Wrthi'n llwytho
Y penderfyniadau fel y mae cofnodion y cyngor yn eu cofnodi. Bydd crynodeb mewn iaith glir yn dilyn pan fydd wedi'i ysgrifennu.
RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 3 September 2025 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with Officer recommendations.
RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED against officer recommendations. At this juncture in the meeting the Committee adjourned for a break. 11.40am – 11.45am Due to the application being refused against officer recommendations the Committee needed a proposer and seconder for the refusal and reasons for the refusal needed to be provided. Proposal – Councillor Andrea Tomlin proposed that the application be refused against officer recommendations, seconded by Councillor Terry Mendies. The reasons for refusal given were due to the excessive concerns from the public regarding the fear of crime in the local amenity and the safeguarding of children in the near by school. This also linked in with policy RD1 which related to Sustainable Development and Good Standard Design. Vote – For – 6 Against – 12 Abstain – 1
RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED in accordance with Officer recommendations.
RESOLVED: that the Planning Committee note the Denbighshire County Council Local Development Plan 2006-2021: Annual Monitoring Report 2025. Meeting concluded at 12.20pm
Apologies were received from Councillor Elfed Williams.
Councillor Andrea Tomlin declared a personal interest in business item 6 as she lived in the vicinity and was a Governor of Bodnant Community School. Councillor Cheryl Williams declared a personal interest in business item 6 as she lived near the application site. Councillor Ellie Chard declared a personal interest in business item 7 as she was a Town Councillor of the Rhyl Ty Newydd Ward from 2011-2017. Councillor Justine Evans declared a personal interest in business item 7 lived near to the proposed site of the dwelling. Councillor Huw Hilditch- Roberts declared a personal interest in business item 7 as one of the public speakers in attendance at the meeting was known to him.
Councillor Gwyneth Ellis informed the Committee that a Planning application for a windfarm in Gaerwen was currently under public consultation. The final decision would be made by ministers in Welsh Government. Councillor Ellis questioned the democratic process as a Planning Committee that was in place to enable the Committee to contribute to a response to the consultation. The Development Manager explained there was a scheme in place for planning delegation which was approved by the Planning Committee. The scheme allowed officers, under delegated powers, to submit representations on nationally significant infrastructure projects and developments of national significance in liaison with local and lead members. There were many developments of this type that were being planned across North Wales and the resources that North Wales Authorities had individually to handle these types of consultations was limited. Officers were working with colleagues from Gwynedd County Council in relation to the Gaerwen Project and had engaged with Environmental Consultants to look at the environment considerations. The Local Impact report was being prepared, and it was hoped that the report would be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate in the coming weeks. The draft report will be sent to the local and lead members for their comments on the environmental considerations. Once the report was submitted an enquiry would be undertaken, and officers could attend and give evidence. Discussions were ongoing with Welsh Government regarding the submission dates for reports working within the Planning Committee meeting cycle to allow further engagement. The Chair requested that the draft Local Impact Report was sent to all members of the Committee for comment.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 3 September 2025 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 3 September 2025 were submitted. No matters of accuracy were raised. Matters arising – Councillor Terry Mendies highlighted the absence of Councillor Raj Metri at numerous Planning Committee meetings and requested the Chair write to him to enquire if he still wanted to be a member of the Committee. The Chair stated he had spoken with the Leader regarding this and would contact him again to discuss the matter. It was: RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 3 September 2025 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with Officer recommendations.
An application was submitted (previously circulated) for the erection of 13 dwellings and associated works at Land Adjacent to Paradwys Graigfechan. Public Speaker – Robert Jones (agent) (for) – the proposal represented a carefully considered, landscape sensitive development that responded positively to the site allocation within Denbighshire’s Local Development Plan (LPD). The site lay between the settlement boundary of Graigfechan and formed part of the long-standing housing allocation under policy BSC 11. Planning permission was granted for 9 dwellings in 2017, while a larger scheme for 21 dwellings was withdrawn in 2024 following an agreement with Planning Officers, Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Partnership Committee to make concessions. The proposal presented to the Committee had evolved from the previous applications, refined through design workshops with Planning Officers and the AONB Partnership Committee Chair. Design response to the site contours stepping dwellings with a slope provided a softer layout in keeping with the village’s character. A new single junction provided safe access with a footpath and adequate parking and open frontages helps the development blend with the surroundings. Materials such as render, natural stone and Welsh slate reinforce the local vernacular and ensured a high-quality finish. The development provided a mix of 2,3 and 4 bedroomed homes together with an affordable home on site and a £60,000 contribution. A further £12,000 contribution would provide new speed indicator devices to improve highway safety within the village. Sustainability and Biodiversity had been an integral part of the design with new hedgerows, native tree planting and ecology enhancements delivering a measurable biodiversity gain and strengthening the biodiversity framework. The comments raised during the consultation period had been taken into consideration, particularly from NRW and the AONB Partnership Committee and these had been addressed through engaging with Officers, resulting in a reduced layout. The proposal delivered high quality, energy efficient housing within an allocated site which met with policy objectives and supported the long-term sustainability of Graigfechan. The Public Speaker welcomed the Planning Officers recommendations to grant the application and respectively asked the Committee to support the application. General debate – The Chair welcomed Councillor Hugh Evans (local member) and asked for his comments regarding the application. Councillor Evans highlighted many local residents were not in favour of the application and it was important for him to consider their views in his approach. The land had been allocated for development in 2006, and he sympathised with the developers on the length of time it had taken to bring the application for consideration to Planning Committee. Councillor Evans highlighted concerns regarding the impact the development would have on an existing dwelling at the top of the development site. Continuing, Councillor Evans sought assurances from Officers that the Water Board had capacity for the increase this development would generate, wildlife on site would be protected throughout the construction phase and that there was a link to the development via an adopted track to the rest of the village. He expressed his disappointment about the affordable housing aspect of the application and stated that he could not see any local resident being able to afford to live in the affordable dwelling provided as part of the application. The Planning Officer stated that a 10% contribution of the total dwellings within an application was for affordable housing which was a requirement set out in the Council’s Adopted Planning policy. This development provided a 3 bedroomed property on site with a financial payment for the remaining sum. Officers had looked at the existing dwelling and considered the potential impacts on it and the proposed development site had a distance of 15 metres away from the existing dwelling which was acceptable and within planning guidance. The actual development site was slightly lower than the existing dwelling and members were referred to the Site Location Plan within the application which stated the existing dwelling would be to the South of the site and therefore would not be affected by any loss of light. With regards to the foot-path, an additional condition had been proposed on the permission which stated the access and footways as shown on the approved drawings would be completed to final surface course, to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the first dwelling. This condition gave assurance to officers that the links to the village were completed to a satisfactory level. Wildlife concerns had been raised by residents and the Community Council and mitigations within the Ecology report were included within the application and were controlled by a planning condition in the report. Welsh Water had confirmed that there was capacity in the sewerage network within the proposed site. Any concerns regarding prior issues with water pressure were to be reported to Welsh Water. Councillor Merfyn Parry requested clarity on how monies from Section 106, affordable housing developments was retained. The Planning Officer explained that contributions would not necessarily but used to build a new dwelling, the financial contributions within a community will build up and the Housing Service would use it to deliver affordable housing through other projects in the area. The contributions could be used to purchase an existing dwelling in an area. Councillor Merfyn Parry highlighted the difference in the AONB Partnership Committee regarding the previous application and the current application. The Planning Officer stated that the first application (2024) was fully supported by AONB officers and officers had been involved in drawing up the plans with the applicant prior to the application being submitted. Highways had raised concerns about the dual access and the site levels that would be required. Due to these concerns a second application was submitted which had been reduced to having one access. Planning Officers did not see much difference between the two applications in terms to how it would be seen within the context of the AONB and made a balanced decision considering highway and AONB impacts and deemed these to be acceptable. Councillor Gwyneth Ellis welcomed the response from Llanfair Dyffryn Clwyd Community Council and questioned if regular consultations with Community Council’s regarding applications took place. The Council had recently recruited a City, Town and Community Council (CTCC) Liaison Officer and questions were raised around the opportunity for engagement through this role. The Development Manager explained that there was a statutory act in relation to the Local Planning Authority which stated the need for consultations with CTCC if an application was in their area. A wealth of information was available online which encourages responses from CTCC in the planning process. The Planning Officer stated that a meeting with Llanfair Dyffryn Clwyd Community Council had taken place last week regarding the application and it was very productive. Going forward, it was a strategic approach to how the Planning Service was run in the future, considering staffing levels. The Chair requested the Legal Officer explained the conflict between AONB and their differing views on the proposal to the Committee. The Legal Officer stated the AONB Officer was in support of the previous application for the same number of dwellings however, that application had been amended to comply with requirements for highway safety. Balancing the fact that the site had been granted permission for development many years ago and a safe highway scheme has now been implemented in the application a greater weight should be given to the Highways Safety Scheme. The Senior Engineer: Development Control for Traffic, Parking and Road Safety stated that there was no material impact on the existing highway network. Proposal – Councillor Karen Evans proposed that the application be granted in accordance with officer’s recommendations, seconded by Councillor Delyth Jones. Vote – For – 18 Against – 1 Abstain – 0 RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with Officer recommendations.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED against officer recommendations. At this juncture in the meeting the Committee adjourned for a break. 11.40am – 11.45am Due to the application being refused against officer recommendations the Committee needed a proposer and seconder for the refusal and reasons for the refusal needed to be provided. Proposal – Councillor Andrea Tomlin proposed that the application be refused against officer recommendations, seconded by Councillor Terry Mendies. The reasons for refusal given were due to the excessive concerns from the public regarding the fear of crime in the local amenity and the safeguarding of children in the near by school. This also linked in with policy RD1 which related to Sustainable Development and Good Standard Design. Vote – For – 6 Against – 12 Abstain – 1
An application was submitted (previously circulated) for the change of use of Class C3 Dwelling to Create Managed Hostel Accommodation for Homeless Persons (Sui Generis) (retrospective application) at 28 Nant Hall Road Prestatyn. Public Speaker – Laura Williams (applicant) (for) – Together Homes Ltd had been running 28 Nant Hall Road since May 2024. When the property was first purchased, contact was made with the Council around uncertainty regarding the planning permission already in place on the property. There was evidence of numerous stairways and doors to the back of the property which suggested that it had been used for commercial purposes previously. The property was currently being used as a hostel, which was staffed 24/7 and had CCTV in operation. Homeless persons housed in the property were placed there by Denbighshire County Council’s Homeless Prevention Team and Social Services. The persons housed at the property were vetted and a no drug or alcohol policy was in place. Since May 2024 the property had received no reports of anti-social behaviour. The incidents reported by North Wales Police in the report related to reports of victims of crime and not the perpetrators of crime. Families, single males and single females all resided at the property. Extra care and support were provided for homeless tenants which included washing and cooking facilities, enabling them to live a normal life and leave the cycle of being in and out of homelessness. The property was in a good location in close proximity to the main high street with one tenant employed in the town and many children of the families residing in the property attending local schools. Public Speaker – Michelle Johnson (neighbour) (against) – had lived at the attached property along with her parents for 50 years. Throughout this time the residential area had been a safe and happy area to grow up in. This had changed significantly over the past 18 months since 28 Nant Hall Road had been operating illegally as a Homeless Hostel. Contact with DCC was first made in 2024 to inform them that work was being undertaken on the property which clearly suggested a change of use. However, despite numerous phone calls to DCC to find out what was happening nothing was done. The Planning Department stating there were staffing issues and that DCC had requested access to the property to assess the situation however, this had been refused. Over the past 18 months the property had been operating without the appropriate planning permission or licence. Contrary to the company’s management statement, the property had never operated as a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) and there was no confusion regarding the classification of the property. The owners knew exactly what they had bought and what their intentions were going forward. Since May 2024, when tenants started to move into the property there had been regular disturbances including tenants congregating at the front of the property and walking up the neighbour’s driveway. This had resulted in the installation of a security camera for safety. The Police report stated that two tenants had been recalled to prison, and this had added to safety concerns. During the past 50 years there had never been any issues with the next-door neighbours however, since the change in use of the property this had changed, with groups of men smoking outside on the pavement, and a person waiting at the nearby supermarket for a tenant which looked like a drug deal being done. There had been reports that a drug dealer was residing at the property. This behaviour extended to the wider town and neighbourhood and would only proliferate if it is allowed to continue. These were not just fears of what may happen but were fears through lived experiences by living next door to 28 Nant Hall Road. The qualified staff from Together Homes Ltd was questionable, it was stated by the applicant that staff were onsite 24/7 to support tenants, and this was categorically disputed. The concerns raised were not due to being opposed to people who had found themselves in difficult circumstances being housed however, the current location of the hostel on a residential street, directly opposite a school was not appropriate. General debate – The Chair informed the Committee that a well-attended site visit had been undertaken. The Development Manager informed members that an email response from Education and Children’s Services which had been received following the agenda being compiled. The response stated that on balance there was nothing for Education to comment on in relation to the application. Checks had been completed with the Safeguarding Lead and at the time the application was submitted, over the Summer, no concerns had been raised about the property subject to the application. The Chair requested clarity on the difference between an HMO and a Hostel. The Development Manager explained the distinction in planning terms between a hostel use and the use of an HMO property. The hostel use involved 24/7 management and support on site and individual citizens would not reside there permanently. This distinguished the use from an HMO where citizens could reside permanently, and no formal management/ supervision/support would be provided. Councillor Huw Hilditch- Roberts requested clarity on the planning permission which was currently granted on the property. Continuing he noted that report stated that DCC had been placing citizens in the property knowing that the property did not have the correct planning permission. The Development Manager explained that the lawful use of the property was a single use dwelling. In May/June 2024 the property was converted and was being used for managed accommodation for homeless persons. The DCC Housing Team had been referring individuals to the property, and therefore a change in use had occurred. Planning permission was required, and an enforcement warning notice was issued to the owners of the property who have submitted a retrospective planning application. The term illegal had been used during the debate, and it was made clear that nothing illegal had ensued in planning law and retrospective planning applications were lawful. The Local and Committee member Councillor Andrea Tomlin addressed the Committee raising the following concerns – · Regarding the retrospective aspect of the application, it was difficult to believe that the owners were unaware that planning permission for the change of use of the property was needed. · No planning application had been received until 18 months after the conversion work had begun, with DCC issuing a warning notice in February 2025. · There was no evidence that an HMO license application had been made, 17 months after DCC began placing citizens in the property and DCC had paid £316k to date to the applicant for housing homeless citizens. · Departments within DCC who had been involved in the process of placing citizens at the property needed to be scrutinised and this had already been requested following complaints and concerns from members of the public. · DCC had ignored its own Planning Policy and Public Protection Procedures. · There were currently 110 homeless households in Denbighshire County. In Prestatyn there were 11 homeless households and therefore 90% were not from Prestatyn. This was important as the report stated that the application responded to the housing need in Prestatyn. A reply from DCC was awaited regarding the number of homeless households from Prestatyn residing at the property. · The Planning Officer had given the weight of the application to Homelessness outweighing all other considerations, while the DCC Planning Portal consisted of 5 residents in support of the application and 19 residents, plus a petition of 130 residents against the application. The overwhelming majority of reasons for objections to the application was that the property was opposite Ysgol Bodnant Community School which currently had 460 pupils in attendance. · Material considerations of the application included the impact on the neighbourhood, the amenity of residents, community safety and crime and disorder. · The Chair of the Board of Governors at Ysgol Bodnant Community School had submitted a response outlining their objection of the application being proposed less than 100m from the school. · Fear of crime and the implications of crime and disorder were material planning considerations. DCC’s Local Development Plan (LDP), policy RD1 required account to be taken of personal and community safety and the responses from the public on this front were extensive. · North Wales Police had reported there had been 24 calls to the property, 2 of which were for re-calls to prison. There were no incidents connected to the property prior to it being converted by the applicant. · DCC had not provided information on the checks that were carried out on individuals placed at the property and there was no reassurance that the safety of school children and the wider community was not being compromised. · There was a need for accommodation for homeless persons however, the location of the property was unsuitable. · A report had been received of a drug dealer residing at the property and drug paraphernalia had been found on the street and in hedgerows. There were examples of some of the behaviour of the tenants on DCC’s Planning Portal. · No evidence had been provided to support the company’s management statement of the property in the report. · The LDP BSC 7 stated that proposals that would lead to the creation of houses in multiple occupancy or non self-contained flats would not be permitted. · In summary, the deliberate disregard for due process by the applicant had undermined the planning system and the purpose of the Planning Committee. The fear of crime from local residents lived experiences over the past 18 months and the comments from North Wales Police was substantiated and the application should not be granted. The application should be refused to safeguard children and residents in the community. Councillor Karen Edwards stated that due to the fact the Home Prevention Team had placed citizens in the property, knowing that the necessary planning permission was not in place was not acceptable. Councillor Terry Mendies further expressed his disappointment that the company had been running for 18 months without the necessary planning permission in place and welcomed scrutiny of the process at a Scrutiny Committee. Continuing, he noted that the applicant had stated that tenants at the property were vetted however, this contradicted the reports of 24 incidents from North Wales Police against the property. The Chair requested the Legal Officer provided an explanation on the weight that could be given to the fear of crime from an application. The Legal Officer stated that the fear of crime was a material consideration but the issue was what weight ought to be attributed to it amongst other considerations surrounding the application. The application contained a response from North Wales Police who had said they did not see crime increasing due to the proposal. There was evidence from Children’s Services that stated no concerns were raised in relation to safeguarding issues in respect of the application and there did not appear to be reports of disorder through formal reporting channels in respect of the use of the property. This needed to be balanced against the anecdotal evidence and general concern of the public regarding disorderly behaviour. Any reason for refusal would need to be substantially evidenced should the Committee refuse the application. Councillor Julie Matthews stated it was apparent that many concerns had been raised from residents regarding the application however, noted that there were many positive representations that had been submitted in support of the application. It was important that homeless persons from across Denbighshire had access and needed this type of accommodation, not just citizens from Prestatyn. Councillor Delyth Jones highlighted the difficulty in balancing a decision on the concerns regarding the retrospective aspect of the application against the local need. Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts highlighted the possible risk if the application was granted of setting a precedent for residents thinking that they could run a similar facility from their homes without the necessary planning permission in place. The Development Manager explained that each application was dealt with on its own merit, the Sui Generis use (Hostel use) was an individual category of planning and needed planning permission for the property to be used for that purpose. Councillor Merfyn Parry questioned if the conditions placed on the application were robust enough to stop a precedent as staffing levels in the Council’s Enforcement Team were limited. The Development Manager referred to condition 3 set out in the report which stated that the use of the property as a managed hostel for homeless persons permitted shall inure for the applicant only. The condition ensured that if the company running the property sold the property, a new application would need to be submitted to vary the condition by the new owners. Councillor Gwyneth Ellis referred back to the fear of crime which had been previously discussed and specifically the fact that the term victims of crime as noted in the report could be interpretated in a different way. For example, that undesirable persons were being attracted to the property due to the tenants residing there which would support the anecdotal evidence that had been presented by the local member. Councillor Merfyn Parry noted the complex discussion that had taken place and highlighted the difficult position Planning Officers had been put in. For future meetings with such applications in the future, it was requested that the relevant Corporate Director be in attendance, if possible, to offer support to Planning officers. Councillor Alan James stated that the application should be granted to help homeless persons across Denbighshire and to help minimise homelessness in the future. Councillors represented Denbighshire’s residents, and Denbighshire’s residents were the tenants of this property that should be supported. The hostel had been running for 18 months with many few residents realising it was operating as a hostel. There had been some choice language used throughout the debate towards the type of persons who were residing at the property in a homeless situation, and it was highlighted that people often became homeless through no fault of their own and it was clear that the hostel was needed in the area. Councillor Alan James referred members to 5.1 of the report which stated that whilst the retrospective nature of the application was regrettable, the report had sought to focus on the facts of the use rather than the background as to why the use commenced without benefit or consent. It made no fundamental difference to the issues associated with the hostel use. Continuing, he referred members to 5.2 of the report which stated the need for the use was not disputed, but rather it was the location of the use in relation to the existing residential properties and the school which had generated the level of concerns expressed in the presentations of residents, albeit that this needed to be balanced against the representations of support and the positive comments offered by the Council’s Homeless prevention Team. Taking all matters into consideration, it was considered by officers that there was no sufficient evidence to justify a refusal based on the fear of crime. There was the need for members to look at the planning application presented before them, not the background of the application. Local member Councillor Elan Heaton appreciated the concerns of the public in regard to the process of a retrospective application and concerns around safeguarding and questioned if a process could be put in place to address public confidence. The Development Manager stated there were three levels of control in respect to the application. Firstly, there was the planning control in place for the description of the building, secondly, the HMO licensing regime which had its own controls and processes and thirdly, Denbighshire County Council’s Homeless and Prevention Team also had their own processes and controls in place for referring residents to these types of properties. Proposal – Councillor Alan James proposed that the application be granted in accordance with officer recommendations, seconded by Councillor Jon Harland. Vote – For – 6 Against – 12 Abstain - 1 RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED against officer recommendations. At this juncture in the meeting the Committee adjourned for a break. 11.40am – 11.45am Due to the application being refused against officer recommendations the Committee needed a proposer and seconder for the refusal and reasons for the refusal needed to be provided. Proposal – Councillor Andrea Tomlin proposed that the application be refused against officer recommendations, seconded by Councillor Terry Mendies. The reasons for refusal given were due to the excessive concerns from the public regarding the fear of crime in the local amenity and the safeguarding of children in the near by school. This also linked in with policy RD1 which related to Sustainable Development and Good Standard Design. Vote – For – 6 Against – 12 Abstain – 1
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED in accordance with Officer recommendations.
An application was submitted (previously circulated) for the erection of 1. No detached dwelling and associated works at Land At (Part Garden Of), 18 Dyserth Road Rhyl. Public Speaker – Gethin Jones (agent) (for) – the modest infill development lay within the development boundary of Rhyl where new housing was support by BSC 1 of the Local Development Plan (LDP). The development made efficient use of residential land and would help with the housing need in the local area. All statutory consultees had confirmed that the proposal was acceptable, and the Highways Service were satisfied that existing driveways could safely serve each dwelling in accordance with Tan 18. No concerns had been raised by Rhyl Town Council. The Officer report noted no issues with amenity, privacy, parking or drainage and refusal rested only on the dwelling being cramped, a conclusion not supported by evidence. Dyserth Road had a varied plan of developments and dwelling 18 was one of few with a wide plot. Whilst most nearby detached and semi-detached dwellings sat with separations of 2-3 metres, the new dwelling would have a 5.5 metre separation from surround properties. The elevation of the design notes a continuation of the design of the road. The elevation of the proposed dwelling sat comfortably with neighbouring dwellings and reenforced the local character of the road. With 30% site coverage and a 190sq metre garden the proposal significantly exceeded the guidance defining potential over development. The proposal was sustainable and made sufficient use of brown field land and support local housing delivery. Denbighshire County Council needed housing, and the Committee were asked to grant planning permission for a well designed family home. Public Speaker – Barry Matthews (residents) (against) – the main concerns regarding the proposal were with regards to the safety of the current occupants living in dwelling 18A and 18B. 18B was a vicarage, with more than average traffic flow to and from the site. When permission was granted to build on the plot at 18 Dyserth Road in 1999, Highway Services deemed the second entrance and exist to dwelling 18 dangerous and mandated that it closed. There had been significant housing developments on Dyserth Road over recent years with the addition of 1500 homes built at Parc Aberkinsey. Street and pavement parking was a significant issue and exiting properties along the road can be dangerous. The proposal for a new modern home was out of character with the area and from the plans submitted, it appeared that a large dwelling was being compressed into a small area close to other properties. The proposed development for the site was too large for the site. General debate – The Chair informed the Committee that a site inspection had taken place on 2 October which was well attended. The Local and Committee member Councillor Cheryl Williams had made two visits to the site. Consideration was given to the area around the property and the area where the property would be built. There was an existing dwelling on the site and the proposed new dwelling would be very cramped standing alongside it. The proposal was not suitable for the area and concerns had been raised regarding the entrance to the dwelling. Proposal – Councillor Cheryl Williams proposed that the application be refused in accordance with Officer recommendations, seconded by Councillor Ellie Chard. Councillor Ellie Chard stated that the proposed dwelling would cause an imbalance to Dyserth Road and was too large a development for the site. Councillor Jon Harland proposed that the Committee voted against officer recommendations and the application was granted. There were other properties along the road which had narrow frontages, but this dwelling would have an extensive garden space. Councillor Merfyn Parry highlighted that there was little objection to the proposal from the public and seconded the Committee granted the application against officer recommendations. The Chair requested clarification on the comments made regarding the closure of the entrance to the existing dwellings. The Senior Engineer for Development Control, Traffic, Parking and Road safety explained that previous plans dating back to the 1990s required the closure of the entrance to 18 Dyserth Road. The breach in relation to the closure of the existing access had been in place since 1999 which was in excess of 10 years and therefore it was immune from Enforcement Action. The application included plans for surrounding walls to be lowered which would improve visibility and therefore there were no grounds for refusing the application from Highways Services. Councillor Huw Hilditch- Roberts stated there were very few objections to the application and there was 5.5 meters distance from the surrounding properties. Vote – For – 11 Against – 6 Abstain – 1 RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED in accordance with Officer recommendations.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the Planning Committee note the Denbighshire County Council Local Development Plan 2006-2021: Annual Monitoring Report 2025. Meeting concluded at 12.20pm
Members were presented the information report, Denbighshire County Council Local Development Plan 2006-2021: Annual Monitoring Report 2025. RESOLVED: that the Planning Committee note the Denbighshire County Council Local Development Plan 2006-2021: Annual Monitoring Report 2025. Meeting concluded at 12.20pm
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Caiff datganiadau eu darllen o'r cofnodion unwaith y byddan nhw wedi'u cyhoeddi.
Dyw'r cyngor ddim wedi cofnodi presenoldeb ar gyfer y cyfarfod hwn.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.