Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: the 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: Councillor Huw
Jones. |
|
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 declaration 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: The chair allowed Councillor Merfyn Parry to ask for an
update on the Bwlch Du application which was previously discussed at planning
committee. Officers read out the latest information as presented by the
Head of Legal, HR and Democratic Services – “The current position in respect of this matter was that
following the decision made by the Council’s Planning Committee in September of
this year, the Council was directed by Welsh Government to take no action to
issue a decision in respect of the application as they were considering whether
or not to call the matter in for determination by them. The Welsh Government had since confirmed that they would not
be calling the matter in for determination but the direction has contributed to
the time taken to deal with this matter. In addition the Council received correspondence from lawyers
acting for the wind farm setting out their clients’ intention to mount a legal
challenge to the Committee’s decision and their barrister’s opinion containing
their reasons for doing so. The Council has sought independent external legal advice in
respect of the potential legal challenge to be brought by the wind farm’s
lawyers. The advice received from external Counsel is that some of the legal
issues raised by the wind farm’s barrister need to be addressed and considered
by the Committee. If the Committee is minded to make the same decision again,
having taken these matters into account, they will have an opportunity to
clarify the reasoning for the decision. This did not disrespect the decision of the Committee. It
merely seeks to ensure that whatever decision the Committee makes was legally
compliant and defensible. The applicants’ legal representatives and the wind farm’s
lawyers have been formally notified of the proposal to take the matter back to
Committee.” |
|
To confirm the accuracy of the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 13 November 2019 (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the
Planning Committee held on 13 November 2019 were submitted. Matter Arising – It was requested that the committee be advised of the
wording of the reasons for refusal on Agenda item 9 Application number
43/2018/0750 - land to the north, west and east of Mindale
farm, Ffordd Hendre, Meliden, and 10 Application No. 43/2018/0751 - Land South
West of Ffordd Ty Newydd,
off Ffordd Talargoch
(A547). The Planning officer informed the committee that application
43/2018/0750 had been refused for the following reasons – Reason 1 It is the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that the scale of the
development would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the village
and its infrastructure, in particular in relation to the highway network, as in
combination with other committed and proposed developments on allocated sites,
it would add to unacceptable levels of peak time congestion and dangers to all
road users. This would have a negative impact on the wellbeing and quality of
life for existing and proposed residents using the highway infrastructure. The
development is considered to be in conflict with considerations to be applied
to the development in the adopted Site Development Brief ‘Residential Development at Ffordd Hendre and Maes Meurig, Meliden,
Denbighshire Local Development Plan Policy RD 1 ’Sustainable development and
good standard design’ criteria vii),viii) and ix), Technical Advice Note 18
‘Transport’, and Planning Policy Wales Edition 10. Reason 2 It is the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that the proposals do
not adequately demonstrate that surface water run-off from the site and land
above it can be managed without increasing the risk of additional discharge to
watercourses leading to the Prestatyn Gutter, and hence increasing the potential for flooding downstream.
Accordingly it is considered that the proposal fails to comply with
considerations to be applied to the development in the adopted Site Development
Brief ‘Residential Development at Ffordd Hendre and Maes Meurig, Meliden’, Denbighshire
Local Development Plan Policy RD1 ‘Sustainable development and good standard
design’ criteria xi), Policy VOE 6 ‘Water Management’, Technical Advice Note 15
‘Development and Flood Risk’, and Planning Policy Wales Edition 10. Application 43/2018/0751 had been refused for the following
reason – It is the opinion of the Local Planning Authority that the construction
of a new road in open countryside outside the development boundary of Meliden would be an unacceptable form of development having
an adverse visual impact, and cannot be justified in the absence of a
permission for any associated residential development. The proposal is considered to be contrary to tests i) and ii)
of Denbighshire Local Development Plan Policy ASA1’ New Transport
Infrastructure’, considerations to be applied to the impact of new development
in the development management manual, paragraph 9.43 and Planning Policy Wales
Edition 10. RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 13 November 2019 be approved as a correct
record. |
|
APPLICATION NO. 01/2019/0752 - 8 LON NANT, DENBIGH PDF 6 KB To consider an application for the proposed erection of extension and alterations to the dwelling (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: An application was submitted for the proposed erection of
extension and alterations to dwelling at 8 Lon Nant Denbigh. Public Speakers – Mr Dyfrig Berry (Against) – Understood why the
neighbours have submitted the application, however the only reason he objected
to the application is due to the overbearing effect the application would have
on the privacy in the garden of his property. The properties were unusual as
his house was placed in a triangle between two other properties, which were
further back than his home, and therefore the back garden was the only area of
privacy, a hedge would not mitigate any privacy concerns. It was stated that
the applicant has claimed that there have been similar applications granted
previously, however no other similar applications have been submitted. There
were three planning issues of concern, however planning officers stated that
the only ground for refusal was the overbearing nature of the proposed
development. Mr Richard Jones (For) – stated that he lived at 8 Lon Nant
with his family, two children who attended local schools and they had a strong
link with the local community. The property had not been improved upon for 30
years, and the proposed development would bring the house to modern standards.
The majority of the objections had been answered in the report as being non
applicable to the application. The only outstanding issue, was the perception
of being overbearing on the neighbouring property. Within the supplementary
planning guidance notes it stated that overbearing impact on a neighbouring
property should be prevented particularly if there was a window to the side
elevation to the adjacent property that the extension projects towards. Whilst
it was not always achievable a one metre gap should be considered between the
proposed extension and the boundary. Members were informed that the proposed
extension did not increase the footprint of the existing building, and there
were no windows to the south elevation, which directed towards 10 Lon Nant.
Members were informed that 10 and 12 Lon Nant had previous planning permission
approved which reduced the size of the rear of the garden which added to the
perception of being hemmed in. It was stated that it would be unfair if the
application was refused when other applications had been previously granted,
and wished for the application to be granted to allow his family to continue to
be a part of the local community. General Debate – Councillor Christine Marston who attended the site visit
highlighted the complex nature of the site layout which was more apparent than
the detailing within the report, however the previously granted applications
had made the garden to the rear of 10 Lon Nant smaller. It was also noted that
the windows to the rear of number 10 were obscure glass, which was noted as it
was apparent overlooking was an issue. Councillor Mark Young (Local member) praised the public
speakers on speaking on such a difficult application, and sought clarity on
whether judgement on the issue of overbearing was a matter of policy or
opinion, and whether there could be any conditions included on any windows on the
extension if the application was approved, which would assist in alleviating
any concerns. Members stated that the report should note town council and
not community council. It was also queried whether there had been an assessment
on the impact on light for adjacent property. Historic applications with
overbearing impact which had not been discussed in Planning Committee was
raised and how consistency with the term was required for any future
applications. Planning officers clarified that ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
APPLICATION NO. 01/2019/0757 - GRAIG QUARRY, GRAIG ROAD, DENBIGH PDF 6 KB To consider an application for the variation of condition 1 of planning permission 01/2009/1424/PS to allow continuation of extraction of permitted reserves (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: An application was submitted for the variation of condition
1 of planning permission 01/2009/1424/PS to allow continuation of extraction of
permitted reserves at Graig Quarry, Graig Road, Denbigh, LL16 5US (also known as Denbigh
Quarry). Proposal - Councillor
Merfyn Parry proposed that the application be deferred to consider local
concerns including the frequency of the blasting, and to clarify the issue of a
community benefit fund. It was suggested that these matters could be discussed
during a site visit to the quarry. Seconded by Councillor Melvyn Mile. VOTE: FOR DEFERRAL – 17 AGAINST DEFERRAL – 0 ABSTAIN – 1 RESOLVED that the application be DEFERRED to allow a site visit to be carried out. |
|
APPLICATION NO. 11/2019/0472 - TYN Y CELYN, CLOCAENOG, RUTHIN PDF 6 KB To consider an application for the Erection of a manure storage building for use in connection with existing poultry unit, formation of a new vehicular access to serve the building and associated works (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: An application was submitted for the erection of a manure
storage building for use in connection with existing poultry unit, formation of
a new vehicular access to serve the building and associated works at Tyn Y Celyn, Clocaenog, Ruthin. Public Speakers – Bill Seymour (Against)
– Informed members that there were multiple outstanding objections to the
proposed development. There was a manure shed which was already being used, it
was stated that cumulative impact assessment had not been carried out. The
odour test was office based and did not realise the full impact of the odour,
as on some occasions the smell was unbearable for the surrounding residents.
The road which was used to transport the manure was highlighted as not being
fit for purpose, the committee were also informed that an alternative entrance
was being used for the site which had not been approved. Catrin Jones (For) –
made the committee aware that the proposed development was to conform to Welsh
Government regulations which would be coming into effect. The new shed would
allow the manure to be stored under a roof and in dry conditions, the shed
would be located closer to the farm which would be beneficial to the farm as a
local business. The current shed was being rented, the new proposed storage
would allow further control for the farm over the storage of manure. The
proposed storage shed would also be located further from residents than the
shed which was being currently used. General Debate – Concerns were raised following the site visit, in regards to
the road which was used by HGVs to transport the manure, as it was a narrow
rural lane and the vehicles caused damage to the road. It was also highlighted
that there were no trees planted at the bottom of the lane which was agreed as
a condition in a previous application. Councillor Eryl Williams (Local Member) informed the
committee the matter was divisive in the local community. Confirmation of the
store was sought, along with what the farm produced. It was agreed that the
road which was currently being used was not ideal. It was reiterated that the
shed was proposed to conform to Welsh Government legislation which was being
implemented, which required manure to be stored in a roofed shed. Officers responded to members concerns. It was clarified that the amount which was
going to be stored was 5 months of manure. The exact capacity was not known.
The proposed building had been moved further from residents to lessen the
impact. The dust from the activities would have little to no impact on the
surrounding residents. The odour was also assessed to have no adverse impact on
residents. Members were assured that compliance with conditions imposed on
previous applications would be investigated.
Proposal – Councillor
Ann Davies proposed the application be refused due to the adverse impact on
local amenities, seconded by Councillor Andrew Thomas. Proposal – Councillor
Alan James proposed the application be granted in accordance with officer
recommendations seconded by Councillor Merfyn Parry. Councillor Eryl Williams suggested that a condition be included to ensure the use of the building was limited to storage of manure from the applicant’s poultry unit. Councillor Alan James agreed the condition be included in the proposal. ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|
APPLICATION NO. 46/2019/0748 - APRIL COTTAGE, GLASCOED ROAD, ST ASAPH PDF 6 KB To consider an application for the erection of 1.75m high
hand woven hazel wood screening with concrete support post clad in timber with
square timber cappings (partly retrospective) (copy
attached). Additional documents: Minutes: An application was submitted for the Erection of a 1.75m
high hand woven hazel wood screening with concrete support post clad in timber
with square timber cappings (partly retrospective) at
April Cottage, Glascoed Road, St Asaph. Public Speakers – Tim Donovan (Against)
– stated how he objected to the application as it was on the boundary of
his property. He advised the boundary was not a fence but a hedge, and should have
an easement area. The hedge was well maintained and in good condition. A
retrospective build was already in place which impacted on amenities and the
easement to the hedge and did not allow maintenance to be carried out on the
hedge. It was stated that the hedge was dead as the applicants building work
had killed it. The hedge needed care and maintenance as the boundary between
both properties. A new hedge and wooden fence would be in place in January, and
relevant legal notices would be issued. Legal matters were ongoing in relation
to the boundary. The application was considered void as the old coach house was
not in the application. It was also stated that the committee had a duty to
protect natural resources in the area. Tim McSweeney (For) – highlighted the reasons why the
fence had been erected, namely for security, privacy and safety. The existing
fence had a gate in it which the neighbour could use at any time, which would
impact on the privacy and security of the owners of April Cottage as anyone
could use the gate and have access to the gardens there. The gate also posed a
safety concern as the owners of April Cottage had grandchildren and the open
gate posed an opportunity to leave the property. The owners of April Cottage
were custodians to the property due to its age. Officers had recommended that
the fence be permitted with a hazel woven fence and the cladding and capping of
the concrete posts. The owners had complied with the suggestions. The reasons
for killing the hedge were not substantiated at the time of the meeting. It was
therefore requested that the committee grant the application subject to the
conditions included in the officer recommendation. General Debate – Planning
officers drew the committee’s attention to the kind of fence which would be
built. The application was being discussed as the fence was within the
curtilage of a listed building and only required planning permission for this
reason. The proposal was to replace the existing fence with a hazel woven
fence. Officers had assessed the application, and the conservation officer had
also reviewed the application. Officers recommended the application be granted.
Councillor Peter Scott (Local Member) stated that originally
the city council did have reservations with the application, however following
the revisions they had no objections to the application. A site visit had been
organised but had been cancelled, and it was asked why this had happened. Officers informed the committee that access to land had been
denied, but it was nonetheless felt that the application could be assessed on
its merits with the information and images supplied. Proposal – Councillor
Merfyn Parry proposed the application be granted in accordance with officer
recommendations, seconded by Councillor Julian Thompson-Hill. VOTE: GRANT – 18 REFUSE – 0 ABSTAIN – 0 RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED in
accordance with officer recommendations as detailed within the report and
supplementary papers. At this point (11.00 a.m.) the meeting
adjourned for a refreshment break. |
|
APPLICATION NO. 28/2019/0808 - THE RIGGERY, HENLLAN, DENBIGH PDF 6 KB To consider an application for the Erection of a detached
garage (amended details to those previously approved) (copy attached). Additional documents: Minutes: An application was submitted for the erection of a detached
garage (amended details to those previously approved) at The Riggery, Henllan, Denbigh. Planning officers informed the committee that the
application concerned the detailing of a garage which had been previously
approved, the application being to increase the size of the garage, involving
it being sited next to the frontage wall of the plot. The concerns which were
raised by the community council were over the amendments to the garage causing
visibility issues. Officers believed the garage would not cause issues with
visibility. Proposed – Councillor
Gwyneth Kensler proposed the application be granted in accordance with officer
recommendations, seconded by Councillor Emrys Wynne. VOTE: GRANT – 17 REFUSE – 0 ABSTAIN – 0 RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED in
accordance with officer recommendations as detailed within the report and
supplementary papers. |
|
APPLICATION NO. 45/2019/0537 - 9 BODFOR STREET, RHYL PDF 6 KB To consider an application for the Conversion of first and
second floors to form 3 no. self-contained flats and formation of a separate
access at front of existing retail unit (copy
attached). Additional documents: Minutes: An application was submitted for Conversion of first and second
floors to form 3 no. self-contained flats and the formation of a separate
access at front of existing retail unit at 9 Bodfor
Street Rhyl. General Debate – Proposal – Councillor
Ellie Chard proposed the application be refused and the application be
resubmitted with two appropriately sized flats. Seconded by Councillor Bob
Murray. Members requested clarity of the internal floor space and
relevant guidance, as the matter has been discussed in relation to numerous
planning applications recently. Members also queried what provisions were in
place for bins and amenities for drying clothes. Concerns were raised in regards to one of the flats which
would below the recommended size for a flat, as historically similar flats had
not been consented in the area due to over-intensification of low quality
accommodation. Another concern was, if the application was to be approved that
a similar situation could reoccur. Other members of the committee supported the
application as it would redevelop unused properties and bring them back into
use as good quality accommodation, which could be a catalyst for further
developments in the Rhyl area. Members also pointed out that Denbighshire’s
housing size was above the Welsh average Officers advised that the floorspace
of flats was in planning guidance and referred to a minimum floor space of 50m2.
It was suggested the application should be assessed on a balanced basis,
as two of the flats would exceed 50m2 in area, and the two bed flat
was over 70 square metres. The third flat would be 3m2 smaller than
recommended in the guidance. The application obliged assessment of the minor
deficiency in floorspace below the guidance, against
the benefits of the application in bringing unused space back into use. The
officers clarified that there wwas space behind the
unit for bin storage and amenities for drying clothes. Proposal – Councillor
Brian Jones proposed the application be granted in accordance with officer
recommendations, seconded by Councillor Tony Thomas. Members questioned whether consenting to the application
would set a precedent obliging approval of future flats below 50m2.
Officers responded that the application in front of members had to be assessed
as a whole and that there were clear benefits to be gained from the grant of
permission. If future applications were brought to committee in the future with
multiple flats under the 50m2 guidance, it was likely officers would
recommend refusal. The chair requested that clarity be sought with the reasons
for refusal before proceeding to the vote. Councillor Bob Murray clarified that the reason for refusal
was due to over-intensification in the area, and that a precedent would be set
for small flats to be built in the area. VOTE: GRANT – 12 REFUSE – 5 ABSTAIN – 0 RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED in
accordance with officer recommendations as detailed within the report and
supplementary papers. |