Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning. 

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 10 December 2012.  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 referred to the site history highlighting the relevance of certain applications to the determination of this application. He identified that the main planning issues were the principle of development, in relation to previously developed land and sustainability/locational factors which were detailed in the report. He stated that the other considerations, scale/form of development, highways and ecology, only came in to play if the first two tests were passed. The officer then highlighted the basis for previous decisions to resist residential development on this land, referring to extracts from decisions by the relevant Inspectors, the Welsh Assembly’s Planning Decisions Committee and from Planning Policy Wales, all of which were presented in the report. He asked Members to base their determination of the current application on whether or not there had been material changes in planning policy and/or in any other material planning considerations since the decisions were taken previously to refuse planning permission for residential development at the site, and not to allocate the site in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) for use for residential development.  The applicant, through his agent, had indicated that there were material changes in circumstances and these were detailed in paragraph 7.15 of the report. 

            The Development Manager explained that independent legal advice had been sought on the interpretation of previously developed land (PDL) as this was an important factor in the determination of the application.  On the basis of the advice, it was the view of officers that the land occupied by the dwellinghouse and its curtilage did constitute PDL as it met the definition contained in Figure 4.3. but that the remainder of the site did not . He agreed with the conclusion of the Assembly in 2005 that land occupied by buildings previously used for agricultural purposes but which had not been put to any other use since then, should not be regarded as PDL.  The officer concluded that whilst the dwellinghouse and its curtilage should be regarded as PDL, the remainder of the application site (and therefore the majority of the site) was not PDL. However, in referring to Paragraph 7.26 of the report he advised that the question of PDL was not critical as the development failed to meet other criteria, particularly that of sustainability.

            He commented in detail on the sustainability and locational factors referring to the advice in PPW that not all previously developed land is suitable for development. He mentioned that the lack of sustainability had been a factor in previous decisions relating to the site and that it was considered that the inclusion of bus stops and the creation of a footpath did not make it sustainable.  He referred to the fact that the need for new housing in the settlement of Penyffordd/Penymynydd was being met through allocations in the UDP and therefore there was no justification in seeking to provide additional housing in open countryside locations. He touched briefly on the other considerations identified in the report, stating that the design proposed, being urban in nature, was inappropriate.  In summing up he said that the planning position had been clearly set by previous decisions in relation to this land and that nothing had materially changed on this application, either in terms of policy or what was now being put forward by the developer to warrant a different decision and therefore the recommendation was one of refusal. 

            Mr. S. Goodwin, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application and indicated that in his view, the site was a brownfield site.  He spoke on the comments made by the Planning Officer on the issues of sustainability and the view by the officer that there had been no material changes since the 2005 application.  Mr. Goodwin said that the scale of the site had changed as the number of dwellings proposed had reduced from 20 to 12 and two new bus stops had been provided outside the site and a footpath to Penyffordd was proposed.  He felt that the site was sustainable and reminded Members that this was an application for outline permission and issues of design would be dealt with at reserved matters stage. He also referred to another development at Meadowslea Hospital, comparing the circumstances to the current proposal. He requested that the Committee approve the application to remove this visually harmful site.                       

Councillor M.J. Peers moved approval of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  He referred to paragraph 7.09 of the report and the consideration of the application which was called in and refused by the Welsh Assembly Government’s Planning Decision Committee.  Councillor Peers spoke about the definition of PDL and said that the opinion of the Inspector was not included in policy guidance at the time and was not included in current policy.  He spoke of the growth rate of Penyffordd/Penymynydd and said that the current scheme had been designed to take into account the concerns expressed by the Assembly’s Planning Decisions Committee that the previous proposal resembled a ‘modern housing estate’.  He said that the development would be of a high quality design and would not be harmful to the countryside.  He referred to the application on the Meadowslea site in Penyffordd which was also in the open countryside and commented on the Warren Hall Business Park which was outside the settlement boundary and in the open countryside but which had been permitted due to its high quality design.  On the issue of sustainability, he said that the site was in walking distance of Penyffordd and that the application was in accord with the Planning Policy Wales guidance for sustainability. 

Councillor R.G. Hampson said that the site was a blot on the landscape and that developments should be allowed to take place where possible.  The number of dwellings was being reduced from 20 to 12 which was significant and the site was accessible to Penyffordd due to a footpath being proposed and the two bus stops being put in place outside the site. 

Councillor D. Butler referred to the long history on the site and the previous application which had been refused in 2005 after being called in by the Welsh Government.  The UDP had gone through a rigorous process and the site had never been included in the UDP as a site for housing allocation.  He felt that there were no material changes in this application when compared with the application refused in 2005.  He said that map showed that the site was not in Higher Kinnerton but was in Penyffordd, where there was already overprovision of dwellings.  A footpath was to be created to Penyffordd which would mean that the site was not sustainable for the area of Higher Kinnerton.  Councillor D. Butler requested a recorded vote and was supported by the requisite five other Members.   

Councillor R.C. Bithell said that there was a fundamental planning presumption against new build in the open countryside and outside the settlement boundary; this proposal was a flagrant breach of both.  He felt that it should be rejected as outlined in the report as it had been refused on two previous occasions and had been rejected by the Inspector and not included within the allocation sites for the UDP.  He said that if the application was approved, it would undermine planning policy and would set a precedent and to argue that the site was a mess was not a sufficient reason to allow the application.  Councillor Bithell added that there was no need for the development as other applications had been approved on other sites which had not yet been used.  He referred to the reduction in the number of dwellings from 20 to 12 and on the issue of the indicative layout, he said that this was not what the site could look like if approval were given.  He felt that the application should be refused. 

Councillor W.O. Thomas spoke of the Meadowslea site which was in the open countryside and which had been approved and he referred to policy CF11 which he felt should be considered over policy HSG6.  He queried whether the housing needs in Flintshire were being provided for and added that this housing development was in a perfect place.  Councillor R.B. Jones said that the farm buildings on the site had not been used for 15 years and he commented on the application on the Meadowslea site which he felt set a precedent.  He referred to the comments of the Inspector about making the best use of the site at Meadowslea and said that these comments should also be applied to this site.  He said that because of the provision of the footpath and the bus stops, this made the site sustainable and added that this application showed that the applicant had tried to overcome some of the issues which had been raised by the Inspector in 2005. 

Councillor A.I. Dunbar spoke on behalf of Councillor C. Hinds who was the adjoining local Member as she was unable to attend this meeting.  Her comments included that the site was outside the settlement boundary, went against planning policy, the growth in the area was already nearly 30% and that WG had refused the previous application. 

Councillor H.G. Roberts said that there was no reason to go against planning policy and concurred that if this application was approved it would set a precedent.  He felt that the application should not be permitted just because the area was an eyesore and on the issue of the buildings being dangerous, he said that the owner was duty bound to make sure that the buildings were secure.  If the outline application was approved at this meeting, he felt that it would be difficult to refuse it at the reserved matters stage when it had been approved in principle.  Councillor Roberts queried the amount of land which had been allocated for housing in the UDP had been left undeveloped and he felt that the provision of a bus stop outside the site did not mean that a residential development outside the settlement boundary should be permitted.   

Councillor C.A. Ellis queried whether independent legal opinion had been sought on what the outcome might be if the application were refused and then appealed by the applicant as she felt that a precedent had been set by the Meadowslea and Dobshill sites.  She concurred that the site was now sustainable as a footpath and two bus stops were to be provided by the site. 

Councillor P.G. Heesom said that the application had to be dealt with on its merits and said that the main points to consider were that the footprint was already in the countryside and the landscape was already damaged. The site would not encroach into the Penyffordd area and the reasons for refusal put forward were theoretical and draconian  Another material consideration was that the site was PDL and that something had to be done with the site and that this application would enhance the area.  He also mentioned the Dobshill and Meadowslea sites which he felt could not be ignored when considering this site and that precedence could not therefore be used as an argument.  He said that he could not see any reason to refuse the application. 

The Head of Planning said that legal opinion had been sought due to the significant differences in opinion on whether the land was PDL; the advice clarified that the farmhouse and its curtilage was PDL.  Advice had also been sought about what would happen if the light industrial permission was implemented.  As reported in paragraph 7.24, this would constitute development of the redundant agricultural buildings by way of a material change of use and the land occupied by those buildings would then be PDL, thereby rendering the site in its entirety PDL from that point onwards.  The legal opinion added that the proximity of the site to Penyffordd and the scale of the site were two substantial reasons to refuse the application.

In response the Development Manager expressed concerns over the comments of Members that we should allow developments wherever we can and whether we were providing the need for housing.  He stated that the need in Penyffordd/Penymynydd was being met through the allocations in the UDP, both of which were under construction.  With regard to the Meadowslea and Dobshill hospital sites he advised that this could not be used as a comparator as there was a specific policy in the UDP which referred to former institutional buildings outside settlement boundaries, based on such distinction in PPW. The Planning Strategy Manager added that policy CF11 of the Alyn & Deeside Local Plan specifically dealt with hospital sites and it was that positive policy presumption that was the main factor in the decisions reached on those two applications.  On the issue of land for housing, he said that there currently was an 8 or 9 year supply.  The Development Manager, referring to other factors that had been raised, added that there was also a policy in the UDP which supported the extant permission on the site for the conversion of the  buildings to light industrial use.  He said that if this application was approved, it would set a precedent for a number of similar sites to come forward which would undermine the Council’s policies.  He reiterated the fact that the majority of the site, with the exception of the dwelling house and curtilage, could not be considered to be PDL at the present time, but regardless of this the development did not meet the sustainability tests. Once the principle of development had been established there would be little safeguard over the form or scale of development .It was the officer recommendation that the application be refused for the reasons given 

In summing up, Councillor Peers said that he felt that he did not require a legal opinion to determine whether it was PDL and that the application should be determined on its merits. He believed that the site was sustainable because of the changes since 2005.  He spoke of the comments of Councillor Jones on the Meadowslea site and reiterated that he was proposing approval of the application. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to grant planning permission against officer recommendation was carried by 13 votes to 6 with the voting being as follows:-

            FOR – GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION

Councillors:  D. Cox, A.I. Dunbar, C.A. Ellis, J. Falshaw, R.G. Hampson, P.G. Heesom, R. Hughes, D. Hutchinson, R.B. Jones, D.I. Mackie, M.J. Peers, W.O. Thomas and D.E. Wisinger

            AGAINST – GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION

Councillors: R.C. Bithell, D. Butler, D. Evans, M. Lowe, N. Phillips and H.G. Roberts

The Head of Planning advised the Committee that as the application had been advertised as a departure from policy, he would consider referring the decision to the Welsh Government, who may choose to call it in. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to conditions to be determined by the Head of Planning.