Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 11 February 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED temporary residential use (for a period of three years) of the existing caravan as a rural enterprise dwelling at Caravan, Coed Yr Hengoed, Bontuchel contrary to officer recommendations.
RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED against officer recommendations and for the specific reason suggested in the latest officer’s report before the Committee.
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendations.
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendations. Meeting concluded at 11:45am
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gwyneth Ellis and Raj Metri.
Councillor Elfed Willliams declared a personal interest in agenda item 5, as he knew the applicants.
None.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 11 February 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
The minutes from the Planning Committee meeting held on the 11 February 2026 were submitted. Matters of accuracy – • Page 7 - it was highlighted that the Development Management & Building Control Manager was in attendance. • Page 14 – it was raised that the correct road was noted, it should be A457 and not A487. Matters arising. • None. RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 11 February 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED temporary residential use (for a period of three years) of the existing caravan as a rural enterprise dwelling at Caravan, Coed Yr Hengoed, Bontuchel contrary to officer recommendations.
An application was submitted (previously circulated) for the continued permanent residential use of existing caravan as a rural enterprise dwelling at Caravan, Coed Yr Hengoed, Bontuchel, Ruthin, Denbighshire. Public Speaker – Molly Hoskins (On behalf of applicant) (For) - The public speaker explained that she was the eldest of three children and that her family had built their smallholding together over many years. Both parents had been born and raised in North Wales and came from farming backgrounds. The land had originally been a blank canvas, and the family had worked to establish a functioning smallholding, installing sheds, stables, electricity, and essential services. The speaker noted that her parents had invested significant time and personal sacrifice into the farm, as had previous generations. The family were described as active members of the local community. The speaker’s mother served as Chair of the Community Council and had taken on the Clerk’s role following the sudden passing of the previous clerk. The speaker herself had also served as a community councillor, having previously been a member of the youth Council. The speaker emphasised that their horses and ponies were central to their daily lives and were considered part of the family. Caring for animals required constant attention, with emergencies and welfare needs arising at any time, which was why living on site was essential. The speaker stressed that this was not simply a business but a way of life that the family were proud to continue. The speaker stated that permanent permission would allow the family to maintain the work already undertaken and secure the future of their rural way of life for the next generation. General Debate – Councillor Elfed Williams (local member) thanked the chair for being allowed to speak, he highlighted that he understood the reason for refusal from officers being a finance, and the site not meeting the financial requirements, however the data was based on the minimum wage, and the cash predictions for the site would surpass the minimum wage. The work on the site for the recent years required large amounts of investments, and these would not re-occur and therefore the profit for the site would only increase and not decrease. It was also raised that there needed to be support from the Council and the committee for rural enterprises and to encourage young people to stay within the county. Councillor closed by fully endorsing the application. Officers thanked the local member for highlighting the main reason for proposing refusal was due to the finances, the application had to demonstrate it’s financially viable, in accordance with TAN6. There had been a temporary permission granted for the site for three years to demonstrate the financial viability of the enterprise. The committee raised that due to factors with large investments at the start of the development, which would no re-occur, would it be permissible for the committee to extend the temporary status of the application, for some years to allow the applicant to show the financial viability of the application. Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts outlined that the guidance which could be interpreted in numerous ways was the main reason for the proposed refusal of the application and raised that with some applications leeway would be good to allow residents to stay in the area and grow a rural enterprise. Proposal – Councillor Huw Hilditch Roberts proposed the application be granted contrary to officer recommendations. The proposal was not seconded. Councillor Terry Mendies proposed that the applicant needed more time to demonstrate the financial viability of the application and proposed that the temporary permission at the site be increased for another 5 years to allow the applicant to demonstrate the viability of the enterprise. The committee sought clarification on the proposal from Councillor Mendies and whether it was an additional 5 years to the previously granted three years, or whether it was an additional 2 years to combine into an accumulative 5 years. Councillor Mendies outlined that he meant for an additional 5 years in addition to the already granted three years, due to the current financial pressures in the UK, however, he was happy to go with the consensus of the committee and propose a 3 year extension to the existing temporary permission. Proposal – Councillor Terry Mendies proposed that a temporary 3-year extension be granted to the applicant contrary to officer recommendations. Seconded by Councillor Andrea Tomlin. Vote – For – 17 Against – 0 Abstain – 2 RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED temporary residential use (for a period of three years) of the existing caravan as a rural enterprise dwelling at Caravan, Coed Yr Hengoed, Bontuchel contrary to officer recommendations.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED against officer recommendations and for the specific reason suggested in the latest officer’s report before the Committee.
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 Speakers – Mr Daniel Russell (Applicant) (For) – The applicant thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak again. They stated that, at the previous meeting, they had focused on areas of contention but wished they had instead concentrated on the facts and the benefits of the proposed scheme. They emphasised that the development would provide clear benefits to the local community and should, in their view, have been supported by all councillors based on the available evidence. The applicant noted that the proposal was supported by the Local Planning Authority and all statutory consultees. The site was an allocated housing site within the development boundary, and the scheme was for fully affordable housing in an authority where housing delivery stood at only 15% of the target. Monitoring data also showed that 59% of newly forming households in the area could not afford market rent, demonstrating a significant need for affordable homes, which the scheme aimed to deliver. Regarding flood risk, the applicant stated that substantive evidence had been submitted showing that the development would not exacerbate flooding and was expected to provide a betterment to the adjacent flood zone. Surface water would be collected in underground attenuation tanks and discharged at a controlled rate of 1 litre per second, which was below the greenfield run‑off rate and current discharge levels. They explained that, during rainfall events, less surface water would leave the site than at present, thereby reducing flood risk rather than worsening it. These findings were set out in the Flood Consequence Assessment, which had been scrutinised by relevant experts, all of whom agreed with its conclusions. The applicant reminded members that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. Flood risk had been assessed by the Local Planning Authority, the Lead Local Flood Authority, and Natural Resources Wales, the public speaker highlighted that their professional opinions should be given significant weight. The same applied to other matters raised previously, including ecology, trees, and transport. Submitted reports indicated negligible impact on the local highway network, replacement of removed trees on a 3:1 basis, and long‑term landscape and ecological management proposals to mitigate impacts on existing habitats. The applicant stated that all technical evidence had been examined by the relevant experts, all of whom considered the scheme acceptable. They argued that refusal on technical grounds would be unreasonable given the level of statutory support. The applicant therefore respectfully requested that councillors reconsider the evidence and support the proposal. Prestatyn Town Council, Councillor Carol Evans (Against) – The public speaker noted that the proposed development was located adjacent to a Zone 3 flood‑risk area. They stated that national planning policy directed development away from such locations wherever possible. Constructing residential properties in this area was said to place future occupants at physical and financial risk and to contradict the precautionary principles of sustainable planning. The speaker explained that the land played an important natural role in storing floodwater during heavy rainfall. Development near these areas could reduce storage capacity and displace floodwater elsewhere. Although the application proposed attenuation tanks, concerns remained that drainage systems were designed only for specific rainfall thresholds. With climate change increasing the frequency of extreme weather events, the speaker questioned whether the system would cope. They asked whether the application clearly defined responsibility for long‑term maintenance, funding, inspection schedules, and accountability in the event of system failure, noting that blocked systems were a common cause of flooding. The speaker asked whether the committee was satisfied that the development would remain safe during severe flood events and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. They emphasised that protecting communities from avoidable flood risk should remain a priority. Given the concerns regarding flood risk, drainage reliability, and long‑term safety, the speaker respectfully requested that the committee refuse the application, stating that the location was wholly inappropriate and should not have been included in the development plan when brownfield sites were available elsewhere. General Debate – Prior to any debate the chair invited officers to clarify why the application was being discussed again following the committee’s last meeting – The matter had been referred to the Planning Committee following the previous month’s meeting. Officers explained that such referrals were uncommon but had occurred before under the Council’s Constitution and the adopted Scheme of Delegation. The scheme allowed officers to return a decision to committee where there was a potential financial or reputational risk. Officers advised that the key issue remained flood risk and drainage. The only evidence before members was the applicant’s proposal to install a surface‑water drainage system designed to attenuate and manage runoff more effectively than the existing situation. It was noted that, if the development did not proceed, flood conditions for neighbouring properties would remain unchanged during heavy rainfall. Members were reminded that, in the event of an appeal, evidence would be required to justify any refusal based solely on flood risk. Officers highlighted the risks associated with the committee’s previous decision. Relevant officers were present, including the Flood Alleviation Engineer, the Senior Engineer: Traffic, Parking and Road Safety and the County Ecologist, to answer questions. It was noted that the earlier refusal had been based solely on flood risk and drainage, and members were advised to remain focused on that issue. Councillor Julie Matthews (local member) expressed disappointment that the committee was required to reconsider the application. It was noted that a full debate had taken place previously, during which concerns were raised regarding the nature of the site, described as low‑lying, prone to waterlogging, and one of the most ecologically diverse areas locally. The member confirmed that these concerns remained, particularly in relation to flooding. Councillor Matthews acknowledged the additional officer report and the rationale presented. Reference was made to the developer’s additional letter; however, the member emphasised that the committee had already debated the issues thoroughly and that differing from officer recommendations was a legitimate part of the democratic process. The member highlighted that over 50 objections had been submitted by residents, whose concerns they were representing. It was noted that residents possessed significant local knowledge of flooding events in the area. The member reiterated previous points regarding the difficulty some residents faced in obtaining insurance due to repeated flooding. The member stated they remained unconvinced that the proposed underground tanks would adequately address flood risk, particularly in the context of climate change. The site was again described as a “swamp‑like” area, and the member questioned whether any proposed mitigation could sufficiently reduce risk. It was further noted that the revised Development Plan did not include this land for allocation, specifically due to flood‑risk and ecological considerations. The member concluded that these factors continued to justify refusal. The committee queried what would happen if the application was granted, in light of the additional information which was presented, however, what if the proposed flood mitigation were to fail, who’s responsibility would it be to fix the issue. Officers clarified that the developers would need to demonstrate that the flood mitigation would work, in line with severe weather conditions, the process would be assessed through SUDS, if there were any issues they would be addressed through the SAB process, and any issues would be addressed by the relevant flooding board, the housing association (as developer and land owner) would be legally responsible for the matter. The committee were informed that officers understood the frustrations from the members and the residents, regarding insurance. However, they reiterated that this was not a material planning consideration. The Flood Alleviation Engineer reiterated from the last meeting that 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 Parry queried with officers what the financial impact could be if the committee endorsed their previous decision to refuse the application. Officers clarified that there would likely be a cost to the authority. However, they added that the issues of costs at appeal was not a material planning consideration. The committee agreed that there needed to be development of affordable housing in the County, Councillor Matthews agreed with the matter, but reiterated her stance that the location of the application was not the appropriate one. Councillor Efled Williams highlighted that there was a need for housing in the Council’s area and that with all the information which was shared on the application, he would propose the application be granted in accordance with officer recommendations. Proposal – Councillor Elfed Williams proposed the application be granted in accordance with officer recommendations, seconded by Councillor Alan James. Vote – For – 7 Against – 12 Abstain – 0 RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED against officer recommendations and for the specific reason suggested in the latest officer’s report before the Committee.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendations.
An application was submitted (previously circulated) for the Siting of 5 no. shepherd huts and associated works at Tafarn y Waen, Waen, St Asaph, Denbighshire. Public Speaker – Kerry James (Agent) (For) - The public speaker stated that they wished the application to be approved for the replacement of the existing caravan pitches with a shepherd’s hut and associated works. Objections raised by the Community Council were noted, but the speaker believed these had been addressed. They explained that the supporting planning documents showed a long‑term decline in the market for touring caravan pitches, with a shift towards glamping‑style accommodation. The proposed shepherd huts would replace an existing caravan, and local planning policy supported tourism development on established sites where it helped secure the long‑term viability of the business. The principle of development was therefore considered acceptable. Concerns had been raised regarding year‑round activity; however, the speaker noted that the site already had no restrictions on operating days and could lawfully open all year under its existing licence. The proposal would not intensify use, as the number of units would remain the same. Regarding concerns with overlooking, the speaker stated that each shepherd’s hut would occupy an existing caravan pitch and would not be closer to the neighbouring boundary than current units. The level of glazing would be comparable to a touring caravan, and the window facing the nearest neighbour served only a bathroom and would be obscure glazing. Planning officers had recommended a condition requiring additional boundary screening. No objections had been raised regarding noise or disturbance. The speaker suggested that activity on site could be reduced, as shepherd’s hut users would not need to pitch and remove caravans. It was therefore not considered that the proposal would have a greater impact on residential amenity than the existing use. In relation to ecology, the application included biodiversity enhancements such as additional planting, a wildflower meadow, and habitat boxes. The speaker stated that the proposal complied with relevant policy and requested that the committee approve the application in line with the planning officer’s recommendation General Debate – Councillor Chris Evans (local member) raised a couple of points, he queried why there was no business case associated with the application, and it was also raised that there had been previous conversations on policy change with caravans, and whether there was an update. Officers advised that the discussion had entered complex territory relating to caravan legislation, specifically the definition of a caravan under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, as amended in 1968. It was confirmed that the proposed units fell within the legal definition of a caravan. However, the legislation did not clearly distinguish between touring and static units, creating an area of interpretation. The existing site licence allowed up to five touring caravans at any time, meaning five units could already be present on site on a rolling basis. This formed the fallback position. Officers explained that the proposed shepherd huts also met the definition of a caravan and could be moved, although they were likely to function more as static units in practice. The proposal therefore sat between the concepts of touring and static accommodation. Officers assessed whether the impacts of replacing touring caravans with shepherd huts would result in additional harm. In their view, the impacts were similar, and potentially less, than those associated with the existing lawful use. As the site already operated under a Camping and Caravanning Club licence, officers did not consider a full business plan necessary. The applicant had indicated that the shift reflected wider tourism trends favouring glamping over touring caravans. Officers also noted that the proposal allowed for greater control over visual and landscape impacts through the imposition of additional landscaping conditions. These measures would assist with screening, privacy, and green infrastructure. It was considered that the shepherd huts would be visually more attractive within the landscape than the existing touring units. Members queried the drainage at the site, and what plans would be as the details were missing from the report and late representations; officers clarified that the existing septic tank would be used for the shepherds’ huts. Proposal – Councillor Andrea Tomlin proposed the application be granted, seconded by Councillor Alan James. Vote – For – 17 Against – 1 Abstain – 0 RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendations.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendations. Meeting concluded at 11:45am
An application was submitted (previously circulated) for Tree Preservation Order 14 (2025) at Land at Bryn Goodman, Ruthin. General Debate – Officers informed the committee that the trees were adjacent to Ruthin School and of residents’ concerns of the trees causing damage to their driveways. However, tree officers have outlined that the trees were in good health, and that any Tree Preservation Order (TPO) didn’t stop any work taking place but allowed a degree of control over the matter. Proposal – Councillor Jon Harland proposed the application be granted, seconded by Councillor Terry Mendies. Councillor Huw Hilditch-Roberts stated that there was a reasonable information on the matter and queried whether these trees were likely to have TPOs. Officers clarified that any trees could have TPO’s on them. Vote – For – 18 Against – 0 Abstain – 0 RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendations. Meeting concluded at 11:45am
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.