Agenda and minutes

County Councillor P. Clarke declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members' Code of Conduct in respect of applications DM/2019/02051, DC/2017/01335 and DM/2020/00023 as he is a Director of Capsel Ltd. (a subsidiary of Monmouthshire Housing Association).  He left the meeting taking no part in the discussions 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/2019/02051, DC/2017/01335 and DM/2020/00023 as she is a board member of Monmouthshire Housing Association.  She left the meeting taking no part in the discussions or voting thereon.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 4^th February 2020 were confirmed and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendment:

Application DM/2019/01480 – the paragraph at the bottom of page 17 be amended as follows:

Members did also suggest that there were conditions put on for a Construction Management Plan and also that a condition be added to outline that the site is for residential use only.

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.

The local Member for Llanbadoc, County Councillor V. Smith, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         An access along Wainfield Lane had been created on this site before the Planning application had been made.

·         A previous application for this site had been approved in 2007, as indicated in the report of the application, following extensive negotiations regarding the ridge height and that it should not intrude and spoil the view of the rural landscape.

·         A further application to the site had been submitted in 2007 in which new proposals had been approved.  However, it was assumed that the ridge height, as agreed for the previous application, would also apply for this building. However, this was not the case and the application went forward with a higher ridge height than had been previously supported.

·         The ridge height impacts on the view of the landscape.  There is no reference in the report of today’s application to an appeal that had been refused many years ago.

·         There had been an appeal against the development of residence on the land adjacent to the new plot on this site.  The reasons provided for that refusal were visual impact in such an elevated location. On the other side of the road a corner site had also been refused.

·         The local Member considers that there would not be any great social economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing by squeezing in an additional dwelling on a constrained rural site.

·         Rural development differs from urban development.

·         The Monmouthshire Landscape Officer commented on the ridge line of plot 1, the height of that dwelling, the impact that it would have and the trees to help disguise it.

·         The Local Member considers that the design of the link is inappropriate for that site.

·         The original plots on Wainfield Lane had been required to have half an acre of land to deal with foul water and sewage.  Over the years, there has been an increase in the number of developments in this area.  Residents are concerned regarding the way the treatment of sewage and foul water is being dealt with.

·         The local Member does not object to the single replacement dwelling subject to an appropriate design and a ridge height that does not intrude onto the landscape.

·         The local Member has concerns regarding the sub-division on the plots.

·         It would be less of an inconvenience to neighbours to build both plots at the same time.

·         The proposed development is not suitable for the area.

Mr. T. James, representing objectors to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The net result of the proposal is an additional property on the end of the line of properties within Wainfield Lane, extending the development and setting a precedent here.  ...  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 nine conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Unilateral Undertaking agreement.

Councillor A. Bentley, representing Llanvihangel Crucorney Community Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The sewerage issue reported by the Community Council is not with the sewerage plant but with the main sewerage pipe that runs through the village.

·         The current sewerage system was built in the mid 1960’s to support 25 houses plus the future development of Wern Gifford (100+ dwellings).

·         The system is now servicing in excess of 250 dwellings along with three public houses and three caravan camping sites across the two villages.

·         Over a significant number of years and also in recent weeks, local residents in the village have experienced sewage coming up through the drains onto their properties and within dwellings coming up through the toilets.

·         The hydraulic modelling assessment of the public sewage system of Pandy and Llanvihangel Crucorney, undertaken in 2013, had outlined that the 150mm diameter gravity foul sewage pipe is hydraulically overloaded.

·         There have been three housing developments granted since this assessment had been undertaken and additional infill of dwellings despite this finding.

·         The hydraulic modelling assessment had confirmed that the amount of storm water entering the bottom end of the catchment exceeds the design capacity of the sewers in this area in times of heavy rainfall. During recent storms, the pipe work did not cope.

·         Welsh Water had informed the Community Council that it was looking to include further investigation work.

·         The Community Council considers that the proposed development is in breach of the specified polices within the current Local Development Plan.

Mr. B. Griffiths, representing objectors to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair. The Committee was informed that there is support for affordable homes in the area.  However, there is a need to resolve the following issues:

·         Traffic issues – The developer had stated that the road access to the development assessment was based on a computer generated model which indicated that the traffic volume would not present a problem.  Concern was expressed that not all of the data was included when compiling this model.

·         During periods of high activity such as the school run during the morning and afternoon periods, it was noted that the afternoon run causes significant traffic problems.

·         The main access route is frequently blocked during this period by parked vehicles and school buses leaving large tractors and stock lorries unable to access this route.

·         This matter had been presented to the Community Council which had been addressed with the school and community police.  However, this issue has continued over many years.

·         Local residents consider this could be avoided by moving the proposed development providing an entry and exit onto the adjacent Grosmont Road.  This route also provides access to the A465 trunk road.

·         Last year the Local Authority invited landowners to  ...  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 six conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Unilateral Undertaking agreement.

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

·         Support was expressed for the application as it was for affordable housing provision. However, concern was expressed that the zinc roof would not fit in with the surrounding area.

·         It was noted that properties with zinc roofs were located in other areas of the County.

·         Overhanging eaves should be considered on the properties.

·         The local Member, also a Planning Committee Member, outlined the need for affordable housing in this location.  However, concern was expressed regarding the zinc roof.

·         Concern was expressed that the site might be too tight to accommodate three dwellings and considered that two larger dwellings might be more appropriate.

·         In response to the matters raised, the Development Management Area Manager informed the Committee that the overhangs and roofing materials could be addressed via a planning condition.  With regard to the number of affordable properties on the site, these would need to be DQR compliant in terms of their size.  All properties would have external sheds for additional storage.  It was noted that there was significant need for two bed affordable housing units within the area.

·         A request was made for a condition to be added regarding the lintels and external roof materials to be decided by the Delegation Panel.

It was proposed by County Councillor R. Edwards and seconded by County Councillor P. Murphy that application DC/2017/01335 be approved subject to the six conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Unilateral Undertaking agreement.  Also that additional conditions be added for foul and surface water drainage details to be submitted and approved (as outlined in late correspondence).  Plus a condition be added requiring approval of external finishes and details of eaves (overhangs).

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 DC/2017/01335 be approved subject to the six conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Unilateral Undertaking agreement.  Also that additional conditions be added for foul and surface water drainage details to be submitted and approved (as outlined in late correspondence).  Plus a condition be added requiring approval of external finishes and details of eaves (overhangs).

We considered the report of the application presented for refusal for one reason, as outlined in the report.

Members had been minded to refuse application DC/2018/00218 at the Planning Committee meeting on 4th February 2020 and had agreed that it be re-presented to Planning Committee with reasons for refusal.

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

·         Approval of the application would set a precedent across the County.

·         If the application was refused then the land would have to be returned to its original form.

·         Some Members expressed support for the application as outlined at the previous Planning Committee meeting.

·         The local Member outlined the history relating to this matter for those Members who were not present at the last meeting.

·         The Head of Planning informed the Committee that the reason for refusal was to demonstrate the harmful effect on neighbour amenity from surface water drainage.  Officers considered that the applicant had made the necessary requirements to ensure that the drainage solution put on site was acceptable.

It was proposed by County Councillor G. Howard and seconded by County Councillor M. Feakins that application DC/2018/00218 be refused for one reason, as outlined in the report.

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

For refusal                -           6

Against refusal         -           3

Abstentions               -           4

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2018/00218 be refused for one reason, 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 and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.

The local Member for Castle ward, Abergavenny, also a Planning Committee Member, considered that the application would not enhance the surrounding area.  The site is too narrow and is located on a plot that is too small for the development.

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

·         The plot is too small for the proposed development.

·         There is no space available to turn a vehicle around in order to leave the plot in a forward gear.

·         The proposed development is incongruous with any other properties in the area.

·         The proposed development is not suitable for the location.

·         There are no reasons to refuse the application. It provides a unique home in a town location which is fully supported by the full infrastructure to the area.

It was proposed by County Councillor M. Powell and seconded by County Councillor P. Murphy that we be minded to refuse application DM/2019/01214 on the grounds that the proposed development is of incongruous form and design and is harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

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

For refusal                -           7

Against refusal         -           4

Abstentions               -           2

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that we be minded to refuse application DM/2019/01214 on the grounds that the proposed development is of incongruous form and design and is harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area and that the application be re-presented to Planning Committee with appropriate reasons for refusal.

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the 10 conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.

In noting the detail of the application, it was considered to be a sympathetic plan to convert a building that is in a poor condition.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor M. Feakins that application DM/2019/00632 be approved subject to the 10 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             -           12

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2019/00632 be approved subject to the 10 conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.

We considered the report of the application 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:

·         Barn conversions are exempt from having to pay a Section 106 financial contribution under the new Supplementary Planning Guidance.

·         In response to a Member’s question, it was noted that there is no condition regarding soft landscaping.  The provision of an orchard could be provided without planning permission.

·         If the application was approved then an important historical building will be sympathetically preserved.

·         The building is listed which is one of the reasons that the building is exempt from having to pay a Section 106 financial contribution under the new Supplementary Planning Guidance.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor M. Feakins that application DM/2019/00655 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 DM/2019/00655 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 six conditions as outlined in the report.

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

·         The majority of residents are opposed to the development.

·         There are concerns regarding the distribution of the affordable housing units throughout the site as the units are intended to be pepper potted.   However, there is a large section of affordable units situated in the new section of the site.

·         Taking into account the affordable housing units that are already located within the Neddern Rise development, this abuts the area of affordable units situated in the new section of the site creating a very large concentration of affordable housing in that section of the whole area.

·         There have been a number of incidents of anti-social behaviour in that area.  Residents are concerned that this matter would be exacerbated by providing more single bed occupancy premises there.

·         Drainage and flooding issues are a concern for this area. Caldicot had recently flooded with some properties affected by flood water.

·         The report of the application indicates that the drainage system is still to be designed. Water will stay in pipes underground except in extreme rainfall events. Concern was expressed that in extreme weather conditions the water will run off into properties, as recently experienced.

·         Residents suffering from flooding will not be residing on the new development as this is located on a hill.  The residents affected will be the ones who reside downstream and at the bottom of the hill.

·         Attenuation basins need to be carefully looked at.  Concern was expressed that they will not be sufficient to cope with extreme rainfall events.

·         The County Council had passed a climate emergency policy acknowledging that extreme weather events will occur more often. The County Council has a responsibility not to make ill-advised decisions regarding this matter.

·         With regard to the construction traffic management plan, there are concerns about traffic movements on and off the site. The current proposal is for all routes to go through one area on the site.  However, there is potential for a second access point on the site.

·         There are existing issues relating to planning and traffic movements in the Neddern Rise development which need to be solved or additional problems will occur.

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

·         The drainage issues should be addressed, going forward.

·         Concern was expressed regarding the clustering of affordable housing units adjacent to other affordable units from a previous development.

·         Caldicot Town Council had also raised concerns regarding the matters raised by the local Member.

·         Concern was expressed regarding the construction traffic management plan and the impact that this will have in the morning commute / school run and afternoon school run.  It was suggested that consultation be undertaken with the local Member regarding this  ...  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 14 conditions as outlined in the report.

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

·         In response to a Member’s question, the Development Services Manager informed the Committee that with regard to the impact of the application, it will be similar to the existing building.  The top part of the building will be viewed with the lower levels being screened by the existing wall. The building will not be dominant or incongruous to the surrounding area.

·         The local Member stated that it was a minor adjustment to the plan and supported the application.

It was proposed by County Councillor J. Becker and seconded by County Councillor P. Murphy that application DM/2019/01839 be approved subject to the 14 conditions as outlined in the report.

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

For approval             -           11

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2019/01839 be approved subject to the 14 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.

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

·         The application is now presented as an ancillary outbuilding to the main dwelling rather than as a holiday let and therefore, a householder planning application.

·         An additional condition would be required to ensure that the building is used for ancillary purposes to the dwelling known as The Haven.

·         The objections to the application were related to its use as a holiday let.

·         The building is a substantial improvement on what was previously in place.

In light of the new information received, it was proposed by County Councillor G. Howard and seconded by County Councillor P. Murphy that application DM/2019/01879 be approved as an ancillary domestic outbuilding and not as a holiday let and that it be subject to the five conditions as outlined in the report. Also, that an additional condition be added to ensure that the building is used for ancillary purposes to the dwelling known as The Haven.

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/2019/01879 be approved as an ancillary domestic outbuilding and not as a holiday let and that it be subject to the five conditions as outlined in the report. Also, that an additional condition be added to ensure that the building is used for ancillary purposes to the dwelling known as The Haven.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the 10 conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement as well as a being subject to a Unilateral Undertaking agreement.

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

·         In excess of 20 trees are being planted across the site which will enhance the site visually.

·         The proposed development will enhance the site and be an improvement to the area.

·         Concern was expressed that the properties might not age well over time.

·         There are areas of the site with no natural surveillance which could lead to antisocial behaviour in the area.

·         A condition could be added to provide low bollard lighting within the area.

It was proposed by County Councillor D. Dovey and seconded by County Councillor M. Feakins that application DM/2020/00023 be approved subject to the 10 conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement, as well as being subject to a Unilateral Undertaking agreement. Also, that the revised conditions as outlined in late correspondence be added as well as providing an additional condition to provide a lighting scheme for the site covering peripheral areas and walkways.

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

In favour of the proposal                 -           9

Against the proposal                       -           0

Abstentions                                       -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2020/00023 be approved subject to the 10 conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement, as well as being subject to a Unilateral Undertaking agreement. Also, that the revised conditions as outlined in late correspondence be added as well as providing an additional condition to provide a lighting scheme for the site covering peripheral areas and walkways.