Agenda item

Agenda item


To consider an application for demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 4 residential apartments with associated parking and rear access (copy attached).



An application was submitted for demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 4 no. residential apartments with associated parking and rear access at the Nook, Bryn Goodman, Ruthin.


At this juncture, the Chair, Councillor Joe Welch, explained the public speaker had provided a written statement against the application.  The written statement was read out by Ward Member, Councillor Bobby Feeley.


Written statement provided by Jo Powell (against) –


I live in the bungalow immediately next door and below the Nook on the hill of Bryn Goodman.  I and many residents of the road have objected to this development for several reasons.


For us at Bryn Eryl, because of the difference in heights of the two sites, the existing bungalow is the equivalent of a two-storey house when viewed from the back of our property.  The gable end of a two-storey apartment block would therefore be the equivalent of a three-storey building for us.  Also, it would overshadow us all the more as it will be closer to us.


We wold also be severely affected by the noise and pollution caused by up to eleven cars accessing the four parking spaces to the front of the apartment building, the four to the rear and the three allocated to the permitted four-bedroom house at the rear of the plot, not to mention them all trying to manoeuvre in a cramped space.  Access to all the rear spaces would also be sited alongside the shared boundary and at head height for us which, would be a further nuisance.


The re-siting of this application of four of the parking spaces for the apartments, from the front to the rear of the building, would make them very close to the house to the rear of the plot.  Indeed, the two applications would appear to overlap and the proposed rear parking spaces for the flats in the current application appear to be sited in the same location as the three parking spaces for the house.


Part of the Town Council’s objection to this application is that the development would cause an increase in traffic on the road, which is un-made-up and used by many pedestrians, including school children from Brynhyfryd and Ruthin Schools.


Another concern raised by residents is the fact of its being out of character with the road.  Indeed, this same objection was raised by Ruthin Town Council and also the Local Planning Authority in their statement to the Appeal to the previous application (02/2020/0282) which is, excepting the re-siting of the parking spaces, identical to the current one.  Indeed, if the previous application had run its course, Denbighshire LPA would have recommended refusal, one of their reasons being that it would constitute an over intense form of development.


In conclusion, a developer will naturally seek to squeeze as many dwellings onto a plot as they are allowed, but I think what the general public look for in these situations is for the planning process as a whole to temper the excesses of developers.  I would, therefore, urge the Committee to uphold the objections of the Town Council, Denbighshire County Council LPA and the many local residents and refuse permission.


Public Speaker – Robert Jones (for) – Agent for the applicant and local to the area acting on behalf of Roberts Homes Ltd.   Mr Jones is a qualified Architect with over 15 years’ experience.  In February 2021, an application was submitted to the Local Planning Authority (LPA) for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of 4 residential apartments with associated parking and rear access.  The submission of this application followed refusal at appeal in November 2020.  The Inspectorate’s views were detailed in the Planning Officers report.  In summary they state the design of the apartments which was identical to the application submitted today did not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area.  However, the proposed location and construction of hard surfaces would be a considerable threat to the protected oak on the front boundary.  Between the conclusion of the Appeals process and the resubmission of the application under consideration today work has taken place with local specialists to develop a revised layout which satisfies the requirement of BS5837 to those affected by the proposed development of brown field land.  This has resulted in a significant reduction of hardstanding relocation of residents parking spaces to the rear and a comprehensive  methodology detailing construction of all permeable surfaces and the protection of all trees affected by both the design and the construction.  These amendments and the accompanying information have been endorsed by the LPA tree officer and are reflected in the planning officers’ recommendations for approval.  The Inspectorates observations had been carefully considered and the revised design presented before you today supported by the Planning Officer had overcome the technical challenges and was in keeping with the character of the immediate area.  We hope you can support the application.


General Debate – Ward Members, Councillors Emrys Wynne (Committee Member), Bobby Feeley and Huw Hilditch-Roberts all expressed concerns regard the over-development of the site, excess use of the unadopted road by additional cars and the proposed development would be out of character with the surrounding area.


Officers confirmed issues had already been considered by the Planning Inspectorate and they made decision that they were not an issue.  The only concern had been the tree and that had been dealt with in the amended application.  Members were informed that to go against the Inspectorate decision could mean costs were incurred by the LPA.


Proposal -  Councillor Emrys Wynne proposed the application be refused against officer recommendation, seconded by Councillor Ann Davies.  The reason for refusal being over-development of the site.


Vote –

For – 14

Against – 4

Abstain – 0


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



Supporting documents: