Agenda item

That planning permission be refused on the grounds of:-

            1.         Overdevelopment/overlooking of properties on Dawn Close

2.         The setting of a precedent for redevelopment of other properties in the area to the detriment of its character

3.         Additional traffic generation detrimental to highway safety.

Councillor R.C. Bithell indicated that he wished it to be recorded in the minutes that he had voted against refusal of the application.  

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 21 May 2012.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.   

                        The Officer detailed the background to the report and the main issues for consideration.  He reminded Members that a proposal for the erection of 12 No. apartments had been refused in November 2011.  This application differed because it was a single block of apartments with two levels of four apartments with the additional two apartments in the roof space.  It met the space around dwellings standards and the concerns which had been raised on highways and access issues had been considered but the proposal was considered to be acceptable and complied with policy standards.  He drew Members’ attention to paragraph 7.03 which provided detail on a general matters report which had been considered by Committee on application 048669; he asked Members to bear this in mind when considering this application. 

                        Mr. M. McLaughlin spoke against the application saying that the previous application had been refused due to the overdevelopment of the site.  The previous application of 12 no. 2 bedroom apartments had included parking for 18 vehicles whilst this application for 10 no. 2 bedroom apartments had provision for 15 car park spaces.  He commented on the density of the site of 83 units per hectare which he said was nearly three times that recommended as the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) indicative figure.  He highlighted paragraph 7.06 where it was reported that the 10 units occupied units with an external appearance akin to a terrace of 4 dwellings, which he considered to be an inappropriate comparison.  He felt that the proposal was overdevelopment and was out of character with the area and overlooked 1, 3 and 5 Dawn Close.  He also reminded Members of the 26 letters of objection which had been received on the application the contents of which were outlined at paragraph 4.02. 

                        Mr. R. Jones spoke in support of the application and said that the increased traffic generation which had been raised as a concern had not been substantiated.  He felt that it was not an overdevelopment of the site and referred to policies HSG3, 8 and 9 of the UDP which the proposal complied with along with space around dwellings policy.  He said that the proposal reflected the character of the area and the parking proposals also met policy guidelines.  He added that it was not an incongruous development and that there was a requirement for this type of property in Buckley.  He reminded Members that the scheme had been reduced from that refused by Committee in November 2011.           

            Councillor R.G. Hampson, one of the local Members, proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  He said that this was a quiet area and that 10 flats on the site would set a precedent in the area.  He said that it would overlook Dawn Close, would not look like terraced properties as was reported, and would be detrimental to the area.  Councillor Hampson added that Princes Avenue was a busy road and he commented on the access and the visibility splays.  He concluded that the development would be of no benefit to the area. 

            Councillor R.C. Bithell spoke in support of the officer recommendation for approval.  He said that following refusal of the previous application, he was surprised that the applicant had not appealed against the decision.  The proposal had now been reduced to 10 dwellings and the application which had been submitted complied with the policies of the Council.  He said that there was already accommodation of this type in the area and even though highways had been suggested as a reason for refusal when the previous application was refused in November 2011, it was reported that, subject to ensuring the provision of the required splays and the applicant entering into an appropriately worded legal agreement to that effect, then there was no highway objection on this basis.

            The other local Member, Councillor N. Phillips, said that there was not a need for this kind of development in Buckley and spoke of empty flats at a nearby development.  He commented on the 26 letters of objection and said that he agreed with Councillor Hampson that the application should be refused. 

            Councillor H.G. Roberts said that the Committee should judge the application on whether it complied with policy, which this application did.  He also commented on the nearby Llys y Nant development.  He said that the application should be approved and that, if not, any costs awarded against the Authority on an appeal would be substantial. 

            Councillor P.G. Heesom sought legal advice on the issue of costs.  He added that even though the application complied with policy for the number of proposed parking spaces, he felt that there would be a large number of cars at the development.  He said that the application should be refused on the grounds of overlooking of neighbouring properties and the additional traffic generation in a suburban area. 

            The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control confirmed that Highways had no objections subject to conditions and the completion of a section 106 agreement to maintain the visibility splays in perpetuity.  She added that the proposal was compliant with TAN18 and Manual for Streets and was in line with the Authority’s policy for parking. 

            On the issue of costs, the Principal Solicitor reminded Members of what was contained in the Welsh Office’s Costs Circular and advised Members that it was important to bear this in mind in coming to their decision. 

            The officer advised Members that the proposed dwelling was not as high as the current dwelling Risboro, referring to the plans on display, and that the application was not considered to be overdevelopment or incongruous. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager reminded Members of the policy terms of the UDP and that the Highways officer had indicated that the proposal was compliant with policy standards. 

            In summing up, Councillor Hampson said that the application was overdevelopment, overlooked Dawn Close and set a precedent for redevelopment of similar properties in the area, detrimental to its character.  He also felt that it would generate additional traffic which would be detrimental to highway safety and that the proposal was not appropriate for the area. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application against officer recommendation on the grounds detailed by Councillor Hampson was CARRIED.    

            RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused on the grounds of:-

            1.         Overdevelopment/overlooking of properties on Dawn Close

2.         The setting of a precedent for redevelopment of other properties in the area to the detriment of its character

3.         Additional traffic generation detrimental to highway safety.

Councillor R.C. Bithell indicated that he wished it to be recorded in the minutes that he had voted against refusal of the application.