Item 4

REPORT TO: Planning Committee

REPORT NO. HEP/07/18

DATE: 2 July 2018

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 – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Community Code No Applicant Recommendation Pages

LLA P/2017 /0314 THE ROYAL BRITISH LEGION GRANT 13 – 27 MR LAURENCE HERRING ROS P/2017 /0623 MR S TROWBRIDGE REFUSE 28 – 38

ROS P/2018 /0223 MR S TROWBRIDGE REFUSE 39 – 48

WOR P/2017/0799 MR HUXLEY GRANT 49 – 81

BRO P/2018 /0278 MR Z HUYUK GRANT 82 – 86

CHI P/2018 /0287 CO-OPERATIVE FOOD GRANT 87 – 91

ROS P/2018 /0307 MR SCOTT LAMONT GRANT 92 – 96

GRE P/2018 /0313 MR S PARRY GRANT 97 – 100

WRO P/2018 /0317 GREENE KING PUB CO GRANT 101 – 105 MR MILLAR ROS P/2018 /0353 MR E H MORRIS GRANT 106 – 108

GRE P/2018 /0383 MR C WILKS GRANT 109 – 111

MAE P/2018 /0391 MR GREG ROBINSON GRANT 112 – 115

HAN P/2018 /0402 MR R E FORRESTER REFUSE 116 – 126

BRY P/2018 /0408 MR N ROBERTS GRANT 127 – 131

WRR P/2018 /0415 MR DAVID THOMAS GRANT 132 – 135

OVE P/2018 /0425 MR JONATHAN LATHAM GRANT 136 – 139

Total Number of Applications Included in Report – 16

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 12

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2017 /0314 BRITISH LEGION SOCIAL CLUB 20/04/2017 WATS DYKE LLAY WREXHAM LL12 0RL COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Llay DESCRIPTION: PF MIXED USE HYBRID DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING A RESIDENTIAL WARD: DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 51 UNITS AGENT NAME: Llay (OUTLINE), A 4,000 SQ FT RETAIL KNIGHT FRANK LLP UNIT (OUTLINE), A BOXING CLUB MISS EMILY ROBERTS (OUTLINE), A CAR PARK (FULL), DETAILS OF ACCESS (ALL MATTERS RESERVED) AND ASSOCIATED WORKS

APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR LAURENCE HERRING THE ROYAL BRITISH LEGION

______

THE SITE

Page 13

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

PROPOSAL

This is a hybrid application seeking outline consent for the erection of a mixed use development of residential use, a 4,000 sq. ft. (372 sq. meters) retail unit (A1) and a boxing club (D2) and in full for a car park associated with the existing Royal British Legion club. In terms of the outline element of the proposal, all matters are reserved for further approval save for the means of access to the site at two points (Llay New Road and Watts Dyke).

A site development zoning plan has been submitted which is shown as follows. Note that this plan includes the position of the existing Royal British Legion building which is to be retained as part of the overall proposal.

Proposed site zoning layout

HISTORY

None relevant.

PLANNING POLICY

The site is located within the settlement limit of Llay as defined by the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan. Policies PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, GDP1, GDP2, EC4, EC13, H2, H7, S6, CLF1, CLF5 and T8 are relevant. Guidance is also contained in Local Planning Guidance Notes 10 – Open Space, 16 – Parking Standards, 21 – Space Around Dwellings, 27 – Education Contributions, 28 – Affordable Housing and 30 – Residential Design Guide.

Page 14

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

National planning policy contained in Planning Policy Wales (PPW) and Technical Advice Notes (TAN) 5 – Nature Conservation and Planning, 12 – Design and 18 – Transport.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Object for the following reasons: • There will be increased pressure on local school spaces and the local health centre; • Many local users of the Royal British Legion (RBL) are able to allow their children to play outside, whilst supporting this much valued local amenity. Land used for safe leisure by children will be lost as part of the development; • With the loss of allocated parking bays, plus the increase of regular vehicles associated with such a large number of new residential dwellings, parking for everyone will become chaotic; • There will be increased traffic using the retail premises; • The access roads to all facilities looks poorly designed and, along with the already heavy traffic use on the nearby Llay New Road, it is a serious concern that this will lead to traffic problems throughout the day and night. And this is before the increased traffic using the same highway to access the forthcoming new Police Station; • There are already some flooding issues that occur in the area of the RBL – which will only get worse. • The plans do not appear to address the increased requirements for sewerage and associated works; and • The number of planned residential dwellings has already changed twice in a relatively short time, the current numbers of over 50 houses seem too large for the area they are planned to be built in. Local Member: Councillor Rob Walsh Objects. The application should be refused on the following grounds: • Llay Health Centre is full to bursting. Llay residents struggle to obtain a GP appointment at present. With the likely

Page 15

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

closure of Gresford surgery, the addition of 362 houses on Gresford Road (P/2014/0905) and 18 houses south of Llay Miners Welfare (P/2016/0373) shows that Llay is being developed at a faster rate than the infrastructure is being provided. To add another 51 houses to the Llay Community is very irresponsible in the current climate. Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board`s silence over this issue is not evidence that everything is OK. Unless Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board are prepared to invest in a brand new health centre for Llay fully equipped with the required number of staff, then no further development should take place in Llay. As a result, I believe this application breaches Policy GDP2 as the capacity of infrastructure will be deficient as a consequence of this development. • Parking. The current Llay Royal British Legion site does hold several major events every year and these are catered for due to the large car park facility on site. The reduction of the car park could see an increase in cars parking on Llay New Road and Watt`s Dyke when a big event takes place. This would cause major disruption to traffic, particularly on the already busy Llay New Road. This problem has been made worse due to the decision by Wrexham County Borough Council to charge for car parking at Alyn Waters Country Park. Many park users refuse to park at Alyn Waters anymore and choose streets such as Llay New Road and Watt`s Dyke. As a result, I believe this application breaches Policy CLF1 as it is highly likely to have an adverse affect on a multi-activity community facility, i.e. Llay Royal British Legion. • Concerned about the proposed access to the site from Llay New Road and Watt`s Dyke. The proposed entry accesses are very close to existing junctions.

Page 16

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

• Accepts that this site has been on the UDP for several years now and I have no problem with the principle of this site being developed and accepts that at some point in the future development will take place here. However, unless the issues of appropriate Primary Health Care in Llay and appropriate car parking provision for the Royal British Legion are addressed, then I will support the refusal of this application. Site notices: Expired 05.06.2017 Press notice: Expired 10.06.2017 Highways: No objection subject to conditions. Public Protection: Construction nuisance protection conditions and notes to applicant are required. Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) Officer: The ground conditions are generally suitable for infiltration. As there are some uncertainties regarding the final scheme design it is necessary to add a condition requiring further drainage detail which includes an investigation into the use of SuDS. NRW: No objection but makes the following observations: • A condition should be imposed to seek approval of a Construction Environmental Management Plan to protect the nearby Llay Bog SSSI; • The site is outside any defined flood risk outline. The LLFA is best placed to determine surface water flood risk form the proposal;

Education: Awaiting response

Welsh Water: Drainage proposals are acceptable in principle but should be subject to a planning condition to approve the final design detail. Parks and Rights of Way: The application site adjoins Alyn Waters and will have an impact upon the park. In lieu of on-site open space provision a contribution towards improvements to the park would be preferable. Ramblers: The development should not interfere with footpath Llay11. Neighbouring occupiers: 33 neighbouring occupiers notified. 20 responses received raising the following responses:

Page 17

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

• There are many occasions where there are between 80-100 cars parked on the RBL car park. The proposal will reduce parking provision with the additional retail store and will make the situation difficult given the parking demand in area; • The existing local health facilities are already at capacity and there are no efforts to improve such facilities. This development will add to that pressure; • The schools are full and this development will add to capacity problems; • The extra traffic generation will add to the shocking local road infrastructure; • There are already local retail facilities. This proposal will result in a fourth. Why is there a need for another shop? • The position of the new access will be opposite existing driveways to properties. How will those vehicles park on the highway? • The new retail unit will increase traffic movements at or around the existing Watts Dyke/Llay New Road junctions; • The erection of the retail unit will result in a loss of privacy for the to the dwellings across the road from the site; • The shop receiving deliveries will result in traffic congestion; • The new police station due to open in Llay will increase vehicle movements along Llay New Road and will result in danger by adding additional movements from the dwellings; • The proposal will reduce the amount of space around the RBL building whereby there are events currently held such as Remembrance Sunday and charity fun days; • The use of the RBL is not only a pub/entertainment venue but a community facility and the reduction in the size of the car park may impact upon its viability; • The proposal will result in increased traffic movements at the site which may cause air quality problems;

Page 18

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

• Llay New Road is prone to flooding and the drains are unable to cope; • The proposal will increase demand upon the public sewer system; • There will be an increase in antisocial behaviour as a result of the new shop; • Many years ago the RBL had problems with methane trapped under the building due to coal mines in the area. This may be a problem with the new build; • There is no public open space within the development and none allocated to the legion; • The noise report concludes that there will be no impact from noise at the RBL site – this is not correct as there have been noise complaints in the past; • The appearance of the dwellings does not accord with those surrounding the site; • Why is it always on green land that developers should build? • The proposal will adversely impact upon the running of the pigeon club which operates from the site; and • The proposal to move the war memorial will take away space currently used as part of the memorial parade – the plan is flawed as it pays no respect to Llay residents and those that took part in conflicts.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Policy: This hybrid application seeking outline planning permission for residential use (class C3), a 372m2 local needs retail unit and full planning permission for the reorientation of the existing RBL car park is considered acceptable in principle. Policy PS1 of the Wrexham UDP seeks to direct all new development for housing, employment and community services to within defined settlement limits. This site falls entirely within the Llay settlement limit.

Policy H2 permits new residential development on unannotated land within existing settlement limits provided that the overall design is compatible with the character and form of the built up area, effectively in accordance with the general development principles as set out in policy GDP1. The merits of the overall residential design of the proposal are discussed later in this report.

Page 19

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Policy S6 permits the construction of local needs retail development in existing settlements provided that it is safely accessible to the community on foot, it does not give rise to harm to the neighbouring residential amenity and exacerbate traffic problems nearby and the sales floor area of the development does not exceed 300m2. The detail contained in this submission, albeit in outline, does stipulate that the retail unit will be no larger than 372m2 gross. Taking into account service, staff welfare and storage areas, I am satisfied that the sales floor area of any store would likely fall at or around the 300m2 and would accord with the policy wording. The merits of the overall design of the retail element of the proposal are discussed later in this report.

Finally, policy CLF1 is broadly relevant to this proposal. This policy seeks to ensure that development which adversely affects indoor or outdoor central multi-activity community and leisure facilities, particularly within settlement limits, is not be permitted. The RBL is clearly a popular and well valued facility in Llay and is considered to be a community facility. This scheme seeks to retain the facility within the heart of the development, but does seek to make alterations to its curtilage and features within it. The merits of this are discussed within the report but I am satisfied that this proposal, by virtue of the retention of the RBL club, accords with policy CLF1.

Design and amenity: The submission includes an indicative site plan as required by legislation. The purpose of this plan is to inform the local planning authority of the developer intentions for the site without committing to a particular layout or design of building. The intended layout is confirmed to a certain extent as the applicant is seeking approval for the means of access at this outline stage. The merits of the proposed accesses are discussed later in this report.

I am satisfied that the density of the development and the intended uses are entirely compatible with this site and its surroundings. The provision of a local needs store, albeit on the southern fringe of Llay, would be accessible on foot by villagers. The indicative plan shows the retail unit in a prominent position at the Llay New Road frontage. However, I would have no objection to the retail unit being located elsewhere on the site.

The residential element of the scheme can be accommodated in a modern layout broadly reflective of the previous gradual expansion of Llay and in effect would create a logical extension to the residential built form in this area. The number of residential units proposed does not give cause for concern and an acceptable detailed reserved matters scheme will be achievable.

Highways: The proposal has been subject to detailed scrutiny by highways and additional detail has been submitted to demonstrate the acceptability of the proposed access points. Initial concerns had been raised regarding the position of the access onto Llay New Road being placed opposite a residential service road and the Watts Dyke access opposite dwellings with driveways. Furthermore, the prospect of a ‘rat run’ being created has been addressed by

Page 20

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 the suggestion that the carriageway within the site could be severed. This would be a matter to confirm at any reserved matters stage.

The applicants submitted a further report outlining an assessment of these concerns which have been accepted by highways. Drivers exiting the new access on to Llay New Road are unlikely to drive straight through to the service road as it runs perpendicular the main carriageway. Drivers are likely to see the houses facing the junction and will appreciate that there is a junction in place.

The position of the access onto Watts Dyke is also acceptable. Concerns raised that there may be conflict between users of the new access on existing residents are unfounded. There are no existing Traffic Regulation Orders in this location, suggesting residents park sensibly at present. The removal of a potential rat run will mean that the road will be a cul-de-sac and not dissimilar to the other side roads in the vicinity. Vehicles using this new junction will be limited to householders or their visitors rather than open to general traffic.

Pedestrian trips and routing have also been assessed in this location for those seeking to access the new retail development. It has concluded that trip rates will be similar to those which will have existed when the Co-Op store was operating from Shones Lane. It is considered that there will be little difference between the previous and proposed instances. The presence of a zebra crossing 90m north of the site is also a significant advantage to pedestrian safety. Those pedestrian counts also suggest that any additional formal crossing points are unnecessary and the installation of additional informal dropped kerb crossings has been suggested.

The scale of the parking provision for the RBL club (which forms the full element of this planning application) has been considered acceptable. Whilst the parking provision is below standards, the current situation is such that the Llay RBL branch is subject to a lease which limits them to a smaller area of the car park (42 spaces). The freeholder of the land is allowing the RBL branch to use the entire car park by way of an informal arrangement - this agreement could be removed at any time and would automatically reduce parking provision to below that proposed by this application (46). The applicants carried out a parking survey across one full week which included standard events at the site such as televising major sporting events and a regular pub quiz. This indicated a peak parking demand well within that which is proposed as part of this scheme. Notwithstanding this point, I am satisfied that the proposed parking scheme is proportionate to the parking provision for other RBL club sites such as Gresford and Johnstown.

Trees and ecology: The Arboricultural Implications Assessment identifies trees of amenity value which can be retained and protected in view of any future development. The indicative scheme would result in the loss of the perimeter hedgerow fronting Llay New Road and Watts Dyke with tree removal in the location of the proposed access on to Watts Dyke, but some mature trees to the western boundary can be retained along with the hedgerow to the south which forms the boundary with Alyn Waters.

Page 21

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Whilst the loss of any established vegetation is unfortunate, the weight afforded to this must be balanced against the opportunities to provide for a quality scheme achieving the correct density with strong frontage development. The opportunity to provide for maximum visibility for the commercial interests within the site is also a consideration. Landscaping is a reserved matter and suitable mitigation planting is achievable in view of any subsequent layout. Controls can be imposed on the outline planning permission to seek the retention of those trees which have been identified as having amenity value.

There are no concerns raised to the conclusions of the submitted ecology report or the principle of the scheme.

Drainage and flood risk: The application has been accompanied by a comprehensive assessment of existing ground conditions in relation to the disposal of surface water. As the scheme is in outline a detailed drainage design cannot prepared at this stage. The applicant’s submissions have concluded that the existing ground conditions are suitable for the application of soakaway systems with a connection to the existing public sewer system as a last resort. I am satisfied that the site can be developed without increasing surface water runoff rates off the site beyond those currently experienced. In order to demonstrate a suitable drainage scheme in accordance with the requirements of TAN 15 a condition will be required on any approval.

The site is outside any flood risk outline area as defined by TAN. NRW have acknowledged this point and have raised no concerns regarding the risk of flooding from any watercourses.

Planning obligations: In accordance with policies GDP2, H7 and CLF5 this proposal will be required to make a financial contribution towards a shortfall in education infrastructure provision in the locality to offset the potential impacts of the proposal, provide for adequate affordable housing provision on the site and also make provision for adequate open space provision.

Education I am currently awaiting a response from education. This will be included on the Addendum.

Affordable Housing In accordance with policy H7 and LPG 28, developments of over 25 dwellings will be required to provide for affordable housing provision at a rate of 25%. I am not aware of any circumstances that would indicate a deviation away from this requirement. This provision would be secured through the planning obligation.

Open Space Policy CLF5 requires residential development proposals of 10 or more dwellings to provide on-site open space provision with the developer taking responsibility for the future maintenance of those areas, generally by way of a management company. LPG10 does state that on developments of up to 20

Page 22

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 dwellings a commuted sum may be provided for improvements or extensions to existing facilities provided that they are in easy walking distance and clearly usable by future occupants of the development site.

The applicant has argued that the provision of open space on site should be waived given that the site directly adjoins Alyn Waters Country Park. I have also assessed other recreation provision in proximity to the site, the nearest being a recreation ground (including football pitch and play equipment) some 500 metres from the centre of the application site accessed from Shones Lane or Sixth Avenue. Whilst the number of dwellings named in the application description far exceeds 20 dwellings, I accept that there is adequate existing local open space provision and it would not be advantageous to provide more on site.

I have discussed this matter with the Council’s Parks and Rights of Way Manager. A contribution of a commuted sum towards improvements to Alyn Waters Country Park would be an acceptable solution to the Council. A figure of £1000 per dwelling, in line with LPG10 guidance, could be secured by way the planning obligation. A management entity for any shared spaces within the development itself will also be secured through this obligation.

Other matters: A number of representations have been received regarding the impact of this proposal upon the way the RBL club operates popular community events, primarily within the large expanse of car park/hardstanding adjoining the building, and the impact that the reduction in the car parking provision will have upon how the RBL continue to facilitate such events (fun days and remembrance ceremonies etc.).

The charitable RBL organisation is the freeholder/land owner and applicant in this instance with local Llay RBL branch being the leaseholder. Firstly, the Council cannot consider any representations which question the legality or the morality of this proposal and this is a matter between the relevant levels of the organisation. Secondly, as discussed earlier in this report, I am satisfied that the reorganisation of the land surrounding the RBL remains proportionate to the scale of the retained facility and would not undermine its ongoing functionality and viability. The management of such larger scale events would need to be a matter addressed between the local branch and the umbrella organisation itself and is likely to become self-regulating in the future. This is not a matter for the Council to resolve through this process.

Matters raised in relation to the impact of the development on struggling local health service provision are noted. However, there are no specific planning policies or guidance notes which require a developer or the local planning authority to address this matter. The Local Health Board are not a statutory consultee and previous appeal decisions, more recently the large scale residential scheme at Gresford Road in Llay have dismissed this matter as not being a concern. The Local Health Board has a duty to plan properly for population growth and amend local health provision accordingly.

Page 23

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Conclusion: This scheme represents a sustainable form of development within an existing settlement limit. The reuse of this previously developed land accords with the principles set out in in Planning Policy Wales and the strategic policies of the Wrexham UDP. I am satisfied that the indicative layout of the residential and retail uses represents an efficient use of the site, providing additional community facilities and making a significant contribution towards a shortfall in housing supply. I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION A

That the Council enters into an obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act requiring the following:

• The formation of a Management Company for the future maintenance by the applicant of all communal areas including driveways, parking areas, hard and soft landscaping, trees and planted features; • Payment of a commuted sum at the rate of £1000 per dwelling for the improvement of hard and soft landscaping within the neighbouring Alyn Waters Country Park; • Affordable Housing provision across the development in accordance with the Welsh Government definition; and

RECOMMENDATION B

That if the Obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, as detailed above, is not completed within six months of the date of this Committee resolution, the Head of Environment and Planning is given delegated authority to REFUSE planning permission for the following reasons:

• Lack of appropriate maintenance by the applicant of all driveways, parking areas, hard and soft landscaping, trees and planted features; • Lack of improvement or provision of open space to cater for the future needs of the dwelling; and

RECOMMENDATION C

Subject to the completion of the Section 106 obligation, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

CONDITION(S)

1. Approval of the following details shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced on the land described as 'Residential Zone (Outline) and Retail Zone (Outline)' on drawing no AL-00-002 Rev P1: a. the layout of the building(s) b. the scale of the building(s)

Page 24

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 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. 3. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced: a. in respect of that part of the site described as 'Royal British Legion Club Zone (Full)' on drawing no. AL-00-002 Rev P1, before the expiry of five years from the date of this permission; b. in respect of that part of the site described as 'Residential Zone (Outline) and Retail Zone (Outline)' on drawing no. AL-00-002 Rev P1, 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. In respect of that part of the site described as 'Royal British Legion Club Zone (Full)' on drawing no. AL-00-002 Rev P1, development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the detail contained on that same plan. 5. No part of the development shall be occupied until an at-grade pedestrian crossing at point south of the existing junction of Watts Dyke and Llay New Road in accordance with the detail contained in the approved document titled Llay Royal British Legion, Residential and Retail Development: Pedestrian and Vehicular Accessibility Notes has been implemented. 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. 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.

Page 25

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

8. The rating level of any noise generated by air handling plant associated with the development on any part of the site described as 'Residential Zone (Outline) and Retail Zone (Outline)' on drawing no. AL-00-002 Rev P1 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. 9. No development shall commence until a Construction Environmental Management Plan has been submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the detail as may be approved. 10. Development shall not 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; 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. 11. All trees and hedges identified for retention on approved plan no. TPP.12620.01 shall not be cut down, grubbed out or otherwise removed or topped or lopped without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. 12. This permission provides for a retail unit of up to a maximum of 372 square meters to be erected on the land described as 'Residential Zone (Outline) and Retail Zone (Outline)' on drawing no. AL-00-002 Rev P1. 13. Prior to commencement of any residential development a scheme for the provision of affordable housing as part of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The affordable housing shall be provided in accordance with the approved scheme and shall meet the definition of affordable housing in Annex B of TAN 2 or any future guidance that replaces it. The scheme shall include: i) the numbers, type, tenure and location on the site of the affordable housing provision to be made which shall consist of not less than 25% of housing units/bed spaces;

Page 26

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 ii) the timing of the construction of the affordable housing and its phasing in relation to the occupancy of the market housing; iii) the arrangements for the transfer of the affordable housing to an affordable housing provider or the management of the affordable housing (if no RSL involved); iv) the arrangements to ensure that such provision is affordable for both first and subsequent occupiers of the affordable housing; and v) the occupancy criteria to be used for determining the identity of occupiers of the affordable housing and the means by which such occupancy criteria shall be enforced. 14. No part of the development shall commence until further details of the proposed vehicular parking and turning facilities in respect of that part of the site described as 'Royal British Legion Club Zone (Full)' on drawing no. AL-00- 002 Rev P1 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The facilities as are approved shall be fully laid out, surfaced and drained prior to first use of the development, and shall thereafter be permanently retained and kept free of any obstruction, and made available solely for the parking and turning of motor vehicles at all times.

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 Sections 91(3) and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. 4. To define the scope of the planning permission. 5. In the interests of pedestrian safety. 6. To ensure satisfactory drainage of the site and to avoid flooding. 7. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 8. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 9. To ensure the integrity of the natural environment, more specifically the value of the nearby Llay Bog Site of Special Scientific Interest. 10. To ensure the work is carried out to accepted arboricultural practices for the long term wellbeing of the tree(s). 11. To protect trees which are of significant amenity value to the area. 12. To define the terms of the planning permission. 13. In order to ensure that that the development provides for a suitable housing mix in the interests of the wider community. 14. In the interests of highway safety and to define the terms of the planning permission. ______

Page 27

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2017 /0623 BROAD OAK FARM LLYNDIR LANE 25/07/2017 ROSSETT WREXHAM LL12 0AU COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Rossett DESCRIPTION: MR CHANGE OF USE AND CONVERSION OF BARNS TO 13 WARD: RESIDENTIAL UNITS INCLUDING AGENT NAME: Rossett PART DEMOLITION, ACCESS AND CASSIDY AND ASHTON PARKING ARRANGEMENTS MR GUY EVANS

APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR S TROWBRIDGE

______

SITE

The Site

Application Site

PROPOSAL

The application seeks full planning permission for the conversion of agricultural buildings to 13 no. residential units including part demolition, access and parking arrangements.

HISTORY

None relevant.

Page 28

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Within Green Barrier and Special Landscape Area. UDP policies EC1, EC5, EC12, GDP1, H3 and T8 apply.

LPG 03 – Converting Rural Buildings, LPG 13 – Housing in the Countryside, LPG 16 – Parking Standards, LPG 21 – Space Around Dwellings.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: No objection. Local Member: Notified 10.08.2017. Supports the proposal. Welsh Water: No objection. Condition recommended to ensure no surface/land water connected to the local drainage network. Highway Authority: The proposal has not demonstrated provision of the required passing places and insufficient information has been submitted to adequately demonstrate the highway improvements required along the site frontage. In the absence of this information, the application has not demonstrated that there would be no resultant adverse impacts to highway safety and would conflict with UDP Policy GDP1 (d). Public Protection: No objection subject to conditions. Ecology: No objection subject to conditions. Conservation: Further details required. Flood: Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal would not require culverting or the diversion of a ditch. In the absence of this information it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not result in adverse impacts, having regard to an increase in flood risk. NRW: No objection subject to conditions. Network Rail: Condition recommended. Ramblers Association: Proposal must not divert or block footpaths Burton 1 and Burton 3. CPAT: Level 1 Photographic Survey recommended should be carried out. Press Notice: Expired 01.09.2017 Neighbours: 3 no. representations received, 2 from the same property. Concerns raised include the site is no longer in agricultural use, uncertainty over potential proposed use of the adjacent site, visual intrusion into the landscape, loss of openness to the green barrier, overdevelopment of the site, poor design and layout, landscaping has not been adequately considered, no modelling undertaken to assess flood risk, concerns raised in regards to surface

Page 29

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

water and flooding, the structural integrity of the buildings are questioned, dwellings should be resisted in green barrier, no evidence submitted to demonstrate the site has been marketed, the proposal does not meet principal planning policy, possibility that the scheme is trying to avoid paying an affordable housing contribution by excluding the adjacent site from the proposal, unsustainable location, highway problems created on access routes to and from the site, poor accessibility, no contamination report or tree report submitted, proposal would worsen the existing drainage problems in the area.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Principle:

Green Barrier

The site is located within designated green barrier to which Policy EC1 of the UDP applies.

As part of the scheme the proposal would involve demolishing a number of buildings, which would reduce the massing and built form on the site. The proposed site is considered to be contained within the existing footprint and would not extend or encroach any further into open countryside, beyond the existing.

The impact on the green barrier is considered to be appropriate and would not result in harm to existing levels of openness.

Barn Conversions

Wrexham Local Planning Guidance 03 advises that there are some buildings not suitable for conversion, including those which are structurally unsound, unsuitable in terms of size and form of construction and at risk of flooding.

The application seeks to convert 3 no. buildings, construct 3 no. buildings and demolish 5 no. buildings and 2 no. structures. The existing site layout with the barns annotated is shown below. Barns A, B and D are proposed for retention and conversion. The remainder are proposed for demolition.

Page 30

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Barn D

Barn D is considered to be of little architectural or historic merit.

Whilst the Conservation Officer states that the building as such can accommodate a greater degree of alteration without compromising the character of the site, LPG 03 states that some buildings of a particular form and construction will not be suitable for conversion.

Furthermore, where the building has no traditional or original features of merit, the design of any conversion should reflect the vernacular character and appearance of other buildings in the locality.

Barn D is a modern, single storey red brick building with what appears to be metal vents along each elevation. Photographs of the building are shown below.

Page 31

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Barn D

Barn D

Page 32

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

The building is considered has no features of merit or interest which would be worthy of retention. In order to facilitate the conversion of the building, the entire roof would need replacing, as would a large extent of the walls in order to remove the metal vents and replace with openings.

A calculation as to the total amount of re-build required to facilitate the conversion of this building has not been undertaken, however it would appear that the extent at this stage would be relatively significant.

The extent of openings and glazing proposed is also considered to be significant, particularly in the context that there appear to be hardly any openings in the existing building as it stands.

It is considered that the cumulative amount of re-building and insertion of new openings required to facilitate the proposal would be extensive and would go above what is considered to be reasonable by virtue of conversion.

It is considered that the resultant appearance of the building would be domestic in nature and more akin to bungalows or dwellings located within small suburban estates.

The proposal would conflict with Wrexham UDP Policy H3 which, amongst other criteria, seeks to ensure that any building subject of conversion is

Page 33

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 structurally sound and capable of conversion without extensive re-building tantamount to the erection of a new dwelling.

The proposal would also conflict with LPG 03 as it is considered to be unsuitable by virtue of its form of construction and having no traditional features of merit. The resultant design and layout of this building is considered would therefore adversely impact on the character and appearance of this countryside locality.

Barns A and B

Barns A and B are considered to be more traditional in appearance and construction with original features, worthy of retention.

There are already existing openings serving both buildings with some of the walls having traditional exterior patterns.

The submitted Structural Survey states that the entire roof of Barn A would need replacing, as do the roof trusses of Barn B.

Page 34

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Provided the re-building of the walls are considered to be limited and any replacement of the roofs are proportionate to the original in terms of scale and height, the conversion of these buildings are considered could be acceptable in principle.

Parking Barns

Three parking barns are proposed as part of the application, involving the construction of three new buildings. No existing buildings would be utilised to facilitate provision of these, conflicting with the guidance set out within LPG 03.

The proposed Site Layout Plan is shown below.

Page 35

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Conclusion

The proposal, by virtue of the existing appearance and form of construction of the single storey building known as Barn D, is considered would be unsuitable for conversion. The extent of re-building and alteration that is required to restore the single storey building referred to as Barn D to a habitable condition, is considered would be tantamount to the erection of new dwellings outside a settlement limit which would conflict with UDP Policies H3 and H5 of the UDP and the provisions set out within LPG 03 and 13.

Overall the cumulative re-build, alteration and construction of new buildings, by virtue of the resultant design, layout and appearance as well as the associated curtilages, is considered would adversely impact on the character and appearance of this open countryside location, the built form and surrounding landscape. The proposal would be contrary to Policies H3 and H5 of the Wrexham UDP and the provisions set out within Local Planning Guidance Notes 03 and 13.

Visual and Residential Amenities: The submitted Site Layout Plan shows the private amenity space serving units 4 – 6 would be along the frontage of these properties, adjacent to the access road leading into the site and visible form the adjacent highway.

Detailed consideration would need to be given to boundary treatments to ensure these do not compromise the traditional character and appearance of this part of the conversion complex, particularly given its highly prominent appearance from the street scene.

Page 36

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

The amenity space provided for units 7 – 8 is not considered to be appropriate at this stage, resulting in overlooking into these garden areas and potential noise and disturbance to the occupants of these properties as a result of car parking and a proposed access point into this part of the site. An alternative solution should be considered.

Highway Safety: The proposal has not demonstrated provision of the required passing places and insufficient information has been submitted to adequately demonstrate the highway improvements required along the site frontage. In the absence of this information, the application has not demonstrated that there would be no resultant adverse impacts to highway safety and would conflict with UDP Policy GDP1 (d).

Ecology: No objection subject to conditions.

Drainage: Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal would not require culverting of an existing watercourse. In the absence of this information it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not result in an increased risk of flooding.

Conclusion: The principle of development is not considered to be acceptable and there are no material considerations which would outweigh the conflict with local plan policy in allowing approval of this scheme.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be REFUSED

REASON(S)

1. The proposal, by virtue of the existing appearance and form of construction of the single storey building known as Barn D, is considered would be unsuitable for conversion. The extent of re-building and alteration that is required to restore the single storey building referred to as Barn D to a habitable condition, is considered would be tantamount to the erection of new dwellings outside a settlement limit which would conflict with UDP Policies H3 and H5 of the UDP and the provisions set out within LPG 03 and 13. 2. The cumulative re-build, alteration and construction of new buildings, by virtue of the resultant design, layout and appearance as well as the associated curtilages, is considered would adversely impact on the character and appearance of this open countryside location, the built form and surrounding landscape. The proposal would be contrary to Policies H3 and H5 of the Wrexham UDP and the provisions set out within Local Planning Guidance Notes 03 and 13. 3. The proposal has not demonstrated provision of the required passing places and insufficient information has been submitted to adequately demonstrate the highway improvements required along the site frontage. In the absence of this information, the application has not demonstrated that there would be no resultant adverse impacts to highway safety and would conflict with UDP Policy GDP1 (d).

Page 37

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

4. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal would not require culverting of an existing watercourse. In the absence of this information it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not result in an increased risk of flooding.

Page 38

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2018 /0223 BROAD OAK FARM LLYNDIR LANE 21/03/2018 ROSSETT WREXHAM LL12 0AU COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Rossett DESCRIPTION: MR CONVERSION OF BARNS (INCLUDING PART DEMOLITION) TO WARD: FORM 5 NO. DWELLINGS, ACCESS AGENT NAME: Rossett ARRANGEMENTS AND CASSIDY AND ASHTON ASSOCIATED WORKS MR GUY EVANS

APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR S TROWBRIDGE

______

SITE

The site

PROPOSAL

The application seeks full planning permission for the conversion of barns (including part demolition) to form 5 no. dwellings, access arrangements and associated works.

HISTORY

None relevant.

Page 39

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Within Green Barrier. UDP policies EC1, EC4, EC5, EC12, GDP1, H3 and T8 apply. LPG 03 – Converting Rural Buildings, LPG 13 – Housing in the Countryside, LPG 16 – Parking Standards, LPG 21 – Space Around Dwellings.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: No objection. Local Member: Notified 23.03.2018. Supports the proposal. Welsh Water: Applicant intends on using a private treatment works. Education: Contribution required for the nearest C.P School and secondary school. Highway Authority: The proposal has not demonstrated provision of the required passing places and insufficient information has been submitted to adequately demonstrate the highway improvements required along the site frontage. In the absence of this information, the application has not demonstrated that there would be no resultant adverse impacts to highway safety and would conflict with UDP Policy GDP1 (d). Public Protection: No objection subject to conditions. Ecology: The submitted Bat Survey describes a preliminary assessment of buildings carried out in February 2018. The photographs show the presence of snow on the ground, which are not suitable conditions to carry out the required work. The chance of finding bat signs in such conditions is greatly limited. It would be more appropriate for the site to be re-surveyed in suitable conditions and that building 2 is subject to a minimum of 2 summer dawn/dusk surveys as the presence of bats cannot be ruled out by visual inspections. Refusal recommended. Conservation: The buildings scheduled for conversion have little architectural or historic interest, making little contribution to the character of the surrounding area. Concerns raised in regards to relationship between this application site and the adjacent site, as well as the landscape design. Boundary treatments not specified in the application. Trees: Conditions recommended.

Flood: The drainage report only covers the adjacent site and does not make provision for this application.

Page 40

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Details required of how surface water will be managed from this element of the site. NRW: No objection subject to conditions. CPAT: Level 1 Photographic Survey recommended should be carried out. Neighbours: No representations received.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Principle:

Green Barrier

The site is located within designated green barrier to which Policy EC1 of the UDP applies.

As part of the scheme the proposal would involve demolishing a number of buildings, which reduces the massing and built form on the site. The proposed site is considered to be relatively well contained, however, the red edge on the north western boundary in particular extends further into green barrier than what is considered necessary and this should be reduced.

The impact on the green barrier is considered to be appropriate on the whole and would not result in harm to existing levels of openness.

Barn Conversions

Wrexham Local Planning Guidance 03 advises that there are some buildings not suitable for conversion, including those which are structurally unsound, unsuitable in terms of size and form of construction and at risk of flooding.

The application seeks to convert 4 no. buildings, construct 1 no. building and demolish 2 no. buildings. Part of some of the buildings proposed for conversion would be demolished. The existing site layout plan is shown below.

Page 41

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Barns E, F and G

Barns E, F and G are considered to be of little architectural or historic merit.

LPG 03 states that some buildings of a particular form and construction will not be suitable for conversion.

Furthermore, where the buildings have no traditional or original features of merit, the design of any conversion should reflect the vernacular character and appearance of other buildings in the locality.

Barns E, F and G are modern, single storey red brick buildings. Photographs shown below.

Page 42

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Barn E

Barn F

Page 43

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Barn F and part of Barn G

Part of Barns E and D

Page 44

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Some parts of the roof structure is missing on some of the buildings and there are also metal vents attached to these building, similarly to the vents attached to Barn D, as part of the application running in conjunction with this application.

The buildings are considered have no features of merit or interest which would be worthy of retention. In order to facilitate the conversion of the buildings, the roofs would need replacing in parts, as would a large extent of the walls in order to remove and replace the metal vents with openings, as well as to facilitate the demolition of some parts of the buildings.

A calculation as to the total amount of re-build required to facilitate the conversion of this building has not been undertaken, however it would appear that the extent at this stage would be relatively significant.

The extent of openings and glazing proposed is also considered to be significant, particularly in the context that there appear to be hardly any openings in some parts of the existing buildings as it stands.

It is considered that the cumulative amount of re-building and insertion of new openings required to facilitate the proposal would be extensive and would go above what is considered to be reasonable by virtue of conversion.

It is considered that the resultant appearance of the buildings would be domestic in nature and more akin to bungalows or dwellings located within small suburban estates.

The emphasis in any conversion scheme must be upon demonstrating that the building in its present form is suitable for the proposed new use. There is a presumption against large extensions to the building itself and against the erection of new ancillary structures within and adjoining the curtilage.

The proposal would conflict with Wrexham UDP Policy H3 which, amongst other criteria, seeks to ensure that any building subject of conversion is structurally sound and capable of conversion without extensive re-building tantamount to the erection of a new dwelling.

The proposal would also conflict with LPG 03 as the buildings are considered to be unsuitable by virtue of their form of construction and having no traditional features of merit. The resultant design and layout of these buildings are considered would therefore adversely impact on the character and appearance of this countryside locality.

Barn C

Part of Barn C is considered to be more traditional in appearance and construction with original features, worthy of retention.

There are already existing openings serving part of the building.

Page 45

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Whilst part of the building would require demolition in order to facilitate the conversion, this element of the scheme is not considered to be as harmful to the character and appearance of the building, or the countryside.

Provided the re-building of the walls are considered to be limited and any replacement of the roofs are proportionate to the original in terms of scale and height, the conversion of this building is considered could be acceptable in principle.

Parking Barn

One new parking barn is proposed as part of the application, involving the construction of 1 new building. No existing buildings would be utilised to facilitate provision of this, conflicting with the guidance set out within LPG 03.

The proposed site layout is shown below.

Conclusion

The overall form and type of construction of the existing single storey buildings on site are not considered to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area or the surrounding landscape and are not considered worthy of retention.

Furthermore, the extent of re-building and alteration required to restore the existing buildings to a habitable condition, is considered would be tantamount

Page 46

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 to the erection of new dwellings outside a settlement limit. The proposal would conflict with UDP Policies H3 and H5 as well as the provisions set out within Local Planning Guidance Notes 03 and 13.

The cumulative re-build, alteration and construction of new buildings, by virtue of the resultant design, layout and appearance as well as their associated curtilages, is considered would alter the character and appearance of this open countryside location, the built form and surrounding landscape. The proposal would be contrary to Policies H3 and H5 of the Wrexham UDP and the provisions set out within Local Planning Guidance Notes 03 and 13.

Visual and Residential Amenities: The submitted Site Layout Plan shows the private amenity space serving units 1, 2, 4 and 5 would be significant and disproportionate to the size of the units and site itself.

Detailed consideration would need to be given to boundary treatments along the access road into the site, to ensure these do not compromise the traditional character and appearance of this part of the conversion complex, particularly given its highly prominent appearance from the street scene.

Unit 1 would result in overlooking into the proposed amenity space serving units 4 - 6 and this should be re-considered as part of any revised scheme.

The Conservation Officer raises concerns with the proposed landscape design. Proposals to create irregularly defined and extensive residents courtyards will serve as large informal parking areas on the main approach into the site, creating swathes of unbroken hard landscaping. Store rooms and communal bin stores are sporadically placed within both sites 1 and 2 and dominate the central circulation space.

Highway Safety: The proposal has not demonstrated provision of the required passing places and insufficient information has been submitted to adequately demonstrate the highway improvements required along the site frontage. In the absence of this information, the application has not demonstrated that there would be no resultant adverse impacts to highway safety and would conflict with UDP Policy GDP1 (d).

Ecology: The submitted Bat Survey describes a preliminary assessment of buildings carried out in February 2018. The photographs show the presence of snow on the ground, which are not suitable conditions to carry out the required work. The chance of finding bat signs in such conditions is greatly limited. It would be more appropriate for the site to be re-surveyed in suitable conditions and that building 2 is subject to a minimum of 2 summer dawn/dusk surveys as the presence of bats cannot be ruled out by visual inspections. Refusal recommended.

Drainage: Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal would not require culverting of an existing watercourse. In the absence of this information it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not result in an increased risk of flooding.

Page 47

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Conclusion: The principle of development is not considered to be acceptable and there are no material considerations associated with the scheme which would outweigh the conflict with local plan policy.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be REFUSED

REASON(S)

1. The overall form and type of construction of the existing single storey buildings on site are not considered to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area or the surrounding landscape and are not considered worthy of retention. Furthermore, the extent of re-building and alteration required to restore the existing buildings to a habitable condition, is considered would be tantamount to the erection of new dwellings outside a settlement limit. The proposal would conflict with UDP Policies H3 and H5 as well as the provisions set out within Local Planning Guidance Notes 03 and 13. 2. The cumulative re-build, alteration and construction of new buildings, by virtue of the resultant design, layout and appearance as well as their associated curtilages, is considered would alter the character and appearance of this open countryside location, the built form and surrounding landscape. The proposal would be contrary to Policies H3 and H5 of the Wrexham UDP and the provisions set out within Local Planning Guidance Notes 03 and 13. 3. The proposal has not demonstrated provision of the required passing places and insufficient information has been submitted to adequately demonstrate the highway improvements required along the site frontage. In the absence of this information, the application has not demonstrated that there would be no resultant adverse impacts to highway safety and would conflict with UDP Policy GDP1 (d). 4. Insufficient information has been submitted with the application to adequately assess the impact of the proposal having regard to the presence of bats on the site. The proposal would not accord with UDP Policy EC6. 5. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal would not require culverting of an existing watercourse. In the absence of this information it has not been demonstrated that the proposal would not result in an increased risk of flooding. ______

Page 48

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2017 /0799 LAND AT MULSFORD FARM SARN 22/09/2017 MALPAS WREXHAM SY14 7LP COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Willington and DESCRIPTION: MP Worthenbury PROPOSED INTENSIVE POULTRY INSTALLATION AND ALL ASSOCIATED WORKS AGENT NAME: WARD: ROGER PARRY & Bronington APPLICANT(S) NAME: PARTNERS LLP MR HUXLEY MR RICHARD CORBETT

______

THE SITE

Existing access

Application site

PROPOSAL

As above.

Page 49

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

HISTORY

P/2016/0749 Erection of agricultural building for grain storage. Prior approval required and refused 22.8.2016 P/2016/1158 Erection of agricultural building for grain storage. Prior approval not required 12.1.2017

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Outside of settlement, within Special Landscape Area, partly with zone C2 and cross by footpath Worthenbury no.14. Policies GDP1, EC3, EC5, EC6, EC12, CLF6 and T8 apply.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Object on the following grounds: 1. Mulsford Lane is used by pedestrians walking their dogs and also school children walking to and from their school bus pick up point. Heavy Goods vehicles using this road will endanger lives. 2. This is a residential area, home to people who have deliberately purchased a rural property in order to enjoy the peace and quiet of the countryside. The noise which would be generated by 90,000 chickens along with all the associated machinery would be totally unacceptable in a rural area. The resultant smell would also be very unpleasant, particularly during the summer months. 3. Although a recommendation has been made to order traffic movement between the hours of 2a.m. and 7a.m., the noise pollution would be unacceptable during the night. We would suggest that these noise levels would be no more acceptable during the day. 4. The Highways report points out the unsuitability of Mulsford Lane to accommodate HGV’s. 5. The multiple journeys that would be inevitable in supporting this business would pose a danger to other road users on what is essentially a country lane. Visibility splays around the entrance to the site are not fit for purpose, with little or no room for improvement. 6. The flood risk assessment recommends that excess water should be directed to Wych Brook. Along with two ponds, this is an important ecological feature which directly feeds the River Dee. Water entering the brook from the chicken sheds would be polluted,

Page 50

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

having a disastrous effect on the wildlife of the area, including great crested newts, otters and fish. New laws which see ammonia leakage reduced by 2000% would have to be adhered to. 7. In 2013/14, Natural Resources Wales invested in a new ‘Rock Ramp’ at this site, designed to help salmon, sea trout and eels to migrate to their natural spawning grounds. It would be impossible to maintain a healthy water5course with such intensive farming. 8. The necessary removal or damage to hedgerows would also threaten many species of birds and bats. 9. Although during the development phase, there will be jobs created, the project will only provide one permanent job once it is up and running. We will therefore have sacrificed our rural landscape with no benefit to the local population in terms of employment. Local Member: Objects for the following reasons: • Visual intrusion into the open countryside as amply demonstrated by the recent large new gain store; • Several rural properties close to and overlooking this development will be affected; • Issues of smell and noise; • The thriving bed and breakfast industry near to the site will be decimated; • The site is in a particularly sensitive special landscape area and a nearby footpath; • The recent removal of significant amount of ancient hedgerow and construction of a large shed and road way to gain access is inappropriate; • Farming in such environmentally sensitive areas requires respectful management practice. The recent farming tradition changes on this land is not congenial with the surrounding environment i.e. the ploughing and deep draining of ancient pasture and the growing of oil seed rape impacts on the local biodiversity would be further exacerbated by a large industrial poultry unit; • Otters, salmon and other fish species have returned along this stretch of Worthenbury Brook following considerable effort and money to clean the brook all the way to Whitchurch, otters only survive and thrive in quiet undisturbed pollution free areas. NRW have

Page 51

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

constructed a fish ladder by Sarn Mill to aid fish mitigation; • The proposed site is only a few metres from Worthenbury/Wych Brook and is close to the River Dee nitrate zone. The brook is a tributary to the River Dee and the drinking water extraction point at Bangor on Dee; • It will be difficult to achieve the new Welsh ammonia emission requirements; • Traffic from lorries, tractors and cars servicing the unit in such a narrow single lane rural road (Mulsford Lane) will be unacceptable. NRW’s licence relating to a similar broiler unit at Cross Lanes in an indicator of the expected traffic increase; • A nearby existing agricultural contractor business has recently gone through a large expansion program operating very large agricultural machines overloading and congesting the existing road infrastructure, this development would only exacerbate the problem; • The cumulatively effect of these concerns would have an unsympathetic impact on this quite isolated sensitive area; • Potential welfare/security issues when operating such an isolated large scale broiler unit would require someone on-site 24/7 • D J Huxley Farms are a large company farming other farms, a 90,000 broiler unit would be more suitability located close to one of their existing farms; • It has been brought to my attention the applicants consider Bank Farm, with less environmental issues and would overcome highway issues with excellent access to the A525 and farm set in middle of substantial acreage, there would also be fewer properties affected and would not have to access the units through populated areas such as Worthenbury. Cheshire West & Chester: Having viewed the plans and details on line we do not have any objections to the proposal or comments to make in relation to the proposal and would simply advise that the scheme is considered in line with relevant local and National Planning Policies Threapwood Parish Cou: Object on the following grounds: 1) In the opinion of the Parish Council, the proposed development does not meet the criteria required under Wrexham County Borough Council

Page 52

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

– Policy EC3: Agricultural buildings for the following reasons: a) The mass, height and operation of the proposed development in this location will have a detrimental impact on the environment and surrounding landscape. b) The isolated position of the proposed development does not form part of a farm complex. The recent construction of a grain store does not constitute a farm complex and has a low impact on the environment compared to the proposed commercial development. c) There are no exceptional circumstances why the proposed development should be located at this isolated but visually intrusive location in open countryside. d) The applicant has not demonstrated why it is necessary to locate the unit here compared to other options within their farming network where there might be a better fit with infrastructure and management. 2) Visual Amenity a) The proposed development is located in open countryside in a shallow valley alongside the Wych Brook. The unspoilt view from the settlement of Threapwood across the valley to Ruabon Moor in the background is a recognised visual amenity for the community. 3) Highway Issues a) The access route to the site navigates narrow lanes with limited passing places for HGV’s and will add stress to the road network. b) The new access track to the proposed site will see a considerable number of vehicles travelling across open countryside. 4) Light Pollution a) On site pollution will occur during operation in this otherwise dark area of undeveloped open countryside. b) Night movements of HGV’s to remove birds will see headlights moving across open countryside 5) Manure disposal a) The onsite or local storage and spreading of manure on the land could propagate pests such as flies and create the potential for pollution in this nitrate vulnerable zone. b) There is no evidence of a manure management plan to take account of these considerations. 6) Protected species

Page 53

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

a) The proposed site sits close to the Wych Brook, a linear aquatic habitat where protected species and priority fish species are recorded. Part of the site is understood to lie within the exceptional flood zone which could lead to pollution concerns. b) The storage and removal of waste and foul water needs special attention. c) There could also be excessive leaching of nutrients from the storage and spreading of the waste manure on local land Highways: Have made the following comments: • visibility at the junction of Mulsford Lane (unclassified) onto Queensford (classified) is inadequate • Access to the development site is currently via Mulsford Lane • Mulsford Lane itself is typically only 3m wide between the junction with Queensford and the site access. The site access is approximately 120m away from the junction. Given the narrow nature of the lane, it is impossible for 2 no. vehicles to pass simultaneously. • Swept Path details of a 16.5m long HGV have been provided which indicate that such a vehicle could access the site but would need to occupy almost the entire width of Mulsford Lane to reach the development site. I would consider the characteristics of the highway, along this section of Mulsford Lane to render it unsuitable for the size of vehicle proposed. The potential for highway conflict, possible hazard and damage to the roadside verges is likely to be significant and unacceptable. • The applicant has offered to close up this access and provide access to both the existing grain store and proposed poultry unit off a new access onto Queensford. This would be considered beneficial in highway safety terms. • Two public footpaths are affected by the proposed development i.e./ PROW nos. 4 & 14 Worthenbury. The applicant will need to discuss / agree any works which affect these existing footpaths with our Public Rights of Way Section • The submitted layout plan the construction of a new access directly onto Queensford as suggested. It is proposed to provide visibility splays of 2.4 x 118m in both directions measured to the nearside edge of the adjoining

Page 54

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

highway in accordance with TAN 18. The provision of the required splay in the north westerly direction would require the setting back of the existing hedgerow on the corner of the Mulsford Lane junction. This land appears to be under the control of the applicant. • If the current application is supported, it would be considered beneficial to utilize any new access onto Queensford to serve this existing business and close up the recently formed access along Mulsford Lane. The applicant has offered to close up this access and provide access to both the existing grain store and proposed poultry unit off a new access onto Queensford. This would be considered beneficial in highway safety terms • Adequate parking and turning provision would appear to be available within the curtilage of the development site. • I understand that parking demand at the site will be very low, with the occasional private car associated with a veterinary visit or site cleaning at the end of the crop cycle. • A recently conducted traffic count indicated an average daily two-way traffic flow of 268 vehicles along Queensford. HGVs totalled 6 no. equating to 2.2% of the overall flows. • I understand that bird removal (known as depopulation) at the close of the crop cycle is the most significant traffic event in terms of HGV movements. It is anticipated that there will be a maximum of 10 HGV movements between 02:00 and 07:00 during the night for a maximum of 30 days during the year. This would typically equate to a maximum of 2 HGV bird removal movements to / from the site per hour. • On 33 days out of the crop cycle there will be no HGV movements to / from the site. On a further 6 days of the crop cycle there will be an average of only 1 HGV visiting the site each day. On 4 days of the crop cycle there will be 2 HGVs visiting the site each day. On only 5 days of the whole crop cycle will there be more than 2 HGV visits per day • It is proposed to route all HGV movements to / from the site via the A525 Hollybush junction. Although this route has sections where carriageway widths are less than 5.5m, this route would be considered the most

Page 55

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

appropriate route for larger vehicles if the proposed development is supported. • I previously recommend that the applicant reviewed all pinch points on the route to the development site from the A525 Hollybush junction with a view to providing adequate localised widening / passing places. The existing bends fronting Mulsford Farm itself may well at times result in vehicle conflict. There would appear to be scope to widen the carriageway in the vicinity of the bends to improve the passage of vehicles along this section. • However, given the relatively low traffic movements proposed by the poultry unit and the intention of a number of HGV movements to occur between 02:00 – 07:00 in the morning, it may be considered unreasonable to request the above improvements. • I would recommend the submission of a Service & Delivery Management Plan to control how the poultry unit operates. Such a plan would need to include stipulating the route that all delivery vehicles take to and from the site i.e./ via the A525 Hollybush junction. Any plan would need to include a statement that any HGV deliveries to the site are planned / staggered so only one such vehicle is on route between the A525 Hollybush junction and the site at any one time to limit potential vehicle conflict. • Given the location of the site, I would recommend the submission of a Construction Traffic Management Plan - CTMP (including provision for contractor parking) to be submitted / approved prior to commencement. • Conditions recommended Public Protection: Have submitted the following comments: • The findings of the Air Quality section are accepted. The applicant is correct in their statement NRW will regulate the site where the resultant permit will provide environmental safeguards including for applicable emissions. • The noise mitigation, noise control and odour control measures should be required by planning condition; • The light scheme should be required by planning condition

Page 56

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

• Conditions recommended in respect of construction impacts and noise of air handling plants. Parks, Countryside ROW: The proposed new access road will cross, and also run concurrently with, Worthenbury footpaths 4 and 14 at a number of points. I have concerns with pedestrians sharing a route with HGVs, particularly as HGV drivers may not be expecting pedestrian use of the access track. I would like to see these concerns addressed before planning permission is granted. NRW: We recommend that you should only grant planning permission if you attach the following conditions. • Condition 1 - The implementation of detailed great crested newt avoidance and mitigation measures; • Condition 2 - The implementation of long term compensatory proposals including, appropriate sized compensation area (based on ‘like for like’) and appropriate tenure; • Condition 3 - The implementation of the long- term management, surveillance and wardening proposals; • Condition 4 - No commencement of development works until the Local Planning Authority has been provided with a licence that has been issued to the applicant by Natural Resources Wales pursuant to Regulation 53 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations (2010) authorizing the specified activity/development to ahead, or Natural Resources Wales has informed the applicant that such a licence is not required. • Condition 5 - The submission and implementation of a Biosecurity Risk Assessment to the satisfaction of the LPA Manure Management Plan • We note the additional information with regards to the updated Manure Management Plan • It is noted that it states, “We can confirm that 1,000 tonnes of manure will be exported to the Anaerobic Digester at Lower Park Farm, Parkside, Rossett, and therefore no manure will be applied to the land at Mulsford, Bank Farm or Horse Manse Green Farm, all manure will be exported.” • It also states within the Manure Spreading Plan section of the Manure Management Plan that “All manure will be exported to the local AD

Page 57

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

plant and therefore no manure spreading plans have been included within this document.” • We note the letter from R J Tomlinson that states that they are able to receive the manure as soon as the shed is cleared out. Therefore, our requirement with regards to the manure heaps can be removed. Air Quality • We have applied the new (post-April 2017 guidance) screening distance of 5km (that would exclude the SSSIs, SACs and Ramsar which are further than 5km). That means the only sites that need to be considered by NRW are River Dee SSSI, River Dee & Lake Bala SAC and Cloy Brook Pastures SSSI. We cannot comment on Well Rough & Long Plantation SSSI (1.8km) which is for Natural England to comment upon. You may wish to consult with Natural England separately in this regard. Ammonia Report • We have applied the new thresholds of 1% for initial screening for both ammonia emissions and nitrogen deposition. For all of these sites, the ammonia and nitrogen contributions are 1% or below, so for planning terms they are acceptable. NRW Permitting Service will assess the proposals when put forward by the developer under The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2013. As such, the impacts relating to the permit process should be assessed within that legal framework and will not be addressed within this response. Flood Risk & Management of Surface Water Runoff • A Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA) has been produced to support and inform development on the site. The contents of the FCA (Waterco Limited, w10377-170908-FCA) are generally commensurate to the scale and nature of the development proposals. The FCA shows that the proposed buildings are to be sited on land which is significantly elevated above the levels of Wych Brook, and therefore fluvial flood risks are considered low. We therefore have no flood risk objections to the development proposals. • The FCA acknowledges that the development, without appropriate mitigation, has the potential

Page 58

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

to increase flood risks both onsite and offsite if surface water runoff is not effectively managed. The FCA proposes that surface water runoff be directed to Wych Brook, at a restricted rate of 7.2 litres per second. Onsite surface water attenuation is to be provided in an attenuation pond, which is illustrated on drawing numbered RJC-MZ63-Huxley-05 (Drainage Plan). The proposed point of discharge and the proposed discharge rate appear acceptable. Environmental Management • Mulsford farm is on the boundary between Emral and Worthenbury Middle Water Framework Directive water bodies. • Operation of the poultry unit, must not cause any deterioration of these water bodies or prevent them from getting to good status. • Wash down - It is noted in the application that all wash down water will be directed to a dirty water tank; we recommend this tank is inspected before washing down the sheds. The capacity of the tank should be able to cope with the volumes of water used during the wash down phase of the operation. Pollution Prevention Plan • The plan addresses the main issues of concern in terms of pollution prevention. With regards to the proposed dirty water drainage, an alarm system should be installed to ensure that the dirty water tank doesn’t overfill, causing accidental release of contaminated water into surface water drains. Foul Drainage • It is noted on the drainage plan that that foul drainage discharge will be to a septic tank. • Government policy states that, where practicable, foul drainage should be discharged to the mains sewer. Where this is not possible and private sewage treatment / disposal facilities are utilised, they must be installed and maintained in accordance with British Standard 6297 and Approved Document H of the Building Regulations 2000. You should also have regard to Welsh Office Circular 10/99 in respect of planning requirements for non- mains sewerage.

Page 59

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

• The written consent of NRW or registration for exemption by the developer will be required for any discharge e.g. foul drainage to a watercourse/ditch etc., from the site and may also be required for certain categories of discharges to land. All necessary NRW consents, or exemptions must be obtained prior to works progressing on site. Natural England: Consulted 24.10.17 CPAT: I write to confirm that having read through the heritage chapter of the ES we have no objection to the proposed development. The single high impact to the poorly preserved ridge and furrow is not a significant impact and there are no significant visual or other indirect impacts. The impact to the registered historic landscape is minimal and not significant. Flood Officer: The majority of the site is located in DAM Zone A as defined within TAN15, but there is a small portion of Zone C2 at the boundary to the north of the site which borders Wych Brook. With regards to the management of surface water generated by new impermeable surfaces, it would appear the proposal is to discharge at an attenuated rate into the neighbouring Wych Brook. There appears to be no supporting calculations within the documents to support the proposed strategy. The attached advice note explains what information is required regarding surface water management to support any new development. Prior to determination of any application I would recommend an indicative drainage assessment be submitted as a minimum to demonstrate the proposed scheme is feasible and can be achieved Susan Elan Jones MP: I understand my constituents have already contacted Wrexham County Borough Council in relation to the planning application to inform the Council of their concerns.

I would be grateful if Wrexham County Borough Council notes and considers the concerns raised by my constituents with regard to this particular planning application. Thank you for your assistance.

Antionette Sandbach MP: The application is clearly in the wrong location for the following reasons:

Page 60

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

The proposal does not comply with EC3 I do not believe this constitutes part of an existing farm complex The impact of HGVs Local roads and bridges are narrow and unsuitable for HGVs. Residents including horse riders and dog walkers will be put at risk. The possible increase of 10 HGVs between 2 and 7 will result in a risk to road safety and dramatically increased street on local infrastructure. Environmental Impact The potential risk for water pollution via the water courses is more likely given that Wych Brook provides a direct link to the River Dee. Wych Brook has recently benefitted from significant investment to improve water quality and create a fish latter.

The area is one of outstanding beauty, the proposed factory will destroy that. It will effect local wildlife. There will be a dramatic increase in noise and the factory conditions will create light pollution.

Furthermore intensive chicken farming will bring flies and smells in the summer and a possible health risk to local inhabitants.

It is clear this application is neither wanted nor does in meet any acceptable planning criteria and should therefore be refused. Ramblers: Thank you for notification of planning application 2017/0799. This is near footpath Worthenbury 14 which should not be diverted or blocked by the development, nor during its construction. Cheshire Wildlife Trust: Have made the following comments: • We are particularly concerned because the Environmental Statement has failed to identify 8 Cheshire Local Wildlife Sites within 2 km of the proposals and in doing do has failed to assess any likely impacts to these sites. This is an unacceptable error and the Environmental Statement will require amendments incorporating new impact assessments relating to gaseous ammonia and surface/ground water pollution of adjacent land. • Two of the Local Wildlife Sites lie within 1km of the scheme - Mill Lane, Green Lane and

Page 61

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Pasture and Greaves Woods. Greaves Wood LWS is an area of ancient woodland that lies on the banks of the Wych Brook. It has a rich flora and is contiguous with Well Rough and Long Plantation SSSI, lying between the SSSI and the proposed development site (approximately 850 m to the South East). • Mill Lane, Green Lane and Pasture is woodland and species-rich neutral pasture which lies 580 m to the north east of the site. It lies on a tributary of Wych Brook. • Section 12.9 of the ES states that ‘Both the development and operation of a poultry development on this site have the potential to negatively impact on the hydrology and hydrogeology of the area through the contamination of surface water and groundwater’ • Not only does the ES fail to address the potential impacts to the Local Wildlife Sites but there is also a failure to assess the aquatic flora and fauna of the Wych Brook or its tributaries and associated ditches. • Furthermore there is no EIA (agriculture) screening of the land where the slurry is likely to be spread i.e. no assessment of its current ecological status. We are concerned that the area for waste spreading may include that adjacent to pond 2, a priority habitat which supports priority species including nationally rare Cowbane and great crested newt, a European Protected Species. Both of these species are sensitive to pollution. • We urge the council not to determine the application in the absence of the above information. PETA: We are writing to urge you to reject planning application P/2017/0799 for an intensive poultry installation on land at Mulsford Farm, Sarn, Malpas, Wrexham. We are concerned for a number of reasons: • Ammonia from the chickens' waste would be emitted from the farm into the surrounding area, which would likely have a negative impact on air quality and potentially have a detrimental effect on human health, wildlife, and the environment. • Operations on the farm would likely produce strong odours – including from the chickens' waste and the bodies of dead birds – which

Page 62

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

could potentially disturb local residents and have a negative impact on their quality of life. • The farm would lead to an increase in traffic in the area, including on the A525, with over 560 traffic movements to and from the farm every year, including 440 HGV movements. • Operations on the farm would generate noise – including from the ventilation system and traffic to and from the site – which could be a nuisance to local residents. • Large amounts of manure would be produced on the farm and transported off-site for spreading. There would be a risk that this material might leak or run off and contaminate surrounding land, waterways, and wildlife habitats. • The erection of additional buildings on the site – which would be visible from several vantage points, including the surrounding footpaths – would have a detrimental effect on the landscape. • The farm's construction and operations could potentially disturb or adversely affect wildlife in the surrounding area, including a number of protected species, such as great crested newts, bats, otters, and certain birds. • Finally, intensive broiler farms cause chickens immense suffering. This facility would condemn up to 760,000 birds a year to a life of misery and a violent death. These sensitive, intelligent animals would spend their short lives crammed together inside barren sheds where they'd be denied the opportunity to do anything that comes naturally to them, such as foraging, roosting, or socialising. They would likely be bred and fed to gain more weight than their bodies could support leading many of them to develop crippling leg deformities and other severe health problems. At just a few weeks old, they would be loaded onto a lorry and sent to the abattoir, where they would be packed into gas chambers to choke on carbon dioxide or stunned in an electric water bath before their throats are slit Press Notice: Expired 18.11.2017 Site Notice: Expired 9.11.2017 Neighbours: The owners/occupiers of 16 properties notified 23.10.2017

Page 63

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

127 representations objecting to the application received expressing the following concerns:

- Mulsford Lane is very narrow - Access to the site - HGVs will be servicing the site - Increase in traffic - Increased risk of road accidents - Highway safety; - Danger to walkers, cyclists and horse riders in the absence of pavements; - Odour; - Noise; - Increase in vermin and flies; - Development of Green Belt land - Visual impact of industrial buildings; - Animal welfare - Negative impact upon health and wellbeing; - Harm to visual amenity/harm to the countryside/rural landscape; - Risk of pollution; - The site is a nitrate vulnerable zone; - Light pollution; - Should remain as traditional farmland - Harm to habitat/wildlife; - Size and nature of the development at odds with the character of the area; - Damage to infrastructure; - Damage to footpaths and bridleways; - Destruction of Welsh Medieval landscape; - Better suited to an industrial estate; - Impact upon house prices/ability to sell; - No evidence alternative sites have been considered; - Adverse impact upon local businesses such as B&B and pub; - No need for the development; - Impact upon health; - Increase risk of pneumonia and respiratory illnesses - Difficulty of supervision should planning permission be granted; - None of the employment will be made available for the local community, such production require few staff; - The site does not form part of an existing farm complex; - Contrary to UDP policies EC3, EC5 and EC6; - Existing building stands out like a sore thumb; - Impacts of an outbreak of avian bird flu;

Page 64

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

- Manure disposal; - Unsettling resident livestock; - Insufficient setback from local residences; - Risk of flooding; - Similar poultry units have been dismissed on appeal elsewhere; - Conflict with PPW and TAN6 - Impact of existing view - No benefits to the community; - This is industrial not agricultural; - Impact upon hedgerows and trees - Potential loss of telecommunication and power cables; - No guarantee HGVs will always take the same route; - Inaccuracy in submissions – the site is not Mulsford Farm; - The site is of historical interest and is protected; - Lack of experience by the applicant’s company in industrial scale poultry production; - Validity of the manure management plan; - Inadequate considered of alternatives; - it cannot possibly be reasonable to approve a proposal on this scale that has no alternative to disposal to the AD plant in the event that this destination becomes unavailable for any reason. - Applicants assessment of alternatives is flawed, only considering land within their control; - Several alternative sites discounted due to proximity to residential property. This recognises the development is an unacceptable neighbour to any residential property; - Application refers to the landscape as poor quality. It is within a designated Special Landscape Area; - Manure Management Plan – would add to traffic problems and increase noise; - If the grain store was required to meet an existing need, it is reasonable to assume it is not capable of housing the additional activities the proposed development would bring.

3 representations supporting the application and making the following comments: - In light of an ever changing agricultural landscape it is essential to support such enterprise;

Page 65

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

- Businesses such as this support and underpin major developments such as the Maelor Foods poultry plant at Cross Lanes; - The business will supply Maelor foods and use chicks from Annyalla Chick Breeders and use feed from Lloyds Animal Feeds; - This would contribute to the long term viability of the farm business. - The company farms 1090ha of arable land and employs 4 full time staff, 2 part time staff plus 2 seasonal workers. The poultry unit would help safeguard these jobs and add a further full time post; - Most farming enterprises currently face a more uncertain future; - Poultry production is not supported by subsidies and there is a growing demand for poultry meat

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

General: The proposed development is an intensive poultry unit comprising of two buildings each measuring 108.2m long x 24.38m wide, 2.9m high to the eaves and 5.58m high to the ridge, along with 4 associated feed bins which will have a diameter of 2.8m and be 6.4m high, access track and new site access. The proposed site layout plan and elevations are included below:

Page 66

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

The development will accommodate 100,000 birds so is Schedule 1 development as defined by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Wales) Regulations 2017 and is therefore accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment. I am satisfied that the Environmental Statement along with the technical assessments appended to it provide sufficient information to assess the application.

A number of objectors have suggested that the development is more akin to an industrial use rather than agricultural. The definition of agricultural for the purposes of planning is provided by part 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990:

“agriculture” includes horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming, the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land), the use of land as grazing land, meadow land, osier land, market gardens and nursery grounds, and the use of land for woodlands where that use is ancillary to the farming of land for other agricultural purposes, and “agricultural” shall be construed accordingly.

On the basis of the above I am satisfied that the buildings are proposed to house livestock and therefore the use is agricultural rather than industrial.

Policy: Policy EC3 is the only UDP policy that deals specifically with agricultural development. It does not distinguish between developments proposed in connection with intensive agricultural uses or other forms agricultural development therefore it is appropriate to consider the siting of the proposed buildings in the context of the policy. The wording of the policy is set out in full below:

The construction of new agricultural buildings will be permitted unless the development is materially detrimental in terms of its impact on the environment or surrounding landscape. The development should form part of an existing farm complex and take advantage of topography and other landscape features for screening. Isolated buildings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where there is an essential agricultural need, and no reasonable alternative location for the development.

Page 67

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

By specifying a preference for new buildings to form part of an established farm complex, the overall objective of policy EC3 is to prevent isolated development that harms the rural landscape. Nevertheless the policy does recognise that isolated development may be justified in appropriate circumstances. Furthermore an overly strict interpretation of the policy would prevent any new farm businesses being established and/or prevent significant limitations on the ability of existing farm businesses to diversify.

Whilst the proposed buildings will be sited close to an existing grain store, the site is remote from the applicant’s main farm complex at Bank Farm near Bronington. The applicant site cannot therefore be described as an existing farm complex in my opinion. It is therefore necessary to consider whether there are any specific circumstances to justify the proposed location of the development.

The applicant has submitted an assessment of the application site vs four alternatives. The application site is numbered Site 1, Site 2 is located in approximately the same location as the site access to the development subject to this application with Sites 3, 4 and 5 being located to the west, east and north of Bank Farm respectively. The alternative sites have been discounted for the following reasons: • Their proximity to residential properties; • visual impact; • The Bank Farm site is used for green waste composting centre at Bank Farm. The applicants are concerned that this will be incompatible with the proposed poultry unit.

In the case of Site 2, it would be located significantly closer to a number of residential properties than application site, in particular the properties Barnfields, Silver Birches and Carmel, which all front onto the road Queensford. The site would also be far more visible, being closer to both Queensford and Mulsford Lane.

Sites 3, 4 and 5 all lie within 400 metres of a number of properties in the case of Sites 3 and 4 the nearest dwellings would be 50m and 92m away respectively. Bank Farm is also reasonably prominent within the landscape therefore any large buildings would be highly visible from the A525 and from public highways to the north.

In comparison, none of the proposed buildings or the associated curtilage lie within 400m of any dwellings. The curtilage of the buildings will be, at its nearest, approximately 310m from part of the curtilage of one dwelling (Wychbrook Barn), with the buildings themselves around 330m away for the nearest part of the curtilage of that property.

There is no planning policy requirement that establishes a minimum distance for livestock buildings to be sited from dwellings or other sensitive land uses, however it is reasonable to conclude that 400m is considered to be a starting point in terms of assessing the potential impacts a development has upon residential amenity.

Page 68

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Whilst not applicable here because the development requires planning permission, under Part 6 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, livestock buildings sited within 400m of protected buildings, such as dwellings, automatically require planning permission. Further away, such structures may be permitted development, subject to other criteria set out in the Order being met. Of more direct relevance is paragraph 6.6.3 of Technical Advice Note 6 which advises the following:

To minimise the potential for future conflict between neighbouring land uses, planning authorities should exercise particular care when considering planning applications for houses or other new protected buildings within 400 metres of established livestock units. It is important also for planning authorities to keep incompatible development away from other polluting or potentially polluting uses.

Whilst no equivalent advice is given for the siting of livestock buildings that do require planning permission, it is clear that the Welsh Government considers that siting dwellings and livestock buildings within 400m of each other poses greater risks of potential conflict.

I have not been provided with any evidence that sites at Bank Farm would not be able to obtain an Environmental Permit from NRW, however I have contacted the NRW permitting team regarding this matter and I understand that it would potentially prove more difficult to obtain a permit at the Bank Farm site due to its proximity to sensitive receptors – i.e. nearby dwellings.

I will comment specifically upon visual and amenity impacts in more detail below, however in terms of visual impact, the application site is the least visually prominent and located furthest away from residential properties. The selection of the site is therefore justified on the basis of it having the least potential to cause significant harm.

I note that there are representations that refer to the fact that the applicants have only considered alternative locations for the development on land that they own. I do not consider that to be an unreasonable approach to take. Whilst there may well theoretically be other locations that are suitable for the development, in practice they are not viable alternatives unless the land is available to the applicants on a long term and secure basis.

Economic Benefits: The Environmental Statement indicates that the development will employ the equivalent to 2 full time workers. The development will also support an unspecified number of transportation jobs – for example feed deliveries, poultry collection, manure removal and construction jobs when the development is taking place.

I accept that developments of this nature do not employ significant number of people directly, however that is not the sole measure of economic benefits derived from them. By diversifying their existing farming activities, the

Page 69

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 applicants should be better able to support and maintain existing jobs in addition to creating additional jobs. The development will also sustain other businesses in the wider economy, in particular animal feed suppliers, which is also of benefit.

Concerns have been expressed about the potential negative impact the development will have on local businesses, in particular local Bed and Breakfast establishments. Mulsford Cottage is advertised as a B&B and lies around 450m from the site of the proposed buildings, making it the nearest such establishment. I will comment on the impacts of the development in terms of pollution and residential amenity in more detail below. However I have not been provided with any evidence to suggest that the development will prove harm to local B & B businesses and given the degree of separation between the proposed buildings and Mulsford Cottage, I am not persuaded that significant harm will occur.

Visual Impact: The proposed buildings will be located on relatively level ground 20m to the north-east of an existing grain store which measures 30.48m long by 15.24m wide, 6m high to the eaves and 8.15m high to the ridge. The site lies within a Special Landscape Area as defined in the UDP. However policy EC5 does not prevent agricultural development. It states that ‘Development, other than for agriculture, small farm-based and other rural enterprise, and essential development by utility service providers, will be strictly controlled. Development will be required to confirm to a high standard of design and landscaping and special attention will be paid to minimising its visual impact from both nearby and distant viewpoints’.

The Landscape and Visual Assessment that accompanies the Environmental Statement concludes that the main public views of the development will be from footpaths Worthenbury no. 14 which passes close to the western boundary of the application site, Worthenbury no. 2 which runs parallel to and around 70m from the northern eastern boundary of the site and footpath Worthenbury no.4 which runs in an east-west direction approximately 400m to the south of the site. In addition the site is visible from points on Sarn Road just over 500m to the east and from a limited number of dwellings in the vicinity.

The LVIA considers the scale of the landscape effects of the development to be to medium in the places where the site is most visible, with the geographic extent of the impact to be low to medium. Overall conclusion is that the landscape impact is not significant.

Given the scale of the development it is inevitable that there will be a degree of visual change. Nevertheless I broadly agree with the findings of the LVIA. There will be locations where the development is visible, although in the context of the rural landscape surrounding the site, opportunities to obtain significant views the site are actually fairly limited, particularly as the landscape to the immediately to the west, south and north of the development is relatively flat. It is only the land to the east of the site that is elevated relative to the site. Furthermore where views are possible, they are often

Page 70

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 partially obstructed by existing landscape features such as mature trees and hedgerows. The application is accompanied by a landscaping scheme that proposes both tree and hedgerow planting, including belts of trees to the west and to the north-east of the buildings. These measures will further assist in reducing opportunities to view the development.

There are no other buildings in the locality with a footprint comparable to those proposed, however the buildings, associated hard hardstanding taken together with the existing building will occupy around 1ha. Sizeable farm complexes comprising of buildings and hard surfaces are not an uncommon feature of the local landscape. The nearby Mulsford Farm (which is not owned/operated by the applicants) occupies around 0.8ha in area if the farmhouse and its curtilage are also taken into account. As such the proposals will not, in my opinion, appear as an entirely unusual feature in the local landscape.

The design the external appearance of the development is functional and comparable to modern farm buildings found elsewhere in the locality. In my opinion the location selected for the buildings achieves the requirement set out in policy EC5 of minimising visual impact from both near and distant viewpoints – even without the implementation of the proposed landscaping scheme. As such I am satisfied that the development does not represent an undesirable intrusion into the Special Landscape Area.

The only lighting proposed for the site are single low wattage, low intensity lighting units to be fitted to the gable ends of each of the buildings – equating to 4 lighting installations in total, with appropriate use of cowls and direction to minimise light spread. The lights are intended to provide illumination during working hours in winter months and when birds are being caught. The submitted lighting scheme confirms that there will be no round the clock external lighting of the site or high intensity security lighting. On the basis of the information submitted, the development will not result in significant light pollution or nuisance. Details of the lighting installation will however be required by condition to ensure that appropriate cowling is fitted to minimise light spread.

The provision of the visibility splays for the site access is unlikely to require significant hedgerow removal given that the existing verge is typically around 2m wide. However Highways have advised that the hedgerow requires setting on the corner of the Mulsford Lane/Queensford junction – the verge narrows to around 0.6m in this location. Provided replacement hedgerow planting is provided behind the visibility splay, then the provision of the new site access will not harm the rural character of Queensford.

Pollution: There is considerable concern about the impact of the development in terms of pollution, particularly, odour, noise and river pollution. Because of the scale of the development an Environmental Permit will be required from Natural Resources Wales that will address possible impacts from the development in respect of emissions to water, air and land. A permit

Page 71

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 is complete for the site and NRW have confirmed that it is likely to be issued by mid-July.

The impacts referred to above are relevant material planning considerations however paragraph 1.2.4 of Planning Policy Wales advises that ‘The principle of non-duplication should be maintained even though the powers and duties resulting from other legislation may also be the concern of local authorities…”. Whilst the development is significant in terms of its size, it is unlikely to give rise to complex or unforeseen impacts. I therefore have no reason to believe that the potential impacts arising from the development cannot adequately managed or mitigated via the environmental permitting regime.

Having visited similar types of development in the area, I am satisfied that the day to day operation of the proposed poultry unit will not generate significant levels of noise.

The application is accompanied by an assessment of the likely impact in respect of odour in addition to an odour management plan. The former predicts that at all nearby residences considered, the odour exposure would be below benchmark levels for moderately offensive odours. Subject to the implementation of odour control measures and effective manure management (which as noted above are covered by the Permit), then I am satisfied the development is unlikely to prove harmful to the amenity of the occupiers of dwellings in the locality as a result of odour.

All manure produced at the site is to be exported to the anaerobic digester at Lower Park Farm, Parkside, Rossett and no manure is to be spread on land at Mulsford, Bank Farm or Horse Mane Farm. The owners of the anaerobic digester have confirmed they are able to received manure from the site. As such there is no requirement to store manure externally on the application site. I note the representations suggesting that it is not acceptable to approve the development given that no alternative means of manure disposal have been identified, however I do not agree. The applicants have identified a means of dealing with manure in a manner that minimises the risk of pollution on site and in the locality. Should the means of managing manure change then the site operator will need to inform NRW and potentially seek revisions to the Permit. I do not believe this matter provides valid grounds to refuse planning permission.

The application is accompanied by a scheme of foul and surface water drainage. The implementation of this scheme should minimise the risk of pollution of Wych Brook and in turn the River Dee, a designated SSSI and SAC.

NRW have confirmed have no raised concerns about the development in respect of ammonia or air quality and Public Protection have not expressed concerns about odour, noise or air quality subject to the implementation of the measures set out in the management plans referred to above. I therefore have no reason to conclude that the development poses a significant risk of pollution.

Page 72

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Amenity of nearest residents: The proposed buildings will be in excess of 400m from the nearest dwellings, although as noted above, part of the curtilage of one dwelling will be 310m away from the site. The development will therefore not prove harmful to the standard of amenity afforded to the occupiers of those properties by way of loss of light, privacy or by being visually overbearing.

The development will be visible from some properties in the locality and therefore the view currently enjoyed by their occupiers will be affected. However the loss of a view over private land is not a material planning consideration.

In terms of noise and odour, these matters are addressed in the previous section of my report. I am satisfied that given the degree of separation between the site and nearest properties alongside adequate proposals to manage manure and odour, the development is unlikely to have an unacceptable impact upon residential amenity.

Traffic noise: Traffic generation is discussed in more detail below, however in summary the development will generate a total of 64 vehicular movements over a 48 day cycle, although on 30 days out of that cycle it is anticipated there will be no vehicular movements at all to/from the site. The highest number of vehicular movements is expected to be 8 HGV movements on day 26, 42 and 43. These movements are likely to take place between 2am and 7am in the morning.

In general terms I do not consider the level of traffic associated with the development as being likely to generate significant noise or disturbance given the comparatively low number of movements per day on average.

Whilst acknowledging that the development will give rise to a number movements during the early hours of the morning, the number of movements (typically 2 per hour), the limited frequency when this will occur and the fact that the nearest dwelling (Barnfields) is around 55m to the south-east of the site access, I consider the risk of significant noise being low, particularly as I would anticipate that the majority of vehicles serving the site will approach from/leave towards the north-west in order to gain access to the A525.

Highways: Access to the application site at present is via Mulsford Lane, which is around 3m wide and suffers from sub-standard visibility at its junction with Queensford so considered unsuitable to accommodate traffic associated with the development. The development will therefore be provided with a new access onto Queensford, a classified road linking the A525 with Sarn/Tallarn Green.

Highways have confirmed that adequate visibility is achievable for the new access. Swept path details also confirm that vehicles can safely enter/leave the new access. Sufficient space is provided within the site for vehicles to park, load/unload and turn. The closure of the existing access will be

Page 73

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 required by condition. The access track serving the development passes close to a second access onto the applicant’s land close to the junction of Mulsford Lane and Queensford. This should also be closed up to avoid the risk of vehicle attempting to use it to access the site.

A traffic survey carried out in June 2017 identified an average of 268 existing daily traffic movements along Queensford, including an average of 8 HGV movements.

The development will operate on a 48 day cycle. The Transport Assessment states that during the 48 day operational cycle of the development there will be a total of 74 vehicular movements the majority being by HGVs. However following the submission of a revised manure management plan that proposes to remove manure to the anaerobic digester at Lower Park Farm, Parkside, Rossett, the number of movements associated with that activity has been reduced from 16 movements to 6 thus reducing the overall number of movements to 64. The comments received from Highways are based on the initial traffic generation figures. I have not consulted them regarding the changes discussed above given that overall movement numbers have been reduced. The Transport Assessment indicates that vehicles will travel to/from the site via the A525 and Queensford.

The daily vehicular movements associated with the development will vary considerably over the 48 day cycle. On 33 days (two thirds of the cycle) there will typically be no vehicular movements associated with the development. On 6 days there will be an average of 2 HGV movements per day, on 4 days an average of 4 HGV movements and only on 5 out of the 48 days will there be more than 4 HGV movements – one at the very beginning of the cycle and the remainder during the last week of each cycle. The highest number of vehicular movements in any one day will be towards the end of the cycle when on 3 separate days there will be 8 HGV movements, equating to a 3% increase in daily number of traffic movements on the local highway network. I do not consider that this poses an undue risk to the safety of other road users.

The submitted Transport Assessment indicates that vehicle routing will be via Queensford to the A525 at Holly Bush. I note that Highways have recommended that a service deliver and management plan be required to stipulate the route that all delivery vehicles take to and from the site i.e./ via the A525 Hollybush junction, as well as statement that any HGV deliveries to the site are planned / staggered so only one such vehicle is on route between the A525 Hollybush junction and the site at any one time to limit potential vehicle conflict.

Ensuring that all vehicles actually take the proposed route and avoid other routes is outside of the scope of planning control therefore I do not consider that it would be impossible to enforce the implementation of the type of service and delivery management plan suggest. Furthermore it would not be possible to easily control the number of vehicles travelling to/from the site at any one time. However given that Queensford provides the shortest route to the main highway network running through the County Borough, in my opinion

Page 74

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 it is unlikely that significant numbers of vehicles travelling to/from the site will use other routes. Whilst it is possible that large vehicles will meet on the highway when travelling to/from the site, given the overall traffic movements associated with the development I consider the risk of this happening on a regular basis to be relatively low.

The access track between Queensford and the development will be around 600m long. It is crossed by footpaths Worthenbury nos. 4 and 14 and follows the route of the latter for around 150m. I note the comments made by the Parks, Countryside and Rights of Way Manager however I do not consider the relationship between the footpaths and the access track to be unusual for a rural location. Vehicle speeds along the track are likely to be low and walkers using the paths should have relatively clear sight of vehicles using the track most of the time. Furthermore given the relatively low number of vehicular movements that will use the track on a daily basis, I consider the risk to users of the footpath to be relatively low.

Flood Risk: A small part of the north-east of the application site lies within zone C2. I am satisfied that the buildings themselves lie close to but outside of the zone C2.

The application is accompanied by a Flood Consequences Assessment, the contents of which NRW have advised as being commensurate to the scale and nature of the development proposals. As noted by NRW, the FCA shows that the proposed buildings are to be sited on land which is significantly elevated above the levels of Wych Brook and therefore flood risks are considered low. NRW have confirmed they have no flood risk objections to the development and I have no reason to disagree with their assessment. As such I am satisfied the proposed development is not at unacceptable risk of flooding nor is it likely to significantly increase the risk of off-site flooding.

The FCA acknowledges that without appropriate mitigation the development may increase flood risks both onsite and offsite if surface water runoff is not effectively managed. The development is accompanied by a drainage scheme which includes provision for a surface water attenuation pond that will assist in limiting the rate of run-off. Subject to the implementation of the drainage scheme, which will be required by planning condition, the development is unlikely to significantly increase the risk of flooding as a result of surface water run-off.

Historic Landscape/features: There are no listed buildings or scheduled ancient monuments in the immediate vicinity of the site. CPAT have confirmed that they have no objection to the development therefore I have no reason to believe the development will have an unacceptable impact upon any sites or features of historic or archaeological importance.

Ecology: NRW have not expressed concerns about the development in respect of statutorily protected sites and I have not been provided with any evidence to the effect that the developments will adversely impact upon any such sites, subject to specific measures discussed below and elsewhere in

Page 75

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 the report. NRW did suggest English Nature be consulted regarding the relationship between the site and Well Rough & Long Plantation SSSI located 1.8km. Natural England were consulted on 24 October 2017 and no response has been received. I can therefore only conclude they do not consider the development as being likely to be prejudicial to that site.

The application site has been subject to an ecological assessment. Based on this assessment, the development is unlikely to impact upon dormouse, badger or reptiles. The assessment has consider the impacts of the development upon bats, Great Crested Newts (GCN), birds, otter and UK propriety fish species. Dealing with each of these in turn:

Bats

The main potential impact associated with the development is in respect of illumination, however the appropriate siting and selection of lighting installations will minimise the potential impacts. This matter will be dealt with via a lighting condition.

GCN

The application is accompanied by detailed proposals for the provision of a 1.5ha dedicated area of mitigation for GCN on land owned by the applicants and immediately adjoining the development site. The size of the site complied with NRW requirements for a like for like compensatory habitat area to be provided.

NRW have confirmed that the details submitted address their requirements in respect of GCN, therefore subject to the provision of this compensatory habitat area, its long term management and maintenance along with the implementation of Reasonable Avoidance Measures during construction, I am satisfied the development will not adversely impact upon GCN at site level or the favourable conservation status of the species locally.

Birds

Subject to any vegetation clearance being carried out outside of the bird nesting then the development is unlikely to have a significant or adverse impact upon bird species.

Otter and UK propriety fish species

Subject to the implementation of the proposed drainage scheme and manure management scheme, then the development is unlikely to pose significant risk to otter and UK propriety fish species as a result of pollution. The report recommends mitigation measures which are also detailed on the proposed landscaping scheme, including tree and hedgerow planting and sowing of rough grassland along the south-eastern edge of the building. The implementation of the landscaping scheme will be required by planning condition.

Page 76

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

As with bats, selection of appropriate lighting installations will also assist in minimising impacts upon otters.

Overall conclusion in respect of ecology

Whilst noting the considerable concerns expressed about the potential impacts upon wildlife, subject to the implementation of the mitigation measures, site drainage, landscaping and manure management plans, I am satisfied that the development is unlikely to adversely impact upon statutorily protected spices and as such the development accords with policy EC6. The manure management plan will be a matter addressed via the Permit. However the other matters will be secured by planning condition. In addition a planning obligation will be required to secure the long term management and maintenance of the off-site habitat area.

Animal Welfare: A number of representations have been received expressing concern/objection to the development on animal welfare grounds. This is not a material planning consideration and it would be unreasonable to withhold planning permission on the grounds of these concerns. Animal welfare standards are regulated via other, non-planning controls that the operators of the site will need to adhere to.

Site Security: I note that is has been suggested that the development will need someone to be on-site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The application does not make any provision for the siting of a permanent or temporary dwelling at the site. Should the applicants wish to pursue the provision of residential accommodation on site, then this would need to be the subject to a separate planning application which would be considered on its own merits. In the absence of any on-site accommodation, it will be for the applicants to put in place appropriate security measures to deter unwanted visitors.

Other planning decisions: An objector has referred me to planning appeal decisions for a number of other poultry units, in East Lindsey (Lincolnshire), North Kesteven (Lincolnshire) as well as two in Shropshire. In all of the cases cited, the appeals were dismissed. Members will however also be aware of a number of cases in Wrexham were large poultry units have been allowed on appeal, namely Talwrn Farm (P/2014/0372) Cae Mor Farm, Llwynmawr, (P/2015/0810) , and Sesswick Way, Cross Lanes (P/2016/0533). Whilst all of these cases will have material considerations in common, they will also have been determined on their own individual merits.

CONCLUSION

I am satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that this is the most appropriate site for the proposed development when compared to the alternatives considered in terms of minimising impacts upon residential amenity and landscape. Despite its size, the development will not be unduly prominent within or result in significant harm to the appearance of the immediate vicinity or to the wider Special Landscape Area.

Page 77

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

The applicants have proposed measures to manage potential emissions from the site which will be overseen via the Environmental Permit regime. I am therefore satisfied that adequate provisions are in place to ensure the development does give rise to harmful pollution or harmful impacts upon residential amenity.

Finally subject to the implementation of the measures referred to above in respect of emissions, as well as proposed mitigation and habitat compensation I am satisfied the development will not harm statutorily protected species or sites.

In light of the above the development accords with the relevant UDP policies.

RECOMMENDATION A

That the Council enters into an Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the long term management and maintenance of the off-site habitat compensation area.

The Head of Environment and Planning to be given delegated authority to approve the final form and content of the Obligation.

RECOMMENDATION B

Upon completion of the Planning Obligation that permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

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 be carried out in strict accordance with the following approved drawings: i) RJC-MZ63-Huxley-01: Location Plan received on 6 December 2017 ii) RJC-MZ63-Huxley-02: Proposed Block Plan received on 6 December 2017 iii) RJC-MZ63-Huxley-03 Proposed Floor Plan received on 6 December 2017 iv) RJC-MZ63-Huxley-04 Proposed Elevations received on 6 December 2017 v) RJC-MZ63-Huxley-05 Drainage Plan received on 2 January 2018 vi) 1488.04 Revision A: Landscape Proposals received on 22 September 2017 3. 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:

Page 78

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 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; 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. 4. No part of the development shall commence until a scheme detailing the following has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: i) The detailed layout, design, drainage, construction and surfacing of the proposed site access onto Queensford ii) A scheme for the permanent closure of the existing site access onto Mulsford Lane and the existing field access adjacent to the junction of Mulsford Lane and Queensford. No part of the development shall be implemented until the scheme as approved has been implemented in full. 5. Development shall not commence until a scheme of Reasonable Avoidance Measures (RAMs) in respect of Great Crested Newts has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall thereafter only take place in strict accordance with the RAMs scheme as approved. 6. No part of the development shall commence until the following have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: i) A detailed plan of the compensation area shown in Appendix 2 of the Churton Ecology Addendum (relating to Great Crested Newt) to the Ecological Impact Assessment dated February 2 February 2018, to include fully details of all boundary treatment; ii) An Ecological Method Statement in respect of the works to be carried out to establish the compensation area referred to above, to include a timetable for implementation of those works; iii) A biosecurity risk assessment. The compensation area shall thereafter be provided in strict accordance with the details as approved. 7. No part of the development shall commence until a long term Ecological Management and Monitoring Plan in respect of the habitat compensation area required by condition 06 has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The land shall thereafter be managed and monitored in strict accordance with Ecological Management and Monitoring Plan as approved.

Page 79

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

8. Soft landscaping shall be carried out in strict accordance with the details shown on drawing 1488.04 Revision A: Landscape Proposals received on 22 September 2017 during the first planting season (November to March) and seeding season (April to September) following the first use of the development and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the Landscape Management and Maintenance details specified on that drawing. 9. The soft landscaping carried out with the details shown on drawing 1488.04 Revision A: Landscape Proposals received on 22 September 2017 shall be permanently retained throughout the lifetime of the development. Any planting or seeding becoming severely damaged or seriously diseased, is in poor physiological condition and/or is removed shall be replaced during the next available planting or seeding season by trees, hedgerow or grass species of the same specification as those originally planted.

10. Within three months of the commencement of development a scheme of hedgerow planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall provide for hedgerows to be planted: i) Across the existing accesses required to be closed by condition 04; and ii) To replace any hedgerows removed in order to provide the visibility splays required by condition 13. The scheme as approved shall be implemented in full during the first planting season (November to March) following the first use of the development. The hedgerows planted in accordance with the scheme shall thereafter be permanently retained throughout the lifetime of the development. Any the hedgerow that becomes severely damaged or seriously diseased, or is in poor physiological condition and/or are removed shall be replaced during the next available planting by hedgerow species of the same specification as those originally planted. 11. No external lighting shall be installed on the buildings hereby permitted until full details of the light fittings, to include the location of all external lights and all cowls/shielding have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No lighting shall thereafter be installed on the buildings or on any part of the site other than in strict accordance with the details as approved. 12. No part of the development shall be brought into use until provision for the drainage of foul and surface water has been put in place and made operational in accordance with the details shown on approved drawing no. RJC-MZ63-Huxley-05 Drainage Plan received on 2 January 2018. The means of foul and surface water drainage shall thereafter be permanently retained throughout the lifetime of the development. 13. Prior to first use of the development hereby approved the vehicular access shall provide visibility splays of 2.4 metres x 118 metres in both directions measured to the nearside edge of the adjoining highway. Within these splays there shall be no obstruction above the level of the adjoining carriageway. The splays shall thereafter be permanently retained clear of any such obstruction to visibility. 14. 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

Page 80

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 means of enclosure shall be erected, constructed or placed across the access within 20 metres of the highway boundary under Class A, of Schedule 2 Part 2

REASON(S)

1. To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. 2. To define the scope of the planning permission 3. To ensure the work is carried out to accepted arboricultural practices for the long term wellbeing of the tree(s). 4. In the interests of highway safety. 5. In order to protect wildlife interests, which are afforded special protection. 6. In order to protect wildlife interests, which are afforded special protection. 7. In order to protect wildlife interests, which are afforded special protection. 8. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 9. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 10. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 11. In the interests of minimising the impact of external lighting on the rural landscape during the hours of darkness. 12. To ensure that adequate provision is made for the drainage of the site in the interests of preventing pollution of the water environment and to minimise the risk of flooding arising from surface water run-off. 13. To ensure that adequate visibility is provided at the proposed point of access to the highway. 14. In the interests of highway safety.

RECOMMENDATION C

That if the Obligation pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is not completed within six months of the date of the Committee resolution the Head of Environment and Planning be given delegated authority to REFUSE planning permission for the following reason:

1. The development makes inadequate provision the long term management and maintenance of off-site habitat and in turn will have a detrimental impact upon Great Crested Newts, a statutorily protected species. The development therefore does not accord with policy EC6 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.

______

Page 81

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2018 /0278 FORMER CASTLE INN WREXHAM 09/04/2018 ROAD BRYNTEG WREXHAM LL11 6HP COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Broughton DESCRIPTION: SEH CHANGE OF USE OF PART OF FORMER CASTLE INN PUBLIC WARD: HOUSE TO FORM RESIDENTIAL AGENT NAME: New Broughton DWELLING RICHARD VICKERS

APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR Z HUYUK

______P/2018/0278 THE SITE

Application Site

PROPOSAL

As above

HISTORY

P/2011/0519 Construction of flue to rear of premises (in retrospect) Granted 05.09.2011 P/2011/0522 Display of illuminated advertisement sign (in retrospect).

Page 82

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Granted 05.09.2011

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The site is within settlement limit. UDP Policies PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, H2, T8 and GDP1 are applicable. LPGN Nos. 16 ‘Parking’ and 21 ‘Space around Dwellings’ are also relevant.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: The Community Council is concerned with the access onto the main road and whether there is sufficient parking on the site. There are already issues with parking on the main road with people visiting the 'kebab shop' and this causes issues with visibility when exiting the site. Members have also commented that the property is already being used for accommodation. Local Member: Notified 10.04.2018 Highways: Consulted 10.04.2018 Public Protection: No objections subject to advisory notes to safeguard against noise and nuisance during the construction phase. NRW: No objection. WW: Consulted 10.04.2018 Site notice: Expired 02.05.2018 Neighbours: 2 letters received raising the following points: • There are already highway safety issues with the use of this property as a take away which generates a significant amount of traffic around the highway junctions; • There isn’t enough parking on site now and the change of use will make this worse.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ISSUES

Background: The property is currently used as a take away on the ground floor with ancillary residential accommodation on the first floor. This application is made in order to subdivide the property to create a separate dwelling. This involves changing part of the commercial premises on the ground floor to residential, retaining the existing (3) bedroom accommodation above. See existing and proposed floor plans below at figures 1 and 2.

Page 83

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Figure 1. Existing Floor Plans

Figure 2. Proposed Floor Plans

Residential Amenity: The ground floor is large enough to provide residential accommodation to current standards and each habitable room has the benefit of window openings to ensure sufficient daylight and natural ventilation. All new openings will comply with the standards set out in LPGN No. 21 ‘Space around Dwellings’ and there would be no impact upon existing local residential amenity in terms of light or privacy. More than the minimum private outdoor space can be provided and I am satisfied that the residential amenities of both existing and future occupiers are provided for / protected.

Highway Safety and Parking: It is proposed to access the development from the existing vehicular access on Westminster Drive. The access point on Wrexham Road will be permananelty closed up (to be secured by planning condition).

As set out in LPGN No. 16 ‘Parking Standards’, the parking provision required for the existing part of the building to be converted is 9 no. spaces (1 parking space for every 4 square metres of public floor space). The parking requirement for the proposed development is 3 spaces and there is thus a reduction in parking demand associated with the proposed use when balanced against the existing A3 use. It follows that the proposed use will have a lesser traffic generation which, together with the permanent closure of the substandard access on Wrexham Road, will be an improvement in highway safety terms. The parking proposed for the dwelling will be secured by planning condition.

Other Matters: Concerns submitted in relation to the existing use of the property as a take away and the potential impact this has upon highway safety cannot be addressed through this application.

Page 84

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Conclusion: I am satisfied that the proposal will not have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers of the site. Minimal external alteration is required and the change of use will not have an adverse impact upon the character of the building or wider street scene. The development is acceptable in highway safety terms 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 002 and as contained within the application documentation. 3. Notwithstanding the details shown on approved plan ref: 002, there shall be no windows or other openings in the elevation of the building facing South / South East at first floor level. 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), no extensions or additions to the dwelling or within the residential curtilage hereby approved shall be erected under Classes A, B, C, D or E of Schedule 2 Part 1. 5. The vehicular parking and turning areas as shown on approved drawing(s) No(s). 003 shall be fully laid out, surfaced and drained prior to first use of the development. These areas shall thereafter be permanently retained and kept free of any obstruction, and made available solely for the parking and turning of motor vehicles at all times. 6. The existing access onto Wrexham Road, as shown on approved plan ref: 003 shall be permanently closed up prior to first use of the development hereby approved.

REASON(S)

1. To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. 2. To define the scope of the planning permission 3. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties. 4. Due to the restricted application site and its relationship with adjoining properties it is considered important to ensure that no additional development as described in the condition is carried out without the permission of the Local Planning Authority. 5. 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. 6. In the interests of highway safety.

Page 85

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

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 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.

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.

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.

______

Page 86

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2018 /0287 COOPERATIVE FOOD HOLYHEAD 10/04/2018 ROAD CHIRK WREXHAM LL14 5NA COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Chirk DESCRIPTION: PF APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO DISPLAY ILLUMINATED AND NON- WARD: ILLUMINATED ADVERTISEMENTS AGENT NAME: Chirk South FUTURAMA APPLICANT(S) NAME: MRS CAROLINE HILL CO-OPERATIVE FOOD

______

THE SITE

SITE

PROPOSAL

Outdoor advertisement consent is sought for the erection of replacement signage on the existing established Co-Op store. The works are part of an ongoing national rebrand.

Page 87

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

HISTORY

CB01274 Alterations to shop front. Granted 23.07.1997 CB01275 Display of sign. Granted 23.07.1997 CB02067 Display of projecting sign. Granted 27.05.1998 CB02068 Installation of ATM. Granted 27.05.1998 P/2001/0937 Minor internal alterations and construction of extension. Granted 08.11.2001 P/2007/1484 Extension and alterations to grocery store including provision of combined condenser housing and re- positioning of ATM machine. Granted 08.02.2008. P/2009/0121 Construction of ramped approach to store entrance with handrail. Erection of 2.0m high steel palisade boundary fence to rear. Installation of external refrigeration plant. Alterations to rear access ramp and secure gate to plant. 1 no. 20m x 8m container and additional CCTV cameras to rear service yard. Granted 14.04.2009. P/2018/0472 Installation of 2 no. ac units, 1 no. condenser and 2 no. compressors, 1 no. chiller unit and 1 no. freezer unit, erection of new timber canopy over walkway from warehouse to new chiller / freezer unit and decoration of shop front frames and doors in traffic grey. Pending consideration.

PLANNING POLICY

The site is located inside the Chirk Settlement limit and within the Pontcysyllte World Heritage Buffer Zone. Policies PS2 and GDP1 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) are relevant. Guidance is contained in Local Planning Guidance Note 1 – Adverts.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Objects. The Council recommends refusal. The Totem sign position is of concern. It is too close to the roadside and obstructs visibility for cars and delivery vehicles exiting the car park. Local Member: Notified 11.04.2018 Site notice: Expired 11.05.2018 Highways: No objection. Recommends a condition that no light source be positioned to dazzle drivers. Neighbouring occupiers: 8 neighbouring occupiers notified.

Page 88

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Policy: National planning guidance is clear that only matters of public safety and visual amenity can be considered when determining applications for outdoor advert consent. Welsh Government TAN 7 refers.

Highways: The vast proportion of the signage on this application relates to is to be attached to the building. There is one totem style sign at the site frontage and two small signs attached to a structure within the car park.

Highways have not objected to the proposed development. The Community Council have objected to the proposed totem element of the proposal on the grounds that it would impede visibility for motorists. I do not consider this to be the case. This particular sign would be located away from the junction and set back behind the highway boundary. There would be no interference with visibility splays from the car park.

There are no other public safety concerns associated with the proposal. An artist impression of the totem sign and front elevation of the retail unit are shown below.

Proposed totem sign

Page 89

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Proposed store frontage

Visual amenity: The signage forms part of the Co-Op national rebrand and has been accepted in other locations within the borough. I am satisfied that the form and amount of signage is appropriate and would not have an adverse impact upon the building or the wider townscape character.

The unit is located on a primary route within the Buffer Zone of the Pontcysyllte Aqueduct and Canal World Heritage Site. The replacement signage will generally improve the appearance of the existing building. The totem is a new addition but in the location shown and with illumination limited to the logo lettering only, there are no concerns regarding its impact upon the setting or Outstanding Universal Value of the nearby World Heritage Site.

Conclusion: The proposed signage is consistent with the requirements set out in national and local policy and guidance. I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

CONDITION(S)

1. Any advertisements displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 2. Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a safe condition. 3. Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the removal shall be carried out to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 4. No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant such permission. 5. No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any road traffic sign, railway signal or aid to

Page 90

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 navigation by water or air, or so as otherwise to render hazardous the use of any highway, railway, waterway or aerodrome (civil or military). 6. No light source to any sign(s) hereby granted consent shall be directly visible to drivers of motor vehicles using the adjacent highway.

REASON(S)

1. To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. 2. To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. 3. To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. 4. To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. 5. To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. 6. In the interests of highway safety.

______

Page 91

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2018 /0307 CARTREF BROAD LANE TREVALYN 12/04/2018 ROSSETT WREXHAM LL12 0ES COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Rossett DESCRIPTION: PF EXTENSION AND LOFT CONVERSION INCLUDING RAISING WARD: THE RIDGE HEIGHT AGENT NAME: Rossett D2 ARCHITECTS APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR MATTHEW HUGHES MR SCOTT LAMONT

______

THE SITE

APPLICATION SITE

PROPOSAL

Planning permission is sought for extensions and alterations to the existing bungalow consisting of a rear extension and an alteration to the height of the building to provide accommodation within the roof.

HISTORY

Page 92

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

None.

PLANNING POLICY

The site is located outside any defined settlement limit and within a Special Landscape Area. Policies PS2, GDP1, EC5 and T8 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan are relevant. Guidance is contained in Local Planning Guidance Notes 13 – Housing in the Countryside, 16 – Parking Standards and 20 – House Extensions.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: No objections. Local Member: Notified 13.04.2018 Site notice: Expired 16.05.2018 Neighbouring occupiers: One neighbouring occupier notified. One response received raising the following points: • The proposed alterations will overwhelm the neighbouring dwelling; • The proposal to extend will reduce the amount of daylight towards the neighbouring rear window which is used as a study – especially during the winter months.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

Policy: The principle of dwelling extensions in areas outside defined settlement limits and Special Landscape Areas is acceptable subject to the guidance contained in LPG13. This guidance seeks to ensure that extensions are proportionate to the scale of the existing dwelling and the surrounding built form as not to result in a detrimental visual intrusion in the landscape.

The guidance goes on to state that extensions should generally be subsidiary to the existing dwelling and be no larger than one third of the original floor area. Any increases beyond this scale may be acceptable in instances where the existing dwelling is small and additional space is required to meet modern requirements and also where a higher standard of design can be demonstrated as not to have a wider impact upon the open countryside.

Design: The proposed extension will result in a fundamental change to the overall character of the existing dwelling. It is currently a small two bed bungalow which is located in a line of properties fronting on to Broad Lane. The proposal seeks to retain the footprint of the dwelling but extend to the side and rear and increase the height of the roof to facilitate accommodation

Page 93

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 at a first floor level. I have shown a plan of the proposed front elevation in comparison to the existing dwelling height.

Proposed front elevation

Proposed front elevation visual

Proposed rear elevation visual (viewed from north)

The proposed works will result in an increase in the floor area of the existing dwelling by 130%. Whilst I appreciate that this is well over the figure contained in the guidance, the extended roof space has accounted for a significant proportion of this. The main issue for consideration therefore is

Page 94

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 whether the scale of the proposed extensions and their visual appearance constitutes a sufficiently high quality design to justify this size increase.

I am satisfied that the visual appearance of the resulting bungalow will not appear out of place in the streetscene. The built frontage of Broad Lane is made up of varying house types. I do not consider the increase in height of the dwelling, which constitutes mainly of facing slate, would appear incongruous in the streetscene. The main extension out to the rear of the dwelling would be faced with a zinc cladding. Whilst this is a modern material, I am satisfied that it would be appear sympathetic in the context of other alterations to the dwelling and would be a recessive colour as not to stand out in wider views.

Amenity: The extension out to the rear will be located in close proximity to the boundary with the only neighbouring dwelling to the south. The proposed rear extension will result in an increased mass along this boundary. There are windows to the rear of the neighbouring dwelling, one of which appears to be a habitable window and that referred to in the representation received as a study.

I have concluded that the works will not be detrimental to the amenity of the neighbouring occupier. There will be an impact to some extent upon the outlook from the neighbouring dwelling. However, I have in mind that the rear elevation of the property is already hemmed in by the form of the two dwellings and heavily vegetated. The additional massing of the proposed extension is formed predominantly by the roof which slopes away from the boundary and would allow light to cascade over towards the neighbouring boundary. I am also mindful that the works will require the significant removal of boundary vegetation (which is not considered to have an amenity value) and this in itself would allow a significant amount of light to reach the area concerned. I am satisfied that the outlook from the neighbouring window would change rather than be made any worse.

The scheme includes a large window which faces towards the neighbouring boundary. This is the only window within the proposal that could affect the amenity of the neighbouring occupier as it serves the kitchen/dinging area. I have confirmed with the applicant that this window should be obscurely glazed and fixed shut at all times. This matter can be dealt with by way of a planning condition.

Other matters: I am satisfied that the curtilage of the resulting 4 bed dwelling can accommodate a parking area in accordance with the maximum 3 spaces as set out in LPG16.

Conclusion: Whilst the extension will result in a significant increase in floor area over the existing property I am satisfied that it represents a high standard contemporary design which improves a relatively small bungalow in need of care and modernisation. I do not consider the scheme will severely impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring occupiers or the wider landscape character and I recommend accordingly.

Page 95

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

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 EX01 Rev X, SK01 Rev A and SK02 Rev A and as contained within the application documentation. 3. Notwithstanding the details contained on approved drawing No. SK01 Rev A, the ground floor windows facing south west shall only be glazed and re-glazed using obscure glass and shall be fixed shut at all times.

REASON(S)

1. To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. 2. To define the scope of the planning permission 3. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining dwelling.

______

Page 96

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2018 /0313 TUDOR VILLA MARFORD HILL 16/04/2018 MARFORD WREXHAM LL12 8TA

COMMUNITY: DESCRIPTION: CASE OFFICER: Gresford ERECTION OF REPLACEMENT SEH DOMESTIC ANCILLARY DOUBLE GARAGE AND WORKSHOP WARD: AGENT NAME: Marford & Hoseley APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR S PARRY MR S PARRY

______

THE SITE

Proposed Garage

PROPOSAL

As above

HISTORY

None relevant

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The site is within settlement. UDP Policies PS2, T8 and GDP1 apply. Local Planning Guidance Notes Nos. 20 ‘House Extensions’ and 21 ‘Space around Dwellings’ are also relevant.

Page 97

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Consulted 18/04/2018 Local Member: No concerns at this stage unless any neighbouring properties have any. Highways: There is ample parking and turning within the site. No recommendations. Site notice: Expired 16/05/2018 Other representations: 2 letters received raising the following concerns: • The size of the building is a cause for concern because of the potential use for commercial purposes and the noise that would be generated by this; • The structure would over dominate the surrounding properties causing a loss of light to the gardens.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Background: This application is for the erection of a replacement single storey double garage with workshop to be used for domestic purposes ancillary to the dwelling. The main issues to consider relate to the impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the area and upon local residential amenity.

Design: The development will utilise matching materials to the main dwelling and is of simple design with hipped roof to add some visual interest. The garage sits conformably within this large plot and the development is clearly subsidiary to the main house. The building will be partially screen by existing boundary vegetation and would not be readily visible from nearby viewpoints. As such there would be no negative impact upon the street scene.

Figure 1. Front and Side Elevation

Residential Amenity: There are to be no windows in the garage facing the boundaries to the North and West of the site which will avoid any loss of privacy to the adjacent dwelling. The garage is located far enough away from the neighbouring dwellings to prevent any significant reduction in daylight to the habitable rooms and garden areas in the adjacent properties, and the minimum separation distances set out in LPGN 21 ‘Space around Dwellings’ have been met.

Conclusion: The garage is acceptable in terms of scale and design, and there would be no significant impact upon visual or residential amenity. The

Page 98

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 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 drawings numbered 2018/04/01 Rev A, 2018/04/02 Rev A, 2018/04/03 and as 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. Prior to use on the development a sample of render, including the proposed colour, 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. 5. Any garage erected under this permission shall be used only for a purpose incidental to the use of the dwelling as a single dwelling house and shall not be used in connection with a trade or business of any kind.

REASON(S)

1. To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. 2. To define the scope of the planning permission 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 garage is not used in a manner prejudicial to or likely to cause nuisance or disturbance to the occupiers of nearby properties.

NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT

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.

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

Page 99

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 site boundary have the potential to cause unreasonable disturbance to neighbouring premises.

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.

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.

______

Page 100

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2018 /0317 THE SQUIRE YORKE SONTLEY 17/04/2018 ROAD WREXHAM LL13 7EN COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Offa DESCRIPTION: PF APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO DISPLAY 9 NO. ILLUMINATED AND WARD: NON-ILLUMINATED AGENT NAME: Erddig ADVERTISEMENTS (IN ASHLEIGH SIGNS RETROSPECT) MRS GILLIAN SHEPLEY

APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR MILLAR GREENE KING PUB CO

______

THE SITE

PROPOSAL

Outdoor advertisement consent is sought for the erection of replacement signage on the existing established public house site. The works have already been carried out therefore the proposal is considered in retrospect.

Page 101

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

HISTORY

WRO 6/23066 Extensions to existing building and erection of indoor play facility. Granted 09.05.1995 WRO 6/23088 Display of illuminated signs. Appeal dismissed 12.06.1995 P/2001/1177 Erection of signs. Granted 11.03.2002 P/2005/0766 Erection of new signs (partly in retrospect). Granted 10.08.2005 P/2008/0042 New signage. Refused 14.03.2008

PLANNING POLICY

The site is located inside the Wrexham settlement limit. Zone. Policies PS2 and GDP1 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan (UDP) are relevant. Guidance is contained in Local Planning Guidance Note 1 – Adverts.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: No objection. Local Member: Notified 18.04.2018 Site notice: Expired 11.05.2018 Highways: No objection but recommends a condition that no light source should dazzle passing motorists. Neighbouring occupiers: 3 neighbouring occupiers notified. 3 responses received raising the following responses: • The additional signage is out of character with the area which is 100% residential; • There is hardly any passing trade that additional adverts could attract; • Signage at the site is repetitive and there will be too many as a result of this application; • The pub has incrementally increased signage over the years to the detriment of the area; • The pub now looks like a town centre pub, not a pub on the edge of a National Trust property.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Policy: National planning guidance is clear that only matters of public safety and visual amenity can be considered when determining applications for outdoor advert consent. Welsh Government TAN 7 refers.

Page 102

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Visual amenity: The vast proportion of the signage on this application relates to the replacement of existing signs. There are 3 no. additional signs consisting of one additional sign on the totem, one large panel sign on the front elevation and a ‘welcome’ door sign on the side elevation. Photographs are shown below of the previous signage compared to the new signage currently under consideration.

Appearance prior to new signage

Signage under consideration

I acknowledge the concerns raised in representations. However I do not consider that the replacement or additional signage is visually detrimental to the site. Whilst the Council cannot control the content of signage (wording and colour for example), I consider that the replacement signage appears more recessive than that which previously adorned the site. The additional

Page 103

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 signage does not appear overly dominant and I cannot conclude that there is any visual clutter. The signage is characteristic of an urban modern public house/restaurant which is common in and on the edge of residential areas.

The matter of whether signage is required for the operation of the business is not for the Council to consider. This is a commercial decision for the business.

There are no historic buildings or other land designations within influencing distance of the proposals.

Highways: Highways have not objected to the proposed development and there are no other public safety concerns associated with the proposal.

Conclusion: The proposed signage is consistent with the requirements set out in national and local policy and guidance. I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

CONDITION(S)

1. Any advertisements displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a clean and tidy condition to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 2. Any structure or hoarding erected or used principally for the purpose of displaying advertisements shall be maintained in a safe condition. 3. Where an advertisement is required under these Regulations to be removed, the removal shall be carried out to the reasonable satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. 4. No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant such permission. 5. No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any road traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air, or so as otherwise to render hazardous the use of any highway, railway, waterway or aerodrome (civil or military). 6. No light source to any sign(s) hereby granted consent shall be directly visible to drivers of motor vehicles using the adjacent highway.

REASON(S)

1. To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. 2. To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. 3. To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992.

Page 104

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

4. To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. 5. To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992. 6. In the interests of highway safety.

______

Page 105

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2018 /0353 NEW FARM COBBLERS LANE 26/04/2018 BURTON WREXHAM LL12 0AH COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Rossett DESCRIPTION: PF STEEL FRAMED PORTAL SIDE EXTENSION FOR AGRICULTURAL WARD: PURPOSES AGENT NAME: Rossett BROWNS OF WEM LTD APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR BEN PERRY MR E H MORRIS

______

THE SITE

PROPOSED BARN EXTENSION

PROPOSAL

Planning permission is sought for the erection of an extension to the existing barn for the purposes of the agricultural use of the site. The ‘agricultural’ use of the building has not been defined in the description but the supporting documentation states that the building is required for the housing of livestock and hay produce.

Page 106

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

HISTORY

P/2001/1140 Erection of new stock building and re-siting of existing stock building. Granted 17.01.2002 P/2002/1020 Erection of single storey agricultural building. Withdrawn. P/2003/0020 Erection of 2 no. agricultural sheds (partly in retrospect. Granted 04.03.2003 P/2009/0894 Application for prior notification of agricultural development – Erection of silage clamp. Application required P/2010/0809 Erection of agricultural building. Granted 30.11.2010 P/2011/0547 Construction of above ground steel slurry tank with concrete base. Granted 07.09.2011 P/2011/0136 Erection of silage clamp. Granted 28.03.2011 P/2011/0287 Application for prior notification of agricultural development – Erection of steel framed portal building for storage. Granted 06.05.2011 P/2015/0506 Steel portal framed agricultural building and slurry lagoon. Granted 01.10.2015 P/2017/0993 Application for prior notification of agricultural development – proposed steel framed building for storage of hay and fodder. Application required.

PLANNING POLICY

The site is located outside any defined settlement limit and within a Special Landscape Area (SLA). Policies PS2, GDP1, EC3, EC5 and T8 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan are relevant.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: Objects. The extension is too large and over intensive for the site. Local Member: Opposes the proposal on the grounds that it is excessive in size and over intensive development of the site. Site notice: Expired 30.05.2018

Highways: No recommendations. Neighbouring occupiers: One neighbouring occupiers notified.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Policy: The site is an established dairy farm in the open countryside. The proposal seeks to extend an existing building of similar design within the farmstead. Policy EC3 of the UDP permits the erection of extensions and new stand alone buildings for agricultural purposes. The building should be located within or as close as possible to the existing farmstead unless there are significant constraints or operational reasons why the building must be located elsewhere. The development must also accord with the Council’s

Page 107

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

General Development Principles set out in policy GDP1. I am satisfied that the proposed extension adheres to the locational criteria of policy EC3 and is acceptable in principle.

Policy EC5 permits agricultural development in principle but still requires the applicant to demonstrate that the scheme will not have an adverse impact upon the special landscape character of the area.

Visual Impact: The farmstead is located just off the main highway which passes the site. The position of the proposed extension is towards the rear of the yard and would not be widely visible from public viewpoint. The design of the extension is such that it matches the form and appearance of the existing barn and for this reason I do not consider that it would appear incongruous within the site or out of character in the wider landscape. The curtilage of the farm yard is also such that the building would not be hemmed in to the site. It would not be considered as over development.

Conclusion: I am satisfied that this proposal to expand the existing farm operation can occur without having an adverse impact upon the wider landscape character and would not appear as an incongruous addition in the open countryside. 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 36280 and 36281 and as contained within the application documentation.

REASON(S)

1. To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. 2. To define the scope of the planning permission

______

Page 108

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2018 /0383 24 STANCLIFFE AVENUE MARFORD 10/05/2018 WREXHAM LL12 8LW COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Gresford DESCRIPTION: MR EXTENSION AT FIRST FLOOR LEVEL TO PROVIDE ENSUITE WARD: AGENT NAME: Marford & Hoseley APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR F SMITH MR C WILKS

______

SITE

Application Site

PROPOSAL

The proposal seeks planning permission for a first floor side extension.

HISTORY

P/2017/0914 – Replacement front porch extension. Approved 11/12/2017.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Within Gresford/Marford Settlement Limit. UDP policy GDP1 applies.

Page 109

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: No reply. Local Member: Notified 15.05.2018. Site Notice: Expired 13.06.2018. Neighbours: 1 no. representation objecting to the proposal. Comments made relate to noise disturbance as a result of previous work undertaken to the dwelling and access rights to construct the proposed first floor extension, subject of this application.

It should be noted that the comments made by the neighbour are not material planning considerations.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Design and Layout: The proposal is not considered would appear discordant in relation to the main dwelling or the street scene in the context of its proposed matching materials and relatively limited scale, being lower in height than the main dwelling.

The matching roof pitch and set back from the principal elevation of the main dwelling would further help to integrate the extension with the property, as well as reducing its dominance when viewed from the street scene.

The proposal is not considered would adversely impact on the host dwelling or surrounding locality and would comply with UDP Policy GDP1.

Residential Amenity: There are no habitable windows in the facing side elevation of the neighbouring property to the north.

A condition to secure the rear window serving the en-suite as obscurely glazed is considered reasonable.

The proposal would have no adverse impacts to existing levels of residential amenities of neighbouring properties and would comply with UDP Policy GDP1.

CONCLUSION

No adverse impacts would result to existing levels of visual and residential amenities of the surrounding area and the proposal would comply with UDP Policy GDP1.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

Page 110

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

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 1:500 Proposed Block Plan, 1:100 Proposed Elevations, 1:100 Proposed First Floor Plan and as 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 of the extension facing west shall only be glazed or re-glazed using obscure glass which shall thereafter be permanently retained.

REASON(S)

1. To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. 2. To define the scope of the planning permission 3. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. 4. To protect the amenities of the occupiers of nearby properties.

NOTE(S) TO APPLICANT

The development lies within a coal mining area which may contain unrecorded coal mining related hazards. If any coal mining feature is encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to the Coal Authority on 0345 762 6848. Further information is also available on the Coal Authority website at: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-coal-authority

______

Page 111

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2018 /0391 POTTERS COTTAGE BETTISFIELD 11/05/2018 ROAD BETTISFIELD WREXHAM SY13 2LB COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Maelor South DESCRIPTION: MR TWO-STOREY FRONT EXTENSION AND ALTERATIONS TO REAR OF WARD: PROPERTY AGENT NAME: Overton INITAL DESIGN APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR ALEX COLLEY MR GREG ROBINSON

______

SITE

PROPOSAL

The proposal seeks planning permission for a single storey rear and two storey front extension.

Page 112

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

HISTORY

None relevant.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Within designated open countryside. UDP Policy GDP1 applies.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: No reply. Local Member: Notified 16.05.2018. Site Notice: Expired 14.06.2018. Neighbours: 1 no. representation objecting to the proposal. Concerns raised include inaccurate site map submitted and land ownership.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Principle: The application site is located within designated open countryside.

LPG 13 states that extensions to dwellings in open countryside should have a floor area measuring no more than a third of the floor area of the original dwelling house.

Based on a search of the Council’s internal mapping system, the dwelling does not appear has been previously extended and the extension would not result in an increase in floor area over the original dwelling by more than a third.

Whilst the standards set out in LPG 13 are only a guide, nevertheless the proposal would comply with this standard and is acceptable in principle.

Design and Layout: The dwelling is located along a bridleway and set back off the adjacent lane, resulting in limited impacts to users of the bridleway.

The extensions are considered to be limited in scale by virtue of their height and floor area, appearing as subordinate additions to the main dwelling.

Page 113

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Existing Elevations and Floor Plans

Proposed Elevations and Floor Plans

Page 114

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Matching materials would help to integrate the extensions with the dwelling.

The proposal is not considered would result in harm to visual amenities of the locality or to the existing dwelling and would comply with UDP Policy GDP1.

Residential Amenity: The extension would not breach the Councils 45° guideline or its spacing standards and would not adversely impact on residential amenities of the neighbouring property, complying with UDP Policy GDP1.

Other Matters: The neighbouring property has stated that the red edge outlining the application site is incorrect. The agent has been made aware that if the application site includes land not within the applicants ownership, notice needs to be served on the owner of the land.

No further response has been received to date from the agent. If the red edge does include land not within the applicants’ ownership which prevents use of that land as part of the proposal, this is a civil matter.

CONCLUSION

No adverse impacts would result to existing levels of visual and residential amenities of the surrounding area and the proposal would comply with UDP Policy GDP1.

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 1:1250 Site Location Plan received 01/06/2018, 1:500 Proposed Block Plan, 1:100 Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations received 12/06/2018 and as 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.

REASON(S)

1. To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. 2. To define the scope of the planning permission 3. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area. ______

Page 115

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2018 /0402 LAND SOUTH OF BOUNDARY 15/05/2018 HOUSE HORSEMANS GREEN ROAD HORSEMANS GREEN COMMUNITY: WHITCHURCH CASE OFFICER: Hanmer SY13 3DY SEH

DESCRIPTION: WARD: ERECTION OF DETACHED AGENT NAME: Overton DWELLING AND GARAGE WITH MR R E FORRESTER ASSOCIATED PARKING

APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR R E FORRESTER

______

THE SITE

A rectangular piece of greenfield land measuring approximately 900 square metres located outside of the settlement limit on land to the south of Boundary House, Horseman’s Green, Wrexham.

Applicatio n site Approximate location of the Associated approved Land stable block

PROPOSAL

As above

Page 116

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

HISTORY

P/2007/0291 Stable block with feed store. Granted 20.04.2007 P/2008/1067 General purpose agricultural building. Refused 07.11.08 P/2012/0380 Stable block and store, kitchen and toilet block. Refused 18.01.2013. – Appeal Dismissed P/2013/0219 Stable, store and personal facilities area. Refused 07.10.2013 – Appeal Dismissed P/2013/0393 Stable, store and personal facilities area. Refused 29.07.2013 P/2014/0421 Outline planning application for residential development (2 dwellings). Refused 01.09.2014 – Appeal Dismissed P/2017/0426 Erection of detached dwelling with associated garage, parking and new access. Application Withdrawn P/2017/0725 Erection of detached dwelling with associated garage and parking. Refused 06.11.2017 - Appeal Dismissed

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Outside of a defined settlement limit and within open countryside. A Public Right of Way (PRoW) runs along the northern boundary of the site. UDP Policies PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, GDP1, H5, EC4, EC6, EC13 and T8 apply. Local Planning Guidance Notes Nos. 17 ‘Trees and Development’, 21 ‘Space around Dwellings’ and 32 ‘Biodiversity and Development’ are also relevant.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: We are at a loss to see any real changes to the plans previously submitted which went to Appeal and were dismissed. Emphasis is placed on the out of date UDP however, PPW was used by the Inspector when making his recent decision. In the emerging LDP (which is currently out to public consultation) the site remains outside of the settlement boundary and this development would not be allowed under the new plan either. This application stands its best chance now under PPW policies rather than the LDP. The Applicant’s conclusion that ‘Horseman’s Green is a sustainable location and contributes substantially to the economic and social suitability of the local community’ is flawed since there is no access to facilities except by very narrow lanes which are in poor condition. Public transport is virtually non- existent being just one return bus to Wrexham every Monday. Horseman’s Green does not have ‘relatively good accessibility by non-car modes’. Local Member: Notified 18.05.2018 Highways: No objection to the scheme subject to the creation of a safe and satisfactory vehicular access and

Page 117

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

works to the highway to improve carriageway width and increase footway provision. NRW: No objection subject to the imposition of conditions to secure Reasonable Avoidance Measures (RAMs) in respect of great crested newts, and to secure the submission of a biosecurity risk assessment. Senior Flood Officer: No objections to the development. The site is located in DAM Zone A, as defined within TAN15 and is not explicitly identified as being at risk of surface water flooding on NRW’s updated flood map for surface water. There are a number of reported incidents of localised flooding that appear to be associated with blocked highway drainage infrastructure in the area but we do not hold any information regarding flooding incidents directly relating to the application site. Public Protection: No objection subject to recommended advisory notes and a planning condition to protect residential amenity from noise nuisance throughout the construction works. PRoW: A width of 3.5 metres measured from the centre of the hedge should be provided for Halghton footpath 3 where it passes through the proposed development. I note that the drawing indicates stiles where the path enters and leaves the proposed development. As there are no limitations recorded in the definitive statement for footpath 3, we would wish to see the least restrictive option at these boundaries using the gap-gate-stile hierarchy. If the path requires closing during the construction of the development, the developer should contact the Rights of Way section to apply for a temporary traffic regulation order. Ramblers: Notified 18.05.2018 Site Notice: Expired 12.06.2018 Advert: Expired 16.06.2018 Neighbours: 12 letters of objection received from the local residents of Horseman’s Green raising the following: • Hazardous, narrow highway serving the development; • Horseman’s Green is a Hamlet not having the traditional Village facilities such as a bus service, doctors surgery, shop or Church etc; • Site is outside of the settlement limit; • Noise pollution; • The highway network to the larger settlements of Hanmer and Penley are not sufficient to

Page 118

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

cater for additional traffic and the site is not within a safe walking or cycling route; • There are no amenities/facilities in Horseman’s Green; • The weekly bus service (45F) only goes to Wrexham; • Area is prone to flooding. Inadequate surface water drainage system as there are no mains drains; • Not enough information has been provided in relation to waste disposal and drainage; • The proposed development would detract from the local character and landscape setting; • The site is not a natural extension to the settlement limit; • Increase noise levels from the additional traffic; • There is concern that this application has the potential to result in an adverse precedent for other development which would further harm the character of the hamlet; • The proposed access driveway will conflict with the PRoW which crosses the site; • The focus should be on brownfield development before greenfield is used; • Ribbon development should not be permitted; • Inadequate infrastructure; • Without the provision of lights, sewerage works, highway improvements, speed limits, play facilities etc. this rural area cannot support any further housing; • The development would significantly diminish the openness of the countryside to the south of the settlement and the separation it provides to the pockets of existing development in the countryside. The clear physical separation of the site from existing built development in Horseman’s Green would emphasise these effects. As such, the proposed development would be unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside around Horseman’s Green. • This application does not adequately address the reason for dismissal of the recent Appeal as were cited by the Inspector; there are no grounds on which this application could be supported. 6 letters of support received from residents in Llangollen, Ruabon, Penley, New

Page 119

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Broughton, Bettisfield and Penycae, raising the following: • Rural communities require some new developments from time to time to remain sustainable; • Smaller villages such as Horseman’s Green have suffered from a lack of new housing and the sustainability of theses rural communities requires that new housing be allowed; • The dwelling is single storey and so it will have no detrimental impact upon the area; • The dwelling will be hardly visible above the boundary hedge, as is the stable to the rear of the site; • Smaller developments when added together significantly contribute to the housing land supply; • There is weekly transport to Horseman’s Green and daily transport in nearby Hanmer making the location sustainable; • Development already exists on this small paddock and so the proposed site is appropriate for development; • The impact of the development would be insignificant and represents just a minor extension to the Village which is acceptable under PPW; • The pub, school and shop in Hanmer need the support of this development; • The development complies with PPW policies relating to rural areas.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ISSUES

Background: The application site forms part of a larger piece of greenfield land, located outside of the settlement limit, upon which planning permission to erect a single ‘L’ shaped containing 3 no. stables and feed store was granted in 2007 (P/2007/1291). Planning permission to erect a second building for additional facilities such as a kitchen, toilet, store etc. on the site has since been refused on two separate occasions with both subsequent appeals to the Planning Inspectorate dismissed. In addition two more recent applications for residential development on the site have been refused and appeals subsequently dismissed. In reaching his decision, the Inspector agreed with the Council that the increase in footprint of the proposed built development would have a materially adverse impact upon the appearance of the site to the detriment of its character and that of the area generally, contrary to Policies PS2 and GDP1 of the Wrexham UDP. This stable has now been erected on site though it is uncertain whether this development is

Page 120

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 complete as it does not appear to have been used for the stabling of any horses.

In 2014, an application was received for outline planning permission for the erection of 2 no. dwellings. The application related to part (approximately one quarter) of this greenfield site, adjacent to its frontage with the public highway. Planning permission was refused and a subsequent appeal to the Planning Inspectorate was dismissed. The Inspector in reaching his decision agreed with the Council that the development of this site would be materially detrimental to the landscape and would fail to accord with the character of the site or make a positive contribution to the appearance of the nearby locality. To develop the site and extend the built form into an area of open field would extend the pattern of the built-up area out in a ribbon form and would have an urbanising effect that would erode the amount of open space at the edge of the settlement. Further, the Inspector agreed that this site was not sustainably located for the purposes of residential development. The appellant also referred to the shortfall in the supply of housing within the County Borough. Nonetheless, whilst accepting that small sites such as this can make a contribution, the Inspector did not consider that in this case such a contribution, or the need to increase the supply of land for housing, would justify a development that would be contrary to the policies PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, GDP1 and H5 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan

In 2017 a full application for planning permission was made. The differences between that proposal and the 2014 proposal were that the number of units had been reduced from 2 to 1, the dwelling was reduced in height from two to single storey, and the dwelling was proposed to be an affordable unit. Along with the merits of the previous application for residential development of the land, it was necessary to also consider whether the benefit of the development in contributing to the affordable housing land supply would outweigh the harm of allowing development outside of the settlement limit. Planning permission was again refused and a subsequent appeal dismissed. In reaching his decision, the Inspector commented that the site is separated from the nearest built development in Horseman’s Green and that the development would significantly erode the rural character and the associated appearance of the well-defined edge to the village. The Inspector concluded that the location of the development and lack of local facilities means it would not minimise the demand for travel, especially by private car. While the proposed development would provide an additional affordable dwelling to meet housing need, the Inspector commented that the small contribution to housing land supply only provides limited weight in favour of the appeal scheme.

This application is again made in full with the only difference being that it is no longer proposed to be an affordable dwelling and so the benefits of the development in contributing to the affordable housing land supply need not be considered.

Policy: The proposals do not accord with any of the limited circumstances set out in policy H5 that permit small scale residential development on sites

Page 121

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 outside of settlement limit (rural exception site, infilling and agricultural workers dwellings).

The principle of development in this location remains unacceptable when assessed against the applicable policies PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4 and GDP1 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan with respect to the broad location of development, re-use of brownfield land, sustainable modes of travel, development patterns and principles of housing in the countryside. The development of this site would be materially detrimental to the landscape and would fail to accord with the character of the site or make a positive contribution to the appearance of the nearby locality. Whilst the reduction in the height and number of dwellings proposed has lessened the visual impact, these concerns have not been overcome and the residential development of the site remains unacceptable. To develop the site and extend the built form into an area of open field would extend the pattern of the built-up area out in a ribbon form and would have an urbanising effect that would erode the amount of open space at the edge of the settlement.

The development would not maintain the existing settlement pattern or integrate with existing transport networks to help reduce the need to travel or encourage the use of alternatives to the car. The site is not brownfield and would result in the loss of land of ecological, landscape and amenity value. The development would therefore cause significant harm to the locality that the UDP policies already mentioned above were designed to protect and thus would not comply with the above mentioned policies.

Housing Land Supply: Planning Policy Wales (PPW) para 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, judged against the general objectives and the scale and location of development provided for in the development plan. TAN1 para 8.2 highlights that Local Authorities that do not have either an adopted LDP or UDP will be unable to demonstrate whether or not they have a 5 year housing land supply and effectively will be deemed to have a zero land supply.

The emerging Deposit LDP will need to make provision for approximately 8525 homes (which includes a 10% contingency allowance) to meet the housing requirements of the County Borough over the 2013-2028 period. Taking into account the existing housing supply (approx. 2027 houses) and a windfall development allowance (approx. 2145 houses) and completions between 2013 and 2017 (approx. 977 houses) this equates to a requirement for additional land to be brought forward approximately 3376 new houses . Given that TAN1 deems this authority to have a zero housing land supply as a result of the UDP having expired and there being no adopted LDP in place, this should be treated as a material consideration in determining planning applications for housing.

TAN1 (paragraph 6.2) advises that the need to increase supply should be given considerable weight when dealing with planning applications,

Page 122

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 provided that development would comply with the Development Plan and national policy.

Local Planning Authorities are required to include a statement in the JHLAS study outlining measures it is taking to address the shortfall in housing land supply. In accordance with paragraph 3.3 of the 2017 Housing Land Monitor Statement, the Council will continue to take a pro-active stance in supporting appropriate growth in the County Borough where it meets policy objectives and identified local needs. However, it is important to understand that this is not just about increasing housing numbers, but to promote sustained growth in the right location which meets the needs of the local communities. Therefore each site that comes forward will be considered on its merits with the principal considerations focusing on whether the site meets all of the other planning considerations and represents a sustainable form of development.

Sustainable Development: PPW includes a presumption in favour of sustainable development. There are no shops, churches, public houses, medical facilities or areas of public open space near to the site nor are there regular bus services to access these facilities. There is a weekly bus service to Wrexham however this is not considered to be sufficiently regular. Occupiers of the development would need to access basic services elsewhere - the nearest settlements being Hanmer approximately 1.5 miles away and Penley approximately 2.3 miles away. Given the lack of public transport it is inevitable that private cars will be used to access essential services and facilities. Horseman’s Green can therefore not be regarded as a sustainable settlement.

The proposal would not comply with the objectives for sustainable development set out in paragraph 4.4.3 of PPW – particularly locating developments so as to minimise the demand for travel, especially by private car. Para 4.7.8 states that development in the countryside should be located within and adjoining settlements where it can be better accommodated in terms of infrastructure, access, and habitat and landscape conservation. As mentioned previously, the site is not adjoining the settlement limit being separated from the edge of the village by the side garden area of Boundary House and by a triangular area of land which is currently used as a paddock for keeping horses.

Given the small contribution the development would make to the overall supply of housing in Wrexham, the unsustainable location of the site and the materially detrimental impact the development will have upon the character and appearance the area, the lack of a 5 year housing land supply is not sufficient to justify departing from UDP policies in this instance.

Highways: The site is located on Horseman’s Green Road which is a narrow rural classified road subject to a 60mph speed limit. However typical speeds are thought to be around 30mph due to the geometry of the road. It would appear possible to achieve the necessary visibility splays which would ensure the creation of a safe and satisfactory vehicular access.

Page 123

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

There is an existing footway which terminates to the north of the application site, and the highway authority has suggested that the footway be extended up to the site in the interests of protecting pedestrian safety/movement. I would have concerns that these highway alteration would be to the detriment of the character of the area and I consider this to be unnecessary in this case.

The carriageway fronting the site is typically 3.5 metres wide and the highway authority has also suggested that this could be increased to 5.5 metres. I am concerned that these works would also have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenities in this rural location and I am not convinced that widening this small section would be of any real benefit to highway safety given that these alterations may potentially increase traffic speeds. The additional highway widening works are therefore not justifiable in this instance.

Halghton footpath no. 3 passes through the proposed development site. Details relating to the design of the Stiles proposed at either end of the PRoW could be reserved for further approval, by planning condition.

Ecology: The site is located within an area known to support nationally high levels of great crested newt (GCN). A report on GCN has previously been produced during the optimal period survey period and, subject to the submission of a suitable scheme of Reasonable Avoidance Measures, the proposal would not be detrimental to the maintenance of the favourable conservation status of any of the GCN populations present within the environs of the application site. A new native species hedgerow to the rear boundary of the site is proposed and there will be no removal of any of the existing hedgerows. The development therefore now accords with UDP policy EC6, Chapter 5 of Planning Policy Wales and Technical Advice Note 5: Nature Conservation and Planning.

Surface Water Management: The site is located in DAM Zone A, as defined within TAN15 and is not explicitly identified as being at risk of surface water flooding on NRWs updated flood map for surface water. There are a number of reported incidents of localised flooding that appear to be associated with blocked highway drainage infrastructure in the area but NRW do not hold any information regarding flooding incidents directly relating to the application site.

The Council’s senior flood management officer has reviewed the objections in relation to local flooding and it would appear the section of road affected by flooding is not adjacent to the site. Although this is indicative of localised drainage issues within the area it is unlikely that an additional dwelling would have a detrimental impact if it has an appropriately designed surface water system that contains all water generated from new impermeable surfaces. This could be dealt with by a suitably worded condition if planning permission were to be granted.

Applicant’s Submission: The Applicant states that ‘a regular bus service (No.146) shops, pub, doctors’ surgery and primary school are within easy walking or cycling distance’. These facilities and bus service are located in Hanmer which is at least 1.5 miles away which is not considered to be a

Page 124

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 reasonable walking distance. Given the lack of footways and lighting, together with the narrowness of the roads, both walking and cycling are not considered as easy options as a mode of transport and the use of a private car is the much more likely method of transport. The only accessible community facility is Horseman’s Green is the community hall thus, contrary to the Applicant’s assertion, Horseman’s Green can only be considered as an unsustainable location.

The Applicant asserts paragraph 4.7.7 of PPW in support of his application which states that ‘for most rural areas the opportunities for reducing car use and increasing the use of walking, cycling and public transport are more limited than in urban areas. In rural areas the majority of new development should be located in those settlements which have relatively good accessibility by non- car modes when compared with the rural area as a whole’. This paragraph does not support the Applicant’s case but instead adds weight against the proposal. Horseman’s Green is not ‘one of those settlements which have relatively good accessibility by non car modes when compared to the rural area as whole’ and to allow housing in this unsustainable location would be contrary to paragraph 4.7.7 of PPW.

Conclusion: The residential development of this greenfield land would have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance the area. The development would significantly diminish the openness of the countryside to the south of the settlement and the separation it provides to the pockets of existing development in the countryside. The clear physical separation of the site from existing built development in Horseman’s Green would emphasise these effects. As such, the proposed development would be unacceptably harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside. The location of the application site conflicts with ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ included in PPW and the development would not comply with the objectives for sustainable development set out in paragraph 4.4.3. The proposal does not accord with any of the limited circumstances that permit small scale residential development on land outside of the settlement limit, and there remain 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. By virtue of its location outside of any settlement limit as defined in the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan, the residential development of this greenfield land would be materially detrimental to the locality and would represent an undesirable visual intrusion into the rural landscape. The development would not maintain the existing settlement pattern and would not accord with the character of the site or make a positive contribution to the appearance of the countryside. The proposals do not accord with any of the limited circumstances that permit small scale residential development on sites

Page 125

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 outside of settlement limit and the development conflicts with Policies PS1, PS2, PS3, PS4, GDP1 and H5 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.

______

Page 126

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2018 /0408 4 MOUNT ZION BRYMBO WREXHAM 17/05/2018 LL11 5NB

COMMUNITY: DESCRIPTION: CASE OFFICER: Brymbo SINGLE-STOREY EXTENSION TO MR DWELLING

WARD: APPLICANT(S) NAME: AGENT NAME: Brymbo MR N ROBERTS D S JONES AND CO MR STEVE JONES

______

SITE

Application Site

PROPOSAL

The proposal seeks planning permission for a single storey rear extension.

HISTORY

None relevant.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Within designated open countryside. UDP Policy GDP1 applies.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: No reply.

Page 127

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Local Member: Notified 21.05.2018. Site Notice: Expired 13.06.2018. Neighbours: 1 no. representation objecting to the proposal. Concerns raised include the window in the facing north elevation of the extension would result in a considerable loss of privacy to the neighbours amenity area.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Principle: The application site is located within designated open countryside.

LPG 13 states that extensions to dwellings in open countryside should have a floor area measuring no more than a third of the floor area of the original dwelling house.

Based on a search of the Council’s internal mapping system, the dwelling does not appear has been previously extended and the extension would not result in an increase in floor area over the original dwelling by more than a third.

Whilst the standards set out in LPG 13 are only a guide, nevertheless the proposal would comply with this standard and is acceptable in principle.

Design and Layout: The proposal would be sited to the rear of the dwelling, therefore having a limited impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.

Its single storey height, relatively limited width and mono-pitch roof would result in a subordinate addition to the property.

Matching materials would help to integrate the extension with the dwelling.

The proposal is not considered would result in harm to visual amenities of the locality or to the existing dwelling and would comply with UDP Policy GDP1.

Residential Amenity: The extension would not breach the Councils 45° guideline or its spacing standards.

The neighbouring property to the north has raised concerns relating to loss of privacy to their amenity area as a result of the proposed insertion of a window in the north elevation of the extension.

The window would directly face the south elevation wall of the neighbouring property to the north, resulting in oblique views into the neighbours’ actual rear amenity area.

Furthermore, the boundary treatments between both properties are limited to low stone/brick walls and fencing, shown in the photograph below. The

Page 128

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 existing boundaries are therefore already open and allow direct views into each other’s rear amenity areas.

The window is not considered would significantly worsen the existing levels of overlooking over and above the existing situation.

The proposal would comply with UDP Policy GDP1.

CONCLUSION

No adverse impacts would result to existing levels of visual and residential amenities of the surrounding area and the proposal would comply with UDP Policy GDP1.

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 10330.04A.dsj, 10330.02.dsj and as 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.

Page 129

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

REASON(S)

1. To comply with Section 91(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990. 2. To define the scope of the planning permission 3. To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

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.

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.

Page 130

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

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 131

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2018 /0415 GALERI UNIT 3 WREXHAM BUS 22/05/2018 STATION LORD STREET WREXHAM LL11 1LF COMMUNITY: CASE OFFICER: Rhosddu DESCRIPTION: MR CHANGE OF USE FROM CLOTHES SHOP (USE CLASS A1) TO CAFE WARD: (USE CLASS A3) IN RETROSPECT AGENT NAME: Grosvenor MR DAVID THOMAS APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR DAVID THOMAS

______

SITE

Application Site

PROPOSAL

The proposal seeks retrospective planning permission to change the use of a clothes shop (use class A1) to café (use class A3).

Page 132

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

HISTORY

None relevant.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Within Wrexham Town Settlement Limit. UDP policies T2, S2 and GDP1 apply.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: No reply received at the time of writing. Local Member: Notified 23.05.2018. Public Protection: No objection subject to a condition to restrict noise levels arising from the use of any air handling/extraction plants and submission of odour control details. Site Notice: Expires 29.06.2017. Neighbours: 1 no. representation received objecting to the proposal. Concerns raised include loss of trade and staff to a neighbouring commercial unit, the proposal conflicts with the WCBC freehold arrangement for the site, clarification required on the type of ventilation proposed, insufficient information submitted on bin storage and removal.

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Principle: The application site is located within Wrexham Town Centre Bus Station as identified on Policy Map 2 INSET 2.

Policy T2 states that shopping and commercial uses will be incorporated into the redevelopment of the bus station.

Policy S2 of the Wrexham UDP states that outside the principal shopping streets of Wrexham Town Centre, encouragement will be given to ground floor retailing proposals. Mixed use commercial development will be allowed only if it enhances the vitality and environmental quality of the area.

The proposal seeks retrospective planning permission to retain the use of the existing café (use class A3).

The applicant confirms that the property was vacant between December 2016 and April 2018, prior to the applicant occupying the property.

The proposal has brought a previously vacant unit (vacant for approx. 15 months) within the bus station back into use, which, although would involve provision of a café and not a retail use, is considered would still help to

Page 133

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 enhance the vitality of the area, particularly given a vacant unit is considered offers little contribution or enhancement to an area.

The proposal has also helped to further reduce the number of vacant units within the town centre overall.

Policy S3 states that preferred locations for non-shopping uses will be Wrexham Town Centre and whilst the concerns of the neighbour relating to increased competition and loss of trade and staff in this area are acknowledged, policies S2 and S3 do not specifically prevent more than one use within the same use class, along the same street.

This is further reinforced in the context that neighboring uses within the bus station include 2 no. retail stores, 1 no. further café and 1 no. restaurant/take away premises. Uses along Trinity Street which runs adjacent to the bus station include 4 no. retail stores, a hair dresser and volunteering centre.

The immediate area as a whole does therefore have some element of mixed use already and an additional cafe in this respect, is not considered would have such an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the existing street and on neighbouring uses, as to warrant refusal of the scheme.

The principle of development is considered to be acceptable and on this basis, an application for the proposal is considered could be supported.

Design and Layout: No exterior changes to the property are proposed.

Residential Amenity: The use of the unit as a café would encourage more people to use this part of the bus station and area as a whole which would help to increase natural surveillance.

No residential properties would be adversely impacted upon.

Conditions to secure noise levels so that they do not exceed the pre-existing background level is not considered appropriate or reasonable in this instance given the unit is located within a town centre bus station which is naturally a busy and noisy use throughout the majority of the day.

The proposed café use is not considered would significantly worsen the existing noise levels in the area.

Opening hours are stated as 6am – 8pm Monday to Saturday and 8am to 6pm on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

A condition to restrict the hours to these times is considered reasonable and nevertheless, the café can be further controlled in terms of opening hours under separate legislation.

Page 134

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Odour and ventilation details relating to the premises have been requested by Public Protection. An update will be further provided in the Committee Addendum when these are received.

Access and Car Parking: The proposal is in a town centre location, easily accessible by foot or public transport. No parking provision is considered to be required.

CONCLUSION

The principle of development is considered to be acceptable and no adverse impacts would result to existing levels of visual and residential amenities of the surrounding area. The proposal would comply with UDP Policies T2, S2 and GDP1.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

CONDITION(S)

1. The approved plans are:- 1:50 scale Ground Floor Plan, Existing Site Plan received 22/05/2018. 2. The development hereby approved shall not operate before 06:00 or after 20:00 Monday to Saturday and before 08:00 or after 18:00 on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

REASON(S)

1. To define the scope of the planning permission 2. To ensure the cafe is not used at a time which would be likely to cause nuisance or disturbance to any neighbouring properties.

______

Page 135

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

APPLICATION NO: LOCATION: DATE RECEIVED: P/2018 /0425 LAND ADJOINING WHOOTERS 21/05/2018 LODGE OSWESTRY ROAD OVERTON WREXHAM COMMUNITY: LL13 0LG CASE OFFICER: Overton SEH DESCRIPTION: RETENTION AND CONTINUED USE WARD: OF GAZEBO, JETTY, BRIDGE AND AGENT NAME: Overton TREE HOUSE IN CONNECTION RAISE ARCHITECTS WITH PRIVATE NATURE RESERVE MR RANDAL TURNER (PREVIOUSLY GRANTED TEMPORARY PERMISSION UNDER CODE P/2013/0305)

APPLICANT(S) NAME: MR JONATHAN LATHAM

______

THE SITE

Application Site

PROPOSAL

As above

Page 136

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

RELEVANT HISTORY

OVE 18616 Erection of manager’s dwelling and Withdrawn 3/12/1990 office for hatchery, construction of new vehicular and pedestrian access and installation of septic tank OVE 19160 Siting of residential caravan for Refused 29/4/1991 keeper/supervisor of hatchery OVE 19423 Use of land as game farm, erection of Refused 29/7/1991 manager/supervisors bungalow and installation of septic tank (Partly in retrospect) P/2003/0215 Construction of 3 no. lakes/ponds and Granted 7/7/2003 laying of pipeline in association with use of effluent treatment plan (partly in retrospect) P/2013/0305 Retrospective application for change of Granted 7/10/2013 use of agricultural land to private nature reserve and erection of structures for maintenance and incidental enjoyment thereof

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The site lies outside the settlement limits, and is within a Special Landscape Area. UDP Policies PS2, EC4, EC5, EC6 and GDP1 apply. LPGN Nos. 17 ‘Trees and Development’ and 32 ‘Biodiversity’ are also relevant.

CONSULTATIONS

Community Council: The metal gazebo shown on the jetty should be removed as it is too large and not in keeping with the wooden jetty upon which it sits. Local Member: Notified 25/05/2018 NRW: No objections. Site Notice: Expired 19/06/2018 Neighbours: Notified 29/05/2018

SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ ISSUES

Background: Planning permission was granted in 2013 (P/2013/0305) to use the redundant lakes/ponds, which were previously used as part of the effluent treatment plan for the nearby Knolton Cheese Factory, as a private nature reserve. At that time temporary planning permission was also granted for a number of ancillary structures including a wooden gazebo, a wooden jetty with metal gazebo above, a wooden bridge and a wooden tree house. The permission was temporary because of their materials of construction and the need for monitoring, in particular the impact of the tree house upon the health and stability of the tree which requires periodic assessment. Planning

Page 137

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018 permission is now sought to retain these structures and the main issues to consider are their visual impact and the continued impact of the tree house upon the health and stability of the tree.

Structures and Visual Impact: The structures including the gazebo, jetty and bridges remain screened and are not readily visible in the wider context of the area. As such both the nearby and distant viewpoints within the Special Landscape Area are protected. The structures remain in good condition however, given their materials of construction, it would be appropriate to again grant only temporary permission to allow the Authority to continue to monitor their impact in the interests of protecting the visual amenities of the area.

Figure 1. Elevations

Trees: The timber tree house is now approximately 6 years old and is freestanding supported by timber posts. The structure is not attached to the tree at any point. On inspection, no dieback or other signs of ill health were found in connection with the tree house. Holes in the timber walls of the tree house have been cut to allow the tree branches through the structure. It is evident that the holes are periodically made larger to allow for the movement and incremental growth of the tree. The tree remains in good health and there is no evidence to suggest that the tree house is having a detrimental impact upon the health and stability of the tree. The monitoring of the condition of the tree should continue.

Page 138

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

Figure 2. Tree House

Conclusion: Subject to the granting of a temporary permission of 5 years, the retention of the structures will not be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the locality or the health and stability of the tree. The temporary nature of the permission will allow further monitoring of the structures and I recommend accordingly.

RECOMMENDATION: That permission be GRANTED

CONDITION(S)

1. The gazebos, jetty, bridge and tree house as shown on approved drawings numbered 455 /02, 455/03 and 455/04 shall be dismantled and any resulting materials permanently removed from the site no later than 31 December 2023.

REASON(S)

1. To protect trees which ae of significant amenity value to the area, to protect the visual amenities of the Special Landscape Area and to ensure that the development fully complies with the appropriate policies and standards.

______

Page 139

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

List of Delegated Decisions Issued

ROS P/2018/0087 SOUTH BANK, STATION ROAD, INSTALLATION OF REPLACEMENT GRANTED ROSSETT, WREXHAM, LL12 0HE FRONT WINDOWS 18/06/2018 LGC P/2018/0179 AFALLON, CHURCH HILL, GLYN CHANGE OF USE OF AGRICULTURAL GRANTED CEIRIOG, WREXHAM, LL20 7DN LAND TO DOMESTIC (IN PART 04/06/2018 RETROSPECT) AND ERECTION OF DETACHED GARAGE

ABE P/2018/0222 THE VILLAGE BAKERY LIMITED, CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW STEEL GRANTED COED ABEN ROAD, WREXHAM STORAGE SHED TO SUPPLEMENT 14/06/2018 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, WREXHAM, EXISTING BUSINESS FACILITIES LL13 9UH

WRO P/2018/0239 UNIT C, MAESGWYN ROAD, CONVERSION OF EXISTING OFFICE REFUSED WREXHAM, LL11 2AP SPACE TO FORM 6 NO BEDROOMED 01/06/2018 HOUSE IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION (HMO)

CEI P/2018/0259 PEN Y BRYN, PEN Y BRYN ROAD, CONVERSION OF BARN INTO ARTIST REFUSED LLANARMON D C, LLANGOLLEN, STUDIO / STORAGE ANCILLARY TO 07/06/2018 LL20 7LB EXISTING DWELLING

WRR P/2018/0261 3 TO 9, GROSVENOR ROAD, APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF GRANTED WREXHAM, LL11 1DB DETAILS RESERVED BY CONDITIONS 06/06/2018 IMPOSED UNDER PLANNING PERMISSION P/2014/0436:- CONDITION 5 - SUBMISSION OF DETAILS OF SURFACE WATER REMOVAL STRATEGY CONDITION 15 - SUBMISSION OF DETAILS OF HARD AND SOFT LANDSCAPING SCHEME CONDITION 22 - SUBMISSION OF ECOLOGY REPORT

BRY P/2018/0265 ANNEXE AT THE COURT YARD, 5 APPLICATION FOR A LAWFUL REFUSED FFYNNON Y CEIRW, BRYMBO ROAD, DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE FOR 04/06/2018 BWLCHGWYN, WREXHAM, LL11 5UA EXISTING USE OF ANNEX AS SEPARATE DWELLING HOUSE

MIN P/2018/0274 LAND ADJACENT TO, VICARAGE HILL ERECTION OF BLOCK OF 2 NO. TWO REFUSED COURT, VICARAGE HILL, MINERA, BEDROOM FLATS WITH 07/06/2018 WREXHAM, LL11 3YN IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING CAR PARKING AND ASSOCIATED EXTERNAL WORKS

OVE P/2018/0275 PENYLLAN COTTAGE, PENYLLAN APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF DETAILS APPROVED STREET, OVERTON, WREXHAM, RESERVED BY CONDITIONS IMPOSED 08/06/2018 LL13 0EE UNDER PLANNING PERMISSION P/2017/0562 CONDITION 7 - SUBMISSION OF DETAILS OF AN APPROPRIATE PHOTOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONDITION 8 - SUBMISSION OF DETAILS OF WORKS TO STABALISE CHIMNEY STACK CONDITION 10 - SUBMISSION OF A DRAINAGE SCHEME FOR THE SITE

Page 140

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

WRO P/2018/0276 1 Y GROES, SALISBURY ROAD, APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF APPROVED WREXHAM, LL13 7AS DETAILS RESERVED BY CONDITIONS 30/05/2018 IMPOSED UNDER PLANNING PERMISSION P/2017/0744 CONDITION 5 - SUBMISSION OF SAMPLES OF ALL EXTERNAL FACING AND ROOFING MATERIALS CONDITION 8 - SUBMISSION OF A DETAILED ARBORICULTURAL METHOD STATEMENT CONDITION 9 - SUBMISSIN OF DETAILS OF HARD AND SOFT LANDSCAPING

ROS P/2018/0282 RACKERY FARM, BURTON, CHANGE OF USE OF LAND FOR THE GRANTED ROSSETT, WREXHAM, LL12 0AE SITING OF 3 NO. SAFARI TENTS AND 07/06/2018 CONSTRUCTION OF ASSOCIATED PARKING AREA

WRO P/2018/0285 3 - 7, REGENT STREET, WREXHAM, CHANGE OF USE OF PART OF FIRST GRANTED LL11 1SG FLOOR TO FORM CAFE AREA 15/05/2018 MAR P/2018/0286 4, BRECK CLOSE, MARCHWIEL, ERECTION OF BRICK BUILT GRANTED WREXHAM, LL13 0PS WORKSHOP WITH DISABLED ACCESS 07/06/2018 RAMP

MAE P/2018/0289 LAND OFF, TUDOR DRIVE, , PENLEY, APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF GRANTED WREXHAM, LL13 0JN DETAILS RESERVED BY CONDITIONS 04/06/2018 IMPOSED UNDER PLANNING PERMISSION P/2017/0079: CONDITION 13 - SUBMISSION OF SCHEME FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND INTEGRATED DRAINAGE OF THE SITE

MAE P/2018/0290 LAND OFF, TUDOR DRIVE, PENLEY, APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF GRANTED WREXHAM, LL13 0JN DETAILS RESERVED BY CONDITIONS 04/06/2018 IMPOSED UNDER PLANNING PERMISSION P/2014/0738: CONDITION 6 - SUBMISSION OF SCHEME FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE AND INTEGRATED DRAINAGE OF THE SITE

WOR P/2018/0293 BROUGHTON HOUSE, , SINGLE-STOREY EXTENSIONS, GRANTED THREAPWOOD, MALPAS, SY14 7AN CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ACCESS 04/06/2018 ROUTE AND ENCLOSED CAR PARKING AREA

CHI P/2018/0302 6, WOODSIDE COTTAGES, OLD CHANGE OF USE FROM REFUSED BLACK PARK ROAD, CHIRK, AGRICULTURAL LAND (PART OF FIELD) 07/06/2018 WREXHAM, LL14 5AY TO RESIDENTIAL GARDEN (IN RETROSPECT)

Page 141

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

WRR P/2018/0305 LLWYN ISAF GREEN, EAST OF APPLICATION FOR WORKS TO TREES GRANTED GUILDHALL, OFF RHOSDDU ROAD SUBJECT TO TREE PRESERVATION 12/06/2018 AND CHESTER STREET, WREXHAM, ORDER DENBIGHSHIRE TPO NO. 12 LL12 7AB - T35 ASH - CROWN RAISE TO APPROXIMATELY 3M - T73 NORWAY MAPLE - CROWN RAISE TO APPROXIMATELY 3M - T11 CHERRY - CROWN RAISE TO APPROXIMATELY 5.5M WHERE OVERHANGING THE ROAD - T25 HOLLT - TARGET PRUNE 1M CLEAR OF BANDSTAND AND CROWN RAISE TO APPROXIMATELY 4M WHERE OVERHANGING ROAD AND 2.5M OVER GRASS - T4 KANZAN CHERRY - TARGET PRUNE APPROXIMATELY 1M CLEAR OF SIGN T65 SYCAMORE - FELL T66 ROBINA - FELL T7 OAK - CROWN RAISE TO APPROXIMATELY 3M RELACEMENT PLANTING OF 2 FRANS FONTAINE HORNBEAMS AND 2 COMMON YEW

RHO P/2018/0310 DELFRYN, STRYT LAS, ERECTION OF DOUBLE GARAGE GRANTED RHOSLLANERCHRUGOG, (DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE) 15/05/2018 WREXHAM, LL14 2HE

LLR P/2018/0312 TOWER HILL BARNS TREVOR VILLA, CHANGE OF USE OF TREVOR VILLA TO GRANTED LLANGOLLEN ROAD, TREVOR, MIXED USE INCLUDING 12/06/2018 WREXHAM, LL20 7TB ACCOMMODATION AND ANCILLARY SERVICES TO TREVOR BARNS AND ERECTION OF TIMBER HOSTEL TO CREATE 4 NO. SLEEPING QUARTERS AND WASHROOM / WC FACILITIES FOR SHORT TERM GUESTS

MAE P/2018/0316 LAND SOUTH OF, BIG GREEN FARM, APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO REFUSED ELLESMERE LANE, PENLEY, DISPLAY 1 NO. FREE STANDING SIGN 04/06/2018 WREXHAM, LL13 0LP

GRE P/2018/0318 GAYSFIELD, HOSELEY LANE, APPLICATION FOR WORKS TO TREE GRANTED MARFORD, WREXHAM, LL12 8YE SUBJECT TO TREE PRESERVATION 19/06/2018 ORDER WMBC NO 82:- - T1 SEMI-MATURE ASH - FELL

LLR P/2018/0319 TREM BERWYN, GARTH ROAD, REPLACEMENT PORCH EXTENSION GRANTED GARTH, WREXHAM, LL20 7UR 04/06/2018 SES P/2018/0322 COOPERATIVE RETAIL SERVICES APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO GRANTED LTD, BEDWELL ROAD, CROSS DISPLAY 2 NO. INTERNALLY 14/06/2018 LANES, WREXHAM, LL13 0TR ILLUMINATED FASCIA SIGNS, 2 NO. INTERNALLY ILLIMINATED LOGOS AND 6 NO. NON ILLUMINATED WALL MOUNTED FLAT PANELS

Page 142

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

WRR P/2018/0326 62, REGENT STREET, WREXHAM, CONVERSION OF OFFICE TO GRANTED LL11 1RE, RESIDENTIAL (1 NO. FLAT) 04/06/2018 WRO P/2018/0328 20, TREM YR EGLWYS, WREXHAM, TWO-STOREY AND SINGLE STOREY GRANTED LL13 7QE REAR EXTENSIONS AND SINGLE- 11/06/2018 STOREY FRONT EXTENSION

OVE P/2018/0331 23, HIGH STREET, OVERTON, INSTALLATION OF RETRACTABLE GRANTED WREXHAM, LL13 0DT AWNING TO RETAIL PREMISES 11/06/2018 HAN P/2018/0333 WELLINGTON HOUSE, PEARTREE REAR EXTENSION REFUSED LANE, HALGHTON, HANMER, 14/06/2018 WHITCHURCH, SY13 3DU

RHO P/2018/0341 3, LOWER MOUNTAIN ROAD, TWO-STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND GRANTED RHOSLLANERCHRUGOG, REAR CONSERVATORY 04/06/2018 WREXHAM, LL14 2EH

ROS P/2018/0342 LOWER HONKLEY FARM, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF 5 NO REFUSED STRINGERS LANE, BURTON, DWELLINGS, ACCESS, CAR PARKING, 04/06/2018 ROSSETT, WREXHAM, LL12 0AP LANDSCAPING, DRAINAGE AND ASSOCIATED ENGINEERING WORKS

WRO P/2018/0346 SCS, UNIT 4, CENTRAL RETAIL APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO GRANTED PARK, CENTRAL ROAD, WREXHAM, DISPLAY 1 NO. INTERNALLY 11/06/2018 LL13 7SU ILLUMINATED FASCIA SIGN

ABE P/2018/0351 11, NEWMARKET RISE, LLWYN ONN TWO-STOREY SIDE EXTENSION GRANTED PARK, WREXHAM, LL13 0QL 04/06/2018 GRE P/2018/0352 QUARRY ENTRANCE, PANT LANE, ERECTION OF STORAGE CONTAINER GRANTED GRESFORD, WREXHAM, LL12 8HB (3.0M WIDE X 2.4M DEEP X 2.5M HIGH) 11/06/2018 TO BE SITED NEXT TO THE EXISTING CONTAINER

RUA P/2018/0355 LAND SOUTH OF EXISTING APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF GRANTED SUBSTATON, PLAS BENNION ROAD, DETAILS RESERVED BY CONDITION 11/06/2018 PENYCAE, WREXHAM, LL14 6RN IMPOSED UNDER PLANNING PERMISSION P/2015/0623: CONDITION 8 - SUBMISSION OF SCHEME FOR EXTERNAL LIGHTING

RHO P/2018/0356 WESTFIELD, PARK ROAD, PONCIAU, TWO-STOREY SIDE EXTENSION AND GRANTED WREXHAM, LL14 1HE SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION 04/06/2018 WRO P/2018/0363 YALE SPIRE HOSPITAL, SITING OF MODULAR BUILDING TO GRANTED CROESNEWYDD ROAD, WREXHAM, PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY 14/06/2018 LL13 7YP OFFICE ACCOMMODATION

Page 143

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

WRR P/2018/0370 14 - 16, REGENT STREET, APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF GRANTED WREXHAM, LL11 1SA DETAILS RESERVED BY CONDITIONS 06/06/2018 IMPOSED UNDER PLANNING PERMISSION P/2018/0190:- CONDITION 3 - SUBMISSION OF SAMPLES OF ALL EXTERNAL FACING AND ROOFING MATERIALS CONDITION 4 - SUBMISSION OF A WRITTEN REPAIR SCHEDULE FOR THE EXTERNAL WORKS

RUA P/2018/0374 7 AND 9, PADDOCK ROW, RUABON, NOTIFICATION OF PROPOSED WORKS GRANTED WREXHAM, LL14 6DD TO TREES WITHIN RUABON 19/06/2018 CONSERVATION AREA * 7 PADDOCK ROW - SYCAMORE (T2): REMOVE BACK TO SOURCE 8 NO. LOWEST LIMBS TO PROVIDE SUITABLE CLEARANCE ABOVE PARKING AREA * 9 PADDOCK ROW - CHERRY (T1): REDUCE INDIVIDUAL BRANCHES TO PROVIDE 2.0M CLEARANCE FROM SIDE OF PROPERTY. CROWN RAISE TO PROVIDE 4.0M CLEARANCE ABOVE ACCESS.

GRE P/2018/0379 BRYN Y GROES, CHESTER ROAD, APPLICATION FOR A NON-MATERIAL GRANTED GRESFORD, WREXHAM, LL12 8UA, AMENDMENT TO PLANNING 01/06/2018 PERMISSION P/2018/0118: PLOT 43 - TO AMEND REAR / SIDE BOUNDARY AND SUBSTITUTION OF HOUSE TYPE (GROUND FLOOR EXTENSION)

COE P/2018/0385 17, PENYGELLI ROAD, COEDPOETH, GROUND FLOOR FRONT EXTENSION GRANTED WREXHAM, LL11 3RW 14/06/2018 WRR P/2018/0386 24, SANDRINGHAM ROAD, FRONT PORCH EXTENSION AND FIRST GRANTED WREXHAM, LL11 2RE FLOOR EXTENSION TO SIDE 14/06/2018 GRE P/2018/0392 14, STANCLIFFE AVENUE, APPLICATION FOR A NON-MATERIAL GRANTED MARFORD, WREXHAM, LL12 8LP AMENDMENT TO PLANNING 04/06/2018 PERMISSION P/2016/1122 TO ALLOW AMENDMENT TO ELEVATION OF GARAGE WALL AND INSERTION OF 2 NO. TOP HUNG OPENING WINDOWS AND INSERTION OF VELUX TYPE WINDOW TO STOREROOM

Page 144

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

PEN P/2018/0401 LAND ADJOINING, HAWTHORN VIEW, APPLICATION FOR A NON-MATERIAL GRANTED PENYCAE, WREXHAM, , LL14 2DF AMENDMENT TO PLANNING 12/06/2018 PERMISSION P/2015/0136 TO:-DELETE GARAGE AND REPLACES WITH PARKING SPACES, RELOCATE PARKING SPACES TO DETACHED HOUSE, AMEND FRONT PORCH DESIGN AND REMOVE WC WINDOW TO ALL PLOTS, * INCREASE DEPTH OF LOWER FRONT WINDOW TO 1200MM TO ALL PLOTS, ADD TWO NEW FROSTED WINDOWS TO SIDE ELEVATION OF DETACHED HOUSE, REPLACE BRICK ARCH OVER WINDOWS WITH BRICK SOLDIER COURSE TO ALL PLOTS, AMEND REAR PATIO DOOR AND WINDOW ARRANGEMENTS TO SEMI- DETACHED UNITS

CHI P/2018/0403 2B, GREYSTONES, CHURCH CHANGE OF USE FROM A1 GRANTED STREET, CHIRK, WREXHAM, , LL14 (PHOTOGRAPHIC SHOP) TO A3 TEA 14/06/2018 5HA ROOM

WRC P/2018/0405 THE FAT BOAR, 11 YORKE STREET, KITCHEN EXTENSION BUILT OFF GRANTED WREXHAM, LL13 8LW EXISTING TERRACE 14/06/2018 ABE P/2018/0410 UNIT 12, ASH ROAD NORTH, APPLICATION FOR PRIOR GRANTED WREXHAM INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, NOTIFICATION OF PROPOSED 12/06/2018 WREXHAM, LL13 9JT DEMOLITION OF PROSERVE LTD WAREHOUSE AND OFFICES

WRA P/2018/0412 1, SHERWELL AVENUE, WREXHAM, APPLICATION FOR A LAWFUL GRANTED LL13 9TZ DEVELOPMENT CERTIFICATE FOR A 14/06/2018 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A GROUND FLOOR REAR EXTENSION

BRO P/2018/0414 21, HALL VIEW, CAEGO, WREXHAM, SINGLE-STOREY REAR EXTENSION GRANTED LL11 6YP 14/06/2018 GRE P/2018/0419 THE LAURELS, 9 SUNNYRIDGE ALTERATIONS TO FORM ENLARGED GRANTED AVENUE, MARFORD, WREXHAM, , GARAGE AND NEW GARAGE ROOF 15/06/2018 LL12 8TE NEW FRONT CANOPY PORCH AND SINGLE-STOREY REAR EXTENSION

OVE P/2018/0424 7, SUNDORNE, OVERTON, APPLICATION FOR A NON-MATERIAL GRANTED WREXHAM, LL13 0EB AMENDMENT TO PLANNING 04/06/2018 PERMISSION P/2018/0018 TO REDUCE THE OPENING TO THE EAST ELEVATION OF THE EXTENSION / CONSERVATORY FROM 17' TO 8' REPLACING THE 6 GLASS PANELS WITH FRENCH PATIO DOORS WITH SIDE PANELS

Page 145

REPORT OF THE HEAD OF ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING – Date 2nd JULY 2018

WRO P/2018/0449 TY RYAN, CWRT NODDFA, APPLICATION FOR A NON-MATERIAL GRANTED CROESNEWYDD ROAD, WREXHAM, AMENDMENT TO PLANNING 08/06/2018 LL11 3EZ PERMISSION REF NO. P/2016/0401 TO ALLOW AMENDMENT TO THE SITE LAYOUT AND LANDSCAPE PLANS, AND VARIATION TO THE WORDING OF CONDITIONS NOS. 2, 4 AND 15 TO REFLECT CHANGES IN LANDSCAPE AND SITE PLAN REFERENCES

BRO P/2018/0460 THE OLD CHAPEL, BROUGHTON APPLICATION FOR A NON-MATERIAL GRANTED ROAD, LODGE, WREXHAM, LL11 5NG AMENDMENT TO PLANNING 08/06/2018 PERMISSION P/2018/0324 TO ALLOW THE INSERTION OF TWO HIGH LEVEL WINDOWS TO GROUND FLOOR REAR ELEVATION

RHO P/2018/0488 LAND NORTH OF, 8 GRANGO LANE, APPLICATION FOR A NON-MATERIAL GRANTED PONCIAU, WREXHAM, LL14 1ER AMENDMENT TO PLANNING 15/06/2018 PERMISSION P/2017/0104 TO ALLOW THE RE-POSITION / RE-ALIGNMENT OF DWELLING

Page 146