Agenda item

 

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 the amendments to the conditions, as outlined in late correspondence.

 

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

 

·         Access to the whole site is a concern as it will be located on a sharp bend and would be opposite a double dwelling.

 

·         There has been a long running issue in this area with regard to traffic matters relating to the volume of traffic and heavy goods vehicles using this route as a short cut.

 

·         Traffic often exceeds the speed limit on this road by a considerable margin. By the time the traffic reaches the 30mph speed limit, vehicles are usually within the 30mph zone before slowing down to the appropriate speed.

 

·         The volume of traffic exiting this proposed new development will result in a continuous volume of traffic joining an existing fast road causing additional traffic problems for local residents.

 

·         This site was identified late in the Local Development Plan (LDP) as an addition.

 

·         The objections to the proposed development have been well documented by the local action group that are against this development.

 

·         Removing the pylons and putting the cables underground has come at a cost with the reduction in the affordable housing provision from 35% to 19.6%.

 

·         Concern was expressed regarding the process surrounding the removal of the pylons.

 

·         With this development there will be extra demand on services in Abergavenny such as hospital provision and doctors’ surgeries.

 

Mr. S. Griffiths, objecting to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         Many people have consistently opposed this development since it first emerged as the Council’s preferred strategic housing site.

 

·         The key reasons for objections have been:

 

-       The impact on traffic volumes along the Hereford Road, particularly through Mardy and its junction with Park Road.

 

-       The failure of the development to comply with the sustainability policies of the Council and Welsh Government.

 

-       The dramatic impact on the landscape and the negative effects on wildlife.

 

-       The dangerous location of the site access.

 

-       The failure of the proposal to meet the Council’s own requirements in respect of 35% affordable housing, with only 19.6% now being proposed.

 

-       The unacceptable siting of the new pylon along the Hereford Road.

 

·         The Planning Inspector stated in accepting the inclusion of Deri Farm in the Local Development Plan (LDP) that she was relying on the Council to live up to the promises on traffic reduction measures.  There is little or no evidence of this being done.

 

·         The Council and the developers have, in the past, argued that the scheme would be viable and that affordable housing targets would be met.  Objectors have consistently argued that this would not be the case and that as soon as the scheme found its way onto the LDP, the developers would back track on commitments.

 

·         This is a critical point, as the Council has considered that more affordable houses are a crucial objective.

 

·         The scheme can only be considered truly viable if it meets all of the prescribed requirements.

 

·         Planning Officers have argued throughout the LDP process that the negative aspects of the development were unavoidable as Deri Farm was the least, worst option and on this basis rejected all alternative sites. Since then, two of these alternative sites have been given planning permission. This, coupled with the failure to deliver on promises, indicates that the least, worst option is no longer unavoidable.

 

·         The impact on traffic and safety, the impact on the landscape adjacent to the national park, the lack of sustainability and all of the other negative impacts of the development are not offset by the gains, which, are now being significantly reduced. Other developments are being identified, which were not identified when the LDP was being prepared.

 

·         Over the years, evidence has been provided by objectors to the development. At every stage of the process the Planning Officers have rejected their arguments on the grounds of the greater good offsetting all of the negative factors.  The greater good has now been significantly reduced and the lack of alternatives have been shown to be incorrect. In the view of local people, the benefits have been overstated and there is dismay that what has happened in relation to affordable housing provision. The downsides have been understated.  There is concern regarding traffic flows with the situation in Mardy already having traffic concerns.

 

Mr. D. Hodgkiss, representing Persimmon Homes, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         The site at Deri Farm was allocated in the adopted Local Development Plan (LDP) with the principal of development having been established.

 

·         The principals of sustainability and suitability are firm.

 

·         Representations made throughout the LDP process state that the site would be viable subject to the Section 106 and the detailed viability to be undertaken in due course.

 

·         Homes will range in size between one and four bedrooms.  Of the 250 homes, 49 homes are proposed to be affordable, of which, three will be bungalows, which are a specific need and are required on this site.

 

·         The scheme also involves the removal and undergrounding of four pylons. Two of which are located on the site and two on adjacent land. A single new terminal tower, at a height of 29 metres, will be installed, which will be significantly shorter than the existing pylons.  This will be positioned east of Hereford Road next to the River Gavenny.

 

·         Removal of the pylons will bring significant positive impacts to local residents, the wider setting of Abergavenny and the national park. Brecon Beacons National Park has supported the removal of the pylons.

 

·         The new junction at the site entrance has been assessed by planning and transport consultants as well as being assessed by Council highways officers.

 

·         A series of footpaths will be created through the site and adjacent to the wider area with linkages to the town centre.

 

·         The scheme is well designed. Existing trees and hedges are to be retained and protected within significant areas of open space. A children’s play area is also included with community orchard in the central part of the site.

 

·         In recent years, the applicant has worked with officers to make a series of refinements to the proposal including design and elevation enhancements to the scheme over and above the standard specification of the scheme to meet with officer requirements.  In addition, the materials pallet has been upgraded to use slate effect roof tiles, reconstituted stone and render.  Additional windows, following consultation, have been added to increase surveillance of the public realm.

 

·         The 30mph speed limit has been moved northwards along Hereford Road to just beyond the existing access with St. Teilo’s Church.  A footpath link has also been provided to the school.

 

·         A series of Section 106 contributions are being provided.

 

·         At the present time, Monmouthshire’s land supply is below five years and there is a critical need for strategic allocated sites to be approved.

 

The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping responded, as follows:

 

·         In terms of the traffic, there is a traffic assessment as part of the application.  This has been investigated by Highways officers using the traditional modal split, so officers would have looked at a realistic vehicle generation. Vehicle speeds and traffic volumes have been looked at and officers are content with this.

 

·         With regard to the affordable housing, since the LDP examination, the pylon and undergrounding costs have nearly doubled, which is why negotiations were required.  The matter has been referred to the District Valuer for this to be looked at independently.

 

·         With regard to the demand on services, at LDP allocation stage the Health Board was engaged with and was satisfied with the proposal in terms of housing numbers.  There has been no request for additional infrastructure from the Health Board.

 

·         Pylon removal – details will be set down in a Section 106 Agreement to ensure that it is adhered to.

 

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

 

·         This is a strategic allocated site within the Local Development Plan (LDP).

 

·         A robust consultation process had been undertaken.

 

·         Green Infrastructure (GI) has been taken into account providing ample open space.

 

·         The removal of pylons and the proposed undergrounding will be a positive action.

 

·         It is a well designed site.

 

·         Officers and the Delegated Panel have liaised with the developers with a view to obtaining the best outcome for the site.

 

·         The highways network can accommodate the increase in traffic.

 

·         The reduction in the number of affordable houses has been explained providing extenuating circumstances.

 

·         Permanent flashing 30mph signs at convenient sites either side of the development would be beneficial.

 

·         An increase in the number of houses with chimneys would improve the appearance of the site.

 

·         The 30mph zone will be covered under a Section 278 Agreement and the further north this is located would be beneficial in reducing the speeds of vehicles.

 

·         Visibility splays could be widened even further making it safer.

 

·         The Authority is now consulting with the Health Board on the major applications for housing and on Supplementary Planning Grants (SPG) when they come forward. Officers will engage again with the Health Board when the new LDP is prepared, in due course. Planning Committee had agreed to notify the Health Board regarding annual projections of which new housing sites are coming forward, to help it inform its infrastructure needs.

 

·         In terms of the speed signs, this would be covered by the Section 278 Highways Agreement.  This matter and the visibility splay issue will be passed to the Highways Department to be incorporated in to the Agreement.

 

·         With regard to the education contribution, the legal tests are that the Authority has to be able to justify what the money is being asked for and it has to be necessary to make the scheme acceptable in planning terms.  If there are surplus places, we cannot ask for the funding.  However, if there are not enough spaces then funding can be requested. In English speaking primary education provision there is capacity.  Therefore, in response to a question raised regarding English speaking primary education provision, it was noted that such a request would not meet the legal tests because there is capacity. With regard to the Welsh Medium primary provision, there isn’t capacity, so it is justified.

 

·         The affordable housing is pepper potted around the site which is pleasing.

 

·         With regard to the £40,000 towards providing a bus service, the intention is to pump prime it to generate the service.

 

·         A lighting design strategy could go to the design panel for consideration.

 

·         Section 106 funding cannot be used to fund the development of broadband on new developments.  However, developers can be made aware of these requirements and hope that they install the appropriate infrastructure.  This information can also be made more readily available to the broadband providers so that they can also plan their infrastructure.

 

·         In terms of the Green Infrastructure, there is a management plan which will be controlled via condition.

 

·         The construction management plan will be covered via condition.

 

·         Traffic calming on the main road outside of the site will be controlled via a Section 278 Agreement. The details of the agreement will be shared with the ward member.

 

·         The sale suite will most likely be located at the front of the site but this could be conditioned with regard to how this is provided for.

 

·         Concern was expressed that the design was simplistic with very little fenestration on the proposed dwellings.  The Delegation Panel should view the drawings for all of the proposed dwellings on the site to ensure that all of the details that have been agreed are in place and that the colours of the bricks, render and tiles also be viewed.

 

The local Member summed up by stating that there are attributes to the proposed development and is comforted by information provided in that there will be safeguards relating to the speed of traffic.  It would be beneficial if the 30mph speed limit could be located near to the existing estate north of the proposed development with a view to slowing traffic at this location before it reaches the proposed new development.

 

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, it was proposed by County Councillor R.G. Harris and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DC/2014/01360 be approved subject to the 16 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to the amendments to the conditions, as outlined in late correspondence.  An informative will be added encouraging the developer to make the necessary provisions for broadband infrastructure. Also, that the Delegation Panel should view the drawings for all of the proposed dwellings on the site to ensure that all of the details that have been agreed are in place including the colours of the bricks, render and tiles.

 

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

 

In favour of the proposal    -           13

Against the proposal           -           0

Abstentions                           -           0

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DC/2014/01360 be approved subject to the 16 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to the amendments to the conditions, as outlined in late correspondence. An informative will be added encouraging the developer to make the necessary provisions for broadband infrastructure. Also, that the Delegation Panel should view the drawings for all of the proposed dwellings on the site to ensure that all of the details that have been agreed are in place including the colours of the bricks, render and tiles.