Agenda and minutes

We elected County Councillor P. Murphy as Chair.

We appointed County Councillor D. Rooke as Vice-Chair.

None received.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 2^nd May 2023 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 and subject to a S106 Legal Agreement.

The local Member for Magor East with Undy, also a Planning Committee Member, outlined the following points:

·         The application is for two properties but has poor access onto Vinegar Hill.

·         The application has an officer recommendation for approval as it has a lower vehicle movement, and this is the main reason for the change of policy for the Highway approval.

·         The junction of the B4245 at Vinegar Hill is signposted unsuitable for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs).

·         There are no footways for children to walk safely along this route.

·         There is no access to residential developments.  There are several issues that need to be addressed via conditions before this application is considered for approval.

·         Details of the Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) plan are not available.

·         The access requires a wider splay and vegetation needs to be cut back on the owner’s property and on the County Council owned hedgerow.

·         The local Member expressed concern that children have to access this narrow road with no footway when walking to school. Additional vehicles and HGVs delivering to this site would exacerbate the situation. The current splay is not suitable to accommodate large vehicles.

·         The local Member stated that he could not support this application due to the issues outlined in respect of the splay and access onto the road.

In response, the Highway Development Manager informed the Committee:

·         The application was originally for four dwellings accommodating four vehicles which was considered to be inappropriate for the site.  However, two dwellings accommodating two vehicles with the existing dwelling is capable of accommodating the access movement to and from this development with the impact on Vinegar Hill being considerably less.

·         Pedestrians in this area currently live with a considerable development already in existence. It was considered that two additional dwellings would not cause any material harm to the safety of highway users.

·         A Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) has been requested via Planning conditions. It will be for the builder to submit this plan to the Authority for approval.

·         Large vehicles are able to access Vinegar Hill. If they cannot access a particular development, then they would be required to size their vehicles accordingly. This would be addressed via the CTMP for this development.

The Development Management Area Team Manager informed the Committee:

·         An additional condition would be required to include a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) should the Committee consider approving the application.

·         The SuDS application would be considered via a separate application.

The Head of Placemaking, Housing, Highways and Flood read out a statement to the Committee from the applicant’s agent:

·         The application was submitted in March 2021 and was originally for the construction of four dwellings. The proposal received a number of objections and in discussions with Planning and Highways officers it had been agreed to reduce the number of  ...  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 conditions outlined in the report and subject to a S106 Legal Agreement.

This application is a duplicate of application DM/2022/01193 which was refused due to concerns over highway safety. The decision was subsequently appealed, and the application was considered by the Planning and Environment Decisions Wales (PEDW). The appeal was dismissed on the 18^th April 2023. The Inspector considered the reason for refusal, highway safety, and concluded that while that issue would not have warranted refusal of permission, "the harm and policy conflict associated with the absence of a completed legal agreement to secure affordable housing provision" was sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal.

The local Member for Magor East with Undy, also a Planning Committee Member, expressed concern that the Planning Inspector had not been provided with the adopted Highway Design Standard Policy due to an oversight with the Local Planning Department. It was considered that if the Planning Inspector had received this information, then he would have been able to make a better assessment of the safety issues relating to the highway in respect of this application. It would have given more weight to local residents’ case.

In response, the Head of Placemaking, Housing, Highways and Flooding informed the Committee:

·         It was an oversight that the adopted Highway Design Standard Policy had not been provided to the Planning Inspector. However, it was noted that this document has never been requested by an Inspector. Significant advice had been provided to the Inspector by Highways Officers, as well as providing him with access to the Planning Committee’s minutes and the recording of the Planning Committee meeting. The Inspector would have also undertaken a site inspection.

·         It was noted that the Inspector could request additional information during his proceedings but had not done so on this occasion.

·         The guidance referred to is not Monmouthshire County Council Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) but is used by all authorities across Wales.

Mrs. S. Lloyd, objecting to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         This application is the third attempt to add another house onto the Green Infrastructure (GI) approved under a previous application on the wider site. That application originally included this third house but was removed due to overdevelopment concerns.

·         The objector considered that this was gross abuse of the planning system and if approved will set an unacceptable precedent to developers that they can overcome over development concerns by putting green infrastructure on sites getting them approved then applying separately to build on that GI.

·         The north elevation windows look directly onto a 2.5 metre retaining wall.

·         The south elevation contains only two slit windows.

·         The house is only 15 metres from the rear habitable rooms of Walnut House but due to the steep site the floor level is four metres higher and the ridge height 10 metres higher. It will have a grossly overbearing  ...  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 conditions outlined in the report.

The local Member for Llantilio Crossenny attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points on behalf of local residents who are affected by the application:

·         Local residents are not objecting to the revised application as long as the result is a reduction in noise from the fans.

·         Local residents had expressed concern that the report of the application did not express the extent to what they have endured for the last five years whereby the noise has been a 24-hour problem that ebbs and flows throughout the day.

·         However, they welcome the measures being put in place to ameliorate the problem but consider this application to not be a perfect solution for them. Even with the replacement fans, residents will still be disturbed at various times throughout the day.

·         Enjoyment of their property will not return to how it was before 2018.

·         If planning permission is granted, residents are keen for checks to be made by appropriate professionals to ensure that the equipment, as specified in the application, is installed.

·         In terms of the follow up noise verification checks outlined in the report of the application, residents would like to be given notice of when the noise assessments at their properties are to be undertaken. As the degree of noise disturbance is greatly influenced by the weather, residents asked that those checks be undertaken in appropriate weather conditions and on different days to provide certainty that the stated noise reduction has been achieved.

·         The noise is worse on a warm dry day with a southerly wind. Residents are likely to be outside and have windows open on these days.

·         The fans were introduced in 2018 as this was the best available technique. However, it was also because of the increasing numbers of birds that were being held in the poultry shed. Residents are concerned that the stocking levels have not been addressed.

The Specialist Environmental Health Officer responded as follows:

·         With regard to the first assessment undertaken having regard to British Standard methods provided the levels of noise that would be predicted at nearby premises. Queries raised at this stage were answered.

·         The main reason why the acoustic housing was not progressed was due to ventilation issues.

·         The subsequent application report provided is a better option and anticipated to produce a lower level of noise by using a six bladed fan instead of a three bladed fan. It is anticipated that this type of fan will eliminate the pulse currently generated from the existing fan.

·         A decibel chart was provided to illustrate noise levels. When the 12 gable end fans are in use, the noise at the nearest noise sensitive property will be 30 decibels. There will be times when the background levels will drop to 25 decibels. Therefore, the Environmental Health Department is not in a position to object to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report and that an additional condition be added that the scheme be completed in accordance with approved drawings within six months from the date of the permission.

It was noted that this latest application proposes a reduction in the ridge height by 0.763m which is now 0.5m higher than the originally approved scheme in 2019.

The local Member for Lansdown attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points on behalf of local objectors to the application:

·         The application had previously been refused by the Planning Committee and the local Member quoted the reasons for refusal, namely, the garage has a large footprint that was considered to be too large.

·         The reasons that were formerly given for refusal for the previous application related to its unacceptable scale and mass. The proposal had failed to respect the existing form, scale, massing and layout of its setting and is contrary to the Local Development Plan.

·         The local Member quoted from the report of the Inspector. Even with a reduction in height it would continue to be an imposing and visually dominant building out of keeping with the character and appearance of the area. Concerns have been raised by neighbouring residents that the garage has an overbearing impact on their properties and negatively impacts on their living conditions.

·         From the rear facing garden and views from the rear facing 58 Old Barn Way, the outlook would be dominated by a mass of built form. The development is inappropriate to its context.

·         The applicant has added a new document to the Planning Portal which states that the footprint has substantially been reduced. From the original permission granted in 2019, with the substantial cladding being added, the footprint has not reduced but has grown substantially to the point where the building cannot be completed correctly. It was considered that there would be insufficient room to complete the soakaways and guttering.

·         The building is out of scale and dominates the surrounding area and is out of context with its neighbourhood. No other building nearby is higher than 2.4 metres.

In response the Development Services Manager informed the Committee:

·         The building is 0.4 metres wider than the original approval.

·         A garage with the same width could be built under permitted development rights.

·         The length of the building remains the same as originally proposed.

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

·         Some Members expressed concern regarding the over dominance of the proposed additional 0.5 metre ridge height and considered that the ridge height of 4 metres, outlined in the original plan, would be more appropriate. The building was considered to be out of character with the street scene.

·         The Committee was asked to focus on the impacts of the building and whether the 4.5m proposed ridge height would be acceptable or not.

·         Reducing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

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

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

·         The internal flooring will be the choice of the applicant.

·         A condition is outlined in the report of the application restricting the building to storage use only.

·         The building will be sustainable using locally sourced materials where possible.

·         Enforcement officers can check that the condition regarding use of the building is being complied with.

It was proposed by County Councillor J. Butler and seconded by County Councillor E. Bryn that application DM/2023/00391 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

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

For approval             -           12

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2023/00391 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit that had been held at Chepstow RFC, Burnt Barn Road, Bulwark, Chepstow on 16^th May 2023.

We noted that the appeal had been dismissed.