Agenda item

            That reason for refusal (2) relating to air pollution and the impacts of road traffic pollutants on the health of the site occupants be withdrawn and not pursued as a reason at the forthcoming appeal against the refusal of planning permission. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that paragraph 6.02 detailed the reasons for refusal of the application when it had been considered by the Committee on 15 May 2013.  The Head of Public Protection had raised some concerns in respect of air pollution which were detailed in the report.  Following the submission of the appeal, the appellants had submitted an addendum report to the Air Quality Assessment and it had addressed the matters which had been raised by the Head of Public Protection.  He had assessed the information received and had concluded that his concerns had been addressed and therefore the inclusion of the reason for refusal relating to air pollution could no longer be sustained at appeal.    

                        Councillor Alison Halford proposed that the officer recommendation to withdraw the second reason for refusal relating to air pollution and the impacts of road traffic pollutants on the health of the site occupants be refused and that it be pursued at the forthcoming appeal against the refusal of planning permission, but this was not seconded. 

            Councillor Derek Butler then proposed the officer recommendation to withdraw the second reason for refusal which was duly seconded.

            Councillor Halford said that she felt removing the reason for refusal was premature and referred to the comments of the applicant’s agent at an earlier Committee meeting.  She said that there was evidence that traffic and children did not go well together and added that the Inspector had been critical that Flintshire County Council had ignored noise assessments.  She felt that the addendum report was late in being submitted and that it should be up to the Inspector to decide whether the reason for refusal was valid. 

            The Principal Solicitor said that the Committee needed to disregard the perceived actions of the agent at the Committee meeting as it was not relevant.  It was a common occurrence for further information to be provided during the appeal process.  Advice had been taken from the Head of Public Protection following receipt of the assessment which had been shared with Counsel and, on his advice, it was proposed that the second reason for refusal be withdrawn.  There was a sound basis for the recommendation in the report and if the advice was ignored, there was potential for an application for costs against the Council if they could not provide evidence of the basis for the reason for refusal. 

            Councillor Halford then withdrew her proposal to refuse the application and said that she was grateful for the advice from the Principal Solicitor and that she had not appreciated that Counsel’s advice had been sought. 

            Councillor Mike Peers said that the Head of Public Protection had had concerns but the appellant had submitted information which overcame those issues.  He asked whether Flintshire County Council had submitted an air pollution assessment.  In response, the officer confirmed that this had not been undertaken, but confirmed that the levels of pollution on the site were within current guidelines and the assessment had therefore addressed the concerns raised by the Head of Public Protection.       

            RESOLVED:

            That reason for refusal (2) relating to air pollution and the impacts of road traffic pollutants on the health of the site occupants be withdrawn and not pursued as a reason at the forthcoming appeal against the refusal of planning permission.