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/2019/00595 as he is a friend of an objector to the application.  He therefore left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

County Councillor D. Dovey declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of application DC/2013/01071 as he had been involved with the plot in a previous career. He therefore left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

County Councillor R. Edwards declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of application DM/2019/00593 as she is in partnership with the applicant. She therefore 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/2019/00595 as he is a member of Monmouthshire Housing Association Committee and also a Monmouthshire Housing Association tenant.  He therefore left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

County Councillor P. Murphy declared a personal interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of application DM/2019/00595 as he knows the family next door.  He has also previously served on the Caerwent Community Council with the Monmouthshire Housing Association Board.  He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

County Councillor A. Webb declared a personal interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of application DM/2019/00595 as she is a Member of Monmouthshire Housing Association.  She therefore left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

Application DM/2019/00595 could not be considered at today’s meeting due to the Planning Committee being inquorate for this application. 

The application will be considered at a future meeting of the Planning Committee.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 2^nd July 2019 were confirmed and signed by the Chair.

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

Councillor R. Roden, representing Monmouth Town Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points in objection to the application:

·         The 2017 – 2020 Monmouthshire Destination Management Plan sets out the County’s objectives.  One of these objectives is to make a great first impression for visitors to Wales.

·         Visitors should be encouraged to visit Monmouth to experience the unique blend of shopping, historical sites, restaurants and public houses that the town offers.

·         The construction of a prominent public house and retail park at the entrance to the town would be detrimental to the area, taking visitors away from the town and reducing footfall there.

·         The proposed development would bring no benefit to the Town.

·         The site is an unsuitable location for a development as outlined in the application.

·         The second objective in the 2017 – 2020 Monmouthshire Destination Management Plan is to promote our inspirational landscapes and border country heritage that gives the County a special character.

·         The proposed development is not in keeping with the area which is nearly surrounded by green fields and viewed from the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

·         On the English side of the border, the AONB extends further either side of the River Wye offering significantly more protection against damage to the area.

·         The proposed development would be damaging to the scenic attractiveness of the area.

·         Monmouth Town Council considers that the proposed development would damage the town and the surrounding area having a detrimental impact on tourism, the local economy, the environment and local residents.

·         Stakeholder groups within the town are opposed to the proposed development.  Monmouth Town Council asked that the Planning Committee considers refusing the application without reservation.

Mr. D. Cummings, representing Monmouth Chamber of Commerce, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points in objection to the application:

·         The proposed development would adversely affect Monmouth as a market town and the Gateway to Wales.

·         Confidence in the retail sector is fragile and there are currently 20 empty retail premises located within the Town.

·         Small businesses not only face Brexit uncertainty but also a loss of business rate relief next year. The application adds to the local uncertainty.

·         The proposal suggests that the lack of bulk goods retailers in Monmouth means that people are travelling to shop in Newport and beyond.  It is considered that if residents cannot find goods in Monmouth then residents tend to buy goods online.

·         The objections to the application from Natural Resources Wales (NRW) is damning in its comments about the developer’s failure to address fundamental issues about the flood consequence assessment and providing an escape route in the event of extreme flooding.

·         Expert advice taken indicated that these objections are insurmountable.

·         NRW is able to influence Welsh Government with a view to calling in any application it objects to.

·         The Dixton  ...  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 five conditions, as outlined in the report.

Ms. S. Goodlass, representing objectors to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The proposal contains aspect that objectors believe are contrary to the following planning policies: Sustainable drainage (LDP Policy SD4 and TAN 15), affordable Housing and the development in minor villages’ policies, Place making and design and the Policy LC4 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  There are also a number of paragraphs outlined in the Local Development Plan (LDP) that are affected.

·         There is no sustainable drainage system plan.  Though not in a flood zone, Planning Committee is able to consider areas where third parties may adversely be affected by any increased risk of flood or runoff.

·         There are a number of objections to the application indicating that residents have concerns about the drainage levels in that area. The report does not contain any conditions regarding SuDS preparation before a decision is made in respect of the appropriateness of the development in the location.

·         Paragraph 1.4 of the report refers to car parking for a further two dwellings. Residents do not understand this.

·         There are a number of plans that are listed in the report with some inconsistencies.  Therefore, there should be a clear, accurate and consistent set of plans available before a decision is made in respect of the application.

·         It had been identified that the frontages of the properties are similar to those in the local area. The frontages of three nearby properties include integral garages.  However, the proposed properties do not.

·         The footprint, rather than the width of the properties, was originally mentioned in the design and access statement.  However, local residents consider that the proposed dwelling footprints are double those of their immediate neighbours.

·         The landscaping, as outlined in the report, is significant mitigation to all of the villagers concerns about size, scale and visual impact of the development. Residents are concerned that although condition 8 might be placed on the planning conditions, there is very little residents are able to do regarding enforcing the planning conditions.

·         TAN 10 states that the Planning Committee is able to propose Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) to protect and secure any trees or vegetation that is planted to fulfil conditions.

·         Concern was raised regarding an access road through the development leading to a potential future development in a nearby field, which is a candidate site in the LDP.

·         Residents requested that a condition be added preventing access through the development to the candidate site or that the decision should be deferred until the new LDP is published.

Mr. E. Pardington, the applicant’s agent, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         With regard to drainage, there is no evidence to suggest that the development will flood.

·         A comprehensive sustainable urban drainage scheme has been prepared and submitted to the  ...  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 five conditions, as outlined in the report and also subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.

Councillor G. Down, representing Mathern Community Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         This is a very narrow lane and there would be additional traffic generated should the application be approved. Pedestrians have to be mindful of the narrowness when sharing the lane with vehicles.

·         Any additional traffic would conflict with any active travel plan for this location.

·         The proposed property will be closer to the lane than any other property in this location.

·         Since the proposed development will be positioned at a higher level than the lane, it will be a dominating feature.

·         Access to the proposed property will require a tight turn through the entrance. Larger vehicles might not be able to gain access in a forward gear.

·         Diagrams shown dealt with the street scene to the north.  However, nothing was shown referring to properties in the south in Orchid Meadow.  This is sloping ground, therefore, the proposed property will be on a higher level than those in Orchid Meadow creating an overbearing presence.

·         This is a very large site.  The site plan does not show the extent of the land within the property.  There is further land which is excluded from the plan to the north west.  Therefore, the proposed development could be located elsewhere within the site.

·         Mathern Community Council asked that the Planning Committee considers refusing the application.

Dr. R. Collins, representing objectors to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         Objectors refute the claims in paragraph 6.4.1 of the report that most of the comments made by the community council and local residents have been addressed. Objectors stand by their objections to the application.

·         The history of the development at Treff Garne is important.  The house was erected with no planning permission and the building height exceeded the building height of the house it replaced.  Planning permission had been granted retrospectively.  However, neighbours had not been given the opportunity to object to the raised roofline and the overlooking windows. It is an unwelcome precedent to be using this height and this building to set the height of the new proposed building.

·         Paragraph 6.1.2 of the report states that there is sufficient space to accommodate a detached dwelling and associated amenity space on the site.  However, the objectors disagree.  The report acknowledges that the plot is smaller than those around it.

·         30% of the site will be needed for vehicular circulation.

·         The proposed development will be close to the original house, site frontage and neighbouring boundaries.

·         The congested development will not be in keeping with the established context of Orchid Meadow and Chapel Lane.

·         The proposed development will not add to a sense of place as indicated in the report.  The proposal does not comply  ...  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 nine conditions, as outlined in the report.

In noting the detail of the application the proposed development would fit well within the site and will be an asset to the area.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DM/2018/01064 be approved subject to the nine conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

For approval              -           10

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2018/01064 be approved subject to the nine conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

In noting the detail of the retrospective application, any noise generated would only be sporadic and would not be problematic. The business was focusing on providing for families and considered that the play equipment would enhance this provision.  The conservation area is being preserved as part of this development.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor J. Higginson that application DM/2019/00413 be approved subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

For approval              -           10

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2019/00413 be approved subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

The local Member for Shirenewton, also a Planning Committee Member, was unable to attend the meeting but had emailed the Planning Department outlining her views on the application.  The email had been presented to the Planning Committee in late correspondence. However, the Chair asked the Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping to summarise the email, as the Committee had already had site of the email in late correspondence.

The email is as follows:

‘The relevance of the following comments read out at committee today may well be dependent on the site visit.

The application is for change of use to an Equestrian centre for a maximum of 16 horses and the change of use and extension of an existing agricultural building.

1.      Siting of the Manure Heap

In this application the siting of a manure heap is a relevant factor for planning policy EP1 of the LDP, concerned with the residential amenity of any nearby residential property. I note that the manure heap for the equestrian establishment is well over 100m from the nearest residential property and pleased to see its location is conditioned. (See the end of the report and paragraph 6.1.3 of the committee report). However, the report does not mention which nearby residential property it is referring to or its actual distance. If it is the owner occupier’s residence this is of course less of an issue as they can control its piling and spreading, provided the residence is not used in future  by persons who are not also in charge of the Equestrian centre.

The condition at the end of this report refers to the location of the manure heap being based on drawing BP 2693/00 (July 2019).  The dimensions of the manure heap are given as 3.6 x 4.5. However the drawing notes state that – All dimensions must be checked on site and not scaled from this drawing. The lack of measurements on the unscaled drawing itself for the location of the manure heap with reference to other points such as the building makes its actual location uncertain.

Members may recall a previous appeal application for another Equestrian centre (decision 3187660) which had a history of difficulty in enforcement due to its condition terms not being legally certain.

I would be grateful if on site and in committee members could also consider whether or not the manure heap is located as far away as possible from any residential property in the site. In an appeal application 124 metres was considered sufficient but this appears to be less than that distance, with the figure of well over 100 metres mentioned but no actual measurement.

The distance proposed here may be less than 124 metres to the nearest residential property, so should it be sited and conditioned to be further away and does it impact primary elevations and is there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

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

In noting the detail of the application, Monmouthshire County Council’s Asset Management Team had been served notice of the application.  Also, the fencing would be two metres high and the site was located within the Usk Conservation Area which would preserve the character of this area.

It was proposed by County Councillor M. Feakins and seconded by County Councillor D. Evans that application DM/2019/00879 be approved subject to the three 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/2019/00879 be approved subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the two conditions, as outlined in the report and also subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.

In noting the detail of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor P. Clarke and seconded by County Councillor M. Feakins that application DM/2019/00929 be approved subject to the two conditions, as outlined in the report and also subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.

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/2019/00929 be approved subject to the two conditions, as outlined in the report and also 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 three conditions, as outlined in the report.

In noting the detail of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor M. Feakins and seconded by County Councillor P. Clarke that application DM/2019/01049 be approved subject to the three 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/2019/01049 be approved subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

In noting the detail of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor M. Feakins and seconded by County Councillor J. Higginson that application DM/2019/00593 be approved subject to the two conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

For approval              -           8

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2019/00593 be approved subject to the two conditions, as outlined in the report.