Agenda item

(i)         That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment), the additional conditions detailed in the late observations and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to provide the following:-

(a)       Payment of £61,285 towards educational provision/improvements at Ysgol Glanrafon, Mold.  The timing of such payment to be agreed with the Chief Officer (Education and Youth)

(b)       Payment of £24,200 for the enhancement of existing public open space in the nearby community.

(ii)        That delegated authority be given to the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) to amend the educational contribution payment in the Section 106 Obligation if the figure above is found to be incorrect.   

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) 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.    

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and referred Members to the late observations where two corrections were reported.  Planning permission was refused in May 2014 due to plots 20 to 23 having an overbearing effect on the existing properties of 2 to 8 Ffordd Hengoed.  This application had been submitted to try and overcome this ground for refusal by deleting the proposed dwelling on plot 23. 

                        Mr. L. Collymore spoke against the application and in highlighting policy GEN1 and Local Planning Guidance (LPG) note 2, said that the previous application had been refused due to the inadequate space around dwellings of plots 20 to 23 and the overbearing impact on neighbouring properties.  He was grateful that plot 23 had been removed but felt that it made little difference to plots 20 to 22 or 2 to 8 Ffordd Hengoed.  He felt that too many large houses had been shoehorned into the site and that the proposed dwellings were still overbearing and dominated the area.  Mr. Collymore commented on Policy HSG8 and the number of four and five bedroomed homes proposed for the site and Policy GEN1 on the need for high quality designs without compromising space around dwellings guidelines.  He felt that the applicant had failed to meet policy guidelines and that access from the other end of the site would be more acceptable and would increase road safety.  He also commented on trees on the site which benefited from Tree Protection Orders. 

                        Mr. S. Daintith spoke in support of the application and said that the applicant had addressed the concerns raised by removing plot 23 from the proposals.  The gable separation distances for plots 20 to 22 had also been increased and as reported in paragraph 7.30, the separation distances between the rear of the proposed dwellings and the rear of the existing dwellings on Ffordd Hengoed complied with minimum separation distances in LPG note 2.  He detailed the density of properties on neighbouring developments and said that the proposal for this site was in line with the surrounding area.  The density of the development equated to approximately 20 dwellings per hectare which was below the UDP guidance of 30 dwellings per hectare and as the site was less than one hectare or 25 dwellings, a mix of 2, 3, 4 and 5 bedroomed properties was not required. 

                        Mr. A. Parry from Mold Town Council spoke against the application and added that the Town Council had found the proposal to be unacceptable.  The site had been allocated for 15 dwellings in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and this proposal for 22 properties would exceed the allocation by 50% and he felt that a layout for 15 houses related well to the existing development.  The increase in traffic generated by vehicles from the proposed houses would put further pressure on Upper Bryn Coch Lane which was already busy at school start and end times and the proposed site access was on an acute section opposite a pedestrian access to the playing field.  Mr. Parry said that Mold Town Council had indicated that the access at the opposite end of the site was more appropriate.  It was also felt that the 30 mile per hour speed restriction could be extended to beyond the junction of Upper Bryn Coch Lane.              

            Councillor Mike Peers proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  In referring to the comments of Mr. Daintith, Councillor Peers said that the site needed to be considered against policy and not based on what was in the surrounding area.  The proposal did not comply with density guidelines and there was not a mix of properties on the site.  He felt that if the dwellings were smaller, then more than 25 houses could be accommodated on the site which would then allow for a mix of dwellings to comply with policy and would trigger the requirement for affordable housing.  He felt that this was an underdevelopment of the site as a similar sized site had accommodated 33 dwellings and that a density closer to that suggested in the policy was required. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Robin Guest, spoke against the application and said that he had raised concern on the previous application about the overall density of the site and the four properties on the eastern boundary of the site.  The proposal did not comply with space around dwellings policy and resulted in an overbearing impact on the residents of Ffordd Hengoed.  The application before the Committee today showed the removal of plot 23 but did not show any realignment of the three remaining plots on that area of the site.  He commented on the dangerous junction at Upper Bryn Coch Lane and the proposed access/egress of this site and referred to condition 29 about the submission of a detailed scheme for the rationalisation of the junction.  Councillor Guest said that it was essential that it included an extension of pavement for pedestrians to St. Mary’s Park open space area.  He referred to road and drainage issues and spoke about a pond on the site which had been drained prior to the submission of the original application.  He also highlighted condition 31 about the reprofiling of the watercourse to the south of the site which Councillor Guest said needed to be carefully considered.  He reiterated the general concerns expressed on the original application which were:-

i) the increase in units from 15 in the UDP to 22 in this proposal        

ii) the space around dwelling distances which were far from generous and which could be more acceptable with a different layout

iii) the junction of Upper Bryn Coch Lane which would make the walk to school for children very dangerous

            Councillor Chris Bithell said that the previous application had been refused on the grounds of density and close proximity to the dwellings on Ffordd Hengoed and because of this the applicant had removed plot 23.  He queried whether the Committee could now discuss other reasons such as highways and density when these had not been advanced as a reason for refusal on the previous application.  The Development Manager detailed the previous reason for refusal and said that the Committee had refused a very similar layout for that reason only and so by implication, all other issues such as density were considered to be deemed acceptable and therefore should not be revisited by the Committee.  He advised Members that as plot 23 had now been removed, the consideration should now focus on the impact of plots 20 to 22 on the existing dwellings at Ffordd Hengoed.  

            Councillor Mike Peers referred to paragraph 1.03 where the main issues for consideration were reported.  The Democracy & Governance Manager advised that the Committee could only safely discuss what they had been unhappy with on the previous application.  At that time Members had commented on overdevelopment but were now considering underdevelopment on the site.  He reminded the Committee that the applicant could appeal which could result in costs being awarded against the Council.  The safest course of action was to consider whether plots 20 to 22 constituted overdevelopment. 

            Councillor Richard Jones raised concern that he had proposed refusal on the grounds of space around dwellings in connection with properties on Ffordd Hengoed but had not specifically mentioned any particular plots, as was referred to in the minute for that application.  He had also made the point about indicative yield being an overdevelopment of the site.  The Development Manager said that the reason for refusal reflected the debate around properties nearest Ffordd Hengoed.  Councillor R. Jones also queried why the amount for educational contributions had reduced by such a large amount when only one plot had been removed from the proposal.  The officer advised that he would speak to Education colleagues about this and the Development Manager suggested that delegated authority could be given to the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) to amend the figure if necessary.     

            In raising concerns about highway issues, Councillor Marion Bateman asked whether she could take these into account when voting, even though the Committee had been advised to only discuss the reason for refusal.  The Development Manager said that access arrangements were still the same so it was not appropriate for Members to introduce it now when it had been implied that it was acceptable on the previous application.  On the comment raised by Councillor Guest about realigning the properties at plots 20 to 22, the Development Manager reminded Members that the separation distances had been met and exceeded and plot 23 had been removed; there were no planning grounds to further realign the plots.

            Councillor Chris Bithell said that in the past he had made an issue of an access being considered through the site and the narrow part of the lane being restricted to cyclists and walkers but this had not been included in the reason for refusal.  He commented on plots 20 to 22 and the distances to the properties on Ffordd Hengoed and queried whether these had been extended due to the removal of plot 23.  In response, the officer said that the plots nearest Ffordd Hengoed met the minimum separation distances even with the difference in levels so had therefore not been adjusted following the removal of plot 23. 

            In summing up, Councillor Mike Peers said that the main issues were that the application was not in accordance with Policy HSG8 which indicated a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare and Policy HSG9 about a mix of property types. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application was LOST.  Councillor Marion Bateman indicated that she wished it to be recorded in the minutes that she had abstained from voting. 

            Councillor Derek Butler then proposed approval of the application, which was duly seconded and on being put to the vote, the proposal was CARRIED.  Councillor Marion Bateman indicated that she wished it to be recorded in the minutes that she had abstained from voting. 

            RESOLVED:

(i)         That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment), the additional conditions detailed in the late observations and subject to the applicant entering into a Section 106 Obligation/Unilateral Undertaking to provide the following:-

(a)       Payment of £61,285 towards educational provision/improvements at Ysgol Glanrafon, Mold.  The timing of such payment to be agreed with the Chief Officer (Education and Youth)

(b)       Payment of £24,200 for the enhancement of existing public open space in the nearby community.

(ii)        That delegated authority be given to the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) to amend the educational contribution payment in the Section 106 Obligation if the figure above is found to be incorrect.