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 from the meeting held on the 15 April be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
RESOLVED: the application be DEFERRED to a future Planning Committee meeting.
RESOLVED: that the application and associated conditions be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
RESOLVED: that the application and associated conditions be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED against officer recommendation as stated above.
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Raj Metri, Gwyneth Ellis and Michelle Blakeley- Walker.
Nominations were sought for the position of the Chair of the Planning Committee for the 2026/27 municipal year. Councillor Merfyn Parry proposed Councillor Mark Young to be appointed as Chair for the 2026/27 municipal year, seconded by Councillor Peter Scott. No other nominations were received therefor; RESOLVED that Councillor Mark Young be appointed Chair of the Planning Committee for the 2026/27 municipal year.
Councillor Jon Harland sought legal guidance if he should declare a prejudicial interest in agenda item 11 – Prestatyn High School. He highlighted he was the Ward Member for the application and had made a representation in 2023 on the original application. He stressed he remained open minded on the application and amendments that had been made since. He asked if guidance if he should declare a personal or personal and prejudicial interest in the agenda item. In response the Legal Advisor stated if Councillor Harland had changed his original opinion on the application as a result of the process of the application then that would not amount to a prejudicial interest. If he remained of the same opinion he would be required to declare a prejudicial interest. Following the legal guidance from the Legal Advisor Councillor Jon Harland declared a personal interest in agenda item 11 - Prestatyn High School 2 Princes Avenue, Prestatyn.
Nominations were sought for the position of the Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee for the 2026/27 municipal year. Councillor Ellie Chard proposed Councillor Alan James to be appointed as Vice-Chair for the 2026/27 municipal year, seconded by Councillor Gareth Sandilands. No other nominations were received therefor; RESOLVED that Councillor Alan James be appointed Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee for the 2026/27 municipal year.
None.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the minutes from the meeting held on the 15 April be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
The minutes from the Planning Committee meeting held on the 15 April were submitted for consideration. No matters of accuracy were raised. There were matters arising from the minutes. RESOLVED: that the minutes from the meeting held on the 15 April be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: the application be DEFERRED to a future Planning Committee meeting.
An application was submitted providing details of construction method statement submitted in accordance with condition no. 4 of planning permission code no. 45/2025/0410 at Royal Alexandra Hospital, Marine Drive, Rhyl (previously circulated). The Development Management and Building Control Manager reminded Members that the Planning Committee was responsible for determining applications as presented. It was emphasised that officers were not responsible for the content submitted within each application but were responsible for reviewing the information received and presenting it to the Committee for determination. Members were advised that a significant amount of correspondence had been received, raising several issues in relation to the application. Some of the matters raised related to a previous application that had been granted for the development of the Royal Alexandra Hospital. Prior to the commencement of that approved development, the applicant had been required to submit further details to discharge planning conditions. The application presented related to one of the conditions attached to that previously approved scheme. Members were reminded that they were being asked specifically to consider the construction management scheme. This scheme included arrangements for the provision of a welfare compound on a site opposite the hospital. It was made clear that any potential future proposals relating to land adjacent to the hospital were not part of the current application and were not for consideration or debate. The application before the Committee related solely to the construction management scheme. It was also emphasised that the Local Planning Authority could not determine matters relating to private legal covenants, as these did not constitute material planning considerations. It was noted that such covenants were attached to land and arose from historic legal arrangements. Councillor Justine Evans, as the local Member, stated that the long‑awaited development of the Royal Alexandra Hospital was both needed and welcomed. Members were advised that both she and local residents understood the importance of investment in hospital infrastructure; however, support for the hospital development did not imply agreement with all associated proposals. She stressed that planning decisions should be based on full information, thorough scrutiny, and a clear understanding of the surrounding area. Councillor Evans expressed the view that the Committee was not currently in a position to make a fully informed decision, particularly as no site visit had taken place. She stated that a site visit would demonstrate the close proximity of the proposed development to neighbouring properties. She therefore proposed that the application be deferred to allow for a formal site visit, to provide the opportunity for outstanding questions to be addressed, and to enable Members to fully consider all relevant information prior to making a determination. Councillor Andrea Tomlin seconded the proposal to defer the application. Proposal - Councillor Justine Evans proposed the application be deferred to future Planning Committee meeting following a site visit, SECONDED by Councillor Andrea Tomlin. Vote – For – 14 Against – 3 Abstain – 0 RESOLVED: the application be DEFERRED to a future Planning Committee meeting.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the application and associated conditions be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
An application was submitted for the development of land by the erection of 22 new holiday accommodation units (Use Class C6) and one storage building, formation of parking and internal pathways, installation of package treatment plant, landscaping and associated works at Eirianfa Country Park Berwyn Street, Llangollen (previously circulated). Public speaker – Mr Andrew Bundan (FOR) – Mr Bundan confirmed the application was for 22 high quality holiday lets. The application was not a new greenfield scheme, it was brownfield site already benefiting from planning permission for 30 holiday units dating back to 2001. The access and three units are part built and the site had been left derelict for several years. It was felt rather than proceed with the original proposal, a new significantly improved application was presented before committee. Since the preapplication which begun in Spring 2024, the speaker confirmed work with officers and consultees had taken place to improve the application. The AONB, CADW and Highways raised no objections subject to the standard conditions that were accepted by the applicant. A full HRA had been completed and concluded there would be no adverse effect on the River Dee. Members heard sustainability and biodiversity were at the heart of the scheme, with every bungalow being EPCA rated, super insulated and have solar power battery backups and will be heated by air source heat pumps. The applicant confirmed they had conducted work to protect the stretch of the River Dee. The formal environmental permit had already been secured from Natural Resources Wales to discharge to the river. It proved beyond doubt that the application was bettering the current position by replacing an unregulated historic septic tank with a state-of-the-art package treatment plant with additional nitrate and phosphate filters and further UV filter which will prevent any sewage reaching the mains. The applicant proposed to place numerous bat, bird and owl boxes along with new reptile hibernacula on the site with the soft landscaping plans retaining many of the mature trees with 22 new native trees to be planted along with 300 native shrubs and hedges. It was also proposed that the use of Welsh businesses would be contracted throughout the building process. The proposal was ready to be delivered by a passionate and small, committed team, once the scheme if agreed was built it would create 6 employment opportunities. General Debate – Councillor Karen Edwards (Local Member) stated that the application represented a complex and finely balanced proposal relating to a long‑established tourism site on the edge of Llangollen, located within a highly sensitive landscape and environmental setting. It was emphasised that the application did not relate to a new tourism use in the open countryside, and that the site benefited from an extensive planning history for a significant number of holiday units. Councillor Edwards advised that the fallback position remained a key material planning consideration and should be taken into account by Members in their determination. The revised scheme proposed 22 units, representing a reduction in the overall number compared to the existing consent. Members were informed that there were competing considerations. The site lay within the Clwydian Range and Dee Valley National Landscape and was located adjacent to the River Dee, resulting in a high level of ecological sensitivity. The report confirmed that Natural Resources Wales (NRW), along with the Council’s ecology and drainage officers, had raised no objections subject to the inclusion of a number of conditions. It was emphasised that the acceptability of the scheme relied heavily on these conditions. From a landscape perspective, it was suggested that the revised proposal represented an improvement on the existing approved plans, although it still introduced built development within a sensitive valley landscape. Highways officers were also satisfied with the proposal, subject to standard mitigation measures relating to access and construction traffic. Councillor Edwards confirmed that she was content to support the application, subject to the robustness of the conditions attached. Members noted the extensive work undertaken by the applicant in engaging with officers and consultees throughout the process. Councillor Chris Evans sought clarification on the implications should the application be refused, and requested further information regarding the employment opportunities that might arise if the proposal were approved. In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the site had been in a poor condition for some time and that a previously approved scheme remained extant and could be implemented should the current application be refused. It was also noted that employment arrangements associated with the site were outside the direct control of the Local Planning Authority. Officers considered the proposal to represent an overall improvement to the site. Councillor Alan James commended the applicant for their detailed submission and for their cooperative approach in working with officers. Proposal – Councillor Karen Edwards proposed that the application be granted in accordance with the officer recommendation and subject to the conditions outlined in the report. This proposal was seconded by Councillor Alan James. Vote – For – 17 Against – 0 Abstain – 0 RESOLVED: that the application and associated conditions be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the application and associated conditions be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
An application was submitted for the change of use from Bookmakers to a Salad Bar/Sandwich Shop (Use class A3) (retrospective application) at Ladbrokes, 22 Castle Street, Llangollen (previously circulated). Public Speaker – Mr Endaf Roberts (Agent) (FOR) – He offered his thanks to the officers who had supported the applicant in the application before the Committee. He noted no objections had been raised by the AONB. Many of the challenges to the application where from a point of view of competition in the area. The proposal was for a different type of food service to what currently existed in Llangollen. It was stressed there was no hot food takeaway being offered and conditions had been included to ensure no hot food was offered from the site. Members heard the property was currently empty on the Highstreet of Llangollen. General debate – The Chair thanked officers and all involved in the site visit, it was beneficial to all. Councillor Alan James who had attended the site meeting stated the property had been improved and was visually more appealing. The proposed food outlet was different to what was currently on offer in the area. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the site lay within the Llangollen Conservation Area and was adjacent to a listed building. He advised that the new signage installed on the building did not form part of the current application, nor did the windows associated with the residential flats above the shop. It was emphasised that the application related solely to the use of the ground floor of the building. The applicant had confirmed that no hot food would be prepared or sold on the premises. Officers were therefore satisfied that the use fell within Class A3. It was noted that any future change to the use would require a further planning application. Councillor Karen Edwards (Local Member) advised that she was unable to support the retrospective application for several reasons: • There was, in her view, an over-concentration of Class A3 uses in Llangollen town centre. She noted that there were already 12 Class A3 uses within the town centre, with a further 12 located on adjoining streets. She referred to Planning Policy Wales and the Denbighshire Local Development Plan, both of which sought to maintain a diverse mix of uses within town centres to protect vitality. • She confirmed that the site was within a designated conservation area, where national policy required developments to preserve or enhance character. She expressed the opinion that the signage and external appearance did not meet this requirement and were harmful to the conservation area and the setting of the listed building. • She highlighted that the site occupied a constrained and prominent corner location on a key pedestrian route to the town’s main car park. She considered that, even without external seating, there was potential for queuing, which could create a pedestrian pinch point, contrary to Planning Policy Wales requirements for safe and accessible environments. • She stated that insufficient information had been provided to demonstrate that the use could operate without negative impacts from odour, grease, or ventilation. She raised concerns regarding the absence of a clearly defined extraction and filtration system. Councillor Edwards further noted that any suggestion that refusal could restrict competition or economic activity was not a material planning consideration. She reiterated that planning policy focused on the suitability of use rather than competition between businesses. She concluded that, for the reasons outlined, she could not support the application. Councillor Huw Hilditch‑Roberts requested further information regarding school exclusion zones and the potential impact should the application be approved. He also sought clarification on the implications of installing an extraction system within a conservation area. Councillor Ellie Chard expressed the view that the proposed use as a salad bar represented an improvement on the previous use of the site and indicated her support for the application. During the debate, Members sought clarification on the differences between planning use classes. In response, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the application had been assessed as a Class A3 use due to the provision of seating within the premises. He advised that if the seating were removed, the use could fall under Class A1. He further advised that any impact on the conservation area resulting from the installation of extraction equipment would be addressed through planning conditions. Officers were satisfied that the proposed condition relating to extraction systems would mitigate potential concerns. It was noted that an existing extraction cowl was already present on the building, and any future alterations were unlikely to significantly affect its appearance. Officers advised that any queuing at the premises would indicate the success of the business and that clear evidence would be required to demonstrate that such activity caused a significant adverse impact. The Development Management and Building Control Manager reminded Members that supplementary planning guidance relating to hot food takeaways had previously included consideration of exclusion zones around schools. However, Members had determined at that time that such provisions should not be included in the adopted guidance. He emphasised that the application site was located within a town centre, where national and local planning policies encouraged such uses to support vibrancy and economic activity. The Legal Advisor noted that, as Llangollen was a tourist area, a concentration of Class A3 uses was to be expected. In relation to extraction systems, he advised that the applicant had stated that no hot food preparation would take place, and therefore such systems were not currently required. He further highlighted that, as a retrospective application, the use was already in operation, enabling officers to assess its actual impacts. He concluded that there were no significant planning reasons to refuse the application based on the issues raised. Members were advised that any planning considerations relating to the residential accommodation above the premises would be dealt with separately. It was also confirmed that permitted development rights for signage within conservation areas remained in place in Llangollen. The Development Management and Building Control Manager reiterated that the application related solely to a change of use. He advised that officers had engaged with the applicant regarding the appropriate use class and were satisfied with the proposal, subject to the conditions attached. He also confirmed that any outdoor seating would require separate licensing. Councillor Andrea Tomlin stated that Members had a responsibility to protect the character and function of town centres. She asked whether a condition could be imposed restricting the use to a cold food outlet. In response, officers advised that the application had been assessed as a Class A3 use and that any detailed interpretation of “hot food” would require consultation with Public Protection and food safety officers. Councillor Delyth Jones expressed concern regarding the potential outcome if the application were refused, noting that a vacant property could negatively impact the local area and nearby businesses. She considered the proposed conditions to be appropriate and sufficient. Councillor Karen Edwards reiterated that her previously stated concerns remained valid and maintained that the proposal would result in unacceptable planning harm. It was also noted that the presence of vacant properties was not a material planning consideration. The Development Management and Building Control Manager advised that, as the use had commenced without permission, an enforcement warning notice had been issued to prompt the submission of a planning application. Proposal – Councillor Alan James proposed the application be granted in accordance with officer recommendation and associated conditions attached, SECONDED by Councillor Ellie Chard. Vote – For – 10 Against – 7 Abstain – 0 RESOLVED: that the application and associated conditions be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED against officer recommendation as stated above.
An application was submitted for variation of condition no. 2 of planning permission code no. 24/2024/1221 to allow a change in the dwelling design/layout at land at Awatea Bungalow, Ffordd Yr Orsaf, Rhewl (previously circulated) Public Speaker - Mr Dafydd Llewelyn (Against) – Informed the committee he was representing the neighbouring residents of the planned development. He stressed the local residents fully accepted the plot was there to be developed upon, it was the increase in size and proximity to neighbouring properties they opposed. He stressed the amendment asked for an increase in 25% capacity from the original application. He stated he felt the developer, architect and planning department were failing to realise the impact the size of the building potentially would have. To the right of the proposed development would be a 7m height which would obstruct daylight to the lounge and kitchen. The angle of shadow transgresses the planning departments own recommendations by 20%. To the left of the property was the gable end of the terrace which had one window, the sole source of natural light to the stairs and landing of the property. The proposed development of 7m would be just 4m from that window, the stairs and landing would lose all direct light. Towards the rear the development would be only 5.5m from the boundary again transgressing planning department’s recommendations. It was felt the dormer windows would look directly down on to the property overlooking space for socialising. He stressed the size of the development was massive and overbearing. If the amendment was passed the neighbouring residents would be left with the new building. He stated the original proposal would make a happy home for somebody. It was felt the developer was trying to squeeze a larger property on a small plot for a larger profit. General debate - Councillor Alan James confirmed he had visited the site and found it very beneficial to see the proposed site for the development. He stated concerns were raised by local walkers during the site visit. He expressed his surprise at the overbearing wall at the end of the property. He thanked officers for arranging the site visit he found it very beneficial to see the site. The Chair stated that the decision on the application had to be made based on the available facts. He indicated that the site visit had been worthwhile. However, he highlighted that a condition attached to the previous permission had been breached due to the removal of trees, and he considered that this had altered the landscape. In response, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that enforcement action could now be taken to require replanting on the site, as a breach of condition had occurred. The existence of the condition enabled the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the site. It was further confirmed that if Members refused the current application, enforcement action in relation to the previous permission could still be pursued. If, however, the application were approved, a new landscaping scheme was proposed which would mitigate the loss of the removed trees. Councillor Merfyn Parry (Local Member) thanked officers for arranging the site visit and advised that it had been essential in enabling Members to fully appreciate the proposal in terms of its increased scale and height, and its relationship to neighbouring properties. Having viewed the site, he confirmed that he remained concerned that the revised proposal would have a greater visual and physical impact than the previously approved scheme. He noted that, although officers had described the increase in footprint as modest, the gross internal floor area had increased by approximately 25%, largely due to the expanded roof space. He also expressed concern that the removal of screening trees had materially changed the relationship between the site and neighbouring properties. He emphasised that replacement planting would take time to establish and restore adequate screening. Councillor Parry requested that, should Members be minded to approve the application, conditions relating to landscaping, closure of the original access, and ecological protection be robust. He further sought reassurance that the rear access path would remain unobstructed. Councillor Merfyn Parry PROPOSED that the application be refused for the following reasons: that the revised dwelling, due to its increased scale, height, and roof mass in comparison with the previously approved scheme, would result in an overbearing and visually dominant impact on neighbouring properties. He stated that the proposal would lead to an unacceptable loss of outlook and reduction in natural light, causing material harm to neighbouring residential amenity, contrary to Policy RD1 of the Denbighshire Local Development Plan and the Council’s adopted Residential Development and Amenity Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). Councillor Huw Hilditch‑Roberts supported the comments made by Councillor Parry and SECONDED the proposal for refusal. He stated that he did not object in principle to development on the site, but had concerns regarding the size and scale of the revised proposal. He considered that the proposed development was not in keeping with surrounding properties and would appear overbearing within the area. In response, the Planning Officer advised that the proposed increase in footprint amounted to 5.8 square metres and that sufficient amenity space would remain around the property. In relation to the impact on light, officers had applied the 25‑degree guideline set out within the Residential Development SPG, which aimed to ensure acceptable levels of sunlight for neighbouring habitable rooms. Officers acknowledged that the height of the proposal would have some impact; however, this had been assessed in the context of separation distances between properties and the fact that the affected windows were of secondary importance. It was confirmed that the rear elevation of the amended scheme remained consistent with the previously approved application, with the revised scheme set further away from the rear boundary. Members were advised that the landscaping scheme had been secured through planning conditions. Condition 2 required the submission and implementation of a landscaping scheme, including the planting of semi‑mature hazel trees to the rear of the property. Additional tree replacement was required at a ratio of 3:1. Condition 3 required a biodiversity enhancement scheme, including hedgerow and tree planting. Condition 7 required all planting to be carried out in the first available planting season following commencement, with any failed or removed planting to be replaced within five years. Condition 8 required protective fencing to be installed around retained trees and hedges. Members were also advised that the bird nesting season ran from March to August, during which works affecting trees were restricted for ecological reasons. The affected tree would therefore be removed outside of this period. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the 25‑degree rule was guidance intended to assist officers in assessing the impact of development on neighbouring properties. He advised that, in this case, officers had assessed whether the impact on light and overshadowing was acceptable overall. Councillor Delyth Jones requested clarification as to whether there was a greater impact on light compared to the previously approved scheme. The Principal Planning Officer referred Members to the submitted illustrations, which demonstrated the degree of impact. He confirmed that the previously approved scheme had already resulted in some loss of sunlight to the neighbouring property. Councillor Chris Evans commented that a loss of natural light and privacy could have a detrimental impact on the wellbeing of neighbouring residents. In response to these comments, the Planning Officer advised that the trees previously removed had been mature and had provided additional screening beyond the boundary fence. The proposed scheme included the planting of semi‑mature hazel trees to provide replacement screening. Councillor Merfyn Parry further advised that the Community Council had requested that the Planning Committee determine the application, citing objections from both the Community Council and local residents. He reiterated that the proposal was, in his view, overbearing and not in keeping with the character of the area. The Development Management and Building Control Manager confirmed that, in the event of refusal, officers would liaise with the Local Member to ensure that the reasons for refusal were clearly articulated and appropriately worded. Proposal – Councillor Merfyn Parry proposed the application be refused country to officer recommendation SECONDED by Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts. Vote – For – 15 Against – 1 Abstain – 1 RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED against officer recommendation as stated above.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
An application was submitted for the formation of additional parking and associated works at Prestatyn High School 2 Princes Avenue, Prestatyn, LL19 8RS (previously circulated). Public Speakers – Sharon Seddon (AGAINST) – It was explained the speaker was using the aid of a voice machine to address the committee. Members heard the location of the proposal would have a significant impact on the residents close to the school. If the proposed site were relocated it would demonstrate to the children an understanding of residents’ concerns. Members were made aware of residents in the proximity with several health conditions and needs. It was felt the car fumes for the proposed site would have a negative impact for residents. The speaker suggested an area to the rear the sixth form grass land at the back would be better suited. This would also mean the school children would all be located in one area of playing fields. Concerns were raised with regards to the potential flooding due to the historic drains at the site. Members also heard the construction phase of the proposal would cause great disruption. She drew attention the public petition against the application. Charlotte Parry (on behalf of Prestatyn High School) (FOR) – The application was not about increasing the number of vehicles at Prestatyn High School. It was a strategic relocation of existing staff parking to resolve a longstanding conflict between vehicles and pupil welfare. The area where cars were currently parked was historically a pupil play area and for too long pupils had lost the play area space due to cars being parked. The proposal to relocate the cars to a new car park would ensure the land could be returned to the children. Members were informed the proposal was not only about extra space but it would provide a better educational experience for pupils providing an area for recreation in close proximity to the 3G pitch in a safe car free zone. The speaker offered two points of reassure, the first as the proposal was for staff vehicles only there would be no additional vehicles accessing the site than what was currently observed at the school. Secondly the new site would be gated and locked during school day and outside school hours. It was hoped the creation of a small number of additional car spaces would reduce the number of vehicles parking on adjacent residential roads. The proposal would allow the school to be better stewards of the land, the application included modern drainage and improvements to the site and would allow maintenance and protection of the surrounding landscape which accepted as a natural buffer between school and residents. General debate – Councillor Jon Harland (Local Member) informed Members that the concerns raised by local residents were wide‑ranging, including issues relating to drainage and the potential loss of views due to construction vehicles. He commended the speaker who had presented the petition to the Committee. Councillor Andrea Tomlin confirmed that she had attended the site visit. She considered it important to note that, should the proposal be approved, it would not result in an increase in the number of vehicles at the site. In her view, the proposal would help to rationalise and improve the appearance of the area. She further commented that the development would provide a safer environment for children and welcomed the inclusion of conditions relating to lighting within the car park. For clarification, the Flood Alleviation Engineer advised that officers were aware that a lack of maintenance of the drainage ditch on the school site had previously led to flooding affecting external properties. It was confirmed that the ditch was located on Denbighshire County Council land and that responsibility for its maintenance rested with the Council. Conditions attached to the application required the ditch to be cleared prior to any connections being made. It was further confirmed that the drainage system had received full SAB approval and incorporated a grass grid system, which would prevent surface water runoff during light rainfall and improve the existing arrangements. In relation to highways matters, the Senior Engineer (Development Control) advised that the proposal would reduce on‑street parking within surrounding residential streets and provide formalised, safer parking provision for staff. On this basis, he confirmed that there were no sufficient grounds for refusal on highways grounds. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the application included a small strip of land at the lower end of the school playing field to facilitate the proposed car park. It was acknowledged that this loss of open space could not be mitigated elsewhere within the site. However, Policy BSC11 protected open space unless a wider community benefit could be demonstrated. Members were advised that the proposed development would result in an approximate 8% loss of the school playing field. Councillor Delyth Jones expressed her support for the proposal, emphasising that pupil safety within the school grounds should be a primary consideration. She welcomed the inclusion of a condition relating to lighting for the proposed car park and requested clarification regarding the operational hours of the school, noting that activity often extended beyond standard school hours of 9.00 am to 3.00 pm. The Development Management and Building Control Manager confirmed that conditions relating to site management, including lighting, had been attached to the application. He further advised that, as the site was owned by Denbighshire County Council, additional management arrangements could be implemented outside of the planning process. Proposal – Councillor Andrea Tomlin proposed the application be granted in accordance with officer recommendation SECONDED by Councillor Delyth Jones. Vote – For – 17 Against – 0 Abstain – 0 RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
An application was submitted for the variation of condition no. 2 of planning permission code no. 47/2023/0708 to allow revised site layout and unit types at former Rhyl Rugby Club, Waen Road, Rhuddlan, Rhyl (previously circulated). Public Speaker – Mr Gethin Jones (Agent) (FOR) – Members heard the former Rhyl Rugby Club was now being used as an attractive sporting football facility. In principle tourism accommodation at the site had already been accepted and approved by Denbighshire County Council. This application did not seek to increase the number of units on the site. The application was for 9 units, the application presented to committee was a revision of the design and layout of the units, thus ensuring the development remained commercially viable in the tourism market. The officer report and information clearly stated that the proposal would not create significant impact compared to the previously approved scheme. There would be no greater impact on highway safety, ecology, drainage, residential amenity, agricultural land use or landscape. The highways officer had raised no objection to the application with acknowledgment to the original approved access arrangements had been previously accepted. He noted concerns raised regarding the number of residents; officers had confirmed that the previously agreed application could accommodate the same number of visitors. The application was simply a different style of accommodation to the originally approved application. The development of the site had brought the site back into use including the new site for a local football team. The clubhouse facilities had also been improved. The proposal supported the wider rural economy and created numerous employment opportunities. It was felt that local businesses would also benefit from visitors to the site. General debate - Councillor Chris Evans (Local Member) stated that, as with the previous proposal, he had concerns regarding the road and access arrangements to the site. He commended the improvements that had already been made, noting that the site was now in a significantly better condition and that care had been taken to improve its surroundings. He requested clarification on the changes to the design of the accommodation and sought officers’ views on the objections raised by the Local Community Council. In response, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the application related to revisions to the site layout and the types of units proposed. He advised that any further changes beyond those presented would require the submission of a new planning application. He further explained that the principle of developing the site had already been established through a previously approved application, and that the current proposal related solely to amendments to the approved scheme. Members were informed that a revised business plan had been submitted, which had been adapted to increase its appeal to families. It was noted that the previously approved scheme had included fold‑out camping beds and therefore had the potential to accommodate a similar number of visitors as the revised proposal. Officers suggested that the amended layout and unit types were likely to be more attractive to families and could contribute to the overall viability and success of the site. Councillor Merfyn Parry sought assurance that the revised application remained within the originally approved site boundary and did not involve further encroachment onto the adjoining open space. He emphasised the importance of adhering to the original site boundaries and conditions. Officers confirmed that the revised proposal remained wholly within the approved site boundary and that all previously agreed conditions would continue to apply to the amended scheme. The Chair sought clarification from the Legal Advisor regarding the powers of the Committee when determining a variation application. The Legal Advisor confirmed that the proposal fell within the envelope of the previously granted permission and that the variation application was being submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act, which allowed for amendments to existing planning permissions without the need for a completely new application. Proposal – Councillor Merfyn Parry proposed the application be granted in accordance with officer recommendation SECONDED by Councillor Delyth Jones. Vote – For – 16 Against – 1 Abstain – 0 RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
An application was submitted (previously circulated) for the formation of an additional 18 caravan pitches, re-siting of six caravan pitches and creation of a separate biodiversity mitigation area; including the construction of internal roads, installation of package treatment plant and associated works at Caer Mynydd, Saron. The Development Management & Building Control Manager confirmed the Local Member had resigned his seat as a Member of Denbighshire County Council, following his appointment to the Senedd following local elections. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that policy PSE12 was the material policy referenced when a new caravan site was proposed. It cleared stated it only allowed additional extensions to existing sites where it would be an environmental improvement to the area. Members were guided to the images which illustrated the proposed site for the additional units, which in the opinion of officers was a logical extension. The proposal would allow for additional landscaping to improve the overall appearance of the area. One benefit of the proposed plan was the pond on site would be transformed to a wildlife area and not used as a fishing lake, adding to the enhancement of biodiversity and the environment. That element of the application would be controlled by conditions attached to the application. Councillor Andrea Tomlin asked if agreed what would the percentage increase of the site be. In response the Principal Planning Officer confirmed the applicant was relocating 6 units he was unsure on the percentage. He guided Members to the papers to the application which showed the map of the proposed increase. He stated an additional 18 units would be an increase of 15% of the existing layout. Proposal – Councillor Peter Scott proposed the application be granted in accordance with officer recommendation SECONDED by Councillor Alan James. Vote – For – 17 Against – 0 Abstain – 0 RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
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.