Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED – That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to the following additional conditions: Condition 8 Prior to the first use of the site for the purposes hereby permitted, a Car Park Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site shall thereafter be used in accordance with the approved Car Park Management Plan. Reason To ensure adequate off-street parking is provided and maintained within the site in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with policies GDP1 and T8. Condition 9 Prior to the first use of the site for the purposes hereby permitted, a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall include measures to encourage occupiers of the development to walk, cycle and to use local facilities and public transport. The Travel Plan shall thereafter be implemented as approved. Reason To assist occupiers/users of the development to make sustainable transport choices in accordance with Policy GDP1 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.
RESOLVED – That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
RESOLVED – That permission be refused. Reason: There is inadequate provision for off-street parking on site. The development is therefore likely to increase demand for on-street parking in the vicinity of the site to the detriment of highway safety. The development therefore conflicts with policies GDP1 and T8 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.
RESOLVED – That the Council’s position at the forthcoming appeal is that the Council would have refused planning permission had it determined the application for the following reasons: • Landscape and visual impact • Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural land; • Fire risk and public safety • Loss of ancient hedgerow In reaching the above decision, the Council consider the proposed development to be in conflict with UDP policies PS2, PS3, GDP1, EC4 and EC6.
RESOLVED – that the list of delegated decisions be approved.
Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Beryl Blackmore and Michael Morris.
RESOLVED – That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 2 February 2026 be signed as a correct record.
Members were reminded of their responsibility, under Paragraph 11 of the Members’ Code of Conduct, to declare any interests in relation to any of the business to be transacted at this meeting. The following declarations were made: Agenda Item 4b – Application No: P/2025/0759 – Land off Hafod Road, Hafod, Ruabon, Wrexham, LL14 6HF Councillors Bryan Apsley, Frank Hemmings and Anthony Wedlake – Personal – Members of the National Trust. The Councillors remained in the meeting taking part in the discussion and voting thereon.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to the following additional conditions: Condition 8 Prior to the first use of the site for the purposes hereby permitted, a Car Park Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site shall thereafter be used in accordance with the approved Car Park Management Plan. Reason To ensure adequate off-street parking is provided and maintained within the site in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with policies GDP1 and T8. Condition 9 Prior to the first use of the site for the purposes hereby permitted, a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall include measures to encourage occupiers of the development to walk, cycle and to use local facilities and public transport. The Travel Plan shall thereafter be implemented as approved. Reason To assist occupiers/users of the development to make sustainable transport choices in accordance with Policy GDP1 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.
The Legal Officer provided clarification on the relevance of the Local Development Plan 2 (LDP2), and referred Members to a report which was considered by the Planning Committee in July 2025, addressing the status of the LDP for decision making. He advised that the draft LDP was a material consideration and the weight afforded to the provisions of the draft plan was a matter for decision makers. The weight given to the LDP may not be uniform across all provisions but could vary from policy to policy and allocation to allocation. The Chair welcomed Mr John Small to the Meeting, who spoke in favour of the application. The Officer presented the report, and in doing so, displayed plans of the site to assist with his presentation. A discussion ensued and the following points were raised during the debate: · Confirmation that site straddled the settlement boundary; the dairy lay within the boundary and the extension was located outside it. · There was no additional impact on the wider landscape, nor any increase in surface water drainage on the site, as the proposal did not involve any new building work. · The applicant had outlined a number of measures relating to noise management. · There was no impact on the special area of conservation. · The applicant confirmed that that timber works would be carried out under one roof, allowing doors to remain closed in order to minimise noise. RESOLVED – That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to the following additional conditions: Condition 8 Prior to the first use of the site for the purposes hereby permitted, a Car Park Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The site shall thereafter be used in accordance with the approved Car Park Management Plan. Reason To ensure adequate off-street parking is provided and maintained within the site in the interests of highway safety and in accordance with policies GDP1 and T8. Condition 9 Prior to the first use of the site for the purposes hereby permitted, a Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Travel Plan shall include measures to encourage occupiers of the development to walk, cycle and to use local facilities and public transport. The Travel Plan shall thereafter be implemented as approved. Reason To assist occupiers/users of the development to make sustainable transport choices in accordance with Policy GDP1 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
(Member’s declarations of interests in relation to this item are set out in Minute 81 above) The Chair welcomed Mr Handford to the Meeting who spoke in favour of the application. The Officer presented the report, and in doing so, displayed plans of the site to assist with his presentation. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: · Plans were displayed showing the site’s position between the A483 and Hafod Road, along with photographs illustrating the substantial belt of trees along the boundary. Landscape and design matters were addressed and it was noted that the site was already well screened, with further planting proposed as part of the landscaping scheme. · A noise assessment had been undertaken, demonstrating acceptable noise levels for neighbouring properties. · Confirmation that the Welsh Government Trunk Road Agency initially sought a condition for additional planting but withdrew this request on the basis that existing planting would be retained. · Clarification was provided that no battery storage was proposed on the site. RESOLVED – That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That permission be refused. Reason: There is inadequate provision for off-street parking on site. The development is therefore likely to increase demand for on-street parking in the vicinity of the site to the detriment of highway safety. The development therefore conflicts with policies GDP1 and T8 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.
The Chair welcomed Mr Mark Jones-Moore to the Meeting, who spoke against the application. The local Members, Councillors Becca Martin and Corin Jarvis addressed the Committee and highlighted a number of concerns particularly in relation to parking, the absence of a footpath, existing flooding issues in the area, and the potential for anti-social behaviour. The Officer presented the report and highlighted the main points contained within it. A discussion ensued and the following points were raised: · Confirmation that, if approved, the proposal would remain below the 10% threshold for HMOs in the area. · A number of objections had been raised regarding parking and highway safety. However, it was noted that although the maximum standard for a HMO was four spaces, the property was within walking distance of the City Centre and access to public transport, and there was also space for cycle storage. · Concern that the application didn’t make it clear how many people would be residing in the property. · Confirmation that to create a third parking space, some hedgerow would need to be removed, and the applicant would be required to submit something to offset its removal. RESOLVED – That permission be refused. Reason: There is inadequate provision for off-street parking on site. The development is therefore likely to increase demand for on-street parking in the vicinity of the site to the detriment of highway safety. The development therefore conflicts with policies GDP1 and T8 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the Council’s position at the forthcoming appeal is that the Council would have refused planning permission had it determined the application for the following reasons: • Landscape and visual impact • Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural land; • Fire risk and public safety • Loss of ancient hedgerow In reaching the above decision, the Council consider the proposed development to be in conflict with UDP policies PS2, PS3, GDP1, EC4 and EC6.
The Interim Chief Officer Economy & Planning submitted a report (COEP/16/26) for Members to determine the Council’s position at the forthcoming non-determination appeal. The Chair welcomed Mr Eric Owen and Mr Richard Turner to the Meeting. Mr Owen spoke against the application, while Mr Turner spoke in favour of the proposals. The local Member, Councillor Paul Pemberton addressed the Committee and outlined a number of concerns regarding the application, including its visual impact and the potential fire risk associated with battery storage. The adjoining Ward Member, Councillor Mark Pritchard, also addressed the Committee to highlight his concerns, which included the detrimental impact on the countryside, the potential loss of grade 2 agricultural land, flood risk, potential loss of hedgerow and the negative impact on wildlife in the area. The Officer presented the report and referred to the addendum during his presentation. The following points were highlighted during the debate: · Confirmation that the Council had until 19th March to submit a statement of case. · The site was not designated as part of the green wedge in the UDP, so there would be no grounds to raise any objection on that basis. · It was acknowledged that although the site comprised grade 2 agricultural land, it could still be considered for development, although this remained a matter for Members to determine. It was also noted that there would not be sustainable grounds to object solely on the basis that the site was located in the countryside. · Confirmation was provided that, although there had been a small number of fire incidents in the UK involving solar farm batteries, this did not indicate a significant safety concern in relation to the application. · The site was not within a designated flood plain, and Natural Resources Wales had not raised objections to the application. · Concern was expressed about the amount of water that would be required to extinguish any fire on the site and the potential for ground contamination should such an incident occur. It was also noted that fumes from battery fires could be dangerous and harmful. RESOLVED – That the Council’s position at the forthcoming appeal is that the Council would have refused planning permission had it determined the application for the following reasons: • Landscape and visual impact • Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural land; • Fire risk and public safety • Loss of ancient hedgerow In reaching the above decision, the Council consider the proposed development to be in conflict with UDP policies PS2, PS3, GDP1, EC4 and EC6.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – that the list of delegated decisions be approved.
The Interim Chief Officer Economy & Planning submitted a list of delegated decisions for the period 1 January 2026 to 31 January 2026. RESOLVED – that the list of delegated decisions be approved.
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.