Venue: Council Chamber, County Hall, The Rhadyr USK. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services
No. | Item |
---|---|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: County Councillor P.R. Clarke declared a personal and prejudicial interest under the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of Planning Application DC/2015/01565, as he is a Board Member of Monmouthshire Housing Association. He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.
County Councillor D. Evans declared a personal and prejudicial interest under the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of Planning Application DC/2015/01565, as he is a Member and tenant of Monmouthshire Housing Association. He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.
County Councillor R.J. Higginson declared a personal and prejudicial interest under the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of Planning Application DC/2015/01528 due to his knowledge of the owner of a property near to the site. He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.
County Councillor A.E. Webb declared a personal and prejudicial interest under the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of Planning Application DC/2015/01565, as she is a Board Member of Monmouthshire Housing Association. She left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.
County Councillor A.M. Wintle declared a personal and prejudicial interest under the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of Planning Application DC/2015/01565, as he is a Board Member of Monmouthshire Housing Association. He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.
|
|
Confirmation of Minutes PDF 133 KB Minutes: The minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting held on 1st March 2016 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman subject to the following amendment:
Minute 3 – The heading should refer to Llandogo not Llando. |
|
Minutes: We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report.
Councillor V. Long, representing Mitchel Troy Community Council, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, outlined the following points:
Mr. J. Imber, the applicant’s agent, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, outlined the following points:
|
|
Minutes: We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the 20 conditions, as outlined in the report.
Councillor V. Long, representing Mitchel Troy Community Council, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, outlined the following points:
Mr. J. Imber, the applicant’s agent, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, outlined the following points:
|
|
Minutes: We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the nine conditions, as outlined in the report.
Mr. Beswick, objecting to the application and attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, outlined the following points:
Mr. D. Prosser, the applicant’s agent, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, outlined the following points:
The adjoining ward Member and Planning Committee Member outlined the following points:
· The visual amenity issue is more significant than stated in the Planning Officer’s assessment.
· Local residents have a right to residential amenity. However, this application is harmful to residential amenity as the application runs along the fence line of No. 8 Rectory Gardens.
· Consideration of the application should be deferred to allow Planning Officers to renegotiate with the applicant with a view to re-siting the proposed dwelling within the plot.
Other Members agreed with the adjoining ward Member and discussion was also held regarding the colour of the render, roof slates and whether to re-consult with neighbours if amended plans were received.
Having received the report and the views expressed, it was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that consideration of application DC/2015/01528 should be deferred to be amended and if revised, permission should be issued via the Delegation Panel with a view to exploring the possibility of moving ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
Minutes: We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to eight conditions, as outlined in the report.
Late correspondence had indicated that the applicant’s agent had submitted two amended plans, one depicting a first floor window to the eastern elevation that was designed to avoid overlooking of adjoining gardens, and the second to indicate the required visibility splays for the proposed access.
The local Member for Usk, also a Planning Committee Member, outlined the following points:
Having considered the report and the views expressed by the local Member, some Members expressed their concern that there was no amenity area located within the plot, access to off street parking would be difficult, the proposed dwelling would too big for the plot and it would be the only dwelling within the street that was detached and therefore not in keeping with the existing street scene.
However, other Members considered that it was the applicant’s decision whether or not to have an amenity area within the plot and that the application complied with current planning policies.
It was therefore proposed by County Councillor A.E. Webb and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DC/2015/01204 be approved subject to the eight conditions, as outlined in the report and that a visibility splay plan be added to the conditions in the report.
Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:
For approval - 8 Against approval - 4 Abstentions - 1
The proposition was carried.
We resolved that application DC/2015/01204 be approved subject to the eight conditions, as outlined in the report and that a visibility splay plan be added to the conditions in the report.
|
|
Minutes: We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report and also subject to a Section 106 Agreement requiring the applicant not to implement planning permission DC/2014/00661 at 7 Wesley Buildings.
Members agreed that unit 5 would be far more lettable than unit 7 for this application and it was proposed by County Councillor R.J. Higginson and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DC/2015/01350 be approved subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report and also subject to a Section 106 Agreement requiring the applicant not to implement planning permission DC/2014/00661 at 7 Wesley Buildings.
Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:
For approval - 13 Against Approval - 0 Abstentions - 0
The proposition was carried.
We resolved that application DC/2015/01350 be approved subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report and also subject to a Section 106 Agreement requiring the applicant not to implement planning permission DC/2014/00661 at 7 Wesley Buildings.
|
|
Minutes: County Councillor Dovey left the room during consideration of the application and returned before the application was determined. He therefore abstained from voting in respect of this application.
We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report.
Members were informed that the proposed bespoke development was for two individuals with disabilities. This location was the most suitable in the area for this development.
Having received the report it was proposed by County Councillor R.J. Higginson and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DC/2015/01565 be approved subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report.
Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:
For approval - 8 Against approval - 0 Abstensions - 1
The proposition was carried.
We resolved that application DC/2015/01565 be approved subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report.
|
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: We received a report in which Members were advised of the results of the consultation exercise on the draft Primary Shopping Frontages Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) to support the policy of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan (LDP).
In response to a Member’s question regarding A1 usage, it was noted that there were very limited changes and the thresholds generally reflect historic and current levels of retail uses within the PSF’s. Vacancy rates in the Central Shopping Areas were 0% in Raglan and 9.2% in Caldicot (October 2014). National vacancy rates were at 13% (March 2015).
We resolved to endorse the draft Primary Shopping Frontages Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) in connection with the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan (LDP) and to recommend to the Cabinet Member with responsibility for planning matters, accordingly.
|
|
The Planning Inspectorate - New Appeals Received PDF 66 KB Minutes: We noted the new appeals that had been received in respect of the following applications:
|