Loading
The decisions as the council's minutes record them. A plain-language summary follows once it has been written.
RESOLVED – That planning permission be refused as the development does not provide a safe means of pedestrian access and therefore conflicts with policy GDP1 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.
Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Beryl Blackmore, Dana Davies, Jon Jolley, Marc Jones, John McCusker and Fred Roberts.
There were no declarations of interest submitted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That planning permission be refused as the development does not provide a safe means of pedestrian access and therefore conflicts with policy GDP1 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.
The Interim Chief Officer Economy & Planning submitted a report in respect of the above-mentioned application and the Head of Service, Planning Development Management explained the proposal to Members of the Committee. During consideration of the application, the following points were highlighted: · Concern that during the site visit, many vehicles were observed travelling above the speed limit. · Concern that by late summer the verges and hedgerows would likely be overgrown, further affecting visibility. · Acknowledgement that although significant highway safety improvements were required, the application presented an opportunity to address these issues. · Confirmation that zebra crossings were typically used in more urban areas as drivers would not expect to see this type of crossing on a fast road. The most appropriate option in this location would be an uncontrolled crossing point, consisting of a dropped kerb and tactile paving. · Officers advised that pedestrian traffic levels were unlikely to be high enough to justify a zebra crossing. · Traffic lights were considered unsuitable in this location due to the need for full visibility for approaching vehicles. · Recognition that, despite the concerns raised, the site was a popular amenity seeking to expand, leaving some Members feeling conflicted. · Confirmation that permitted development rights already allowed the applicants to hold up to 28 days of events per year. · A proposal to grant planning permission was proposed, but not seconded. RESOLVED – That planning permission be refused as the development does not provide a safe means of pedestrian access and therefore conflicts with policy GDP1 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.
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.