Agenda item

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).

[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 condition number 12 the applicant was required to show the means of preventing access to the rear drive to the local authority for approval following which any breach would become an enforcement matter.

Proposal – Councillor Huw Williams considered the use of the Lon y Mynydd access to be dangerous and not fit for purpose and he proposed, seconded by Councillor Dewi Owens, that the application be refused, contrary to officer recommendation, on highway safety grounds.

VOTE:

GRANT – 6

REFUSE – 16

ABSTAIN – 0

RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED, contrary to officer recommendation, on highway safety grounds.

In the event of an appeal against the committee’s decision it was agreed that, as proposer and seconder respectively, Councillors Huw Williams and Dewi Owens attend any subsequent appeal hearing.  It was also noted that the Highways Officer would be unable to defend the decision at an appeal and members agreed to the engagement of a Highways Consultant if necessary.  It was also resolved that the wording of the reason for refusal be agreed with the local member.