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 Obligation or Unilateral Undertaking, or making advance payment to secure the following:-

a.         Ensure the payment of a contribution of £6,600 in lieu of on-site recreation provision.  The contribution shall be paid upon 50% occupation or sale of the dwellings hereby approved. 

b.         Ensure that pedestrian visibility splays at the proposed point of access are safeguarded in perpetuity where they cross third party land. 

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application. 

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 10 November 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 former dwelling on the site had been demolished.  There was an extant permission for 10 apartments on the site following an appeal in January 2013.  It was reported that adequate space around dwellings had been provided and a condition had been included to remove permitted development rights for extensions and alterations to the roof.  All of the concerns relating to highways had been considered and part of the Section 106 agreement would include the safeguarding in perpetuity of pedestrian visibility splays where they crossed third party land. 

                        Mr. M.E. McLaughlin spoke against the application.  He quoted from the guidance note on space around dwellings that it should be ensured that space provided would protect privacy and he referred to the minimum distances; he did not feel that these issues had been complied with.  He said that due to the site elevation, the distance should be 24 metres and added that dwellings five and six had a shortfall of 6.5 metres separation distance.  Mr. McLaughlin considered this to be a case for refusal and said that the application was contrary to local and national policy.       

            Councillor Neville Phillips, one of the Local Members, proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He was not against development on the site but he did not agree with the current proposal.  He concurred that there were insufficient separation distances on the site and said that the access and egress was also a concern as the entrance to the site was near to the junction on Nant Mawr Road.  The proposal did not meet with what the local residents wanted and properties five and six looked onto the bungalows on Dawn Close. 

            Councillor Carol Ellis felt that the space around dwellings policy was not always adhered to and she raised concern about the properties overlooking into Dawn Close.  She concurred that the access was a problem and that Nant Mawr Road was busy. 

            The other Local Member, Council Ron Hampson, said that the site had previously been occupied by one house and added that this proposal would overlook other properties and was an overdevelopment of the small site.  He referred to issues with the turning area and the large number of traffic movements in the area.  The access to the site had been moved in this application and there were also drainage problems in the area.  He concurred that the application should be refused as it did not comply with policy due to the reduced space around dwellings distances. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer highlighted policy HSG8 and said that he had applied policy and all other material considerations in his recommendation of the application.  He advised that the access was onto Princess Avenue not Nant Mawr Road and that even though it had been moved from the previous application, it did comply with policy and there was no reason to refuse on highway safety grounds.  On the issue of space around dwellings, he said that properties five and six were 1.3 to 1.5 metres lower than dwellings in Dawn Close and a separation distance of 18.5 metres from the proposed rear elevation of the dwellings to the bungalows had been applied.  This was lower than the 21 metres advised in the guidance note but due to the difference in levels between the sites and hedging which would obscure the properties, it was felt that this mitigated the shortfall.  Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water had been consulted on issues of drainage and had not objected subject to the inclusion of a condition for a scheme of surface, foul and land water drainage to be submitted and agreed prior to commencement. 

            In summing up, Councillor Neville Phillips said that the application should be refused due to overdevelopment and insufficient space around dwellings. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application was LOST.

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded and on being put to the vote was CARRIED.            

            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 Obligation or Unilateral Undertaking, or making advance payment to secure the following:-

a.         Ensure the payment of a contribution of £6,600 in lieu of on-site recreation provision.  The contribution shall be paid upon 50% occupation or sale of the dwellings hereby approved. 

b.         Ensure that pedestrian visibility splays at the proposed point of access are safeguarded in perpetuity where they cross third party land. 

If the obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is not completed within six months of the date of the committee resolution, the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) be given delegated authority to REFUSE the application.