Agenda item

That planning permission be refused on the grounds of inadequate provision of affordable housing, lack of parking and overlooking from the 2.5 storey houses.

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 4^th November 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 Ian Dunbar, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting during its discussion. 

The officer detailed the background to the report and drew Members’ attention to the late observations where responses from consultees and an additional letter of objection were reported.  An additional condition and the replacement of condition 26 were also reported.  Following the site visit, clarification had been provided that the type C houses would have dormers on to the front and the rear.  The development was acceptable in principle and the main issues for consideration, which included the provision of open space and affordable housing, were reported in paragraph 1.01.  An education contribution requirement would be met through a section 106 obligation if the application was approved and the public open space was considered acceptable.  The development was not of executive style homes but provided a reasonable mix and balance of house types and sizes so as to cater for a range of housing needs.  There had been no objection on the issue of drainage by NaturalResources Wales or D?r Cymru/Welsh Water subject to conditions and Highways had not objected to the proposals.  The officer explained that space around dwellings guidance had been met and the mitigation measures proposed had been assessed by the Ecologist who had advised that, with conditions and the £40,000 proposed payment for the enhancement of the wildlife area, there would be no detrimental impact on wildlife.  The recommendation was therefore for approval subject to conditions and a section 106 agreement. 

Mr. I. Davies spoke against the application.  He said that residents were extremely frustrated by the developer due to his not completing works that should have been undertaken on the existing site.  He said that existing residents, who had not been advised that there would be a reduction in the specification on the proposed site, strongly objected to living on a building site.  Mr. Davies raised concern at the obvious lack of parking which he felt would force residents to park on adjacent roads.  He commented on the badgers which were to be relocated to wetland which was not their natural habitat.  He questioned the adequacy of the  report dealing with that aspect.  Mr. Davies felt that the proposed houses were not in keeping with the current homes and the 167 letters of objection reflected the feeling of local people.  The development would detrimentally alter the character of the estate forever.  He felt that the site did not comply with policies D1 and D2 and asked the Committee to refuse the application. 

Mr. P. Moren, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application which he said had been the subject of extensive negotiation over three years.  This was the third application for the site which had been submitted to the Committee and he felt that it addressed all of the concerns that had been raised.  The application now included on site provision for open space and eight affordable rental homes and the applicant had confirmed that that he would enter into a Section 106 obligation for affordable homes, educational contributions, open space maintenance, enhancement and maintenance of wetland and a payment towards a travel plan.  Mr. Moren said that the site had been allocated in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and as no development brief related to the site, there were no site specific requirements.  He said that the site would be developed at the appropriate density and the character and design of the properties would be appropriate to the setting.  He felt there was a general need for smaller, more affordable, family homes to meet market requirements.  He added that as the Council was unable to meet its five year housing supply, the development should be permitted as it complied with national policies and was overall in accord with the UDP.     

            Councillor Mike Peers proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He said that the shortfall in housing did not mean that the application should be approved and the issue of the 2.5 storey dwellings overlooking the existing properties was still a concern.  He requested information about the provision of the pumping station reported in paragraph 7.04 and regarding the issue of parking spaces which would result in the eight four bedroom properties being one short of the maximum standard.  He felt that the provision of a travel plan was not a suitable alternative.  Councillor Peers said that if a site was allocated in the UDP there was a need to ensure that it was the right development for that site and he felt that the Housing Strategy Manager should have been in attendance at the meeting to explain why the affordable housing element was acceptable.  He proposed refusal on the grounds of inadequate supply of affordable housing, lack of parking provision and the 2.5 storey properties overlooking existing dwellings. 

            Councillor Alison Halford concurred with the comments of Councillor Peers and referred to a letter which had been placed in the Councillor’s pigeon holes about changes to the existing road layout which would result in the existing residents not being able to access their properties.  She raised concern that the details of the letter were not included in the officer’s report.  In response, the Principal Solicitor referred to the last sentence in paragraph 7.41 where it was reported that it was noted that some of the residents of the existing eight houses had stated that they would not allow the realignment of the private road.  He advised that this was not a factor to be taken into consideration in the determination of this application.  He emphasised that the rights of the residents over that land was not a planning issue and was not relevant to Members considering this application. 

            One of the local Members, Councillor Paul Shotton, spoke against the application.  He informed the Committee that he had sought the advice of the Deputy Monitoring Officer about a possible interest and had been advised that he could speak for five minutes.  He said that the proposed development was not in keeping with the existing properties and was out of character with the area.  He said that the UDP indicated that developments should be permitted if the design related well and was in keeping, which this application did not.  He commented on the road layout which was one of the main concerns as it could not be altered until agreed by the residents, and he added that there did not appear to be any responsibility for the maintenance of the existing road.  Councillor Shotton felt that it was unacceptable to relocate the badgers as it would place them in an unnatural habitat which was close to another badger set so could result in territorial fights.  He also commented upon the reduced number of parking spaces for the four bed properties; the need for a soil contamination test; and adetailed scheme for the removal of surface water.  He also felt that a financial contribution for Golftyn school should be included and play equipment provided for smaller children. 

            The other local Member, Councillor Andy Dunbobbin, also spoke against the application.  He had received the same advice as that referred to by Councillor Shotton.  He felt that the properties were out of character and not in keeping with the area and that the existing access was narrow and could not accommodate the 74 more vehicles that the new dwellings would create.  He said that residents had been informed that only 15 properties were to be built on the site and that this, along with the lack of parking, was a concern.  He felt that the shortfall of eight parking spaces did not comply with Council policies.  Councillor Dunbobbin referred to proposed condition 23 that the final dwelling should not be occupied until all roads and pavements had been completed to adoption standard.  He said that a similar condition had been included for the previous site but had not been complied with, and he therefore requested that a bond be put in place to ensure that this did not happen on this site.  He felt that the six foot high wall which was to be erected would be seen by the existing residents and was not in keeping with the site.  He also raised concern about the properties which were to be sited under power cables, and the lack of a response from National Grid.  Councillor Dunbobbin asked that the application be refused to allow a more appropriate application to be submitted which would protect the character of the area and complied with UDP policies.  He said that residents were not against the development but wanted a development that was in line with the UDP. 

            Councillor Neville Phillips also referred to the letter to Members, which was dated 9 July 2013, and queried why its contents had not been included in the report.  The Principal Solicitor reiterated his earlier comments and said that hehad not seen the letter but if it related to the legal dispute about the realignment of the road layout, then it was not relevant for determination of this application.  The Development Manager referred to the displayed information which provided detail of the current layout and the proposed new layout of the road. He confirmed that the alternative alignment provided a better access arrangement in planning terms but that the developer could not force the existing residents to use one as opposed to the other.  The Planning officer confirmed that he had seen the letter and had referred to the fact that this was not a planning consideration in paragraph 7.41 of his report. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts accepted that realignment of the road was a civil matter and also added that the issue of houses being under the electricity cables was not a material consideration for the committee although the proposed road alignment appeared to put them clear of houses.  He referred to paragraph 7.36 and the Grampian style condition requested restricting the occupation of the proposed dwellings to a point not earlier than 1 April 2014; he asked what would happen if the works had not been completed by that date.  On the issue of parking, he referred to applications in Mynydd Isa and the provision of a travel plan.  In his view, that might cut the number of vehicle movements but would not reduce the number of cars on the estate and therefore more parking spaces would be required, not less.  He said that paragraph 7.47 did not make sense and queried whether any words were missing.  He supported refusal of the application on the issue of parking. 

            Councillor Veronica Gay expressed confusion about why the letter to Members was not a planning consideration and asked whether the issue of the dumping of tarmac which had been mentioned in the report was a planning issue.  The Planning Strategy Manager said that the reference to dumped tarmac was one of the objections raised by the public.  The reference to the legality about the negotiation of the road layout was reported in paragraph 7.41 and therefore both issues were referred to in the report in a different context. 

            The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control said that Highways had no objection in principle subject to conditions and the applicant completing a Section 106 agreement.  There were no capacity issues relating to the existing access to the site, and the number of parking spaces provided for the eight units was one less than maximum standard in the guidance for parking but was not considered to be a shortfall. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that the 34 metre separation distances applied to the 2.5 storey dwellings and the type C homes were well in excess of the separation guidelines.  Natural Resources Wales found the issue of the pumping station acceptable subject to the appropriate conditions.  The Housing Strategy Manager had confirmed the acceptability of the affordable housing arrangements.  A soil contamination test could be conditioned so that it was investigated prior to the development taking place and a strategy could be formulated to remediate against it.  The officer added that National Grid had been notified about the application but had not responded.  He reminded Members that some of the existing dwellings were close to power cables that were already in place when the properties were built. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager said that the issue of the 2.5 storey dwellings overlooking existing properties had not formed part of the reason for refusal on the previous application and he therefore cautioned against its inclusion as a reason to refuse this application.  The site was allocated in the UDP for a notional 80 units and when looking at the overall density for the site, it was within the minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare.  On the issue of the new dwellings not replicating the existing properties, he had not heard anything said about any harm that this could create except for the first objection in paragraph 4.01.  It was reported that the properties were out of character with the rest of the houses in the immediate area and could reduce the desirability of what was currently a highly sought after location.  The Planning Strategy Manager said that planning policy encouraged diversity and smaller house types were required by the market.  It was felt that the affordable housing element was acceptable as it maximised the options for those on the housing register who had identified Connah’s Quay as their preferred location.  With reference to the badgers issue, he said that they may have lived on the site of the existing homes but had been moved toaccommodate that site and the CountyEcologist and Natural Resources Wales said that the mitigation in place was acceptable. 

            In response to Councillor Roberts’ earlier comment, the officer said that the word ‘considered’ had been omitted from paragraph 7.47. 

            In summing up, Councillor Peers accepted that the site had been allocated in the UDP but that it had to be the right development.  He felt that the affordable housing had to be right and in accordance with policy.  The reduced number of parking spaces was also an issue which was recognised in the report.  He said that his reasons for proposing refusal were inadequate provision of affordable housing, lack of parking and (in response to a request for clarification from the Principal Solicitor) overlooking from the 2.5 storey houses.

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

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of inadequate provision of affordable housing, lack of parking and overlooking from the 2.5 storey houses.