OFFICERS REPORT - DELEGATED
Case Officer: Mr D G Jones
Ref No:
053022
Proposal:
Outline application for the erection of 7no. dwellings
Location:
Mount Pleasant Road, Buckley
Applicant:
Lester Fabrications & Cladding Co Ltd
Date Valid:
4 December 2014
Consultation & Responses
Local Member:
Councillor D. Hutchinson
-
Expiry Date: 29 January 2015
No response at time of writing
Councillor M. J. Peers
-
No objection to a delegated determination if
recommended for refusal.
Buckley Town Council
-
No response at time of writing
Pollution Control Officer
-
Requests the imposition of conditions.
Highways (DC):
-
Advises that there is no in principle objection but
advises that the current parking provision on the site
would need to be accommodated. Recommends
conditions.
Natural Resources Wales
-
No objection. Proposal unlikely to adversely affect
protected species or sites in the vicinity.
Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water
-
Requests conditions and notes.
Coal Authority
-
Objects. Site is within High Risk Area and no Coal
Mining Risk Assessment Report is submitted to
demonstrate the proposals would not be adversely
affected by the historical legacy of coal mining in the
area.
Clwyd Badger Group
-
Objects. The development would result in the
destruction of a badgers sett.
Capital Projects &
Planning Unit
-
Advises Secondary School (Elfed High) has in excess
of 5% surplus spaces and more than 5 contributions
have been secured for Mountain Lane C.P School
(only 0.73% surplus capacity). Accordingly, No s.106
contribution is sought.
1
Public Open
Spaces Manager
-
Requests a S.106 contribution of not less than £1100
per dwelling in lieu of on site play and recreation provision.
AIRBUS
-
No adverse comments.
Wales & West Utilities
-
No adverse comments. Advises of apparatus in the
vicinity and advises developer to contact prior to work
commencement.
Neighbours
-
2No. responses at time of writing. Objects on basis of
the road being inadequate to accommodate additional
traffic, site being a designated green space, impacts upon
character, impacts upon ecology.
Relevant History & Policies:
041693
Change of use to B1, B2 and B8 uses.
Refused 3O.10.2006
047957
Change of use to temporary car park
Temporary Permission 28.6.2011
Flintshire Unitary Development Plan
Policy GEN1
General Requirements for Development
Policy GEN3
Development Outside Settlement Boundaries
Policy HSG4
New Dwellings Outside Settlement Boundaries
Policy HSG11
Affordable Housing in Rural Areas
Policy L1
Landscape Character
Policy L3 (31)
Green Spaces
Policy WB1
Protected Species
Policy WB3
Statutory Sites of National Importance
Policy AC13
Access and Traffic Impact
The proposal would not comply with the above policies.
Planning Appraisal:
Site and the Surroundings
The site comprises land presently in use as a temporary car park in conjunction with the
nearby industrial unit. The land is comparatively flat from north to south with a slight fall
from west to east, reflective of the surroundings. The site is surfaced with hardcore. The
southern and eastern boundaries of the site are formed by mature established
hedgerows. The western boundary comprises land at a stepped higher level with an
existing belt of trees. The northern Boundary which abuts Mount Pleasant Road is
formed by a combination of a block wall with palisade fence above. A gated vehicular
access is sited to the north eastern corner of the site within the northern boundary.
2
The site is outside the settlement boundaries of both Buckley and Drury & Burntwood as
defined within the Flintshire Unitary Development and forms part of a larger area of land
designated as green space under policy L3(31). The site is also located adjacent to the
boundaries of the Buckley Claypits and Commons Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI) and Deeside and Buckley Newt Sites Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
The Proposed Development
This is an outline planning application, with all matter Reserved, for the development of
the site for the potential erection of 7No. affordable dwellings on land at Mount Pleasant
Road, Buckley. The site measures 0.32 hectares in area and fronts onto Mount
Pleasant Road.
The Main Issues
The issues for consideration are the principle of development, visual and landscape
impacts and ecology impacts.
The Principle of Development
The site lies within an area of open countryside. National planning guidance, contained
within Planning Policy Wales (PPW), makes it clear that new development in the open
countryside is generally inappropriate, except under certain specified circumstances.
This general presumption is reinforced and the exceptions clearly identified within Policy
GEN3 of the FUDP. Any proposals which cannot satisfy the criteria contained therein
are therefore considered to be inappropriate development. Inappropriate development
is, by definition, harmful to the character and appearance of the open countryside as
should be resisted. In this case the character and appearance of the area, together with
its value in amenity and landscape terms is considered of importance in the context of
the locality and is safeguarded as a designated Green Space within the UDP (policy
L3).
The UDP does allow limited housing infill development to meet proven local need as an
exception to GEN3. Policy HSG5 elaborates and says that limited infill development for
one or two housing units will be allowed provided that the proposal is to meet a proven
local housing need and subject to a number of criteria. These include that the site
comprises a small gap within a clearly identifiable small group of houses within a
continuously developed frontage, does not constitute or extend existing ribbon
development and respects adjacent properties and the surrounding area.
The site is located on the southern side of Mount Pleasant Road. The nearest housing
developments upon this side of the road lie approximately 200m to the east at the
junction of Mount Pleasant Road and Burntwood Road and 150m to the west adjacent
to the chapel, although in this instance it should be noted that this is a single dwelling
adjacent to the Chapel and there are no other dwellings along the southern side of the
Mount Pleasant Road at all in the westerly direction.
3
Policy HSG5 is clear that for a gap to be considered as infill it must be a gap within a
continuously developed frontage within a group of houses, and I consider that the site
could not be considered as part of such a frontage and is therefore not a proposal
constituting infill development. The proposal would seem an incongruous addition as a
consequence. Furthermore no evidence has been advanced in support of the
application to suggest that there is a case of proven local need that would justify the
application of the exception that policy HSG5 introduces although this issue is
considered in connection with the examination of proven local need (affordable
housing) as set out below.
Affordable Housing
The applicant has indicated in the form accompanying the application that the proposals
seek to provide affordable/social housing. The FUDP makes provision for such scheme
to be considered as one of the identified exceptions to GEN3 via the provisions of Policy
HSG11.
This context provides that proposals to develop affordable housing upon sites outside of
village settlement boundaries within rural areas may be permitted subject to the
satisfaction of identified criteria. Of particular relevance to the consideration of this
proposal against the provisions within this policy is Criteria a) which makes clear that
proposals must be accompanied by evidence of genuine local need for such a
provision. The application is not accompanied by any evidence of such a need nor how
the proposed development would address the same. Accordingly in consideration of the
policy requirements, the proposal fails at the first hurdle.
In addition, it should be noted that the reasoned justification to the policy makes clear
that for the purposes of this policy, ‘villages’ are considered to be those Category B and
C settlements within Flintshire’s rural area as defined within either the Flintshire Cadwyn
Clwyd Leader+ area and/or that defined by Welsh Governments’ Article 33 Rural Areas
Initiative. Neither Drury nor Buckley (a category A settlement) satisfy this requirement.
Accordingly, notwithstanding the provisions of policies GEN3 and HSG11, this proposal
is not compliant with the same and is not therefore a Rural Affordable Housing site.
Ecological Issues
The application is located between compartments of the Buckley and Deeside Special
Area of Conservation (SAC), with these being located 250m to the south and 20m to the
north respectively. The development would not result in any loss of the designated site
but the site and the surroundings are designated as a Green Space within the FUDP
which is an important wildlife corridor linking the compartments of the SAC.
4
Great Crested Newts (GCN) are the key feature of the SAC and both their breeding
ponds and terrestrial habitat are equally important. The proximity of the development
site to known GCN sites is such that there would be a need to ensure that there are no
long term effects upon the GCN population through agreed avoidance and mitigation
measures. There are numerous significant development pressures on the SAC as a
whole, which in combination with this proposal could have significant environmental
effects.
The EC Habitats Directive 1992 requires the UK to maintain a system of strict protection
for protected species and their habitats. The Directive only allows disturbance, or
deterioration or destruction of breeding sites or resting places, in the interests of public
health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest,
including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary
importance for the environment and provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and
no detriment to the maintenance of the species population at favourable conservation
status in their natural range.
The UK implemented the Directive by introducing The Conservation (Natural Habitats
etc) Regulations 1994 which contain two layers of protection a requirement on Local
Planning Authorities (“LPAs”) to have regard to the Directive`s requirements above, and
a licensing system administered by the Welsh Ministers.
Planning Policy Wales (2014) paragraph 5.5.11 advises Local Planning Authorities that
“The presence of a species protected under European or UK legislation is a material
consideration when a local planning authority is considering a development proposal
which, if carried out, would be likely to result in disturbance or harm to the species or its
Habitat.”
TAN 5 (2009) states at paragraph 6.3.6:- “Regulation 3(4) of the Habitats Regulations
requires all local planning authorities, in the exercise of their functions, to have regard to
the provisions of the Habitats Directive so far as they might be affected by the exercise
of those functions. Consequently, the Directive’s provisions are relevant in reaching
planning decisions where a European protected species may be affected and it is
therefore important that such planning decisions are reached in a manner that takes
account of, and is consistent with, the Directive’s requirements.
Those requirements include a system of strict protection for European protected
species, with derogations from this strict protection being allowed only in certain limited
circumstances and subject to certain tests being met….these requirements are
transposed by the provisions of the Habitats Regulations. The issues of whether
development could give rise to a breach of the Regulations’ requirements, and whether
there may be a potential need for a licence to avoid such a breach, are therefore a
material consideration in a relevant planning decision, and where a licence may be
needed, the three licensing ‘tests’ required by the Directive should be considered by the
local planning authority. Paragraph 6.3.7 then states:-
5
“It is clearly essential that planning permission is not granted without the planning
authority having satisfied itself that the proposed development either would not impact
adversely on any European protected species on the site or that, in its opinion, all
three tests for the eventual grant of a regulation 53 (of the Habitats Regulations)
licence are likely to be satisfied.”
In consideration of the tests, the Council concludes that by virtue of the location of the
site outside of defined settlement boundaries within the FUDP and by virtue of it’s
protection as a Green Space, the development of this site would not serve any
purpose of overriding public interest.
Furthermore, the exclusion of the site from defined settlement boundaries within the
Development Plan, with the associated inferred presumption in favour of development
which that inclusion confers, indicates that, the LPA considers there are other more
suitable and satisfactory alternatives as the location for such development. The fact that
the site is further protected by virtue of the Green Space designation reinforces and
underlines the unsatisfactory nature of this site for development.
Consequently, the LPA can only conclude that development of the form proposed, given
the fact that the preceding 2 tests under Reg. 53 are failed, would not serve to maintain
the favourable conservation status of the key features of the SAC.
Legacy of Historical Mining
The site falls within the defined Development High Risk Area (DHRA) in relation to risk
attributable to historical mining activities. The Coal Authority, as Consultee in respect of
proposals within such areas, has raised the question as to how safe, stable or suitable the site
is for development. It is noted that despite the location of the application site within issue the
DHRA, the application is not accompanied by a Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report to
demonstrate how the proposals take account of the coal mining features and hazards, in
particular the unrecorded undergrounded mining at shallow depths, and the potential impacts
upon the development arising from matters of land stability, gas, drainage or safety attributable
to historical mining activity in the area.
The Local Planning Authority has been provided with no information to accompany the
application which demonstrated that regard had been had to these matters. Both national and
local planning policy are clear in their directions in this regard. Where a Local Planning Authority
has reasonable grounds to believe that there is the potential for such matters to impact upon a
development proposal, then evidence to illustrate the absence of risk or propose a managed
response to the risk should accompany the application. Such information is absent and
accordingly the LPA, applying the precautionary principle, cannot be satisfied that the
development of this site can be undertaken in a safe manner in accordance with Planning Policy
Wales, paragraph 13.9.2.
In considering this planning application the Council has acted in accordance with the Human
Rights Act 1998 including Article 8 of the Convention and in a manner which is necessary in a
democratic society in furtherance of the legitimate aims of the Act and the convention.
6
Recommendation:
REFUSAL
Reasons:
1. The proposed development would be located in an area of open countryside
in an area where there is a general presumption against development of this
nature enshrined within both national and local planning policies. The
proposals represent an inappropriate form of development for which there is
no supporting exceptional justification. As such the proposals are contrary to
the provisions of policies STR1, STR4, GEN1, GEN3, HSG4 and HSG11 of
the Flintshire Unitary Development Plan.
2. The proposal represents non-essential development in the open countryside
and which will be detrimental to the function, character and value of this area
of open countryside to the locality. As such the development would be
contrary to policies STR7, GEN1 and L3 of the Flintshire Unitary
Development Plan.
3. The Local Planning Authority considers that the applicant has failed to
adequately demonstrate that the site is suitable for development without risk
to potential future occupants, the development itself, or the surroundings from
issues including, land instability, gas, drainage or safety, arising from the past
historical mining activity in the locality. Accordingly the proposal is contrary to
the provisions of the guidance set out in Planning Policy Wales at paragraphs
13.9.1 and 13.9.2 and the requirements of Policies STR1, GEN1 and EWP14
of the Flintshire Unitary Development Plan.
4. The Local Planning Authority considers that insufficient information has been
submitted to support the application and establish that the development of
this site would not adversely impact upon the Buckley and Deeside Special
Area of Conservation or its key features. Accordingly the Local Planning
Authority cannot be satisfied that the requirements of the Conservation of
Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 are adequately satisfied and
therefore the proposals are considered to be contrary to the provisions of
paragraph 5.3.11 of Planning Policy Wales (2014), Paragraph 6.3.7 of
Technical Advice Note 5 and Policies STR1, STR7, GEN1, WB1 and WB2 of
the adopted Flintshire Unitary Development Plan.
Date of Recommendation:
22.1.2015
7