Agenda, decisions and minutes

The Principal Solicitor explained that following the Annual County Council meeting held on 14 May 2013, the membership of the Committee had changed; he read out the list of Members on the Committee.  He also explained that Councillor D.E. Wisinger had been re-appointed as Chairman for the Committee but that the appointment of a Vice-Chairman was required.     

That Councillor Dunbar be Vice-Chairman for the Planning and Development Control Committee for the ensuing year.   

The Chairman sought nominations for the appointment of Vice-Chairman.  Councillor R.C. Bithell nominated Councillor A.I. Dunbar and this was duly seconded.  Councillor R. Hughes nominated Councillor P.G. Heesom and this was also duly seconded. 

On being put to the vote, Councillor Dunbar was appointed Vice-Chairman of the Committee. 

RESOLVED:

That Councillor Dunbar be Vice-Chairman for the Planning and Development Control Committee for the ensuing year.   

Councillors A.I. Dunbar, W. Mullin and M.J. Peers declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following application and Councillors D. Butler, M. Lowe and W.O. Thomas declared a personal interest in the following application:-

Agenda item 6.3 - Full application – Construction and operation of the Beluga Line Station and associated development (including preparatory earthworks) at British Aerospace Ltd, Chester Road, Broughton (050597)

Councillor D.E. Wisinger declared a personal interest in the following application:-

Agenda item 6.6 – Full application – Erection of a car garage with store room above and conversion of existing garage into games room at White House, Sealand Road, Sealand (050339)

In relation to those Members who had declared interests in relation to the Airbus site in Broughton which was the subject of application number 050597, the Principal Solicitor invited them to consider whether or not it might be appropriate to seek a dispensation from the Standards Committee to enable them to speak and vote on future applications at the site.

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

The Chairman explained that there would be a slight change in the order of business to bring forward agenda items 6.7 to 6.10 (the appeal decisions).  As he had declared an interest in agenda item 6.6, he would be vacating the chair and leaving the Chamber for the consideration of the item. 

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 17 April 2013.

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

The draft minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 17 April 2013 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

Councillor M.J. Peers referred to the fifth line of the third paragraph on minute number 196 and suggested that the words ‘vehicular traffic’ be added before the words ‘movement between’.  He also suggested that the word ‘specification’ be added after the word ‘standard’ in the third line on the second paragraph on page 11 and that the word ‘equivalent’ be added before the word ‘properties’ in the fourth line of the paragraph.  

RESOLVED:

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

            That application 6.2 be deferred. 

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

Councillor W.O. Thomas proposed that the following application be deferred to undertake discussions with the applicant about the roofline:-

Agenda item 6.2 - Full application – Extension to the first floor above existing single storey flat roofed rear extension at Foel Awel, 2 Ffordd y Llan, Cilcain (050620)

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

            RESOLVED:

            That application 6.2 be deferred. 

That planning permission be refused for the reasons 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 13 May 2013.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Corrections to two paragraphs of the report were circulated at the meeting.   

The officer detailed the background to the report explaining that this was a resubmission of application 049152 which had been dismissed on appeal following a public inquiry. She advised that the main issue to consider was whether this application addressed all of the issues raised by the Inspector, which were summarised on page 32 of the report.  The Inspector had considered that the development would constitute inappropriate development in the green barrier and its open character and appearance would be harmed, but as very exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated, that harm was outweighed by the need for gypsy and traveller sites. 

However, the Inspector was concerned that, due to the site’s location adjacent to the A55, this might give rise to unacceptable living conditions for the site occupants with regard to the effects of noise and air pollution and he had no evidence before him to decide otherwise.  The Inspector had therefore concluded that planning permission should not yet be granted due to the unsatisfactory living conditions which the site might provide because of traffic noise and pollution.  He had referred to advice in Planning Policy Wales about noise levels and to Technical Advice Note (TAN) 11 Noise which pointed out that the weight to be given to such matters might be affected by other considerations, such as the need for the proposed development. 

Turning to the current application, the officer advised that the Head of Public Protection had considered that the noise levels which had been measured in a one day exercise on behalf of the applicants did not provide sufficient data.  She added that the barrier which was proposed would not reduce the noise and could move the level into category C or D (shown in the table on page 40 of the report) rather than in level B which had been indicated in the application.    

An Air Quality Assessment had been submitted with the application.  There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that any pollutants on the site would not lead to unacceptable living conditions which could adversely affect the health of the site occupants, which would be contrary to Policy EWP12 of the Flintshire Unitary Development Plan.  The site was crossed by a 33,000 volt overhead line and Scottish Power were concerned that any structure or bund under the line would reduce the required clearance of 5.8 metres for road and 5.2 metres for other locations and increase the potential for persons to come into contact with, or be close to, the line as this was likely to result in serious injury or death.

 Independent advice had been sought about the impact on the green barrier.  On the basis of that advice,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

            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.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.  Councillors A.I. Dunbar, W. Mullin, M.J. Peers and W.O. Thomas, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

            Councillor A.M. Halford 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.

(a)       That the submission, content and conclusions of the feasibility study regarding the intended demolition of the Custom House Lane CP school be noted; and

(b)       That a photographic record/ catalogue of the historic part of the building be undertaken prior to its demolition.      

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application. 

The Development Manager detailed the background to the report and explained that the Committee had considered a feasibility study on 23 May 2012 (not 18 April 2012 as reported) to justify the demolition of the Custom HouseLane JuniorCP School, including the historic former NorthopBoard School building.  Members had then resolved not to accept the development brief believing that  further consideration needed to be given to socio-economic factors in relation to future uses of the historic part of the school building.  A further feasibility study had since been submitted, where nine alternative uses had been considered but none of these were found to be viable.  Paragraph 6.04 of the report stated  that the building had suffered from water ingress and the ongoing security and maintenance costs amounted to £14,000 per annum.

The Development Manager advised that the condition on the original planning permission for the new school had been satisfied through the submission of the feasibility study and any decision as to the retention or otherwise of the former NorthopBoard School building lay outside any planning control.  Nevertheless, he added that the information in the feasibility study strengthened the case for demolition of the building.

            Councillor A.I. Dunbar proposed the recommendation to note the submission, content and conclusions of the feasibility study regarding the intended demolition of the Custom House Lane CP school.  He said that every effort had been made to find an alternative use for the building but this had not been forthcoming.  Councillor R.C. Bithell said that it had been the intention of the Committee to explore further uses for the building and as the feasibility study had not identified viable uses, demolition was the correct decision. 

            Councillor P.G. Heesom said that it was a fact that an alternative use could not be found and that the funds to maintain the building were not available but asked if work could be undertaken to catalogue old buildings such as this and protect or retain some part of them.     

            RESOLVED:

(a)       That the submission, content and conclusions of the feasibility study regarding the intended demolition of the Custom House Lane CP school be noted; and

(b)       That a photographic record/ catalogue of the historic part of the building be undertaken prior to its demolition.      

            That a Special Planning & Development Control Committee be convened to determine application 050125. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application. 

The officer explained that the report was to seek authority for the holding of  a special Planning & Development Control Committee to determine planning application 050125 which was the redevelopment of a strategic brownfield site for an employment-led mixed-use development (the second part of the Northern Gateway site). 

            Councillor R.C. Bithell proposed the recommendation to convene a Special Planning and Development Control Committee meeting to determine the application, which was duly seconded.

            Councillor M.J. Peers queried whether there would be a need to convene a further special meeting to consider the reserved matters as this application was for outline permission.  In response to a further question from Councillor Peers, the officer explained that the application had been accompanied by a Masterplan which gave an indication of different uses for the site. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager explained that the application for the other part of the Northern Gateway had been dealt with in a similar way so a special meeting had been requested for consistency.  If the application was approved, a reserved matters application would then be submitted. 

            Councillor W.O. Thomas asked whether the site was part of the Deeside Enterprise Zone.  Councillor P.G. Heesom raised issues which had taken place recently which included the establishment of the Enterprise Zone and the Deeside Partnership.  He raised concern about the infrastructure, highlighting the A55 in particular.  He asked that the evidence of these issues be provided when the report was submitted to Committee.   

            Councillor A.M. Halford said that the other part of the site was discussed at a special meeting of the Committee and it was appropriate that a special meeting also be held for this application. 

            The local Member, Councillor C.M. Jones, said that Members had asked to be included in the applications and this was a way of doing so.  She concurred that a special meeting was the way forward.  

            The Head of Planning said that the impact on the infrastructure was not ready to bring to Committee yet but would be presented when it was available. 

            RESOLVED:

            That a Special Planning & Development Control Committee be convened to determine application 050125. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Chairman, Councillor D.E. Wisinger, having earlier declared an interest in the following application, left the meeting prior to its discussion.  The Vice-Chairman chaired the remainder of the meeting. 

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 officer explained that the application had been deferred from the meeting on 20 February 2013 to allow reconsultation on amended plans to be carried out and the neighbour objection had now been withdrawn.  The report had been updated accordingly. He also referred to the late observations where the comments of D? Cymru/Welsh Water were reported.      

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

            In response to a question from Councillor W.O. Thomas, the Development Manager said that any use of the site not ancillary to the existing dwelling would be monitored.  Councillor R. Lloyd pointed out that paragraph 7.02 of the report mistakenly referred to ‘east’ in place of ‘west’

            The local Member, Councillor C.M. Jones, thanked the case officer for her work in resolving the issues and welcomed the monitoring of the site for business use. 

            RESOLVED:

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

There were 28 members of the public and 4 members of the press in attendance.