Agenda and minutes

County Councillor P.R. Clarke declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of application DC/2016/01453 as he is the Vice-Chairman of the Monmouthshire Housing Association Board.  He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

County Councillor A.M. Wintle declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of application DC/2016/01453 as he is a Board Member of the Monmouthshire Housing Association Board.  He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

County Councillor A. Webb declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of application DC/2016/01453 as she is a Board Member of the Monmouthshire Housing Association Board.  She left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

The minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting dated 10^th January 2017 were confirmed and signed by the Chair.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was presented for refusal for the one reason, as outlined in the report.

Councillor C.D. Woodhouse, representing Abergavenny Town Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The Town Council had replied to the County Council stating that subject to all relevant conservation planning being met and the site visit taking place, which had happened, the Town Council would recommend approval of the application.

·         The building has been empty for five years with minimal effect on the main street.

·         There will be a small employment loss because of the failure to open this retail.

·         The Committee was asked to pay particular attention to the archaeological report.  There are discrepancies between the County Council’s opinion and that of the report author.

·         The Town Council considers that this matter needs to be resolved as quickly as possible.

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

·         The Britannia Inn in 2005 was considered important enough to be listed Grade II.

·         Having visited the Inn recently, he was shocked at the internal state of the building.

·         The neglect of the building cannot be used as the excuse to further abuse the interior by raising the first floor.

·         The applicant has indicated that he has failed to let the building to companies.  However, the letting of buildings is not a planning matter.

·         The Conservation Officer has looked at recent approved planning permissions and has been flexible in aiding the applicant to maintain and let the building.

·         Paragraph 3 of the report of the application, planning policy relates to heritage buildings to the Local Development Plan (LDP).  Both bullet points are relevant and lead to Policy HE1 – Development in Conservation Areas.

·         The Conservation Officer has provided a detailed assessment of the property and the planning rules and regulations.

·         In view of the Conservation Officer’s evaluation and the interpretation of Cadw’s conservation principles he stated that he would support the Officer recommendation to refuse the application.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, some Members expressed their sympathy for the applicant as the floor in question was already in a poor condition.  Also, from the outside the building fitted in with the street scene and the removal of the first floor would create no detrimental effect to the street scene.  Approval of the application would bring the building back into use within the town.

However, other Members considered that a suitable option was available to raise the first floor by 400mm providing adequate ceiling height to the ground floor.

It was therefore proposed by County Councillor D. L. Edwards and seconded by County Councillor P. Murphy that application DC/2016/01380 be refused for the one reason, as outlined in the report.

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

For refusal                 -           9

Against refusal         -           5

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that  ...  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 five conditions, as outlined in the report.

Councillor J. Gooding, representing Trellech Community Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The Chicken Shed had been shortlisted for the Architecture gold medal at the 2016 Eisteddfod.  However, the Community Council considered that the building should never have been approved for conversion and enforcement action should have been undertaken with the property being demolished.

·         The message being sent out to the community is that people believe that they will be able to follow the example that has been set.

·         The Community Council considers that the applicant and / or agent appear to have shown contempt for the planning process.

·         The Community Council considers that the building has been a planning disaster from start to finish.

·         The Community Council has some sympathy with the current Planning officers who were not responsible for the errors. Measures are being put in place to prevent something similar happening again.  However, the public have not been informed of the error.

·         The consequences of this wrong message have been noticed as the Community Council had recently received an application, similar to the Chicken Shed, from a local resident.

·         When the Community Council received the original conversion application DC/2011/00823 it had recommended refusal and had added that if the Planning Department were minded to approve the application, a further independent structural survey should first be required.  This had not been done and approval had been granted.

·         When the building work commenced, the walls had been removed and the roof trusses had been cut back so that they could no longer reach the walls.  The Community Council considered that, at this stage, the old trusses could support the planned roof.  Construction should have been stopped at this stage but the County Council allowed it to continue.

·         The structure was then enclosed in a large tent.  When the tent was removed the building was structurally complete and the old roof trusses had been discarded. Enforcement officers were called in and found the discarded trusses lying on the side of the plot.  The applicants were then instructed to replace some of the old trusses into the building structure.

·         The interior picture supplied with the application shows two green additional trusses purporting to be the original trusses.  However, the Community Council considers that this was not possible.

·         The Community Council consider that the building is not a conversion.

The applicant Mrs. S. Peacock, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chair, outlined the following points:

·         The property had been purchased after planning permission had been granted.

·         After significant financial investment a substantial holiday letting business has been established.

·         The Architecture committee of the National Eisteddfod had shortlisted the building for the gold medal for architecture.

·         The Head of Planning had indicated that this is not the occasion to review or reconsider the grant of planning permission.  It is  ...  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 fifteen conditions, as outlined in the report.

The local Member for Dewstow, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chair, outlined the following points:

·         Over the previous months, the local Member has been involved in addressing some issues relating to the application.

·         There is some criticism regarding the number of trees that need to be cut down.

·         A bat survey suggests that more work is required in respect of this matter.

·         Bird nesting needs to be taken into account when deciding when to commence development.

·         There are concerns regarding the lighting and where this will be connected.

·         Concern was expressed regarding the road layout in that the road cannot be accommodated via Neddern Way.

·         Concern has been expressed that some of the proposed houses will be located in close proximity to the Church.  By re-orientating the houses and taking the road straight up and around would create a buffer and create an environment suitable for the residents of the houses and for the church.  Public open space would not be affected if the road followed this route.

·         The new estate will primarily be occupied by younger people.  Protection of the facilities for young people should be considered.

·         The current proposed route will be dangerous for local children as it will run through the estate.

·         Local residents do not have an objection to the number of houses on the proposed development but the issues relating to the bird, bats and the extinguishment of the footpath need to be addressed.

·         The road layout needs could be better delivered which would satisfy the residents’ concerns.

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

·         At the Caldicot Town Council meeting on the 10^th January 2017 the application was considered.  At the meeting it was noted that the Severnside Area Committee had made representations raising concerns regarding access to the site, the footpath and effect on the surrounding land and buildings.  Therefore, the application was refused by the Town Council subject to further consultation with the residents.

·         Whilst the Town Council supports development that brings in affordable housing to the area, there has been significant concerns expressed regarding the lack of consultation and the lack of time for consultation during the pre-application process.

·         Representations were made to local ward members from the public and concerns had been expressed regarding traffic access around the development.

·         Caldicot Town Council had met again on the 25^th January 2017 and considered the amended application. The Town Council had refused this application for the same reasons as previously mentioned.

Mr. C. Parker, representing objectors and Bethany Church, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         Local objections refer to the entrance road to the proposed new estate.

·         No two vehicles are able to pass at this entrance without one reversing to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the 17 conditions, as outlined in the report and also subject to a Section 106 Agreement, as outlined in the report.

Councillor L. Palmer, representing Llanfoist Community Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The Community Council recommends refusal of the application.

·         The site is unsuitable due to its open countryside aspect.

·         Llanfoist Village has been overdeveloped to a disproportionate degree in recent years.

·         This has had a considerable impact on the village environment.

·         The proposed site adjoins existing housing but this location is within the open countryside and access to the development will be from a country lane. This lane already receives a lot of traffic from Llanellen coming to Llanfoist.

·         When Llanellen Bridge is closed the lane is used as a route to divert traffic.

·         The safety of pedestrians walking along this lane will be compromised.

·         Llanfoist Village has been greatly developed in recent years with the addition of a number of large housing developments.  This has led to an increase in traffic on local roads.

·         There has also been an increase in the use of the Medieval bridge.

·         The infrastructure of Llanfoist cannot sustain all of these houses.

·         The local school is already full.  Therefore, any children living on the proposed development will not be able to attend the local school.

·         The impact on the village environment has been and continues to be immense with the village being turned into a town.

·         There are many sites within the Local Development Plan (LDP) that could be developed.

·         Llanfoist has doubled its size creating an unattractive urban sprawl.

·         Llanfoist doesn’t have the infrastructure to cope with the additional housing.

·         There are more suitable locations for development identified in the LDP.

The applicant’s agent, Ms. D. Powell, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The proposal has been subject to careful assessment and has no outstanding technical objections from internal or statutory consultees.

·         Whilst the site is currently allocated in the LDP as being outside the settlement boundary, Monmouthshire does have a shortfall in housing land supply.

·         National planning guidance states that there is a need to increase housing land supply and this should be given considerable weight.

·         If approved, the application will make a meaningful contribution towards meeting this shortfall and would provide 35% affordable housing which equates to 40 units.

·         The requirements in the Council’s Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Grant (SPG) will be met.

·         The applicant is in advanced talks with a developer and is willing to accept planning conditions which will ensure that this site is brought forward quickly.

·         The site is a greenfield site.  However, unlike other greenfield sites it is related to the existing settlement and is accessible to nearby facilities.

·         With regard to the concerns raised in respect of the proposed transport impacts, it was noted that the proposed access is a simple T  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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

Having considered the report of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor R. Harris and seconded by County Councillor P. Murphy that application DC/2016/01210 be approved subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

For approval              -           14

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2016/01210 be approved subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report.

We received and noted the appeals report.