Venue: Remote Meeting
Contact: Democratic Services
Note: Please note that in order to watch this meeting online via Microsoft Teams you may need to download the Teams app to your device. The meeting will be available to watch after the event on our youtube channel.
Declarations of Interest
The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 4th August 2020 were confirmed and signed by the Chair.
We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.
Mrs S. Lloyd, representing objectors to the application, had prepared a video which was presented to Planning Committee and the following points were outlined:
· Residents have public safety concerns regarding access to the site which they consider have not been satisfactorily addressed.
· The pathways site can only be accessed via a junction on an ‘s’ bend approximately half way up Vinegar Hill, a busy narrow single track road with no pavements.
· The access is narrow, complex and hazardous with unique topographical features.
· The site access road is a piece of unregistered land over which three properties, Firbank, Gwyn Royson and Pathways, currently have access rights.
· The onsite road is privately owned by Pathways and currently serves the existing Pathways house.
· All three houses were built before 1900.
· From the junction with Vinegar Hill, the site access road meets the onsite road and narrows considerably to 2.8m, constrained on either side by a high boundary wall to Firbank and Gwyn Royson.
· Beyond the Pathways gates there is a tight, blind bend with a steep drop to the south. The combination of the narrow width, high boundary walls and steep drop severely reduces the turning width for long wheelbase vehicles.
· The visibility splay is poor and there is no pavement or refuge for pedestrians.
· There are doubts as to whether a fire engine could navigate the blind bend in the road. Concern was expressed regarding safety issues if such a vehicle was required to navigate this section of the road.
· The Highways report does not assess the blind bend and analysis has not been conducted to determine the dimensions of the largest vehicle that can safely navigate the turn.
· There is no Fire Authority assessment to determine if a fire engine could access the new houses. A statement had been received from the Planning Authority stating that the proposal meets the general requirements of a shared private drive and provides adequate access for service vehicles including fire and rescue vehicles.
· Residents have provided measurements and video footage demonstrating the access is not adequate and does not meet the standards used by the County Council.
· It was considered that there was a highways safety issue in respect of the application. It was requested that the Planning Committee considers deferring the application until documented evidence against access standards is provided.
Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed by the objector, the following points were noted:
· A condition should be added that all roof lights should be low profile.
· A sand and cement render could be provided with a coloured coating.
· Highways and access issues had been raised by the objector. Concern was also expressed that the roof windows did not adhere to the current street scene and that there could be privacy issues and overlooking occurring as a result of the topography ... view the full minutes text for item 3.
We received the report of the application which was presented for refusal for two reasons outlined in the report.
Mr. P. Williams, representing the applicant’s agent, had prepared a video which was presented to Planning Committee and the following points were outlined:
· The proposed scheme has been amended to reduce the volume percentage increase.
· Planning officers had indicated that the percentage increase threshold as identified in the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) has been exceeded.
· SPG states that an increase of more than 50% in the volume of a rural dwelling would not normally be considered to comply with Policy H6.
· Policy H6 requires extensions to be subordinate to the existing building and respect its existing form.
· The SPG on replacement dwellings and extensions to dwellings in the countryside refers in paragraph 2.7 to it being not relevant to proposed extensions to dwellings that have been converted from other buildings such as barns. Such proposals would be subject to Policy H4 of the LDP, the criteria of which would be subject to buildings that have already been converted. This is the case that is being presented to Planning Committee today.
· As an example of policy interpretation, the Local Planning Authority had granted planning permission for over 70% volumetric increase for a two storey extension of a domestic dwelling, a former derelict farmhouse. The report had indicated that there was no harmful impact on the landscape. The agent considered that this was also the case for this application.
· The application site comprises of a large plot in which a modest dwelling is located. The dwelling is limited in its scale to accommodate sufficient space for family needs and an extension, which represents the form, bulk and design of the current building and has used sympathetic materials and complimentary roof form in its design.
· The application site is not in open countryside but forms an integral part of the hamlet with residential properties on both sides. Within 100 metres of the site is a large agricultural and commercial building that significantly impacts on the local landscape.
· The application site has a large curtilage, capable of accommodating the proposed extension and allows for the retention of an extensive garden and off-street parking facilities.
· The application has attracted local support in the form of a formal response from Caerwent Community Council which had recommended approval of the application, as well as receiving five letters of support from local residents. This demonstrates the acceptability of the proposal at the local level.
· Planning Committee needs to ensure that Local Development Plan (LDP) policies are used in an objective and flexible way recognising that each application should be determined on its merits and having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations.
· In this case there is no material harm to the landscape where the proposal is located and the grant of planning consent does not prejudice the LDP policy framework.
· There would be no harmful intrusive impact on the landscape.
· There are no material planning ... view the full minutes text for item 4.
Application DM/2020/00616 - Retention of existing 1.65m high close boarded timber fence and reduction of existing ground level by circa 300mm. 21 Jasper Tudor Crescent, Llanfoist, Abergavenny, NP7 9AZ PDF 43 KB
We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the six conditions outlined in the report.
Mrs. H. Trotman, objecting to the application, had prepared a written statement which was read out to the Planning Committee by the Head of Planning as follows:
‘I write again in sheer frustration at the length of time this unauthorised building works has been allowed to remain. I cannot express how distressing it has been to be unable to obtain a resolution to this matter.
When I first contacted the local authority, I had expected that regulations relating to this matter would be stringently upheld. I have been dismayed to find this is not the case. I have now had to employ a civil litigation solicitor at extensive cost to pursue this matter. This out of respect to my tenant, a consultant doctor at Neville Hall, who has been left with the consequences of the applicant’s actions. Her residential amenity destroyed for three years and putting a blight on my property. I should not have needed to employ a solicitor, the regulations on this matter are clear and I feel sorely let down by the planning department. Clearly, I was naive in the belief that the regulations were in place to prevent others doing harm to another person’s property.
This latest application doesn’t change anything. It improves nothing from the previous one. Dropping the soil by 300mm on the applicant’s side, leaves us with the same issues and the same regulations breeched, which I have explained in detail in my objection letter. For example:
This application again is merely replacing part of the height with a trellis.
2. Land raising
The reduction of the earth level by circa 300mm the applicant’s side, will do nothing to alleviate the damage this has caused and continues to cause on our side of the wall, it merely reduces the level of earth their side.
3. Misinformation by the architect
The applicant did not put in the drainage system drawn on the plans agreed. Ms. G. Hunt is incorrect in her comment on the applicant’s letter dated 25th June 2020. A pipe was put in their side, but not the length of our side to prevent the pooling of water, failing to mitigate the harm being caused to my property.
4. Drainage outlet
The current pipe drains into our garden storm drain, which the applicant does not have permission to do. The applicant has failed to indicate where they now intend to drain?
4. Maintenance of the original fence
The new fence has been attached to the original fence. This does not allow any maintenance works to be carried out. This has not been addressed.
5. Raised sleeper bed
Should this new ground level be given approval and the fence reduced with trellis, there would still be a privacy issue. Replacing earth with a raised sleeper bed does not remove this problem. Any land raising consent causes overlooking and a breach ... view the full minutes text for item 5.
Application DM/2018/02082 - Variation of condition 9 of previous application M/8467- Date of Decision: 11/06/2003 - to allow B1, B2 and B8 uses at the site. Gwent Euro Park, Bareland Street, Magor PDF 344 KB
We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the 16 conditions outlined in the report with an additional condition as outlined in late correspondence.
In noting the detail of the application, the following points were identified:
· In response to a query raised in respect of Condition 14 which relates to noise levels, the Development Services Manager informed the Committee that an extant B8 use had been approved which would allow distribution use such as heavy goods vehicles accessing external parts of the site at all times within a 24 hour period. It was noted that there is a travel plan which could be used to address how employees get to the site.
It was proposed by County Councillor J. Higginson and seconded by County Councillor A. Easson that application DM/2028/02082 be approved subject to the 16 conditions outlined in the report with an additional condition as outlined in late correspondence.
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/2028/02082 be approved subject to the 16 conditions outlined in the report with an additional condition as outlined in late correspondence.
Application DM/2019/00727 - Demolition of vehicle repair and storage garage, construction of two detached dwellings with garages and garden store. Works to also include realignment of existing access and creation of private driveway(s). Unit 1, New Barn Workshops, St Arvans PDF 218 KB
We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the 12 conditions outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.
The local Member for St. Arvans ward, also a Planning Committee Member, expressed her support for the application and drew the Committee’s attention to the views expressed in the report by Cadw.
In noting the detail of the application, it was requested that sand and cement render be used with a colour coated top.
It was proposed by County Councillor A. Webb and seconded by County Councillor G. Howard that application DM/2019/00727 be approved subject to the 12 conditions 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 - 0
The proposition was carried.
We resolved that application DM/2019/00727 be approved subject to the 12 conditions outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.
Application DM/2020/00883 - Variation of condition 3 of planning permission DM/2019/01480 to enable up to 4 touring caravans to be parked on site for the use permitted under planning permission DM/2019/01480, and removal of condition 4 (the limitation to a personal consent) from planning consent DM/2019/01480. Land Adjacent Sunnybank, A48 Crick to Parkwall Roundabout, Crick, Monmouthshire PDF 332 KB
We considered the report of the application and late correspondence. The officer recommendation was a split decision, namely:
· Approve the variation of condition number 3.
· Refuse the removal of condition number 4.
The local Member for Shirenewton, also a Planning Committee Member, outlined the following points:
· Nothing has changed since the original application and the decision made by the Planning Committee to keep as a personal consent and to exclude the four touring caravans.
· The local Member asked that the Committee to refuse both variations to the conditions and that the original Planning Committee decision should remain.
· The original application had been granted with permission for a shower utility block and for a two and three bedroomed park home. The four touring caravans had not been included in that permission. It had been accepted at a previous Planning Committee meeting that this would have been an overdevelopment of the site.
· The site slopes indicating that the main development area is only at the top of the site on a plateau.
· The local Member referred to Policy H8, paragraph C.
· Mathern Community Council commented that the site overall was not large enough to house the proposed two park homes, two amenity blocks, four traveller pitches plus the necessary vehicular parking and circular turning area. On that basis it was considered that the proposal represents overdevelopment of the site.
· The local Member stated that in the original Committee report for the site it had been commented that officers would echo concerns that the full use of the site would appear crammed.
· On the amended plan it is not clear where the four caravans (each over five metres long) will go. The amended plans and the turning circle conditions were based on the site without the four touring caravans.
· The parking area in the flat plateau area at the top of the site has blotted out caravans on the plan. This is the parking area for the cars, which has an allowance for five car parking spaces for the two park homes.
· The highways condition was to cover the turning circle for a tanker to empty the cesspit. If the cars are parked at the top of the site indicated on the plan, this will leave only the sloped area at the bottom of the site for the caravans. This will block the turning circle for the caravans or the tanker.
· If the caravans are parked at the top end of the site, then the drive will be blocked not only for the tanker but for the caravans’ turning circle with the cars parked on the slope. Concern was expressed that emergency services vehicles will not be able to access the site.
· Parked vehicles on a sloping access drive will create visual amenity concerns of an overdeveloped site. If vehicles cannot leave the site in a forward gear they will have to reverse onto the busy A48 causing safety concerns.
· Mathern Community Council considers that an alternative more appropriate site should have been ... view the full minutes text for item 8.