Agenda item

To consider an application for the development of 2.8ha of land by the erection of a Use Class C2 hospital building (mental health unit to replace the existing Ablett Unit) with associated landscaping, car parking and site vehicular access; and the erection of a multi-storey car park with associated works (outline application - all matters reserved) at Glan Clwyd Hospital, Rhuddlan Road Bodelwyddan, Rhyl, LL18 5UJ (copy attached).

 

 

An application was submitted for Development of 2.8ha of land by the erection of a Use Class C2 hospital building (mental health unit to replace the existing Ablett Unit) with associated landscaping, car parking and site vehicular access; and the erection of a multi-storey car park with associated works (outline application - all matters reserved) at Glan Clwyd Hospital, Rhuddlan Road Bodelwyddan Rhyl LL18 5UJ

 

Public Speakers –

 

Mr Llwyd (against) - Good morning, everyone. Hope you’re all well and you and your families are keeping safe in these uncertain times. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I truly hope that what I have to say will get across to the committee clearly.

 

Back in August, our world was turned upside down. Emotions of disbelief, fear, and sadness rippled through the estate on hearing the news. All this has consumed much of our lives ever since, trying to reason with the planners and the health board why a unit of this size shouldn’t be built at the proposed site, so incredibly close to our properties. Should a redevelopment go ahead to improve mental health care? Of course, but please don’t locate this building right behind our garden fences.

 

So many of us here have young children – I want the best for my 4 year old and 2 year old – and not just that – us parents and adults want to continue to live in peace in our homes. We are fighting here for something that could either mean a happy, safe and secure home for our families, or a life without that comfort and security.

 

We are desperate for you to see things from our perspective. The planners and the contractors will move on to the next project, a lot of the patients would come and go, but we residents would live day and night with this building, and all the issues that would come with it. Incidents do happen despite best efforts – tragic events have happened in the past, and we would always be afraid of what could happen. The risk would be increased for us residents, and our kitchens, living rooms, bedrooms, and gardens would not be private anymore.

 

October last year, I produced an 11-page document explaining in detail the many reasons we wanted this building to be located elsewhere – outlined in sub-headings: loss of privacy, light pollution, noise disturbances, trees & wildlife, and safety. I hope you still remember those points and understand our reasoning. We had a solicitor involved, and we reached out to the local MP, who also fully understands our concerns.

 

With panic and desperation setting in recently, I have provided photos and videos from my children’s bedrooms, drawing attention to the bare branches of the dead trees behind our property, and demonstrating how seriously close and exposed we would be to this giant facility.

 

We were eagerly hoping that the planners would consider another location where there would be no such impact on family homes. We realise logistical matters need to be considered depending on site location, but if the unit was located elsewhere, at the North West corner of the hospital, although there would be other ‘short term hurdles’ to overcome, the new building would be fully operational, safely away from nearby properties. If the unit was built behind our garden fences, it would undoubtedly create serious issues - issues that could harm our mental health too.

 

To sum up, families would not feel safe in their own homes; safety concerns and loss of privacy would result in real anxiety and worry, day and night. It would have a detrimental effect on our quality of life, and it would break our hearts if plans went ahead un amended. We are pleading to the council – please don’t spoil what we have here. We implore you to show empathy and relocate the development.

 

Peter Campell (For) –I am the agent for the application and will be speaking in support of the proposals.

 

We welcome the officer’s positive recommendation and would like to take this opportunity to highlight the critical need for the proposed new mental health facility and how a design which is sensitive to its surrounds has been presented.

The new Ablett Unit facility would principally provide specialist mental health inpatient wards, alongside supporting treatment and rehabilitation facilities within a greatly improved environment. The unit would vitally increase mental health care capacity and support the delivery of care for residents within Denbighshire, Conwy and Flintshire.

 

The existing Ablett Unit building is now considered to be beyond its viable lifespan as a care facility, with it not capable of continuing to provide for the high-levels of specialist care required by the Hospital Board.

 

The site for the proposed new unit is specifically allocated within the Local Development Plan to support new ‘Community Facilities’, which includes planning for the healthcare needs of the community. The site has therefore long been established in planning policy to accommodate new development at the hospital campus.

 

The applicant’s team consulted the local community on the proposals prior to the submission of the planning application, with overall strong levels of support received. We have also engaged directly with the neighbouring residents to understand and to respond to their concerns.

 

The proposals are presented in Outline and therefore design details will be presented to the Council for consideration at reserved matters stage. However, detailed parameters including in respect to scale and height have been set out to establish that the building will have a suitable relationship with neighbouring properties.

 

A part-3 storey and part 2 storey building is presented, designed to step down to 2-storeys on its southern side which would be sited closest to the neighbouring residential properties.

 

The proposals wholly comply with the Council’s supplementary guidance in respect to protecting privacy and overlooking of neighbouring residential properties. The guidance states that a separating distance of 21m should be retained between directly facing windows. This distance can be reduced to 18m where direct overlooking would be avoided.

 

The details presented establish that the hospital building would provide for a minimum separating distance ranging from in excess of 23m up to 47m from the closest neighbouring properties, thus exceeding the guidance requirements.

 

Improvements to the significant band of existing trees and green landscaping on the southern boundary can further support the protection of privacy at properties to the south.

 

This is reflected in the Officer’s report which concludes that the proposals are acceptable in respect to residential amenity.

 

The facility will be managed by experienced mental health care professionals and will incorporate modern security interventions to aid security for patients, staff and local residents alike. Both internal and external security interventions would be incorporated, including security-controlled access doors and appropriate boundary fencing measures.

 

The proposed multi-storey car park will significantly increase parking capacity at the hospital, helping to address existing parking issues.

 

To conclude, the application is wholly compliant with planning policies and presents a carefully considered outline design. The applicant has actively sought to understand the concerns of neighbouring residents and to ensure that the outline design presented will not unduly impact upon neighbouring residents in line with the Council’s established requirements.

 

The proposals are vital to support the delivery of improved mental healthcare provision, enabling patients to continue to receive the care they require locally.

 

General Debate –

 

Councillor Ann Davies highlighted that there was a need for mental health facilities within hospitals, however was confused as the reason why the North Wales Hospital was closed in Denbigh was that the preferred option was for smaller settings for caring for those suffering with mental health.

 

Councillor Paul Penlington seconded what was raised by Councillor Davies, and raised concern with the multi-storey car park which would be developed in close proximity to residential dwellings, especially as the plans indicated it would be 10 meters high.

 

Proposal – Councillor Paul Penlington proposed refusal for the application contrary to officer recommendation, seconded by Councillor Emrys Wynne.

 

Officers clarified to the committee that the multi-storey car park would not be developed near the residential properties, the mental health unit building would be at highest 3 stories, but would be lowered to 2 stories when nearest to the dwellings.

 

Members queried with officers whether there any further comments by Dŵr Cymru on the development alongside comments from any other external bodies, as there was a flood risk to the site.

 

Responding officers clarified the issues raised with SUDS there would need to be an approval required and a drainage scheme would need to be submitted. There would be a highway agreement in place. Although the comments raised about the North Wales hospital were not considered as a planning consideration.

 

Members raised the local community council had not responded with any remarks to the site they saw this as a shame as the committee regarded comments by the local councils as important.

 

The chair requested for further clarity for the reasons for refusal from Councillor Paul Penlington. Responding the reasons were that the development was too large and would have a negative impact on surrounding residential dwellings. There would be noise pollution from the site with the coming and going, and there would be a need for future generations act to be considered with the application.

 

Vote –

Grant - 6

Abstain - 0

Refuse – 11

 

RESOLVED that permission be REFUSED contrary with officer recommendations as detailed within the report and supplementary papers.