Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking for a commuted sum with respect to highways works for signposting on the road and cyclepath. 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 22 February 2016.  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 Manager (Minerals and Waste) detailed the background to the report and explained that a similar application had been refused in 2013 as the applicant had not completed the necessary legal agreement.  This application was a resubmission with a revised access but still incorporated the original access which would be used by heavy goods vehicles (HGV) with the revised access being for light vehicles due to constraints of a very low bridge.  Another change since the previous submission was that the North Wales Coastal Path had been built and as a result of this, there was potential conflict at crossing points.  The applicant had proposed a unilateral undertaking for a commuted sum with respect to highways works for signposting on the A548 and the cycle path.  The site was currently subject to an enforcement notice and if this application was refused, then enforcement would continue but if it was approved, then the notice would be withdrawn.

                        Ms. C. Percival spoke against the application on behalf of ENI Liverpool Bay Operating Company Limited.  The first concern was about safety and the danger posed by HGVs using the route to the site in the event that a lorry would breach the fence line.  ENI also objected to an unlimited number of trucks with scrap metal passing through their site.  She hoped the application was rejected but if it was approved, ENI requested, as a condition, the installation of a crash barrier along the section of the green access route as far as it ran adjacent to the perimeter fence.  The second issue related to site security for ENI which had been designed to prevent easy access to the colliery site adjacent to the Point of Ayr terminal.  The application suggested that there would be locked gates to prevent unauthorised use but did not address how the routes might be used once the gates were unlocked at the beginning of the working day.  ENI was not in a position to provide continuous monitoring or gate keeping for a third party and Ms. Percival added that illegal occupation of the site had been an issue in the past.  The third area of concern was the rail overpass which was a purpose built direct route to the Point of Ayr facility from the Talacre roundabout.  She noted that a number of vehicles had used this route via the railway overpass even though there were conditions in place.  A rental agreement for the railway airspace was in force between Network Rail and ENI and the applicant did not have permission from either party to use this access and would not have sufficient control over the vehicles including their speed.  Finally the fourth issue related to pedestrians given that this area had featured highly in Flintshire’s Tourism Strategy for the Talacre area.  The most recent proposal put forward was for a circular route from the Dangerpoint facility, round the colliery into the village of Talacre and would serve to increase pedestrian traffic in this area.  It was proposed in the application that the public rights of way would be blocked off as mitigation in the design and access statement but this would be an offence and was therefore not achievable.  For these reasons and those put forward their letter of June 2015, ENI objected to the proposal.             

            Councillor Derek Butler proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  On the issue of conflict with cyclists, he said that this was preferable to cyclists using the busy coast road.

            The Chairman exercised his discretion to allow the Local Member, Councillor Glyn Banks, to speak on the application.  Councillor Banks said that he had requested a site visit for three reasons which included the dangerous access for vehicles accessing the site through the underpass but this had been addressed and Network Rail were content.  Secondly he felt that the access was unsuitable for long term use, with the proposal seeking permission to 2033 and thirdly that the route crossed the cycle path but he felt that this had been addressed by the issue of signage and the imposition of a speed limit.  In welcoming the report, he felt that the concerns he had raised had been addressed and he asked the Committee to approve the application. 

            Councillor Mike Peers referred to the comments from the third party speaker and felt that the condition suggested by the speaker on behalf of ENI should be considered if the application was approved.  Councillor Gareth Roberts noted the remarks by British Rail regarding the underpass to the railway but suggested that some vehicles would still try and access this route without the provision of appropriate signage to inhibit the route to vehicles of a certain height.  He felt that Ms. Percival had given the impression that vehicles would be travelling over ENI land and therefore they were in a position to control who had access to it but added that this was a civil matter.  He felt that the application could be approved with signage about height restrictions on the access under the underpass.  Councillor Chris Bithell referred to paragraph 7.39 on landscape and visual impact where it was reported that immediate views would be possible as visitors travelled past the site.  He queried whether any further landscaping could be undertaken in this area. 

            In response to the questions and comments, the Manager (Minerals and Waste) said that in relation to traffic and a crash barrier, it was proposed to include a condition for a Traffic Management Scheme to be submitted and agreed which would include a whole range of measures and could include a crash barrier.  It was not possible to erect a height barrier on the low bridge as suggested as the applicant did not own the land so it was proposed that signage be erected on the A548 to indicate that there was a low bridge.  He reminded Members that the applicant had operated in the area for a number of years and that vehicles going to the site would be by prior notification.  It was his understanding that a ‘banksperson’ would be required to unlock the gate and relock it once the vehicle had passed through and that this could be included as a condition.  On the issue of landscaping, the Manager (Minerals and Waste) said that this was an open and flat area and it was possible that any landscaping included could draw attention to the site.  He reminded the Committee that there was a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Site of Special Scientific interest (SSSI) surrounding the site for open wetland and therefore would not comply with the designations by Natural Resources Wales (NRW).  He added that the existing palisade fencing which separated the access road from the cycleway detracted from the views of the site. 

            Councillor Richard Jones suggested that a condition should be included to prevent the dragging of containers under the low bridge.  The Manager (Minerals and Waste) felt that this could be included in the Traffic Management Scheme.  The Senior Engineer – Highways Development Control said that by means of the Unilateral Undertaking, officers had sought to secure funding from the developer to enable measures to be installed on the existing adopted highway to stop HGVs from using the unadopted road in the form of advanced signage on the highway that the height of the bridge was unsuitable for use by certain vehicles.  There was also a requirement for an operational traffic management plan which would need to be submitted and approved and this would also provide a safeguard in the way it was operated.               

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 agreement or unilateral undertaking for a commuted sum with respect to highways works for signposting on the road and cyclepath.