Agenda item

To consider an application for the Demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings, erection of 133 dwellings, construction of internal estate roads, sewers, SUDS drainage and open spaces, strategic and hard/soft landscaping and ancillary works, in association with application 43/2018/0751 for new link road to Ffordd Talargoch (A547) at land to the north, west and east of Mindale Farm, Ffordd Hendre, Meliden, Prestatyn (copy attached).

An application was submitted for new link road to Ffordd Talargoch (A547) at land to the north, west and east of Mindale Farm, Ffordd Hendre, Meliden, Prestatyn.

Public Speakers –

Mr Bob Paterson (Against) – It was suggested this was the wrong place to locate the road, and that this would be built over the old Prestatyn mine drain / adit, which took a lot of runoff from the surrounding mountains. If the road were to be built and caused damage to the adit this could increase flood risk. The development would impact on some 43 houses, and would affect property value, which it was considered would decrease by roughly 30%. The point of access proposed was close to the Ffordd Ty Newydd road junction on the A547. The gradient of the road would be such that it raised accessibility issues for persons with limited mobility.

Mr David Manley (For) – Responded to the points raised by Mr Paterson.  Property value was not a material planning issue. Accessibility had been addressed by the previous planning inspector and was deemed as acceptable. The risk to the adit and old mine had been noted in the Geophysical Assessments, which had been informed by scrutiny of old maps. The assessment identified three shafts in the vicinity of the proposed road. The mine shafts which were identified held no substantial risk. It was suggested that conditions could be included on a permission and that ground work could be carried out prior to any road being constructed.

General Debate –

Councillor Peter Evans (local member) informed the committee that residents were opposed to the proposed development of the road. Clarification was sought as to whether any drilling had been carried out on the site, and whether the applicants owned the land. It was questioned whether there was any point in dealing with the application as the housing site application had been refused, meaning this would effectively be a ‘road to nowhere’ .

Members queried whether the land was within the Local Development Plan boundary.  Further questions were raised over ownership of the land, the implications if the land owner refused to sell the land, and the confusion arising from the submission of two applications as it was considered the proposals should be in a single application.

Officers responded, confirming that the land was not within the Development Boundary for Prestatyn and Meliden, but advised that this did not mean the development was necessarily unacceptable as a consequence. It was also confirmed that the applicant did not own the land, but this was not a matter which should influence any decision on the proposals.  In relation to comments on the refusal of permission for the housing site, it was clarified that this decision could be subject to appeal and that the road application should be dealt with on its planning merits. It was pointed out that concerns over the road being developed as a standalone scheme were addressed through the suggested condition and legal agreement which would prevent any work being carried out until there is a planning permission in place for the housing development. It was not possible to advise on whether there had been exploratory drilling, but ground investigation to determine the presence of contaminated land and the need to address any land instability would be required prior to any works of construction. The applicants were acting within their rights by submitting two applications, and it was a matter for the Authority to deal with them on their respective planning merits.

Proposal –

Councillor Merfyn Parry proposed the application be refused on the grounds the road was being developed outside the Local Development Plan and in the open countryside, and the road would not lead to any development. Seconded by Councillor Peter Evans.

VOTE:

GRANT – 1

REFUSE – 11

ABSTAIN – 0

RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED, contrary to officer recommendation, on the grounds that the application was an unacceptable form of development outside the development boundary.