Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of Interest made by Members.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 1^st November 2016 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

We considered the application and late correspondence, which was recommended for approval subject to the 13 conditions and subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure four units of affordable housing on site.

The Planning Committee was informed that the application was a long standing proposal that had been deferred by the Committee on 5^th November 2013 to allow officers to liaise with the applicant regarding amendments to the design of the houses, parking provision to comply with the Council’s adopted guidelines, to obtain the observations of Highways, to receive a contamination report and a report on the stability of the land.

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

·         The residents of Wyesham have expressed their concerns in respect of the application.

·         A petition of 278 signatures had been received regarding the application.

·         There are three concerns but the greatest is the contamination on the site. Tests have been undertaken and the specialist environmental officer recommended additional sampling.

·         The tests have indicated a variety of pollutants but the main findings are benzopyrene, asbestos and made up soil.

·         Welsh Government guidelines for benzopyrene is 5mg per kilogramme. The results indicate 6.06mg per kilogramme.

·         Over a period of years there is evidence that tipping had occurred on the site. It was common practice for this to occur involving the tipping of hazardous material across the whole of the site.

·         The site had been used as a holding by for the Council when building the replacement prefabs.

·         The proposal is to build over the most polluted area of the site. There will be a membrane placed over the site and topped with topsoil.  The deeds to the properties will have a note attached making owners aware of this matter.  This is of no reassurance to residents.

·         Subsidence has occurred on one side of the site. Some residents have experienced movement in their gardens and garages.

·         Residents are not reassured by the engineer’s proposals.

·         There are concerns about the new road and access onto Hillcrest Road.

·         The local Member asked the Committee to consider deferral of the application until further tests have been undertaken.

·         Further investigation is required as well as a full remediation strategy.

Councillor S. Wilson, representing Monmouth Town Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The Town Council Planning Committee, several years ago, voted for refusal and the reasons are identified in the outline report.

·         As a Town Councillor for this area, Councillor Wilson has been asked to speak on behalf of local people as some wanted to make a certain level of support for the development.

·         The petition gave a general feel that everyone was against the development and some residents considered that that was not the case.

·         The concerns are of the people who are opposed to the development and the reasons for people supporting it refer to the same issue of contamination of the site.

·         Both supporters and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

County Councillor R.J. Higginson left the meeting before this application was determined and did not return.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence, which was presented for refusal for the three reasons, as outlined in the report.

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

·         The applicant had provided the Planning Committee with a precis of the last ten years planning history in respect of this site.

·         The property is small and very cramped inside resulting in difficult living conditions.

·         Planning policies that have been applied to this application and the site have not been consistent.

·         The barn conversion was originally granted on 2006. It stated in that policy that it must be capable of providing adequate living space.

·         There was no definition in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) that it would indicate that the acceptable internal volume for modern living standards would be considered to be 250 cubic metres.  As it currently stands, Beaulieu Barn stands at 187 cubic metres.  Therefore, did not adhere to that policy when approval was granted.

·         There was pre-planning advice given which didn’t seem to match with the various policies.

·         A common sense approach needed to be taken with regard to this application so that the applicant can have a home that is big enough to live in.

·         There are no objections from the community.

·         The Planning Committee was asked to consider approval of the application.

Mr. D. Edge, supporting the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         Local residents do not object to the application.

·         Some residents have supported the application in writing.

·         Monmouth Town Council support the application.

·         The property is undeniably small and comes with a range of issues.  There is one living area with a sink and an oven.  Whereas, the other half of the kitchen has a lean to extension.  The preparation and storage areas are in a separate room. In between the two halves of the kitchen there is access to a bathroom.

·         Common sense states that this is an unsanitary arrangement.

·         The property is not clearly visible. There is a traditional country hedge surrounding the property and is moderately well screened.

·         The extension will lie to the west away from the public footpath.

·         The 86% increase in size is small in reality due to the current size of the property.

·         Local people are comfortable with the proposed extension.

·         A flexible, common sense approach needed to be taken in respect of this application.

The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping stated that there are no inconsistencies in the planning policies and decisions made have been consistent.  The increase in size of the proposed property does not justify going against planning policy and decisions should be made in accordance with the Local Development Plan (LDP).

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, some Members accepted that the application was contrary to planning policy but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

County Councillor D. Evans left the meeting before this application was considered and did not return.

We considered the application and late correspondence, which was recommended for approval subject to the 25 conditions, and subject tothe revised S106 Agreement covering previous requirements, as outlined in the report.

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

·         Having undertaken surveys in his ward there has been considerable community pressure for the application to be determined in favour of the development taking place.

·         A local resident has asked that a bus stop be located near to the proposed supermarket.

·         The local Member has sympathy with the representations made by Abergavenny cycle group and had indicated his support. It was considered that a new way of looking at cycleways in Abergavenny town was required.

·         Abergavenny Transition Town – The local Member would encourage the Applicant to use local suppliers wherever possible.

·         Abergavenny Civic Society has submitted representations.

·         Overall, the local Member supports the application but would encourage the applicant to engage with local societies to address any outstanding concerns.

Councillor C. Woodhouse, representing Abergavenny Town Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         It has been 12 years since tenders were opened for the development of the Market Site.

·         It is estimated that in this twelve year period, each year £20M of Abergavenny money has been spent out of town.

·         The Town Council had recently voted in favour of this application. However, some amendments are requested, namely:

-       The throughway between Lion Street and Market Street needs to be visible to encourage people to shop at the supermarket and also within the town.

-       The blank walls of the proposed development could be adorned with a mural indicating the Abergavnny Food Festival, the Cycling Festival and the Steam Rally, for example, to show a sense of belonging to the people of Abergavenny.

-       Abergavenny could help to part finance this with the Applicant and partners.

-       The use of more stone would brighten up the development and make it look more rural.

-       The Active Travel Act – The Cycle Group would like to see the walkway on the western side of the development to be a joint space.

-       The Town Council has concerns regarding the crossing on Park Road and considers that this needed to be made safer.

-       There is a need to have a pre-Morrison’s and post Morrison’s traffic assessment so that the repercussions of the proposed development may be identified.

Mr. P. Hannay, Chair of the Abergavenny Transition Town, representing various objectors to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

The objectors would like to see the following firm conditions put on this application:

·         There should be a cast-iron condition that the scheme will be made to comply with best practice of the legally binding Active Travel Act 2013. Currently, as the Abergavenny  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

We considered the application and late correspondence, which was recommended for approval subject to the eight conditions, and also subject to a Section 106 Agreement for a financial contribution to be used towards the provision of affordable housing in the local area, as outlined in the report.

Ms. R. Collett, objecting to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         This is a high level summary of the very detailed objections by 11 residents of Monmouthshire.

·         This application deals with the environs of a grade II* listed church and the associated important public right of way between a green open space / playing fields and the grade II* listed church.

·         A grade II* listed church forms part of the top 8% of listed buildings in the Country.  This site is significant historically, culturally and as a village amenity.

·         The reason for listing is integrally linked to the manor farm complex and environs.  Details as follows:

-       Part of a complex comprising of the farmhouse, farmyard and farm buildings of Manor House Farm and St Mary's church and churchyard. Group value with neighbouring listed items at Manor House Farm.

·         Overall multiple planning application and proposals including the sub division of existing houses at this Manor Farm complex make for a considerably more sprawling and densely urbanised area than is warranted for this semi-rural setting.

·         There are now five dwellings on the site. The proposed bungalows will increase this to seven dwellings, and the conversion of the second barn leading to potentially several more dwellings. This is approaching 9 / 10 residences and in the original LDP deposit plan the planning team turned down this site as being unsuitable for this number of houses.

·         In respect of the National Planning Policy Framework the objector has concerns under chapters 7 and 12 over: density, landscape and making places look better for people who live in Rogiet and frequent the right of way. The density of the proposal requires considerable parking provision.  For example, assuming there are 10 dwellings, it is estimated that provisioning for 30 cars will be necessary.   This will inevitably destroy green space and detract from the setting of the listed buildings. Accordingly, reduced housing density from the current proposal seems appropriate.

·         The associated vehicular deliveries / waste bins / washing lines etc, the basics of human habitation in such a densely packed, low privacy application will be extremely visible to users of the public right of way between the Church and green open space / playing fields and will detract from residents’ enjoyment of these village amenities.

·         The objectors believe phase 2 of this development will set a very poor precedent for phase 3.

·         The planning and conservation approach on this site has been referred to the County Council’s Scrutiny Manager and have written to Cadw directly. 

·         The recommendation of residents is that the application is either refused or deferred until matters of process and further consultation by residents directly with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence, which was presented for refusal with four reasons, as outlined in the report.

The local Member for Llanbadoc, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chair, outlined the following points on behalf of herself and local neighbours.

The following points were noted:

The residents’ comments:

·         Residents have been concerned by the lack of regard shown for all the legislation and procedures that home owners are expected to abide by.

·         Having read the Planning Authority’s report, residents support the recommendation for refusal of planning permission.

·         The report highlights all of the contraventions of policies and legislation that this application is proposing.

·         If the Planning Committee decides to refuse planning permission, residents have requested that the occupants should return the plot to its former state as agricultural land and a timescale be implemented to do so. Residents are concerned that this process might take considerable time.

·         Residents are concerned that the occupants might ignore any instruction that the Authority provides and might continue to inhabit the site. Evidence of this has continued for some time that the occupants have had a disregard for planning procedure.

·         Residents have asked the following questions:

-       Will the Authority insist that the land be returned to its former state?

-       What timescale will be given to complete these works?

-       How will these conditions be policed?

The local Member’s Comments:

·         This is a retrospective application which does not comply with Monmouthshire’s Local Development Plan.

·         It seeks to circumvent the normal development process.

·         Regrets the time it has taken to receive an application. 

·         What is proposed is inappropriate to Llancayo, an area of unspoilt Monmouthshire landscape.

·         Confident that officers have undertaken all of the necessary assessments of circumstances relevant to the application.

·         It is a very comprehensive report.

·         If the Planning Committee decides to refuse the application, it is important that conditions are put in place to return the land to its former agricultural condition within an appropriate time scale. Also, to ensure the works are properly undertaken.

·         The site is inappropriate for development and askes that the Planning Committee considers refusing the application.

Councillor M. Goodwin, representing Gwehelog Community Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

Gwehelog Community Council recommends that the application be refused on the following grounds:

·         Policy LC1 – New build in the open countryside – There is a presumption against new build development in the open countryside unless justified under the national planning policy.

·         The planning application is a development in the open countryside which goes against the Local Development Plan.

·         Reference point 6.1.2.5 – provides a frame work for assessing proposals for Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show People where for permanent, transient or emergency use.  Within that, Policy H8 states that the site should not occupy a prominent location and should be consistent with Local Development Plan Policies for protecting and enhancing the character of the local landscape. 

·         Therefore, approval of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

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

The local Member for Usk, also a Planning Committee Member, outlined the following points:

·         The provision of two dwellings is inappropriate at this location.

·         Existing parking provision is very limited.  Any off street parking tends to be unavailable all day.

·         There has been a road traffic accident fatality located near to the property.  Highway safety is an issue at this location.

·         The Highways Department has objected to the application.

·         The Heritage Officer has referred to the kitchen window of number 32 Maryport Street.  Approval of the application will greatly reduce the light entering this window.

·         When the extension is completed, the view will be of a brick / rendered wall.

·         Usk Town Council is opposed to the application.

·         Residents throughout Usk are opposed to the application.

·         There is room for a building at this location but it has to be the correct building which will satisfy the needs of the neighbouring properties.

·         The local Member stated that he will be proposing that the application be refused.

It was considered that the application could be deferred to allow discussion with the applicant to reduce the number of proposed dwellings from two to one.  However, it was noted that the applicant wanted to build two dwellings at this location.

Members discussed the 1.2m fence, as indicated in the report.  However, the Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the Committee that the applicant could erect a 2 metre high fence at this location under permitted development rights.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed by the local Member, it was proposed by County Councillor B. Strong and seconded by County Councillor A. Webb that we be minded to refuse application DC/2015/01588 owing to the overdevelopment of the site for two houses leading to an unacceptable impact on street parking.  The report to be re-presented to the next Planning Committee Meeting for consideration with appropriate reasons for refusal.

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

For refusal                 -           10

Against refusal         -           0

Abstentions               -           1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that we be minded to refuse application DC/2015/01588 owing to the overdevelopment of the site for two houses leading to an unacceptable impact on street parking.  The report to be re-presented to the next Planning Committee Meeting for consideration with appropriate reasons for refusal.

The local Member for Usk left the meeting before consideration of this application and did not return.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence, which was recommended that the Welsh Government calls in the application.  This will ensure that the decision on Listed Building Consent for demolition is properly taken concurrently with the decision on the proposed M4 relief road.  There are conditions outlined in the report should the Welsh Government be minded to approve Listed Building Consent.

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

·         The Planning Authority has a duty to uphold the principles of the Local Development Plan and the policies therein.

·         It is a magnificent building. Many local people consider it to be an important and much treasured building with many local historic associations.

·         The application is highly irregular and is incomplete.  The Planning Officer has said that this Authority could not determine the application because the bat surveys are incomplete. However, there has been evidence of bats roosting there but in 2015, it had been determined that there was no bat roost located at the building.

·         The Ecology Officer has said that there are inadequacies in the methodology used to come to that report.

·         National Planning Policy says that applications made for the demolition of a listed building must be fully justified and scrutinised before any decision is taken.  The demolition of any listed building should be considered as exceptional and require the strongest justification. In determining planning applications for total or substantial demolition of listed buildings, authorities should take into account the condition of the building.  This building is in perfect condition.  However, Welsh Government considers that the building will be lost, or at best, used for salvage materials. 

·         Local Authorities should not authorise demolition of a listed building to make way for a new development unless it is certain that that development will proceed.

·         There is no certainty that the M4 Black Route will be chosen as the route for the M4 relief road at this current time.  The public inquiry has been further delayed as there are inappropriate or sufficient traffic growth forecasts to justify the development at present.  Therefore, the two conditions that must be satisfied do not appear to be.

·         It is recommended that the Welsh Government calls in this application.  However, Welsh Government considers that this building is not important.  The Authority’s Conservation Officer differs in this opinion and has stated that the building is particularly notable and the architect was John Noble.

·         In conclusion, the application has an incomplete bat study.

·         The local Member asked the Committee to consider either refusing the application or deferring it until the application is either sufficient or the Black Route is determined or not.

The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the Committee that the reason for the officer recommendation is due to the need to look at the overriding national importance of the M4 relief road.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence, which was presented for refusal with four reasons, as outlined in the report.

The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the Committee that the applicant had requested that consideration of the application be deferred as there had been amendments to the layout and design of the development which appear to overcome the reasons for refusal.

In light of this information, it was proposed by County Councillor P. Clarke and seconded by County Councillor A. Wintle that consideration of application DC/2015/00972 be deferred to the next Planning Committee meeting to consider amendments to the layout and design of the development.

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

For deferral               -           10

Against deferral        -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2015/00972 be deferred to the next Planning Committee meeting to consider amendments to the layout and design of the development.

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

Having considered the report of the application it was proposed by County Councillor D. Edwards and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DC/2015/01541 be approved subject to the nine conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

For approval              -           10

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2015/01541 be approved subject to the nine conditions, as outlined in the report.

County Councillor A. Webb left the meeting before this application was considered and did not return.  The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping left the meeting during consideration of this item.

We considered the application and late correspondence, which was recommended for approval subject to the eight conditions, as outlined in the report and also subject to the two conditions, as outlined in late correspondence.

Having considered the report of the application, the committee expressed its support and commended the applicant with regard to the design of the proposed care facility. However, the applicant was asked if the roofs could be altered slightly to overhang the building rather than being flush to it.

It was proposed by County Councillor M. Powell and seconded by County Councillor D. Edwards that application DC/2016/0884 be approved subject to the eight conditions, as outlined in the report and also subject to the two conditions, as outlined in late correspondence.

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

For approval              -           9

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2016/0884 be approved subject to the eight conditions, as outlined in the report and also subject to the two conditions, as outlined in late correspondence.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit that had been made on 16^th September 2016.  Site: Green Tree Orchard Store, Coed Chambers Road, Glascoed, Monmouthshire NP4 0TF.

The appeal had been dismissed.