Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Alison Halford declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application as she was a School Governor at Hawarden High School.  She had been granted dispensation by the Standards Committee to speak for five minutes and vote on the application:-

Agenda item 6.3 – Full application – Erection of 41 No. dwellings, open space and access works at Old Hall Road/Greenhill Avenue, Hawarden (051613)

The Democracy & Governance Manager advised that Councillor David Mackie also had a personal and prejudicial interest in application 6.3 as he was governor at both schools who would receive educational contributions if the application was approved.  He had been granted dispensation to speak on the application, but he must leave the chamber after addressing the Committee. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager advised that Councillor Peter Curtis was school governor at Holywell High School and he therefore had a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application:-

Agenda item 6.4 – Erection of a new school building including primary school, secondary school and sports hall facility associated site redevelopment including new pedestrian and vehicular access and playing surfaces and demolition works to existing high school building at Holywell High School, Strand Walk, Holywell (051719)  

However, Councillor Curtis had not submitted a request for dispensation and he was therefore permitted to speak for three minutes and must also leave the chamber following him addressing the Committee.  Councillor Curtis indicated that he had submitted a request but the form had not been received.     

The Chairman allowed Members an opportunity to read the late observations which had been circulated at the meeting.

            He also welcomed Matt Georgiou, the Housing & Planning Solicitor, to the meeting and explained that he would be taking over from David Davies, who had retired from the Council.  A letter from Mr. Davies had been circulated to the Committee prior to the start of the meeting.

            Councillor Derek Butler expressed his gratitude for the advice that had been provided to the Committee by Mr. Davies during his many years as Principal Solicitor.  He asked that a letter be sent to Mr. Davies from the Chairman on behalf of the Committee to thank him for his contribution. 

RESOLVED:

That a letter be sent to Mr. David Davies to thank him for his contribution to the Committee during his time as Principal Solicitor.    

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meetings held on 4 April (Special meeting) and 9 April 2014.

That the minutes of the meetings held on 4 April and 9 April 2014 be approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

The draft minutes of the meeting of the Committees held on 4 April 2014 (special meeting) and 9 April 2014 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

9 April 2014

Accuracy

            In referring to page 21, Councillor Alison Halford raised concern that a serious issue had been omitted from the minutes.  She said that Councillor Chris Bithell had made a suggestion that she was in connivance with the applicant of Deer Lodge, Cymau.  She had also been accused of attacking officers and she declared that she had not been aggressive at the meeting.  She suggested that the following words be included in the minutes on page 21, in the paragraph starting ‘Councillor Richard Jones’:-

“Councillor Bithell indicated that Councillor Halford had something to do with the owner of Deer Lodge which was why he kept bringing the application back to Committee rather than submitting an appeal.  Rather than listening to officers, she had attacked them in such a way that her behaviour should be reported to the Standards Committee”. 

Councillor Halford indicated that she had defended herself in response to the comments made. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager advised that the matter was recorded on page 22 and suggested that this was a more appropriate place to include the words that she had indicated.  He asked if Councillor Halford was asking that the wording be in place of the paragraph on page 22 or in addition to it.  She proposed that it be an addition to page 22 and this was duly seconded. 

            In response, Councillor Chris Bithell said that he had not made an allegation of connivance between the applicant and Councillor Halford but had commented that the applicant could have appealed against the decision of refusal.  He believed that the paragraph on page 22 was an accurate summary of the discussion at the meeting.  He added that he raised concern about the comments of Councillor Halford to the officers and the way she had taken issue with the advice that they had provided. 

            Councillor Derek Butler concurred that the issue had been accurately summarised on page 22 of the minutes and that the debate had begun when he had spoken about Council policies and had commented on Councillor Halford using the wrong policy in the wrong place. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager advised that officers felt that the draft minutes were a correct record of the meeting and that it was for the Committee to decide if the proposed paragraph should be included. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to include the wording suggested by Councillor Halford was LOST.  Councillor Ian Dunbar proposed that the minutes included in the agenda were a correct record and this was duly seconded.  On being put to the vote, the proposal was CARRIED.        

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meetings held on 4 April and 9 April 2014 be approved as correct records and signed by the Chairman.

That applications 6.9 (Owl Halt Industrial Estate) and 6.11 (Plots 52-56 Field Farm Lane, Buckley) be deferred.

The Head of Planning advised that the following items on the agenda were recommended for deferral by officers. 

Agenda item 6.9 – Change of use of land and buildings from B1 use with storage in connection with that use, to use of the building for a mixed B1/B8 use and the land for ancillary storage in connection with that use and for caravan storage at Owl Halt Industrial Estate, Manor Road, Sealand (051501) – a site visit had been arranged for 12 May 2014 but it had not been possible to gain access to the site

Agenda item 6.11 - Full application – Construction of earthworks and retaining structures to provide raised and tiered garden areas to the rear of plots 52-56, Field Farm Lane, Buckley (partly retrospective) – following the site visit on 12 May 2014, it had been identified that there may be potential for further negotiation with the developer for a more acceptable design of properties

Councillor Owen Thomas indicated that a comment had also been made about whether the dwellings had been erected in the correct positions.  The Head of Planning indicated that if the application was deferred, the position of the properties could also form part of the negotiations. 

On being put to the vote, application 6.9 (Owl Halt Industrial Estate) and 6.11 (Plots 52-56 Field Farm Lane, Buckley) were deferred.

RESOLVED:

That applications 6.9 (Owl Halt Industrial Estate) and 6.11 (Plots 52-56 Field Farm Lane, Buckley) be deferred.

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of inadequate separation distances leading to an overbearing impact on properties in Ffordd Hengoed, which would be detrimental to residential amenity. 

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 along with suggested amendments to conditions 22 and 28 and an additional condition 31.

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the application had been deferred from the meeting held on 9 April 2014 for officers to negotiate highway amendments to the scheme and afford residents adequate time to comment upon any amended plans received.    The main issues for consideration included the principle of development, highway implications and amenities of the adjoining residents.  The majority of the site was allocated for housing in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the proposal had now been amended to show residential development on the allocated part of the site, which was acceptable in principle in planning terms. 

                        Mr. L. Collymore spoke against the application.  He explained that his property was behind the proposed plot 23 and he asked that the plot either be moved or removed as the space around dwellings distances could not be achieved if it was included.  A dwelling built on this plot would overshadow existing dwellings, and the elevated nature of the dwelling would mean that it would overlook the garden of number 4.  He referred to policies STR1, GEN1 and HSG8 and reiterated his comment that plot 23 should be removed as it was an overdevelopment of the site.  Mr. Collymore added that he felt that plot 6 had been shoehorned into the proposals and plot 7 did not comply with space around dwellings guidelines and the back garden of plots 11, 12 and 18 were too short. 

                        Mr. A. Parry from Mold Town Council also spoke against the application.  He said that the site had been allocated for 15 houses in the UDP so to apply for 23 was 50% above the permitted figure and added that 15 dwellings would relate well to the development.  The proposal for 23 dwellings would generate substantially more traffic and would create future problems for the junction nearby.  Residents had raised concern about the access which was opposite to a playing field and was in a single track lane.  Mold Town Council had suggested that the access to the site would be better at the western end of the site and would allow vehicles to have direct access to Ruthin Road where the 30mph speed limit could be extended to include the junction.  He raised concern about issues of flooding and commented on the culverting of the watercourse which would result in flooding across nearby fields.       

            Councillor Richard Jones proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.

                        The Local Member, Councillor Robin Guest, spoke against the application.  He requested that amendments to the plans on the website for all planning applications be dated so that they could clearly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 189.

            That planning permission be granted with improved signage and 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 replace the Section 106 Agreement dated 28 September 1999 in respect of the car parking management.  The new Section 106 agreement to omit those parts of the existing Section 106 that are specific to monitoring through the use of a Patrol Officer and the requirement of the £20,000 commuted sum as this has already been paid.  

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 original application had included a Section 106 obligation for monitoring of the car park through the use of a Patrol Officer and the provision of a £20,000 commuted sum.  Two objections had been received but the officer recommendation was for approval.

            Mr. C. Murphy spoke against the application on behalf of an objector who was unable to attend.  He said that the Aldi car park management scheme and the use of cameras had been operating for many months without approval.  He objected because the applicant was attempting to get rid of the transparent process and replace it with cameras.  He felt that this would not be an improvement and that this scheme bore no resemblance to the original Section 106 agreement.  Mr. Murphy said that the cameras did not monitor the use of the car park and did not assist users in finding car park spaces but captured the car registration numbers at the entrance.  He felt that it created a lucrative revenue stream for the operator.  He spoke of a similar scheme in Northumbria Health Authority which had been installed but had since been removed.

            The Democracy & Governance Manager explained that neither the fact that the application was retrospective nor the arrangements at Northumbria Health Authority were relevant to the Committee’s decision.

Councillor Derek Butler proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He said that this application was an abuse of the Section 106 agreement.  He commented on the £20,000 as part of the original agreement and said that part of that application was that the car park should be able to be used for general parking and not just those who shopped at Aldi or visited McDonalds.  He said that the signs that had been erected could not be read and the disabled bays had been removed.  He did not think that there had been any mention of a time limit for parking in the original application.  He felt that the application should be opposed on material grounds as it did not adequately reflect the needs of the people of Mold.  He added that there had not been any evidence that there had been any gross abuse of parking in the car park and without any evidence he felt that the section 106 agreement could not be rewritten.    Councillor Mike Peers felt that the 106 agreement originally in place was adequate and was operating well and should not be amended.  He suggested that anybody that had been fined as a result of the cameras should be refunded as the cameras did not have planning permission. 

Councillor Chris Bithell explained that the car park had originally been provided by Aldi for its customers at no charge and no fines were imposed but this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 190.

            That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

1. the site lay outside the UDP settlement boundary and granting permission would be contrary to UDP policies

2. it would be premature to grant permission for the site rather than it being considered as part of the LDP process

3. permission would result in the loss of grade 3a agricultural land

4. there was an insufficient case to say that there was a deficit in the 5 year residential land supply in Flintshire

5. the housing growth level for Ewloe had already exceeded 15% and granting permission for the site would increase the growth rate to 19.8%.

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 12 May 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 the site was adjacent to the defined settlement boundary for Ewloe.  Officers had been faced with a difficult decision on the application which was a departure from policy but on balance it was difficult to refuse the application.  He drew Members’ attention to the late observations where a summary of the 65 letters of objections were reported.  A revision to condition 8 had also been suggested and an additional condition that a Construction Traffic Management Plan be submitted was also requested. 

                        Mr. J. Dathan spoke against the application and said that he felt that it should be rejected because the site was outside the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).  Since 2000, there had been 18.1% growth in the settlement of Ewloe and if this application was approved this figure would increase to nearer to 20%.  He referred to the JHLA [Joint Housing Land Availability] statement which indicated that there was shortfall in the five year housing supply but said that if all of the developments that had permission were completed in Flintshire then the deficit would not exist.  The land on the site had been described by DEFRA as good agricultural land in a study undertaken in 2013 and Mr. Dathan queried whether this was the best site for the application.  He queried the affordability of, and the need for, the 14 five bedroomed houses and raised concern that the figure of only 17 pupils coming from the proposed 41 had been identified as he felt that this would be at least 100 pupils.  He asked that the Committee refuse the application. 

                        Mr. S. Goodwin, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the site had been previously allocated in the UDP which had been fully supported by the Inspector and had only been recommended for deletion because an agricultural land survey had not been undertaken using the correct guidance.  This had now been carried out and the land had been graded as 3B and therefore had no protection which meant that the reason for its deletion had been overcome.  The services and facilities in the area were adequate and the highway was suitable.  He referred to the Council not having a five year housing supply and said that if the application was approved, this windfall site should assist in the shortfall in housing.  Mr. Goodwin said that a condition that the site be started within two years had been suggested and added that there had been no objections from professional consultees even though there had been objections from other parties.          

            Councillor Alison Halford proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 191.

            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 which had been the subject of a site visit on 12 May 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 the new school would provide a combined through school for infants, junior and secondary school pupils.  The proposed primary school would be single storey with the secondary school being three storey and a video of the proposals was displayed for the Committee and those present to view.  He commented on the Scheduled Ancient Monuments which would be dealt with by CADW and added that all of the issues around the application had been considered extensively. 

            Mr. A. Green spoke in support of the scheme but he was disappointed that the area currently used by the community for activities such as dog walking was not being retained in the proposal.  He said that the area was often used and was an important facility for the community and its removal would affect the wellbeing of the community.  He suggested that an area be retained to allow walking and dog walking to continue.

            Councillor Peter Curtis, the Local Member welcomed the application which would be one of the biggest investments in Holywell and the building would be for the children of the future.  He said that some of the concerns raised had been addressed but others had not reached a satisfactory conclusion such as the loss of the playing field, which he hoped could be rectified.  The traffic situation was also of great concern, particularly on Strand Walk and Penymaes Road.  He requested that he be advised and consulted on any proposals to complete the works on the road, which he felt was dangerous.  He sought a cast iron guarantee that the area where the current school sat would be used for sports facilities when the school was knocked down and not for housing.  Councillor Curtis, having earlier declared an interest then left the meeting.    

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He congratulated all who had been involved with the application and welcomed the exciting scheme.  He spoke of the three areas of concern which were the play area, the capacity at the school and the access to the site, all of which had been addressed. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell welcomed the comments made and said that the proposal would address a number of issues.  He said that a ‘walk-through’ tour had been well received by Members, parents and teachers and had given a huge injection of confidence.  In referring to paragraphs 7.32 to 7.34 on the community use, he was confident it would continue but said that as the safety of the children was paramount, free access into the school grounds should not be permitted and exercising dogs on the sports field was unacceptable.  However, use of the facilities by local teams  ...  view the full minutes text for item 192.

            That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that the Council raise no objection to the development subject to the recommended conditions, an Unilateral Undertaking to ensure the payment of £1,100 per dwelling in lieu of on site play provision and a Section 106 Obligation to secure the payment of £36,771 for primary school places at Mynydd Isa primary School and £36,938 for secondary school places at Argoed High School (as reported 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 along with matters of clarification were circulated at the meeting.

            The officer detailed the background to the report.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee held on 12 March 2014 to confirm surface water drainage proposals to serve the proposed development, the implications for the development given the previous mining history on the site and in order to further assess the impact of the two storey development on occupiers of existing bungalows at Argoed View.  The applicant had lodged an appeal on non-determination so the decision on the planning application would be made by the Planning Inspectorate and this report  to Committee sought to establish the Authority’s stance on the appeal.   The officer recommended that the Planning Inspectorate be advised that the Council raise no objection to the development subject to conditions, an Unilateral Undertaking to ensure the payment of £1,100 per dwelling in lieu of on site play provision and a Section 106 Obligation to secure the payment of £36,771 for primary school places at Mynydd Isa primary School and £36,938 for secondary school places at Argoed High School (as reported in the late observations).

            Mrs. J. Walters spoke against the application on behalf of the 27 residents who had signed a petition on the amended scheme but added that they were opposed to this application, but were not opposed to development of the site.  The proposal was for three and four bedroomed houses on higher ground than the existing properties of which 70% were bungalows.  No amount of screening would allow the residents to maintain their privacy and Mrs. Walters would be able to see numerous windows of the new dwellings from her property if approval was granted.  She commented on an earlier layout for development on the site which was to be recommended for refusal due to space around dwellings guidelines not being complied with.  Mrs. Walters said that the officer had since indicated that space around dwellings guidance had been relaxed for this development and there had been no insistence to build bungalows.  The ridge height was to be four metres higher than the existing dwellings.  A mining report which had been undertaken indicated that entry to a mine shaft was under the site and that building on plot 1 should be avoided but the applicant proposed to build on this plot.  She also raised concern about surface water and the proposed access to the site which would be at the end of the dual carriageway.  She added that the application was in contravention of the UDP and she asked the Committee to refuse the application. 

            Mr. S. Jones spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant.  He reinforced the positive report of the Planning Officer.  When the design decision was taken it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 193.

            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:-

(a)       payment of £47,802 towards educational provision/improvements at St. Anthony’s RC primary school.  The timing of such payment to be agreed with the Director of Lifelong Learning 

(b)       Payment of a 10 year maintenance commuted sum to be agreedby the Public Open Spaces Manager

(c)        The provision of 4 no. homes (Plots 47,48, 49, 50) to be presented to the Council as gifted units and allocated in accordance with the local lettings policy. 

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 12 May 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 which included four gifted properties and an area of public open space for a village green.  A similar application for 58 units with 17 affordable homes had been granted in April 2013.  He highlighted the late observations where the education contribution of £47,802.00 for St. Anthony’s RC primary school was reported.  On the issue of affordable housing, Councillor Richard Lloyd had requested that the four gifted properties not be split and remain in their original position which the Housing Strategy Manager found acceptable.  The density of the site equated to 36 dwellings per hectare. 

                        Mr. S. Jones spoke in support of the application.  He welcomed the positive report and reiterated that an extant permission was in place and therefore the principle of development had been established.  He commented on the suggestion that a second access to the site could be created through St. David’s Retail Park but it was felt that this would create a rat run; he reminded the Committee that the extant permission had been granted with only one access.  The number of dwellings had been reduced from 58 to 54 to allow the creation of an informal public open space to complement the play area.  He commended the report to the Committee.  

            Councillor Richard Lloyd proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He welcomed the proposal which would improve the central area of Saltney and would allow four families to be housed in the gifted properties.  He preferred the gifted units to remain in their original position and not be split, as grouping them together would make future maintenance easier.  He sought clarification that tenants of the four gifted properties would not be permitted to buy the dwellings.  He spoke of concern raised about access to the site and hoped that this could be resolved by Highways in the future.  The village green would provide open space and the school would benefit from the educational contributions.  He asked that the local history group be involved in the naming of streets on the site. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell felt that it was a good development.  He raised concern about the affordable housing being grouped as it was normal practice to spread them across a development and sought clarification about paragraph 7.21 on the positioning of the dwellings. 

            The adjacent Ward Member, Councillor Veronica Gay, said that the proposal was welcomed by Saltney residents but raised concern about the extra pressure that the access would put on the high street.  There were currently no restrictions on where vehicles could park and this created a problem as several properties in the area did not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 194.

            051727          

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning, the two additional conditions referred to in the late observations and a two year time limit for commencement of the development. 

051728

That listed building consent be granted and that delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning for the formation, scope and nature of such conditions and that the documentation be submitted to CADW. 

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 12 May 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 for ease of reference, application 051727 for planning permission would be presented, debated and voted upon first and then the listed building application (051728) would be considered. 

051727

The officer explained that the site was an allocated site in the Unitary Development Plan and he indicated that the red brick building on the site was not part of this application.  No objections had been received from statutory consultees but one objection had been received following third party consultation.  He explained that ordinarily, an application of this nature would attract a section 106 obligation for community benefits but the site had been the subject of a detailed viability study and it had been resolved that if the normal request was undertaken, then the scheme would cease to be viable.  The issue of education places had been considered in the report but the provision of a new school in Holywell had superseded the comments provided.  The officer drew Members attention to the late observations where a time limit for commencement within two years was proposed.  

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He spoke of the wonderful old building and commended the architect and officers for their work on the application.  He concurred that applying a section 106 obligation to the scheme would make it unviable and welcomed the scheme for future generations. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts commented on the worthwhile site visit and said that the scheme was a culmination of a few years of hard work and paid tribute to the Planning Officer and Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control.  He said that the open area to the south of the site would remain and in speaking on the access and egress, said that improvements to the inadequate junction could be considered when an application for the other part of the site was submitted. 

            Councillor Owen Thomas commented on the magnificent building and welcomed the building being brought back into use.  Councillor Richard Jones requested that investigations into any asbestos on the site be carried out.  Following Councillor Bithell’s agreement to include this in his proposal, the Development Manager confirmed that it would be considered when dealing with other contaminants on the site. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager referred to the late observations and explained that the additional condition requiring the submission and agreement of a phasing plan for the development would include the renovation of the Listed Building prior to occupation of the new building.  He also introduced Jerry Spencer, the Conservation and Design Officer, to the Committee and commented on his input into consideration of the application.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 195.

            That planning permission be refused due to the area of hardstanding going beyond what is reasonably required in connection with authorised use of the land and the building. 

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 12 May 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 the application was retrospective and it was considered that the works undertaken were acceptable in terms of the principle of development and the impacts of the proposed development on the character of the area and the amenities of nearby residential properties. 

                        Mrs. D. Woolrich spoke against the application.  She commented on the impact of the proposal on the residents and spoke of the lights, music and CCTV which had now been included on the development and said that the site was very intrusive to the residents at numbers 27 to 47.  Mrs. Woolrich referred to the site history and highlighted the first application for a 40 metre by 20 metre riding area with six stables for private use, which it was felt was excessive for private use.  The hardstanding area had not originally been requested or agreed to, but had since been put in place and the gate to the site had been changed to a large security gate.  Mrs. Woolrich requested that the application be refused. 

            Councillor Carolyn Thomas proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  Councillor Carolyn Thomas felt that the field should be put back to what it was originally with the hardstanding being removed and replaced with grass.  Councillor Christine Jones concurred that there should be no hardstanding in the field. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Tim Newhouse, spoke against the application.  He explained that he had met with the applicant in 2011 and had indicated that he had no objection to the application as long as no hardstanding was laid and that natural screening was offered by the applicant in a straight line back from the boundary between numbers 25 and 27.  At the Planning Committee meeting in December 2011, a speaker for the applicant said that the site would be properly maintained and that screening would be offered and as a result of this, the application was approved by the Committee.  However, in April 2012, hardstanding was dumped on the site which was contrary to the permission that had been granted and since then, the applicant had submitted and withdrawn numerous planning applications to prevent her having to restore the site.  Councillor Newhouse felt that if there was to be any hardstanding on the site it should be grasscrete and should not extend beyond the straight line back from the boundary between numbers 25 and 27.  He felt that the applicant should comply with the permission granted and should maintain the site and provide screening as suggested in December 2011. 

            Councillor Derek Butler raised significant concern that the applicant could be granted permission and then fail to comply with what had been approved.  He felt that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 196.

            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.  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 had been deferred at the 11 December 2013 meeting pending comments from Natural Resources Wales and the Ecologist with regards to potential impact on bats and birds.  No objections had been received from CADW, Natural Resources Wales or Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust but Whitford Community Council had objected to the initial scheme due to a number of concerns about the siting of the turbine.  Their observations on the amended scheme were reported in the late observations. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts 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 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 advised that this appeal would be considered in detail at a future meeting of the Planning Strategy Group. 

Councillor Gareth Roberts raised concern about the decision of the Inspector to allow a development in the green barrier.  Councillor Chris Bithell concurred and commented on the survey of Gypsy and Traveller needs undertaken by Bangor University.  He said that only Flintshire, Wrexham and Gwynedd Councils had provided pitches for Gypsy and Travellers and it seemed that the other authorities had no intension of allowing such developments.  He suggested that a workshop or training session be undertaken. 

            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.

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

            RESOLVED:

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

                        There were 81 members of the public and 2 members of the press in attendance.