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.

Mr. N. Tait, representing objectors to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         All of the surrounding properties and the Town Council object to the application on the grounds of loss of privacy and the development being overbearing.

·         Local residents have been frustrated with regard to how the process has been undertaken without consideration of the existing substantial screening in the form of hedges and trees being cut down without consultation, as well as not being allowed to view the plans of the development before submission.

·         Privacy and amenity – The outline planning permission did not have windows facing existing properties.  Whilst the Planning Department has conditioned opaque glass on the eastern side bathrooms on the first floor, the bathroom windows on the west elevation overlooking Mr. Tait’s property look directly into children’s bedrooms and have not been recommended to receive opaque glass.

·         The hedgerow on the western boundary with the Falstaff property is very sparse, which will affect the privacy for this property.  There is an established hedge on the eastern boundary with the White Gable property that has been removed.

·         Fencing should be erected, or extended to provide the White Gables and Falstaff properties with some reasonable privacy.

·         Flood risk – The area is prone to flash flooding, as the geology of the area is unsuitable to provide soakaways.  Any soakaways should be subject to independent testing and be connected to mains drains.

·         The Summer House – At 3.3 metres in height, it will be 1.5 metres above the fence line and with the fall of the land it will be overbearing on Mr. Tait’s property.

·         The Welsh Government’s planning guidelines for home owners indicates that any flat roof building on land around a main house must be a maximum of 2.5 metres in height. Mr. Tait asked that a condition be added to the application that the Summer House is two metres from the boundary and no more than 2.5 metres in height.

The applicant, Mrs. R. Sully, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         Having liaised with Monmouthshire County Council’s Tree Officer, work has only been carried out on vegetation that was overgrown with the approval of the Tree Officer.

·         The applicant has worked to retain the trees that were valued by the Tree Officer and has agreed to supplement the area with more trees.

·         The applicant has tried to address all of the objections raised at the outline planning permission stage, positioning the properties as far away as possible to the southern and western boundaries lining them up with blank elevations of neighbouring properties and garages where possible.

·         The properties are significantly further away than the houses shown on the approved site plan approved under the outline planning application.

·         The applicant did consult with neighbours and invited them to view the drawings.  Fences were erected at the request of the neighbours with a view to allaying some of the concerns.

·         The houses have been broken down into smaller elements in order to keep the impact of them to a minimum.  The overall height being lower if they have smaller spans.

·         The applicant has avoided putting first floor windows on the west elevation of property number 2, with the exception of one which overlooks a garage roof.

·         Detailed design of drainage will be undertaken within Building Regulation guidelines.

·         The Summer House is included to help with privacy screening. It is approximately 1.5 metres from the boundary and due to the angle, Mr. Tait is unlikely to see it from behind the fence.

·         The applicant has done everything she can to reduce the impact on neighbouring properties.

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

·         With regard to the first floor windows on property number 2, it would not be essential to provide opaque glazing at this property and this has not been conditioned to provide opaque glazing.

·         In terms of the flash flooding, the side is not located in a flood zone.  The drainage issues would be a matter for Building Control to address.

·         With regard to the height of the Summer House and its location to the boundary, the owner of the neighbouring property has outlined issues that relate to permitted development rights.  The Planning Department considers that the height of the Summer House is acceptable and would not be significantly overbearing given the intervening distance with the rear of the property.

·         There will be some impact to the neighbouring properties but it is regarded as being acceptable.

·         It was considered that the conditions be amended to include all first floor side elevation windows to have opaque glazing.

·         With regard to the surface water drainage, the site is not located within a flood zone.  However, it was acknowledged that there can be a high level of surface water run off at the site.  There is a query regarding the strata of the area and whether the rock ground conditions would allow for a surface water soakaway to work.  This matter would be addressed by Building Regulations.

·         Members discussed whether an additional condition be added in which drainage details should be addressed before the development takes place.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DC/2017/01336 be approved subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report and that a condition be added regarding landscaping and the side elevation first floor windows to have opaque glazing.

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

For approval              -           11

Against approval      -           1

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

It was also proposed by County Councillor G. Howard and seconded by County Councillor A. Webb that an additional condition be added in which drainage details should be addressed before the development takes place.

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

In favour of the proposal    -           3         

Against the proposal           -           6

Abstentions                           -           3

The proposition was not carried.

We resolved that application DC/2017/01336 be approved subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report and that a condition be added regarding landscaping and the side elevation first floor windows to have opaque glazing.