Agenda item

That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of 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 13 May 2013.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Corrections to two paragraphs of the report were circulated at the meeting.   

The officer detailed the background to the report explaining that this was a resubmission of application 049152 which had been dismissed on appeal following a public inquiry. She advised that the main issue to consider was whether this application addressed all of the issues raised by the Inspector, which were summarised on page 32 of the report.  The Inspector had considered that the development would constitute inappropriate development in the green barrier and its open character and appearance would be harmed, but as very exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated, that harm was outweighed by the need for gypsy and traveller sites. 

However, the Inspector was concerned that, due to the site’s location adjacent to the A55, this might give rise to unacceptable living conditions for the site occupants with regard to the effects of noise and air pollution and he had no evidence before him to decide otherwise.  The Inspector had therefore concluded that planning permission should not yet be granted due to the unsatisfactory living conditions which the site might provide because of traffic noise and pollution.  He had referred to advice in Planning Policy Wales about noise levels and to Technical Advice Note (TAN) 11 Noise which pointed out that the weight to be given to such matters might be affected by other considerations, such as the need for the proposed development. 

Turning to the current application, the officer advised that the Head of Public Protection had considered that the noise levels which had been measured in a one day exercise on behalf of the applicants did not provide sufficient data.  She added that the barrier which was proposed would not reduce the noise and could move the level into category C or D (shown in the table on page 40 of the report) rather than in level B which had been indicated in the application.    

An Air Quality Assessment had been submitted with the application.  There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that any pollutants on the site would not lead to unacceptable living conditions which could adversely affect the health of the site occupants, which would be contrary to Policy EWP12 of the Flintshire Unitary Development Plan.  The site was crossed by a 33,000 volt overhead line and Scottish Power were concerned that any structure or bund under the line would reduce the required clearance of 5.8 metres for road and 5.2 metres for other locations and increase the potential for persons to come into contact with, or be close to, the line as this was likely to result in serious injury or death.

 Independent advice had been sought about the impact on the green barrier.  On the basis of that advice, it was considered that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the landscape, would be contrary to Policy GEN4, L1 and HSG14 c), and would harm the open character and appearance of the green barrier.

In assessing this application, the officer had also considered a recommendation of temporary permission but the unacceptable living conditions by virtue of noise and air pollution would not favour this. In conclusion, the officer said that the evidence that had been put forward indicated that living conditions were unacceptable and could not be addressed by conditions. 

             Mrs. P. Williams spoke against the application.  She considered that the development would have a greater impact upon the green barrier than that proposed by the previous application.  She endorsed the views of the independent landscape architect and felt that the screening proposed would be insubstantial from Magazine Lane.  There would be a substantial effect upon the landscape character and visual impact arising from the development and that it would lead to the coalescence of settlements.  She referred to the overhead power cables which posed the risk identified by Scottish Power, adding that the adjacent land owner had indicated that he would not permit the diversion of the power lines onto his land.  She referred to the recent BangorUniversity study which had been undertaken on the need for gypsy and traveller sites and said that a greater number of pitches had been provided in Flintshire than any other county in North Wales.  There was no rationale for any need in Flintshire.  Mrs. Williams felt that the noise levels on the site would harm the residents,in particular children, and added that the A55 was one of the noisiest roads in North Wales.  The noise report submitted by the applicant did not take into account traffic density. She felt that air pollution would also be a problem and spoke of ongoing research in Munich about the harm to children by air pollution.  The proposed screening bund and fence would be inadequate to protect against noise and air pollution. 

            Mr. M. Green, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the previous application which had been refused by the Committee had been won on appeal with an award of costs against the Council.  He felt that the same would apply if this application was also refused by Members.  On the issues of noise and pollution, he referred to comments of the Inspector that the application should be permitted and said that the studies which had been undertaken on behalf of the applicant were to a level required by Government, but had not been accepted by officers.  He said that the clearance distances from the power lines would not be an issue as the residents would need to stand on top of a fence to be within these distances.  He added that the power lines did not need to be diverted but could be raised..  On the issue of visual amenity he said that what was being requested was an extension of the bund which the Inspector had indicated was visually acceptable.  He said that he felt that Members were determined to refuse the application but that if they did so, it would cost the taxpayers money and he suggested that independent legal advice be sought before making a decision. 

            Councillor D.I. Mackie, one of the local members, spoke against the application.  He commented on TAN 11 and said that the site was clearly unsuitable for the purpose proposed in the application.  He spoke of studies undertaken which identified health concerns that children exposed to pollutants could develop diabetes; he felt that this was not a place to raise children.  Councillor Mackie said that he had been contacted by a significant number of local people who had concerns about the proposals, in particular its adverse effect upon the green barrier.  He added that the officer recommendation of refusal was correct.  He then left the meeting prior to the debate. 

Councillor A.M. Halford, the other local Member, proposed the recommendation for refusal which was duly seconded.  She welcomed the strong report which contained compelling reasons for refusal. She referred to the previous application where Mr. Green had also attacked the officer recommendation on that occasion.  She said that she had given evidence at the hearing and had informed the Inspector of problems that had been experienced by residents from houses in her ward of the noise from the surface on the A55 and the requirement for an acoustic fence to try to reduce the noise levels.  She said that if an acoustic fence was needed for houses, then the problem would be worse for caravans.  She said that it was unfair to inflict the noise levels on the children who would be living on the site. 

Councillor M.J. Peers said that he was not present to be lectured to by anybody or to be threatened with costs and that he would deal with the application before him.  He welcomed the excellent report which he said was based on evidence and said that the main issue was about the location of the site.  It was clear form the comment of the Inspector on page 33 that he had considered that the living conditions on the site would be detrimental to the occupiers through the impact of noise from the A55 and possibly because of air quality.  It was an inappropriate development in the green barrier the proposed mitigation was inappropriate.  Based on what was in the report, he would support refusal of the application. 

Councillor D. Butler commented on problems of noise from the A55 in Broughton and the noise abatement fencing which had been erected but which did not reduce the levels.  Trees which were in place had been removed to erect the fence and this created pollution which had previously been absorbed by the trees.  He said that this site was below the A55 and was not the place to raise children.  He felt that reducing the speed limit on the A55 would be better than any noise abatement.

Councillor W. Mullin said that any fencing would not reduce the pollution from vehicles on the A55 and that it would have a detrimental effect on the people who would live there.  Councillor A.I. Dunbar concurred, remarking that, on the site visit, it had been difficult to hear anyone talk.  It was a dangerous environment for children, especially having regard to the power cables.  He concluded that the application should be refused for the reasons set out in the report. 

Councillor W.O. Thomas said that he would make his decision based on the report and the site visit, not on threats from the agent.  Councillor H.G. Roberts felt that the applicants had a weak case and he accused Mr. Green of trying to provoke members.  He welcomed the comprehensive report and said that the recommendation of refusal was correct due to the potential harm to the children who would live on the site.  Councillor R.C. Bithell referred to the noise experienced on the previous site visit and said that it was inappropriate to put caravans on the site even with a bund and screening.  He said that to approve the application in the green barrier would set a precedent.  In the context of need, and with particular reference to the Riverside Park site at Queensferry, he felt that Flintshire had done more than any authority in North Wales to provide gypsy and traveller sites. He referred to the lack of sites provided by other authorities in North Wales apart from Flintshire and Wrexham, and considered that pressure should be put on those authorities to provide pitches.  He said that there was no need for an additional site in Flintshire and that he supported the recommendation of refusal. 

In summing up, Councillor Halford thanked Members for their contributions particularly about problems experienced with acoustic fencing.  She said that the report was evidence based and added that there was no reason to put a site so close to one of the noisiest roads in North Wales, accusing Mr. Green of taking risks with the lives of children to protect his own reputation. 

On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application was unanimously CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report of the Head of Planning.