Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

1. the site lay outside the UDP settlement boundary and granting permission would be contrary to UDP policies

2. it would be premature to grant permission for the site rather than it being considered as part of the LDP process

3. permission would result in the loss of grade 3a agricultural land

4. there was an insufficient case to say that there was a deficit in the 5 year residential land supply in Flintshire

5. the housing growth level for Ewloe had already exceeded 15% and granting permission for the site would increase the growth rate to 19.8%.

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 12 May 2014.  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. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the site was adjacent to the defined settlement boundary for Ewloe.  Officers had been faced with a difficult decision on the application which was a departure from policy but on balance it was difficult to refuse the application.  He drew Members’ attention to the late observations where a summary of the 65 letters of objections were reported.  A revision to condition 8 had also been suggested and an additional condition that a Construction Traffic Management Plan be submitted was also requested. 

                        Mr. J. Dathan spoke against the application and said that he felt that it should be rejected because the site was outside the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).  Since 2000, there had been 18.1% growth in the settlement of Ewloe and if this application was approved this figure would increase to nearer to 20%.  He referred to the JHLA [Joint Housing Land Availability] statement which indicated that there was shortfall in the five year housing supply but said that if all of the developments that had permission were completed in Flintshire then the deficit would not exist.  The land on the site had been described by DEFRA as good agricultural land in a study undertaken in 2013 and Mr. Dathan queried whether this was the best site for the application.  He queried the affordability of, and the need for, the 14 five bedroomed houses and raised concern that the figure of only 17 pupils coming from the proposed 41 had been identified as he felt that this would be at least 100 pupils.  He asked that the Committee refuse the application. 

                        Mr. S. Goodwin, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the site had been previously allocated in the UDP which had been fully supported by the Inspector and had only been recommended for deletion because an agricultural land survey had not been undertaken using the correct guidance.  This had now been carried out and the land had been graded as 3B and therefore had no protection which meant that the reason for its deletion had been overcome.  The services and facilities in the area were adequate and the highway was suitable.  He referred to the Council not having a five year housing supply and said that if the application was approved, this windfall site should assist in the shortfall in housing.  Mr. Goodwin said that a condition that the site be started within two years had been suggested and added that there had been no objections from professional consultees even though there had been objections from other parties.          

            Councillor Alison Halford proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  She referred to debates which had been held at the December 2013 and January 2014 Planning Committee meetings on an application at 37 Wood Lane, Hawarden, where the applicant had to prove that the property was required for local need.  It had been indicated that this was the only way that properties in the area could be built as the growth in the settlement of Ewloe had already exceeded 15% and Councillor Halford felt that this proposal for 41 dwellings was already known about when that application was determined.  In referring to the shortfall in the five year housing supply, which she felt was a moveable feast, she said that this was not a suitable excuse to build outside the UDP.  She quoted from the report to the Committee in January 2014 about policy HSG3 and reiterated earlier comments that the growth in the settlement had already reached 18.1%, which was in excess of the growth figure of 15% for the settlement and that any additional properties in the area should be for local need only.  Councillor Halford felt that the needs of the residents should be considered and that this application in a busy road should be refused. 

            Councillor Mike Peers felt that there was one rule for developers and one rule for everyone else.  He said that the application was not finely balanced as the site was outside the settlement boundary and should therefore not be permitted.  He sought clarification on the wording in the statement about the five year housing supply and suggested the ward of Ewloe had already provided its share of properties and that this application to increase the growth to more than the current level of 18% was not acceptable.  He referred to the application for 37 Wood Lane, Hawarden which had been granted permission for a property for local need but a charge of 30% had been put on the property which would be paid back to the Council if the dwelling was sold.  He asked if a charge of 30% would also be put on these properties if the application was approved.  He felt that the application should be refused on the grounds of it exceeding the growth figureof 15% and because the site was outside the settlement boundary. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell raised concern that the application was reported for approval against the UDP which had been approved by the Council and which residents of Flintshire would expect to mean something.  He said that it was currently not in the plan and should not be considered as a fair site and he commented that many other sites had also been deleted from the plan due to their unsuitability.  On the issue of the lack of a five year housing supply, he asked about the proposals which had already been granted permission but which had not been developed.  The recommended growth figure for the Category A settlement was 15% and even before this application, the growth was already at 18.1% which Councillor Bithell felt was significant and he concurred that the application should be refused as the site was outside the settlement boundary. 

            The other Local Member, Councillor David Mackie, spoke against the recommendation and referred to issues which he felt had not been covered in the report.  The main issue was the five year land supply and there were a number of ways to address this, particularly where development progresses faster than envisaged. He referred to dwellings proposed on the Northern Gateway site and other applications which had been approved and he felt that the five year supply had been met and therefore this development was not required, particularly as there were a number of similar sites to be considered.  As he had earlier declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the application, the Democracy & Governance Manager advised that part of the dispensation from the Standards Committee was that Councillor Mackie now had to leave the meeting for the remainder of the debate. 

            Councillor Derek Butler felt that the issue of the five year land supply needed to be addressed and indicated that he had asked Councillor Aaron Shotton, the Leader of the Council to raise the issue with the Welsh  Government.  He felt that landbanking by developers needed to be addressed and said that the Council had five and a half years of permissions which would more than meet the land supply.  This application was not for a windfall site and was not in the settlement boundary and he felt that it was premature to grant permission and that it should be considered as part of the Local Development Plan (LDP) process.  Councillor Butler said that there was a need to prevent ‘bolt-on’ planning applications and in reiterating the comments about the Northern Gateway site said that there was no shortage of housing and that supply of houses was being held up by developers not commencing. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts raised concern at the recommendation for approval of the application against Council policy and said that if it was granted then the implications for the area and Flintshire were horrendous.  He commented on the calculation for the land supply and said that the Council had 13.6 years of sites at completion so for the Welsh Government (WG) to suggest that there were only 4.5 years of supply was incorrect and it meant that any application had to be considered for approval.  He referred to the statements of the Minister for Housing and Regeneration in paragraph 7.21 about the need to increase the supply of housing and the objection from the local MP to the application. 

            In response to the comments made the officer said that:-

- the material consideration for the need for  a five year land supply outweighed the fact that the site was outside the settlement boundary  

- WG used the residual method to calculate land supply

- the growth rate for any settlement was for guidance and each application should be judged on its own merits

- a recent land classification survey had indicated that there was only a small area of 3A quality

- a traffic assessment had been undertaken and there were no fundamental highway concerns

- on paragraph 7.21 and the comments of the Minister and WG, the recent statement had endorsed the need to increase housing supply

- the application was finely balanced

The Planning Strategy Manager said that officers could not force developers to build on sites that had already been granted planning permission and added that there were sites that the Committee had taken too long to determine and which therefore should be further forward.  The five year supply was not a moveable feast and he said that it defined how national policy could override the UDP.  He had discussed the residual calculation method, which he felt was not working, with WG but until it was changed, the land supply figure would continue to be calculated in this way.  He commented on TAN1 guidance which indicated that Councils must maintain a five year supply and were required to use the residual method. As the LDP was at least five years away then the authority would need to expedite planning on suitable sites.  This site had been deemed to be suitable in 2003 and had been included in the UDP but had been recommended for deletion by the UDP Inspector based on a concern about the possible loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.  The Planning Strategy Manager said that no comments on what harm exceeding the growth figure would bring had been expressed and added that the Inspector had indicated that a 2% growth would not make a significant difference to a sustainable settlement.  He disagreed that the site was a ‘bolt-on’ site and said that the site was infill and that even though Councillor Roberts had said that the implications for the area would be horrendous, he had not said what harm would be created by approving the application. 

Councillor Richard Jones asked if there would be enough properties for a five year housing supply if all of the sites allocated in the UDP were developed and queried whether the applicants for this application owned any of those sites.  In response, the Planning Strategy Manager said that the developer was not relevant but that the applicant did own other sites as did other developers.  He commented on the rates at which developments were undertaken and said that if all sites allocated were developed, then this would result in more than the five year supply. 

In response to a question from Councillor Peers about whether a charge of 30% would be put on these properties, the Planning Strategy Manager said that the context of the two applications could not be compared but that it was for Members to judge if the charge should apply on this application.  He added that the Housing Strategy Manager had considered that the gifting of four units met the requirement of Policy HSG10 on affordable housing. 

In summing up, Councillor Halford said that the site was not in the settlement boundary and that the Council’s policies should not be ignored.  She commented on the five year supply and concurred with Councillor Butler that determination of the application was premature and that it should be considered as part of the LDP process.  She proposed that the application should be refused on the following grounds:-

1. the site lay outside the UDP settlement boundary and granting permission would be contrary to UDP policies

2. it would be premature to grant permission for the site rather than it being considered as part of the LDP process

3. permission would result in the loss of grade 3a agricultural land

4. there was an insufficient case to say that there was a deficit in the 5 year residential land supply in Flintshire

5. the housing growth level for Ewloe had already exceeded 15% and granting permission for the site would increase the growth rate to 19.8%.

Councillor Roberts requested a recorded vote but was not supported by the required number of Members.  On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application, against officer recommendation, for the reasons shown above was CARRIED.

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

1. the site lay outside the UDP settlement boundary and granting permission would be contrary to UDP policies

2. it would be premature to grant permission for the site rather than it being considered as part of the LDP process

3. permission would result in the loss of grade 3a agricultural land

4. there was an insufficient case to say that there was a deficit in the 5 year residential land supply in Flintshire

5. the housing growth level for Ewloe had already exceeded 15% and granting permission for the site would increase the growth rate to 19.8%.