Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillors Marion Bateman and Haydn Bateman declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application because they were co-owners of the property:-

Agenda item 5.7 – Full application – Alterations and extension to dwelling at Pen y Bryn Bungalow, 17 Pen y Bryn, Soughton (053670)

Councillors Marion Bateman and Haydn Bateman declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application because they were co-owners of the property:-

Agenda item 5.7 – Full application – Alterations and extension to dwelling at Pen y Bryn Bungalow, 17 Pen y Bryn, Soughton (053670)

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

                        Councillor Alison Halford queried why the minutes of the previous meeting were not included on the agenda.  She was advised by the Democracy & Governance Manager and Planning Strategy Manager that the minutes would be included on the agenda for the July 2015 meeting of the Committee.  

The Development Manager advised that none of the items on the agenda were recommended for deferral by officers. 

The Development Manager advised that none of the items on the agenda were recommended for deferral by officers. 

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment), the additional condition referred to in the late observations and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation, Unilateral Undertaking or advance payment of £1,100 per dwelling and £733 per apartment in lieu of on site recreational provision.  

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & 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 which had been the subject of a site visit on 22 June 2015.  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 site was in the ownership of Flintshire County Council and accommodated a number of garages, the majority of which were unused.  He highlighted section 5 of the report which explained that a previous application on the site had been refused on 26 January 2015 due to overdevelopment and the adverse impact of the proposed site layout on trees which were the subject of a Tree Preservation Order.  It was considered by officers that this application addressed the concerns raised and an additional condition had been suggested to safeguard the footpath-link through the site during construction works and its retention thereafter in perpetuity.  

            Councillor Ian Dunbar proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He indicated that the proposed parking for the apartment block was sited adjacent to the common site boundary with an existing property at 43 Hillside Avenue and he commented on the proposals for boundary treatments.  Councillor Dunbar added that the erection of barriers to ensure that the root protection areas of the trees were safeguarded during construction works and the acknowledgement that a footpath which crossed the site which allowed for pedestrian access into the adjacent recreational area and provided a link to existing residential properties at Lon Derwen was welcomed by residents.  In moving the recommendation, he said that the proposal would provide a residential development that would provide affordable housing and much needed housing stock for rent or sale. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell referred to the original application and said that the number of properties had been reduced in this proposal and therefore the concern of overdevelopment had been addressed.  The issues about the footpath and the trees protected by the Tree Protection Order had also been addressed. 

            In referring to the Section 106 Obligation in lieu of on site recreational provision, Councillor Richard Lloyd asked whether the monies would be used for a nearby play facility and what the area consisted of.  The officer responded that there were landscaped areas included in the site but there was no usable or definable open space.  The site was immediately adjacent to an area of open space and could be easily accessed from the site and this element of the Section 106 obligation would be used to improve the existing facilities in this area.  He highlighted paragraph 7.14 where it was reported that the erection of a 1.8m high brick wall to safeguard privacy/amenity due to the site being adjacent to the common site boundary with an existing property at 43 Hillside Avenue could be covered by condition if the application was granted. 

            On the issue  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

            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 22 June 2015.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

            The Manager (Minerals and Waste) detailed the background to the report and explained that the proposal was for a small-scale temporary energy centre for a period of five years for a pyrolysis plant to produce bio-oil, bio-gas and char, a gas cleaning unit and a gas powered engine electricity generator set.  It was predicted that the unit would have capacity for 16 tonnes per day of feed stock in pelleted form and would generate up to 1 MW of electricity which would feed into the National Grid and onto other users.  The heat from the proposal could be reutilised and would be available for other businesses in the area to use.  No new buildings would be erected as a result of the proposals as an existing warehouse would be used but it was anticipated that a number of offices would be erected outside of the building and would include welfare facilities.  The noise levels from the site would be very low and the proposal was for a small scale experimental facility to demonstrate whether the process would work.  The Manager (Minerals and Waste) advised that the proposal was within Welsh Government guidelines and added that the process required a permit before the treatment and processing of any waste could take place.  In this instance, it would be regulated via a Part B Authorisation under the Environmental Permitting Regulations from the Council’s Public Protection Department rather than from Natural Resources Wales. 

            The site was in a flood risk zone C1 but was considered to be in a less vulnerable area and an upgrade of the flood defences was to take place in the near future at the Port of Mostyn.  The Manager (Minerals and Waste) commented on the access to the site from the A541 Coast Road and said that it was anticipated that there would be one or two HGV deliveries per day.  The process would run for 24 hours per day and it was likely that the site would employ two or three staff in the office and three to four operatives on each of the three shifts.  The feed store would be located inside the building but anything stored outside would be plastic wrapped until it was needed for the process.

            Mr. D. Levis spoke in support of the application.  He commented on the consultation exercise that had been undertaken on the proposals and indicated that the Local Member, Councillor David Roney, had been invited to attend a meeting on 24 February 2015 to discuss the scheme.  Mostyn Community Council had also been invited to attend the site but no representatives had taken up the invitation and had not provided a response to the consultation.  He added that further information had also been  ...  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) but with an amendment to the condition relating to opening hours so that opening hours are 8am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturday.

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 22 June 2015.  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 Local Members had asked for committee determination because of the amount of local interest in the proposal.  Hawarden Community Council had objected to the application on the grounds of highway safety and proposed hours of operation and 13 objections had been received from local residents.

            Mr. M. Nixon, the application, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the opening hours of 6am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 1pm on Saturdays had been requested.  The 6am start would allow customers to bring their vehicles for MOTs outside of normal working hours and would result in a maximum of three cars being brought in during the period of 6am to 8am.  The MOT testing station was not near the road so the issue of noise was not a problem and the concerns that had been raised about trading already taking place were untrue.  Mr. Nixon explained that equipment needed to be in place before the MOT station could operate and this had been stored on the site since the garage closed down earlier in the year.                

            Councillor Alison Halford moved refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  She raised concern about the highway particularly as the site was located on a bend and added that the introduction of more vehicles to the area was a problem.  Councillor Halford felt that the start time of 6am for a residential area was too early and added that another MOT station in the area did not open as early. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Helen Brown, raised concern about highway safety and the hours of operation and said that objections had been received from Hawarden Community Council.  She reiterated the comment that vehicles were parking on the bend at the entrance to the site and that a 6am start in a residential area was unacceptable.  It was reported that a number of different businesses had been carried out on the site without planning permission.  Councillor Brown queried how it could be ensured that cars and loaders would not park on the road outside the site and asked Members to consider the hours of opening and highway issues if they were minded to grant permission. 

            Councillor Mike Peers said that some photographs of the problems caused by vehicles parking on the road had been forwarded to him; he circulated these to the Committee Members.  He explained that the photographs were showing the difficulty experienced by a delivery van and the need for it to reverse into the site because of vehicles parked on the road.  He also did  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

            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 22 June 2015.  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 site had been the subject of a number of applications, with the two most recent applications being dismissed on appeal or refused.         

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He said that the application had been refused twice and dismissed on appeal and even though the height had been reduced by one metre, the proposal was still incongruous.  Councillor Gareth Roberts concurred and indicated that the appeal Inspector had agreed with the decision to refuse the application. 

            A Local Member, Councillor Helen Brown, spoke in support of the application.  She said that the applicant had submitted amended plans which reduced the height by one metre and added that she did not consider the development to be detrimental to the streetscene.  No objections had been received from the neighbours or Hawarden Community Council.  She explained that the applicant wanted to extend his property for himself and his family and asked Members to consider the different type of properties in the area and approve the application. 

            A Local Member, Councillor George Hardcastle, said that he had lived in the area for a number of years and commented on the variety of properties in Aston Park and some of the extensions to properties in the area.  He felt that the application should be approved as he did not feel that it looked out of place and the proposal had been reduced by one metre from the original application.  He asked to committee to consider approving the application. 

            Councillor Alison Halford suggested that the comments of the Local Members should be taken into account and said that it appeared that the officer had decided that they did not like the proposal because of the height.  She did not think that the Inspector’s decision on the previous application should be considered when the applicant had reduced the height for this proposal.  Councillor Halford added that it was unfair to do so as it was not known what the Inspector’s decision would be if this application was refused and went to appeal.  She also said that the application was for an affordable home.   

            In response, the Development Manager said that the recommendation in the report was based on experience of similar proposals which officers faced on a regular basis.  A consistent approach had been taken in the recommendation of refusal and he asked the Committee to also be consistent in their decision.  The Democracy & Governance Manager reminded Members that all reports were in the name of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment). 

            Councillor Richard Lloyd concurred with the earlier comments that there were a variety of property styles in the area and suggested  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment), the additional condition in the late observations and subject to the applicant entering into a supplemental planning obligation, re-enforcing:-

a.         the provision of the Section 106 Obligation entered into under Code Nos 050333 and 050874 on the site, in respect of highway, ecological, affordable housing and open space requirements.

b.         The introduction of additional parking restrictions to ensure that the main estate road is kept free from casual parking/obstructions. 

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & 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 plots were located in close proximity to the main entrance to the site and following concerns that had been expressed, this application to replan the three plots had been submitted.  He provided a detailed explanation of the proposals and advised that the orientation/relationship of the dwellings was acceptable to provide for a well-balanced site layout.  The dwellings were orientated so that they had frontages onto the main estate road and Drury Lane and it was considered that this would provide an attractive entrance into the estate development.  Concerns had been raised on access grounds and as a result of this, it was recommended that additional parking restrictions be included in the Section 106 Obligation and this could consist of double yellow lines to prevent residents and visitors parking in this area.          

            Councillor Mike Peers proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He referred to the original application which would have required vehicles to reverse from parking areas at these properties into the road and indicated that he had raised this as a concern.  He welcomed the change in elevation on plot 201 as the proposals would result in the French window facing a southerly direction, away from the site entrance.  In response to a question from Councillor Peers, the officer explained that the reorientation of the plots would result in the gardens being parallel to Drury Lane and therefore removal of permitted development rights to allow further extensions of properties without the further grant of permission had been included as a condition.        

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment), the additional condition in the late observations and subject to the applicant entering into a supplemental planning obligation, re-enforcing:-

a.         the provision of the Section 106 Obligation entered into under Code Nos 050333 and 050874 on the site, in respect of highway, ecological, affordable housing and open space requirements.

b.         The introduction of additional parking restrictions to ensure that the main estate road is kept free from casual parking/obstructions. 

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & 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. 

            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.  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 being considered by the Committee because of its height.  No objections had been received to the application but Caerwys Town Council had requested that the existing structure be removed; this had been included in condition 3.

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

In response to a query from Councillor Richard Lloyd, the officer advised that even though Caerwys Town Council had asked for the existing structure to be removed within three months, a condition had been included to remove it within one month of the installation of the new equipment. 

Councillor Jim Falshaw commented on concerns raised by Caerwys Town Council about the separation distances between the mast and a wind turbine.  The officer advised that the telecommunication company were consulted on the wind turbine and had objected to the proposal.  The Development Manager added that the Committee had resolved to grant permission for the wind turbine if no objections were received but as the telecommunications company had objected, planning permission had not been given for the turbine.

            RESOLVED:

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

            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. The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Councillors Marion Bateman and Haydn Bateman, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the application had been submitted to the Committee as the applicant was an Elected Member. 

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

            In response to a question from Councillor Mike Peers, the officer provided details of the proposed changes to the property.  Councillor Ray Hughes asked about the increase in the footprint and the officer confirmed that the size of the property would increase by approximately one third.    

            RESOLVED:

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

After the vote had been taken, Councillor Marion Bateman returned to the meeting and the Chairman advised her of the decision.

                        There were 9 members of the public and 1 member of the press in attendance.