Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused on the following grounds;-

            - lack of affordable housing

            - unsatisfactory access proposals

            - inadequate ecological mitigation             

            - inadequate play and open space provision

            - flooding and drainage issues

            - under provision of car parking

            - soil contamination. 

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 22 July 2013.  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.  Councillor Neville Phillips, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and drew Members’ attention to the late observations where comments from consultees, clarification to the report, and removal/addition of conditions were reported.  The recommendation was for approval of the application subject to conditions and completion of a section 106 obligation. 

                        The Chairman explained that unusually he had, following officer advice, decided to allow two speakers against the application, who would each be entitled to speak for three minutes, and the speaker in favour of the application would either be allowed to speak for six minutes or have two speakers each speaking for three minutes. 

                        Mr. K. Armstrong-Braun spoke against the application.  He referred to the late observations that he had submitted detailing his grounds for objection, correcting the reference to the play area being designated as a newt habitat,and he referred to the existing pocket park. He referred to the EU Directive and that no physical newt habitat survey had been carried out which he felt was a legal requirement.  He said that the site was rich in biodiversity and wetland and that the local authority had a legal duty under Natural Environment & Rural Communities (NERC) regulations to maintain the area.  Mr. Armstrong-Braun said that the application would destroy the site and the main objection of Envirowatch was that no ecological survey had been carried out for all species on the site. 

                        Mr. Parry spoke against the application and explained that his main objections to the application were the exit from the site onto Mold Road, and the removal of 66A Mold Road which he felt was unacceptable as it would cause safety issues, adding that the applicant had purchased the site without having access to it.  He also referred to wetland in the area and a report which identified a collapsed sewer and works which had been undertaken which Mr. Parry was not aware of.  He asked Members to take notice of the local residents and refuse the application. 

                        Mr. C. Davy, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  In response to the comments made, he said that a newt survey had been undertaken on the site which was allocated for residential development in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).  He said that the site met the five year housing requirements and all issues had been fully resolved to the satisfaction of the Council and the concerns raised by the residents had been addressed.  He reminded Members that the application had been under consideration for nearly three years.  The application was for three and four bedroomed properties and the density of the site was broadly in line with the UDP and met the criteria for space around dwellings.  The proposal included splitting the area of public openspace to allow for retention of trees on the site covered by Tree Preservation Orders (TPO).  Mr. Davy felt that the risks could be mitigated satisfactorily with no risk to health and would not result in the loss of habitats on the site.  He said that the County Ecologist and Natural Resources Wales (NRW) had accepted that a commuted sum could be used specifically for the purposes of restoring the conservation status of the Great Crested Newt within the environs of the site as the likelihood of newts on the site was low.  He said that a traffic assessment had been undertaken and considered by Highways and an independent traffic consultant.  He commented on the commuted sum of £212,000 which was to be paid towards affordable housing, educational provision/improvements, open space area, mitigation land and towards a travel plan.  The District Valuer had assessed the viability of the site and had advised that the site would not be viable if the usual payments under a Section 106 Obligation were requested and therefore the sum of £212,000 had been considered to be reasonable.  Mr. Davy said that negotiations had taken place with officers both pre and post submission of the application and he asked Members to approve the application. 

                        Mr. J. Norwood from Argoed Community Council spoke against the application.  He raised concern on health and safety grounds about the entry and exit of the site onto the very busy main road.  He felt that more than 50 extra vehicles would exit the site on a daily basis which would involve cutting across the driveway of 68 Mold Road and the resident of this property would have to reverse his vehicle out of his driveway into the path of any vehicles exiting this site.  He felt that the access was dangerous and he spoke of the bus stop close to the proposed exit which would restrict the view of vehicles exiting the site.  It had been suggested that the bus stop would be moved 10 to 15 yards nearer to Mercia Drive but Mr. Norwood felt that this would be more dangerous and would make the entry into Mercia Drive more difficult.                  

            Councillor Alison Halford proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.

            In response to the comments made, the Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control advised that the traffic assessment undertaken had indicated that at its worst the additional vehicle movements from the site would be 13 arriving and 27 departing in the morning peak and 30 arriving and 18 departing in the evening peak.  She felt that even though the proposal was for 58 dwellings, it did not mean that all of the residents would leave/arrive at the peak times and Highways were therefore satisfied with the proposal. 

            Councillor Halford felt that drainage issues had not been properly addressed and spoke of the pond on the site and the wildlife in the area.  She said that houses that were built around the pond area were built upside down to prevent the main areas from flooding.  She queried whether an ecological survey had been undertaken and said that her reasons for refusal were flooding and highway issues.  She felt that it would be difficult for the owner of 68 Mold Road to get in and out of his driveway and said that the application should be refused due to the number of unresolved issues.   

            Councillor Mike Peers said that his main concern was the complete absence of the appropriate level of affordable housing.  The site exceeded the threshold for triggering affordable housing payments and the commuted sum based on 30% on site affordable provision was £674,526 but it had been decided that only £56,170 would be requested which was significantly below the amount required and in his opinion was unacceptable.  It was reported that the scheme was not viable and Councillor Peers referred to the assessment undertaken by the District Valuer and asked for further information on the negotiations leading to accepting the 20% affordable housing provision.  He also referred to a report by Mullers which detailed the levels that could be afforded to still allow a profit to be received by the developer.  The District Valuer had commented on abnormal costs due to contamination on the site and had requested an investigation be carried out on the site but the Muller report had not advised of any problems.  In conclusion, he said that the applicant had not considered the risks of the application and the figures suggested for the Section 106 Obligation did not comply with policy.  He felt that the applicant should have factored in the costs of affordable housing and said that the application could not be approved with the suggested level of funding. 

            The local Member, Councillor Hilary McGuill, said that permission for the site had been sought for a number of years but applications had either been refused or withdrawn by the applicant at the last minute.  Her main concerns about the site were that it was an old tip; it flooded; there was a pond on the site and the land sloped.  A meeting had been held with the Planning and Highway Officers and residents on 11 July 2013 but no mention had been made of the application being submitted to this Committee.  She added that the letter did not advise that only one person would be able to speak against the application.  Councillor McGuill raised concern about the suggestion to move the bus stop nearer to Mercia Drive as the buses currently stopped across Mercia Drive and moving the bus stop would make the situation worse.  The land had been included in the UDP by the Inspector who had indicated that access could be gained from a roundabout but Highways had disagreed with this suggestion.  She felt that methane gas could be present on the site and asked that more testing be undertaken.  The access to 68 Mold Roadwould also be very difficult for the occupier of the property.  She also queried whether a survey had been carried out on other ways to access the site. 

            Councillor Owen Thomas concurred that the access onto Mold Road was dangerous and commented on the loss of light into the dining room of the adjacent property due to the proposed erection of an acoustic fence.  He raised concern about the amount of the commuted sum for affordable housing and the non compliance with policy to comply with 30% provision. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell said that the site had been included in the UDP for housing provision but raised concern about the prematurity of the application.  He said that due to proposed treatment works by Welsh Water and the inclusion of a Grampian style condition to not allow the beneficial use of buildings earlier than 31 March 2014, he queried why the application had to be decided today.  He suggested that the application be deferred due to the current economic climate to look at concerns raised including an ecological survey and to get a better deal for Mynydd Isa for affordable housing, play areas, educational contribution etc as the current request for the Section 106 Obligation was a loss of over £626,000 for the area.  The proposal to defer the application was duly seconded. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager reminded Members that the debate should now be confined to whether the application should be deferred or not. 

            Councillor Peers disagreed with the proposal to defer the application and said that it was clear from the report that there was no intention to provide sufficient affordable housing provision on the site.  Councillor Bithell felt that the applicant would appeal if the application was refused and that it would be difficult to defend based on the comments made by Highways and NRW.  He felt that deferral would allow time for further negotiations on the access/egress and to consider the ecological matters.  Councillor Mullin concurred that deferment was the best option to address the issues that had been raised. 

Councillor Halford agreed with deferment and withdrew her proposal to refuse the application.  Councillor Peers as seconder agreed and asked that the developer be advised to take note of the policy for provision of 30% affordable housing.  Councillor Gareth Roberts felt that a soil assessment to identify any possible contamination issues should also be undertaken.  He added that deferring the decision would give the applicant an opportunity to meet policies and standards.  Councillor Marion Bateman asked how much of the proposed site was on the area that was previously a tip as the agent had said a small area but the late observations reported that it was half the site.  She also queried how many dwellings would be positioned on the area of the tip. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that the two viability assessments which had been submitted had been considered by the District Valuer.  The reports showed a profit of 15% and 20% respectively for the developer but the District Valuer did not think that 30% affordable housing provision would make either proposal viable and therefore the total of £212,000 had been deemed reasonable. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager felt that Members should refuse or approve the application rather than deferring it.  He advised that if it was contrary to policy then it should be refused but to defer on the grounds of prematurity could be seen as unreasonable behaviour.  All issues raised had been considered during the three years since the application had been submitted and he questioned how long it would take to consider the items raised by Members at this meeting.  He reminded Members that the site had been allocated for housing in the UDP.  He spoke of inconsistency in decision making if deferral was on the grounds of prematurity due to works to be undertaken by Welsh Water as other applications had been approved with a Grampian style condition preventing beneficial use of the buildings earlier than 31 March 2014 unless the upgrading of the waste water treatment works had been completed; it was also a proposed condition on this application.  He urged Members to make a decision at this meeting. 

            In response to the comments of the Planning Strategy Manager, Councillor Bithell withdrew his proposal to defer the application.  The seconder of the proposal agreed. 

            The Democracy & Governance Manager advised Members that there was now no proposal before Members and asked for a proposition. 

            Councillor Alison Halford again proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  Her reasons for refusal were:-

            - drainage issues not fully resolved;

            - issues of access onto Mold Road;

            - mitigation of ecological issues;

- ecological survey not being carried out;

            - flooding issues;

            - play area and open space issues;

            - affordable housing being insufficient;

            - soil contamination

            - issue of parking

            Councillor Gareth Roberts referred to the parking standards and the reduction from the guideline amount of 150 to 116 spaces.  He highlighted paragraph 7.38 where it was reported that a Travel Plan would be produced to encourage sustainable travel to and from the site by residents via the use of walking, cycling, public transport and car sharing.  Councillor Roberts felt that this would mean that residents would leave their cars at home therefore requiring an increase in the number of car parking spaces on site.  The payment of £100 per dwelling towards the Travel Plan would be taken from the total commuted sum payment of £212,000. 

            The officer said that the contamination issues had been addressed in the report and the Council were satisfied that the appropriate wildlife surveys had been undertaken.  

            Following a discussion and on being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application on the following grounds against officer recommendation was CARRIED:-

            - lack of affordable housing

            - unsatisfactory access proposals

            - inadequate ecological mitigation             

            - inadequate play and open space provision

            - flooding and drainage issues

            - under provision of car parking

            - soil contamination. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused on the following grounds;-

            - lack of affordable housing

            - unsatisfactory access proposals

            - inadequate ecological mitigation             

            - inadequate play and open space provision

            - flooding and drainage issues

            - under provision of car parking

            - soil contamination.