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 Planning Committee meeting held on the 13 May 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings. APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSIONS FOR DEVELOPENT (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.
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED against officer recommendation
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED in accordance with officer recommendation.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gwyneth Ellis, James Elson, Jon Harland, Terry Mendies, Andrea Tomlin and Cheryl Williams.
Councillor Huw Hilditch- Roberts declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 7 as his son worked for the company. Councillor Mark Young declared a person interest in agenda item 7 as he knew of the applicant when attending Denbigh Rugby Club.
None.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 13 May 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings. APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSIONS FOR DEVELOPENT (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.
The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 13 May 2026 were submitted for consideration. No matters of accuracy were raised. There were no matters arising raised from the minutes. RESOLVED: that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 13 May 2026 be received and approved as a true and correct record of the proceedings. APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSIONS FOR DEVELOPENT (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.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED against officer recommendation
An application was submitted for the erection of a rural enterprise dwelling as associated works (previously circulated). Public Speaker – Gethin Jones (Agent) (For) Mr Edwards (the applicant) had operated his holding for many years, running an established livestock enterprise, and like many modern farmers had diversified in order to survive and remain viable. His agricultural business provided services to neighbouring farms and rural businesses, supporting agricultural activity across a wide area and contributing directly to the local rural economy. Farming looked very different from how it had been in the past. Many family farms could not rely solely on agricultural income and had to diversify, adapt and invest. This was not a case of someone seeking to build a dwelling with a business to follow afterwards; the business was already well established, and the livestock were already on the land. The Council had already accepted previous permissions for Mr Edwards to live on the holding, and he had been residing onsite since 2020. What had been overlooked was that the temporary living arrangements were themselves restricting future business growth. Mr Edwards had been trying to build a long‑term future business while living temporarily in a permitted caravan onsite. The lack of stability made it significantly harder to invest in the business. Agricultural evidence had been submitted on behalf of the applicant in detail, indicating that the business was growing and had the potential to meet the Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6 requirements over time. The difficulty was that reaching that position became far harder when the person responsible for the enterprise was operating from temporary accommodation. The application was for a modest dwelling located adjacent to the existing farm complex and had received a positive response from Denbighshire County Council regarding its design, position and layout during the pre‑application process. Members were respectfully asked to consider the requirements of PSE 5 when making their decision and to support the application. General debate The Chair referred to a site meeting which was held on 12 June 2026 and welcomed comments from members who were present. Councillor Merfyn Parry stated that the site visit had been useful. The site was in a very rural location, accessible only by narrow roads. Councillor Alan James reiterated the points made regarding the rural location and understood the difficulties the applicant may face in finding other suitable accommodation within the area. The business was doing very well, and he was very supportive of the modest dwelling being proposed. The business was performing strongly, and there would be a need for it to expand in the future. Local member, Councillor Hugh Evans thanked members of the Committee for attending the site meeting, which had been requested to ensure the Committee could view the visual and community impact of the development, consider whether there were any alternative accommodation options in the area, and discuss Officer recommendations in relation to planning policy. The applicant had been fully compliant throughout the process and had adhered to and completed all officers’ requests. There were no specific policy concerns except for an element relating to TAN 6. The applicant had lived in the area all his life, and due to his unique circumstances and the importance of him residing on the land to care for livestock, the situation required special consideration. The proposed dwelling would be located immediately adjacent to the established farm complex, rather than involving the construction of a new isolated building in the countryside. This would be more in keeping with the local area than the existing permitted caravan. Councillor Hugh Evans questioned why officers had allowed a caravan to be placed on the site. There were no objections from Highway Services, NRW, Welsh Water, or drainage officers, and officers had accepted that there was no unacceptable impact on visual amenity. There had also been no objections from the local community. The applicant did not have any viable options for a dwelling elsewhere due to the site’s location and the cost of property in the area. Officers were asked to clarify their position on access to properties within the village as a potential alternative. The rationale for refusal had not been based on the full financial picture, and the applicant was close to achieving affordability under TAN 6. Officers were asked to clarify the shortfall preventing the applicant from meeting this requirement. The existing TAN 6 policy did not consider that 70% of farmers in Wales had diversified. It focused solely on land‑based income (lamb, beef, and cereals) rather than the overall income of the holding. The applicant owned a contracting business, which formed a significant part of the holding’s income, yet this was not considered under the policy. PSE 5 related to diversification and the economic strategy for farm diversification. The applicant had diversified, but this was not recognised within TAN 6. TAN 6 did not accommodate for diversification or additional income streams, and clarification was sought from officers on this. While acknowledging the officers’ position, it was noted that TAN 6 did not reflect the applicant’s reality or needs. All planning conditions had been met, there were no objections, and a dwelling on the site rather than a caravan would enhance the visual amenity. The Principal Planning Officer provided the following responses to the points raised: The caravan had been on the site for six years. It had been granted temporary permission to allow the applicant to live on the land. Temporary permission had been given because, at that time, the applicant had not been able to demonstrate an essential need for a full‑time worker to be present on the site. The temporary conditions were therefore imposed to allow him to grow the business and demonstrate such a need. There were still two years remaining on the permitted caravan use, and the applicant had now submitted an application for a permanent dwelling, supported by a business case. This had been assessed in line with TAN 6. TAN 6 required evidence of an essential need for a full‑time worker engaged in land‑based activity. Other matters, such as contracting work and diversification, although referenced, did not form part of the calculation. Based on TAN 6, the applicant could only demonstrate the equivalent of 0.67 of a full‑time worker. As a result, there was no essential need for him to be on the site throughout the year. Similarly, TAN 6 required that the income generated from land‑based work (the work necessitating someone to be on site at all times) had to meet at least the minimum wage for a 40‑hour week, which was approximately £22,924. The applicant’s income from this type of work was £20,000, leaving a shortfall of around £3,000. There was also the issue of the cost of constructing the dwelling. Although the applicant had stated that he could support the costs, this was questioned due to discrepancies in the estimated building figures. Councillor Delyth Jones was supportive of the application, noting that the applicant had additional income from his construction work and that there was a need for him to be onsite due to the presence of livestock on the holding. She questioned what the arrangements would be for the caravan in 2028 once the permission had expired. The Principal Planning Officer clarified that the permission for the caravan was temporary and therefore the caravan would be removed in 2028 once permission had expired. Councillor Merfyn Parry stated that there was a need to support rural business and proposed that the application be granted, against officer recommendation. Seconded by Councillor Alan James. The Chair asked the Legal Officer to explain if weight should be given to the applicants’ financial position and the permission of a caravan on site. The Legal Officer explained that the caravan had been granted temporary permission to allow the business to operate while a full application could later be submitted to determine whether a permanent dwelling was justified under policy. As officers had stated that the dwelling was not justified, no weight should be given to the temporary permission when considering a permanent dwelling. There were strict financial and functional requirements for proving the need for a rural dwelling, and the fundamental test was why the dwelling was required at that precise location and what rural enterprise needs justified it. If contracting income were to be included, the Committee would be deemed to be undermining that test. The Legal Officer also advised that the Committee needed to consider the precedent that might be set if the application were granted contrary to policy, as this could lead to further similar applications being submitted in the future. Lead Member, Councillor Hugh Evans reiterated that the applicant’s position as the owner of a construction business was not unique within modern farming. Many farmers had diversified in order to remain viable within the industry. He noted that the £3,000 shortfall was not a substantial amount and could fluctuate from month to month, and he emphasised that off‑site income should be considered as part of the application. The Development Manager stated that if planning permission were granted contrary to officer recommendation, any conditions would be agreed with the local member. The Committee expressed agreement with this approach. Proposal – Councillor Merfyn Parry proposed that the application be granted against officer recommendation, SECONDED by Councillor Alan James. Vote – For – 14 Against – 0 Abstain – 0 RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED against officer recommendation
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
An application was submitted detailing the Construction Method Statement submitted in accordance with condition no. 4 of planning permission code no. 45/2025/0410 (previously submitted). Public Speaker – Peter Campbell (Agent) (For) Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (BCUHB) welcomed officers’ positive recommendation to grant the application. The application related to the discharge of a planning condition concerning the details of a Construction Method Statement submitted in accordance with condition no. 4 of planning permission code no. 45/2025/0410. The application had originally been brought to Planning Committee in May 2026 but was deferred to allow for a site visit to be undertaken. Since the previous Planning Committee meeting, an amended Construction Method Statement had been submitted which removed the proposal for a Welfare Compound on part of the former Coastal Defence Construction Compound located off Marine Drive. Instead, the Welfare Compound was to be relocated onto the car park area adjacent to the Glantraeth hospital building off Alexandra Road. In making this change, BCUHB and the contractor had listened to the concerns of residents and had offered a solution which was deemed acceptable. Since the revision had been made, no objections had been received. The new site for the Welfare Compound provided a flexible solution, located adjacent to the main construction site, and could be used appropriately without causing detriment to visual or residential amenity. The Welfare Compound would only be used to accommodate construction staff welfare facilities, comprising a site office, changing room and kitchen. It would not be used to receive construction deliveries; all deliveries would be booked in advance and delivered directly to the main construction site. The car parking facilities that would be displaced were to be accounted for by making the Pavilion Theatre overflow car park available for hospital staff and patients, with a zebra crossing installed across Marine Drive. The new hospital building was of modular construction and would therefore be predominantly manufactured off‑site. Pre‑manufactured modules would be delivered directly to the hospital site, meaning the main area of deliveries and construction activity would take place there. It was planned for initial construction activities to begin in July 2026, with all works completed within one year. If the Construction Method Statement were not approved, it would inevitably delay the construction of the hospital. The new hospital building represented a £33 million capital investment, which would safeguard the future of the hospital and deliver significant benefits for local healthcare services. The Committee were respectfully asked to support the application. General Debate The Chair referred to a site visit that was undertaken on the 12 June 2026 and welcomed members in attendance to comment. Councillor Delyth Jones stated that the site visit was beneficial in allowing members to see the location of the site. The Welfare Compound had since been moved to a more feasible location. The site was expected to provide 20 parking spaces, with an overflow car park situated nearby. Councillor Delyth Jones expressed support for the application however, she emphasised the importance of clear signage to the overflow car park to ensure staff and patients were aware of its location. She also asked what the guidelines would be for restoring the site to its former condition upon completion of the build. The Principal Planning Officer clarified that a condition was contained in the application to ensure directional signage for the overflow carpark were implemented. Following the completion of the build, the site would be restored back to a carpark for hospital use. Councillor Justine Evans reiterated that the site visit had been beneficial and that the Welfare Compound was now proposed in a more suitable location. There were no objections from residents, and the overflow car park would help to manage the busyness of the site. Proposal – Councillor Justine Evans proposed that the application be granted in accordance with officer recommendation, SECONDED by Councillor Peter Scott. Vote – For – 15 Against – 0 Abstain – 0 RESOLVED: that the application be GRANTED in accordance with officer recommendation.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED in accordance with officer recommendation.
An application was submitted for the erection of a commercial storage building with ancillary agricultural livestock accommodation, and associated access and hard standing (previously circulated). Public Speaker – Haf Jones (Applicant) (For) The applicant had been unexpectedly given notice to leave their previous premises, leaving them without a secure base for business equipment and this had placed substantial pressure on the business and its staff. The early construction of the building had been essential to protect the business and safeguard jobs and had never been intended to pre‑empt the planning process. The applicant remained fully committed to working with officers and complying with all requirements. Peak Marquee Hire was an established rural business that had been operating since 2013. It employed four permanent staff along with five seasonal workers, contributing to the local rural economy. The business provided infrastructure services to agricultural shows and community events, and its diversification into a horticultural venture would create year‑round agricultural activity and increase the productivity of the land. There had been no technical objections or public objections to the application. The building’s visual impact was modest, agricultural in appearance, and situated within a landscape that had historically accommodated livestock and farm buildings. The proposal supported two linked rural enterprises. Peak Marquee Hire required secure, weather‑protected storage with ventilation and sufficient space for vehicles with trailers to manoeuvre, conditions that industrial units could not provide. A combined operational model offered a single location that supported viability, sustainability and efficiency. Every new enterprise required three years to determine whether it could be deemed profitable, and having both enterprises at the same location would ensure that the new venture thrived. Other sites had been explored throughout the year however, they were unsuitable due to size and proximity. As a result, this site was the only viable location for both businesses to operate sustainably together. There was a clear functional need to be onsite for security, pest control and regular monitoring of high‑value equipment. The impact on Grade 3a agricultural land was minimal, and the horticultural enterprise would increase overall agricultural productivity. This development would support a long‑established rural business, sustain local employment and create opportunities within the local economy. This was a modest, well‑designed rural building with no realistic alternative location available. General debate Local Member Councillor Hugh Evans highlighted the circumstances that had led to the application being retrospective. The business had been informed that it needed to vacate the premises it had been occupying and was therefore in urgent need of suitable storage accommodation, as well as space to accommodate its staff. On reading the application and listening to the public speaker, he noted that there appeared to be contrasting opinions regarding the location and the type of storage unit required. If the business possessed its own storage facilities, this would reduce costs and would contribute to greater long‑term sustainability. Standard industrial units could not provide the conditions needed for marquees, particularly in terms of height and air circulation. It was noted that if the location and storage requirements could be justified, the next phase of the agricultural and horticultural enterprise would fall into place as a complementary element supporting the applicant’s presence on the site. A key question, however, concerned the relevance of B8 use, and he asked officers to explain this. It was further questioned whether the application was truly a B8 proposal, as the building did not resemble an industrial unit but rather a farm structure, or whether it should instead be viewed as a rural development supporting an established business with potential for further diversification. In conclusion, reference was made to the report’s statement that such a building should be located on an industrial estate or allocated land, and he questioned what the wider strategy was for employment in rural areas. The report also described the development as inappropriate and unsustainable within open rural countryside. It was added that the benefit of a retrospective application was that the building could be seen, and it had not been designed to resemble an industrial unit. There had been no local objections, and the proposal was largely compliant with planning policy. The Principal Planning Officer emphasised the importance of focusing on the intended use of the building, which in this case was for storage and distribution of tents and marquees which therefore would class the building as Class B8 use. There was also an employment use of the building and TAN 23 stated employment‑related buildings should be located on industrial sites to aide sustainability. The site in question was also situated on high‑quality agricultural land, which should not be used for a rural enterprise of this nature under local and national policy, unless the applicant could demonstrate that no alternative sites were available, something officers had determined was not the case. The application highlighted that the agricultural and horticultural elements at this time consisted of sheep and the growing of flowers, while the primary use of the building was for storage and distribution associated with a successful business. The building was not considered a rural enterprise and had no land‑use requirements tied to the site, as the business operated across Wales. Councillor Merfyn Parry stated that rural businesses should be supported, but there was a need to balance this against the risk of setting a precedent for commercial developments in the open countryside. He requested to see evidence that the agricultural and horticultural elements of the application were genuine and had sufficient substance to justify the overall proposal. Councillor Delyth Jones agreed with Councillor Merfyn Parry and raised concerns about the agricultural and horticultural aspects of the application, stating that insufficient information had been provided regarding the resilience and sustainability of the rural element. Local Member Councillor Hugh Evans stated that he supported the application but understood the Committee’s concerns about the rural element, particularly in relation to the need for further information to be submitted. Proposal – Councillor Alan James proposed that the application be refused in accordance with officer recommendation, SECONDED by Councillor Peter Scott. Vote – For – 13 Against – 1 Abstain – 1 RESOLVED: that the application be REFUSED in accordance with officer recommendation.
The Principal Planning Officer explained that Denbighshire County Council were beginning to review its Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). The power was first established in the 1947 Town and County Planning Act and had been updated in the subsequent legislation. Within Denbighshire, there were over 250 different TPOs, some of which dated back to 1950. Given the passage of time, and with the changed that may have occurred, local authorities had been advised to review their TPOs to ensure appropriate tree protection. Councillor Peter Scott raised concerns about the felling of trees on private land. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that these concerns would be passed on to the County’s Tree Officers. He explained that controls already existed through TPOs, and that the current review was proactive, with the potential for more trees across the County to receive TPO protection. Additional controls applied to trees within conservation areas, and outside the planning system Natural Resources Wales (NRW) also had regulatory powers over tree felling. Councillor Merfyn Parry thanked the planning officers for the improved volume and quality of information provided for planning applications and site visits ahead of Planning Committee meetings. The Chair endorsed his comments. Meeting concluded at 11.11am.
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.