Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of inadequate separation distances leading to an overbearing impact on properties in Ffordd Hengoed, which would be detrimental to residential amenity. 

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 along with suggested amendments to conditions 22 and 28 and an additional condition 31.

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the application had been deferred from the meeting held on 9 April 2014 for officers to negotiate highway amendments to the scheme and afford residents adequate time to comment upon any amended plans received.    The main issues for consideration included the principle of development, highway implications and amenities of the adjoining residents.  The majority of the site was allocated for housing in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the proposal had now been amended to show residential development on the allocated part of the site, which was acceptable in principle in planning terms. 

                        Mr. L. Collymore spoke against the application.  He explained that his property was behind the proposed plot 23 and he asked that the plot either be moved or removed as the space around dwellings distances could not be achieved if it was included.  A dwelling built on this plot would overshadow existing dwellings, and the elevated nature of the dwelling would mean that it would overlook the garden of number 4.  He referred to policies STR1, GEN1 and HSG8 and reiterated his comment that plot 23 should be removed as it was an overdevelopment of the site.  Mr. Collymore added that he felt that plot 6 had been shoehorned into the proposals and plot 7 did not comply with space around dwellings guidelines and the back garden of plots 11, 12 and 18 were too short. 

                        Mr. A. Parry from Mold Town Council also spoke against the application.  He said that the site had been allocated for 15 houses in the UDP so to apply for 23 was 50% above the permitted figure and added that 15 dwellings would relate well to the development.  The proposal for 23 dwellings would generate substantially more traffic and would create future problems for the junction nearby.  Residents had raised concern about the access which was opposite to a playing field and was in a single track lane.  Mold Town Council had suggested that the access to the site would be better at the western end of the site and would allow vehicles to have direct access to Ruthin Road where the 30mph speed limit could be extended to include the junction.  He raised concern about issues of flooding and commented on the culverting of the watercourse which would result in flooding across nearby fields.       

            Councillor Richard Jones proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.

                        The Local Member, Councillor Robin Guest, spoke against the application.  He requested that amendments to the plans on the website for all planning applications be dated so that they could clearly be identified as the latest version.  He said that the application for 23 four and five bed houses was on a 1.3 hectare site but because of the need to protect an area of green space, the site area was 0.9 hectares with no reduction in the number of dwellings.  The proposal indicated that four dwellings would back onto Ffordd Hengoed and the result of the reduction in site area meant that more properties had been shoehorned in than the site could accommodate.  Several changes for plot 23 had been made by the applicant but Councillor Guest felt that the best solution could be to delete the plot altogether.  He suggested that a mix of dwellings across the site could achieve a better layout and would achieve space around dwellings guidelines.  He raised concern that space around dwellings calculations had been taken from the original existing properties and not from any extensions that may have been erected.  In referring to impact on the amenity of the existing residents, he asked that the application be refused.  He commented on the considerable improvements on the access to the site following concerns raised and asked that consideration be given to protect the hedge on the eastern boundary of the site if the application was approved and that a condition be included to delete plot 23 from the proposal. 

                        Councillor Chris Bithell said that he did not object to the principle of development of the site which was allocated in the UDP and was in the settlement boundary but he did feel that the proposal was an overdevelopment of the site.  Due to constraints on the site to provide a green space, the site area had reduced but the number of properties had not.  He referred to plot 23 which would have a significant impact on existing residents and would dominate properties on Ffordd Hengoed.  He also had concerns about the access and egress and indicated that the Development Plans Panel had suggested that a straight road through the development would be better as the well used lane was very narrow.  The Panel had also suggested that bollards be put on the lane so that it could be used by cyclists and walkers but not vehicles.  He agreed that the 30mph speed limit on Ruthin Road could be extended. 

                        Councillor Mike Peers said that he was not in favour of the application because of the layout of the site.  He noted that the density of 21 dwellings per hectare was lower than the Council’s guidance and suggested that a different mix of dwellings to include 1 and 2 bedroom properties would be better and would provide a greater density.  He raised concern that there was no affordable housing on the site and suggested that a different mix of dwellings would allow for the provision of affordable housing.  He also asked where the nearest off site play provision was and queried what was meant by alternative planning provision. 

                        In response to the comments made, the officer referred members to paragraph 7.25 where the issue of density was reported.  Policy HSG8 advised that Category A settlements should be a minimum of 30 dwellings per hectare but individual circumstances could vary this.  Due to the smaller site area and the constraints on the site, 21 dwellings per hectare was considered acceptable.  The proposal met space around dwellings guidelines except on plot 23 to the rear extension of number 2 but as it was at an angle and the distances had been calculated from the original building, then it was acceptable.  Plot 23 was also at an angle to number 4 so did not have a detrimental impact or loss of amenity for that property.  The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control confirmed that there were no objections from Highways subject to conditions.  She also indicated that there was no reason to refuse the application on highway grounds. 

                        On the request to condition the removal of plot 23, the officer said that officers considered the plot to be acceptable and reminded Members that they should consider the application before them.

                        The Development Manager said that a meeting had taken place with the Local Member and residents.  He spoke of the conflicting issues that had been raised by Members, some suggesting a lower density and others that the proposal was overdevelopment of the site.  He said that the applicable guidance should not mean that applications were considered as ‘planning by numbers’ and in commenting on the issue of whether it was overdevelopment of the site said that if the guidance was strictly applied then the site did meet the criteria; this would therefore make a refusal on this ground difficult to defend at appeal.  On the mix of development, negotiations had taken place with the developer and it was felt that the proposals were appropriate for the site. 

                        In summing up, Councillor Jones said that guidance had been considered but that implications on existing residents should also be taken into account.  He felt that the application should be refused due to the overbearing impact on properties on Ffordd Hengoed and the non-compliance with separation distances of plot 23.  He proposed refusal on the grounds of inadequate separation distances leading to an overbearing impact on properties in Ffordd Hengoed, which would be detrimental to residential amenity. 

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

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of inadequate separation distances leading to an overbearing impact on properties in Ffordd Hengoed, which would be detrimental to residential amenity.