Low secure mental health unit plans for Gwersyllt granted on appeal

Plans to build a 54-bedroom low secure mental health unit in Gwersyllt have been granted on appeal.

The application for Mold Road, submitted by ASC Real Estate Investments Ltd, had been refused by planning committee members over concerns of an over-intensive use of the site.

Of the 54 bedrooms, 40 individual resident bedrooms with en-suites, arranged as four separate 10 bed units. These would be available for adults aged 18 and over, providing “care and treatment for people with mental health problems”.

The remaining 14 beds would in the ATU – Assessment Treatment Unit – comprising of 14 individual private resident bedrooms arranged as two, seven bed units. This unit would again be accessed by people aged 18 and over who have experienced a crisis / have complex needs.

Described as a hybrid application the plans also included the development of six houses and 24 flats.

During the meeting a series of controversial comments were made by some councillors – who made suggestions that such a development should not be located near a school, playing fields or near a train track.

At the time time Council Leader Mark Pritchard said he was “surprised” by some of the comments made; with Cllr Andrew Atkinson, Lead Member for youth services and anti-poverty, launching mental health training sessions for councillors that has since been undertaken.

The ‘unreasonable’ comments were referenced by the appellant earlier this summer, who argued that he “must seek some form of compensation for the additional expenditure” as a result of “the unreasonable behaviour of members.”

Such comments are referenced in the planning appeal, which states: “Planning committee members failed in their duty to step back from such emotion and rather than review and assess the proposal on planning grounds decided to refuse permission contrary to their own adopted development plan and national planning policy.

“This is despite having the benefit of a full suite of evidence and being advised by their officers that they would be a risk of a costs award at appeal.

“No reasonable planning grounds were used to refuse permission, let alone construct a reason for refusal; the matter of which had clearly no relation to the debate or the fact it had already been complied with and confirmed as such by the officers committee report.

“Members, by refusing permission have prevented and delayed development that should clearly be permitted, having regard to its full accordance with the development plan, national policy and other material considerations – as set out and proven in this statement.”

Now a Welsh Government planning inspector has ruled in favour of overturning the committee’s initial recommendation, noting that there is a “need for units of this sort in North Wales.”

In making his Planning inspector Clive Nield, states: “In the context of the size, nature and location of the site these would be of quite modest scale and would not represent over-intensive development of the site.

“The proposal would include landscaping measures appropriate for the proposed hospital unit and the small housing estate. The development would also include security fencing for the Low Secure Unit, which would not appear out of place in the context of the industrial estate and would, in any case, be subject to landscaping measures to soften its appearance.

“In terms of physical development I consider the proposal would sit comfortably in its surroundings and would be likely to enhance rather than harm the character and appearance of the area.

“Although not clearly expressed in the reason for refusal, Members’ concerns appear to have included the level of security of the Low Secure Unit and its compatibility with neighbouring residential areas and schools.

“As explained in the Council’s committee report, the hospital unit would be designed and operated to prevent escape and to provide accommodation that is secure in terms of the health and well-being of its patients.

“Such units are for the treatment of low risk patients who do not need the level of physical security provided by Medium or High Secure Units.

“There is a need for units of this sort in North Wales, and the proposal is supported by UDP Policy H11, which covers the provision of residential care homes, nursing homes and specialist health care services.

“In view of the secure nature of the unit and the low risk of its patients, I do not consider the proposed use would significantly affect the neighbouring land uses.”

Mr Nield has also ruled that Wrexham Council pay full costs to the developer due to “unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense” as a result of the refusal of the plans.

Commenting on the awarding of costs, Mr Nield said: “In this case, the planning committee refused planning permission contrary to officers’ advice, and no evidence has been produced to explain or justify that decision.

“The reason for refusal refers to the scale and use of the development involving over intensive use of the site. However, the scale of the physical development is quite modest and, from that point of view there can be no doubt it is compliant with the development plan.

“As to concerns about the use, I have taken that to refer to perceptions of risk associated with the low secure hospital unit, which I have concluded would not significantly affect the neighbouring land uses.

“However, no explanation of these perceptions has been provided, and no justification has been produced for this element of the refusal.”