Agenda and minutes

County Councillor A. Davies declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of application DM/2018/00880 as he is a resident of Church Road which is directly affected by the proposal. He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

County Councillor D. Evans declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of application DM/2018/01635 as he is a member of Monmouthshire Housing Association Committee.  He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

County Councillor A Webb declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of application DM/2018/01635 as she is a Board Member of Monmouthshire Housing Association.  She left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 5^th February 2019 were confirmed and signed by the Vice-Chair subject to the following amendment.

Application DM/2018/01606 – Final sentence of the final paragraph to read as follows:

However, before issuing the decision, ensure design details of house types (including overhanging eaves, cills and headers) are reviewed and agreed via the Delegation Panel.

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to a Section 106 agreement and planning conditions as set out in the previous report to Planning Committee of 6^th November 2018.

The application is re-presented to Planning Committee for consideration due to the data error on housing completions against Local Development Plan (LDP) targets, included in the 20^th September 2019 Council report and duplicated in the 6^th November 2018 Planning Committee report for this item.  The Committee was invited to consider the application afresh. In addition, the application has been reviewed against Planning Policy Wales 10 (PPW10), which is an updated national planning policy which has been published since the Committee considered the application in November 2019.  The impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments has been considered by Cadw and no objection is offered.

The proposed development would make a significant and timely contribution to the Authority’s housing land supply shortfall and the 35% affordable housing would help to address the significant affordability challenge facing Monmouthshire’s communities.  The proposal is considered to comply with the 11 ground rules agreed by Council on 21^st February 2019, and it is considered to accord with the policies set out in PPW10. 

The local Member for Caldicot Castle attended the meeting by invitation of the Vice-Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The local Member stated that she was in attendance to represent the views of local residents in respect of this application which included many objectors and a small number of supporters for the application.

·         Concerns were expressed regarding the infrastructure within Caldicot.  The local GP surgery has long waiting times and there are difficulties for residents to obtain a NHS dentist.

·         Local schools are at capacity.

·         Aneurin Bevan University Health Board has had difficulties with regard to recruitment.

·         Schools are covered by the Section 106 arrangement.  Schools are already full and it was considered that the Authority cannot wait for the houses to become occupied, obtain the Section 106 Funding before building the extra school places that are required.

·         Concerns have been raised regarding the archaeological remains found in the Neddern Rise and whether more artefacts might be found on this site.

·         Concerns have been raised regard the increased traffic flows and the impact on air quality which might cause damage to the Roman ruins in Caerwent.

·         The site contains a public right of way. Although the site will retain the right of way, it will no longer be an attractive country walk as it will traverse a housing estate.  There are concerns that this will force the walkers into the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which could create a negative effect on the wildlife.

·         Natural Resources Wales (NRW) has stated that it wishes to deter walkers from the SSSI while the birds are wintering at this location.

·         Concerns have been expressed that people will chose to walk in the countryside rather that use the right of way.

·         The local Member expressed her grave concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the 12 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Mr. D. Rogers, objecting to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The report is predicated on the principle of how it compares with the application as it stood prior to some minor amendments by the applicant. That is a comparison that does not take into account the existing site, neither does it take into account the existing planning permission.

·         The permission identified was part of the overall redevelopment of the Haberdashers boarding houses, one of which is now occupied by the objector.

·         The existing planning permission is for a four bed barn conversion but it did have an additional new building at the rear which was discarded prior to consideration by the Planning Committee.

·         With the present application, by raising the roof and increasing the usable floor area on a first floor level and by inserting an additional extension of the rear, the application returns to the permission that the Committee did not consider but would have refused.

·         The rise of the building has been achieved by a set of louvre wooden framework below the gutter line and as a consequence raising the ridge height.

·         Behind the louvres there are a series of windows which, contrary to information received by officers regarding overlooking, is not properly considered by the report.

·         The report indicates that there are no windows on the gable end to the rear of number 11.  However, what is not taken into account is that there are a series of windows which will be reopened on the flank of the building which is partially adjacent to the objector’s rear garden.  Above that, there will be a series of additional windows behind the louvre which cannot be seen and create an impression of a secret overlooking.  This will have a detrimental effect on the whole of the rear garden of St. James’ House.

·         The report of the application refers to the shortfall in parking on the site.  The existing permission allowed sufficient parking for a four bedroomed property.  This was important to the Planning Committee when it considered the total redevelopment of the area of the Haberdashers properties and all of the properties as they were being considered had to meet the minimum parking standard. However, this has been abandoned.

·         The objector asked the Committee to consider refusing the application as it currently stands.

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

·         The scheme cannot be viewed in isolation.  This development has come forward to the Committee as a part of the scheme previously that was refused and then accepted. 

·         This barn came forward as a conversion of a building to a four bedroomed dwelling and permitted development rights were removed at that time.

·         There have been a number of issues around  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

We considered the report of the application which was presented for refusal for two reasons, as outlined in the report.

The applicant’s agent, Mr. D. Smith, attended the meeting by invitation of the Vice-Chair and outlined the following points:

·         Planning approval was granted in 2014 for this conversion.  In December 2016 work commenced.

·         Inclement weather had destabilised the building.

·         The applicant had arranged for a health and safety specialist to visit the site resulting in a range of measures being taken to try and ensure that the building was saved.

·         The report describes the building as being demolished.  However, this was not the case.  The building had been dismantled for health and safety reasons due to ‘an act of God’.

·         There was no intent for the applicant to remove the building.

·         Appeals in case law exist for situations like this.  There are material considerations that can be considered with regard to this case.

·         The intent of the applicant and the outcome of development can be considered. The intent of the applicant has been to implement the consent.

·         The applicant had purchased internal frames in the sum of £10,500 which can only be used in this building.  If planning permission is not granted these will become redundant.

·         The applicant had met the unexpected costs to retain the building. However, for health and safety reasons the building could not be saved and had to be taken down.

·         Financial reasons can also be taken into account. This has cost the applicant £160,000 to date.

·         These special circumstances can be a mitigating factor in terms of determining the application.

·         In terms of the flooding issue, pre-application advice had been sought and flooding issues at the site had not been raised.  Officers had indicated that circumstances had not changed since 2016. 

·         Although the policy issues exist, the Planning Committee was asked by the applicant’s agent to consider the material considerations put forward in advance of this and say that they do not apply in this situation due to the circumstances faced by the applicant.

·         The Planning Committee was asked to approve the application on the basis of considering the application against the material considerations which can be applied to this application.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed by the applicant’s agent, the following points were noted:

·         It was considered that the issue of the building being located on the flood plain could be circumvented by raising the ground level above the flood plain.

·         The foundations is the only part of the building that is left. Therefore, this application would be regarded as a new build in the countryside, would be located in a flood zone C2 and would be close to a brook.  The footprint would be the same as the original building. The building would be located in an open location, exposed to the elements and would not be the most appropriate location for a tourist / residential accommodation.

·         Planning Policy is clear in not allowing highly vulnerable developments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report.

Application DM/2018/01641 was withdrawn from consideration to allow officers to clarify issues around air quality.  The application will be presented to a future Planning Committee meeting when these issues have been addressed.

We considered the report of the application which was presented for refusal for two reasons, as outlined in the report.

The applicant’s agent, Mr. G. Glasson, attended the meeting by invitation of the Vice-Chair and outlined the following points:

·         Penterry Farm has been compelled to explore farming diversification due to the current economic climate.

·         The additional revenue from holiday letting will support not only the core farm business but will create positive outcomes for the rural economy also.

·         The Farm is well placed located above Tintern Abbey in the Wye Valley and near to the Forest of Dean.

·         Tourism is actively encouraged in Monmouthshire and additional accommodation will strengthen the area’s appeal as a visitor destination.

·         The barn is located between two dwellings and has not been used for agriculture for 10 years due to the impact on the amenities of the two dwellings. It is of modern construction but dates back to the 1970s.  It is in sound condition.

·         Like any other barn conversion, the roof will need replacing and the walls will require cladding. However, it was considered that this does not amount to rebuilding or a new build property. It would be no different if the barn was upgraded to a grain store.

·         The proposed holiday lets would be located on Penterry Farm, would be managed by the farm and used to support the farm.

·         Officers had not previously indicated that a business case was required.  However, if necessary, the applicant could provide one.

·         The applicant is prepared to enter into a Section 106 agreement to ensure the accommodation remains a part of the farm business and satisfies the Planning Department’s need for a stronger linkage.

·         The Barn makes no contribution to the Wye Valley AONB in its current state, the farm has attempted to instil some character into the design. However, it was acknowledged that the windows could be revisited in an amendment to downplay any domestic pretensions.

·         Parking could also be revisited in favour of a more discreet location.

·         There is an opportunity to conserve and enhance the natural beauty in line with Policy LC4.

·         The applicant is not looking to rebuild the barn. However, Policy T2 does allow for the substantial rebuild of the building within the curtilage of an existing and occupied farm property where it assists an agricultural diversification.

·         Officers consider that the barn is on the holding and not within the curtilage of an occupied farm property. However, this was considered to be disingenuous, as the barn is located between two farm dwellings and is part of a long established ribbon of farm development along the farm drive, so it is considered to be within the curtilage of farm property.

·         The barn has no future for agriculture but offers an opportunity for the farm to diversify sustainably without adding any new buildings or covering the fields with yurts, tepees and tree houses.

·         The applicant would welcome the opportunity to work with the Planning Department to modify the scheme and provide the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the eight conditions, as outlined in the report.

The local Member for Llantilio Crossenny was unable to attend the meeting. However, the Chair allowed for a statement to be read out stating that the local Member was in favour of the proposed application.

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

• The applicant had confirmed that facias and barges will have 150mm overhang.

• In response to a question raised, it was noted that the render will be smooth, as discussed at the site inspection.

• In response to a question raised by a Member regarding the visibility splay only being on one side of the road as indicated in the highways report, Planning officers would investigate the matter and report back to the Member.

• The application sits well on the site and provides affordable housing.

It was proposed by County Councillor D. Dovey and seconded by County Councillor M. Feakins that application DM/2018/01635 be approved subject to the eight conditions, as outlined in the report.

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 DM/2018/01635 be approved subject to the eight conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

The local Member for Portskewett was unable to attend the meeting.  However, the Chair allowed for a statement to be read out to the Committee outlining the local Member’s views in respect of the application:

• The local Member had expressed serious concerns regarding the application.

• Concerns remain around the safety of pedestrians which would include many children and elderly people.  Many of which use the recreation hall, play area  and other community areas that are accessed via the adjacent lane which is next to the proposed site.

• These facilities are well used and the lane can be busy at regular times with vehicles and pedestrians.

• Concern was expressed regarding the additional property entrances and the additional vehicular movements that will enter and leave the highway at a bottleneck at the entrance of the close.

• The short stretch of busy road has seen several accidents over the years and is known locally as an area of great concern.

• The approval of additional dwellings and therefore additional vehicles will cause a serious worsening of the current problems that are occurring at this location.

• The position of the proposed dwellings will be inappropriate and will add nothing but danger to the community.

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

• The elevation of the proposed dwellings is not in keeping with surrounding properties.

• The proposed dwellings would be located up to the boundary.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Clarke and seconded by County Councillor J. Higginson that we be minded to refuse application DM/2018/01784 on over-development of the site and that it creates a detrimental effect on the street scene due to incongruous design and that the application be re-presented to a future meeting of Planning Committee with appropriate reasons for refusal.

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

For refusal                 -           11

Against refusal         -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that we be minded to refuse application DM/2018/01784 on over-development of the site and that it creates a detrimental effect on the street scene due to incongruous design and that the application be re-presented to a future meeting of Planning Committee with appropriate reasons for refusal.

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the five conditions, as outlined in the report.

In noting the detail of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor J. Higginson and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DM/2019/00142 be approved subject to the five conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

For approval              -           11

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2019/00142 be approved subject to the five conditions, as outlined in the report.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit that had been made on 9^th January 2019. Site address: 6 Caestory Avenue, Raglan, Usk.

We noted that the appeal was allowed and planning permission was granted for a detached dwelling house at 6 Caestory Avenue, Raglan, Usk, NP15 2EH in accordance with the terms of the application, ref: DC/2018/00096, dated 19^th January 2018, subject to the conditions set out in the Schedule.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to a costs decision following a site visit that had been made on 9^th January 2019.  Site address: 6 Caestory Avenue, Raglan, Usk.

We noted that the application for an award of costs was allowed.

We resolved that the Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping writes to the Planning Inspectorate in response to the decision and the costs awarded in respect of this application following debate over paragraph 7 of the appeals decision and paragraph 7 of the costs decision.

We received a report regarding the Draft Infill Development Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), with a view to issuing for consultation.

The Planning Committee was informed that the options in relation to the Draft SPG were to:

1) Endorse the Draft SPG as attached to the report for consultation.

2) Endorse the Draft SPG for consultation with amendments.

3) Do nothing in relation to the Draft SPG.

It was noted that officer recommendation was for Option 1 to be the preferred option.

Having considered the report, the following points were noted:

·         A Member supported option 2 with the following amendments:

-       There was a need to distinguish between infill and backland development within the guidance, for example with additional diagrams illustrating backland development.

-       Further definition of neighbouring properties needed to be identified to clarify if we mean adjacent in the streetscene, or in the immediately surrounding area.

-       Consideration of a limit be placed on main villages in line with minor villages.  SAH1 to also be appended.

·         The majority of the Committee agreed with option 1 – to endorse the Draft SPG as attached to the report, for consultation.

·         There is a need to ensure that either the 35% or 25% affordable housing provision is adhered to and that it not be subject to viability.

·         The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the committee that the points raised would be picked up.  Further investigation would be undertaken regarding diagrams, also further clarity regarding backland and the wording during the consultation period to clarify issues in respect of surrounding properties or immediately adjacent neighbouring properties.  It was noted that there is separate SPG being undertaken in respect of commuted sums for small sites.  In terms of limits on house numbers, the scope of the SPG has been deliberately kept to fewer than 10 dwellings.  It is not appropriate to seek to limit the number of dwellings in infill developments in Main Villages.  The limit for Minor Villages is taken from LDP policy.

We resolved to endorse the Draft Infill Development Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), with a view to issuing for consultation, and to recommend to the Cabinet Member for Innovation, Enterprise and Leisure accordingly.