Agenda item

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

(a)       Ensure the payment of a contribution of £28,000 to the Council for ecological mitigation.  Such sum to be paid to the Council prior to the occupation of any dwelling.

(b)       Ensure the payment of a contribution of £17,600 in lieu of on site play and recreation provisions.  Such sum to be paid to the Council prior to the occupation of 50% of dwellings.  Such sum to be used in the improvement of existing recreation and play facilities in the community. 

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 18 May 2015.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that the site benefited from an extant outline permission and that this application dealt with access to the site.  He highlighted two amendments to paragraph 7.17 as it was incorrectly reported that Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water had objections to the proposal.  He also explained that the word ‘not’ should be included in the last line of that paragraph and that the sentence should read ‘Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water raise no objection to this proposal but have requested conditions to ensure that combined flows are not discharged to this system’.    

            Councillor Chris Bithell proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He said that the concerns that had been raised had been addressed in the report and there was no reason to refuse the application. 

            In referring to her significant concerns about highway safety, the Local Member, Councillor Carol Ellis, spoke of the entrance to the Health Centre which had not been in place when the outline permission was granted for this site.  She commented on another entrance for a site with 20 dwellings which was not far away from this site and said that no Section 106 monies had been spent on improving the road or providing a 30 mph warning sign.  She added that she felt that the road was ‘an accident waiting to happen’ and was very dangerous.  Councillor Ellis asked whether Cheshire Lane would be brought up to an adoptable standard and queried whether it would be widened as she felt that there would be problems with vehicles accessing the estate road.  In highlighting the responses to the public consultation, Councillor Ellis said that Buckley Town Council had objected to the proposal as it conflicted with Policy IMP1 of the Unitary Development Plan.  She commented on the figure of £17,600 that the developer would be required to pay in lieu of on-site play provision and raised concern that it was not possible to request a contribution for educational provision for Mountain Lane School.  Councillor Ellis also raised concern about drainage and spoke of the route that children took to access Elfed High School and reiterated her concerns about highways.  

            Councillor Richard Jones referred to the Section 106 agreement which could not be requested for educational contributions and said that the application should be refused because of the effect on the local schools which could not be mitigated.  He concurred with Councillor Ellis that Buckley Town Council had objected to the application and suggested that the application could be deferred so that the objection could be considered.  Councillor Neville Phillips spoke of the Elfed High School and the number of pupils that would be able to attend the school in the future, based on guidelines outlined by Welsh Government and suggested that the status of the school be considered. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer explained that the response had been received from Buckley Town Council which had included objections to the proposal.  However, the concerns had also been raised by Councillor Ellis at this meeting and therefore there was no requirement to defer the decision to consider the objections.  On the issues raised about access and the issues on Alltami Road, the officer explained that an access design layout had been agreed and the road up to the site entrance would be upgraded but Cheshire Lane would not be upgraded to an adoptable standard.  Paragraphs 7.24 to 7.31 provided full details of the consideration of contributions based on the Community Infrastructure Levy requirements and explained why a contribution could not be requested for Mountain Lane School.  He added that there were no capacity issues at Elfed High School as it had 48% surplus places.  Paragraph 7.29 explained that the impact of the development on Mountain Lane School had been considered and the formula in Local Planning Guidance Note 23 gave an indication that four pupils would be expected to be generated from the development which would increase the pupils on roll to 401; the school had an actual capacity of 409.  He agreed that the proposal did conflict with policy IMP1 but said that there was no justifiable basis to refuse the application. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager concurred that there was no reason to refuse the proposal and explained that there were alternative schools which had capacity and added that the Section 106 policy did not allow the transfer of monies to other schools. 

            In summing up, Councillor Bithell said that the areas of concern raised by Councillor Ellis had been addressed and no adverse comments had been received from Highways.  He said that the lack of educational contributions did concern him and that but that the application should be approved.  

RESOLVED:

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

(a)       Ensure the payment of a contribution of £28,000 to the Council for ecological mitigation.  Such sum to be paid to the Council prior to the occupation of any dwelling.

(b)       Ensure the payment of a contribution of £17,600 in lieu of on site play and recreation provisions.  Such sum to be paid to the Council prior to the occupation of 50% of dwellings.  Such sum to be used in the improvement of existing recreation and play facilities in the community. 

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.