Agenda and minutes

County Councillor A. Davies declared a personal and prejudicial interest, pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct, in respect of application DM/2018/00880, as he is a resident of Church Road, Caldicot and has been involved in raising a petition regarding traffic congestion at school start and end periods. He therefore left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 2^nd October 2018 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 20 conditions, as outlined in the report.

·         Three additional conditions, following publication of the report, namely:

-       Retaining the hedgerow to the east of the site in perpetuity to a height of 1.8 metres.

-       Removal of permitted development rights to provide a means of enclosure along the site boundary with dwellings on Treetops.

-       The scale parameters to be a maximum height of 12 metres for the residential development and 18 metres for the care home.

·          A Section 106 Legal Agreement.

The local Member for Portskewett, County Councillor P. Fox, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points.  He also spoke on behalf of Portskewett Community Council, as the original representative was unable to attend the meeting:

·         Infrastructure overload is occurring through Portskewett with additional traffic being generated due to the development of residential houses at the Sudbrook Paper Mill site.

·         There is also a considerable number of houses to be built in the Sudbrook area which will be accessed via the centre of Portskewett village.

·         The main access to Crick Road should be via the B4245. However, there are concerns regarding the secondary access. It was considered that human nature will prevail with the easiest access being through Portskewett, exacerbating existing traffic issues.

·         Originally, it had been noted some years ago that the secondary access was to only serve an additional 40 houses, which had been deemed acceptable. However, the number of vehicles using this access will be considerably more. 

·         The infrastructure for Portskewett is becoming saturated due to additional housing developments being established.

·         The local Member welcomes the proposed additional conditions.

·         The local Member also welcomes the provision of affordable housing and asked that the allocations of these properties be allocated via the Rural Allocations Policy to ensure that local people are able to live within their community.

·         The care home will be a welcome addition to the area.

Councillor A. Easson, representing Caldicot Town Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The Town Council is aware of the need to provide affordable housing in the area.

·         Caldicot Town Council supports the proposed development in principle, creating 75 affordable homes.  However, this support must be measured against the effects of an increased population on the rest of the community and the effects on the existing overstretched infrastructure. The Health Service provision is one of those affected with doctors’ surgeries at capacity.

·         The Town Council supports the development of a care home on Crick Road.

·         The transport infrastructure is inadequate. There is an hourly bus service to Chepstow and Newport but nothing further afield.

·         Severnside no longer has  the no. 62 bus service. The no. 75 bus service no longer exists either.

·         The nearest railway station to Caldicot has poor interconnectivity. It is essential that this service becomes viable for the future for people living in the area.  ...  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 13 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a unilateral undertaking.

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

·         This has been a highly controversial proposed development. Many residents have contacted the local Member outlining their objections to the proposal. Also, a small number of residents have come forward indicating their support for the affordable housing proposals.

·         The vast majority of residents have opposed the scheme for a myriad of reasons.

·         This site does not form a part of the Local Development Plan (LDP). The Council has only agreed to give appropriate weight to the lack of five year land supply rather than considerable weight.

·         Concerns have been raised regarding the infrastructure within Caldicot. The Doctor’s surgery has very long waiting times and it is very difficult to obtain a NHS dentist in Caldicot, leading to higher prices for dental treatments.

·         The local primary schools are at capacity.

·         Aneurin Bevan University Health Board has stated that there are issues with recruitment rather than building size, but this is no consolation to elderly residents struggling to obtain an appointment to see their G.P.

·         Schools are addressed via Section 106 Agreements.  However, Caldicot’s primary schools are at capacity.  The Town cannot wait for houses to be built and then receive Section 106 funding before the primary school places are put in place to accommodate the additional need. Primary school children within Caldicot are currently having to travel across the town to attend a school that can accommodate them.

·         Capacity needs to be built into the primary schools to accommodate the additional children that will arrive as a result of approving the application to provide additional housing within the Town.

·         Concern has been expressed that the proposed houses will appeal to Bristol commuters which could lead to a reduction in Welsh language provision that currently exists within Caldicot.

·         Concerns have been raised regarding the archaeological remains that have been found in Nedern Rise and whether more will be discovered and damaged by the development of the site.

·         Increased traffic flow could have a negative impact on the air quality and cause damage to the Roman ruins at Caerwent.

·         The site contains a public right of way which is used by ramblers and the local community. The right of way will no longer be an attractive route as it will traverse a housing estate. Concerns have been raised that walkers will change their route and walk through the site of special scientific interest (SSSI), potentially creating a negative impact on wildlife. Natural Resources Wales (NRW) aims to deter walkers from the SSSI.

·         Concerns have been raised regarding road safety issues on Church Road, especially around the beginning and end of the school day. An increase in traffic flow on Church Road will exacerbate an already dangerous situation.

·         Another road safety concern is the  ...  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 16 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a unilateral undertaking.

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

·         Raglan is a rural secondary settlement and only 10% of the overall housing provision for Monmouthshire is required in rural secondary settlements.

·         The current application for 111 houses would result in a 36% rise in the number of houses in the village.

·         The application is contrary to the Local Development Plan (LDP). This site is inappropriate in an unsustainable location.

·         It is set in an area of good agricultural land and is not within the LDP. It is a development set outside of defined settlement boundaries.

·         The development will create a negative impact on the local infrastructure.  In particular, the A40 crossing and junction will experience a 33% increase in traffic in the morning peak times and an 18% increase in the afternoon peak.

·         There have been five recorded road traffic accidents in the previous five years, two of which were serious accidents. There is a likelihood of further road traffic accidents with increased traffic flow, should the application be approved.

·         The A40 has been a concern for Raglan residents for some time. Concern has been exacerbated with increased pressure on this junction, as the junction is unsafe.

·         The high street will also be under considerable pressure, should the application be approved.

·         Most residents recognise that there is a need for housing throughout Monmouthshire and that Raglan will not be exempt. Raglan, in particular, requires affordable housing provision. However, there are other, more suitable sites which will generate less pressure on the highway infrastructure and make use of the by-pass.

·         Approval of this application could be seen as a catalyst for further development in the area.

·         Raglan lacks the infrastructure and opportunities to accommodate a large development which threatens to alter the existing village status.

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

·         The representative had contributed to the creation of the existing LDP.

·         The application is ignoring a number of clauses within the LDP.

·         In terms of the number of houses proposed, considerable weight is being applied as opposed to appropriate weight.

·         With the 45 houses on Chepstow Road that have already received planning permission, the additional 111 houses would result in a 36% rise in the number of houses in the village, which is considered to be far beyond appropriate.

·         The scale of development is not acceptable.

·         Local shopkeepers do not require the proposed added patronage that the development would bring to the village.

·         The primary school is currently at capacity and could not accommodate any additional children coming into the village.

·         The development will be built on a significant portion of the best agricultural land in Monmouthshire.

·         Planning Policy Wales (PPW) states that note should  ...  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 conditions outlined in the report.

The Planning Committee had previously considered this application on 7th August 2018. After discussions about the merits of the application, the Committee deferred consideration of the application until a revised site layout had been produced showing the stable block to be moved further away from the adjacent neighbour’s property at Box Bush Barn.

Having received the revised plan the application is being re-presented to the Planning Committee following the previous deferment. The proposed stable block has been moved further down the field away from the immediate neighbouring property Box Bush Barn and is now sited 43 metres away from the adjoining boundary. The neighbouring properties have been consulted.

The Development Services Manager informed the Committee that that this application is a major development and it involves a material change of use of more than a hectare of land. Therefore, the application will need to be advertised as a major development and the Committee were asked to consider deferring the application due to these circumstances.

It was considered that a condition regarding the siting of the horse manure be included in future consideration of this application.

We resolved that consideration of application DC/2018/00138 be deferred to a future meeting of the Planning Committee to allow officers to advertise the application as a major development, as the application involves a material change of use of more than a hectare of land. Also, any future consideration of this application will include a condition regarding the siting of the horse manure.

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

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

·         The local Member and Mathern Community Council are content with the application.  However, Mathern Community Council had expressed disappointment that the applicant had not responded to an invitation to meet with the community council with regard to the pre-application stage.

·         Drainage issues were raised at the Planning Committee site inspection with regard to effluence and the removal of contaminants. In response, it was noted that the trade effluence for the valet chamber will go into a private pumping chamber. A licence from Welsh Water will be required. Effluent would not enter into the environment. Natural Resources Wales (NRW) has reviewed this process and is content.

·         The application, if approved, will improve local employment.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed by the local Member, it was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DM/2018/00731 be approved subject to the nine conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

For approval              -           9

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2018/00731 be approved subject to the nine conditions, as outlined in the report.

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the six conditions, as outlined in the report.

Planning Committee had previously considered the application on 3rd July 2018. After discussions about the merits of the application, Members had approved the proposed development subject to the applicant signing a Section 106 Legal Agreement requiring a commuted sum of £26,068 for a contribution towards affordable housing provision in the locality.

The application was re-presented to the Planning Committee on 2nd October 2018, as the applicant had provided information to confirm that it would not be viable for the development to be constructed with the financial contribution sought. The information submitted by the applicant had been scrutinised by the Council’s Senior Housing Strategy & Policy Officer who had concluded that this particular site was not able to provide a financial contribution towards affordable housing.   On the 2nd October 2018 the Planning Committee had deferred a decision on the application until the figures in relation to the viability of the scheme had been scrutinised by the Planning Committee.    

In terms of a timeline of this site, there is an extant outline planning consent on the site under application DC/2016/00519 (16/02/2017) where a S106 legal agreement had been signed for an affordable housing contribution of £26,068.  This application had been submitted and the legal agreement signed by the previous owner of the site.   The applicant for this application (DM/2018/00858) had purchased the site and had submitted a full planning application and after fully considering the build costs of the development was unable to provide an affordable housing contribution given the viability of the scheme.  This had been evidenced by the applicant and verified by the Councils Affordable Housing Officer.

Given that a full viability appraisal of the development had concluded that a financial requirement was not viable for this particular site, it was recommended that the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the report, without any requirement for a financial affordable housing contribution.

Having considered the report of the application, it was noted that the Planning Committee should receive Supplementary Planning Guidance to deal with the issues of viability. Some local authorities have made issues of viability public which has improved the situation for these authorities. The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the Committee that there was no need for Supplementary Planning Guidance. However, he has liaised with other authorities about publishing viability statements.  In the meantime, this information will be shared with the Planning Committee on a confidential basis.

It was also considered that Condition 1 of the report of the application should be amended so that the development shall begin within three years from the date of permission, rather than five years.

It was proposed by County Councillor R.J. Higginson and seconded by County Councillor P. Murphy that application DM/2018/00858 be approved subject to the six conditions, as outlined in the report without any requirement for a financial affordable housing contribution. Condition 1  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

The application had been presented to the Planning Committee on 4^th September 2018 with a recommendation for approval. The Committee had deferred consideration of the application pending further information from the applicant about the potential for the barn to be used for business purposes (a criterion of Policy H4 of the LDP) and information about other structures on the site (a nearby silage pit and an existing agricultural building that had been proposed to be retained).

The applicant had responded and provided a business use statement, as outlined in the report.

The application was re-represented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation for approval subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Having considered the report of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor P. Clarke and seconded by County Councillor R. Edwards that application DM/2018/01089 be approved subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

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

For approval              -           9

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2018/01089 be approved subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

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.

Having considered the report of the application it was noted that the wall is well built and does match some of the brickwork on other nearby properties.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DM/2018/01122 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              -           9

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2018/01122 be approved subject to the one condition, as outlined in the report.

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.

Having considered the report of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DM/2018/01292 be approved subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

For approval              -           9

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2018/01292 be approved subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report.

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the two conditions, as outlined in the report.

Having considered the report of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor R. Edwards and seconded by County Councillor P. Murphy that application DM/2018/01351 be approved subject to the two conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

For approval              -           9

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2018/01351 be approved subject to the two conditions, as outlined in the report.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to appeal decisions following a site visit that had been made on 25^th September 2018.

·         Appeal Ref: APP/E6840/C/18/3200088 - Site: Land at The Glebe, Newport Road, Magor.

·         Appeal Ref: APP/E6840/C/18/3200092 - Site: Land at Silverdale, Newport Road, Magor.

·         Appeal Ref: APP/E6840/A/18/3200781 - Site: Land at Silverdale and The Glebe, Newport Road, Magor.

We noted that:

1.    The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed and planning permission is granted on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended for the development already carried out, namely the erection of a closed boarded fence to front garden on land at The Glebe, Newport Road, Magor, Monmouthshire NP26 3BZ referred to in the notice, subject to the following condition: Within 1 month of the date of this decision the fence shall be treated with a brown stain finish.

2.    The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed and planning permission is granted on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended for the development already carried out, namely the erection of a closed boarded fence to front garden on land at Silverdale, Newport Road, Magor, Monmouthshire NP26 3BZ referred to in the notice, subject to the following condition: Within 1 month of the date of this decision the fence shall be treated with a brown stain finish.

3.    The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of closed boarded fencing to front gardens at Silverdale and The Glebe, Newport Road, Magor, Monmouthshire NP26 3BZ, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DC/2017/01188, dated 14 November 2017, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition: Within 1 month of the date of this decision the fencing shall be treated with a brown stain finish.

We noted the new appeals received between 24^th May and 23^rd October 2018.