Page No 1
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Community
Code No
Applicant
Recommendation
Page Nos
RUA
P/ 2008/0844
WYNNSTAY FARMING
COMPANY LIMITED
REFUSE
3 - 26
MAE
P/ 2008/1147
MORRIS HOMES LTD
MR S MORRIS
REFUSE
27 - 30
BRO
P/ 2008/1316
WALES AND WEST
HOUSING ASSOCIATION
GRANT
31 - 38
PEN
P/ 2009/0004
MRS SHAWN
MELACRINIS
GRANT
39 - 45
ESC
P/ 2009/0047
MR GARY BILLINGTON
GRANT
46 - 50
LLR
P/ 2009/0176
MS MARGARET ELAINE
GRACIE
REFUSE
51 - 59
LLR
P/ 2009/0204
MRS J DODD
GRANT / REFUSE
60 - 74
LLR
P/ 2009/0205
MR DAVID TAYLOR
GRANT / REFUSE
75 - 90
ABE
P/ 2009/0186
MR H JONES
GRANT
91 - 96
BRN
P/ 2009/0228
MR N EVANS
GRANT
97 - 102
BRY
P/ 2009/0250
GEORGE WIMPEY
REFUSE
103 - 108
WRC
P/ 2009/0265
MR A WILLIAMS
REFUSE
109 - 111
WRA
P/ 2009/0266
MS WEI BING YAO
GRANT
112 - 114
WRO
P/ 2009/0276
UNITED TRUST BANK
LTD
MR S RODEN
GRANT
115 - 118
WRA
P/ 2009/0278
MR DEDE-MEMET ET
REFUSE
119 - 121
MAE
P/ 2009/0317
MR H WILSON
GRANT
122 - 124
WRA
P/ 2009/0320
MR & MRS F BARNETT
GRANT
125 - 126
WRA
P/ 2009/0324
MR JOHN BRADBURY
GRANT
127 - 130
RUA
P/ 2009/0330
SP MANWEB PLC
NO OBJECTION
131 - 138
WRA
P/ 2009/0341
MR JOHN HOLMAN
GRANT
139 - 141
GWE
P/ 2009/0352
MR T BELLIS
GRANT
142 - 144
ESC
P/ 2009/0356
MR & MRS BALDWIN
GRANT
145 - 148
Page No 2
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
BAN
P/ 2009/0365
MR S SMITH
REFUSE / GRANT
149 - 152
WRO
P/ 2009/0369
MRS K SHIELD
REFUSE
153 - 156
WRO
P/ 2009/0370
MR K WYCHERLEY
GRANT
157 - 161
Total Number of Applications Included in Report = 25
All plans included in this report are re-produced from Ordnance Survey
Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery
Office.  Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown
Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
WCBC Licence No. LA0902IL
All plans are intended to be illustrative only and should be used only to identify
the location of the proposal and the surrounding features. The scale of the
plans will vary. Full details may be viewed on the case files.
Page No 3
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2008 /0844
COMMUNITY:
Ruabon
WARD:
Penycae & Ruabon
South
LOCATION:
RUABON BUSINESS PARK SITE
ADJACENT TO A483 RUABON
WREXHAM LL14 6TE
DESCRIPTION:
OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF B1 OFFICE, A1
FOOD RETAIL, ACCESS
ARRANGEMENTS AND
ASSOCIATED SITE WORKS
DATE RECEIVED:
01/08/2008
CASE OFFICER:
JGK
AGENT NAME:
SAVILLS (L & P) LTD
GERAINT JOHN
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
WYNNSTAY FARMING COMPANY
LIMITED
THE SITE
Approximately 23 Ha (57 acres) of agricultural land south of Ruabon which
forms part of the historic Wynnstay Estate. The site has an open aspect and
is bounded to the north by the A539, to the west by a short section of road at
the rear of The Green, to the east by James Farm Caravan Park and to the
south by farmland in the applicants ownership associated with Home Farm.
The site has access from the A539/B5605 – which connects to the A483 (T).
On the opposite side of the A539 dual carriageway and to the north of the site
lies a medium sized housing development. Within the site, in a central
position, lies a large pond and a belt of trees on the northern and western
boundaries. Part of the site forms the north-western corner of the Grade I
listed Historic Park and Garden of the CADW registered Wynnstay Hall. A
small section of Offa’s Dyke (Scheduled Ancient Monument) lies along the
south western boundary.
PROPOSAL
Outline application for development of B1 office, A1 food retail with Petrol
Filling Station (PFS), access arrangements and associated site works.
Description
The proposal is for a mixed-use development. It seeks outline planning
permission for the development of the site as a Business Park and retail store.
All matters are reserved for further consideration, other than access. In
relation to access, details regarding the ‘strategic access’ are submitted for
consideration at this stage – the roundabout on the B5605 accessing the site
and a selected length of the main site spine road. The proposed development
consists of:
Page No 4
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Phase I
- B1 Office (11 units with total gross internal area of 33,000 sq ft)
- A1 use foodstore (totalling 53,508 sq ft gross internal area)
Phase II
- B1 Office (5 units with total gross internal area of 143,400 sq ft)
Phase III
- B1 Office (8 units with total gross internal area of 267,000 sq ft)
In effect the proposal seeks an amendment to Phase 1 of the previous
Business Park scheme to allow accommodation of a food store and incubator
office accommodation to fund the infrastructure works. Phases 2 and 3
maintain, unchanged, the original B1 approval (P/2003/1484).
Supporting Information
The application is accompanied by an Indicative Site Masterplan and Strategic
Access Plan together by detailed appraisals and statements on Planning,
Design, Transport, Sustainability, Visual Impact, Access, Retail and a report
relating to Business Space within Phase I. The submission also includes an
Ecology Report and Outline Environmental Management Plan. Additional
information was subsequently submitted as follows:
Consultation Report (September 2008)
Transport Update Analysis (January 2009)
Sequential Site Appraisals (January 2009)
Visual Impact Assessment (March 2009)
Also included are a detailed statement justifying their position that the original
permission remains valid.
Applicant’s Consultation Exercise
The applicants held a public exhibition in Ruabon to explain the proposed
development to the local community. Information leaflets and feedback forms
were distributed. A Consultation Report including the results of the public
consultation exercise undertaken was submitted by the applicants in support
of their proposal. A total of 282 feedback forms were received by the
applicant’s – the headline results are summarised as follows:
- 225 respondents (80%) in support
- 45 respondents (16%) did not support
- 12 respondents (4%) neither for or against
Screening Opinion
A Screening Opinion (Town and Country Planning [Environment Impact
Assessment][England and Wales] Regulations 1999) was adopted on 15
August 2008 assessing the proposal concluding that there would be no
significant environmental impacts that would justify a decision to require an
Environmental Impact Assessment.
Page No 5
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
HISTORY
6/23477
CB01467
P/2000/0418
P/2000/0491
P/2000/0769
P/2003/0058
Outline application for Business Park B1 Use (High
Technology manufacturing, research and development
and Prestige Offices) Granted 31.05.95.
Variation of condition no 2 of outline planning permission
6/23477 to allow a further 3 year period within which
reserved matters are to be submitted. Granted 05.10.97
Relaxation of Condition 2 imposed under planning
permission Code No CB01467 to allow an extension of
time for the submission of reserved matters application.
Granted 31.07.2000
Variation of Condition 6 of outline planning permission
Code No. CB01467 to allow a maximum of 65% of the
total site are to be taken up by operational and built
development. Withdrawn 31.07.2000.
Variation of condition no. 6 imposed under outline
planning permission Code No. CB01467 to allow a
maximum of 65% of the total site area to be taken up by
operational and built development. Withdrawn
10.11.2000.
Variation of Conditions 2 and 3 imposed under outline
planning permission Code No. P/2000/0418 to allow a
further 3 year period within which reserved matters may
be submitted & a further 5 year period for commencement
of development. Granted 10.03.03 with the condition that
Page No 6
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
P/2004/0294
P/2003/1484
the application for approval of reserved matters referred
to in Condition 1 of outline permission Code No.
P/2000/0418 shall be made within one year of the date of
this permission.
Variation of condition 1 imposed under outline planning
permission Code No. P/2003/0058 to allow a further oneyear period within which to submit an application for
approval of reserved matters. Withdrawn: 19.05.05.
Reserved Matters application for Business Park, B1 use
(High Technology, manufacturing, research and
development of prestige offices). Approved 06.06.05.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The site lies outside the settlement limits in the Wrexham Unitary
Development Plan. It is listed in Appendix II – as land with planning
permission as at 1 April 2001.
The policies relevant to considering these proposals are PS1, PS2, PS4,
GDP1, EC4, EC5, EC6, EC11, S4, S8, T8, T9 and MW9. Local Planning
Guidance Notes 7 – Landscape and Development, 15 – Cycling, 16 – Parking
Standards, 17 – Trees and Development, 22 – Planning for Sustainable
Development, 24 – Designing out Crime and 26 – Landscaping and Industrial
Development also refer.
CONSULTATIONS
The following consultation responses made on the understanding that there
was an extant planning permission for a business park – B1 use (high
technology, manufacturing research and development of prestige offices). As
I explain later in my report it is my view that this planning permission expired
in March 2008. Consequently, I re-consulted the statutory consultees asking
for either confirmation that the original comments remain unchanged or that
they make alternative comments in light of the above circumstances (the reconsultation response are shown in italics).
Community Council:
Adj CC Cefn:
Local Member:
Denbighshire C C:
Notified 01.08.08.
does not comply with policies PS1, PS2,
PS3, PS4 &S4 - trust will not be granted.
Concerned that scheme will take away
capacity from Cefn Mawr and lead to loss of
wide ranging regeneration benefits.
Notified 01.08.08.
In general terms it would seem unlikely that
the proposal in this location would give rise
to significant harm to the retail or
commercial function of Llangollen. The
development could reduce the length of
journeys for the population of the Dee
Valley to employment and large retail food
outlets, provided consideration is given to
Page No 7
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Oswestry B C:
WAG (Transport):
Highways:
Trunk Road Agency:
matters such as accessibility to public
transport.
Notified 14.11.08.
No direction given in 1995 – this was on the
basis taking account of the traffic flows at
that time. New application for retail may
have a change on traffic generation
especially trips south. Traffic flows on the
A483 have increased over the intervening
time – as such there have been significant
changes that may require a new direction.
Given the layout of the existing link road
from A539 to A483 (T) and the existing
traffic flows at A5 (T)/A483 (T) roundabout it
is recommended that the Transport
Assessment (TA) be updated to include a
wider area taking in the A483(T) and both
these junctions using recent traffic figures.
TA + update submission assessed by
consultants (Atkins) on behalf of WCBC and
WAG. Above concerns are justified along
with a number of others identified. There
may be a need for a significant
improvement to the junction on to the Trunk
Road. Applicant to consider resolving the
issues. Without any improvements unlikely
that WAG will support the application.
(WAG was concerned that the original
assessments were made over ten years ago
and as such recommended that these were
updated. Given that the original planning
permission has expired, it would appear that
there is more justification for reviewing
these and issuing a new direction.)
See comments above by WAG. Unless the
applicant is able to satisfactorily address the
issues raised by the WAG/WCBC
consultants report the recommendation is to
refuse the application.
(Original site assessments were undertaken
over ten years ago. Concerns raised in
2004 over the impact of additional traffic on
the A483(T). Traffic has increased
significantly since then and the trunk road is
now carrying flows over capacity. Based
upon the predicted increase of over 10% it
will detrimentally affect the trunk road.
Refusal is recommended.)
Notified 01.08.08.
Page No 8
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Public Protection:
Wrexham Access Group:
Railtrack:
Welsh Water:
Environment Agency:
CCW:
CADW:
Attach conditions requesting Dust
Management scheme, Air Quality and Noise
assessments, together with full details of
proposed servicing arrangements to include
proposed hours of servicing and all
necessary mitigation measures, so
designed to minimise disturbance to nearby
residents. Add Standard Notes to
Applicant.
Notified 01.08.08.
Notified 01.08.08.
Conditions required to protect the public
sewerage system.
Any approval must have conditions for
further approval and provision of surface
water drainage works (SUDS to be
considered - discharge rate limited to
greenfield runoff rate), installation of a
comprehensive drainage and lagoon system
to intercept and treat any contaminated
surface water runoff and adequate storage
of oils/fuels/chemicals. Add standard Notes
to applicant.
(Comments made earlier remain
unchanged.)
Considers that results of 2003 survey in
respect of certain species to be satisfactory.
No objection in principle provided conditions
are attached to ensure that mitigation and
compensation schemes are achieved.
Particular reference to S42 (NERC Act
2006) species (common toad).
(Do not wish to modify or amend our
advice.)
(Advice relates only to those aspects of the
proposal which fall within it’s remit as a
consultee – the impact on scheduled
monuments or Registered Historic
Landscapes, Parks and Gardens)
Proposed development located in vicinity of
an AM – a section of the Offa’s Dyke and
the western half of the application site lies in
the registered area of the Wynnstay Historic
Park. No material change in layout between
this outline proposal and the previous one
on which comments had been made. The
significant change is for Phase I. Although
this would entail a change of built character
in the north-east section the visual impact of
Page No 9
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
RSPB:
CPAT:
AM Brynle Williams:
Site Notice:
Press Notice:
Other representations:
the scheme would essentially be
unchanged. No further comments.
Concerned about the lack of ornithological
survey work and bat survey has factual
errors.
Apply the same conditions as those
attached to P/2003/1484 and mitigation as
detailed in the CPAT report 783 March 2006
– Ruabon Business Park: Archaeological
and Historical Assessment.
(Do not wish to modify or amend our
advice.)
Opposes food retail development. It lies
within an area of outstanding historical
interest – between Watt’s and Offa’s Dyke.
It is visually detrimental and not in keeping
with the rural character. It is also
unsustainable. Concern is expressed
relating to the increased pressure on the
junction with A483 (T).
Expired 27.08.09.
Expired 29.08.08.
46 letters of objection commenting as
follows:
- Already existing empty office and
employment space within the Wrexham
area
- Most of Wrexham Town Centre is empty
- The area is well supported with
superstores (up to 15 minutes away) at
present - Sainsburys (Wrexham and
Oswestry), Tesco (Wrexham), Stans (St
Martins), Asda (Wrexham), Lidl
(Wrexham and Gwersyllt), Somerfield
(Ruabon and Cefn)
- Loss of countryside, agricultural land
and green space around Ruabon
- Unattractive development
- Unrelated to Ruabon
- Inappropriate scale for a small village
- Lack of privacy
- Inappropriate use of large parking areas
in the evening
- Not enough local community
consultation
- Inaccessible location for those walking
- Adverse impact upon village cohesion
and identity
- Ruabon is a village not a town as
described by the developers
Page No 10
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
It will result in the local villages merging
together
Original objection from CADW
Increased environmental impact from 24
use
Encourages more car use - traffic
through the village will increase- local
road network inadequate and already
extremely busy - risk of traffic accidents,
noise and pollution in the village
Danger to children using nearby play
area
The road is closed on occasion to allow
for large wide loads from Air products
It will overload the existing junction onto
the A483 (T) at a section where two
lanes feed into one lane
Development is on a existing working
agricultural green field site
Within 500m of ponds, water courses
and wildlife habitat – adverse impact
Has a traffic management survey been
carried out looking at existing and
potential traffic
Control of light, smell and noise pollution
– requirement for mature tree planting
and sound embankments.
No established need
No assurance that jobs will go to local
people
Proposal requires quality design using
local materials, brick, stone and slate in
the constriction.
Will there be any planning gain for the
local community?
The size of superstore will have a severe
and irreparably damage upon the
existing businesses and communities in
the surrounding area - the forecasted
level of sales will impact upon existing
shopping in Ruabon, Chirk, Llangollen,
Acrefair, Bangor on Dee, Eyton,
Erbistock, St Martins etc, probably a 10
mile radius.
It will also impact upon local suppliers –
supermarkets do not source locally
The elderly and those without cars
depend on local shops – also used as a
meeting place
Page No 11
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Original proposal did not provide for a
superstore
- Possible adverse impact (as harmful
development) upon the Pontcysyllte
Aqueduct, a Scheduled Ancient
Monument, which is trying to achieve
World Heritage Site status
- The fact that it is stated that the
employment development cannot take
place without the funding (that the
Sainsburys superstore will generate) is
not a valid reason for approval
- Development will be detrimental to the
village’s character, heritage, ecology and
environment in general
- Proposal not in accord with national
guidance and the Council’s identified
planning policies and the Planning Policy
statement on Wrexham Council’s
Planning website
- Scheme will impact upon viability of
supermarket approved in Cefn this will
mean that new football stadium will not
proceed.
3 letters of support received as follows:
- The local communities would benefit
greatly from this much-needed scheme
- It will provide much needed employment
and shopping
- More choice and convenience for every
day needs
- Better access for the disabled
- Bring the village back to life
-
Objection received on behalf of Morrisons
The main grounds of objection are summarised below. The applicants have
provided a response to the issues raised and they are in italics.
Compatibility with the development plan strategy: The proposed site is
located outside the defined settlement limit and occupies land that is
undeveloped greenfield land and currently used for agriculture. The Wrexham
UDP directs all new development to within the settlement limit and does not
support the loss of agricultural/greenfield land for retail and the site fails to
meet local policies.
The objection does not acknowledge that the site is included within the current
UDP as an existing employment commitment and is therefore relied upon to
provide appropriate employment land for the County Borough. Also the
principal of developing a Business Park on this site has been considered
acceptable since the original grant of planning permission in 1995.
Page No 12
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Demonstrative Need: The site is clearly an out of centre location in relation
to the district centre of Ruabon. Out of centre retail locations will only be
considered where a quantitative and qualitative need has been identified. No
demonstration for the need of the proposed store as the catchment area is
considered to be excessive and the applicants have overestimated the need.
The proposal will therefore provide retail development of too great a scale
than is appropriate for the location.
In response to the question of retail need in the area, the household and
shopper surveys carried out as part of the Retail Assessment clearly identify
both a quantitative and qualitative need for new convenience floorspace within
the area. In terms of the proposed scale, the Retail Assessment
demonstrates that the proposed store is of an appropriate size having regard
to the catchment population and the expenditure potential identified within the
assessment. The scale of the store is required to meet the clear qualitative
deficiency in supermarket provision in the area.
Sequential Site Selection: In terms of the sequential site selection approach
the site of the Tesco store in Cefn Mawr offers a sequentially preferable edge
of centre site than the out of centre Ruabon Business Park site. Out of centre
sites should utilise vacant, underused and derelict land where access can be
through a number of ways. The proposed site is neither vacant nor derelict
nor easily accessible by a number of ways of transport. The applicants’ retail
assessment fails to identify a vacant site adjacent to Llangollen Town Centre,
which could accommodate a foodstore of an appropriate scale to serve the
town and surrounding area.
The site of Tesco store in Cefn Mawr was not considered for detailed
assessment as a sequential site as it was unavailable as it was home to Cefn
Druids Football Club and in use on a regular basis. Additionally the site
mentioned in Llangollen was not assessed as a sequential site as it is clearly
too small to meet the quantitative and qualitative demand for a foodstore of
the size identified in the Retail Assessment.
Accessibility: Although the development could be easily integrated within the
existing highway network the proposal will encourage the use of the car as it
functions as a stand alone one stop shopping destination. There are poor
links between the application site and Ruabon district centre and the proposal
will therefore not generate a significant number of linked trips and it is
considered that the draw of trade could negatively impact on the viability of
the district centre.
In terms of site accessibility, it occupies a well-placed location with regards to
providing a major Business Park for the North Wales area and is strategically
placed within the surrounding road network. The Transport Assessment
demonstrates that the site is accessible by modes of transport other than the
private car. There are a range of pre-existing public transport services in
close proximity to site and opportunity exists to enhance these services
through providing additional facilities and/or re-directing routes to serve the
Business Park.
Page No 13
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Impact on existing centre: It is claimed that the proposed store would
maximise the opportunity for residents to circulate between the site, adjoining
facilities and the nearby centre of Ruabon. However, it is considered that the
linkage between the proposed Sainsburys site and the defined centre of
Ruabon is poor with the site being located approximately 1km to the south of
Ruabon centre with pedestrian access involving crossing the A538 dual
carriageway and a relatively steep incline up into Ruabon centre. Further the
proposed Sainsburys store will provide a significantly greater level of
floorspace than all units within Ruabon and as such the store’s operation as a
stand-alone one-stop shopping destination will be reinforced. The relationship
of the site with the district centre would not result in any significant number of
linked trips and the draw of trade could impact on the viability of the centre as
a whole.
In regards to the impact on existing retail units of the surrounding district
centres, quantitative analysis has been provided that demonstrates that the
impact would be ‘negligible’. No further justification can be provided in
regards to impact as no further evidence or detailed assessment is available
to counter the finding. The assertion that the proposed retail foodstore will
operate as a ‘stand alone one –stop shopping destination’ fails to
acknowledge that the application is for a major strategic Business Park for
North Wales where a significant number of shopping/work linked trips will be
generated.
Objections on behalf of Tesco:
Planning permission was granted for a Tesco in Cefn Mawr – this brings wideranging benefits and is complaint with retail policy. That site is for a modern
food store accessible by a choice of transport modes, it improves the retail
offer in Cefn with associated spin-off to attract new shoppers through linked
trips to existing and new businesses; it is sustainable with reduced trips
further afield, new highway structure will improve Well St, will create new jobs,
will allow the football club new improved facilities. These major benefits
should be accorded considerable weight. It is difficult to see how a out-ofcentre retail unit can be justified on retail policy grounds and permission could
jeopardise Tesco’s commitment towards Cefn Mawr.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ISSUES
Background: The site was allocated for employment purposes and shown
within the settlement limit of Ruabon within the Wrexham Maelor Local Plan
Forward to 2001. (approved 1996). Outline planning permission was granted
in 1995 for Business Park B1 Use (High Technology manufacturing, research
and development and Prestige Offices). However, in the Wrexham Unitary
Development Plan, the site is no longer shown as an allocation and is now
outside a settlement limit. This change in policy was the subject of an
objection, which was rejected by the Inspector who stated: “ the (site) should
not be allocated for development and the proposed settlement limits of
Ruabon should not be changed.” He therefore recommended that no
modification be made to the UDP. The Council accepted this
recommendation in June 2003 and in May 2004 the UDP was approved by
Page No 14
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
the Council and adopted in February 2005. Although there had been a
significant policy change, the then existing planning permission was
acknowledged in Appendix II to the UDP as land with planning permission as
at 1 April 2001 – the Plan’s base date.
An application (to extend the life of the permission) was granted in March
2003 with the condition that the application for approval of reserved matters
referred to in Condition 1 of outline permission Code No. P/2000/0418 shall be
made within one year of the date of that permission. A Reserved Matters
application was submitted in 2003, considered in light of the outline planning
permission and approved in June 2005. The approved scheme was to create
a high quality business park with 18 plots of two and three storey buildings,
internal road layout and parking provision. Since approval, all conditions
requiring details to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of
development have been discharged.
The current submitted scheme is an outline planning application showing the
Business Park to be developed in three phases including a supermarket.. The
proposals for Phases II and III remain the same as the previous scheme while
Phase I details a changed business space element with the addition of the A1
food store of 53,508 sq ft (approx 4922 sq m). All matters are reserved for
subsequent consideration, other than ‘strategic access’.
The western half of the application site lies in the registered area of the
historic park of Wynnstay which is included on the Register of Landscapes,
Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest in Wales and graded I for its
special exceptional historic interest. The site was registered in 1995, after the
initial planning permission for the scheme was granted.
Extant Permission: Whilst the site clearly has a planning history as detailed
above it is my view that there is currently no extant permission for
development. The most recent permission code ref P/2003/0058 was not
implemented within the requisite time period and therefore lapsed on 10
March 2008. Members should be aware that the applicant takes a different
view and contends that the subsequent approval of reserved matters ref:
P/2003/1484 constituted a planning permission in its own right and remains
valid until 6 June 2010. Members are advised that having taken the opinion of
leading counsel this contention is not accepted. I consider that it is not
appropriate for Members to determine legal issues and accordingly you are
advised that you should consider this application on the basis that there is no
valid permission for development at this site.
Policy
Considerations for a site which does not have a planning permission
The development of the site is contrary to national and local policies contained
within the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan. The site lies in the open
countryside and outside any settlement limit where the UDP directs all new
development (Policy PS1 refers). The site is visually a rural landscape and is
undeveloped. Development of the site would detrimentally affect the
Page No 15
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
countryside and landscape character contrary to UDP Policy PS2. The UDP
also shows the immediate land to the north, west and east as Green Barrier
(Policy EC1 refers) and south and east as Special Landscape Area (Policy EC
5 refers). This large area of Special Landscape is designated for its historic
significance. Although the site is not within the Special Landscape Area it is in
a sensitive location and its development would adversely impact on the
landscape. The site also includes land within part of Wynnstay Park - Grade 1
historic parkland as detailed earlier. I consider that if this designation had
applied at the time of the original application it is unlikely that the site would
have been allocated and thus no permission would have been granted.
I have considered the submitted justification for enabling development (ie that
an approval would bring forward new employment opportunities - see below).
However, without a valid planning permission I consider that the proposal is
not acceptable and should not be approved as an exception to the very clear
locational policies of the UDP. There is sufficient land for employment
purposes of a variety of sizes, locations and quality in the County Borough to
meet the remaining employment land needs – indeed consideration is being
given to reducing employment allocations in the LDP preparation.
Irrespective of the above I have considered the proposal on the basis of
its individual merits
Retail Impact
Need (Convenience Goods) - National policy and policy S4 of the UDP require
the applicant to identify a need for a store. This issue is fundamental, without
an identified need the application should be rejected without further
consideration. The retail impact studies provided by Savills (acting for
Sainsburys), DPP (Tesco) and an independent study commissioned by the
Council all identify a need, with figures ranging from £14m (DPP), £20m
(Council) and £32.2m (Savills) [this figure represents the convenience goods
expenditure available to a food store located here based on the local
population catchment]. The variances are mainly due to differences in
catchment areas, estimates of current provision, base year etc. On this basis
there is an identified need for a store but there is some dispute about the
scale of the need.
However this identified need does not include the recently permitted Tesco
store in Cefn Mawr and it is consistent with national policy for the Council to
take this application into account even though development has not
commenced. I have every reason to believe the development will be delivered
in a reasonable time and thus it is appropriate to give considerable weight to
this permission. Taking the most optimistic case (Savills) then there is an
identified need for £32.2m over and above the existing retail provision in the
catchment area. However if the Tesco sales projections £13.6m are
deducted, there is only a need for £18.6m. Savills predict the sales from the
Sainsburys store to be £22.39m therefore it is clear from their own (in my view
optimistic) figures that there would be even greater excess. As the Tesco
store takes up all the residual need (even based upon Savills own optimistic
Page No 16
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
figures) I am satisfied that there is no identified need for a store of the size
proposed.
Sensitivity Analysis - forecasts for need are very sensitive to assumptions and
variations can have significant effects on the outcome (need ranging from
£14m to £32.2m). The most significant assumption relates to ‘clawback’, (the
amount of leakage (ie the sales which take place outside the area) that can be
reclaimed from other shopping centres) by a store or centre. Savills suggest
that the figure is 62%, DPP 60% and the Council’s study 50%. The latter
study argues that as Wrexham is a regional retail, employment and leisure
centre it is realistic to expect that main food shopping will be linked to these
other activities e.g. ‘do main food shopping after work’. Therefore I believe the
potential ‘clawback’ will be less than suggested by the applicant.
Reducing this figure to 50% has significant impacts on the potential
expenditure available in the catchment area. Instead of £32.2m over and
above existing provision there would be only £19.71m, minus Tesco £13.6m
leaving a surplus need of £6.11m.As the proposed store generates £22.39m
there would be an oversupply of £16.28m (on Savills' own assumptions) or
much greater based upon the Council’s own figures.
Other assumptions have been made about a variety of issues, population,
population growth, economic growth, food expenditure trends, efficiency gains
that all vary between the three studies. The household surveys underpinning
the studies were produced during times of economic boom with projected
growth figures probably higher than is credible today. Again by varying these,
the outcomes do change, while the order of significance is not as great as
clawback the effect still reduces the level of need.
Summary of Need - consistent with national planning policy it is appropriate to
consider existing planning permissions. On this basis alone and assuming the
Tesco store is delivered in reasonable time there is insufficient need to justify
a store of the size proposed. Furthermore the forecast clawback is optimistic
considering the local context and role of Wrexham. There are serious doubts
whether the identified need of £32.2m is realistic. With reduced clawback and
the Tesco store there is no need for a large store. I also have doubts
regarding other issues such as projected expenditure rates but these are
probably not significant in the overall situation. Without an identified need the
proposal would be contrary to national policy and Policy S4 of the UDP.
Sufficient development to meet foreseeable needs has already been identified
in more sustainable locations and in accordance with the planning strategy. It
is not necessary to further consider sequential approach etc but for
completeness I shall discuss these points further.
Sequential Test - The intention of national retail planning is to support defined
shopping centres and the hierarchy of centres. Adopting a sequential
approach means that first preference should be for town centre locations,
where suitable sites or buildings suitable for conversion are available. Where
this is not practical then district and local centres might be considered and,
Page No 17
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
only then, edge of centre and then as a final option, out-of centre sites in
locations that are accessible by a choice of means of transport.
I am satisfied that as there are no suitable sites within the nearby district
centres to accommodate the ‘need’ claimed by the applicant, the search
should turn to edge of centre sites such as the Flexsys site. Savills dismiss
this site as being of insufficient size, divorced from the town centre and likely
to have contamination/remediation issues. They contend that the potential
future development and the extent of the hazardous operations on the site are
uncertain. With hazardous operations on site I agree a large store would be
most likely to result in a recommendation of ‘advise against’ from H&SE.
Accordingly the site cannot presently be considered as suitable on Health and
Safety Grounds. Savills state that the future use for the site is uncertain, that
allocation under the LDP is uncertain. There are a number of stages that
would be needed prior to the site coming forward, development of the site is
long term and complicated and cannot realistically be considered sequentially
preferable but that there is a need now. In summary their view is that the site
is neither suitable, viable nor available.
Availability - the Flexys site has been proposed as a candidate site in the
LDP for housing, employment, leisure, recreational, retail and community
uses. The current operations are winding down with most operations closed in
2008 and remaining operations expected to cease by 2011. The applicant
states that the Health and Safety consultation zone prevents development on
this site and whilst this is technically true since the site owner has publicly
stated its intention to close the site according to the above timetable and is
currently working towards this target this is of limited relevance. The land is
within a single ownership so any land purchase could be tied to the closure of
the plant and lifting of the H&SE restriction. I believe this could reasonably be
concluded within the lifetime of any planning permission and certainly within
the life of the current UDP. The UDP status of the site is unannotated land
within a settlement limit therefore there is a presumption in favour of
development subject to satisfactory details complying with general principles
of development and retail policies. It is not necessary to wait for the emerging
local development plan, planning brief or supplementary planning guidance to
submit an application. The development of a relatively small portion of this
large site for retail would not compromise the deliverability or compatibility of
other uses on this site. It is my view that this site is deliverable under the
existing development plan and that the site owner is progressing towards
vacating the site in accordance with the stated timetable.
Suitability – the applicant incorrectly states that the size of the Flexys site is
1.42ha, when in fact the entire site is 22ha, which is more than sufficient for
the store and parking. The applicant also states that the nearest point of
access from the district centre is 630m away, in fact access could be made
less than 150m from Crane Street to the nearest point of the site (and this
would pass a public car park). No evidence has been submitted to
demonstrate that this has been considered and why it has been dismissed.
Page No 18
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Viability – while there are undoubtedly some contamination issues on the site
no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate the likely cost of remediation
and thus retail development of the site would be unviable. The treatment of
this significant, available and suitable site lacks sufficient thought and
robustness for us to accept compliance with the sequential test process.
Impact - As there is an existing permission for a Tesco store and I am
confident that this will be constructed, the cumulative impact caused by
additional development by Sainsburys is a legitimate consideration. The
Tesco approval post-dates the impact work supplied, but this does not mean
the cumulative impacts are any the less and proposals must be judged on a
case by case basis. While it is not possible to forecast the impact of two new
stores with any degree of certainty there is no evidence that the cumulative
impact will have any positive effects on the defined centres.
The applicant asserts that consideration of impact has not been consistent
with the Tesco application. The Committee report for that stated that “I am
satisfied that the vitality and viability….will not be adversely affected”. The
applicants view is that if there is no adverse impact from Tesco then there will
be no adverse effect from Sainsburys, however this view overlooks key points.
It ignores the potential positive effects an edge of centre Tesco store offers
Cefn Mawr. The Tesco store’s location has potential to regenerate the district
centre of Cefn Mawr, encourage linked trips, and act as a catalyst for further
investment in the centre by countering further erosion and restoring and
enhancing vitality and viability. As Sainsburys is an out of town proposal with
limited accessibility on foot to any district centre the proposal offers few if any
potential benefits for any district centre. Furthermore the nearest district
centre (Ruabon) is very small and it is highly unlikely it will ever be capable of
significantly capitalising on any linkages to the Sainsburys store. In my view,
therefore the proposal can only serve to undermine the district centres and not
support them. The location is poor in sustainability terms.
There are concerns about the scale of trade diversion. The applicant argues
that the Sainsburys store and the district centres meet very different needs.
The Sainsburys store would provide the main food shopping for the local
community and the district centre supply more day to day top up shopping
needs. Therefore the stores within the entire catchment area would lose a
negligible £0.9m. However the independent study by the Council suggests
that the trade diversion from stores within the primary catchment would be
higher at £1.2m. DPP suggests trade diversion (£1.9m) from the local area to
the Tesco store this is 111% higher than that suggested by the applicants.
The diversion figures provided by the Council and DPP reflect the belief that
the accessibility and convenience of a new store would make it attractive for
consumers making main food shopping and for top up purchases thus
diverting trade out of the district centres. Furthermore the Sainsburys store
has a floor area 55% larger than Tesco with a corresponding increase in the
potential range of goods on sale and consequent increase in the
attractiveness of the store in relation to the Tesco store and the district
centres. Nor would this diversion be evenly spread with a disproportionate
impact on the centres closest to the proposed store.
Page No 19
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
In summary the cumulative impact of both stores on the defined shopping
centres is unknown, but unlikely to be positive. The Tesco store provides an
opportunity to revitalise the district centre of Cefn Mawr but no such
opportunities exist for Sainsburys. The DPP and Council studies suggest a
greater trade diversion than Savills and this is further exaggerated by the
greater offer provided by the larger format store.
Scale - the proposal for a convenience store of £22.39m would dwarf the
provision within the entire catchment area with combined estimated sales of
only £21.97m. Within the immediate catchment area (Zone A) current
provision is £8.68m making the store 153% larger than existing provision.
This can be compared with the Tesco permission that is 53% larger than
existing PCA provision and is located in a edge of centre location of a larger
centre than Ruabon. Ruabon is the nearest centre to the proposal but is the
smallest of the district centres within the primary catchment area. The
proposal is an inappropriate scale of development for the district centre of
Ruabon and the catchment it seeks to serve.
Accessibility - in terms of walking/cycling access the site does not relate well
to nearby housing or the railway station as these are the opposite side of the
A549 dual carriageway and large roundabout. Even if crossing improvements
were made it is doubtful whether the site would be desirable to
walkers/cyclists due to the distance and traffic. As the district centre lies over
600m away (and has mentioned above has a limited offer) it is not realistic to
expect linked trips. Fairly frequent bus services pass through Ruabon
towards Acrefair with the nearest bus stop 600m away. Without a direct bus
route into the site or avoiding the A549 it is doubtful if public transport would
be desirable to store customers due to the issues discussed above. In
comparison the Tesco store (same bus services as Sainsburys) has a bus
stop closer to the store (within 400m) and does not involve crossing a dual
carriageway.
Enabling development - the Ruabon site has had the benefit of planning
permission since the mid 1990’s during a period of extended economic growth
and stability (very recent current situation excepted). This period has seen
rapid growth in local land values, sustained economic growth and prosperity
for the economy of the county borough yet development has not commenced.
The site is not attractive to the intended high value market due to its isolation
from the town centre of Wrexham and its isolation from labour and product
markets. There is no reason to believe that this situation would change after
the building of a supermarket, therefore I would add little weight to the
suggestion that this would be enabling development for regeneration.
Retail Summary - the applicant has failed to satisfactorily identify a need for a
new retail site. Partly because sufficient development to meet foreseeable
needs has already been identified in more sustainable locations in accordance
with the planning strategy and partly because there are genuine doubts about
how much expenditure the area could retain. Without an identified need the
proposal is contrary to policy S4 of the UDP. Furthermore the applicant has
Page No 20
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
not fully considered the Flexsys site as a sequentially preferable site contrary
to Policy S4. The cumulative impact of both stores being developed together
on the defined shopping centres is unknown but is unlikely to be positive. The
Tesco store provides an opportunity to revitalise the district centre of Cefn
Mawr but no such opportunities exist for Sainsburys. The DPP and Council
retail studies suggest a greater trade diversion than Savills which is further
exaggerated by the greater offer provided by the larger format store. These
impacts on the vitality and viability of existing centres are a legitimate concern.
The remote possibility of enabling development does not outweigh the harm to
the locational and retail policies of the development plan, this application
should be refused.
Highways: The application seeks outline planning permission for the
development as described earlier together but not reserving means of access
The application was accompanied with a detailed Transport Assessment.
Following serious concerns raised by both Highway and WAG (Highways)
during the initial consultation period a revised transport assessment was
submitted earlier this year on behalf of the applicant. Given the complicated
nature of the assessment WCBC / WAG employed consultants (Atkins) to
undertake a full assessment of it. The assessment has raised numerous
concerns over the contents of the report summarised as follows:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
That the assumed pass by traffic level of 30% is debatable and needs
verifying, as acceptance of that proportion significantly reduces the
overall impact of the development on the road network.
That the assignment of trips from some areas is inconsistent and may
be artificially reducing potential usage of the A483 trunk road.
That the design of the A4835/A539 link and T-junction does not appear
to accord with full design standards and is of concern. A safety audit is
required to assess if the traffic associated with the supermarket / PFS
proposals could be safely accommodated.
That the traffic counts are potentially misleading given that the surveys
were not undertaken in a neutral month as recommended by ‘Design
Manual for Roads and Bridges’.
That the growth factors applied in the assessments may be too low as
actual growth appears to have been increasing at a higher rate.
That the potential for negative impact upon the A483 due to the
proposals needs to be more fully considered, given that the road is
carrying traffic volumes in excess of its design capacity.
That ARCADY analyses need revisiting as the traffic flows may have
been underestimated and there is uncertainty over some of the
geometric parameters used.
The design / practicality of the proposal to widen the B5605 south
approach to the A539 roundabout needs to be confirmed as there may
be insufficient land or operational issues.
That the provision of adequate pedestrian/cycle access to the
supermarket has the potential to impact upon the performance of the
B5605/A539 roundabout.
Page No 21
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
-
-
-
That the PICADY analyses need revisiting due to the potential
underestimation of traffic flows and especially via the A483 and A539
link.
That vehicular activity around the site due to a supermarket / PFS will
differ significantly when compared to that expected under the lapsed
planning permission and this could increase potential for pedestrian /
cyclist conflicts.
That the proposed car parking is well above LPGN 16
recommendations and does not support the use of alternative travel
modes.
It is also of concern that a report (submitted by the applicant’s consultant) that
predicts a figure of 886 additional trips in the pm peak hour as a result of the
supermarket / PFS alone fails to take into consideration the potential traffic
impact at the A5/A483 roundabout. It is also apparent that traffic volumes
have increased significantly on the A483 (T). Both the Council and WAG
(Highways) are concerned about the impact the proposed development would
have upon the trunk road. The site is at a difficult location as the through
southbound A483 (T) traffic filters into a single carriageway at this junction
and the traffic joining from the A539 southbound does so at a simple T
junction. The operation of this T-junction is a major concern, especially given
the increase in traffic flow on the A483 (T) southbound carriageway.
The applicant has yet to respond to Atkins' assessment and therefore WAG
are not in a position to direct at this time. WAG will need clarification from the
Applicant on the above outstanding issues and how, if possible, they may be
addressed. I have been informed that it is highly likely that a significant
improvement to this T-junction will be required in order to overcome the
concerns. Without any improvements it is unlikely WAG could support this
application. On this basis the Highways recommend refusal.
Other detailed considerations: The previous permission and approval of
reserved matters, in relation to a business park use, with high technology,
manufacturing, research and development of prestige offices, followed the
submission of an acceptable scheme assessed in accordance with the
relevant development plan policies. The current submission includes an
Indicative Masterplan (see plan overleaf) supported with certain
reports/assessments have been submitted in an attempt to demonstrate that
the certain detailed issues can be addressed. Some consideration of the
details (in relation to UDP policies and Council’s Guidance Notes) is required
to determine whether the change in use from business to retail character and
the reconfiguration of the business complex is appropriate within this site. I
comment as follows:
Landscape and Visual Impact – the main concern relates to whether or not
the proposed development would deliver a scheme which would be
comparable in design and visual quality to the extant permission and whether
or not UDP Policy GDP1 has the potential to be supported. The applicants
have submitted a visual impact assessment and revised indicative layout plan
as supporting information. In comparison, the previously approved site
Page No 22
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
master plan shows a rural business park campus in accord with the former
development plan policy. The scattered, low-density pattern of office buildings
were oriented to create variety and interest within an extensive and bold
landscape framework of grassland, ponds, linear woodland and tree avenues.
The buildings were 2 to 3 storeys high and would be features of this
landscape seen in views within and beyond the site. Utilitarian land uses such
as car parking were carefully sited behind buildings to minimise their visual
influence on the park campus character. Buildings are accessed from a
curved spine road and secondary links.
The current proposal seeks to amend the phase 1 area of the site, by
replacing the rural business park campus with a supermarket, petrol station,
extensive car park area and reconfigured business complex. There are a
number of elements within the submitted layout, which in combination indicate
landscape master planning has not been fully considered:
Extensive car parking would be the dominant character within over a
quarter of the site. This cannot be mitigated easily and requires a
change in layout and structural planting proposals.
- The configuration of the business units turn their back on the linear
landscape area and attenuation pond, are tight up against the existing
pond and block views through the site. The layout therefore fails to set
development well within the landscape, or take full advantage of the site
and its features.
- Space around these buildings for tree planting has been reduced
compared with the extant permission. There is therefore less potential
to establish a robust landscape framework and setting to the
development.
- The layout plan has been primarily designed to deliver the functional
needs of the development - vehicular access and parking. There is no
consideration of how the planning of a site in the combination and
arrangement of road layout, building form, car parking and landscape
framework, can contribute to making a sense of place and a positive
contribution to the locality, as would be achieved with the extant
permission.
No recommendations have been made within the visual impact
assessment to resolve these issues, and no strategic design objectives
have been submitted to confirm that an appropriate detailed site layout
would be delivered at a later date, should an outline approval be
granted. It therefore remains my opinion that the proposed supermarket
and business park development would not deliver a scheme of
comparable design and quality as the previous permission. The
proposed development would not make a positive contribution to the
locality contrary to UDP Policies PS2 and GDP1.
-
Page No 23
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Illustrative
layout
Roundabout
on to B5605
Proposed
foodstore
North
100 metres
A539/B5605
roundabout
(existing)
Scale and Design – The applicant submitted an Outline Planning Design
Statement. I consider that the proposed scale and design of the business
units are in keeping with that of the previously approved scheme. The
supermarket building is proposed at two storeys (approximately 3.2 to 4.8m in
height). It is lower than the previously approved three storey office/business
units. There are no elevational drawings submitted – however, the above
Statement suggests that material treatments using brickwork, hardwood
cladding and roofs of pre-finished metal. The PFS is sited to the west of the
car park with a canopy 5.9m in height and building 3.2m. Commenting upon
the supermarket the applicant’s Visual Impact Assessment states that:
Page No 24
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
-
-
it has a footprint of 53,508 sq ft, three times the area of any of the
proposed business units and so its scale contrasts with the units across
the development
the elevation facing the existing housing is 3-4 times wider than the
gable ends of the three previously approved business units
the building massing is a larger scale … resulting in a different
character
the main building ‘edge’ is 40m from the eastern boundary with service
area buildings 13m from this boundary
the large area of parking for the supermarket has little provision for
planting and so the lit area will be more extensive and less filtered. This
is in contrast to the scheme as previously approved which would have
no evening use
The above Assessment goes on to detail measures for mitigating the above.
However, it is considered that only some of these would be successful and
that the scale and design of the proposed scheme is unacceptably different to
that previously approved.
Sustainable Development – the current proposal relies upon the previously
accepted Sustainability Statement which will be taken forward and into the
design stages and implementation of the current scheme. Further detail is
provided with regard to sustainability features to be incorporated within the
proposed business units with an expressed aim of achieving energy saving
objectives as set out in BREEAM 2008: Office Standard. The applicant also
attempts to demonstrate the connectivity/accessibility of the Business Park.
The applicants have also submitted an Energy Efficiency Assessment Report
setting out Sainsburys commitment to sustainable development at a national
level. As regards the building(s) this would appear a satisfactory standard to
achieve however there remains a fundamental objection that the location is
unsustainable.
Ecology - The previous scheme was approved in accord with an Ecological
Report and Outline Environmental Management Plan. Certain habitats (eg
pond and grassland) supporting the greatest diversity were to be retained.
The layout design remains with the road sited in an east/west direction
thereby limiting the amount of landtake. I remain of the view that the impact of
the proposed development to habitats will be of low magnitude. Habitats will
be maintained – the existing pond and much of the semi-grassland to the
north. During the construction period, retained habitats will be fenced off to
protect them from damage (condition attached). Proposed new habitats
include a balancing pond, grassland, scrub and woodland. In order to
maintain, and potentially enhance, the value of these habitats in the long term
some habitat management will be required. A proposed management
scheme has been submitted. Currently, there is evidence of lapwings and
turtledoves on or adjacent to the site. However, I am satisfied that it would be
possible for the present scheme to allow for land to be identified for the longterm protection of these bird species.
Page No 25
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Archaeology - to the south west of the site is a section of Offa’s Dyke – a
scheduled ancient monument and along the southern boundary – an historic
Ha-ha. As negotiated in consideration of the previously submitted scheme the
current proposal maintains a 15m exclusion zone around Offa’s Dyke and
10m from the edge of the Ha-ha.
Conclusion: I have given careful consideration to the information submitted
in support of the application together with the applicants’ identified justification
for enabling development. It is my view that the proposed supermarket and
business park development would not deliver a scheme of comparable design
and quality as the previous permission. The proposed development would not
make a positive contribution to the locality contrary to UDP Policies PS2 and
GDP1. I do not consider that the proposal is acceptable for the reasons
detailed earlier and, despite the justification as ‘enabling development’, I
cannot accept it as an exception to the clear locational policies of the UDP.
There is sufficient land for employment purposes of a variety of sizes,
locations and quality in the county borough to meet the remaining employment
land needs. I recognise that the site clearly has a planning history. However,
it is considered that there is no extant permission for the site – a view
accepted by leading counsel - as detailed earlier.
RECOMMENDATION: That permission be REFUSED
REASON(S)
1.
The site lies in the open countryside and outside of any settlement limit
within which the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan directs all new
development. It is also fundamentally a rural landscape and undeveloped.
Development of the site would detrimentally affect the countryside and
landscape character contrary national and local planning policies. Although
the site is not within the Special Landscape Area it is in a sensitive location
and its development would adversely impact upon the conservation and
enhancement of local landscape. It would also adversely impact upon the
registered area of the historic park of Wynnstay, which is included on the
CADW/COMOS/CCW Register of Landscapes, Parks and Gardens of Special
Historic Interest in Wales and graded I for its special exceptional historic
interest. There is sufficient land for employment purposes of a variety of
sizes, locations and quality in the county borough to meet the remaining
employment land needs. The possibility of enabling development does not
outweigh the harm to the locational and retail policies of the development
plan. Whilst the site clearly has a planning history it is Council's view that
there is currently no extant permission for development.
2.
In relation to the retail assessment the proposal fails to satisfactorily
identify a need for a new site; adequately undertake a sequential assessment
of alternative sites and properly take account of existing commitments. Partly
because sufficient development to meet foreseeable needs has already been
identified in more sustainable locations and in accordance with the planning
strategy and partly because there are genuine doubts about how much
expenditure the area could retain. The proposal does not provide an
Page No 26
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
opportunity to revitalise the district centre of Ruabon. It will result in impacts
on the vitality and viability of existing centres.
3.
That the traffic generated by the proposed development would
detrimentally impact on the capacity of the local highway network and be a
potential source of danger to road users.
4.
For the above reasons, the proposed development would be contrary
to Wrexham Unitary Development Plan Policies PS1, PS2, GDP1, EC1, EC5
and S4.
5.
Sustainability reason to be included on the addendum
______________________________________________________________
Page No 27
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2008 /1147
LOCATION:
FORMER PENLEY HOSPITAL SITE
PENLEY WREXHAM
DATE RECEIVED:
27/10/2008
COMMUNITY:
Maelor South
DESCRIPTION:
SUBSTITUTION OF HOUSE TYPES
AT CURRENT HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT AFFECTING PLOT
62-81 AND 90-95, CONSISTING OF 2STOREY 2 & 3 BEDROOM MEWS
AND 2-STOREY 3 & 4 BEDROOM
DETACHED DWELLINGS.
CASE OFFICER:
KH
WARD:
Overton
AGENT NAME:
MORRIS HOMES LTD
MR S MORRIS
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MR S MORRIS MORRIS HOMES LTD
______________________________________________________________
P/2008 /1147
THE SITE
Land off the northern side of the A539 Penley Road. Former Penley Hospital
site, with Penley Industrial Estate to the west with Oakwood Park and Penda’s
Park to the east. The relatively new Penley Hospital is located to the south.
The application site is to the north of the current housing development site.
SITE
Position of
emergency
access referred
to
Page No 28
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
PROPOSAL
As above.
HISTORY
P/2007/0353
P/2006/1176
P/2003/1219
P/2002/0650
Re-plan of plot nos 28-30, 33-36, 39-41, 43-45 and
47-61D (previously approved under Code No
P/2003/1219). Grant of planning permission 30.03.07.
Re-plan of plots 42-46 and 58-61A (previously granted
under Code No P/2003/1219). Granted 21.02.07
Erection of 103 no. dwellings, alteration to existing
vehicular and pedestrian access and associated works.
Approval of Reserved Matters 8.12.04.
Outline application for residential development.
Granted 02.09.02.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Within the settlement. PS1 and GDP1 refer.
CONSULTATIONS
Community Council:
Local Member:
Public Protection:
Highways:
Welsh Water:
Environment Agency:
CCW:
Other Representations:
Site Notice:
Consulted 28.10.08
Notified 28.10.08
No objections
Object to further development as no provision for
emergency access from western part of the site
should 1.5m diameter surface water attenuation
pipes below certain roadways be damaged and a
road closure being necessary.
No objections, conditions required
No objections
No objections. Surveys have confirmed the
presence and distribution of Great Crested Newts
within the environs of the application site.
However, an appropriate licence has been issued
by WAG that enables continuation of this
development.
None
Expired 12.12.08
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ISSUES
Background: Planning permission was originally granted for 103 dwellings in
December 2004, with approximately half of the houses built and occupied.
Two previous permissions were granted subsequent to that decision,
substituting house types to predominantly smaller properties. This proposal
seeks a further substitution of house types with a number of small sized
Page No 29
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
mews, and two-storey three and four bedroomed detached dwellings to give a
greater mix of house types.
Affordable Housing: Eleven dwellings does not trigger the affordable
housing provision but since this needs to be assessed in conjunction with the
main approval, I will update Members about the need for a percentage of the
houses to be made affordable.
Amenity: I am satisfied the scheme will not compromise amenity of existing
occupiers of recently built houses on site. Separation distances are in
accordance with the previously approved scheme. Separation distances
between proposed properties are generally in accordance with adopted
standards and amenity will not be compromised.
Emergency Access Link: Discussions are ongoing with the applicant to
provide an emergency access route from the development site. 1.5m
diameter surface water attenuation pipes are located below certain estate
roads and should a road closure to facilitate works be required to
repair/maintain no access to the western part of the site would be possible.
The option being discussed involves a route through a section of woodland to
the western boundary of the site. The problem is to achieve a solution which
provides a surface permeable to water to ensure the health of nearby
substantial trees and which is sufficiently durable to resist loads imposed by
fire tenders and refuse wagons.
Without the emergency route being resolved, Highways would be unwilling to
adopt the roads where the pipes are located.
I am concerned that accepting the increase in vehicle movements associated
with another 11 dwellings would further compromise the potential safety
implications of not being able to access the western part of the site in an
emergency.
Conclusion: Discussions are ongoing and my recommendation is in two
parts to reflect my concerns.
RECOMMENDATION A
In the absence of details indicating a suitable emergency access to serve the
western part of the site I recommend permission be REFUSED for the
following reason:
1.
The scheme fails to provide an acceptable emergency access route to
serve the western part of the site, should a road closure be required to
repair/maintain the surface water attenuation pipes below the central roadway
which would be likely to increase danger to residents in the event of an
emergency. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policy GDP1 (d).
Page No 30
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
RECOMMENDATION B
Should an acceptable scheme be submitted to overcome my concerns then
planning permission be GRANTED subject to appropriate conditions and any
required S106 legal obligation with regard to affordable housing.
______________________________________________________________
Page No 31
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2008 /1316
COMMUNITY:
Broughton
WARD:
New Broughton
LOCATION:
LAND BETWEEN GARDEN
COTTAGE AND 13 COED EFA LANE
BRYNTEG WREXHAM
DESCRIPTION:
CONSTRUCTION OF A PAIR OF
SEMI DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH
ASSOCIATED PARKING AND
REVISED ROAD LAYOUT AND
TURNING HEAD.
DATE RECEIVED:
17/12/2008
CASE OFFICER:
JS
AGENT NAME:
AINSLEY GOMMON
ARCHITECTS
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
WALES AND WEST HOUSING
ASSOCIATION
______________________________________________________________
THE SITE
The site is located at the southern end of Coed Efa Lane, and comprises an
area of sloping rough grassland. There is a mature hedgerow along the
eastern edge of the site, and on the other side of the hedgerow there is an
access track linking between Coed Efa and Wrexham Road. The site is
crossed by an pathway along the northern part, which provides a graded
pathway link between Bryn Awel and Coed Efa Lane. The site is totally
surrounded by a mixture of houses and bungalows, and there is a tall tree
located adjacent to the south west corner of the site, which is protected by a
Tree Preservation Order.
Application site
Page No 32
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
PROPOSAL
As above.
Amended plans have been received, and the proposal includes details to
extend the highway from Coed Efa Lane to form a new turning area. The
scheme provides a pair of semi detached houses which are proposed to be
affordable homes. One of the houses will be a 6 bed (10 persons) house, and
the other is a 2 bed (4 persons) house.
The proposals also includes details for some road widening in Coed Efa Lane,
and this will provide room for 3 vehicles to park on the highway, in lieu of one
on-street parking space. A new ramped footpath is also proposed in front of
Nos 13 to 19 Coed Efa, to replace a graded pathway that will be lost as a
result of the new turning area.
RELEVANT HISTORY
None. The site is owned by the Council, and it was agreed by the Exec Board
in Oct 2007 that this land could be disposed of.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Within the settlement limits. Policies PS1, PS2, H2, GDP1, EC4 and T8 refer.
CONSULTATIONS
Community Council:
Local Member:
Public Protection:
Consulted 18.12.08. Re-notified
Notified 18.12.08. Re-notified
Consideration should be given to the impact of noise
during the construction phase.
Highways:
Consulted 18.12.08. Re-notified
Welsh Water:
Conditions required. Foul and surface water
discharges shall be drained separately, and surface
water/land drainage should not connect to public
sewerage system. Public sewer crosses the site.
EA:
No comments. Standard advice applies.
Site Notice:
Expired 13.1.08
Other representations: 13 neighbours notified 22.12.08. One neighbour
thought the proposal was ‘cool’ and ‘excellent’.
One other has raised the following:
 Concerned that trees will be removed that help
screen the site. If these are removed, it will mean
that the property is overlooked.
 Concerned as to whether the scheme will affect
drainage.
 The land is used by children to play, and this is the
only safe area away from traffic for them to play,
where responsible adults can see that they area
safe.
Page No 33
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009

Unclear why it is necessary to build a house for 10
occupants.
A petition of 14 signatures received, raising the
following strong objections:
 The development is too close to existing
properties.
 Reduction of limited recreational land
 Access to the properties, and parking, is a major
problem.
Neighbours re-notified
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ ISSUES
Policy: Some concern has been expressed about the loss of this play area.
Although this is be a policy issue (see policy CLF4 of UDP) for new proposals,
it is noted that the site was not identified as formal POS within a 2005 survey
of POS. It is noted that the area is only used as an informal play area for
children and for other informal local events – eg fireworks on bonfire night,
etc. The POS survey figures are in the process of being updated. Details of
the current estimated position will be provided on the addendum report but I
am confident that there is surplus of informal space within the community. The
loss must be balanced against the benefits of an affordable housing scheme
for the site, and other highway benefits as discussed later in my report. It
should also be noted that this area is not maintained as POS, and it is
essentially an area of waste ground which is not ideally suited for formal
designation as POS because natural supervision is limited, and it is located on
sloping land. This area would always be difficult to integrate within the
surrounding area as a beneficial outdoor play space.
Details: The original submission has been substantially amended, and
therefore observations from consultations may become revised as a result of
re-consultations and these will be reported in the addendum.
Amenity Separation: The new houses are to be located centrally within the
site to maximise distances from adjacent properties. They will have their main
frontages facing eastwards, to allow characteristic east-west orientation of
existing development within the area to be followed – respecting the
topography of area.
However this orientation will not allow the Council’s adopted standards in
relation to amenity separation (in LPG 21) to be fully met, even though the
amenity separation will be similar to that found between existing houses
located on adjacent estate area from which the development will be served. It
is acknowledged that positive design attempts have been included to make
the amenity separation issue more acceptable.
In relation to the properties located to the west of the site, the ground levels
with the site will be reduced (outside the root protection area of the protected
tree), and special attention has been given to the position and design of new
windows. New privacy screens/landscaping has been incorporated along the
Page No 34
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
boundary, and as a result this gives an acceptable relationship to existing
houses at this side despite some shortfall given the height difference between
existing and proposed houses.
With regards to the relationship between the new houses and the bungalows
along the eastern side of the site, ie Nos 3 and 4 The Brambles, the amenity
separation issue has potentially more significance because the existing
screening hedgerow will need to be removed at the construction stage.
Although it is proposed to replace this with a new hedgerow, this will take a
considerable time to become an effective screen again, and therefore other
design measures have been incorporated to mitigate adverse effects. At the
nearest opposing points, first floor windows have been changed or moved.
Others will be fitted with obscure glazing, or located at a point where there is
greater screening. A screen fence can also be introduced along the top of the
bank separating the new turning area from the new hedge, and that will give
further screening until the new hedge becomes established as a new screen.
Cross sections have been supplied to consider the impacts, and I am satisfied
that the impact will be reasonable, and adequate privacy will be afforded to
existing residents.
The existing house that is directly to the north of the site (13 Coed Efa) has
windows facing plot 2. Plot 2’s side elevation is virtually a blank gable wall,
and the only proposed window is an angled bay window that faces away from
the existing house. Amenity separation between the properties will be only
11.8m, whereas 15m is normally required because of the changes in levels.
But in this instance this is not a significant issue because these facing
windows are side windows. The side area of this property also lacks any
natural privacy due to the existing pathway, and this will not be made unduly
worse by the proposal.
The amenity relationship to the bungalow near the southern boundary is
acceptable providing a screen fence is maintained at the boundary.
In all instances, issues of privacy can be controlled by planning conditions.
Loss of hedge: The existing hedge along the eastern boundary is a
prominent local feature and provides some biodiversity and screening, and
probably indicates the historical position of a former field boundary before the
surrounding area was developed. As a result its loss would be regrettable but
the benefits of the scheme would outweigh its loss.
However a new native hedge can be replanted within the remaining area
between the turning head and the track and in time it will re-establish a
landscape feature for the area.
Effect on nearby trees: There is one prominent popular tree adjacent to the
site, and this has been recently become the subject of a TPO since the
application was submitted. A tree report has been prepared and as a result
the layout of the scheme has been amended to ensure that the future health
Page No 35
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
of the tree is not affected. These measures have been examined, and I am
advised that they are likely to ensure protection, and conditions are required.
Size of dwelling: Although the scheme includes a house that is capable of
occupying 10 persons, this is not contrary to any adopted policies. Also the
scale of the house will not appear out of character with the general scale of
properties within the area because its design respects the general form of
development within the area.
Parking/Turning: The scheme provides a total of 5 off street parking spaces
for the development, and 3 spaces will be allocated to the 6 bed house. LPG
16 does not categorise any maximum parking levels for this size of property,
but given its location near to a school, frequent bus service to Wrexham
Town, this provision is acceptable.
The introduction of a turning head is a significant highway improvement for the
local area, and everyone living at this end of Coed Efa is likely to benefit from
this facility. The scheme also provides some additional room for on-street
parking adjacent to a new ramped pathway, and accordingly this will displace
any loss of existing on-street parking within the area. Widening of the road
will also include a new ramped pathway linking down to a position opposite
the footpath leading to Wrexham Road, and this will be beneficial pedestrian.
Drainage: The scheme requires the diversion of existing drainage, and
separate legislation will control the suitable of additional loading onto the
system. Since the existing drainage will need to be diverted, the design of this
final work will still subject to further agreement with the relevant statutory
bodies.
Conclusion: Despite the loss of this informal open space and the hedgerow,
all other matters are acceptable because the design has been carefully
adjusted to overcome adverse issues in terms of the Council’s adopted
standards regarding amenity separation. The introduction of the turning area
and other highway works will benefit residents living at this end of Coed Efa
Lane, and it will allow a much needed affordable housing scheme.
RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED
CONDITION(S)
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of
five years from the date of this permission.
2.
The external brickwork and roofing materials shall match the colour
appearance of facing brickwork and roofing materials at the adjacent property
known as No 13 Coed Efa.
3.
Notwithstanding the provisions of The Town & Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order no windows or other openings shall
be inserted in any elevation of the building facing Nos 3 & 4 The Brambles
and 13 Coed Efa.
4.
All foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately
from the site.
Page No 36
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
5.
No surface water or land drainage run-off shall be permitted to
discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system, or into
the existing highway drainage system (other than surface water collected from
only the new turning area, new road widening and new footpath).
6.
Development shall not commence until a scheme showing the design,
drainage, and construction of the new road, bollards, retaining walls, ramped
footpath, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
Authority. Neither dwelling shall be first occupied until the approved schme
has been fully implemented.
7.
Development shall not commence until details of the approved Traffic
Regulation Order for Coed Efa Lane adjacent to The Brambles has been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, and the dwellings
shall not be occupied the works subject of the Order have been completed to
Highway Authority adoptable standard.
8.
No development or other operations shall commence on the site until
adequate steps, which shall have been previously agreed with the Local
Planning Authority, have been taken to safeguard against damage or injury
during construction works, all trees on the site or whose root structure may
extend within the site, which are subject of WCBC Tree Preservation Order
No 138 dated 13.01.09. In particular, no excavations, site works, trenches or
channels shall be cut or pipes or services laid in such a way to cause damage
or injury to the trees by interference with their root structure and no soil or
waste shall be deposited on the land in such a position as to be likely to cause
damage or injury to the trees by affecting their root structure.
9.
No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until
a detailed landscaping scheme for soft landscape works, including the
planting of a replacement hedge adjacent to Coed Efa Lane, has been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
works shall only be implemented in accordance with timescales to be also
specified and approved as part of this condition.
10.
Any trees or shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged or
becoming seriously diseased within five years from the completion of the
scheme shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to
those originally required to be planted unless otherwise approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority.
11.
The screen fencing as shown for plots 1 and 2 shall be erected before
the houses are first occupied, and shall thereafter be maintained in
accordance with a specification to be agreed in writing before they are
erected.
12.
A 1.5m high screen fence shall be erected between the points A to B
as indicated on the approved plans before either of the new dwellings are first
occupied, and shall thereafter be retained as an effective screen in
accordance with a specification to be agreed in writing before this fence is
erected.
13.
The turning facility, on street parking bays and new ramped footpath as
shown on the approved plan shall be provided before the houses are first
occupied to a standard suitable for highway adoption purposes, and shall
thereafter be retained for use by the public.
Page No 37
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
14.
All windows (or section of windows) as shown on the approved plans to
be fitted with obscure glazing shall only be glazed or re-glazed with obscure
glazing and they shall be permanently retained in that condition.
15.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no extensions or additions to
the dwelling shall be built, erected or constructed.
REASON(S)
1.
To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990.
2.
To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in
the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
3.
To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.
4.
To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.
5.
To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and
pollution of the environment, and to ensure that surface water discharges do
not affect the existing highway surface or structure.
6.
To ensure that the highway works are of an acceptable design in the
interests of highway safety and the visual amenities of the area.
7.
To ensure that through vehicular traffic along the unadopted section of
Coed Efa Lane is prevented in the interests of highway safety.
8.
To protect trees which are of significant amenity value to the area.
9.
To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in
the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
10.
To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in
the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
11.
To protect the privacy and amenity of residents.
12.
To protect the privacy and amenity of residents.
13.
In the interests of highway safety and to ensure that suitable
replacement parking facilities and replacement footpath is provided for public
usage.
14.
To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.
15.
Due to the restricted application site and its relationship with adjoining
properties it is considered important to ensure that no additional development
as described in the condition is carried out without the permission of the Local
Planning Authority.
NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT
Any further information to be submitted to and agreed by the Council in
accordance with the above conditions must be forwarded to and approved by
the Planning Department.
This permission is granted subject to the above conditions. Some conditions
may require your attention prior to you carrying out any work on the proposal.
These conditions are known as "conditions precedent". You should be aware
that it is important that you comply with any "conditions precedent". If you do
not, then any work you undertake on the development subject of this
permission would not have planning permission.
Page No 38
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
You should check carefully that the levels agreed as part of this permission
are complied with. Any divergence from these levels is likely to invalidate
your permission and could result in enforcement action which could require
demolition of the building(s).
You are advised that all works, ancillary operations and the use of plant and
machinery which are audible at the site boundary should be carried out only
between 07.30 - 18.00 hours Monday to Friday, between 08.00 to 14.00 hours
on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays. You are also
advised that the Council has the option to control construction site noise by
means of a Control of Pollution Act 1974, Section 60 Notice where deemed
necessary.
You are advised that the site is crossed by a public sewer and no building or
part of building is permitted within 3m either side of the centre line of the
sewer.
If a connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is
advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water’s Network Development
consultants on 01443 331155.
The first floor window within the south facing elevation of Plot 1 shall be fitted
with obscure glazing over the bottom half, and shall thereafter be maintained
in accordance with this detail. Reason To ensure that privacy is afforded to
the occupants of Garden Cottage, which is situated in close proximity to the
site.
In connection with condition 7 above, you are advised that the costs for
processing and advertising the proposed Traffic Regulation Order will need to
negotiated separately with the Highways Authority.
Your attention is drawn to Highway Supplementary Notes Numbered 1, 3, 4
and 5 on the enclosed "Applicants' Rights and General Information".
The separate written consent of the Local Highway Authority must be obtained
before any work is carried out within the confines of the highway.
The planning permission requires that development be carried out in
accordance with the approved plans, including the construction of an estate
road intended for adoption by the Council under the Highways Act 1980. It is
essential therefore that the detailed proposals are submitted to the highway
authority and confirmed as acceptable BEFORE development commences.
Please contact:The Operational Manager (Highways Planning), Crown Buildings, Chester
Street, Wrexham. LL13 8BG telephone: 01978 292000.
______________________________________________________________
Page No 39
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0004
COMMUNITY:
Penycae
WARD:
Penycae & Ruabon
South
LOCATION:
LAND ADJACENT TO THE BIRCHES
AFONEITHA ROAD PEN Y CAE
WREXHAM
DESCRIPTION:
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING
BUNGALOW AND GARAGE AND
ERECTION OF 4 NO. DWELLLINGS
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MRS SHAWN MELACRINIS
DATE RECEIVED:
06/01/2009
CASE OFFICER:
CB
AGENT NAME:
BLUE PRINT
MR A GAMBLE
______________________________________________________________
REVISED APPLICATION
The resolution of the March Committee provided the Chief Officer with
delegated powers to determine the application based on the submission of
further information and consideration of appropriate policies.
Further information has now been submitted and the scheme revised to two 3
bedroom dwellings and two 4 bedroom dwellings.
The amended plans submitted on the 15th May 2009 have addressed the
issues in relation to the proximity of the trees and the overshadowing to the
rear garden areas of the proposed dwellings. The tree officer is satisfied that
plots 1 & 2 have moved outside of the two oak trees root protection area, and
that there is sufficient distance between the houses and the trees.
The general layout has improved with the deletion of one plot, and the
positioning of the parking to the side. The more forward positions of plot 3 & 4
would create a more attractive frontage, whilst also satisfying the Council's
separation standards. The positioning of plot 1 would still involve the
introduction of the retaining wall and would appear quite close to adjacent
dwelling of 11 Oakleigh. The difference in ground levels means that only the
top half of the proposed dwelling's side gable would face no.11 Oakleigh. An
18 metre separation distance would be achieved from the rear elevation,
which more than satisfies the requirements of LPG21: The ground levels have
been confirmed and two cross section drawings demonstrate an acceptable
relationship between the proposed and existing dwellings.
The amended scheme would require a contribution to schools of £8624 and
this will form a Section 106 Agreement.
The amended scheme adequately demonstrates a proposal, which would
make a positive contribution to the locality and complies with the principles of
PS2 and GDP1. It is recommended that permission be GRANTED subject to
the recommendations A and B at the end of the report.
Page No 40
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
THE SITE
The 0.29ha site consists of an existing bungalow and garage situated on an
elevated and tree fronted plot of land to the north east of Penycae.
Application
Site
Settlement Limit and
Special Landscape Area
/2009 /0004
PROPOSAL
As above.
HISTORY
P/2008/0772 Demolition of existing dwelling and residential development (5
no detached dwellings) Withdrawn 9/9/2008
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Within settlement limit, PS1, GDP1, EC5, of UDP apply. to the east is n area
designated as Special Landscape Area.
CONSULTATIONS
Community Council:
Local Member:
No observations
Notified 7/1/2009
Page No 41
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Access Group:
Highways:
Environment Agency:
Property Planning:
Welsh Water:
Ramblers:
Rights of Way:
Site Notice:
Adjoining Occupiers:
Whilst this development will be covered by Part
M, the downstairs WC is very tight in some of the
houses.
Following consideration of the amended plan, no
objection subject to recommended conditions.
This application falls outside the scope of the
Environment Agency as a statutory Consultee.
Penycae CP School is full. Contribution to primary
school required £10,584
No objections subject to conditions and advisory
notes
Notified 14/1/2009
Notified 14/1/2009
Expired 28/1/2009
4 responses: Landscaping;
 Ecology;
 Overlooking and loss of privacy;
 Visual impact;
 Ground levels;
 Access and impact on public footpath;
 Construction Noise;
 Economic Market;
 Second application;
 Siting, scale and height of end dwelling;
 Stability of mine shafts;
 Increased traffic generation;
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ISSUES
Background: This application represents a re-submission of an application
which was withdrawn last year. A number of issues were identified and the
application contained insufficient information to demonstrate whether the
proposals would satisfy policies identified above.
Main Issues: The application contains insufficient information to demonstrate
that the site is capable of accommodating five dwellings without detrimentally
affecting the visual amenity of the area and the residential amenity of the
adjacent dwellings. Additional information has been requested including a
design statement and topographical survey showing existing and proposed
ground levels and existing trees; a landscaping scheme; photographs and
details of the sustainable demolition of the existing building; an ecological
survey and a draft section 106 agreement covering the contribution to
schools.
Conclusion: The proposed development is unacceptable in terms of the
possible visual impact upon the appearance of the area and to allow the
development would be likely to result in an over-development of the site to the
detriment of the residential amenities of the adjoining occupiers.
Page No 42
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
RECOMMENDATION A
That an agreement under section 106 of the Town & Country Planing Act
1990 be required to provide for Contributions to Schools and that the Chief
Planning Officer be given delegated powers determine the amount and the
final form and content of the agreement.
RECOMMENDATION B
Upon completion of the Agreement, planning permission be GRANTED
subject to the following conditions:CONDITION(S)
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of
five years from the date of this permission.
2.
The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the
amended plan(s).
3.
No part of the development shall be commenced until samples of all
external facing and roofing materials have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be
carried out in strict accordance with such details as are approved.
4.
The erection of fencing for the protection of trees and shrubs shall be
undertaken before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto
the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all
equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the
site. The above mentioned fencing shall consist of a scaffold framework in
accordance with Figure 2 of British Standard 5837:2005 comprising a vertical
and horizontal framework, well braced to resist impacts, with vertical tubes
spaced at a maximum interval of 3 metres. Onto this, 2.1 metre weldmesh
panels shall be securely fixed with wire or scaffold clamps. This fencing shall
be erected at the extent of each trees Root Protection Areas, as set out in
British Standard 5837:2005. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area
fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those
areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavations be made without the
written permission of the Local Planning Authority.
5.
The existing hedges shall be retained and shall not be cut down,
grubbed out or otherwise removed or topped or lopped so that the height of
the hedges falls below 2 metres at any point without the previous written
permission of the Local Planning Authority. Any hedges removed without
permission or dying or being severely damaged within five years from the
completion of development shall be replaced with hedges of such size and
species as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
6.
No development shall take place until an Arboricultural Method
Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The statement shall include a specification for tree
protection fencing and ground protection measures that complies with British
Standard 5837:2005; a plan showing the location of retained trees' with their
crown spreads, Root Protection Areas' and the location of protective fencing
Page No 43
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
plotted. A full specification for any access, driveway, path, underground
services or wall foundations within retained trees' Root Protection Areas',
including any related sections, details of general arboricultural matters
including proposed practices with regards to cement mixing, material storage
and fires; details of the frequency of supervisory visits and procedures for
notifying the finding of such visits to the Local Planning Authority and method
statement for protecting retained trees during demolition works should also be
included. Works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved method
statement.
7.
No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until
full details of both hard and soft landscape works for the site have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
works shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be approved in
conjunction with the scheme of details.
8.
Within six months of the first use of the development, trees and shrubs
shall be planted on the site in accordance with a scheme which has been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged, or becoming seriously
diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of a
similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.
9.
All trees, shrubs and hedge plants supplied shall comply with the
requirements of the current BS 3936 Specification for Nursery Stock. All preplanting site preparation, planting and post-planting maintenance works shall
be carried out in accordance with the requirement of the current BS 4428
Code of Practice for General Landscape Operations (excluding hard
surfaces). All new tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with
guidance contained in Section 13 of the current BS 5837 A guide for Trees in
Relation to Construction - Recommendations.
10.
No trees either existing or planted in accordance with this or a previous
permission shall be lopped, topped, felled or uprooted without the prior written
permission of the Local Planning Authority, nor shall any trees be wilfully
damaged.
11.
The work shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard 3998
and subsequent revisions. The final pruning cut shall be made in accordance
with the Branch Bark ridge method.
12.
The site shall only be drained by means of a separate system of
drainage with no surface water being discharged to the foul drain/sewer.
13.
The proposed access shall have a visibility splay of 2.4 x 43m in both
directions measured along the nearside edge of the adjoining carriageway
over land within the control of the applicant and/or the Highway Authority.
Within the splays there shall be no obstruction in excess of 1 metre in height
above the level of the adjoining carriageway. The splay shall be provided
prior to commencement of use/occupation of the development hereby
approved and shall thereafter be retained clear of such obstruction.
14.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no gate or other barrier shall
be erected across the access within 5 metres of the boundary of the highway.
15.
The access shall be hard surfaced for a distance of 5m behind the
highway boundary before the development is brought into use.
Page No 44
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
16.
The vehicle parking and turning areas indicated on the approved plans
shall be laid out, surfaced and drained prior to the first use of the building
hereby granted and shall thereafter be retained for those purposes.
17.
There shall be no development permitted on site until a scheme of
tactile paving at the proposed site access has been submitted to and
approved by the Local Planning Authority.
18.
Prior to commencement of development, full technical details for the
design of the retaining walls shall be submitted to and approved in writing with
the Local Planning Authroity and developmen shall only be underaken strictly
in accordance with such details as are approved.
19.
The site shall be developed in accordance with the ground and floor
levels indicated on the approved plans. No changes to floor levels or external
ground levels shall be made without the prior written approval of the Local
Planning Authority.
20.
This permission shall operate only to allow development to be carried
out in accordance with the approved drawings and the application
documentation. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, no further
development shall take place within the site (other than the painting of the
buildings).
21.
Prior to commencement of development, further details of the
management of the landscaping scheme proposed for the areas cross
hatched (grey) on the layout plan shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority.
REASON(S)
1.
To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990.
2.
To ensure that the development fully complies with the appropriate
policies and standards.
3.
To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in
the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
4.
To protect trees which are of significant amenity value to the area.
5.
To protect landscape features which are of significant amenity value in
the area and which would ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance the
development.
6.
To ensure the amenity afforded by the trees is continued into the
future.
7.
To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in
the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
8.
To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in
the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
9.
To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in
the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
10.
To protect trees which are of significant amenity value to the area.
11.
To ensure the work is carried out to accepted arboricultural practices
for the long term well being of the tree(s).
12.
To ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and to avoid flooding.
Page No 45
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
13.
To ensure that adequate visibility is provided at the proposed point of
access to the highway.
14.
In the interests of highway safety.
15.
To ensure that no deleterious material is carried onto the highway, in
the interests of highway safety.
16.
To provide for the parking and turning of vehicles clear of the highway
and to ensure that reversing by vehicles into or from the highway is rendered
unnecessary in the interest of traffic safety.
17.
To ensure that adequate on-site facilities are available for all traffic
attracted to the site during the construction period, in the interest of the safety
of users on the adjoining highway and to protect the amenity of residents.
18.
To enable the control of matters not detailed in the application in
compliance with the appropriate policies and standards
19.
To ensure that the development fully complies with the appropriate
policies and standards.
20.
Due to the restricted application site and its relationship with adjoining
properties it is considered important to ensure that no additional development
as described in the condition is carried out without the permission of the Local
Planning Authority.
21.
To ensure long terms management of the open space areas and
prevent detrimental impact on visual amenity of the area.
______________________________________________________________
Page No 46
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0047
LOCATION:
ECO READY MIX HAFOD ROAD
RUABON WREXHAM
DATE RECEIVED:
23/01/2009
COMMUNITY:
Esclusham
DESCRIPTION:
ERECTION OF 20kw WIND TURBINE
WITH TOWER HEIGHT OF 18
METRES
CASE OFFICER:
MP
WARD:
Ponciau
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MR GARY BILLINGTON
AGENT NAME:
ASPIRE PLANNING LTD
MR JAMES DAVIES
______________________________________________________________
THE SITE
The turbine is to be erected on land adjacent to the now closed Dennis
Ruabon tile factory.
SAC
Site of unauthorised
concrete batching plant
Vacant tile factory
Approximate location
of proposed turbine
PROPOSAL
As above.
HISTORY
6/1843
Surfacing of land to be used as stocking ground for finished
products from adjoining tile works. Granted 1.4.76
Page No 47
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
P/2005/1219
P/2008/1026
Extension to range of use of current permitted storage areas
to include the storage of imported tiles, plant and mobile
offices. Granted 30.1.2006
erection of 20kw wind turbine. Withdrawn 28.11.2008
Adjacent land
P/2008/0896
change of use from stocking area to use for concrete and
mortar batching (in retrospect). Refused 3.11.2008. Appeal
pending on enforcement notice.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Outside settlement. The site is also adjacent to the Johnstown Newt Site
Special Area of Conservation. Policies PS1, PS12, GDP1 and EC6 are
applicable.
CONSULTATIONS
Community Council:
Cllr Pemberton:
Cllr A Roberts:
Highways:
HSE:
Environment Agency:
CCW:
MOD:
Other representations:
Site Notice:
No objection – generally supportive.
Notified 26.1.09
Notified 26.1.09
No recommendations on highway grounds.
Does not advise against granting permission.
Assessed as having low environmental risk.
Make the following comments:
- likely to have a significant effect on a European
site (adjacent SAC). Habitat Regulation
Assessment is needed before permission can
be granted;
- licence from WAG needed for works due to
presence of Great Crested Newts;
- Implementation of mitigation/compensation
plan needs to be secured by condition.
No objection to proposal.
Nearby occupiers notified 28.1.09
Expired 11.9.08
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS / ISSUES
Background: The applicant was refused retrospective planning permission to
establish a concrete batching plant on land to the north of the current
application site. An enforcement notice was subsequently served requiring
him to cease using the land for that purpose and to remove any associated
structures. There is currently a planning appeal pending against the notice.
It is understood that the purpose of the turbine is to generate electricity which
will be fed into the national power distribution network (i.e. national grid) to
offset the applicants own power consumption. Although the turbine
Page No 48
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
development could be viewed as being related to the batching plant,
particularly as both are on land owned by the applicant, I believe the current
application should be considered on its merits. The key issues for
consideration are the visual impact the turbine will have and whether it is likely
to impact upon residential amenity. I do not believe that the granting of this
application would indicate the Council has withdrawn its objection to the siting
of the batching plant on the adjoining site. Enforcement will continue in any
event.
Siting and appearance: Policy PS12 supports proposals for renewable
energy provided the wider environmental benefits are not outweighed by any
detrimental impacts on the landscape, public safety and the environment.
Taking each of these in turn:
Landscape: The turbine will be 18 metres high to its hub (i.e. where the
turbine blades are attached) and 23 metres high including the turbine blades.
This is comparable to a telecommunications made located approximately 90
metres to the south which is 25 metres in height.
There are no specific landscape designations covering or adjacent to the site,
although the site is close to the Hafod Country Park and a public right of way.
The development will however be viewed in the context of its immediate
surroundings which consists of a large industrial site including the substantial
buildings of the former tile works. The turbine is therefore unlikely to have a
significant or detrimental impact upon the visual amenity of the locality.
Nevertheless, to assist in minimising the visual impact of the mast it should be
finished in an appropriate colour. This can be required by condition.
Public Safety: The nearest residential properties are some 300 metres from
the site. Given the scale of the development, the proximity of the site to the
A483, (450 metres) and the fact that the permitted use of the adjacent land is
a factory, I consider it unlikely that the development will have a significant or
unacceptable impact upon the amenity of occupiers of houses in the locality.
There does not appear to be any public access to the land immediately
adjacent to the turbine and as such it is unlikely to increase the danger or risk
of harm to members of the public.
Environment: The most significant potential impact the development could
have upon the environment is adversely affected the adjacent Special Area of
Conservation or potential habitat for Great Crested Newts, which can be found
on land adjacent to the SAC. The ecological impacts are discussed below.
Ecology: A Habitat Regulations has been completed for the development in
consultation with CCW which concludes the development (in combination with
others in the area) has the potential to adversely effect the SAC if
mitigation/habitat compensation measures are not implemented in full.
The application is accompanied by details of proposed mitigation measures,
however they appear to be more directly related to the development of the
Page No 49
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
concrete batching plant rather than the wind turbine development.
Nevertheless CCW have not raised any objection to the scheme subject to the
implementation of mitigation and compensation measures being secured by
condition. Accordingly, a suitable condition will be attached requiring the
submission of a scheme in relation to this development.
Conclusion: Subject to habitat mitigation measures being implemented then
I am satisfied the development will not adversely affect the SAC or its great
crested newt population and that the landscape, public safety and impacts on
the local environment do not outweigh the benefit of renewable energy
consumption. As such the development accords with the relevant UDP
policies.
RECOMMENDATION A
That the conclusion(s) of the ‘Appropriate Assessment’ (which assesses
whether the development has a significant effect upon the important features
of the nearby Johnstown Newt Sites Special Area of Conservation) are
approved.
RECOMMENDATION B
That subject to the ‘Appropriate Assessment’ being approved, permission be
GRANTED subject to the following conditions:CONDITION(S)
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of
five years from the date of this permission.
2.
Within one month of being erected, the development shall be finished
in a colour, details of which that shall first have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
3.
There shall be no hard surfaces laid or constructed on any part of the
area edged in red on the approved plans other than concrete base of the wind
turbine, as shown on the approved plans.
4.
No part of the development shall commence until detailed scheme for
the provision and implementation of mitigation (to include Reasonable
Avoidance Measures) and habitat compensation measures for protected
species within the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of
i) the timescales for the implantation of the mitigation/compensation
measures; and
ii) a programme for the monitoring of species within any areas of habitat to be
retained or created; and
iii) details of measures that will be implemented the long-term management
and security of those habitat areas.
Development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the scheme as
approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Page No 50
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
REASON(S)
1.
To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990.
2.
To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in
the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
3.
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to limit the
potential impact of the development upon Great Crested Newts, a European
protected species.
4.
To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in
the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
_____________________________________________________________
Page No 51
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0176
COMMUNITY:
Llangollen Rural
WARD:
Llangollen Rural
LOCATION:
BORROWS REST 1 BRON Y
GAMLAS PONTCYSYLLTE
LLANGOLLEN, WREXHAM
DESCRIPTION:
REMOVE 1 NO. OAK TREE (T2).
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MS MARGARET ELAINE GRACIE
DATE RECEIVED:
05/03/2009
CASE OFFICER:
MS
AGENT NAME:
MS MARGARET ELAINE
GRACIE
______________________________________________________________
THE SITE
The site that tree is located, is the easterly section of woodland adjacent to
the applicant’s property, which is part of a larger woodland that covers a steep
slope between the properties on Bron Y Gamlas and the B5434 road below.
The woodland is located immediately adjacent to the Trevor Basin
Conservation Area, is within 100 metres of the Pontcysyllte aqueduct a
Scheduled Ancient Monument and is within the proposed World Heritage site
buffer zone.
Page No 52
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
PROPOSAL
Remove 1 Oak tree (T2).
The tree is a threat to the public highway and neighbouring properties, due to
unbalanced and heavy branches, all of which are leaning over the road.
It should be noted that this application has been submitted in tandem with
application P/2009/0175, an application to prune the very same tree which is
the subject of this application and also another tree close by. This application
has been granted under delegated powers.
It should be noted that P/2009/0204 and P/2009/205 which refer to separate
trees within the same woodland have been submitted by the owners of the
neighbouring properties and have been referred to the Planning Committee.
The submitted Tree Survey report details the tree’s condition and makes
recommendations for works.
Condition: Poor formed Ivy clad specimen in a healthy condition with some
minor deadwood but no major defects. The crown of the tree is heavily
weighted and leans slightly to the south towards the public highway and
neighbouring property.
Recommendation: The crown of this tree could be pruned to reduce the
weight over the roadside, however due to the poor form and the location of the
tree it has a short safe useful life expectancy and poses a future threat to the
highway, members of the public and neighbouring property. Therefore
recommend removal in the near future.
HISTORY
No previous TPO applications have been made in respect of the small section
of the woodland immediately to the front of 1 Bron Y Gamlas. However a large
tree was removed a number of years ago, due to being in a dangerous
condition, thus its removal was exempted from the formal TPO application
process.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
EC4: Hedgerows, Trees and Woodland.
EC11: Archaeology.
CONSULTATIONS
It should be noted, that four applications in total have been submitted in
respect of the woodland that the tree the subject of this application is located
and that several representations refer to all four applications.
Page No 53
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Community Council:
Local Member:
Wrexham Area Civic
Society:
British Waterways:
Woodland Trust:
`
Discussed application with owner of property and
believe this action will only take place if the tree is
considered unsafe. No objections in principle.
Notified 12/03/09.
The various proposals to undertake works to a
number of trees would have significant impact on
the local environment of the area. The work should
be phased over a period of time to minimise the
impact and to allow replacement trees which may
be planted to become established before any
further work is carried out.
Objects to the proposed felling of trees as their
removal would harm the setting of the Scheduled
Ancient Monument .Have been working with the
Council and other partners for several years on the
nomination of the aqueduct and canal for World
Heritage Status (WHS). This work included a multiagency landscape assessment and a management
plan agreed by all partners. The management plan
commits all partners to develop the Landscape
Assessment into a detailed plan for positive
management of views and to manage the site in
accordance with that plan. This identified key
views to and from the site and areas to be included
within the WHS nomination because they provide
landscape context. This application falls within that
area and therefore is part of the setting which is
protected by relevant legislation and planning
policies (see UDP Policy EC11).Note from report
that T2 is recommended for removal but could be
managed. Object to its removal but would accept
trimming works. Removal of tree may open up
significant new views from the aqueduct onto
modern houses and this may have an adverse
impact on the setting of the Scheduled Ancient
Monument.
Concerned about the number of trees to be felled
and that an arboriculturalist’s report has been used
as justification. The report cites the role of ivy as a
suppressant to tree growth. There is no scientific
evidence to support blanket removal of ivy. Ivy
plays a very important role in supporting a broad
range of biodiversity.
A number of trees that have been surveyed are
mentioned as having signs of rot or decay. Whilst
for those close to highways or rights of way, it may
be sensible to selectively prune these trees, for the
remainder of the trees the presence of rot does not
necessarily imply that the tree is either in the last
Page No 54
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
CADW:
stages of its life or is under immediate threat of
falling over. In a partially woodland situation such
as this, would expect the majority of trees to
represent no threat to the general public and
therefore be entitled to live out their natural
lifespan.
There appears to be some conflict within the report
as to what constitutes biodiversity.. For example,
the suggestion that Ivy and deadwood should be
removed, which are both rich biodiversity habitats,
is ignored as a potential loss of biodiversity. In
contrast, suggestions for improving biodiversity
include replacing removed specimens with smaller
species which appear to have been selected for
their final height rather than their contribution to the
ecosystem of the site.
Planning Policy Wales states that “Trees,
woodlands and hedgerows are of great
importance, both as wildlife habitats and in terms
of their contribution to landscape character and
beauty. LPAs should seek to protect trees, groups
of trees and areas of woodland where they have
natural heritage value or contribute to the
character and amenity of a particular locality”.
These applications do not appear to demonstrate
why the protection offered by the existing TPO
should be removed.
The trees are located in the vicinity of the
Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM). The
proposed arboricultural activity includes tree felling
on the slopes beneath the line of the canal and will
undoubtedly have some impact on the setting of
the SAM and candidate World Heritage site.
However, note that the proposals has the support
of a professional tree survey report, which
earmarks for felling only those trees that have
decay or are unstable and are in danger of falling.
Therefore CADW has no comment to make on the
proposals. The affected slopes lie at some
distance from the canal and note that the felled
trees are likely to coppice. The suggestion that
there is subsequent replanting is noted.
The site lies within the historic park and garden
“Vale of Llangollen & Eglwyseg”, which is included
in the Register of Historic Parks and Gardens in
Wales. The Welsh Assembly Government’s
policies towards the protection of the historic
environment is set out in Planning Policy Wales,
which advises that “Local Planning Authorities
should protect parks and gardens and their
Page No 55
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
settings on the Register of Landscapes, Parks and
Gardens of Special Interest in Wales”.
WCBC Landscape
Architecture:
Site Notice:
The woodland is of landscape value, is significant
in its screening of the residential development
along Bron Y Gamlas and contributes to the rural
character of the upper slopes of the Dee Valley,
which in turn contributes to the setting of the
Pontcysyllte viaduct – a Scheduled Ancient
Monument (SAM) and nominated World Heritage
Site (WHS).
Policy EC11 requires the setting of a SAM
shouldn’t be adversely affected. The site lies within
the buffer zone of the nominated WHS. Although
not at present designated, the nominated WHS is
of material consideration. The Landscape and
Visual Assessment for the Pontcysyllte WHS
nomination submission identified the following key
landscape management principles:
1) Conserve the landscape visual character and
quality of the nomination site and its landscape
setting where this is important to the
nomination site.
2) Enhance and restore the character and quality
of the nomination site where this has been
eroded of influenced by detracting features
The aqueduct is the most significant component of
the WHS nomination. It is already a major visitor
attraction and WHS status means world
significance. The conservation and enhancement
of the sites’ setting is therefore of paramount
importance.
Residential development adjacent to the aqueduct
is of various ages and character. The traditional
stone buildings and walls are contemporary with
the viaduct and complement the historic character
of the WHS. More modern housing and materials
as found along Bron y Gamlas, are however
generally less sympathetic in visual character and
therefore require sensitive integration or screening
to minimise their impact upon the setting of the
SAM and nominated WHS.
Considers the extensive tree works proposed by
P/2009/0176, 0205, 0204 would in combination,
remove a significant part of the woodland screen
and thereby adversely effect the setting of a
Schedule Ancient Monument and the nominated
WHS, contrary to UDP policy EC11, therefore
recommends refusal.
Notice expired 04/04/09.
Page No 56
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Neighbours:
Eight local residents have objected to the felling
works:
1. Distressed to receive notification of the
proposed application that would lead to the
destruction of established woodland. The trees
screen period properties from the imposing
modern housing situated on Bron Y Gamlas. They
provide wildlife with an established habitat, which
is important where urbanisation and
industrialisation of the countryside has led to an
extinction of many animal species. Over the last
century there has been an unprecedented change
in the UK Countryside and this has resulted in the
destruction of British habitats. Habitats are the key
to having diversity of species and you cannot have
wildlife without the habitats. Feels strongly that the
removal of the trees would not only have an
adverse effect on the wildlife in the area but would
alter the character and charm of a village that
“nestles” in the trees. Strongly opposed to their
destruction and consequent environmental effects.
2. Registers disgust and utter belief at the
proposed planning of the destruction of the
woodland. The woodland acts as a screen to the
aqueduct, world heritage site and old houses from
the modern housing estate. The woodland
provides natural habitat to a variety of wildlife, such
as birds and bats. Part of the B5434 below the
woodland was severely damaged by landslide and
the area below the trees had to be pinned to
stabilise the road. Most of the trees were
destroyed then and the area is still recovering from
that. The removal of trees will have dire
consequences on the road and environment
because of the delicate nature of the land. In the
last year many trees along the embankment have
been cut down. The residents of the Bont attach
great value to this habitat, which if destroyed will
be lost to future generations. If planning
permission is granted, not only will this be a loss to
the area but to the country as well.
3. Appreciates that the owners have a legal duty of
care to ensure the trees are safe, however the
proposed works will decimate this valuable stretch
of ancient woodland. The area is part of the United
Kingdom’s submission to UNESCO for nomination
as a World Heritage Site. Within the nomination
documentation there are references to woodland
being of importance to the immediate visual setting
of the aqueduct. The importance of the trees can
Page No 57
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
be seen from the nomination photographs. Every
effort should be made to manage and preserve
ancient woodlands be they large or small, for they
are part of our natural heritage.
4. No objections to trees being weight reduced,
however object to the removal of trees for wildlife
and natural beauty reasons. Many of the trees are
growing on the bank behind the properties and
cannot be seen from their houses, so cannot see
why they pose such a problem.
5. There is no need for the trees to be removed.
They do not cause any visual or traffic danger to
anyone using the road. Have lived here for 15
years and there has not been any need for them to
be removed before.
6. The trees screen period properties from the
imposing modern housing situated on Bron Y
Gamlas. They provide wildlife with an established
habitat, which is important where urbanisation and
industrialisation of the countryside has led to an
extinction of many animal species. Over the last
century there has been an unprecedented change
in the UK Countryside and this has resulted in the
destruction of British habitats. Habitats are the key
to having diversity of species and you cannot have
wildlife without the habitats. Feels strongly that the
removal of the trees would not only have an
adverse effect on the wildlife in the area but would
alter the character and charm of a village that
“nestles” in the trees. Strongly opposed to their
destruction and consequent environmental effects.
7. Concerned at the proposed destruction of
woodland. As a resident of 23 years feels that the
trees provide an effective screen for the modern
housing on Bron Y Gamlas and adds character to
the area by providing a habitat for wildlife,
especially birds. The woodland has been severely
cut back in the last couple of years and feels that
these applications will further adversely affect the
character and wildlife of the area, to the detriment
of residents and the many visitors to the World
Heritage Site of the aqueduct and surrounds.
8. Application to fell tree is in an area in proximity
to that designated as SSSI, is an extension of
ancient woodland that characterised this locality
and is also a habitat for many wild life species. In
light of recent application for World Heritage
Status, is stunned that such a request is made
seriously in what is described as the buffer zone.
Page No 58
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Asks whether the title of the ground subject to this
application is in the ownership of the applicant.
9. Writes on behalf of the residents of Pontcysyllte,
following a meeting, as feels strongly about these
sad proposals. The woodland is place of natural
beauty and is a home to wildlife, especially the
nesting woodpeckers in spring. It has a high
amenity value to the community and also to the
high number of visitors. The trees help screen the
modern housing from the World Heritage site and
the mainly period housing that are located nearby.
Understands that the submitted report has been
prepared by a tree surgeon and not an
arboriculturalist, whose report would allow him no
financial gain. A stretch of the B5434 below the
woodland was severed by landslide in 1989 and
the whole area just below the trees has been
pinned to hold the road in place. Feels that the
removal of trees and ultimately their roots will
further destabilise the already delicate nature of
this land (Science Direct abstract on this landslide
attached). Asks why some of the trees are being
labelled as unsafe and have been selected for
thinning. The woodland has been ripped apart
within the last 18 months and much of the beauty
was spoilt then. The trees and wildlife are still in a
period of recovery. The removal of this woodland
would be a sad loss to the area.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS / ISSUES
The tree is a component part of a much larger woodland, which in itself is
important in the landscape. The tree helps in screening the modern properties
on Bron Y Gamlas from the Pontcysyllte aqueduct, a Scheduled Ancient
Monument. The woodland lies within the buffer zone of the proposed World
Heritage site. Extensive felling of large trees throughout the woodland that this
tree is part of was undertaken in 2004 and 2009 by the adjacent property
owners.
The tree has a lop-sided crown, which is growing in a southerly direction over
the adjacent highway. There a lot of small young branches growing from the
northern side of the lower trunk which will help to balance the tree’s crown
when these have matured. It is a typical woodland edge tree where the
majority of the crown is one sided. The tree provides a useful arboricultural
function of helping to shelter an adjacent oak to the north-east of it. If the tree
was to be removed, the risk of wind damage to the other oak will increase.
The submitted report states that the tree has no major defects and that the
crown of the tree could be pruned to reduce the weight of branches over the
highway. The report states that the tree has a low safe useful life expectancy;
Page No 59
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
however no evidence has been submitted to back up this claim. I dispute this
statement. There are no visual indications that the tree is at risk of failure and
pruning of the crown which has already been granted will help balance the
tree’s crown. The removal of the tree is not justified. An inspection for safety
purposes should account for the probability of the tree failing, the probability of
there being someone or something there to be hit if the tree or part of the tree
were to fail and the probability of damage occurring as a result of such failure,
which is usually related to the size of the part of the tree likely to fail. The
submitted tree survey does not include an assessment of these components
of tree risk management, thus is strictly an assessment of tree form/ defects.
As the report states the tree has no major defects, so why it has been classed
as a tree with a low safe useful life expectancy is not explained. I recommend
Refusal, as the tree does not have any defects which could result in failure.
Additionally, remedial pruning works have been approved which will help
balance the crown of the tree, thus improving its form and negating the risk of
failure.
CONCLUSION
The proposed removal of the tree has not been justified and is unnecessary.
Its removal will have a detrimental affect on the amenity of the area, will
reduce screening of the properties on Bron Y Gamlas from the aqueduct and
will increase the risk of wind damage to the adjacent protected oak tree, which
is currently sheltered from the prevailing winds by the tree the subject of the
application.
RECOMMENDATION
That permission be REFUSED
REASON(S)
1.
The removal of the tree would be to the detriment of the amenity of the
locality.
2.
The removal of the tree for safety reasons has not been justified.
______________________________________________________________
Page No 60
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0204
LOCATION:
4 BRON Y GAMLAS PONTCYSYLLTE
LLANGOLLEN
DATE RECEIVED:
12/03/2009
COMMUNITY:
Llangollen Rural
DESCRIPTION:
REMOVE 2 WILD CHERRIES (T55,
T59), 2 ASH (T57, T68), 6
SYCAMORE (T58, T60, T31, T32,
T63, T65) AND 1 HAWTHORN (T61).
FELL 5 WILD CHERRY STEMS (G1)
LEANING OVER FOOTPATH,
REMOVE 5 LOWEST BRANCHES
FROM 1 NO. SYCAMORE (T53) AND
CROWN LIFT 2 NO. SYCAMORES
TO 4 METRES (T66, T67) - (TPO
GLYNDWR DC NO. 7)
CASE OFFICER:
MS
WARD:
Llangollen Rural
AGENT NAME:
MRS J DODD
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MRS J DODD
______________________________________________________________
SITE
The site is a section of woodland to the south west of the applicant’s property.
The application relates to the section of woodland owned by the applicant,
which is part of a larger woodland that covers a steep slope between the
properties on Bron Y Gamlas and the B5434 road below. The woodland is
located adjacent to the Trevor Basin Conservation Area and is within the
proposed World Heritage Site buffer zone.
Page No 61
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
PROPOSAL
To implement the recommendations of the Proarb report from the 12th June
2008.
Remove 2 Wild Cherry trees (T55, T59), 2 Ash trees (T57, T68), 7 Sycamore
trees (T26, T58, T60, T31, T32, T63, T65), and 1 Hawthorn tree (T61). Fell 5
Wild Cherry stems (G1) leaning over footpath, remove 5 lowest branches from
1 Sycamore tree (T53) and crown lift 2 Sycamore trees to 4 metres (T66,
T67).
The reasons given for the works, is to eliminate the risks posed by the trees to
the public highway and dwelling adjacent to the woodland and to comply with
the professional report which has highlighted a number of trees which need
urgent attention in order to prevent them becoming a health and safety issue
for my property. Offers to subsequently replant trees of a suitable nature to
maintain the integrity of the unstable bank and public amenity.
Page No 62
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
It should be noted that this application has been submitted at the same time
as applications P/2009/0175, P/2009/0176 and P/2009/0205 which have been
submitted by other applicants and refers to different trees within the same
woodland.
The submitted Tree Survey report details condition comments made for each
tree.
T55 (Wild Cherry): Large specimen with poor form which forks at 2 m with
sparse crown. Major deadwood, peeling bark and bacterial canker/ flux at 2 m.
T59 (Wild Cherry): Single stem specimen with poor form leaning heavily over
footpath and towards neighbouring property. Bacterial flux present.
T57 (Ash): Co-dominant tree which forks at 1 m with moderate form. Decay at
base within fork.
T68 (Ash): Tree forks at 1 m into 4 stems with moderate form and is located
on stone wall leaning over public roadside. This is liable to damage existing
stone wall and become a danger to the public.
T26 (Sycamore): Specimen with crown slightly weighted to the south. Raised
soil levels and decay present at base.
T58 (Sycamore): Old coppice stool with approx 8 stems. Dead wood/ squirrel
damage and decay at base.
T60 (Sycamore): Co-dominant ivy clad specimen with poor form which forks
at base. Heavily in decline with major deadwood.
T31 (Sycamore): Large open crown specimen with good form. Large cavity
present at 4 m which is liable to failure.
T32 (Sycamore): Poor form ivy clad specimen suppressed by T31 & T29.
Decay present at base.
T63 (Sycamore): Ivy clad specimen with large cavity through base of stem.
T65 (Sycamore): Poor formed ivy clad specimen suppressed by T66 and T67
and leaning towards road.
T61 (Hawthorn): Multi-stem ivy clad specimen with poor form and sparse
crown and dead wood present.
G1 (5 Wild Cherry Stems): Group of 12 single stem ivy clad trees with
sparse crowns and minor deadwood present. 5 stems leaning over footpath.
T53 (Sycamore): Ivy clad specimen with poor form. Crown heavily
unbalanced to the south west direction.
Page No 63
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
T66 (Sycamore): Single stem ivy clad specimen with no major defects visible.
Lower branches obstructing driveway.
T67 (Sycamore): Single stem ivy clad specimen with poor form. No major
defects visible. Lower branches obstructing driveway
HISTORY
P/2004/1340: Woodland thinning works including removal of all Sycamore and
Ash saplings, removal of all badly formed sycamores, crown lift retained trees
to open up views and to allow light in and cut to ground all shrubs likely to be
damaged by felling operations or that have become leggy; Approved.
P/2008/0137: Fell 3 Sycamores; Refused.
In 2008 a large Sycamore was felled in the section of woodland that this
application relates to. The tree was exempted from the formal TPO application
process under section 198 (6a) of the Town & Country Planning Act, due to
being in a dangerous condition.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
EC4: Hedgerows, Trees and Woodland.
EC11: Archaeology.
CONSULTATIONS
There have been 14 written representation in total, of which 11 object to the
felling of the trees the subject of the application.
Community Council:
Local Member:
Site Notice:
Wrexham Area Civic
Society:
British Waterways:
No objections in principle.
Notified 12/03/09.
Notified Expired 04/04/09.
The various proposals to undertake works to a
number of trees would have significant impact on
the local environment of the area. The work should
be phased over a period of time to minimise the
impact and to allow replacement trees which may
be planted to become established before any
further work is carried out.
Objects to the proposed felling of trees because
their removal would harm the setting of the
Scheduled Ancient Monument (Pontcysyllte
Aqueduct and canal). British Waterways have
been working with Wrexham CBC and other
partners for several years on the nomination of the
aqueduct and canal for World Heritage Status
(WHS). This work included a multi-agency
Page No 64
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Woodland Trust:
landscape assessment and a management plan
agreed by all partners. The management plan
commits all partners to develop the Landscape
Assessment into a detailed plan for positive
management of views and to manage the site in
accordance with that plan. This identified key
views to and from the site and areas to be included
within the WHS nomination because they provide
landscape context. This application falls within that
area and therefore is part of the setting which is
protected by relevant legislation and planning
policies (see UDP Policy EC11).
Not all the trees highlighted for removal are on the
high priority list in the report, therefore object to
works to T55, T63, T65, T61 and G1, unless the
LPA is confident that the tall canopy trees would
be retained. Concerned that the removal of
vegetation may open up views from the aqueduct
onto the modern houses. This would have an
adverse impact on the setting of the SAM. No
objections to the other works proposed which
appear to be on the high priority safety list in the
report. If approved a condition must be attached
for the replacement of mature trees to maintain
screening of modern properties viewed from the
aqueduct.
Concerned about the number of trees to be felled
and that an arborist’s report has been used as
justification. The report cites the role of ivy as a
suppressant to tree growth. There is no scientific
evidence to support blanket removal of ivy. Ivy
plays a very important role in supporting a broad
range of biodiversity.
A number of trees that have been surveyed are
mentioned as having signs of rot or decay. Whilst
for those close to highways or rights of way, it may
be sensible to selectively prune these trees, for the
remainder of the trees the presence of rot does not
necessarily imply that the tree is either in the last
stages of its life or is under immediate threat of
falling over. In a partially woodland situation such
as this, would expect the majority of trees to
represent no threat to the general public and
therefore be entitled to live out their natural
lifespan.
There appears to be some conflict within the report
as to what constitutes biodiversity and therefore
would improve this on the site. For example, the
suggestion that Ivy and deadwood should be
removed, both rich biodiversity habitats, is ignored
Page No 65
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
as a potential loss of biodiversity. In contrast,
suggestions for improving biodiversity include
replacing removed specimens with smaller species
which appear to have been selected for their final
height rather than their contribution to the
ecosystem of the site.
CADW:
WCBC Landscape
Architecture:
Planning Policy Wales states that “Trees,
woodlands and hedgerows are of great
importance, both as wildlife habitats and in terms
of their contribution to landscape character and
beauty. LPAs should seek to protect trees, groups
of trees and areas of woodland where they have
natural heritage value or contribute to the
character and amenity of a particular locality”.
These applications do not appear to demonstrate
why the protection offered by the existing TPO
should be removed.
The proposals are located in the vicinity of the
scheduled ancient monument Pontcysyllte
Aqueduct and Canal. The proposed arboricultural
activity includes tree felling on the slopes beneath
the line of the canal and will undoubtedly have
some impact on the setting of the scheduled
ancient monument and candidate World Heritage
site. However, note that the proposals has the
support of a professional tree survey report, which
earmarks for felling only those trees that have
decay or are unstable and are in danger of falling.
Therefore CADW has no comment to make on the
proposals. The affected slopes lie at some
distance from the canal and note that the felled
trees are likely to coppice. The suggestion that
there is subsequent replanting is noted.
The proposal also lies within the historic park and
garden “Vale of Llangollen & Eglwyseg”, which is
included in the Register of Historic Parks and
Gardens in Wales. The Welsh Assembly
Government’s policies towards the protection of
the historic environment is set out in Planning
Policy Wales, which advises that “Local Planning
Authorities should protect parks and gardens and
their settings on the Register of Landscapes, Parks
and Gardens of Special Interest in Wales”.
The woodland is of landscape value, is significant
in its screening of the residential development
along Bron Y Gamlas and contributes to the rural
character of the upper slopes of the Dee Valley,
which in turn contributes to the setting of the
Page No 66
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Neighbours:
Pontcysyllte viaduct – a Scheduled Ancient
Monument (SAM) and nominated World Heritage
Site (WHS).
Policy EC11 requires the setting of a SAM should
not be adversely affected. The site lies within the
buffer zone of the nominated WHS. Although not
at present designated, the nominated WHS is of
material consideration. The Landscape and Visual
Assessment for the Pontcysyllte WHS nomination
submission identified the following key landscape
management principles:
3) Conserve the landscape visual character and
quality of the nomination site and its landscape
setting where this is important to the
nomination site.
4) Enhance and restore the character and quality
of the nomination site where this has been
eroded of influenced by detracting features
The aqueduct is the most significant component of
the WHS nomination. It is already a major visitor
attraction and WHS status means world
significance. The conservation and enhancement
of the sites’ setting is therefore of paramount
importance.
Residential development adjacent to the aqueduct
is of various ages and character. The traditional
stone buildings and walls are contemporary with
the viaduct and complement the historic character
of the WHS. More modern housing and materials
as found along Bron y Gamlas, are however
generally less sympathetic in visual character and
therefore require sensitive integration or screening
to minimise their impact upon the setting of the
SAM and nominated WHS.
Considers the extensive tree works proposed by
P/2009/0176, 0205, 0204 would in combination,
remove a significant part of the woodland screen
and thereby adversely effect the setting of a
Schedule Ancient Monument and the nominated
WHS, contrary to UDP policy EC11, therefore
recommends refusal.
Eight local residents have objected to the
application works and their representations are
summarised below:
1. Strongly registers disgust and disbelief at the
proposed planning of the destruction of the
woodland. This proposed vandalism cannot be
allowed to take place. The woodland acts as a
screen to the aqueduct, a world heritage site and
old houses from the modern housing estate. The
Page No 67
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
woodland provides natural habitat to a variety of
wildlife, such as birds and bats. The trees also give
the area its natural beauty and uniqueness. Part of
the B5434 below the woodland was severely
damaged by landslide and the area below the
trees had to be pinned to stabilise the road. Most
of the trees were destroyed then and the area is
still recovering from that. The removal of trees will
have dire consequences on the road and
environment because of the delicate nature of the
land. In the last year many trees along the
embankment have been cut down. The residents
of the Bont attach great value to this habitat, which
If destroyed will be lost to future generations. If
planning permission is granted, not only will this be
a loss to the area but to the country as well.
2. Concerned about the removal of trees and
branches. Some trees have already been felled
and cut back. Appreciates that the owners have a
legal duty of care to ensure the trees are safe,
however the proposed works will decimate this
valuable stretch of ancient woodland. The area is
part of the United Kingdom’s submission to
UNESCO for nomination as a World Heritage Site.
Within the nomination documentation there are
references to woodland being of importance to the
immediate visual setting of the aqueduct. The
importance of the trees can be seen from the
nomination photographs. Every effort should be
made to manage and preserve ancient woodlands
be they large or small, for they are part of our
natural heritage.
3. No objections to trees being reduced, however
object to the removal of trees for wildlife and
natural beauty reasons. Many of the trees are
growing on the bank behind the properties and
cannot be seen from their houses, so cannot see
why they pose such a problem.
4. Objects to the removal of trees. There is no
need for the trees to be removed. They do not
cause any visual or traffic danger to anyone using
the road. Have lived here for 15 years and there
has not been any need for them to be removed
before. The trees enhance the area, making it
more attractive and are valuable for wildlife. These
pockets of untouched woodland provide breeding
and living space for birds and insects and
complement the woods further down the river and
along the canal. Believes the woodland is classed
as “ancient woodland” which is a fast disappearing
Page No 68
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
aspect of the countryside. The woodland is in a
Conservation Area and is part of the World
heritage site for the aqueduct. The Council should
enhance the area not destroy it.
5. Distressed to receive notification of the
proposed application that would lead to the
destruction of established woodland. The trees
screen period properties from the imposing
modern housing situated on Bron Y Gamlas. They
provide wildlife with an established habitat, which
is important where urbanisation and
industrialisation of the countryside has led to an
extinction of many animal species. Over the last
century there has been an unprecedented change
in the UK Countryside and this has resulted in the
destruction of British habitats. Habitats are the key
to having diversity of species and you cannot have
wildlife without the habitats. Feels strongly that the
removal of the trees would not only have an
adverse effect on the wildlife in the area but would
alter the character and charm of a village that
“nestles” in the trees. Strongly opposed to their
destruction and consequent environmental effects.
6. Concerned at the proposed destruction of
woodland. As a resident of 23 years feels that the
trees provide an effective screen for the modern
housing on Bron Y Gamlas and adds character to
the area by providing a habitat for wildlife,
especially birds. The woodland has been severely
cut back in the last couple of years and feels that
these applications will further adversely affect the
character and wildlife of the area, to the detriment
of residents and the many visitors to the World
Heritage Site of Pontcysyllte aqueduct and
surrounds.
7. Sad to read that more trees are ear marked for
destruction, after objecting and failing to prevent
felling of the trees in the same area in 2008. The
aqueduct is applied for World Heritage status and
is situated in a Conservation Area. Prior to the bid
being submitted WCBC commissioned a report on
the conservation for such an important area. The
report clearly states that all trees in this area
should remain protected and additional tree
screening should be implemented to hide the
undesirable modern box type development. It
would seem unwise to go against the advice of a
conservation expert. TPOs are there to prevent
vandalism and destruction for the sake of a view.
People travel to look at the aqueduct and area of
Page No 69
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
outstanding natural beauty, not Bron Y Gamlas.
The woods are currently occupied by many
species birds and mammals. Planning Policy
Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government’s
planning policy states that “Ancient and seminatural woodlands are irreplaceable habitats of
high biodiversity value which should be protected
from development that would result in significant
damage. Local Planning Authorities should seek to
protect trees, groups of trees, and areas of
woodland where they have natural heritage or
contribute to the character or amenity of a
particular locality”. An independent expert should
be sought with a view to maintaining the health
and stability of the wood, vital to the structure of an
area of unstable land to help maintain the integrity
of the soil structure. If trees are removed, requests
that the Council ensures that replanting be
implemented. The community feels very strongly
about the destruction of such a beautiful natural
habitat. Excerpts from the Trevor Basin
Conservation Area Assessment enclosed with
letter.
8. Writes on behalf of the residents of Pontcysyllte,
following a meeting, as feels strongly about these
sad proposals. The woodland is place of natural
beauty and is a home to wildlife, especially the
nesting woodpeckers in spring. It has a high
amenity value to the community and also to the
high number of visitors. The trees help screen the
modern housing from the World Heritage site and
the mainly period housing that are located nearby.
Understands that the submitted report has been
prepared by a tree surgeon and not an
arboriculturalist, whose report would allow him no
financial gain. A stretch of the B5434 below the
woodland was severed by landslide in 1989 and
the whole area just below the trees has been
pinned to hold the road in place. Feels that the
removal of trees and ultimately their roots will
further destabilise the already delicate nature of
this land (Science Direct abstract on this landslide
attached). Asks why some of the trees are being
labelled as unsafe and have been selected for
thinning. The woodland has been ripped apart
within the last 18 months and much of the beauty
was spoilt then. The trees and wildlife are still in a
period of recovery. The removal of this woodland
would be a sad loss to the area.
Page No 70
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS / ISSUES
The woodland is important in the landscape, provides a useful screening role
of modern properties from the Pontcysyllte Aqueduct, a Scheduled Ancient
Monument, and lies within the buffer zone of the proposed World Heritage
site. The woodland also is of value for wildlife. Extensive felling of large trees
throughout the woodland has been undertaken in 2004 and 2009, which has
depleted the number of large trees within the woodland. The number of trees
proposed to be felled would be detrimental to the aforementioned attributes of
this woodland and would open up clear sight lines of the properties of Bron Y
Gamlas from the aqueduct and visa versa, improving views from the
properties on Bron y Gamlas across the valley and towards the aqueduct.
Some of the applied for felling and pruning works are recommended for
approval to ensure public safety and to improve the growth of other trees,
whilst others works are recommended for refusal as these trees do not pose a
risk to members of the public or residents of Bron y Gamlas.
The submitted tree survey report gives reasons to back up its
recommendations. In many cases the reason for felling is not justified. The
risk posed by the trees to the general public, local residents and highway
users has not been included in the report. The report states that its purpose is
to undertake a hazard evaluation of the boundary trees and to comment on
trees which pose a hazard to the adjacent highway and members of the
public. One aspect missing from the assessment and report is the risk posed
by the trees, which is a fundamental part of tree risk management.
All proprietary tree risk management systems have three essential
components which enables the evaluation of tree risk. These are the
probability of the tree failing, the probability of there being someone or
something there to be hit if the tree does fail and the probability of damage
occurring as a result of failure, which is usually related to the size of the part
of the tree likely to fail. The submitted tree survey does not include an
assessment of these components, thus is strictly an assessment of tree form/
defects. It does not take into account the land use context. This in my
professional opinion is not best practice for surveying trees for safety reasons
and is not an industry standard approach to managing the risk from trees.
Other aspects of the survey data and recommendations which aren’t taken
into consideration is the habitat value of the trees and associated vegetation
such as Ivy and that of poor form trees, which are generally common in a
woodland setting. These trees are not necessarily of the form expected in a
park or arboretum collection, however poor form trees which do not pose a
risk to members of the public shouldn’t necessarily be felled, just because
they don’t conform to a strict idea of what a tree should look like. They often
have features that are important for wildlife.
It is recommended that this application is part approved and part refused as
recommended in each individual tree assessment below.
T55 (Wild Cherry): Mature tree. 1 branch at 2m has a poor structural union
where it joins the main stem, bacterial canker below this branch union.
Page No 71
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Reaction growth below union, on south side of trunk. Minor deadwood in lower
crown, with very little in the upper crown. Stem bifurcates at approximately 5
m, with union at bifurcation structurally ok. There are no visual indicators that
whole tree failure is likely, thus the risk is low; however there is a medium risk
that the branch at 2 m could fail. If the branch failed it is unlikely that it would
land on the adjacent trackway and is more likely to fall within the woodland.
There is no requirement to remove this tree for safety reasons, however the
removal or end-weight reduction of the aforementioned branch could be
undertaken to substantially lower the risk of the branch failing. Recommend
refusal, subject to an informative detailing that an application to remove or
prune the branch would be acceptable to the LPA.
T59 (Wild Cherry): Semi-mature tree leaning towards track, due to light
competition from T57, which has resulted in most of the growth over the
adjacent trackway. Resin exudations on main trunk, which is very common
and does not affect the safety of the tree. This tree is not in a dangerous
condition and if T57 is removed will develop a well balanced crown. Refuse
permission.
T57 (Ash): Stem bifurcation at 0.25 m from ground level. Open cavity at
bifurcation stem union which extends to 30 cm minimum depth. This tree has
a safe useful lifespan of less than 10 years. The cavity renders the risk of
failure of one or both of the main stems as being medium to high. Approve
subject to a replacement tree being planted.
T68 (Ash): Semi-mature specimen growing on top of stone retaining wall. The
tree will eventually displace the wall, thus is not in a sustainable location for it
to grow to maturity. Approve, with the condition that a suitable replacement
trees is planted within the woodland.
T26 (Sycamore): This tree has already been removed. Consent was granted
under Planning Permission P/2008/0140.
T58 (Sycamore): Semi-mature previously coppiced tree with 8 stems.
Squirrel damage on at least 4 stems, with damage on 1 stem being quite
sever, thus causing a notch stress which increases the risk of failure of this
stem. This multi-stemmed tree does not have the potential to grow larger and
because this tree has been previously coppiced it would be expedient to allow
the tree to be re-coppiced. Approve, with the condition that the tree be
coppiced with the intention of allowing it to re-grow and it is not chemically
poisoned to prevent re-growth.
T60 (Sycamore): Small semi-mature tree, which stem bifurcates near ground
level. Poor structural union at bifurcation. There is die-back in the top of the
crown and the tree is covered in ivy. Allowing the tree to be coppiced will
improve conditions for ground vegetation and adjacent trees. Approve
coppicing on the condition that the tree is allowed to re-grow and is not
chemically poisoned to prevent re-growth.
Page No 72
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
T31 (Sycamore): This tree has already been felled. It was exempted from the
formal TPO application process in 2008 due to its dangerous condition. The
trunk lies on the ground to the west of T32.
T32 (Sycamore): Twin-stemmed tree, with one stem having already been
removed. Resonance test revealed no decay at base of tree.1 small pruning
wound on south west side of trunk at between 0.25 – 0.5 m from ground level.
Decay at this point does not extend more than 2 cm into sapwood. Mature
tree with a clear stem for approximately 10 – 12 m. Small crown, due to
shading by adjacent tree which has now been removed. Trunk height to
diameter ratio ok. Trunk covered in Ivy. Some minor broken branches in
crown, probably as a result of adjacent tree felling. Good bud formation in
crown. There are no visual indications that this tree is at risk of failure. In time
the crown will bush out as there is less light competition, as adjacent trees
have been felled. Recommend that felling of this tree is refused.
T63 (Sycamore): Semi-mature specimen, which has a large open cavity at
the base of the trunk. This tree has a low safe useful life expectancy. Its
removal will provide additional growing space for the adjacent trees, thus will
improve their growth. Approve, subject to a suitable replacement tree being
planted elsewhere within the woodland.
T65 (Sycamore): Semi-mature specimen. Removal of this small tree will allow
more space for the adjacent trees to develop fully. Approve, subject to a
suitable replacement tree being planted elsewhere within the woodland.
T61 (Hawthorn): Mature, but small tree covered with ivy. Bifurcates at ground
level, with very minor deadwood in crown. Very old specimen for the species.
There are no visual indications that this small tree is at risk of failure. Tree not
within falling distance of roads, tracks or properties. Not a dangerous tree.
Refuse permission.
G1 (5 Wild Cherry Stems): Group of close growing small young to semimature wild Cherry trees. None are in a dangerous condition or excessively
leaning over track. Coppicing of some of the trunks would benefit the growth
of the remaining trees. Recommend that approval for three of the five trees be
felled, on the condition that the three specific trees are agreed by the LPAs
Arboricultural Officer, before the works are undertaken.
T53 (Sycamore): Mature specimen, previously a twin-stemmed tree. South eastern stem already removed, which leaves a single trunk. Epicormic growth
at base of tree. The crown is lopp-sided with all growth on western side of
tree. The irregular crown shape is due to competition from an adjacent tree,
which has been subsequently felled. The crown should now re-grow as light is
now reaching all parts of the tree. Crown raising lower branches will not
improve the form of the tree, but will increase its risk of failure by increasing
the lever arm affect of the trunk. Refuse permission
T66 (Sycamore): Crown raising the crown of this tree will not be detrimental
to its health, safety or visual amenity. Approve, with the condition that no
Page No 73
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
branches with a diameter of 75 mm or more are removed without the written
permission of the Local Planning Authority.
T67 (Sycamore): Crown raising the crown of this tree will not be detrimental
to its health, safety or visual amenity. Approve, with the condition that no
branches with a diameter of 75 mm or more are removed without the written
permission of the Local Planning Authority.
CONCLUSION
The majority of the proposed tree works will have a detrimental effect on the
amenity and biodiversity value of the woodland. Planning permission has
already been granted for trees 26 & 31to be felled, which has already been
done. Some of the remaining tree felling proposals are justifiable and other
felling proposals are not.
It is recommended that planning permission is granted for felling trees T57,
T42, T68, T63, T65, T61 be approved on the condition that the trees are
replaced, that pruning works to T66 & T67 on the condition that the works
shall not include the removal of any branch of which any part is more than 75
millimetres in diameter, unless agreed by the LPAs Arboricultural Officer prior
to the works being undertaken and that coppicing works instead off felling i.e.
not chemically treating the stumps to prevent re-growth be approved for T58 &
T 60. The works to the five trees within G3 should be part approved and part
refused, with 3 trees in total being allowed to be felled.
The works to trees T55, T59, T32, T53 should be refused, with an informative
that a new application to remove or reduce the lower branch on T55 would be
looked upon favourably by the LPA.
RECOMMENDATION
That permission be GRANTED for Works to Trees T57, T42, T68, T63,
T65, T61, T66 and T67 subject to the following conditions:CONDITION(S)
1.
2.
3.
4.
All tree works hereby approved to be undertaken to the standards set
out in British Standard 3998: Recommendations for Tree Work: 1989
(or any subsequent revisions).
The tree works hereby approved to be commenced within one year of
consent being granted.
All trees removed to be replaced with suitable replacement trees of a
species and size and planting location to be agreed upon in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. Replacement planting to be undertaken
during the next available planting season.
The works to trees T66 and T67 shall not include the removal of any
branch of which any part is more than 75 millimetres in diameter when
Page No 74
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
5.
measured over bark, unless agreed by the Local Planning Authorities
Arboricultural Officer prior to the commencement of the works.
Felling works to trees within Group G3 shall be limited to three trees
and the trees to be felled will be identified to the Local Planning
Authorities Arboricultural Officer prior to the commencement of the
works.
REASON(S)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
To preserve the health and safety and amenity value of the trees to be
worked on.
To ensure that works are undertaken within a reasonable timescale.
To ensure that the amenity of the locality is preserved.
To preserve the health and safety and amenity value of the trees to be
worked on.
To ensure that the amenity of the locality is preserved.
That permission be REFUSED for Works to Trees T55, T59, T32, T53
subject to the following reason:REASON(S)
1.
The proposed works to these trees would be to the detriment of the
woodlands amenity and biodiversity value and the reasons given for
the works have not been justified.
NOTES TO APPLICANT
A new application to prune or remove the lower branch on tree T55 will be
looked upon favourably by the Local Planning Authority.
______________________________________________________________
Page No 75
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0205
LOCATION:
3 BRON Y GAMLAS PONTCYSYLLTE
WREXHAM
DATE RECEIVED:
12/03/2009
COMMUNITY:
Llangollen Rural
DESCRIPTION:
REMOVE 1 HORSE CHESTNUT
(T21), 2 ASH (T23, T49), 9
SYCAMORES (T26. T37, T39, T40,
T44, T45, T63, T65, T68), 3 WILD
CHERRIES (T38, T42, T43), 1
HAWTHORN (T41) AND GROUP OF
ASH, ELM AND SYCAMORES (G3)
GROWING ALONG THE ROADSIDE
AND STONE WALL. REDUCE
WEIGHT FROM SOUTH FACING
CROWN BY 30% FROM 1 OAK (T25)
AND CROWN REDUCE SOUTH
FACING CROWN BY 20% ON 1
SYCAMORE (T51), CROWN LIFT TO
4 METRES 2 SYCAMORES (T66,
T67).
CASE OFFICER:
MS
WARD:
Llangollen Rural
AGENT NAME:
MR DAVID TAYLOR
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MR DAVID TAYLOR
______________________________________________________________
SITE
The site is a section of woodland to the south west of the applicant’s property
and relates to the section owned by the applicant, which is part of a larger
woodland that covers the steep slope between the properties on Bron Y
Gamlas and the B5434 road below. The woodland is located adjacent to the
Trevor Basin Conservation Area and is within the proposed World Heritage
Site buffer zone.
Page No 76
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
PROPOSAL
Remove 1 Horse Chestnut (T21), 2 Ash (T23, T49), 9 Sycamores (T26, T37,
T39, T40, T44, T45, T63, T65, T68), 3 Wild Cherries (T38, T42, T43), 1
Hawthorn (T41) and group of Ash, Elm, and Sycamores (G3) growing along
road and stone wall. Reduce weight from south facing by 30% from 1 Oak
(T25) and crown reduce south facing crown by 20% on 1 Sycamore (T51).
Crown lift to sycamores to 4 m (T66, T67).
The reasons given for the works is to comply with the professional report
(submitted) which has highlighted a number of trees which need urgent
attention in order to prevent them becoming a health & safety issue.
It should be noted that this application has been submitted at the same time
as applications P/2009/0175, P/2009/0176 and P/2009/0204 which have been
submitted by other applicants and refers to different trees within the same
woodland.
The submitted Tree Survey report details condition comments made for each
tree.
T21Horse Chestnut: Co-dominant stem which forks at 1 m with poor form
suppressed by T20 & T22.
T23 Ash: Poor form specimen leaning heavily over public road suppressed by
T22.
Page No 77
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
T25 Oak: Large open crown specimen with moderate form leaning heavily to
the south. Minor deadwood present. No visible major defects.
T26 Sycamore: Specimen with crown slightly weighted to the south. Raised
soil levels and decay present at base.
T37 Sycamore: Poor form Ivy clad suppressed specimen leaning in the
southerly direction. Split stem from base up to 2 m.
T38 Wild Cherry: Suppressed co-dominant specimen with poor form.
Cambium damage at 4 points from stem fusing together.
T39 Sycamore: Poor form single stem Ivy clad specimen with major dieback
and dead wood.
T40 Sycamore: Poor form single stem Ivy clad specimen with major die back
and dead wood.
T41 Hawthorn: Poor form specimen with sparse crown leaning in southerly
direction. Storm damage and dead wood present throughout.
T42 Wild Cherry: Suppressed Ivy clad specimen with poor form. Split branch
present.
T43 Wild Cherry: Suppressed Ivy clad specimen with poor form. Decay
present at base from cambium damage caused from Utility pipe.
T44 Sycamore: Suppressed Ivy clad single stem specimen with major cavity
at base up through the stem to approx 4 m. Raised soil levels.
T45 Sycamore: Suppressed Ivy clad single stem specimen with major cavity
at base up through the stem to approx 4 m. Raised soil levels.
T49 Ash: Poor formed Ivy clad specimen with sparse crown and dead wood.
Exposed root system.
T51 Sycamore: Large specimen with moderate form which forks at 6 m with
included bark. Minor dead wood present. Crown balanced to the southerly
direction.
T63 (Sycamore): Ivy clad specimen with large cavity through base of stem.
T65 (Sycamore): Poor formed ivy clad specimen suppressed by T66 and T67
and leaning towards road.
T66 (Sycamore): Single stem ivy clad specimen with no major defects visible.
Lower branches obstructing driveway.
T67 (Sycamore): Single stem ivy clad specimen with poor form. No major
defects visible. Lower branches obstructing driveway.
Page No 78
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
G3 Various species: Group is a mix of predominantly Ash with Elm and
Sycamore located along the roadside and stone wall which in time is liable to
become damaged by the trees root system and a danger to public highway.
HISTORY
P/2004/0903: Woodland thinning works including removal of all Sycamore and
Ash saplings, removal of all badly formed sycamores, crown lift retained trees
and cut to ground all shrubs likely to be damaged by felling operations or that
have become leggy; Approved.
P/2008/0140: Fell 2 Horse Chestnuts, 3 Hawthorn and 3 Sycamore.
Approved.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
EC4: Hedgerows, Trees and Woodland.
EC11: Archaeology.
CONSULTATIONS
There have been fifteen written representation in total, of which 12 object to
the felling of the trees the subject of the application.
Community Council:
Local Member:
Site Notice:
Wrexham Area Civic
Society:
British Waterways:
No objections in principle.
Notified 12/03/09.
Notified Expired 04/04/09.
The various proposals to undertake works to a
number of trees would have significant impact on
the local environment of the area. The work should
be phased over a period of time to minimise the
impact and to allow replacement trees which may
be planted to become established before any
further work is carried out.
Objects to the proposed felling of trees because
their removal would harm the setting of the
Scheduled Ancient Monument (Pontcysyllte
Aqueduct and canal). British Waterways have
been working with Wrexham CBC and other
partners for several years on the nomination of the
aqueduct and canal for World Heritage Status
(WHS). This work included a multi-agency
landscape assessment and a management plan
agreed by all partners. The management plan
commits all partners to develop the Landscape
Assessment into a detailed plan for positive
management of views and to manage the site in
accordance with that plan. This identified key
views to and from the site and areas to be included
Page No 79
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Woodland Trust:
within the WHS nomination because they provide
landscape context. This application falls within that
area and therefore is part of the setting which is
protected by relevant legislation and planning
policies (see UDP Policy EC11).
Not all the trees highlighted for removal are on the
high priority list in the report, therefore object to
works to T55, T63, T65, T61 and G1, unless the
LPA is confident that the tall canopy trees would
be retained. Concerned that the removal of
vegetation may open up views from the aqueduct
onto the modern houses. This would have an
adverse impact on the setting of the SAM. No
objections to the other works proposed which
appear to be on the high priority safety list in the
report. If approved a condition must be attached
for the replacement of mature trees to maintain
screening of modern properties viewed from the
aqueduct.
Concerned about the number of trees to be felled
and that an arborist’s report has been used as
justification. The report cites the role of ivy as a
suppressant to tree growth. There is no scientific
evidence to support blanket removal of ivy. Ivy
plays a very important role in supporting a broad
range of biodiversity.
A number of trees that have been surveyed are
mentioned as having signs of rot or decay. Whilst
for those close to highways or rights of way, it may
be sensible to selectively prune these trees, for the
remainder of the trees the presence of rot does not
necessarily imply that the tree is either in the last
stages of its life or is under immediate threat of
falling over. In a partially woodland situation such
as this, would expect the majority of trees to
represent no threat to the general public and
therefore be entitled to live out their natural
lifespan.
There appears to be some conflict within the report
as to what constitutes biodiversity and therefore
would improve this on the site. For example, the
suggestion that Ivy and deadwood should be
removed, both rich biodiversity habitats, is ignored
as a potential loss of biodiversity. In contrast,
suggestions for improving biodiversity include
replacing removed specimens with smaller species
which appear to have been selected for their final
height rather than their contribution to the
ecosystem of the site.
Page No 80
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
CADW:
WCBC Landscape
Architecture:
Planning Policy Wales states that “Trees,
woodlands and hedgerows are of great
importance, both as wildlife habitats and in terms
of their contribution to landscape character and
beauty. LPAs should seek to protect trees, groups
of trees and areas of woodland where they have
natural heritage value or contribute to the
character and amenity of a particular locality”.
These applications do not appear to demonstrate
why the protection offered by the existing TPO
should be removed.
The proposals are located in the vicinity of the
scheduled ancient monument Pontcysyllte
Aqueduct and Canal. The proposed arboricultural
activity includes tree felling on the slopes beneath
the line of the canal and will undoubtedly have
some impact on the setting of the scheduled
ancient monument and candidate World Heritage
site. However, note that the proposals has the
support of a professional tree survey report, which
earmarks for felling only those trees that have
decay or are unstable and are in danger of falling.
Therefore CADW has no comment to make on the
proposals. The affected slopes lie at some
distance from the canal and note that the felled
trees are likely to coppice. The suggestion that
there is subsequent replanting is noted.
The proposal also lies within the historic park and
garden “Vale of Llangollen & Eglwyseg”, which is
included in the Register of Historic Parks and
Gardens in Wales. The Welsh Assembly
Government’s policies towards the protection of
the historic environment is set out in Planning
Policy Wales, which advises that “Local Planning
Authorities should protect parks and gardens and
their settings on the Register of Landscapes, Parks
and Gardens of Special Interest in Wales”.
The woodland is of landscape value, is significant
in its screening of the residential development
along Bron Y Gamlas and contributes to the rural
character of the upper slopes of the Dee Valley,
which in turn contributes to the setting of the
Pontcysyllte viaduct – a Scheduled Ancient
Monument (SAM) and nominated World Heritage
Site (WHS).
Policy EC11 requires the setting of a SAM should
not be adversely affected. The site lies within the
buffer zone of the nominated WHS. Although not
at present designated, the nominated WHS is of
Page No 81
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Neighbours:
material consideration. The Landscape and Visual
Assessment for the Pontcysyllte WHS nomination
submission identified the following key landscape
management principles:
5) Conserve the landscape visual character and
quality of the nomination site and its landscape
setting where this is important to the
nomination site.
6) Enhance and restore the character and quality
of the nomination site where this has been
eroded of influenced by detracting features
The aqueduct is the most significant component of
the WHS nomination. It is already a major visitor
attraction and WHS status means world
significance. The conservation and enhancement
of the sites’ setting is therefore of paramount
importance.
Residential development adjacent to the aqueduct
is of various ages and character. The traditional
stone buildings and walls are contemporary with
the viaduct and complement the historic character
of the WHS. More modern housing and materials
as found along Bron y Gamlas, are however
generally less sympathetic in visual character and
therefore require sensitive integration or screening
to minimise their impact upon the setting of the
SAM and nominated WHS.
Considers the extensive tree works proposed by
P/2009/0176, 0205, 0204 would in combination,
remove a significant part of the woodland screen
and thereby adversely effect the setting of a
Schedule Ancient Monument and the nominated
WHS, contrary to UDP policy EC11, therefore
recommends refusal.
Nine local residents have objected to the
application works and their representations are
summarised below:
1. Strongly registers disgust and disbelief at the
proposed planning of the destruction of the
woodland. This proposed vandalism cannot be
allowed to take place. The woodland acts as a
screen to the aqueduct, a world heritage site and
old houses from the modern housing estate. The
woodland provides natural habitat to a variety of
wildlife, such as birds and bats. The trees also give
the area its natural beauty and uniqueness.. Part
of the B5434 below the woodland was severely
damaged by landslide and the area below the
trees had to be pinned to stabilise the road. Most
of the trees were destroyed then and the area is
Page No 82
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
still recovering from that. The removal of trees will
have dire consequences on the road and
environment because of the delicate nature of the
land. In the last year many trees along the
embankment have been cut down. The residents
of the Bont attach great value to this habitat, which
If destroyed will be lost to future generations. If
planning permission is granted, not only will this be
a loss to the area but to the country as well.
2. Concerned about the removal of trees and
branches. Some trees have already been felled
and cut back. Appreciates that the owners have a
legal duty of care to ensure the trees are safe,
however the proposed works will decimate this
valuable stretch of ancient woodland. The area is
part of the United Kingdom’s submission to
UNESCO for nomination as a World Heritage Site.
Within the nomination documentation there are
references to woodland being of importance to the
immediate visual setting of the aqueduct. The
importance of the trees can be seen from the
nomination photographs. Every effort should be
made to manage and preserve ancient woodlands
be they large or small, for they are part of our
natural heritage.
3. No objections to trees being reduced, however
object to the removal of trees for wildlife and
natural beauty reasons. Many of the trees are
growing on the bank behind the properties and
cannot be seen from their houses, so cannot see
why they pose such a problem.
4. Objects to the removal of trees. There is no
need for the trees to be removed. They do not
cause any visual or traffic danger to anyone using
the road. Have lived here for 15 years and there
has not been any need for them to be removed
before. The trees enhance the area, making it
more attractive and are valuable for wildlife. These
pockets of untouched woodland provide breeding
and living space for birds and insects and
complement the woods further down the river and
along the canal. Believes the woodland is classed
as “ancient woodland” which is a fast disappearing
aspect of the countryside. The woodland is in a
Conservation Area and is part of the World
heritage site for the aqueduct. The Council should
enhance the area not destroy it.
5. Distressed to receive notification of the
proposed application that would lead to the
destruction of established woodland. The trees
Page No 83
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
screen period properties from the imposing
modern housing situated on Bron Y Gamlas. They
provide wildlife with an established habitat, which
is important where urbanisation and
industrialisation of the countryside has led to an
extinction of many animal species. Over the last
century there has been an unprecedented change
in the UK Countryside and this has resulted in the
destruction of British habitats. Habitats are the key
to having diversity of species and you cannot have
wildlife without the habitats. Feels strongly that the
removal of the trees would not only have an
adverse effect on the wildlife in the area but would
alter the character and charm of a village that
“nestles” in the trees. Strongly opposed to their
destruction and consequent environmental effects.
6. Concerned at the proposed destruction of
woodland. As a resident of 23 years feels that the
trees provide an effective screen for the modern
housing on Bron Y Gamlas and adds character to
the area by providing a habitat for wildlife,
especially birds. The woodland has been severely
cut back in the last couple of years and feels that
these applications will further adversely affect the
character and wildlife of the area, to the detriment
of residents and the many visitors to the World
Heritage Site of Pontcysyllte aqueduct and
surrounds.
7. Sad to read that more trees are ear marked for
destruction, after objecting and failing to prevent
felling of the trees in the same area in 2008. The
aqueduct is applied for World Heritage status and
is situated in a Conservation Area. Prior to the bid
being submitted WCBC commissioned a report on
the conservation for such an important area. The
report clearly states that all trees in this area
should remain protected and additional tree
screening should be implemented to hide the
undesirable modern box type development. It
would seem unwise to go against the advice of a
conservation expert. TPOs are there to prevent
vandalism and destruction for the sake of a view.
People travel to look at the aqueduct and area of
outstanding natural beauty, not Bron Y Gamlas.
The woods are currently occupied by many
species birds and mammals. Planning Policy
Wales, the Welsh Assembly Government’s
planning policy states that “Ancient and seminatural woodlands are irreplaceable habitats of
high biodiversity value which should be protected
Page No 84
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
from development that would result in significant
damage. Local Planning Authorities should seek to
protect trees, groups of trees, and areas of
woodland where they have natural heritage or
contribute to the character or amenity of a
particular locality”. An independent expert should
be sought with a view to maintaining the health
and stability of the wood, vital to the structure of an
area of unstable land to help maintain the integrity
of the soil structure. If trees are removed, requests
that the Council ensures that replanting be
implemented. The community feels very strongly
about the destruction of such a beautiful natural
habitat. Excerpts from the Trevor Basin
Conservation Area Assessment enclosed with
letter.
8. Strongly objects to the removal of trees covered
by the TPO near to the aqueduct. As a local
resident, views the mature trees in the area as an
integral part of the landscape. Removing or
pruning them will have an adverse affect on the
character of this area. With the current World
Heritage Status for the area, any removal of
mature trees would severely detract from the
historical and scenic value of the area. These trees
should not be removed.
9. Writes on behalf of the residents of Pontcysyllte,
following a meeting, as feels strongly about these
sad proposals. The woodland is place of natural
beauty and is a home to wildlife, especially the
nesting woodpeckers in spring. It has a high
amenity value to the community and also to the
high number of visitors. The trees help screen the
modern housing from the World Heritage site and
the mainly period housing that are located nearby.
Understands that the submitted report has been
prepared by a tree surgeon and not an
arboriculturalist, whose report would allow him no
financial gain. A stretch of the B5434 below the
woodland was severed by landslide in 1989 and
the whole area just below the trees has been
pinned to hold the road in place. Feels that the
removal of trees and ultimately their roots will
further destabilise the already delicate nature of
this land (Science Direct abstract on this landslide
attached). Asks why some of the trees are being
labelled as unsafe and have been selected for
thinning. The woodland has been ripped apart
within the last 18 months and much of the beauty
was spoilt then. The trees and wildlife are still in a
Page No 85
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
period of recovery. The removal of this woodland
would be a sad loss to the area.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The woodland is important in the landscape, provides a useful screening role
of modern properties from the Pontcysyllte Aqueduct, a Scheduled Ancient
Monument, and lies within the buffer zone of the proposed World Heritage
site. The woodland also is of value for wildlife. Extensive felling of large trees
throughout the woodland has been undertaken in 2004 and 2009, which has
depleted the number of large trees within the woodland. The number of trees
proposed to be felled would be detrimental to the aforementioned attributes of
this woodland and would open up clear sight lines of the properties of Bron Y
Gamlas from the aqueduct and visa versa, improving views from the
properties on Bron y Gamlas across the valley and towards the aqueduct.
Some of the applied for felling and pruning works are recommended for
approval to ensure public safety and to improve the growth of other trees,
whilst others works are recommended for refusal as these trees do not pose a
risk to members of the public or residents of Bron y Gamlas.
The submitted tree survey report gives reasons to back up its
recommendations. In many cases the reason for felling is not justified. The
risk posed by the trees to the general public, local residents and highway
users has not been included in the report. The report states that its purpose is
to undertake a hazard evaluation of the boundary trees and to comment on
trees which pose a hazard to the adjacent highway and members of the
public. One aspect missing from the assessment and report is the risk posed
by the trees, which is a fundamental part of tree risk management.
All proprietary tree risk management systems have three essential
components which enables the evaluation of tree risk. These are the
probability of the tree failing, the probability of there being someone or
something there to be hit if the tree does fail and the probability of damage
occurring as a result of failure, which is usually related to the size of the part
of the tree likely to fail. The submitted tree survey does not include an
assessment of these components, thus is strictly an assessment of tree form/
defects. It does not take into account the land use context. This in my
professional opinion is not best practice for surveying trees for safety reasons
and is not an industry standard approach to managing the risk from trees.
Other aspects of the survey data and recommendations which aren’t taken
into consideration is the habitat value of the trees and associated vegetation
such as Ivy and that of poor form trees, which are generally common in a
woodland setting. These trees are not necessarily of the form expected in a
park or arboretum collection, however poor form trees which do not pose a
risk to members of the public shouldn’t necessarily be felled, just because
they don’t conform to a strict idea of what a tree should look like. They often
have features that are important for wildlife.
It is recommended that this application is part approved and part refused as
recommended in each individual tree assessment below.
Page No 86
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
T21 Horse Chestnut: Tree has already been felled. Permission granted
under Planning Application P/2008/0140.
T23 Ash: Large tree growing close to 2 adjacent Ash trees. The 3 trees form
one aerodynamic continuous crown. The crown doesn’t extend over highway
as stated in submitted report. No visible defects observed which would lead to
the trees failure. Recommend refusal.
T25 Oak: Large mature tree with all growth on south side of crown, due to
light competition from adjacent sycamore which has been previously removed
under Planning Permission P/2008/0140. 30% weight reduction from the
south facing side of the crown is excessive and would be detrimental to the
health of the tree. Recommend refusal, however will allow side reduction of
the south facing crown by up to 20% i.e. up to 4 m length, with a condition that
no branches over 7.5 cm diameter are removed without the written permission
off the LPA.
T26 Sycamore: Tree has already been felled. Permission granted under
Planning Application P/2008/0140.
T37 Sycamore: Semi-mature tree, which is suppressed by adjacent Ash tree.
Open cavity at base of trunk. Vertical bark wounding above cavity between
0.25 m – 0.75 m. Wound not occluded. Risk of failure is medium to high. If
tree failed tree wouldn’t fall on adjacent road, garden or property. Stem has a
poor height to diameter ratio. Risk of whole tree failure is medium to high.
Approve, conditional on a replacement tree being planted.
T38 Wild Cherry: Not one multi-stemmed tree, but in fact two small semimature trees growing within 30 cm of each other. Stems touching at various
points. No visual indications that either tree is at risk of failure. Both trees
suppressed by T37. If T37 is felled, one of the trees could be removed to
allow the other to develop fully. Refuse removal of both trees, but allow felling
of the stem to the south on the lower side of slope and a 15% side reduction
to balance crown.
T39 & T40 Sycamores: Trees already felled. Permission granted under
Planning Application P/2008/0140.
T41 Hawthorn: Small multi-stemmed tree which is old for the species. Some
deadwood in crown. No visual indications that tree is at risk of failure. Tree not
within falling distance of adjacent highway. Recommend refusal.
T42 Wild Cherry: Not a Wild Cherry, possibly Damson. Small tree leaning at
45º angle towards road. Poor form tree but is not in a dangerous condition.
Risk of failure is low, however the lower trunk of the tree is growing against a
above ground utility pipe, which could be damaged in the future by the annual
incremental growth of the trunk. Recommend approval, subject to the
conditioning of a replacement tree being planted elsewhere within the
woodland.
Page No 87
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
T43 Wild Cherry: As with T42 not a Wild Cherry, more likely to be a Damson.
Slightly smaller tree than T42, however still leaning at a 45 º angle towards
road. Felling would help improve the growth of T42. Recommend approval,
subject to the conditioning of a replacement tree being planted elsewhere
within the woodland.
T44 Sycamore: Single stem semi-mature tree with a small crown. Trunk
covered in Ivy. No visual evidence of cavity within trunk. Resonance testing
revealed no sign of decay in trunk. No evidence that tree is at risk of failure.
Recommend refusal.
T45 Sycamore: Single stem semi-mature tree with a small crown. Trunk
covered in Ivy. Wounding on north side of stem base. Probe test revealed 4
cm depth of sapwood decay with the stem diameter at this point being 25 cm.
Small open cavity on north side of trunk between 0.5 – 0.8 m from ground
level. Probe test reveals decay extends to 10 cm depth and that the trunk
diameter at this point is 28 cm. Resonance testing revealed no significant
decay problems at these two points. Risk of failure of this tree is low to
medium. If tree were to fail, which is extremely unlikely the tree would fall
entirely within the woodland and wouldn’t fall on the highway, garden area or
property. The amount of decay, which is minimal, in the trunk of this tree is
well within industry standard safety margins and the wound should occlude
over time. Recommend refusal.
T49 Ash: Location of tree not ascertained and not plotted on submitted map,
thus not assessed. Recommend refusal, with an informative that a new
application for the removal of this tree could be submitted to LPA if tree is
correctly plotted on a map/ drawing.
T51 Sycamore: Crown is unevenly balanced due to shading by adjacent
trees, which have subsequently been removed. Form is atypical of a
woodland edge tree, with most of the growth growing towards the light. A
minor reduction of the branches growing in a southerly direction would not be
detrimental to the trees amenity value or health. Approve, on the condition
that no more than 3 metres length of branch is removed and that no branches
over 75 mm diameter are removed.
T63 (Sycamore): Semi-mature specimen, which has a large open cavity at
the base of the trunk. This tree has a low safe useful life expectancy. Its
removal will provide additional growing space for the adjacent trees, thus will
improve their growth. Approve, subject to a suitable replacement tree being
planted elsewhere within the woodland
T65 (Sycamore): Semi-mature specimen. Removal of this small tree will allow
more space for the adjacent trees to develop fully. Approve, subject to a
suitable replacement tree being planted elsewhere within the woodland.
T66 (Sycamore): Crown raising the crown of this tree will not be detrimental
to its health, safety or visual amenity. Approve, with the condition that no
Page No 88
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
branches with a diameter of 75 mm or more are removed without the written
permission of the Local Planning Authority.
T67 (Sycamore): Crown raising the crown of this tree will not be detrimental
to its health, safety or visual amenity. Approve, with the condition that no
branches with a diameter of 75 mm or more are removed without the written
permission of the Local Planning Authority.
T68 (Ash): Semi-mature specimen growing on top of stone retaining wall. The
tree will eventually displace the wall, thus is not in a sustainable location for it
to grow to maturity. Approve, with the condition that a suitable replacement
trees is planted within the woodland.
G3 Ash, Sycamore, Elm: Various trees growing on top of stone retaining wall
adjacent to highway. No visual evidence that wall has been damaged by tree
root activity, however there is possibility that future damage could occur.
Recommend approval to remove trees within 0.25 metres of the wall, subject
to the condition that the works are supervised by the Council’s Arboricultural
Officer. No replacement trees would be required for those felled in the 0.25 m
zone of the wall.
CONCLUSION
The proposed tree works will have a detrimental affect on the amenity and
biodiversity value of the woodland, which these trees are component parts of.
Some of the trees have already received planning permission to be felled,
which has already been undertaken. Some of the remaining tree felling
proposals are justifiable whilst other felling proposals are not.
It is recommended that planning permission is granted for felling trees T37,
T42, T43, T63, T65 on the condition that the trees are replaced, that T25, T51,
T66, T67 be pruned on the condition that the works shall not include the
removal of any branch of which any part is more than 75 millimetres in
diameter, unless agreed in writing by the LPAs Arboricultural Officer and that
G3 works are approved subject to conditions restricting removal works to an
area within 0.25 metres of the retaining wall and that the works are
undertaken under the supervision of the LPAs Arboricultural Officer. The
works to trees T23, T41, T44, T45 should be refused and the works to T38
should be refused with an informative stating that a new application to fell one
of the stems would be acceptable to the LPA and that T49 should be refused
with an informative stating that if the tree can be identified properly a new
application may be made to the LPA.
RECOMMENDATION
That permission be GRANTED for work to Trees Nos. T37, T42, T43, T63,
T65, T25, T51, T66, T67 and G3 subject to the following conditions.
Page No 89
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
CONDITION(S)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
All tree works hereby approved to be undertaken to the standards set
out in British Standard 3998: Recommendations for Tree Work: 1989
(or any subsequent revisions).
The tree works hereby approved to be commenced within one year of
consent being granted.
All trees removed, apart from trees within Group 3 shall be replaced
with suitable replacement trees of a species and size and planting
location to be agreed upon in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Replacement planting to be undertaken during the next available
planting season.
The works to trees T25, T51, T66 and T67 shall not include the
removal of any branch of which any part is more than 75 millimetres in
diameter when measured over bark, unless agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authorities Arboricultural Officer.
The felling / removal works to the trees in Group 3 shall be restricted to
an area within 0.25 metres of the retaining wall and that shall be
undertaken under the supervision of the Local Planning Departments
Arboricultural Officer.
The end-weight pruning of T51 shall be restricted to a maximum length
of 3 metres and be restricted to the south facing side of the trees
crown.
REASON(S)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
To preserve the health and safety and amenity value of the trees to be
worked on.
To ensure that works are undertaken within a reasonable timescale.
To ensure that the amenity of the locality is preserved.
To preserve the health and safety and amenity value of the trees to be
worked on.
To preserve the amenity of the locality is preserved and the amenity
value of the woodland is not diminished by unnecessary felling works.
To preserve the health and safety and amenity value of the tree to be
worked on.
That Permission be REFUSED for works to Trees Nos. T23, T41, T44,
T45, T38 and T49 subject to the reason:REASON(S)
1.
The proposed works to these trees would be to the detriment of the
woodlands amenity and biodiversity value and the reasons given for
the works have not been justified.
Page No 90
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT
A new application to fell one of the stems identified as T38 in the submitted
tree report would be acceptable to the LPA and a new application for works to
T49 could be made to the Local Planning Authority if the tree’s location can be
properly identified.
Page No 91
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0186
LOCATION:
LLWYN ONN FARM CEFN ROAD
LLWYN ONN WREXHAM
DATE RECEIVED:
09/03/2009
COMMUNITY:
Abenbury
DESCRIPTION:
ERECTION OF AGRICULTURAL
WORKERS DWELLING
CASE OFFICER:
DSW
WARD:
Holt
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MR H JONES
AGENT NAME:
FITZSIMON PLANNING
& DEVELOPMENT
MR D FITZSIMON
______________________________________________________________
P/2009 /0186
THE SITE
Llwyn Onn Farm is an existing farmstead located half a mile east of Wrexham
approximately 150 metres south of Cefn Road. The site is accessed via a
farm track from Cefn Road and is relatively well screened from the
surrounding area.
Proposed
dwelling
CEFN ROAD
Existing
access
Track
Existing
farmhouse
PROPOSAL
As above. This is a full application with all matters submitted for approval.
The application details include an Agricultural Appraisal and supporting
planning/highway statement.
Page No 92
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
HISTORY
9206
22349
Erection of agricultural buildings. Granted 10.09.1982
Erection of dwelling & installation of septic tank.
Granted 11.07.1994
P/2008/1084 Slurry tank & extension to building. Granted 28.11.2008
P/2009/0091 Extension of livestock building. Pending
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Outside settlement limits and within a Green Barrier. Policies EC1, PS1, PS2,
GDP1 and H5 apply.
CONSULTATIONS
Local Member:
Community Council:
Environment Agency:
Public Protection:
Welsh Water:
Highways:
Site Notice:
Notified 09.03.2009
Notified 09.03.2009
Application has been assessed as having a low
environmental risk.
No objection. Recommend appropriate condition
to address construction noise.
Notified 09.03.2009
Having regard to TAN 18, visibility from the
existing access is substandard. It is 2.4 x 70m to
the north west and 2.4 x 100m to the south east
measured to the nearside edge of the adjoining
highway. Visibility is impeded in both directions by
the existing hedgerow along this section. Visibility
is limited in the south easterly direction due to the
vertical alignment of the road. TAN 18 would
normally require such an access to provide
visibility splays of 2.4 x 215m in both directions
(60mph) measured to the nearside edge of the
adjoining highway. Consequently, I would
recommend the application be refused.
Should the applicant provide information which
demonstrates that there would not be any increase
in vehicle movements and you are minded to
support the application then I would recommend
any planning permission include a condition which
requires improvements to the existing access.
Expired 09.04.2009
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ISSUES
Background: The applicants presently farm from the Five Fords farmstead
which is located approximately 500m further east (towards the industrial
estate) on Cefn Road. Their existing holding (two dwellings and farm
buildings) adjoin the sewage works and share the same means of access.
The sewage works form part of a massive strategic investment which serves
Page No 93
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
the conurbation of Wrexham and beyond. It is designated for emergency
planning purposes as a Key Economic Point (KEP) and is part of the Dee
Protection Zone. The primary reason for its KEP status is the potential danger
it poses to downstream water abstraction for the drinking water supply to
Liverpool. Issues have arisen over recent years because of the close
proximity of the farm to the sewage works with particular regard to the existing
access arrangements. This has created health and safety issues along with
conflicting economic and business interests. I have had separate meetings
with Welsh Water who have confirmed the existence of these problems and
their intention to acquire the site. Welsh Water have subsequently agreed to
purchase the freehold of Five Fords Farm together with sufficient surrounding
land to enable adequate and safe access to the works and to allow them to
plan future investments without any detrimental impact to its immediate
neighbours.
The agreement will ensure that the majority of the surrounding land is retained
and farmed by the applicants and they have purchased the nearby Llwyn Onn
Farm where the farmstead is being reinstated. Further applications for an
extension to an existing agricultural building and for the relocation of farm
buildings have been approved here.
The existing farmhouse at Llwyn Onn is presently unoccupied and this
proposal is for a second agricultural workers dwelling on that site.
Matters relating to the future use of the two existing dwellings at Five Fords
will be considered separately. Both properties are subject to agricultural
occupancy restrictions and any application to remove them would be
considered independently. At this stage Welsh Water are exploring potential
non-residential uses, eg office/commercial use as to retain the existing
residential use would result in a continuation of existing problems and would
not resolve the existing operational conflicts identified above.
Policy: UDP Policy H5 permits new dwellings in the open countryside if it can
be demonstrated that an essential need exists to house a full-time agricultural
worker who due to the nature of the work, has to live on the site and cannot
live in a nearby settlement or building. An Agricultural Appraisal has been
submitted which demonstrates the agricultural need for a second dwelling on
this site. The applicant owns 232 hectares of land and rents a further 568
hectares. It is used to graze 335 dairy cows and it also has an arable output.
I am satisfied the agricultural appraisal submitted in support of this application
demonstrates a functional need for the additional dwelling and that the farm is
financially viable in the long-term. It should also be noted that permission was
granted for a second agricultural workers dwelling at Llwyn Onn Farm in 1994
(Code No 22349) but was never implemented (although not associated with
the current farm holding). Any permission granted would limit residential
occupancy to essential workers.
Siting, Design Appearance: The proposed dwelling would be sited close to
the existing dwelling and outbuildings within the farm complex as required by
UDP Policy H5. The site is relatively well screened. Detailed discussions had
Page No 94
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
taken place prior to submission to identify a site which successfully balances
the need to maintain the open character of the surrounding countryside whilst
ensuring sufficient separation within the site to ensure adequate levels of
privacy for the two dwellings.
The proposed dwelling is of an appropriate scale and its three bedrooms are
commensurate with the needs of the family. The ground floor accommodation
is larger in order to provide annex accommodation for an elderly family
member. I am satisfied, however, that this could not be easily sub-divided to
provide a further dwelling and has been designed to look like one dwelling. It
is of a simple design with traditional gables and low eaves, and is consistent
with that of the existing farmhouse. It would be finished in natural slate and a
brick appropriate to the rural surroundings. Samples of all materials will be
conditioned for further approval. An existing hedgerow immediately north of
the farm complex provides good screening and the dwelling would not be
particularly visible from Cefn Road. A condition will be imposed to retain this
hedgerow.
Highways: The proposed development site has an existing access onto Cefn
Road which is a classified road subject to a 60mph speed limit. Visibility from
the existing access is inadequate in both directions being approximately 2.4 x
70m to the north west and 2.4 x 100m to the south east measured to the
nearside edge of the adjoining highway. Visibility is impeded in both
directions by the existing hedgerow along this section. TAN 18 would
normally require such an access to provide visibility splays of 2.4 x 215m in
both directions, measured to the nearside edge of the adjoining highway.
Highways therefore recommend the application be refused due to this
restricted visibility. However, should the applicant provide further information
to demonstrate that there would be no discernible increase in traffic
movements, an appropriate condition of improvements to the existing access
is recommended.
Given the alignment and topography of the road and other physical
constraints, it is accepted that achieving visibility in accordance with adopted
standards is physically unachievable. Nonetheless, I believe that there are
other significant considerations that should be taken into account which weigh
in support of this application.
Firstly, Llwyn Onn is an established and operational farm and there are
currently no restrictions on the amount of traffic movements in and out of
Llwyn Onn Farm. This could increase as the site benefits from agricultural
permitted development rights and new buildings could be erected. Similarly,
there are no controls over stock, existing vehicles or employee numbers.
Secondly, there could conceivably be a greater number of vehicle movements
at this access if a new agricultural workers dwelling was not built at Llwyn Onn
Farm due to the additional movements generated by the second key worker
coming back and forth from his off-site residence.
Page No 95
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Thirdly, information on trip generation provided by the applicants would
indicate that a high proportion of farm vehicle movements in and out of Llwyn
Onn Farm are currently generated from Five Fords Farm. There will be a
significant reduction when the applicants move permanently from Five Fords
(but only if they are able to effectively relocate their existing buildings as is
proposed by the current application).
Fourthly, to improve visibility at the existing access would involve the removal
of a substantial amount of hedgerow fronting Cefn Road. Its removal would
have a significant visual impact and adversely affect the open character of this
area. Besides, even if it were entirely removed, it would be impossible to
achieve 2.4 x 215m in both directions as set out in TAN No 18.
Following a site meeting with the applicants and Highways, the following
improvements were identified. This would involve widening the existing
access to a minimum of 5m for at least 15m behind the highway boundary
using hardbound materials, setting gates back 15m from the highway
boundary; provision of minimum 10m kerb radius on the eastern side of the
access and the removal and repositioning of a section of existing hedgerow
on the western side of the access to maximise visibility in the north westerly
direction along Cefn Road. On balance, I believe these improvements would
adequately address any additional traffic movement as well as preserving the
rural integrity of this area. A scheme of improvements shall be conditioned as
part of any permission granted.
Agricultural Restriction: WAG advice is to consider whether new dwellings
should be tied to the farm as a whole to prevent them being sold off
separately. In this case I suggest that a section 106 is necessary to prevent
that eventuality.
Conclusion: The applicants presently live in two separate dwellings at Five
Fords Farm. Due to circumstances beyond their control, this farm is being
acquired by Welsh Water. As a result, Five Fords Farm is effectively being
relocated to Llwyn Onn Farm, where only one house currently exists. The
agricultural appraisal demonstrates a financial need for the additional dwelling
and the long-term financial viability of the farm unit. I suggest that the
residential use of the existing house should be removed before the new house
is occupied so that the number of units remains unchanged. The proposal
would therefore satisfy the intent of UDP Policy H5. It is located close to
existing buildings and will be well screened from the surrounding area.
Despite the shortfall in visibility standards at the access, I consider the
improvements provide for an improvement in overall safety
RECOMMENDATION A
That the Council enters into an Obligation under section 106 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990 requiring both the new dwelling and the existing
farmhouse to be covered by an agricultural occupancy restriction and not sold
separately from the surrounding agricultural land.
Page No 96
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
RECOMMENDATION B:
On completion of the Obligation, that planning permission be granted subject
to the following conditions:CONDITION(S)
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of
five years from the date of this permission.
2.
No part of the development shall be commenced until samples of all
external facing and roofing materials have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be
carried out in strict accordance with such details as are approved.
3.
The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the
residential use of the existing dwellings at Five Fords Farm has been
abandoned.
4.
No development shall commence until a scheme to improve the
existing site access onto Cefn Road has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully
implemented before the first use of the development.
5.
The existing hedgerow immediately north of the farmstead shall be
retained. There shall be no lopping, topping, felling or uprooting of this hedge
without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority, nor shall
this hedge be wilfully damaged.
REASON(S)
1.
To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990.
2.
To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in
the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
3.
To prevent an increase in dwellings in the open countryside.
4.
In the interests of highway safety.
5.
To ensure an adequate screen is retained in the interests of the wider
visual amenity of the area.
_____________________________________________________________
Page No 97
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0228
LOCATION:
HOLEBROOK FARM BRONINGTON
WHITCHURCH
DATE RECEIVED:
19/03/2009
COMMUNITY:
Bronington
DESCRIPTION:
ERECTION OF COW HOUSING,
GENERAL PURPOSE SHED AND
ALTERATIONS/EXTENSION OF
SHED TO FORM SILAGE STORE.
CASE OFFICER:
CB
WARD:
Bronington
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MR N EVANS
AGENT NAME:
TIM EVANS - PLANNING
& ARCHITECTURE
______________________________________________________________
)||' ' like '% '||'HOLEBROOK'||' %' or upper(namesec''HOLEBROOK'||' %' or '
'||'HOLEBROOK' or upper(namepri)pper(streetname)||' ' OLEBROOK'||' %' o'
THE SITE
The site consists of a rural farm complex set within an enclosed valley
situated 1800 metres south west of Bronington. ||upper(streetname) like '%
'||'HOLEBR
Special Landscape Area
Proposed Buildings
Public Footpath
OOK' or upper(streetname) like 'HOLEBROOK') or (' '||upper(locality)||' ' like
'% '||'HOLEBROOK'||' %' or upper(locality)||' ' like 'HOLEBROOK'||' %' or ' '|
|upper(locality) like '% '||'HOLEBROOK' or upper(locality) like 'HOLEBROOK')
Page No 98
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
PROPOSAL
The cow shed is 72 metres long by 17 metres wide and 8.43 metres high and
the general purpose shed 18 metres long and 8 metres wide and 7.62 metres
high. The buildings would consist of timber and concrete and grey sheeting
materials.
HISTORY
CB/002286 Erection of building over existing building to house and manage
livestock. Granted 24/7/1998
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Outside settlement limits. Located within 500 metre buffer and hydrological
zone of Fenn’s Moss SSSI, UDP policies GDP1, EC3, EC6 and EC13 are
relevant. LPGN 7 Landscape and Development is also relevant.
CONSULTATIONS
Local Member:
Community Council:
Adjacent Occupiers:
Environment Agency:
Severn Trent Water:
Notified 16/4/2009
Notified 16/4/2009
Notified 25/3/2009
Letter dated 26/3/2009 confirms that preapplication discussions were held with
applicant. They consider the proposals to be
acceptable and providing the new silage
store is built as submitted it will comply with
the terms of the Control of Pollution (Silage,
Slurry, and Agricultural Fuel Oil)
Regulations 1991 as amended 1997. No
objection
Email dated 12/5/2009 confirms that
drainage arrangements for “clean” and
“contaminated” yard water for the site, are
as existing and there was no evidence to
indicate any contamination of the
watercourse. The EA are entirely satisfied
with proposed drainage arrangements for
the completed development and farmer has
been advised to ensure that run-off from the
construction period is managed to prevent a
discharge to the stream by either directing
the run off to the slurry store or install
suitable facilities such as a sump in the field
adjacent to the stream to prevent pollution.
The Agency will be maintaining a watching
brief as the project gets underway and
planning permission has been granted.
Notified 27/3/2009
Page No 99
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Ramblers Association:
Public Rights of Way:
CCW:
Wrexham Access Group:
Welsh Water:
Highways:
Housing & Public Protection:
Press Notice:
Site Notice:
There are several public rights of way
through this farm. These new plans appear
to form an obstruction. To go ahead, a
proper legal diversion must be in force;
overall view reject.
Advice given on temporary closure and
permanent changes to the right of way.
CCW does not object to the proposal. The
site is within 150 metres upstream of
protected sites and recommends that
drainage issues are assessed under a
Habitat Regulations Assessment prior to
determination.
Notified 18/3/2009
Notified 18/3/2009
Visibility splays adequate in south westerly
direction and 20 metres short of the
standard in north easterly direction is
considered acceptable given that the
development will not increase traffic
generation. Advice on impact on rights of
way provided.
The applicant should be made aware of the
requirement to comply with the Control of
Pollution (Silage, Slurry and Agricultural
Fuel Oil) Regulations 1991, as well as
related codes of practice. These are
enforced by the Environment Agency who
must be notified in writing at least 14 days in
advance of plans to install a new silo or alter
an existing facility.
Expired 17/4/2009
Expired 8/4/2009
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ISSUES
The main issues relate to the impact upon the public rights of way, the scale
of the proposed buildings, and landscape.
Rights of Way: Public Footpath No 10 runs through the site and a temporary
closure or permanent change to the right of way agreement with Rights of
Way (Environment Department-WCBC) will need to be put in place before
building works commence on site.
The diversion would involve a small 20 metre section that would be diverted to
the front of the shed. The existing building subject of CB/002286 appears to
have already diverted the existing public footpath. The layout of the new
buildings would form a southern corridor through the site which would re-align
the public footpath to the front of the new shed and to the east of the site.
Page No 100
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
I understand the Ramblers’ concerns but am satisfied that if the appropriate
order is in place there is no reason to prevent development of the established
farmstead. I have included a condition to prevent commencement until the
diversion order(s) are agreed.
Scale and Design: The position of the largest building to the north of the site
takes advantage of the existing landform and the positioning of the smaller GP
shed to the north east of the farmhouse will ensure that the dwelling is not
over dominated by the group of farm buildings.
Drainage: The drainage of both “clean” water and “contaminated” yard water
for the site would not be different to existing arrangements. The EA are
entirely satisfied with proposed drainage arrangements for the completed
development and farmer has been advised to ensure that run-off from the
construction period is managed to prevent a discharge to the stream by either
directing the run off to the slurry store or install suitable facilities such as a
sump in the field adjacent to the stream to prevent pollution. The Agency will
be maintaining a watching brief as the project gets underway and planning
permission has been granted.
It is considered that roof area of the new cow shed and GP shed would not
cause significant discharge of surface water run off and the storage capacity
of 5.5 months of dirty water or slurry is sufficient not to cause harm to the
hydrology of the local area. The site is located within the hydrological zone of
Fenn’s Moss and a separate Appropriate Assessment has been undertaken.
Landscape: The existing farm complex is set within an enclosed narrow
valley. The existing farm buildings which are up to 8 metres tall appear
integrated within the landscape, with roofs only partially visible above the
natural landform within wider views. The existing farm complex therefore has
very little visual presence within the landscape.
Although the new cow shed would be 2 metres higher than the existing Dutch
barn. The roof ridge height roughly corresponds with the natural ground levels
just to the west. The roof of the new cow shed is likely to be partially visible
within some middle distant views from the east, it would not form an overly
prominent feature within wider landscape views.
Some excavation into the valley side would be required to form a building
plinth, the applicant has confirmed that excavated material would be spread
and graded out within the valley, is an appropriate solution and will not need
to be controlled by condition.
The northern elevation of the cow shed would benefit from some tree planting
to resolve the harsh junction between the end of the new building, earthworks
and the more open landscape where the valley funnels out. Tree planting
would benefit intermittent views from the public rights of way to the west and
north east. Planting beyond the western edge of the cow shed would also
break up the linear ridge line form and a tree planting scheme will be required
by conditions.
Page No 101
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Conclusion: The proposed farm buildings are acceptable in terms of scale
and materials and take benefit from the form of the natural landscape so there
will be no detrimental impact on the landscape. Drainage details are
acceptable and pre-application discussions held between applicant and the
Environment Agency have ensured that the design of the proposed buildings
and the pre-cautionary measures put in place by the Environment Agency will
ensure that the development would not have any adverse impact on surface
water run off, or indirect impacts on the hydrology of the Fenn’s Moss. The
diversion of a small section of public footpath will not significantly harm the
rights of access through the farm. It is clear that a separate agreement
regarding the temporary diversion/closure of this footpath will be needed. My
recommendation is conditional upon the confirmation from CCW that the
Appropriate Assessment is satisfactory.
RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED
CONDITION(S)
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the
expiry of five years from the date of this permission.
2.
Development shall only be carried out in strict accordance with the
approved plans unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning
Authority has been obtained.
3.
Within six months of the first use of the development, trees and shrubs
shall be planted on the site in accordance with a scheme which has been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged, or becoming seriously
diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of a
similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.
4.
Within three months of commencement of development on site, full
details of tree planting works for the site shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be implemented in
accordance with a timescale to be approved in conjunction with the scheme of
details thereby approved.
5.
No development shall commence until an appropriate path diversion
order is in place in relation to the public right of way which crosses the site,
and a copy of the order has been lodged with, and approved in writing by, the
Local Planning Authority.
6.
No part of the development shall be occupied until the works for
disposal of foul and surface water drainage have been provided in accordance
with the approved plans.
REASON(S)
1.
To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990.
2.
To ensure that the development fully complies with the appropriate
policies and standards.
Page No 102
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
3.
To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in
the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
4.
To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in
the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
5.
To ensure that the development does not interfere with any public right
of way.
6.
To ensure proper drainage of the site.
NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT
You should ensure that any difference between the plans approved under the
Town and Country Planning Acts and under the Building Regulations is
resolved prior to commencement of development, by formal submission of
amended plans.
The applicant is advised to contact the Public Rights of Way Office on
telephone no. 01978 297179 for further guidance on making the necessary
application in connection with condition no.5 above.
______________________________________________________________
Page No 103
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0250
COMMUNITY:
Brymbo
WARD:
Brymbo
LOCATION:
LAND AT THE FORMER BRYMBO
STEELWORKS WESTERN MODULE
BRYMBO ROAD BRYMBO
WREXHAM
DESCRIPTION:
ERECTION OF 120 NO. DWELLINGS
COMPRISING A MIX OF TWO,
THREE AND FOUR BED
RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS (PLOT
SUBSTITUTION FOR DWELLINGS
OUTSTANDING PURSUANT TO
PLANNING PERMISSION
P/2006/1065)
DATE RECEIVED:
26/03/2009
CASE OFFICER:
SJG
AGENT NAME:
TURLEY ASSOCIATES
MR DAVID DIGGLE
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
GEORGE WIMPEY
______________________________________________________________
THE SITE
The site is located in the western part of the Brymbo development site and
measures 5.6 hectares. It consists of an almost level site on the north side of
Brymbo Road.
The site is one of the platforms created under planning permission CB00016
for the restoration of the former Brymbo Steelworks site. The three housing
modules and section of the main spine road in the southern half of the site
have been developed and are nearing completion. The Enterprise, Learning,
Information and Resource centre at the northern end is complete and in use.
The land forms just over 50% of the Western Module, for which detailed
permission for residential development was granted under reserved matters
approval P/2005/0114 in 2005, and a variation permission was granted in
2006.
Some 100 dwellings have been completed on the western module, including 4
apartment blocks.
Page No 104
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Application site shown shaded.
PROPOSAL
As above.
The application involves a revised layout for the undeveloped area of the
western module, including an increase in number of units of 32 (a 36%
increase). The increase takes the form of smaller units, and there are now 81
2-3 bedroom semi-detached or terraced units, compared with 15 on the 2006
scheme. A play area is included within the site.
The application includes a detailed planning statement, transport statement,
affordable housing and viability reports and a request to dispense with any
additional section 106 agreement for affordable housing and other matters.
Details are also supplied of fencing, materials and landscaping.
Main points of applicant’s statements:
Current Economic Situation
The housing market is now very different to when the past permission was
granted. At that time prices were increasing exponentially, driven by
constrained supply and availability of credit. Estimates show that prices will
fall by 35% from the 2007 peak before they stabilise, but the new-build sector
may fall by 50%. The costs of reclaiming brownfield sites now exceed the
profits available, and many section 106 agreements are now excessively
onerous.
Page No 105
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
The profitability and viability of bringing forward residential sites is in doubt,
and the approved layout (comprising mainly of 4-bed units) is no longer viable.
The costs of contamination remediation have been met.
The Proposals
The application involves a change in house types, providing 21 4-bed houses,
18 3-bed houses, 70 3-bed mews type houses and 11 2-bed houses. The
number of units has increased by 32, but the number of bedrooms has
increased by a much smaller percentage, and the total floorspace has actually
decreased.
Position on Obligations
Any contribution for affordable housing, public open space or education
provision would render the scheme undeliverable in financial terms. Should
the Council be unwilling to accept this position, the applicants would consider
withdrawing the application and defer the development until the market
outlook brightens. This will have implications for the progress and programme
of the regeneration of the Brymbo Steelworks site.
Layout and open space
The layout is dictated by the size of the site and the approved internal layout,
and is broadly similar to the approved layout. It has already been
acknowledged that adequate provision has been made for public op[en space
in the wider development. The applicants are willing to erect seating along
various parts of the open spaces surrounding the site, as shown on the
landscaping scheme. Revised landscaping proposals have been submitted.
Drainage
The applicant has been in discussion with the water company regarding the
capacity of the existing public sewerage system. The redevelopment of this
site is identified through policy EC16 of the UDP, and has planning permission
since 1997. The water company has a duty to provide sewers for new
development, and it is considered unreasonable to require the applicant to
fund off-site improvements.
Phasing
The development would be phased in three phases, with the final 9northern)
phase starting 2011 onwards.
RELEVANT HISTORY
CB00016
Outline application for residential development and erection of
buildings for retail, B1, B2 and B8 and leisure uses including
heritage area, nature conservation area including formation of
new accesses to classified roads.
Detailed application for reclamation of land including the
recovery and processing of minerals.
Granted 10/11/1997
The application was accompanied by an Environmental
Statement. The permission is subject to 51 conditions- 1-11
relating to the outline permission and 12-51 relating to the
Page No 106
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
detailed permission. A legal agreement was entered under
section 106 into relating to contamination, groundwater,
monitoring, management and the establishment of the Liaison
Committee.
Permission renewed and varied in several later applications.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Within settlement limits and allocated as a land reclamation site. Policies H2
H7 CLF5 PS1 PS2 PS11 PS3 PS4 PS11 EC6 EC16 GDP2 and GDP1 of UDP
are relevant, together with LPGN 10 16 21 22 23 24 27 and 28.
CONSULTATIONS
Brymbo C Council:
Broughton C Council:
Local Member(s):
Highways:
Public Protection:
Environment:
Education:
Consulted 27/3/2009
No comments or observations
Consulted 27/3/2009
Recommend conditions based on revised plans
Recommend conditions re contamination
Consulted 6/4/2009
Schools contributions required based on 32 additional
dwellings
Housing:
8 affordable units required
CCW:
Consulted 6/4/2009
Airbus:
No objections
Env Agency:
Comments
Welsh Water:
Holding Objection relating to capacity of sewers
Site Notices:
Expired 24/4/2009
Press advert:
Expired 24/4/2009
Other representations: Adjoining occupiers notified 31/3/2009
1 objection/ letter of concern received:
a. Increased number of dwellings will cause
increased traffic and parking difficulties
b. Site has a significant absence of local
infrastructure and amenities such as schools,
shops etc.
c. Increased overlooking from higher properties
d. Change in character and spacing of dwellings
adjoining occupied properties
e. Many empty apartments and houses on site and
no shortage of dwellings in the area.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ ISSUES
Policy: The main consideration is whether the additional housing units,
should be subject to a section 106 agreement covering affordable housing,
education and open space. The applicant makes a case that these
requirements would seriously question the viability of the scheme in the
current economic downturn. Given the well-documented economic problems,
Page No 107
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
there is an argument that this is true and there may be a temptation to grant
permission without the obligations.
However granting of permission now without all or any of these obligations
does not guarantee that the dwellings will actually come forward under the
current economic climate.
If we are to assess the viability of a scheme on the basis of present values
then we must determine which is more important: the community obligations
or the need for the development. The need for affordable housing is one of
the Councils strategic priorities and the additional housing units would add
pressure to education services and add pressure on public open spaces. The
applicant states that the proposal will help facilitate the wider regeneration of
the site namely new spine road, shopping facilities, education and
employment provision. However the link between this development and the
wider regeneration of the Brymbo site are unclear, I see no reasonable
expectation that this development will bring any wider regeneration any closer.
With regards to the need for additional housing this is already in excess of the
UDP figure and have a land supply of permissions well in excess of the
required 5 years. Consequently I do not see any overriding reason to forego
essential community obligations to facilitate market housing.
Unless the affordable housing, education and public open space requirements
are met then this proposal would not be in accordance with policies GDP2 and
H7 of the UDP.
Landscape: The submitted details are unsatisfactory. In brief, the increased
density proposed brings with it some material change to the character of the
development previously approved, which without some careful attention to
details would result in a monotonous development with lack of identity, with
living and external spaces reduced to minimum standards.
The applicant’s have responded to these points by revised details.
Schools Contributions: The policy would require schools contributions for
the 32 additional dwellings, involving a contribution of £126,720. There is a
specific need for a new school for the development on the site identified in the
masterplan. The comparison of bedroom numbers in the approved and
proposed schemes (+35) could be used to justify a lower figure. I accept that
credit should be given for contributions already paid but where those units will
not be built but the developer the developer is unwilling to pay any further
contribution.
Drainage: The applicant’s position on this issue is accepted. The phasing
plan would allow sufficient time for issues to be addressed by the Water
Company.
Highway Issues: Revised plans have been submitted to address issues
raised by the highways.
Page No 108
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Residential amenity: The specific objection refers to the impact of the new
dwellings on occupied properties in the southern part of the site however the
proposed scheme fully meets the Council’s separation distance standards.
Conclusion: The application cannot be supported on policy grounds in view
of the applicant’s statement that no legal agreement involving affordable
housing, schools contributions nor open space provision is acceptable to
them. The 2006 application was granted subject to a legal agreement which
secured 5 affordable apartments (built) and a schools contribution. I do not
believe it is appropriate to take a different view despite the current economic
situation.
RECOMMENDATION: That permission be REFUSED
REASON(S)
1.
The development does not provide for an element of affordable
housing in relation to the additional dwellings, in accordance with Local
Planning Guidance Note 28, and would therefore be contrary to policy H7 of
the adopted Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.
2.
The development does not provide for a contribution to schools, in
relation to the additional dwellings, in accordance with Local Planning
Guidance Note 27 and would therefore be contrary to policy GDP2 of the
adopted Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.
______________________________________________________________
Page No 109
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0265
LOCATION:
AUTOKIT TYRE SERVICE
HIGHTOWN ROAD WREXHAM
DATE RECEIVED:
31/03/2009
COMMUNITY:
Caia Park
DESCRIPTION:
FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION AND
ALTERATIONS
CASE OFFICER:
SEH
WARD:
Smithfield
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MR A WILLIAMS
AGENT NAME:
MR A WILLIAMS
_____________________________________________________________
THE SITE
Proposed partial
first floor extension
PROPOSAL
As above.
RELEVANT HISTORY
None relevant.
Page No 110
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Within defined settlement limit. UDP Policies PS2, GDP1 and T8 apply.
Local Planning Guidance Notes Nos.16 ‘Parking Standards’ and 21 ‘S[ace
around dwellings’ are also relevant.
CONSULTATIONS
Community Council:
Local Members:
Highways:
Public Protection:
Other representations:
Site Notice Expired:
No Objection
Consulted 31/03/2009
Object to this application on highway safety
grounds. Insufficient information has been
submitted to demonstrate that the vehicular access
and on-site parking is adequate to support the
development.
No objection subject to recommended conditions.
1 letter of objection based on the following
concerns:

Noise nuisance caused by increased
intensity of use of the site, and

Overlooking and loss of light.
21/04/2009
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ ISSUES
Background: This is an application for a partial flat roof first floor extension
to provide office accommodation and additional roof height to house ground
floor vehicle lift and additional fitting bay. Further information has been
requested in relation to the existing and proposed vehicular access, parking
and turning facilities on site. The main issues to consider therefore relate to
the impact of the development on highway safety, residential amenity, and the
visual amenities of the area.
Design and Residential Amenity: The proposed extension would be located
just 8 metres from the ground floor bedroom window of the adjacent
bungalow, the height of which would cause a significant loss of daylight to the
room. The development would over-dominate this property and be visually
intrusive making this room feel claustrophobic.
The proposed extended fitting area, although internal, would lead to an
increase in the intensity of the use of the site which would be to the detriment
of the adjacent residential units in terms of noise nuisance. A noise survey
has not been submitted with the application to demonstrate that the increased
use of the site will not impact detrimentally on the adjoining properties and
there is concern that the proposed intensity of use is not compatible with the
surrounding area.
As the building is currently single storey, it sits fairly modestly within the
streetscene. The proposed increased roof height will make the building more
Page No 111
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
visually prominent and would have an over dominating visual impact upon the
adjacent bungalow to the detriment of the appearance of the area.
Highway Access: The application cannot be fully assessed without further
details in relation to the vehicular access and on-site parking. The proposed
increased use of the site has the potential to impact negatively on highway
safety in terms of traffic generation, and could lead to indiscriminate parking
on the highway.
Conclusion: The proposed development does not, in its scale, design and
layout, accord with the character of the site and fails to make a positive
contribution to the appearance of the locality. As it has not been properly
demonstrated that the vehicular access is acceptable and the available on site
parking looks deficient with reduced manoeuvrability within the site, the
development would likely give rise to highway safety issues. The
development would have a detrimental impact upon the residential amenities
of the adjacent bungalow in terms of loss of light and visual intrusion.
RECOMMENDATION: That permission be REFUSED
REASON(S)
1.
The development as proposed is unacceptable having regard to the
adverse impact on the residential amenities of the adjacent bungalow in terms
of loss of light and visual intrusion. The development is of inappropriate scale
and design and would have a detrimental impact upon the appearance of the
streetscene. To allow the development would be contrary to Policies GDP1(a)
and PS2 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan and the Council's
adopted Local Planning Guidance Note No 21 'Space around Dwellings'.
2.
Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate adequate
on-site parking provision and vehicular turning space to support the
development. To allow the development would increase the intensity of use of
the site putting increased pressure on the vehicular access and parking
arrangements which could result in increased danger to all road users
contrary to Policies T8 and GDP1(d) of the Wrexham Unitary Development
Plan and the Council's adopted Local Planning Guidance Note No 16 Parking Standards.
3.
The application site is adjacent to residential properties and the
proximity of the proposed development would be detrimental to the residential
amenities of the occupiers of these properties in terms of the potential noise
nuisance. Insufficient information has been submitted in order to assess
adequately the impact of the development on the neighbouring properties, and
to allow this development would be contrary to Policy GDP1 of the Wrexham
Unitary Development Plan.
______________________________________________________________
Page No 112
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0266
LOCATION:
1 SUNNINGDALE CLOSE
WREXHAM
DATE RECEIVED:
31/03/2009
COMMUNITY:
Acton
DESCRIPTION:
ERECTION OF PITCHED ROOF
DOUBLE GARAGE WITH STORAGE
AREA
CASE OFFICER:
LB1
WARD:
Rhosnesni
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MS WEI BING YAO
AGENT NAME:
MS WEI BING YAO
______________________________________________________________
THE SITE
Detached property on the Plas Goulbourne estate.
PROPOSAL
The garage will be 5.2 metres by 7.64 metres with a ridgeline of 4 metres .
HISTORY
None relevant.
Page No 113
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Within settlement limit, GDP1, PS2, LPGN 16, 20 and 21 apply.
CONSULTATIONS
Community Council:
Local Member:
Other representations:
Site Notice:
Consulted 31/03/09
Consulted 31/03/09
One letter of objection received raising the
following points:
 No objection in principle to the erection of a
double garage providing that the overhang is
limited to the 40cm shown on the plan.
 The size of the development would significantly
change the view from the neighbouring
property.
 Concerns that the storage area will be used for
commercial purposes. Have reason to believe
that the existing garage is used for commercial
storage due to a frequent pattern of deliveries
and collections from this building.
 Concern that the existing storage use will be
expanded impacting adversely on the
residential environment.
 Expect any permission for the proposed
development will specifically exclude the use of
this property for commercial storage purposes.
Expired 23/04/09
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Design and amenity: The property has an existing garage in the rear garden,
which is a single bay flat roofed structure. It is served by an existing access
off Birkdale Road and has a driveway with space for one car. The design of
the garage is appropriate for the location.
The garage passes the BRE tests in relation to the neighbouring property and
meets the required separation standards. The increased floor area for the
garage reduces the amount of private garden space for the property, however
there is sufficient to meet the level required by Guidance Note 22.
By increasing the size of the garage the amount of off street parking places
will be increased, this will help improve highway safety. The garage will
remain 4.5m from the edge of the pavement ensuring that there is sufficient
room for cars in front of the garage.
The use of the building is described in the application as garage and storage
area, there is no evidence at present to indicate that it is currently being used
Page No 114
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
for such purposes. A condition can be placed on any permission to restrict
the use of the garage to domestic usage.
RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED
CONDITION(S)
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of
five years from the date of this permission.
2.
No facing materials shall be used other than materials matching those
used on the existing building.
3.
Development shall only be carried out in strict accordance with the
approved plans unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning
Authority has been obtained.
4.
Any garage erected under this permission shall be used only for a
purpose incidental to the use of that dwelling as a single dwelling house
provided that such use shall not preclude the garaging of a private motor car.
REASON(S)
1.
To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990.
2.
To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in
the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
3.
To ensure that the development fully complies with the appropriate
policies and standards.
4.
To ensure that the garage is not used in a manner prejudicial to or
likely to cause nuisance or disturbance to the occupiers of nearby properties
and to ensure that facilities for the garaging of a car remain available at this
address at all times.
______________________________________________________________
Page No 115
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0276
LOCATION:
SITE OF 18 MAESGWYN ROAD
WREXHAM
DATE RECEIVED:
02/04/2009
COMMUNITY:
Offa
DESCRIPTION:
AMENDMENT TO APPROVED
SCHEME TO INCLUDE ONE
ADDITIONAL FLAT (PREVIOUSLY
GRANTED UNDER CODE NO.
P/2006/0910)
CASE OFFICER:
SJG
WARD:
Brynyffynnon
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MR S RODEN UNITED TRUST BANK
LTD
AGENT NAME:
J I G ARCHITECTURAL
LTD
MR K SHONE
______________________________________________________________
THE SITE
On the west side of Maesgwyn road, 65 metres south of Mold Road.
PROPOSAL
As above.
Page No 116
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
The revised scheme for completion of the development involves 2x 1bedroom
flats on the top (second) floor, in place of 1x 2bedroom flat as approved.
Externally, 2 full-length windows are proposed in place of 1 on the rear
elevation.
RELEVANT HISTORY
P/2004/0289
P/2006/0910
Outline for 6 flats
6 flats
Granted 5/3/2004
Granted 18/9/2006
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Within the settlement limits. Policies H2 T8 GDP1 and GDP2 of UDP are
relevant, together with LPGN 16 and 21.
CONSULTATIONS
Offa C Council:
Local Member(s):
Highways:
Public Protection:
Env Agency:
Welsh Water:
Site Notices:
Other representations:
No objections
Consulted 2/4/2009
No comments
Comments regarding construction works
No comments
Recommend conditions
Expired 24/4/2009
Adjoining occupiers notified 8/4/2009. 1 letter of
comment/ objection received, on grounds of:
a. An extra flat will cause more parking problems
b. No extra overlooking windows should be allowed
c. Remedial works required to boundary wall
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ ISSUES
There is no additional parking requirement as the number of bedrooms
remains the same,
Schools contributions do not apply, as the original scheme was for 3 x 1 bed
and 3 x 2 bed flats, and the revised scheme is for 2 x 2 bed and 5 x 1 bed.
Conclusion: The revised scheme will have no additional adverse impacts on
the locality in terms of parking, overlooking or residential amenity.
RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED
CONDITION(S)
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of
five years from the date of this permission.
2.
Development shall only be carried out in strict accordance with the
approved plans unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning
Authority has been obtained.
3.
The vehicle parking areas indicated on the approve dplans shall be laid
out, surfaced and drained prior to the first use of the buildings hereby granted
and shall thereafter be retained for those purposes.
Page No 117
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
4.
Within six months of the first use of the development, trees and shrubs
shall be planted on the site in accordance with a scheme which has been
submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or
shrubs removed, dying, being severely damaged, or becoming seriously
diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced by trees or shrubs of a
similar size and species to those originally required to be planted.
5.
There shall be no vehicular access onto Maesgwyn Road.
6.
No surface water shall be discharged to the public sewerage system.
7.
Details of boundary walls and fences and refuse storage facilities for 18
and 20 Maesgwyn Road shall be submitted to the Local Planning authority
within 1 month of commencement of development and the development shall
only be carried out in strict conformity with such details as are thereby
approved.
8.
The access splay and car park shall be surfaced in accordance with the
details indicated on the submitted plan prior to the commencement of
occupation of the development and shall thereafter be retained.
REASON(S)
1.
To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990.
2.
To ensure that the development fully complies with the appropriate
policies and standards.
3.
To provide for the parking and turning of vehicles clear of the highway
and to ensure that reversing by vehicles into or from the highway is rendered
unnecessary in the interest of traffic safety.
4.
To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in
the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
5.
In the interests of the visual amenities of the area, vehicular and
pedestrian safety and the privacy of adjoining properties.
6.
To prevent overloading of the public sewerage system to protect the
health and safety of existing residents and to ensure no detriment to the
environment.
7.
To enable the control of matters not detailed in the application in
compliance with the appropriate policies and standards
8.
To ensure that adequate parking facilities are provided and maintained
within the curtilage of the site in the interests of the free flow of traffic, highway
safety and the amenities of the locality.
NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT
Your attention is drawn to Highway Supplementary Notes Numbered 1, 3, 4
and 5 on the enclosed "Applicants' Rights and General Information".
The proposed development lies within an area which could be subject to
current coal mining or hazards resulting from past coal mining. Such hazards
may currently exist, be caused as a result of the proposed development, or
occur at some time in the future. These hazards include:


Collapse of shallow coal mine workings.
Collapse of, or risk of entry into, mine entries (shafts and adits).
Page No 118
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009





Gas emissions from coal mines including methane and carbon dioxide.
Spontaneous combustion or ignition of coal which may lead to
underground heatings and production of carbon monoxide.
Transmission of gases into adjacent properties from underground
sources through ground fractures.
Coal mining subsidence.
Water emissions from coal mine workings.
Applicants must take account of these hazards which could affect stability,
health & safety, or cause adverse environmental impacts during the carrying
out their proposals and must seek specialist advice where required. Additional
hazards or stability issues may arise from development on or adjacent to
restored opencast sites or quarries and former colliery spoil tips.
Potential hazards or impacts may not necessarily be confined to the
development site, and Applicants must take advice and introduce appropriate
measures to address risks both within and beyond the development site. As
an example the stabilisation of shallow coal workings by grouting may affect,
block or divert underground pathways for water or gas.
In coal mining areas there is the potential for existing property and new
development to be affected by mine gases, and this must be considered by
each developer. Gas prevention measures must be adopted during
construction where there is such a risk. The investigation of sites through
drilling alone has the potential to displace underground gases or in certain
situations may create carbon monoxide where air flush drilling is adopted.
Any intrusive activities which intersect, disturb or enter any coal seams, coal
mine workings or coal mine entries (shafts and adits) require the prior written
permission of the Coal Authority. Such activities could include site
investigation boreholes, digging of foundations, piling activities, other ground
works and any subsequent treatment of coal mine workings and coal mine
entries for ground stability purposes.
Failure to obtain Coal Authority permission for such activities is trespass, with
the potential for court action. In the interests of public safety the Coal Authority
is concerned that risks specific to the nature of coal and coal mine workings
are identified and mitigated.
The above advice applies to the site of your proposal and the surrounding
vicinity. You must obtain property specific summary information on any past,
current and proposed surface and underground coal mining activity, and other
ground stability information in order to make an assessment of the risks. This
can be obtained from The Coal Authority's Property Search Service on 0845
762 6848 or at www.groundstability.com
Please note the attached comments from Welsh Water and the Public
Protection Section.
_____________________________________________________________
Page No 119
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0278
LOCATION:
UNIT 4 14 BORRAS ROAD
WREXHAM
DATE RECEIVED:
02/04/2009
COMMUNITY:
Acton
DESCRIPTION:
USE AS HOT FOOD TAKEAWAY
CASE OFFICER:
CB
WARD:
Rhosnesni
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MR DEDE-MEMET ET
AGENT NAME:
MR DEDE-MEMET ET
______________________________________________________________
building
The Hand Public House
Fongs Takeaway
Parking area
Local convenience store
THE SITE
Within group of retail units located between Borras Road and Holt Road. To
the north of the units, the site is bounded by a detached house to the south
and east by the Hand Public House and associated car park. There is a
pedestrian access to the public house car park from Borras Road adjoining
the site. To the west of the site there is a local convenience store and hot food
take away which has residential flats above.
Page No 120
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
PROPOSAL
Has a total floor area of 96 square metres with (claimed) twelve parking
spaces.
HISTORY
6/20382
6/18165
Change of use from workshop to betting office Granted
6/7/2009.
Alterations and change of use from carpet showroom to
restaurant. Refused 9/7/1990.
ADJACENT SITE HISTORY
6/11058
Change of use to hot food takeaway. Refused 1985. Allowed at
appeal 1985.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Within settlement limit GDP1 relevant LPG Note 9: Restaurants, Public
Houses and Hot Food Take Aways; & 16: Parking Standards relevant.
CONSULTATIONS
Local Member:
Community Council:
Adjacent Occupiers:
Highways:
Public Protection:
Welsh Water:
Site Notice:
Notified 3/4/2009
Members were concerned that there should not be
any detrimental impact on neighbouring properties
and that the opening hours should be carefully
considered at possible problems of litter in the
vicinity and that appropriate litter bins should be
provided by the applicant.
One petition of objection 116 signatures raising
concerns with ongoing litter problem,
environmental problems, noise, nuisance caused
by gangs of youths, traffic congestion and impact
on locals and young children.
Verbal objections raised by current tenant
complaining that the information in the application
is incorrect and required notices have not been
served on owners or tenants.
Recommendation for refusal for 3 reasons relating
to inadequate information submitted for access
arrangements; parking and turning, and net public
floor area
Advice provided and suggested conditions for
noise levels, ventilation and notes for health &
safety and food safety.
Conditions and advisory notes regarding sewerage
and suitable grease trap to prevent entry into the
public sewerage system.
Expired 27/4/2009
Page No 121
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ISSUES
The main issues relate to the impact of the proposed use on traffic generation,
residential amenity, and required notification to owners or interested parties.
Amenity: The premises have been used for storage for the last five years.
This corner area between Holt Road and Borras Road area is characterised
as a local shopping needs area which has four/five retail units within a
predominately residential area. The opening hours proposed would involve
late night opening 7 days a week. This would reflect the opening hours of the
adjoining public house. However the cumulative impact of this late night
activity, together with the noise and disturbance already associated with
persons visiting/leaving the adjacent public house, and the existing hot food
take away located 40 metres to the south will give rise to conditions which
would detrimental to residential amenity.
Highways: The application does not demonstrate whether there is an
agreement in place for the exclusive use of the twelve car parking spaces.
Previous applications on the site refer to an informal agreement of 6 spaces.
The public floor area of 96 sq m would require an allocation of 24 parking
spaces to comply with the maximum standards set out in LPG 16 Parking
Standards.
Ownership: Despite comments raised by consultees, I have received
confirmation from the applicants indicating they are the owners of the site.
Conclusion: The proposed change of use of this unit would create an
additional late night activity which would cumulatively and detrimentally impact
on the residential amenity of the area. The site has insufficient parking
provision to cater for the increased traffic generation associated with the
change of use and this would detrimentally impact on highway and pedestrian
safety.
RECOMMENDATION: That permission be REFUSED
REASON(S)
1.
The proposed change of use would create an additional late night
activity which would cumulatively and detrimentally harm the residential
amenity of the local area contrary to PS2, GDP1 and S6 of the Wrexham UDP
(2005) and Local Planning Guidance Note 9: Restaurants, Public Houses and
Hot Food Take Aways.
2.
The site has insufficient parking provision to cater for the increased
traffic generation associated with the change of use and this would
detrimentally impact on highway and pedestrian safety contrary to GDP1 and
T8 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan (2005) and Local Planning
Guidance Note 16: Parking Standards.
_____________________________________________________________
Page No 122
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0317
COMMUNITY:
Maelor South
WARD:
Overton
LOCATION:
LAND ADJACENT TO UNIT 33
PENLEY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
PENLEY WREXHAM
DESCRIPTION:
REPLACEMENT OF SITE SECURITY
CABIN WITH STATIC CARAVAN TO
PROVIDE 24 HOUR SITE SECURITY
COVER.
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MR H WILSON
DATE RECEIVED:
20/04/2009
CASE OFFICER:
LB1
AGENT NAME:
MR ANDREW D
STOREY
ADS: ARCHITECTURAL
DESIGN SERVICES
______________________________________________________________
THE SITE
Siting of
caravan
PROPOSAL
As above.
HISTORY
None relevant.
Page No 123
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Within settlement limit, GDP1, PS2 apply.
CONSULTATIONS
Community Council:
Local Member:
Highways:
Public Protection:
Welsh Water:
Other representations:
Site Notice:
Consulted 21/04/09
Consulted 21/04/09
No objections
No objections
No objections but request that conditions
are placed on permission.
Verbal objection received querying whether
it was suitable location for someone to be
living and that the guard wasn’t all present
during the day so was not providing 24 hour
cover
Expired 15/05/09
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
The application is in retrospect, as the caravan is currently in situ. It replaces
an existing cabin that has been previously used. The site lies within an
established industrial estate on the edge of Penley village and adjacent to the
small general store. The site lies within the settlement limit where the
principle of development is acceptable.
The security guard is claimed to be needed due to an increase in security
incidents with thefts and risk of danger to employees during late opening
hours. The use of a caravan is requested until a more permanent solution,
such as onsite accommodation can be provided or it is perceived that there is
no longer a danger. The main concerns relate to incidences of theft at night
and at weekends when the industrial estate is quieter, there are fewer
concerns about security issues during the day when there are people on the
estate and so the presence of a guard at this time is not necessary.
The caravan is a standard static caravan and is sited adjacent to the village
shop; it is screened from the road and car park area by a close-boarded
fence. The existing car park is not affected by the siting and this location does
not have an adverse impact on the nearby buildings or the general street
scene. It is not a desirable long-term solution to the problem as it may
potentially deteriorate over time, additionally the caravan may not be required
as the situation changes. A temporary permission is appropriate in this
location to allow reassessment of the situation in the future.
Conclusion: There are no adverse impacts on the nearby units or street
scene and I am satisfied that a temporary permission for this development will
Page No 124
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
allow full control over the retention of the caravan and ensure that it can be
replaced if the condition deteriorates.
P/2009 /0317
RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED
CONDITION(S)
1.
The use of the building shall cease not later than 30 June 2014. The
building together with any hard standing, base or slab upon which it stands
shall be completely removed and the land restored to its previous condition
not later than one month after that date.
2.
Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately
from the site.
3.
No surface water shall be allowed to connect, either directly or
indirectly to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved, in writing,
by the Local Planning Authority.
4.
Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly
or indirectly, into the public sewerage system.
REASON(S)
1.
Having regard to its design and materials of construction, planning
permission would not normally be granted in respect of temporary buildings in
this location. Permission has been granted in this instance solely to allow the
applicant adequate time to seek permanent, satisfactory accommodation.
2.
To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.
3.
To prepare hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to
protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no detriment to
the environment.
4.
To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and
pollution of the environment.
NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT
If a connection is required to the public sewerage system the developer is
advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water's Network Development
Consultants on 01443 331155.
______________________________________________________________
Page No 125
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0320
LOCATION:
22 RANSCOMBE CRESCENT
WREXHAM
DATE RECEIVED:
20/04/2009
COMMUNITY:
Acton
DESCRIPTION:
INCREASE IN HEIGHT OF REAR
EXTENSION (IN RETROSPECT)
CASE OFFICER:
SJG
WARD:
Borras Park
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MR & MRS F BARNETT
AGENT NAME:
MR & MRS F BARNETT
______________________________________________________________
THE SITE
Detached house at the junction of Barkers Lane and Box Lane.
PROPOSAL
As above.
Page No 126
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
The works undertaken involved replacing the flat roof over the rear kitchen/
dining room extension. The height has been raised by 100mm, because of
increased insulation. It is contained within a deeper fascia board.
RELEVANT HISTORY
No recent planning applications
6/11575/85 Passing of Building plans for single storey rear extension 3/5/1985
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Within settlement limits. Policy GDP1 of UDP is relevant, together with LPGN
20 and 21.
CONSULTATIONS
Acton C Council:
Local Member(s):
Site Notice:
Other representations:
Consulted 21/4/2009
Notified 21/4/2009
Expired 15/5/2009
I objection - the mass of the new roof structure, which
was heightened without prior consultation or regard
for planning procedures.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ ISSUES
Impact on residential amenity: The extension as altered has very little
additional impact on the adjoining property in comparison with the approved
extension. The horizontal 45 degree test is not met but the vertical test is
acceptable. In addition there is a 2 metre high thick laurel hedge between the
two properties.
The extension is acceptable in all other respects as the rear garden is well
screened from all sides.
RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED
_____________________________________________________________
Page No 127
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0324
LOCATION:
21 KENSINGTON GROVE
WREXHAM
DATE RECEIVED:
21/04/2009
COMMUNITY:
Acton
DESCRIPTION:
CONSERVATORY EXTENSION
CASE OFFICER:
PF
WARD:
Little Acton
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MR JOHN BRADBURY
AGENT NAME:
MR JOHN BRADBURY
______________________________________________________________
THE SITE
Proposed
conservatory
Protected
tree (TPO)
PROPOSAL
As above.
HISTORY
None.
Existing
extension
Page No 128
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Within settlement limit. Policies PS2, GDP1 and Local Planning Guidance
Note 20 – House Extensions apply.
CONSULTATIONS
Community Council:
Local Member:
Other representations:
Site Notice:
Consulted 21.04.2009
Notified 21.04.2009
3 neighbouring occupiers notified
22.04.2009
Expired 14.05.2009
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Background: The application is being reported to Planning Committee
because the applicant is a Chief Officer of the Council.
Design and amenity: The conservatory is of a standard uPVC design
proposed adjacent to an existing extension. The southern and western
elevations are fully clear glazed and the roof consists of a translucent
polycarbonate.
The western glazed elevation faces the side of a rear extension at No. 23
Kensington Grove. Properties to the rear on Acton Gardens are elevated at a
level of approximately 2 metres. The Council’s guidance requires a
separation standard of 26 metres, which is achievable in this case.
Conclusion: I am satisfied that the scheme is acceptable in terms of the
Council’s policy and guidance. As such I recommend accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED
CONDITION(S)
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of
five years from the date of this permission.
2.
No facing materials shall be used other than materials matching those
used on the existing building.
3.
Development shall only be carried out in strict accordance with the
approved plans unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning
Authority has been obtained.
REASON(S)
1.
To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990.
2.
To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in
the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
Page No 129
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
3.
To ensure that the development fully complies with the appropriate
policies and standards.
NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT
You should ensure that any difference between the plans approved under the
Town and Country Planning Acts and under the Building Regulations is
resolved prior to commencement of development, by formal submission of
amended plans.
You are advised that building work which involves work on an existing wall
shared with another property, building on the boundary with a neighbouring
property or excavating near a neighbouring building may require the separate
consent of the neighbour under the provisions of the Party Wall Act. If you
require further information or advice please contact the Building Control
Section on 01978 292050.
The proposed development lies within an area which could be subject to
current coal mining or hazards resulting from past coal mining. Such hazards
may currently exist, be caused as a result of the proposed development, or
occur at some time in the future. These hazards include:







Collapse of shallow coal mine workings.
Collapse of, or risk of entry into, mine entries (shafts and adits).
Gas emissions from coal mines including methane and carbon dioxide.
Spontaneous combustion or ignition of coal which may lead to
underground heatings and production of carbon monoxide.
Transmission of gases into adjacent properties from underground
sources through ground fractures.
Coal mining subsidence.
Water emissions from coal mine workings.
Applicants must take account of these hazards which could affect stability,
health & safety, or cause adverse environmental impacts during the carrying
out their proposals and must seek specialist advice where required. Additional
hazards or stability issues may arise from development on or adjacent to
restored opencast sites or quarries and former colliery spoil tips.
Potential hazards or impacts may not necessarily be confined to the
development site, and Applicants must take advice and introduce appropriate
measures to address risks both within and beyond the development site. As
an example the stabilisation of shallow coal workings by grouting may affect,
block or divert underground pathways for water or gas.
In coal mining areas there is the potential for existing property and new
development to be affected by mine gases, and this must be considered by
each developer. Gas prevention measures must be adopted during
construction where there is such a risk. The investigation of sites through
drilling alone has the potential to displace underground gases or in certain
situations may create carbon monoxide where air flush drilling is adopted.
Page No 130
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Any intrusive activities which intersect, disturb or enter any coal seams, coal
mine workings or coal mine entries (shafts and adits) require the prior written
permission of the Coal Authority. Such activities could include site
investigation boreholes, digging of foundations, piling activities, other ground
works and any subsequent treatment of coal mine workings and coal mine
entries for ground stability purposes.
Failure to obtain Coal Authority permission for such activities is trespass, with
the potential for court action. In the interests of public safety the Coal Authority
is concerned that risks specific to the nature of coal and coal mine workings
are identified and mitigated.
The above advice applies to the site of your proposal and the surrounding
vicinity. You must obtain property specific summary information on any past,
current and proposed surface and underground coal mining activity, and other
ground stability information in order to make an assessment of the risks. This
can be obtained from The Coal Authority's Property Search Service on 0845
762 6848 or at www.groundstability.com
____________________________________________________________
Page No 131
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0330
LOCATION:
LEGACY SUB-STATION TO PONT-YBLEW CHIRK WREXHAM
DATE RECEIVED:
22/04/2009
COMMUNITY:
Ruabon
DESCRIPTION:
132 KV SINGLE CIRCUIT FLAT
FORMATION OVERHEAD LINE
REINFORCEMENT BETWEEN
LEGACY SUBSTATION, WREXHAM
AND OSWESTRY SUBSTATION
(ALSO WITHIN ESCLUSHAM, CHIRK
& ERBISTOCK COMMUNITIES)
CASE OFFICER:
SJG
WARD:
Penycae & Ruabon
South
AGENT NAME:
SP MANWEB PLC
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
SP MANWEB PLC
______________________________________________________________
THE SITE
The total route length is 20.6 km overhead, 3 km underground (approximately
half within Wrexham and half within Shropshire). A plan of the route is
attached (next page)
PROPOSAL
As above.
The proposal is an application under section 37 of the Energy Act 1989
submitted to the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. It is
accompanied by an Environmental Statement.
The full description is as follows:
The placing of a 132kV single circuit wood pole overhead line,
originating at the Legacy substation, The proposed 132kV overhead
line will generally run south for approximately 1.6km underground out
of Legacy substation. East of Wrexham Road the line transfers to
wood pole overhead line and continues in a south-easterly direction
through the Esclusham, Ruabon, and Chirk Community Council areas
before crossing the river Ceiriog at Tenement and ...(passing out of
Wrexham). The overhead line route will be erected along the route
shown on the application plans (drawing nos. SP4055079) or within 50
metres either side thereof (reduced in environmentally sensitive
locations).
The poles are typically between 10.5 to 16 metres high, with steelwork and
insulators adding 2 metres to the overall height, and the 3 lines have a
maximum width of 6 metres. The spans will vary in length from 60 metres to
135 metres.
Page No 132
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Page No 133
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
The Council is a statutory consultee, and in turn has carried out its own
consultations and publicity. There is a strict timetable for responses, and so a
decision at the June Planning Committee is essential.
The choices available to the Council are to:
1. To object or not object to the proposal
2. To request that a public inquiry be held or not
3. To suggest modifications/conditions or not
Summary of Environmental Statement
Background
The line is needed to reinforce the electricity distribution network between the
substations at legacy and Oswestry. The existing network arrangements are
sufficient to meet current requirements for restoring power within 3 hours.
However as load increases, the existing network arrangements will become
insufficient, and the applicant would be unable to meet its statutory
obligations.
In identifying the route the applicant has sought to combine sensitive routing
with appropriate mitigation measures, to avoid or reduce environmental
effects. They have consulted frequently with relevant local, regional and
national bodies.
A number of alternatives were examined based on connections with other
substations and reinforcing existing lines. An overhead line reinforcement
between the 2 substations was concluded to be the most economic and
environmentally acceptable solution.
A further application will be made for connection to a major employer at Chirk.
Route selection
Four broad options for the route were considered:
 east of the A483,
 west of the A483,
 following the A483 corridor and
 parallel to the existing 132kV line.
The option east of the A483 offered greater opportunities for assimilation of an
overhead line within the landscape and had fewer constraints than other
options. The principal issues in the chosen route were:
 crossing the Dee valley
 presence of several historic parklands
 Canal (in Shropshire)
 Offa’s Dyke and Wat’s Dykes.
 Special Areas of Conservation
 Undulating terrain with mature trees and a dispersed settlement
pattern.
Page No 134
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Visual and landscape effects
The majority of the line would be less visible over relatively short distances as
trees, hedges and woodlands screen views. The route does not directly affect
any registered parks or gardens or their essential settings. In some areas
there would be less screening, and moderate visual effects have been
predicted in views from:
 Eastern edge of settlement at Pentre Bychan
 Public footpath at Wat’s Dyke near Gyfelia
 Edge of Wynnstay Park
 Ceiriog Valley at Tenement.
Overall significant visual effects are limited in number and geographical
spread. Effects on landscape character would be minor.
Ecology effects
An assessment of potential effects has been carried out. Potential significant
effects were identified on 17 ecological receptors, and mitigation measures
will be put in place to reduce the effects to non-significant levels. It is
estimated that the overhead line will affect 119 trees and an area of 1.34
hectares of woodland tree groups, although some would require lopping of
reducing in height rather than felling. Replacement planting and/ or a
contribution to a local wildlife trust is proposed.
Archaeology effects
Direct effects on Wat’s Dyke have been avoided through siting of supports as
far as possible from the monument. A comprehensive programme of
mitigation is proposed.
Others
The line would have no significant effect on road, rail or canal
communications. The design and operation of the line is consistent with
government advice on health risks from power-frequency magnetic fields.
Noise levels during construction are likely to be low. An Environmental
Management Plan will be produced to control and guide working practices.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Electricity Act 1989 section 37
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Sections 57 and 90
Electricity (Applications for Consent) Regulations 1990
Welsh Office Circular 20/90
Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2000
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Outside settlement limits and affects Special Landscape Areas, a Green
Barrier and designated wildlife sites. Policies PS2 PS11 EC1 EC4 EC5 EC6
EC9 EC12 and GDP1 of UDP are relevant, together with LPGN 7.
Page No 135
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
CONSULTATIONS
Chirk Town Council:
Has very strong objections to the development on
grounds of the adverse visual impact on a Special
landscape area, in particular in the
Pontyblew/Tenement area where the Rivers Dee and
Ceiriog meet. It will also cause considerable changes
to the landscape and will cause problems to health
and safety and quality of life of residents. The line
should be placed underground. Request that
Wrexham Council also lodges a strong objection.
Erbistock C Council:
Consulted 24/4/2009
Esclusham C Council: Consulted 24/4/2009
Ruabon C Council:
No objection subject to comments regarding
protection of properties and consideration of matters
of environmental significance.
Local Member(s):
Cllr P Pemberton: no problems
Cllr L B Price: no observations
Cllr Mrs Joan Lowe: Objects on grounds of adverse
impact on the environment. Further comments to
follow.
Highways:
No observations
WAG Highways:
No objections. Comments regarding crossing of
A483.
CCW:
Consulted 24/4/2009
CPAT:
Broadly in agreement with the archaeological
assessment results and mitigation, which should be
carried forward as a condition of consent.
Env Agency:
Comments regarding river crossings and
environmental management plan.
Rights of way:
Consulted 24/4/2009
Network Rail:
No objection in principle. Detailed comments for
applicant’s consideration.
Wales Gas:
Consulted 24/4/2009
Press advert :
Expires 5/6/2009 (by applicant, comments to be made
to Department of Energy & Climate Change)
Site Notices (14):
expired 19/5/2009
Other representations: Adjoining occupiers (70) notified 27/4/2009.
41 objections received on grounds of:
1. Adverse impact on enjoyment and amenity of
nearby dwellings through visual and
electromagnetic impacts.
2. Health risks from pylons.
3. Further visual appraisals required
4. Adverse impact on green barrier and special
landscape areas
5. Relocation of poles away from dwellings is
required
6. Line should be placed underground
Page No 136
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
7. Line should follow existing power lines or the A483
rather than zig-zagging across the countryside.
8. In particular the diversion to avoid the Wynnstay
estate is not justified.
9. Line in Pont-y-blew area will be affected by
shooting
10. Adverse impact on setting of listed building
11. Further application likely for connection to Chirk
12. Detrimental impact on the village of Penylan
13. Adverse impact on ecology, archaeology, tourism
and heritage
14. Detrimental impact on farming operations from
lines cutting through fields
1 letter of comment received requesting clarification of
permitted distance of an overhead line from a dwelling
and impact on individual’s health. (Confirmed by
applicant as 3.6 metres vertical and horizontal).
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ ISSUES.
The attached table summarises the locations and areas of controversy
(appendix 2).
Landscape: Policy EC5 allows for essential operational development by
utility service providers within Special Landscape Areas. The chosen route
avoids designated parks, gardens and buffer zones and is considered to be
the best route from a landscape point of view. Further information is required
in order to assess the landscape impact of the scheme. A more detailed
assessment will follow as an addendum.
Ecology: The 132 kv overhead line proposed route will run between Legacy
and Oswestry, but the Wrexham section will have a range of associated
impacts on various habitats to include woodland, hedgerow, arable, improved
& semi-improved grassland, rivers and ponds. Many of these sites are
designated for their special interest features such Johnstown Newt Sites SAC,
River Dee SAC, or importance as semi-natural ancient woodland. Many
impacted habitats have significant impacts associated with them through the
loss of individual mature native trees or the loss of entire groups of trees.
These impacts have been described as negligible, due to the mitigation and
compensation proposed such as replanting at a ratio to 2:1 where landowners
are in agreement, alternatively money will be paid into a local wildlife trust.
Depending on the individual trees or groups of trees concerned, the loss of
will have impacts on the ecology of certain species of bat, and breeding bird
whose use woodland as a habitat resource or a navigational tool to disperse
between roosting and feeding sites. It is proposed that there are 2 options one
of which is to check trees prior to any tree work, or carrying tree work out
outside of the bird-breeding season (01 March to the 31 August inclusive) and
I would recommend the latter, with the inclusion of checking trees prior to
felling or lopping as some birds will nest late with a number of broods due to
Page No 137
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
milder winters. I strongly recommend that where there are semi-mature
ancient woodlands individual/groups of trees should only be felled as an
absolute last resort. In such circumstances, every effort should be made to
use underground cables where it is not deemed further damaging to the
woodland. This is especially applicable to routes running alongside rivers
where bird flight lines would be affected and lead to subsequent injury and
death. I strongly recommend that along such routes cables are laid
underground.
Mitigation and where applicable compensation has been proposed for a range
of protected species to include badgers, bats, amphibians, otters, water vole,
dormice and birds. All I consider to be acceptable apart from those proposed
for birds and bats and where I have given alternatives in my comments above.
Methods statements detailing works, mitigation, and compensation should be
submitted to the LPA and CCW prior to any site clearance/works being carried
out. In reference to what has been proposed for amphibians I would
recommend that where GCN eggs have been recorded that exclusion fencing
is erected to protect the working area. All holes should be covered at night
and checked in the morning. Every effort to protect otter holts must be made
where trees are to be removed alongside the river and any adjacent grassland
where otters could be laying up. I recommend otter fencing is erected in such
locations.
In light of the above comments, the alternatives of laying underground cables
should be considered to avoid unnecessary ecological and environmental
damage.
Archaeology: The documents assess the issues involved and specific
mitigation measures are proposed where the rout crosses Wat’s dyke. The
impact on Offas’s dyke is in the underground section, which is not the subject
of this application.
Residential amenity: The route has been selected to avoid residential
properties as much as possible. The statements contained in the reports
concerning health risks will be considered by the Government Department as
decision-maker.
Rights of way: The proposed route crosses 13 rights of way but is unlikely to
have any impact.
Conclusion: The route selection and environmental assessment are
accepted. The construction of an underground section through sensitive
areas would raise other concerns with ecological impacts which would require
additional assessment. A Test of Likely Significance is likely to be required by
the decision-maker and no decision should be made without completion of the
appropriate assessment.
Page No 138
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council does not object to the proposal and does not request a public
inquiry. Conditions/ modifications (including the need for Appropriate
Assessments) will be suggested in the light of the landscape and ecological
issues. All representations received are to be forwarded for consideration by
the Secretary of State.
_____________________________________________________________
Page No 139
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0341
LOCATION:
HAMPSON HOUSE 6 CHESTER
ROAD WREXHAM
DATE RECEIVED:
28/04/2009
COMMUNITY:
Acton
DESCRIPTION:
CHANGE OF USE FROM
GUESTHOUSE (C1) TO SINGLE
DWELLING HOUSE (C3)
CASE OFFICER:
PF
WARD:
Maesydre
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MR JOHN HOLMAN
AGENT NAME:
MR JOHN HOLMAN
______________________________________________________________
Chester Road
THE SITE
SITE
Yale
College
Access
PROPOSAL
As above.
HISTORY
Most relevant.
6/5480
Change of use from surgery and dwelling house to guesthouse
(in retrospect). Granted 31.01.1980
Page No 140
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Within settlement limit. Policies PS2, GDP1 and Local Planning Guidance
Notes 16 – Parking Standards and 21 – Space Around Dwellings apply.
CONSULTATIONS
Community Council:
Local Member:
Highways:
Public Protection:
Other representations:
Consulted 28.04.2009
Notified 29.04.2009
Consulted 28.04.2009
Consulted 28.04.2009
6 neighbouring occupiers notified.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Background: The application is being reported to the planning committee as
the applicant is a close relative of a member of the planning department staff.
The site consists of a semi-detached property with a large off road parking
area to the front and a large garden area to the rear. The property currently
consists of a small private residence and guesthouse accommodation. The
proposed change of use would consist of the guesthouse bedrooms and
residents lounge forming part of the private residence, resulting in one single
private dwelling house. The applicant has submitted this proposal following
the sharp decline in the need for guesthouse accommodation in the town
centre and the number of customers dropping off significantly.
Amenity: The property currently has ten bedrooms with associated lounge
and rest rooms. The proposal would reduce the number of bedrooms to 5
with associated non-habitable storage rooms (sewing room, music room etc).
-There are no external changes proposed to the building and I am satisfied
that the proposal will not cause harm to the neighbouring occupiers of the site.
Highways: No changes are proposed to the vehicular and pedestrian
access. The curtilage of the site has adequate parking and turning facilities to
exceed the maximum standards required by LPG16.
Conclusion: I do not consider that this proposal will have an adverse impact
upon the neighbouring occupiers of the site, nor upon the safety of highway
users. As such I recommend accordingly.
Page No 141
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED
CONDITION(S)
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of
five years from the date of this permission.
REASON(S)
1.
To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990.
______________________________________________________________
Page No 142
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0352
LOCATION:
PARSONAGE FARM BOTTOM ROAD
SUMMERHILL WREXHAM
DATE RECEIVED:
29/04/2009
COMMUNITY:
Gwersyllt
DESCRIPTION:
RELAXIATION OF CONDITION NO. 7
OF P/2005/1153 AND CONDITION
NO. 6 OF P/2007/0737 REQUIRING
ACCESS CLOSURE IN ORDER TO
RETAIN EXISTING DEDICATED
FIELD ACCESS
CASE OFFICER:
KH
WARD:
Gwersyllt North
AGENT NAME:
MR A J MINSHULL
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MR T BELLIS
______________________________________________________________
THE SITE
Post and rail
fence to
separate from
residential
curtilage
Retention and
improvement
of existing
field access
Bottom Rd
Land off the western side of Bottom Road, Summerhill. The land has recently
been developed with two replacement dwellings replacing a pair of semidetached dwellings.
PROPOSAL
As above.
Page No 143
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
HISTORY
P/2007/0737
P/2005/1153
Amendment to previously approved remodelled outbuildings
(Code No P/2005/1153) to form ancillary residential buildings
to plot no. 2. Grant of planning permission 01.08.07.
Demolition of existing pair of semi-detached houses and
erection of 2 no. linked detached replacement dwellings
including conversion of outbuildings as ancillary
accommodation and repositioning access drive. Grant of
planning permission 05.12.05.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Outside settlement . Policies GDP1 and PS2 refer.
CONSULTATION
Community Council:
Local Member:
Highways:
Other Representations:
Site Notice:
Consulted 30.04.09
Opposed to the application on basis of highway
safety concerns. The visibility splay from the
proposed position for the gate is less than 10m
from a hazardous bend. Lowering the height of the
wall would have little impact on reducing the risk of
an accident with vehicles approaching from Ffos Y
Go.
Consulted 30.04.09
None
Expired 27.05.09
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ISSUES
Proposal/History: Planning permission was granted for two replacement
dwellings in December 2005. The decision included a planning condition
which required the existing access points to be closed and abandoned and
reliance on a new repositioned combined access to serve the properties. A
subsequent permission for unit 2 the subject of this application reiterated the
requirement.
Highways considered that with poor visibility and multiple access points, a
condition was required to ensure highway safety.
This application seeks to enable continued use of the field access to serve the
four-acre field with the access and access road physically separated from the
adjoining dwelling.
Highway Safety: The access is within 5m of a 90o bend, with currently poor
visibility in a northerly direction. Visibility to the south has been considerably
improved with walls kept to 1m in height and a section of an outbuilding
Page No 144
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
removed to the site frontage which significantly improves visibility in a
southerly direction.
The access has been modified with the gateway repositioned with a 5m
splayed set back. Visibility will be improved to the north with the walls to be
reduced to 1m, including part of the wall running alongside the road running
westwards. I am also conscious that the bend is 90o and traffic speeds will be
particularly low, whilst the access will only be used for agricultural vehicles
and has been used for this purpose for a considerable number of years.
Highways have raised no objections on the basis of the improvements and the
access being retained for agricultural use only.
Conclusion: I am satisfied that the continued use of the field access for
agricultural purposes is acceptable on the basis of its previous long-term use
and the improvements to the access with repositioned set back gate and
improvements to visibility. Given the relatively limited occasional use I would
not anticipate any conflict of the use of the access in relation to the nearby
residential access.
RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED
CONDITION(S)
1.
The access hereby approved shall be laid out and surfaced strictly in
accordance with the details as approved and to a timescale to be agreed, in
writing, with the Local Planning Authority. The access shall be retained
thereafter strictly in accordance with the approved plan.
2.
The access and access road hereby approved shall only be used for
agricultural purposes and shall be physically separated from the residential
curtilage by a post and rail fence 1200mm high in the position indicated on the
approved plan.
3.
The development shall only be carried out in strict conformity with the
details shown on the approved drawings and in the application
documentation.
REASON(S)
1.
In the interests of highway safety.
2.
In the interests of highway safety.
3.
In the interests of highway safety.
______________________________________________________________
Page No 145
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0356
LOCATION:
5 SUMMERFIELDS ESLESS PARK
RHOSTYLLEN WREXHAM
DATE RECEIVED:
30/04/2009
COMMUNITY:
Esclusham
DESCRIPTION:
CONSERVATORY EXTENSION
CASE OFFICER:
LG
WARD:
Esclusham
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MR & MRS BALDWIN
AGENT NAME:
ANCESTRAL LTD
______________________________________________________________
THE SITE
Existing 2 storey
extension
site
Proposed
conservatory
Existing shed
PROPOSAL
Conservatory extension.
HISTORY
P/2003/0138
Two-storey extension. Granted 20.03.03
Page No 146
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Within settlement limit. UDP policies GDP1 and PS2 apply. Local Planning
Guidance Notes 20 – House Extensions and 21 - Space around Dwellings are
also relevant.
CONSULTATIONS
Community Council:
Local Member:
Other Representations:
Site Notice:
Consulted 05.05.09
Consulted 05.05.09
One letter of objection received raising the
following:
 Reduction in skyline
 Increase in noise pollution
 Reduction of enjoyment and use of rear garden
 Led to believe there is legal standing that only
40% of available (rear) garden can be
developed. Taking into the account the already
extended part of their home would question due to the size of the proposed conservatory –
whether this 40% is exceeded.
 Drainage – suffer from flooding as a result of
extension to another neighbours property.
Expired 30.05.09
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ISSUES
Background: The existing property is a semi-detached dwelling that occupies
a corner plot location on the junction of Summerfields and Hedgeway Close, .
The property has been previously extended two storeys to the side. The
proposed conservatory measures 3.55 metres in length at its maximum and 6
metres in width and incorporates two existing double doors on the rear
elevation. There is an existing small garden shed located in the south east
corner of the rear garden.
Residential Amenity: The proposed conservatory is single storey in size with
a ridge height of just over 3 metres. It will be located at least 4 metres away
from the boundary with the adjoining property and complies with the BRE
daylight test and thus no detrimental loss of daylight should result.
In regards to loss of skyline given that the proposal is single storey in size and
is located 4 metres away from the boundary with the adjoining dwelling I do
not consider the proposal to result in a significant loss of skyline or to be
visually overbearing.
There is an existing 1.8 metre high wooden panel fence along the eastern
boundary with the adjoining dwelling. This fence will help to screen the
conservatory from the adjoining dwellings rear garden and prevent
overlooking between occupiers and its retention shall be secured through
Page No 147
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
planning condition. The southern and western boundaries consist of a 1 metre
high curved top wooden fence with 2 metre high Leylandi hedging behind and
provide adequate screening to the front garden area of 1 Hedgeway Close
and the adjacent road.
Whilst there may be some noise disturbance during construction of the
proposal it is not considered that the use of a conservatory for residential
purposes will result in a significant level of noise pollution in this residential
area.
Local Planning Guidance Note 20 and 21 both state that new development
should leave a minimum of 50 square metres of usable private garden area.
The proposed conservatory and existing extension and shed leave more than
the minimum 50 square metres of usable private garden in accordance with
adopted Local Guidance.
Other issues: Details of the drainage are usually covered by Building
Regulations. However the conservatory will probably be exempt from Building
Regulations. An advisory note will added stating that rainwater shall be
disposed of via a good draining soak away located 5 metres away from the
conservatory.
RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED
CONDITION(S)
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of
five years from the date of this permission.
2.
No facing materials shall be used other than materials matching those
used on the existing building.
3.
Development shall only be carried out in strict accordance with the
approved plans unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning
Authority has been obtained.
4.
The 1.8m high fence along the eastern boundary with the adjoining
dwelling shall not be reduced below a height of 1.8m or removed unless the
prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained.
REASON(S)
1.
To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990.
2.
To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in
the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
3.
To ensure that the development fully complies with the appropriate
policies and standards.
4.
To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.
Page No 148
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT
The applicant should ensure that rainwater collected from the conservatory be
disposed of via a soakaway located 5m away from the conservatory in good
draining permeable soil.
______________________________________________________________
Page No 149
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0365
LOCATION:
AFON COTTAGE OVERTON ROAD
BANGOR ON DEE WREXHAM
DATE RECEIVED:
30/04/2009
COMMUNITY:
Bangor is y Coed
DESCRIPTION:
VARIATION OF CONDITIONS 3 AND
4 OF PLANNING PERMISSION CODE
NO. P/2007/1258 TO ALLOW THE
RETENTION OF BOARDED ROOF
TO SUNROOM AND REVISED
SCREENING TO TERRACE.
CASE OFFICER:
MP
WARD:
Bronington
AGENT NAME:
MR S SMITH
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MR S SMITH
______________________________________________________________
SITING
Afon Cottage, one of a pair of a semi-detached properties located on Overton
Road approximately half a kilometre from Bangor.
Application site
PROPOSAL
The extension granted permission in 2007 (see below) includes a small
terrace area that was to be screened by a brick wall measuring 1.6 m in length
Page No 150
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
and 1.4m high. Conditions attached to the permission also prevented
alterations being made to extension to permit the use of whole of the roof as a
terrace and to provide a screen wall.
The extension is now largely complete, however the screen wall has not been
constructed and wooden decking has been laid over the roof of the sunroom,
creating what appears to be a much larger terrace than previously proposed.
The applicant is however proposing to revised the screening arrangements by
putting in place 1.5 metre high glass panels along the rear of the terrace to
prevent access being gained to the roof of the sunroom. The plans indicate
that one of the panels would be obscurely glazed and approximately the same
length as the screen wall it replaces. The applicant is however also proposing
to retain the wooden decking on the roof of the sunroom.
HISTORY
P/2007/0909
P/2007/1258
Removal of carport, conversion of garage to habitable space,
2 storey extension to side/rear of house to form
bedroom/ensuite/family room. Withdrawn 14.9.2007
Removal of carport, conversion of garage to habitable space,
2 storey extension to side/rear of house to form
bedroom/ensuite/family room. Granted 30.11.2007
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Outside settlement limit and within a Special Landscape Area. Policies PS2,
GDP1 and EC5 apply.
CONSULTATIONS
Community Council:
Local Member:
Other representations:
Site Notice:
Notified 5.5.09
Notified 5.5.09
Occupiers of adjoining property notified 7.5.09
Expires 28.5.09
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Design and appearance: The proposed alterations will have minimal impact
upon the overall appearance of the extension or the surrounding rural
landscape.
Amenity: The proposed screen will provide the same level of screening as
the plans granted permission in 2007. Conditions are still necessary to
require the screens to be installed and thereafter retained.
Notwithstanding the above, I am concerned that retaining the wooden decking
over the roof of the sunroom will encourage future occupiers to make changes
to enable the roof to be used at a later date. Use of the sunroom roof would
permit direct overlooking of the privacy garden of the adjoining property. I
Page No 151
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
have therefore advised the applicant that decking should be removed from the
sunroom and am awaiting a response from them.
Conclusion: Provided the application is amended to take account of the
concerns discussed above, then the revised screens will ensure the privacy of
the occupiers of adjoining property.
RECOMMENDATION A
Should no amended plans be submitted to address the privacy issues
identified in the above report, the application be REFUSED for the following
reason:1.
Notwithstanding the provision of screening, the retention of the timber
decking over the roof of the single storey sunroom would permit its use as a
first floor terrace to the detriment of the amenities of the occupiers off the
adjoining property, thus being contrary to policy GDP1(f) of the Wrexham
Unitary Development Plan.
RECOMMENDATION B
Should the applicant submit amended plans addressing the privacy issues
addressed in the above report, the application be GRANTED subject to the
following conditions:CONDITION(S)
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of
five years from the date of this permission.
2.
Within one month of the date of this permission and with the exception
of the terrace shown on the plans approved under permission code no.
P/2007/1258 granted on 30 November 2007, all timber decking shall be
permanently removed from the roof of any part of the building known as Afon
Cottage.
3.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1, Classes A, B, C of Schedule 1
of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order
1995 (or in any provision equivalent to those classes in any statutory
instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without amendment),
there shall be no use of the area shown as a lead flat roof on the plans
approved under permission code no. P/2007/1258 granted on 30 November
2007 for any purpose other than as a roof. For the avoidance of doubt there
shall be no residential or other use of that area.
4.
There shall be no use of the terrace shown on the plans approved
under permission code no. P/2007/1258 granted on 30 November 2007 for
any purpose until a screen wall/fence has been constructed along the full
length of the rear/north-west facing end of the terrace in strict accordance with
the details shown on the plans hereby approved (to include the installation of
obscure glass). Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1, Class A of Schedule
1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order
1995 (or in any provision equivalent to those classes in any statutory
Page No 152
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without amendment)
the screen shall thereafter be permanently retained.
5.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1, Classe A of Schedule 1 of the
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or
in any provision equivalent to those classes in any statutory instrument
revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without amendment) that part of
the screen shown on the approved plans to be obscure glazed shall be
completed with obscure glass and shall thereafter only be glazed or re-glazed
with obscure glass.
REASON(S)
1.
To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990.
2.
To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.
3.
To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.
4.
To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.
5.
To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.
______________________________________________________________
Page No 153
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0369
LOCATION:
14 SALISBURY ROAD WREXHAM
DATE RECEIVED:
01/05/2009
COMMUNITY:
Offa
DESCRIPTION:
CHANGE OF USE FROM
RESIDENTIAL TO HMO STUDENT
HOUSING (IN RETROSPECT)
CASE OFFICER:
CB
WARD:
Erddig
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MRS K SHIELD
AGENT NAME:
MRS K SHIELD
______________________________________________________________
t
Application
Site
/0369
THE SITE
The site consists of a substantial detached Victorian villa located within
Salisbury Road Conservation Area. The site is located 440 metres Salisbury
Park area to the south of the centre of Wrexham and is predominately
residential in character.
Page No 154
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
PROPOSAL
The proposal involves a change of use application from single residential
dwelling to House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) Student Housing in
retrospect.
HISTORY
None relevant.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Within settlement limit of Wrexham, policies PS2, GDP1, H4, EC7 and T8 are
relevant. Local Planning Guidance Note 5: Conversion of Dwelling in Multiple
Occupation and Local Planning Guidance Note 16: Parking Standards.
CONSULTATIONS
Local Member:
Community Council:
Adjacent Occupiers:
Highways:
WACS:
Environment Agency:
Site Notice:
Notified 5/5/2009
Object on the following grounds:1) Inadequate parking provision.
2) Too many residents-this is a residential area
and house of multiple occupation of this size is
likely to cause considerable noise nuisance and
disturbance to other neighbouring properties.
3) The property does not comply with fire
regulations due the absence of a fire escape.
1 on line comments received raising concerns with
the removal of the site notice and neighbours not
being made aware of proposed application.
Notified 5/5/2009
Notified 11/5/2009
Notified 14/5/2009
Expired 29/5/2009
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ISSUES
The main issues relate to the impact on amenity, highways, impact on the
character of Salisbury Park Conservation Area, and the provision of inclusive
access. This report has been drafted in anticipation that neighbours objection
letter will be received which may not correspond to the reason for refusal.
Amenity: A House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) involves generally involves
an increase in the intensity of a residential use. The original property
consisted of a substantial detached four-bedroom property and has been
converted into an 8 bedroom House in Multiple Occupation for student
housing. Although the number of bedrooms has doubled, the use remains
residential within a predominately residential area. The use of this dwelling as
a House in Multiple Occupation would not be considered detrimental to the
amenity of Salisbury Road. Salisbury Road consists of large detached
Page No 155
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
properties, some of which have been converted to office use and another (8
and 8A) which has been sub divided into 2 flats. To the rear of the site there is
a light industrial Fibrax Unit.
The houses located on Salisbury Road benefit consist of large plots with large
rear gardens which would provide ample parking and amenity space.
Highways: The 8 bedroom HMO requires 4 vehicle parking spaces to comply
with the maximum standards set out in Local Planning Guidance Note 16:
Parking Standards. This would only involve an increase of one vehicular
space to the three spaces required for a single 4 bedroom dwellings. This
additional parking space would easily be accommodated to the side and rear.
The 10 spaces demonstrated on the proposed plan would be considered
excessive in terms of the parking provision required for this use and location.
Excessive parking to the front and side of the property could detrimentally
harm the visual amenity of the Conservation Area. It will be important to
condition that only four parking spaces are provided on site.
Conservation Area: The change of use does not require any alteration to the
exterior of the property and is therefore unlikely to have a detrimental impact
upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. If parking
provision is limited to four spaces by condition the proliferation of vehicles
parking on the frontage will be prevented from occurring and there would be
no impact on the visual amenity and character of the Salisbury Park
Conservation Area. H4 encourages the sympathetic conversion of historic
buildings of architectural merit helps to save these buildings and achieve the
environmental strategy of the plan.
Access: The access statement provided is of a poor standard and does not
adequately describe how different access points will provide inclusive access
for all. Further details will need to be provided which demonstrates how
different needs of people that will accommodate the building will be catered
for on a permanent basis.
Conclusion: I am satisfied that the change of use to a House in Multiple
Occupation (HMO would not detrimentally harm the visual amenity or
character of the Salisbury Park Conservation Area. The increased traffic
generation and parking provision will easily be accommodated on site and
would not be detrimental to highway or pedestrian safety. The access
statement provided is poor and demonstrates that the building does not
provide inclusive access. It is for this reason that I am unable to support the
application.
Page No 156
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
RECOMMENDATION: That permission be REFUSED
REASON(S)
1.
The change of use has not provided adequate access for all and
therefore fails to provide adequate form of accommodation which would
comply with GDP1 and H4 of Wrexham Unitary Development Plan (2005).
______________________________________________________________
Page No 157
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
APPLICATION NO:
P/2009 /0370
LOCATION:
45 BELLE VUE COURT WREXHAM
DATE RECEIVED:
01/05/2009
COMMUNITY:
Offa
DESCRIPTION:
CHANGE OF USE OF APARTMENT
TO HAIR/BEAUTY SALON AND SITE
OFFICE.
CASE OFFICER:
MP
WARD:
Offa
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
MR K WYCHERLEY
AGENT NAME:
MR K WYCHERLEY
______________________________________________________________
SITING
The application site is one of the 40 apartments currently being completed on
the south side of Tenters Square.
Application site
PROPOSAL
Change of use to allow 1 apartment to be used as site office and hair dressers
salon.
HISTORY
P/2004/0032 Demolition of existing four-storey club, erection of 40 No.
apartments and alterations to existing vehicular and pedestrian
access. Granted 9.6.2005
Page No 158
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
P/2009/0187 Change of use of apartment to hair / beauty salon and site office.
Refused 6.4.2009
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Within settlement and within district shopping centre. Policies GDP1, S5, E4
and T8 apply
CONSULTATIONS
Offa Community Council:
Local Member:
Object on the following grounds:1) Inadequate parking provision as only
three visitor spaces are available for the
whole development which would cause
problems for residents.
2) Approval for the development was for
housing and not commercial needs.
Already adequate vacant commercial
property in the area suitable for this use.
3) The proposal for commercial use would
be likely to cause nuisance and
disturbance to occupiers of neighbouring
residential apartments as they share the
same entrance.
Makes the following comments:
- application appears identical to one already
refused by committee with a unanimous voted
on grounds of disturbance to occupiers of
adjacent flats and increase congestion and
highway danger;
- understand developer’s disappointment at
being refused but do not believe abandoning
planning principles is the answer;
- urge Planning to recommend refusal of this
application for same reasons;
- would be surprised and disappointed if
Planning Committee did not reaffirm its
decision for this application. Would the
applicant be better advised to appeal?;
- approval would set a precedent and make it
difficult to refuse other similar change of use
applications, especially within one block of 6
apartments;
- when considering the application for 40
apartments Highways considered the existing
roadway to the lower car park too steep and
dangerous especially in freezing conditions to
serve the new development, and a more
Page No 159
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Highways:
Public Protection:
Other representations:
Site Notice:
gradual descent was planned through the
archway through parking areas as 2
intermediate levels, but this alternative route
was not provided;
- The approval of 1 parking space per apartment
plus 3 visitor parking spaces located in far
corner of lower car park, now proposed for
customers of the salon. It would be wholly
unacceptable and would created added
dangers to residents of the apartments, for
these 3 spaces to be utilised for customers at
an increase number of businesses within what
is clearly housing development.
Notified 5.5.09
Notified 5.5.09
Nearby occupiers notified 7.5.09
Expired 28.5.09
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Applicant’s case: This is a resubmission of the application refused by
Members on 6 April 2009. There have been no substantial changes to the
scheme however the applicant has proposed the following in an attempt to
overcome the Member’s concerns:
i)
ii)
security doors fitted at the top of the first flight of stairs so that only
tenants living in the apartments above could gain access through the
doors. This only leaves one apartment sharing an entrance with the
salon and office;
it is intended that the tenant of the salon will also have to be the
owner/occupier of the apartment it shares an access with.
The applicant has also made the following comments on the proposals;
i)
ii)
iii)
a precedent has already been set for premises being used as
hair/beauty salons (several without any parking facilities), and
apartment blocks containing site offices. Caxton Place and the
Glandale Belle Vue Road contain site offices;
parking for people visiting the salon is considered adequate;
there are salons on Pen y Bryn and in Belle Vue Road that have no
parking.
Policy: Although the site has been development for residential use, it forms
part of the Penybryn district shopping centre. Policy S5 allows for new
shopping development within district centres provided it is appropriate in scale
in relation to the function of the centre and will complement and enhance the
centre. Although not strictly a shopping use, the a hair salon falls within Class
A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 – and is
therefore in the same use class as a shopping development. The Penybryn
Page No 160
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
District centre, being on the edge of Wrexham Town centre functions as a
retail/commercial area serving the needs of people who live in the immediate
locality as well as people travelling into or from town centre. The proposed
use would not adversely impact upon the vitality and viability of the centre and
as such there is no policy objection in principle to this proposal.
The office is to be used by a manager of the remaining apartments, which I
understand are to be let as rental properties by the applicant to keep. The
office is to hold administration details for tenants and will be contact point for
tenants/prospective tenants. In that sense it will not form a separate
employment use, nevertheless policy E4 does allow for employment
development within settlements, provided it accords with policy GDP1. In
principle, there would be no policy objection to small-scale office uses in this
area.
Amenity: The salon and office will be accessed via a communal entrance
which also gives access to an adjacent ground floor apartment as well as
apartments above. The proposals are unlikely to give rise to significant noise
or disturbance to the occupiers of adjacent apartments. I appreciate that the
customers of the salon will be walking past habitable rooms of the adjacent
ground floor apartment. However as the development fronts onto a
footpath/road that is used to access other residential properties, Belle Vue
Park and St Mary’s School it is unlikely the proposals will increase the number
of passing pedestrians to an extent that the level of privacy enjoyed by
occupiers of the adjacent apartment will be significantly reduced.
No external changes are proposed to the site so the development will not
impact upon the character and appearance of the locality.
Parking: The existing residential development has been provided with 47
parking spaces. The maximum standards set out in Local Planning Guidance
Note 16 would have allowed for 82 spaces. There is sufficient space to
provide each unit with 1 parking space with 7 left over, however permission
P/2004/0032 is subject to a planning obligation requiring the developer to
make a financial contribution in lieu of providing the maximum. In considering
the current application it is necessary to consider whether the development
will significantly increase demand for parking in the locality.
LPG16 would allow for 3 parking spaces for the salon and office. This
compares to a maximum of 2 for its existing permitted residential use. I
understand the site office will be allocated 1 space although it can reasonably
assumed that this space would be allocated to the premises regardless of
whether the proposed change of use is implemented. The lack of a second
space for the premises is accounted for by the commuted sum payment
required through the planning obligation. The development therefore has the
potential, at worst, to generate demand for only 1 additional space. The site
close to the town centre and is easily accessible on foot or by public transport,
therefore I am satisfied it is unlikely the proposals will cause significant
parking or access problems in the locality if the maximum number of spaces
allowed is not provided.
Page No 161
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
Plans submitted with the application indicate that are 5 parking spaces in a
communal parking area forming part of the residential development not
allocated to any specific flats. The applicant proposes that these could be
made available for salon customers during the day and as visitors parking for
the apartments during the evenings. The shared use of the parking spaces
accords with national guidance on parking given in Technical Advice Note 18
(Transport). I do not object to allowing visitors spaces to be used by the
business during the day when it could be reasonably expected that demand
for parking from occupiers of the apartments would be at its lowest. I have
however recommended a condition limiting the opening hours which should
ensure that the spaces are available for use by visitors to occupiers of the
flats during the evenings.
Conclusion: I do not believe the amendments suggested by the applicant
could be reasonably secured and enforced by planning condition, in particular
the additional internal security measures. Nevertheless I remain of the
opinion that the development will not have a significant impact in terms of
amenity or highway safety and as such am satisfied it accords with the
relevant UDP policies.
RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED
CONDITION(S)
1.
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiry of
five years from the date of this permission.
2.
No customer shall be admitted to the premises before 0900 or after
1730 Monday to Friday, before 0900 or after 1600 on Saturdays and at no
time on a Sunday or Bank Holidays.
REASON(S)
1.
To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act,
1990.
2.
To allow for better use of shared car parking areas and to protect
amenities of nearby residents.
NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT
You are advised that this permission does not allow for any external
alterations to the premises or for any signage to be displayed. Should you
wish to make any such alterations or display signs you are advised to first
seek advice from the Planning Department with regards to the need for
planning permission and advertisement consent.
______________________________________________________________
Page No 162
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
LIST OF DELEGATED DECISIONS ISSUED
GRE P/2005/1314
WITHDRAWN
on 22/04/2009
WRA P/2008/0612
WITHDRAWN
on 05/05/2009
GRESFORD GARAGE
CHESTER ROAD GRESFORD
WREXHAM LL12 8NT
ASDA STORES LTD HOLT
ROAD WREXHAM LL13 8HL
Residential development (21 no. dwellings)
with new access, parking, bin store and bike
store
INSTALLATION OF NEW CHILLER UNIT IN
SERVICE YARD. INSTALL 3M HIGH X 12M
LONG GLASS SCREEN IN FRONT OF
STORE (TROLLEY BAYS).
LISTED BUILDING CONSENT FOR ENSUITE BATHROOM.
PEN P/2008/1051
GRANTED
on 22/04/2009
MAE P/2009/0062
GRANTED
on 05/05/2009
RHO P/2009/0156
WITHDRAWN
on 22/04/2009
DOUGLAS HOUSE CHURCH
STREET PENYCAE WREXHAM
LL14 2RL
CORNER BARN OVERTON
ROAD PENLEY WREXHAM
LL13 0LU
YSGUBOR CANOL TY CANOL
ROAD PENYCAE WREXHAM
LL14 1UN
RUA P/2009/0166
GRANTED
on 22/04/2009
ESC P/2009/0170
GRANTED
on 24/04/2009
25 SPINNEY WALK RUABON
WREXHAM LL14 6TE
TYDDYN DEDWYDD FRONDEG
WREXHAM LL14 4ND
CONVERSION OF EXISTING BARN INTO
TWO-STOREY, THREE BEDROOMED
DWELLING
WRO P/2009/0179
WITHDRAWN
on 22/04/2009
ROS P/2009/0181
GRANTED
on 30/04/2009
UNIT 2 FELIN PULESTON
RUABON ROAD WREXHAM
LL13 7RF
4 BEECH HOLLOWS LAVISTER
ROSSETT WREXHAM LL12 0DA
ERECTION OF FRONT ELEVATION
SIGNAGE
WRC P/2009/0192
GRANTED
on 22/04/2009
85 KINGSMILLS ROAD
WREXHAM LL13 8NN
WRC P/2009/0194
GRANTED
on 05/05/2009
41 - 44 ST GEORGES
CRESCENT WREXHAM LL13
8DB
OVE P/2009/0195
GRANTED
on 01/05/2009
WRC P/2009/0197
REFUSED
on 22/04/2009
LAND ADJACENT TO 15 SALOP
ROAD OVERTON WREXHAM
LL13 0EG
11 BROOM GROVE WREXHAM
LL13 9DL
WRR P/2009/0199
GRANTED
on 05/05/2009
LEA HURST 2 FOSTER ROAD
RHOSDDU WREXHAM LL11
2LT
LISTED BUILDING CONSENT FOR
ALTERATIONS TO ALLOW CONVERSION
TO DWELLING.
TWO STOREY AND SINGLE STOREY
EXTENSION TO REAR OF EXISTING
DWELLING. NEW GLAZED
SCREEN/DOOR TO FRONT ELEVATION
AND SIDE ELEVATION FORMED IN
EXISTING WALLS.
CONSERVATORY EXTENSION TO REAR
TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION
PROVIDING UTILITY, STUDY AND
BEDROOM ABOVE. REAR EXTENSION
PROVIDING FAMILY ROOM.
RELAXATION OF CONDITION 16 OF
PLANNING PERMISSION CODE NO
P/2008/0203 TO ALLOW ACCESS GATES
TO BE REPLACED WITHIN 6.6M WIDE
SLIDING GATES
RENEWAL OF OUTLINE PLANNING
PERMISSION FOR RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT (PREVIOUSLY GRANTED
UNDER CODE NO. P/2005/1323)
ERECTION OF TWO SEMI-DETACHED 2
BEDROOM HOUSES WITH ASSOCIATED
PARKING AND GARDEN AREAS.
AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMISSION
CODE NO. P/2004/0314, REAR SINGLE
STOREY EXTENSION WITH FLAT ROOF
(IN RETROSPECT)
REAR EXTENSION AND DETACHED
GARAGE
Page No 163
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
RHO P/2009/0200
GRANTED
on 24/04/2009
41 BROOK STREET RHOS
WREXHAM LL14 2ED
EXTENSION TO PROVIDE SUN ROOM,
W.C. AND UTILITY ROOM AND ERECTION
NEW SHED
ISY P/2009/0206
REFUSED
on 22/04/2009
RUA P/2009/0207
REFUSED
on 01/05/2009
LLA P/2009/0209
GRANTED
on 22/04/2009
COE P/2009/0211
GRANTED
on 24/04/2009
BRO P/2009/0212
GRANTED
on 22/04/2009
WRC P/2009/0213
GRANTED
on 08/05/2009
CEF P/2009/0215
GRANTED
on 01/05/2009
HAN P/2009/0216
GRANTED
on 22/04/2009
PREMIER HOUSE OAK ROAD
WREXHAM INDUSTRIAL
ESTATE WREXHAM LL13 9PQ
MOBILE HOME WYNNSTAY
HALL ESTATE RUABON
WREXHAM LL14 6LD
21 FFORDD MORGAN LLAY
WREXHAM LL12 0RR
DISPLAY OF 2 'A' BOARD SIGNS AND 1
FASCIA SIGN (IN RETROSPECT)
1 TALWRN COURT TALWRN
ROAD COEDPOETH WREXHAM
LL11 3NN
3 HALL VIEW CAEGO
WREXHAM LL11 6YP
REAR CONSERVATORY
UNIT 2 - 4 BORDER RETAIL
PARK WREXHAM
EXTENSION TO REAR OF RETAIL
TERRACE
1 ACRE HOUSE BOWERS
ROAD ACREFAIR WREXHAM
LL14 3TG
OAK VILLA HORSEMANS
GREEN ROAD HORSEMANS
GREEN WHITCHURCH SY13
3DZ
ERECTION OF TRIPLE GARAGE
LGC P/2009/0219
GRANTED
on 07/05/2009
MAR P/2009/0222
GRANTED
on 12/05/2009
GWE P/2009/0224
GRANTED
on 24/04/2009
LLR P/2009/0225
GRANTED
on 08/05/2009
LLR P/2009/0226
GRANTED
on 08/05/2009
LLR P/2009/0227
GRANTED
on 08/05/2009
ISY P/2009/0230
GRANTED
on 05/05/2009
WRR P/2009/0231
GRANTED
on 28/04/2009
WRR P/2009/0232
GRANTED
on 24/04/2009
LAND NEAR PEN Y FEDW
NANTYR GLYN CEIRIOG
WREXHAM LL20 7DE
36 THE RIDGEWAY
MARCHWIEL WREXHAM LL13
0SB
LIVERY STABLES MOSS ROAD
SUMMERHILL WREXHAM LL11
4SW
TREVOR HALL FARM TREVOR
HALL ROAD TREVOR
LLANGOLLEN LL20 7UP
TREVOR HALL FARM TREVOR
HALL ROAD TREVOR
LLANGOLLEN LL20 7UP
TREVOR HALL FARM TREVOR
HALL ROAD TREVOR
LLANGOLLEN LL20 7UP
R & R ENGINEERING OAK
ROAD WREXHAM INDUSTRIAL
ESTATE WREXHAM LL13 9RG
7 GERALD STREET WREXHAM
LL11 1EH
16 SNOWDON DRIVE
WREXHAM LL11 2UY
RETENTION AND CONTINUED USE OF
CARAVAN FOR SERVICE / SECURITY
PERSONNEL
SUN ROOM EXTENSION
PARKING AND OPERATION OF PRIVATE
HIRE VEHICLE (SCHOOL CONTRACTS)
RENEWAL OF OUTLINE PLANNING
PERMISSION FOR ERECTON OF 2
STOREY THREE BEDROOM DWELLING
(PREVIOUSLY GRANTED UNDER CODE
NO. P/2003/1289)
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STABLE BLOCK
INCLUDING TACK ROOM AND STORAGE
AREA.
KITCHEN, BEDROOM AND GARAGE
EXTENSION TO SIDE AND REAR
CHANGE OF USE OF FARM HOUSE (C3)
TO OFFICES B1 (A)
REPLACEMENT AGRICULTURAL
BUILDING (BUILDING A)
REPLACEMENT AGRICULTURAL
BUILDING (BUILDING B)
REPLACEMENT AGRICULTURAL
BUILDING (BUILDING C)
SITING OF PORTACABINS / CONTAINERS
FOR USE AS TEMPORARY OFFICES (IN
RETROSPECT)
KITCHEN EXTENSION
EXTENSION TO EXISTING GARAGE TO
CREATE TOILET (PARTLY IN
RETROSPECT)
Page No 164
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
ESC P/2009/0233
GRANTED
on 22/04/2009
COE P/2009/0234
GRANTED
on 06/05/2009
WRR P/2009/0235
GRANTED
on 05/05/2009
THISTLEDEW HOUSE SCHOOL
STREET RHOSTYLLEN
WREXHAM LL14 4AN
COEDPOETH BOWLING CLUB
MEMORIAL PARK PARK ROAD
COEDPOETH WREXHAM LL11
3TN
GLYNDWR UNIVERSITY PLAS
COCH CAMPUS MOLD ROAD
WREXHAM LL11 2AW
WRA P/2009/0238
REFUSED
on 24/04/2009
53 SMITHY LANE WREXHAM
LL12 8JN
RHO P/2009/0239
GRANTED
on 22/04/2009
BRO P/2009/0240
GRANTED
on 24/04/2009
WRO P/2009/0242
GRANTED
on 29/04/2009
WRO P/2009/0243
GRANTED
on 06/05/2009
WRA P/2009/0244
GRANTED
on 27/04/2009
MAR P/2009/0245
GRANTED
on 24/04/2009
CHI P/2009/0246
GRANTED
on 22/04/2009
COE P/2009/0247
REFUSED
on 12/05/2009
WRO P/2009/0248
GRANTED
on 13/05/2009
HOL P/2009/0249
GRANTED
on 13/05/2009
7 MAES GLAN
RHOSLLANERCHRUGOG
WREXHAM LL14 2DT
PENDORLAN FRANCIS ROAD
MOSS WREXHAM LL11 6EH
GRE P/2009/0251
GRANTED
on 18/05/2009
7 THE SPINNEY SPRINGFIELD
LANE MARFORD WREXHAM
LL12 8TF
BAN P/2009/0252
GRANTED
on 05/05/2009
ESC P/2009/0258
GRANTED
on 24/04/2009
TY BRYN HOVAH OVERTON
ROAD BANGOR ON DEE
WREXHAM LL13 0DA
ABEROER FARM ABEROER
RHOSTYLLEN WREXHAM LL14
4LG
FIRST-FLOOR EXTENSION OVER
EXISTING DINING ROOM AND NEW
PITCHED ROOF TO KITCHEN
ERECTION OF SPECTATOR SHELTER
NEW SIGNAGE - CHANGE OF NAME
FROM NEWI TO GLYNDWR UNIVERSITY
IN ADDITION TO THOSE APPROVED BY
CODE NO P/2008/1217 AND P/2008/1218
USE OF PROPERTY AS A
PHYSIOTHERAPY CLINIC (IN
RETROSPECT) AND ALTERATIONS TO
EXISTING ACCESS.
PARKING OF 1 NO. PRIVATE HIRE
VEHICLE
2 NO. SINGLE STOREY REAR
EXTENSIONS
83 SONTLEY ROAD WREXHAM
LL13 7EN
SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO REAR
7 GLOUCESTER DRIVE
WREXHAM LL11 2BE
GABLE END EXTENSION
24 FFORDD ELAN WREXHAM
LL12 7RG
ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS AND
NEW VEHICULAR ACCESS.
44 THE RIDGEWAY
MARCHWIEL WREXHAM LL13
0SB
140 CROGEN CHIRK WREXHAM
LL14 5BE
ERECTION OF CONSERVATORY
EXTENSION
LAND ADJACENT TO PARK
ROAD COEDPOETH WREXHAM
LL11 3TB
GARDEN OF REST OPPOSITE
BELLEVUE PARK RUTHIN
ROAD WREXHAM LL13 7NU
WESTLEIGH SMITHFIELD
GREEN HOLT WREXHAM LL13
9AJ
ERECTION OF 1 NO. THREE BEDROOM
DETACHED DWELLING
ERECTION OF TWO-STOREY EXTENSION
AND SINGLE STOREY GARDEN ROOM
REMOVE EPICORMIC GROWTH UP TO 5.2
METRES ON AN ANNUAL BASIS UNITIL
2014 (WCBC NO. 41)
REMOVAL OF 5 CONIFER TREES AND 1
WILLOW TREE AND THE PLANTING OF
ONE REPLACEMENT TREE (WITHIN A
CONSERVATION AREA).
AMENDMENTS TO GROUND FLOOR
WINDOWS AND ROOF OVER EXTENSION
(PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER CODE
NO. GRE P/2008/1037)
REAR EXTENSION TO DWELLING
GARDEN ROOM EXTENSION
Page No 165
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
HOL P/2009/0259
GRANTED
on 29/04/2009
RHO P/2009/0261
WITHDRAWN
on 14/05/2009
BRO P/2009/0262
WITHDRAWN
on 20/05/2009
GRE P/2009/0263
REFUSED
on 27/04/2009
ESC P/2009/0264
WITHDRAWN
on 22/04/2009
BRYN VILLA HUGMORE LANE
LLANYPWLL WREXHAM LL13
9YE
LAND TO THE REAR OF LLYS Y
PANT PANT HILL
RHOSLLANERCHRUGOG
WREXHAM LL14 2DB
DISUSED RAILWAY LINE
GATEWEN ROAD NEW
BROUGHTON WREXHAM LL11
6YP
ALL SAINTS SCHOOL SCHOOL
HILL GRESFORD WREXHAM
LL12 8RW
WOOD COTTAGE WERN
BERSHAM WREXHAM LL14
4LY
ROS P/2009/0268
GRANTED
on 30/04/2009
4 GUN STREET ROSSETT
WREXHAM LL12 0HR
WRA P/2009/0269
GRANTED
on 12/05/2009
BRY P/2009/0270
GRANTED
on 05/05/2009
LLA P/2009/0271
GRANTED
on 30/04/2009
10 GLYNDWR ROAD
WREXHAM LL12 8DG
LLA P/2009/0272
GRANTED
on 12/05/2009
ESC P/2009/0273
GRANTED
on 05/05/2009
BAN P/2009/0275
WITHDRAWN
on 13/05/2009
BRN P/2009/0279
WITHDRAWN
on 21/05/2009
HOL P/2009/0280
WITHDRAWN
on 19/05/2009
WRA P/2009/0284
GRANTED
on 13/05/2009
RHO P/2009/0285
GRANTED
on 12/05/2009
RHO P/2009/0292
GRANTED
on 12/05/2009
GLAN ALYN NANT Y GAER
ROAD LLAY WREXHAM LL12
0SL
LLWYN TEG SMITHY LANE
PENTRE BYCHAN WREXHAM
WREXHAM LL14 4EW
1 FRIARS COURT BANGOR ON
DEE WREXHAM LL13 0AT
DOLGAN RUTHIN ROAD
BWLCHGWYN WREXHAM LL11
5UT
UNIT 8 PINFOLD LANE LLAY
INDUSTRIAL ESTATE LLAY
LL12 0PX
ERECTION OF AGRICULTURAL BUILDING
FOR LIVESTOCK FEED AND SMALL FARM
MACHINERY
ERECTION OF STABLE BLOCK
PROVISION OF CYCLEWAY/FOOTPATH
LINK
CONSTRUCTION OF NEW VEHICULAR
ACCESS, TEACHERS CAR PARK & 2M
HIGH GATES (IN RETROSPECT)
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE /
WORKSHOP AND TRACTOR STORE AND
ERECTION OF NEW AGRICULTURAL
STEEL BUILDING
TWO-STOREY AND SINGLE-STOREY
REAR EXTENSIONS INCLUDING
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING REAR SINGLESTOREY EXTENSION
FIRST-FLOOR REAR EXTENSION AND
TWO-STOREY SIDE EXTENSION
SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION
RELAXATION OF CONDITION NO. 3
IMPOSED UNDER PLANNING
PERMISSION CODE NO. 6/3386 TO ALLOW
PREMISES TO BE USED WITHIN USE
CLASS B8.
FIRST FLOOR SIDE EXTENSION
EXTENSION AND ALTERATIONS TO FORM
KITCHEN, DINING ROOM AND BEDROOM
AND DEMOLITION OF EXISTING KITCHEN
PROPOSED DETACHED DWELLING AND
GARAGE.
NEW BUNGALOW MILL ROAD
BRONINGTON WHITCHURCH
SY13 3HJ
HUGMORE HOUSE HUGMORE
LANE LLANYPWLL WREXHAM
LL13 9YE
14 HILLTOP VIEW ROAD
BORRAS WREXHAM LL12 7SF
CONSTRUCTION OF DOUBLE OPEN
FRONTED GARAGE BUILDING
72 BANK STREET PONCIAU
WREXHAM LL14 1EW
CHANGE OF USE FROM FORMER POST
OFFICE TO RESIDENTIAL
17 LINLEY AVENUE
JOHNSTOWN WREXHAM LL14
2TH
SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION.
ERECTION OF AGRICULTURAL STORAGE
BUILDING
CONSERVATORY EXTENSION
Page No 166
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – 1 June 2009
WRR P/2009/0293
GRANTED
on 18/05/2009
1A KING STREET WREXHAM
LL11 1HF
HOL P/2009/0302
GRANTED
on 18/05/2009
CEF P/2009/0305
WITHDRAWN
on 18/05/2009
ACADEMY GARAGE CASTLE
STREET HOLT WREXHAM LL13
9YL
LAND AT STATION HOUSE
NEWBRIDGE ROAD
NEWBRIDGE WREXHAM LL14
3BJ
RUSTIC LODGE BOWLING
BANK WREXHAM LL13 9RT
ISY P/2009/0316
GRANTED
on 18/05/2009
LISTED BUILDING CONSENT FOR
ERECTION OF STUD WALLING PARTITION
AND NEW HALF-GLAZED TIMBER
INTERNAL DOOR
CONSERVATION AREA CONSENT FOR
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE/
SHOWROOM BUILDINGS
CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY
SINGLE FAMILY DOMESTIC DWELLING
EXTENSIONS TO DWELLING