Agenda and draft minutes

Venue: Council Chamber, County Hall, The Rhadyr, Usk, NP15 1GA and remote attendance

Contact: Democratic Services 

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Election of Chair

Minutes:

We elected County Councillor P. Murphy as Chair.

2.

Appointment of Vice-Chair

Minutes:

We appointed County Councillor D. Rooke as Vice-Chair.

3.

Declarations of Interest

Minutes:

County Councillor S. McConnel declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of application DM/2022/00460 as she is a friend and colleague of the applicant’s partner.  She took no part in the discussion and voting thereon.

 

County Councillor J. McKenna declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of agenda item 7.1 appeals decision in respect of Bentra Farmhouse, Pentre Road, Llangovan.

4.

Confirmation of Minutes pdf icon PDF 230 KB

Minutes:

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 5th April 2022 were confirmed and signed by the Chair.

5.

Chair's Announcement

Minutes:

On behalf of the Planning Committee, the Chair thanked former County Councillor Ruth Edwards for her role as Planning Committee Chair.  County Councillor Edwards had been the Chair of Planning Committee for many years guiding the Committee throughout this time.

 

The Chair also wished to thank former County Councillor Roger Harris for his role as opposition spokesperson on the Planning Committee Delegation Panel.  Councillor Harris had supported the Planning Committee and the Delegation Panel for many years.

 

The Delegation Panel required a new opposition spokesperson. We resolved that County Councillor A. Webb would be the new opposition spokesperson.

6.

Application DM/2022/00212 - Redevelopment of the existing King Henry VIII Secondary School Site, including construction of Abergavenny 3-19 School (Class D1) incorporating flying-start, nursery, lower school, upper school and 6th form educational provision; provision of open space including hard and soft informal social and play areas, multi-use games area, forest school areas, and sports pitch provision including grass / all-weather pitches; provision of plant building, highways, access, car parking, landscaping, green infrastructure, and drainage works; demolition of existing school buildings/structures; and all associated works. King Henry VIII Comprehensive School, Old Hereford Road, Abergavenny, NP7 6EP pdf icon PDF 529 KB

Minutes:

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

 

Mr. P. Hannay, Chair of Abergavenny Transition Town (ATT) had submitted a written statement in respect of the application which was read to the Planning Committee by a Planning Officer, as follows:

 

‘Should the Committee elect to approve this project today, we would ask for the following firm conditions to be added to this approval.

 

1.    Active Travel issues

 

While some adjustments have been made to the original proposals for pedestrian / cyclist and vehicular movement at the eastern entrance as requested by various stakeholders, similar required and necessary adjustments have not been made at the western approach.

 

Equally, improvements to active travel routes approaching the site from both east and west have not been taken on board as part of this once in a lifetime project. Conditions should be imposed to ensure these improvements are enacted if the proposed initial 30% increase in pupil cycling targets are to be taken seriously.

 

2.    Zero carbon energy performance

 

While there is an outline commitment to monitoring energy performance of the new building in the McCann Strategic Energy statement, we would suggest a formal condition should be imposed so that any non-meeting of carbon targets should be corrected and adjusted by the contractor and the consultants at their cost. (It needs saying that material made available to the public to explain how the energy systems would work in the building are very opaque. We hope someone in Monmouthshire County Council has fully vetted all the proposals so that they meet best practice in meeting the Climate Emergency Monmouthshire County Council has signed up to.)

 

3.    Safeguarding

 

Several stakeholders have raised serious safe-guarding issues in their informal submissions to this process. They have been inadequately answered. We suggest a condition should be to monitor and record all safeguarding incidents involving pupils in the lower school should be backed up by a commitment of sufficient resources to physically correct these inadequacies, should they occur as we expect they will.

 

4.    Stakeholder Consultation processes

 

The Council and its officers in both planning and education will be aware of the considerable disquiet expressed in many public quarters about the conduct of public consultation on this project at every formal stage.

 

We would ask for a very thorough review within the next 12 months to be held on lessons to be learnt and then implemented for any future project of this scale and public importance. We would also ask that as the Council has no independent client-side architectural advice, that such scale of projects are, as a matter of course, submitted to the Design Commission for Wales’ Design Review panel to plug that very serious gap in project monitoring.’

Mr. P. Sulley, the applicant’s agent, had submitted a written statement in respect of the application which was read to the Planning Committee by a Planning Officer, as follows:

 

‘As set out in the committee  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Application DM/2019/00184 - Proposed Log Pod and composting toilet on stone base for tourism purposes, existing off street car parking and turning area to be surfaced in rolled stone, translocation of hedgerow to improve visibility to existing access. Old Park Cottage, Gethley Road, Parkhouse, Trellech pdf icon PDF 377 KB

Minutes:

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

 

The local Member, County Councillor J. McKenna, also a Planning Committee Member, outlined the following points:

 

·         Local residents had indicated that the land had been left to Gwent Wildlife Trust which had been sold off and had caused upset amongst residents.

 

·         It was considered that the land had not been utilised for its intended purpose and it was now a civil matter rather than a Planning consideration.

 

·         The local Member had wished for the land to remain as wildlife friendly as possible with minimal impact on the environment.

 

·         The application is for one pod and it was considered that the application would not be detrimental to the environment nor add a significant amount of traffic to the highway.

 

·         The entrance is located on a straight piece of road appearing safe to enter and exit the site.

 

·         There are plans to remove 50 metres of the hedge which might affect habitat purposes. However, there is a replanting programme that will occur.

 

·         The local Member is pleased with condition 11 within the report in which the height of the hedge will be retained to a minimum of 2.4m.  This will also ensure that the pod is less visible from the highway.  However, it was noted that the site will be more exposed during the winter months due to reduced foliage.

 

·         Concern was expressed regarding how close the pod is to a neighbouring property with regard to noise pollution.  However, it was acknowledged that the pod will only sleep two people with noise likely to be kept at a minimum.

 

·         The owners do not live on site so there is a need to address excessive noise levels should this occur and address how the matter would be dealt with.

 

·         There are no shower / hand washing facilities on site.  Neither is there water on site for preparing food.

 

·         Tourism should be encouraged within Monmouthshire.

 

·         One pod is unlikely to have a large impact on the area.  However, the local member expressed reservations should the site be expanded.

 

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

 

·         The scheme was originally for an amenity plot.  However, it had been identified that this would not comply with Planning Policy.  The applicant therefore changed the scheme to a glamping pod.  Should the application be approved, a condition would be put in place to ensure that there would be a stay of no more than 28 days per calendar year per visitor.

 

·         The hedge had been inspected by an ecologist. It was considered that the hedge should be retained in its current line as it provided privacy for nearby residents.

 

·         Concern was expressed regarding the lack of water provision on the site. However, it was noted that the glampers would be aware of the lack of water provision on site and would bring their own water supply.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

8.

Application DM/2019/01867 - Two new detached dwellings with associated garages, car parking, access driveways and landscaping. Land rear of Rosebrook, Watery Lane, Monmouth pdf icon PDF 524 KB

Minutes:

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

 

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

 

·         The applicant has to sign up to the Section 106 agreement before the permission is granted.  The Section 106 monies are usually paid when the property has been completed.

 

·         Details regarding surface run-off at the front of the development will require Natural Resources Wales (NRW) consent to discharge the water course.  A sustainable drainage consent will also be required by the applicant.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor B. Callard and seconded by County Councillor A. Easson that application DM/2019/01867 be approved subject tothe 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             -           16

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DM/2019/01867 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.

 

 

 

 

9.

Application DM/2020/01288 - Application for retrospective approval of plant room, retaining wall, oil tank and garden shed as built. The Gables, Wainfield Lane, Gwehelog, Usk pdf icon PDF 189 KB

Minutes:

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report and that condition 3 be amended as follows:

 

·         Within three months of the date of this permission details of the three bat and bird boxes, one to the front and two closest to the rear of the dwelling as shown on drawing LSC/01 A shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority.  The approved details should be implemented within three months of the approval and retained as such in perpetuity.

 

Ms. A.M. Smale, objecting to the application, had prepared a video recording which was presented to Planning Committee and the following points were outlined:

 

·         Condition 1 of the officer’s report asks the Committee to approve plans in the table below.  However, there is no table in the report to be reviewed. Concern was expressed regarding which drawings were being asked to be approved and questioned whether the table had been published in sufficient time for due consideration.

 

·         The Local Government Planning Advisory Service states in relation to Planning Conditions ‘does it form part of the application area?’ A valid condition is only relevant to the red line within the development unless it is a Grampian condition.  If it is outside of the red line it needs to form part of a Section 106 agreement.

 

·         Condition 2 of the officer’s report requires ecology work to be carried out on land that is outside the application red line.  This condition is likely to be unenforceable.

 

·         Monmouthshire’s Planning Portal under the heading ‘do I need SAB approval’ defines construction work under Section 3 of the Floodwater Management Act 2012 as anything that covers land such as patios or drives as a structure for the purposes of SAB approval. The act applies to all work over 100 sq.m. The report of the application states that there is no new construction area under the concurrent application.  However, it was considered to be untrue and if accepted would be a breach of the act. The applicant’s drawing states that the area of construction work is 333 sq.m created by the unlawfully constructed retaining wall.

 

·         The proposed drainage scheme is outside the red line so cannot be controlled via this planning permission.

 

·         Engineering works proposed in the rear garden in close proximity to trees, with no tree survey or aboricultural method statement. It was considered that this needs to be rectified before the application is determined.

 

·         The report of the application states that the proposed garage has an upper level for ancillary storage.  A single storey garage with attic space or even a one and a half storey building would suffice.

 

·         The proposed garage report states that the proposal is acceptable sitting alongside the host property.  It was suggested that given none of the proposed elevations show any context, it would be difficult to judge the scale of the proposal and whether it is acceptable and in accordance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

10.

Application DM/2020/00933 - Detached double garage with storage space over. The Gables, Wainfield Lane, Gwehelog, Usk pdf icon PDF 185 KB

Minutes:

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

 

Ms. A.M. Smale, objecting to the application, had prepared a video recording which was presented to Planning Committee.  The details of the objection are outlined in the previous planning application DM/2020/01288.

 

Mr. S. Matthews, applicant, had submitted a written statement in respect of the application which was read to the Planning Committee by a Planning Officer, as follows:

 

‘I would like to take this opportunity to clarify several points made in relation to the planning application submitted for a double garage with storage space over as follows: -

 

Ref: - 5.2.4 Residential Amenity

 

·         We note the comments made in relation to the neighbour’s view of the garage once built. However, we would like to point out that the vast majority of residents within the lane can see each other’s garages. To minimise the view of our garage on neighbouring properties, and in preparation of the development to the property, a Beech Hedgerow was planted. This was selected by the residents of Ty-Gerrig and jointly planted with residents of The Gables. Once fully mature, this should reach a high of between 3m-5m thus minimising the visual impact of any aspect of the garage that can be seen.

 

·         Unfortunately, the residents of Ty-Gerrig have recently cut at least 0.5 metres off the top of the hedgerow which now means that its growth will be minimised.

 

·         The size of the garage has been designed to meet the needs of the owner. The property currently has no storage space due to the bedrooms being in the roof space.  Whilst objections have been made about the height the building, the visual impact to neighbouring properties is minimised due to the topography of the land. There are also several other properties on Wainfield Lane with double height garages.

 

Ref: - Biodiversity / Ecology

 

 

 

Based on the information provided by the planning officer, we believe that the case for objection by some of the residents of Wainfield Lane have no relevance to the development / enhancement of the property, especially given the fact that each property is individualised with no set standard or finish to benchmark against.

 

The initial works to our property were carried out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

11.

Application DM/2021/00037 - Erection of one detached, two-storey house in part of garden with associated access and parking (Outline planning permission). Land To west of Stray Leaves, School Lane, The Narth, Monmouth pdf icon PDF 165 KB

Minutes:

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

 

The local Member for Mitchel Troy and Trellech United, also a Planning Committee Member, outlined the following points:

 

·         There is sufficient space within the plot to accommodate an infill dwelling.

 

·         A neighbour had expressed concern regarding access.  However, there are three points of access onto the site.

 

·         There is a mixture of dwellings within the cul-de-sac consisting of bungalows, dormer bungalows and two storey dwellings.

 

·         The local Member would like to see a sympathetic design with regard to the height of the dwelling. Therefore, consideration of a dormer style dwelling might be more preferable at this stage resulting in less visual impact on the cul-de-sac.

 

Mr. D. Lloyd, objection to the application, had submitted a written statement in respect of the application which was read to the Planning Committee by a Planning Officer, as follows:

 

‘Outline approval is being sought for a five bedroomed detached house with double garage on a garden plot in The Narth, with all matters other than access reserved.

 

There are 2 major areas of concern.

 

Access

 

There are 3 points to note here:

 

1.            You will have seen from the site visit on Tuesday that access to the site is very poor. There are several approaches to the proposed site, none of which is suitable for heavy construction traffic or indeed medium sized vehicles. Any attempt to bring material directly to the site will result in damage to property and boundaries.                    

 

The owners of Ty Gwyn which is on the road leading to the proposed development, recently successfully brought a legal case against one of the major courier companies for damage to hedges and walls by a large vehicle.

 

2.            Once at the site, access via the private lane is very restricted with limited options for turning vehicles around, even a car. Access is needed for emergency vehicles due to an elderly resident.

Any construction traffic must be located on the site itself. At no time should the private lane be blocked

 

3.            The proposed access, driveway and turning circle for the development is directly opposite the master bedroom of Lindsey, a single storey bungalow. The dimensions and scale of the house suggests likely occupation by a family with several cars and therefore traffic in and out throughout the day and evenings. This will have a severe impact on the wellbeing of the residents of Lindsey.

 

Any construction management plans need to include a stipulation that large deliveries must be made elsewhere, decanted and transported to site via suitable sized vehicle.

 

Dimensions

 

The maximum dimensions on this outline application mean that the proposed dwelling will have a dominant and overbearing impact on the bungalow “Lindsey” as well as being detrimental to the amenity, space, light pollution and privacy for Lindsey and all neighbouring properties as outlined in policy EP1. This can only truly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

12.

Application DM/2021/00340 - General purpose agricultural building (livestock housing and storage of machinery and fodder). Land to the north-east of Ty Freeman Road, Gwehelog, Monmouthshire pdf icon PDF 187 KB

Minutes:

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

 

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

 

·         Natural Resources Wales (NRW) has been consulted and is content that the manure management plan is an acceptable way of discharging from the site and there will be no adverse increase in phosphates that would be detrimental to the surrounding area.

 

·         This extension is acceptable with its form and scale not being too excessive on the site.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor M. Powell and seconded by County Councillor A. Easson that application DM/2021/00340 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

 

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

 

For approval             -           15

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DM/2021/00340 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

 

13.

Application DM/2021/00961 - Construction of agricultural fruit store/eco building, with compost toilet and solar panels. Land near Gwehelog Common, Gwehelog Fawr, Usk, NP15 1RE pdf icon PDF 189 KB

Minutes:

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report and that:

 

·         Condition 4 be removed.

 

·         Add an additional condition to comply with section 6.2 of the ecology appraisal.

 

Mr. R. Cole, objecting and representing other objectors to the application, had prepared a video recording which was presented to Planning Committee and the following points were outlined:

 

·         The objectors do not agree with the report of the application and consider that refusal of the application should have been recommended.

 

·         A new building of this size and for this use in open countryside is unjustified when the Council’s policy and Government policy is that any approval should be for exceptional reasons and emphasises the use of existing buildings.

 

·         The size of the building is disproportionate to the output of only about two acres of young fruit trees.

 

·         It is reasonable to expect all the processing of the produce of a small orchard to be carried out elsewhere.

 

·         The job creation element of the application would be unaffected and the scope for further development might be increased.  The applicant has indicated that he may wish to use the building for other purposes such as brewing.  Objectors are concerned that the approval of the fruit shed is interpreted as encouraging his expectations of further approvals that will justify the substantial costs of this building.

 

·         The access track to this site is not in the applicant’s ownership. Therefore, compliance with the recommended Condition 4 would require the consent of other parties, a requirement flouted without planning permission by the stripping and resurfacing of a grassy track with a layer of scalpings undertaken recently.

 

·         The objectors asked that the Planning Committee decision be deferred until uncertainties regarding access matters can be fully considered. A letter has been sent to the Council regarding this matter.

 

·         However, if the Planning Committee is minded to approve the application, the objectors asked that two conditions be amended, as follows:

 

-       Condition 3 should end as ‘and no fruit beer or other product ingredients shall be imported to the site and no retailing should be undertaken at the site’. The reason for the condition to be amended to ensure that no retailing takes place as well as no industrial uses.

 

This would minimise ambiguity and reassure objectors that the Planning Authority has full control over any changes of use of the building.

 

-       That Condition 4 should require the hard surfacing of the access track to be fully carried out prior to starting the construction of the building.  The recent soft surfacing is unlikely to cope with construction traffic.

 

In response, the Development Management Area Manager informed the Committee that officer advice is that Condition 4 be removed.  In terms of the proposed amendment to Condition 3, the condition has been drafted clearly outlining the exclusive uses of the building. Anything outside of the wording of this condition would require a subsequent application to be presented to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

14.

Application DM/2021/01693 - Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a replacement dwelling and an additional dwelling. Overdale, 1 St Lawrence Road, Chepstow, NP16 5BJ pdf icon PDF 190 KB

Minutes:

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

 

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

 

·         The demolition of the derelict house is welcome.  However, objectors are asking for the new development that replaces the existing property uses the same footprint and is of similar form, character, size and scale.

 

·         It was considered that the application is not a simple like for like replacement.  The development footprint is larger than the existing property, the orientation differs with a 90° shift which is at odds with the houses located on St. Lawrence Road. In addition to this change, the applicant wants to build a further four bedroomed dwelling to the rear of the replacement property.

 

·         The local Member considers that the application is significant infill. It impacts on the local ecology, as well as impacting on the loss of amenity for several residents due to additional car movements, associated pollutions in relation to noise, light and air.  All of this occurring on one of the most challenging stretches of road in the County which abuts an air quality management zone.

 

·         Residents have raised considerable concerns, outlined in the report of the application, which have caused considerable local anxiety.

 

·         Regarding the replacement dwelling, residents have serious concerns regarding the report of the application, namely, 6.13, which related to the replacement dwelling being orientated 90° and would not be front facing.  This will produce a fundamentally different outlook in relation to the houses located along that street. The replacement will be visually incongruous.

 

·         The creation of an additional dwelling to the rear of the plot is the most concerning aspect of the application as it is considered to be overdevelopment of the site and unjustified.

 

·         This element of the application will impact residents to the side and rear of the plot. If approved, residents’ will be impacted by overlooking, loss of privacy, traffic disturbance, affected by additional vehicle movements and associated air, noise and light pollution.

 

·         Residents question 6.1.5 of the report regarding how the erection of a new dwelling in a space that was a garden will enhance the local character.

 

·         The local Member disagrees that this is one of the most sustainable sites within the County.

 

·         In 2019 the Authority called a climate emergency.  It was considered that to approve this application goes against the Authority’s calling of a climate emergency.

 

In response, the Development Management Area Manager informed the Committee, as follows:

 

·         With regard to air quality management, this is one additional dwelling. The Environmental Health department has been consulted and raises no objections.

 

·         With regard to light and noise pollution, the adjacent property is separated by a fence and there is a garage on the other side. Therefore, noise and light pollution will be minimal in terms of the impact of the adjacent property.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

15.

Application DM/2022/00460 - Modification of condition 1 (Restriction To Opening Times) for planning decision DC/2014/00314. Gemma Thomas Hair Lounge, New Inn Cottage, The Cutting, Llanfoist Abergavenny pdf icon PDF 133 KB

Minutes:

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

 

The local Member for Llanfoist & Govilon, also a Planning Committee Member, expressed his support for the application.

 

In noting the detail of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor A. Easson and seconded by County Councillor F. Bromfield that application DM/2022/00460 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

 

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

 

For approval             -           15

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DM/2022/00460 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

 

 

 

 

16.

FOR INFORMATION - The Planning Inspectorate - Appeals Decisions Received:

16a

Bentra Farmhouse, Pentre Road, Llangovan pdf icon PDF 172 KB

Minutes:

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit that had been held at Bentra Farmhouse, Pentre Road, Llangovan on 1st March 2022.

 

We noted that the appeal had been allowed and the planning permission Reference DM/2020/01805 to ‘replace existing Juliet balcony with timber / glass balcony’ at Bentra Farmhouse, Pentre Road, Llangovan, NP25 4BU, granted on 7 April 2021 by Monmouthshire County Council, is varied by deleting condition No 3.

16b

Little Hervells Court (also known as Envy), Chepstow pdf icon PDF 162 KB

Minutes:

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit that had been held at 5 Little Hervells Court (also known as Envy), Chepstow on 21st November 2021.

 

We noted that the appeal had been dismissed and the listed building enforcement notice (LBEN) was upheld.

 

 

17.

New Appeals Received 1st January 2022 to 27th May 2022 pdf icon PDF 66 KB

Minutes:

We noted the new appeals received by the Planning Department for the period 1st January to 27th May 2022.