Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest made by Members.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 7^th November 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 conditions, as outlined in the report.

Councillor R. Moorby, representing Raglan Community Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         Raglan Community Council has been pressing for, and not yet received, details of a number of items.  The Community Council had written to Monmouthshire County Council requesting further details.

·         There were no details regarding engineering works to level out plots and where the water and power would come from.  There is no information available regarding drainage and sewage, with a moveable toilet block being provided.  However, if this is not the case, there are still issues regarding drainage and sewage at this site.

·         There will be minimal works for access.  However, the field has a significant slope to it with the shepherd huts being located at the bottom of the slope.  In inclement weather, the field becomes slippery and muddy and there is potential for vehicles to become stuck in the field in these conditions.

·         No information has come forward regarding lighting of the site.  Concern was expressed that if all night lighting was proposed for the site, then there would be light pollution coming from this site. Residents are able to view the site from their properties and would not be keen to have light pollution in this area of the countryside.

·         Concern was expressed that the proposal might lead to a precedent being set for the site to be developed further in the future.

The applicant, Sarah Evans, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         There are only four shepherd huts proposed in order to be more sympathetic to the local environment and to be more eco-friendly.

·         There will be solar panels on top of each of the huts allowing them to be self-sufficient with regard to energy provision.

·         Parking provision will be provide at the top of the site.

·         There will be no light pollution at night.  Visitors will be required to use torches when moving around after dark.

·         The toilet block will be self-contained.  Drainage will not be required.

·         This venture will help towards maintaining the up keep of Cefn Tilla.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, the following points were noted:

·         The grass reinforcement system consists of a membrane set into the ground which allows the grass to grow between it but will provide a relatively level surface.  However, there will be some regrading required.  The membrane then allows for a structure to be placed upon it providing a level and solid base for the shepherd huts.

·         The water for the huts will come via the mains water supply.

·         The safeguarding zone for the gliding club is not an issue at this site, as the huts will be low structures.

·         Some diversity in the countryside and tourist related activity should be welcomed. The application is modest and is  ...  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 conditions, as outlined in the report.

Councillor F. Cotton, representing Monmouth Town Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         There is no proposed use or customer for the heat generated, bar negligible output to the pumping station.

·         The possibility of supply to the new swimming pool complex is suggested but not substantiated.

·         The scale of the capacity and output needs to be acknowledged. Even with the Spa Hotel complex, the heat generated would be in excess of that used.

·         The approval was previously granted on the premise that the Spa Hotel and the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant were symbiotic but this is not the case.

·         The heat produced by such a plant would be sufficient to provide heat for an Olympic sized swimming pool and a substantial hospital complex, and the heating and hot water for 300 to 400 domestic homes together.

·         There appears to be no proposed use or consumer for the energy generated except for sale to the national grid.

·         This is a fossil fuel burning power station, lacking the efficiencies of a CHP which will need to dump the excessive amounts of generated heat as a waste product.

·         Gas is a fossil fuel generating carbon dioxide, making a contribution to global warming.

·         Claims that it will be a benign beneficial provider of energy to the town and its economy is not substantiated in this proposal.

·         The application gives no indication that energy will be retailed to the community at beneficial rates.

·         Under the Well-being of Future Generations Act, the proposal fails.

·         The proposal fails on the globally responsible Wales that we aim to be.

·         Under the Environmental Act, we have a responsibility to reduce greenhouse gasses.  If this proposal does not go ahead then the production of greenhouse gasses will be avoided.

·         Should the proposal go ahead with end users of heat generated identified, then, by its increased efficiency of greenhouse gas fuel, it would constitute responsible use of a fossil fuel but no end user of heat has been identified.

·         Monmouth Town Council would look favourably on this application if it demonstrated the most efficient use of gas fuel.  This would require an identified destination or user of the heat produced.  If it demonstrated beneficial and lower cost and efficient power supply, both heat and power to the local community, and if it was a constituent part of a development bringing advantages to the local community. The Town Council considers that it does not and therefore does not support the application.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, the following points were noted:

·         As the application is for outline permission, approval of the application should be considered, as the Committee will need greater context to know what the proposal will be in order to identify whether there is a problem with the heat output.

·         It  ...  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 three conditions, as outlined in the report.

Ms. J. Bayntun, objecting to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The extension proposed at Woodside seems to be out of keeping with the design and character of a pair of semi-detached houses because of its size and position.

·         It will make the kitchen at Sunnyside very dark as well as spoiling the outlook from the kitchen windows.

·         Sunnyside and Woodside were originally designed in such a way that the rear sections were set wide apart from each other to protect the amenity of both dwellings.  The extension at Woodside would be built right up to the joint boundary. 

·         From inside the kitchen at Sunnyside the proposed extension would be visually overbearing and oppressive.

·         The proposed two storey extension at Woodside projects further out than the extension at Sunnyside.  It would block the afternoon sun and cast a shadow over all of the rooms at the rear of Sunnyside.

·         Sunnyside’s kitchen has two windows, both of which receive direct sunlight that would be blocked by the proposed extension.

·         The proximity and size of the extension would also significantly reduce the ambient light received at other times of the day.

·         Because of its position in relation to Woodside, the two storey extension at Sunnyside does not have a similar impact upon Woodside because the sun never shines from that direction.

·         The restriction of light to the kitchen at Sunnyside would force the residents to use electric lighting at all times of the day.

·         It would be more appropriate to build the extension at Woodside further away from the joint boundary or even sideways, adjacent to the rear.

The applicant, Mr. Cooke, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The applicant wants to keep the character of the property.  Therefore, he decided not to extend to the front and rear as per the 2014 original plans which had received approval from Planning Committee.

·         This application, with guidance from the Planning Department, was to have a substantially reduced extension instead of the 2014 original application.

·         It was considered that the best option was to extend the property to the rear which was in keeping with the neighbour’s extension at Sunnyside and not diminishing the original character of the property.

·         To build the two storey extension, the applicant is removing an existing bathroom so the actual impact of the new extension will only be one metre.  The two storey extension will match the neighbour’s extension at Sunnyside.

·         This extension complies with the guidance of the Planning Case Officer’s report.

·         At the site inspection the applicant marked out the proposed extension. With the topography of the ground, the extension at a certain point is at least 100mm to 150mm lower and the roofline is set back by 300mm. Access to light for the neighbour  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was

recommended for approval subject to the two conditions, as outlined in the report.

Ms. M. Gibson, representing objectors, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         Legally, this is a far more complex matter than whether a pavilion can be allowed in a front garden or anything to do with permitted development rights.

·         It is regarding a significant breach of a strict planning condition which residents had reasonable expectation that would be implemented.

·         The problem is that with the original consent for the large indoor swimming pool, there was a strict condition requiring the implementation of a compensatory green landscaping plan.

·         There was no suggestion of a large high roofed pavilion on a concrete plinth directly in front of the pool building where an open vista and lawn were marked on the original consented plan.

·         The officer handling the application for the pool had produced a fair and balanced report.  However, the binding plan had been cast aside and rendered impossible to implement by the moving of the pavilion.  Residents considered that this could not be fair.

·         The proposed new plan is inferior in its layout and now places the pavilion in an intrusive dominating position.  In its former position it caused no hindrance and no loss of privacies.

·         The report refers to evergreen screening borders.  However, in reality this is now only in areas near the house and pool.

·         The applicant had been informed by the County Council’s enforcement officer that if work continued to be carried out, it was at their own risk. Despite this, the pavilion was moved and a broad shingle and paved path was laid.

·         Neighbours question how after such a strict approval was imposed, another planning officer is recommending approval.

·         There are some inaccuracies within the report of the application.

Mr. M. Williams, applicant, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The applicant did not think he needed planning permission to move a garden hut from one side of his garden to the front of the garden when the swimming pool building was built.

·         It is in a better position now than originally positioned.

·         The hut was originally on a concrete plinth and is again on such a plinth in its new location.

·         The hut had power at its original location as well as in its new location.

·         The hut is not visible from a neighbour’s property.  In order to view the hut, the neighbour would have to open her gate.

·         The hut is in a better location now than originally placed.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, Members considered that the pavilion was better located in its current position and was not overbearing to the surrounding area.

It was therefore proposed by County Councillor M. Powell and seconded by County Councillor J. Becker that application DC/2017/01256 be approved subject to the two conditions, as outlined  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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 Caerwent, also a Planning Committee Member, informed the Planning Committee that there had been a successful golf club on this site for many years.  However, in recent years the use of the course had declined. The current owner had initially tried to run it as a golf club but this was no longer commercially viable and the club had closed down. Therefore, it is time to regularise the position and approval of the application would achieve this.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed by the local Member, the Committee expressed its support for the application.  However, concern was expressed that the proposed dwelling should not be subdivided into other dwellings.  It was noted that as there is a recommendation proposed within the application for a Section 106 Agreement, the matter relating to subdivision of the property could be incorporated into this agreement.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor G. Howard that application DC/2016/00703 be approved subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report and also subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure an affordable housing contribution and to ensure that the property is not subdivided into multiple residential units without planning permission.

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

For approval              -           15

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2016/00703 be approved subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report and also subject to a Section 106 Agreementto secure an affordable housing contribution and to ensure that the property is not subdivided into multiple residential units without planning permission.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was

recommended for approval subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report.

This application had previously been presented to Planning Committee on 7th November 2017 with an officer recommendation for approval.  However, Members had expressed concern regarding the design, as it was not considered to relate well to the main house. It had been agreed that consideration of application DC/2017/00651 should be deferred to a future meeting of the Planning Committee to allow officers to liaise with the applicant with a view to agreeing a more appropriate design.

Since then, an amended plan had been received which indicated decorative amendments to the proposed annexe, featuring re-constituted stone quoins, lintels and cills, and overhanging eaves and barge boards to match the existing dwelling house. It was again advised by officers to make other design alterations including options to reduce the height of the annexe to single storey and compensate by increasing the floor area, position the annexe further away from the boundary with the neighbours of Hill Barn View (by attaching the annexe to the main dwelling), or explore converting the existing garage to annexe accommodation.  These design suggestions were not agreed and the applicant wanted the Planning Committee to consider the annexe with the same dimensions and profile as presented in the previous Planning Committee meeting.

The application is re-presented to Planning Committee with the same style annexe proposal with alterations to the decorative nature of the building so it is more in keeping with the existing dwelling.

Having considered the report of the application some members expressed concern regarding the orientation of the roof and how the one and a half storey extension relates to the building as a whole. If the roof was turned around by 90 degrees facing the same way as the main roof, first floor accommodation could still be created by building a dormer at the front and rear which would be more aesthetically pleasing.

However, other Members considered that having liaised with the applicant some improvements had been made with regard to the aesthetics of the building and the application complied with planning regulations.

It was noted that the application is an annexe only to the main building and will be secondary accommodation.  The visual impact on the wider area is negligible.

Following the debate, it was proposed by County Councillor G. Howard and seconded by County Councillor R.J. Higginson that we be minded to refuse application DC/2017/00651 on the grounds that the proposal detracts from the character and appearance of the parent dwelling and the surrounding area, contrary to Planning Policy DES1 and that the application be re-presented to Planning Committee with appropriate reasons for refusal.

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

For refusal                 9

Against refusal         5

Abstentions               1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that we be minded to refuse application DC/2017/00651 on the grounds that the proposal detracts from the character  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

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 and subject to a Section 106 agreement requiring a financial contribution of £9,982 towards affordable housing in the local area.

Having considered the report of the application it was noted that there was enough parking provision on the site.  It was therefore proposed by County Councillor M. Feakins and seconded by County Councillor A. Webb that application DC/2017/00829 be approved subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Agreement requiring a financial contribution of £9,982 towards affordable housing in the local area.

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

For approval              -           15

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2017/00829 be approved subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Agreement requiring a financial contribution of £9,982 towards affordable housing in the local area.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit that had been made on the 9^th October 2017. Site: Wern Farm, Ash Cottage to Newbridge on Usk, Tredunnock.

We noted that the appeal had been dismissed.