Agenda item

To consider an application for construction of a new access and alterations to existing access at Former Pilkington Special Glass Site, Glascoed Road, St. Asaph (copy attached).

[Councillor Merfyn Parry declared a personal interest in this item because the applicant was a customer of his partner’s restaurant.]

 

An application was submitted for construction of a new access and alterations to existing access at Former Pilkington Special Glass Site, Glascoed Road, St. Asaph.  The application had been subject to a site visit on 15 January 2016.

 

Public Speaker –

 

Mr. E. Davies (Against) – lived in the neighbouring dwelling (Derwen Deg) to the site and raised concerns about how his residential amenity would be affected by the proposed new entrance together with concerns around road safety and loss of local habitat.  He also questioned the accuracy of the latest plan circulated.

 

General Debate – Councillor Bill Cowie (Local Member) had sympathy with the public speaker but felt there were no planning grounds to refuse the application.

 

Proposal – Councillor Stuart Davies proposed the officer recommendation to grant the application, seconded by Councillor Julian Thompson-Hill.

 

Councillor Merfyn Parry considered the existing main entrance was much better placed to service the site, particularly given the road gradient and noise from vehicles exiting the site, and advised he would be voting against the application.

 

Councillor Meirick Davies also spoke against the application and pointed out the position of Derwen Deg in relation to the site.  He highlighted the position of existing access points advising that the main entrance had proved a safe and able entry as opposed to the new entrance which would also have a detrimental impact on Derwen Deg.  He submitted a case for refusal arguing that the application conflicted with Local Development Plan (LDP) policies relating to RD1 (Respecting Distinctiveness – sustainable development and good standard design) as follows –

 

RD1(i) – Respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, character, design, materials, aspect, micro-climate and intensity of use of land/buildings and spaces around and between buildings

RD1(iii) – Protects and where possible enhances the local natural and historic environment

RD1(v) – Incorporates existing landscape or other features, takes account of site contours and changes in levels and prominent skylines

RD1(vi) – Does not unacceptably affect the amenity of local residents, other land and property users or characteristics of the locality by virtue of increased activity, disturbance, noise, dust, fumes, litter, drainage, light pollution etc., and provides satisfactory amenity standards itself

RD1(viii) – Does not have an unacceptable effect on the local highway network as a result of congestion, danger and nuisance arising from traffic generated and incorporates traffic management/calming measures where necessary and appropriate

RD1(xiii) – Incorporates suitable landscaping measures, including where appropriate hard and soft landscaping treatment, the creation and/or protection of green and blue corridors, mature landscaping, and arrangements for subsequent maintenance.  Landscaping should create a visually pleasant, sustainable and biodiversity rich environment that protects and enhances existing landscape features and also creates new feature and areas of open space that reflect local character and sense of place.

 

Proposal – Councillor Meirick Davies urged members to consider the detrimental impact on the residential amenity of Derwen Deg and he proposed, seconded by Councillor Arwel Roberts that the application be refused, on the grounds that the application did not comply with LDP Policy RD1 (i), (iii), (v), (vi), (viii) and (xiii).

 

During debate the location of the proposed new access was questioned given the impact on Derwen Deg, particularly when there were other options available, but it was noted that the committee had to deal with the application before it.  Questions were raised as to whether refusing the application would restrict redevelopment of the site and in the event of the application being granted whether conditions could be imposed to improve road safety and ensure any lost habitat was replaced.

 

Planning and Highway Officers responded to issues raised as follows –

 

·         construction of the new entrance would give access to one of the council’s designated employment sites and it was considered that the impact of the development would not be greater than the impact of the future development of the site and considered acceptable in relation to highway safety and Policy RD1

·         relevant road safety assessments had been carried out and Highway Officers had no objection to the application subject to conditions to ensure safe and satisfactory access which would be subject to detailed design approval and covered by legal agreement

·         in terms of future development of the employment site Highway Officers would need to assess whether the site entrance would be acceptable for any new unit

·         it would be possible to include an additional condition to address the loss of habitat and replace the hedgerow as appropriate through landscaping.

 

Proposal – Councillor Anton Sampson proposed, seconded by Councillor Jeanette Chamberlain-Jones that the application be granted, subject to an additional condition to address the loss of habitat as part of the landscaping scheme.

 

VOTE:

GRANT – 15

REFUSE – 7

ABSTAIN – 0

 

RESOLVED that permission be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation as detailed within the report subject to an additional condition to address the loss of habitat as part of the landscaping scheme.