Agenda item

To re-consider an application (considered by the Planning Committee on 4 September 2019) for demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings, erection of 133 dwellings, construction of internal estate roads, sewers, SUDS drainage and open spaces, strategic and hard/soft landscaping and ancillary works, in association with application 43/2018/0751 for new link road to Ffordd Talargoch (A547) at land to the north, west and east of Mindale Farm, Ffordd Hendre, Meliden, Prestatyn (copy attached).

An application for the demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings, erection of 133 dwellings, construction of internal estate roads, sewers, SUDS drainage and open spaces, strategic and hard/soft landscaping and ancillary works, in association with application 43/2018/0751 for new link road to Ffordd Talargoch (A547) at land to the north, west and east of Mindale Farm, Ffordd Hendre, Meliden, Prestatyn had been submitted for reconsideration. [Application 43/2018/0751 had been submitted for reconsideration as a separate agenda item.]

Both applications had been refused by Planning Committee on 4 September 2019, contrary to officer recommendation.  Following deliberations by the Head of Planning and Public Protection in consultation with the Monitoring Officer, and in accordance with the current Scheme of Delegation, it was considered that the grounds for refusal put forward on both applications gave rise to a significant risk of costs being awarded against the Council at any subsequent appeal or legal challenge.  Consequently both applications had been re-submitted for consideration at the Planning Committee on 9 October when it had been resolved to defer both items pending receipt of further information.  The supplementary reports provided members with the additional information requested and clarification of the reasons for requesting reconsideration of the applications together with all the relevant background information relating to the case.

Public Speakers –

Mr. B. Paterson (Against) – referred to the Planning Committee’s decision to refuse the application in September with no planning changes since then; compared financial risks to the Council and the reduction in property values and cost to local householders of properties directly involved; argued greenbelt land outside of a development boundary should not be used to facilitate the development.

Mr. M. Gilbert (For) – advised site had been allocated for residential development in Local Development Plan (LDP) and applications should be consented in accordance with the LDP unless material considerations indicated otherwise; highlighted lack of available housing land supply and type of housing needed which the application would help address; referred to clear evidence and advice that concerns raised could be appropriately mitigated by conditions with no justifiable reasons for refusal.

General Debate – The Monitoring Officer provided some general context to decision making at Planning Committee together with the reasoning for resubmission of the applications in this case.  Officers were of the view that the decision taken at the September meeting and reasons given for it carried a high risk of significant costs being awarded against the Council on appeal.  Details of the process for costs awarded were provided based on the reasonableness of decisions and conduct of the matter and had been set out within the report.  A cost estimate had been provided by the applicant’s legal representative and any subsequent cost award would need to be vigorously scrutinised but it was wrong to suggest that a costs application was unlikely to succeed in this case, and reference was made to a previous case referred back to committee which had resulted in the Council being ordered to pay significant costs on appeal.  The decision was for Planning Committee to take and should be reached objectively having regard to officers’ advice and judged on the material considerations presented; where decisions were taken contrary to officer advice clear reasons for doing so should be given.  The advice in the report was clear and officers had a professional obligation to provide it.  In making their decision members were asked to take into account the risks that had been set out and carefully consider the advice of planning officers.

During debate Councillor Bob Murray expressed his view that the Planning Committee had democratically voted against granting the application in September and he supported that decision and the reasons given for refusal based on highway/infrastructure and drainage/flooding grounds.  He proposed, seconded by Councillor Melvyn Mile, that the application be refused on that basis.  Councillor Murray advised that Prestatyn was prone to flooding and he elaborated upon his particular concerns in that regard, highlighting problems already experienced in the area, and also raised concerns relating to highways and the local infrastructure.  Councillor Julian Thompson-Hill concurred with the views of fellow Prestatyn Members and did not support granting the application – he did however suggest that the reasons for refusal be focused on fewer, stronger grounds rather than a greater number which might prove more difficult to defend.  Councillor Peter Evans (Local Member) reiterated his objections to the development and asked that the democratic and conclusive decision taken by the committee in September to refuse permission be upheld.  He considered the reasons for refusal as drafted and set out within the report following the September meeting to be an appropriate basis to defend an appeal, with any amendments to the final wording of the reasons to be agreed with him as Local Member outside of the meeting in accordance with usual practice.  Whilst appreciating local opinion on the proposed development, Councillor Tony Thomas highlighted the need for solid planning reasons in order to defend any appeal which he believed had not been forthcoming, particularly given that the technical responses and evidence provided suggested that any concerns could be mitigated through conditions, and the recommendations of the Planning Inspector following the last appeal had since been addressed.  He also highlighted the need for housing in Denbighshire, and of a particular type, and the proposed development would provide 13 affordable housing units and 44 two bedroom housing units.

Officers clarified a number of issues raised and responded to questions as follows –

·         decisions should be based on planning considerations and the issue of costs only arose if there were inadequate planning reasons for the decision reached

·         any costs award would have to be met by the Council

·         the application site had been allocated as land for housing in the current Local Development Plan (LDP) and the second application submitted in respect of the link road to service the development was on land outside the LDP boundary

·         clarified the two reasons for refusal drafted by officers on highway/infrastructure and drainage/flooding grounds based on the resolution of the Planning Committee in September – the risks associated with those two reasons had been clearly set out within the report and communicated to members

·         if members were minded to refuse permission they should provide detailed wording of the reasons for refusal.

Councillor Peter Evans (Local Member) reiterated his view that the application should be refused on the planning grounds put forward by the Planning Committee in September and as set out within the report.

Proposal – Councillor Bob Murray proposed, seconded by Councillor Melvyn Mile, that permission be refused on the basis of the planning reasons put forward by the Planning Committee in September relating to highway/infrastructure and drainage/flooding grounds and as set out within the report, subject to the final wording being agreed with the Local Member.

VOTE:

GRANT – 3

REFUSE – 9

ABSTAIN – 1

RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED, contrary to officer recommendation, on grounds relating to highway/infrastructure and drainage/flooding as put forward by the Planning Committee in September and as drafted within the report, subject to the final wording being agreed with the Local Member.