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, Unilateral Undertaking or advance payment of £1,100 per dwelling in lieu of on-site recreational provision.

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 drew attention to the planning history where refusal of the application, and subsequent dismissal of the appeal, was reported.  The appeal had been dismissed due to concerns that the site was in a C1 flood zone and that the consequences could not be managed.  The Inspector had considered the impact on the area and the impact on highway safety and felt that these were acceptable but had still raised concerns of the significant risk of flooding and the ambiguity over the depth of the garden areas of the proposed dwelling nearest the site boundary with 8 Welsh Road.  The application had been resubmitted with a proposed indicative site layout.  A revised Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA) had been submitted and the views of Natural Resources Wales and the Council’s Emergency Planner had been sought and were reported in paragraph 7.17.  The officer referred Members to the late observations where an addition to paragraph 7.12 was reported. 

                        Mr. D.A. Jones spoke against the application on behalf of some of the residents on the grounds of overlooking, loss of privacy, access and highway safety.  He spoke of recent drainage problems following heavy rain and said that if the application was approved, the problems would increase as an estimated 80% of the land would be covered by the proposal.  He indicated that the ownership of numbers 8 and 10 Welsh Road had recently changed and improvements had been made but 6 Welsh Road had fallen into a state of disrepair as it had been vacant since 2006.  Mr. Jones felt that this indicated that there was no demand for two further dwellings in this location.  He urged the Council to compel the owner of the property to make it habitable. 

                        Ms. R. Ellis, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  She said that a detailed flood risk assessment had been undertaken.  The main issues for consideration were reported in paragraph 7.06 and further details on issues 1 to 4, and how they had been addressed, were reported in paragraphs 7.08 to 7.13.  In referring to the FCA which had been submitted as part of the application in accordance with Technical Advice Note 15, Natural Resources Wales (NRW) had confirmed that the finished floor levels being set at 5.78 m AOD would be acceptable.  She commented on the Northern Gateway site which had been granted outline planning permission in 2012 and added that extensive consultation had been undertaken on the flood risk.  An application to discharge condition 6 on the same application had been approved in November 2013 and had included the requirement for defence strengthening works, which were currently being undertaken.  These works would alleviate flooding to the Northern Gateway site and this application site.  On the issue of surface water drainage, Ms. Ellis indicated that Welsh Water had been consulted and there were no records of problems with surface water in the area and the Council’s drainage engineer had also not objected to the proposal.                    

            Councillor Christine Jones moved refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  She said that this was a resubmitted application and that the original application had been dismissed at appeal.  The site was in a C1 flood zone and she said that Natural Resources Wales had indicated that in the event of flooding, the dwellings would be left as a dry island and that access and egress could not be achieved.  Councillor Jones queried what had changed on this application and

sought clarification on the required finished floor levels as the criteria stated 6.24 m AOD compared to 5.78 m AOD referred to in the report.  She also expressed her significant concern about the access to the site which was dangerous and would become busier as a result of the Northern Gateway site access.  The proposal would have a visual impact on the neighbouring properties and would increase the surface water problems that were already in place.  Councillor Jones felt that the application should be refused on the grounds of safety and the risk of flooding.  Councillor Dave Cox concurred that the siting of the proposal was not suitable. 

            In referring to the decision to dismiss the appeal, Councillor Mike Peers asked if the Inspector had provided an indication of what would be acceptable.  He also asked whether the issue of the depth and positioning of the garden area had been overcome. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell referred to the comments of the third party speakers and the local Member and spoke of the decision to dismiss the appeal because of concerns about flooding and space around dwellings.  On this application, NRW had indicated that the problem of flooding could be overcome and the policy for space around dwellings had been complied with.  He felt that it would therefore be difficult to defend either reason at appeal.  Garden City was classed as a Category B settlement and had a growth band of 8 to 15% over the plan period.  As at April 2014, Garden City had experienced growth of approximately 9.4% so this would also be difficult to defend on appeal as the Council did not have a five year land supply. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that the Inspector had not provided details of what floor levels would be acceptable.  The FCA had been updated and had been expanded to take account of a 1 in 1,000 year flood event and provided additional modelling information to what had been considered by the Planning Committee and the Inspector.  Consultation had been undertaken following the submission of the amended FCA and subject to conditions, no objections had been received from the consultees.  On the issue of layout, an indicative layout had been submitted and the proposals complied with the guidance in Local Planning Guidance Note 2 on Space Around Dwellings.  It was therefore considered acceptable based on the comments of the Inspector which also included consideration of the access issues, to which no objections had been received. 

            In summing up, Councillor Jones raised concern at the comments of NRW as the site was still in a high flood risk area.  She felt that sewerage remained a problem and added that the drains in the area could not cope with the inclusion of more properties.  On the issue of access, she said that Welsh Road was extremely dangerous and this would worsen when the Northern Gateway proposal commenced.  She reiterated her reasons for refusal as risk of flooding, drainage and access. 

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

            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, Unilateral Undertaking or advance payment of £1,100 per dwelling in lieu of on-site recreational provision.