Agenda and minutes
Venue: The Council Chamber, County Hall, The Rhadyr, Usk, NP15 1GA
Contact: Democratic Services
Declarations of Interest
There were no declarations of interest made by Members.
The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 4th December 2018 were confirmed and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendment:
Top of page 7, second bullet point, first sentence reads as follows:
‘Other Members considered that the application does not comply with Policy DES1 and that the proposed development is not in keeping with the existing street scene.’
A Member had made reference to Policy DES1 (l), having read out a number of points within Policy DES1 at the meeting. Policy DES1 (l) had not been taken account of and needed to be referred to in the minute.
We considered the report of the application, and late correspondence, which was recommended for approval subject to the six conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.
Consideration of the application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 4th December 2018, to ensure that public speaking at Committee takes place at the January 2019 meeting. The application is re-presented for consideration.
Subject to approval, officers had recommended that a further condition be added that foul drainage is considered at reserved matters stage.
Councillor M. Beattie, representing Caerwent Community Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:
· 26 formal objections to the application have been received with zero support for the application from residents.
· The Community Council strongly disagrees with the Highways comment in the report which states that the creation of an additional dwelling off Well Lane would not represent a shortfall in highways standards that would lead to real deterioration in highways security or capacity.
· This is a narrow lane bordered on one side by a three to four foot culvert with a water course running along it and is a major feature of the village. If bridged by a new covered culvert, it would have to be of a substantial width splay in order to avoid vehicles trespassing onto other properties.
· Highways officers had indicated that the department would not agree to such a new access.
· Residents who use the existing shared access have indicated that they would not agree to additional traffic relating to construction or a new dwelling across their shared access. There is a major issue which would need to be addressed at reserved matters stage.
· The Community Council disagrees with the Highways Department and questions the data. It questioned whether a traffic and footfall survey had been undertaken, whether consideration had been taken regarding there being a care home business at the top of the lane which creates daily commercial and visitor traffic.
· A neighbouring property is stated to be 23 metres from the new building and is now nine metres high. The angle of sight from the neighbouring property will be 25 degrees in height which is considered to be overbearing. The Planning officer’s summary states there will be no overbearing impact. The Community Council strongly disagrees.
· The Community Council requested that the Planning Committee considers refusing the application based on the information outlined.
Having considered the views expressed, the following points were noted:
· Late correspondence confirmed that the maximum height parameter for the proposed dwelling had been amended from 12 metres to 9 metres.
· The concept of the parameters was explained in that legislation provides maximum and minimum parameters. Therefore, the proposed dwelling could be between 8m x 8m and 14m x 14m. Consideration of the application was for outline permission. Subject to approval, the design of the dwelling would be considered under reserved matters at a future Planning Committee meeting.
· In response to a question raised ... 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 four conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.
Mr. J. Neapean, representing objectors to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:
· The proposed property will overlook, impose upon and negatively impact on at least eight properties.
· The resident of 11 Elm Avenue considers that the development is disproportionately larger and located too close to her property. At the highest point of Elm Avenue, visual impact will impose on her house and garden removing any privacy that she currently has.
· The residents of 10 Elm Avenue share these views and consider the proposed building will be overbearing and negatively impact upon their garden taking away their privacy and sense of open space. Approval of the application will result in over development of the site.
· The residents of Carreg Goch chose to live in this property due to the property not being overlooked and provided high standards of privacy. They would not have purchased the property if the proposed development had been in place.
· The main building will be a distance of approximately 13 metres window to window and will be parallel with the rear south facing of Carreg Goch. It is considered that this will be too close.
· There is doubt regarding how realistic the proposed development’s location is. According to the plans there is a hedgerow growing through the north-west corner of the property. The main area of garden used in Carreg Goch is facing west and located directly opposite the proposed development. The proposed dwelling will be at an elevated position to Carreg Goch which is overbearing. The proposed building will remove the view of the landscape and sunlight from the west, casting a shadow over the patio and garden and blocking out daylight through the patio doors.
· Due to the elevated position of the proposed dwelling, all of the upper floor and ground floor windows and front door will face directly over the boundary fence and into the garden and living room of Carreg Goch.
· The two properties approved to be built at the Slades already intrude upon the privacy at Carreg Goch. The proposed development will result in there being no privacy in the garden or living room of Carreg Goch.
· The proposed dwelling does not comply with Policy DES1.
· Objectors consider that the application has not been assessed on its own merits.
· The proposed development will negatively impact on more people than will benefit from the development. Concern was expressed that the proposed development will have a negative impact upon the wellbeing of the residents of Carreg Goch.
· The objectors asked the Planning Committee to consider refusal of the application on the grounds of loss of privacy.
Mr. R. Liddell, applicant’s agent, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:
· The position of the proposed dwelling is directly ... view the full minutes text for item 4.
We noted the new appeals received between 24th October and 18th December 2018.