County Councillor P. Clarke declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of application DM/2019/00351 as he is a Director of Glen-yr-Afon House Hotel and the Three Salmons Hotel. Both companies hold wedding receptions.  He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

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 left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

County Councillor A. Easson declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of application DM/2019/00595, as he knows the applicant. 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 applications DM/2019/00595 and DM/2019/00900 as he is a member of Monmouthshire Housing Association and a tenant. He left the meeting taking no part in the discussions 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/2019/00900 due to the involvement of a family friend.  He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

County Councillor P. Murphy declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of applications DM/2019/00595 and DM/2019/00796. DM/2019/00595 - Close to neighbours. DM/2019/00796 - The applicant employs his son.  He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 3^rd September 2019 were confirmed and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendment:

Application DM/2019/00346

Bullet point 4 be amended to read:

The local Member asked that if the Committee was minded to grant consent, that it considers removing permitted development rights for extensions.

The Head of Placemaking, Housing, Highways and Flood informed the Committee that there was a need to amend the Planning Committee minutes of the meeting held on 2^nd April 2019, as follows:

The Planning Committee considered application DM/2018/02040 for the extension of the car park at County Hall, Usk on 2^nd April 2019.   The Committee considered the report with 9 conditions and late correspondence with an additional 4 conditions, in addition to two conditions that were verbally reported relating to electric vehicle charging points, to be installed within 12 months of first use of the car park, and provision of cycle stands.  The application was approved subject to those conditions.  However, while referring to the additional conditions, the minutes refer to only 13 conditions.

It was agreed that the minutes be corrected to refer to all 15 conditions.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was

recommended for approval subject to the ten conditions as outlined in the report.

Councillor I. Williams, representing Llanhennock Community Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The Community Council has concerns regarding the recommendation outlined in the report and consider it to be unsound.

·         The existing operation is for a private holiday let for up to 20 guests. This is changing into a wedding venue for up to 100 guests.  This is a significant increase in numbers which will exacerbate noise levels.

·         The main issues are proposed developments and highways considerations. Policies MV1 and Policy EP1 and amenity and Environment Protection.

·         With regard to the highways in the area, many are single track roads located within the countryside and are not easily navigable. Means of access is therefore a significant issue.  There are no proposals being put forward to amend the existing access.  The current access does not accord with the current design standards.

·         Visibility is below current standards for rural roads subject to a national speed limit. Visibility to the left is only 13 metres.  The number of additional vehicles accessing this road will exacerbate road safety concerns.

·         Local residents have expressed concern regarding the noise being generated.  This will be exacerbated if the application is approved. Excessive noise cannot be enforceable via conditions. Therefore, the Community Council considers that the application should be refused.

Caroline Thomas, representing objectors to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The community of Llanhennock strongly objects to the application.

·         The two major concerns are road safety and noise levels.

·         Llanhennock is a small rural village with narrow and largely single track lanes.  There are numerous blind spots and limited places to pass, which to drivers unfamiliar with the area could present a dangerous situation.

·         There are seven farms along Woodbank whereby livestock, tractors and machinery are regularly moved from one field to another.  The report of the application identifies that the lane is substandard and the access is inadequate.  Despite this, the Highways department has supported the proposal.  However, residents are concerned that drivers who are unfamiliar with the blind spots and passing places will create an unsafe area to drive and have a negative implication on the road safety for the area.

·         Woodbank is in close proximity to a number of residential properties. With 20 guests, excessive noise has been experienced by local residents in the past. Currently, the conditions proposed allow for events to run from 8.00am to 1.30am seven days per week with the option to apply for permission to erect marquees or other temporary structures within the grounds catering for up to 100 guests per event. The Environmental Health Department had indicated that there was potential for music levels to be generated at the proposed location which could cause substantial disturbance to residents living in the locality and had therefore objected  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

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

Councillor J. Harris, representing Caldicot Town Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         It was considered that the County Council’s Planning Department had failed to provide a general development procedure order for Caldicot School as per the 1995 Act.

·         This impacts on the legislation contained in Monmouthshire County Council’s Corporate Safeguarding Policy.

·         Caldicot is a 21^st Century School. 

·         The material consideration – Part 1 of the Housing Act 2004 is specifically concerned with dwelling houses with multiple occupation.  The Local Authority has a statutory duty to ensure that there are no hazards and that the health and safety provision is correct.  Also, it has a statutory duty to remedy any defects.

·         The hazards on this site – Positioning of the dwelling in relation to the school.  The splay is not up to standard with regard to access to Chepstow Road. This is a Grampian rights issue due to the land ownership. There is a lack of a footway and the gradient of the drive is not Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant and fails the Equality Act.

·         Parking provision is for 12 residents.

·         The Application fails to meet criteria within the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act 2015.  The application does not create a cohesive community.

·         Under section 50 of the 2014 Act, all parts of the community should be included in any housing strategy being projected. It was considered that the Authority has failed in taking this matter forward.

·         There were concerns regarding the report of the application regarding licensing of people and that the Authority cannot discriminate against anyone entering into this type of accommodation.

Victoria Hallet, representing objectors to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The community is settled and peaceful but is vulnerable, as it comprises of elderly pensioners with health conditions and younger residents with disabilities.

·         The application for C4 hostel use is strongly opposed by the local community. Over 70 written objections have been submitted as it was considered that a change in status would make the neighbourhood less secure and less peaceful.

·         Shelter and the Big Issue provide evidence regarding the impact on the physical and mental health of people who are forced into temporary accommodation. Tension and conflict between tenants can lead to antisocial behaviour.

·         The application is for a large number of people to share one kitchen in inadequate facilities. The dwelling has inadequate fire and emergency safeguards, with no external fire escape. It does not provide access for disabled people.

·         The dwelling will be located inside a neighbourhood where a number of vulnerable people already reside.

·         The property is far from ideal and is not suitable for a C4 hostel and would harm the health and wellbeing of the community.

·         The Council recognises the heightened risks of antisocial behaviour, nuisance and violence.  ...  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 eight conditions as outlined in the report.

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

·         A Member of the Committee considered that the idea of having a facility of this nature located within the car park was good.  However, concern was expressed that the proposed building would be a two storey building. The view from the opposite side of the river of the two storey building will create a negative impact.  The proposed building will also be located in front of the castle gate impinging on the view of the castle. Therefore, it was considered that the two storey building would have an overbearing effect on this historical site.

·         In response, the Development Services Manager informed the Committee that Cadw and Monmouthshire County Council’s Heritage Manager have assessed the application from important views and vistas of the castle into the conservation area. It had been assessed that there would be a slight impact but would not be harmful.  The setting of the castle would remain preserved.

·         The design was supported by other Members of the Committee who expressed the view that this application with the additional storey was a better design compared to the original proposal and was more in keeping with the surrounding area.

·         The proposed building will provide an invaluable service to the town and enhance tourism within the area, as well as providing a boost for the economy of Chepstow.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor A. Davies that application DC/2017/01248 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              -           12

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2017/01248 be approved subject to the eight 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 additional Flood Consequences Assessment work being undertaken to demonstrate that the risks of flooding in relation to the Nedern Brook and any impacts on third parties, are considered acceptable to the Council.

In noting the detail of the application, there was a need to clarify the number of units as the layout plan conflicts with the committee report.

It was proposed by County Councillor D. Evans and seconded by County Councillor A. Easson that application DM/2018/01071 be approved subject to the two conditions as outlined in the report and also subject to additional Flood Consequences Assessment work being undertaken to demonstrate that the risks of flooding in relation to the Nedern Brook and any impacts on third parties are considered acceptable to the Council. Also, clarify the number of units as the layout plan conflicts with the committee report.

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

In favour of the proposal               -           12

Against the proposal                     -           0

Abstentions                                     -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2018/01071 be approved subject to the two conditions as outlined in the report and also subject to additional Flood Consequences Assessment work being undertaken to demonstrate that the risks of flooding in relation to the Nedern Brook and any impacts on third parties are considered acceptable to the Council. Also, there was a need to clarify the number of units as the layout plan conflicts with the committee report.

We considered the report of the application with a recommendation, as agreed by Planning Committee at its meeting on 3^rd September 2019, for a split decision.  Namely, to approve the proposed changes to the houses but to refuse the proposed garages.

The application had been presented to Planning Committee on 3rd September 2019. At that meeting the Committee had resolved that they were of a mind to grant planning permission for the dwellings but refuse consent for the garages on the basis of mass, size and design and requested that discussions be held with the applicant to allow for a reconsideration of the orientation, footprint and highways issues relating to the garages.

Following presentation of the report of the application, the Head of Placemaking, Housing, Highways and Flood informed the Committee that if it were minded to agree with the recommendation as outlined in the report, the implication of that decision would be that enforcement action would be required for the removal of one of the garages (outlined in pink on the plan) and for a slightly bigger garage to be built (outlined in blue on the plan).

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

·         The applicant has been unwilling to change the dimensions of the garage.

·         One of the garages being close to a house made a significant difference to issues of overshadowing.

·         If the Committee decides to approve the split decision, it was suggested that the existing conditions remain with and additional condition being added to ensure that the three parking spaces per dwelling in perpetuity be marked out.  If the applicant decides to appeal, the implications of TAN 15 need to be considered. In response, the Development Management Area Team Manager stated that, in terms of TAN 15, consent for two dwellings already exists on the site.  As part of a split decision, approval of the houses would be granted with the garages being refused approval.  With regard to the conditions, and additional condition, outlined by the local Member, these would be added.

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

·         Some Members expressed support for the officer recommendation, as outlined in the report that was presented to Planning Committee on 3^rd September 2019 that the application be approved as is built.

·         Other Members expressed concern regarding the fallback position.  It was considered that the original consent was never implemented.  This is a new application based on what has been constructed or what is proposed to be amended.

·         One of the garages is too close to the property. The lower windows are obscured and the height of the garage is almost to the height of the roof.

It was proposed by County Councillor G. Howard and seconded by County Councillor L. Brown for a split decision.  Namely, to approve the proposed changes to the houses with the existing conditions remaining and an additional condition being  ...  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 two conditions as outlined in the report.

In noting the detail of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor A. Easson and seconded by County Councillor P. Murphy that application DM/2019/00900 be approved subject to the two conditions as outlined in the report.

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

In favour of the proposal                -           11

Against the proposal                       -           0

Abstentions                                       -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2019/00900 be approved subject to the two conditions as outlined in the report.

We considered the reports of the applications and late correspondence which were recommended for approval subject to the conditions as outlined in the reports.

The local Member for Llangybi Fawr, also a Planning Committee Member, expressed his concern to the Committee that the proposed applications will create a conservatory that will block the view of the kitchen window of the property next door.

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

·         Sympathy was expressed for the resident who would be affected by the proposed development. However, it was considered that the proposed conservatory could be constructed under permitted development rights upon completion of the existing permission.

·         By changing the structure of the two storey element to the rear, there is a two storey wall facing the window to the nearby property.  However, previously it was not so harmful. It was considered that this would have a far more harmful effect on the neighbour than a conservatory.

·         It was considered that the approval agreed by the Planning Inspectorate differed to the applications presented to the Committee.

·         The Head of Placemaking, Housing, Highways and Flood informed the Committee that if the application was approved Members might wish to consider removing permitted development rights to avoid further extensions via this mechanism.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that applications DM/2019/00938 and DM/2019/01186 be approved subject to the conditions as outlined in the reports and subject to the removal of permitted development rights.

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

In favour of the proposal                -           4

Against approval                              -           6

Abstentions                                       -           1

The proposition was not carried.

We therefore resolved that we be minded to refuse applications DM/2019/00938 and DM/2019/01186 on the grounds that the design of the monopitch roof harms the amenity of the neighbouring property and harms visual amenity. The application to be re-presented to a future meeting of Planning Committee with appropriate reasons for refusal.

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.

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

·         Initially there were concerns regarding the size of the plot as it had been considered not to be large enough.

·         It was understood that the applicant had either purchased or was in the process of purchasing a nearby three acre piece of land.

·         Reference was made to Mathern Community Council which had originally objected to the application but had subsequently removed its objection subject to conditions.

·         The local Member considered that if the Committee was minded to approve the application then some amendments to the conditions outlined in the report should be considered to address the concerns raised by Mathern Community Council.

·         Concern was expressed regarding the siting of the manure pile as it was unclear where the manure would be placed on a temporary basis in the smaller site.  It would be more appropriate for the stable and the manure pile to be located on the three acre site on a concrete base.

The Development Management Area Team Manager informed the Committee that having spoken with the applicant, it was noted that the applicant was in the process of purchasing the three acres of land.  The applicant intends to locate the manure on this site and to use if for grazing.  Condition 7 should address concerns regarding the storage of manure. To alleviate any concerns, this condition could be altered to include a management plan to address the storage of the manure.

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

·         Mathern Community Council and local objectors had indicated that they would remove their objections to the application subject to the applicant purchasing the three acres of land. Though this area of land is not a part of the application it figures highly in the viability of the scheme. It was suggested that consideration of the application be deferred to the Delegation Panel for evidence of the purchase of the three acre site to be produced.

·         The Development Management Area Team Manager informed the Committee that the three acre area of land (outlined in blue on the plan) does not form part of the application.  It was noted that the land identified in the report (outlined in red on the plan) is considered to be acceptable with the applicant having made arrangements with local farmers for the keeping of animals. The three acres of land has been identified during the application process and the applicant has indicated to the Planning Department that this area of land could be used when purchased.

·         In light of this information, some Members considered that it would be remiss of the Committee to force the applicant to purchase the three acres of land in order to obtain planning permission. Bearing in mind that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the six 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 P. Clarke and seconded by County Councillor M. Feakins that application DM/2019/01034 be approved subject to the six conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement. Also, that a plan be established to address bargeboard and eaves details before issuing permission.

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/2019/01034 be approved subject to the six conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement. Also, that a plan be established to address bargeboard and eaves details before issuing permission.

We considered the confirmation of provisional Tree Preservation Order number

MCC278 (2019). Hollycroft, Midway Lane, Abergavenny.

We resolved to confirm Tree Preservation Order No. MCC278 (2019) – Hollycroft, Midway Lane, Abergavenny without modification.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit that had been made on 17th June 2019. Site address: 24 Belgrave Road, Abergavenny.

We noted that the appeal decision had been dismissed.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit that had been made on 6^th August 2019. Site address: Land at Rear of Rosebrook, Watery Lane, Monmouth.

We noted that the appeal decision had been dismissed.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit that had been made on 6^th August 2019. Site address: Star Road, Nant y Derry, Goytre.

We noted that the appeal decision had been dismissed.