Agenda and minutes

County Councillor R. Edwards declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of application DC/2017/00898, as the applicant is a family member.  She therefore left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

County Councillor R. Harris declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest pursuant to the Member’s Code of Conduct in respect of application DC/2017/00808, as he is a member of the 21^st Century Schools Board.

County Councillor G. Howard declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of application DC/2017/00786, as he had given informal advice to the applicant via a third party.  He remained in the meeting but abstained from voting.

County Councillor G. Howard declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of application DC/2017/00876, as he had already expressed a view before determination.  He remained in the meeting and commented on the application but abstained from voting.

County Councillor P. Murphy declared a personal, non-prejudicial interest pursuant to the Member’s Code of Conduct in respect of application DC/2017/00808, as he is a member of the 21^st Century Schools Board.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 1^st August 2017 were confirmed and signed by the Chair.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence, which was recommended for approval subject to the 18 conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

·         The scheme is necessary but has huge implications.

·         Natural Resources Wales (NRW) is introducing the new extraction licence which will require more water pumping between the months of November and March.  It is hoped that NRW is fully aware of the impact of the proposals on the river Usk and that proper mitigation will be undertaken now and in the future.

·         It is necessary to consider the Wellbeing and Future Generations Act 2015.  Reference is made to ensuring the wellbeing of wildlife but there is no mention of the wellbeing of local people.

·         Residents have endured noise from the works at Prioress Mill for many years.  Intermittent noise is creating a negative impact on local people’s lives.

·         Planning Policy Wales states that infrastructure that is poorly designed or badly located can exacerbate problems rather than solve them. The Environmental Health officer’s report states that the application will only potentially improve noise issues.

·         There will be the potential for noise from the eight extractor fans which will point south directly towards local residents. This is not good design and they should be relocated to the west side.

Mr. R. Wightman, representing local objectors to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The application is favourable to wildlife but detrimental to local residents.

·         Local residents are only objecting to the specific design solution that Welsh Water and partners have chosen for this site.

·         Minimal consultation on the proposal had been undertaken indicating that the proposal was going ahead.

·         The planning record had shown that the proposed design had actively ruled out of scope the local community, visual and landscape impacts, architectural input, the history of noise complaints, the presence of listed buildings, the presence of floodlit defences immediately downstream and the risk of flooding from runoff.

·         There is no mention of the Wellbeing and Future Generations Act 2015.

·         The proposed buildings are unnecessarily tall and are visually intrusive. Twice as tall and three times bigger than the existing buildings.

·         For the majority of the time the increased volume will be empty air space.

·         Reluctantly, Welsh Water has agreed to add some exterior cladding but the essential problems of the main building still remain.

·         Welsh Water’s decision to abandon a less impactful 6.4 metre high design relates to their choice to move to fewer but bigger, noisier pumps.

·         Welsh Water has refused to comply with an environmental information regulations inquiry (EIR) to clarify the options analysis around this decision. They give the commercial confidence of their commercial engineering partners as the reason. Last month they announced the reason for the change as lack of space.

·         The judicial review that clarified that all water companies are subject to EIR was made in  ...  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 three conditions, as outlined in the report.

Councillor S. McConnel, representing Monmouth Town Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         People visit Monmouth for the charm of the high street, the small independent shops and the attractive and varied architecture.

·         This is a move of one existing shop in the town to another shop within the town.

·         The Town Council would like the applicant to retain the arcade entry and enquiries had been made with the applicant to consider amending their plans.  However, the applicant had been advised that it would not be appropriate in advance of the application being considered.

·         Therefore, the Town Council are recommending provisional refusal of the application.

Mr. D. Cummings, Chair of Monmouth and District Chamber of Trade and Commerce, outlined his support for the application, as follows:

·         The shop occupies a dominant position in Monnow Street, Monmouth. The closure of this shop has negatively affected the experience of local visitors for the previous three years.

·         As a long term empty building, this had led to some vandalism.

·         At 3,500 sq. ft., the shop and store is about the size usually occupied by independent retailers.

·         Independent retailers would also be deterred by the £50,000 rent and £25,000 rates.

·         Five major retailers have decided not to set up at this shop due to the listed staircase and frontage issues.

·         An opportunity has now arisen for an existing national retailer, Specsavers, to move to these larger premises.

·         Because 25 Monnow Street has no rear access it must be serviced from the front by delivery lorries.  Only one small delivery van per week will be required by the retailer.

·         It was noted that the Town Council had voted against this application with the chair using their casting vote, due to the closeness of the voting.

·         The building is a part of the primary shopping frontages and that the changes to the front of the shop will allow for the building to be more in keeping with the rest of the street.

·         It has taken three years of negotiation and promotion by the commercial estate agents to find a new tenant for the empty shop.

·         The Committee was urged to support the application.

In noting the detail of the application and the views expressed, the Committee outlined its support for the application in that there was a need for the shop to be occupied and trading.

It was therefore proposed by County Councillor M. Feakins and seconded by County Councillor L. Brown that application DC/2017/00707 be approved subject to the three 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/2017/00707 be approved subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

Councillor M. Groucutt, representing Abergavenny Town Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         There are flaws in the reasons why officers have recommended approval of the application.

·         The Town Council objects to the application on the grounds of traffic, egress and access.  However, the Town Council had discussed the same view taken by Abergavenny Civic Society which was around a demonstrable need for this additional shop.

·         The proposed retail extension is outside the Central Shopping Area.

·         Additional traffic to the service station will occur should the application be approved. It will be unlikely that pedestrians from the town will walk to the service station to buy their shopping as Morrison’s is only a further 100 metres on from the service station.

·         Morrison’s entrance and exit will be on the A40, 100 metres from the traffic lights that guard the entrance to the service station.

·         A planning application for a new housing development, close to the service station, will be considered by the Planning Committee in due course which, if approved, will bring an increase in traffic at the A40 junction.

·         The site is controlled by four traffic lights, one on Park Road, two on Hereford Road and one controlling the small lane to the houses at the rear of the service station.

·         The key point is that there is a service station where departure from the site is not controlled by traffic lights.  None of the four traffic lights affect the exit and this planning consent states that if approved, there would be no change to that. However, with no traffic control, the site is dangerous.

In noting the detail of the application and the views expressed by the Town Council, it was considered that the application would be a convenience store for motorists picking up essentials and not a place where larger shopping would take place. Therefore, approval of the application would not generate material increase in traffic at the service station.

It was therefore proposed by County Councillor R. Harris and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DC/2017/00761 be approved subject to the three 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/2017/00761 be approved subject to the three conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

The application had previously been presented to Planning Committee on 1^st August 2017 with a recommendation for refusal.  However, the Planning Committee had been minded to approve the application, as it was considered that the building was appropriately sized to provide suitable living space for a permanent dwelling.  The application was therefore re-presented to Planning Committee with a recommendation for approval with appropriate conditions.

In noting the detail of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor G. Howard and seconded by County Councillor M. Feakins that application DC/2017/00122 be approved subject to the nine conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

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

For approval              -           12

Against approval      -           2

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2017/00122 be approved subject to the nine conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence, which was recommended for approval subject to the 23 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

The local Member for the Drybridge Ward, also a Planning Committee Member, expressed his support for the application and outlined the following points:

·         Approval of the application will provide 25 affordable homes which are much needed.

·         £110,000 from this site will go towards off site play provision.

·         There are some issues that need to be addressed, namely:

-       The footpath from the roundabout up to the development site entrance needs to be increased in width to allow for motorised disabled vehicles.

-       A pedestrian crossing is needed on the road near to the skatepark.

-       An archaeological watching brief would be important on the site.

A member of the Planning Committee considered that the application should be refused for the following reasons:

·         Concern was expressed regarding the soundness of condition 2 - the submission of reserved matters within 12 months.

·         There is no developer attached to the project. Therefore, negotiations and a fully drawn up scheme within 12 months will be difficult to achieve.

·         Paragraph 5.1.4 of the report refers to the appeal which has been dismissed on the basis of prematurity.  This could be argued as being valid as there will be a review of the Local Development Plan (LDP) in the autumn of 2017.

·         The development does not satisfy national and local policies in respect of identifying housing development land, as indicated in the inspector’s report.

The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the Committee that in terms of the timescales regarding conditions, the regulations state that the Authority may give less than the usual five years and in respect of an outline consent, the Authority may give less than the standard time periods.  The applicant has agreed to this approach.

He acknowledged that the LDP should be a starting point but national planning policy is clear in that when the Authority does not have the five year land supply, then other sites have to be identified for the much needed housing.  Appeal decisions acknowledge this approach.

In terms of the appeals decision, this matter has to be weighed up in the balance with land supply and the other policies within the plan.  The scenario is different in terms of prematurity. As an Authority, we are at the end of the LDP cycle with a new LDP likely to be three years away.  Therefore, developments cannot be held in abeyance for this period of time.

The local Member stated that the site is outside of the LDP but the Authority is obtaining 35% affordable housing (25 units) from this proposed development which will be considerable for the town.

Members expressed concern that the application fell outside of the LDP.  However, it was considered that the proposed development was much needed and therefore expressed support for the application.

It was proposed by County Councillor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

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

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

·         Approval of the application is important to Undy Athletic Football Club in order to allow the club to continue to play in Division 1 of the Welsh Football League.  If the 250 seated stand and hard standing paths were not installed, then the club would be demoted from Division 1.

·         Parking issues are not likely to increase as the Club is playing in its second season within Division 1.  Therefore, additional traffic is unlikely.

·         The Club hosts local events and is used to the larger numbers of public attending the venue. Consultation occurs around these events to ensure there are no adverse issues relating to parking.

·         The Club has 16 junior football teams consisting of 200 junior members and 4 senior teams consisting of 90 members. Approval of the application is important to many people involved with the football club.

Having considered the application and the views expressed by the local Member, the Committee considered that approval of the application would be beneficial for the community as a whole.

It was therefore proposed by County Councillor A. Davies and seconded by County Councillor M. Feakins that application DC/2017/00705 be approved subject to the three 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/2017/00705 be approved subject to the three 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 Caerwent, also a Planning Committee Member, expressed his support for the application.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed by the local Member, the Planning Committee outlined its support for the application.  However, a request was made for an informative to be added to address issues raised at the site inspection regarding a fibreglass sewage tank, understood to be located under part of the site.

It was therefore proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor P. Clarke that application DC/2017/00728 be approved subject to the six conditions, as outlined in the report and that an informative be added to address issues raised at the site inspection regarding a fibreglass sewage tank, understood to be located under part of the site.

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/2017/00728 be approved subject to the six conditions, as outlined in the report and that an informative be added to address issues raised at the site inspection regarding a fibreglass sewage tank, understood to be located under part of the site.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence, which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report with the omission of the following conditions.   These conditions were not necessary as they relate to other legislation.

·         The food preparation extraction equipment shall be regularly maintained in order to ensure its continued satisfactory operation and the cooking process shall cease to operate if at any time the extraction equipment ceases to function to the satisfaction of the Local Planning authority [N.B. this would replicate Environmental Health Organisation (EHO) legislation and is not reasonable or necessary].

·         No surface water from any increase in the roof area of the building / or impermeable surfaces within its curtilage shall be allowed to drain directly or indirectly to the public sewerage system [this would be unreasonable and unnecessary as there are no extensions or impermeable surfaces proposed as part of the scheme].

Having considered the report of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor R. Harris and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DC/2017/00786 be approved subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report with the omission of the conditions as identified in red in the report.

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

For approval              -           13

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2017/00786 be approved subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report with the omission of the conditions as identified in red in the report.

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

In noting the detail of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor M. Feakins and seconded by County Councillor A. Webb that application DC/2017/00808 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/2017/00808 be approved subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

The local Member for Llanfoist Fawr, also a Planning Committee Member, stated that the development of the site is welcomed. However, concern was expressed regarding the cladding. The overall height of the building is going to be levelled and the site is in need of refurbishment.  However, without the details of the forthcoming advertisement application the use of grey cladding over the whole of the elevation is more suited to an industrial location.  It was considered that the appearance could be improved by having some variation on the elevations and the type of cladding being used with a view to undertaking a more sympathetic renovation.

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

·         The Committee acknowledged the local Member’s views in that a sympathetic renovation was required.

·         The proposed design was similar to most car show room frontages. The logo would be subject to a separate application for express consent to display advertisements. Signage should be agreed before the commencement of any work undertaken.

It was therefore proposed by County Councillor G. Howard and seconded by County Councillor M. Feakins that application DC/2017/00876 be deferred to negotiate a more appropriate treatment of the façade with the local Member attending the meeting with the applicant’s agent.

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

For deferral               -           14

Against deferral        -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2017/00876 be deferred to negotiate a more appropriate treatment of the façade with the local Member attending the meeting with the applicant’s agent.

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

In noting the detail of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor M. Feakins and seconded by County Councillor P. Murphy that application DC/2017/00898 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              -           12

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2017/00898 be approved subject to the two conditions, as outlined in the report.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit that had been made on 1^st August 2017. Site: The Stables, Land off Treherbert Road, Croesyceiliog, Cwmbran.

We noted that the appeal had been dismissed.