Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning with condition 6 being amended to exclude the use of impact driving percussive piling and condition 8 being changed to require submission of a noise control scheme prior to the start of the work.

Councillor Patrick Heesom indicated that he wished it to be recorded in the minutes that he had abstained from voting. 

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 officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the work was required to protect the existing settlement of Garden City from any breaching of the existing River Dee embankment and also to facilitate the wider development of the Northern Gateway sites and the Deeside Enterprise Zone.  A Grampian style condition was in place on the permitted Northern Gateway application which meant that work could not commence on that site until the flood defence works in this application were undertaken.  The main impacts of the works were the noise and vibrations generated by the piling method on the residential properties on Claremont Avenue and migratory fish using the River Dee.  Consultation had taken place with Natural Resources Wales about the impact on the migratory fish and they had indicated that the impacts could be mitigated.  On the issue of noise on nearby properties, the impacts could also be mitigated and would require the submission of detailed noise and vibration plans.  The works would also require the closure of the footpath and cycleway and the officer was in discussion with the applicant, Welsh Government (WG) about an alternative route.      

            Councillor Christine Jones proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  She said that the conditions reported alleviated the concerns which had been raised and she concurred that this work had to be undertaken before the Northern Gateway site could commence.  It was hoped that the Northern Gateway site could commence in January 2014 so Councillor Jones asked Members to support the application. 

            Councillor Patrick Heesom raised concern at the lack of assurance that the works would reduce the high risk of flooding in the area.  He also felt that an Environmental Impact Assessment should have been undertaken.  The Chairman explained that the area had not flooded for over 100 years. 

            Councillor David Evans said that he had raised concerns with the officer and he thanked the officer for the information that she had forwarded to him.  He referred to the closure of the cycleway during the period of the works and said that an alternative route was yet to be determined.  He felt that the application was being rushed to allow works on the Northern Gateway site to commence.  He highlighted the final sentence in paragraph 3.04 where it was reported that other possible alternatives for the cycleway were existing public footpaths on the opposite side of the River Dee but these would need upgrading for cycle usage.  Councillor Evans suggested that a condition be imposed that the alternative route be made permanent as it would benefit the local residents in the area.  In referring to the impact of the works on the migrating salmon, he suggested that a condition could be imposed that the works not commence before October.  He also commented on the vibration impact of the works on the residents of Claremont Avenue. 

            Councillor Richard Jones proposed an amendment which was seconded that condition 6 be amended to exclude use of impact driving percussive piling and that condition 8 be changed to include the requirement for the submission of a noise control scheme prior to commencement of the work.    

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that the works were required to ensure the structural integrity of the defence over a 100 year period.  She added that a report was submitted on the impacts to the environment but explained that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required.  On the issue of the public right of way she explained that the route suggested in the application was third party land so its use could not be guaranteed.  She also referred to the suggested amendment to condition 6 by Councillor Jones and said that the use of impact driving and percussive piling was already excluded.  In response to a further comment from Councillor Jones about the wording in paragraph 7.26 about the proposed options for sheet piling, the officer said that her understanding was that vibration driving was different to percussive piling. 

            Councillor Carolyn Thomas asked whether consultation had been undertaken with the Coastal unit about events due to take place along the footpath during the period of the proposed works. 

            The Head of Planning said that the authority was aware of the cycleway closure and that options for an alternative route would be discussed.  He did not feel that it was appropriate to defer the works due to the impact on the fish as there had been no objectionsto the scheme and there was therefore no reason to delay it. 

            In summing up, Councillor Christine Jones said that she had taken the concerns raised into account but that she had also considered the report of the officer which indicated that the impact on the fish would be low.  She said that Sealand was on a flood plain and that discussions on works on the flood plain had been in place long before the application for the Northern Gateway had been submitted.  The proposals in this application had been put forward because of the Northern Gateway development and particularly the amount of housing that would be created on the site.  She welcomed the changes to the conditions but did not agree with delaying the works. 

On being put to the vote, the amendment to approve the application with the suggested amendments to conditions 6 and 8 was CARRIED.  This then became the substantive motion. 

            On being put to the vote, the substantive motion to approve the application was CARRIED.

RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Head of Planning with condition 6 being amended to exclude the use of impact driving percussive piling and condition 8 being changed to require submission of a noise control scheme prior to the start of the work.

Councillor Patrick Heesom indicated that he wished it to be recorded in the minutes that he had abstained from voting.