Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillors, Chris Bithell, Derek Butler, Billy Mullin and Carolyn Thomas declared a personal interest in the following application as they were members of the Co-op Group:-

Agenda item 7.6 – Full application – Retail extension to create new convenience store and back of house facilities at Gladstone House, Main Road, Broughton (052209)

            In line with the Planning Code of Practice:-

                        Councillors Billy Mullin declared that he had been contacted on more than three occasions on the following application:-

Agenda item 7.6 – Full application – Retail extension to create new convenience store and back of house facilities at Gladstone House, Main Road, Broughton (052209)

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 18 June 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 18 June 2014 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

Councillor Owen Thomas referred to page 4 on the Crematorium application for Northop and said that Councillor Neville Phillips had proposed that paragraph 6.02 of the report be removed, but it appeared to have been reinstated.  Councillor O. Thomas also queried why the application had not been considered by the Committee even though Members had resolved to hold a Special meeting to consider the application. 

            The Democracy and Governance Manager said that the minutes accurately reflected his advice to Councillor Phillips that his proposal had not been valid.  A letter had been issued to advise Members of a provisional date for the meeting but as officers had not been in a position to submit the application to Committee, a letter was subsequently sent out to cancel the provisional date. 

            The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) said that a resolution to hold a special meeting had been sought at the previous meeting as at that time, only one application for a crematorium site had been received.  A second application from a different applicant had now been submitted.  The central point of the original application was that there were no suitable alternative sites available but an application for an alternative site had now been received.  The second application had been validated and was being assessed. 

            Councillor Phillips felt that the resolution to hold a special meeting was nothing to do with an alternative application being submitted and that the report was for one application not two.  He said that the Committee needed to know what was going on and asked when ‘as soon as possible’ would be. 

            The Democracy and Governance Manager said that it was taking longer to submit the application to committee because of the changed circumstances.  The letter detailing the provisional date had indicated that the meeting may not happen.  More work needed to be done on the new application and this was still ongoing.  It was still intended to bring the Northop application to Committee ‘as soon as possible’. 

            Councillor Richard Jones felt that it was not fair to the original applicant to continue to delay the determination of the Northop application because of other applications that had been received.  The Democracy and Governance Manager reiterated his comments that officers were still working on bringing the Northop application to the Committee but advised that there was a need to evaluate whether there were any suitable alternative sites.  

            In response to a question from Councillor Mike Peers about why it had taken 12 months to process the application, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) said that the application had been delayed for a number of reasons and the information needed assessing.  It had been deferred twice and late responses that needed to be considered had been received.  He felt that the stance that had been taken was reasonable and reminded Members that the applicant could appeal on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that none of the items on the agenda were recommended for deferral by officers. 

            That the change in practice be noted and the transfer of the gifted units listed in paragraph 6.03 to North East Wales Homes Ltd be approved. 

The Democracy and Governance Manager introduced a report to inform the Committee that as a result of a Cabinet decision in future, gifted units may be transferred to North East Wales Homes Ltd (the wholly owned subsidiary housing company) or may be retained by the Council where this best met housing needs.  The report sought approval for the transfer of gifted units direct to New Homes Ltd (without coming into Council ownership) notwithstanding previous committee resolutions that they should be transferred to the Council. 

                        Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the officer recommendation and on being put to the vote, it was CARRIED.

            RESOLVED:

            That the change in practice be noted and the transfer of the gifted units listed in paragraph 6.03 to North East Wales Homes Ltd be approved. 

(i)         That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment), the additional conditions detailed in the late observations and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to provide the following:-

(a)       Payment of £61,285 towards educational provision/improvements at Ysgol Glanrafon, Mold.  The timing of such payment to be agreed with the Chief Officer (Education and Youth)

(b)       Payment of £24,200 for the enhancement of existing public open space in the nearby community.

(ii)        That delegated authority be given to the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) to amend the educational contribution payment in the Section 106 Obligation if the figure above is found to be incorrect.   

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 referred Members to the late observations where two corrections were reported.  Planning permission was refused in May 2014 due to plots 20 to 23 having an overbearing effect on the existing properties of 2 to 8 Ffordd Hengoed.  This application had been submitted to try and overcome this ground for refusal by deleting the proposed dwelling on plot 23. 

                        Mr. L. Collymore spoke against the application and in highlighting policy GEN1 and Local Planning Guidance (LPG) note 2, said that the previous application had been refused due to the inadequate space around dwellings of plots 20 to 23 and the overbearing impact on neighbouring properties.  He was grateful that plot 23 had been removed but felt that it made little difference to plots 20 to 22 or 2 to 8 Ffordd Hengoed.  He felt that too many large houses had been shoehorned into the site and that the proposed dwellings were still overbearing and dominated the area.  Mr. Collymore commented on Policy HSG8 and the number of four and five bedroomed homes proposed for the site and Policy GEN1 on the need for high quality designs without compromising space around dwellings guidelines.  He felt that the applicant had failed to meet policy guidelines and that access from the other end of the site would be more acceptable and would increase road safety.  He also commented on trees on the site which benefited from Tree Protection Orders. 

                        Mr. S. Daintith spoke in support of the application and said that the applicant had addressed the concerns raised by removing plot 23 from the proposals.  The gable separation distances for plots 20 to 22 had also been increased and as reported in paragraph 7.30, the separation distances between the rear of the proposed dwellings and the rear of the existing dwellings on Ffordd Hengoed complied with minimum separation distances in LPG note 2.  He detailed the density of properties on neighbouring developments and said that the proposal for this site was in line with the surrounding area.  The density of the development equated to approximately 20 dwellings per hectare which was below the UDP guidance of 30 dwellings per hectare and as the site was less than one hectare or 25 dwellings, a mix of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroomed properties was not required. 

                        Mr. A. Parry from Mold Town Council spoke against the application and added that the Town Council had found the proposal to be unacceptable.  The site had been allocated for 15 dwellings in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and this proposal for 22 properties would exceed the allocation by 50% and he felt that a layout for 15 houses related well to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

            That planning permission 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 21 July 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 and drawn to the Committee’s attention by the officer. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the applicant was seeking to build a new combined heat and power plant to replace the existing steam generating gas-fired boilers with a steam and electricity producing burning plant.  She provided details of the size of the application site which would include a stack of 35 metres high.  The proposed access would be from the Dock Road and lay within flood zone C1 of the Development Advice Map provided by Natural Resources Wales (NRW).  Wirral View was located 100 metres to the south west of the site at an elevated level. 

The main issues for consideration when determining the application were reported at paragraph 7.20 and included impact on air quality, flood risk and residential amenity.  There had been no objections from statutory consultees but the objections and comments from Mostyn Community Council and the Residents Action Group were detailed in the report.  Three petitions had also been received along with six letters of objection.  Comments from the Port of Mostyn were reported in the late observations which indicated that they did not object to the proposed development but had concerns in relation to highways and the access/egress.  It had been suggested that potential congestion on the Dock Road could be an issue but Highways had indicated that this would not be a problem as there was sufficient room for two HGVs to wait should the access gates be closed and that there was sufficient room in the site for vehicles to wait before reaching the weighbridge.  The Port of Mostyn had also raised concern about inconsistencies in relation to proposed annual tonnage of both biomass fuel/waste and additional materials stated within the planning application and the environmental permit application. The initial figures provided in the environmental permit application were incorrect and subsequently amended. The tonnage of the ‘additional materials’ which were omitted from the details of the planning application had been calculated and considered and the increased vehicle movements per day were found to be acceptable and not material as it amounted to an extra vehicle per day. 

                        The officer also commented on a letter received from local residents about lack of consultation and added that it had not been necessary to consult with interested parties in the Wirral across the Dee Estuary as emissions would disperse before reaching the other side of the Dee Estuary.  She drew Members’ attention to the biomass facility at Whitford Primary School which was on a much smaller scale than this proposal and also the Biomass Combined Heat and Power Plant at UPM Shotton which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and the additional conditions detailed in the late observations and subject to the applicant entering into a Unilateral Undertaking in regards to securing the long term use of the generation of electricity to serve the needs of UPM Papermill with only the surplus supplied to the national grid. 

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 21 July 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 drew Members attention to the late observations where two additional conditions were reported and explained that condition 25 had been repeated in error.  The scheme was limited to a 25 year term and the land would be returned to agricultural land at the end of the period.  The site extended to approximately 109 hectares.  He referred Members to paragraph 8.01 where the matters which weighed in favour of the proposal and those against the proposal were reported and he added that this was a very finely balanced application.  It was reported that the site was in the Green Barrier and was on Grade two agricultural land but the case for renewable energy and the economic benefits arising from the development had been considered a very special circumstance to justify the use of the site.  The proposal was not a permanent development within the landscape and could be easily reversed and would allow grazing of sheep, which maintained an element of the original purpose of the land. 

                        Mr. M. Redmond on behalf of Burton residents and Puddington Parish Council spoke against the application which he felt was a departure from the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and objections had been received to the proposals.  Mr. Redmond felt that the application did not comply with the policy to only use Grade 2 agricultural land in exceptional circumstances and he spoke of a recently announced project on the issue of food production.  The application would only create 20 jobs and the agricultural land supported 160 jobs.  The only reason given for solar on the land was due to close proximity to UPM otherwise it would be built on poorer quality land.  He referred to the proposed Scottish Power connection for 2000MW which was due to commence in 2016 without detriment to the environment. 

                        Mr. S. Gibbins spoke in support of the application.  In addressing the objections received, he said that the visual impact of the site and the loss of agricultural land was temporary as the land would be returned after 25 years in a better condition.  Other sites had been considered but this site scored the best for its suitability and it was felt that there would be a benefit of £40m to the local economy.  Local contractors would be used in the construction of the project and 27 full or part time jobs would be created once the scheme had been completed.  Mr. Gibbins felt that the scheme would provide significantly to the economy of the area and he commented on a £50,000 per annum contribution to a North Wales Skills and Technology Centre.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and the additional highway condition reported in the late observations.

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 which was for a substitution of house types for 2.5 storey dwellings instead of 2 storey properties.  It was not unusual for developers to request change of house types on developments as sites progressed and as a result of market changes.  The Local Member and Broughton & Bretton Community Council had concerns but the officer explained that the 2.5 storey dwellings would be dispersed throughout the site and added that it would be difficult to resist such an application. 

            Councillor S. Stevens from Broughton & Bretton Community Council spoke against the application and said that there had been no mention of three storey dwellings in the original application for the site.  There were no others in the villages of Broughton & Bretton.  She added that the Community Council were dismayed to see the changes to three storey dwellings as this would mean that the site would no longer look like what had originally been approved and would not fit in with the rest of the village. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Derek Butler, proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He raised concern at the application for three storey properties as there were currently none in Broughton and Bretton.  He felt that increasing the size of the properties would mean more people and he asked if the local schools would be receiving additional funding for any increased numbers of pupils. 

            Councillor Billy Mullin concurred with the comments of Councillor Butler and said that a precedent would be set if the application was approved.  He spoke of the significant amount of development taking place in the area and said that the application should be refused. 

            Councillor Owen Thomas felt that a significant number of requests to vary house types were received and approved by Committee.  Councillor Gareth Roberts said that Planning Policy stated that a mix of house types was favourable and this application would provide this.  He said that it was not unusual for a developer to amend house types during the delivery of a development and added that he had not heard anything to suggest that the proposal did not comply with policy or should be refused.  Councillor Chris Bithell said that there was no such thing as a 2.5 storey dwelling and that the properties were 3 storey.  He felt that more of this type of property would be seen in the future but he queried whether it was on the same footprint as the originally approved dwellings.  Councillor Richard Jones noted that the reserved matters application had permitted 2.5 storey properties on the site and in referring to a similar development in Buckley said that it would be difficult to refuse. 

            In response  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

            That planning permission 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 21 July 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. 

                        Mrs. K. Wingate spoke against the application which she felt would increase local traffic as cars currently parked on both sides of the road, allowing only one additional vehicle to pass.  She felt that if two families moved into the flats, then this could result in four additional cars which would enter onto the road where children played.  She raised concern that children walked to school along the road and that it was already a dangerous area.  Mrs. Wingate felt that the ground floor flat would have a reduced amount of light into the property and that the bedroom window would look out onto the street which would be three feet away.  The upstairs flat would overlook the gardens of neighbouring properties.  She said that she would prefer it if the dwelling remained as a family home rather than being split into flats.  

            Councillor Richard Jones proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that the application should not have been submitted to the Committee to determine and that there were no planning reasons to refuse the application, as the small number of parking spaces proposed was acceptable in a sustainable location.  Councillor Gareth Roberts concurred with the comments made and said that a bus route nearby would reduce the need for residents in the properties to have cars. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell acknowledged the local opposition to the proposal but said that there were no external alterations to the property.  On the issue of parking, the applicant had provided three parking spaces within the curtilage of the property.  He felt that objections to the proposals on these grounds could not be sustained but suggested that the only improvement could be to provide the access for cars at the rear of the site. 

               Councillor Ian Dunbar spoke on behalf of the Local Members in congratulating Mrs. Wingate for addressing the Committee.  He commented on the problem of parking in the busy area in which cars parked on both sides of the narrow road and said that the siting of the flats on a busy section of the road constituted a highway problem for the children who played there.  He felt that approval of the application would set a precedent for other houses in the road to be turned into flats and raised concern that the upstairs flat would create an issue of overlooking into neighbouring properties. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that the plan had been amended to include three spaces and no objections had been received from Highways.  The issue of light referred to by Mrs. Wingate was not a planning matter.  It was reported  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.

            That planning permission be refused due to the traffic associated with the development having a detrimental impact on highway safety.  

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 21 July 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 application was to extend the existing building.  A letter of support was detailed in the late observations.  Local Members and Broughton & Bretton Community Council had raised concerns regarding highway problems at the junction with Broughton Hall Road and had also raised objections.   However, it should be noted that the Council’s Highways officers had no objections to the application and it was recommended for approval. 

                        Mr. S. Hughes spoke in support of the application.  The proposal complied with local and national policy and would enable a greater range of products and groceries, including more fresh goods, to be available.  The applicant had addressed concerns on the issue of parking and highway safety and no objections had been received from a highway safety perspective and no letters of objection had been received from residents.  He explained that a similar size store in Kelsall had eight car parking spaces and operated at capacity and added that this store would have 16 spaces for customers.  The store would not generate significant movements for deliveries and all except one of the employees at the existing store, which was to relocate to this area if approval was granted, walked to work. 

                        Councillor S. Stevens from Broughton & Bretton Community Council spoke against the application.  She felt that the main issue was the location which would result in increased traffic on a particularly busy road which was a main route to the retail park and Airbus factory.  She said that the proposal would result in five accesses onto the small junction and she felt that many people would not park there or walk from the nearby car park.  Councillor Stevens also raised concern about the use of the shop which would be vacated if the application was approved as she felt that it would be taken over by an ‘express’ store which the proposed Co-op store would not be able to compete with.  She concluded that a new road system was required with either traffic lights or a roundabout to ease the congestion at the junction.       

            The Local Member, Councillor Billy Mullin, proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He welcomed the presence of the Co-op store in Broughton but reiterated the concerns about highways.  He referred to the busy main road which took traffic heading for the retail park and which was a thoroughfare to Deeside and spoke of the campaign to get improvements to the junction.  He referred to the daily battle of motorists to exit the junction which would increase if the application was approved.  He added that he was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27.

            That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken. 

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.

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the Local Member, Councillor Matt Wright, had concerns about the justification of the building.  Natural Resources Wales had requested conditions if the application was approved and the objections which had been received were detailed in the report. 

                        Mr. C. Davies, who lived next door to the application site, spoke against the application.  He felt that the size of the site did not justify a building of the size proposed and that this application had been submitted following the refusal of an application to extend the garden, which had been refused on the grounds of the detrimental effect upon the character of the area.  He could not understand why the application was reported for approval and that it appeared that a shed was being called an agricultural building and contained equipment to convert horse boxes.  It was reported that the applicant would forego permission for a detached garage within the curtilage of the dwelling, which had not currently been built, if permission for an agricultural building was granted.  Mr. Davies felt that the agricultural building would be used as a garage and that it was not suitable in a domestic area in the countryside and should therefore be refused. 

                        The Democracy & Governance Manager indicated that the Local Member, Councillor Matt Wright, had been unable to attend the meeting but had asked that the following comments be passed on to Members.  Councillor Wright had raised concern about the retrospective nature of the application and that enforcement lists were being cleared by granting permissions.  The applicant had built large agricultural buildings in a row of residential houses which he also expressed significant concern about. 

                        Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed that the application be deferred for a site visit, which was duly seconded and on being put to the vote was CARRIED.       

            RESOLVED:

            That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken. 

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions reported in the late observations, the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation to provide the following:-

a)         the provision of 16 No. affordable homes in accordance with an agreed letting policy

b)         Maintaining visibility over area of land on southern side of Halkyn Road (if Section 278 Agreement not entered into)

c)         Commuted sum for maintenance of play area/open space for a period of 10 years, upon its adoption by the Authority

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 Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

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 site had planning permission for 44 dwellings.  The site had now been sold to a new developer and this application for 45 dwellings amended the layout and house types on the site to smaller properties.  The site was allocated for residential dwellings in the UDP and all issues had been resolved during the consideration of the previous application.  It was reported that 16 of the plots would be affordable dwellings and would be managed by Wales & West Housing Association with the remaining dwellings being sold on the open market.  The officer explained that the issue of why an educational contribution had not been requested was detailed in paragraphs 7.23 to 7.26 of the report.  She added that a Section 106 Obligation would be requested for provision of affordable homes, maintaining visibility and a commuted sum for open space if the application was approved. 

            Mr. D. Ellis spoke against the application.  He spoke of the speed limit on the road and commented on Welsh Government guidance which asked Planning Authorities and Highways Departments to take the views of communities into account when considering planning applications.  He said that consultation had not taken place on either application and added that the amount of traffic in the area was unacceptable.  Mr. Ellis commented on the corner of the road which had not been altered and the failure to comply with the setting of local speed limits which he felt was not adequate.  He also suggested that the vehicles from the proposal would increase traffic in the area by 25%.            

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that the application was for a change of house types following the sale of the site to a new developer.  He spoke of the reduction in the speed limit on the road and the compliance by the applicant with the 90m visibility splay which he felt would make highway provision safer.  He felt that the change of house type provided a greater variety of dwellings and agreed with the request of Holywell Town Football Club for a two metre high fence along the boundary of the proposed site to keep the football ground secure.  The officer responded that this would be covered under condition 5 if the application was approved.   

            Councillor Richard Jones agreed that there was no reason to refuse the application and that the provision of a footway and the improvements to the landscaped bank opposite the site to achieve the required highways visibility would be beneficial to the area.      

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions reported in the late observations, the conditions detailed in the report  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

            That the application be deferred to allow a site visit to be undertaken. 

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 referred Members to the late observations where three further objections were reported.  The proposal would result in the loss of eight car parking spaces but as it anticipated that the bakery and café would not be opened at the same time as the existing public house, this was considered to be acceptable.  Concerns had also been raised on the issue of access to the narrow entrance to the car park but it was felt that the wide area to the front of the pub would be a suitable waiting area for the short amount of time a car would have to wait.  It was not considered that the proposal would have an impact on the residential amenity of the area.  As the site was adjacent to a river, a Flood Consequences Assessment had accompanied the application and it was concluded that the site was at low risk of fluvial flooding but the comments of Natural Resources Wales (NRW) were awaited.  The application was recommended for approval subject to no negative comments from NRW. 

                        Miss H. Tou, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  She said that the proposal was for a small bakery and café which would make traditional artisan products.  The proposal would create new jobs and would benefit the local economy.  The Bridge Inn public house had been running for nine years without any problems on access and vehicles waiting to turn into the site could see oncoming traffic and Highways did not have any objections to the proposal.  The opening hours would not be the same as for the public house which would ensure that there was sufficient parking for both facilities.  Miss Tou added that there was only one café in the area but no bakery and she asked the Committee to approve the application to bring specialities into the local community. 

                        Councillor Richard Jones proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  Councillor David Cox proposed an amendment to defer the application for a site visit, which was also duly seconded.  In response, Councillor R. Jones felt that a site visit was not required and added that there was sufficient space for cars to pass.  Councillors Mike Peers and Gareth Roberts concurred and said that they had seen the plan and presentation of the application and that there would be no benefit to having a site visit. 

                        The Local Member, Councillor Stella Jones, said that it was a valued business but that she did have concerns.  She felt that a site visit was appropriate to allow the Committee to see the access to the site, which was narrow and at an angle, which they could not see from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30.

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and subject to the additional condition referred to in the late observations.

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 said that the main issue was the development in an area of flood risk and whether the consequences of flooding could be acceptably managed.  There had been ongoing discussions with Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the applicant had provided information on a compensatory flood storage scheme but NRW had indicated that this was not acceptable and were therefore maintaining their objection to the development on flood risk grounds.  The officer drew Members’ attention to the late observations where comments from NRW and the applicant were reported.  The Emergency Planning Section had considered the application and had no objection to the proposals.  The site was in a flood warning area and would receive early alerts from NRW in the event of any potential flood threats.  The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions and the floor levels being set as agreed.             

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.

            Councillor Richard Jones proposed that the application should be deferred to allow the flood storage scheme to be considered, which was duly seconded but on being put to the vote, was LOST.  The proposal to approve the application was voted on and was CARRIED.      

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and subject to the additional condition referred to in the late observations.

            That agenda item 7.12 (Listed Building application – Hillside Cottage, Kinnerton Lane, Higher Kinnerton) be considered before agenda item 7.11 (Retrospective application for the retention of replacement porch and amended window above at Hillside Cottage, Kinnerton Lane, Higher Kinnerton).    

The Development Manager requested that there be a slight change in the order of business to consider agenda item 7.12 before agenda item 7.11.  He explained that if Members were minded to approve the listed building application (agenda item 7.12), it would need to be referred to CADW and the application for the extension (agenda item 7.11) would then need to be held in abeyance pending a decision from CADW. 

            RESOLVED:

            That agenda item 7.12 (Listed Building application – Hillside Cottage, Kinnerton Lane, Higher Kinnerton) be considered before agenda item 7.11 (Retrospective application for the retention of replacement porch and amended window above at Hillside Cottage, Kinnerton Lane, Higher Kinnerton).    

            That Listed building consent be refused for the reason 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 21 July 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 reported for refusal based on the impact on the Listed Building.  An application for the erection of a two storey extension was approved in 2011 and this work had been carried out. However, during construction, the applicant also undertook the demolition of a single storey part-glazed porch structure to the side of the property.  He replaced this with a brick built single storey extension with a flat roof and glazed lantern light above and replaced an original first floor window with a differently proportioned one, without the necessary consent. 

            Mr. D. Fitzsimon, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He felt that the replacement extension had been carried out sympathetically with the rest of the dwelling and the guttering had been replaced with cast iron guttering.  It became apparent that the porch was beyond repair and it was replaced by an extension that the applicant thought was an improvement to the property.  Officers raised concern about the three pane window which was replaced with a two pane window but this replicated what was already in place.       

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He said that the applicant had been through the process of what was acceptable on a listed building in his application for the erection of the two storey extension to the rear of the property and therefore had full knowledge of what needed to take place.  The applicant had then replaced the single storey extension in a way which Councillor Bithell felt was unacceptable and was a flagrant abuse of the system as planning permission and listed building consent had not been sought.  He felt that there was no alternative but to refuse the application. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts concurred with the comments of Councillor Bithell and said that the owner of the listed building was aware of work that could or could not be carried out on such a building.  He commented on the window but agreed that the application should be refused.  Councillor Derek Butler said that full compliance with policy was required on applications for amendments to listed buildings which the applicant had not done.  He felt that CADW should be made aware of the works that had been undertaken on the property. 

            Councillor Marion Bateman asked whether the design of the replacement was being considered and whether the previous single storey extension had listed building status.  In response, the Development Manager said that on this application the main consideration was the impact of the work on the character and features of the listed building.  When considering the planning application there was a need to consider the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

            That planning permission be refused for the reason 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 21 July 2014.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The officer detailed the background to the report. 

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

            Councillor Owen Thomas felt that the applicant had tried to preserve the building and had tried to retain as much as possible and he felt that the porch was in character with the dwelling. 

            Councillor Mike Peers asked whether the applicant would be advised to submit an application that was more sympathetic to the character of the original building.  In response, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) said that it was up to the applicant to decide what to do and added that he could appeal or submit a redesign.  He gave a commitment that officers would work with the applicant if requested.   

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment). 

            That planning permission be refused for the reason 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 officer detailed the background to the report and explained that planning permission had been granted in November 2008 subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Agreement.  The Legal Department had been liaising with the applicant but no significant progress had been made and no response had been received to letters sent to the applicant.  It was therefore recommended that the application be refused as the Section 106 Agreement had not been signed.      

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reason detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment). 

                        There were 52 members of the public and two press in attendance.