Agenda item

We considered the report of the application, and late correspondence, which was recommended for approval subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to Section 106 financial contribution of £29,856 for affordable housing.

 

The local Member for Larkfield, Chepstow attending the meeting by invitation of the Chair, outlined the following points:

 

·         Local residents have considerable concerns regarding this application.

 

·         The Chepstow Town Council Planning Committee has recommended that the application be refused.

 

·         There is a strong perception that the application process has not been handled as effectively and efficiently as it could have been. The channels of communication between officers and objectors being the fundamental issue.

 

·         There has been a late amendment to the application submitted on 29^th June 2018.  Local residents and the local Member have not had time to consider this and asked if there might be grounds to defer the application. Also whether officers could indicate whether there is a technical issue for this late application to be deemed acceptable without further consultation.

 

·         The proposed development is inappropriate in-filling.

 

·         The open spacious nature within the cul-de-sac has been developed with deep open gardens sweeping around the front to back.  The mouth of the road has been designed with bungalows on either side to facilitate that look and draw people through the back of the cul-de-sac where the two storey properties are set.

 

·         Having an 8 metre high new build at the mouth of the road drawn to the front of the pavement, sat adjacent to bungalows would destroy the aesthetics of the locality.

 

·         It is unacceptable over development and out of character with the surrounding buildings.

 

·         Welsh Government Policy Guidelines 9.3.3 supported the local Member’s case.

 

·         Neighbours have built annexes to their properties but the infilling has been undertaken respectfully and tastefully in keeping with the local surroundings guided by strict planning conditions established by the County Council and also in line with covenants placed on properties in this area.

 

·         There has to be consistency and parity with this application and previous applications that have been approved.

 

·         Residents have lived in the area for 40 years and this is important as they legally bought into the locality and into a living environment that they believed could not be changed for the worse due to the strict clauses in place. The proposed development is not in keeping with the surrounding area and threatens this.

 

·         The scale, dimensions and design are absent from the application despite repeated requests that they be properly designated.

 

·         A topographical plan has been prepared but has not been published. There should have been a scaled plan where the new dwelling will sit on the parcel of land.

 

·         The application refers to the flood risk and that there will be a soakaway.  However, three feet below the surface is bedrock which will make it difficult for sufficient drainage to be installed.

 

·         There is potential for some gardens to become waterlogged.

 

·         The existing drainage system is already under considerable pressure.

 

·         Because of the nature of the development of the footings on the property, the footpath joining the Paddocks and Warwick Close will be impacted.  If this is the case, then a Section 27 Notice should be served, but this has not occurred.

 

·         A further three car parking spaces is proposed at the front of the property bringing the total to six parking spaces. Concern was expressed that this will have a negative impact on the close.

 

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

 

·         There would be no requirement to have an ownership notice on the land next door to the proposed development.

 

·         Regarding the issue relating to a change to the application, there was only one change which referred to section nine on the application form. This contains a box indicating whether the applicant is related to a member of staff or an elected Member, which has been amended to confirm that the applicant is an employee of Monmouthshire County Council. If the applicant or their close relative is someone who works closely with the Planning Department or is someone who is an officer of the Planning Department, this means Committee considers the application. It has been clarified that the applicant or relative is not someone who works closely with the Planning Department or one who is an officer of the Planning Department but in any case the application is being considered by Committee so this does not change anything relating to the assessment of the application.

 

·         The plan shown in the Planning Committee meeting has some dimensions and is drawn to scale, which is sufficient in making the application valid legally.

 

·         The topographical survey is not a requirement to make the application valid.

 

·         Enough information is available to properly assess the application and for a decision to be made.

 

Mr. D. Prosser, representing objectors, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         The application is contrary to the Council’s Planning Policies, namely, privacy and residential areas with a high level of privacy and amenity. Many of the local residents agree, as well as Chepstow Town Council.

 

·         The report of the application suggests that the application is policy compliant. The objector considers that it is not. The policy is based upon detailed Planning considerations which cannot be met.

 

·         National Government guidelines require that insensitive or inappropriate infilling should not be allowed to damage an area’s character or amenity.

 

·         Council policies seek to protect areas with high standards of privacy and spaciousness. This site falls into this category.

 

·         When entering the street there is a six foot fence in front of the buildings.  All other frontages are open.  This would be replaced by a two storey high house set just behind its line and prominent in a street where nearly all of the other houses are set behind expansive open front gardens.

 

·         The report suggests that the dwelling will maintain the front building line between numbers two and three and will follow the established building line of the street.  However, this is not correct.

 

·         It will be close to and in front of a bungalow and dominate the openness of the street being close to the highway on a curve.

 

·         Building line is a safe concept in a generally linear street where houses are in line but not in this street. The street scene will not be preserved and the proposal will have an adverse impact on the street scene.

 

·         In response to the privacy objection, the report suggests that the new dwelling will be 9.8 metres from the common boundary. This is a crucial consideration as the measurement has been based on an ordinance survey based plan and not a measured survey. Requests for a measured survey have been ignored.

 

·         National guidelines look to safeguard privacy by having rear gardens 10.5 metres long. Therefore residents at number 14 will be overlooked at substandard distance by two houses.

 

·         The relationship with the bungalow is a concern because of its massing in front of the bungalow and its relationship with the street layout.

 

·         Approval of the application will undermine the openness, spaciousness and high levels of privacy enjoyed by local residents.

 

·         The report of the application seeks to refute all objections but rather dismisses them with little or no arguable justification.

 

Mr. R, Liddell, the applicant’s agent, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         There is no topographical survey.  However, there is a plan based on an ordinance survey which has been properly measured on site to ensure that the perimeter of the plan was correct.

 

·         The most important point of this application is the officer’s advice that the proposal is policy compliant.  The agent would not have encouraged the applicant to submit the application if he did not think that the proposal was in accordance with planning policy.  There is no Planning Policy objection to the proposal. The application complies with planning policy.

 

·         All of the points of objection are overruled as the proposal is in accordance with Planning Policy.

 

·         Car parking – three spaces shown which complies with Planning Policy.

 

·         Privacy – Number 14 Warwick Close is not directly behind the proposed dwelling, and the proposed house is further away than number 3 The Paddocks, the existing house, which is directly opposite number 14.  Number 3 has a 5.8 metre garden and is a total of 12 metres away from number 14. The proposed dwelling has a 9.8 metre garden and there is over 20 metres distance between habitable windows to bedrooms to the first floor. The garden ground level is broadly level, with a slight slope.  This can be seen by the height of the concrete blocks to the underside of the timber fence, and comparing this height to both sides of the fence, which indicates that there is little difference in the ground levels.

 

·         Design and Character – The front elevation maintains the building line and is partly in front of number 2 and behind number 3.  Design is similar to other dwellings in the area.  There are other situations where there is a two storey house located next to a bungalow.

 

·         Street Scene – There are nine houses in The Paddocks that can be extended to the side and of those, seven have provided two storey extensions. It would be wrong to describe The Paddocks now as being set out in a particularly open way.

 

·         Highway Safety – Three car parking spaces mean that there should be no need for additional on road parking and is more than the parking spaces provided to existing dwellings.

 

·         Footpath – The proposal will not encroach onto the footpath, unlike the existing leylandii hedge or the plants to the front garden of number 2 which encroach onto the pavement. There is no overlooking or loss of light to windows to number 2 adjacent.  There are no windows facing the new dwelling.

 

·         Conclusion – The application complies with the following policy documents: Planning Policy Wales Chapter 9, Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 – Sections 3, 5 and 8, LDP Policies S1, S4, S13, S16, S17, H1, EP1, MV1 and DES1.

 

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

 

·         The proposal is a continuation of the street scene and is stepped back.

 

·         The height of the proposed dwelling will be lower than a nearby property.

 

·         With regard to privacy, the Planning Department works to the dimensions of 10 metres first floor window to the boundary to give an element of privacy beyond the fence.  The application property and the property behind it have side gardens rather than large rear gardens so the property behind has amenity space to the side. It is 21 metres window to window.

 

·         The application sits within planning guidelines.

 

·         Since the development’s inception, it has remained largely intact with the street scene remaining unchanged.

 

·         Concern was expressed regarding the extra parking provision which is excessive and is at odds with the design of other buildings. It is not the right development for the area.

 

·         Members expressed their sympathy for the objectors but it was considered that there were no planning grounds to refuse the application.

 

·         The proposed development reflects the line of the development around the cul-de-sac.  Providing there is amenity, privacy and the visual considerations are dealt with satisfactorily it would be difficult to argue against approval of the proposed development.

 

·         A condition could be added to ensure that both the rear first floor bathroom and the landing windows are fitted with obscure glazing, in perpetuity.

 

·         It is unfortunate that there are no clear guidelines in national planning policy, on a wellbeing basis, that gardens need to be retained and should be seen as green field sites and not brownfield sites.

 

·         It would be helpful if the Authority could agree on a criteria relating to size of plots and size of houses / developments. The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the Committee that there is scope to have Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) under Policy DES1 in respect of this matter.

 

·         With regard to drainage issues, developments need to demonstrate they have a green field run-off rate.

 

The local Member for Larkfield, Chepstow, summed up, as follows:

 

·         The residents of The Paddocks and Warwick Close are not ‘NIMBYs’ (Not in my back yard).

 

·         They are not against growth.

 

·         They understand the need for more local housing.

 

·         Potentially, if an application was submitted that was more sympathetic to the environment and the surroundings they would probably support it. However, this application is not sympathetic to the area.

 

·         Some residents have extended or built annexes to their properties but the infilling has been kept within the local surroundings and guided by strict planning conditions.

 

·         A neighbour’s rear garden is the same size as the back garden outlined in the report of the application.

 

·         One of the roles of an elected Members is to improve the health and social economic wellbeing of residents and the planning system must reflect that.

 

·         Other than the applicant and the Architect, no one is in support of the application.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor Murphy and seconded by County Councillor R. Harris that application DM/2018/00308 be approved subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 financial contribution of £29,856 for affordable housing. Also, an additional condition to be added to ensure that both the rear first floor bathroom and the landing windows are fitted with obscure glazing, in perpetuity.

 

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

For approval              -           10

Against approval      -           2

Abstentions               -           1

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DM/2018/00308 be approved subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 financial contribution of £29,856 for affordable housing. Also, an additional condition to be added to ensure that both the rear first floor bathroom and the landing windows are fitted with obscure glazing, in perpetuity.