Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, County Hall, Ruthin
Contact: Committee Administrator 01824 706715 Email: democratic@denbighshire.gov.uk
Media
Webcast: View the webcast
No. | Item |
---|---|
COUNCILLOR RAYMOND BARTLEY - TRIBUTE On behalf of the Planning Committee the Vice-Chair Councillor Bill Cowie paid tribute to Councillor Raymond Bartley who had sadly passed away after a short illness. Councillor Bartley had been a gentleman, professional and a very good friend. He had been an excellent Chair and would be a huge loss to the Planning Committee and Denbighshire. Thoughts were with his family at this time. It was noted that individual members would be given the opportunity to pay tribute to Councillor Bartley at the next meeting of Full Council. Members and officers stood in silent tribute. As Vice-Chair, Councillor Bill Cowie took the Chair for the meeting. Additional documents: |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Councillors Bob Murray, Bill Tasker and Cheryl Williams |
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 58 KB Members to declare any personal or prejudicial interests in any business identified to be considered at this meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Stuart Davies – Personal Interest – Agenda Item
11 Councillor Gareth Sandilands – Personal Interest – Agenda
Item 10 Councillor Huw Williams – Personal Interest – Agenda Items 5
& 6 Councillor Mark Young – Personal Interest – Agenda Item 7 |
|
URGENT MATTERS AS AGREED BY THE CHAIR Notice of items which, in the opinion of the Chair, should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency pursuant to Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972. Additional documents: Minutes: No urgent matters had been raised. |
|
To confirm the accuracy of the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 14 December 2016 (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: The
minutes of the Planning Committee’s meeting held on 14 December 2016 were
submitted. Accuracy
– Councillor Meirick Davies advised that some of the
voting figures recorded in the minutes differed from his own notes and he would
speak to the relevant officers about the matter following the meeting. It was noted that any variance in the figures
did not have an impact on the voting outcome. RESOLVED that, subject to
the above, the minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2016 be approved as a
correct record. |
|
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT (ITEMS 5 - 10) - Applications received requiring determination by the
committee were submitted together with associated documentation. Reference was also made to late supplementary
information received since publication of the agenda which related to
particular applications. In order to
accommodate public speaking requests it was agreed to vary the agenda order of
applications accordingly. Additional documents: |
|
APPLICATION NO. 16/2016/1045/PS - LLANBEDR HALL, LLANBEDR DYFFRYN CLWYD, RUTHIN PDF 6 KB To consider an application for variation of condition number 12 of planning permission ref 16/2016/0545 to allow continued use of both accesses to the development, removing the requirement to restrict the use of Lon y Mynydd access at Llanbedr Hall, Llanbedr Dyffryn Clwyd, Ruthin (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: [Councillor Huw Williams declared a personal interest in
this item because the Agents acting on behalf of Llanbedr Hall were also acting
as his Agents in respect of work relating to his farm] An application had been submitted for variation
of condition number 12 of planning permission ref 16/2016/0545 to allow
continued use of both accesses to the development, removing the requirement to
restrict the use of Lon y Mynydd access at Llanbedr
Hall, Llanbedr Dyffryn Clwyd, Ruthin. Public Speaker – Ms. G. Crawley (For) – referred to previous planning history and the Inspector’s
appeal findings that there would be no significant impact on traffic using the
rear drive and highlighted improvements to be made to the front drive to
encourage use. All construction traffic
would use the front drive. It was argued
that it was not reasonable to refuse the variation given the planning history
and existing use rights. General Debate – Councillor Huw Williams (Local Member) drew
attention to the rear access point and road network as marked on the plans and
illustrated by the presentation slides and he highlighted particular highway
concerns. Concerns included the
inadequacies of the rear access track and Lon y Mynydd
/ Lon Cae Glas and onto the
A494 Trunk Road including poor/no visibility at the junction leading from the
rear, speeding along the rear access roads, and the A494 Trunk Road between
Ruthin and Mold which was narrow and dangerous and a
notorious blackspot. He also highlighted
an area of the rear access track specifically signposted as unsuitable for
vehicles and numerous road traffic accidents at points along the back route.
Finally reference was made to the wealth of local objections on highway grounds
and given the potential increase in traffic arising from the development
Councillor Williams confirmed he could not support the application. During debate members considered the factors
for and against the variation, weighing up the planning history and road safety
concerns. Councillors Merfyn Parry, Dewi Owens and Huw Hilditch-Roberts confirmed they were
familiar with the area and reported upon their own experiences and traffic
safety concerns in that regard. It was
felt that much weight should be given to local knowledge and the wealth of objections
received detailing highway safety concerns.
Whilst acknowledging the planning history and likelihood of an appeal
against a decision to refuse the application those members felt safety concerns
were paramount in this case, particularly given that the front drive provided a
safer and adequate route. Planning and Highways Officers did not contest the limitations of the rear drive route and acknowledged the concerns raised regarding its inadequacies. However it was reiterated that the significant planning history in this case offered limited support to refuse the application and officers elaborated upon the implications arising from the planning permissions previously granted by the committee in 2006 [No. 16/206/0872 – appeal upheld concerning the use of the respective drives], 2015 [No. 16/2014/1020 – extant planning permission for 9 dwellings with no restriction], and 2016 [No. 16/2016/0545 – subsequent approval of arrangement relating to condition 10 restricting the route of construction vehicles to the front drive]. Given that history officers did not consider the impact of the 2 additional dwellings granted under the latest planning permission sufficient justification to refuse the application for variation. In terms of evidence there had been only one recorded accident along the route during October 2011 – October 2016, although it was accepted that not all accidents were reported. In response to further questions officers clarified that both driveways were privately owned up to the public highway. With regard to enforcement of ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
APPLICATION NO. 16/2016/1044/PF - LLANBEDR HALL, LLANBEDR DYFFRYN CLWYD, RUTHIN PDF 5 KB To consider an application for conversion of garages into single dwelling at Llanbedr Hall, Llanbedr Dyffryn Clwyd, Ruthin (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: [Councillor Huw Williams declared a personal interest in
this item because the Agents acting on behalf of Llanbedr Hall were also acting
as his Agents in respect of work relating to his farm.] An application was submitted for conversion of
garages into single dwelling at Llanbedr Hall, Llanbedr Dyffryn
Clwyd, Ruthin. Public Speaker – Ms. G. Crawley (For) – advised that the proposed scheme offered an improvement to
the existing planning permission with better arrangements for bat migration and
improvements to the courtyard. General Debate – Councillor Huw Williams (Local Member) raised
no objection to the application confirming there were no issues in terms of
access due to the natural traffic flow.
However he did raise concerns regarding the delay in developing the site
and hoped that works would commence as soon as possible. In response to a question from Councillor
Merfyn Parry regarding traffic flow officers confirmed that access to serve the
site was via the rear drive. Proposal – Councillor Huw Williams proposed the officer
recommendations to grant the application, seconded by Councillor Anton Sampson. VOTE: GRANT – 25 REFUSE – 0 ABSTAIN – 0 RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendations as stipulated within
the report. |
|
APPLICATION NO. 31/2016/1003/PF - OUTBUILDING AT TYDDYN EOS, GROESFFORDD MARLI, ABERGELE PDF 5 KB To consider an application for conversion of outbuilding to form 1 no. dwelling (amended design to that previously approved under code no. 31/2005/1468) at outbuilding at Tyddyn Eos, Groesffordd Marli, Abergele (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: [Councillor Mark Young declared a personal interest in this
item because the Applicant was a family friend.] An application was submitted for conversion of
outbuilding to form 1 no. dwelling (amended design to that previously approved
under code no. 31/2005/1468) at outbuilding at Tyddyn
Eos, Groesffordd Marli, Abergele. Public Speaker – Mr. A. Pierce (For) – referred to previous planning history and explained the
delay in progressing building work on site and revisions to the original
application. General Debate – Councillor Meirick Davies (Local Member)
advised that officers had been happy with the amended design. Cefn Meiriadog Community Council had raised concerns regarding
the time taken to progress the building works and the applicant had provided
assurances that he would proceed quickly to finish the development within
twelve months. Consequently Councillor
Davies proposed that the application be granted subject to a condition
requiring completion of the building work within twelve months as opposed to
the usual five years. The Development
Manager explained that the five year timescale referred to commencement of the
development which had already started in this case. Consequently he suggested that condition
number 1 as detailed in the report be removed in its entirety. Proposal – Councillor Meirick Davies proposed the officer
recommendations to grant the application, subject to removal of condition no. 1
with regard to commencement of the development, seconded by Councillor Rhyl
Hughes. VOTE: GRANT – 23 REFUSE – 0 ABSTAIN – 0 RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED, in accordance with officer recommendations as stipulated
within the report, subject to the
removal of condition number 1 with regard to commencement of the development. |
|
APPLICATION NO. 40/2016/0256/PC - FIELDS SOUTH-WEST OF BORTH CROSSROADS, ABERGELE PDF 5 KB To consider an application for retention of and change of use of agricultural building to allow wood processing and use of yard for wood storage (retrospective application) at fields south-west of Borth Crossroads, Abergele (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: An application was submitted for retention of
and change of use of agricultural building to allow wood processing and use of
yard for wood storage (retrospective application) at fields south-west of Borth Crossroads, Abergele. Public Speaker – Mr. B. Owen (For) – explained the operation of the business and benefits in
terms of local employment and the rural economy. Responded to (1) noise concerns arguing
minimal impact and acceptance by Pollution Control Officers, and (2) highway
concerns arguing agricultural use would generate higher levels of vehicle use
and that mitigation measures would be implemented to address concerns. General Debate – The Development Manager drew attention to
additional information as detailed on the supplementary papers circulated at
the meeting and detailed the planning history of the site to the best of
officers knowledge. He explained the
issue under consideration was whether the use of the building, vehicular access
and site were suitable and acceptable for a wood processing business. Despite noise concerns the Pollution Control
Officer considered that noise from wood processing itself would not justify
refusal because levels could be controlled through conditions. Notwithstanding that agricultural use was the
fall-back position, officers considered the use for wood processing would give
rise to unacceptable impacts on highway safety which had been detailed within
the report. Councillor Arwel Roberts reported upon the site
visit undertaken on 12 September 2016. He
referred to numerous accidents on the carriageway and considered the site
access/egress to be very dangerous. He
believed granting the application would exacerbate the situation and agreed
with officers that the application should be refused on highway safety
grounds. Consequently Councillor Roberts
proposed that the application be refused in accordance with officer
recommendation. Councillor Alice Jones (Local Member)
elaborated upon the planning history of the site from 2004 and highlighted the
owners disregard for planning regulations and procedures since then with no
serious use of the site for agricultural purposes. She also raised concerns regarding the
retrospective planning application and proposed change of use from agricultural
to wood processing/manufacturing and highlighted the objections from nearby
residents. Councillor Jones supported
the officer recommendation for refusal on highway grounds and felt there was no
basis to the applicant’s argument that agricultural use would generate higher
volume of vehicles given that there had been little or no agricultural use in
the past and unlikely to be in the future.
However she asked that consideration also be given to noise and
residential amenity and the loss of agricultural land as valid planning reasons
for refusal of the application. The
Chair advised that the reasons for not including those planning grounds had
been detailed within the report.
Consequently Councillor Alice Jones seconded the proposal by Councillor
Arwel Roberts that the application be refused in accordance with officer
recommendation. Members discussed further the material planning
considerations with officers and sought clarification regarding a number of
issues. With regard to highways further
questions were raised regarding the applicant’s argument that the fall-back use
of the site for agricultural purposes could result in a higher volume of
vehicle movements and whether there was evidence to support the highway safety
grounds in terms of accidents recorded, particularly given that it was a
retrospective application. Questions
were also raised regard the planning policies around change of use from
agriculture to manufacturing, definition of the wood processing operation and
whether it could be classed as a farm diversification project. Officers responded to comments and questions as
follows – · elaborated upon the planning policies regarding potential change of agricultural use advising that the commercial use of redundant buildings was permitted in planning policy ... view the full minutes text for item 8. |
|
APPLICATION NO. 43/2016/0512/PF - 74 GRONANT ROAD, PRESTATYN PDF 5 KB To consider an application for erection of 5 no. apartments, 6 no. detached dwellings and associated works at 74 Gronant Road, Prestatyn (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: An application was submitted for erection of 5
no. apartments, 6 no. detached dwellings and associated works at 74 Gronant Road, Prestatyn. Public Speaker – Mrs. C. Jones (Against) – argued the development was not in keeping with the area
given the imposing and domineering nature of the apartment block which also
affected residential amenity but welcomed development of the site in line with
previous planning permission granted in 2005. General Debate – Councillor Julian Thompson-Hill (Local Member)
provided some planning history and confirmed he had no objection to the
principle of development. However he
objected to the proposed development based solely on the apartment block and
agreed with the views of the public speaker in that regard. He did not consider the proposed location of
the apartment block to be appropriate and felt it was of a size and mass vastly
out of keeping with the area, even taking into account the very large detached
properties in the vicinity and allowing for the fact that the apartment block
would provide a wide range of occupancies and one affordable housing unit. He also raised concerns regarding the loss of
13 trees. Councillors Anton Sampson (Local Member), Hugh
Irving and Gareth Sandilands (Prestatyn Members) were
unanimous in supporting the views of Councillor Julian Thompson-Hill believing
the apartment block to be totally out of keeping with the area and would have a
detrimental impact on residential amenity. The Development Manager reported upon the following
factual matters for members to take into account when making their decision – ·
the issue
of housing land availability was raised and ensuring the maximum use of land in
development plan boundaries for housing ·
a
residential development had been proposed and given that planning permission
had been previously granted at the site for seven dwellings history suggested
that housing was acceptable in that location ·
the
density of the proposed scheme at 21 dwellings per hectare was below the
threshold in planning polices which stated 35 dwellings per hectare but was
considered acceptable in this case taking into account the character of the
area ·
referred
to the plans provided which showed a street elevation along Gronant
Road where the apartment block was proposed which aimed to demonstrate that the
building itself was no higher than existing buildings adjacent to it and
provided an indication in terms of size and scale ·
with regard to the
loss of trees it was found that most of the trees to be removed were low quality
specimens and there would be a replanting scheme within the site and therefore
the loss of trees was considered acceptable in this instance. Proposal – Councillor Julian Thompson-Hill proposed,
seconded by Councillor Anton Sampson that the application be refused on the
grounds that the apartment block was of a size and scale which would have a
significant negative impact on the visual amenity of the area for surrounding
properties and residents. VOTE: GRANT – 10 REFUSE – 12 ABSTAIN – 0 RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED, contrary to officer recommendation, on the grounds that
the apartment block was of a size and scale which would have a significant
negative impact on the visual amenity of the area for surrounding properties
and residents. In the event of an appeal against the decision it was agreed that as proposer and seconder respectively, Councillors Julian Thompson-Hill and Anton Sampson would attend on behalf of the committee. At this juncture (11.35 a.m.) the meeting adjourned for a refreshment break. |
|
APPLICATION NO. 43/2016/1083/PF - 2 LICHFIELD DRIVE, PRESTATYN PDF 5 KB To consider an application for erection of extension to rear of dwelling (re-submission) at 2 Lichfield Drive, Prestatyn (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: [Councillor Gareth Sandilands declared a
personal interest in this item because he lived near to the application site.] An application was submitted for erection of
extension to rear of dwelling (re-submission) at 2 Lichfield Drive, Prestatyn and reference was made to the additional
supplementary information circulated at the meeting. General Debate – Councillor Gareth Sandilands (Local Member)
raised a number of objections against the application on behalf of local
residents which related to traffic congestion, parking capacity on a public
highway, over intensification of property, anti-social behaviour at the
property and loss of privacy. He
referred to refusal of previous planning application and his suspicion that the
application was partially retrospective. The Development Manager drew members’ attention
to the plans showing the existing timber structure which was lawful and
officers did not consider the proposed extension to be significantly different
in terms of size, scale, impact on neighbours etc. In response to a query regarding the existing
use of the wooden structure officers clarified that if the building was
ancillary to the main dwelling it could be lawfully used as living
accommodation. In light of local
residents objections Councillor Gareth Sandilands proposed that the application
be refused and officers advised as to applicable material planning
considerations in this case. Proposal – Councillor Sandilands proposed that the application
be refused due to the impact on neighbours in terms of loss of privacy. There was no seconder for the
proposition. Councillor Meirick Davies
proposed the officer recommendations to grant the application, seconded by
Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts. VOTE: GRANT – 18 REFUSE – 2 ABSTAIN – 0 RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendations as stipulated
within the report. |
|
To consider a report seeking ratification of the Planning Committee resolution on an application for erection of 95 dwellings, together with associated roads, open space and related works at land at Vicarage Lane, Llangollen (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: [Councillor Stuart Davies declared a personal
interest in this item because he lived opposite the site subject of the
application.] A report was submitted seeking ratification of the
Planning Committee resolution made on 14 December 2016 on an application for
erection of 95 dwellings, together with associated roads, open space and
related works at land at Vicarage Road, Llangollen. Planning permission had been granted for the
development subject to an increased provision of affordable housing. The report updated members on additional
information supplied by the applicant in relation to that resolution as
summarised below – ·
Affordable
Housing – the applicant would provide 10% affordable housing on the full 95
dwellings which equated to 9 dwellings on site and a commuted sum payment of
£47,074.50 in lieu of the 0.5 dwellings.
The applicant proposed those affordable units be shared ownership ·
Security
of Financial Contributions – the development of the on-site affordable units,
payment of the commuted sum and open space responsibilities, and the provision
of the financial contribution towards education could be adequately controlled
via the S.106 legal agreement and therefore officers did not consider it
necessary to require a financial bond to be entered into by the developer ·
Parking
Area – a landscaping condition had been proposed in the original officer report
seeking further agreement to the precise details of the open space and landscaped
areas on site which could, if agreed, include additional parking space for
vehicles. It would be for the developer
to submit a landscape proposal for the areas and officers could liaise with
local members on the final scheme. Councillor Stuart Davies (Local Member) was
pleased to report that local residents had acknowledged the robust debate at
the last meeting when considering the application and were thankful for
it. He thanked planning officers for
their work in securing the relevant agreements with developers which could be
controlled and enforced via the S.106 agreement as detailed within the
report. However he sought further
clarification on the proposed shared ownership scheme and whether the Council
could be involved in that provision as opposed to other social landlords. Officers confirmed the proposal for shared
equity in relation to the 9 affordable housing units and advised they would
liaise with housing officers regarding Denbighshire’s role in that
provision. It was also open to the
developer to take the matter up with other social landlords and propose a
scheme. Assurances were provided that
local members would be kept informed of those discussions. Officers responded to further questions as
follows – ·
advised of
the policies and procedures for dealing with affordable housing and ensuring
requirements were met in terms of the appropriate allocation of units to meet local
need, floor space standards and value/affordability factors and criteria – any
concerns regarding individual cases should be raised outside of the meeting and
any broader concerns regarding those policies should be taken up via the Local
Development Plan Steering Group or Scrutiny Committee ·
late
representations had been received from Llangollen Civic Society who had queried
the contributions proposed in relation to Education and Open Space and officers
explained the reasoning behind the view that the provision of open space and a
contribution based on the 45 additional units would be acceptable in this case
given the planning history and principle. Proposal – Councillor Stuart Davies proposed the officer
recommendations to ratify the resolution to grant planning permission on the
basis as outlined in the report, seconded by Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts. VOTE: FOR – 18 AGAINST – 0 ABSTAIN – 0 RESOLVED that members ratify the 14 December 2016 Planning Committee decision and grant planning ... view the full minutes text for item 11. |
|
SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE: 'CARAVANS, CHALETS & CAMPING' - CONSULTATION DRAFT PDF 82 KB To consider a report recommending members agree the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on caravans, chalets and camping as a basis for public consultation (copy attached). Additional documents:
Minutes: Councillor David Smith, Lead Member for Public
Realm submitted a report presenting the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance
document on Caravans, Chalets & Camping as a basis for public consultation.
The document provided further guidance
for developers, officers and members. Councillor Smith reminded members of the
different stages in the process before final adoption of SPG documents by the
Planning Committee. He urged members to
respond with their views during the consultation period. Upon being put to the vote it was unanimously – RESOLVED that members agree the
draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on Caravans, Chalets & Camping as a
basis for public consultation. |
|
EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC RESOLVED
that under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the Press and Public
be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds
that it would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in
Paragraphs 12 and 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Act. Additional documents: |
|
FORMER NORTH WALES HOSPITAL DENBIGH - CPO - GENERAL VESTING DECLARATION To consider a confidential report seeking authorisation for the making of the General Vesting Declaration to complete the compulsory purchase of the former North Wales Hospital site (copy attached). Additional documents:
Minutes: A confidential report was submitted seeking
authorisation for the making of the General Vesting Declaration to complete the
compulsory purchase of the former North Wales Hospital site and the immediate
transfer of ownership to the North Wales Building Preservation Trust. The report provided some background history to
the situation and process to date and two members briefing sessions had also
been held on the subject over the last month.
Members took the opportunity to raise questions with officers regarding
the process itself, including legal arguments, likely timescales involved and
financial implications including compensation payable. The role of the Building Preservation Trust
was also discussed. During debate
tribute was paid to both former and current officers involved in the process. Proposal – Councillor Mark Young proposed the officer
recommendation, believing it presented the best solution in this case, seconded
by Councillor Meirick Davies. VOTE: FOR – 15 AGAINST – 0 ABSTAIN – 1 RESOLVED that – (a) Planning Committee authorises the making
of a General Vesting Declaration to complete the compulsory purchase of the
former North Wales Hospital site as shown edged red on the plan as detailed
within Appendix 1 to the report pursuant to section 47 of the 1990 Act, and
that the ownership of the site is immediately transferred to the North Wales
Building Preservation Trust, and (b) that the General
Vesting Declaration is served only after the amended Back to Back Agreement has
been signed by North Wales Building Preservation Trust and the Council. The
meeting concluded at 12.45 p.m. |