Agenda Document for Planning Committee, 06/02/2017

Item 4

REPORT TO: Planning Committee

REPORT NO. HEP/13/17

DATE: 6 February 2017

REPORTING OFFICER: Head of Environment and Planning

CONTACT OFFICER: David Williams (Ext 8775)

SUBJECT: Development Control Applications

WARD: N/A

PURPOSE OF THE REPORT

To determine the listed planning applications.

INFORMATION

Detailed reports on each application together with the recommendations are attached.

RECOMMENDATION

See attached reports.

BACKGROUND PAPERS

None.

Page 11

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Community Code No Applicant Recommendation Pages

SES P/2016 /0273 RESIDENTIAL LAND REFUSE 14 – 25 PROMOTIONS LTD ROS P/2016 /0303 JJA ESTATES LTD GRANT 26 – 34 MR PAUL BUCHANAN

CEF P/2016 /0507 MR J KRECZMAN GRANT 35 – 39

WRA P/2016 /0675 BOWEN SON AND WATSON GRANT 40 – 44 MR JAMES SUMNER

ROS P/2016 /0712 MR & MRS TAYLOR REFUSE 45 – 65

ESC P/2016 /0809 NEWRIVER PROPERTY TRUST GRANT 66 – 75 NO 4 RUA P/2016 /0915 MR MATT PRITCHARD GRANT 76 – 82

OVE P/2016 /1028 MR & MRS P TINSLEY REFUSE 83 – 87

WRO P/2016 /1050 MR F HEELEY GRANT 88 – 94

BRO P/2016 /1051 MR GLYN ELSON GRANT 95 – 98

BAN P/2016 /1096 MR BEN HUGHES GRANT 99 – 104

ABE P/2016 /1107 DEE VALLEY WATER GRANT 105 – 113 MR MARK BILLING WRR P/2016 /1111 BETSI CADWALADR UNIVERSITY GRANT 114 – 123 HEALTH BOARD MR STEVEN WEBSTER GRE P/2016 /1122 MR & MRS MIKE AND KAY GRANT 124 – 127 EDWARDS

OVE P/2016 /1125 MR JOHN OWEN GRANT 128 – 131

HOL P/2016 /1138 MR BROOKE GRANT 132 – 137

RHO P/2016 /1142 WD STANT LTD - MR CHRIS REFUSE 138 – 143 TROTT MAE P/2016 /1177 ALMAR CONSTRUCTION LTD GRANT 144 – 151 MR STEVE OULTON HOL P/2017 /0001 MR ROBERT CAMBELL GRANT 152 – 155

LLR P/2017 /0006 MR PAUL BIGNALL GRANT 156 – 158

BRY P/2017 /0013 MR ROB MORGAN GRANT 159 – 162

Total Number of Applications Included in Report - 21

Page 12

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

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 13

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /0273 LAND WEST OF BEDWELL ROAD 17/03/2016 CROSS LANES WREXHAM LL13 0TR COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Sesswick DESCRIPTION: PF OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (24 WARD: DWELLINGS) INCLUDING MEANS AGENT NAME: Marchwiel OF ACCESS TO THE SITE D S JONES & CO MR STEVE JONES APPLICANT(S) NAME: RESIDENTIAL LAND PROMOTIONS LTD

______

THE SITE

Settlement limit boundary

Greyed out area denotes application site

PROPOSAL

Planning permission is sought in outline with some matters reserved for further approval for residential development of the site for up to 24 dwellings. Approval for the means of access is sought at this stage. The submitted indicative masterplan is shown below:

Page 14

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Indicative site layout plan HISTORY

None.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

A significant proportion of the site is located outside the settlement limit of Cross Lanes as defined by the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan. The site is currently defined as agricultural land with no previous use, effectively a greenfield site. Policies PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, GDP1, GDP2, EC1, EC2, EC4, EC5, EC13, H5, CLF5 and T8 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) are applicable. These policies are amplified in Local Planning Guidance Notes (LPGN) 10 - Public Open Space in New Developments, 16 - Parking Standards, 17 - Trees and Development, 27 - Developer Contributions to Schools, 30 - Residential Design Guide and 32 - Biodiversity and Development.

Page 15

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY

National Planning Policy is contained in Planning Policy Wales (PPW) Edition 9 and Technical Advice Notes (TAN) 1 - Joint Housing Land Availability Studies, 2 - Planning and Affordable Housing, 5 - Nature Conservation and Planning, 12 – Design, 15 – Development and Flood Risk and 18 - Transport.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Opposes the application. It contravenes many policies within the UDP and would place a strain on this small rural community. The following points are made: • The infrastructure around Cross Lanes is poor and could not support a development of this size; • The only facility in the village is one shop. Parking on the roads there already causes congestion; • There are no surplus places in neighbouring schools. Extra traffic movements would be generated transporting pupils further afield; • Public transport is very limited and bus times do not correlate to train services in Wrexham. Car ownership at the site would be essential; • Bedwell road is a narrow country lane. It could not handle the additional traffic flows from the planned volume of cars; • The village already has less than the statutory amount of open space amenity. The plans make no provision for children's play areas, so the deficit would be exacerbated. • The development would encroach into greenfield areas outside the settlement limit. • This area is predominantly heavy clay. Discharge of surface water via infiltration to nearby Bedwell Brook could lead to flooding affecting properties. It is uncertain whether onsite attenuation would work; • Concerns that the brook may be polluted from the use of harmful domestic substances at the development; • Fifteen of the proposed garages do not have garages (essential for security in the countryside) and the front gardens are small. Three and four bedroom houses will potentially have 3-4 cars per households. This implies the possibility of street parking if drives cannot provide sufficient room for off- road parking;

Page 16

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

• The plans seem to refer to out- of- date environmental records. It is questionable for there to be no great- crested newts recorded at the site since 2011 and no bat activity since 1994. An otter has recently been seen 100 metres from the site; and • There have been electricity problems for many years until improved supply was put in place. The same could occur. Local Member: Notified 23.03.2016 Site notices: Expired 13.04.2016 Press notice: Expired 15.04.2016 Highways: The following observations are made: • It would appear possible to provide adequate visibility from the proposed access subject to the removal of a significant length of hedgerow/vegetation/trees. • Bedwell road has little or no footway provision along its length. A 2m wide footway would normally be required along the length of the site frontage to link with the existing footway. This would not be possible because of the existing dwellings outside the control of the applicants; • Acknowledging layout is a reserved matter, comments are made regarding poor highway layout on parts of the indicative plan; • Parking provision should comply with LPG16; • Cross Lanes may be considered to be an unsustainable location for a development of this scale. Footway provision around Cross Lanes is inadequate and there are few public services. The development would not appear to meet the requirements of settlement policies detail in TAN18. PRoW Officer: Consulted 19.04.2016 Public Protection: No objection. Requests that conditions and informatives are added regarding construction nuisance. Flood Officer: Concerns are raised on the following matters: • A portion of the site is identified as falling within TAN15 flood Zone C2. Highly vulnerable development should not be permitted. Any development here should be supported by an FCA. It is unclear from the submitted plans if the indicative layout encroaches into this C2 area. • The application states that surface water will be discharged to the existing neighbouring watercourse. No additional details have been submitted. An

Page 17

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

indicative drainage proposal should be submitted to ensure a feasible surface water management scheme is available for the site. Education: A contribution will be required towards primary education. At the time of consultation, a contribution will not be required towards secondary provision but this proposal would take the school to capacity. A contribution may be required if any further applications are approved in the interim. NRW: The following comments are made: • Flood risk The site lies entirely within a C2 flood zone as defined by TAN15. This has not been addressed in the application submission. TAN15 advises that an FCA should be submitted to justify the consequences of development in such zones. • Protected Species The submitted ecological survey has been completed to a satisfactory standard. Recommendations relating great crested newts, bats, otter, water voles and badgers. Conditions and further surveys will be required as part of a detailed scheme design; • A biosecurity risk assessment will be required to the satisfaction of the LPA. Welsh Water: No surface water should enter the public sewerage network. A detailed drainage design should be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development. North Wales Police: Standard advice issued relating to Designing out Crime. Ramblers Assoc.: Consulted 19.04.2016 Neighbouring occupiers: 17 neighbouring occupiers notified. 12 representations received.

10 representations object to the application on the following grounds: • Bedwell Road, up until recently, has been used as the main route to the Wrexham Industrial Estate. Since the opening of the new link road and the reduction in the speed limit to 30mph, the road is still used as a ‘rat run’ and the speed limit is not observed. It is still used by HGVs and a potential accident black spot. North Wales Police have refused to station officers to monitor speed as it is not safe. How is it possible to then allow residential properties along the road on this basis?

Page 18

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

• No promised amenities for the village on the back of the WIE link road have materialised • Bedwell Road is dangerous for pedestrians because of the lack of footways; • There are no cycle paths for the proposed cycles spaces in the development; • The road surface of Bedwell Road and the Nant Clwyd Estate is poor and neglected since the opening of the WIE link road; • The existing grocery store on the junction of Bedwell Road and Holt Road is inadequate in terms of parking provision exacerbated by HGV parking. The development will increase this problem; • What will the Council do about resident’s concerns about traffic, litter, parking, public transport, children’s play areas; • The development is not sustainable. There is insufficient community and social infrastructure. WCBC should consider utilisation of brownfield sites before taking away a piece of agricultural land; • Concerns about the devastation to wildlife; • The development will lead to additional traffic congestion, noise impact and light pollution for the village; • Concerns raised regarding the loss of privacy to neighbouring occupiers by way of overlooking; • The site agricultural land and was not identified for residential development as part of the LDP process; • The density of the proposed development is unacceptable; • The development may cause ground stability issues and pose potential flood risk together with contaminated runoff water to the neighbouring river; • The development will result in the considerable loss of hedgerow; • The preservation of the green belt should be championed by WCBC; • The road bridge in close proximity to the site is not strong enough; • The existing dwellings along Bedwell Road are rural in character by reason of their design and use of materials. The site is also in close proximity to Bedwell Hall, sympathetically

Page 19

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

restored and developed in 2003. The proposed development would dramatically change this situation by surrounding these houses with high density housing; • Upgrades to Bedwell Lane have coincidently occurred in the proximity of the proposed development to include a speed limit reduction and new LED light. It would appear that the development of the land has been pre-planned prior to the receipt of the application; • Adjacent field parcels appear to have been sold and presumably this is a precursor to additional residential development. The proposed development would dramatically alter the character of the area; • Additional properties emptying sewage into Bedwell Brook is unacceptable because of the potential smell; • Whilst the need for additional land for development is accepted Cross Lanes has never been identified as an area for new development. Previous LDP works sought to restrict new development in rural locations without adequate community facilities and transport infrastructure and to protect areas of high quality landscape; • The proposal makes provision for additional service road to serve future development. This will lead to additional traffic generation; • Public transport in the village is infrequent • The village has few amenities such a playgrounds and public spaces; • The notion that additional dwellings will increase natural surveillance is nonsense. An additional population with no facilities will lead to anti-social behaviour in the future; • What would happen to the public footpath that crosses the site; and • Problems occur with drainage in the village;

2 representations supporting the application on the following grounds: • A developer with an offer to buy the land questions whether sufficient weight is being given to the Council’s lack of 5 year housing supply when considering the sustainability of the site. Support is offered to the development

Page 20

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

of the site which could occur in the short term; and • A local employer close to the site (Fairfield Meat Company) employ 40 people. They support the application on the basis that a number of employees are seeking to live closer to the site to be able to cycle to work.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Policy:

Principle of development

Policy PS1 of the UDP directs all new residential development to within defined settlement limits. Residential development in the open countryside is permitted in limited circumstances where it is as a result of conversion of an existing suitable building, replacement of an existing dwelling, limited infilling, key worker dwellings or instances of justified affordable housing. Policy H5 refers. The proposed development does not accord with either of these policies and therefore represents a departure from the adopted development plan.

Housing need

PPW requires local planning authorities to ensure that sufficient land is genuinely available or will become available to provide a 5 year supply of land for housing. Members will be aware that under the provision of TAN1: Joint Housing Land Availability Studies (JHLAS) the Council has a statutory duty to monitor housing land supply on an annual basis in the form of a JHLAS. In accordance with paragraph 8.1 of TAN1 (Jan 2015), Wrexham County Borough Council is now unable to demonstrate whether it has a 5 year housing land supply because the UDP plan period has expired. At paragraph 6.2 of TAN1, it advises that the need to increase supply should be given considerable weight when dealing with planning applications provided that the development would otherwise comply with national planning policies. In this regard, as policy PS1 of the UDP was worded on this basis of population projections and housing allocations at the time of its adoption, the inability for the Council to now demonstrate a sufficient supply of land means that its requirements can no longer be met within existing defined settlements. As such policy PS1 is out of date and can therefore now only be afforded limited weight in this instance.

Location of the Development

Members will note that there are portions of the site that fall within the Cross Lanes settlement limit. Development in these areas is acceptable in principle (see UDP policy PS1) but will be required to accord with policy GDP1. I am required to consider this application as a whole – the vast majority of the development would fall within open countryside (albeit adjoining the existing settlement limit).

Page 21

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Each site that comes forward for residential development will be considered on its own merits with the principal considerations focusing on whether the site meets all the other planning detailed general development principles considerations and whether it represents a sustainable form of development. PPW confirms that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The proposal represents a significant development area in comparison to the existing settlement of Cross Lanes. PPW outlines where development should be directed. In broad terms it should be directed in order to achieve a sustainable development pattern, and it is possible to extrapolate from this the role and functions key settlements should perform. They should: - be well connected to transport infrastructure including sustainable travel options; - provide a range of retail and community services; - have a range of employment opportunities; - be well serviced by existing infrastructure; and - co‐locate housing and employment.

In a recent piece of evidence gathering carried out by the Council to feed into the preparation of the Local Development Plan (LDP), the Settlement Hierarchy and Development Potential background paper described Cross Lanes as a ‘Tier 4’ settlement. These are villages with limited facilities with some access by none car modes. As a village, it is considered that Cross Lanes is a settlement with no key facilities, devoid of education facilities, key retailing provision offering a broad range of services to the community and very limited public transport provision. The settlement is located 4km south of Wrexham town and 2km south of Wrexham Industrial Estate. It must be acknowledged that whilst this document forms part of an evidence gathering exercise for the emerging LDP and holds no weight, it is referenced in this instance to aid a comparison against the locational criteria set out in PPW and the context of the setting of the proposed development.

I consider that the proposed development goes well beyond what could be justified in this poorly served location. It is acknowledged that the Council’s 5 year housing land supply is currently set at zero. However, all residential development sites that are put forward on site located outside of settlements are considered on their own merits and there is no planning policy argument which dictates that all other material planning considerations should be given little or no weight set against the Council’s housing land supply. In this instance, I consider that the site selection criteria set out in PPW (para 9.2.8) is particularly relevant and does not justify the location and scale of the development as proposed. There should be a presumption for the re-use of previously developed land within settlements, then settlement extensions and then new development around existing settlements with good transport links. I consider that this development would represent an unsustainable development in an area of limited community facilities and services where ready access to jobs, shops and services would place a heavy reliance upon the car. Community facilities

Page 22

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 are limited to one single ‘top-up’ convenience shop. There are no leisure or community facilities and bus services are limited to 4 a day in each direction between Wrexham and Whitchurch. Highways also reaffirm these concerns. The development would not accord with section 3.4 of TAN18 which requires location selection for new housing development to consider good access to services by all modes of transport.

To allow the development would ultimately result in an unsustainable form of development, resulting in detriment to the open character of the. As such I do not consider the principle of development in this location is acceptable.

Flooding and drainage: A portion of the northern end of the site is defined as a flood Zone C2 by TAN15 (despite NRW suggesting the site lies entirely within the flood Zone C2). These are areas of flood plain which do not have significant flood defences in place. TAN15 puts residential development into a ‘highly vulnerable’ category and the LPA is required to determine whether development in such locations is justified. In the absence of an FCA (as is the case with this application), TAN15 confirms that the application should be refused.

Concerns have also arisen from the Council’s Flood Officer that insufficient investigations have been carried out to determine an appropriate method of surface water disposal from the site. As a greenfield site, TAN15 requires developments to dispose surface water at a rate no higher than the current runoff rate and that the use of SuDs should be considered in the first instance. Whilst discharge to the watercourse may be an acceptable method of disposal, no detail has been provided to consider that attenuation can occur on site to accommodate this proposal.

Highways: Approval of the site access as shown on the indicative plans is sought at this outline stage. Highways are satisfied that the access is achievable in accordance with the required Welsh Government standards set out in TAN18. However, to achieve this, a significant stretch of existing boundary hedgerow will require removal. Whilst this would be unfortunate, I am satisfied that this could be mitigated as part of the overall scheme design were the proposal to be accepted. I do not consider that this would be a sufficient reason alone to recommend refusal of planning permission.

Highways have raised concerns regarding the connectivity of the site to the rest of the village. A requirement has been recommended for a 2 metre wide footway across the entire site frontage. This could not be achieved because of limitations in the ownership of land, namely where Egerton and Bedwell Cottage front the development site. The applicant has proposed to create a footway link within the site in order to tie into the existing footway to the east of Bedwell Road. Bearing in mind that the scheme is currently at outline stage with layout reserved for further approval, I am of the opinion that a satisfactorily safe pedestrian link from the development to the rest of the village could be achieved.

Page 23

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

I have no reason to believe that the level of traffic that would be generated from the site would have a detrimental impact upon the condition of Bedwell Road. I understand that the stretch of road which passes the site is subject to a 30mph speed limit and a weight restriction is imposed on the narrow bridge to the north of the site. The type of traffic from the proposed development would not impact upon its safe operation.

Visual impact: The layout plan submitted with the application documentation is for masterplan purposes at this outline stage. However, it carries significant weight in that it provides an indication of the developer’s intentions to provide a final scheme layout should outline planning permission be granted.

I have concerns regarding the form and orientation of the development, more specifically the density of dwellings in certain locations and the way that they are laid out leading to an overly uniform and bland form of development. The layout plan also does not make provision for adequate public open space as stipulated in UDP policy and guidance (discussed below). Because of the reliance upon this plan at outline stage I consider that to accept the proposals on this basis would result in a substandard form of development which would adversely impact upon the wider landscape character. However, I do not consider that the form of development would harm the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers by way of loss of privacy or natural daylight.

Developer contributions: Education have confirmed that the local primary school currently has insufficient capacity and a contribution would not be required in relation to Penley High School. As this application is made in outline, final proposed numbers are not known. A final monetary figure would be based on the formula stated in LPG27.

There is no requirement in accordance with policy H7 and LPG28 to require any affordable housing provision as the number of proposed units falls below the threshold (25).

Policy CLF5 and LPG10 require the provision of onsite open space for schemes of more than 10 units. The masterplan (upon which the LPA can rely upon as an indication of the intended design of the site for decision making purposes) does not make provision for this. The plan shows no intention to provide open space. Coupled with the probable need to rethink the layout to take account of the flood zone, a significant redesign of the masterplan would be required. There is little open space provision in Cross Lanes and should any development be accepted in this location, good quality open space provision would be expected to form part of the overall design in accordance with LPG10.

Page 24

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 development in the open countryside. The Council’s lack of designated land for housing development is not considered to outweigh this impact.

There is insufficient detail with the application to demonstrate that the proposal can sustainably control surface water runoff from the new development, nor has it been proven that the risk from fluvial flooding is acceptable. I therefore recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be REFUSED

REASON(S)

1. The proposed development would be unsatisfactory and undesirable because the development involves a greenfield site and it is located outside any settlement limits as defined in the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan. The development therefore conflicts with Policies PS1, PS2, PS4, GDP1 and H5 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan. 2. The proposed development is not considered to be satisfactory in terms of design and would not provide sufficient measures to secure a satisfactory form of sustainable development. In particular:- - The proposal to discharge surface water generated by the development to an existing watercourse is not based on any site investigations to determine whether the site could attenuate excess surface water to allow it to discharge at or below the existing greenfield run-off rate, nor has the applicant demonstrated whether sustainable drainage systems can be employed on site in accordance with guidance contained in Technical Advice Note 15 - Development and Flood Risk; - Insufficient information has been submitted to assess the impact that the development will have on statutorily protected species. In the absence of such information, the development will prejudice the favourable conservation status of those species; and - The development will result in an unattractive built environment and the wider landscape without making provision for suitable levels of public open space. For the above reasons, to allow the development would be contrary to policies GDP1, EC12, EC13 and CLF5 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan. 3. A portion of the application site lies in an area identified as being at high risk of flooding (flood zone C2) as defined by the Welsh Government Technical Advice Note 15 - Development and Flood Risk (TAN 15). The applicant has failed to accurately assess the level of flood risk to the proposed development and impact on flood risk elsewhere. As such it has been unable to demonstrate that the proposals are appropriate given the potential level of flood risk. Nor has it been demonstrated that the proposals will not have a detrimental impact to adjacent properties / land areas. This is contrary to the requirements of TAN15 and policy EC12 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.

______

Page 25

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /0303 BARTON HOUSE DARLAND LANE 29/03/2016 ROSSETT WREXHAM LL12 0EL COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Rossett DESCRIPTION: KH DEMOLITION OF EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AND ERECTION OF 4 NO WARD: DETACHED DWELLINGS WITH AGENT NAME: Rossett ASSOCIATED ACCESSES GREEN SQUARE ARCHITECTURE APPLICANT(S) NAME: LIMITED MR PAUL BUCHANAN MR JOHN SEAGER JJA ESTATES LTD

______

THE SITE

SITE

The proposed development site is located on the junction of Lavister Walks and Darland Lane, Rossett. The site is currently occupied by a single-storey office block fronting Darland Lane with associated parking to the rear. Residential properties are on all sides of the site.

Page 26

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing office building and erection of 4 detached dwellings with associated accesses. Two properties will have direct access on to Darland Lane with the other two properties having access off Lavister Walks.

HISTORY

No recent history.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Within settlement limits. Policies PS1, PS2, GDP1(a) (b) (d) refer.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Support the application. Local Member: No objection subject to the following:- • Houses are of a scale and size to be affordable; • Issues of drainage is resolved; • In 1999 a planning application for several houses on the neighbouring plot was rejected on the grounds of drainage, only one house was allowed and the impact of the loss of parking on Lavister Walks is considerable. Highways: Have made the following comments: - Access off Darland Lane requires visibility splays of 2.0 x 33m in both directions; - The existing footway fronting the site reduces in width to approximately 1.7m with a hedgerow behind the back of the footway. I recommend the existing hedgerow is removed and the existing footway widened to 2.0m; - The proposed splays have not been correctly shown on the submitted plan and the footway has not been annotated for widening to 2.0m; - There would appear to be an existing access on the corner of the junction fronting plot 2. I recommend the existing dropped kerb/footway is reinstated to full height; - Plots 3 & 4 appear to have driveways capable of accommodating 3 cars which is considered acceptable; - Plots 3 &4 front a classified road. Provision for turning would normally be required. However this is not considered critical in this instance given the relatively low speed along this section; - The existing footway along Lavister Walks is approximately 1.6m wide. I would recommend it

Page 27

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

is widened to 2.0m. The existing dropped kerb footway providing access to the offices will need to be re-instated to full height footway. The revised layout plan indicates the latter but does not indicate the widening of the footway. Please request this detail on a revised plan; - Please request a revised plan indicated/annotating proposed parking dimensions; - Plot 2 appears to provide 2 parking spaces. Please ask the applicant to lengthen the driveway to 15.1m in order to accommodate 3 cars. The drive should be widened to 3.2m; - Recommend that 3 parking spaces are provided for each 4 bedroom property.

Public Protection: Conditions required regarding hours of construction of the properties and a Dust Management Scheme and various advice notes. Welsh Water: Drainage conditions required. NRW: No objections. Ecology: The Council’s Ecologist has confirmed that the Bat and Bird Report is acceptable and recommendations should be conditioned. Flood Officer: The site is identified as falling within Zone B as defined by TAN 15. In addition a portion of the site is identified as being of low risk of surface water flooding as defined by the NRW surface water flood map. It is recommended the applicant considers the use of flood resistant and flood resilient construction techniques to minimise the risk of flooding to the development in the future. Other Representations: 6 letters of objection received on the following grounds:- • Relocation of main drain will be a major operation • Hedgerow will be lost with relocation of drain • Windows facing properties on Rossett Park should be obscurely glazed • Materials should match other properties in the area • Darland Lane is congested at peak times • Visitor parking on Darland Lane could be dangerous • Loss of privacy and loss of light • Existing access points may be compromised with no access points

Page 28

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

• Concerned that access points could be obstructed • Car parking on surrounding roads • Greater car parking congestion • Already congestion in the area • Safety of pedestrians • Flood risk • Number of new properties changing the character of the area and pressure on public services • Ecology issues • Noise disturbance and construction vehicles • Increased problems highway safety • Car park used as an overspill car park • Trees should be retained

1 letter with concerns regarding Japanese Knotweed and a sewer that runs across the site but overall support. Site Notice: Expired 26.04.2016.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Background / Proposal: Demolition of existing office building and the erection of 4 No. detached dwellings with associated accesses. Three of the properties face Darland Lane with the other fronting Lavister Walks. Two of the properties will have access off Darland Lane and two will have access from Lavister Walks.

The proposed layout plan is shown below.

Page 29

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Proposed Layout Plan

Highways: Highways have requested visibility splays of 2.0 x 33m for the accesses onto Darland Lane. This is achievable if part of the edge enclosing the south-eastern boundary of the site is removed and the footway widened accordingly. This will be secured by condition.

Highways have not expressed concerns about the accesses for two plots onto Lavister Walks. They have however requested the existing 1.6m wide footway fronting this part of the site be widened to 2m. Whilst this may be desirable, it is not essential to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Only one dwelling will have its sole means of pedestrian access off Lavister Walks and is unlikely to materially increase the number of pedestrians using the footway, particularly as the existing use could potentially generate pedestrian traffic that uses the footway. It would therefore not be possible to sustain a refusal of planning permission because the submitted plans make no provision for the widening of this footway.

The application is for 4 x 4 bedroom dwellings. Each dwelling will be provided with a driveway capable of accommodating 3 cars, which accords with Local Planning Guidance Note 16, although the driveway for plot 2 does not make an allowance for the opening of a garage door. I do not consider it a critical issue in this instance. The driveway could accommodate 3 vehicles, albeit provided there is no need to open/close the garage door. Even if this meant the driveway could only accommodate 2 vehicles, the proximity of the site to regular public transport would mean parking provision 1 space below the LPG16 maximum

Page 30

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 would not provide sustainable grounds to refuse permission in this instance. In any case, the occasional parking of 1 vehicle on the highway (i.e. if the applicant could not park 3 cars on the driveway due to a need to access the garage) would not cause significant highway safety issues in the vicinity of the site in this instance.

I have requested the applicant provide a revised plan increasing the width of the driveway for plot 2 as recommend by Highways. This matter will, in any case, be dealt with by condition.

Drainage: The site lies within a zone B flood zone and part of the site is subject to a low risk of surface water flooding. NRW have raised no objections regarding flooding issues whilst the Council’s Flood Officer has recommended that the applicant considers the use of flood resistant and flood resilient construction techniques to minimise the risk of flooding to the development in the future. This matter will be covered by an advisory note.

Amenity: I am satisfied that the new dwellings will not compromise existing residential amenity. Whilst the distance between proposed Plot 1 and one of the properties on Rossett Park is marginally under the required 22m, 21.5m can be achieved and I would not anticipate any significant loss of privacy. A side first floor window on the gable elevation of Plot 4 will need to be obscurely glazed. I am also satisfied that given the distance and orientation of the new dwellings to the properties off Lavister Walks, no loss of amenity is anticipated to the existing residents.

Conclusion: I am satisfied that the proposals are acceptable and sympathetic to the existing character of the area. Highways are satisfied that the scheme will not compromise highway safety and existing residential amenity will be protected.

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. No part of the development shall commence until an appropriate Dust Management Scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The dust mitigation measures as are approved shall be fully implemented for the entire duration of the construction phase. 3. Prior to their use on the development samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be 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. Development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the Recommendations and Conclusions contained in Section 5 of the Building Inspection for Bats and Birds compiled by Ecoscope Ltd and dated March 2016.

Page 31

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

5. No surface water and or land drainage shall be allowed to connect directly or indirectly with the public sewerage network. 6. No part of the development shall commence until a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site indicating how foul water, surface water and land drainage will be dealt with has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme as approved shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed as part of the submitted details and maintained thereafter. 7. All works in relation to the implementation of this permission, including deliveries to and / or leaving the site, shall be undertaken only between the hours of 7.30 and 18.00 Monday to Friday, and 08.00 to 14.00 on a Saturday, and at no time on a Sunday or a Bank Holiday unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re- enacting that Order with or without modification), the first floor window on Plot 4 facing South East shall only be glazed or re-glazed using obscure glass which shall thereafter be permanently retained and remain fixed shut at all times. 9. Details of all boundary means of enclosure shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any works on site. Works shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the details as are approved and retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 10. Prior to first use of the development the site shall be laid out in strict accordance with layout plan(s) No. Drawing 7165/P/002 Rev A. 11. Within three months of commencement of development, full details of a hard and soft landscaping scheme together with a timescale for implementation of works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 12. The landscaping scheme including the paving and footpath areas submitted and approved in connection with condition no. 11 shall be fully implemented in all respects within three months of the first use of the building with the exception of soft landscaping which shall be carried out in the first planting season (November to March) or seeding season (April to September) following the first use. 13. The landscaping scheme as carried out in connection with condition no. 12 shall be permanently retained. Any planting becoming severely damaged or seriously diseased, or is in poor physiological condition and/or are removed without the written permission of the Local Planning Authority shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted and within a timescale all to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 14. Notwithstanding approved drawing no. 7165/P/002 Revision A, no dwelling shall be occupied until the existing footway along Darland Lane has been widened to at least 2.0m along the full length of the site frontage, in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 15. Notwithstanding approved drawing no. 7165/P/002 Revision A, the driveway to Plot 2 shall be 3.2m wide for its full length. The driveway shall be

Page 32

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 laid out, surfaced and drained to that width prior to the first occupation of the dwelling. 16. The development shall only be carried out in strict accordance with the details shown on the approved drawing(s) numbered 7165/P/002 Revision A, 7165/P/003, 7165/P/004, 7165/P/005, 7165/P/006, 7165/P/007, 7165/P/008, 7165/P/010, 7165/P/011 and 7165/P/012 and contained within the application documentation.

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 ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 4. To protect named species / habitats / biodiversity which would otherwise be damaged / lost by the development hereby permitted. 5. To prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system, to protect the health and safety of existing residents and ensure no pollution of or detriment to the environment. 6. To ensure that effective drainage facilities are provided for the proposed development, and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system. 7. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 8. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 9. In the interests of residential amenity and the general visual amenities of the area. 10. In the interests of highway safety. 11. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 12. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 13. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 14. To ensure that adequate visibility is provided at the proposed point of access to the highway. 15. To ensure the driveway is of adequate width to enable occupiers to get in and out of their vehicles. 16. To ensure that the development fully complies with the appropriate policies and standards.

NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT

Applicants are advised that compliance with condition no. 3 does not provide an exemption from the statutory nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Under the Act dust from any type of activity can be judged to be causing a statutory nuisance to neighbouring properties. A legal notice can be served requiring that the dust nuisance is abated and failure to comply

Page 33

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 with the requirements of the notice can result in prosecution. The applicant should contact the Council's Housing and Public Protection Department on 01978 315300 for further advice and information.

The applicant is advised that the Council has the option to control construction noise by serving a Control of Pollution Act 1974, Section 60, Notice where deemed necessary, and failure to comply with such a Notice can result in prosecution. For further information and advice regarding construction noise please contact the Council's Housing and Public Protection Department on 01978 315300.

Burning of waste generated from construction activities is not considered to be an appropriate method of disposal and action may be taken as follows:

- Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 anyone found disposing of construction site waste by burning is likely to be in breach of their duty of care with regard to waste disposal; - Under the same Act an abatement notice may be served where smoke is judged to be causing a nuisance to neighbouring properties. Failure to comply with the requirements of the notice can result in prosecution; - Under the Clean Air Act 1993 it is an offence for a commercial activity to burn anything that gives rise to dark smoke.

To prevent offences under the above named Acts there should be no bonfires on the site, to include the prohibition of the burning of cleared vegetation. The applicant should contact the Council's Environment and Planning Department on 01978 315300 for further advice and information.

The applicant is advised that compliance with condition no. 7 does not provide an exemption from the statutory noise nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Any complaints received relating to noise from the development during the permitted hours may still be investigated using the Council's Standardised Procedure for Dealing with Noise Nuisance Complaints and legal action may be taken where appropriate.

The Council's flood officer recommends the applicant considers the use of flood resistant construction techniques to minimise the risk of flood risk to the development in to the future.

Your attention is drawn to the advisory notes of Welsh Water attached to this decision. ______

Page 34

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /0507 49 QUEENS SQUARE 26/05/2016 RHOSYMEDRE WREXHAM LL14 3EQ COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Cefn DESCRIPTION: PF ALTERATIONS TO 2 NO DWELLINGS TO CREATE 3 NO TWO STOREY WARD: DWELLINGS AGENT NAME: Cefn BLUEPRINT APPLICANT(S) NAME: ARCHITECTURAL MR J KRECZMAN SERVICES LTD MR DAFYDD EDWARDS

______

THE SITE

PROPOSAL

Planning permission is sought for the alteration and subdivision of nos. 48 and 49 Queens Square from two dwellings to three. The proposal would result in 3 no. 2 bed dwellings with an additional 4 car parking spaces.

Page 35

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

HISTORY

None.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The site is located inside a settlement limit. Policies PS2, GDP1, H4 and T8 are relevant. Guidance is also contained in Local Planning Guidance Note 16 – Parking Standards and 21 – Space Around Dwellings.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Object to the application on the grounds of parking issues. The site is not big enough to accommodate the requested number of parking bays for three dwellings. Local Member: Cllr Derek Wright declares an interest in the application, however is concerned about parking issues on the site. Site notice: Expired 24.06.2016 Highways: Recommend refusal. Concerns are raised that although Queens Square is not marked out, the provision of vehicular access to the site could sterilise space which is used for parking provision exacerbating parking congestion in the area. Public Protection: Construction amenity nuisance conditions and informatives recommended. NRW: Although the site partially lies within flood Zone C2, there is uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the data. No objections are raised but recommend a partial FCA to introduce flood mitigation measures for the new dwelling. No adverse impact upon protected species is anticipated. Neighbouring occupiers: 15 neighbouring occupiers notified. 3 representations received. Three representations received raising concerns: • Concerns about the right of access across the property frontage to the neighbouring dwelling and the impact upon the occupation of this dwelling; • The allocated parking plans are insufficient. The parking areas are already used by existing residents; • Changing the property from a semi- detached to a terrace would devalue neighbouring properties;

Page 36

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

• To alter the property would harm the visual character of one of the oldest dwellings in the area. It should remain as a large family home; and • The rear garage court is Council owned and has limited parking space.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Policy: Policy H4 of the UDP establishes the principle of dwelling subdivision. In considering such proposals, the policy sets out the following criteria: a) Sub-division is possible without major alterations, extensions, or additional new buildings which would significantly alter the character of the original dwelling; and b) Proposals accord with Policy GDP1; and c) Adequate private open space is available. d) The proposal would not result in the over-concentration of Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) to the detriment of crime levels, the social fabric of the area, and the amenity of existing residents.

Amenity: The proposal would result in the alteration to the principal elevation of the properties by the creation of new doorways. Whilst I note concerns regarding the loss of the character and form of the existing building, the properties are not listed, within a conservation area and do not form a principal view within the buffer zone of the nearby World Heritage Site. I do not consider that these alterations would be detrimental to the wider streetscene. No further floor area is required as part of the proposals.

The proposals show an intention to provide private amenity space associated with each property in accordance with provision set out in LPG21.

The proposal will not result in the provision of HMOs.

Highways: The properties currently do not have any allocated off street parking. No. 48 is a 2 bed dwelling and no. 49 is a three bed. In accordance with maximum standards laid down in LPG16, these dwellings would require a total of 5 spaces.

The parking area to the front of the dwellings (Queens Square) is not currently marked out. The proposed plans indicated the provision of four parking spaces in total - two no. parking spaces to the side of no 48 (proposed unit 3) and two spaces to the rear of the dwellings accessed by a Council garage court off Chapel Street. The site layout plan is included below:

Page 37

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

I have not received any confirmation from the applicant that there is the requisite permission to access their land from the Council garage court. This is not adopted highway and effectively private land in the hands of a third party. However, in considering the impact of this proposal, the Council must establish where it may cause harm to highway safety. I am mindful that this proposal would require a maximum provision of 6 no. parking spaces (LPG16). Bearing in mind that the current requirement is 5 spaces but current provision of nil, this proposal could provide for two off road spaces to cater for the additional unit. There would be a neutral impact in terms of highway safety.

I note the concerns of Highways and those making representations that the provision of this parking area could sterilise an area of Queens Square from being used for parking. However, the area is unmarked and there are no formal parking arrangements at present. It must also be noted that, without the need for planning permission, the applicant could make an application under the Highways Act to drop the kerbs at the point of the proposed access, implement the parking area, and return with a planning application as now proposed.

For the above reasons, even if the applicant were not able to gain the requisite permission to create two parking spaces to the rear of the dwellings, I consider that the proposed development would not result in any significant additional parking congestion given the modest differences in the parking requirements.

Page 38

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Other matters: I acknowledge the concerns of the neighbouring occupier regarding access to their property and the need to be able to park as close as possible to their property. I have no reason to believe that this proposal would preclude their legal right of access to their dwelling, nor would it prevent the parking of their vehicle as close as possible to their existing pathway. In any case rights of access are civil issues which are not material planning considerations.

The impact of development on property values are also not material planning considerations.

Conclusion: I am satisfied that the proposed development will accord with local planning policy which considers the potential impact of the sub division of dwellings. The perceived impact upon parking provision is demonstrated as being in accordance with the Council’s own parking standards (LPG16). I therefore recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

CONDITION(S)

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 that the impact of any flood event minimises damage to the fabric of the dwellings.

______

Page 39

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /0675 RHOSNESNI METHODIST CHURCH 12/07/2016 RHOSNESNI LANE WREXHAM LL12 7ER COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Acton DESCRIPTION: KH DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CHURCH AND OUTLINE WARD: APPLICATION FOR CONSTRUCTION AGENT NAME: Rhosnesni OF 2 DWELLINGS WITH BLUEPRINT ASSOCIATED VEHICULAR ACCESS ARCHITECTURAL AND PARKING SERVICES LTD MR DAFYDD EDWARDS APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR JAMES SUMNER BOWEN SON AND WATSON

______

THE SITE

SITE

The site is located off the southern side of Rhosnesni Lane at the junction of Rhosnesni Lane and Borras Road. Rhosnesni High School is to the immediate east with residential properties to the north and south. The existing Rhosnesni

Page 40

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Methodist Church is located to the eastern side of the site adjoining Rhosnesni High School.

PROPOSAL

Demolition of existing Church and outline application for construction of 2 dwellings with associated vehicular access and parking.

RELEVANT HISTORY

None.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Within settlement limit. Policies PS1, PS2 and GDP1 (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) of the Wrexham UDP refer.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Concerns regarding highway safety as the two proposed driveways are in close proximity to the main entrance of Rhosnesni High School, albeit on a one way street after the main entrance, and the access and egress of vehicles to and from the dwellings on to the mini-roundabout. Same comments made with the amended scheme. Local Member: Notified 18.07.2016. Public Protection: Conditions regarding construction works and hours restrictions and notes regarding dust, burning of waste and noise nuisance. Highways: No objections subject to planning conditions. Welsh Water: Conditions required. Natural Resources Wales: No objections. Clwyd Powys Arch Trust: A Building Survey is required to facilitate a programme of historic building recording prior to demolition. Condition required. Other representations: 2 letters of concern / objection and 1 letter of support on the following grounds:- • Access to Borras Road would be too near the roundabout; • All accesses should be via Rhosnesni Lane; • The development is too near to closest residential property; • No windows on gable elevation facing residential property closest to the site; • Increased highway danger with site close to roundabout and Rhosnesni High School and a notorious accident black spot;

Page 41

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

• Cracks already appearing in a nearby house with speed of HGV’s on the roads; • Double parking on road already a problem and a rise in anti-social behaviour in the area; • Wrong to build on consecrated ground for other reasons than religion. Site Notice: Expired 11.08.2016.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS / ISSUES

Proposal: The proposal involves the demolition of the existing Methodist Church which fronts on to Rhosnesni Lane and the erection of a pair of semi- detached properties. The application is an outline application with all matters reserved for further approval. The indicative plan initially submitted showed dwellings fronting Borras Road but this has subsequently been amended to address concerns regarding impact on existing residential amenity and highway safety. The revised indicative plan shows both dwellings fronting Rhosnesni Lane. The indicative site plan is shown below:

Indicative site plan

Highways: The original submission involved access for one of the plots via Borras Road but this could not be supported given the proximity to the existing Borras Road / Rhosnesni Lane roundabout. Access arrangements were

Page 42

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 subsequently amended and access to both dwellings is shown as being be via Rhosnesni Lane via 2 access points.

The proposed development site is currently accessed off Rhosnesni lane which is a classified road subject to a 20 m.p.h. speed limit and this section of road is subject to traffic calming and operates a one way system restricting flows from east to west. Appropriate splays will be required from the access points 2m x 25m in an easterly direction measured to the nearside edge of the adjoining highway. Pedestrian visibility splays will also be required given the proximity to the school. The 500 mm high boundary wall and railings along the site could be retained with no change in materials or height to maintain visibility to the right from the roundabout along Rhosnesni Lane from Borras Road.

Parking and turning is acceptable. Subject to planning conditions I am satisfied the access arrangements will be acceptable and safe.

Amenity / Design: Separation distances to existing properties on the northern side of Rhosnesni Lane exceed the standards and will ensure no loss of privacy. The revised layout also addresses issues previously raised by occupation of 134 Borras Road and will ensure privacy and light to habitable rooms is protected.

I am satisfied the properties, subject to a high standard of design will ensure it is in character with the existing development.

Conclusion: I am satisfied that an application for two dwellings (pair of semis) is acceptable in principle and can be provided without compromising residential amenity or highway safety. Whilst I am mindful of the comment made by a resident regarding consecrated grounds, this is not a material planning consideration and therefore would not warrant refusal of the application.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

CONDITION(S)

1. Approval of the following details shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced: a. the layout of the building(s) b. the scale of the building(s) c. the appearance of the building(s) d. the means of access to the site and building(s) e. the landscaping of the site. 2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 1 (above) shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority before the expiry of three years from the date of this permission. The development shall only be carried out in strict conformity with such details as are approved. 3. The development hereby approved shall be commenced before the expiry of five years from the date of this permission or before the expiry of two

Page 43

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters required to be approved, whichever is the later. 4. The access details submitted in respect of condition 01 shall be in accordance with the layout plan no B100/003 Rev C. 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re- enacting that Order with or without modification), no gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure shall be erected, constructed or placed across the accesses to the dwellings within 5 metres of the highway boundary under Class A, of Schedule 2 Part 2 7. No private surface water run off shall be permitted to flow from the development site onto the adjoining highway. An Aco drain or similar shall be provided across the approved access to intercept any such run off prior to first use of the development. 8. No development shall take place until a programme of building and recording and analysis equivalent to an English Heritage Level 3 Building Survey has been secured and implemented in accordance with a brief issued by the Local Planning Authority and a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The programme of building analysis and recording must meet the standards laid down by the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists in their Standard and Guidance for the archaeological investigation and recording of standing buildings or structures. A copy of the resulting report should be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and the Development Control Archaeologist, Clwyd- Powys Archaeological Trust (41 Broad Street, Welshpool, Powys, SY21 7RR - email: [email protected] - Tel: 01978 553670. After the approval by the Local Planning Authority a copy of the report and resulting archive should also be sent to the Historic Environment Record Officer, Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust for inclusion in the regional Historic Environment Record. 9. The 500 mm high boundary wall and railings along the site boundary shall be permanently retained with no change in materials or height.

REASON(S)

Page 44

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /0712 LAND AT THE BUNGALOW 25/07/2016 DARLAND LODGE OFF DARLAND LANE AND GAMFORD LANE COMMUNITY: ROSSETT WREXHAM CASE OFFICER: Rossett LL12 0BA PF

DESCRIPTION: WARD: OUTLINE APPLICATION TO ERECT AGENT NAME: Rossett 47 DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED LAND PLANNING LTD INFRASTRUCTURE WORKS WITH MISS JOANNE ELLIS- ALL MATTERS RESERVED JONES

APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR & MRS TAYLOR

______

THE SITE

The application site is greenfield land located outside of, but immediately adjoining, the settlement limit of Rossett, within a green barrier and a Special Landscape Area (as defined by the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan). It is bounded to the north west by Gamford Lane which forms part of the eastern boundary of the Rossett settlement. To the northeast are the grounds of Darland Hall and to the south open tracts of agricultural land. A small group of cottages is also located between the site and Gamford Lane at its southern end. The site itself is formed by three separate field parcels.

Page 45

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

PROPOSAL

Planning permission is sought in outline with all matters reserved for future approval. The application has been submitted with the following accompanying documents:

- Planning Statement; - Design and Access Statement; - Indicative site layout and access plan; - Arboricultural Assessment; - Ecological Appraisal; and - Flood Consequences Assessment

An image of the indicative site plan for the site is shown below:

Page 46

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Proposed site layout

HISTORY

None relevant.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The application site is located outside of the settlement limit, within a green barrier and a special landscape area. The site is currently defined as agricultural land with no previous use, therefore a greenfield site. Policies PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, GDP1, GDP2, EC1, EC2, EC4, EC5, EC13, H5, H7, CLF5 and T8 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) are applicable. These policies are amplified in Local Planning Guidance Notes (LPGN) 10 - Public Open Space in New Developments, 16 - Parking Standards, 17 - Trees and Development, 27 - Developer Contributions to Schools, 28 - Affordable Housing, 30 - Residential Design Guide and 32 - Biodiversity and Development. The Council’s LANDMAP assessment guidance document is also applicable.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Object on the following grounds: • It is outside settlement;

Page 47

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

• It is on Agricultural Land; • The site is designated as Green Barrier and Special Landscape Area; • Springfield Lodge has been sandbagged twice in recent years due to potential flooding; • Gamford Lane is extremely narrow and the confluence of Darland and Gamford Lanes present a traffic hazard; • Darland School is over capacity; • St Peters School is over capacity; • There is a lack of adequate health care in the village; • The junction between Chester Road and Darland Lane is difficult and increased traffic volumes will also add a further traffic hazard; • The junction of Darland and Gamford Lanes is subject to significant flood events.

Local Member: Objects to the application on the following grounds. • It is outside settlement; • It is on Agricultural Land; • Springfield Lodge has been sandbagged twice in recent years due to potential flooding; • Gamford Lane is extremely narrow and the confluence of Darland and Gamford Lanes present a traffic hazard; • Darland School is over capacity; • St Peters School is over capacity; • The junction between Chester Road and Darland Lane is difficult and this will add significant traffic; and • The junction of Darland and Gamford Lanes are subject to significant flood events. Site notices: Expired 31.08.2016 Highways: No objection raised to the proposed development and the following comments/recommendations are made: • It would appear possible to provide an access in a central position along Gamford Lane. It would also appear possible to provide adequate forward visibility for a proposed access. Adequate visibility could not be achieved from the additional access

Page 48

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

point proposed to the southern end of the site; • Access to/from the development is typically from Chester Road/Darland Lane to the North West and Gamford Lane/Rossett Road approach to the South East. The Chester Road approach is deemed adequate but the Gamford Lane approach is not ideal due to the narrow carriageway widths and lack of footway and lighting. Gamford Lane is used by a significant amount of traffic as a shortcut and would require upgrading were permission to be granted to include carriageway widening and the provision of a 2 metre wide footway; • A suitable scheme for surface water disposal will need to be submitted for further approval. There are known surface water flooding issues on the highway network along Gamford Lane adjacent to the proposed development site and around the junction of Darland Lane. A Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA) should be carried out. Public Protection: No objection. The following recommendations are made: • Contamination investigation should be carried out prior to the commencement of development due to the presence of an infilled pond on the site; • Amenity protection conditions recommended for the construction phase of the development; Flooding Officer: The following comments have been received: • A notable portion of the site is identified as being at risk of surface water flooding as defined on Natural Resources Wales updated flood map for surface water. We also hold a number of reports of flooding associated with the highway network along Gamford Lane adjacent to the proposed site, and around the junction with Darland Lane. The proposed site layout does indicate a number of properties located within this area of flood risk; • The applicants submitted FCA and Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) proposes to discharge of surface waters

Page 49

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

generated by the new development on the site into the combined sewerage system. This is unlikely to be acceptable to Welsh Water; • The proposed alternative means of surface water disposal to a local watercourse is deemed inappropriate at this stage due to issues with the truncation of the local drainage network resulting in repeated flooding in the area. Education: A financial contribution would be required towards infrastructure improvements at Darland High School. No contribution would be required towards improvements at primary level. NRW: The following comments are made: • The site is within flood Zone A as defined by TAN15. Parts of the site are shown to be at risk from surface water flooding on NRWs records. The development is likely to increase the surface area of impermeable ground increasing rapid runoff; • The method of surface water drainage should be established and the Council should liaise with their own Drainage Department for further advice on drainage design to ensure that conditions are not imposed on any planning permission which could prove impossible to implement; • The ecological assessment to has been completed to a satisfactory standard, and agree with the conclusions. The proposal will not affect any European or fully protected British protected species; • The proposal is within or may affect a Landscape of Outstanding/Special Historic Interest. While this is not a statutory designation, chapter 6 of Planning Policy Wales (PPW) states that it is a material consideration in the planning process and must be given due regard when reaching a determination. Welsh Water: Welsh Water would not support the discharge of surface water into the combined sewer. The discharge of surface water into the combined system and its eventual treatment is not a sustainable means of surface water drainage.

Page 50

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

CPAT: No archaeological implications. Wrexham Area Civic Society: Consulted 28.07.2016 Clwyd Badger Group: Concerned about the proposed development as there is an active badger sett in a woodland area of the garden of Darland Hall. The existing ponds in the site should be given careful consideration as they are used by badgers. Neighbouring occupiers: 20 neighbouring occupiers notified and 52 representations have been received. The nature of the responses are summarised below.

48 representations objecting to the development have been received raising the following points:

Planning Policy • The policies of the UDP are relevant; • Precedence with previous similar decisions by WCBC and PINS should be applied in this instance; • The site is located in an area designated as Green Barrier - the character of the village would not be enhanced; - it was set a precedent for further similar development; - it is accepted by the applicant that the development in contrary to policy; - the loss of the land will irreversibly cause environmental damage to Rossett; - the development will result in urban sprawl and does not create a natural extension to the settlement; - the lack of 5 year land supply alone is insufficient a reason to allow the development. • The site is outside settlement and does not accord with policy PS1; • The site is located in an area designated as a Special Landscape Area; • This is a speculative and dangerous application clearly made to take advantage of planning uncertainty in respect of the current LDP and could cause harm to a rural community;

Page 51

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

• The development would not accord with PPW - it does not accord with Chapter 4 as it does not contribute to the protection of the environment as so to improve the quality of life… - it does not minimise risks posed by flooding or contaminated land…. • The development does not accord with the Strategic Policies of the Wrexham UDP • The development does not accord with policy GDP1, EC1, EC2, EC12 of the Wrexham UDP; • The development would occur on Green Belt land; • The development would occur on good quality agricultural land and does not accord with policy EC2;

Amenity • The development will have a detrimental visual impact upon the rural character of the area and also the residents of Darland Lane by way of overlooking and loss of privacy; • There would be an increase in air and light pollution in the area from vehicles accessing the site; • It is worrying that the design detail will be reserved for further approval; • The loss of hedgerows will cause damage to the character of Rossett; • The development would contravene the Human Rights Act; • No agricultural land assessment has been submitted; • The development proposal is missing substantive information to justify the high quality of design claims as it is outline;

Traffic/Highway Safety • Gamford Lane simply cannot sustain any more traffic pressures; • Gamford Lane is narrow, winding and dark where visibility is poor due to hedgerows and trees; • It is difficult for vehicles to pass along Gamford Lane;

Page 52

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

• Countless instances of near misses have occurred; • Drivers do not drive sensibly along this lane and large vehicles use the lane. This could result in a serious accident; • Gamford Lane is used as a ‘rat run’ for parents taking their children to school and other motorists going between Chester and Farndon. All manner of differing sized vehicles; • The junction of Gamford Lane onto Rossett Road is particularly dangerous; • Highway surface water flooding occurs which adds to the danger; • The Flood Officer has noted the NRW updated flood map for the area and has recommended permission be refused; • The bend where Darland Lane meets Gamford Lane is particularly dangerous. To say the development will not significantly increase traffic is clearly written by a naïve person who does not know the lane; • There is also another application already submitted extremely close by for eight houses where Highways have stated the development should be considered suitable in line with TAN18 – this site is bigger!; • Gamford Lane has no footway or street lighting provision and pedestrians will have to walk a significant distance in an unlit rural area; • A single dwelling generates 11 vehicle movements a day – this development would generate 517 and Gamford Lane cannot sustain this; • Darland/Gamford lanes are dangerous for children walking and bike riding; • The PRoW to the schools are unlikely to be used because of their condition and people are likely to drive; • It should not be assumed that all vehicles would turn right out the site and head through Rossett; • Traffic on Gamford Lane is a problem at peak times;

Page 53

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

• Existing residents of Gamford Lane will find it difficult to get out of their drives; • Motorists do not keep the speed limit and traffic calming measures are inadequate; • The Darland Lane/Chester Road junction can take up to 5 minutes to negotiate at peak times; • Proposals to widen Gamford Lane would only seek to increase vehicle speed; • People will not use buses because of cost and will use their car; • There is no Transport Assessment submitted with the application;

Flooding • There is inadequate surface water drainage in the locality due to the blockage of a drainage pipe/ditch at a recently build nearby development. As a result the area frequently becomes water logged and there have been unsuccessful attempts to remedy the situation; • The development will exacerbate the surface water flooding and the overall design of the scheme does not accord with TAN15 section 8; • The use of the combined sewage network will lead to increased instances of pollution to watercourses;

Other matters • There are limited services in the area such as shops, doctors, pubs and hairdressers; • Wildlife would be harmed by the proposed development; • The areas regularly floods including the application site and further dwellings will add to this problem; • The local schools are at capacity; • Health facilities are at capacity • The water treatment works will not be able to deal with capacity; • The site is ¼ mile from Darland School. It is not near a bus stop; • The development will make the open space shortfall in Rossett worse; • The site is in close proximity to the Grade II listed Darland Hall and its garden

Page 54

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

pergola. The development will be seen from the listed building and its curtilage/grounds and the development will threaten the setting of the listed building; • The goal of the application is to provide affordable housing for Wales however, given the proximity to Chester, it will become a commuter area for Cheshire; • A significant amount of hedgerow will require removal to facilitate highway improvement works; • The findings of the submitted ecology report are not considered a true representation of the current situation in relation to the presence of ecology on the site; • Affordable housing mixed with private ownership housing does not work; • The area is prone to radon accumulations. The development may impact upon the geology of the area; and • If the development does occur it should be reduced in density, increase affordable home, promote sustainability, encourages wildlife and is mindful of open space provision.

4 representations supporting the development have been received raising the following points:

• A meaningful increase in housing supply in Rossett is welcomed; • Local property prices are too high and indicative of limited supply – supported by the Welsh Government. Such imbalance places limits on social mobility and enhances inequality between young and old; • Local school places are not at capacity – children from outside Rossett fill vacant places; • Local health services adapt to changes in demand; • Debottlenecking of road condition occurs due to government traffic planning; • Green barrier areas are plentiful; and new housing will bring people and business to

Page 55

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

the area. Rossett already has the infrastructure to cope with such development;

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Policy:

Principle of development

Housing need

Green Barrier

The site lies on the south eastern side of Darland Lane. It is an open area of flat agricultural land characterised by mature hedgerows and established hedgerow trees. To the north east of the site are various buildings which lead onto the grounds of Darland Hall. A small group of properties sits to the south west of the site fronting onto Gamford Lane. To the south of the site the land is formed by open tracts of agricultural land. The land forms part of the green barrier as defined by policy EC1 the UDP.

Policy EC1 of the UDP only permits development within green barriers if it is for ‘…agriculture, forestry, essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation,

Page 56

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 cemeteries and other use of land which maintain the openness of the Green Barrier and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it’.

Planning Policy Wales (PPW) also defines the types of acceptable development in green barriers in line with those set out in policy EC1. I am satisfied that the proposal does not fall within any of those development types specified and is therefore inappropriate development for sites within a green barrier. There is a presumption against inappropriate development in green barriers.

The location and site area of the development on the edge of the Rossett settlement limit is significant. Given the purposes of including land within the green barrier i.e. preventing the coalescence of urban areas with other settlements; safeguarding against encroachment and to protect the setting of an urban area, I am satisfied that the nature and location of the development will conflict with the purposes of including the site in question within the green barrier. This leads me to the conclusion that that the development would be inappropriate and therefore contrary to policy EC1 of the UDP and PPW.

For the sake of clarity, the land is not designated as Green Belt land.

Special Landscape Area

The site is located within a Special Landscape Area (SLA). Policy EC5 of the UDP requires priority to be given to the conservation and enhancement of the landscape. Development other than for agriculture, small-scale farm-based and other rural enterprises, and essential utility service development will be strictly controlled.

The proposal will result in a significant amount of built development into the open countryside from the edge of the Rossett settlement. There is an existing defensible boundary feature to the settlement in this location which would likely be lost to allow for highway improvements to be carried out (discussed below). The character of the site is assessed in the Council’s LANDMAP assessment as low-lying, flat, intensively farmed landscape with abundant hedges and hedgerow trees. Rural villages such as Rossett are under development pressure which is weakening rural character. In general the integrity of the landscape is highly vulnerable to continuing development and recreational pressures, and to economic changes which threaten traditional farming.

Page 57

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

I am satisfied that the development will have an impact upon the character of the SLA. Whilst it would be possible to carry out the development in a manner to incorporate existing hedgerows and hedgerow trees, the increase in the urban form will change the rural character of the field parcels. The likely loss of the mature hedgerow which forms a defensible site boundary with the edge of the existing village will be lost and will further erode this existing character. No Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment has been submitted with the application to address this potential policy impact. As such, I believe that the development will have an adverse impact upon the special landscape character of the area, contrary to policy EC5 of the UDP.

Exceptional circumstances

Paragraph 3.1.2 of PPW states that the Council is only required to determine planning applications in accordance with the adopted development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Although the site is located immediately adjacent to the Rossett settlement, a village within the County Borough which is deemed to be sustainable given the level and location of services it offers to the population, it is nevertheless within the open countryside. The site has no significant defensible boundary to the south. In order to make the development acceptable in highway safety terms a significant length of mature hedgerow forming the northern and western site boundary with Gamford Lane would require removal (discussed below). This would visually open up the site and would still represent a significant extension of the settlement into the open countryside.

The inability for the Council to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply must carry significant weight in this instance. It is acknowledged that the number of dwellings proposed on the indicative site plan (47) would represent a significant contribution to the Council’s housing requirement. However, the development would represent an encroachment into the countryside which risks changing the landscape character impacting up the setting of the urban area. It also sets a precedent for the release of similar locations for residential development. The reasons for including the land in question within the green barrier are not outweighed by the benefits of the development. I do not consider that the applicant has presented any very exceptional circumstances which justify the development in this instance.

Highways: As the application is made in outline with all matters reserved for further approval, the plans and particulars as presented are for indicative purposes only. Highways have responded in detail on various technical matters and design standards, however, the scope of their response at this stage is whether the land in question can be developed for the purpose described and whether a safe vehicular and pedestrian access can be achieved.

No objections have been raised to the proposal in principle, and most notably, in regards to the level of traffic likely to be generated by the proposed

Page 58

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 development. It is accepted that a single centrally located access could be achieved from the development site onto Gamford Lane.

The condition of Gamford Lane is raised as a concern given its limited width across the entire site frontage. It is no more than 5 metres wide, narrower in places and does not allow for the simultaneous passage of vehicles. Highways accept that the majority of users accessing the site would do so from the north (i.e. from Chester Road and Darland Lane), however any residents wishing to access from the south would encounter difficulty because of the nature of the carriageway. Highways have recommended that should planning permission be granted, a scheme of carriageway widening be carried out along the site frontage up to Barnfield Cottage. This would be deemed acceptable in that a significant improvement to the highway frontage would be achieved for vehicles entering and leaving the site. The limit of the improvements up to Barnfield Cottage are also deemed acceptable as it is not anticipated that a significant enough amount of traffic would travel in a southerly direction at a level where there would an evidenced wider impact upon the operation of the highway beyond that currently experienced, certainly to a point that would justify refusal on highway safety grounds. Further, as part of the preparation of the Local Development Plan (LDP), the Council have identified Rossett as a Tier 3 settlement, being an area where there is relatively good accessibility by non-car modes. It is likely that limited development allocations in Rossett will come forward as part of the LDP process of a similar scale to this. It is likely therefore that Darland Lane and Gamford Lane may be subject to additional traffic flows in the future in any case.

A negative consequence of the highway recommendations is the loss of a significant amount of mature hedgerow (130 metres) which forms a defensible boundary to the site and the Rossett settlement limit. However, I am satisfied that this would be required to make the development acceptable in highway safety terms.

Flooding: The site is located in Zone A as defined by TAN 15 and the Welsh Government’s Development Advice Map. The development is therefore not considered to be at risk from fluvial flooding. However, part of the site is known to suffer from surface water flooding. An extract from the NRW surface water flooding map is shown below. I am also aware of anecdotal reports in representations that the application site acts as a holding area for highway surface water – the plan would appear to support these observations.

Page 59

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Area susceptible to surface water flooding

The application was initially presented without any detailed information to consider the nature of the ground conditions and any information as to the method of site drainage. A Flood Consequences Assessment and Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) have subsequently been submitted following requests made by the Council’s Flood Officer. The SWMP identifies that the ‘….main constraint evident on site …is due to the fact there is currently no identifiable surface water ditches which may be discharged to, and the use of infiltration, across the site has been initially precluded based on the local geology type. Therefore, surface waters generated may need to be discharged to the local sewerage network….’.

TAN15 confirms that ‘…the susceptibility of land to flooding will be a material planning consideration…’ and `…development should not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.’ It also confirms that ‘Developers will need to give good reason why SuDs (Sustainable Drainage Systems) could not be implemented. If a conventional drainage system does not improve the status quo or has a negative impact then this can be a valid reason for refusal’.

The SWMP discounts the use of soakaways on site, albeit this conclusion is reached without any supporting information to consider where existing surface water drains to or any information to confirm whether any on-site infiltration testing has been carried out. Bore hole tests have been carried out and

Page 60

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 concluded that the geology of the site is inadequate to deal with surface water on site.

The plan proposes to attenuate excess surface water on site in a holding pond and then discharge this to the combined sewer network. Welsh Water have confirmed that they would not wish to support the discharge of surface water into the combined sewer network and the additional loading of the system and the eventual treatment of such waters is not a sustainable method of surface water disposal. This viewpoint is reiterated at Appendix 4 (para A4.5) of TAN15.

The only other method of surface water disposal would be to a local watercourse. This has been discounted in the SWMP provided and also confirmed by the Council’s Flood Management Officer. There are known issues in the locality with local drainage network which have resulted in repeated instances of localised surface water flooding on and around the site. It would therefore be inappropriate at this stage to allow further development which would increase surface flows into this network which would only act to increase risks to both the highway network and neighbouring property. This would not accord with the principles of TAN15 or policy EC13 of the UDP.

As part of the site acts as a form of holding area for existing excess surface water, I consider that the proposed development may displace and exacerbate surface water flooding elsewhere. This would need to be considered as part of any overall drainage strategy and design for the site to ensure that the situation is not made any worse elsewhere.

On the basis of the above, I consider that insufficient information has been submitted to consider whether a sustainable drainage system can be implemented on site. The proposal to discharge surface waters to the combined sewer network is not considered acceptable and would not accord with national and local planning policy.

Ecology and trees: There are known species to be present which are protected by domestic and international legislation. The impact of development proposals upon the conservation status of such species is a material planning consideration.

The application has been submitted with an ecological report. This has been considered by the Council’s ecologist and concerns raised regarding the adequacy of the survey detail. Those concerns are in line with the guidance contained in TAN5 which requires that the presence of protected species to be established as part of the decision making process.

Great crested newt

The site is in an area of high great crested newt presence with known breeding records within 200m from the site. There are additional ponds not examined within the ecological survey and no great crested newt survey work could be

Page 61

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 completed due to the time of year. Further surveys are required of all ponds adjacent to the site prior to ruling out the presence of the species on site.

Bats

Bat activity surveys are required to determine the baseline bat activity on the site. Development and associated light can have impacts on bats abilities to forage, commute and breed successfully. Presently this site is outside the settlement and is not subject to any significant artificial lighting. The application will also result in the loss of a significant section of hedgerow at the front of the site which may be used by foraging or commuting bats. Activity surveys should be completed prior to determination – if permission were to be granted.

Badgers

A significant badger sett exists in woodland approximately 100m from the site boundary. Any recommendation for approval would need a condition to be imposed requiring additional badger checks prior to commencement of development along with a badger avoidance method statement.

Hedgerow

Access and highways improvements are likely to result in the loss of a significant amount of hedgerow. An assessment of the quality of the existing hedgerow and its ecological and historical value would normally be required.

Trees

The Council’s Arboricultural Officer considers that the proposed indicative layout is well considered with good connectivity between adequate and well-designed public open space. Appropriate tree retention is in place with suitable allocation of space for mitigation planting and enhancement of biodiversity. There are no arboricultural objections to the proposal.

Built Heritage impact: The potential impact of development upon the setting of the Grade II listed buildings of Darland Hall and associated pergola has been considered. Having assessed viewpoints within the immediate and wider setting both to and from the property, the impact of the proposed development upon setting is considered to be minimal subject to the retention of the mature tree- lined boundary to the north west of the development site. Various amendments to the proposed indicative layout are recommended to aid separation at this point and a buffer zone both during and after completion of works.

Developer contributions: Education have confirmed that the primary school currently has sufficient capacity and will not require a financial contribution towards infrastructure improvements. However, a contribution would be required in relation to Darland High School. As this application is made in outline, final proposed numbers are not known. A final monetary figure would be based on the formula stated in LPG27.

Page 62

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Policy H7 and LPG28 require new developments of more than 25 dwellings to provide affordable housing at a rate of 25%. I have no reason to believe that the viability of the development of a greenfield site would prevent the provision as required by the policy.

Policy CLF5 and LPG10 require the provision of onsite open space. The applicant’s indicative site plan shows an intention to provide open space within the proposed development. Again, I have no reason to believe that this could not be achieved.

Agricultural land: Policy EC2 seeks to ensure that best and most versatile agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3a) is not lost to irreversible land uses. Based on Welsh Government desktop surveys, a significant proportion of Rossett is considered to be Grade 2 with a small proportion of the Rossett categorised as Grade 3. Whilst I acknowledge that no Agricultural Land Classification report has been produced, I have in mind the need to consider the Council’s development strategy for future population growth in Rossett. Much of the area identified as Grade 3 is located on or in close proximity to a C2 flood zone and is likely to be undevelopable based on current national planning guidance. As such there is likely to be a need to accept development on such higher graded land. Given the development pressures in the County Borough and the likely future development of Rossett, I consider this matter outweighs the requirement of policy EC2.

Neighbouring amenity: Concerns have arisen regarding the impact of the development upon the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers by way of air and light pollution, loss of privacy and view. I have no reason to believe that this development proposal would result in any significant levels of air and light pollution that would be detrimental to residential amenity. Any objections appear limited to the fact that those occupiers experience no level of disturbance at present because of the edge of settlement position. However those occupiers live in an edge of village location and will experience such disturbance to a degree by the location of the existing dwellings. It would be unjustified to refuse planning permission on the grounds of air and light pollution because of this. Based on the indicative site layout plan, I am satisfied that the separation distances accord with LPG21 – Space Around Dwellings. There is no right in planning terms to object on the loss of a view. I acknowledge concerns raised regarding the loss of rural outlook and the impact upon the juxtaposition between the defensible boundary of the Rossett settlement – these issues have been covered in the ‘Policy’ section above.

Other matters: The proposed development would be located in close proximity to the border with Cheshire. It is an inevitable fact that dwellings could be occupied by persons who work significant distances from their place of home. The planning system is not a means of ensuring that all who live in an administrative area work in that same area. I am not aware of any significant cultural issues in this area of the County Borough, which has close synergies

Page 63

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 with villages on either side of the border, that would warrant the need to control the occupation of the dwellings.

Concerns have been raised regarding the capacity of local health care services to cater for additional demand. There are no specific UDP policies or Local Planning Guidance that requires a developer to make specific contributions towards health care facilities. The Council has a duty to respond to housing need based on population demand. Local Health Boards have a similar requirement to respond to population demands when considering their service provision. Given the relatively limited nature of the development proposed in this instance I do not consider that there are sufficient grounds to refuse planning permission.

The planning system is considered to be compliant with the provisions of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence). Nevertheless, I am satisfied that the proposal has been considered fully in line with the Council’s adopted guidance relating to impact upon existing residents.

Conclusion: Legislation and national planning policy require the Council to determine planning applications in accordance with the adopted development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The site is located outside any defined settlement limit and within a designated green barrier. Whilst the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, the location of the proposal within the green barrier will represent inappropriate development which will result in an unacceptable encroachment into the open countryside. The Council’s lack of designated land for housing development is not considered to outweigh this impact.

There is insufficient detail with the application to demonstrate that the proposal can sustainably control surface water runoff from the new development and will not impact upon statutorily protected species. I therefore recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be REFUSED

REASON(S)

1. The proposed development lies outside settlement limits and within a designated green barrier. The proposed development would represent an unacceptable incursion into the green barrier and would not form a logical extension to the existing settlement. To allow the development would therefore be contrary to policies PS1, PS2, H5, EC1 and GDP1 of the adopted Wrexham Unitary Development Plan. 2. The proposed development would be located within an area designated for its special landscape character. The nature of the development would represent a significant urbanising change to the existing rural setting and would

Page 64

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 be detrimental to the landscape character. To allow the development would be contrary to policy EC5 of the Wrexham unitary Development Plan. 3. The proposed development is not considered to be satisfactory in terms of design and would not provide sufficient measures to secure a satisfactory form of sustainable development. In particular the proposal to discharge surface water generated by the development to the combined sewer network is deemed unacceptable and would not meet the sustainability criteria laid out in Section 8 of Welsh Government Technical Advice Note 15 - Development and Flood Risk. The proposal also includes inadequate provision for the disposal of surface water generated from the site which would lead to the possibility of local flooding. To allow the development would be contrary to policy EC13 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan. 4. Insufficient information has been submitted to assess the impact that the development will have on statutorily protected species. In the absence of such information, the development will prejudice the favourable conservation status of those species and therefore conflicts with policy GDP1 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.

______

Page 65

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /0809 LAND TO THE SOUTH WEST OF 25/08/2016 THE OLD BLACK HORSE PUBLIC HOUSE HIGH STREET COMMUNITY: RHOSTYLLEN WREXHAM CASE OFFICER: Esclusham LL14 4AG SEH

DESCRIPTION: WARD: OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR AGENT NAME: Esclusham RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (3 SIMPLY PLANNING NO. DWELLINGS) LIMITED MR RICHARD APPLICANT(S) NAME: SPRINGETT NEWRIVER PROPERTY TRUST NO 4

______

THE SITE

Proposed vehicular access Proposed and pub car parking area pedestrian link

Proposed dwellings

PROPOSAL

As above

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

None relevant

Page 66

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The application site is on Brownfield land and is located within the settlement limit of Rhostyllen. Policies PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, GDP1, H2, EC4, EC13 and T8 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) are applicable. These policies are amplified in Local Planning Guidance Notes (LPGN) Nos. 16 ‘Parking Standards’ and 21 ‘Space around Dwellings’.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Concerns are expressed: • Over the access and exit onto the proposed site, especially in joining High Street where the visibility and splays would need to conform to requirements; • With the proposed development overlooking the local primary school play area, members are concerned regarding this overlooking aspect; • There are also concerns regarding noise impact from the nearby public house on the proposed dwellings. Local Member: Re-notified 12.12.2016 Highways: No objection subject to conditions (see special considerations below). WW: No objection subject to standard drainage conditions. NRW: No objections. The views of the Council’s ecologist should be sought. PP: No objection subject to conditions relating to dust and construction noise. Site Notice: Expired 26.09.2016 Neighbours: 3 responses received sharing the following views: • Impact upon the trees; • Properties might be rented out and won’t be maintained as well as private properties are; • Use of the pedestrian access to the main road for collection of refuge would cause congestion on the pavement; • Use of the pedestrian alley way for anti-social behaviour; • When the car park is full, cars park on the high street causing congestion. The cars associated with the new houses will worsen the situation; • Poor water supply to the area. Re-consulted 14.12.2016

Page 67

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Background: The proposal is for the residential development of this parcel of brownfield land. The application is made in outline with all matters reserved for further consideration except access. An indicative site plan has been submitted showing the potential layout of the development for 3 no. 2 bedroom 2 storey dwellings with associated access (pedestrian and vehicular), parking and garden areas. The plan also shows the proposed parking layout for the public house. The main issues to consider relate to the impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the area, the impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent properties, and the impact upon highway safety.

Policy: The proposed development of the land for housing accords with UDP Policies PS1, PS2, PS3 and PS4 which are the strategic polices which relate to the broad location of the development. The proposal also accords with Policies H2 and GDP1 which allow for residential development of land within settlement limits provided that it accords with the character of the site, that the development would make a positive contribution to the appearance of the area, and that the development is sustainably located within the Village with access to local services and amenities.

Highways: The development site is located with two existing accesses (east and west) onto High Street which is a classified highway subject to a 30 mph speed limit. A vehicular speed survey has been submitted which determined 85th percentile wet weather speeds of 19.4 mph eastbound and 23.4 mph westbound. For these speeds Welsh Government guidelines require visibility splays of 2.4 x 24m to the west and 2.4 x 31m to the east.

Whilst visibility from the western access is substandard, visibility from the eastern access more than meets these required visibility splays. It is proposed therefore to close the existing substandard western access which will ensure that all vehicles must leave the site from the safer eastern access.

The parking areas within the proposed pub car park and the proposed development are confirmed as being adequately sized and spaced for the turning of a motor car. It is proposed that the existing car park will be formally laid out to ensure that there will be no reduction in on-site parking for the public house as a result of the development. The indicative plan shows each dwelling having 2 parking spaces each. The application form suggests that each dwelling will have 2 bedrooms, therefore the parking provision for the dwellings accords with the LPG16 maximum.

The submitted swept path analysis shows that the dray vehicle can access the site if there are no vehicles parked in a couple of the pub car parking spaces. This would have to be managed under a service delivery management plan (SDMP). The use of SDMPs has been accepted by Welsh Government inspectors at previous planning Appeals, and this will be secured by planning condition. The swept path shows that dray vehicles leaving the site can only do

Page 68

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 so by performing a three point turning manoeuvre. The Welsh Government inspector at the Red Lion Pub in Marford Appeal confirmed that it is acceptable for an 11m long delivery vehicle to undertake a reversing manoeuvre within a pub/ shop car parking area.

There is an intention to provide a pedestrian link to the dwellings directly off Henblas Road which will require the relocating of the existing telegraph pole which is directly on the line of the proposed link. This can be secured by planning condition.

Scale, Design and Site Layout: Whilst the proposal is made in outline, with matters relating to layout, scale and appearance reserved for approval at a later stage, the Council can broadly rely upon the contents of the illustrative plan and supporting documentation, such as the Design and Access Statement, in determining the anticipated impact of the development. The proposed site layout (as amended) demonstrates that it is possible to achieve a functional development that sits comfortably within the site and makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

Figure 1. Indicative site layout

The properties can be sited at sufficient distances from the existing nearby dwellings and local school to avoid any significant loss of light or overlooking, and the proposal accords with UDP Policies GDP1, PS2 and PS4 and LPGN 21. Matters relating to the detailed planning such as boundary treatments etc. will be dealt with at reserved matters application stage.

Trees: There are trees and vegetation within influencing distance of this proposal and their value has been determined within a BS5837 arboricultural survey, submitted as part of this application. There are no concerns in relation to the impact of the development upon these trees subject to the submission of a arboricultural method statement and details of arboricultural supervision of the

Page 69

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 ground works to be submitted as part of the reserved matters application (to be secured by planning condition).

Ecology: Natural Resources Wales (NRW) advised that the Council’s ecologist should be consulted with regards to the potential impact of the proposed development upon the favourable conservation status of populations of bats. The Council’s ecologist has considered the application and confirmed that there is no ecological concern in relation to the proposed development.

Noise: It is noted that the properties are located approximately 27 metres from the public house and 10 metres from the associated pub garden. There are a number of existing dwellings just a close, if not closer, to the public house and garden and I am not aware that the occupants of these properties suffer significant noise nuisance from the public house. The public protection team has been consulted and does not object to the granting of planning permission.

Other matters: Concerns have been raised in relation to the use of the proposed pedestrian link to High Street for anti-social purposes. However, I have no reason to think that such behaviour would occur in such an open area adjacent to the pub garden. Further the blocking of the pavement with refuse bins, should this occur, would be of a temporary nature.

CONCLUSION:

The proposal presents the opportunity to regenerate the brownfield site and make a contribution, albeit small, to the housing land supply in a sustainable location with a defined settlement limit. On-site parking accords with LPGN No.16 and a safe and satisfactory vehicular access is proposed. The amenity that will be afforded to the occupiers of the proposed and existing houses is acceptable and the development will make a positive contribution to the appearance of the area. The development accords with relevant UDP policies and I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

CONDITION(S)

1. Approval of the following details shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced: a. the layout of the building(s) b. the scale of the building(s) c. the appearance of the building(s) d. the landscaping of the site 2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 1 (above) shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority before the expiry of three years from the date of this permission. The development shall only be carried out in strict conformity with such details as are approved.

Page 70

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

3. The development hereby approved shall be commenced before the expiry of five years from the date of this permission or before the expiry of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters required to be approved, whichever is the later. 4. No land drainage run-off or surface water shall be permitted to discharge or connect to the public sewerage system, either directly or indirectly, and foul and surface water shall be drained separately from the site. 5. Details of proposed finished floor levels and ridge heights shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority as part of the reserved matters application. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the details as are approved. 6. The contents of the indicative site plan submitted in support of this application shall not be regarded as representing an approved site layout or scale of development. 7. No part of the development shall commence until a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site indicating how foul water, surface water and land drainage will be dealt with has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme as approved shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed as part of the submitted details and maintained thereafter. 8. All works in relation to the implementation of this permission, including deliveries to and / or leaving the site, shall be undertaken only between the hours of 7.30 and 18.00 Monday to Friday, and 08.00 to 14.00 on a Saturday, and at no time on a Sunday or a Bank Holiday unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained. 9. The existing westerly vehicular access shall be permanently closed up prior to first use of any part of the development in accordance with a specification of works which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority as part of the reserved matters application. 10. There shall be no gates or other means of enclosure across the vehicular access point within 15 metres of the highway boundary. 11. Prior to first use of the development, the proposed vehicular access shall be laid out in strict accordance with approved plan no. 16021 - SK161201.1. The visibility splays shall thereafter be permanently retained free of all obstruction in excess of 1 metre in height. 12. Prior to first use of the vehicular access hereby approved, the access shall be surfaced with hard bound materials (e.g. bituminous macadam) for a minimum distance of 15 metres behind the adjoining highway. 13. No part of the development shall commence until a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development or other operations shall take place except in strict accordance with the Method Statement as is approved. The Method Statement shall include the following: a) A specification for tree protection fencing and ground protection measures that comply with British Standard 5837:2012; b) A Tree Protection Plan showing the location of the trees to be removed and retained with their crown spreads, Root Protection Areas, Construction Exclusion Zones, and location of protective fencing and ground protection measures accurately plotted;

Page 71

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 c) A full specification for any access, driveway, path, underground services or wall foundations within retained tree Root Protection Areas or Construction Exclusion Zone, including any related sections and method for avoiding damage to retained trees; d) Details of general arboricultural matters including proposed practices with regards to cement mixing, material storage and fires; e) Details of the frequency of supervisory visits and procedures for notifying the findings of such visits to the Local Planning Authority; f) Method for protecting retained trees during demolition works; g) Details of all proposed tree works, including felling and pruning. 14. No part of the development shall commence until full details for the arboricultural supervision of tree protection measures and any ground works within retained tree(s) Root Protection Areas, as specified by BS5837:2012 or as shown on a Tree Protection Plan have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The supervisory works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the details as approved. 15. No development shall take place until a Service and Delivery Management Plan (“the SDMP”) in respect of The Old Black Horse Public House, to include (but not be limited to) the details of the timing and frequency of deliveries, the type of delivery vehicles to be used, delivery vehicle movements and the management of car parking to facilitate the manoeuvring of delivery vehicles has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The SDMP as agreed shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

REASON(S)

1. To comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012 2. To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. 3. To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. 4. To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system and prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system. To protect the health and safety of existing residents and to ensure no detriment to the environment. 5. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 6. To ensure that all details are reserved for future consideration. 7. To ensure that effective drainage facilities are provided for the proposed development, and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system. 8. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 9. In the interests of highway safety. 10. In the interest of the free and safe movement of traffic on the adjacent highway and to ensure the formation of a safe and satisfactory access. 11. To ensure the formation of a safe and satisfactory access. 12. To ensure that no deleterious material is carried onto the highway, in the interests of highway safety. 13. To ensure the work is carried out to accepted arboricultural practices for the long term wellbeing of the tree(s).

Page 72

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

14. To ensure the work is carried out to accepted arboricultural practices for the long term wellbeing of the tree(s). 15. In the interests of highway safety.

NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT

The applicant is advised that compliance with condition no. 8 does not provide an exemption from the statutory noise nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Any complaints received relating to noise from the development during the permitted hours may still be investigated using the Council's Standardised Procedure for Dealing with Noise Nuisance Complaints and legal action may be taken where appropriate.

The Applicant is advised that under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, dust from construction and/or demolition activities can be judged to be causing a statutory nuisance to neighbouring properties. A legal notice can be served requiring that any dust nuisance is abated and failure to comply with the requirements of the notice can result in prosecution. The applicant should contact the Council's Housing and Public Protection Department on 01978 315300 for further advice and 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.

A licence should be obtained (as required by section 184 of the Highways Act 1980) from the Highway Authority in order to lower the kerbline and cross the footpath at the new access position. Further guidance can be obtained from the Highways Department of Wrexham County Borough Council on telephone 01978 729690.

The scheme of arboricultural supervision required in connection with condition no. 14 above shall make provision for a pre-commencement site meeting between the Local Planning Authority's Arboriculturist, the Developer/ Applicant/ Agent and their appointed Arboricultural Supervisor to agree matters of detail. It shall specify the frequency of arboricultural monitoring and reporting to the Local Planning Authority on the status of all tree protection measures throughout the course of the development and make provision for the submission and approval of a satisfactory arboricultural completion statement.

Page 73

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 coal workings; geological features (fissures and break lines); mine gas and previous surface mining sites. Although such hazards are seldom readily visible, they can often be present and problems can occur in the future, particularly as a result of development taking place.

It is recommended that information outlining how the former mining activities affect the proposed development, along with any mitigation measures required (for example the need for gas protection measures within the foundations), be submitted alongside any subsequent application for Building Regulations approval (if relevant). Any form of development over or within the influencing distance of a mine entry can be dangerous and raises significant safety and engineering risks and exposes all parties to potential financial liabilities. As a general precautionary principle, the Coal Authority considers that the building over or within the influencing distance of a mine entry should wherever possible be avoided. In exceptional circumstance where this is unavoidable, expert advice must be sought to ensure that a suitable engineering design is developed and agreed with regulatory bodies which takes into account of all the relevant safety and environmental risk factors, including gas and mine-water. Your attention is drawn to the Coal Authority Policy in relation to new development and mine entries available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-on-or-within-the- influencing-distance-of-mine-entries

Any intrusive activities which disturb or enter any coal seams, coal mine workings or coal mine entries (shafts and adits) requires a Coal Authority Permit. 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 a Coal Authority Permit for such activities is trespass, with the potential for court action.

Property specific summary information on past, current and future coal mining activity can be obtained from: www.groundstability.com or a similar service provider.

If any of the coal mining features are unexpectedly encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to the Coal Authority on 0345 762 6848. Further information is available on the Coal Authority website at: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-coal-authority

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 permission hereby granted does not authorise encroachment upon, or interference with, the adjoining property.

Page 74

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

The applicant may need to apply to Dwr Cymru / Welsh Water for any connection to the public sewer under S106 of the Water industry Act 1991. If the connection to the public sewer network is either via a lateral drain (i.e. a drain which extends beyond the connecting property boundary) or via a new sewer (i.e. serves more than one property), it is now a mandatory requirement to first enter into a Section 104 Adoption Agreement (Water Industry Act 1991).

The design of the sewers and lateral drains must also conform to the Welsh Ministers Standards for Gravity Foul Sewers and Lateral Drains, and conform with the publication ""Sewers for Adoption""? 7th Edition. Further information can be obtained via the Developer Services pages of www.dwrcymru.com

The applicant is also advised that some public sewers and lateral drains may not be recorded on our maps of public sewers because they were originally privately owned and were transferred into public ownership by nature of the Water Industry (Schemes for Adoption of Private Sewers) Regulations 2011. The presence of such assets may affect the proposal. In order to assist us in dealing with the proposal the applicant may contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water on 0800 085 3968 to establish the location and status of the apparatus. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has rights of access to its apparatus at all times.

______

Page 75

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /0915 WYNNSTAY SAWMILLS OVERTON 30/09/2016 ROAD RUABON WREXHAM LL14 6HN COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Ruabon DESCRIPTION: PF CHANGE OF USE OF PART OF SITE (APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THE 2 WARD: ACRE SITE) FROM GENERAL AGENT NAME: Penycae & Ruabon INDUSTRIAL (B2) TO STORAGE AND MR MATT PRITCHARD South DISTRIBUTION (B8) - MIX OF SELF STORAGE CONTAINERS AND CARAVAN STORAGE

APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR MATT PRITCHARD

______

THE SITE

Site Existing sawmill in control of applicant

PROPOSAL

As above.

Page 76

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

HISTORY

6/4163 Continued use of land and building as timber yard, and work-shop for commercial purposes, and improvement to existing visibility splays. Granted 27.11.75 6/2310 Proposed new office block and toilets. Granted 11.07.76 6/2944 Use of caravan as temporary office pending construction of permanent accommodation (for which permission was granted under code no 6/2310). Granted 24.03.77 6/3077 Erection of replacement sawmill stores/canteen and garage buildings and ancillary buildings and works. Granted 14.06.77 6/3594 Continuation of use of caravan as Offices associated with the Wynnstay Sawmills (previously permitted under code no 6/4740 on a temporary basis) Wynnstay Sawmills, Overton Road, Ruabon, Wrexham. Granted 14.04.82 6/3738 Continuation of use of caravan as temporary offices pending construction of permanent accommodation. Granted 06.01.78 6/4740 Continuation of use of caravans as offices association with Wynnstay Sawmills for a period of 3 years. Granted 29.12.78 6/8157 Renewal of permission granted under code RUA/6/2310 for erection of new office block and toilets Wynnstay Sawmills , Overton Road, Ruabon, Wrexham. Granted 20.08.81 6/10156 Continued use of caravan as offices associated with the Wynnstay Sawmills (previously permitted under code no RUA 8594) Wynnstay Sawmills, Overton Road, Ruabon, Wrexham. Granted 28.09.83 6/12113 Renewal of temporary planning permission for continued use of caravan as offices associated with Wynnstay Sawmills (previously granted under code 10156) Wynnstay Sawmills, Overton Road, Ruabon. Granted 05.09.85 6/13997 Continued use of land for stationing caravan as temporary offices associated with Wynnstay Sawmills (previously granted under code no 6/12113 Granted 29.04.87 6/16282 Retention of caravan for use as temporary offices associated with Wynnstay Sawmills (previously gran ted under code no RUA 13997). Granted 01.02.89 P/2003/0016 Outline application for residential development. Refused 26.02.2003

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The site is located outside any defined settlement limit. Policies PS2, GDP1, EC4 and T8 are relevant. Guidance is also contained in Local Planning Guidance Note 16 – Parking Standards.

Page 77

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: No objections but raise concerns regarding the visibility issue when accessing the highway from the site. The Highways Department have commented on this and the Council hope this will be addressed if/when approval is given. Local Member: Notified 30.09.2016 Site notices: Expired 04.11.2016 Highways: No objections. The scheme is unlikely to result in additional traffic movement above the existing established B2 use. Recommend a condition to impose the parking and turning layout. Public Protection: Advise the inclusion of a noise generation condition. NRW: Consider the advice of the County Ecologist Neighbouring occupiers: 3 neighbouring occupiers notified. Two representations received. One representation was received with an unsubstantiated letter support. One objection received raising the following concern: • It is a concealed entrance; • It is a shared drive; • There is a lot of road congestion; • There will be larger volumes of traffic; • There have been several accidents in the past with a fatality; • The sawmills have been burgled several times as well as the neighbouring property; • There is a time restriction which is never kept to – sometimes late into the night; and • Containers have already been brought onto the site.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Policy: The site is located in the open countryside but has a well-established commercial use in planning terms (B2). Planning permission was granted for the use of the site as a sawmill and subsequently renewed in 1975. There were conditions imposed to control changes to the appearance of the site, opening hours and the use of the associated office building. However, the wording of these conditions is considered to be imprecise and could not be relied upon for enforcement purposes. As such I consider the current lawful use is of the site unrestricted to anything within a B2 use.

There is no specific UDP policy which governs the change of use of existing commercial interests in the open countryside, however the development is

Page 78

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 expected to conform to the general development principles set out in policy GDP1. It is also worth noting that in national planning legislation, planning permission is not required to change the use of a building in B2 use to a B8 use provided that the floor area changed does not exceed 500 square metres. Furthermore uncontrolled external storage could also take place on site at present, albeit provided it is ancillary to the established lawful B2 use.

Visual Impact: The site currently consists of a limited number of buildings primarily to the southern and western site boundary. On the portion of the site to which this application relates there has previously been limited box and container storage structures, wood piles and other paraphernalia linked to the operation of the sawmills. As mentioned above, this has generally been unrestricted in planning terms.

The proposal seeks to allow the storage of caravans and shipping containers for the purposes of self-storage. A plan has been provided with the application documentation which shows a proposal to lay out the containers and caravans in ordered rows with a central hardstanding through the centre of the area linked to a gated access. Thin mesh green security fencing has already been erected around the application site.

I am mindful that an accumulation of white caravans and shipping containers could appear incongruous within the landscape. Whilst this can be the case, the site is relatively well screened from distant viewpoints. The aerial photograph below shows the extent of existing boundary coverage and the adjoining thick woodland buffer around the majority of the site. I am satisfied that this will break up a significant proportion of views into the site.

Page 79

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Aerial view of site showing existing surrounding tree coverage

There are portions of the existing vegetation on the site boundary where views into the site exist. This is primarily to the site frontage where the existing site access is and the vegetation to the road frontage is somewhat sparse. However, I am satisfied that these views into the site are limited to the extent of the site frontage and the existing vegetation cover on the site boundary can be increased to assist in gapping up the vegetation to mitigate those glimpses in. I also consider that those existing glimpses into the site are already compromised by the general industrial appearance of the existing site condition, which, as discussed above is uncontrolled.

Highway safety: Concerns have been raised regarding the suitability of the site access. The existing access to the existing sawmill is shared with two neighbouring residential properties. Highways consider that visibility splays from the site are adequate in an easterly direction but below standard in a westerly direction. The proposed B8 use is not considered likely to generate any significant number of daily vehicle movements compared to the potential traffic generation of the existing unrestricted B2 use. It should be noted that there is a potential for a different B2 use to occupy the site which could generate a significant level of staff and delivery movements and there would be no control available to the local planning authority. This must be borne in mind when considering the impact of the development before us now.

Parking for such a use would generally be outside the self-storage containers and limited to the delivery and collection of caravans which is likely to be

Page 80

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 infrequent. I therefore have no objections to the development on highway safety grounds.

Other matters: Any issues that might relate to the impact upon the condition of the shared site access are a private matter between the parties involved. I am aware that there have been some limited alterations on the site consisting of the erection of fencing and the movement of some storage containers. It is unclear as to whether these movements are a commencement of the proposed development or incidental to the existing B2 use of the site. Nevertheless, the applicant is within the bounds of planning law by making a retrospective planning application.

The security of the site is a consideration for the site owner. The site is in an established commercial use and I have no reason to believe that the security measures that the applicant may employ will be any less effective for the proposed use than the existing use.

Concerns have arisen that clearance works have occurred on the site which may impact upon the health and wellbeing of great crested newts which are known to populate the area. The laying of hardstanding, the erection of fencing and limited clearance of vegetation around the site boundary may further exacerbate this. I am satisfied that additional site frontage planting will bring about benefits to the site in bolstering an existing hedgerow line. A great crested newt method statement should be submitted prior to the commencement of development.

Public Protection have recommended a noise generation condition. In accordance with advice contained in national planning guidance I do not consider that the condition is necessary. The development does not propose a use which is likely to cause significant noise levels and is likely to be quieter than the existing uncontrolled neighbouring B2 use. There are also likely to be questions over the enforceability of such a condition for this reason.

Conclusion: I am satisfied that the existing established commercial use of the site establishes the basis for the change of use as proposed. It is accepted that the proposal will have limited impact upon highway safety and existing site features provide adequate screening against any potential visual impact subject to minor additional planting. I therefore recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

CONDITION(S)

Page 81

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

3. The maximum height of the storage containers hereby approved shall not exceed 3 metres from the ground level. 4. Prior to commencement of development a planting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority detailing a scheme of new planting along the site frontage (the northern boundary). This scheme shall also take into account the existing tree and hedge planting forming the site boundary. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale which shall be approved as part of the scheme. Any planting becoming severely damaged or seriously diseased, or which is in poor physiological condition and / or is removed without the written permission of the local planning authority shall be replaced within the first available planting season. 5. Any caravan stored on the site shall not be occupied at any time as a place of residence or for any form of holiday accommodation.

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 ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 5. To ensure that the site is not used in a manner that would result in conflict with established planning policy relating to the location of residential development and holiday accommodation. ______

Page 82

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /1028 LAND SOUTH OF AND ADJACENT 02/11/2016 TO TRENCH FARM RED HALL LANE PENLEY WREXHAM LL13 0NA COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Overton DESCRIPTION: SEH ERECTION OF DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE, ASSOCIATED WARD: EXTERNAL WORKS AND AGENT NAME: Overton INSTALLATION OF SPECTIC TANK BLEAZARD AND GALLETTA LLO APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR DARRYL WRIGHT MR & MRS P TINSLEY

______

THE SITE

Application Site

PROPOSAL

As above

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

None relevant

Page 83

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The application site is on Greenfield land and located outside of the settlement limit. Policies PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, GDP1, EC4, EC6, H5, T8 and T9 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) are applicable. These policies are amplified in Local Planning Guidance Notes (LPGN) Nos. 16 ‘Parking Standards’, 21 ‘Space around Dwellings’ and 32 ‘Biodiversity and Development’.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY

National Planning Policy is contained in Planning Policy Wales (PPW) Edition 8 and Technical Advice Notes (TAN) 1 ‘Joint Housing Land Availability Studies’, 2 ‘Planning and Affordable Housing’, 5 ‘Nature Conservation and Planning’, 12 ‘Design’ and 18 ‘Transport’.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Recognises that the application is outside of the development boundary but noted that the proposed dwelling would not be detrimental to the area and that the proposed dwelling would be in scale with those properties surrounding it. Objects to the removal of the trees under UDP Policy EC4 with the exception tree no. T7 which will allow for ease of access at entrance (T7 being Leylandii and of no benefit ecologically). Consideration should be given to reassignment of the septic tank and drainage. Local Member: Notified 19.12.2016 Highways: There are no objections to the proposed development subject to planning conditions. WW: No objection subject to conditions relating to the comprehensive drainage of the site. NRW: No objection subject to a scheme of Reasonable Avoidance Measures to be secured by planning condition. PP: No objection to the scheme subject to conditions relating to land contamination investigation. PRoW: No objection. The site of the proposed development encompasses part of Overton public footpath 14 which has a recorded width of 1.8 metres. If permission is granted, on completion of the development footpath 14 will need to be kept open and available to the public and therefore where it runs coincidental with the proposed drive, the footpath will need

Page 84

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

to be kept clear of parked vehicles and anything else that would impede use of the footpath. Site Notice: Expired 12.01.2016 Advert: Expired 03.12.2016 Neighbours: Notified 26.11.2016

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Background: The proposal is for the residential development of Greenfield land outside of the settlement limit. The application is made in full with all matters submitted for consideration. The main issues to consider relate to the sustainability of the location, the impact upon the character and appearance of countryside, the impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent properties, and the impact upon highway safety.

Principle of development: The site lies outside of the development boundary to which the UDP Policy PS1 directs all new development for housing. The development would therefore be contrary to this Policy.

As the site is Greenfield land it would not accord with Policy PS3 which directs development to previously developed (Brownfield) land. As the site is outside of the settlement limit and the proposals do not accord with any of the circumstances that permit small scale residential development on sites outside of settlement limits (in-fill, key workers dwelling or conversion of a redundant building), the proposed development would also be contrary to UDP Policy H5. I will expand on the question of whether the development represents in-fill later in this report.

Paragraph 3.1.2 of PPW states that the Council is required to determine planning applications in accordance with the adopted development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. I will address these other material considerations below.

Housing Land Supply Planning Policy Wales (PPW) at paragraph 9.2.3 requires local planning authorities to ensure that sufficient land is genuinely available or will become available to provide a 5 year supply of land for housing. Members will be aware that under the provisions of TAN1: Joint Housing Land Availability Studies (JHLAS) the Council has a statutory duty to monitor housing land supply on an annual basis in the form of the JHLAS. In accordance with paragraph 8.1 of TAN1 (Jan 2015) Wrexham is now unable to demonstrate whether it has a 5 year housing land supply because the UDP plan period expired in 2011. TAN1 (paragraph 6.2) advises that the need to increase supply should be given considerable weight when dealing with planning applications, provided that the development would otherwise comply with national planning policies.

Page 85

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Sustainable Development Paragraph 4.2.4 of PPW includes a presumption in development subject to meeting the objectives of sustainable development: In broad terms development should be located in order to achieve a sustainable development pattern, and development should: - be well connected to transport infrastructure including sustainable travel options; - provide a range of retail and community services; - have a range of employment opportunities; - be well serviced by existing infrastructure; and - co‐locate housing and employment.

Further, paragraph 3.4 of TAN 18 requires location selection for new housing development to consider good access to services by all modes of transport. The closest settlements providing retail, employment and community services etc. are the Villages of Overton and Penley. These Villages are over 3.5 km away from the development site which is not considered to be within reasonable walking distance. The site is not well serviced by existing infrastructure nor is there regular public transport to access services. No cycleway exist between the development site and the nearby settlements.

Policy PS4 of the UDP seeks, amongst others that development integrates with the existing transport network to help reduce the overall need to travel and encourages the use of alternatives to the car; such an approach is reinforced in policy GDP1 of the UDP and PPW, as already mentioned. Given the lack of facilities within walking distance of the site, or access to regular public transport, the proposed development would not meet with the objectives of sustainable development contrary to these Policies.

In-fill UDP Policy H5 b) permits the erection of a new dwelling outside of a defined settlement limit only where the proposal comprises in-filling (subject also to compliance with UDP Policy GDP1).

The existing built form consists of a pair of semi-detached houses set within large garden areas, and nearby farm buildings with associated farmhouse. The next residential property is over 350 metres away.

Infilling is defined as being development in a small gap within a well- developed built frontage. The development site proposed is not a small gap nor is the gap within a well-developed built frontage. The residential development of this site would therefore not comply with this Policy.

Trees: The findings and evaluations of the trees within the submitted report are accepted and there are no objections to the proposed removal of tree nos. T1, T2, T7, T8 and T9. There is however no justification for the removal of tree nos. T3 and T4 to facilitate the construction of the detached garage. Both trees are accurately identified as category 'B' trees and are part of a valued collective of four trees. Both tree nos. T3 & T4 should be retained (along with T5 and T6)

Page 86

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 by relocating the garage outside of the Root Protection Areas and placed at a suitable distance away from such influential tree species. These matters can be dealt with by planning condition and I am content therefore that the proposed development complies with UDP Policy EC4.

CONCLUSION

Para 4.7.8 of PPW states that development in the countryside should be located adjoining settlements where it can best be accommodated in terms of infrastructure, access, and habitat and landscape conservation. The proposal does not accord with any of the circumstances that permit small scale residential development on sites outside of settlement limits. The development would intrude into the rural landscape and would have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the countryside location. The site is in an unsustainable location and there are insufficient grounds to warrant departing from UDP policies in this instance, despite the lack of a 5 year housing land supply in Wrexham.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be REFUSED

REASON(S)

1. The proposed development would be unsatisfactory and undesirable because the development involves a greenfield site located outside of any settlement limits as defined in the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan. The proposal would not accord with the limited circumstances which allow for development in the countryside and would fail to achieve a sustainable development pattern. To allow the development would conflict with Policies PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, GDP1 and H5 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.

______

Page 87

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /1050 LIDL SUPERMARKET SALOP ROAD 14/11/2016 WREXHAM LL13 7AF COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Offa DESCRIPTION: PF APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF CONDITION NO 2 IMPOSED UNDER WARD: PLANNING PERMISSION AGENT NAME: Erddig P/2015/0804 TO ALLOW PLAN A (NORTH WEST AMENDMENT TO BOUNDARY LTD) TREATMENT SCHEME AS SHOWN MR CHRIS SMITH ON DRAWING NO AD 114 REV B

APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR F HEELEY

______P/2016/1050 THE SITE

PROPOSAL

As above.

Page 88

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

HISTORY

CB 3466 Erection of foodstore Refused 11/9/2000

P/2000/0893 Erection of single storey food Refused 13/11/2000 store, construction of 119 car parking spaces and alteration to existing vehicular and pedestrian access

P/2001/0161 Erection of Class A1 food store, Refused 7/1/2002 construction of car parking, Appeal 24/3/2003 servicing and new vehicular and allowed pedestrian access and provision of landscaping

P/2003/0680 Erection of food store (1602 sq.m) Refused 8/8/2003 and car park (Amended Scheme)

P/2003/0989 Erection of food store and Granted 10/11/2003 construction of car park

P/2014/0207 Variation of condition no. 10 of Refused 07/07/2014 planning permission P/2003/0989 to allow site deliveries on Sunday and Bank Holidays within the hours 1900 to 2100.

P/2015/0804 Non sales floor area extension to Granted 04/01/2016 existing store, external refurbishments and extension to delivery hours.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The site is located within the Wrexham Town settlement limit. Policies PS2, GDP1, EC4 and T8 are relevant. Guidance is also contained in Local Planning Guidance Note 16 – Parking Standards.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: No objection. Local Members: Several residents have expressed concern that the works, during which a significant amount of material was removed, may have destabilised the grounds so as such the palisading may not be strong enough to prevent a dangerous earthworks movement,

Page 89

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

shift or collapse affecting the properties bordering the Lidl site. In the circumstances the Council has not approved those works and it would be appropriate to request a structural report on the safety of the work from an independent Chartered Civil or Structural Engineer. Council Housing, Building Control and Health and Safety officers should also be advised for action that may be required. Site notice: Expired 13.12.2016 Highways: No recommendations made on highways grounds. Neighbouring occupiers: 40 neighbouring occupiers notified. Two representations received raising the following points: • Strongly against the present fence remaining. This should have been removed previously as it was not on the original planning application; and • When work was been carried out, much of it was done to the rear of the building. Concern is raised regarding the stability of the works carried out and the possibility of the impact upon the boundary wall and garages of the neighbouring dwellings – boundary walls have previously been repaired by Lidl because of damage by trees. Reassurances are required that Lidl will maintain the scale of this vegetation and it will not become overgrown

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Background: Planning permission was granted by the Planning Committee in January 2016 for the erection of an extension to the front elevation of the store, reorientation and extension of the existing car park and for amendments to the restricted delivery hours. As part of this application, a plan formed part of the approved documents which showed the nature of the intended boundary treatments. The extension to the store and the car park reorientation and extension are now completed. This application is effectively made in retrospect to consider the as built boundary treatments and to allow for the referred to plan to be corrected in the planning decision notice. The main issue for consideration is the visual impact of the boundary treatments as constructed.

Page 90

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Design: The applicant is seeking approval for the erection of two main types of boundary treatment.

- Timber cladding of varying heights to the retaining wall at the southern extent of the car park where a new retaining wall was constructed and to the north western boundary to screen an existing brick wall; and - 2.1 metre high paladin fence around the top of the retaining wall.

All other means of enclosure as detailed on the submitted plan are deemed permitted development and require no further approval through the planning process.

The timber cladding is considered to be appropriate in this instance. It is a natural material that will be left to weather over time. Where it has been positioned to act as a decorative screen for the retaining wall, when on site, it appears relatively high in comparison to the building. When approaching from outside the confines of the application site, as the base of the car park is marginally lower than the adjoining road, I am satisfied that it does not look overly high. Where it is used to clad an existing brick wall to the north western corner of the car park, whilst its height is higher than a typical fence, again it is an attractive material that sits comfortably within the urban environment. The paladin fence to the extreme southern boundary is lightweight and does not represent an incongruous structure in the streetscape. I consider the visual impact of the enclosure acceptable.

Other matters: Concerns have arisen regarding the as built retaining wall to facilitate the extended car park and the strength of the timber cladding to support this. It is clear from site inspections that the timber cladding subject to this application is for decorative purposes only and does not form part of the fundamental support for the retained earth. Officers are aware that sheet piling was carried out to form the retaining structure which will form the main structure of the retaining wall. I have no reason to believe that the works that have been carried out represent any special circumstances beyond normal retaining works and those works will have been designed and project managed by a Structural Engineer and controlled through other legislation. I therefore have no planning reason to demand the submission of a structural report or any reason to consider that the works that have been carried out without any due consideration to construction design and management procedures. I have discussed this matter with the Council’s Principal Building Control Engineer who has told me that he has no reason to question the nature of the works that have been carried out. If there are any concerns regarding the impact of the works upon third party land, this is a matter for those parties involved to seek legal redress. I must also stress to Members that this application is to seek the approval of the design of boundary enclosures. The car park extension and retaining wall have planning approval.

Page 91

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Conclusion: I am satisfied that the design of the boundary enclosures are acceptable given the urban setting of the retail building. The exposed timber cladding sits comfortably with the mixed architectural styling and use of materials in the vicinity and would accord with policy GDP1 of the Wrexham UDP. I recommend accordingly.

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. The development shall only be carried out in strict accordance with the details shown on the approved drawing(s) numbered AD110 Rev C, AD 111 Rev B, AD 112, AD113 Rev B, AD114 Rev B and AD115 and contained within the application documentation. 3. Prior to first use of the development the site shall be laid out in strict accordance with layout plan(s) No. AD 114. 4. The off-site highway improvement works including right turning lane, pedestrian central refuge, bus lay-by and new footpath indicated on drawing no. 228L(90)11E approved under planning permission P/2003/0989 shall be permanently retained. 5. With the exception of newspapers and other periodicals, deliveries of goods for sale shall not be taken or dispatched from the site outside the hours of 0700 and 2200 on any day. 6. The rating level of any noise generated by air handling plant associated with the development shall not exceed the pre-existing background level by more than 5dB(A) at any time. The noise levels shall be determined at nearby noise sensitive premises, and measurements and assessment shall be made in accordance with BS4142:2014 Method of Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial areas. 7. All works in relation to the implementation of this permission, including deliveries to and / or leaving the site, shall be undertaken only between the hours of 7.30 and 18.00 Monday to Friday, and 08.00 to 14.00 on a Saturday, and at no time on a Sunday or a Bank Holiday. 8. The facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be retained on site in accordance with the details approved under planning permission P/2003/0989. 9. No facing or roofing materials shall be used other than those detailed on the application form and within the approved application documentation. 10. All surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstanding shall be passed through an oil interceptor designed and constructed to have a capacity compatible with the site being drained. Roof water shall not pass through the interceptors. 11. Only coin-operated shopping trolleys or such other shopping trolley systems as may be agreed with the Local Planning Authority and which

Page 92

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 effectively restricts the use of the trolleys to use directly connected to the food store shall be implements. 12. Notwithstanding the approved layout plan a scheme delineating the car park which maintains the present number of disabled parking spaces shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the first use of the development and retained for such purposes. 13. Prior to the commencement of development a planting scheme shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority to supplement the existing landscaping along the frontage of Salop Road to the south of the site access. The approved scheme shall be fully implemented within the first planting season available following the implementation of this permission unless otherwise agreed, in writing, with 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. In the interests of highway safety. 4. To ensure that a properly constructed access is available for use when the development is completed thereby enabling safe and convenient access to and egress from the site in the interests of road users and pedestrians. 5. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 6. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 7. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 8. To prevent pollution. 9. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 10. To prevent pollution. 11. To ensure that trolleys are returned to the store and do not litter the local environment. 12. To ensure there is no loss of disabled parking spaces to serve the development. 13. To reduce headlight glare from turning delivery vehicles.

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.

Page 93

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

The proposed development lies within an area that has been defined by The Coal Authority as containing potential hazards arising from former coal mining activity. These hazards can include: mine entries (shafts and adits); shallow coal workings; geological features (fissures and break lines); mine gas and previous surface mining sites. Although such hazards are seldom readily visible, they can often be present and problems can occur in the future, particularly as a result of development taking place.

Property specific summary information on past, current and future coal mining activity can be obtained from: www.groundstability.com

If any of the coal mining features are unexpectedly encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to The Coal Authority on 0345 762 6848. Further information is available on The Coal Authority website at:www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-coal-authority.

Page 94

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /1051 3 CYNLAS SOUTHSEA WREXHAM 15/11/2016 LL11 6RE

COMMUNITY: DESCRIPTION: CASE OFFICER: Broughton TWO-STOREY SIDE EXTENSION TO LP1 PROVIDE LIVING ROOM WITH BEDROOM OVER WARD: AGENT NAME: Gwenfro APPLICANT(S) NAME: G RAYMOND JONES MR GLYN ELSON AND ASSOCIATES MR W MIKE DAVIES

______

SITE

Semi-detached property in Southsea

Proposed extension

PROPOSAL

Two storey side extension to provide living room with bedroom over

Page 95

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

HISTORY

None relevant

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Lies within settlement limit, Policies PS2 and GDP1 apply

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Consulted 16/11/2016 Local Member: Notified 16/11/2016 Site Notice: Expired 11/12/2016 Other Representations: One letter of objection received raising concerns about access and storage of building materials taking place whilst the works are taking place. The cul-de-sac is narrow and parking and turning is already difficult.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

The proposal is for a two storey side extension. The original plans showed the proposed extension flush with the front of the property.

Amended plans have been received showing the extension set back from the front of the property and with a lower ridge line.

Design and Amenity: The design of the extension is in keeping with the existing property and is clearly subsidiary. There are no side facing windows to create overlooking to the neighbouring properties.

The extension passes the BRE tests in relation to the neighbouring properties and there will be no adverse impact created.

Parking and access: The property lies in a cul-de-sac which has a relatively narrow width of 4.5 metres and there is little scope for on street parking. The property has sufficient room on the driveway and garden area for parking.

Whilst there may be vehicles parking on the road during the deliveries to the site there is sufficient room for vehicles to access other properties on the street. In any case, this is a matter outside of the scope of planning control.

CONCLUSION

The proposed extension is acceptable in terms of design and impact on neighbouring properties and I therefore recommend accordingly.

Page 96

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

CONDITION(S)

REASON(S)

NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT

The proposed development lies within an area that has been defined by the Coal Authority as containing potential hazards arising from former coal mining activity. These hazards can include: mine entries (shafts and adits); shallow coal workings; geological features (fissures and break lines); mine gas and previous surface mining sites. Although such hazards are seldom readily visible, they can often be present and problems can occur in the future, particularly as a result of development taking place.

Page 97

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 safety and environmental risk factors, including gas and mine-water. Your attention is drawn to the Coal Authority Policy in relation to new development and mine entries available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-on-or-within-the- influencing-distance-of-mine-entries

Property specific summary information on past, current and future coal mining activity can be obtained from: www.groundstability.com or a similar service provider.

______

Page 98

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /1096 GREENACRE OVERTON ROAD 05/12/2016 BANGOR ON DEE WREXHAM LL13 0BY COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Bangor is y Coed DESCRIPTION: PF AMENDMENT TO DESIGN OF GARAGE ROOF (PREVIOUSLY WARD: GRANTED UNDER CODE NO AGENT NAME: Bronington P/2015/0523) MISS CATHY OWEN (IN RETROSPECT)

APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR BEN HUGHES

______

Background: Members will recall that this planning application was reported to the January 2017 meeting. At the time of their consideration, a period of neighbouring consultation was still underway. Members therefore resolved to give the Head of Environment and Planning delegated powers to grant planning permission in accordance with conditions, subject to no additional representations being received raising matters that had not already been addressed in the main report.

One further representation was received following the meeting raising objections to the proposed development. I am satisfied that the nature of the majority of the objections raised in this additional letter have been addressed in the original report and considered by members.

However, there was one additional matter raised in this representation which related to an unfortunate drafting error in the applicants submitted documents. This related to a misinterpretation of the roof design because of the diagonal nature of the footprint of the proposed outbuilding. An amended plan has now been received which regularises the situation. For the benefit of Members a comparison of the erroneous plan (previously considered) and the corrected plan is shown below.

Design previously considered by Members at the January 2017 meeting

Page 99

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Amended drawing now for consideration

I have reconsulted with all neighbouring occupiers previously consulted as well as the Community Council and Local Member to advise of this ommission and new plan. I have invited any additional comments on this specific matter before 01.02.2017. Any submissions will be reported in the addendum.

Conclusion: I am satisfied that the submission of the corrected plan does not change my previous assessment of this planning application. The nature of the roof design is technically necessary to facilitate the shape of the building. It is a minor design feature which is not visually detrimental to the building, the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers or the character of the wider conservation area. My recommendation follows my original report which is attached below.

THE SITE

SITE

Page 100

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

PROPOSAL

Planning permission is sought for the erection of a detached garden outbuilding consisting of ancillary domestic accommodation to the main dwelling house. The building consists of a dual pitched roof with a central ridge running north to south. The application is made partly in retrospect.

HISTORY

P/2013/0098 Replace existing uPVC windows with traditional finish casement windows and frames and fit stone cills to both windows on front elevation. Granted 25.03.2013 P/2015/0523 Single-storey extension and detached replacement garage with storage and office area. Granted 19.08.2015 P/2016/1047 Application for a non-material amendment to planning permission P/2015/0523 to allow change the roof design of detached garage/store/office building. Withdrawn 5.12.16

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The site is located within the Bangor on Dee settlement limit as defined by the Wrexham. The site also falls within the Bangor on Dee Conservation Area. Policies PS2, GDP1, EC7 and T8 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan are relevant. Guidance is also contained the Bangor on Dee Conservation Area Assessment and Management Plan as well as Local Planning Guidance Notes 16 – Parking Standards and 20 – House Extensions.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Consulted 15.12.2016 Local Member: Notified 15.12.2016 Site notice: Expires 6.1.2016 Neighbouring occupiers: 5 neighbouring occupiers notified. 2 objections received raising the following points: • The proposal represents a gross eyesore and obliterates our view of the historic church; • Planners are reminded that the site falls with a conservation area and all care should be taken to preserve the nature of the village. • The building should be constructed as per the original application; • An obtrusive, steeply pitched roof, close to our boundary, has already been constructed without planning consent.

Page 101

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Background: Planning permission has previously been granted in 2015 for the erection of a ground floor rear extension and for the replacement of an existing flat roof outbuilding with a larger mono pitched outbuilding consisting of a home office, garden and motorbike store.

The application as now submitted seeks to deal with a design amendment to the outbuilding which substitutes the low angle sloping mono-pitched roof with a dual pitched slate roof. For the benefit of Members, a comparison of the previously approved 2015 design and the latest proposal are shown below.

Previously approved scheme (P/2015/0523)

Scheme subject to current application

Design: The outbuilding forms part of series of improvement works being undertaken at the property which have sought to improve the appearance of the building and the level of accommodation. The original permission for the outbuilding had a low mono-pitch roof and rendered elevations and the design generally reflected the more contemporary nature of the rear extension.

It is now proposed that the outbuilding is to have gabled roof with cedar cladding rendered walls. The increase in height to accommodate the revised roof form means the outbuilding will be more obvious in views from Overton Road however due to its location with the rear garden of Greenacre, the outbuilding is

Page 102

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 not a prominent or harmful feature. Gabled roof forms are traditional to the Conservation Area generally and the revised design is not out of character. The use of Welsh slate on the structure will help ensure that the roof, the visible part of the structure from the Conservation Area, reflects surrounding building materials. A condition requesting a sample of the slate will be required prior to its use on the development. For this reason I consider that the proposed development will seek to preserve the character of the Conservation Area.

Amenity: The building is located immediately adjacent to the rear garden boundary of no. 2 Salop Road. Whilst I acknowledge the concerns of the neighbouring occupier regarding the scale of the outbuilding I do not consider that its scale is such that it would warrant a refusal of planning permission.

The building as now presented falls with the same position as previously approved and the eaves position and height also remains the same. The main difference is the increase in height which has result from the amended roof design. The highest point of the outbuilding is now 4 metres at a central ridge running in the same orientation as the boundary line as opposed to a previously approved height of 3.3 metres on the eaves opposite to the boundary. A comparison of the two buildings is shown below. The approved outline is shown by the thick line.

Comparison drawing of approved and proposed structure

I acknowledge that the amended proposal will somewhat change the outlook of the nearest neighbouring occupier. However, as the drawing above demonstrates, the change in height of the structure is not so significant that it would a) reduce the amount of daylight to the property or b) represent an overly dominant structure when viewed from the curtilage of the neighbouring dwelling.

The roof slope of the building faces away from the boundary. The distance of the rear of the proposed structure to the rear elevation of the adjacent dwelling is approximately 9 metres. Whilst this falls below the recommended 13 metres separation distance as set out in LPG20, given only the marginal height of the eaves of the structure above the top of the habitable room windows on the rear of the neighbouring dwelling, this shortfall in distance will not be detrimental.

Page 103

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

In considering the comments of the neighbouring occupier on Whitchurch Road, issues of design have been addressed. Any loss of a particular view from a neighbouring dwelling as a result of development is not a material planning consideration.

Conclusion: I am satisfied that the amended design of the proposed outbuilding is acceptable and will not result in detriment to the character of the Conservation Area or the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. I therefore recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

CONDITION(S)

1. The development shall only be carried out in strict accordance with the details shown on the approved drawing(s) numbered PL02 Rev D and contained within the application documentation. 2. Prior to their use on the development samples of all roofing materials shall be 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.

REASON(S)

Page 104

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /1107 LLWYN ONN WATER TREATMENT 07/12/2016 WORKS CEFN ROAD WREXHAM LL13 0NY COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Abenbury DESCRIPTION: PF UPGRADE WORKS TO INCORPORATE DEMOLITION OF WARD: EXISTING RESERVOIR AND AGENT NAME: Holt INSTALLATION OF TWO 12MI MRS UNA SOMERVILLE SERVICE RESERVOIRS (TOTAL CAPACITY 24MI) - ONE ON THE FOOTPRINT OF A FORMER TREATMENT BUILDING AND ONE ON THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING RESERVOIR. CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PUMPING STATION, LAYOUT OF INTERNAL ACCESS ROADS, SOFT LANDSCAPING WORKS, PLANTED SCREENING, PIPEWORK AND CONNECTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE OPERATION OF RESERVOIRS AND PUMPING STATION ANCILLARY SITE WORKS

APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR MARK BILLING DEE VALLEY WATER

______

THE SITE

Llwyn Onn Water Treatment Works, Cefn Road, Wrexham.

Page 105

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

PROPOSAL

Planning permission is sought for various works to upgrade existing facilities at the Dee Valley Water Llwyn Onn drinking water treatment works. The application is made in full and consists of the following elements:

- Demolition of existing 18 million litre (Ml) storage reservoir and replacement with two separate reservoirs each with a 12 Ml capacity; - Construction of a new pumping station to house replacement pumps and demolition of existing pumping house buildings; - Construction of internal access roads; and - regrading of land to the north west of the site to accommodate spoil from the construction process. - Various internal pipework systems and connections to wider drinking water distribution network.

Members are advised and asked to note that works have progressed on the site in the form of laying foundations for the stage 1 reservoir. The applicant has been open and engaging with the Council on this matter and justifies the requirement to do so on the basis of regulatory requirements imposed upon Dee Valley Water as a public water supply body to upgrade their aging facility.

Page 106

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

HISTORY

Most relevant

CB00793 Refurbishment of existing works including erection of new filter house. Granted 03.02.1997 CB03622 Erection of new chemical dosing building and lifting beams and re-location of existing generator. Granted 26.10.1999 P/2011/0412 Erection of building to form part of upgrade works. Granted 06.09.2011

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The site is located outside any defined settlement limit and within green barrier. Part of the application site falls within a Special Landscape Area. Policies PS2, GDP1, EC1, EC4, EC5, EC13 and T8 are relevant. Guidance is also contained in Local Planning Guidance Note 16 – Parking Standards and the Wrexham LANDMAP Supplementary Planning Guidance.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: The Community Council is supportive of the proposal. The only concern is the potential noise and nuisance to neighbouring properties whilst the work is being carried out. Local Member: No representations. Site notices: Expired 13.01.2017 Press Notice: Expired 28.01.2017 Highways: Given the substandard nature of the visibility at the site access, development that would result in an increase of vehicle movements would not be supported. However, provided that there were no significant increases (as per the application documentation) there would be no objection on highway grounds. A Construction Phase Management Plan is recommended. Public Protection: Noise generation and construction phase nuisance prevention conditions and informatives are recommended. Flood Officer: There is no indicative drainage plan submitted other than to say that the development will discharge surface water to a water course. This should be submitted prior to the determination of the application. PRoW: Consulted 23.12.2016 NRW: NRW would have concerns regarding the habitat impact of the development if conditions

Page 107

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

are not imposed to secure implementation of a nature conservation management scheme and Biosecurity Risk Assessment. The development needs to be carried out in accordance with the Reservoirs Act. Welsh Water: Consulted 09.12.2016 Neighbouring occupiers: 45 neighbouring occupiers notified. 3 representations received raising the following concerns: • The proposal will result in increased noise from the plant; • Why do the reservoirs need to be so high? • A significant amount of soil has been deposit on the embankment to the north of the site; • Increased flies; • The work has already started in October; • Work is being carried out at the weekends and until 6pm; • Is there a chance that building work will occur on the hillside? If so this will cause significant impact upon the visual amenity of the residential occupiers below the site; • There is a health and safety risk between the works and the neighbouring farm at the access as a result of possible collisions. There should be segregation between Dee Valley Water traffic and farm traffic and a reduction in the speed limit; • It is considered that the current landscape scheme is inadequate – there is no reason that a more substantial hedgerow could not be established sooner; and • The pre-application exercise carried out by the applicant indicated that there would be a Construction Phase Management Plan submitted with the application. This is not the case and concerns are raised regarding light pollution, worrying of cattle, pile driving, demolition and concrete breaking and working hours. Suitable mitigation measures should be put in place;

APPLICANTS SUBMISSIONS

The application is accompanied by a suite of supporting documents which include:

Page 108

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

- Design and Access Statement; - Supporting Planning Statement; - Pre-Application Consultation Report; - Ecology Report - Landscape and Visual Impact Appraisal; and - Arboricultural Report

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Policy: Llwyn Onn water treatment works is an established site for the purposes of treating drinking water and has been operating at a public utility site for this purpose for approximately 70 years. I am satisfied that the need for the upgrade to this existing strategic public utility facility has been established.

The site is located within open countryside and within a green barrier. Policy EC1 of the UDP and Planning Policy Wales (PPW) are explicit on what development is deemed acceptable in such designations. Whilst this development does not specifically fall within the criteria of development that may be acceptable within green barriers, I am satisfied that, as the development would fall within the footprint of existing structures and in the operational area of the facility, it would not affect the openness of the green barrier and would not impact upon the reason for included the land within the designation.

Policy EC5 seeks to protect areas of special landscape character from inappropriate development. The policy wording specifically states that ‘Development, other than for…essential operational development by utility service providers, will be strictly controlled’. On this basis, I am satisfied that the nature of the works can be justified in this location. Specific assessment of the visual impact of the development has been considered and discussed later in this report.

Landscape impact: A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) has been carried out to inform the nature of the design. There are two main elements of the proposal that could have impacts for neighbouring receptors. The replacement 2 no. reservoirs and the installation of the new pump house.

The ‘Stage 1’ reservoir would be located on the footprint of a large building which was demolished recently. Whilst the coping of this reservoir would be 3 metres higher than the existing reservoir, it would be 4 metres lower than the ridgeline of the former building. The Stage 2 reservoir would located on the footprint of the existing reservoir but would only occupy approximately 40% of the total area. This would be 3 metres higher than the existing reservoir. An area of grassed bunding is proposed around the southern section of this reservoir. Finally, a pump house is proposed to the south of the stage 2 reservoir which would have a ridge height comparable to the reservoirs with a width of 25 metres.

Page 109

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

The landscaping scheme submitted with the application proposes a significant grass bund to the south of the stage 2 reservoir to mitigate any additional impact of this structure from views outside the site. An ‘instant green screen’ is also proposed to the southern elevation of the stage 1 reservoir along with the planting of a native hedgerow along the eastern boundary to bolster the existing tree line. Given the potential stark appearance of the concrete façade of the reservoirs, I am satisfied that these measures will aid the integration of the structure into the landscape.

I am also satisfied that the proposed pumping house building, whilst visible from outside the site will be viewed in the same context as the building erected in 2013 and, subject to a condition to control its final colour, would not have an adverse impact upon the wider landscape.

Concerns have arisen from neighbouring occupiers to the north west of the site regarding the tipping of concrete from the demolition of the former building and soil stripping from the ongoing foundation works. Officers have sought clarification from the applicant regarding the intentions for this portion of the site. The submitted plans indicate the regrading of this area of the site and the planting of grass and native wildflower mix. It is understood that the concrete will be removed from the site. This area formed part of the landscaping scheme from the previous 2011 application. However, it is clear that the soil conditions are relatively poor and the tree planting has failed. As such, whilst the regrading and replanting of this area is acceptable, given the sensitivity to neighbouring receptors, a condition requiring finished land level plans and a detailed planting scheme will be required as part of any approval.

I am satisfied with the findings of the LVIA, which confirm that the impacts of the development will be negligible. A minor adverse impact will occur from the flank of Cefn Road, but the baseline assessment of this view ranks it as having a low value. Subject to appropriate landscape mitigation conditions, I consider the development will be acceptable in landscape impact terms.

Highways: Highways consider that the development will not result in an adverse impact upon highway safety provided that there is no material increase in traffic from the site given the inadequate visibility at the site access. I have no reason to believe that this will occur as the proposal is to upgrade an existing facility, rather than introduce additional facilities on site.

The existing site access is shared with Old Llwyn Onn Farm. I acknowledge that conflict could occur between site and farm traffic. However, there are established uses at both sites and it is accepted that no increase in traffic is likely to occur. There are no reasons to insist upon access improvements.

Neighbouring amenity: I have no reason to believe that the operational phase of the development will result in any increase in noise levels to the neighbouring noise sensitive occupiers of the site. Any significant noise generation will be from the construction phase.

Page 110

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

The nearest properties are Old Llwyn Onn Farm and Llwyn Ucha 100 metres to the south east. Public Protection have requested amenity protection conditions for the construction and operation phases. I am also satisfied that there are additional controls through the environmental protection legislation to protect against disturbance.

The owners of Old Llwyn Onn Farm have raised concerns regarding the noise generation caused by the construction phase and cattle worrying. I have discussed this matter with Public Protection. There is no statutory obligation to consider this matter through the environmental protection legislation. I understand that the applicant has liaised with the neighbouring occupier and I have no reason to believe that the standard construction methodology and the known construction timescales cannot be adequately managed as part of the agricultural operations.

Other matters: I acknowledge the points made by the Council’s Flood Officer regarding the lack of information pertaining to surface water drainage intentions. Whilst the Council’s guidance states that intended drainage design should be submitted upfront, I am mindful that the proposal is for upgrades to the existing facility where there is already significant hardstanding in place. As such, I am satisfied that adequate drainage can be accommodated on site without causing additional flows to the watercourse. A condition requiring a detailed drainage scheme will be required.

Whilst I understand that works relating to the planning proposal are ongoing, planning applications can be considered retrospectively.

I have no reason to believe that the proposed development will increase the presence of flies on or around the site.

I am satisfied that the ecological impact of the development, predominantly to the north west where the soil tipping has occurred can be mitigated. The requirements to improve this area will tie into the details required by NRW.

Conclusion: I am satisfied that the proposed development is required and justified. The visual impact of the development can be mitigated and any noise disturbance will be limited to the construction phase. As the development will accord with national and local planning policy I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

CONDITION(S)

Page 111

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

• DVLO-ACM-SW-xx-DR-CE-00003 Rev P02 - Proposed Site Layout • DVLO-ACM-PH-xx-DR-CE-00001 Rev P02 - Pump House Elevations • DVLO-ACM-PH-xx-DR-CE-00002 Rev P02 - Pump House Floor Plan and Section • DVLO-ACM-SW-xx-DR-CE-00004 Rev P02 - Site Sections • DVLO-ACM-S1-xx-DR-CE-00001 Rev P02 - Stage 1 Reservoir - 12ML Elevations • DVLO-ACM-S2-xx-DR-CE-00001 Rev P02 - Stage 2 Reservoir - 12ML Elevations • DVLO-ACM-SW-xx-DR-LA-00001 Rev P02 - Landscape Layout and contained within the application documentation. 3. Within one month of the date of this permission, a Construction Phase traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plan as may be approved. 4. Notwithstanding the requirements of condition no. 1, within one month of the date of this permission a scheme of details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority in respect of the following: - details of the proposed finished land levels in respect of the area identified for the tipping of excavated arisings; - details of the soil type and a scheme of enhancement planting, planting timescales and a management regime in the area identified for the tipping of excavated arisings; The development shall be carried in accordance with the detail as may be approved. Any planting becoming severely damaged or seriously diseased, or is in poor physiological condition and/or are removed without the written permission of the local planning authority shall be replaced within the next available planting season by species of similar size to those originally required to be planted 5. Planting implemented in accordance with approved landscaping scheme drawing no. DVLO-ACM-SW-xx-DR-LA-00001 Rev P02 - Landscape Layout shall be permanently retained. Any planting becoming severely damaged or seriously diseased, or is in poor physiological condition and/or are removed without the written permission of the Local Planning Authority shall be replaced within the next available planting season by trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted. 6. Within one month of the date of this permission, a scheme detailing the implementation of a nature conservation management plan including timescales for implementation, in accordance with the principles laid down at section 3. of the approved Update Ecology Report of Atmos Consulting reference no. 39100 R8 Rev 4 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the details as may be approved and retained thereafter. 7. Within one month of the date of this permission a Biosecurity Risk Assessment shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the details as may be approved. 8. All works in relation to the implementation of this permission, including deliveries to and / or leaving the site, shall be undertaken only between the

Page 112

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 hours of 7.30 and 18.00 Monday to Friday, and 08.00 to 14.00 on a Saturday, and at no time on a Sunday or a Bank Holiday unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained. 9. The rating level of any noise generated by reason of this development shall not exceed the pre-existing background level by more than 5dB(A) at any time. The noise levels shall be determined at nearby noise sensitive premises, and measurements and assessment shall be made in accordance with BS4142:2014 Method of Rating Industrial Noise Affecting Mixed Residential and Industrial areas. 10. The pump house hereby approved on drawing no DVLO-ACM-PH-xx-DR- CE-00001 Rev P02 - Pump House Elevations shall be finished in Mineral Green or any other colour which may be agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 11. Within one month of the date of this permission a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site indicating how surface water and land drainage will be dealt with shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme as approved shall be implemented in accordance with a timescale to be agreed as part of the submitted details and maintained thereafter.

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. In the interests of highway safety and the amenity of the surrounding site occupiers. 4. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 5. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 6. In the interests of protecting species which may otherwise by harmed by the implementation of this development. 7. In the interests of protecting species which may otherwise by harmed by the implementation of this development. 8. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 9. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 10. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 11. To ensure that effective drainage facilities are provided for the proposed development, and that no adverse impact occurs to the environment or the existing public sewerage system.

______

Page 113

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /1111 THE ELMS RHOSDDU ROAD 28/11/2016 WREXHAM LL11 1EB COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Rhosddu DESCRIPTION: MP GROUND FLOOR EXTENSION AND INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL WARD: ALTERATIONS AGENT NAME: Grosvenor T A C P APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR DAVID MORRIS MR STEVEN WEBSTER BETSI CADWALADR UNIVERSITY HEALTH BOARD

______

SITE

Proposed extension

PROPOSAL

The Betsi Cadwalader University Health Board operates their Substance Misuse Services (SMS) from two sites, The Elms on Rhosddu Road (the application

Page 114

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 site) and Hafod on Grosvenor Road. They are proposing to extend and refurbish The Elms to enable the SMS to be located on one site.

The application proposes the following:

i. An single storey extension to the east of the existing building; ii. The provision of two additional second floor dormers window in the west and north facing elevations. iii. The blocking up of a ground floor, a first floor and a second floor window and the installation of a new second floor window, all in the south elevation. iv. The installation of two ground floor and two first floor windows in the north-facing elevation of the building. v. Replacement of existing windows and the provision of a new slate roof.

The submitted plans confirm some significant alterations to the interior of the building, including the provision of a new staircase. These works do not, by themselves, require planning permission.

HISTORY

No relevant history.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Within settlement limit and within the Grosvenor Road Conservation Area. Policies GDP1, EC4, EC7 and T8 apply.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Consulted 13.12.16 Local Member: Has the following concerns about the application: 1. There is insufficient parking for existing staff let alone additional staff; 2. Numerous times I have witnessed vehicles backing out onto Rhosddu Road to exit the site; 3. There is no spare capacity on nearby 'sites'; 4. Street parking is not an option; 5. The removal of one of the internal staircases causes me concerns on Health & Safety grounds; 6. From the limited information the proposed ground floor extension does not seem in keeping with the rest of the building. Public Protection: Recommended measures to limit construction impacts. Highways: Have made the following comments: - Any existing/proposed access onto Rhosddu Road would normally require visibility splays of 2.4 x 33m in both directions;

Page 115

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

- Visibility splays serving the access are inadequate in both directions providing splays of approximately 2.4 x 7m to the north and 2.4 x 11m to the south. Visibility is impeded by the existing 1.2m high brick pillars on both sides of the access. Visibility is also impeded to the north by the existing 1.1m high boundary wall. Adequate visibility would appear to be achievable if these features were lowered to 1m above the adjoining carriageway; - The existing access is 5m wide and can accommodate the passage of 2 no. vehicles; - I would normally not wish to support any proposed development that is likely to result in any increase in vehicle movements through this sub-standard access. The proposed development would appear to involve the intensification of use at the site; - Current parking arrangements appear very congested with in excess of 15 cars attempting to park at the site. This results in cars blocking in parked cars, which is not ideal. The current parking arrangements result in inadequate space being left for turning. I assume that this results in cars having to reverse onto Rhosddu Road which is unacceptable; - If the car park was formally marked out in accordance with LPG16, it would only appear capable of accommodating 13 spaces; - The existing D1 use would require a maximum of 24 spaces. The proposed extension would require a maximum of 28 spaces. There is only approximately 13 parking spaces on site, this would equate to a 54% shortfall in parking compared to the maximum standards; - Given that it is proposed to transfer a number of staff from Hafod on Grosvenor Road into The Elms, I would raise serious concerns over the adequacy of existing and proposed parking provision at the site and its potential impact upon the free flow of traffic on Rhosddu Road; - No details of existing/proposed daily vehicle movements at The Elms have been provided. I would recommend that the applicant addresses the above concerns; - The DAS indicates the facility will have 32 staff. Of these 24 staff + 2 visitors require parking spaces. As there are only 13 spaces, in reality at The Elms, this would suggest that at least 13

Page 116

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

spaces would also be required at the existing BCUHB Romano car park located along Grove Road; - The Romano site is located on Grove Road. Any existing/proposed access onto Grove Road would normally require visibility splays of 2.4 x 33m in both directions; - Visibility from the existing access is inadequate in both directions being approximately 2.4 x 12m to the north-east and 2.4 x 14m to the south-west. Visibility is impeded by 1.9m high stone pillars on both sides of the access and by the existing 1.2m high boundary wall; - I would not wish to support any development that is likely to result in any increase in vehicle movements through this sub-standard access; - I understand the existing Romano site includes a car park with approximately 28 spaces. I understand the car park is also used intensively and at best, typically only has 2 or 3 free spaces. I understand that various meetings are held at this site and cars struggle to park and often double park. I would raise concerns that this car park has adequate capacity to cater for additional demand; - Although the above sites are located in Wrexham Town Centre, there would appear to be a significant reliance on staff using cars at both sites and I would raise concerns that parking and access is already an issue at these sites. Wrexham Civic Society: Consulted 13.12.16 Site notice: Expired 9.1.17 Neighbours: Coleg Cambria notified 16.12.16

1 objection received from a local resident expressing the following concerns: - The extension will be out of keeping with the existing building, with a flat roof on a site which is already overcrowded and does not have sufficient car parking for existing staff. This area of Wrexham has too many buildings for this type of use at present.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Use: The permitted use of the premises falls within Class D1 (non-residential institutions) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 which includes clinics and health centres. Facilities providing substance misuse services are clinics/health centres and therefore fall within Class D1.

Page 117

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

I have assumed that by suggesting there are too many buildings for this type of use in the area, the objector is referring specifically to substance misuse services rather than medical or other Class D1 uses generally. Whilst noting these concerns, the application is not for a change of use but rather for an extension and alterations to an existing building. It will therefore not result in an additional facility offering this kind of service. Indeed it will facilitate the provision of these services from one site rather than two as at present. It is therefore not possible to consider whether the site is suitable for a D1 use in general or the specific services the Health Board currently provide from it. The Council is limited to considering the merits of the proposed extension and other external alterations to the building.

Design: The east facing and north facing extensions are included below – these will be the most visible parts of the extension from outside of the site.

Page 118

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

The Elms is identified as building of visual interest in the Grosvenor Road Conservation Area Character Assessment and Management Plan, being located in a prominent corner location. The site is constrained by limited curtilage depth and a beech tree immediately to the south of the building. The tree makes a valuable contribution to the character of the conservation area and is protected by TPO WMBC no.11, which also protects trees on the adjacent Coleg Cambria site. The space between the rear of the building and the eastern boundary of the site is the only part of the site where an extension can be accommodated.

As can be seen from the above plans, the extension will have a contemporary appearance in contrast to the traditional appearance of the existing building. The southern section of the building will be clad in zinc sheeting, with the remainder faced in a brick similar in colour to the ones used in the contrasting bands of the existing building.

The fact that a site lies within the conservation area does not prevent a more contemporary approach to design being taken in appropriate circumstances, provided the resulting building preserves or enhances the conservation area. In this instance the contrast is appropriate, ensuring the extension can be interpreted as a modern addition to the building. The extension is of a well thought out design that will not detract from the appearance of the existing building and will preserve the character of the wider conservation area.

The new windows and dormer windows match existing ones therefore these alterations reflect the character of the building and in turn preserve the character of the conservation area.

Page 119

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

The beech tree referred to above will need to be protected during construction works. This will be secured by condition. A number of other smaller yew, whitebeam, laburnum and holly trees will be removed to make way for the extension, however these do not make a significant contribution to the amenity of the area or wider conservation area and are not protected by the TPO. The submitted plans propose new soft landscaping to the north and west of the building which presents an opportunity to enhance the appearance of the site and off-set the loss of the trees. This will be secured by condition.

Amenity: The nearest residential properties are around 45 metres to the north of the site and therefore far enough away that the proposals will not prove harmful to the amenity of their occupiers by way of loss of light, privacy or by being overbearing. The proposals will not adversely impact upon the use of adjacent non-residential properties.

Highways: If the Local Planning Guidance Note 16 maximum standards are applied, 24 parking spaces would be required for the existing building and 28 once the extension is built. The applicants have suggested that there is space for 15 cars within a car park to the south of the building. Highways have commented that only 13 spaces would be available if the car park were laid out in accordance with LPG16 however the car park is currently used for the parking of up to 15 vehicles, although this does result in some double parking. Vehicles also already reverse out onto the highway when space is unavailable to do so within the site.

The applicants have indicated that there will be a requirement for up to 24 staff parking spaces and 2 visitor spaces, with excess demand (i.e. up to 9 spaces) catered for by parking spaces on the Health Board’s Romano site a short distance away on Grove Road. I note comments made by Highways about the parking and access provision at the Romano site, however it is not subject to this planning application. In any case, how the Health Board manages demand for parking across their town centre sites is outside of the scope of planning control. It would therefore not be possible to sustain a refusal of this application on the grounds that the development may increase the use of an access and demand for parking on another Health Board owned/controlled site.

I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed about the parking and access provision at the application site but in my opinion these would not provide valid reasons for refusal either. The existing on-site parking provision is already significantly below the LPG16 maximum. Based on the LPG16 maximum the development would result in demand for 4 additional spaces, however this represents a worst case scenario. I have not been provided with any evidence demonstrating that the existing level of demand for parking at the site has caused any significant on-street parking or highway safety issues in the vicinity of the site. It is worth noting that The Elms is not the only site accessed off Rhosddu Road where double parking takes place. This also occurs at (non- Heath Board) office premises on the opposite side of Rhosddu Road. Again, I have not been provided with any evidence that this routinely causes significant highway safety issues.

Page 120

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Given that the applicants are not proposing to increase the number of vehicles parked at the site, I have no reason to believe that the development will give rise to parking problems in the vicinity. Even if demand for parking cannot be catered for at the application site or at the Health Board’s Romano site, there are other alternative places to park relatively close by. The ‘Library’ and ‘Waterworld’ car parks on Chester Road are approximately 400 metres from the site, for example. Rhosddu Road also has double yellow lines on both sides of the road in front of the site and further to the south parking is prohibited between 8am and 6pm.

With regards to the site access, I have not been provided with any evidence that it currently gives rise to significant safety issues. Given that the car park is already used to capacity and is unlikely to see any significant increase in use as a result of the development, in turn it is therefore unlikely the proposals will give rise to a significant increase in the number of vehicle movements to/from the site.

Other matters: I note the local member’s comments about the internal alterations to the building however these lie outside of the scope of planning control. The applicants will however need to ensure that they comply with Building Regulations.

CONCLUSION

The proposals are of an appropriate design, will preserve the character of the conservation area and are unlikely to give rise to parking or highway safety issues in the vicinity. As such, the proposals accord with the relevant UDP policies.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

CONDITION(S)

Page 121

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

5. Prior to their use on the development samples of all external facing and roofing materials shall be 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. 6. Prior to their installation on the building, drawings to scale 1:5 and 1:20 fully detailing all new or replacement windows and doors shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details shall fully describe the proposed materials, decorative/protective finishes, method of opening and glazing type and include cross sections for glazing bars, sills and heads etc. The works shall only be carried out in strict accordance with such details as are approved. 7. Within three months of commencement of development, full details of a hard and soft landscaping scheme together with a timescale for implementation of works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 8. The landscaping scheme submitted and approved in connection with condition no. 06 shall be fully implemented in all respects within the agreed timescale and in strict accordance with the approved scheme. 9. The landscaping scheme as carried out in connection with condition no. 07 shall be permanently retained. Any planting becoming severely damaged or seriously diseased, or is in poor physiological condition and/or are removed without the written permission of the Local Planning Authority shall be replaced with trees or shrubs of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted and within a timescale all to 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 protect trees which are of significant amenity value to the area. 4. To ensure the work is carried out to accepted arboricultural practices for the long term wellbeing of the tree(s). 5. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 6. To ensure the works reflect the character and appearance of the building. 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.

Page 122

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT

Property specific summary information on past, current and future coal mining activity can be obtained from: www.groundstability.com or a similar service provider.

______

Page 123

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /1122 14 STANCLIFFE AVENUE MARFORD 11/12/2016 WREXHAM LL12 8LP COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Gresford DESCRIPTION: SEH DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SINGLE STOREY GARAGE AND KITCHEN WARD: AND ERECTION OF A 1.5 STOREY AGENT NAME: Marford & Hoseley SIDE EXTENSION, AND EDW ARCHITECTURE REPLACEMENT OF FLAT ROOF LTD DORMER WITH PITCHED ROOF MR EDWARD WEBB DORMER

APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR & MRS MIKE AND KAY EDWARDS

______

SITE

Proposed Extension

PROPOSAL

As above

Page 124

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

HISTORY

None relevant

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Within defined settlement limit. Policies GDP1 and PS2 apply. Local Planning Guidance Note Nos. 20 ‘House Extensions’ and 21 ‘Space around Dwellings’ are also relevant.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Councillor M.J. Edwards (Applicant) expressed an interest in this matter and left the meeting. Remaining councillors had no comments to make. Local Member: Notified 11/12/2016 Site Notice: Expired 13/01/2017 Other Representations: Notified 28/12/2016

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Background: This application is being reported to planning committee as the Applicant is the Local Member for Marford.

Proposed is the demolition of existing single storey garage and kitchen to the side elevation and erection of a 1.5 storey extension to provide a reconfigured garage and kitchen area on the ground floor with store room in the roof space above. Also proposed is the replacement of the flat roof dormer window with a pitched roof dormer window. The main issues to consider relate to the impact of the development upon residential and visual amenity.

Design and residential amenity: The extensions as proposed seek to utilise matching materials and have been designed to be in keeping with, and sympathetic to, the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and surrounding area. No windows are proposed in the side elevation of the ground floor extension which will avoid any loss of privacy to the adjacent occupiers. There are no significant issues of loss of light to this same property as the eaves height will not exceed that which already exist, and the additional roof space slopes away towards the main dwelling avoiding any restriction of outlook.

The proposed alterations to the existing dormer window in the roof slope (facing north) are acceptable in terms of scale and design. The window (bathroom) will be obscure glazed to protect privacy, and this will be secured by way of planning condition.

Conclusion: The extensions to the dwelling are acceptable in terms of scale and design, and there would be no significant impact upon visual or residential

Page 125

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 amenity. The development is in accordance with the Council’s adopted policies and guidance and I recommend accordingly.

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. The development shall only be carried out in strict accordance with the details shown on the approved drawing(s) numbered 102 03, 103 04 Rev A and contained within the application documentation. 3. No facing or roofing materials shall be used other than those detailed on the application form and within the approved application documentation. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re- enacting that Order with or without modification), any window or opening in the elevation facing North shall only be glazed or re-glazed using obscure glass which shall thereafter be permanently retained.

REASON(S)

NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT

All works relating to this development which are audible beyond the site boundary should be carried out only between 7.30 and 18.00 hrs Monday to Friday, and 08.00 to 14.00 hrs on a Saturday, and at no time on a Sunday or a Bank Holiday. Outside these times, any works which are audible beyond the site boundary have the potential to cause unreasonable disturbance to neighbouring premises.

The applicant should adhere to the times given above wherever possible. For further information and advice regarding construction noise please contact the Council's Housing and Public Protection Department on 01978 315300.

The proposed development lies within an area that has been defined by the

Page 126

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Coal Authority as containing potential hazards arising from former coal mining activity. These hazards can include: mine entries (shafts and adits); shallow coal workings; geological features (fissures and break lines); mine gas and previous surface mining sites. Although such hazards are seldom readily visible, they can often be present and problems can occur in the future, particularly as a result of development taking place.

Property specific summary information on past, current and future coal mining activity can be obtained from: www.groundstability.com or a similar service provider.

______

Page 127

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /1125 CLARION COTTAGE 6 BANGOR 12/12/2016 ROAD OVERTON WREXHAM LL13 0HB COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Overton DESCRIPTION: SEH REPLACE FENCE WITH RED BRICK DWARF WALL (2'6" HIGH) WITH WARD: BRICK PILLARS TO RECEIVE METAL AGENT NAME: Overton IRON WORK AND METAL GATE MR JOHN OWEN

APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR JOHN OWEN

______P/2016/0956 SITE

Proposed Wall

PROPOSAL

As above

HISTORY

None relevant

Page 128

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Within defined settlement limit and Overton conservation area. Policies GDP1, PS2 and EC7 apply.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Object to the metal iron work on top of the wall. A dwarf red brick wall with blue capping and hedge to match the adjoining property (Lilac Cottage) should be installed as per the original 19th Century construction (mentioned in Overton Conservation Area Assessment and Management Plan, WCBC adopted December 2010). Local Member: Notified 15/12/2016 Highways: No recommendations. WACS: Consulted 15/12/2016 Site Notice: Expired 09/01/2017 Advert: Expired 28/01/2017 Other Representations: Notified 19/12/2016

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Background: This application has been submitted following pre-application discussions. The property was originally enclosed by a timber fence (see figure 1 below). However this fence was removed and replaced with an inappropriate style of fencing without the benefit of planning permission (see figure 2 below).

Figure 1. Original boundary fence

Page 129

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Figure 2. Unauthorised fence

It is now proposed to replace this unauthorised fence with a red brick dwarf wall (2'6" high) with brick pillars and metal iron work top, and a metal access gate. The main issue to consider relates to the impact of the new wall, railings and gate upon the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Design and conservation area: The proposed wall offers an enhancement to the appearance of the conservation area through reinstatement of a traditional boundary treatment that is characteristic of the conservation area. The bricks for the wall construction have been viewed on site and are acceptable in terms of their colour and size. The proposed gate and railings are also acceptable installations and there is no justification to insist upon the planting of a hedge in lieu of the proposed metal railings.

Conclusion: The proposed wall, railings and gate are acceptable in terms of scale and design, and will enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

CONDITION(S)

1. The boundary wall, railings and gate hereby approved shall be completed on site within 3 months of the date of the permission. 2. No facing or roofing materials shall be used other than those detailed on the application form and within the approved application documentation. 3. Within one month of the date of installation on site, the metal railings and gate shall receive a black painted finish. The colour shall not thereafter be changed.

Page 130

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

4. No part of the development shall commence until details of the proposed bound pattern for the brick wall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall not be brought into use except in strict accordance with such details as are approved.

REASON(S)

1. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 2. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 3. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 4. To enable the control of matters not detailed in the application in compliance with the appropriate policies and standards

NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT

______

Page 131

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /1138 LONGFIELDS BUCK ROAD 14/12/2016 COMMONWOOD WREXHAM LL13 9TF COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Holt DESCRIPTION: MP ERECTION OF LARGE DETACHED GARAGE (PARTLY IN WARD: RETROSPECT) AGENT NAME: Holt BLUEPRINT APPLICANT(S) NAME: ARCHITECTURAL MR BROOKE SERVICES LTD MR DAFYDD EDWARDS

______

SITE

Application site and position of proposed building

Existing garage

PROPOSAL

As above.

Page 132

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

HISTORY

HOL18925 Demolition of existing obsolete outbuildings, extension to provide additional living accommodation, construction of new vehicular and pedestrian access and alteration to existing vehicular and pedestrian access. Granted 11.2.91 HOL23324 Porch and games room extension. Refused 9.5.95. dismissed on appeal 20.10.95.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Outside settlement limit. Policy GDP1 applies.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Concerns because of the size of the, members request that a clause be inserted that any use of the building should be ancillary to the main dwelling and not be used commercially. Local Member: Notified 19.12.16 Highways: Have made the following comments: - Visibility splays of 2.4 x 215m in both directions required; - Visibility from the access serving the site is inadequate in both directions – approximately 2.4 x 8m to the north and 2.4 x 11m to the south. Visibility is impeded by the existing hedgerow either side of the access; - I would not normally support any proposed development that is likely to result in an increase in vehicle movements through this sub-standard access; - The existing access is approximately 3.7m wide and is surfaced with hardbound materials. The access is gated approximately 4.4m behind the carriageway; - Assuming the proposed garage will only be used to house existing machinery/vehicles on site and will not result in any significant increase in vehicle movements at the site, no objections on highways grounds. Site notice: Expired 11.1.16 Neighbours: The owners/occupiers of 3 nearby properties notified 20.12.16. 1 objection received expressing the following concerns: - The steel frame is very visible from the road and not in keeping with the cottage or nearby residential properties;

Page 133

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

- Noise and disturbance in keeping with a car garage; - Subject to attempted deliveries and relating to a car business and business callers looking for the proprietors; - there are already vehicles transported to and from this address. Any development which increases the capacity to store vehicles would be intolerable. - If we were then to place our property on the market, there is no doubt in our opinion, that our sale would be directly affected due to size, style and proximity of this steel building; - The view from our kitchen, lounge and back garden is dominated by the proposed garage; - All three bedrooms are affected by noise from car engines and tools, our genuine concern is that steel doors or shutters and additional vehicles will make the current situation worse; - Whilst we are aware we do not have a ‘right to a view’, the steel frame is over bearing, out of character and will affect our enjoyment of our home, particularly from the back garden area.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Intended use: This is a householder planning application and as such if permission is granted the building could only be used for purposes incidental to the occupation of Longfields as a single dwelling.

The applicant is intending to use the building to store part of his collection of cars in. I understand that the applicant keeps up to ten vehicles at the site at present. Five vehicles are to be kept in the proposed building with a further two stored in an existing garage. Three vehicles are to be kept in the open for daily use.

Uses incidental to the occupation of a dwelling can include hobbies, such as keeping of cars, however it does not automatically follow that all hobbies are incidental to the enjoyment of a dwelling house. The activity must be considered in the context of the primary use of the primary residential unit and its curtilage.

The keeping of up to seven cars in the existing garage and the building subject to this application does not, in itself, necessarily represent a use or activity that materially changes character or use of the site. Furthermore the building, together with the dwelling and three other existing outbuildings, occupy a quarter of the curtilage of the dwelling. The building therefore does not, by itself, materially alter the residential/domestic character of the site. I will discuss appearance and residential amenity in more detail below.

Page 134

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Whilst I note the comments made by a neighbour about the operation of a car related business from the site I have not been provided with any evidence to demonstrate that there are activities taking place at the site that constitute a material change of use.

The granting of planning permission for what, on the basis of the application submitted, is a domestic outbuilding would not authorise a change of use. If the applicant intended to start keeping cars privately at the site in a manner that was judged not to be incidental to the occupation of the dwelling he would need to apply for change of use to do so. Planning permission would also be required if business activities take place that constitute a material change of use.

Appearance: A photograph of the partially completed building is included below:

The building has a floor area of 112 sq.m (over three times that of the applicant’s existing double garage) and is 4.8m high. The walls and roof are to be faced with steel cladding. Whilst it is undoubtedly much larger and will have a more utilitarian appearance than an average double garage, it is set back into the site some 20 metres from the highway boundary. It is not unduly prominent with the wider landscape, views of it being obstructed by the applicant’s dwelling, the neighbouring dwelling to the south, a tall hedge to the west as well as buildings to the west and north on neighbouring land.

The existing steel frame is currently noticeable when passing the site frontage, however once the steel cladding has been attached, provided it is painted in an appropriate colour, in my opinion the building will not be detract from the appearance of the site or its immediate surroundings.

Page 135

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Residential amenity: The building is around 14 metres from the nearest dwelling, Longfield Barn. This distance as well as the position of the building relative to Longfield Barn means that it will not provide harmful by way of loss of light or by being visually overbearing.

The use of the building for the storage of cars should not prove unduly disruptive by way of noise. As noted above, if the building and/or other parts of the site were used for purposes that are not incidental to the enjoyment of residential occupation of Longfields, the applicant would need to apply for permission for change of use. The impact of any such use(s) would be considered via that application.

Highways: Highways have commented that they have no objections to the development on the basis of the building only being used to house vehicles already on site and therefore no additional traffic using the site access, which suffers from substandard visibility. The applicant has confirmed that the vehicles to be stored in the building are already kept on site and are/will be moved occasionally. The occasional use/movement of the vehicles is unlikely to materially increase the number of vehicle movements to/from the site to the extent that highway safety is prejudiced.

CONCLUSION

The building does not adversely impact upon the rural landscape or, subject to the external cladding being finished in an appropriate colour, the appearance of the site. I am also satisfied it will not adversely impact upon the standard of amenity afforded to nearby occupiers and is unlikely to materially increase traffic to the extant that highway safety is prejudiced. The proposals are therefore in accordance with policy GDP1.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

CONDITION(S)

1. The development shall only be carried out in strict accordance with the details shown on the approved drawing(s) numbered B109/003 and B109/004 and contained within the application documentation. 2. No facing or roofing materials shall be used other than those detailed on the application form and within the approved application documentation. 3. Within one month of the first use of the building, the exterior of the building shall be finished in a colour that has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 4. The building shall only be used for purposes incidental to the residential use of the dwelling known as Longfields, Buck, Road.

Page 136

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

REASON(S)

1. To ensure that the development fully complies with the appropriate policies and standards. 2. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 3. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 4. In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of adjacent properties and highway safety.

______

Page 137

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /1142 LAND ADJOINING AND EAST OF 08/12/2016 GREENFIELDS STRYT LAS RHOSLLANERCHRUGOG COMMUNITY: WREXHAM CASE OFFICER: Rhos LL14 2DA SEH

DESCRIPTION: WARD: ERECTION OF 2 NO PAIRS OF SEMI AGENT NAME: Pant DETACHED DWELLINGS, D2 ARCHITECTS CONSTRUCTION OF NEW MR MATTHEW HUGHES VEHICULAR ACCESS AND HARDSTANDING

APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR CHRIS TROTT WD STANT LTD

______

THE SITE

Settlement limit

Application Site

Page 138

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

PROPOSAL

As above

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

P/2013/0223 Outline application for erection of 14 dwellings associated infrastructure works and amenity space. Refused 03.06.2013. P/2013/0819 Outline application for the erection of 14 dwellings, associated infrastructure works and amenity space. Refused 27.01.2014. Dismissed on appeal 08.01.2015

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The application site is on Greenfield land and located outside of the settlement limit within a Special Landscape Area and Green Barrier. Policies PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, GDP1, GDP2, EC1, EC4, EC5, EC6, EC7, H5, T8 and T9 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) are applicable. These policies are amplified in Local Planning Guidance Notes (LPGN) Nos. 16 ‘Parking Standards’, 21 ‘Space around Dwellings’ and 32 ‘Biodiversity and Development’.

NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Consulted 19.12.2016 Local Member: Notified 19.12.2016 Highways: There are no objections to the proposed development subject to planning conditions. WW: No objection subject to conditions relating to the comprehensive drainage of the site. NRW: Consult with Council’s ecologist (see ecology section of special considerations) PP: No objection to the scheme subject to conditions relating to possible land contamination investigation and remediation work, dust management and restrictions on hours of construction works. Education: Consulted 20.12.2016 Site Notice: Expired 12.01.2016

Page 139

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Neighbours: 1 response received supporting the application on the basis that the dwellings will enhance the area and stop rubbish being dumped on the grass verge fronting the site.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Background: The proposal is for the residential development of Greenfield land outside of the settlement limit, within green barrier and within a special landscape area. The residential development of the site represents a departure from the development plan. The main issues to consider relate to the sustainability of the location, the loss of green barrier, the impact upon the character and appearance of the special landscape area, the impact upon the amenities of the occupiers of the adjacent properties, and the impact upon highway safety.

The application site occupies part of a larger site that was subject to two previous refusals of planning permission – see History above. The second refusal of planning permission was dismissed on appeal.

Policy: As mentioned above, the site lies outside of the development boundary to which the current UDP Policy PS1 directs all new development for housing. The development would therefore be contrary to this Policy. As the site is Greenfield land within green barrier it would not accord with Policies PS3 and EC1 which both direct development to previously developed (Brownfield) land and seek to safeguard the openness of the green barrier. The proposals do not accord with the circumstances set out in UDP Policy H5 that permit small scale residential development on sites outside of settlement limits (conversion of an existing building, replacement dwelling, ln-filling or key workers dwelling). Accordingly the proposed development would be contrary to this Policy.

Housing Land Supply PPW at paragraph 9.2.3 requires local planning authorities to ensure that sufficient land is genuinely available or will become available to provide a 5 year supply of land for housing. Members will be aware that under the provisions of TAN1: Joint Housing Land Availability Studies (JHLAS) the Council has a statutory duty to monitor housing land supply on an annual basis in the form of the JHLAS. In accordance with paragraph 8.1 of TAN1 (Jan 2015) Wrexham is now unable to demonstrate whether it has a 5 year housing land supply because the UDP plan period expired in 2011. TAN1 (paragraph 6.2) advises that the need to increase supply should be given considerable weight when dealing with planning applications, provided that the development would otherwise comply with national planning policies.

Page 140

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Sustainable Development PPW includes a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In terms of being located within a sustainable location. There is access to jobs, shops, local services and facilities etc., and the site is as accessible as those within the nearby settlement. Within a 1 km distance there is access to shops, school, employment and medical facilities etc. There is a bus stop nearby which provides a frequent direct service to Wrexham in order to gain further access to jobs, dentist, doctors, hospitals, larger entertainment and retail facilities etc. and the site is considered to be in a sustainable location.

Special Landscape Area The site is located within Special Landscape Area (SLA). Policy EC5 states that development, other than for agriculture, small‐scale farm‐based and other rural enterprises, and essential development by utility providers, will be strictly controlled. Despite its limited scale, the development will result in an undesirable into the countryside surrounding Rhos and therefore will harm the SLA and thus conflicting with Policy EC5 of the UDP.

Openness within the green barrier Policy EC1 of the UDP only permits development within green barriers if it is for ‘…agriculture, forestry, essential facilities for outdoor sport and recreation, cemeteries and other use of land which maintain the openness of the Green Barrier and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it’. Planning Policy Wales (PPW) also defines the types of acceptable development in green barriers in line with those set out in policy EC1. There is a presumption against inappropriate development in such designations. I am satisfied that the proposal does not fall within any of these development types specified and residential development is considered to be inappropriate development.

Both policies EC1 and PPW allow other uses in the green barrier where it can be demonstrated that openness is maintained. Openness is considered to be a key attribute of green barriers and whilst not specifically defined in planning policy it has previously been accepted that it relates to the absence of urban sprawl and encroachment into the countryside. It has further been accepted that openness does not purely relate to the impact of a development upon the landscape character. The proposed development would present built development which would encroach into the open countryside. The application site appears detached from the settlement edge with a gap being maintained between the existing dwellings on Stryt Las and the proposal site. Development of the site would undermine the openness of the area which is identified in national policy (Planning Policy Wales, para 4.8.5) as the most important attribute of green wedges (as green barriers are referred to in national policy). To maintain openness, development within a Green Barrier must be strictly controlled to protect the function of the Green Barrier.

In addition to the above, it is worth noting the conclusions the Inspector reach in dismissing the previous appeal, albeit for a larger development. He commented that the development of the site would erode the openness of the green barrier and conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

Page 141

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Inappropriate development in a green barrier Paragraph 4.8 of PPW deals with the managing of urban form by means of green belts and wedges (which are essentially the same as green barriers) and states that there is a presumption against inappropriate development with substantial weight to be attached to any harmful impact which a development would have on a green wedge/barrier. It confirms that inappropriate development should not be granted planning permission except in very exceptional circumstances where other considerations would clearly outweigh the harm.

Whilst the lack of a 5 year land supply could, in some cases, be considered to be a very exceptional circumstance, the proposed housing (4 units) would not make a significant contribution to meeting this need. The proposed development does not therefore outweigh the harm caused to the openness of the green barrier and there is no justification to grant planning permission for this inappropriate development.

Affordable Housing It is noted that Grwp Cynefin (Registered Social Landlord) has expressed an interest in working with the developer in order to provide the dwellings as affordable homes, however I am unaware of any formal arrangement between the applicants and Grwp Cynefin. Whilst Policy H8 does allow for limited development on the edge of settlements for affordable housing, the separation between the site and the existing built frontage to the west means it cannot be considered a logical extension to the settlement limit. Furthermore, provision of affordable housing does not overcome the green barrier objections discussed above.

Site Layout: The application is accompanied by a detailed Design and Access Statement which fully outlines the rationale behind the site layout, responding to the site constraints. The submitted site plan shows the properties would be sited at sufficient distances from the existing dwellings to the north and west; the closest dwelling being in excess of 22 metres away (the minimum separation standard required by LPGN 21). The dwellings are to be orientated so that they front the highway and there would be no significant loss of privacy or daylight to these properties, and the proposal accords with UDP Policy GDP1.

Ecology: The application site is of high local importance for biodiversity (Great Crested Newt). Although the application is accompanied by an ecological survey there is no proposed scheme of mitigation and no compensation measures put forward for the loss of habitat. The scheme therefore fails to comply with guidance contained within LPGN 32 ‘Biodiversity and Development’ and Policy EC6 of the UDP.

CONCLUSION

Para 4.7.8 of PPW states that development in the countryside should be located adjoining settlements where it can best be accommodated in terms of

Page 142

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 infrastructure, access, and habitat and landscape conservation. Although the proposal is in a sustainable location, it would detract from the Special Landscape Area and is considered to be inappropriate development within the green barrier. The loss of this land would undermine its function as a Green Barrier and reduce its openness. The development would also result in the loss of land which is of high biodiversity value (Great Crested Newt) and no mitigation or compensation measures have been proposed.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be REFUSED

REASON(S)

1. The development is an inappropriate form of development for a site within a designated Green Barrier and Special Landscape Area. It would detract from the openness of the Green Barrier and harm the rural character of the site. The development does not accord with policies PS1, PS2, PD3, GDP1(a), EC1, EC5, H5 and H8 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan. 2. Insufficient information has been submitted in support of the proposal to demonstrate that the development of the site would not cause detriment to species or habitats of local or national importance. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy EC6 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan, Chapter 5 of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 6) and the guidance contained in Technical Advice Note 5 - Nature Conservation and Planning.

______

Page 143

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2016 /1177 THE LODGE TUDOR DRIVE 22/12/2016 LLANERCH PANNA PENLEY WREXHAM COMMUNITY: LL13 0LR CASE OFFICER: Maelor South SEH DESCRIPTION: APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF WARD: CONDITION NO 12. TO ALLOW AGENT NAME: Overton CHANGES TO THE REQUIRED GREENSPACE VISIBILITY SPLAYS AND FOR ARCHITECTS LTD REMOVAL OF CONDITION 16 MR JAMES BENNETT REQUIRING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FOOTWAY ALONG THE SITE FRONTAGE (PLANNING APPLICATION CODE NO P/2014/0738)

APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR STEVE OULTON ALMAR CONSTRUCTION LTD

______

THE SITE

Access Points

Dropped kerb

Page 144

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

PROPOSAL

As above

RELEVANT HISTORY

P/2014/0383 Outline planning application for residential development (10 houses - 6 detached and 4 semi-detached) and new access points onto Tudor Drive (layout and access not reserved). Withdrawn 08/07/2014 P/2014/0738 Outline planning application for residential development of 7 no. Detached dwellings and new access points onto Tudor Drive (layout and access not reserved). Approved 15/01/2016 P/2016/0858 Submission of reserved matters for plots nos. 1 and 2 only (appearance, landscaping and scale) in respect of outline planning permission P/2014/0738 - residential development. Approved 07/11/2016

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

UDP policies H2, GDP1 and T9 apply.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Consulted 04/01/2017 Local Member: Notified 04/01/2017 Highways: No objection (see special considerations below) Site notice: Expired 30/01/2017 Other Representations: One online comment received: • Although there is a pavement opposite the site, there should also be a new pavement fronting the development for the families occupying the new houses. Otherwise the occupiers will have to cross the road to use the pavement to walk to school and catch the bus etc. The visibility splay would be better if it was larger because there is a road junction and houses opposite.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ISSUES

Background: Planning permission was granted in 2016 (P/2014/0738) for the erection of 7 dwellings. Planning condition no. 12 was attached to secure visibility at the vehicular access points; planning condition no. 16 was attached to secure the construction of a footway along the site frontage. This application now seeks an amendment to condition no.12 to reduce the required visibility splays, and to delete no.16 removing the need for a footway. The planning

Page 145

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 issues to consider relate to the impact of the proposed variation upon highway safety.

Highway Safety: This section of Tudor Drive is effectively a cul-de-sac which currently serves only 6 or 7 dwellings. The Council’s own guidance permits up to 24 dwellings without footway provision. Tudor Drive has the benefit of an existing footway opposite the site and it is proposed to provide a dropped kerb crossing onto this footway to allow ease of access. Speeds are considered to be fairly low along this stretch of the highway such that difficulty in crossing the road is unlikely. It is therefore reasonable to remove condition no. 16 requiring the construction of an additional footway along the site frontage.

Vehicular speed from the westerly direction (the end of the cul-de-sac) is unlikely to be any more than 20 mph and so visibility splays can be reduced to 2.0 x 25 metres measured to the nearside edge of the carriageway. From the east speeds are considered to be approximately 25 mph thus a splay of 2.0 x 33m to the centre line should be provided. Within these splays the hedgerow will need to be reduced in height to 1 metre. Accordingly, as these visibility splays are concurrent with recommended guidelines, the relaxation of the condition no.12 is acceptable.

Conclusion: I am satisfied that the lack of footway fronting the development site will not be to the detriment of highway safety and that adequate provision is made for pedestrians to access local facilities and public transport etc. The visibility slays are acceptable to ensure safe and satisfactory vehicular access and the proposal accords with UDP Policies H2, GDP1 and T9.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

CONDITION(S)

1. Approval of the following details shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced: a. the scale of the building(s) b. the appearance of the building(s) c. the landscaping of the site 2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 1 (above) shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority before the expiry of three years from the date of this permission. The development shall only be carried out in strict conformity with such details as are approved. 3. The development hereby approved shall be commenced before the expiry of five years from the date of this permission or before the expiry of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters required to be approved, whichever is the later. 4. All works in relation to the implementation of this permission, including deliveries to and / or leaving the site, shall be undertaken only between the hours of 7.30 and 18.00 Monday to Friday, and 08.00 to 14.00 on a Saturday,

Page 146

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 and at no time on a Sunday or a Bank Holiday unless the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority has been obtained. 5. No land drainage run-off or surface water shall be permitted to discharge or connect to the public sewerage system, either directly or indirectly, and foul and surface water shall be drained separately from the site. 6. No part of the development shall commence until a scheme for the comprehensive and integrated drainage of the site indicating provision for foul water, surface water and land drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Prior to the submission of those details, an assessment shall be carried out into the potential for disposing of surface water by means of Sustainable urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) in accordance with the principles of sustainable drainage systems set out in Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk, and the results of the assessment shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority. Where a SuDS scheme is to be implemented, the submitted details shall: i) Provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of receiving ground water and/or surface waters; ii) Specify the responsibilities of each party for the implementation of the SuDS scheme, together with a timetable for that implementation; and, iii) Provide a timescale for implementation, management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime. 7. No part of the development shall be occupied until the sustainable drainage scheme for the site has been completed in accordance with condition no. 6. The sustainable drainage scheme shall be managed and maintained thereafter in strict accordance with the agreed management and maintenance plan. 8. Details of all of the proposed boundary treatments in and around the site shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority as part of the reserved matters application. The boundary treatments as are approved shall be fully implemented in strict accordance with the details as are approved prior to first use of the development. 9. A scheme of long-term management and responsibility for the newt mitigation area as shown on plan no 13-38 A100 Rev 1 shall be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority as part of the reserved matters application. The management plan shall be fully implemented in accordance with the details as are approved. 10. No part of the development shall commence until a further survey and method statement in relation to the presence of bats together with an appropriate scheme of mitigation has been submitted to and approved, in writing, by the Local Planning Authority. The measures as are approved shall be implemented in all respects. 11. Prior to first use of the development the site shall be laid out in strict accordance with layout plan(s) No. 13-38 A100 Rev 1. 12. Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plan and prior to first use of the development hereby approved, the vehicular access points shall

Page 147

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 provide, when measured from the centre point of the access, visibility splays of 2.4 metres x 25 metres to the west measured to the nearside edge of the adjoining highway, and 2.4 metres x 33 metres to the east measured to the centre line of the adjoining highway. Within these splays there shall be no obstruction in excess of 1 metre in height above the level of the nearside edge of the adjoining highway. The splays shall thereafter be permanently retained clear of any such obstruction to visibility. 13. Prior to first use of the development hereby approved a pedestrian visibility splay shall be established measured from the centreline of the vehicular access 2.4 metres back from the back edge of the footway to points 3.3 metres either side measured along the back edge of the footway. Within these splays there shall be no obstruction in excess of 0.6 metres in height above the level of the adjoining highway. The splays shall thereafter be permanently retained clear of any such obstruction to visibility. 14. There shall be no gates or other means of enclosure across the vehicular access point within 5 metres of the highway boundary. 15. No private surface water run off shall be permitted to flow from the development site onto the adjoining highway. An Aco drain or similar shall be provided across the approved access to intercept any such run off prior to first use of the development. 16. No equipment, machinery, plant or materials of any kind in connection with the development shall be brought onto the site until tree protection fencing and ground protection measures have been implemented in strict accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details should include specification and location for the fencing. 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. 17. The tree protection fencing and ground protection measures approved in connection with condition no. 16 shall be kept in place until all external site works have been completed and the removal of the fencing has been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority 18. No part of the development shall commence until a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No development or other operations shall take place except in strict accordance with the Method Statement as is approved. The Method Statement shall include the following: a) A specification for tree protection fencing and ground protection measures that comply with British Standard 5837:2012; b) A Tree Protection Plan showing the location of the trees to be removed and retained with their crown spreads, Root Protection Areas, Construction Exclusion Zones, and location of protective fencing and ground protection measures accurately plotted; c) A full specification for any access, driveway, path, underground services or wall foundations within retained tree Root Protection Areas or Construction Exclusion Zone, including any related sections and method for avoiding damage to retained trees; d) Details of general arboricultural matters including proposed practices with regards to cement mixing, material storage and fires;

Page 148

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 e) Details of the frequency of supervisory visits and procedures for notifying the findings of such visits to the Local Planning Authority; f) Method for protecting retained trees during demolition works; g) Details of all proposed tree works, including felling and pruning. 19. The following activities should not be carried out under any circumstances: a) No fires should be lit within 10 metres of the nearest point of the canopy of any retained tree. b) No works, including earth works and the bringing onto site of machinery or materials shall proceed until the approved tree protection measures are put in place, with the exception of the approved tree works. c) No equipment, signage, fencing, tree protection barriers, materials, components, vehicles or structures shall be attached to or supported by a retained tree. d) No mixing of cement or use of other materials or substances shall take place within tree root protection areas or tree construction exclusion zones, or close enough to these that seepage or displacement of those materials or substances could cause them to enter tree root protection areas or tree construction exclusion zones. e) No alterations or variations to the approved works or tree protection schemes shall be carried out without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority. 20. The existing trees, shrubs and hedges shown on drawing(s) No(s). 13-38 A100 Rev 1 to be permanently retained shall not be cut down, grubbed out, lopped or uprooted. Any trees, shrubs or hedges removed or being severely damaged or becoming diseased shall be replaced with trees, shrubs or hedging plants of the equivalent size and species.

REASON(S)

1. To comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012 2. To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. 3. To comply with Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. 4. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 5. To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system and prevent hydraulic overloading of the public sewerage system. To protect the health and safety of existing residents and to ensure no detriment to the environment. 6. To ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and to avoid flooding. 7. To ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and to avoid flooding. 8. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 9. In order to protect wildlife interests, which are afforded special protection. 10. In order to protect wildlife interests which are afforded special protection. 11. In the interests of highway safety. 12. To ensure that adequate visibility is provided at the proposed point of access to the highway.

Page 149

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

13. To ensure that adequate visibility is provided at the proposed point of access to the highway. 14. In the interest of the free and safe movement of traffic on the adjacent highway and to ensure the formation of a safe and satisfactory access. 15. In the interests of highway safety. 16. To ensure that the retained trees are adequately protected during development in the interests of amenity. 17. To ensure that the retained trees are adequately protected during development in the interests of amenity. 18. To ensure the work is carried out to accepted arboricultural practices for the long term wellbeing of the tree(s). 19. To ensure that hard surfacing does not cause harm to retained trees in the interests of visual amenity. 20. To ensure the amenity afforded by the trees is continued into the future.

NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT

The applicant is advised that compliance with condition no. 19 does not provide an exemption from the statutory noise nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Any complaints received relating to noise from the development during the permitted hours may still be investigated using the Council's Standardised Procedure for Dealing with Noise Nuisance Complaints and legal action may be taken where appropriate.

Burning of waste generated from construction activities is not considered to be an appropriate method of disposal and action may be taken as follows:

Page 150

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

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 0800 917 2652

The permission hereby granted does not authorise encroachment upon, or interference with, the adjoining property.

You are advised that this grant of planning permission was made following the completion of an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act. Before undertaking any work under this permission you are advised to obtain full details of the Agreement and ensure that you are able to comply with its terms. ______

Page 151

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2017/0001 WHITEHAVEN CHURCH STREET 04/01/2017 HOLT WREXHAM LL13 9JR COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Holt DESCRIPTION: LP1 SINGLE STOREY EXTENSIONS TO DWELLING (AMENDMENTS TO WARD: APPLICATION PREVIOUSLY AGENT NAME: Holt GRANTED UNDER CODE NO. PEAK ARCHITECTURAL P/2016/0964) MR PAUL KENT

APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR ROBERT CAMBELL

______

SITE

Detached property in Holt.

Proposed Extension Proposed conservatory

Page 152

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

PROPOSAL

Single storey extensions to rear of dwelling (Amendments to application previously granted under code No. P/2016/0964).

HISTORY

P/2016/0964 Single storey extensions to rear of building. Granted 5 December 2016

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Lies within settlement limit and Holt Conservation Area. Policies GDP1, PS2 and EC7 apply.

CONSULTATIONS Community Council: Consulted 05/01/17 Local Member: Notified 05/01/17 Site Notice: Expired 27/01/17 CPAT: No objections but require archaeologist to be present during excavations. Other Representations: One letter received raising following concerns:- • The impact of the proposed extension on light to living room and kitchen windows in the neighbouring property. • Loss of light to the neighbouring garden. • Sense of enclosure created by the proposed extension.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

A single storey rear extension was granted planning permission on 5 December 2016 under application P/2016/0964. The approved plans showed the extension in two parts with the rearmost element having a higher roof line.

The amended application shows the extension as a continuous ridgeline with a height of 3.45m. The extant planning permission allows for an extension with a ridge height of 3.84m for the section closest to the house rising to 4.4m for the section furthest from the house. The extension now proposed projects no further from the rear elevation of the dwelling and is no closer to the northern boundary of the site than the previously approved plans.

Design and Amenity: The amended design is a contemporary design which complements the existing building. It will not be visible from the streetscene and will not have an impact on the wider conservation area.

The proposal reduces the overall impact on the neighbouring property in comparison to the originally approved scheme. It passes the vertical BRE test

Page 153

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 in relation to the neighbouring property, although fails the horizontal test. Due to the existing detached garage and high boundary wall which exceeds the eaves height of the proposed extension I am satisfied that the proposal will not have a significant increased impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property.

CONCLUSION

The proposed amendments to the application result in an extension which has a lesser impact on the neighbouring property than that already approved and I therefore recommend accordingly.

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. No part of the development shall commence 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 development shall only be carried out in strict accordance with the details shown on the approved drawing(s) numbered WH03B Rev B, WH04C Rev C, WH06B Rev B, WH05C Rev C and contained within the application documentation. 4. No development / works shall commence until the applicant has secured the maintenance of an on-site watching brief by a suitably qualified archaeologist during construction works in accordance with details which have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. In the event of the discovery of important archaeological features outside of the scope of the watching brief, all works shall cease until otherwise advised in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 5. All roof lights hereby approved shall be 'conservation type' only fitted flush with the adjoining roof surface.

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. The site contains archaeological remains which it is essential should be protected from damage. 5. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

Page 154

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT

______

Page 155

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2017/0006 LLANERCH COTTAGE YR OCHR 09/01/2017 FRONCYSYLLTE WREXHAM LL20 7RS COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Llangollen Rural DESCRIPTION: SEH SITING OF MOBILE HOME FOR USE AS TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION WARD: (2 1/2 YEARS) (IN RETROSPECT) AGENT NAME: Llangollen Rural MR PAUL BIGNALL APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR PAUL BIGNALL

______

THE SITE

PROPOSAL

As above

RELEVANT HISTORY

P/2006/0863 Extension and alteration to existing dwelling Approved 23/08/2006 P/2006/1303 Extension to existing dwelling. Approved 11/12/2006

Page 156

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

P/2008/0430 Renovation & extension to existing dwelling & erection of fence Approved 27/05/2008 P/2016/1012 Two-storey extension with basement Current application - Decision Pending

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

UDP policies H5, GDP1, T8 and T9 apply.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Consulted 10/01/2017 Local Member: Notified 10/01/2017 Site notice: Expired 02/02/2017 Other Representations: Notified 11/01/2017

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ISSUES

Background: Planning permission was granted in 2006 for an extension to the existing two storey dwelling. This permission was amended in 2008 and there is a current application (P/2016/1012 – Decision Pending) for further changes to the previously approved two storey extension and to include a basement area. Proposed is the retention on site of an unauthorised caravan for the family to occupy until works can commence on site.

The caravan has been in situ for a number of years. Planning permission was not required during that time because planning legislation allows for a caravan to be placed on site whilst development is ongoing. Works to the dwelling have since stopped hence the need now to apply for planning permission until the works re-commence. The planning issues to consider relate to the impact of the siting of the caravan upon the residential and visual amenities of the area.

Visual Amenity: Llanerch Cottage is prominently sited on the north facing hillside above Froncysyllte and forms part of the Vale of Llangollen landscape which provides the wider landscape setting for the WHS, an integral element of the sites Outstanding Universal Value. The site falls within the WHS buffer Zone and the impact of development upon the setting, authenticity and integrity of the site is a material consideration.

The proposal is for the siting of a static caravan for a 2 ½ year period to provide residential accommodation whilst redevelopment and extension of the main cottage is undertaken. The caravan is already on site and occupied and is not, as a result of its scale, finish and siting within the site, a particularly obvious or intrusive feature the wider landscape and would, upon completion of any building works subsequently be removed from site.

Page 157

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

Residential Amenity: The caravan is sited sufficient distant away from the adjacent dwellings to ensure that there is no detrimental impact upon the residential amenity afforded to the occupiers in terms of loss or privacy or light.

Conclusion: Whilst there are no objections to the siting and retention of the caravan on site given it is only on a temporary basis, longer term would not be supported as such structures are not appropriate within this landscape. A shorter timescale of 18 months is therefore recommended in order for the condition and appearance of the caravan to be properly monitored and maintained in the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

CONDITION(S)

1. The use of the building shall cease and be abandoned before 30 June 2018. 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.

REASON(S)

1. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area and to ensure that the development fully complies with the appropriate policies and standards.

______

Page 158

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2017/0013 12 COED Y FELIN CLOSE BRYMBO 09/01/2017 WREXHAM LL11 5DS COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Brymbo DESCRIPTION: LP1 TWO-STOREY SIDE EXTENSION

WARD: APPLICANT(S) NAME: AGENT NAME: Brymbo MR ROB MORGAN MR ROB MORGAN

______

SITE

Semi-detached property in Brymbo

Proposed extension

PROPOSAL

Two storey side extension

Page 159

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

HISTORY

None relevant

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Lies within settlement limit, Policies GDP1, PS2 and Guidance notes 20 and 16 apply.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Consulted 11/1/17 Local Member: Notified 11/1/17 Highways: No objection, proposed extension will not affect visibility at the junction. Recommend condition to retain parking area at the property. Site Notice: Expired 02/02/17 Other Representations: Neighbouring properties notified 12/1/17

This application is being reported to planning committee as the partner of the applicant works for the Local Authority.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

The property lies at the entrance to the cul-de-sac with the proposed side extension projecting towards the main road. Whilst the extension will impact upon this street scene I consider that there is sufficient width between the extension and the road that the open aspect of the site will not be compromised.

The extension is set back from the front of the property and is clearly subsidiary in design. Matching materials are to be used and there will be no adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties or overlooking created.

The existing 2 metre high boundary fence which currently encloses the rear garden is to be extended to be in line with the front of the extension. This will not impact on highway safety and as a continuation of the existing fence will not be out of place in the general street scene.

There is sufficient parking on the driveway and front garden area for three cars.

CONCLUSION

The proposed extension is acceptable in terms of the design and impact on the neighbouring properties and general street scene and I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

Page 160

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

CONDITION(S)

1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiry of five years from the date of this permission. 2. The development shall only be carried out in strict accordance with the details shown on the approved drawing(s) numbered 001 Rev P1 and contained within the application documentation. 3. No facing or roofing materials shall be used other than materials matching those used on the existing building.

REASON(S)

NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT

Page 161

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017 and mine entries available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/building-on-or-within-the- influencing-distance-of-mine-entries

Property specific summary information on past, current and future coal mining activity can be obtained from: www.groundstability.com or a similar service provider.

______

Page 162

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

LIST OF DELEGATED DECISIONS ISSUED

RHO P/2015/0382 LAND OFF, NORTH ROAD, PONCIAU, OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR THE GRANTED WREXHAM, LL14 1HF ERECTION OF 23 DWELLINGS - ALL 10/01/2017 MATTERS RESERVED EXCEPT ACCESS

GLY P/2015/0785 THE BARN, FAWNOG, BERSHAM VARIATION OF CONDITION NUMBERS 5 & GRANTED ROAD, BERSHAM, WREXHAM, LL14 6 OF PLANNING PERMISSION P/2003/1261 13/01/2017 4HR RELATING TO VEHICULAR ACCESS & VISIBILITY SPLAY

CEI P/2015/0852 PONT Y MEIBION, LLANARMON ROAD, CONVERSION OF BARN AND GRANARY WITHDRAWN TREGEIRIOG, LLANGOLLEN, LL20 7HS TO SELF CATERING HOLIDAY 18/01/2017 ACCOMMODATION

CEI P/2015/0876 PONT Y MEIBION, LLANARMON ROAD, LISTED BUILDING CONSENT FOR WITHDRAWN TREGEIRIOG, LLANGOLLEN, CONVERSION OF BARN AND GRANARY 18/01/2017 WREXHAM, LL20 7HS TO SELF CONTAINED HOLIDAY ACCOMMODATION

ISY P/2016/0086 ALANS SKIP HIRE (WALES) LTD, ERECTION OF TWO-STOREY OFFICE GRANTED WREXHAM RECYCLING CENTRE, BLOCK 20/12/2016 REDWITHER ROAD, WREXHAM INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, WREXHAM, LL13 9RD

ROS P/2016/0381 BRIDEWELL HOUSE, CHESTER ROAD, CONSERVATORY EXTENSION REFUSED ROSSETT, WREXHAM, LL12 0HN 20/12/2016

RHO P/2016/0458 LAND NORTH OF INGLENEWKE, OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION TO GRANTED NORTH ROAD, PONCIAU, WREXHAM, ERECT 1 NO DETACHED DWELLING WITH 10/01/2017 LL14 1HF ASSOCIATED PARKING AND NEW ACCESS

MAR P/2016/0533 LAND NORTH OF CROSS LANES ERECTION OF TWO BROILER CHICKEN REFUSED ROUNDABOUT, BETWEEN SESSWICK REARING BUILDINGS (EACH MEASURING 12/01/2017 WAY AND, BEDWELL ROAD, CROSS 101.019M X 23.365M) HOUSING UP TO LANES, WREXHAM, LL13 0PA 40,000 CHICKENS EACH, TO BE SERVED BY 4 FEED BINS AND A WOOD CHIP BIN. ERECTION OF ASSOCIATED CONTROL ROOMS, FEED WEIGHING ROOMS AND MESS FACILITIES, CONSTRUCTION OF AN ARGICULTURAL STORAGE BUILDING AND TEMPORARY SITING OF MOBILE LIVING ACCOMMODATION IN CONNECTION WITH OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT

Page 163

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

CEF P/2016/0558 SITE ADJOINING, HILLCREST, OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION WITH GRANTED BETHANIA ROAD, ACREFAIR, ALL MATTERS RESERVED FOR FURTHER 12/01/2017 WREXHAM, LL14 3UD APPROVAL TO ERECT 1 NO. TWO- STOREY DWELLING WITH ASSOCIATED GROUNDWORKS AND AMENDMENT TO VEHICULAR ACCESS (PREVIOUSLY GRANTED UNDER CODE NO. P/2013/0338

ESC P/2016/0714 OUTBUILDINGS AT, FAWNOG FARM, CONVERSION OF EXISTING GRANTED BERSHAM ROAD, BERSHAM, OUTBUILDING / STORAGE TO DWELLING 12/01/2017 WREXHAM, LL14 4HR AND NEW ACCESS

BRO P/2016/0909 SALEM CHAPEL, PISGAH HILL, CONVERSION OF FORMER CHAPEL INTO WITHDRAWN PENTRE BROUGHTON, WREXHAM, 3 BEDROOM DWELLING 03/01/2017 LL11 6DB

BRN P/2016/0980 ISCOYD PARK LTD, HALL GREEN, AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUS LISTED GRANTED ISCOYD, WREXHAM, SY13 3AT BUILDING CONSENT CODE NO 30/12/2016 P/2009/0128

GWE P/2016/0995 1 ALYN CLOSE, PANDY, WREXHAM, 2 NO. TURKEY OAKS (T4 & T5) - CROWN GRANTED LL11 2YH RAISE TO APPROXIMATELY 5 METRES 20/12/2016 WHERE OVERHANGING GARDEN OF 30 BLUEBELL ESTATE (PROTECTED BY TPO WMBC NO 5)

GWE P/2016/1010 1, THE SYCAMORES, TOP ROAD, FELL TO GROUND 1 NO. SYCAMORE PART CONSENT SUMMERHILL, WREXHAM, LL11 4SR TREE WITHIN FRONT GARDEN OF 20/12/2016 PROPERTY (PROTECTED BY TPO WCBC NO 250, 2016)

PEN P/2016/1014 2 BRYN Y COED, COPPERAS HILL, OAK (T1) - REDUCE LIMB ABOVE GRANTED PENYCAE, WREXHAM, LL14 2EG GARDEN SHED BY 2.5 METRES, REDUCE 20/12/2016 LOWER PORTION OF CROWN ENCROACHING NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY (NO 3) BACK IN LINE WITH BOUNDARY FENCE AND CROWN CLEAN (PROTECTED BY TPO NO WMBC 27)

WRA P/2016/1022 2, FFORDD PEDROG, BORRAS PARK, ERECTION OF BRICK WALL WITH FENCE GRANTED WREXHAM, LL12 7PL PANELS INSERTED BETWEEN BRICK 27/12/2016 COLUMNS

SES P/2016/1025 2 GREENFIELD VIEW, CROSS LANES, INCORPORATION OF LAND INTO REFUSED WREXHAM, LL13 0QA RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGE (PART OF 03/01/2017 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ADJACENT TO PROPERTY)

HOL P/2016/1033 4 CROSS STREET, HOLT, WREXHAM, ERECTION OF 3 BEDROOM DETACHED WITHDRAWN LL13 9JD BUNGALOW AND SINGLE GARAGE AND 03/01/2017 CONSTRUCTION OF ASSOCIATED PARKING AND ACCESS

Page 164

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

COE P/2016/1034 COOPERATIVE RETAIL SERVICES DISPLAY OF 1 NO. ILLUMINATED FASCIA WITHDRAWN LTD, HIGH STREET, COEDPOETH, SIGN, 6 NO. NON-ILLUMINATED WALL 18/01/2017 WREXHAM, LL11 3UF MOUNTED ALUMINIUM PANELS AND 2 NO. INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED DOUBLE SIDED ACRYLIC PANELS

WRA P/2016/1043 ACTON PARK, JEFFREYS ROAD, ERECTION OF FLAG POLE GRANTED WREXHAM, LL12 7PG 30/12/2016 MIN P/2016/1049 HILLSIDE FARM, WERN, MINERA, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DWELLING GRANTED WREXHAM, LL14 4LU AND ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT 03/01/2017 DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AND INCORPORATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGE

BRN P/2016/1052 THE FIELDS, SCHOOL LANE, CHANGE OF USE OF PART OF GARAGE GRANTED BRONINGTON, WHITCHURCH, SY13 TO ANNEXE ACCOMMODATION 20/01/2017 3HN

LLR P/2016/1053 GWEL Y DYFFRYN, TREVOR ROAD, APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF GRANTED GARTH, WREXHAM, LL20 7UR CONDITION NO. 1 IMPOSED UNDER 03/01/2017 PLANNING PERMISSION CODE NO. P/2012/0008 TO ALLOW FOR A FURTHER FIVE YEARS TO COMMENCE DEVELOPMENT (CONSTRUCTION OF VEHICULAR ACCESS TO SERVE EXISTING DWELLING)

COE P/2016/1054 9 TO 10 MIDDLE ROAD, COEDPOETH, FRONT PORCH EXTENSION GRANTED WREXHAM, LL11 3TN 03/01/2017 HOL P/2016/1056 4 MILLFIELD, HOLT, WREXHAM, LL13 DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE, GRANTED 9WJ ERECTION OF NEW SINGLE GARAGE TO 03/01/2017 SIDE AND SINGLE-STOREY REAR EXTENSION TO FORM LIVING/DINING

GLY P/2016/1060 PENISAR GLYN FARM, CROGEN OUTLINE APPLICATION TO ERECT 1 NO. REFUSED IDDON ROAD, BRONYGARTH, DWELLING AND ASSOCIATED WORKS 03/01/2017 WREXHAM, SY10 7NE

CEF P/2016/1063 LAND AT, BRO GWILYM, CEFN MAWR, APPLICATION FOR VARIATION OF PENDING WREXHAM, LL14 3NU CONDITION OF CONDITION 16 IMPOSED UNDER PLANNING PERMISSION P/2014/0556 TO ALLOW CONNECTION OF LAND DRAINAGE RUN-OFF AND SURFACE WATER TO THE PUBLIC SEWERAGE SYSTEM

GWE P/2016/1065 HILLRISE, MAIN ROAD, RHOSROBIN, FRONT DISPLAY AND MOTORCYCLE GRANTED WREXHAM, LL11 4RL SALES AREA / FOYER EXTENSION FOR 18/01/2017 THE DISPLAY OF MOTORCYCLES (IN RETROSPECT)

Page 165

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

WRC P/2016/1066 THE BLACK HORSE INN, 10 - 11A DISPLAY OF 1 ILLUMINATED FASCIA GRANTED YORKE STREET, WREXHAM, LL13 SIGN AND 1 ILLUMINATED HANGING 03/01/2017 8LW SIGN TO FRONT ELEVATION AND 2 ILLUMINATED OTHER SIGNS TO SIDE AND REAR ELEVATIONS

ESC P/2016/1068 SAINT MARYS CHURCH, PLAS PROVISION OF EXTERNAL TOILET GRANTED BUCKLEY ROAD, BERSHAM, FACILITIES 05/01/2017 WREXHAM, LL14 4LP

WRO P/2016/1069 UNIT NOS 5 AND 6, CENTRAL RETAIL AMALGAMATION OF UNITS 5 AND 6, GRANTED PARK, CENTRAL ROAD, WREXHAM, INSTALLATION OF NEW FIRE EXITS TO 18/01/2017 LL13 7SU FRONT AND REAR OF UNIT 6, ALTERATIONS TO THE SIDE ELEVATION EXIT, NEW SHOP FRONT AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONS

W04000890 158A CHESTER ROAD, WREXHAM, CONVERSION OF FIRST FLOOR FLAT P/2016/1072 LL11 2SN INTO 2 NO. RESIDENTIAL UNITS GRANTED 05/01/2017 GWE P/2016/1077 ROWLANDS PHARMACY, PEN Y MAES INSTALLATION OF AIR CONDITIONING GRANTED HEALTH CENTRE, BEECH STREET, EQUIPMENT 03/01/2017 SUMMERHILL, WREXHAM, LL11 4UF

ABE P/2016/1078 23 KEMPTON WAY, WREXHAM, LL13 FIRST FLOOR BEDROOM EXTENSION TO GRANTED 0NU SIDE 18/01/2017 BAN P/2016/1079 CLAYS COTTAGE, 2, WHITCHURCH PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GRANTED ROAD, BANGOR ON DEE, WREXHAM, REAR EXTENSION, NEW SINGLE STOREY 03/01/2017 LL13 0BS REAR EXTENSION AND INTERNAL ALTERATIONS

HOL P/2016/1080 LIONOAK, SMITHFIELD GREEN, HOLT, FELL 1 NO. CONIFER TO FRONT OF GRANTED WREXHAM, LL13 9AJ PROPERTY (LIGHT ISSUES ON FRONT OF 09/01/2017 HOUSE AND ENCROACHMENT ON TO DRIVE)

WRO P/2016/1081 34 BEECHLEY ROAD, WREXHAM, LL13 TWO-STOREY SIDE EXTENSION GRANTED 7BA 03/01/2017 WRA P/2016/1083 2 ADDERLEY BANK, ACTON, APPLICATION FOR A LAWFUL GRANTED WREXHAM, LL12 8LQ DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE FOR A 12/01/2017 PROPOSED SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION

RUA P/2016/1087 PEN Y GARDDEN HALL, PEN Y DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GRANTED GARDDEN, RUABON, WREXHAM, LL14 CONSERVATORY, SINGLE STOREY REAR 05/01/2017 6RE EXTENSION WITH BALCONY AND CONSTRUCTION OF VERANDAH TO FRONT OF PROPERTY

Page 166

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

BRY P/2016/1089 TOP FARM, PENTRE FRON ROAD, ERECTION OF STABLE BLOCK GRANTED COEDPOETH, WREXHAM, LL11 3BU 13/01/2017 BAN P/2016/1090 AGRICULTURAL FIELD SHELTER, ERECTION OF AGRICULTURAL FIELD GRANTED MILLBROOK LANE, CLOY, BANGOR SHELTER 13/01/2017 ON DEE, WREXHAM, LL13 0DJ

WOR P/2016/1091 OAK BANK COTTAGE, CAE LICA LANE, FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION TO FORM NEW GRANTED SARN, MALPAS, SY14 7LW BEDROOM AND ENSUITE 13/01/2017

GRE P/2016/1093 MOTTE HOUSE, MARFORD HILL, SELECTIVELY REDUCE SIDE BRANCHES GRANTED MARFORD, WREXHAM, LL12 8SW ESPECIALLY WHERE 11/01/2017 DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE REST OF THE CROWN OVER NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY BY 2-3 METRES, CROWN LIFT OVER NEIGHBOURING GARDEN TO GIVE APPROXIMATELY 5 METRES GROUND CLEARANCE, REMOVE ALLARISINGS FROM THE SITE. 2 NO PURPLE PLUM - FELL TO GROUND LEVEL AND REMOVE FROM SITE (PROTECTED BY MARFORD CONSERVATION AREA)

CHI P/2016/1094 THE FORGE, PONT Y BLEW, CHIRK, LISTED BUILDING CONSENT FOR REAR GRANTED WREXHAM, LL14 5BH HALL / LINK BLOCK EXTENSION, 16/01/2017 REPLACEMENT OF LEAN-TO ROOF WITH NEW LEAD COVERED FLAT ROOF AND ASSOCIATED ALTERATIONS

CHI P/2016/1095 THE FORGE, PONT Y BLEW, CHIRK, SINGLE-STOREY EXTENSION GRANTED WREXHAM, LL14 5BH 16/01/2017 WRO P/2016/1097 11 THE HOMESTEAD, WREXHAM, LL14 DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GRANTED 4HQ CONSERVATORY AND NEW SINGLE- 29/12/2016 STOREY EXTENSION

WRO P/2016/1098 THE OLD BREWERY OFFICES, CHANGE OF USE OF PART OF GROUND GRANTED CENTRAL RETAIL PARK, CENTRAL FLOOR FROM OFFICE (B1 USE) TO 13/01/2017 ROAD, WREXHAM, LL13 7SR CONSULTING ROOMS (D1 USE) FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD OF 18 MONTHS

GRE P/2016/1101 TELECOMMUNICATION APPLICATION TO DETERMINE WHETHER GRANTED INSTALLATION, PANT LANE, PRIOR APPROVAL IS REQUIRED TO 05/01/2017 GRESFORD, WREXHAM, , LL12 8SE UPGRADE TO EXISTING TELECOMMUNICATION INSTALLATION - PROPOSED 12.00 HIGH MONOPOLE TO BE INSTALLED ON ROOT FOUNDATION TOGETHER WITH ASSOCIATED CABINET

WRO P/2016/1106 12, SONTLEY ROAD, WREXHAM, LL13 HORSE CHESTNUT (T1) - FELL TO GRANTED 7EN GROUND LEVEL 18/01/2017 ELM (T2) - FELL TO GROUND LEVEL (PROTECTED BY FAIRY ROAD CONSERVATION AREA)

Page 167

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING 6th FEBRUARY 2017

WRC P/2016/1113 30 CAIA ROAD, WREXHAM, LL13 8DS SINGLE-STOREY EXTENSION TO REAR GRANTED TO FORM LIVING ROOM 13/01/2017 ESC P/2016/1114 FOXGLOVE LODGE, BERSHAM ROAD, REAR EXTENSION GRANTED BERSHAM, WREXHAM, LL14 4HT 13/01/2017 HOL P/2016/1116 DRESDEN, 15 VICARAGE COURT, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING LEAN-TO- GRANTED HOLT, WREXHAM, LL13 9AL STRUCTURE AND ERECTION OF 13/01/2017 REPLACEMENT PITCHED ROOF EXTENSION TO PROVIDE UTILITY ROOM

WRR P/2016/1121 ROWLANDS PHARMACY, 43 RHOSDDU INSTALLATION OF AIR CONDITIONING GRANTED ROAD, WREXHAM, LL11 2NS EQUIPMENT 10/01/2017

ROS P/2016/1123 BALLS HALL FARM, BURTON ROAD, APPLICATION FOR PRIOR NOTIFICATION WITHDRAWN BURTON, ROSSETT, WREXHAM, LL12 OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT - 21/12/2016 0HY ERECTION OF PORTAL STEEL FRAMED SIDE EXTENSION FOR STORAGE OF FARMED STRAW AND GRAIN PLUS STORAGE FOR FARMING MACHINERY

MAE P/2016/1129 THE HAWTHORNS, SANDY BANK, APPLICATION FOR A LAWFUL GRANTED OVERTON ROAD, PENLEY, DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE FOR AN 13/01/2017 WREXHAM, LL13 0LU EXISTING ACTIVITY IN BREACH OF PLANNING CONDITION NO 2 (AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCY CONDITION) IMPOSED UNDER CODE NO MAE 19273 ON 29 OCTOBER 1991

WRO P/2016/1133 MONEYPENNY, WESTERN GATEWAY DISPLAY OF 2 NO. NON-ILLUMINATED GRANTED BUSINESS PARK, WREXHAM, LL13 "LETTER SIGNS" 10/01/2017 7ZB

GWE P/2016/1140 23 WESTBURY DRIVE, GRESFORD SINGLE-STOREY REAR EXTENSION GRANTED HEATH, PANDY, WREXHAM, LL12 8PZ 12/01/2017

ABE P/2016/1151 ARDAGH GROUP, BRIDGE ROAD INSTALLATION OF NEW SCRAP HANDING GRANTED ROAD, WREXHAM INDUSTRIAL SYSTEM WITHIN ENCLOSURE ON ROOF 20/01/2017 ESTATE, WREXHAM, LL13 9PS

RHO P/2016/1152 41, MELYD AVENUE, JOHNSTOWN, TWO-STOREY EXTENSION GRANTED WREXHAM, LL14 2TB 18/01/2017 WOR P/2016/1158 MULSFORD FARM, SARN, MALPAS, ERECTION OF AGRICULTURAL BUILDING PRIOR APP NR WREXHAM, SY14 7LP FOR GRAIN STORAGE 12/01/2017

Page 168