Agenda item

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval to discharge planning conditions 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15. In September 2020 planning permission had been granted for two detached dwellings on the site under application DM/2020/00234, subject to a Section 106 agreement for a financial contribution towards affordable housing as well as 16 technical conditions. 

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

·         The Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) acknowledges that the site is unsuitable for heavy vehicles.

·         Section 7 of the CTMP states that an unloading area should be provided on the site to enable all delivery and construction vehicles to turn and leave in a forward direction. This might be possible for smaller vehicles but it was considered that it would not be possible for larger articulated vehicles.

·         Section 10 of the CTMP suggests that farm equipment be used for transportation. Risks to local residents need to be addressed.

·         Regarding the emergency access, the local Member was informed that a fire emergency vehicle could not access the site.

·         The local Member enquired whether the Highways officer had walked the site.

·         The latest Green Infrastructure (GI) Management Plan has relocated the orchard from the south east of the site to the areas around the site.

·         There is no single plan showing the Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) and the GI assets. The GI ecology department has no objection to the discharge of the conditions as it appears that it is unaware of the swales and the foul sewerage pump.

·         The local Member supports Magor with Undy Community Council regarding its recommendation for refusal.

·         Representatives from Monmouthshire County Council’s Waste Department visited the site and met with the owner of Gwyn Royson and had agreed to a location for the waste of the proposed properties. The local Member would like to see this upheld.

 The Development Management Area Manager responded to the local Member’s comments, as follows:

·         The original plan had shown more Green Infrastructure (GI) mitigation in the southern area of the site. However, after negotiations with the GI Officer and the Biodiversity Officer different ways of providing the mitigation were looked at. The solution put forward now is different to the original solution but is equally appropriate.

·         The SuDS application is considered independently from this planning application to discharge the conditions. If there are differences between these plans then amendments will be sought to clarify the situation. However, Officers consider that the application meets the requirements of the conditions.

The Highway Development Manager informed the Committee that Highways Officers had not visited the site.  However, having known the site very well he stated that he supported the discharge of condition 5 being the implementation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan.

All deliveries to the site will be managed.  There are no traffic conditions on Vinegar Hill restricting its use by any motor vehicle and is open to all uses of the highway by public and commercial vehicles.  Construction vehicles should be able to access and egress the site.

The Highways Department has no objection to the discharge of the conditions, in particular Condition 5.

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

·         Some Members expressed the view that the application should be approved in line with the officer’s recommendation as the applicant has complied with the requirements requested to discharge the conditions. It was considered that the CTMP needed to be adhered to.

·         Other Members expressed concern regarding conditions 4 and 5, namely highway safety and the CTMP. Problems have occurred in Caldicot previously whereby CTMPs have become problematic having not been adhered to by the developers. It was considered that  conditions 4 and 5 needed to be firmer.

·         In response to questions raised regarding the fire service vehicle access, whether the wording of the CTMP is sufficient to ensure the access is adequate for these vehicles, GI, SuDS and foul sewage disposal, the Development Management Area Manager informed the Committee that Building Regulations did raise concerns regarding fire service vehicular access. This matter was checked with the South Wales Fire Services and it had been confirmed that the emergency vehicles did have access to the properties. The properties will be fitted with fire suppression  sprinkler systems. Fire related issues will be dealt with via Building Regulations. It was considered that the conditions relating to highways safety and the CTMP did not require re-wording and were considered to be sufficient. There are no conditions for foul sewerage to be submitted and is not part of the Committee’s consideration today.

·         The temporary bund will be removed in due course and the land and levels returned to an appropriate standard in line with the approved plans.

·         Foul sewerage is identified as public sewerage.  There is no foul water condition on the decision notice.  This would be a matter for Building Regulations to address under separate legislation.

The local Member summed up as follows:

·         Local knowledge is important.

·         Photographs have been shared with officers over the previous 18 months indicating damage to properties by delivery vehicles.

·         It was considered that the delivery methods have not been clearly defined.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor R. Harris that application DM/2021/01000 be approved to discharge planning conditions 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15.

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

For approval             -           10

Against approval      -           2

Abstentions               -           0

The proposal was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2021/01000 be approved to discharge planning conditions 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15.