Agenda, decisions and minutes

No declarations of interest were made.

            That Councillor Ian Dunbar be appointed Vice-Chairman for the Committee.

The Chairman sought nominations for the appointment of Vice-Chairman for the Committee.  Councillor Paul Shotton nominated Councillor Ian Dunbar which was duly seconded and Councillor Richard Lloyd nominated Councillor Owen Thomas which was also duly seconded.  On being put to the vote, Councillor Ian Dunbar was appointed as Vice-Chairman for the Committee. 

            RESOLVED:

            That Councillor Ian Dunbar be appointed Vice-Chairman for the Committee.

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

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

The draft minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 14 May 2014 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

Councillor Neville Phillips asked that the final sentence in the first paragraph on page 17 be amended to read ‘She stated that properties on the main road could not get a mortgage because of subsidence and were sold for cash’. 

The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) referred to the resolution on page 18 and said that the applicant had expressed concern about the educational contribution which had been reported in the Late Observations; discussions would take place with the applicant prior to the appeal to clarify the situation.  He also explained that the action identified on page 19 about assessing the need for a pedestrian crossing had been referred to the relevant Chief Officer.     

Councillor Richard Lloyd asked that his first name be quoted in the first paragraph on page 20 as two Councillor Lloyds had been present at the meeting. 

RESOLVED:

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

            That agenda item 7.5 (051966 - Village Road, Cadole) not be deferred.       

Councillor Neville Phillips referred to application 7.5 (051966 - Village Road, Cadole) and asked, on behalf of the Local Member Councillor Nancy Matthews who had been unable to attend the meeting to speak on the application due to her being on an interview panel, whether the application could be deferred to allow her to speak at the next meeting of the Committee; the request was duly seconded. 

                        The Chairman explained that there were other Local Members who had applications before the Committee today who were also on the interview panel and he had advised them that the applications could not be deferred just because they were not present at the meeting.  The Democracy & Governance Manager said that it would set a dangerous precedent to defer the applications just because the Local Member had a clash of meetings. 

                        Councillor Richard Lloyd did not think that the application needed to be deferred as Councillor Matthews had spoken at the Planning Site Visit held on 16 June 2014.  Councillor Gareth Roberts said that it was current practice not to defer items for the reason being given. 

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

            RESOLVED:

            That agenda item 7.5 (051966 - Village Road, Cadole) not be deferred.       

            That a Special Planning and Development Control Committee be convened to determine planning application 051043 as soon as possible. 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.

                        The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) indicated that criticism had been received about the plan on page 29 of the report.  He reminded Members that it was a location plan and did not show the constraints but added that when the application for planning permission was submitted to the Committee for consideration, Members would be made aware of the constraints. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that this application was to seek approval to determine the application for planning permission at a Special meeting of the Committee due to its major significance and issues of local and regional importance.  The Democracy & Governance Manager advised that the date of the Special Committee meeting would be discussed and agreed with the Chairman.

                        Councillor Derek Butler said that it was his understanding that there were two alternative sites for crematoriums in Flintshire and suggested that determination of the Northop site application may be premature as the Committee needed to decide on the best site for Flintshire out of all of the possible alternatives.  The Democracy & Governance Manager said that currently only an application for the proposed site in Northop had been submitted and highlighted point two of paragraph 6.02 which indicated that determination of the application would include consideration of other possible sites in Flintshire. 

                        The Local Member, Councillor Marion Bateman, said that she had been advised that a cut off date of 24 June 2014 had been identified for receipt of other applications and proposed that the recommendation include the words ‘unless any other applications come forward before 24June 2014’; the proposal was duly seconded.  The Democracy & Governance Manager queried whether Councillor Bateman was requesting that any applications for crematorium sites be considered at a Special Committee meeting.  Councillor Bateman felt that any applications for crematorium sites should be determined at the same time.  She added that the Northop site was on green belt land and it was important to consider whether any other sites were more appropriate.    

                        Councillor Carol Ellis concurred that any applications for crematorium sites should be submitted to the same Committee meeting and commented on applications for landfill sites which had been dealt with separately and had resulted in one being approved and the other being refused but neither being brought forward.  Councillor Richard Jones said that he was not aware of other sites or the cut off date of 24 June 2014 and suggested that this application should be considered on its own.  Councillor Owen Thomas agreed and said that determination of the application was long overdue and as no other applications had come forward, this application should be considered by the Committee at a Special Meeting to be arranged as soon as possible. 

                        Councillor Gareth Roberts said that the application should be dealt with on its planning merits and added that it could not be compared with the issues identified by the determination of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

That planning permission be refused on the grounds of:-

- overdevelopment with the associated additional  vehicular movements and substantial areas of car parking

           -  out of character with the existing  development

- the impact on the residential amenity of existing occupiers

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) 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 it was a re-submission of an application which was considered and refused by the Committee on 12 February 2014 (application number 051066).  The proposed site layout had not changed from the previous application but the applicant had submitted additional information within the Design and Access Statement setting out the design principles adopted in order to seek to address the previous reasons for refusal.  The officer referred Members to the late observations where it was reported that the previous application was now the subject of an appeal which was to be dealt with by way of an informal hearing.  Paragraph 7.05 provided details of the reasons for the proposed replan of this part of the site.  The officer recommendation of approval was consistent with that of application 051066 to the 12 February 2014 meeting of the Committee.      

            Councillor Veronica Gay (on behalf of the Local Member, Councillor Mike Peers) proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  She said that the application had not changed from that which had been refused by the Committee and the reasons for refusal which were detailed in paragraph 7.04 should be the same for this application.  The Design and Access Statement sought to justify why the proposal should be acceptable but it did not address the reasons for refusal of the earlier application.  This area of the southern parcel of the site currently had planning permission for the erection of a total of eight dwellings and the proposed amendments which were detailed in paragraph 7.03  included the substitution of house types to eight smaller units and the addition of eight smaller affordable housing units, which had been relocated from the northern part of the site.  She added that it would appear that Redrow did not want the affordable homes in the northern part of the site and this application had done nothing to address the concerns raised.  The proposed communal parking area serving 13 properties was still out of character with the site and would have an impact on the amenity of residents. 

            Councillor Richard Jones said that the application was identical to the refused proposal but some of the information that had been contained in the earlier report had been omitted from this report and he found it patronising that the information had not been included.   

            Councillor Gareth Roberts concurred that the applications were identical and nothing had materially changed, and queried why the applicant had not appealed the earlier decision of refusal. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that a lot of information had been included in the previous report about the 15% affordable housing requirement which was to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

            That temporary planning permission for a period of 18 months be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 16 June 2014.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.    

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and reminded Members that the application was for retrospective planning permission and that even though objections had been received from the Local Member and Sealand Community Council, the recommendation was for approval. 

                        Mr. L. Smith, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the site had a long and troubled history and that the applicant wanted to realise the economic aspect of the site and if approved, would employ two people on a full time basis to undertake caravan servicing.  The current consent for B1 use did not have any control for hours of operation and approval of the application would restrict movement of caravans into and out of the site, which would not be used for caravan storage, only servicing.   

                        Councillor Derek Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that the proposal was a resolution to the ongoing difficulties and commented on the fact that the site was poorly designated as B1 without conditions and that the conditions which included hours of operation would provide more control over the site. 

                        In response to a question from Councillor Owen Thomas, the officer said that the area of the site in the proposal equated to the same as had been applied for under the Certificate of Lawfulness for B1 use. 

                        Councillor Richard Lloyd requested that a condition be included on the number of caravans stored on the site in addition to the conditions about height of stored vehicles or materials and the hours of opening.  The Development Manager said that the number of caravans would to an extent be self limiting as the application site was relatively small in relation to the total land holding. 

                        Councillor Paul Shotton said that the access to the site was on an unadopted road and had a footpath on one side of the road which children used to walk to school.  He said that the site was on green barrier land and the proposal would create lots of traffic and noise and the security lights on the site would affect the residents in the neighbouring properties.  Caravans would have difficulties accessing the site if residents cars were parked on the road and he queried the number of caravans on the site at present. 

                         In referring to a comment by the agent that caravans would not be stored on the site, Councillor Marion Bateman queried how this could be determined.  The officer responded that the application was for storage of caravans and the original B1 use had no restrictions on hours of operation or height of storage.  The proposal would allow more control over the site with the conditions requested and he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of overlooking and overbearing impact on residential amenity. 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) 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 partly retrospective application was for the treatment of the garden areas at Plots 52-56 Field Farm Lane, Buckley.  The application had been deferred at the previous meeting of the Committee to allow negotiations to take place with the applicant following concerns raised at the site visit held on 12 May 2014.  Discussions had taken place and had resulted in the applicant now proposing a reduced raised platform area at the rear of Plots 55 and 56 Field Farm Lane with the garden area being at a lower level instead of the tiered gardens which were part of the previous application. 

                        Mr. N. Mellan, the agent for the applicant spoke in support of the application.  He detailed the differences in the schemes which included the new proposals for a raised area at 55 and 56 Field Farm Lane with steps down to the garden area instead of the terraced garden area, with a two metre high fence around the garden.  It was unlikely that residents would use the raised area and would only be used as an access to the garden area and the proposed screening, which would remain in perpetuity, would mean that the property at Field Farm would not be overlooked.  The amended proposal to deal with the differing levels of the site was in accordance with local and national policy and the applicant had no objection to the removal of permitted development rights.             

            Councillor Derek Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was not seconded.  Councillor Richard Jones proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Carol Ellis, indicated that she would give her comments on the proposal and those of Mrs. Biffin (the resident of Field Farm) who had been unable to attend this meeting to address the Committee.  Councillor Ellis said that Mrs. Biffin felt that the application would not be before the Committee if plot 56 had been sited in the correct position.  She indicated that it was situated 5.5 metres too close to Field Farm and created an overlooking issue from the garden of the property into the bedrooms of Field Farm.  Discussions had not taken place with Mrs. Biffin on the design of the garden which had been created without planning permission.  She commented on GPS maps which she felt showed an incorrect location of Field Farm, which officers had disagreed with, and said that the amended house type for plot 56 did not accord with the original house layout and this was indicated on the original plan which showed a path running alongside plot 56.  Councillor Ellis referred to Local Planning Guidance Note 2  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions to be determined by the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 16 June 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 in referring Members to the late observations, said that the second reason for refusal relating to the design of the proposal was being withdrawn.  He explained that Cadole was a Category C settlement and the growth rate permitted in Policy HSG3 for such a settlement was 10% unless a local need requirement was met.  This application would take the figure to 11.4% and as a local need had not been identified, the proposal did not comply with the Policy.

                        Mr. D. Fitzsimon, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that there was no dispute that the proposal exceeded the growth rate for the settlement, but the circumstances in this case were exceptional.  Planning permission for two holiday lets had been permitted in 2003 on the basis that the shop was not profitable.  It had been advertised extensively and quotes of over £120,000 to convert the shop and store to two holiday lets was not a viable option as the occupancy was expected to be very low based on another holiday property in the area.  If two dwellings were permitted, this could generate £475 per calendar month per property in rent and was therefore the preferred option.  If the shop closed and permission was not granted to convert to two dwellings, then it would be empty and could be subject to vandalism and dilapidation which could have an impact on the village and the nearby Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Mr. Fitzsimon said that the shop and store had been two dwellings in the past and indicated to Members that a flat could be created about the shop without the need for planning permission.  He said that approval of the application would not set a precedent and would not undermine Policy HSG3. 

Councillor Neville Phillips proposed approval of the application against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  Councillor Phillips read out a statement from the Local Member, Councillor Nancy Matthews, which indicated that the applicant had been granted permission to convert to two holiday lets in 2013 and reiterated the comments of Mr. Fitzsimon that the conversion was not viable due to costs.  The application would return the store and shop to two cottages which was the original purpose of the buildings as reflected in the conversion of the other two properties in the row.  Councillor Matthews had asked that the application be approved as the proposal would improve the Conservation Area of Cadole. 

                        Councillor Owen Thomas felt that the conversion to two dwellings would not add to the 11.1% growth in the village as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a Section 106 Obligation whereby the Certificate of Lawful Use was relinquished and subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. Amendments to the report including three additional conditions were circulated at the meeting. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that initially there had been objections about the traffic generated by the fishery.  In order to address the issue and to retain the existing access, the applicant had agreed to rescind the use of the lake within the site as a fishery and as such a Section 106 Agreement is required.  

Councillor Owen Thomas proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He welcomed the proposal to convert the building. 

In response to a query from Councillor Richard Jones about whether the applicant would be able to continue to use the lake as a fishery because of the granting of the Certificate of Lawful Use, the Democracy & Governance Manager said that the applicant was giving up the legal rights through the Section 106 Agreement.  

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the completion of a Section 106 Obligation whereby the Certificate of Lawful Use was relinquished and subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

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 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 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 dismiss this appeal be noted.

RESOLVED:

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

                        There were 17 members of the public and one member of the press inattendance.