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 10 December 2025 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings. APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT (ITEMS 5-7) Applications received requiring determination by the Committee were submitted together with associated documentation. Reference was also made to late supplementary information received since publication of the agenda which contained additional information relating to those applications. In order to accommodate public speaking requests it was agreed to vary the agenda order of applications accordingly.
RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED in accordance with officer recommendations.
RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED against officer recommendations.
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendations. Meeting concluded at 11.40am
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gwyneth Ellis and Terry Mendies. Apologies for absence were also received from Local Member, Councillor Huw Williams.
None. Councillor Merfyn Parry noted that local members had previously received email notifications about planning applications in their wards, but it appeared the system had changed, and notifications were no longer being received. He felt it would be beneficial for local members to continue receiving such updates. The Development Manager explained that there had been issues with the planning IT system, but these had now been resolved. Going forward, when City, Town and Community Councils were notified of planning applications, local members would be copied into the correspondence.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 10 December 2025 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings. APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT (ITEMS 5-7) Applications received requiring determination by the Committee were submitted together with associated documentation. Reference was also made to late supplementary information received since publication of the agenda which contained additional information relating to those applications. In order to accommodate public speaking requests it was agreed to vary the agenda order of applications accordingly.
The minutes from the Planning Committee meeting held on the 10 December 2025 were submitted. Matters of accuracy – None. Matters arising – None. RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 10 December 2025 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings. APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT (ITEMS 5-7) Applications received requiring determination by the Committee were submitted together with associated documentation. Reference was also made to late supplementary information received since publication of the agenda which contained additional information relating to those applications. In order to accommodate public speaking requests it was agreed to vary the agenda order of applications accordingly.
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 demolition of existing dwelling, erection of 2 no. detached dwellings, alterations to existing vehicular access and associated works. Public speaker – Mr Robert Jones (Agent) (For) – The proposal related to the redevelopment of Haulfan, and existing development plot within the development boundary of Llanbedr Dyffryn Clwyd. Officers and consultees accepted that housing was appropriate on the site and that two dwellings represented an acceptable scale and pattern of development. The application had been under consideration for almost 4 years and had involved extensive engagement with officers and consultees. At the request of the local planning authority, significant work had been undertaken, including 4 archaeological investigations and excavations, alongside ecological surveys, highways assessments and other technical reports. Following the prolonged application process an extension of time was agreed on the understanding that a supportive decision would be reached. It therefore was a surprise that a recommendation for refusal emerged at the deadline date without the opportunity to respond. The Committee were respectfully asked to consider this context when making their decision on the application. The sole reason for refusal related to sustainability, specifically the absence of a footway along the nearby section of the A494. Although this issue was identified in policy in 2022, it did not result in an objection at the time and was not raised as a concern by officers as the application progressed. It was also noted that both the Highways Authority and the Welsh Government Trunk Road Authority supported the proposal. The Council report referred to a recent refusal of a separate new development site nearby, which was refused on multiple grounds and not solely on a footpath issue. This proposal was different, this was a brownfield redevelopment within the village boundary with a modest increase of 1 dwelling. While members may note the recent refusal, it should not prejudice this new application which must be determined on its own merit given the material different circumstances. Finally, Llanbedr was typical of many rural villages, with homes along roads that did not benefit from continuous footway provision. This was an accepted feature of the settlement reflected in the development boundary and historic infill approvals. In this context, refusing a new development solely on footway provision would not be proportionate or consistent with historic, ongoing and future rural redevelopment across the county. Members were therefore asked to consider whether, in this established rural village context, the absence of a footway should outweigh all other policy support for this modest redevelopment. General Debate – The Chair asked the Senior Engineer for Traffic, Parking and Road Safety to clarify the Welsh Government’s position on the highway concerns raised in relation to this application, as well as a previous application that had been refused. The Senior Engineer for Traffic, Parking and Road Safety explained that the road in question was a trunk road, meaning the Welsh Government was responsible for commenting on site access, while the Council’s highways service provided comments on parking and road safety matters. He noted that highways officers had referred to a previous application for a nearby site, which had been refused because there was no footway link to the village. This application presented the same issue: there was no safe pedestrian route to the village, and as a result the development would likely increase short, local journeys along the trunk road. Councillor Andrea Tomlin asked for clarification on when a development was considered a ‘new development’, noting that this application had been described as such in the report. The Principal Planning Officer explained that because one existing dwelling would be demolished and rebuilt, and an additional dwelling would be constructed, the inclusion of the new dwelling meant the proposal was classed as a new development. Councillor Merfyn Parry referred to a previous application on the opposite side of the road to the site that had been refused and asked for clarification on the reasons for that decision. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the earlier proposal, which sought permission for four dwellings, had been refused for three reasons: two related to the scale and design of the development, and the third concerned highway issues similar to those raised in the current application. Councillor Karen Edwards noted that if the applicant were only demolishing and rebuilding the existing dwelling, the proposal would not be classed as a new development. It was the construction of an additional dwelling that resulted in the application being defined as a new development. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed this was correct. Proposal – Councillor Alan James proposed that the application be refused in accordance with officer recommendations and was seconded by Councillor Delyth Jones Vote – For – 16 Against – 1 Abstain – 0 RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED in accordance with officer recommendations.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED against officer recommendations.
An application was submitted (previously circulated) for the development of land by the erection of 33 dwellings including vehicular access, internal estate roads, landscaping and associated works. Public speaker – Mr Daniel Russell (Applicant) (For) – Support for this application had been received from all statutory consultees. Focus was placed on addressing the key areas of local concern, demonstrating that the scheme had been designed and delivered in a way that would not cause any detriment to nearby residents. Flooding and drainage were the main areas of concern, with concerns that the scheme may exacerbate flooding in the area due to the discharge of water into the land drain to the north of the site. The drainage design had been supported by the Lead Local Flood Authority and Natural Resources Wales (NRW), both reviewed the application, the drainage calculation and the surface water modelling and agreed that the scheme would not exacerbate flooding locally. The proposal was to hold surface water on site and discharge it into the main river at a greenfield run off rate. It had been proven through drainage assessments that the development would not surcharge the main river and would be in keeping with the current discharge rates of surface water off site. The drainage conditions proposed for the site, along with the risks being further analysed and mitigated during the detailed design stage offered further reassurance to the Committee. Regarding access to the site, and the concerns raised regarding additional vehicle movement in the area, the Committee were referred to feedback that had been provided by the relevant statutory consultees. The Local Highways Authority supported the application and agreed with the submitted transport assessment and road safety audit, where it was demonstrated that the development of the site for residential us would not result in an impact on the existing or future operations of the local highway network. The proposed scheme was suspected to result in no more than 22 vehicle movements per hour. There had also been concerns regarding the developments impact on ecology and trees on the site however, NRW, the Ecology Officer and the Tree Officer supported the scheme and the proposed environmental and landscape measures. The application had taken over a year of surveys and design to get to this position which demonstrates a scheme that was compliant with the national and local standards for ecology. It was worth noting that the Council’s 2025 Annual Monitoring Reported showed a significant shortfall in historic housing delivery as well as anticipated housing delivery for the next 2 years, with 178 housing completions anticipated over the next 2 years across the county. The scheme was compliant with housing policy and was supported by all statutory consultees. Public Speaker – Prestatyn Town Council, Councillor Carol Evans (Against) – Objections to the proposal were based on a number of issues, which were traffic congestion on an already busy road, safety concerns regarding the increase in traffic passing a children’s playing area and tree distribution. However, the main objections were in relation to the disruption of natural habitats and surface water flooding. The development proposed that it would reduce the number of dwellings from 35 to 33, this was to ensure that the development did not encroach on wildlife areas including badger sets. Restrictions included no heavy machinery being allowed within 30 metres of an active set without a license. Even if this was complied with, the disturbance during construction would inevitably adversely affect the badgers and many other species. The site, along with the surrounding areas, had been designated as a Zone 3 flood‑risk area since the update to Technical Advice Note (TAN) 15 in March 2025. It took twenty years for the TAN to be revised, despite clear and growing evidence of climate change. As a result of the update, site assessments were now based on a risk‑based approach to development rather than the previous precautionary approach. Greenfield developments in flood‑risk areas are now strongly discouraged, and NRWs’ flood‑risk management map had been produced to guide planning decisions and support the updates to TAN 15. The 2025 changes required local planning authorities to notify Welsh Ministers of vulnerable developments on previously undeveloped land and ministers could call-in the application. This was precisely what this application was, a vulnerable development area, and just because the application fell outside of the date of this requirement it did not take away the risk. Would Welsh Government be satisfied that the grant they were providing for this development was being used on such a vulnerable area. The location of the site had suffered two recent flooding events and Denbighshire County Council undertook an investigation into the reasons why. The culverts under several driveways on Pwll Y Bont could not cope with the upland drainage during heavy rainfall and the location of the site was downstream. General Debate – The Chair stated a well-attended site visit had taken place on the 6 February 2026. The reasons for the site visit were to allow members to view the site, highway network and general character and topography of the area. Councillor Peter Scott stated the site visit was very informative and local flooding concerns were explained and addressed. Councillor Merfyn Parry questioned the maps that were included within the application, highlighting inconsistencies with the wildlife boundaries, specifically the badger sett. Councillor Andrea Tomlin raised a number of concerns including highway concerns about the increased number of cars using the Grove, noting that it was already extremely busy during rush hour and that the junction was well known for being difficult to exit. Continuing, it was noted that the photographs included in the application did not accurately reflect how low the site was, and additional information was requested regarding the figures used to demonstrate the demand for affordable housing in the area. Local Member and Committee Member, Councillor Julie Matthews agreed with the concerns that had been raised in relation to flooding, highways and wildlife disturbance. Residents currently living on Pwll Y Bont were unable to obtain house insurance because of the flood risk, and it was questioned whether properties on the proposed development would face the same issue. The area was locally known as the ‘Meliden Sump’ with residents describing it as a bog and recognised its value for wildlife. The site was well known for holding significant amounts of water and although the application stated that installing a swale could provide some flood alleviation, it was highlighted that this benefit could not be guaranteed. The Development Manager acknowledged the concerns raised by the Committee and emphasised the need to have regard for the adopted Local Development Plan (LDP), which identified the site as allocated for housing. Regarding the inconsistencies identified in the maps submitted within the application, it was explained that two key areas were shown: a wildlife area located outside the development boundary, and an undeveloped section of land containing the badger sett, where no housing development would take place. Tree preservation orders were already in place on the site, and, in relation to protected species, NRW would be required to issue a licence to the developer to ensure the badgers were safeguarded before any construction could begin. NRW had raised no objections in relation to ecology and biodiversity on the site. Regarding highway concerns raised, the Senior Engineer for Traffic, Parking and Road Safety stated that the proposal was for 10 no. 1 bed dwellings, 9 no. 2 bed dwellings and 16 no. 3 bed dwellings. Comments had been raised regarding the capacity of the junction on Ffordd Talargoch and The Grove in Meliden. Members were referred to a previous planning appeal for 133 dwellings using the same junction, and the inspector concluded that the development would not have an unacceptable impact on capacity. The current application was for 33 dwellings, using the same junction, which was a considerable reduction. Maes Meurig had an approximate carriageway width of 5.5 metres, with footways, on‑site parking and garage parking. It was estimated that the development would generate around 22 vehicle movements per hour, which was considered relatively low for a new development. The internal estate road met Denbighshire County Council’s standards, including gradient requirements, and a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit was completed and submitted as part of the Transport Assessment. Stage 1 audits were undertaken at the end of the preliminary design stage and, where possible, before planning permission was granted. Taking all the submitted information into account, it was not considered that there were any grounds to refuse the application on highway matters. There were existing footways providing access to the nearby playground, and no accidents had previously been reported. Denbighshire County Council therefore did not consider the new development presented any additional risk to playground users. In response to questions about the demand for affordable housing in the area, the Senior Officer for Strategic Planning and Housing confirmed that Prestatyn and the surrounding communities have the highest level of need. The mix of housing proposed for the site (1,2 and 3 bedroomed properties) reflected the rising demand for affordable housing in Denbighshire. The Council had received written confirmation from North Wales Housing stating, that upon the receipt of planning approval for the project, it was their intention to acquire the site and work with the developer to build 33 no. homes. All properties would be affordable homes for either social or intermediate rent with new residents coming from the SARTH and Tai Teg registers. The Chair sought clarity on why a previous application adjacent to the development site was refused on flooding concerns however, there had been no objections regarding flooding from any consultees for this application. The Flood Alleviation Engineer, stated that regarding the TAN 15 element of the application, the application was assessed on the TAN 15 from 2004 because it was submitted to the authority before the implementation of the 2025 TAN 15. As a result, the development was assessed on the development advice map and not the flood map for planning. Part of the development on the flooding advice map did contain partial areas of flood zones 2 and 3. However, it was important to note that whilst the highly vulnerable development classification applied to this site, all housing sat outside of the flood zones, and no part of the development would be constructed within the flood zones. All surface water generated by the site would be required to be attenuated and discharged at a greenfield run off rate. It had been agreed that the development would be running below the greenfield run off rate which was the lowest that can be requested in the SUDS approving body process. During the Section 19 investigation, relating to previous flooding following Storm Babet (2023), the Lead Local Flood Authority heard testimony from the residents in the affected properties on Pwll Y Bont that surface water from the development site had contributed towards the flooding issues that they experienced. The development of the site will offer betterment over the existing situation as the surface water flows leaving the site will be attenuated and discharged at a controlled rate, the installation of the swale from the site may also offer some flood alleviation benefit to the impacted properties. Councillor Jon Harland expressed concern that some trees had already been removed from the site. He asked whether the proposed development would lead to additional tree loss and how this would be monitored. The Development Manager responded that some trees had already been removed however, all trees would be replaced on a 3:1 ratio basis ensuring that there was an overall increase in trees on the site. The Council’s Tree Officer had been consulted in relation to the proposals and following submission of amended plans and additional information had no objection to the proposal subject to the imposition of conditions. Many trees on the site had a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) which offered further protection. Councillor Gareth Sandilands further expressed his concerns that the development would increase flooding in the area and would significantly increase traffic flow onto the A487. The Flood Alleviation Engineer stated that the site would need to go through a SUDS approval process if planning permission was to be granted. The Chair requested clarification on the application being assessed in accordance with TAN 15 (2004). The Legal Officer confirmed that the assessment of the site had been carried out under the 2004 version of TAN 15 and that the proposal was generally compliant with the relevant regulations. It was also noted that the application appeared to align with the updated TAN 15 introduced in 2025. Councillor Delyth Jones acknowledged the concerns raised by local residents but stressed the importance of considering the evidence and expert assessments provided within the application. The Flood Alleviation Engineer’s report indicated that the development was unlikely to worsen flooding and could potentially maintain or even improve the current situation. On reviewing the report, it was noted that no response had been received from North Wales Police (NWP). Several members expressed their disappointment that the Police had not provided any comments on the application. Councillor Julie Matthews stated she remained unconvinced by the assurances given that the development would not worsen existing flooding issues in the area. She highlighted that residents’ inability to secure home insurance was a significant concern. Given the vulnerability of the site, she felt it would be irresponsible to proceed with a housing development there. Councillor Alan James stated that the application was well presented, and the area was in need of affordable housing. Proposal – Councillor Alan James proposed that the application be granted in accordance with officer recommendation, seconded by Councillor Peter Scott. Vote – For – 7 Against – 10 Abstain – 0 Proposal - Councillor Julie Matthews proposed that the application be refused due to great concerns regarding flooding of surrounding properties and the drainage from the site due to the location. Seconded by Councillor Gareth Sandilands. Officers indicated the difficulties in substantiating such a reason for refusal in light of the assessment set out in the report and for the reasons explained by officers at this meeting. Officers warned of the difficulties in defending the decision and any request for costs at any appeal. Vote – For – 10 Against – 7 Abstain – 0 RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED against officer recommendations.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendations. Meeting concluded at 11.40am
An application was submitted (previously circulated) for the erection of an agricultural building for lambing and storage of fodder and equipment. General Debate – Councillor Merfyn Parry noted that the application was for an agricultural building intended for lambing and storage and requested that an additional note be included to specify that it was a livestock building. He also proposed that a further condition be added requiring a manure management plan. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the description of the application, as it relates to the proposed agricultural building, could not be amended at this stage of the planning process. However, a manure management plan could be recommended and added as an additional condition to the application. Members had previously raised concerns about whether granting the application could lead to future housing proposals on the site. The Principal Planning Officer explained that while there is always some level of concern about potential future development on agricultural land, the current proposal was very small in scale. Any future development plans would need to be submitted separately and considered by the Committee in the usual way. Proposal – Councillor Merfyn Parry proposed that the application, including the additional manure management plan condition be granted in accordance with officer recommendations, seconded by Councillor Karen Edwards. Vote – For – 16 Against – 0 Abstain – 0 RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendations. Meeting concluded at 11.40am
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.