Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking or advance payment of:-

                        a) £1,100 per dwelling in lieu of on site play provision; and

b) £2,500 per dwelling towards the management of the Deeside and Buckley Newts Special Area of Conservations (SAC).  

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 14 January 2013.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.

                        The officer detailed the background to the report explaining that when the application was initially submitted, it was for 8 dwellings but this had now been reduced to 5 dwellings.  Two indicative layouts had been provided.  The main issues were whether the site was overdeveloped and whether there were highway safety concerns.  The Head of Assets and Transportation had responded to the consultation that the 5 no. dwellings could be adequately served from a shared private driveway accessed from Wepre Lane.  The officer indicated that there was also a view that the existing frontage would be maintained and that 5 no. dwellings was not an overdevelopment of the site.  The site was in close proximity to the Special Area of Conservation and the Site of Special Scientific Interest but reasonable avoidance measures would be put in place along with conditions and a section 106 agreement for mitigation measures.  He added that a bat survey had also been undertaken. 

            Councillor D. Hutchinson proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.

            The local Member, Councillor A.I. Dunbar, spoke against the application and reiterated the concerns raised by the 6 letters of objection and Connah’s Quay Town Council.  He felt that it would generate additional traffic flows and he raised concern about traffic safety for access and egress to the site.  He added that the application was an overdevelopment of the site and would impact on Wepre Park and he also referred to the bus stop within 30 metres of the site which he felt would be a safety hazard for vehicles leaving the site due to limited visibility. 

            Councillor R.B. Jones queried whether an educational contribution should have been sought and he asked for assurance that the section 106 agreement would be signed before the existing bungalows were demolished. 

            Councillor P.G. Heesom spoke of infill and said that the application was over-intensification of the site.  He said that the road was densely used and was extremely dangerous; he felt that the policy should be reconsidered.  Councillor H.G. Roberts said that the application complied with policy and said that the position of the site opposite a junction was ideal.  Councillor D. Butler said that if it was not for the demolition the site was backland development and that it set a precedent for the future and he suggested that the issue be looked at by Planning Strategy Group.  Councillor R.C. Bithell concurred that the application complied with policy and would not worsen or improve the site.  Councillor M.J. Peers felt that this was a 1930’s style ribbon development and that a courtyard development would be inappropriate.   

            The Planning Strategy Manager reminded Members that there was nothing in the Unitary Development Plan that would allow them to refuse the application in principle as it was within the settlement boundary and met all of the standards set by the Council.  The officer explained that this was an application for outline planning permission so that no development management issues could be considered at a later stage.  In response to the comment from Councillor Jones, he said that an educational contribution had not been sought as the site was for a net of 3 no. dwellings as 2 no. dwellings were to be demolished.  He confirmed that the existing bungalows would not be demolished before the section 106 agreement had been signed.  The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control confirmed that Highways had no objection to the application subject to the conditions included.  She added that the visibility splays met the full standards and Wepre Lane was more than capable of accepting the additional traffic.  

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking or advance payment of:-

                        a) £1,100 per dwelling in lieu of on site play provision; and

b) £2,500 per dwelling towards the management of the Deeside and Buckley Newts Special Area of Conservations (SAC).