Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) presented at the Planning and Development Control Committee meeting held on 25^th February 2015.

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application.  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 explained that the application had been permitted in February 2015 subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 (S106) obligation which included an education contribution for Castell Alun High School.  Following the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations from April 2015, it was no longer possible to request a S106 obligation if there had been five or more obligations for an infrastructure project or type of infrastructure since April 2010.  As there were five such S106 obligations for educational contributions for Castell Alun High School, a revised recommendation to remove this element from the S106 was sought.  The officer had considered refusing the application but it was considered that the development would not have a significant impact on the affected infrastructure.   

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He felt that the report highlighted a problem with the policy for S106 agreements/CIL but that as the application complied with policy it could not be refused.  Councillor Chris Bithell concurred and said that the nine pupils that the development of the site was anticipated to give rise to would be added to the figure of 125 over-capacity at the school, which would bring the total to 134 pupils.  The amount of contributions that were shown in the table at paragraph 6.05 totalled £269,107 but Councillor Bithell maintained that this was not a sufficient amount to build a classroom.  He commented on the cumulative effect but in agreeing that the application could not be refused said that approval could result in children not being able to attend the school in the future. 

            It was suggested by Councillor Richard Jones that the application should be refused because of the effect on local schools as the S106 monies could not be obtained.  Councillor Owen Thomas concurred that the amount of contributions already requested was insufficient to build a new classroom and suggested that a change to the policy was required.  Councillor Derek Butler felt that policies were being imposed on local authorities and that representations should be made to Welsh Government to express the concerns that had been raised. 

            Councillor Carol Ellis felt that the Education Service and children would suffer as a result of the CIL regulations and the inability to request further monies through a S106 agreement.  She spoke of a similar example in Buckley and raised concern that some developers had to make contributions and others did not.  Councillor Ellis suggested that a system should be in place to allow the monies to be pooled for projects for the benefit of children in Flintshire and added that a challenge should be made through the Planning Strategy Group and the Leadership of the Council for the policy and regulations to be changed. 

            In response to a query from Councillor Bithell, the Housing & Planning Solicitor advised that the CIL Regulations applied to the whole of the UK.  The Planning Strategy Manager said that Education was devolved to Welsh Government but this was a planning matter for the infrastructure of schools and was a law that was UK wide.  The policy that would allow pooling of monies for educational contributions could be delivered once there was a CIL charging schedule in place. However, a Local Development Plan needed to be in place before a CIL charging schedule could be delivered.  He explained that the CIL regulations came into effect in April 2015 for S106 agreements backdated to April 2010.  He understood Councillor Jones’ request to refuse the application but approval of the proposal would not have a significant enough impact to justify refusal.  The Planning Strategy Manager spoke of the work that was being undertaken on S106 obligations to ensure that requests for contributions related to a specific project. 

            Councillor Jones felt that consistency was not being applied when comparing this application to the site at Babylon Fields where a contribution had been requested from the developer.  He felt that changes to policy would only be considered if local authorities started to refuse applications where S106 monies could not be requested.  In response, the Planning Strategy Manager said that resources other than new classrooms needed to be considered along with a smarter way of working to identify specific projects within schools to ensure that monies could be requested through a S106 Obligation.  In referring to the contributions that had already been requested, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) reminded Members that the introduction of the regulations from April 2015 prevented further requests for obligations for provision of an infrastructure project/type of infrastructure if five or more had already been sought and added that some of the S106 obligations listed in the report may not have been possible if the applications had been submitted after April 2015.                  

                        The officer reminded Members that the site was allocated for residential development in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and therefore planning for increases in school numbers as a result of such developments should have been identified at an earlier stage. 

                        Councillor Bithell reiterated his earlier comments that approaches needed to be made to Westminster about reviewing restrictions to S106 obligations because of the introduction of the CIL regulations and to ask WG to amend the proposals as soon as possible.  The Planning Strategy Manager added that the means to address the restrictions was to have a CIL charging schedule in place but this could not be undertaken until the LDP had been adopted. 

                        In summing up, Councillor Roberts commented on the frustrations that Members had expressed and on the need to be ‘smarter’ in identifying provision of specific infrastructure projects that required funding from S106 agreements.  He spoke about developers paying set amounts regardless of the size or location of a development and added that he felt that significant costs would be awarded against the Council if the applicant was to appeal a decision of refusal.               

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) presented at the Planning and Development Control Committee meeting held on 25^th February 2015.

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