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 subject to the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer confirming whether conditions 4 and 5 remain necessary in light of the additional information submitted by the applicant, the Chief Officer Economy and Planning be given delegated authority to grant planning permission.
RESOLVED – That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
RESOLVED – (i) To re-instate the reasons for refusal no. 1 and 2 from 27 July 2020 in an amended form: (1) The proposed development lies outside the settlement limit and within a designated green barrier. To allow the development would be contrary to policies PS1, EC1, EC2, H5, MW9, of the adopted Wrexham Unitary Development Plan. (2) The proposal has failed to justify the loss of BMV agricultural land and therefore does not accord with paragraphs 3.58 and 3.59 of PPW12. (ii) That Councillor Marc Jones be nominated to act as the Council’s Expert Witness with Officer support, subject to ongoing efforts to appoint external consultants yield no expressions of interest.
RESOLVED – That the list of Delegated Decisions be noted.
An apology for absence was submitted on behalf of Councillor Fred Roberts. Whilst not a Member of this Committee, Councillor Paul Rogers was one of the local ward representatives for one of the applications. However he was unable to attend today’s Meeting and duly submitted his apologies for absence.
There were no declarations of interest submitted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
The Chief Officer Economy and Planning submitted a report (COEP/41/25) to advise Members on the policy framework applicable to the determination of planning applications. The Officer presented the report and a discussion ensued. The following points were highlighted during the debate: · Confirmation that the High Court issued an Order which was received on 12 June 2025 stating that the vote by Full Council on 20 December 2023 to adopt the LDP was quashed, resulting in the status of the LDP returning to an unadopted plan. · In terms of decision making, the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) becomes the starting point for determining applications unless material considerations indicate otherwise. · Acknowledgement that there would be conflicts between the UDP and the LDP, including settlement boundaries, housing provision in terms of the total housing requirement and allocated sites, Green Barrier/Green Wedge and affordable housing. However, conflict with the UDP alone wouldn’t be a valid reason to refuse planning permission. · Members were advised a motion has been submitted to full Council requesting Welsh Government withdraw the Local Development Plan (LDP) and the Planning Officer confirmed a further report will be presented to this Committee in due course setting out the updated position in terms of assessing, debating and decision making of planning applications. RESOLVED – That the report be noted.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That subject to the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer confirming whether conditions 4 and 5 remain necessary in light of the additional information submitted by the applicant, the Chief Officer Economy and Planning be given delegated authority to grant planning permission.
The Chair welcomed Mr Gareth Venn 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: · Councillor Paul Rogers, one of the local Members, was unable to attend today’s Meeting but had met with Officers to raise concerns about the location of the site and land contamination issues. He requested that the Committee consider visiting the site or, alternatively, if Members were minded to approve the application, that it be for a temporary period. · Concerns had been raised regarding the lack of parking provision, but as the site would be primarily used by the community, it was anticipated that demand for parking would be low. · Whilst the site wasn’t identified as being an area of open space, it would contribute to meeting the need for community outdoor recreational use in the local area. · It was suggested that the proposed development would not give rise to visual amenity, residential amenity, highway safety of ecology concerns. · Confirmation that the application accords with the relevant UDP and does not conflict with the evidence base underpinning the unadopted LDP. · Councillor Gary Brown, local Member, addressed the Committee and advised that he was in support of the application. · Some Members felt that a temporary permission, of approximately 3 years, should be agreed, as this would provide an incentive to the applicants, and would ensure that any concerns were addressed. · Recognition that play provision was no longer funded by the Authority, but this was an opportunity for Members to support the provision of play and contribute towards the Council’s play sufficiency assessment. · A site visit was proposed and seconded. RESOLVED – That subject to the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer confirming whether conditions 4 and 5 remain necessary in light of the additional information submitted by the applicant, the Chief Officer Economy and Planning be given delegated authority to grant planning permission.
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 made: · Confirmation that there was no impact on residential amenity with regards to overlooking of neighbouring properties. · The use of the former garage was not restricted to the parking of cars, so the conversion was considered acceptable. RESOLVED – That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – (i) To re-instate the reasons for refusal no. 1 and 2 from 27 July 2020 in an amended form: (1) The proposed development lies outside the settlement limit and within a designated green barrier. To allow the development would be contrary to policies PS1, EC1, EC2, H5, MW9, of the adopted Wrexham Unitary Development Plan. (2) The proposal has failed to justify the loss of BMV agricultural land and therefore does not accord with paragraphs 3.58 and 3.59 of PPW12. (ii) That Councillor Marc Jones be nominated to act as the Council’s Expert Witness with Officer support, subject to ongoing efforts to appoint external consultants yield no expressions of interest.
The Chief Officer Economy and Planning submitted a report (COEP/40/25) to outline the significant changes in circumstances since the Planning Committee agreed in 2024 to withdraw the reasons it had previously given for refusing outline planning permission in 2020 following the adoption of the Wrexham Local Development Plan (LDP), and to seek agreement from Members on the recommendations set out in the report in connection with the forthcoming planning appeal. The Officer presented the report, and highlighted the main points contained within it. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: · Members were reminded that they were being asked to consider the original reasons for refusing the application which had been made in accordance with the UDP. · Frustration and disappointment that the Health Board had not provided any response to the application, particularly given the impact that 600 new houses would have on local health services. It was therefore suggested that the reason to refuse, based on the negative impact on the local healthcare infrastructure, should be removed as there was no evidence from the Health Board to demonstrate this would be the case. · Members were asked to be mindful of the potential cost implications. · Confirmation that the Officer would be in a difficult position defending the reasons for refusal as it would be contrary to his own professional recommendation. For this reason, he had been in discussions with the Chair and Vice Chair to employ a planning consultant to defend the appeal on the Council’s behalf, but to date, five consultants had responded to say they wouldn’t be prepared to do so, and the sixth hadn’t replied. · Adjoining Ward Members both spoke on the application and raised concerns, particularly in relation to highways and ecological issues. · Confirmation that the Vice Chair, Councillor Marc Jones, would be willing to act as a witness in defending the decision to refuse, with support from Officers. RESOLVED – (i) To re-instate the reasons for refusal no. 1 and 2 from 27 July 2020 in an amended form: (1) The proposed development lies outside the settlement limit and within a designated green barrier. To allow the development would be contrary to policies PS1, EC1, EC2, H5, MW9, of the adopted Wrexham Unitary Development Plan. (2) The proposal has failed to justify the loss of BMV agricultural land and therefore does not accord with paragraphs 3.58 and 3.59 of PPW12. (ii) That Councillor Marc Jones be nominated to act as the Council’s Expert Witness with Officer support, subject to ongoing efforts to appoint external consultants yield no expressions of interest.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED – That the list of Delegated Decisions be noted.
The Chief Officer Economy and Planning submitted a list of delegated decisions for the period 1 May to 31 May 2025. 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.