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 |
---|---|
Additional documents: Minutes: Councillors Huw Jones and Tony Thomas The Chair conveyed the Planning Committee’s best wishes to Councillor Huw Jones and it was agreed to send him a card to that effect. |
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST PDF 116 KB Members to declare any personal or prejudicial interests in any business identified to be considered at this meeting. Additional documents: Minutes: No declarations of interest had been raised. |
|
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 22 May 2019 (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 22 May 2019 were submitted. RESOLVED that the minutes
of the meeting held on 22 May 2019 be approved as a correct record. |
|
APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT (ITEMS 5 - 11) - Applications received requiring determination by the committee were submitted together with associated documentation. Reference was also made to late supplementary information (blue sheets) 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 NOS. 25/2018/1216/PF & 25/2018/1217/LB - BWLCH DU, NANTGLYN, DENBIGH PDF 6 KB To consider an application for alterations and rear extension to existing building, demolition of
curtilage structure, erection of ancillary building, retention of log cabin
(for temporary period), boundary fencing and gates, and provision of on-site
parking and turning area at Bwlch Du, Nantglyn, Denbigh (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: The Vice Chair, Councillor Alan James took the Chair for
agenda items 8 and 9 relating to Bwlch Du, Nantglyn because the Chair, Councillor Joe Welch was the
Local Member. Officers had recommended
both agenda items be deferred. General Debate – Officers referred to information in the late supplementary papers (blue sheets) and correspondence sent by the applicant’s solicitors on 15 July. Having regard to the detailed contents of the late information, and its significance in relation to the application in front of the committee, officers recommended, in fairness to all parties, that the most appropriate course of action would be to defer consideration of the Bwlch Du items. This would afford officers a reasonable opportunity to review the submissions, to seek legal advice as necessary on the issues arising, and to revise, if necessary, the contents of the officer reports on the items, for future presentation to the committee. Councillor Joe Welch (Local Member) submitted that requests to defer items were generally due to the receipt of a wealth of new information but most of the information received in this case had been known for some time and therefore he did not support deferral. With specific regard to the listed building item officers had recommended the application be granted and the applicant had advised that he did not want the applications deferred. In response officers advised that some new complex information and case law had been submitted which officers had not had the opportunity to assess and in such circumstances the practice was to seek a deferral to ensure members were provided with all information necessary to make a fully informed decision. In terms of the listed building element some reference had been made in the correspondence in relation to how officers had dealt with the issue and therefore the recommendation had been made to defer both applications, in fairness to both parties, in order to provide further information in that regard. Proposal – Councillor Mark Young agreed that a lot of
new information had been submitted for which members had not been given
sufficient time to scrutinise and therefore he proposed, seconded by Councillor
Ellie Chard, that both applications be deferred in accordance with officer
recommendation. VOTE: FOR DEFERRAL – 11 AGAINST DEFERRAL – 1 ABSTAIN – 1 RESOLVED that the applications be DEFERRED in accordance with officer recommendation. Councillor Mark Young also sought clarity
around discussions with the applicant relating to the issue of lawful use of
the building having seen reference to Certificate of Lawful Use in the reports. Officers referred to previous information
provided and the issue of certifying whether or not a building had lawful
status as a dwelling which was taken in the form of an application for a
Certificate of Lawful Use. It was confirmed
that discussions had taken place with the applicant in that regard but there
was a need to deal with the application as submitted. |
|
APPLICATION NO. 21/2019/0197/PF - TAN Y GRAIG, MAESHAFN, MOLD PDF 6 KB To consider an application for erection of a replacement dwelling, detached garage and associated works
at Tan y Graig, Maeshafn, Mold (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: An application was submitted for the erection of a
replacement dwelling, detached garage and associated works at Tan y Graig, Maeshafn, Mold. Public Speaker – Ms. B. Smith (For) – explained
her family’s links to the area and reasoning behind the application to meet
family needs and stay in the area whilst also providing a self-sufficient
dwelling fit for the future which was also economically viable. General Debate – Councillor Martyn Holland (Local Member) spoke
in support of the application which would enable a young family to remain in
the area and contribute positively, encouraging a thriving community. The new property would meet all environmental
challenges and complement its neighbouring properties. In referring to the relevant policies and
guidance Councillor Holland argued that the tests had been met in relation to
Local Development Plan Policy RD4 given that – (i)
the building had a legal use right as a dwelling
although it had not been lived in recently and the outbuildings had
deteriorated (ii)
the building was not listed and had been subject
to various additions which added very little character to the area – Clwyd
Powys Archaeological Trust had no objection to the application providing a
record of the building was made prior to its demolition, and (iii)
the dwelling was
unsound and inefficient and he reported upon the inadequacies of the existing
building and significant works required identified within the structural
inspection report making the project financially unviable. In closing Councillor Holland added that Llanferres Community Council and Maeshafn
Community Councillors supported the application and the main concerns of the
immediate neighbours related to maintenance of the public footpath which the
applicants had agreed to address. [The
report noted a consultation response from Llanferres
Community Council was still awaited]. During debate members considered the merits of
the application and interpretation of the policy tests as put forward by
officers, the local member and public speaker.
Councillor Emrys Wynne was persuaded that a compelling case had been
made to grant the application, particularly given the opportunity to build a
new fit for purpose property set back from the road with no strong case in terms of historical importance of the dwelling. Councillors Merfyn Parry and Julian
Thompson-Hill also spoke in favour of the application considering there to be
no undue loss to the local environment with the building being in keeping with
the mixed nature of properties. Officers referred to the Policy RD4 tests
applicable in this case and confirmed that the building had legal use rights as
a dwelling in accordance with RD4(i).
Having regard to the views of Natural Resources Wales and the AONB
Committee officers had considered the existing dwelling made a valuable
contribution to the character of the local area and therefore failed to comply
with RD4(ii) and only partially complied with the
criteria for RD4(iii) given that the building was structurally sound, albeit in
poor condition, with the potential to be restored. Whilst respecting the merits of the arguments
put forward, given the Council’s commitment to retaining buildings of character
or merit in the countryside, officers had recommended that the application be
refused. Proposal – Councillor Emrys Wynne believed that the
policy tests in relation to Policy RD4 had been met and the proposals were
acceptable having regard to all relevant policies and guidance. On that basis he proposed, seconded by
Councillor Merfyn Parry, that the application be granted and that officers
liaise with the local member with regard to planning conditions to be applied
to the consent. VOTE: GRANT – 12 REFUSE – 2 ABSTAIN – 0 RESOLVED ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
APPLICATION NO. 45/2019/0156/PF - 64 BRIGHTON ROAD, RHYL PDF 6 KB To consider an application for change of use and alterations to former offices to form a 61 bed, 6 ward
bespoke hospital at 64 Brighton Road, Rhyl (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: An application was submitted for change of use
and alterations to former offices to form a 61 bed, 6 ward bespoke hospital at
64 Brighton Road, Rhyl. Public Speaker – Mr. J. Horden (agent) (For) – argued against grounds for refusal on the basis that there
was no requirement or demand in Rhyl for large scale office accommodation with
little prospect for sale or let of the site in this case which would be put to
good use and generate employment if consent for the hospital was granted. General Debate – Councillor Barry Mellor (Local Member) spoke
against the proposal, arguing that that such a facility would not be
appropriate for the proposed location, and he highlighted the impact on nearby
residents in terms of disturbance and fear of crime and referred to submission
of a petition which demonstrated the wealth of public objection to the
proposal. Reference was made to the
business case and proposed service model with concerns raised regarding the demand
for services and viability of the proposal together with the subsequent impact
on other local health board facilities and associated services and the North
Wales Police who had raised concerns about security arrangements. Finally concerns were raised over the loss of
land for employment use should the application be granted. During debate members considered the merits of
the application and the policy criteria to be applied with further discussion
focusing on the policy tests in respect of Local Development Policy PSE 3 and
principle of the development on which officers had based their refusal
recommendation. Officers had concluded
that the tests had not been met given that there was no real evidence that
alternative sites for the development had been explored or that a marketing
process had been followed to demonstrate the proposed site was no longer
capable of providing employment accommodation and therefore should be
permanently relinquished for another use.
It was considered that the loss of the use would prejudice the ability
of the area to meet a range of local employment needs. Reference was also made to Technical Advice
Note 23 relating to economic development and the Council’s Economic Development
Officers had advised of a shortage of properties that size that could be used
for office space – whilst there may not be an identified use at this time it
was not to say there would not be one in the future. Councillor Brian Jones also referred to the
likely future need for employment land and buildings in connection with
projects arising from the North Wales Economic Growth Deal. Members also considered other potential
planning considerations relating to the fear of crime and impact that the
proposal could have on the area – officers had not included the fear of crime
element as grounds for refusal given that the concerns raised by the Police had
not been clearly evidenced and if consent was granted it may be possible to
control those concerns through the imposition of conditions. Officers also confirmed the lack of evidence
provided with regard to significant impact on community infrastructure and
policy requirement in that regard and therefore impact on local infrastructure
was not considered an appropriate ground for refusal in this case. Consequently officers had made a clear
recommendation to refuse on the basis that the proposal did not comply with
Policy PSE 3. Councillor Mark Young referred to the lack of capacity in the health service and noted that the site had been for sale for over two years. He considered the opportunity of significant job creation and bringing a deteriorating building back into use against the potential ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|
APPLICATION NO. 14/2019/0233/ PO - LAND AT LLYS HEULOG, CYFFYLLIOG, RUTHIN PDF 6 KB To consider an application for development of 0.48ha of land for residential purposes (outline application
including access) at land at Llys Heulog, Cyffylliog, Ruthin (copy
attached). Additional documents: Minutes: An application was submitted for development of
0.48ha of land for residential purposes (outline application including access)
at land at Llys Heulog, Cyffylliog, Ruthin. General Debate – The application had been reported to committee
because of objections received from Cyffylliog Community Council and officers
responded to the five points raised as follows – (1) the application was for
outline planning permission and principle of development only at this stage –
condition 15 sought details of the range of house sizes and types for approval
prior to development; (2) and (3) under current policy affordable housing
provision was not required for developments with less than 10 dwellings,
instead a financial contribution was required as covered under condition 12;
(4) the site was allocated for housing in the Local Development Plan and there
was no requirement to prove a need for dwellings for allocated sites; (5)
condition 13 covered the arrangements for open space provision/contributions. Officers also clarified that permission for
the site had been refused the previous year based solely on acceptable
visibility in highway terms which had since been addressed to the satisfaction
of Highway Officers. Councillor Merfyn Parry referred to condition
12 relating to affordable housing and asked that the requirement be extended to
the whole development site so that in the event that the remainder of the site
allocated for housing was sold, the liability to provide affordable housing was
transferred to the new land owner/developer.
He also referred to condition 9 and asked that works to the entrance of
the site be undertaken at the beginning of the development. Officers agreed to those requests. In response to a questions regarding the estate
road officers confirmed that regardless of whether the road was adopted by the
Highway Authority it would still need to be built to full highways
specification and to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority and its
construction would be controlled by condition. Proposal – Councillor Gwyneth Kensler proposed the
officer recommendation to grant the application, seconded by Councillor Merfyn
Parry. VOTE: GRANT – 16 REFUSE – 0 ABSTAIN – 0 RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendations as detailed
within the report. |
|
APPLICATION NO. 22/2014/0626/PO - LAND SOUTH WEST OF PENIARTH, GELLIFOR, RUTHIN PDF 6 KB To consider an application for development of 0.55ha of land for residential purposes and provision of
school car parking area (outline application with all matters reserved) at land
south west of Peniarth, Gellifor, Ruthin (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: An application for development of 0.55ha of
land for residential purposes and provision of school car parking area (outline
application with all matters reserved) at land south west of Peniarth,
Gellifor, Ruthin. General Debate – Officers reported that the delay in bringing
the application before members had been due to the Community Council’s request
for some land to be set aside for a small car park to help with car parking
problems in the area which the applicants had since offered as part of the
development. In response to a question
from Councillor Mark Young regarding safeguarding future provision of the car
park officers confirmed that the consent included a car park and land had been dedicated
for that purpose on the plan which was also covered by planning condition. It was a matter for the Education Department
and landowner as to how the car park was to be progressed which could be
covered by licence agreement. Proposal – Councillor Julian Thompson-Hill proposed the
officer recommendation to grant the application, seconded by Councillor Mark
Young. VOTE: GRANT – 16 REFUSE – 0 ABSTAIN – 0 RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendations as detailed
within the report. |
|
APPLICATION NO. 45/2019/0415/OB - LAND AT BROOKDALE ROAD, RHYL PDF 6 KB To consider an application for Deed of Variation to remove Plot 5 from Section 106 Obligation relating to
affordable housing provision in connection with planning permission
45/2006/0816/PF at land at Brookdale Road, Rhyl (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: An application was submitted for Deed of
Variation to remove Plot 5 from Section 196 Obligation relating to affordable
housing provision in connection with planning permission 45/2006/0816/PF at
land at Brookdale Road, Rhyl. As a point of order Councillor Mark Young
queried why a previous application had been considered under part 2 of the
agenda and officers advised that commercially sensitive information had been
considered as part of that particular application which did not apply in this
case. General Debate – Whilst acknowledging the reasoning behind the
application Councillor Pete Prendergast (Local Member) expressed his
disappointment over the potential loss of an affordable dwelling in this case,
particularly given the length of time taken to complete the development for
which it was now argued was no longer financially viable. He felt that the affordable housing element
of developments should be kept under close review to ensure planning
obligations were met, particularly given the desperate need for low cost
housing in the area. During the ensuing debate members expressed
their concern over the potential loss of affordable housing, particular given
that a previous viability case had been accepted for the development which had
already reduced the amount of affordable housing provision. Despite the financial viability appraisal
there was still a need for affordable housing and there was some debate as to
whether there would be merit in further testing of the financial information. Members were keen to ensure affordable
housing provision was protected and that developers kept to their obligations
in that regard. Officers confirmed it
was a regrettable case, highlighting the long development process and
extenuating circumstances, but given the change in financial circumstances and
assessment of the financial viability appraisal by the Council’s Valuation and
Estates Manager, it was considered unreasonable to insist on compliance with
the planning obligation in this instance.
In reaching their recommendation officers had also considered the
prospects of the planning obligation being met and any legal process which
would need to be applied to pursue it and/or in responding in the event of an
appeal. Officers had considered the
financial assessment to be sufficient given the level of expertise required in
this case and it was noted that any further independent scrutiny of the
financial information would likely incur further cost to the Planning
Department. At the close of the debate Councillor Pete
Prendergast advised that the developer in this case was considered to be a long
established and successful builder, whether or not a loss was made on this
particular development. Planning
permission had been granted on the basis of affordable housing provision and
given that the planning obligation was for one affordable dwelling, he did not
consider it unreasonable to seek that provision. Proposal – Councillor Merfyn Parry proposed, seconded by
Councillor Emrys Wynne, that the application be
refused on the basis that the planning obligation still served a useful purpose
notwithstanding the financial appraisal submitted. VOTE: GRANT – 3 REFUSE – 13 ABSTAIN – 0 RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED, contrary to officer recommendation, on the basis that the
planning obligation still serviced a useful purpose in the provision of
affordable housing notwithstanding the financial appraisal submitted by the
applicant. The meeting concluded at 11.50 a.m. |