Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted but that a decision be sought from the Democracy and Governance Manager about whether this represented a significant departure from policy and needed to be referred back to Committee to be reconsidered as well as a report on the required conditions and Section 106 Obligations.   

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 and explained that the full application which included five affordable homes related to a site within the settlement boundary. This was the former compound site and had been allocated in the Unitary Development (UDP) for housing and the adjacent site had an outline planning permission for up to 24 dwellings.  It was proposed that the five affordable homes would be operated by a Registered Social Landlord and access to these properties would be through the car park of the supermarket.  She spoke of the large number of letters of support and objection to the proposal.  A development brief for the site had been adopted and the application on the other part of the site was in accordance with this brief.  The officer referred to Technical Advice Note 1: Joint Housing Land Availability Studies and stated that as at April 2013, the Council only had a 4.1 year land supply which was below the required five year supply.  She referred to another application for a petrol filling station in Connah’s Quay, on land which was allocated for housing in the UDP where the Inspector on appeal had dismissed the proposal because of the Council’s lack of land supply.  The officer highlighted paragraphs 7.20 to 7.26 of the report in relation to the retail development, which included a Planning Statement and Retail Assessment.  Paragraph 7.29 referred to the issue of noise and indicated that a Noise Assessment had been submitted with the application.  She reiterated that the main issue for consideration was the principle of the development in view of the fact that it proposed commercial development on land allocated for housing in the UDP. 

                        Mrs. J. Richards spoke against the application.  She said that the applicant had made a speculative purchase of land which was allocated for housing.  She felt that the site should remain empty until developed for housing if there was future need in Broughton.  The site was surrounded by housing and there was no visual barrier from the deciduous trees and this development would reduce the quality of life of neighbouring residents because of the long opening hours of the store and operation of delivery lorries.  Residents had purchased their properties on the understanding that the site would be used for housing and the proposal would therefore have a negative impact on residents.  It had been implied on the earlier application in Buckley that Aldi would only build that store if this application was also approved but Mrs. Richards felt that the applications should be considered separately. 

                        Ms. J. Gabrilatsou, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  She said that the sole reason for refusal of the application was because the land was allocated for housing but the application allowed for the delivery of five affordable houses and she referred to the growth for Broughton of 15%.  Ms. Gabrilatsou said that the Aldi store would provide an essential service for local residents and would bring £6m of investment to the area and would provide 40 jobs.  She referred to the significant support which the proposal had attracted which indicated that local people wanted the store instead of more housing.     

            Councillor Mike Lowe proposed approval of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded by Councillor Richard Lloyd.  He referred to the large number of emails that the Committee Members had received with the vast majority being in support of the store, which would provide quality food at affordable prices.  It would bring jobs to the area and would be competition for other stores.  He said that Broughton did not need any additional housing as this would increase the problems of current residents not being able to access the local doctors’ surgeries.  The proposal would also mean that residents would not have to travel to Mold or Chester to visit an Aldi store.  Councillor Richard Lloyd felt that the Aldi store would not be out of place in the proposed location and he queried whether Broughton needed more housing. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell felt that the application should be refused as it did not comply with planning policy as the site had been designated for a residential allocation in the UDP.  The residents who had purchased properties next to the site were expecting the site to be used for housing and the store being open until 11pm and movement of delivery vehicles would be a disamenity to residents.  He could understand the support for the store in Broughton but there were other commercial sites which would be more suitable.  He referred to the lack of five year land supply which would mean that any proposals other than housing on the site would be challenged.  He also referred to the appeals at the end of the report and the challenge in Hawarden on the same principle. He concluded that the need for Aldi could be accommodated elsewhere.

            In referring to the earlier comments, Councillor Derek Butler expressed his disappointment at the emotional blackmail exerted by Aldi in relation to the implication that the stores in Buckley and Broughton were linked and the comment that the Buckley store may not be delivered if this application was refused.  He commented on the large amount that Aldi had paid for the site and three and a half years it had taken the company to come up with a retail impact assessment. He also deplored the number of calls which the Company had made with regard to their proposals.  Nevertheless, he believed that the lack of five year housing supply was a myth and he highlighted the 11 years of planning permissions which had been approved but not developed which exceeded the five year land supply that was required.  He felt that there was an overprovision of housing in Broughton which had a growth figure of 19.9% and that the application should therefore be approved.  Councillor Carol Ellis concurred that there was overdevelopment of housing in Broughton and referred to the difficulties local residents were facing about getting appointments at the doctors.  She also agreed with Councillor Butler about the land supply in the county. 

            Councillor Mike Peers queried whether there was 4.1 or 4.5 years of land supply at April 2013 as both figures were reported, albeit in separate agenda items.  He commented on the allocation for the overall site and the lower than guidance density which resulted in fewer properties being produced on the site and on others in the Broughton locality.  He felt that the loss of dwellings on this site if it was not used for housing could be recovered through windfall schemes which would increase the Council’s land supply.  He referred to Chapter 11 of the UDP and said that due to the overwhelming demand for a food store in the area, the application should be permitted.  Councillor Owen Thomas felt that the application would provide the opportunity for jobs to be created in Flintshire and that the five affordable homes being offered were a bonus. 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts said that this site went beyond the retail park and that it should be refused to allow commercial projects to remain within the retail park.  He felt that if the application was approved, which he did not feel was the correct decision, it would be considered as a major departure from policy by officers.  Councillor Alison Halford spoke against the application.  She felt that building more houses was not the right solution for Broughton but neither was putting a commercial store so close to residential properties.  She commented on the issue of noise, particularly from delivery vehicles, which would be a problem if the proposal was approved and she raised concern at the traffic that would be generated. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager confirmed that the land supply figure at April 2013 was 4.1 years with 4.5 years being the figure for April 2012 so there was a worsening land supply.  The number of properties that would be required to fill the gap between 4.1 years and 5 year land supply was over 800 units.  The land supply calculation was the most material factor when considering the application and this was planned through the UDP process, giving certainty to the residents. If Members were now to take a different view this should be reviewed through the LDP process.  What Members considered about the accuracy of the five year supply figures was immaterial as the residual method of calculating the 4.1 year supply was the basis for decisions, which was the reason this site needed to be retained for housing.  He stated that we were faced with a number of proposals on greenfield land and Committee had given a strong steer in relation to these as had the Inspector in relation to the Connah’s Quay site, which was not even envisaged as coming forward within the five years. He referred to the forthcoming public inquiry in relation to the 45 dwellings in Ewloe, where again Committee had given a clear steer, but if we were not seen as being prepared to defend the UDP allocations he questioned the message that this was giving out to developers who would be targetting greenfield sites to address this 800 dwelling shortfall. .          

            A recorded vote was requested and was supported by the requisite five other Members.  On being put to the vote, planning permission was approved by 15 votes to 6 with the voting being as follows:-

            FOR – GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION

Councillors: Haydn Bateman, Derek Butler, Ian Dunbar, Carol Ellis, David Evans, Ray Hughes, Christine Jones, Richard Jones, Richard Lloyd, Mike Lowe, Mike Peers, Neville Phillips, Brian Lloyd, Owen Thomas and David Wisinger

            AGAINST – GRANTING PLANNING PERMISSION

Councillors: Chris Bithell, David Cox, Alison Halford, Mike Reece, Gareth Roberts and David Roney

The Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) indicated that the decision would need to be referred back to Committee as there was no detail in the report about conditions and a Section 106 Agreement for educational contributions and affordable housing.  He also said that he would be seeking the decision of the Democracy and Governance Manager as to whether approval of this application represented a significant departure from the Council’s policies and because of this, permission would not be issued until this had been decided.  The Democracy and Governance Manager said that this was following the procedure which had been agreed by Members and that he would invite representations from the proposer and seconder of the motion, and the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).  He added that if he agreed that the decision did represent a significant departure then it would be referred back to Committee in line with the procedure. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted but that a decision be sought from the Democracy and Governance Manager about whether this represented a significant departure from policy and needed to be referred back to Committee to be reconsidered as well as a report on the required conditions and Section 106 Obligations.