Agenda item

That the request to vary condition 15 be refused. 

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. 

            The Development Manager detailed the background to the report and the site history.  He reminded Members that the outline planning permission was still extant and that the reserved matters approved in July 2008 included the complete road system to serve the site, including the access onto Prince of Wales Avenue. The separate reserved matters approval for 132 dwellings, granted in 2012, was the one to which Condition 15 applied.  He referred to the Traffic Impact Assessment that had been requested and which had been assessed by an independent Transport Consultancy  and it was the opinion of Planning and Highways officers that any highway reason for the condition could not be sustained. This left the amenity reason which again could not be sustained in the opinion of officers. The Development Manager drew the attention of Members to the late observations sheet, advising that if condition 15 should be removed that a Section 106 obligation be required, to restore the need for the highway contribution regarding traffic calming on Prince of Wales Avenue.

            Mr. J. Yorke spoke against the application to remove the barrier.  He said that the Committee had agreed to put the barriers in place and added that nothing had changed since that decision.  He commented on the Traffic Impact Assessment and referred to an email from 2004 which indicated that Prince of Wales Avenue was not fit for purpose as an access for the site.  He spoke of other sites which had barriers in place to prevent rat runs being created and said that if the barriers were removed this would allow traffic to bypass the traffic problems in Flint and use Prince of Wales Avenue as a rat run.  He felt that Anwyl Homes Limited had not thought about the safety of the residents of Prince of Wales Avenue and he urged Members to refuse the application to maintain the safety of residents. 

            Mr. S. Goodwin, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the introduction of the barriers had been imposed by the Committee against officer recommendation and added that it was contrary to the outline permission which had been granted.  He said that the section 106 agreement and the development brief required three points of access to the site and included Prince of Wales Avenue as one of the access points. He indicated that it was intended to start on site within the next few months and there were no highway or amenity grounds to maintain condition 15. Mr. Goodwin said that the objectors had indicated that they did not want to hold up the development of the site, but added that they kept putting obstacles forward which did not allow work to commence. 

            Councillor R.C. Bithell proposed the recommendation to vary condition 15 which was duly seconded.  He said that three access points had been required at the outline application stage so that the traffic would be divided to the three points.  He said that the traffic problems would be increased if there were only two access points and that the accesses should be restored as had been originally intended.  The evidence before Members was that Prince of Wales Avenue could take the traffic which would be generated and that the Impact Assessment had been considered by an independent Transport Consultancy.  Councillor D. Cox supported the comments of Councillor Bithell and said that he felt that the objectors would like to see the whole application scrapped and started again which would not happen. 

            The local Member, Councillor R. Johnson, spoke against the proposal to remove the barrier as she felt that it was putting the safety of the residents in Prince of Wales Avenue at risk.  She commented on the two schools and the old people’s home situated on the road and said that the A548 needed addressing but not at the expense of Prince of Wales Avenue.  The original permission had a barrier in place with less houses on the site and she felt that it did not make sense to double the number of houses and remove the barrier and she queried why the matter was being debated at all. 

            Councillor P.G. Heesom said that the levels of traffic which would be created if the barrier was removed would create a disamenity for the residents and added that in his view, the number of vehicles would be unbearable.  He referred to paragraph 6.03 in relation to the development brief and said that at the time that the decision was made, the development brief had not been approved.  He also referred to the memo from Chris Kay in 2004 which indicated that Prince of Wales Avenue was inappropriate as an access route for the site.  There were no driveways on Prince of Wales Avenue which resulted in on street parking and Councillor Heesom said that for others to say that extra traffic generated by the removal of the barrier would not cause harm was incorrect.  He felt that the request to vary the condition should be refused so that the barrier could remain.

            Councillor R.B. Jones referred to paragraph 7.01 where the detail behind condition 15 was reported.  He said that he had seen nothing to change his mind and that his view was that the barrier should remain. 

            Councillor A.M. Halford queried why building on the site had not commenced even though approval for the site had been granted for some time.  She concurred that she did not think it was correct to overturn the decision without further evidence and that the barrier was proposed to protect the safety of the residents.  She also enquired whether the applicant’s claim that the Council had acted beyond its powers was correct.  Councillor D. Butler disagreed and felt that condition 15 should be removed.  Councillor M.J. Peers referred to an estate in Buckley which had barriers between the two parts and said that in this case the decision to include the barrier had been made by the Committee and that it could be clearly seen that the removal would create a rat run.  He said that the proposal in the report did little to protect the amenity of the residents and that in his opinion, the Committee should stick to its original decision.  Councillor C.A. Thomas was concerned that the report did not contain any information on the impact the removal of the barrier would have on the occupants of the care home, the educational facilities or the impact on amenity.  Councillor C.A. Ellis said that she would not support the recommendation.  She commented on an application in her ward where the Committee had required barriers, contrary to the officers’ recommendation, to protect the residents and school children.  She felt that the removal of the barriers in this case would set a precedent. 

            In response to the comments made, the Development Manager said that the development brief in place at the outline planning permission stage included three points of access to allow the traffic to be shared. This was a legitimate application to allow the development to proceed in that manner and the applicants would appeal the decision if they were not successful. The site Cllr Peers had referred to in Buckley had been designed in two sections with bollards in between, but this site had not been designed in the same way.  Whereas Members had indicated that they wanted the development to go ahead he advised that it had been assessed on the basis of the three points of access and that it would not work without all three. The Senior Highways Engineer confirmed that this was also the Highways view.

            The Planning Strategy Manager confirmed that it was a long standing site which was to be developed on the basis of three points of access.  He referred to some of the comments made by members regarding effect on amenity and suggested that only using two points of access would have a greater impact on the residents in those areas. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager responded to the comments made.  He disagreed with the applicant’s claim that the Council had acted beyond its powers.  The applicant was however entitled to put in the application before the Committee.  He said that evidence was important and that if the application went to appeal, the inspector would look for evidence and that there would be a risk of costs being sought against the Council due to lack of evidence. He referred to a recent similar appeal at Mold where the effect of additional traffic on the amenity of residents had been cited and in which case costs had been awarded against the Council. Councillor P.G. Heesom asked if the e-mail from Chris Kay referred to earlier could be used as evidence.  Following comments from Members referring to recent Member training, the Democracy & Governance Manager quoted from the relevant costs circular and explained how opinion evidence was only allowed from experts in Court proceedings.  He explained that the Council’s current officers did not share the opinion of Chris Kay. 

            In summing up, Councillor Bithell said that some schools had been mentioned as being at risk if the bollards were removed but the school on the A548, which would suffer additional traffic if the bollards remained had not been raised, which he felt was inconsistent.  He felt that the effect on the amenity could not be upheld in an inquiry and that the Authority’s Highways officers and the independent traffic consultants had said that the condition 15 could not be maintained.  He said that the evidence to remove the barrier was strong which Members needed to bear in mind. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to vary condition 15 and impose the section 106 agreement was LOST.  A proposal was then received from Councillor Heesom to retain the bollards which was duly seconded.  On being put to the vote, the proposal was CARRIED. 

RESOLVED:

That the request to vary condition 15 be refused.