Agenda item

To consider an application for an erection of a detached dwelling, construction of a new vehicular access and associated works at land at (part garden of) 73a  Erw Goch, Ruthin, LL15 1RS (copy attached).

Councillor Emrys Wynne left the meeting for this agenda item only as he had declared a prejudicial interest.

An application was submitted for the erection of a detached dwelling, construction of a new vehicular access and associated works at land at (Part Garden of) 73A, Erw Goch, Ruthin, LL15 1RS.

Public Speakers –

Mr John Ferguson (Against) – stated that as a professional forester for 35 years he had concerns on the future amenity of healthy trees that align the footpath adjacent to the proposed site. It was felt if the application was granted the trees would be placed under direct threat for future removal. The proposed property would be under shade for the majority of the year and potentially subject to complaints regarding the seasonal change of trees likely.  The speaker stressed the importance of consideration of the impact on trees as set out is Supplementary Guidance. The trees at the site provided valuable wildlife habitat for bats, owls and many species of bird. It was felt the trees at the site aided the protection of biodiversity and helped reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the county.

Mr Ferguson also stated he felt the property would have a detrimental impact on the character and visual amenity of the estate referring members to the officer’s comments in the report. He informed members the proposed dwellings front elevation was deemed too close to the boundary and would detract from the open fronted nature of the estate and cause harm to the view of the area. The speaker concurred with the view of Ruthin Town Council that the proposal would be an overdevelopment at the site.        

Mr Aled Mosford (son of applicant) (For) – apologised for the previous deferral He explained the plans had been altered following the comments from planning officers.  The speaker explained the new and existing dwelling would not be overlooked. There would be a sufficient gap between the two dwellings and the plot size was adequate to accommodate the dwelling. Fencing would separate the two plots. The nearby trees would not be harmed during construction and thereafter habitats would be protected.

General Debate – Councillor Joe Welch directed members to the additional information on the supplementary sheets.

Councillor Bobby Feeley (Local Member) wanted to support the application. She stated the plans had been modified in line with advise from officers. It was the opinion of the local member that the finished property would blend in to the area well. The land on which the new dwelling was proposed was currently unused. Councillor Feeley stated she was pleased to note the view of the tree consultant’s findings at the site, she stated the applicant had dug a trench the length of the site to illustrate no tree roots would be affected. It was her opinion the applicant had completed all they could do to address all concerns and comply with planning guidelines.

Councillor Merfyn Parry stated he was pleased to note objection 3 had been removed from the application. He informed members he had visited the site, he confirmed the application was within a large estate and all had been done to try and reduce any problems of overlooking other properties.   

Proposal – Councillor Merfyn Parry proposed the application be granted contrary to officer recommendations as the application would have not have an adverse visual impact and would not inflict an unacceptable impact on the neighbouring properties, seconded by Councillor Gwyneth Kensler.

Councillor Christine Marston requested some clarity on the outdoor space. The proposed application would leave the two properties with limited amenity space. Councillor Tina Jones also raised concerns on the small space surrounding the property and felt the application would over intensify the area.

The Development Control Manager confirmed Officers must have regard to the policies and guidance within the Local Development plan, particularly with reference to space around buildings and proximity of new buildings to existing properties. Hence the proposed refusal reason. The Development Control manager did confirm that the initial third reason for refusal around direct impact of the development on the nearby trees had been removed. He did confirm, however, that Officers felt the impact from the trees on the amenity of occupants of the new dwelling was still a concern.

Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts (Local Member) asked for further guidance on the future health of the trees and any impact the building may have on the impact on the trees. 

The Development Control manager reiterated the point that the impact from the development on the trees was not an issue but the impact of the trees on the amenity of the new dwelling was.

Vote –

Grant –  10

Abstain – 0

Refuse – 5

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