Agenda item

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the additional condition for the common and unused areas to be maintained in a tidy condition to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

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.  Councillors A.M. Halford and D.I. Mackie, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

            The Head of Planning explained that a complaint had been received about the way the application had been handled but he advised Members that determination of the application could proceed today.  If issues were identified during consideration of the complaint, the application could be submitted back to a subsequent meeting of the Committee.  Councillor R.C. Bithell queried whether the application should be deferred but was advised by the Democracy & Governance Manager that the application could be determined at this meeting. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and drew Members’ attention to the late observations.  She referred Members to the plan which accompanied the report and said that the settlement boundary had not picked up the extensions to the gardens of numbers 55 to 63 Upper Aston Hall Lane which had been granted previously.  Some of the objections to the application referred to the curtailing of a public right of way but the officer explained to Members that there was no public footpath through the site.  She detailed the main visual and residential impacts and said that the development did not have any significant impact on the amenity of the area, however the proposal would be visible from the dwellings on Upper Aston Hall Lane and The Ridgeway.  A photograph was displayed for the Committee which showed similar allotments which had been visited by Hawarden Community Council.  The proposal complied with UDP policies and was encouraged by national guidance.

            Mr. Sharkey spoke against the application on the grounds of highway safety due to visibility and the bend in the road which he felt was hazardous.  He said that the description of development was inadequate and that the site was unfit for development as it would require significant earth works. He added that the site had badgers and bats and was in the green barrier, the development being contrary to national and local policy.  He referred to works which had been undertaken on the site previously which had damaged his fence and he felt that if site was granted for allotments, the issue of anti-social behaviour would increase. 

            Mr. N. Barnes, spoke in support of the application on behalf of Hawarden Community Council.  He said that the Community Council were legally required to find a suitable site when they believed that there was demand for allotments.  The number of requests totalled 57 and in January 2011 the Community Council wrote to Flintshire County Council to advise of their requirement for a site.  He referred to the application for properties number 55 to 63 Upper Aston Hall Lane to extend their gardens and stated that this land had previously been used as allotments in the 1980’s.  He said that the objections to the application were mainly from residents on Upper Aston Hall Lane but two had registered their interest in an allotment.  Technical Advice Note (TAN) 16 had been complied with and Mr. Barnes explained that the site would be edged by edible hedging.   

            Councillor Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He welcomed the proposal and the uniformity in style and colour of the proposed sheds so as not to create an eyesore.  He felt that the use as allotments was acceptable and added that it would not cause problems of visual amenity as mentioned in the objections received on the application.  He said that those using the allotments would not all arrive at the same time and would therefore not cause the traffic problems suggested by the objections. 

            Councillor D. Hutchinson raised concern about the ongoing maintenance of the site by the Community Council and sought assurance that this would be undertaken.           Councillor W.O. Thomas concurred with the use of the site which he felt would tidy up the overgrown area. 

            Councillor R.B. Jones proposed the addition of a further condition that the common and unused areas be maintained by Hawarden Community Council.  In response, the Planning Strategy Manager said that those tendingthe allotments would have to sign an agreement and any infringement could mean that they would need to vacate the plot.  He did not feel that an additional condition was required for this issue.  Councillor Bithell disagreed with the need for the extra condition and would not incorporate it into his proposal to approve the application.  Councillor Jones put forward an amendment to include an additional condition for the common areas to be maintained by Hawarden Community Council which was duly seconded.  On being put to the vote, the amendment was CARRIED.  This became the substantive motion and on being put to the vote was CARRIED. 

RESOLVED:

That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the additional condition for the common and unused areas to be maintained in a tidy condition to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.