Agenda and minutes

County Councillor J. Becker.

County Councillor L. Brown declared and personal and prejudicial interest in relation to application DC/2015/01465 as she knows a neighbour who lives next door to the application. County Councillor L. Brown left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon this item.

County Councillor M. Feakin declared and personal and prejudicial interest in relation to application DC/2016/00936 as he has already seen the application and made judgement on it at Monmouth Town Council. County Councillor M Feakin left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon this item.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 4^th July 2017 were confirmed and signed by the Chair with one amendment;

Application DC/2017/00159

“County Councillor L. Brown proposed that we be minded to refuse application DC/2017/00159 on the grounds that the site is prone to flooding and that an additional two properties located on the site will exacerbate the flooding issues proposal was contrary to Local Development Plan policies DES1 (in respect of over development of the site) and SD3 (as the proposal would exacerbate local flooding issues). County Councillor G. Howard seconded the proposal.”

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

The local member County Councillor J. Becker was unable to attend the meeting in person but sent the following statement;

I’m very familiar with this building. It has been an eyesore for local residents for years, with the applicant seemingly unwilling to let go of an intent to build unacceptable flats on the plot. I, like the officers and local residents, am much happier with the new proposal. The pre-construction conditions are sound and, along with the off street parking provision, answer my main concerns. It’s a shame about the 106 contribution, especially given how the applicant has dragged their heels on this, but as the rules give us little leeway in this matter it certainly isn’t reason to refuse. I recommend acceptance of the proposal.

Mr Richard Lewis, a local resident attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points in objection of the application:

·         Residents at number 6, 8, 10, Grossmont and Pendragon House have raised their concerns regarding the on street vehicle parking situation.

·         Non-residents use the street as free parking making it virtually impossible for residents to park outside their properties.

·         It was requested that consideration was given for the current plan for the proposed new vehicular access to be handed to alleviate access issues.

·         Concerns were raised by the resident at number 27 who felt that the garage annex building at the rear of the property will be too large.

A Member spoke in favour of the development which they felt was long overdue commenting that the proposed design was in keeping with the surrounding properties.

In respect to remarks made about the vehicle parking situation a Member commented that he was saddened by objections raised to new properties being built due to the lack of on street parking.

A Member questioned the size of the roof, stating that it looked top-heavy, in response an Officer advised that they were happy with the roof as it stepped down in an appropriate way. 

In noting the detail of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor D. Dovey and seconded by County Councillor P. Murphy that application DC/2015/01465 be approved subject to the eleven conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

For approval - 13

Against approval - 0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2015/01465 be approved subject to the eleven conditions, as outlined in the report.

It was noted that an informative should be added regarding need to deal with on-site Japanese Knotweed.

We considered the report of the application, which was presented for refusal subject due to the following reason;

The barn is considered to be of inadequate size to provide suitable living space for a permanent dwelling within the structure. It is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy H4 (f) of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan.

The application is presented to Planning Committee at the request of the Local Member Councillor Peter Clarke.

Mr Gwyn Williams, Chair of Llantrisant Community Council who is also a local farmer attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points in support of the application:

·         The property is a redundant cow shed, not suitable for modern farming and if not developed will most likely fall down.

·         The applicants have lived on the site for many years and by developing the small barn for a residential property it will free up the property they currently reside in for their children.

·         Mr Williams objected to officer’s recommendation that the property is too small stating that this should be a decision for the people who intend to live in the building.

·         The building will provide sought after affordable housing.

·         A smaller barn conversion in Monmouthshire had previously been granted planning permission.

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

When asked to clarify the difference between a holiday let and a home, we were answered that a home would have need more space for domestic items requiring outbuildings, domestic storage, sheds, etc.

A Member spoke of looking at applications in planning terms raising concerns regarding the small size of the property and asked if there was Welsh Government guidance as to a minimum habitable size. We were advised there is no minimum size standard for private market housing.

A Member told the Committee that she had recently visited a Council flat which was smaller than the proposed application and that people live in permanent caravans, therefore it should be the decision of the applicant as to what they deem too small.  Officers referred to their concerns regarding future pressure for extensions, which would not be acceptable.

Quoting policy H4 from the LDP, a Member asked if the building could be linked to the bungalow as an ancillary building.

The point was made that consideration needs to be given to intergenerational relationships and care of the elderly in the community. If the applicants do not invest in this heritage asset, the asset will be lost and the applicants will have to find suitable accommodation elsewhere. It was proposed that the permitted development rights were removed and that the domestic curtilage will be restricted.

In noting the detail of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor M. Feakin and seconded by County Councillor A. Webb that application DC/2017/00122 be approved.

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

For approval - 12

Against approval - 2

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2017/00122 be deferred  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4b

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.

The local member County Councillor J. Becker was unable to attend the meeting in person but sent the following statement;

Very familiar with this one, as it’s almost opposite my office. It’s the site office for the 7Quay development. They’ve done a good job with the building so far, I have no reason to believe that they would do anything less than provide a sensitive conversion for the first floor. Now if only the developer could get a bit more movement on the main 7Quay site. I recommend acceptance of the proposal.

Having considered the report of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor P. Clarke and seconded by County Councillor R, Harris that application DC/2015/01556 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

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2015/01556 be approved subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

A question was asked regarding the increased volume of traffic accessing and exiting the site and we were told that it was felt there would not be a significant increase.

It was felt that the application was positive with it making a significant improvement to the site which has previously looked very untidy and also the employment opportunities will be beneficial to the County.

Having considered the report of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor A. Webb and seconded by County Councillor G. Howard that application DC/2016/00936 be approved subject to the eleven conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

For approval – 13

Against approval – 0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2016/00936 be approved subject to the eleven conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

Officers were thanked by the Vice-Chair for bringing common sense to the application by enabling the provision for local residents to park off the road. The type of bollard proposed was questioned.

Having considered the report of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor M. Feakin and seconded by County Councillor A. Davies that application DC/2017/00035 be approved subject to the two conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

For approval – 14

Against approval – 0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2017/00035 be approved subject to the two conditions, as outlined in the report with added conditions about i) details of the bollard being submitted to and agreed by the local planning authority before the access improvement is completed, and ii) parking spaces shown on the approved plan 1630/103, being marked out and made available for use by local residents within one month of the access improvement being completed.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit that had been made on 24^th April 2017.

The appeal referred to boundary enclosures and planning conditions which required retention of a hedge. The hedge was removed, a fence erected and a laurel hedge was put in.

We lost the appeal as the inspector felt the laurel hedge (as opposed to a native species hedge suggested by officers) was acceptable in the conservation area.

The Committee noted the report.