Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor I. Dunbar declared a personal interest in the following application due to applicant being a friend of the family:-

Agenda item 6.3 - Full Application – Erection Of A Dwelling At Land Side Of Talossamme, Abbots Lane, Penyffordd (049790)

Councillor N. Phillips declared a personal interest in the following application due to being related to the applicant:-

Agenda item 6.4 - Full Application – Alterations To An Existing Agricultural Access On Land At Llinegr Hill, Ffynnongroyw (049849)

Councillors I. Dunbar, C.A. Ellis and C.A. Thomas declared a personal interest in the following application due to being related to employees of Airbus:-

Agenda Item 6.7 - Full Application – Additional Use Class B1 In Existing Buildings At British Aerospace Airbus Limited, Chester Road, Broughton (049821)

Councillor M.J. Peers declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application due to family members being employees of Airbus:-

Agenda Item 6.7 - Full Application – Additional Use Class B1 In Existing Buildings At British Aerospace Airbus Limited, Chester Road, Broughton (049821)

Councillor D.I. Mackie declared a personal interest in the following application as he lived near the application site:-

Agenda item 6.8 - Outline Application Seeking Approval Of Access And Scale – Erection Of Detached Dwelling At Earlscroft, Aston Hill, Ewloe (048746)

            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 25^th July 2012.

Accuracy

            Councillor M.J. Peers referred to the fifth line of the second paragraph on page 20 and suggested that the words ‘at the late observations stage’ be added after the word ‘received.

            Councillor Peers also referred to the third line of the second paragraph on page 21 and suggested that the words ‘this was’ be deleted and replaced with the words ‘the proposed extension was’. 

Matters arising

            Following a comment from Councillor C.A. Thomas on bullet point 8 on page 7 about the establishment of a management company for the open space areas and whether the site could be offered for adoption to the Council, the Democracy & Governance Manager said that the transfer of land to the Council could not be legally required.  Councillor Thomas said that it was of great concern to Members and spoke of two sites where the establishment of a management company had not worked. 

RESOLVED:

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

That the following application be deferred:-  

Agenda item 6.5 -  Full application – Siting of 18 no. static caravans at Pennant Park Golf Club, Saithfynnon, Whitford (049812)   

The Head of Planning advised that deferment of the following application was recommended:

Agenda item 6.5 -  Full application – Siting of 18 no. static caravans at Pennant Park Golf Club, Saithfynnon, Whitford (049812) - to allow for consultation with Whitford Community Council. 

On being put to the vote, consideration of the application was deferred. 

RESOLVED:

That application 049812 be deferred. 

That the request to vary condition 15 be refused. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The Development Manager detailed the background to the report and the site history.  He reminded Members that the outline planning permission was still extant and that the reserved matters approved in July 2008 included the complete road system to serve the site, including the access onto Prince of Wales Avenue. The separate reserved matters approval for 132 dwellings, granted in 2012, was the one to which Condition 15 applied.  He referred to the Traffic Impact Assessment that had been requested and which had been assessed by an independent Transport Consultancy  and it was the opinion of Planning and Highways officers that any highway reason for the condition could not be sustained. This left the amenity reason which again could not be sustained in the opinion of officers. The Development Manager drew the attention of Members to the late observations sheet, advising that if condition 15 should be removed that a Section 106 obligation be required, to restore the need for the highway contribution regarding traffic calming on Prince of Wales Avenue.

            Mr. J. Yorke spoke against the application to remove the barrier.  He said that the Committee had agreed to put the barriers in place and added that nothing had changed since that decision.  He commented on the Traffic Impact Assessment and referred to an email from 2004 which indicated that Prince of Wales Avenue was not fit for purpose as an access for the site.  He spoke of other sites which had barriers in place to prevent rat runs being created and said that if the barriers were removed this would allow traffic to bypass the traffic problems in Flint and use Prince of Wales Avenue as a rat run.  He felt that Anwyl Homes Limited had not thought about the safety of the residents of Prince of Wales Avenue and he urged Members to refuse the application to maintain the safety of residents. 

            Mr. S. Goodwin, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the introduction of the barriers had been imposed by the Committee against officer recommendation and added that it was contrary to the outline permission which had been granted.  He said that the section 106 agreement and the development brief required three points of access to the site and included Prince of Wales Avenue as one of the access points. He indicated that it was intended to start on site within the next few months and there were no highway or amenity grounds to maintain condition 15. Mr. Goodwin said that the objectors had indicated that they did not want to hold up the development of the site, but added that they kept putting obstacles forward which did not allow work to commence. 

            Councillor R.C. Bithell  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

That planning permission be granted subject to the:-

(a)       conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning;

(b)       removal of conditions 8 and 9 and the introduction of a new condition 8 as detailed in the late observations;

(c)        inclusion of condition 5 from application 049790 – agenda item 3 (foul flows only permitted to discharge to the 150 mm public combined sewer in Abbotts Lane); and

(d)       inclusion of a condition for screening.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 3^rd September 2012.  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 sheet and the changes to the recommendation.  Planning permission had been granted on appeal in 2009 and as the circumstances had not significantly changed, the recommendation was for approval of renewal of the outline permission.  The inspector at the appeal had requested that the dwelling be single storey and Welsh Water, the Environment Agency and the Inspector had not raised any concerns about drainage. 

Mr. D. Owen spoke against the application.  He said that the application did not comply with the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and that it was an extreme case of tandem development.  The reduction in the garden space would diminish the amenity of neighbouring properties and the building of the four bedroom dwelling would exacerbate the drainage problems.  He felt that the proposal would only benefit the applicant and urged the Committee to support the UDP and refuse the application. 

Mr. N. Price, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the application had been granted on appeal in 2009 and that as nothing had changed since then, that the application should be approved today.  There had been problems with sewerage in the past but referred to correspondence from Welsh Water which indicated that they had no objections to the foul flow going into the public sewer.  The width of the driveway was adequate for use by emergency vehicles and he hoped that the Committee would approve the application. 

Councillor P.G. Heesom proposed the officer’s recommendation for approval with additional condition which was duly seconded.  The additional condition suggested was for an adequate screening scheme so that the dwelling would not be overbearing on neighbouring properties. 

The local Member, Councillor C. Hinds, spoke against the application.  She said that the previous application had been refused by Committee but had been overturned by the Inspector, which she felt was an insult to those who had backed the refusal.  She felt that the proposal was not in keeping with the other properties in the area.  The owners of Graigwen were not able to use their front door during periods of heavy rain so the access from their property would be onto the driveway for the proposed new dwelling, which she felt would be dangerous.  She raised concerns about the drainage issues and said that she had evidence that there were significant problems with sewerage around the development site which had been ongoing for a number of years.  Councillor Hinds asked that the application be deferred to allow for the completion of remedial works in the area by Welsh Water before the work on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

That planning permission be granted subject to the:-

(a)       inclusion of a ‘Grampian Style’ condition;

(b)       conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning; and

(c)        removal of conditions 11 and 12 and the introduction of a new condition 11 as detailed in the late observations.

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 3^rd September 2012.  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.  Councillor I. Dunbar, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

The officer detailed the background to the report and said that the additional dwelling would not lead to any significant flooding in the area.  The proposed height and distance from other properties were sufficient to not cause any loss of light.  Permitted development rights would be removed so the Authority would have control over future changes to the property to protect local residents.  It was considered that the dwelling would not have a detrimental impact and that Welsh Water had no objections to the scheme. 

Mr. D. Owen spoke against the application saying that as this was a new application it could be dealt with differently. It was an extreme case of tandem development which was contrary to the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).  He spoke of the front door of Graigwen which could not be used in bad weather and the safety issue that this would cause for small children.  He felt that the problems with drainage would be exacerbated by the dwelling and that the development would have a detrimental impact on other residents because of the obtrusive gable ends which he felt should be reduced.  He urged the Committee to refuse the application but added that if they were minded to approve it, that they reduce the size of the dwelling. 

Mr. D. Evans, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that provision had been made for soakaways which would exclude all rainwater from the drain and said that the driveway was wide enough for emergency vehicles to use if required.  He had endeavoured to meet design guidelines and the application complied with the UDP and with the decision of the Inspector for a single storey dwelling. 

Councillor C.A. Thomas proposed deferment of the application, which was duly seconded.  She was unhappy with the comments of Welsh Water as the local engineer had been called out a number of occasions due to significant problems in the area.  She felt that they were only taking into account that it was a single dwelling and were not considering the problems which were already occurring in the area.  Councillor A.M. Halford supported deferment due to the problems of drainage and the safety of the children in the neighbouring property. 

Councillor R.B. Jones felt that deferment could not be supported as the previous application had been approved.  Councillor Peers asked if it was possible to determine the application but to impose a condition that no work was to commence on the site before the required work was completed by Welsh Water.  Councillor D. Cox  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 3^rd September 2012.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report explaining that the proposal was to upgrade the existing agricultural access to highway standard agricultural access requirements, thus improving it in terms of highway safety. 

            Mr. W. Jones spoke against the application.  He said that this was the fifth in a series of applications, all of which had been refused and dismissed on appeal.  He said that this was a special landscape area and to alter the access would detract from the character of the site.  The removal of the hedge would have a detrimental impact and he believed that this application did not comply with policy GEN1 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).  The existing entrance had been used for a significant number of years and he urged Members to refuse the application. 

            Mr. P. Eyton-Jones, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He commented on the difficulty in accessing the land through the current access due to the steep drop in the land and said that this access would improve the safety aspect.  He said that some of the objections indicated that the land was to be developed but he said that this was not the case in the current application, which he urged Members to approve. 

            Councillor W.O. Thomas proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that the current access was dangerous and said that the proposal would improve the access to the site.  

Councillor R.C. Bithell said that he understood the comments of the objectors but that this application was only to improve the access to the field and that what might happen in the future could not be taken into account.  Councillor P.G. Heesom spoke of concerns on the current access and added that the perceived future use was not a material consideration.  Councillor C.A. Thomas asked for confirmation that the County Ecologist had been consulted on the proposal. 

In response to comments made, the officer said that the previous applications had been refused on policy grounds and that that this proposal complied with policy.  He confirmed that the County Ecologist had been consulted. 

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning. 

That planning permission be granted subject to the additional condition reported in the late observations, the requested condition about hours of working and subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 3^rd September 2012.  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 amended plans had been received from the applicant as a result of concerns of officers and residents.  He highlighted paragraph 7.09 where it was reported that the proposed changes would comply with Council’s Planning Guidance on Space Around Dwellings. 

            Ms. A. Snook, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  She explained that the request for changes in the house type was in response to market demands and would not result in an increase in the number of plots on the site.  She added that new house types were not being introduced as the house types proposed were already on other parts of the site.  On the concerns which had previously been raised about drainage, Ms. Snook said that work had been completed and added that the applicant had contributed £100,000 to the cost of the works.  The application complied with planning policy and she requested that the Members approve the application. 

            Councillor A.M. Halford proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  She raised concern about a lack of enforcement when 22 families had moved into the site before the drainage issue had been completed and queried whether there were any conditions relating to the ransom strip. 

            The local Member, Councillor C.A. Ellis, spoke against the application, as she felt that the proposal would result in an extensive change and would have a detrimental impact on the properties Dovecote, The Chimneys and Field Farm as the orientation of the dwellings would change.  She had been told the drainage issues had been addressed but spoke of the 22 properties which had been occupied before the upgrade had been completed.  She felt that the enforcement issues were yet to be resolved.  Councillor Ellis asked for clarification on legend H36 which was included in the original planning permission and whether it had been included in application 046845.  There would be significant changes to the amenity of the occupants of The Chimneys if this application was approved and she felt that it would set a precedent for the rest of the site. 

            Councillor C.A. Thomas suggested that a condition be included about the hours of working as residents had indicated that work commenced on the site at 7.30am on Saturday mornings.  Councillor Halford indicated that she would include this in her proposal to approve the application. 

            In response to comments made, the officer said that it was acknowledged that the layout was significantly different to what had previously been approved but that the changes resulted in the dwellings following the building line of what was already in place.  The drainage issues  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Councillor M.J. Peers who had earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

The Development Manager introduced the item, referring to an earlier application which had been the subject of a site visit in view of concerns over traffic and residential amenity. He pointed out that on the current application acess was onto the airfield site and that a condition was proposed preventing use of the private road onto Manor Lane. Councillor P.G. Heesom proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded. 

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning. 

That the resolution in respect of the provisions of the Section 106 agreement relating to the site be amended to allow for the commuted sum in lieu of on site affordable home provision to be delivered in the manner set out in the report. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  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 an amendment to the recommendation in paragraph 7.01 was reported. 

Councillor R.C. Bithell felt that the money should be held by the Authority as he felt that there was an increased risk of the money going missing if it was held by the applicant.  In response, the Head of Planning said that a significant amount of work had been undertaken on Section 106 agreements and that there were now mechanisms in place to ensure that the money would be accounted for. 

            Councillor A.M. Halford proposed the recommendation to vary the requirements of the Section 106 Agreement which was duly seconded. 

RESOLVED:

That the resolution in respect of the provisions of the Section 106 agreement relating to the site be amended to allow for the commuted sum in lieu of on site affordable home provision to be delivered in the manner set out in the report. 

That the decision of the inspector to allow the appeal be noted.

The Head of Planning and the Planning Strategy Manager commented on key points within the Inspector’s decision letter, particularly with regard to the flexible approach to affordable housing.  Councillor C.A. Thomas referred to the play area and highlighted paragraph 6.03 and suggested that for future applications, play provision in a more central part of the site be considered.  Councillor P.G. Heesom felt that more information was required on the affordable housing element. 

            In response to a comment from Councillor M.J. Peers on paragraph 6.01, the Head of Planning said that the wording was the interpretation of the inspector.  He added that the appeal decision would be referred to Planning Protocol Working Group for discussion.   

RESOLVED:

That the decision of the inspector to allow the appeal be noted.

(a)       That the decision of the inspector to allow the appeal be noted; and

(b)       That a letter be sent to the Minister to raise the concern of Members on the decision made by the Inspector.

The Head of Planning advised that officers had written to the inspector about the decision which had been reached.  He highlighted in particular the substitute condition 2 suggested by the Inspector which the Head of Planning felt would cause great practical difficulties in enforcing.  The decision of the Inspector also referred to the view of local Members being swayed by third parties in the reaching of the decision but the Head of Planning indicated that this application had been determined by delegated powers and had therefore not been considered by Committee. 

            In response to a query from Councillor D. Butler, the Senior Planning Officer explained that a response was still awaited to the letter which had been sent to the Inspector. 

            Councillor R.C. Bithell suggested that a letter be sent to the Minister to make him aware of the concerns which had been raised.  

RESOLVED:

(a)       That the decision of the inspector to allow the appeal be noted; and

(b)       That a letter be sent to the Minister to raise the concern of Members on the decision made by the Inspector.

(a)       That the decision of the inspector to allow the appeal be noted; and

(b)       That this decision be included in the letter to be sent to the Minister. 

the Development Manager detailed the background to the appeal, whereby the building was initially submitted as a single storey garage but had been laid out as a suite of offices with space at first floor level. He said that the Inspector had decided the building was acceptable in visual terms but conditioned that it be ancillary to the main dwelling, which it was unlikely to be.  He added that it made it difficult for enforcement as once the building was used as an office it would have to be monitored to decide if a change of use had occurred. 

RESOLVED:

(a)       That the decision of the inspector to allow the appeal be noted; and

(b)       That this decision be included in the letter to be sent to the Minister. 

The meeting commenced at 1.00 pm and ended at 4.12 pm.

There were 13 members of the public and 2 members of the press in attendance.