Planning Committee

The Chair welcomed Mr Carl Hughes to the Meeting, who spoke in favour of the application. The Officer presented the report, and in doing so, displayed plans of the site to assist with his presentation. He also referred to the addendum during his presentation. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: · Acknowledgement that the application would result in a failure to meet LPGN5 as more than 10% of the properties within a 50 metre radius would be residential, but as the area was predominantly commercial in character, this would justify departure from the policy. Officers were therefore satisfied that there wouldn’t be an over concentration of HMO’s in the area. Additionally, it was noted that applications would need to be considered on a case by case basis. · A separate application had been submitted by the applicant for Listed Building Consent. · Suggestion that the site was within a sustainable area for public transport links and was within walking distance of the City Centre. There were a number of public car parks in the area and there was no evidence to suggest this application would create parking issues. The local Member however raised concerns in this regard as he advised that residents in the area were already experiencing problems and were reluctant to go out for fear of losing their parking space. · Confirmation that there would be an overall reduction in foul water flows from the site compared to the previous use. · Concern that there would be inadequate outdoor space for 7 occupants. RESOLVED – That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

The Chair welcomed Mr Richard Fogg to the Meeting, who spoke against the application. The Officer presented the report, and in doing so, displayed plans of the site to assist with his presentation. He also referred to the addendum during his presentation. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: · Confirmation that the applicant would be willing to provide some additional lighting which could be added as an additional condition, should permission be granted. · Confirmation that the application was to convert the existing dwelling into two apartments. This prompted a suggestion that the units could potentially be used as HMOs. Officers clarified that such a change of use would require a separate application. It was noted that an application had indeed been submitted, but permission was subsequently refused. RESOLVED – That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to the following additional condition: Condition: The apartments hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a scheme of external lighting has been implemented in accordance with details that shall have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The external lighting measures shall thereafter be permanently retained. Reason: In the interests of the safety of occupiers of the development in accordance with policy GDP1 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.

The Chair welcomed Mr Jack Harris to the Meeting, who spoke in favour of the application. The Officer presented the report, and in doing so, displayed plans of the site to assist with his presentation. He also referred to the addendum during his presentation. Members were advised that the proposed design complemented the original building and provided adequate separation from neighbouring properties. The site was well landscaped and set back from the highway and didn’t have a detrimental impact on the wider area. RESOLVED – That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

The Officer presented the report, and in doing so, displayed plans of the site to assist with his presentation. He also referred to the addendum during his presentation. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: · Confirmation that there would be a slight increase on existing traffic volumes, but this would be only be during the construction phase so wouldn’t negatively impact the local highway network. · Concerns were raised regarding a possible increase in noise levels. It was acknowledged that while the inverters could generate some noise, the nearest property was located 50 metres away, meaning any impact on neighbours was unlikely to be significant. Should any issues arise, Public Protection Officers would be able to monitor the situation and take appropriate action if required. RESOLVED – That permission be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

The Interim Chief Officer Economy & Planning submitted a report (COEP/77/25) for Members to determine the Council’s position at the forthcoming non-determination appeal. A discussion ensued and the following points were made: · Members were reminded of the need to express a view so that the Council’s position could be determined at the appeal. · Reference was made to the Holt Road appeal, and it was noted that depending on the issues raised by Members, consultants may need to be engaged, although previous attempts to secure consultants for the Holt Road appeal were unsuccessful. · Suggestion that the application would have been refused if determined, and therefore the Welsh Government/Inspector should be asked to refuse the appeal. · It was noted that there was insufficient information in the application to assess the impact on the highway network, and proposed mitigation measures were not considered adequate. · Acknowledgement that were potential archaeological features on site, the impact of which was still unknown. · The applicant had proposed two options for dealing with the issue of phosphorous (on-site treatment or connection to the main sewer) but neither were considered acceptable. · Officers in the Flood Team were concerned that the development would present unacceptable flood risk both on and off site. · Confirmation that whilst it was acknowledged that a Transport Assessment had been submitted with the application, the Council’s Highways Officer and the Welsh Government (Trunk Roads) had advised that insufficient information had been provided to determine whether the proposed development would be acceptable. The Welsh Government (Trunk Roads) had directed the Council not to grant planning permission and advised on the additional information that must be provided. · Suggestion by the local Member that this matter should be referred to the Planning Policy Panel, but Members were advised that it was the role of this Committee to determine development management applications. RESOLVED: (i) That the Council’s position in the forthcoming appeal is that it would have refused planning permission on the following technical reasons; · Highway capacity and safety; · Archaeology; · The potential for the development to have a significant effect on the integrity of the River Dee and Bala Lake Special Area of Conservation; · On and off-site flood risk. (ii) That the Council’s position in the forthcoming appeal is that it would have refused planning permission on the following grounds for the following reason relating to the principle of development: · The proposed development lies outside the settlement limit, within a designated Green Barrier and Special Landscape Area and contains Best and Most Versatile agricultural land. The proposed development therefore conflicts with policies PS1, EC1, EC2 and EC5 of the Wrexham Unitary Development Plan.

The Interim Chief Officer Economy & Planning submitted a list of delegated decisions for the period 1 October 2025 to 31 October 2025. RESOLVED – That the list of delegated decisions be noted.