Agenda item

            That the condition be varied subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 obligation to link to the previous application and a letter being sent to Welsh Water to express the concerns raised by the Committee. 

If the obligation/Unilateral Undertaking (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the Committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

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.

                        The officer detailed the background to the report explaining that if the application was approved, a supplemental Section 106 obligation would be required to tie the proposals into the wider site.  He highlighted paragraph 7.03 where the original condition was reported which prohibited occupation of any of the dwellings until such time as a scheme of off site drainage system improvement works had been undertaken and completed.  A scheme of works had been agreed between the developer and Welsh Water which was in two parts; the first phase of the works had been completed.  The second part of the project required the upgrade of a 76 metre length of sewer pipe prior to its entry into the Penyffordd Waste Water Treatment Works.  Welsh Water had programmed this part of the scheme to be undertaken alongside another unrelated piece of work which was planned to be completed by 31 March 2014.  The officer had been advised that the outstanding upgrade works which were the subject of the condition were intended to be the first part of that larger scheme of works and were therefore anticipated to be completed earlier.  Welsh Water had advised that there was no ‘in principle’ objection to the variation of the condition sought by the developer.  However, they had assessed the current foul drainage system and had advised that, provided that no more than 50 properties were connected to the system before the completion of the upgrade works, there was no risk to existing residents.    

            Councillor Richard Jones proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  He felt that the request to vary the condition should be refused and that no dwellings should be occupied until the works by Welsh Water had been completed. 

            Councillor Carol Ellis referred to an application which had been granted in her ward which had been conditioned that no properties be occupied until works had been completed by Welsh Water; dwellings had subsequently flooded when it rained.  She supported refusal of the application and said that conditions were put on for a reason and should be complied with.  Councillor Carolyn Thomas queried whether the advice from Welsh Water was being given by an engineer or by a planner.  Councillor Billy Mullin concurred that conditions were put in place to safeguard the residents and that they should be adhered to.  Councillor Derek Butler said that the works would be completed by 31 March 2014 and that Welsh Water had no objection to the variation ‘in principle’.  Councillor Gareth Roberts considered that, if the condition needed to be imposed previously, it needed to be imposed now, and queried what would happen if the request to vary the condition was refused and the applicant appealed, as they had the support of Welsh Water. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that it was the choice of Welsh Water to undertake the project in two parts and that the contact at Welsh Water had been the same person so the response for both applications had been consistent.  The developer would have programmed the building of the dwellings on the site into a build programme based on the original discussions with Welsh Water and they had confirmed that there would be no risk to residents.  If there were any problems, any issues would be directed to Welsh Water.  He reiterated the earlier comment that Welsh Water had indicated that up to 50 properties could be connected to the system before the completion of the upgrade works without risk to existing residents. 

The Planning Strategy Manager said that it was not the fault of the developer that the scheme had been split into two parts, so if the application was refused, it would be for something which was out of the developer’s control. 

            Councillor Jones said that conditions were applied to protect residents and ensure works were carried out accordingly.  He felt that Welsh Water should complete the works before occupation.  The Principal Solicitor asked for a reason for refusal and said that it was not for officers to supply one.  He said that there was nothing to prevent developers applying for variations to conditions.  The Head of Planning reminded Members that Welsh Water were a statutory consultee and had advised that 50 properties could be connected to the system before completion of the works.  The Principal Solicitor said that an appeal inspector would give significant weight to the comments if the developer appealed refusal of the application. 

            Councillor Jones asked if third party advice could be sought.  The Principal Solicitor said to do so would impact upon the timetable for the determination of the application, which reflected Welsh Water’s projected timescales for the works, and that it was likely that any advice obtained would confirm Welsh Water’s stance. 

            The officer reiterated his earlier comments about the scheme of works to be undertaken and why there had been a delay in the provision of the second part of the scheme.  An element of occupancy up to 50 dwellings could be provided without putting the residents at risk.  Councillor Jones asked for clarification on paragraphs 7.04 and 7.05 which the officer provided.  Councillor Peers asked what assurance could be given if a problem occurred after any of the properties were occupied but before the works were completed.  The officer responded that the phasing of the works could not be conditioned and that it was incumbent on Welsh Water to correct any problems that occurred. 

            In response to an earlier comment from Councillor Jones about third party advice, the Head of Planning said that an option before the Committee was to defer the application and seek further advice.  Councillor Alison Halford proposed deferment of the application.  The officer explained that it was anticipated that the works affecting this site would be completed by 31 January 2014.  Councillor Billy Mullin sought assurance that it would be completed by this date.   

            The Principal Solicitor suggested that, if the application was approved, a strongly worded letter could be sent to Welsh Water about its changed position on the scheme of works.  Councillor David Evans felt that to defer the application could put potential purchasers in a difficult position.  Councillor Jones changed his proposal to approval of the application, accompanied by the letter as suggested by the Principal Solicitor.

Following a further discussion, it was agreed that the letter could also include the comment about putting potential purchasers in a difficult position and a request that the number of properties occupied before the completion of the works could be reduced if any problems occurred.     

            RESOLVED:

            That the condition be varied subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 obligation to link to the previous application and a letter being sent to Welsh Water to express the concerns raised by the Committee. 

If the obligation/Unilateral Undertaking (as outlined above) is not completed within six months of the date of the Committee resolution, the Head of Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application.