Agenda and minutes

None received.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 5^th July 2022 were confirmed and signed by the Chair.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report with an additional condition that the height of the hedge to the front of the boundary should be maintained at a minimum of two metres in height.

The local Member for Rogiet, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chair, outlined the following information:

·         The report refers to legislation which places an obligation on the Authority to consider such applications.  Consider does not mean approve.

·         The local Member has liaised with residents who live near the site and has liaised with Rogiet Community Council.

·         Rogiet Community Council has presented several objections to the application.

·         The application refers to a large static caravan and a block built stable which replaced a wooden stable.  No horses have been kept on the site since the stable had been built.

·         The block built stable is to be converted into a day room which is a permanent extension to the static caravan. There are also connections to the main sewer which the local Member considers to be a permanent arrangement.

·         The local Member considers that approval of this application will result in a permanent residential site.

·         Previous attempts to develop the site have been rejected as applications have laid outside the terms of the Local Development Plan (LDP).  Protections provided by the LDP must be considered.

·         Whilst the area in question is not a part of the green wedge it has been a part of the rural vista.

·         The Landscape Green Infrastructure holding objection from December 2021 was quoted.  It was considered that the matters raised in this objection had only partially been mitigated by amendments to the original application.

·         The applicants had proposed the same site as a candidate site for housing under the revised LDP suggesting that it would be easier for the applicant to obtain approval for housing development.

·         It was considered that each application stage is a way to obtaining permanent housing on the site. However, the report of the application dismisses this as irrelevant.  Concern was expressed whether the application was a legitimate application for a family home or whether it was a speculative venture aiming to cash in on the housing market.

·         It was considered that the applicant was exploring options with a view to maximising the land as a planning asset.

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

·         There is a need for legal traveller sites within the County.

·         This is a small site with one caravan, one touring pitch and a day room.

·         The site has utilities such as mains water and electricity.

·         The site is well screened with a laurel hedge and a panel fence which would not create a detrimental visual impact from the road or the surrounding area.  The hedge should be maintained as laurel or be replaced with a hedge that does not leaf drop. Advice from the ecologist could be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

The local Member for Rogiet, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chair, outlined the following information:

·         Small changes to the scheme have been made in response to concerns raised, notably, a commitment to improve pedestrian safety over the road bridge that crosses the railway line.

·         Many of Rogiet Community Council’s concerns remain.

·         The key issue is that the proposed car park is located in the wrong place. Being south of the railway it does nothing to draw traffic away from the heavily populated Station Road and can only be reached over a very narrow road bridge. Traffic leaving the NCP car park uses a three-way junction with poor visibility creating a danger of collision.

·         In the report of the application, it states that the overall need for an additional car park is not the subject of this application on the grounds that the report only needs to consider whether this scheme meets the planning criteria in terms of the Local Development Plan (LDP).  However, a significant part of the report attempts to justify the scheme on those grounds putting a case forward that additional spaces are needed in order to minimize on street parking.

·         It was considered that on street parking is not a product of insufficient spaces within the existing car parks. Some motorists are unwilling to pay for parking and therefore park on the street. There are currently plenty of parking spaces available. It was noted that on previous visits to the car parks in this area, there were many spaces available with about half the spaces in both car parks being empty.

·         The need for additional car parking spaces seems to be predicated on the view that there will be significant growth in the use of the station.  This is unproven.  The forecast for growth was made before the pandemic and could not take into account that more people are now working from home.

·         The report of the application states that there is an absence of contradictory studies.  This is because it is too early to tell.  It will be some time before proper studies can be undertaken to identify long term trends in either direction.

·         This proposal in relation to other schemes – The Magor Walkway station is likely to come to fruition in the near future.  There are also proposals for stations in east Newport and elsewhere, all of which will take passengers away from Severn Tunnel Junction.

·         The local Member quoted section 6.1 of the report of the application.  It was considered that this was an excessive assessment of the proposal which is just a car park.

·         The application does nothing the encourage the desired interchanges between walking, cycling and buses and would only encourage more modal interchange between cars and trains if it is accepted that more car parking spaces were needed initially.

·         A better scheme is being proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

The Committee was informed that the proposed plans show no overhang of the roof.  Therefore, if the application was approved the roof would be removed, the height of the walls reduced and a new roof would be installed which should be incompliance with the plans presented with no overhang.

The local Member for Lansdown, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chair, outlined the following information:

·         There is a considerable overhanging of the roof which drains directly into the next-door neighbour’s rear garden.

·         The design indicates no overhang of the roof.  The previous design also indicated no overhang of the roof.

·         Concern was expressed regarding the drainage arrangements. If approved, the report of the application refers to there being a 10 metre deep soakaway being built.  However, there is no evidence of a soakaway of this size having been built.

·         The whole street is affected by the development and had asked to meet with the local Member and had requested that he write a letter of objection on their behalf.

·         Concern was expressed that a precedent might be set.  A similar retrospective application in the street under a previous administration had been refused and the building had subsequently been removed.

·         For this site an application had been approved for a ‘regular’ sized garage and there had been no objection to that application. However, what was actually built was very large.  Therefore, a retrospective application has been presented to the Planning Committee in which the garage is 40% bigger than the building that had obtained the original planning permission.

·         The local Member considers that a compromise would be to allow the garage but with a flat roof.

In response, the Development Management Area Team Manager informed the Committee:

·         The overhang is not shown on the proposed plans before the Committee today.

·         There will be gutters on either side with down pipes to accommodate drainage.  The storm water will be controlled via a 45-gallon storage container at each end of the garage for garden use. The container overflow is to feed into a three-metre-deep soakaway.

·         In terms of setting a precedent, every planning application must be considered on its own merits.

·         The application is retrospective, but the Committee is required to consider the application as if the development was not in place and base its decisions on the application and plans presented.

·         The option of a flat roof is not part of the application being presented to the Committee.

Mr. M. Turnbull, objecting to the application and representing objectors, had submitted a written statement in respect of the application which was read to the Planning Committee by a Planning Officer, as follows:

‘I write to completely object to the structure proposed in application numbered DM/2021/01735.

The overall proposed size of the structure will still be out of scale with buildings in the immediate vicinity and since this is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit that had been held at Lingfield Cottage, Five Lanes, Caerwent, Caldicot on 5^th April 2022

We noted that:

·         The appeal had been dismissed insofar as it relates to the annex.

·         The appeal was allowed insofar as it related to the car port at Lingfield Cottage, Five Lanes, Caerwent, Caldicot, Wales NP26 5PQ in accordance with the terms of the application as amended, Reference 20/00140/OUT, dated 11 February 2020, subject to the conditions set out in the annex to this decision.