He provided a brief history of the application and said that there had been a number of objections to the scheme but that there were 16 public houses within a two mile radius and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 143.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and the additional conditions to mark out the right of way and safeguard it prior to any further development and to complete the development within 12 months. 

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 10 February 2014.   The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that this was a partially retrospective application for proposals that were required to prevent the site from flooding.  The building had been in place some time before 1992 and the application had come forward because of Enforcement Team action.  The main issues included:-

• the principle of the proposal and flood risk
• Contamination of surrounding water courses
• the impact on the Right of Way
• restoration and aftercare
• ecology, biodiversity and European protected species

On the issue of flooding, the officer said that Natural Resources Wales (NRW) had been consulted and they had undertaken modelling of the area which had identified that the proposal would not result in any third party harm of flooding elsewhere subject to the landraise area being no greater than 650m².  The material that was proposed to raise the level of the land would allow water to percolate through it and would therefore alleviate the flooding issue.  Photographs had been circulated at the site visit which were taken in 2000 and the officer advised that the Environment Agency had invested £90k on flood defences since then and there had not been any flooding since then so the photographs should be disregarded as they were not a material consideration.  The officer explained that NRW were satisfied that the construction material that was to be used would not cause contamination in the area.  The public right of way was not shown on the definitive map but the statement that accompanies the map indicates that the footpath extends through the application site. Therefore, the exact line of the right of way is uncertain. The anomaly on the definitive map would be rectified by the County Council adding a line to the definitive map under a separate statutory process.  Should the existing building prove to cause an obstruction of the right of way, this could be rectified by way of a diversion under a separate statutory process outside of the planning process so was also not material to this application.  However, what was material was whether the proposal affected the use of the right of way but as this would raise its level the proposals would be beneficial..  The application was retrospective and not finished but would require an additional 130 tonnes of material to be brought in to complete the restoration which would increase the height by approximately 10cm.  The applicant had not yet decided whether the finish would be grass or concrete but as no objections had been received from statutory consultees and the two letters of objection related to the impact on the public footpath, there was no evidence or reason to refuse the application. 

            Mr. H. White spoke against the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 144.

            That planning permission be refused and a report be brought back to the next meeting with draft reasons. 

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 10 February 2014.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Amendments to two paragraphs in the the report were circulated at the meeting. 

                        Mr. E.C. James, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He explained that other sites had been explored before this site was selected and when planning permission had been granted previously there were no dissenting voices. He stated that only five burials had occurred in the last five years so it was not felt that the use of the site would be excessive.  A right of way was required to access the land and only hearses and maintenance vehicles would be permitted to use the access as space for parking for vehicles would not be provided on the site.  There were only four graves remaining at the churchyard and therefore this site was required. 

                        The local Member, Councillor Phil Lightfoot, spoke against the application.  He said that the map included with the report was incorrectly marked as to the location of the playing field.  He raised concern about safety of children with hearses and maintenance vehicles using the access through the play area, which would be difficult to police and said that parking would be an issue on Park Avenue.  He queried the definition of a maintenance vehicle and in referring to Policy SR4 on play areas, said that all of the concerns had not been addressed.     

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that there was no reason to refuse the application and reminded Members that funeral processions passed by Bryn Coch School on a daily basis and that the Mold Alun Grammar School had been situated on the road to Mold Cemetery.  He felt that the grounds for refusal were groundless and petty and reiterated that there was no sound reason to refuse theapplication.  Councillor Ron Hampson concurred with the comments made. 

            Councillor Alison Halford raised concern about the proposal which required an uphill walk to get to the site and said that parking would also be an issue as none was to be provided.  She felt that there should be a form of boundary hedging or screening to prevent the children in the playground from seeing the funeral processions and queried whether the application included any disabled access.  Councillor Halford felt that other sites would be more suitable for a graveyard. 

            Councillor Carolyn Thomas concurred and said that there was a need to reconsider the scheme for one that did not cross the play area and asked whether the Play Unit had been consulted.  She referred to an access for a bowling club through a play area in her ward which caused concern and which was dangerous. 

            Councillor Mike Peers queried whether the play equipment on the playground was maintained by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 145.

            That planning permission be granted subject to:-

- the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning;

- a ‘Grampian’ style condition for flooding and drainage;

- an additional condition requiring a scheme of affordability; and

- subject to the applicant entering either into a Section 106 agreement, providing a unilateral undertaking or the making of an advance payment which provides for the following:-

- ensure the payment of a commuted sum payment, in lieu of on site public open space provision, of £11728 with such sum being used to upgrade existing open space and recreation facilities within the locality.  This sum shall be paid upon the occupation of the 10^th unit of accommodation. 

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.  Councillor Mike Peers, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting whilst it was considered. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that extant permission was in place for 38 apartments on the site.  He referred Members to the late observations and the concerns about flood risk under TAN15 where it was reported that what was proposed represented a betterment to the permitted situation in terms of flood risk.  A ‘Grampian’ style condition had also been requested if the application was approved to prevent commencement of the development until such time as the Welsh Government’s River Dee Northern Embankment improvement works were completed.  The site was owned by Pennaf Housing Group and the proposal was for 100% affordable housing on the site but as there was potential that the site could be sold on, the officer suggested that a scheme of affordability be submitted and agreed prior to commencement.   

            Councillor Christine Jones proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  She welcomed the affordable housing element of the scheme and said that the local residents were also looking forward to development of the site.  A ‘Grampian’ style condition was required to prevent any work being undertaken on the site until the works had been completed and Councillor Jones said that there was a need to ensure that there was adequate parking in place on the site. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell felt that the scheme fitted in with the area and that the area would be enhanced by the development.  In response to a question from Councillor Bithell about parking spaces, the officer confirmed that there would be 28 spaces and that this was above the required standard of 27. Cllr G. Roberts expressed his opposition to the application of maximum parking standards.

                        In summing up, Councillor Jones welcomed the regeneration of the area and the request for a ‘Grampian’ style condition for flooding and drainage and said that she would like to see work commence as soon as possible.     

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to:-

- the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning;

- a ‘Grampian’ style condition for flooding and drainage;

- an additional condition requiring a scheme of affordability; and

- subject to the applicant entering either into a Section 106 agreement, providing a unilateral undertaking or the making of an advance payment which provides for the following:-

- ensure the payment of a commuted sum payment, in lieu of on site public open space provision, of £11728 with such sum being used to upgrade existing open space and recreation facilities within the locality.  This sum shall be paid upon the occupation of the 10^th unit of accommodation. 

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of:--

                        - overdevelopment;

- the provision of a car parking area for 26 cars being out of character with this part of the development

                        - the effect on the amenity

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 10 February 2014.  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 said that the application proposed amending some of the dwellings to terraced or semi-detached units.  These types of properties had already been completed on the site and were for the general market and affordable housing.  There were no objections about overdevelopment on the site or in terms of the relationship to the existing properties and the application was therefore reported for approval. 

Mr. S. Stanford spoke against the application on behalf of some of the residents on the site whose properties backed onto the northern edge of the plot.  He felt that the proposals would result in significant overdevelopment of the site due to 16 properties being suggested to replace the eight originally proposed and that this would result in the density being over 50 per hectare.  The variation to the layout would create excess traffic and would result in an increase in parking problems.  Mr. Stanford explained that his property backed onto the northern edge of the plot and would originally have been facing 3 detached houses whereas this proposal would result in his property and those of his neighbours facing a solid façade of eight semi detached or terraced properties with no space between them.  This would significantly reduce light to Mr. Stanford’s property and would reduce his privacy and light into his garden and would add to the noise in the area.  He did not feel that the proposals were in keeping with the rest of the site and that previously the affordable housing properties were spread across both parts of the site but was now proposed to be located in the southern parcel of the site. 

Mr. N. Arkwright, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application and said that the changes were proposed due to market demand.  There was a much higher demand for smaller affordable homes on the development and the proposed house types were already being built on the development.  Mr. Arkwright said that there had been objections about the tenure but the applicant was willing to negotiate the tenure via a Section 106 agreement.  The agent had worked very closely with the authority to ensure that the application complied with the standards set for space around dwellings and separation distances and it was felt that the proposal did comply and should therefore be approved.          

Councillor Mike Peers proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He drew attention to the late observations where six additional comments were reported and provided a response to each of the comments.  A breakdown in communication had been highlighted as the reason for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 147.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and late observations and subject to the applicant entering into a supplemental planning obligation reinforcing the provisions of the Section 106 Obligation entered into under Code No. 050333 in respect of highway, ecological, affordable housing and open space requirements.  

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 would be no detrimental impact on the streetscene or neighbouring properties.  He referred Members to the list of conditions and amendment to the description reported in the late observations.  

            Councillor Mike Peers proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that the number of affordable houses should be 47, 37 of which were on this southern part of the site but added that the tenure of the units and whether they were affordable or not was not an issue.  They were only affordable because of the way that they had been equipped by the developer in terms of a lower specification such as in the kitchens of the properties.  He supported the application.  

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and late observations and subject to the applicant entering into a supplemental planning obligation reinforcing the provisions of the Section 106 Obligation entered into under Code No. 050333 in respect of highway, ecological, affordable housing and open space requirements.  

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

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 referred Members to the extra condition requested in the late observations sheet. 

            Councillor Owen Thomas proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that the site was not in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that there was a need to find alternative means to provide electricity.  

            RESOLVED:

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

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.

The Head of Planning indicated that this appeal would be considered in more detail at a future meeting of the Planning Strategy Group. 

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 Head of Planning indicated that this appeal would be considered in more detail at a future meeting of the Planning Strategy Group.  Councillor Gareth Roberts welcomed the suggestion as he raised concern about the consistency of decisions by the Planning Inspectorate and suggested that a mechanism should be put in place for Members to discuss issues with the Inspector.  Councillor Richard Jones referred to Policy S7 and in querying the decision of the Inspector to allow the appeal, said that rules were made to protect the town centres and that the decision to refuse the application had provided protection.         

RESOLVED:

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

There were 17 members of the public and 3 members of the press in attendance.