Agenda, decisions and minutes

Councillor Ray Hughes declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the following applications because he was a School Governor at Castell Alun High School:-

Agenda item 7.2 – Outline application – Proposed re-development for the erection of 12 dwellings including demolition of existing outbuildings and creation of new access at Bank Farm, Lower Mountain Road, Penyffordd (052377)

            and    

Agenda item 7.6 – Renewal of outline planning permission 046361 to allow residential development at Former Laura Ashley Unit, Pontybodkin Hill, Leeswood (052599)

Councillor Clive Carver declared a personal interest in the following application because he lived in a property on Overlea Drive:-

Agenda item 7.8 – Removal of Condition No. 6 attached to Planning Permission Ref: 030805 at Overlea Drive, Hawarden (052429)

                        In line with the Planning Code of Practice, the following Councillors declared that they had been contacted on more than three occasions on agenda items 6 and 7.1:-

Councillors: Marion Bateman, Chris Bithell, Derek Butler, David Cox, Carol Ellis, David Evans, Jim Falshaw, Ron Hampson, Ray Hughes, Christine Jones, Richard Jones, Richard Lloyd, Mike Peers, Neville Phillips, Mike Reece, Gareth Roberts, David Roney, Carolyn Thomas, Owen Thomas and David Wisinger

Agenda item 6 – Planning application 052369 by Aldi Stores Limited for food store at Broughton Shopping Park

Agenda item 7.1 – General Matters – Full application for a foodstore (Use Class A1) and 5 three bedroom affordable houses (Use Class C3) with associated car parking, access, servicing and landscaping at Broughton Shopping Park, Broughton (052369)

Councillor Jim Falshaw referred to agenda item 052645 (Teapot Café & Sundawn Garden Centre, Llwybr Hir, Caerwys) and said that as he had expressed a view on the application without first indicating that it was his preliminary view, he would not vote on the application.  The Democracy & Governance Manager explained that Councillor Falshaw had agreed not to vote because he had predetermined his stance on the application.

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 29^th October and 12^th November 2014.

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

The draft minutes of the meetings of the Committee held on 29^th October and 12^th November 2014 had been circulated to Members with the agenda.

29^th October 2014

Councillor Owen Thomas felt that Councillor Jim Falshaw had misunderstood the proposal being voted on and that the record which indicated that Councillor Falshaw had voted for refusal of the application should be amended to a vote against refusal.  The Democracy & Governance Manager explained that Councillor Falshaw had not asked to alter the way he had voted and therefore the record could not be amended.

12^th November 2014

            Councillor Mike Peers referred to the second paragraph on page 18 and suggested that the words “albeit in separate agenda items” be included after the word “reported” on the second line.  He also suggested that the words “and on other sites in the Broughton locality” be included after the words “produced on the site” in the fourth line. 

            On being put to the vote, the amendments were agreed. 

            Councillor Jim Falshaw highlighted the fourth paragraph of minute number 94 on page 30 and explained that Councillor Clive Carver (the Local Member who had spoken at the meeting) had spoken to the Democracy & Governance Manager and Housing & Planning Solicitor on the issue.  Councillor Falshaw suggested that the following words be deleted:-

            “He referred to comments of a Civil Engineer with experience of drainage who had spoken at the Public Inquiry on the application and said that he gave particular weight to Condition 6.”

and replaced with:-

            “He referred to the Planning Inspector having introduced himself at the Public Inquiry as a Civil Engineer with experience in drainage; therefore Councillor Carver would give particular weight to his Condition 6”.

            The Housing & Planning Solicitor said that officers were satisfied with the proposed amendment. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to amend the minutes was CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

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

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

Report of Chief Officer (Governance) enclosed.

            That planning permission be granted subject to a Section 106 Agreement and to the conditions to be agreed under agenda item 7.1 at this meeting.  

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Governance) in respect of this application.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

                        The Democracy & Governance Manager detailed the background to the report and explained that following the vote to approve the application at the November 2014 meeting, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) advised that he would be seeking legal advice as he felt that the decision was a significant departure from policy.  The Democracy and Governance Manager detailed the procedure as reported in paragraph 2.03 where he had considered written representations from the proposer and seconder (Councillors Mike Lowe and Richard Lloyd) and the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).  The decision of the Democracy and Governance Manager that the decision reached by the Committee on 12^th November 2014 was a significant departure from policy and his reasons were detailed in paragraph 3.01.  The report was therefore back before the Committee to allow them to give further consideration as to whether planning application 052369 should be granted or refused. 

                        The Planning case officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the full application which included five affordable homes related to a site within the settlement boundary.  This was the former compound site and had been allocated in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for housing and the adjacent site had an outline planning permission for 24 dwellings.  The Council had recommended that this part be retained as green space to provide a buffer for the neighbouring residential properties but the UDP Inspector had felt that there was no reason why a residential site would not provide the same buffer.  The officer referred to Technical Advice Note 1: Joint Housing Land Availability Study and stated that as at April 2013, the Council only had a 4.1 year land supply which was below the required five year supply.  A recent Planning appeal for another site which was allocated for housing, but had a proposal for a petrol filling station, had been dismissed by the Inspector who concluded that the site was required for housing because of the deficiency in housing land supply.  Officers considered that the same principle should be applied to this application and the recommendation was therefore one of refusal.  Considerations on the retail impact of the development were reported in paragraphs 7.20 to 7.26.  A Noise Assessment had been submitted with the application and had been reviewed by the Public Protection Manager.  He had raised no objections to the siting of a food store subject to imposition of conditions for noise reduction measures, which would include a 2.5m high acoustic screen and a fully enclosed delivery bay, as set out in the Noise Assessment.  The officer added that the existing bund around the site would be enhanced. 

                        Mrs. J. Richards spoke against the application.  She spoke of the applications at the previous meeting where it had been implied that Aldi would only develop the store in Buckley if approval was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 106.

            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 or Unilateral undertaking covering the following contributions and requirements in respect of the five affordable dwellings:-

i.          contribution of £1,100 per dwelling in lieu of on-site open space provision for enhancements to open space provision in the locality

ii.         contribution of £12,257 for capacity improvements to Broughton Primary School which has less than 5% surplus spaces

iii.        clauses to ensure the dwellings are made affordable in perpetuity and are occupied in accordance with an approved allocations policy, to the immediate locality in the first instance

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) 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 explained that the report provided further information on the proposed conditions and Section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking to be applied to the development.  The times proposed by Aldi for opening hours and delivery times had been reduced by the officer following concerns from local residents.  Insufficient detail about the existing landscape bund had been provided with the application so a condition had been included for a landscaping scheme to be submitted.  The installation of an enhanced scheme of double glazing on the proposed dwellings was also included in the conditions. 

                        Councillor Derek Butler proposed the recommendation to grant permission in accordance with the heads of terms and conditions set out in paragraphs 6.03 and 6.04 which was duly seconded.  However, he felt that further conditions to transfer the bund to the neighbouring residents and for deciduous trees to alleviate the visual impact be included to address some of the concerns of the objector.  The Housing & Planning Solicitor advised that a request for the transfer of land could not be conditioned and the Development Manager indicated that as part of condition 18 for submission of a landscaping scheme a suitable mix of evergreen species could be required. 

                        Councillor Richard Jones suggested that the Local Member and/or adjacent Ward Member should be involved in any discussions about details of noise abatement schemes.  The Development Manager confirmed that this could be undertaken.  

                        In response to a query from Councillor Owen Thomas about the opening hours being restricted to 8pm, the Development Manager confirmed that this was an enforceable condition.    

            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 Section 106 or Unilateral undertaking covering the following contributions and requirements in respect of the five affordable dwellings:-

i.          contribution of £1,100 per dwelling in lieu of on-site open space provision for enhancements to open space provision in the locality

ii.         contribution of £12,257 for capacity improvements to Broughton Primary School which has less than 5% surplus spaces

iii.        clauses to ensure the dwellings are made affordable in perpetuity and are occupied in accordance with an approved allocations policy, to the immediate locality in the first instance

            That planning permission be granted subject to:-

·           the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment),

·           the three additional conditions requested by the Independent Planning Consultant (photographic survey, limit number of dwellings to 12 and implement permission within 2 years of approval)

·           the completion of a Section 106 Obligation to cover the payment of commuted sums in respect of Education Provision (in accordance with the provisions of SPG 23), on site play provision (in accordance with the provisions of LPG 13) and the construction of a footpath link between the site and the village of Penyffordd

·           the application being referred to Welsh Government under the Direction. 

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 themeeting.  Councillor Ray Hughes, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

                        The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) explained that for consistency with recent applications, the proposal had been assessed by an Independent Planning Consultant; his recommendation to approve the application was supported by the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).  He referred Members to paragraphs 7.06 and 7.07 where it was reported that a Direction remained in place directing the Council not to grant planning permission on application 050003 or “any development of the same kind as that which is the subject of that application on any site which forms part of, or includes the land to which that application relates”.  Therefore should the Committee grant approval of the application, it would have to be referred to Welsh Ministers under the Direction. 

                        Mr. Rhys Davies, detailed the background to the report and highlighted paragraph 1.03 where the main issues for consideration in determining the application were reported.  He highlighted the late observation on the issue of drainage and explained that a response had also been received from Mr. D. Parry who was the Chair of Penyffordd and Kinnerton Labour Group who felt that the proposal did not comply with policy.  He detailed the responses received to the consultation exercise which were in section 3 of the report and highlighted the site history section where all applications on the site were detailed.  Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust had asked that an additional condition be included that a photographic survey be carried out if the application was approved.  Mr. Davies said that the applicant had indicated that there had been material changes since the 2005 refusal of the called-in application by Welsh Government particularly on the issue of sustainability as bus stops were now in place outside the site and a footpath was proposed to link the site to Penyffordd.  Other factors included that the Council could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply and the site was now classified as previously developed land.  Light industrial permission had been implemented which was not the case in 2005 so that was a significant material change since the previous refusal.  He referred to Planning Policy Wales guidance about permitting sustainable developments which this site now was due to the provision of the bus stops, half hourly bus services and the proposed footpath link to Penyffordd.  Mr. Davies commented on an appeal decision in South Wales which was allowed for a site on the edge of a village which provided an idea of how policy for such sites was now viewed. 

                        Mr. Davies also spoke of an additional change in the approval of the strategic business park at Warren Hall in Broughton which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

That planning permission be refused on the grounds of the proposal being out of character with the streetscene, overdevelopment in terms of height and its impact on amenity, and flood risk issues.

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 15 December 2014.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report explaining that the application had been deferred from the 12^th November 2014 meeting in order for a site visit to be undertaken and to obtain comments from Welsh Water.  She referred the Committee to a number of late observations that had been received which included objections on the grounds of the 3 storey buildings being higher than the current dwellings in the area, whether the properties would be connected to a septic tank system and whether the New Inn was a listed building.  A petition of 218 signatures objecting to the proposal had also been received.  In response, the officer confirmed that the building was not listed.  Welsh Water had provided a sewer plan and the applicant’s agent had indicated that discussions with Welsh Water were being undertaken about connecting to the mains or a private treatment plant would be installed if this was not feasible.  The apartments would be in two blocks of two and three storey and because the site was within Zone C1, the proposals indicated that the ground floor of the development would be used solely for vehicle parking.  In response to a query from Queensferry Community Council about access to Boughton Brook, Natural Resources Wales (NRW) had provided a plan of how they could gain pedestrian and vehicular access when needed and had asked for an additional condition that access for NRW maintenance operatives to Boughton Brook be maintained in the future.   

            Mrs. S. Stevens spoke against the proposal as she felt it did not comply with Local Planning Guidance note 2 on Space around dwellings as the separation distances should be over 22 metres, which they were not.  The guidance did not relate to three storey properties but did cover differing height levels which indicated that the distances should be a minimum of 27 metres which would not be achieved.  She raised concern at the overlooking aspect from the living rooms on the first and second floors which would have an impact on the amenity and the building would overshadow the gardens of existing properties.  Mrs. Stevens felt that adequate screening could not be provided and that the proposals were not in keeping with the character of the area.  The drainage issues had not been resolved and the installation of a private treatment plant would not address the concerns raised.  She suggested that two storey buildings would reduce the impact on the area and added that there were no other three storey dwellings in the village. 

            Mr. E. Roberts, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He felt that the proposal complied with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in paragraph 2.01 of 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 15 December 2014.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and in referring Members to the late observations, explained that Natural Resources Wales had withdrawn their objection and therefore the reason for refusal in paragraph 2.02 should be omitted. 

            Mrs. L. Dainty spoke against the application.  She felt that the proposal would not enhance or harmonise with the area and would be more appropriate in an industrial area.  It would be out of character and screening would not address the concerns that it would impact on the visual amenity of the area.  It was felt that the amenity of the residents would be affected because of the opening hours and the noise that the business would create.  She said that traffic leaving the site would not be able to rejoin the A55 westerly direction without either going to junction 29 on the easterly side to rejoin the A55 or by using a small country lane and crossing a bridge.  This was a cause for concern along with the design of junction 29 which would require improvements for heavy goods vehicles to access. 

            Mrs. J. Coxon, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  She said that the site, which was enclosed on three sides with the fourth side being the A55, was currently a garden centre and café.  The proposal would allow an existing business to expand and would create eight new jobs.  Mrs. Coxon said that the site would be screened off from public view, would not have an impact on residential amenity or highway safety and complied with Policy EM4.  The concerns of NRW had been addressed and the proposal would significantly reduce the number of vehicle movements when compared with the current use.  

Councillor Jim Falshaw proposed approval of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He felt that the proposal would safeguard the future of the site and would allow the business to expand.  The site had been marketed since 2011 but there had been little interest in continuing the business as a café and garden centre.  The existing café building would be used as an office and the proposed building for this scheme would be on a smaller footprint than the existing garden centre.  The site was 2.3 metres from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) but would not have an effect on the AONB.  The scheme had been designed to ensure that concerns about potential contamination run off had been addressed. 

The Chairman advised Councillor Falshaw that as he had predetermined his position on the application and confirmed that he would not vote on the application, although he could speak as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment), with condition 16 being amended to include the provision of appropriate on-site parking for employees, and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation or Unilateral Undertaking to secure the following:-

-       Ensure the payment of £4,000 towards the Authority’s costs of consultation and making of a traffic regulation order to restrict on-street parking

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

            The officer detailed the background to the report and referred Members to the late observations where two additional conditions on landscaping were included.  He spoke of the main issues to consider which included the highway and wildlife implications and the effects upon the character and appearance of the area.  The proposed two access points were considered acceptable and the car parking provision was in accordance with the maximum standards in the Local Planning Guidance.  However there was a shortfall of nine in the number of places compared to the proposed number of employees and a travel plan had been requested as a condition if the application was approved, which would force the operator to consider other means of transport. 

            Mr. C. Sparrow spoke in support of the application and said that the land had been purchased due to the rapidly expanding business.  The building would be designed to create a modern comfortable building and local labour would be used during the construction of the building.  He referred to proposals for green travel plans and in noting the condition requested in the late observations, said that it was anticipated that employees would park on the site but he hoped that they would not be restricted from parking elsewhere if needed.                 

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that there were no grounds to refuse the application but raised concern about the parking problems in the area.  He felt that the production of a travel plan was a pointless exercise and suggested that future developers on the site consider parking underneath the building.  Councillor Richard Jones welcomed the proposal but concurred with Councillor Bithell about the problems of parking. 

            The Chairman exercised his discretion to allow the Local Member, Councillor David Mackie, to speak on the proposal.  Councillor Mackie felt that the parking situation in the whole area would get worse in the future and asked Members to include the condition that vehicles of users of the building must park within the site.

            Councillor Mike Peers said that there was a need to be satisfied that the users of the building did not park their vehicles on the road which would add to the already difficult parking problems.  The number of spaces provided in the proposal was insufficient for the proposed number of employees and Councillor Peers therefore welcomed the suggestion for an additional condition.  Councillor Richard Jones felt that the condition would not be enforceable and referred to the Section 106 for the payment of £4000 towards the consultation and making of a traffic regulation order to restrict on-street parking, which he felt would help to reduce the problem. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 111.

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) which includes the deletion of condition 7, and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation, Unilateral Undertaking or advance payment of £55,407 towards additional secondary school places/improvements of Castell Alun High School, Hope and a commuted sum of £16,500 towards the enhancement of an existing recreational area within Leeswood. 

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.  Councillor Ray Hughes, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and referred Members to the late observations where amendments to the agenda front sheet and conditions were reported.  He explained that this was the third renewal of outline planning permission application since 2003 and it was considered that the site could potentially accommodate 15 dwellings.  It was recommended that the timescale for the submission of a reserved matters application be restricted to 12 months (to the end of December 2015) to coincide with the end of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) lifespan.    

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that there was no reason to refuse the application but raised concern about the comments in paragraph 7.07 about other candidate site submissions coming forward within Leeswood and Coed Talon as part of the Local Development Plan (LDP) process.  He also suggested that the time limit for submission of a reserved matters application should be five years and not the 12 months suggested by the officer. 

            Councillor Carolyn Thomas sought clarification on the educational contributions for Castell Alun High School.  She felt that circumstances for places in the high school and Leeswood County Primary School could change upto the time of development and asked that the educational contribution be amended to cover both schools depending on surplus places when the development commenced.  She also asked whether a policy change could be considered. 

            Councillor Mike Peers referred to paragraph 7.08 and the suggested number of dwellings that the site could accommodate based on the Council’s guideline of a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare.  He also felt that the end date for the submission of a reserved matters application which was shown in paragraph 8.01 should also be included in the conditions detailed in the report. 

In response to the comments made, the officer said that the site was vacant and in a derelict condition.  This was the third application for renewal of outline permission and because the Council did not have a five year housing land supply, a 12 month deadline for submission of a reserved matters application was reasonable.  It was felt that this could encourage the applicant to progress with the site but if it was not going to come forward then alternative sites in the area could be considered in the LDP.  On the issue of educational contributions, it had been calculated that there was capacity at Leeswood Primary School and therefore this had not been included in the section 106 obligation.  The officer confirmed that the condition for the time limit for submission of a reserved matters application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

            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 requirement for the affordable housing provision and the open space and education contributions as required by 048855 and 052388. 

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

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

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the proposal, for four bedroomed properties, was for:-

i. the substitution of house type on previously approved Phase 1 plot 38

ii. substitution of sub-station with additional dwelling

iii. erection of 2 dwellings (re-plan of plots 19 and 20 Phase 2).

There were adequate separation distances between the existing and proposed dwellings and no objections had been received to the proposals.  

            Councillor Chris Bithell 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 requirement for the affordable housing provision and the open space and education contributions as required by 048855 and 052388. 

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

            That planning permission 048032, as amended by permission 050805 be amended by the deletion of Condition 6 in its entirety. 

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 it had been deferred from the meeting on 12^th November 2014 to allow advice to be provided by Dwr Cymu/Welsh Water in relation to the upgrade works that were presently being undertaken.  The information had been sought and had been summarised within paragraph 7.08 of the report. 

            Councillor David Mackie spoke against the proposal on behalf of Hawarden Community Council to express their concerns about future drainage problems in the Mancot and Pentre areas if the condition was removed.    

            Councillor Derek Butler proposed the recommendation to delete Condition 6 in its entirety which was duly seconded.

            The Local Member, Councillor Clive Carver, spoke against the proposal to remove the condition.  He explained that at the Planning Committee meeting on 12^th November 2014, he had stressed the fact that the Planning Inspector, who had introduced himself as a Civil Engineer with experience in drainage, had been explicit in his Condition 6.  It stated that no development should commence until a scheme of improvement to the off-site drainage in Mancot Lane had been submitted to and approved in writing by the localplanning authority.  Councillor Carver felt that removal of Condition 6 at this stage was premature as the required works had not been completed and he added that to date, 17 dwellings on the site were occupied which was in breach of Condition 6.  He had discussed the issue with Planning officers in July 2014 and was told that Welsh Water had confirmed that they would not have any concerns regarding potentially overloading the existing system if no more than ten properties were connected to the drainage system.  However, Welsh Water had had now advised that they would manage potential flooding issues during construction works by undertaking over pumping of flows to regulate flows within the system (this was reported at paragraph 7.08).  Councillor Carver felt that Redrow wanted the condition removing so that they would not continue to breach it even though the requirements had not been met.  He also referred to a resident in Saltney who had breached a planning condition in relation to the height of a fence and had been ordered to pay costs as well as being a conditional discharge and compared this to Redrow appearing to be breaching the condition without any penalties.  He felt that consistency on this issue was important. 

            Councillor Mike Peers felt that part of the reason for deferral, which was to ask Welsh Water what would happen if the works were not completed by 31^st March 2015, had not been responded to.  However, it was reported in paragraph 7.08 (e) that the works would be completed by early February 2015.  He felt that the condition should not be removed until the works had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 114.

            That the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) be given delegated authority to re-negotiate the clause within the existing Section 106 Agreement entered into in connection with planning permission ref. 045999, to allow the land to be developed for community use (subject to the relevant planning permission being obtained).

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

            The Development Manager detailed the background to the report explaining that part of the Section 106 Agreement following granting of planning permission in August 2009 required Morrisons to transfer a plot of land to the Council for the erection of a new library building to serve Saltney.  The agreement required the land to be transferred back to Morrisons if the library building had not been built within seven years of the date of the permission.  The report sought agreement to renegotiate the Section 106 Agreement with Morrisons to allow the land to be retained by the Council beyond the August 2016 cut-off providing that it was used for some benefit of the Community.  A meeting had taken place about a prospective use and the Town Council had suggested a memorial garden.      

            Councillor Richard Lloyd proposed the recommendation in the report which was duly seconded.  He queried who would pay for the transfer and maintenance of the land and suggested that a First World War commemorative bench be included in the proposed Memorial Garden.  The Development Manager responded that details of payment could be discussed with Morrisons. 

            RESOLVED:

            That the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) be given delegated authority to re-negotiate the clause within the existing Section 106 Agreement entered into in connection with planning permission ref. 045999, to allow the land to be developed for community use (subject to the relevant planning permission being obtained).

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

            RESOLVED:

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

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following agenda item which was considered to be exempt by virtue of paragraph 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended). 

RESOLVED:

That the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following agenda item which was considered to be exempt by virtue of paragraph 16 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended). 

That in light of legal advice, the Local Planning Authority should proceed on the basis of the recommendation contained in the officer’s report.  

The Housing & Planning Solicitor introduced the report to update and advise the Committee in light of advice received from the Local Planning Authority’s Barrister. 

Councillor Richard Jones proposed the recommendation in the report which was duly seconded. 

RESOLVED:

That in light of legal advice, the Local Planning Authority should proceed on the basis of the recommendation contained in the officer’s report.  

                        There were 30 members of the public and 2 members of the press in attendance.