Agenda and minutes

Before commencing proceedings the Chair, on behalf of the Planning Committee, paid tribute to His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh who had recently passed away.  As a mark of respect the Planning Committee held a minute’s silence.

None received.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 2nd March 2021 were

confirmed and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendments:

Application DM/2020/00881 – Page 5, bullet point 6 be amended to read:

·         None of the original applicant’s estate agent’s valuation of £200,000 took account of the overage condition that the applicant was placing on the property when offering it for sale. It means that there is equivalent to a penalty clause on the land if a buyer purchased it for £140,000 rather than £185,000 they would still have to pay the seller the uplift if the agricultural tie was removed or the property extended in the next 35 or 50 years, meaning the buyer would have to pay the seller in the region of £40,000 if the new buyer gained permission to remove the agricultural occupancy condition.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to the additional conditions outlined in late correspondence, as well as being subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

In noting the detail of the application the following points were identified:

·         The site will lend itself to the proposed development.

·         Concern was expressed that the proposed development does not respect the character of the Grade II listed building and historical buildings in the area. It is a backfill site landlocked by a public car park and is out of character with surrounding properties.

·         Approval of the application could lead to the displacement of up to seven vehicles from the existing properties.

·         Concern was expressed that approval of the application would result in overdevelopment of the site.

·         It was considered that the application does not constitute successful placement making.

·         It was considered that emergency vehicles would have difficulty accessing the site if the application was approved.

·         The site was considered to be a sustainable location and approval of the application would enhance the area.

·         The Highways Department had expressed concern that the retail parking spaces will be lost.

·         The Development Management Area Team Manager informed the Committee that officers are satisfied that there are no concerns relating to overlooking.  There is a distance of 28 metres from the rear of 11 Bank Street to the listed building to the proposed unit. The impact on the listed building is considered acceptable. With regard to the design, the test is to preserve or enhance.  It has been designed with a reduction in the scale and size of the building and its height being in line with the other buildings nearby. Therefore, the application complies with the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). Currently, the site does not have a formal parking layout.  However, given the sustainable location, the site is adjacent to an existing car park and is in walking distance to the railway station. It does not comply with the parking standards but there are mitigating factors which make the application acceptable.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor R. Harris that application DM/2020/00720 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to the additional conditions outlined in late correspondence, as well as being subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

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

For approval             -           9

Against approval      -           4

Abstentions               -           0

The application was approved.

We resolved that application DM/2020/00720 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to the additional conditions outlined in late correspondence, as well as being subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

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

Llangybi Fawr Community Council, had submitted a written statement outlining the community council’s objections to the application which was read to the Planning Committee by the Head of Planning, as follows:

‘Until recently the applicant has been using this barn, contrary to planning regulations, as a base for his motor trading business, openly advertising it on websites and social media.  This activity only stopped after the applicant was served with an enforcement order, one of several enforcement actions taken against this applicant.  There has been no suggestion in the past that the applicant is an enthusiast and collector of motor cars.  In any case, we would suggest that there is a fine distinction between a private collector of motor cars who buys and sells vehicles to enhance their collection and a commercial trader operating for profit.

If the committee is minded to approve this application, (and we accept that there appear to be no planning reasons not to), we would respectfully urge them to impose tight conditions on the use of this commercial building – we hesitate to call it a barn as it has never been used for any agricultural purpose.  We endorse the conditions suggested by the planning officer in her report, but would be happier with a lower limit on the number of vehicles.’

The applicant’s agent, Sullivan Land and Planning, had submitted a written statement in support of the application which was read to the Planning Committee by the Head of Planning, as follows:

‘The Community Council appear to be confusing this with a previous withdrawn application for the cattle shed (2020/00072) to the north, which was the subject of enforcement action against a tenant who traded vehicles from those premises without the authority of the applicant and in contravention of his lease.

It should be noted that the Dutch Barn which is the subject of this application has never been used to trade vehicles, only to store vehicles which are the personal property of the applicant. The applicant is content with the number of vehicles proposed to be stored as part of this application, which was discussed and agreed with the case officer.’

Following discussion it was proposed by County Councillor G. Howard and seconded by County Councillor P. Clarke that we be minded to defer consideration of application DM/2020/01076 to a future Planning Committee meeting to allow officers time to gather evidence of when external alterations had occurred, to review the Inspector’s decision and to establish whether the application was advertised correctly.

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

For deferral               -           14

Against deferral        -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that we be minded to defer consideration of application DM/2020/01076 to a future Planning Committee meeting to allow officers time to gather evidence of when external alterations had occurred, to review  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

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

However, condition two should be amended to read as follows:

The use hereby permitted shall cease and the caravan decking and other domestic paraphernalia shall be removed from the site on or before 31^st March 2022 and shall not be brought back to the site thereafter.  The caravan shall only be occupied by persons directly connected to the ongoing works to barn 3 and no other persons.

Llangybi Fawr Community Council, had submitted a written statement outlining the community council’s objections to the application which was read to the Planning Committee by the Head of Planning, as follows:

‘This is another application which we suspect has emerged as a result of enforcement action.  In their objections to this application, residents who live on site have pointed out that this static caravan has been used by the applicant as a rental property for a tenant who has no involvement with the building work currently being carried out in converting the barn to a residential property.  The caravan was in fact installed on site almost exactly two years ago, in April 2019.  We realise that this is not a material factor in determining this application, however we mention it to reinforce our request that, should the committee be minded to approve this application, strict conditions be imposed to the extent that it should only be occupied by persons directly connected with the conversion of barn 3, and not for any other purpose.  We agree with the time limit for removal of the caravan proposed by the planning officer in her report but would add that removal should be on conclusion of the building work should that occur before the end of March 2022.’

The applicant’s agent, Sullivan Land and Planning, had submitted a written statement in support of the application which was read to the Planning Committee by the Head of Planning, as follows:

‘In support of the residents’ objections, the Community Council assert that the tenant of the caravan has no involvement in the current conversion of Barn 3 into a residential property. The applicant wishes to assure the County Council that in applying for the temporary planning permission for the residential caravan, he acknowledges that it will be occupied by a person associated with the building project. The applicant is hopeful that the conversion will be completed in the agreed timeframe, as agreed with the case officer, subject to no further Covid-19 related delays.’

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

·         The conditions attached to the application are strong enough to ensure that the temporary caravan will be removed by the 31^st March 2022.  If required, the Authority will have the power to serve a breach of conditions notice allowing formal enforcement action to be taken.

·         The local Member for Llangybi Fawr, also a Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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

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

·         Vehicles that are parked on the front of the property can only egress from this area by reversing onto the A48 which is a dangerous manoeuvre. Vehicles travelling along the A48 have a restricted view of the vehicles joining the A48 from the front of the building.

·         Parking provision on the existing plans is similar to permission granted in 2017.  In the previous plan there were 32 parking spaces for the wedding venue. The temporary storage area will be removed with the new building replacing it. However, four parking spaces will be lost and the area at the front of the building is not a safe place to provide formal parking provision.

·         The original consent was for a wedding venue. However, this now provides six bed accommodation. The local Member questioned whether planning consent was required for this. This will increase the issues surrounding parking provision on the site.

·         The adjacent field has been hired and used for parking provision but would be unsuitable in times of inclement weather.

·         Mathern Community Council considers that approval of the application will result in over development of the site.

·         The local Member considered that should the application be approved then very strong conditions needed to be added to the existing conditions outlined in the report, namely: that the storage unit is non-residential and not sold as a separate plot, that the fence be removed to ensure that the area is available which is currently referred to as a service area, the hours of business to operate no later than midnight as it narrows the gap between Mounton House Lodge and the nearby house, no parking should be allowed at the front of the building in the interests of highway and pedestrian safety and the implementation of an approved travel plan for staff and visitors for parking including when accommodation is used inclusively or independently.

·         The local Member asked the Planning Committee to consider refusal of the application on the grounds of overdevelopment of the site and the parking concerns. If the Committee considered approval of the application, a request was made for the additional five conditions to be added.

In response to the points raised by the local Member, the Development Services Manager informed the Planning Committee that a condition could be added to prevent vehicles parking at the front of the building. In terms of the condition being ancillary and not used for living accommodation, this could be achieved. Removal of the fence could also be undertaken. However, the approved layout could be enforced so that the fence would be taken down to accommodate the new building and re-arranged parking in that area. It would be unlikely that a condition could be added to limit the operating hours of business to midnight in isolation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit that had been held at Catry Cottage, Quarry Road, Star Hill, Devauden on 2^nd March 2021.

We noted that the appeal had been dismissed.