Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest made by Members.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 5^th September 2017 were confirmed and signed by the Chair.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the 16 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to the amendments to the conditions, as outlined in late correspondence.

The local Member for Mardy attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         Access to the whole site is a concern as it will be located on a sharp bend and would be opposite a double dwelling.

·         There has been a long running issue in this area with regard to traffic matters relating to the volume of traffic and heavy goods vehicles using this route as a short cut.

·         Traffic often exceeds the speed limit on this road by a considerable margin. By the time the traffic reaches the 30mph speed limit, vehicles are usually within the 30mph zone before slowing down to the appropriate speed.

·         The volume of traffic exiting this proposed new development will result in a continuous volume of traffic joining an existing fast road causing additional traffic problems for local residents.

·         This site was identified late in the Local Development Plan (LDP) as an addition.

·         The objections to the proposed development have been well documented by the local action group that are against this development.

·         Removing the pylons and putting the cables underground has come at a cost with the reduction in the affordable housing provision from 35% to 19.6%.

·         Concern was expressed regarding the process surrounding the removal of the pylons.

·         With this development there will be extra demand on services in Abergavenny such as hospital provision and doctors’ surgeries.

Mr. S. Griffiths, objecting to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         Many people have consistently opposed this development since it first emerged as the Council’s preferred strategic housing site.

·         The key reasons for objections have been:

-       The impact on traffic volumes along the Hereford Road, particularly through Mardy and its junction with Park Road.

-       The failure of the development to comply with the sustainability policies of the Council and Welsh Government.

-       The dramatic impact on the landscape and the negative effects on wildlife.

-       The dangerous location of the site access.

-       The failure of the proposal to meet the Council’s own requirements in respect of 35% affordable housing, with only 19.6% now being proposed.

-       The unacceptable siting of the new pylon along the Hereford Road.

·         The Planning Inspector stated in accepting the inclusion of Deri Farm in the Local Development Plan (LDP) that she was relying on the Council to live up to the promises on traffic reduction measures.  There is little or no evidence of this being done.

·         The Council and the developers have, in the past, argued that the scheme would be viable and that affordable housing targets would be met.  Objectors have consistently argued that this would not be the case and that as soon as the scheme found its way onto the LDP, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report.

The local Member for Devauden, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         There is a laudable ambition to raise calves that might otherwise be of little value.

·         The application has been presented to the Committee with a recommendation for approval with two basic reasons, firstly, under TAN 6 and secondly, because the County Council’s consultant now believes that this is a viable plan. However, the consultant had originally considered that this business was not viable.

·         This is a 14 acre site with potentially two acres of the site being taken up by the yards and non- grazing area.

·         Further land is being made available on an open ended formal agreement.  Therefore, availability of this land cannot be relied upon.

·         12 acres of land, on which to base this business plan, is illogical. 125 calves growing into cattle are expected to be reared on this land. The applicant has indicated that the calves will spend four months on milk followed by summer grazing in four batches. This will be difficult to achieve.

·         The business plan indicates that it will be a low input system relying on a large acreage of grazing, which this area does not provide.

·         The cost of the calves equates to £20 per calf according to the business plan.  Any reasonable calf equates to £100 or more.

·         The applicant’s previous business was in Dorset but was not viable because it was not direct selling.  This is a niche market.  However, the applicant expects to sell 125 carcasses by direct selling, internet and mobile phone.  This is a huge output and very difficult to achieve.  The cost of refrigeration, transport to and from the markets and transport costs for internet sales has not been provided.

·         The business plan needs to demonstrate that it can support a worker and every worker will need housing.  However, the applicant has indicated that they cannot afford accommodation costs.  The applicant does not need to live on site.

·         Capital costs could be shared with other parts of the business.  However, in this case the applicant has to take on the whole of these costs.

·         This is a high risk bovine T.B. area. Many of the farmers in this area are under restrictions from T.B. and several farmers nearby have been closed down.

·         Contrary to the Council’s consultant’s views, this location is a cold hillside that supports sheep very well.  It is not a site for a speculative calf rearing venture.

Ms. L. Coulthard, representing local objectors, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         It is considered that the application is a property development in search of a business case to justify it.

·         The plot in question was marketed as such extolling its exceptionally beautiful setting and explicitly mentioning the possibility of building a farm house.

·         There  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the one condition, as outlined in the report.

The local Member for Caerwent, also a Planning Committee Member, outlined the following points:

·         The Community Council and residents had expressed concern regarding this application regarding the size and speed of vehicles, which has increased.

·         The evidence from the company is that that is not the case and are not operating to the amount of vehicles allowed in their operating licence.

·         The local feeling is that the business has outgrown the site.

·         The site has been there for a number of years and it is understood that more land has been acquired, which will be subject to a planning application being submitted.  If approved, this will replace the existing site in a more suitable location.

·         The site is being cooperative with regard to complaints that have been received by local residents.

Some Members of the Committee considered that the application should be approved but noted that the location of the business did create some disturbance as the lane was narrow for large vehicles.  A potential move to a more suitable site should be encouraged.

However, other Members of the Committee expressed concern regarding the increased deliveries to the site and that the application was a retrospective planning application.

The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the Committee that the guidance states that retrospective planning applications have to be considered by the Planning Committee.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, it was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor D. Dovey that application DC/2017/00771 be approved subject to the one condition, as outlined in the report.

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

For approval              -           11

Against approval      -           2

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2017/00771 be approved subject to the one condition, as outlined in the report.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit that had been made on 4^th September 2017. Site: Land at the Chainbridge Inn, Kemys Commander, Usk, NP15 1PP.

We noted that subject to the corrections and variation, as outlined in the report, the appeal was dismissed and the enforcement notice was upheld.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to appeal APP/ E6840/C/17/3172828 and appeal APP/ E6840/A/17/3172829 following a site visit that had been made on 6^th June 2017. Site: 23 Clearview, Shirenewton, Chepstow, NP16 6AX.

Appeal APP/ E6840/C/17/3172828:

The appeal succeeds on ground (f) in part and on ground (g) only. The requirements of the enforcement notice are varied as follows:

Delete schedule 4 in its entirety and:

(i)            Substitute the following new requirement: Permanently remove the railings from on top of the retaining wall and reduce its height so as to conform to the maximum height indicated by drawing no. 1 Rev A dated January 2016 authorised by planning permission reference DC/2015/1386. Permanently remove from the land all rubble and waste produced by reducing the height of the wall.

(ii)          Amend the time for compliance to 6 calendar months.

Subject to these variations the appeal is dismissed and the enforcement notice is upheld. Planning permission is refused on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended.

Appeal APP/ E6840/A/17/3172829:

The appeal is dismissed.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit that had been made on 4^th July 2017. Site: Tyr Goytre, Pandy, Abergavenny, NP7 8EB.

We noted that the Enforcement Notice (“the EN”) is varied by

·         The deletion of the words ‘….4 calendar months from the date that this Notice takes effect’ from the Time for Compliance and their replacement with the words ‘….12 calendar months from the date that this Notice takes effect’.

·         The substitution of the plan referred to in Schedule 2 of the EN with the plan attached to this Decision, dated 27/6/2017.

Subject to these variations, the appeal is dismissed in respect of grounds (a), (d) and (f) and the EN is upheld. The appeal on ground (g) succeeds.

We received and noted the planning appeals received between 20^th July and 20^th September 2017.

We received the results of the recent consultation exercise regarding the Draft Sustainable Tourism Accommodation Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) produced to provide further details of policies contained within the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan.

We resolved to endorse the Draft Sustainable Tourism Accommodation SPG (subject to the recommended amendments set out in Appendix 2 of the report) with a view to it being formally adopted as SPG in connection with the Monmouthshire LDP and to recommend to the Cabinet Member for Enterprise accordingly.

We received the results of the recent consultation exercise regarding the Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Rural Conversions to a Residential or Tourism Use (Policies H4 and T2), produced to provide further details of policies contained within the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan.

We resolved to endorse the Draft Rural Conversions to a Residential or Tourism Use (Policies H4 and T2) SPG (subject to the recommended amendments set out in Appendix 2 of the report) with a view to it being formally adopted as SPG in connection with the Monmouthshire LDP and to recommend it to the Cabinet Member for Enterprise accordingly.