Agenda item

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence, which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report and in the late correspondence. Also subject to a planning contribution in which the heads of terms are identified in the report and to enter into a Section 278 Agreement of the Highways Act 1980.

 

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

 

·         Magor and Undy has been developed over the years but the infrastructure has not been developed at the same rate.

 

·         With no community centre and poor transport links the community lacks amenities and is becoming overwhelmed by traffic demands.

 

·         Concern was expressed that the community will not be able to cope with the increased population from the proposed Rockfield development.

 

·         Should Planning Committee consider approving the application, the local Member asked that the Committee seeks answers from the developer regarding the following issues:

 

-       Concerns regarding the T junction that joins the B4245.

 

-       Speeding traffic is one of the greatest concerns for local residents.

 

-       An additional 266 houses will create an additional 400+ vehicles.

 

-       Speeding vehicles through Undy could pose a potential danger to the public.

 

-       Correct measures need to be established to reduce excessive speeding.

 

-       With regard to the proposed B1 light industrial area at the rear of the development, will any weight restrictions be implemented on Dancing Hill or through the development?

 

-       Concern was expressed regarding the risks posed by delivery vehicles travelling through these residential areas.

 

-       Many complaints have been received from Undy residents regarding parking on Pennyfarthing Lane due to congestion around the school drop off and collection times of Undy School.

 

-       Off-road parking is required to alleviate the need to park on the lane which will only be worsened by the proposed development.  The local Member asked that this matter be reviewed.

 

-       The local Member welcomes the Section 106 funding for the Three Fields site.

 

-       Both the Magor Station and improved bus services are required.

 

-       Magor Station should be re-instated.

 

-       The Magor and Undy footpath to Rogiet would benefit from having a cycle path.

 

-       The contributions listed are required imminently prior to the development being inhabited in order for the projects listed to commence to provide improvement for the current and new residents.

 

-       Residents need to be engaged in the planning and design of this development.

 

In response to the issues raised by the local Member, it was noted that:

 

·         With regard to the timescale of Section 106 funding, the issues relating to Three Fields have been raised in late correspondence.  This relates to the proposed community centre. Therefore, officers are recommending that the £800,000 contribution goes towards this one project.  Also, discussions have been held with the applicant with regard to the timescales for the provision of this funding.

 

·         The Three Fields contribution is likely to come from Phases A & D (Phase 1).

 

·         Contributions towards the station are likely to come from Phase 2 of the development.

 

·         The issues raised regarding speeding traffic will be addressed via the Section 278 Highways Agreement.

 

·         Access to the B1 employment land will also be addressed via the Section 278 Highways Agreement.

 

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

 

·         The Local Member had indicated that her preference would be for the construction of a roundabout at the entrance to the development rather than having a T junction, as this would reduce the speed of traffic and help manage traffic flow at this location.  The recommendation in the report referred to the implementation of a T Junction and there were less expensive options available to control and reduce traffic speeds at this location.

 

·         The highway issues could be looked at with a view to identifying different mechanisms for reducing traffic speed.  Under Section 278 of the Highways Act to make any junction onto a highway, there is a requirement to have such a legal agreement over the exact works.  Therefore, these issues could be incorporated into the Section 278 Agreement.

 

·         Triple glazing could be conditioned at the reserved matters stage.

 

·         It was noted that this application is in the Local Development Plan.

 

·         Bungalows could be included on the site at the reserved matters stage.

 

·         Consultation with the Local Health Board was important when considering applications for large developments.

 

·         The late correspondence refers to an informative which will be put onto the notice to the applicant in which the design and appearance will be addressed.  Each of the detailed applications will be presented to the Planning Committee in due course.

 

·         Officers will start to consult with the Local Health Board in respect of major applications.  The five year housing land supply is currently available and the local Health Board can be informed of this data. It was noted that the local Health Board was consulted at the Local Development Plan stage.

 

The local Member for the Elms summed up by informing the Committee that there is a 30mph speed limit through Magor and Undy and there still exists a problem of speeding vehicles.  Further traffic calming measures are required at this location. The Head of Planning, Housing and Place-Shaping stated that he would pass on to the Highways Directorate the comments made by the local Member regardingthe need for the Highways Directorate to consider additional traffic calming measures on the B road as it enters the village from Rogiet, as part of the Section 278 Agreement.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DC/2016/00883 be approved subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report and in the late correspondence. Also subject to a planning contribution in which the heads of terms are identified in the report and to enter into a Section 278 Agreement of the Highways Act 1980.

 

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

 

In favour of the proposal    -           14

Against the proposal           -           0

Abstentions                           -           0

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DC/2016/00883 be approved subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report and in the late correspondence. Also subject to a planning contribution in which the heads of terms are identified in the report and to enter into a Section 278 Agreement of the Highways Act 1980.