County Councillor R. Edwards declared a personal and prejudicial interest, pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct, in respect of applications DM/2018/01741, DM/2018/01777 and DM/2019/00168 as she has family members with an involvement in all three applications.  She 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 applications DM/2018/01741 and DM/2019/00030 as he is a member of the Monmouthshire Housing Association Committee. He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

County Councillor R. Harris declared a personal and prejudicial interest, pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct, in respect of application DM/2018/01909, although not taking part in any planning consideration of this item and actively supported the Town Council allotting £30,000 to this project.  He therefore left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

County Councillor R.J. Higginson declared a personal and prejudicial interest, pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct, in respect of application DM/2018/01741, as he knows and is a former colleague of an objector of the proposed development.  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 applications DM/2018/01741 and DM/2019/00030 as she sits on the Monmouthshire Housing Association Board. She left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 5^th March 2019 were confirmed and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendment to Minute 13 - Draft Infill Development Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG). Bullet point 3 be amended to read:

There is a need to ensure that the affordable housing provision of either 60%, 35% or 25% (depending on the location) is adhered to and that would not be subject to viability.

The minutes of the special meeting of Planning Committee held on 19^th March 2019 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 21 conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

The local Member for Devauden, was unable to attend the meeting.  However, he had produced a statement and the Vice-Chair agreed for County Councillor P. Murphy to read it to the Committee, as follows:

“Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the Planning Committee on Tuesday, but I would like to comment on the application.  There can be no doubt of the need for more affordable housing provision throughout the County. The Strategy and Policy Officer has confirmed that within the Devauden area there are 214 households in housing need, far more than can be provided by this 60% affordable development. Good housing should not be a privilege, it should be a right for every British citizen. I do not believe there is a potential housing site left within the County that does not have some disadvantages so if we are to meet the pressing need, especially for people on lower incomes, we are going to have to consider the merits against the disadvantages of every application that comes before the planning authority.

The site is included in the current Local Development Plan (LDP) and so even if this application was unsuccessful, in time another proposal would undoubtedly come forward. I have been part of many public discussions about this site from the time of the original LDP proposals and there have been many objections put forward against allowing development on the site. In my view one or two of the points raised have been very compelling and needed satisfactory solutions to make the development acceptable. Devauden Community Council has discussed the development on a number of occasions and their concerns encapsulate the issues raised by members of the community. So in reaching my own conclusion on the application I will address their points of objection.

A small part of the development is outside the area allocated in the LDP; true but the additional land enhances the public green amenity offered by the development. I welcome that.

It is important that any new development does not exacerbate existing drainage issues. They cannot necessarily be expected to cure existing shortcomings within the area as well. What I was looking for here was confirmation from Welsh Water that the drainage proposals were sustainable. This is met by condition 6.9.1. They have also confirmed that foul drainage can be accommodated adequately within the nearby Welsh Water sewage plant by the use of small tankers. Neither would there be an appreciable increase in the number of times vehicles would need to visit the sewage plant.

For me, the major issue of this site has been around road safety; traffic and pedestrians. The junction adjacent to the site between Well Lane, the B4293 and the village green has very poor visibility for traffic emerging from Well Lane towards Chepstow. The latest  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

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

The application had been presented to Planning Committee at the meeting on 8^th January 2019 with a recommendation for approval. However, the Committee had deferred consideration of the application to a future meeting to allow officers to liaise with the applicant with a view to reducing the proposed dwelling’s scale and height and to address issues of the overlooking of Carreg Goch and dwellings at numbers 11 and 12 Elm Avenue, and any overbearing impact on those properties.

Following negotiations with officers, the applicant had submitted amended plans and all interested parties had been re-consulted. The application is now re-presented to Planning Committee with a recommendation for approval subject to conditions as outlined in the report and a Section 106 legal agreement for the provision of affordable housing in the local area.

Also, two additional conditions to be added, as follows:

·         The bedroom window on the front elevation as shown on plan 2273/3c dated 18/02/19 shall be obscure glazed to a level equivalent to Pilkington scale of obscurity level 3 and maintained thus thereafter in perpetuity.

·         The hedgerow to the side and rear elevation to be retained.

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

·         The objector lives in the property directly opposite the proposed development.

·         Objections to the initial proposal were submitted as the objector would be overlooked and would suffer a huge loss of privacy.

·         The revised plans have not addressed the objector’s initial concerns and objections.

·         Located at a noticeably elevated plot of land, the two upper floor bedroom windows of the development will look into the main living room area of the objector’s home through the double patio doors and will overlook the garden. All privacy within the main living room and garden will be lost.

·         To address the issue of privacy and overlooking, the application proposes that the bedroom window closest to the objector’s property is to be fitted with obscured glass.  This will look out of place and was considered to be a token gesture in an attempt to address the loss of privacy and overlooking. The obscured glass window is to be conditioned with a perpetuity clause. However, the residents of the new dwelling will still be able to open the window and look into the objector’s garden.

·         Installing obscured glass admits that there is a problem with privacy and overlooking but is an inappropriate way to address these issues.

·         The view from the objector’s main living room will be of a wide, tall and imposing structure with windows positioned close enough to see into the main living room.

·         It is not acceptable to have a two storey house 15 metres away from the objector’s property.

·         Tump Lane has a spacious, peaceful and private feel to it.  Approval  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

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

Mr. Horowskyj, representing objectors, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The objectors are not opposed to the pavilion being built in the Castle grounds but strongly object to the proposed location.

·         The main objections are the noise from planned events, the pavilion will be located too close to residential properties and be too large for its chosen location, the lack of toilets for the new building, and the pavilion will encourage anti-social behaviour.

·         Noise is the biggest concern to objectors. Although consultations had taken place with the applicants dating back to 2017, objectors concerns regarding noise had been ignored.

·         A noise impact assessment had been commissioned by the Museums Service but only for natural speech. This report underestimated the anticipated noise levels and did not include any readings for music, weddings and private party events.

·         The Environmental Health Department had accepted up to 17 such events per year which equates to loud music every weekend throughout the summer season.  A request for a more thorough noise assessment was rejected. The objectors therefore commissioned their own report.  Based on codes of practice, the predicted noise levels for music, wedding and party events will result in severe intrusion into local residents’ properties. Residents will either have to close their windows or accept the excessive noise.

·         The proposals do not satisfy the planning policies to protect the quiet enjoyment of residents’ homes.

·         Cadw maintains that the proposed pavilion will have an adverse impact on the park and garden.

·         There is only one toilet on the site to accommodate an expected 120 visitors to the pavilion. Toilet provision has not been properly addressed by the applicant.

·         It is easy to gain access to the castle grounds at night with the pavilion likely to become a haven for anti-social behaviour. The use of shutters to close the sides will not be a sufficient deterrent to prevent vandalism.

·         It was considered that the applicant should have obtained further information to ensure that the proposal would not cause an unreasonable impact on adjacent properties.

·         Local Development Plan policies EP1, S17 and HE1 have not been satisfied and it was considered that Planning Committee should consider refusing the application.

·         There are other sites within the Castle grounds that could be considered which are further away from neighbouring residential properties.

The applicant, Rachael Rogers, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The events pavilion will enhance cultural provision for residents and visitors to Monmouthshire.

·         An events feasibility study was undertaken in 2017 which had concluded that a covered structure would be a unique community asset providing opportunities to bring arts and cultural life in partnership with community groups and local businesses and will contribute to the sustainability of the site.

·         Deciding the best location for the structure demanded a careful  ...  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 seven conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

In noting the detail of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor G. Howard and seconded by County Councillor R.G. Harris that application DM/2018/01777 be approved subject to the seven conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

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/2018/01777 be approved subject to the seven conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

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

It was noted that the Highways Department had objected to the application due to the lack of supporting information. However, this did not change the officer recommendation as it was considered that the existing access arrangement did not cause any harm to highway safety.

Having received the report it was noted that an informative could be added to advise that the trimming of lower branches of trees be undertaken on the site to avoid higher vehicles being damaged.

It was proposed by County Councillor A. Webb and seconded by County Councillor D. Evans that application DM/2019/00168 be approved subject to the one condition as outlined in the report and that an informative be added to advise that the trimming of lower branches of trees be undertaken on the site to avoid higher vehicles being damaged.

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/2019/00168 be approved subject to the one condition as outlined in the report and that an informative be added to advise that the trimming of lower branches of trees be undertaken on the site to avoid higher vehicles being damaged.

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

The local Member for Thornwell attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         There has not been adequate consultation with the community in respect of this application.

·         The proposed dwelling is for up to six people with the potential for office space also, which changes the proposal.  The local Member has concerns regarding this matter and the effect that it might have on the community.

·         The car parking provision is inadequate for six people.

·         The individuals who will be living at the proposed premises might have complex needs.  Additional space should be available within the premises for individuals to go to in order to receive the required support.

·         The local Member asked the Planning Committee to consider deferring the application to allow Monmouthshire Housing Association to consider reducing the number of occupants from six to five, as he considered that six occupants was excessive for this dwelling.

·         These individuals will not know each other and will be forced to live together in difficult circumstances.

·         The local community is concerned about the proposed change of use of the dwelling.

The Senior Strategy & Policy Officer informed the Committee that the County Council asked Monmouthshire Housing Association (MHA) to purchase the property with Social Housing Grant funding as the Authority is very short of shared accommodation for people aged under 25. Since April 2018 to February 2019, the Authority had 42 16 to 17 year olds who presented as potentially homeless and 178 18 to 24 year olds in a similar position.  The premises will be managed by Monmouthshire County Council’s Housing Options Team.

The Development Management Area Team Manager informed the Committee that the parking provision is sufficient for this dwelling and for its type of use.  In terms of office space, the application is for a six bedroomed house of multiple occupancy with no additional office space.  However, the local Member stated that he had been informed that one of the bedrooms may be used as ancillary office space instead.

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

·         There is a similar premises operating in Bulwark previously which has been successful.

·         In response to a question raised regarding management of the premises, it was noted that the County Council’s Housing Options Team will be managing the premises. The Authority is mindful of the mix and what is in the locality when accommodating people.

·         The County Council’s Housing Options Team manages a number of these properties very well.

·         It was noted that the people occupying these types of premises can be the most vulnerable people in the community and this accommodation is greatly needed.

·         The occupiers will have tenancy agreements which they will have to adhere to.

The local Member for Thornwell summed up as follows:

·         The complexity and culture of the area has  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

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

The application had been originally reported to the Council’s Planning Application Delegation Panel on 13^th February 2019. Following a site visit and consideration of the report, Members had resolved to refer the matter to the Planning Committee for further consideration.  The application was presented to Planning Committee on 5^th March 2019 and the Committee had resolved that it be minded to refuse the application on the basis of design and overdevelopment of the plot.

In noting the detail of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor P. Clarke and seconded by County Councillor D. Evans that application DM/2018/01784 be refused for the three reasons, as outlined in the report.

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

For refusal                 -           12

Against refusal         -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2018/01784 be refused for the three reasons, as outlined in the report.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence, which was recommended for approval subject to the nine conditions as outlined in the report and subject to the four conditions as outlined in late correspondence. Also, subject to flood modelling being resolved to the satisfaction of Natural Resources Wales (NRW).

Additional conditions were proposed, namely, electrical vehicle charging points to be added into the scheme, as well as additional parking stands to accord with sustainability criteria. These proposals to be added within 12 months of the scheme coming into use.

In response to a question raised regarding pressures on car parking at the site, the Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the Committee that how the parking is allocated was not a planning consideration. This matter would be passed on to the Estates Team for consideration. The Chair of the Democratic Services Committee stated that he would raise this issue at the next meeting of that Committee.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DM/2018/02040 be approved subject to the nine conditions as outlined in the report and subject to the four conditions as outlined in late correspondence. Also, subject to flood modelling being resolved to the satisfaction of Natural Resources Wales (NRW). Additional conditions would also be added, namely, electrical vehicle charging points to be added into the scheme, as well as additional parking stands to accord with sustainability criteria. These proposals to be added within 12 months of the scheme coming into use.

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

For approval              -           10

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2018/02040 be approved subject to the nine conditions as outlined in the report and subject to the four conditions as outlined in late correspondence. Also, subject to flood modelling being resolved to the satisfaction of Natural Resources Wales (NRW). Additional conditions to be added, namely, electrical vehicle charging points to be added into the scheme, as well as additional parking stands to accord with sustainability criteria. These proposals to be added within 12 months of the scheme coming into use.

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

The local Member for Llanfoist Fawr, also a Planning Committee Member stated that he supported the scheme in principle. However, he requested that the application be deferred to allow officers to negotiate with the applicant with a view to making some small revisions to the application.

In response, officers informed the Committee that a submission of the cross sections could be added to show the relationship of the proposed two new dwellings to adjacent existing dwellings. Also, relocation of the new plot and its garage could be investigated in the eastern corner of the site. However, if this is not feasible, the dwelling could be attached to the garage. The proposed amendments could be agreed via the Planning Delegation Panel with the local Member for Llanfoist Fawr being invited. The following conditions could also be added, namely, remove permitted development rights for dormer / alterations to roofs of the dwellings and remove permitted development rights to change boundary treatments.

In response to a question raised by a Planning Committee Member regarding tandem garages, it was noted that the site allows for vehicle turning provision within it. Therefore, there would be no harm to highway safety within the site with regard to the shared garage. A condition could be added with regard to external finishes.

It was proposed by County Councillor G. Howard and seconded by County Councillor A. Webb that application DM/2019/00003 be approved subject to the seven conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement. Also that a submission of the cross sections would be added to show the relationship of the proposed two new dwellings to adjacent existing dwellings. The relocation of the new plot and its garage would be investigated in the eastern corner of the site. However, if this is not feasible, the dwelling would be attached to the garage. The proposed amendments would be agreed via the Planning Delegation Panel with the local Member for Llanfoist Fawr being invited to attend. The following conditions would also be added, namely, to include external finishes, remove permitted development rights for dormer / alterations to roofs of the dwellings and remove permitted development rights to change boundary treatments.

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

In favour of the proposal    -           10

Against the proposal           -           0

Abstentions                           -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2019/00003 be approved subject to the seven conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement. Also that a submission of the cross sections would be added to show the relationship of the proposed two new dwellings to adjacent existing dwellings. The relocation of the new plot and its garage would be investigated in the eastern corner of the site. However, if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

We received a report regarding the revised draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Affordable Housing to support the policies of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan (LDP), with a view to issuing for consultation purposes and to recommend to Single Cabinet Member accordingly.

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 point was noted:

·         In response to a question raised regarding potential implications for major developers, the Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the Committee that this SPG would not affect major developers as the exemptions indicated and the way in which commuted sums are calculated apply to schemes of fewer than five dwellings. Therefore, the exemptions refer to one to four units. Any development that is bigger than five dwellings is expected to provide 25%, 35% or 60% on site as per the Local Development Plan (LDP) polices.

We resolved to endorse the Revised Draft Affordable Housing SPG with a view to issuing for consultation purposes and to recommend that an Individual Cabinet Member Decision be taken accordingly.

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: Ravensnest Fishery, Ravensnest Wood Road, Tintern.

 We noted that:

·         It was directed that the enforcement notice be varied in Schedule 4 by the deletion of requirement ii) “Cease the use of the land for residential purposes”.

·         Subject to this variation the appeal was dismissed, the enforcement notice was upheld.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to appeal decisions following a site visit that had been made on 12^th December 2018.

·         Appeal A - Ref: APP/E6840/C/18/3213586 - Site: Land at Unit 4 Former Redchillies Thai and Indian Restaurant, Five Lanes North, Five Lanes, Caerwent.

·         Appeal B - Ref: APP/E6840/A/18/3213595 - Redchillies Thai and Indian Restaurant Residential Quarters, Five Lanes North, Five Lanes, Caerwent.

 We noted that:

·         Appeal A - The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed and planning permission is granted on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended, for the development already carried out, namely the construction of the garage not built in accordance with the plans approved under application DC2017/00728 at Land at Unit 4 Former Redchillies Thai and Indian Restaurant, Five Lanes North, Five Lanes, Caerwent, Monmouthshire, NP26 5PE.

·         Appeal B - The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the retention of amendments to approved application DC/2017/00728 at Redchillies Thai and Indian Restaurant Residential Quarters, Five Lanes North, Five Lanes, Caerwent, NP26 5PE in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: DM/2018/00707 dated 29 April 2018.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to a costs decision following a site visit that had been made on 12^th December 2018. Site address: Land at Unit 4 Former Redchillies Thai and Indian Restaurant, Five Lanes North, Five Lanes, Caerwent.

We noted that:

Costs Application A - Appeal Ref: APP/E6840/C/18/3213586

·         The application for an award of costs is refused.

Costs Application B - Appeal Ref: APP/E6840/A/18/3213595

·         The application for an award of costs is refused.

We noted the new appeals received between 20^th February 2019 and 22^nd March 2019.