Agenda item
APPLICATION NO. 45/2021/0516/ PF - KYNSAL HOUSE, VALE ROAD, RHYL, LL18 2PG
To consider an application
for the change of use of land and
ancillary buildings to form residential Traveller site for 6 caravans, with the
existing dwelling Kynsal House retained for owners / managers accommodation;
including formation of internal pathways and parking, landscaping and
associated works at Kynsal House, Vale Road, Rhyl, LL18 2PG (copy attached).
Minutes:
An application was submitted for the change
of use of land and ancillary buildings to form residential Traveller site for 6
caravans, with existing dwelling Kynsal House retained for owners / managers
accommodation; including formation of internal pathways and parking,
landscaping and associated works at Kynsal House, Vale Road, Rhyl.
Public Speaker –
Mr Scott Drummond (Against) confirmed the concerns he
wished to put forward were regarding the site uses. He provided objections on
behalf of some residents local to the site including the proposed plan did not
offer suitable turning space for large vehicles. The plan was an over
intensification of the site. Access to and from the site from Vale Road is and
would be a danger to existing businesses and pedestrians. He stressed in his
opinion that the change of use of the land to form residential gypsy and
traveller site, in close proximity to existing residential properties would
give rise to the potential for increased activity on site. Which was in
conflict with the criteria within the Local Development Plan policy BSC10 which
required proposals for sites not to be detrimental to the amenity of occupiers
of adjacent properties. It was his opinion that the size and location of the
site proposed, the size of caravans proposed and including car parking and
nearby buildings would have an adverse impact on the health and wellbeing of
the occupants. The same considerations that would be expected to be considered
should an applicant submit an application for a building on the plot. He
informed members the application should be a retrospective application as two
static caravans had been on site since 2019, with no planning permission. He
also raised the removal of trees, shrubbery and hedges had taken place and a
dropped curb installed all without planning permission. Since 2019 when the
development was first established, no attempt to engage with the immediate
community had taken place, with any concerns or engagement by local residents
ignored or challenged by the occupants. He informed members some local
residents had experienced anti-social behaviour, including noise and light
pollution. It was felt that the many vehicles and noise produced at the site
were from business activities and not purely residential.
General Debate –
The Chair informed members a site visit had taken place at the site on Friday 4th
March. Councillor Christine Marston had been in attendance at the site visit.
Councillor Marston concluded the visit had been to establish the setting and
character of the area, the proximity of the neighbours and the access at the
site and neighbouring properties.
Councillor Pete Prendergast (Local Member) urged planning committee
members to object to the planning application. He stated since 2019 all hedging
and shrubbery had been removed and a drop curb installed to gain access to the
site, two static caravans had been installed on the land and all done without
any planning permission from the authority. He confirmed the vehicular access
off Knowlsley Avenue had been blocked up by fencing but the dropped kerb
remained. He informed the committee that to date all local businesses and
residents had all been subject to anti-social behaviour and had raised concerns
about light and noise pollution. Councillor Pete Prendergast proposed the
application be refused against officer recommendations for the following
reasons, the siting of six static caravans and the occupied house on the site
would be over intensification of the site. The proposed layout of the site did
not conform with model 2008 standards for adequate turning space to accommodate
large vehicles such as ambulances and fire engines. Access to the site, via
Vale Road would be dangerous to both traffic and pedestrians. A change in use
of this site in close proximity to residential buildings would give rise for
the potential for increased disturbance and activity in the area which was in
conflict of the criteria 5 of the LDP Policy number BSC10.
Councillor Prendergast further raised policies he felt relevant to the
objection of the application, including Policy RO5 the Welsh language and the
social and cultural fabric of communities, Policy BSC 3, Securing
Infrastructure contributions from the development, Policy BSC 11, Recreation
and Open Space, Policy VOE 5, Conservation of Natural Resources, Policy ASA3
Parking Standards and TAN 11 Noise 1997 and TAN 12 design 2016. He reminded
members the application had been fully opposed by Rhyl Town Council. Councillor
Ellie Chard Seconded the proposal to refuse the application.
Local member Councillor Pat Jones confirmed that the local residents and
businesses in the area had experienced, obstructions and noise issues since
2019. Councillor Jones echoed the thoughts of Councillor Prendergast.
Councillor Ellie Chard asked if the proposal was successful would
residents have to pay a higher rate of council tax.
Councillor Joan Butterfield stated she was in full agreement with the
ward members and the reasons for the object against the application. She
confirmed the hedgerow had been removed and had reduced the quality of life at
the area. It was confirmed the site was close to the town centre and would be
detrimental to the residents.
Councillor Christine Marston, confirmed at the site visit the attendees
walked the plot, and informed members the applicant had planted trees at the
rear of the site. Councillor Marston asked if lighting at the site could be
controlled with a condition if granted.
|
In response to
the questions and comments raised the Development Control Manager (DCM)
confirmed a detailed report and site visit had been provided for members. The
DCM provided further information on the application stating an amendment had
been made as part of the application process. The model standards for the
siting of caravans had been met. Communication with the fire service had
taken place and the fire officer had no objections with the spacing at the
proposed site. He confirmed that there were no highway objections for the
proposal. Concerns raised
on unacceptable noise and disturbance at the site had been raised by members
the DCM confirmed that no concerns were noted from North Wales Police. It was
also confirmed that no reported noise complaints from the public protection
officers had been received. The applicant
was fully accepting and willing to comply with the authority’s policies in
relation to open space contributions. It was also stressed that no objections
had been received from any local businesses. It had only been residential
objections raised. It was also confirmed that if the proposal was successful
the residents at the site would be required to pay any council tax and
amenities for the site. Conditions could be imposed to soften the impact of
the development via a landscaping and lightening scheme. Councillor Brian
Jones asked if a previous application for a change of use of the land had
been refused. The DCM stated there was no recent planning history. The
application presented to committee was within the development boundary of
Rhyl, meaning development of housing was acceptable. Councillor Joan
Butterfield suggested three conditions be imposed on the application if the
proposal was successful. Councillor Butterfield listed them as follows: Proper and
adequate housing for gas bottles; electric cables are put into housing and
correct and protected plug in area and the drop curb that had been installed
was re installed at the site. In response to
the proposed conditions suggested by Councillor Butterfield the DCM directed
members to the proposed conditions already suggested for the application. It
was the opinion of the DCM that the conditions suggested had been included in
the proposed conditions for the application detailed within the report. The DCM
suggested if the application was successful officers would confirm with the
local members the wording of the conditions and bring the amended conditions
back to committee to agree. It was
highlighted that the application was for a private application for 6 pitches
to meet a need for the family. The task and finish group had been established
to assess the need for Gypsy and Traveller needs. |
Proposal – Councillor Pete
Prendergast proposed, seconded by Councillor Ellie Chard that the application
be refused against officer recommendation, for the following reasons, over
intensification in the use of the site, concerns about the impact on highway
safety with the access at Vale Road and concerns on unacceptable impact on
neighbours by reason of increased noise and disturbance.
The DCM reminded members of a policy included in the Local Development
Plan, around the provision of Gypsy and Traveller sites. The policy included a
specific criterion was included in the policy, officers had consulted with a
number of specialists and considered the criteria in the policy was met.
VOTE:
FOR – 2
AGAINST – 13
ABSTAIN – 2
RESOLVED that permission be
REFUSED against officer recommendation for the reasons stated in the
proposal above.
Supporting documents:
PDF 84 KB