Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Chairman indicated that Councillor Ted Evans had passed away and asked those present to stand for a minute’s silence. 

Councillor Carolyn Thomas declared a personal interest in the following application as she was Chair of the ClwydianRange and Dee Valley AONB:-

Agenda item 6.1 – Restoration of Cambrian Quarry by the importation and recycling of inert materials at Cambrian Quarry, Glynd?r Road, Gwernymynydd (050695)

Councillor Ray Hughes declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application as he was a Governor at CastellAlun High School:-

Agenda item 6.4 – Reserved Matters application – amended layout to include substitution of 15 No. house types and the addition of a further 5 No. dwellings on land to the rear of Adwy Deg, Fagl Lane, Hope (051449)

            In line with the Planning Code of Practice:-

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

Agenda item 6.2 – Erection of a four bedroom detached dwelling at 37 Wood Lane, Hawarden (051234)

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 11^th December 2013. 

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 11 December 2013 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

Councillor Richard Jones referred to the resolution to minute number 118 and asked whether a response had been received from Network Rail who had been given two weeks after the meeting to reply.  The Development Manager advised that a response had been received which he felt had indicated that they were happy with the details, but that he would confirm this to Councillor Jones following the meeting.

Councillor Mike Peers referred to the last sentence in the first paragraph on minute number 120 where it was reported that he had left the meeting prior to the discussion of the item but had not been called back for the remainder.  He felt that the process needed to be examined to ensure that Councillors who had left the meeting could return following the discussion of the relevant item.   

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 condition detailed in the late observations;

·        the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning; and

·        the applicant entering into a legal agreement under the terms of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) Section 106 to:-

- surrender the old mineral and waste planning permissions

- 15 year management post restoration as set out in the outline management plan with periodic review

- control of operations within the quarry but outside of the application site in terms of hours of operation and no artificial lighting activities not related to the application

If the Section 106 Agreement (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 which had been the subject of a site visit on 13 January 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 explained that there was a long history of quarrying at the site which had existing and extant planning permissions.  Operations ceased in 2000 and there was no restoration scheme currently in place for the quarry.  The application involved the importation of inert waste materials for use in the restoration of Cambrian Quarry in order to make the quarry faces stable and safe.  The application also involved the recycling of inert waste materials which would be exported off site for reuse elsewhere.  Access to the site would be facilitated by the construction of a new internal access road, the widening of Glynd?r Road, and the removal and restoration of the existing quarry access.  It was proposed that the work would be undertaken in five phases, with the first four phases being to shore up the quarry slopes and the final phase would be required for landscape reasons . The proposed restoration would take between 6.5 and nine years.  It was anticipated that the total quantity of material to be transported into Cambrian Quarry would be between 145,000 and 200,000 tonnes per annum.  Approximately 30% of the material (45,000 to 60,000 tonnes) would be recycled and exported off site and 70% of the materials imported would be used in the restoration of the site.  The proposal included locating the recycling plant within the quarry void initially during phase one at the most southerly location and then subsequently moving it to the north of the site but no higher than 287m AOD within the quarry void; this was below the quarry rim. 

                        A new internal access road would be constructed which would run parallel with Glynd?r Road and would then rejoin the existing access.  The existing access was very steep and on a blind bend and Glynd?r Road was very narrow.  The officer explained that part of the bank would be removed on Glynd?r Road to widen the road to up to 10 metres in width which would allow two HGVs to pass and advanced planting would be undertaken of any trees lost as a result of the new access.  The applicant was offering to manage the site for a total period of 15 years after completion of restoration which would ensure that the aspirations of the restoration were successful; this would be secured by a section 106 agreement.  There were a number of constraints on the site such as it being in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the trees in the northern part of the site were covered by a Tree  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

            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 the following:-

• The property shall be occupied by the applicants Mr and Mrs Shaw in the first instance
• If the property is put up for sale in the future 30% of the property value is repaid to the Council, secured as a charge on the property

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. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report which had been deferred from the Committee meeting in December 2013.  Following a request from Councillor Mike Peers, she detailed which sections in the report had been amended to address the issues of affordability, housing need and backland/tandem development.  She highlighted the section on local need and Policy HSG3 which required that any additional housing had to be justified on the grounds of local need where the growth in a settlement area exceeded 15%.  The personal circumstances of the applicant and his family were detailed in paragraph 7.08 and their local connections had been demonstrated to Cymdeithas Tai Clwyd who maintained the Affordable Housing Register on behalf of the County Council.  Any planning permission would restrict the first occupation to Mr & Mrs Shaw and would require a Section 106 Agreement which would put a charge on the house so that, if it was sold in the future, 30% of the money would be paid back to the Council.  The Housing Strategy Officer considered that the applicants met the affordable housing criteria under policy HSG3 in terms of their local connection and affordable housing need.  Members had questioned the need for a four bedroom house and double garage and details of the requirements were reported in paragraph 7.10. 

                        The development was a form of backland development but this did not, in itself, mean that the application should be refused.  The important issue to consider was the harm that this form of development might cause in terms of impacts on residential amenity to the occupiers of 37 Wood Lane, the proposed dwelling, and adjoining properties, and the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the area.  The impact from the increased vehicle movements to the occupiers of 37 Wood Lane when in the existing conservatory would be minimised by the introduction of obscure glazing to reduce any impact on privacy.  The officer explained that there was no direct overlooking with 37 Wood Lane or any adjacent properties but there was potential for overlooking to the rear garden of 35 Wood Lane, although this was common in urban areas.  Any impact could be dealt with by the retention of the existing boundary hedgerow and other suitable boundary treatment which could be dealt with by condition. 

                        Mr. I. Warlow spoke against the application.  He said that two previous applications had been refused and that this proposal was on a footprint of a similar size to those applications, so should also be refused.  He felt that a four bedroom dwelling could not be classed as an affordable dwelling and that the proposal was exploiting a planning loophole which he suggested other developers would use if the application was approved.  Mr. Warlow said that the average price of a four bedroom property in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the application entering into a Section 106/Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking or making direct payment to provide the following:-

• Payment of £733.00 per residential unit in lieu of on site public open space.  The payment would be used to enhance existing recreation facilities in the community and to be provided upon 50% sale or occupation of the development.

If the Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking or direct payment is not completed/made 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. 

The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the main issues included the principle of development, the highway implications and the effects upon the amenities of adjoining residents and wildlife.  There were four apartments at the first floor level and this proposal would reduce the A1 use of the ground floor and create two one bedroom apartments.  The shop unit was outside the core retail area and therefore the reduction in retail floor space was acceptable.  The officer explained that as the site was in a highly sustainable location, it was not proposed to provide any on site off street parking spaces with the development. 

Mr. G. Muggleton spoke in support of the application.  He explained that the main reason for the proposal was to enable his business to carry on trading on the High Street.  There had been a decline in trade and footfall and costs had increased, so reducing the size of the shop would reduce running costs.  He hoped to continue the business, which had been operating for over 50 years, for several years to come and asked Members to approve the application. 

            Councillor Derek Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  Councillor Owen Thomas felt that this was a sign of the times and the proposals were preferable to the closure of the business.  

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the application entering into a Section 106/Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking or making direct payment to provide the following:-

• Payment of £733.00 per residential unit in lieu of on site public open space.  The payment would be used to enhance existing recreation facilities in the community and to be provided upon 50% sale or occupation of the development.

If the Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking or direct payment is not completed/made within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

            That planning permission be granted subject to:-

• the additional condition detailed in the late observations,
• the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning
• the applicant entering into a supplemental Section 106 agreement which linked the approval granted under this application to the provisions of the Section 106 agreement entered into under Reserved Matters Approval Ref:- 048186, providing for the following:-

(a)       The provision of 16 No. affordable homes, to be made available at 70% of market value with the Council retaining the 30% equity and nomination rights for occupiers being retained by the Council having regard to people registered upon its Affordable Home Ownership Register.

(b)       Ensure the payment of an educational contribution of £31,500 towards educational provision/improvements to local education facilities.  The contribution shall be paid prior to occupation of the first dwelling. 

(c)        Ensure payment of a sum of £45,000 towards the maintenance of the play area upon adoption.

(d)       Ensure payment of £29,150 in lieu of 50% on site provision of recreation/open space.

(e)       Ensure the transfer of wildlife mitigation land to a suitable body in order to secure its future management and funding.

In addition, the Supplemental Agreement shall provide for the additional payment of a £5500 recreation contribution in lieu of further on site provision arising from the additional 5 no. new dwellings.  Such payment shall be made upon sale or occupation of 50% of the total dwellings approved.  

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 Ray Hughes, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report explaining that the proposal was for the substitution of 15 house types and the provision of five additional dwellings.  The previous reserved matters application had been permitted in December 2011 and there were no other modifications to the proposals and no issues about the principle of development, design or layout.  If the application was approved, it would require a supplemental section 106 agreement to link it to the section 106 agreement entered into under reserved matters approval reference 048186.  The supplemental agreement would also provide for the additional payment of a £5500.00 recreational contribution in lieu of further on site provision arising from the additional 5 no. new dwellings.   

            Councillor Mike Peers proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that it was one of many applications for change of house types due to changing times and market forces and added that there had been no comments from the Community Council. 

            Councillor Richard Jones referred to paragraph 7.02 and queried whether the number of house type substitutions was 16 not 15.  The officer explained that plot 41 was not affected by the proposal and therefore the total was confirmed as 15.  Councillor Jones raised concern that developers submitted applications which were approved at outline and then at the reserved matters stage, requests were submitted for changes which resulted in different house types and an increased number of dwellings.  He felt that developers would continue to submit requests for this type of application until they got what they wanted.  The Planning Strategy Manager said that this proposal would allow for a better mix of house types than what had previously been permitted.  The previous approval was below the 30 per Hectare and it was now at 30.5 per Ha.

            The Principal Solicitor said that the process of substituting house types was allowed by the law and that if the change had been unacceptable in policy terms then it would be refused. 

            Councillor Carolyn Thomas said that she had visited the site and confirmed that the proposals fitted in better than the previous mix of dwellings.  She queried whether the applicant had undertaken an assessment of the area at the pre-planning stage. 

            Following a question from Councillor Richard Lloyd about the £5500.00 recreational contribution, the officer confirmed that it was subject to approval of the application and the applicant signing the supplemental section 106 agreement.                

                        Councillor Butler said that the issue of increases in the number of houses had been undertaken for a significant number of years and had always been a cause of concern for Members.  The Principal Solicitor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 133.

            That reason for refusal (2) relating to air pollution and the impacts of road traffic pollutants on the health of the site occupants be withdrawn and not pursued as a reason at the forthcoming appeal against the refusal of planning permission. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that paragraph 6.02 detailed the reasons for refusal of the application when it had been considered by the Committee on 15 May 2013.  The Head of Public Protection had raised some concerns in respect of air pollution which were detailed in the report.  Following the submission of the appeal, the appellants had submitted an addendum report to the Air Quality Assessment and it had addressed the matters which had been raised by the Head of Public Protection.  He had assessed the information received and had concluded that his concerns had been addressed and therefore the inclusion of the reason for refusal relating to air pollution could no longer be sustained at appeal.    

                        Councillor Alison Halford proposed that the officer recommendation to withdraw the second reason for refusal relating to air pollution and the impacts of road traffic pollutants on the health of the site occupants be refused and that it be pursued at the forthcoming appeal against the refusal of planning permission, but this was not seconded. 

            Councillor Derek Butler then proposed the officer recommendation to withdraw the second reason for refusal which was duly seconded.

            Councillor Halford said that she felt removing the reason for refusal was premature and referred to the comments of the applicant’s agent at an earlier Committee meeting.  She said that there was evidence that traffic and children did not go well together and added that the Inspector had been critical that Flintshire County Council had ignored noise assessments.  She felt that the addendum report was late in being submitted and that it should be up to the Inspector to decide whether the reason for refusal was valid. 

            The Principal Solicitor said that the Committee needed to disregard the perceived actions of the agent at the Committee meeting as it was not relevant.  It was a common occurrence for further information to be provided during the appeal process.  Advice had been taken from the Head of Public Protection following receipt of the assessment which had been shared with Counsel and, on his advice, it was proposed that the second reason for refusal be withdrawn.  There was a sound basis for the recommendation in the report and if the advice was ignored, there was potential for an application for costs against the Council if they could not provide evidence of the basis for the reason for refusal. 

            Councillor Halford then withdrew her proposal to refuse the application and said that she was grateful for the advice from the Principal Solicitor and that she had not appreciated that Counsel’s advice had been sought. 

            Councillor Mike Peers said that the Head of Public Protection had had concerns but the appellant had submitted information which overcame those issues.  He asked whether Flintshire County Council had submitted an air pollution assessment.  In response, the officer confirmed that this had not been undertaken, but confirmed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134.

            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 dismiss this appeal be noted.

RESOLVED:

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

                        The Chairman thanked the officer for her presentation at the appeal hearing.  The Head of Planning said that if the appeal was as a result of refusal against officer recommendation, then an independent consultant usually put forward the Council’s case.  On this occasion, the Local Member and the Planning Officer defended the appeal.  He said that, given the current financial climate, this could become a more common occurrence in the future.   

There were 3 members of the press and 51 members of the public in attendance.