Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
RESOLVED - That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
RESOLVED – That the application be deferred. Reason for decision To enable the submission of detailed scheme of noise management and mitigation, further consultation with Public Protection and consideration of additional conditions in terms of hours and noise levels in addition to condition 3 in respect to secure a noise management plan.
RESOLVED – That Agenda Item 5d – Application No: P/2026/0054 – Kronospan Limited, Holyhead Road, Chirk, Wrexham, LL14 5NT be brought forward for consideration at this time.
RESOLVED - That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
RESOLVED - That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
RESOLVED – That the list of delegated decisions be noted.
Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Annette Davies, Graham Rogers and Andy Williams.
The Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 June 2026 were submitted. RESOLVED – That the Minutes of the Meeting held on 1 June 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 – 5(a) Application No: P/2024/1049 – Land at Lyndir Lane, Rossett, Wrexham, LL12 0DH Councillor Steve Joe Jones - Personal - recognised the applicant but had no connection to them. The Councillor remained in the meeting taking part in the discussion and voting thereon.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
The Chief Officer Economy and Planning submitted a report (COEP/45/26) to provide Members with an update on the Lower Dee phosphorous compliance and the implications for development. The Officer presented the report and the following points were raised during the debate: · Legal advice had concluded that the Council were now able to determine planning applications in the Lower Dee catchment area on the basis that evidence suggested that phosphorous levels were below the target threshold. It was noted that planning decisions would need to be justified, and that appropriate weight should be given to the evidence provided by Natural Resources Wales (NRW). · Members expressed disappointment that, following the publication of data by NRW indicating that the Lower Dee exceeded phosphorous targets, commercial and housing developments had been significantly delayed, resulting in potential investors being diverted to other areas. · It was acknowledged that the Development Management Team faced a backlog of planning applications that had been delayed due to phosphorus constraints, however, limited staffing resources meant that these applications would need to be prioritised. A further report setting out the proposed process would be presented to Members. · Confirmation that a workshop on phosphates would be arranged. · The Lead Member confirmed that he had written to Members of the Senedd to highlight these concerns, which would assist them in their investigations into the performance of NRW and Environment Agency (EA) England. RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED - That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
(Members declarations of interest in relation to this item are set out in Minute 11 above) The Chair welcomed Trevor Mennell to the Meeting who spoke in favour of the application. The local Member, Councillor Hugh Jones, addressed the Committee and raised concerns that the site was located within the Green Wedge and considered that granting planning permission could set a precedent for similar developments. He also raised concerns regarding flood risk, stating that some of the flood data relied upon by NRW was inaccurate and that the area should be considered at risk of flooding, which could affect the welfare of future occupiers. 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: · Members were advised that the site lay outside the settlement boundary and within the Green Wedge. However, a Green Wedge review had concluded that the area did not fully satisfy the criteria for Green Wedge designation. It was further noted that there was an identified need for the development and that the proposal was not considered major development. · It was reported that the visual impact would be limited to the site and its immediate surroundings, there were no highway safety concerns, no ecology objections had been raised, and the site was not identified as being at risk of flooding. The Planning Officer explained that NRW had raised no objections on flood risk grounds and their response represented the best technical evidence available. In the absence of an objection from NRW, it would therefore be difficult to substantiate a refusal on flood risk grounds. · Members commented that the site appeared to have been developed to a high standard, and a number highlighted the importance of providing stability for the family. It was proposed that planning permission be granted. · In response to a query regarding the distance between the site and the nearest public sewer, Officers advised that the nearest connection point was approximately 300 metres away and that a connection to the main foul sewer network would not be viable for a single pitch development. RESOLVED - That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the application be deferred. Reason for decision To enable the submission of detailed scheme of noise management and mitigation, further consultation with Public Protection and consideration of additional conditions in terms of hours and noise levels in addition to condition 3 in respect to secure a noise management plan.
The Chair welcomed Julie Pae to the Meeting who spoke against the application. He also welcomed Gwyn Humphries who spoke in favour of the application. The local Member, Councillor Stella Matthews, addressed the Committee and raised concerns regarding the potential impact of noise on neighbouring residential properties. She noted that existing noise levels in the area were already significant and expressed concern that the proposal could further affect residential amenity. She also referred to the operating hours proposed and suggested that a six-day working week would be preferable to seven-day operations. Given her concerns regarding the relationship between the site and neighbouring properties, she requested that the Committee undertake a site visit before determining the application. The Officer presented the report and, in doing so, displayed plans of the site to assist with the presentation. A discussion ensued and the following points were raised during the debate: · Members were advised that the site had historically operated as a depot and that the proposed use was considered broadly comparable in terms of activity. It was noted that the proposal was not expected to result in a significant increase in traffic generation and that additional controls would be available to manage noise impacts. · Concerns were raised regarding the proximity of the site to residential properties and the need to ensure appropriate protection for neighbouring residential amenity. · Members also expressed concern regarding the proposed operating hours, with comments made that Sunday and Bank Holiday working could have an unacceptable impact on neighbouring residents. · A proposal was made and seconded to defer consideration of the application pending the submission of further information relating to noise mitigation. It was agreed that, once this information had been received and assessed, the Committee could determine whether a site visit was necessary before reaching a decision. RESOLVED – That the application be deferred. Reason for decision To enable the submission of detailed scheme of noise management and mitigation, further consultation with Public Protection and consideration of additional conditions in terms of hours and noise levels in addition to condition 3 in respect to secure a noise management plan.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That Agenda Item 5d – Application No: P/2026/0054 – Kronospan Limited, Holyhead Road, Chirk, Wrexham, LL14 5NT be brought forward for consideration at this time.
RESOLVED – That Agenda Item 5d – Application No: P/2026/0054 – Kronospan Limited, Holyhead Road, Chirk, Wrexham, LL14 5NT be brought forward for consideration at this time.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED - That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
The Chair welcomed Chris Emery to the Meeting, who spoke in favour of the application. The local Member, Councillor Terry Evans addressed the Committee and advised that whilst he wasn’t objecting to the application, he considered that the proposed development would have a significant impact on the local community during the construction phase. He expressed concern that the proposed planning conditions were not sufficiently robust to protect nearby residents and businesses from disruption and requested that restrictions be placed on constructing working hours to help minimise the impact of the development. The Officer presented the report and a discussed ensued. The following points were highlighted during the debate: · Members were advised that the applicant was a major energy user and that additional infrastructure was required to improve the resilience of the energy supply network. Officers confirmed that the proposal complied with relevant planning policies. · Visual impact of the development would be temporary and largely confined to the construction period. The main impact would arise from the construction works and the associated phased programme of road closures. · Officers advised that a Construction Management Plan would be required, which would include the proposed programme of works and measures to minimise disruption. It was further noted that, as most of the works would take place within the adopted highway, the applicant would be required to undertake separate legal processes before commencing those works. · Members were advised that Condition 1 should be amended to include reference to an Arboricultural Method Statement. · Members highlighted the importance of maintaining effective communication with local residents throughout the construction period. It was suggested that residents should be provided with a dedicated point of contact to raise any concerns arising from the works. RESOLVED - That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED - That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
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: · Clarification was sought regarding the fire safety measures in place at the site, particularly given the electronic equipment proposed to be stored and processed there. In response, Members were advised that safety equipment was already in place on the site. · Members noted that waste materials would arrive in bags and would not be tipped on site. RESOLVED - That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the list of delegated decisions be noted.
The Chief Officer Economy & Planning submitted a list of delegated decisions for the period 1 May 2026 to 31 May 2026. RESOLVED – That the list of delegated decisions be noted.
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.