Flintshire council rejects call to revoke planning for 300-home Ash Lane development
A bid to force Flintshire’s planning committee to revoke a proposed 300-home development on Ash Lane in Hawarden has been quashed.
A notice of motion was brought before Flintshire County Council by Cllr Alasdair Ibbotson of Flintshire Peoples Voice suggesting a number of incidents during the planning meeting on June 11, where the Castle Green development was approved, had fuelled concerns about the decision-making process.
These included one councillor stating they had not read any of the objectors emails and another, before the meeting, referring to residents emails as ‘c**p’.
“The planning committee meeting on the 11th of June marks, what we can surely all agree, is a new low,” he told the meeting of full council on Wednesday.
“The decision on the Ash Lane site was a farce from the very start – before the meeting had even begun – to the finish.
“We began with one councillor showing utter contempt for residents by calling objectors emails ‘the c**p from Mancot residents’. If that language was used by a planning committee member about a developer there is no question a developer would take legal action to overturn the decision on the basis of prejudice.
“We then had a second councillor claim they had refused to read objections by the public as he had been instructed not to by planning officers.”
Fellow FPV Cllr Sam Swash, who has represented opponents of the development in his Mancot ward, also spoke out.
“While that farce played out right in front of the residents who’s lives it would affect, crucial planning considerations were brushed aside or conveniently ignored,” he said. “Considerations that the very same committee used to reject other applications in the same meeting.
“Applications have been refused in Oakenholt and Northop Hall on grounds of overdevelopment, lack of infrastructure, inappropriate scale and density. Yet when those exact same issues were raised in relation to Ash Lane they were dismissed without meaningful engagement.
“Why? Because the site is allocated in the Local Development Plan.”
Cllr Ibbotson’s motion called for the council to apologise to residents, to recognise that not every proposal on land included in the Local Development Plan (LDP) be approved and that the Ash Lane decision be reversed.
At the planning meeting on June 11 an apology for remarks made prior to the meeting – which were heard in the chamber – was made by Cllr Paul Cunningham to attendees.
Cllr Allan Marshall – who was not named in the motion – told full council that the claim he had not read objections was incorrect.
“If they go back to the webcast and listen to what I said, they will see they’ve got it wrong.
“I’ve checked it, this is what I said: ‘Firstly I have to declare that I have received over 160 emails regarding this development over the past few weeks. As instructed during the planning committee training I have not read any of them. I have responded with standard text to some, but not all, of them’.”
Cllr Marshall later clarified that he had read objections formally posted in the planning portal – where all official documents relating to an application can be viewed.
Chief planning officer Andy Farrow, addressing his final full council meeting before his retirement, assured elected members that due process had been followed in what he admitted had been a challenging planning committee meeting.
“The primary concern is that we follow the process,” he said “There’s been some slightly disrespectful things said about the way that meeting was held but I have to give credit to the chair on the day Cllr Gladys Healey – it was a challenging meeting but we did follow process.
“We’ve been through the evidence in terms of this site with respect to the Local Development Plan and concluded the principle of residential development on that site was acceptable.
“The meeting has been referred to as a farce. Just because you don’t get the outcome you want doesn’t mean it was a farce. What matters is that the process was followed and I saw nothing at that meeting or subsequently that shows process hasn’t been followed.”
Mr Farrow went on to clarify that members are not told not to read emails of objection but rather to ensure they respond without indicating the objection has influenced their thinking on an application, as this could be seen as prejudicial predetermination.
Deputy leader of the council, Cllr Richard Jones supported Mr Farrow and the planning committee in responding to the motion.
“The planning committee meeting was certainly a difficult and emotional one,” he told councillors.
“But the committee did follow the established processes when considering all representations, dealing with third-party speakers and ultimately reaching a decision on the application taking into account all material considerations.
“Despite the concerns expressed in the notice of motion, planning committee took a reasonable and legitimate decision on the Ash Lane application. Whilst the composer of the motion may not be satisfied with the decision, if the process was flawed or the committee have erred in terms of law, that decision should be challenged by a judicial review.”
Flintshire councillors rejected the motion 29-9, meaning the decision to approve the Ash Lane development remains valid.
By Alec Doyle – Local Democracy Reporter
Spotted something? Got a story? Email: [email protected]
Latest News
