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 17 June 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
RESOLVED: that the application and associated conditions be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED contrary to officer recommendations for reasons stated around obesity levels and the health and wellbeing of future generations and the comments received from the University Health Board.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Delyth Jones and Councillor Chris Evans.
Councillor Gareth Sandilands informed the committee he had a prior engagement and would have to leave the meeting at 10.30 am. In relation to agenda item 5 – Burley Hill Garage, Erysys, Mold, Councillor Terry Mendies informed the committee, a complaint had been submitted against his conduct and predetermination. If permitted he stated he would speak on behalf of his residents before leaving the Chamber during the discussion and take no part in the debate or vote. The Legal Officer confirmed that Cllr Mendies would be declaring a prejudicial intertest on the application. The code allowed for Members declaring a prejudicial interest in an application where public speaking is permitted to participate to the same extent as a member of the public. Having spoken on the subject, the Councillor should then withdraw from the room for the remainder of that item. Councillor Alan James declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 – Helens, 45 Trellewelyn Road, Rhyl as it was situated next to a newsagent that Councillor James had a newspaper account. Councillor Ellie Chard declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 - Helens, 45 Trellewelyn Road, Rhyl as she had been a longstanding customer of the business. In addition, Councillor Chard stated she intended to discuss areas relating to health, so informed the committee she had been secretary for the Clwyd North group of the Diabetes Uk for a long period of time.
None.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the minutes from the meeting held on the 17 June 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
The minutes from the Planning Committee meeting held on the 17 June 2026 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 17 June 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
Y penderfyniad fel y'i cofnodwyd
RESOLVED: that the application and associated conditions be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
An application was received for use of site as coach depot to include maintenance facilities at Burley Hill Garage, Eryrys, Mold, Denbighshire at Burley Hill Garage, Eryrys, Mold (previously circulated). Public speaker - Jane Gillet (Against) stated that she was representing residents living in the vicinity of the application site. She argued that permitting an application for 13 coaches, two minibuses and three maintenance bays, with the potential to operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, conflicted with the Local Development Plan. She contended that the proposal was not a small-scale development and did not accord with the objectives of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). In her view, the proposal failed to conserve or enhance the natural beauty and tranquillity of the AONB and was therefore not in the public interest. She advised Members that there was already a negative environmental and landscape impact, as lighting columns had been erected on site, potentially affecting local bat populations and contributing to light pollution that impacted dark skies. She informed Members that Public Protection officers had visited the site and had required it to be cleared of litter, raising concerns regarding where waste from the coaches was being disposed. She expressed the view that the septic tank on site was inadequate and emphasised that no site visit had been undertaken by Members. She noted that the site had historically benefitted from planning permission for agricultural repairs and a single maintenance bay, subject to strict operating hours. She argued that amending the current permissions would be detrimental to the area's amenity, visual appearance and the amenities of neighbouring properties. Reference was made to notices served in 2019 relating to breaches of planning conditions concerning out-of-hours activity within the yard. Ms Gillet further stated that the Planning Design, Access and Viability Statement contained inaccuracies, including plans showing two coaches parked above the septic tank, which she stated was not permitted by Natural Resources Wales. She maintained that the development would result in visual intrusion, loss of privacy, nuisance and a reduction in tranquillity for neighbouring residents. She also considered that increased noise levels would have an adverse impact on the area and stated that the highways report was insufficient. Mr S. Keane (Applicant's Brother) (For) provided Members with details of the services operated by the company, including public transport services for the community, school transport, excursions for elderly passengers and transport for vulnerable individuals attending appointments. He explained that the company provided employment for fifteen full-time and ten part-time employees and supported a number of local businesses and organisations. Members also heard that the company supported local clubs and community events, and it was hoped that the success of the business would continue to benefit the local community. Mr Keane advised that, prior to its current use, the site had operated as a quarry workshop and parking area and had therefore historically accommodated commercial activities. He stated that the company operated responsibly and that its fleet consisted of modern Euro 6 vehicles meeting ultra-low emission standards. As part of the application process, independent noise assessments had been undertaken which demonstrated that the proposal would have no significant impact on neighbouring properties. He emphasised that the company considered itself a responsible local business that operated in a considerate and professional manner. General Debate - Councillor Terry Mendies (Local Member) began by expressing disappointment that a site visit had not taken place. The Chair clarified that the decision not to undertake a site visit had been his. Councillor Mendies confirmed that he did not support the application, noting that local residents had raised a number of objections. He described the site as a small yard located within a rural AONB setting. He referred to planning permission granted in 1994 for a garage workshop servicing farm machinery and trucks, which had included specified operating hours that remained in force. He stated that, since the operator had begun using the site, those operating hours had not always been adhered to. Councillor Mendies also argued that the surrounding roads and lanes were unsuitable for coaches and other large vehicles. He noted that traffic movements were unrestricted and could occur in any direction. He informed Members that local residents had installed CCTV cameras, which had recorded 110 vehicle movements within a 24-hour period. He reminded Members of previous applications that had been refused by the Committee due to their impact on the peace and tranquillity of locations within the AONB. He stated that whilst the application sought permission for ten coaches, the operator's licence permitted 13 vehicles. Furthermore, he observed that the submitted plans appeared to provide only seven coach parking spaces, which he considered inadequate. Although the application had been amended to state that vehicles would not be washed on site, he noted that washing facilities and equipment remained available. He expressed concern that water run off could enter a nearby stream located behind the garage. He concluded by stating that, in his view, the applicant had failed to comply with the approved operating hours and vehicle numbers over the previous four years and that approval of the application would likely result in immediate enforcement issues. At this point in the meeting, Councillor Terry Mendies withdrew from both the meeting and the chamber for the remainder of the debate. In response to comments made by the public speakers and Local Member, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the application related to ten buses/coaches. Members were directed to Section 1.5 of the officer's report, which detailed the planning history of the site. The officer advised that previous planning restrictions related to the nature of activities undertaken on the site and did not restrict vehicle movements. He explained that operating hours had been amended historically and that no restrictions on vehicle arrivals or departures had existed at any stage. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the current application sought permission for a daytime vehicle repair garage operating in conjunction with a transport depot. He stated that the noise impact assessment reviewed by Public Protection officers demonstrated that any impact would be low. While no restrictions were proposed on vehicle movements, a condition had been included to control the hours during which repair and maintenance work could take place. Members were referred to the recommended planning conditions. He further advised that officers had concluded that the impact on residential amenity would be acceptable. In relation to the AONB, he noted that the AONB Officer had recommended mitigation measures which had been incorporated into the proposed conditions. Councillor Jon Harland acknowledged that the company was a successful local business but expressed concerns regarding operating hours and the potential run off of contaminated water. Officers responded that concerns had been raised regarding washing vehicles on site and the risk of run off entering nearby watercourses. Members were advised that the applicant had amended the proposal to confirm that vehicles would not be washed on site. Condition 3 had been included to address drainage concerns, while Condition 4 required details of measures to prevent vehicles from parking above the septic tank. Councillor James Elson sought clarification regarding the site's parking capacity. He observed that the application appeared to provide seven parking spaces, despite the operator having access to additional vehicles. The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that the application related solely to ten buses and that any additional vehicles would need to be accommodated elsewhere. In officers' opinion, the proposed parking arrangements were acceptable, and conditions had been included requiring details of any further parking arrangements to be submitted for approval. Councillor Merfyn Parry suggested that the conditions relating to vehicle washing should be strengthened. Officers advised that the proposed conditions only permitted vehicle valeting during specified hours. Should the company wish to undertake cleaning activities outside those hours, a formal application to vary the condition would be required. Officers emphasised that planning conditions could only regulate activities taking place on the application site. It was further noted that Natural Resources Wales had not raised concerns regarding the septic tank itself, other than the potential risk of damage caused by vehicles parking above it. In response to a request from the Chair regarding highways considerations, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that no objections had been raised by the Highway Authority. He noted that vehicles were already using the surrounding highway network and stated that it would be difficult to demonstrate that the existing infrastructure was inadequate to accommodate the proposed development. Proposal – Councillor James Elson proposed that the application be granted in accordance with officer recommendations and subject to the conditions outlined in the report, SECONDED by Councillor Alan James. Vote – For – 12 Against – 5 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 contrary to officer recommendations for reasons stated around obesity levels and the health and wellbeing of future generations and the comments received from the University Health Board.
Councillor Terry Mendies was invited back into the meeting room before the meeting reconvened. An application was submitted for the change of use of the premises from a hairdressing salon to a hot food takeaway at Helens, 45 Trellewelyn Road, Rhyl, Denbighshire, LL18 4LT (previously circulated). Public Speaker - Mr Thananjcheliyan Ernest (Applicant) (For) stated that the application related solely to a takeaway use and did not include a delivery service. He advised that the site had previously operated as a hair salon and had generated a significant level of vehicle movements when in use. General Debate - The Chair referred to the site visit held at 11.45 a.m. on Thursday, 9 July 2026, and invited comments from Members who had attended. Councillor Ellie Chard confirmed that she had attended the site visit. She advised that the previous use of the site had served as a busy community facility. She noted that the site benefitted from parking provision, with 11 parking spaces available. The location was situated close to a primary school and two nearby secondary schools and was also located on a bus route. The Chair added that the site visit had been beneficial and well attended. Councillor Michelle Blakeley-Walker (Local Member) expressed concerns regarding the potential highways impact of the proposal. She informed Members that she and Councillor Will Price had met with Highways Officers to discuss concerns relating to traffic and parking in the area, particularly during school drop-off and collection times. She noted that the proposed opening hours differed from those of the neighbouring takeaway premises and suggested that a planning condition could be imposed to restrict opening times outside of school hours. Councillor Will Price (Local Member) confirmed that he had attended a site meeting with Highways Officers in February 2025 to discuss concerns relating to parking, vehicle speeds and highway safety. He advised that recommendations arising from that meeting were in the process of being implemented but stated that he was still awaiting their completion. He informed Members that the issues identified at that time remained evident and continued to occur on a daily basis. He further advised that both Local Members were working with North Wales Police to address concerns within the area. Councillor Price stated that parking remained a significant concern and considered that approval of the application would exacerbate existing issues. Referring to Supplementary Planning Guidance relating to hot food takeaways, he commented on the number of existing fast-food outlets operating within Rhyl, which he estimated to be between 55 and 60 establishments. He highlighted the proximity of the application site to a local primary school and expressed concern that approving the proposal could conflict with wider efforts to improve the health and wellbeing of future generations and encourage healthier lifestyles among young people. The Chair thanked both Local Members for their contributions. In response to the issues raised, the Development Management and Strategic Planning Policy Manager acknowledged the concerns expressed by Members. He advised that there were a number of small shopping parades throughout the county, many of which had limited parking provision. He explained that the parade in question comprised four commercial units and stated that, in the opinion of both planning and highways officers, the level of traffic likely to be generated by the proposed use would be comparable to that associated with the lawful use of the site. He advised that, given the fallback position, it would be difficult to justify refusal of the application on highway grounds. He also confirmed that Highways Officers had raised no objections to the proposal in relation to parking or highway safety. The Development Management and Strategic Planning Policy Manager acknowledged that concerns regarding the impact of takeaway food outlets on obesity and public health were matters of national significance. He advised that further intervention at Government level would likely be required before such concerns could carry significant weight in the determination of planning applications. He noted that Welsh planning guidance already provided officers with a framework for assessing hot food takeaway applications. He further advised that proximity to schools was not currently addressed within Supplementary Planning Guidance and emphasised that primary school pupils were not permitted to leave school premises during the school day. The Development Management and Strategic Planning Policy Manager confirmed that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board had submitted correspondence expressing concerns about the proposal; however, no formal objection had been received. The Legal Adviser stated that, whilst the Health Board's comments could be regarded as a material consideration, limited weight could be afforded to them in the absence of a formal objection. The Legal Adviser further stated that, without specific policies at either local or national level addressing obesity and dietary concerns in a planning context, it would be difficult to defend a refusal of planning permission at appeal on those grounds alone. It was also noted that a retail parade of this nature would inherently generate a degree of traffic and pedestrian movement. Councillor Andrea Tomlin commented that the site was located within a densely populated residential area and formed part of a small parade of four units. In her view, increasing the number of food-related uses from one unit (25% of the parade) to two units (50% of the parade) represented a significant change in the character of the development and could adversely affect neighbouring residential properties. Councillor Jon Harland proposed that the application be granted, stating that wider societal issues relating to health should not outweigh consideration of an application seeking to bring a vacant commercial property back into use. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Alan James. Councillor Arwel Roberts stated that it was not the role of the Planning Committee to prevent individuals from purchasing takeaway food. In his view, the issue centred upon public education regarding healthy lifestyles and balanced diets. Councillor James Elson suggested that a letter be sent to the Senedd seeking further clarification and guidance regarding the relationship between obesity and the proximity of food outlets to schools. The Chair confirmed that he would be content to write to the Welsh Government on behalf of the Committee to request additional information and guidance on the matter. Members noted that the proposed opening hours differed from those of the neighbouring takeaway premises. It was explained that Members could propose amendments or additional planning conditions; however, any restrictions on opening hours would need to be supported by robust planning reasons. Councillor Ellie Chard emphasised the need for Denbighshire County Council to develop clearer policy in relation to commercial premises located within residential areas. The Development Management and Building Control Manager advised that correspondence with the Welsh Government would hopefully provide greater clarity regarding the policy position. Councillor Alan James noted that discussions on this issue were already taking place within the Senedd and expressed the view that a letter from the Committee would be beneficial in helping the Authority gain a clearer understanding of the Welsh Government's approach to tackling health issues across Wales. Proposal – Councillor Jon Harland proposed that the application be granted in accordance with officer recommendation, SECONDED by Councillor Alan James. Vote – For – 4 Against – 11 Abstain – 0 The Legal Advisor stated it was for Members to submit the reason (or reasons) for refusal. Councillor Michelle Blakeley- Walker proposed the application be refused on the grounds of obesity levels and the health and wellbeing of future generations, including the comments received from Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. By a show of hands there was a consensus that the reason stated above be the reason for refusal. The Development Management and Strategic Planning Policy Manager stressed Members had to be clear on the reasons for refusal and what could be defended at appeal. RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED contrary to officer recommendations for reasons stated around obesity levels and the health and wellbeing of future generations and the comments received from the University Health Board.
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.