Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Ian Dunbar declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application because an objector had dealt with a personal matter for a family member:-

Agenda item 6.12 – Erection of a foodstore, associated car parking, access, servicing and landscaping (partly retrospectively) at Brought Shopping Park, Broughton (054589

                        Councillor Mike Peers declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application because his son was an employee of the applicant:-

                        Agenda item 6.16 – Full application - Erection of 21 No. dwellings including 15 No. 2 bed apartments and 6 No. 1 bed apartments at Gateway to Wales Hotel, Welsh Road, Garden City (054513)

Councillor Derek Butler declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application because he was the owner of the property:-

Agenda item 6.20 – Full application – formation of dormer to front of dwelling at 7 Somerford Road, Broughton (054725)

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 20^th January 2016.

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 20^th January 2016 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

            That applications 6.7 and 6.8 be deferred and that a site visit be undertaken prior to consideration of the applications by Committee. 

The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that deferment of the following applications was recommended:

Agenda item 6.7 - Full application – Proposed development of solar photovoltaic panels and associated works including inverter housings, access tracks, security fencing and cameras at Deeside Lane, Sealand (053686) – to allow consideration to be given to additional information submitted by the applicant.

Agenda item 6.8 - Full application – Development of Solar Photovoltaic Panels and associated works including inverter housings, access tracks, security fencing and cameras at Manor Farm, Deeside Lane, Sealand (053687) – to allow consideration to be given to additional information submitted by the applicant.

Councillor Chris Bithell proposed deferment of the applications and this was duly seconded by Councillor Derek Butler who requested site visits to be undertaken prior to consideration of the applications by Committee. 

On being put to the vote, both applications were deferred.

RESOLVED:

            That applications 6.7 and 6.8 be deferred and that a site visit be undertaken prior to consideration of the applications by Committee. 

            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 on the submission and approval of a traffic management plan. 

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 February 2016.  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 Senior Minerals and Waste Officer detailed the background to the report and gave a brief overview of applications 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 as they all related to the same site.  An application had been granted on appeal and was in the process of being implemented and the landfill site being constructed.  The use of the site would not change by these applications and the proposals were as a result of enforcement action with agenda items 6.1 and 6.3 being partly retrospective but this was not a reason to refuse the applications.   

This proposal was requesting a new access to the site which would be 250 metres away from the junction with the A494 trunk road; the existing access was approximately 50 metres from that junction.  The creation of the access had required the removal of several trees.  Welsh Government(WG) had initially issued a direction to withhold planning permission pending the submission of further information but this direction had now been lifted following the submission of a road widening scheme by the applicant at the junction between Pinfold Lane and the A494.  The creation of the new access would serve heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) with the existing access remaining in place for use by cars and light vehicles; it was felt that the proposal would be a significant highway gain.  A number of conditions relating to highways were being requested and the officer highlighted a comment in the late observations from a resident who had previously submitted comments during consultation; the concerns had been addressed in the report.  Highways had commented that the issues raised by the resident were insufficient to recommend refusal and therefore approval was recommended. 

                        Mr. S. Amos, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  Pinfold Lane served other commercial uses and industrial uses and the new access would be located 250m north of the existing access and was a major improvement to the existing arrangement.  There were no objections from statutory consultees and no outstanding objections on any of the planning applications and therefore he requested that the applications be approved. 

            Councillor Derek Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that there were concerns about having two accesses to the site with the new access also being the egress point for the HGVs.  Councillor Chris Bithell said that the proposal met with highway requirements and would be located further away from residential properties.    

                        Councillor Owen Thomas expressed significant concern that the work had already commenced on this site before the planning application had been considered.  He felt that the concrete included at the access would affect the water flow of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 123.

            That the application be deferred to allow clarification of the amendments to the conditions and the reasons for the changes. 

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 February 2016.  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 Senior Minerals and Waste Officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the application was linked to the previous application.  It was to amend three conditions relating to the inclusion of a new access proposed under application 054050 (condition 2), the restriction of the site access to that currently consented (condition 14) and to the improvements to the site access and the junction of Pinfold Lane with the A494 (condition 18).  She drew Members’ attention to the late observations where an amendment to paragraph 1.04 and to condition 14 were reported.  The full list of conditions had been made available to Members prior to the meeting.  The amendment to condition 14 would allow the operator to continue to use the existing site whilst constructing the landfill, providing sufficient time for details reserved by condition to be secured and for the construction of the new access to be completed.  Once constructed, the new access would be used as an access and egress point for heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) with the existing access being used by cars and light vehicles only.  On the issue of condition 18, there had originally not been any requirement to improve the highway but Welsh Government (WG) had issued a direction that permission be withheld pending the submission of suitable information/evidence.  The applicant had now proposed highway improvements which were the same as the original application and included the widening of Pinfold Lane.  WG had now directed that any planning permission include a number of conditions to include adequate provision for vehicles to turn, wheel washing facilities and full details of highway improvement works to be provided.    The Senior Minerals and Waste Officer said that this was a Section 73 application and therefore was in effect a new planning permission for the whole site which was why there were a large number of conditions attached.  When considering the application, there was a need to consider all of the conditions applied to the applications for the site, not just the ones that the applicant was asking for variations on.  She understood Councillor Carol Ellis’ comment about the condition being proposed by a Planning Inspector which were imposed following a significant amount of deliberation and discussion.  The amendments proposed did not significantly or fundamentally change the controls at the site and in many cases there was a need for additional schemes to be submitted such as on the issue of landscaping and protected species to tie all of the schemes on the site together.  The Section 73 application would ensure that all of the conditions were appropriate and fit for purpose. 

Mr. S. Amos, the applicant, spoke in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 124.

That the application be deferred. 

The Chairman suggested that as the previous application, which related to the same site, had been deferred that this application also be deferred.  Councillor Carol Ellis proposed deferment and this was duly seconded. 

RESOLVED:

That the application be deferred. 

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of detrimental impact on the character of the open countryside and green barrier and that the application did not comply with policies GEN3 & GEN4.           

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 February 2016.  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 for a new vehicular access for plot 5 only.  The application had been deferred from the October 2015 meeting of the Committee to allow a site visit to take place and to consider whether an application relating to the other points should be considered at the same time.  The agents of both parties had been encouraged to submit an application for the whole site to consider all of the proposed changes to the site but they had been unwilling to do so.  Proposals for other separate accesses on the site were still being considered and were not yet ready to come forward.  The application had an impact on the layout of the whole site as it moved the amenity buildings and relocated the static caravans and it was therefore decided that the application could not be considered in that format.  However, this proposal was now ready for consideration by Members.  The overall ‘red line’ area for the application before the Committee today had been amended to retain the turning head so if this application was approved, the application could go ahead and the rest of the site could still conform with the existing planning permission.  Therefore Members needed to consider what the proposed harm was to the green barrier for the access proposed as part of this application only and the subsequent application on the agenda for the re-siting of the proposed amenity building. 

            Mr. J. Gollege spoke against the application.  He indicated that he was a member of Northop Hall Community Council but that the comments he was making today were his own views.  He objected to the application on the grounds that it did not comply with the recommendations and conditions of two separate planning appeals.  The Committee refused permission twice but it was approved on appeal by the Planning Inspector on the grounds of need despite the site being on green barrier land.  The point was reported in 7.05 of the officer’s report as being recognised by the appeal Inspector but failed to acknowledge the fact that at the first appeal hearing, the Inspector stated there was harm through inappropriateness in conflict with policy GEN4 and there was harm to the open character and appearance of the green barrier.  Condition 12 of the second appeal hearing stated that all trees and hedgerow should be retained in the course of construction.  As part of the appeal submission, the applicant had committed to improve the screening.  Mr. Gollege said that maintenance of the natural screening was important to local residents and failure to recognise this in the report to Committee was a serious omission.  The Inspectors at both hearings had required  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the applicant entering in to a Section 106 agreement to agree that the building is constructed in lieu of the previously consented dayroom/amenity building on 050463, subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and with an additional condition making it clear that permission applies only to the items specified in the description of development and not matters shown on the plan. 

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 February 2016.  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 this application was requesting the relocation of the day room to locate it adjacent to the road side hedge in the north eastern corner of plot 5 and an increase in the size of the building was also being requested.  The officer explained that if the application was approved, the applicant would need to enter into a Section 106 agreement to agree that the building was constructed in lieu of the previously consented dayroom/amenity building on 050463. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Dave Mackie, said that as Members had rejected the previous application which had included the relocating of the static caravan on the plot, approval of this application would result in the day room being located right next to the location of the caravan.  Councillor Mackie, having earlier declared an interest in this and the previous application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

                        Councillor Chris Bithell asked whether the hedgerow had been removed and the officer indicated that the hedge referred to was located near to the day room and if the previous application had been approved, it would have required the reinstatement of the hedge.  Councillor Mike Peers asked whether this proposal prevented the occupier of plot five from accessing the entrance and egress that was proposed under the appeal; the officer confirmed that the applicant would still be able to access the entrance.  

                        Councillor Peers suggested that the application be deferred as there were a number of issues about the hedge that required clarification and it was not clear that if the day room was moved where the occupier’s caravan would be situated.  Councillor Bithell said it was also not clear where the amenity building would be included on the site and that consideration of this item was on the assumption that the previous application had been approved.  The officer said that on the previously approved plan, the static caravan was located where the amenity building was now proposed to be and the static caravan was located where the touring caravan was proposed to be sited.  There was still room for the access and there would still be room for the amenity building and to be able to turn and park a touring caravan.  The officer also confirmed that this application could be approved and not affect the decision previously made. 

            Councillor Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  Councillor Owen Thomas sought clarification of what was located on the west side of the site.  Councillor Peers said that the application was dealing with the increase in the size of the dayroom and raised concern that the entrance that had been refused on the application previously considered was shown  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

            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 proposals had been the subject of a design review which was attached to the report.  The main issues for consideration were reported in paragraph 1.02.  

            Councillor Dave Cox proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that this had been a long awaited planning application and would be an added bonus to the town of Flint and would mark the start of the regeneration of the town.  In seconding the proposal, Councillor Mike Reece welcomed the scheme and hoped that similar projects would be achieved in rural areas.  Councillor Ian Dunbar commented on the demolition of the maisonettes and in referring to a similar scheme in Connah’s Quay, he welcomed the flagship development as part of the Council’s Strategic Housing and Regeneration Programme (SHARP) and gave particular thanks to Andy Roberts and David Glyn Jones for their work which he felt should be commended.  Councillor Chris Bithell also welcomed the rejuvenation of the centre of Flint and the submission and agreement of an archaeological investigation scheme prior to the development of the site.  He expressed significant concern about the low number of car parking spaces allocated for the site and queried how the travel plan, which needed to be submitted and agreed, would be monitored.

            The officer thanked Councillor Dunbar for his comments. 

            The Senior Engineer – Highways Development Control confirmed that the Local Planning Guidance for Parking related to maximum standards and added that the site was very sustainable and had a good public transport infrastructure.                

            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 refused on the grounds that the potential increase in output would have a detrimental impact on the environment and potential noise increase.  

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 February 2016.  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 Manager (Minerals and Waste) detailed the background to the report and explained that the application was requesting a variation to condition 4 relating to the hours of working and the delivery and removal of materials.  There had been a number of objections from the local residents and Cilcain Community Council but none from statutory consultees.  He drew Members attention to the late observations where information on a noise assessment that had been undertaken was reported.  It was proposed to increase the delivery hours from 8am to 6pm to 7am to 7pm and this would allow for the possibility of further employment in addition to the 50 workers currently employed on the site.  Controls were already in place for the site in relation to noise and dust in the form of an environmental permit which was regulated by Natural Resources Wales (NRW).  However, he added that the operator was in breach of a condition relating to height of materials stored outside the building as the mound was in excess of what was permitted.  If there was no evidence that the height of the waste was reduced, then the permit would be removed by NRW. 

            Mr. J. Williams, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  The proposal for an extra hour at the start and end of the day for external working and deliveries to the site from Monday to Saturday.  Increasing the hours would allow the continuation of the management of the specialised waste and would create further jobs at the plant, whilst safeguarding existing jobs at the site.  The site was located on an industrial estate and it was considered that the proposal was in keeping with other units on the industrial estate.  Highway access was good and it was felt that the proposal would have a negligible impact on neighbouring residents.  On the issue of dust, the report stated that there was no evidence of dust accumulation in the area and the application was compliant with national policy and the Unitary Development Plan.  There had only been an objection from Cilcain Community Council, which indicated that there had been improvements to the management of the site, and none from statutory consultees.  The Council’s Public Protection officer had indicated that the noise from the site was inaudible and had therefore not raised any objection.  Consultation responses did not relate to dust emissions being an issue.  The overall development constituted a sustainable development and Mr. Williams encouraged the Committee to approve the application.         

            Councillor Owen Thomas proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He raised concern about the breach of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

            That planning permission be refused because the potential increase in output would have a detrimental impact on the environment and potential noise increase.  

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 February 2016.  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 Manager (Minerals and Waste) detailed the background to the report and explained that the application was seeking to extend the operational hours for the delivery of materials and also extend the hours under which external working was allowed.  The site was used for dismantling electrical equipment and the glass would be sent to unit 8 and the other items removed from the site. 

            Mr. J. Williams, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He reiterated that there had been no objections to the proposal from statutory consultees other than Cilcain Community Council who even though they were opposed to the extended opening hours, had acknowledged that management of the site had recently improved.   

            Councillor Owen Thomas proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He raised concern that if the operational hours were extended, more items would be brought into the site which would create more material to be transferred to the other site which would create additional waste outside.  He felt that both applications were linked and the problems that residents were experiencing would still occur.  Councillor Mike Peers concurred that increasing the hours would increase output to the other site and would increase the problems.  As the extension of opening hours for unit 6 had been refused, if the hours for this site were increased, this would result in the operator not being able to move the waste to the other site, and would therefore increase the stockpiles of waste on this site. 

            The adjoining Local Member, Councillor Adele Davies-Cooke, asked the Committee to refuse this application as they had done with the previous proposal and felt that this would be the fairest outcome for the community.  She said that the materials would not be able to be moved onto the other site if this application was also refused. 

            The Manager (Minerals and Waste) said that the operation at this site was different to that carried out on the other site but added that unit 8 was the main input for bulk deliveries and some materials were also moved from unit 6 to unit 8. 

            Councillor Thomas felt that the reason for refusal should be the same as for the previous application.  He said that at the site visit, Members had been able to see that fridges and other electrical equipment were unloaded on the road outside the front of the building and suggested that if the hours of operation were increased, then more items would be unloaded on the road.  The Planning Strategy Manager said that Councillor Thomas had suggested that the application be refused because of noise and environmental  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking for a commuted sum with respect to highways works for signposting on the road and cyclepath. 

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 February 2016.  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 Manager (Minerals and Waste) detailed the background to the report and explained that a similar application had been refused in 2013 as the applicant had not completed the necessary legal agreement.  This application was a resubmission with a revised access but still incorporated the original access which would be used by heavy goods vehicles (HGV) with the revised access being for light vehicles due to constraints of a very low bridge.  Another change since the previous submission was that the North Wales Coastal Path had been built and as a result of this, there was potential conflict at crossing points.  The applicant had proposed a unilateral undertaking for a commuted sum with respect to highways works for signposting on the A548 and the cycle path.  The site was currently subject to an enforcement notice and if this application was refused, then enforcement would continue but if it was approved, then the notice would be withdrawn.

                        Ms. C. Percival spoke against the application on behalf of ENI Liverpool Bay Operating Company Limited.  The first concern was about safety and the danger posed by HGVs using the route to the site in the event that a lorry would breach the fence line.  ENI also objected to an unlimited number of trucks with scrap metal passing through their site.  She hoped the application was rejected but if it was approved, ENI requested, as a condition, the installation of a crash barrier along the section of the green access route as far as it ran adjacent to the perimeter fence.  The second issue related to site security for ENI which had been designed to prevent easy access to the colliery site adjacent to the Point of Ayr terminal.  The application suggested that there would be locked gates to prevent unauthorised use but did not address how the routes might be used once the gates were unlocked at the beginning of the working day.  ENI was not in a position to provide continuous monitoring or gate keeping for a third party and Ms. Percival added that illegal occupation of the site had been an issue in the past.  The third area of concern was the rail overpass which was a purpose built direct route to the Point of Ayr facility from the Talacre roundabout.  She noted that a number of vehicles had used this route via the railway overpass even though there were conditions in place.  A rental agreement for the railway airspace was in force between Network Rail and ENI and the applicant did not have permission from either party to use this access and would not have sufficient control over the vehicles including their  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment), subject to the additional condition requiring submission and approval of a security fence to prevent public access to the bund to the rear of the store and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 obligation/unilateral undertaking to provide the following:-

• Payment in the sum of £210,000 towards to provision of, or to facilitate access to, affordable housing in the community
• Payment in the sum of £15,000 towards a community art project or projects for the public realm.

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within three 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 application had been deferred from the meeting on 20^th January 2016 in order for issues of site security, impact of the site on the amenity of residents and the loss of the affordable housing on the site to be addressed.  The report had been updated to address the concerns and a summary of the issues was included.  On the issue of site security, Aldi had confirmed that an additional camera at the rear of the store had been erected and signage advertised the fact that CCTV was in operation.  The proposed landscaping was in excess of what was required in an ordinary landscaping scheme and any additional planting would not leave sufficient room for the proposed scheme to grow and establish.  Officers had considered that no additional planting or fencing was required in the interest of residential amenity.  The trolley bay had been relocated to the front of the store.  Aldi had undertaken their own noise readings following complaints from a neighbouring resident and this concluded that there were no issues with the plant equipment and it was within the agreed levels as predicted in the noise assessment which accompanied the planning application.  The increased delivery times would not have an impact on residential amenity as these took place in an enclosed bay and there had not been any complaints in respect of any issues relating to the opening hours or delivery times.  On the issue of affordable housing, there were a number of people on the Affordable Housing register for Broughton and the report detailed how the commuted sum for affordable housing had been calculated. 

            The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that he would read out a statement prepared by Mrs. J. Richards (who had registered as an objector), as she did not want to appear on the webcast.  Her statement was summarised as follows:

When Aldi had obtained planning permission, they had built what they wanted, not what had been approved.  She felt that Flintshire County Council had made an error by not including the words ‘for approval’ and Aldi took advantage of this.  She expressed concern about the monies for public art and the amount for affordable housing as she did not feel that it was sufficient to build two properties.  The lack of provision for affordable housing on the site had resulted in an additional 31 car parking spaces and the building of a larger store which was nearer to the residential properties than had originally been approved.  Mrs. Richards expressed significant concern about the provision of the landscaping which Aldi had indicated would be enhanced but Mrs. Richards said that it had been completely removed in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and subject to the applicant entering into a supplementary Section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking to link this development with the unilateral undertaking on application 051613, which requires the payment of an education contribution of £129,283 towards Hawarden High School and £122,570 to Ysgol Penarlag, Ewloe, the provision of 4 gifted units to NEW Homes and secures the provision of and the maintenance of the public open space. 

            If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within three 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.

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the application had been submitted to Committee because of the requirement for a supplementary Section 106 agreement.            

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 Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and subject to the applicant entering into a supplementary Section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking to link this development with the unilateral undertaking on application 051613, which requires the payment of an education contribution of £129,283 towards Hawarden High School and £122,570 to Ysgol Penarlag, Ewloe, the provision of 4 gifted units to NEW Homes and secures the provision of and the maintenance of the public open space. 

            If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within three 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 inclusion of a condition about raising the viewing platform to retain the 360 degree views and a letter being sent to the Chief Officer (Streetscene and Transportation) 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. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the report referred to the relevant issues that had been considered.    

            Councillor Mike Peers proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He explained that he had met with the Cabinet Member for Environment, the Chief Officer (Streetscene and Transportation) and the Energy Manager on the proposal.  In welcoming the green benefits of the solar panels he spoke of the need to recognise that this was an amenity site and of ensuring that the extensive 360 degree views would still be seen from the viewing point in the park once the solar panels were in place.  He had discussed the issue with the Cabinet Member and Chief Officer who had indicated that, if necessary, the level of the viewing platform could be raised to retain the views.  He asked that this be conditioned and in referring to the security fencing which would prevent access to the solar panels, he also asked that the footpaths be kept open at all times.  Councillor Peers indicated that he had discussed with the Chief Officer, the possibility of a Section 106 (S106) agreement to secure a community benefit and spoke of an email from the Chief Officer giving assurance that money would come forward to provide a car park for users of the site. 

            In response, the officer confirmed that a condition about the level of the viewing platform could be included and added that the route of the footpaths would be kept open even when the solar panels and security measures were in place.  On the request for a S106, the officer explained that it was not directly related to this proposal and would therefore fail the test for a S106 obligation.  The Chief Officer advised that the Council could not enter into a Section 106 with itself as the applicant and suggested that a letter be sent to the Chief Officer (Streetscene and Transportation) on behalf of the Committee to seek a community benefit in connection with the development. 

            On being put to the vote, the Committee agreed to the recommendation of the officer, the inclusion of a condition about raising the viewing platform to retain the 360 degree views and the suggestion to send a letter to the Chief Officer (Streetscene and Transportation).      

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the inclusion of a condition about raising the viewing platform to retain the 360 degree views and a letter being sent to the Chief Officer (Streetscene and Transportation) and 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) and that a letter be sent to the Chief Officer (Streetscene and Transportation) on behalf of the Committee to seek a community benefit in connection with the development. 

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 this was a similar proposal to the previous application but was for a 400kw solar array. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He queried whether a similar condition as that requested for the previous application was also required for this application. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Carol Ellis, said that she had been assured that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on residents.  She raised concern about a footpath that had previously been diverted and queried whether it would still be available.  In referring to landfill tax, Councillor Ellis asked whether any benefit to the community would be provided and commented on the nearby Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and skateboard park. 

            In response, the officer advised that the footpath was a definitive line footpath that connected to the railway line but the definitive route was no longer walkable.  On the issue of community benefit, he suggested that a similar letter be sent to the Chief Officer (Streetscene and Transportation) to explore possibilities.  Councillor Bithell and the seconder agreed to add this suggestion to their proposal.      

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and that a letter be sent to the Chief Officer (Streetscene and Transportation) on behalf of the Committee to seek a community benefit in connection with the development. 

            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 conditions from Welsh Government 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 explained that the scheme included an area for refuse and recycling.  He drew Members’ attention to paragraph 7.17 to 7.20 where it was reported that payment via a Section 106 agreement were not being sought in lieu of on-site play and recreation provisions or educational contributions. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval, with the additional conditions from Welsh Government referred to in the late observations, which was duly seconded.

                        Following the debate, Councillor Mike Peers asked that it be noted that he had not taken part in the debate or voted on the application as he had a personal and prejudicial interest in the application.  He had not realised who the applicant was until the debate had already started. 

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 conditions from Welsh Government referred to in the late observations. 

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons 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 February 2016.  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 before Committee at the request of the Local Member as he disagreed with the recommendation of the officer.  Paragraph 7.02 highlighted the main issues for consideration in determination of the application which was recommended for refusal because the application site was outside the settlement boundary of Northop Hall. 

            Mr. R. Turner, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the key issue was the principle of development for a new dwelling outside the settlement boundary.  He felt that the report did not mention that the site was just outside the settlement boundary and explained that the boundary was the wall onto Smithy Lane.  He suggested that in policy terms the site was classified as being in open countryside but Mr. Turner said that Members would have noted on the site visit that the site was hardly in open countryside.  He felt that this was an instance where either the siting of the boundary was not a realistic picture of where the settlement ended or a different approach should be taken as to what constituted open countryside as the surrounding area was not typically open countryside.  He suggested that there were already precedents for provision of dwellings outside settlement boundaries and referred to the application for 41 dwellings in Hawarden that had been permitted on appeal.  Mr. Turner drew Members’ attention to the fact that the application had not received any objections and reminded Members that the Council did not have a five year housing land supply and therefore queried how any dwelling could be deemed non-essential, as had been reported.  He asked Members to note the previous approval for the replacement of a proposed garage with ancillary accommodation had the identical form and massing as this proposal and should therefore be acceptable in the open countryside.  He referred to two sites in the area that had been submitted as candidate sites for the Local Development Plan and said that the report focussed on policy HSG7 but did not refer to HSG5 which had been raised in the design and access statement and was the policy that Mr. Turner felt the proposal could have been considered against.  He felt that the site was a highly sustainable location for a new dwelling.        

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He said that the site was outside the settlement boundary and was in the open countryside and suggested that once the settlement had been breached, other proposals would come forward.  The site in Hawarden had been approved on appeal because  ...  view the full minutes text for item 137.

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons 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.  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 main issues related to the raising of the wall plate and the roofline to provide accommodation in the roof space.  The application was considered to be contrary to policies GEN1 and HSG12. 

            Mr. A. Jones, the applicant, spoke in favour of the proposal and said that he and his family had lived in the property for 18 months and had been praised for their enhancements to the dwelling.  The application was proposing raising the front elevation by 400mm to allow the introduction of living space at the second floor level which would provide an overall height increase of 5.33% on the original dwelling.  This would still be lower than the semi-detached properties to the north west of the building.  The proposed roof lights would be tinted and would blend in and all elevations would be finished in the same materials as the original dwelling.  The proposed extension over the single storey element would increase the floor space by 11 square metres and would facilitate a decent sized third bedroom.  The dormer windows to the rear elevation would be set back from the gable end and would only be visible for a few metres in each direction and would not encroach on neighbour’s space or light.  There was only one dwelling to the rear of the property and this was over 400 metres away.  The properties on Pentre Road varied in scale and colour and a dwelling three doors away was significantly taller than what was proposed in this application and was located much closer to the road.  Mr. Jones felt that this proposal added to the mix of dwellings in the area rather than adversely affecting the streetscape.  The original proposal included dormer windows to the front of the dwelling but this element had now been removed from the application.  It was reported that the rooflights were too large but Mr. Jones felt that there were other properties in the vicinity with larger glassed aspects to the front of the dwellings.       

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  He felt that the proposal would result in an imposing dwelling and was inappropriate in this area.  Councillor Derek Butler concurred and felt that allowing this dwelling to become three storey would not be in keeping with the surroundings and would generate applications from other residents for similar proposals. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Matt Wright, spoke in support of the application.  He agreed that there were a range of properties in the area and said that there had not been any objections to this proposal.  The change to the roof line was very small and he asked the Committee to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 138.

            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 this was an enforcement generated application.  He added that the property would need to be registered with Rent Smart Wales under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. 

            Councillor Ian Dunbar proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that the property was already being lived in and the application would ensure the safeguarding of the residents.  

            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.  Councillor Derek Butler, 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 Committee because the applicant was a Councillor. 

            Councillor Mike Lowe 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 Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).

After the vote had been taken, Councillor Butler returned to the meeting and the Chairman advised him of the decision.

            That planning permission be granted in accordance with the recommendation set out in the officer’s report considered by the committee on 20^th January 2016 and subject to the additional condition set out in the late observations provided to that committee but with an amended condition in respect of the life of the permission that states “The use hereby permitted shall be for a limited period, being the period of five years from the date of this decision.  If within the five year period of the permission the Council confirms in writing by way of notice served at the site, that in its opinion there is a suitable alternative site then planning permission shall cease within six months of the date of that written notice”.  

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

            The Housing & Planning Solicitor explained that he had received some correspondence from a person who he believed to be a complainant about the development indicating that they intended to write a letter of judicial review of the decision made at the 20^th January 2016 meeting of the Committee.  He had been asked if the application could be deferred until the letter of judicial review was received but as the letter did not indicate why the challenge was being made, the Housing & Planning Solicitor did not feel that a decision on the application should be deferred.  During the meeting today he had been handed some email correspondence which he understood to be from a barrister on behalf of the complainant.  He had not had the opportunity to read the email but said  that if for any reason, following a decision on this application, there was a need to come back to committee with further legal advice arising from the email, he would do so. 

The report before the Committee included two recommendations and the Housing & Planning Solicitor said that at the previous meeting, the decision had been to grant planning permission but Councillor Chris Bithell had asked for a condition relating to the provision of alternative sites earlier than the five years temporary permission that had been granted.  The recommendation at paragraph 7.01 had been put forward as he had found no precedent or reference in the guidance for anything other than a fixed time period  and therefore the Housing & Planning Solicitor felt that to grant permission for five years was the safest option.  However, at 7.02 he had drafted a recommendation that would at least provide certainty that should the Local Planning Authority identify an alternative site then notice could be given by them on this site and within six months of service of the notice, planning permission would come to an end.          

            Councillor Bithell spoke of a phone call that he had received whereby concern had been raised by a resident that material had not been shared with the Committee in relation to access and egress of the site.  The resident had also indicated that lengthy discussions had taken place with the Senior Engineer – Highways Development Control and a dvd had been submitted showing the issue he was referring to.  Councillor Bithell proposed the recommendation at 7.02 which was duly seconded.  Councillor Gareth Roberts said that he had seen some of the footage and commended the individual for providing it.  He felt that the application was for a permanent site but the committee had made the correct decision to extend the temporary permission.  Councillor Roberts agreed that the recommendation at 7.02 was appropriate and suggested that the material that Members had not seen could have been material in their decision making on the application.  He felt that it was not appropriate to refuse the application because there was a risk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 141.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement/unilateral undertaking or earlier payment for the following contributions:-

• £733 per unit for recreation enhancements in lieu of on-site provision towards teenager play provision at ‘Donkey Field’ Rhydymwyn; and
• Ensuring that the properties are sold at 90% of the market value at time of sale if the market value is more than £135,000 then the financial appraisal shall be reassessed in order for the relevant discount market value to be applied; or
• The properties are rented at an affordable rent at the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rate for the area. 

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 October 2015 which was subject to a Section 106 (S106) agreement to ensure that he dwellings were made affordable either by selling at 70% market value or that the properties were let at an affordable rent at the Local Housing Allowance rate for the area.  During the application process, the applicant had incurred additional costs as he had needed to provide an updated Flood Consequences Assessment and because of this, he was now asking that the dwellings be sold at 90% of market value.  The Council had verified the costs submitted by the applicant and the officer was therefore proposing that the S106 agreement reflect that the dwellings be sold at 90% discount market value but include a clause that should the properties be valued at more than £135,000 then the market discount be increased incrementally from 10% to a maximum of 30%. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell asked what safeguards would be put in place to ensure that the properties were sold at open market prices.  The Housing & Planning Solicitor advised that the S106 agreement would reflect the market value and this figure would need to be agreed with the applicant and the Local Planning Authority.  If agreement could not be reached, the District Valuer would be asked to provide a market value figure.    

            Councillor Owen Thomas proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He sought clarification about the 19 properties that had been built in Rhydymwyn, all of which were affordable homes and queried whether a S106 agreement was needed on this proposal.  In response, the Planning Strategy Manager said that Rhydymwyn was a Category C Settlement where all new dwellings had to meet proven local need. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement/unilateral undertaking or earlier payment for the following contributions:-

• £733 per unit for recreation enhancements in lieu of on-site provision towards teenager play provision at ‘Donkey Field’ Rhydymwyn; and
• Ensuring that the properties are sold at 90% of the market value at time of sale if the market value is more than £135,000 then the financial appraisal shall be reassessed in order for the relevant discount market value to be applied; or
• The properties are rented at an affordable rent at the Local Housing Allowance (LHA) rate for the area. 

            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.

                        There were 25 members of the public and 1 member of the press in attendance.