To consider report of the Chief Officer Neighbourhood Services
Councillor H Barrett, Councillor C Barry and Councillor D Isaac having Declared their Interest in this item left the Chamber for the consideration of this item.
Councillor D Hughes referred the Council to the ‘Proposed Residential Development on Land at East Street and Union Street Dowlais – P/18/0330’ report and circulated to the Members a plan of the proposed site where he had marked by hand the vision splays.
Carys Kennedy advised that the Officers had not had the opportunity to view this document and enquired if this Plan was available in the Planning Department to which Councillor Hughes replied in the affirmative.
Councillor D Hughes then referred to the recommendations as contained within the report and the extra document that he had circulated illustrating the vision splays and moved that as the proposal did not meet Regulations that the application be rejected.
This motion for refusal was then seconded.
In response to queries in relation to the additional document the Planning Officer then gave details of the Documents held by the Planning Department and advised that in relation to Building Regulations they did not incorporate visibility splays as this was a matter for the Highways Department and that no issues had been raised by the Highways Department from a safety point of view.
Questions were then raised by the Members on the application and were responded to in detail by the Officers.
A Member then proposed that a Full Council Fact Finding Visit be convened but this motion was not seconded.
Geraint Morgan then advised that any reasons for refusal of the application had to be clear and had to be based on sound Planning Principles and based on Policy. If the Council decided to refuse the application the developer had the right of Appeal and outlined the three different ways an Appeal could be dealt with. As the Officers had recommended approval of the application the Officers would not attend the Appeal to represent the Council and therefore Councillors would have to attend any hearing / inquiry on behalf of the Council. He also gave details of how costs may be awarded at an Appeal.
Observations were then made by Members on the application.
A Member then recommended that the application be refused on the three grounds as outlined in Paragraph 3.2 of the report.
Carys Kennedy then advised that if the motion was to refuse the application then clear reasons for refusal had to be given and asked that the reasons be put forward.
A Member then stated that the further reason for refusal was that in relation to the Highways Act 1980 to do with Vision Splays when accessing or leaving a property, the formula when worked out at 30 mph and having checked with the Highways Department it is 45 metres.
Another Member then stated in support of the reason for refusal that due to a material Planning issue in line with the Highways Act 1980 with reference to the recommended vision splays on entering or leaving a residential property and also the loss of amenity as set out in Paragraph 3.2 of the report.
The Member also stated that ‘Legislation’ replace ‘Highway Act’ in the reason.
Geraint Morgan then advised of the usual process undertaken by the Planning Committee when an application was refused and the reasons for refusal had to be the Councillors and not the Officers and stated that there was a need to know why the reasons for refusal were being given.
A Member then requested a five minute recess to consider reasons for refusal and the recess was agreed.
Councillor L Mytton then recommended that the application be refused on the grounds of Highways and Public Safety as we think the issues raised on the lines of sight as per Statutory Legislation will cause a public highway problem as well as a substantial loss of amenity for a Voluntary Organisation together with the three reasons for refusal as outlined in Paragraph 3.2 of the report and that the following Councillors be nominated to represent the Council at Appeal:
Councillor J Amos, Councillor D Hughes, Councillor L Mytton and Councillor D Sammon.
Geraint Morgan then advised that loss of amenity was referred to in Paragraph 3.2 of the report.
Councillor L Mytton then amended the reason accordingly.
Carys Kennedy then clarified that if the Members voted in favour of the proposal that they were in favour of rejecting the application on the four grounds of:
The three bullet points outlined in Paragraph 3.2 of the report and the further point as read out by Councillor L Mytton.
A Vote was then taken on the motion to refuse the application, and it was
Planning Application P/18/0330 be refused for the following reasons:
· Substantive loss of amenity for a voluntary Organisation that provides palliative care for persons suffering from Cancer
· Width of the Highway even with the proposed widening, Committee does not deem wide enough
· Due to the excavation of the site the water run off that could lead to stability concerns of the Voluntary Organisation and Residential Homes
· On the grounds of Highway and Public Safety as we think the issues raised on the lines of sight as per Statutory Legislation will cause a Public Highway problem
The following Councillors be nominated to represent the Authority at Appeal:
· Councillor J Amos
· Councillor D Hughes
· Councillor L Mytton
· Councillor D Sammon