Agenda and minutes

Planning Application DC/2015/01174 - County Councillor P.R. Clarke declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct as he is a Monmouthshire Housing Association Board Member.  He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

Planning Application DC/2015/01174 - County Councillor D. Evans declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct as he is a tenant of Monmouthshire Housing Association and Committee Member.  He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

Planning Application DC/2015/01174 - County Councillor A. Webb declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct as she is a Monmouthshire Housing Association Board Member.  She left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

Planning Application DC/2015/01174 - County Councillor A.M. Wintle declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct as he is a Monmouthshire Housing Association Board Member.  He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

Planning Application DC/2015/01019 – County Councillor P. Murphy declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct due to his knowledge of the applicant. He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 5^th January 2016 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

We considered the report regarding the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Affordable Housing to support the policies of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan (LDP).

In doing so, concern was expressed that Members had not had sufficient time to consider the document, due to its size, before it is presented to Cabinet on 3^rd February 2016.

Having discussed the matter it was proposed that the Head of Planning should arrange for a seminar to be held, as soon as possible, regarding this matter for Planning Committee Members, with an invitation being extended for all Members to attend. A report regarding this matter could then be presented to Planning Committee at its March 2016 meeting.

We resolved:

(i)            to defer consideration of the Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Affordable Housing;

(ii)           that the Head of Planning would arrange for a seminar to be held, as soon as possible, regarding this matter for Planning Committee Members, with an invitation being extended for all Members to attend;

(iii)          following the seminar, the report regarding the draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Affordable Housing would be presented to the March 2016 Planning Committee.

We considered the report regarding the results of the recent consultation on a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS).

In doing so, the following points were noted:

·         There was a financial incentive for the Authority to adopt the Community Infrastructure Levy.

·         In response to concerns raised regarding surface drainage issues at the Wonastow Road and Drewen Sites, it was noted that the Wonastow Road site has been approved with Section 106 funding.  Therefore, the surface drainage issues would be addressed.  Although it is expected that the Drewen Farm site would receive planning permission after CIL is adopted, the surface water drainage is a site-specific requirement that needs to be addressed to bring the site forward.  This matter would therefore still be addressed via Section 106 rather than through CIL.

Having considered the report, we resolved to note its content and endorse the Draft Charging Schedule, with a view to issuing for consultation purposes and to recommend to Cabinet and Council accordingly.

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the 13 conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a further condition as outlined in late correspondence.

Concern was expressed regarding the close proximity of the proposed development to the ancient monument.  It was noted that a condition in late correspondence would control the rear boundary treatment and an informative would be added referring to Cadw’s advice to ensure the integrity of the Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) to the immediate north east of the application site was protected.

It was also considered that the roofs of the proposed three dwellings should be in keeping with the surrounding properties.

It was proposed by County Councillor F. Taylor and seconded by County Councillor D. Evans that application DC/2013/00601 be approved subject to the 13 conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a further condition as outlined in late correspondence.

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 DC/2013/00601 be approved subject to the 13 conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a further condition as outlined in late correspondence.

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

Councillor G. Rogers, Chair of Llangybi Community Council, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, outlined the following points:

·         Four times in the past the proposal to erect a dwelling on this site has been refused.

·         The undeveloped and open nature of the site provides an attractive and significant contribution to the character and appearance of the centre of the village.  Previous decisions were consistent with this regard.

·         The design of the proposed building is not the issue.  Planning Policies state that there should be regard for the character and appearance of the surrounding area contributing and enhancing the distinctive local landscape and historical and cultural heritage including natural and man-made elements.

·         There were sites within the village that would be better suited for development.

·         The small open space at the centre of the village was important to the village and not suitable for development.

·         In light of this information the Community Council supports the recommendation of the report to refuse the application.

The applicant’s agent, Mr. M. Roberts, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, outlined the following points:

·         The report states that officers were satisfied that there was safe vehicular access, and parking arrangements could be added to this scheme.

·         There was no issue and no dispute that adequate separation distances and amenity standards would be safeguarded to adjacent residential properties.

·         Officers were also satisfied that the design, scale and detailing of the proposed cottage was in keeping with its surroundings.

·         The only dispute was the location of the cottage, which was substantially different to the previous schemes which were subject to two previous applications, not four.

·         The current scheme would be re-positioned to the edge of the site and not in the centre, retaining a much larger area of undeveloped land. Therefore achieving the retention of the focal point of the village.

·         The site was privately owned with no public access.

·         Development of the site would allow conditions to be imposed in terms of landscaping and the applicant was prepared to accept conditions established via the Planning Committee.

·         The applicant would also be content to look at the levels of the property and the local area to make it more accessible to the public and the local community.

·         The proposed cottage would be set further back from the road and the driveway to the cottage could be constructed of a grasscrete material.

·         This application was substantially different to the previous scheme and the applicant considered that this scheme overcomes the previous application’s reason for refusal as it was compliant with Planning Policies and was therefore suitable for approval.

The local Member for Llangybi Fawr, also a Planning Committee Member, considered that the centre of the village was not a suitable location for the proposed scheme and agreed with the officer recommendation that the application be refused, as outlined in the report.

The majority of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6b

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

Planning Committee Members expressed their support for the application and it was proposed by County Councillor R.G. Harris and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DC/2015/01174 be approved subject to the nine conditions as outlined in the report.

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 DC/2015/01174 be approved subject to the nine conditions as outlined in the report.

County Councillors D. Evans, D.L. Edwards and A.M. Wintle left the meeting and did not return.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit on 12th November 2015, site Steel Barn, Cwmdowlais Farm, Llanbadoc, Usk, Monmouthshire NP15 1TP.

The appeal had been dismissed.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit on 20th October 2015, site Cwm Newydd, Rockfield, Monmouth, Monmouthshire, NP25 5QE.

The appeal had been dismissed.

We received details of new appeals received from 18^th December 2015 to 21^st January 2016.

We resolved to receive the report and noted its content.