Agenda item

            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.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report, explaining that a previous application had been approved on this site as part of a Section 106 (S106) obligation because the Category B settlement had exceeded its growth for the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) period.  However, the applicant had not signed the S106 and the proposal was therefore refused under delegated powers.  This application was a resubmission of that proposal but in view of the date of the UDP there was no longer a requirement to comply with policy HSG3 and therefore approval of the application was recommended. 

            Mr. I. Warlow spoke against the application which, he advised, he had also done on the previous application for this site.  He felt that the plans had not shown how close the site was to the properties at 35 and 37 Wood Lane.  He raised concern about the significant excavation that would be required as this site was elevated by six feet and if groundwork was not carried out, the ground floor rooms would be at the same height as his first floor rooms.  The side windows would also overlook his daughter’s bedroom window.  There would be light and noise pollution on neighbouring properties as a result of the application and concern had been expressed about the ability to comply with condition 10.  He added that the owners of number 37 had been asked to sign a contract to indicate that they would not object to the proposals for this property.  Mr. Warlow felt that the site would impact on the local area and there had already been an additional 100 properties being permitted in the locality and therefore this one extra property was not required.  He also felt that it was backland development and that the application should be refused. 

            Mr. C. Shaw, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  The earlier application had required the completion of a Section 106 agreement but this had not been signed because he had deemed the scheme to be unviable if the S106 had been signed.  He had listened to the concerns raised and explained that the floor levels were at a similar level to those of number 37.  Both of the Local Members had asked for Committee determination.  As the UDP had expired in April 2015, he felt that this should be treated as a new application and considered on its own merits.  There had been no objections from the Head of Assets and Transportation and the addition of one dwelling would not significantly increase the traffic in the area.  The issue of backland development had been addressed and there were already houses to the rear of 31, 33 and 35 Wood Lane.  The Council only had a 3.7 year housing land supply which was below the five year requirement by Welsh Government and it was reported that it was a sustainable windfall site that should be treated favourably.  The proposal complied with planning policy on space around dwellings, separation distances between dwellings, overlooking impact and provision of amenity space.                   

            Councillor Alison Halford, the Local Member, proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  She felt that the application should be refused because of the impact of the development on residential amenity, highways, potential coal mining legislation and was backland development.  Ewloe had reached 17.5% growthrate and 2547 houses had been built in the area upto 2008and another 100 since 2009 and another 23 had not been started and a further 19 were under construction.  An appeal had also been lost for a further 41 dwellings outside the settlement boundary onagricultural land in a built up area when the schools were full and the roads and infrastructure could not cope.  A large hole had appeared nearby which could be the result of mineshafts in the area which was a cause for concern.  She said that it was completely unfair for a four bedroom house to be built in the garden and added that the owner of number 37 regretted signing the legal agreement that he would not object to the proposal.  Councillor Halford felt that there were too many houses in the area and that one more was unnecessary.  She queried the need for an affordable dwelling if the applicant already had a home and said that it had been suggested that he could only stay in the area if he built in the back garden of the property.  There was a loophole in the policy and following a review the policy had been changed.    

            The other Local Member, Councillor Dave Mackie, also spoke against the application.  He referred to paragraph 7.02 where it was reported that approval had been granted but for an affordable dwelling and suggested that this was a major factor in the deliberations by Committee.  This application would be considered on its own merits and not following the previous approval for affordable housing consent.  He highlighted paragraph 7.11 about acceptable growth during the UDP period but the monitoring of growth over the plan period had ended on 1 April 2015.  He felt that this proposal was for backland or tandem development but had not been reported, which he felt was inconsistent and therefore quoted from Planning Policy Wales 9.3.3 on sensitive infill developments and 9.2.13 on tandem development, which it suggested should be avoided.  He also referred to 11.51 of UDP which stated that tandem development was unsatisfactory.  Paragraph 7.15 of the report mentioned the effect on 37 Wood Lane but not on the residents of number 35.   The resident of that property had made clear of the harm that would be created by the development.  Councillor Mackie referred to two other areas of concern which were in relation to condition 10 and the level of ground if it was six feet higher in the garden than in the houses in front then there could be overshadowing and loss of light. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts said that the settlement was already full and the applicant had applied for an affordable dwelling which he had questioned how a four bedroom dwelling could be classed as affordable.  The goalposts had changed because the Council did not have a five year housing land supply as the completions method was no longer used to calculate the supply.  The reason for the initial refusal was no longer there and he was struggling to find a reason to refuse the application.  Backland development was not a reason for refusal and suggested that approval of the application was accurate. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell concurred that the issues that were previously in place were no longer applicable as the monitoring of growth bands had ceased on 1 April 2015.  The Local Members had referred to backland development and of the mineshafts in the area but a condition had been included for a site investigation and remediation to be undertaken if necessary.  On the issue of backland development, he felt that the Committee needed to consider what harm the proposal would have on the area if it was approved.  The application complied with space around dwellings, and sufficient distances from surrounding dwellings and not directly overlooking other properties.  On balance Councillor Bithell felt that the application could not be refused and said that he would vote in favour of the proposal. 

            The officer said that the key was the merits of the development and highlighted paragraphs 7.06 and 7.17 on the previous permission.  The Development Manager said that it was not the case that standards had reduced since 2014.  Mr. Warlow had reiterated his concerns and they had been taken into consideration in the determination of the application.  The proposal met design standards and the access had been considered acceptable as it had been in 2014. In terms of detail this was the same proposal as was before Members at that Committee. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager commented that Councillor Mackie had made the point that the property being affordable had been the reason for the approval of the previous application.  The site had to also meet other planning requirements and all issues around the location of the proposal had to be acceptable.  He also commented on the decision of the Appeal Inspector and added that HSG3 had not changed but the degree to which it could be implemented had changed.  Elements of HSG3 on growth were no longer applicable as the UDP plan period had expired and Hawarden was a sustainable settlement.  There was no planning argument to refuse one more property and on the issue of applying consistency to their decisions, reminded Members that they had approved an application on a site at Boar’s Head in Ewloe at a previous meeting.  

            In summing up, Councillor Halford said that she had not implied that affordable housing would demean her ward.  She felt that WG had changed their policy and she suggested that no piece of land was safe from development.  She said that backland development was against policy and that the application should be refused due to loss of amenity, overlooking, overdevelopment and highways.  She added that the infrastructure could not cope and the schools were full and she expressed concern about the coal mining that had previously been undertaken in the area.  The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) responded that the Coal Authority had included a condition for works to be carried out and the issue of highways had not been raised during the proposal to refuse the application or in the summing up.  Councillor Halford said that she thought she had mentioned highways and the Chief Officer responded that there was no evidence of a highways impact. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application, against officer recommendation, on the grounds of loss of amenity, overdevelopment and overlooking was LOST and therefore the application as recommended, was approved.          

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).