Agenda item

To consider an application for erection of 75 no. dwellings, together with associated roads, open space and related works at Land at Cae Topyn, off Old Ruthin Road, Ffordd Eglwyswen, Denbigh (copy attached).

 

[Councillor Joe Welch declared a personal interest because the owner of the field subject of the applicant was a friend.  Councillor Arwel Roberts declared a personal interest in this item in so far as it related to the Chapel where he often preaches.]

 

An application had been submitted for erection of 75 no. dwellings, together with associated roads, open space and related works at land at Cae Topyn, off Old Ruthin Road, Ffordd Eglwyswen, Denbigh.

 

Public Speakers –

 

Dr. H. Watkin (Against) – referred to documentation he had sent to members the previous day regarding his opposition to the development and highlighted particular areas of concern relating to pedestrian access; open space; highways and parking; flooding, and impacts on the Welsh language and biodiversity.

 

Mr. M. Gilbert (For) – stressed that the site had been allocated for residential development within the LDP and therefore argued that objections to the location and distance to facilities were irrelevant points.  He reported upon requirements imposed through the application procedures and responded to issues raised regarding traffic generation and parking, flooding, biodiversity and education.

 

General Debate – The Development Manager introduced the item advising that the site formed part of a larger land allocation for housing in the LDP.  He drew attention to the large shortfall in housing completions over the LDP period advising that the development would provide 75 houses and a range of dwellings (with just over the 10% minimum for affordable housing), open space and a commuted sum payment of £31,993.  In order to guide potential developers a Site Development Brief (SDB) had been adopted, and whilst not policy, this SDB provided guidance and was a material planning consideration in this case.  The main planning considerations had been set out in the report and the SDB had also been considered in relation to the proposals as part of that process.  No objections had been raised by specialist consultees and appropriate documentation had been provided in relation to the relevant assessments and strategies required.  Finally members were reminded that the material planning considerations related to the impact of the proposal as opposed to the principle of the development.

 

Councillor Mark Young (Local Member) highlighted the huge amount of work in developing the SDB for the Brookhouse Sites which formed the basis for the determination of planning applications on the site, and he considered that many aspects of the proposed development did not conform to those requirements.  That view was shared by fellow Denbigh Councillors Colin Hughes and Gwyneth Kensler who provided some history to the site within the current context of the planning application and the allocation of the sites by the Planning Inspectorate.  Denbigh residents had opposed the site allocation in the LDP and were not being best served by the current development proposals.  Councillor David Smith also advocated the strict use of SDBs when considering planning applications and was disappointed that more weight had not been attached to the SDB on this occasion.  The general consensus was that, given that that the SDB had been tailored specifically to the Brookhouse Sites, and despite assurances that SDBs would be robustly complied with, it had not happened in this case.  Questions were also raised at this point regarding the transport assessment and measures of addressing flooding concerns together with drainage problems.  Concerns were also raised regarding the robustness of the legal agreements proposed given that many had been contested and subsequently overturned in the past.

 

Officers responded to members concerns and questions as follows –

 

·         clarified the terminology around SDBs confirming that the SDB was not policy as a matter of law but it was guidance and a material planning consideration and was an important part of the assessment

·         stressed that the SDB had not been ignored in this case and officers made it clear that there were policies in the LDP supported by guidance and a clear assessment of the application had taken place having consideration to the SDB

·         for clarity members were asked to specify those areas of the SDB which they considered the application did not comply with

·         with regard to questions around education and drainage/flooding, members were referred to the additional information in the supplementary papers (blue sheets) which clarified those issues

·         whilst it was appreciated that there were concerns around highway issues the data produced as part of the Transport Assessment was considered robust and the assessment of the impact on the local highway network had been detailed within the report – it was concluded that the level of traffic could be accommodated by the existing highway network and there was confidence it could cope with the additional traffic.

 

During the course of debate members considered the relevant policies and guidance, including the SDB and the material planning considerations as set out within the report.  In addition to the wealth of concerns raised via representations received members also raised their own concerns regarding the development –

 

·         Highways (including accessibility and parking) – concerns regarding the adequacy of the Transport Assessment and calculation methods given that previous developments approved on that basis had subsequently given rise to traffic problems; parking problems at Old Ruthin Road; positioning of the access near the Chapel and need for extra parking at peak times, and concerns over safe routes to school

·         Education – there was a requirement in the SDB for an education contribution and concerns were expressed regarding the decision to waive that requirement, particularly given parental preference with a number of schools being full to capacity, including Ysgol Glan Clwyd, together with the strain on the current school infrastructure in the form of mobile classrooms.  The importance of the education environment to both existing and potential pupils was highlighted

·         Welsh Language – it was submitted that Denbigh had one of the highest number of Welsh speakers in the county which would be threatened by the development and be at odds with strategies to increase the number of Welsh speakers both in the county and across Wales

·         Affordable Housing – the developer had stated his intention to provide 8 affordable housing dwellings on site which would need to be subject of a S.106 agreement to deliver.  However some members were not persuaded that a legal agreement could be relied upon to secure delivery of those dwellings

·         Open Space – there were calls for the full allocation to be provided

·         Drainage (including flooding) – it was considered that this element should have been dealt with at the pre-application stage as specified within the SDB and whilst some information had been provided regarding the management of surface water flooding and drainage members did not consider there to be sufficient detail to satisfy them in that regard, particularly given that the existing infrastructure was not coping and it was considered that the development and proposed means of addressing the issue would likely result in additional flooding.  There was also some concern regarding the location of the pumping station next to the Chapel

·         Loss of Hedgerows – the proposal included the removal of hedgerows and reference had been made in the SDB that the existing hedgerow abutting the A525 and on both sides of Old Ruthin Road and the established hedgerow abutting Whitchurch Road should be retained highlighting their importance for visual screening and as habitats for local wildlife

·         Scale, Density and Character of the Housing Development – concerns that the development was out of scale and character with the surrounding area and was contrary to the SDB in that a lower density was warranted in this case.

 

Officers responded to those concerns and subsequent questions as follows –

 

Highways (including accessibility and parking) –

·         although the requested software had not been used in the Transport Assessment officers were satisfied that the calculations provided were robust

·         the guidelines specified within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Parking had been met

·         it was considered that the development would not significantly increase traffic in the location of Old Ruthin Road and Whitchurch Road junction and would likely generate an increase of one car per minute on the highway

·         there was an existing problem associated with parking on Old Ruthin Road (brow of slope) and each access onto the road met visibility standards

·         ideally 10 spaces for the Chapel would be provided and the developer proposed parking for the Chapel in the form of a layby for 4 spaces – more spaces may be provided as part of the application for the development of the other site

·         having regard to the information submitted the Highways Officer did not consider there were sufficient grounds to refuse the application on highway matters and conditions had been suggested to deal with particular points as necessary.

 

Drainage – no objections had been received from Natural Resources Wales and the County Land Drainage Engineer regarding the proposed means of dealing with surface water drainage and officers believed sufficient information had been submitted to show that foul and surface water could be effectively managed subject to appropriate conditions.  The impact on the Chapel when locating the pumping station had been considered and discussed with Environmental Health who considered there to be no issues of noise or odour and therefore no impact.

 

Archaeology – the County Archaeologist and Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust had been consulted and had concluded limited impact on the site.

 

Education – given the latest information available and calculation of school places generated by the new development Education officers were of the view that there was sufficient capacity within the nearest primary and secondary schools and therefore a financial contribution would not be required – in terms of community infrastructure contributions must be reasonable and linked to the development.

 

Affordable Housing – officers advised that the use of S.106 agreements was standard practice to ensure developers were held to account and was not a strong ground to refuse an application.

 

In light of the concerns raised regarding the development Councillor Mark Young proposed, seconded by Councillor Merfyn Parry, that the application be refused, and further discussion focused on the specific planning grounds for refusal.  Officers advised that if the application was refused, contrary to officer recommendation, a report would be submitted to the next committee meeting in accordance with usual practice in order for officers to respond to the issues raised and further advise as to the appropriateness of the planning grounds for refusal.

 

Proposal – Councillor Mark Young proposed, seconded by Councillor Merfyn Parry, that the application be refused, contrary to officer recommendation on the grounds of unacceptable impact on Welsh language; impact on traffic safety and safe routes to school; inadequate information submitted regarding drainage and concerns over flooding; lack of financial contributions towards education resulting in negative educational impacts; inadequate on-site open space provision; loss of hedgerows; scale, density and character of the housing development, and detrimental impact on the nearby church by the proposed pumping station.

 

VOTE:

GRANT – 1

REFUSE – 24

ABSTAIN – 0

 

RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED, contrary to officer recommendation, on grounds of unacceptable impact on Welsh language; impact on traffic safety and safe routes to school; inadequate information submitted regarding drainage and concerns over flooding; lack of financial contributions towards education resulting in negative educational impacts; inadequate on-site open space provision; loss of hedgerows; scale density and character of the housing development, and detrimental impact on the nearby church by the proposed pumping station.

 

At this point (11.30 a.m.) the meeting adjourned for a refreshment break.