Agenda item

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. 

            Mr. R. Guest, representing the residents of Bryn Road, spoke against the application.  He said that he had lived on the cul de sac for 20 years and that access onto the hammerhead represented a road safety issue for children attending the local school.  There was a high level of usage of both the hammerhead and the footpath crossing the grassed area.  He said that residents were very concerned about the detrimental impact on the surrounding area and the effect on property.  He said that if the application was approved, he felt that there should be more stringent conditions.  Mr. Guest felt that the application set a precedent and he hoped that it would be refused by the Committee. 

            Mrs. A. York, the applicant, spoke in support of the application, explaining that the original driveway to the property was very steep.  She said that they owned a box trailer which they had not been able to move for three years due to the slope of the driveway and if the drive was icy it could not be used by vehicles and was difficult to walk on.  When the applicants were not able to use the driveway, they had to park both vehicles on Hill View which she felt could cause potential problems for emerging vehicles.  Mrs. York also explained that she had been diagnosed with a condition which meant that walking up the steep driveway would become more difficult.  The grassed area on which it was intended to construct the new driveway was owned by Flintshire County Council and it was conditioned that details of the engineering works, levels and surface treatments of the access road would have to be submitted and approved before commencement.  Mrs. York said that they would be happy to comply with policies and that the proposals would not block the public footpath and would not cause a problem for the school children.    

            Mr. C. Bull from Argoed Community Council spoke against the application because of the problems that it would cause for school children going to and from school.        

            Councillor H.G. Roberts proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.

            Councillor R.B. Jones asked if the other access to the property would be closed if this application was approved and that putting an extra access onto the hammerhead would have an effect.  Councillor W.O. Thomas asked whether approval of the application would result in cars being parked outside the gate on the verge.  Councillor M.J. Peers said that the application had been through the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) process and asked whether there had been any objections to the green space designation.  He added that in order to construct an access point, part of the hedgerow would have to be removed. 

            In response to comments made, the Planning Strategy Manager said that he did not know if there were any objections to the designation in the UDP.  He added that the issue was whether the application would do any harm to the green space and in the officer’s opinion, it did not.  The green space was also safeguarded by conditions in the report and he highlighted condition 3 which would minimise the impact.  On the issue of parking and blocking accesses, this was covered by condition 4 and could result in enforcement action if it was not complied with. 

            The Development Manager reminded Members that there was currently a pedestrian access from the rear of the property onto the grassed area and that there would be more likelihood of cars being parked on the road if this driveway into the plot was not allowed.  The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control explained that the proposed access did cross the right of way but it was not designated as a “safe route to school” and did not have a detrimental impact, particularly with the suggested conditions. 

            Councillor R. Hughes expressed concern at the removal of the hedgerow and felt that there should be a tight control with removal not being permitted in the bird nesting season. 

In response to earlier comments, the Development Manager said that it was not the intention of the applicants to close the existing vehicular access and added that only a portion of the hedge was to be removed to accommodate the access.  He referred to the proposed conditions and said that a note would be attached to the effect that the removal of the hedge could not take place in the bird nesting season.   

            RESOLVED:

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