Agenda item

To consider an application for development of 2.1 ha of land for residential purposes (outline application including details of access) at land between Old and New Ruthin Road, Denbigh (copy attached).

[Councillor Joe Welch declared a personal interest in this item because some of the owners of the field were known to him and his family]

An application was submitted for development of 2.1 ha of land for residential purposes (outline application including details of access) at land between Old and New Ruthin Road, Denbigh.

Public Speaker –

Mr. N. Davies (agent) (For) – referred to discussions regarding layout to ensure the most suitable submission with notional reference to density, affordable housing, wildlife corridor and specific regard to access design.  Additional information had been provided in response to the Design Development Brief.  Site owners encouraged developer engagement with the local community at an early stage.

General Debate – Councillor Mark Young (Local Member) considered the current Local Development Plan (LDP) to be flawed in terms of housing land allocation.  He queried references to the Cae Topyn site within the report given that each application should be considered on its own merits and highlighted local community concerns with particular regard to flooding and drainage issues.  Councillor Rhys Thomas (Local Member) also voiced concerns regarding allocation of this particular site for housing by the Planning Inspectorate against the wishes of the community.  Whilst some reassurance had been taken from the concessions referred to by the agent in his submissions, residents’ lives and the environment would be dramatically changed by the proposed development.  Councillor Thomas read out a statement on behalf of local residents and, in the event that the application was granted, sought agreement for them to be consulted at an early stage with regard to the proposed plans put forward by the developer with a view to resolving concerns, particularly in relation to surface water accumulation; effect of the development on the septic tanks; proximity of new housing to existing properties; siting of the wildlife corridor, and siting of entrance/exit points and pavement provision.

The Development Manager provided some background to the site and its allocation in the LDP and clarified that the application site itself had no specific planning history.  However, reference had been made to the Cae Topyn site because it had been part of that land allocation for housing and had been through a planning process relatively recently with direction given by the Planning Inspectorate on the acceptability or otherwise of development in that location.  The issues raised by local residents had been considered during the planning application process and had been included as appropriate in the main report.  In response to calls from local residents for further consultation if the application was approved, the detail of the development would be subject to a public consultation exercise. 

During subsequent debate the importance of education provision and ensuring appropriate capacity within local schools to accommodate any new development was highlighted and assurances were sought in that regard.  Further reference was also made to issues with the LDP and land banking although it was accepted that the issue would be better dealt with as part of the forthcoming LDP review and the application needed to be considered based on existing policies and plans.  The main issue raised related to drainage/flooding with concerns regarding ongoing problems with flooding in the area which needed to be addressed and the subsequent impact of future development.  Assurances were sought regarding the implementation of appropriate and robust measures to address those issues and the need for future safeguards in the event of systems failure was also highlighted, particularly given the concerns over the proposed use of soakaways to deal with surface water.  It was suggested that a bond may be an appropriate means of safeguarding the Council against future problems.

Officers responded to the matters raised as follows –

·         Education – an assessment had identified limited capacity within the nearest schools to accommodate additional pupils.  Condition 23 referred to the need to ensure the development was in compliance with the Council’s Education Provision policies and guidance and a further assessment and calculation would be undertaken when the final number of dwellings for the site had been approved in order to calculate the precise final contribution to be sought.

·         Drainage (including flooding) – members were reminded of the process when allocating land for housing in the LDP and assessments as to whether the land was appropriate for development at that stage.  The land would not have been allocated for housing if a significant risk of flooding or drainage issues had been identified.  Following examination of the outline application officers considered sufficient information had been submitted to demonstrate that foul and surface water could be acceptably managed subject to appropriate conditions being imposed.  It was standard practice to reserve the detailed drainage design and future maintenance proposals for consideration at the detailed plan stage.  Condition 14 specified that no development could commence until the Council was satisfied with the scheme to deal with the disposal of foul and surface water which included subsequent management and maintenance arrangements.  It was highlighted that Natural Resources Wales and Dwr Cymru had no objection to the proposed means of dealing with surface water drainage.  Consequently officers did not consider a bond to be justified at this stage.

Officers reiterated that the application was for outline planning permission with other reserved matters to be submitted for consideration at a later date.  If members considered drainage to be a serious concern that particular issue could be brought back before the committee.

Councillor Mark Young had no confidence in the proposed measures to manage and address flooding and drainage issues given that the existing problems in the area had yet to be resolved.  Officers explained that the cause of the current highway flooding had been identified as a blocked highway drain and highway officers were working to address that issue but it was unrelated to the current application.  Details were provided of the proposed scheme for the application site which included the use of soakaways and investigations had indicated that the systems would work.  The intention was for the Highway Authority to enter into an agreement with the developer to adopt the soakaway and to pay for its future maintenance via a commuted sum payment from the developer.  However detail of the plans and agreement would need to be further agreed.

Proposal – Councillor Tony Thomas proposed the officer recommendation to grant the application, seconded by Councillor Brian Jones.

VOTE:

GRANT – 14

REFUSE – 2

ABSTAIN – 2

RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendations as stipulated within the report.