Loading
The minutes are published. No summary has been written yet.
1.1 Apologies were received by Councillors Stuart Ashley, Steven Evans, Gaynor James and Jon James.
2.1 There were no interests declared.
3.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 10th June 2026 were confirmed as a true and accurate record.
4.1 The Team Leader (Planning Applications) presented the report and made the following comments: • The application was submitted under Section 73 to vary a number of conditions attached to planning permission 18/P/0424/RES and sought to regularise changes made during construction of the development. • Members were advised that outline planning permission for the wider site had originally been granted in 2012, with Reserved Matters approval subsequently granted for the residential development. • The site formed part of the Abbey Woods development adjacent to Malthouse Lane and comprised a residential scheme of 164 dwellings. • The principle of residential development had already been established and was not under consideration. • The approved and amended layouts were compared and, whilst a number of alterations had been made on site, the overall layout, dwelling numbers and general form of development remained substantially the same. • Changes included alterations to plot positions, dwelling orientations, site levels, retaining structures, boundary treatments and drainage arrangements. • Variations in site levels had resulted in some retaining walls and fencing being constructed at different heights to those originally approved. • High-voltage electricity infrastructure previously crossing the site had been placed underground, resulting in the provision of two substations within areas of public open space. • The substations had been located in positions required by National Grid to ensure accessibility for operational and emergency purposes. • Landscaping conditions had been imposed to ensure the substations would be appropriately screened. • The Highway Authority had identified the need for amendments to a footway and kerb alignment to improve the movement of vehicles at a tight junction within the development. • Concerns raised by residents regarding parking and manoeuvrability had been considered by the Highway Authority. • The Highway Authority proposed traffic regulation measures, including double-yellow line restrictions at key locations, to assist with vehicle movement and highway safety. • Members were advised that raised tables, road markings and associated highway features approved under the original scheme had not yet been fully implemented. • Additional footway works had been requested to improve pedestrian connectivity within parts of the development. • Concerns regarding retaining walls adjacent to certain properties had been assessed and officers considered that no unacceptable impact upon neighbouring occupiers would arise. • Public open space and landscaped areas would continue to be managed through a management company, as previously approved. • Officers acknowledged concerns raised by residents regarding outstanding landscaping and ecological works. • Conditions were proposed requiring ecological enhancements, landscaping works and associated mitigation measures to be completed and independently verified. • Members were advised that revised drainage arrangements had been introduced after it became apparent that the original sustainable drainage approach was not performing as anticipated. • Additional highway gullies had been incorporated into the scheme to improve surface water management and reduce flooding issues experienced by some residents. • A number of drainage concerns raised by residents had been addressed through the revised design. • The development had experienced significant delays following the insolvency of the original developer, Enzos Homes Ltd. • The current developer had secured funding to complete the development, associated infrastructure, roads, footpaths, drainage, open spaces and play facilities. • Members were advised that completion of the remaining works was anticipated by January 2027, subject to weather and other operational factors. • The affordable housing requirement remained unchanged at 15%, equating to 25 units secured through the existing Section 106 Agreement. • Whilst discussions were ongoing regarding the possible sale of Phase 3 properties to an investor or Registered Social Landlord, he advised that the future ownership of those dwellings was not a material planning consideration. • No objections had been received from statutory consultees, including the Highway Authority, drainage officers or Natural Resources Wales. • The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions and the completion of a legal agreement. 4.2 The Chair informed Members that there were two third-party speakers who wished to speak in relation to the application. Ms Burke was invited to address the committee. She stated that: • Residents had purchased properties on the understanding that the development would be delivered in accordance with the approved plans and information available at the time of purchase. • Reference was made to comments within the officer's report regarding the possible acquisition of Phase 3 properties by a housing association or investor. • Clarification was sought regarding the current position, including the number of properties involved and whether discussions remained ongoing. • It was stressed that the comments made were not intended as an objection to affordable housing, nor as criticism of social housing provision. • Concerns related instead to transparency and the provision of clear information to existing residents. • Questions were raised regarding how any future acquisition of Phase 3 properties would interact with the affordable housing obligation secured through the Section 106 Agreement. • Clarification was sought as to whether such properties would count towards the affordable housing provision already required or represent additional provision. • Reference was made to the expectations of existing residents and the importance of understanding the future composition of the development. • Attention was drawn to the representations submitted by residents and the concerns contained within those submissions. • Concerns were reiterated regarding highway matters, including parking arrangements, road widths, footway provision and vehicle manoeuvrability. • Concerns were also raised regarding drainage issues experienced within the development. • Reference was made to unfinished roads, footpaths, landscaping and other infrastructure works. • The need for appropriate enforcement and monitoring of outstanding obligations was emphasised. • Members were requested to ensure that any approval adequately secured the completion of all remaining works. 4.3 Mr Bowen addressed the Committee on behalf of the applicant and made the following points: • The application had been subject to detailed assessment by Planning officers. • The officer's report represented a balanced and comprehensive assessment of the proposal. • Matters raised by residents had been fully considered and addressed through the planning process. • No objections had been received from statutory consultees. • Particular reference was made to the positions of highways officers, drainage officers and Natural Resources Wales. • Delays experienced during delivery of the development were acknowledged. • It was explained that those delays had arisen following changes in contractors and other delivery issues outside the normal course of development. • Whilst regrettable, those delays were not considered unusual in the circumstances faced by the scheme. • Outstanding works were anticipated to be completed by the end of December 2026. • Highway concerns raised by residents had been assessed by the relevant technical officers. • Drainage matters had similarly been reviewed by the appropriate consultees. • The proposed location of the play area had been agreed following discussions with officers and formed part of an acceptable overall layout. • The application was considered to comply with both local and national planning policy. • It was submitted that the proposal would not result in unacceptable planning harm. • Members were invited to support the officer recommendation and grant planning permission. 4.4 During the debate, Councillor Gauden the following points: • Clarification was needed regarding the future of Phase 3 and the affordable housing provision associated with the development. • Many of the concerns raised by residents appeared to be linked to the history of the site and delays in delivering key infrastructure. • Trust between residents and the developer had been affected by the length of time taken to complete outstanding works. • Residents' frustrations were understandable given the circumstances surrounding the development. • Members should focus on the planning merits of the application whilst taking account of the concerns raised. 4.5 Councillor Slade made the following points: • He acknowledged the significant concerns raised by residents regarding changes made during the construction of the development. • There were concerns regarding the differences between the plans originally approved by the Council and the development that had been constructed on site. • He referred to concerns raised in relation to road layouts, parking arrangements and highway safety within parts of the development. • There were issues relating to drainage, unfinished works and the length of time residents had been waiting for the development to be completed. • The volume of representations received from local residents was extensive and he considered that these concerns warranted further consideration. • He expressed concern regarding the cumulative impact of the various amendments proposed through the application. 4.6 In response to comments raised by the objector and questions asked by Members of the Planning Committee, the Team Leader (Planning Applications) gave the following responses: • The Section 106 Agreement would continue to apply to any new permission granted under the Section 73 application. • An additional financial contribution would be secured towards the implementation of the required traffic regulation orders. • The affordable housing requirement remained unchanged at 15% of the development, equating to 25 dwellings. • Those affordable units remained identified on the approved plans and would be allocated in accordance with the Council's housing processes. • Whilst current planning policy required 30% affordable housing provision, the development remained subject to the previously agreed 15% requirement. • The future purchaser or occupier of the Phase 3 properties was not a material planning consideration. • There was no requirement for planning permission if a purchaser acquired dwellings and used them for normal residential occupation. • The same planning position would apply to a Registered Social Landlord. • Officers acknowledged residents' concerns regarding delays, disruption and outstanding works. • The Local Planning Authority had worked with the developer to secure completion of roads, drainage infrastructure, landscaping, ecological works and public open space rather than leaving the site unfinished following the collapse of the original developer. • The removal of permitted development rights was not a new restriction and had already formed part of the previous planning permission across the site. • Those restrictions had simply been carried forward within the new permission. • Officers advised that previously omitted garages had been reinstated on the amended plans following concerns raised by residents. • Whilst accepting that some dwellings had been repositioned or altered slightly, officers considered the overall scheme remained fundamentally consistent with the approved development. • The Highway Authority had accepted the proposed road layout and confirmed its intention to adopt the roads following completion of the required works. • Traffic regulation orders would be progressed through a separate highways process once adoption had occurred. • He confirmed that the approved planning drawings had previously shown road widths of 4.8 metres and that those were the dimensions constructed on site. • Although previous Section 38 drawings had shown wider carriageways, the Highway Authority was satisfied that the revised arrangement could be adopted. • Waste collection officers had confirmed that refuse vehicles could successfully navigate the road layout. • Officers maintained that the proposed amendments represented relatively minor changes when considered against the approved scheme as a whole and recommended approval accordingly. 4.7 The Chair asked Members to move a recommendation. Councillor Slade moved to refuse the application. This was not seconded. 4.8 Councillor Slade suggested that a site visit would assist Members in fully understanding the issues raised by residents and in appreciating the relationship between the approved plans and the development as constructed. He moved that consideration of the application be deferred pending a Planning Committee site visit. 4.9 Members agreed unanimously to defer the application for a site visit. 4.10 The meeting concluded at 11.07am.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.