Agenda item

To re-consider an application (considered by the Planning Committee on 4 September 2019) for construction of new road (approximately 400m in length) from Ffordd Talargoch (A547) to land at Mindale Farm, in association with application 43/2018/0750 for residential development on housing land allocation at land south west of Ffordd Ty Newydd, off Ffordd Talargoch (A547), Meliden (copy attached).

An application for construction of new road (approximately 400m in length) from Ffordd Talargoch (A547) to land at Mindale Farm, in association with application 43/2018/0750 for residential development on housing land allocation at land south west of Ffordd Ty Newydd, off Ffordd Talargoch (A547), Meliden had been submitted for reconsideration. [Application 43/2018/0750 had been submitted under the preceding minute item and had been refused planning permission.]

Public Speaker –

Mr. B. Paterson (Against) – explained the road was the serve the housing development which had been refused and therefore served no purpose; there was local opposition to the development and it was outside the development boundary on land which was unstable due to historic mining in the area.

General Debate – A general overview and background to both applications had been provided under the previous minute item and the report also contained specific information relating to the access road application.  The Monitoring Officer reiterated his comments with regard to officers’ advice and ensuring careful consideration of the circumstances and planning considerations together with the risks of making a decision based on reasons which may be difficult to defend.

Councillor Peter Evans (Local Member) proposed, seconded by Councillor Bob Murray, that the application be refused in line with the decision of the Planning Committee in September and for the reason as set out within the report that the new road would be developed in open countryside outside the development boundary and would not lead to any development.  He considered that the final wording could be agreed outside of the meeting between himself as Local Member and officers in accordance with usual practice.

Officers reiterated that the decision as it stood would prove difficult to defend and sought more specific reasons in terms of identifying why the development was unacceptable and the harm that development would cause, illustrating some examples of material planning considerations for developments outside the development boundary, and issues previously raised by the committee when considering the specific development subject of the application.  Councillor Tony Thomas also voiced his concern regarding the robustness of the reason put forward and sought a stronger reason for refusal which would enable any subsequent appeal to be successfully defended, and he drew attention to the previous appeal and conclusions of the Planning Inspector in this regard.  In terms of the reference to the development effectively being a ‘road to nowhere’ and that it would serve no purpose given refusal of the associated residential development, officers clarified that the use of planning conditions to control development was a key issue.  Officers had advised that the imposition of planning conditions could ensure that construction of the road could be prevented unless there was a residential development for it to serve and therefore it would be a risk to include a reference to it effectively being a ‘road to nowhere’ as a valid planning reason.

Members considered a number of potential reasons to put forward to strengthen the reason as set out in the report arising from the Planning Committee in September including visual landscape impact; adequacy of drainage arrangements; land stability in light of historic mining, and the possibility of land contamination.  With regard to those reasons officers cautioned against bringing forward a number of reasons without an evidence base to support them.  Given that other reasons could legitimately be raised at an appeal in addition to the Council’s reason for refusal, members agreed to include reference to the harm the development would have on the visual character of the area.

Proposal – Councillor Peter Evans proposed, seconded by Councillor Bob Murray that the application be refused, contrary to officer recommendation, on the basis that its development was within open countryside outside the development boundary and would have a negative visual impact.

VOTE:

GRANT – 1

REFUSE – 12

ABSTAIN – 0

RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED, contrary to officer recommendation, on the basis that its development was within open countryside outside the development boundary and would have a negative visual impact.

At this point (11.35 a.m.) the meeting adjourned for a refreshment break.