Proposals for 110 houses on a Deganwy site were scrutinised in forensic detail during a three day public inquiry last week.

Beech Developments had appealed against Conwy County Borough Council's (CCBC) decision a year ago to refuse planning permission for the construction of 110 houses on land at the junction of Marl Lane and Pentwyn Road.

Video by Allan George

The Inquiry was held by planning inspector Mr Iwan Lloyd at Llandudno Junction community centre and ran from Wednesday to Friday.

Things began with CCBC representative, John Barrett, telling the inquiry there were three main issues to consider.

Mr Barrett said these three issues were whether the proposals conflict was with Conwy’s development plan and its policies on location of development, the heritage asset and the agricultural land quality; whether any impact of the proposals on heritage assets is acceptable; or if any conflict with the plan, or harm to the setting, is outweighed by other considerations.

He said: “These proposals conflict with key policies contained within the development plan on settlement boundaries, agricultural land quality and heritage issues.”

Mr David Manley QC, counsel for Beech Developments, told the inquiry the housing land supply shortfall is very significant and the need for additional housing is clear and demonstrated.

He said: “The net consequence of under provision since 2012 is that the shortfall is 1,357, equivalent to 11 or 12 sites the size of the Marl Lane site.”

“The need for additional housing is compelling and there is no alternative land of lesser agricultural and environmental value.

"It is wishful thinking that the protection of heritage assets must trump any weight attached to housing need.”

Matthew Gilbert, a planning consultant appearing for Beech Developments, said: “There is a significant housing land shortage in Conwy which needs to be addressed.

"It is clear the development will have a negligible impact on the heritage assets and does not justify the refusal of planning permission.”

Mr Gilbert said CCBC’s objection to the loss of agricultural land is outweighed by the need for housing land.

He said: “The proposal does not give rise to unacceptable landscape, highways, heritage or other impacts.

"The balance is strongly in favour of granting planning permission and the benefits outweigh the conflict with the development plan.

“The overall delivery of housing and of affordable housing could not be much worse. The overall supply is substantially below where it should be.”

Phil Garner, a planning consultant appearing for CCBC, said there was a clear conflict between loss of agricultural land and the impact on heritage assets against the need for housing developments.

However Mr Garner sided with Beech Development and said: "The loss of agricultural land does not outweigh the housing benefits.”

Transportation consultant for Beech Developments, David Roberts, told the inquiry there were no objections from a highway, traffic or transport point of view.

He said: “The maximum level of vehicle movements is likely to be the equivalent of an average of one vehicle per minute at the site access.

“An independent road safety audit confirmed the access can be fully supported from a safety point of view.”

Opposition from residents to the Marl Lane proposal has been steadily increasing from the time it became public knowledge.

The presentation of their case to the inquiry was organised by Marl Ward councillors Mike Priestley and Sue Shotter.

A number of residents were present throughout the hearing, on occasions more than 60 in attendance.

Joan Duncalf, who has lived within 500 metres of the site for about 50 years, said: “Over the past few years we have witnessed a considerable amount of new housing in the area, which has had a detrimental effect on the local people and their families.

“An estate of this size will inevitable contribute to an increase in traffic on this already busy network of roads in a residential area.”

Another resident, Ruth Parker, said: “The proposed development is not in the local development plan. There are no spaces in the schools, no NHS dentists, and GP surgeries are struggling, there is a risk of flooding and of traffic overload.

"This development is not sustainable.”

Philippa Milward said: “All the 1300 plus objections received by the council are the result of a strong conviction that we have reached saturation point: the road network, schools and health services cannot cope safely and efficiently with another 110 homes.”

Anna Maria Jacovelli, a Marl Lane resident, said: “This proposal is on the brow of a hill and would destroy beautiful views. \

"Councils should protect the environment and not allow green spaces and agricultural land to be relentlessly eaten away.

"Urbanisation is slowly destroying the rural quality of this district.”

Cllr Sue Shotter said: “This development had been placed in the school catchment area of Ysgol Awel-y-Mynydd in Llandudno Junction, and will encourage parents to drive their children to school.”

Cllr Mike Priestley, summarised the objections presented at the Inquiry by local residents, and added: “We need to stop chipping away at Marl Ward, enough is enough.”

The Inquiry was handed a letter by Tom Parry of Llandudno which stated: “Many of my friends live in a Beech home and there is a massive unmet demand for new houses, especially first time and affordable ones.

"I believe that on the site there will be many affordable and social properties which are much needed in this area.”