None.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 3^rd December 2019 were confirmed and signed by the Vice-Chair.

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.

Mrs. H. Trotman, objecting to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Vice-Chair and outlined the following points:

·         In August 2017 the applicant had built a breeze block wall along the full length of the mutual boundary. 

·         A new six feet six inches fence had been placed on top of the wall which raised the boundary level to 2.7 metres in height which breached permitted development permission. This has been in place for two and a half years, severely impacting on her residential amenity.

·         No prior consultation had been sought and it was considered by the objector that trespass would have been required to undertake the build, breaching the party wall act.

·         The objector considered that the applicant has breached the David Wilson restrictive covenants by not gaining written approval from the local authority prior to development.

·         As time progressed the ground works were causing harm to the objector’s land.  It was considered that the applicant had altered the natural flow of the land leaving the objector’s garden water logged.

·         The wall has caused a damming affect and subsequent severe pooling of water with nowhere for the water to drain away to.

·         The applicant has raised the level of earth on his side of the boundary that is higher than the wall resulting in an overspill of sod and earth into the objector’s garden.

·         A meeting was held on 10^th October 2019 involving all parties and it had been agreed that harm was being caused to the objector’s property.  The objector had been asked to draw up a plan indicating a system of drainage to attempt to resolve the problem at her cost.

·         At a previous meeting, it had been suggested that a French drainage system could be installed which would alleviate the drainage issues.  A plan had been drawn up on this advice. The plan provided a system of drainage for properties numbered 19 and 21 running the full length of both boundaries.  This would be linked into the objector’s storm drain on her property.  This had been agreed by all present at the meeting.

·         Access was granted to the objector’s property to undertake this work. During the work, the objector considered that the applicant had failed to install the drainage pipe on the side of the objector’s garden.  The objector had not been advised of this change of plan.  Therefore, the water continues to pool as it has nowhere to drain.

·         Flooding also occurs on the objector’s patio.  The works undertaken have failed to address the harm being caused to the objector’s property.

·         Without a perforated pipe being installed on the objector’s side of the boundary there will be no improvement, as the levels constructed by the applicant are alien to the original development.

·         The density of the applicant’s chippings has further exacerbated the flooding problems. Damage to the objector’s  ...  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 seven conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

The local Member for Dixton with Osbaston attended the meeting by invitation of the Vice-Chair and outlined the following points.  He addressed the Planning Committee as the local Member and as a member of Monmouth Town Council Planning Committee.

·         Monmouth Town Council Planning Committee had discussed the application and noted that the week before the meeting took place to discuss the application, Monmouthshire County Council Planning Department had made a recommendation to approve the proposed development.  Concern was expressed that Monmouthshire Planning Department appeared to not consider the views of the Town Council and therefore not incorporate the Town Council’s views into the report of the application.

·         Monmouth Town Council considers that its role is to represent local residents.  Questions have been asked as to whether there is any point in having a Monmouth Town Council Planning Committee if its views are not provided for Members of the Monmouthshire County Council’s Planning Committee to consider.

·         Monmouth Town Council Planning Committee considers that the process in respect of this application has been rushed.  Ordinarily, the Town Council has 21 days in which to respond to a planning application.  However, in this case only 14 days were provided.

·         The Committee was unable to approve the application today.  It could only recommend approval due to the consultation end date being 7th February 2020. Unfortunately, as the planning portal has been off line for a period of time the local Member is unable to verify this. Clarity is required before the application is considered.

·         A deferment of the application had been requested to allow the local Member to gather information from residents.  However, this had not been granted.

·         Monmouth Town Council considers that the process has undermined local democracy.  Monmouth Town Council Planning Committee is considering disbanding.

·         A Welsh Government Inspector had turned down an appeal against a similar style of development on a larger plot about 50 metres away about 15 years ago. The reasons for overturning this previous application would apply equally to the current application being considered today.

·         Beaufort Road has had little development in the intervening years, retaining its original character.

·         The piecemeal development taking place leads to, over time, a radical and harmful change to the character of Dixton with Osbaston.

·         To reach Beaufort Road there are three routes. All of these routes are of a sizable length of single track road, all impassable for two cars to pass. Therefore, vehicles are required to reverse or use residents’ drives to allow vehicles to pass. Piecemeal developments have exacerbated this problem. 

·         The proposed development is too far to walk to senior schools.  There are no shops or surgeries in the area which results in an unnecessarily high dependence on the use of cars.

·         Pavements are few in number which hinders walking along this route.

·         The proposed  ...  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 14 conditions as 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 Committee welcomed the application.

·         In response to a question raised regarding electric charging points, the Head of Planning stated that significant considerations are being given to how the Authority deals with climate change mitigation in the replacement Local Development Plan. 

·         It was agreed that an additional condition should be added to agree external finishes.

It was proposed by County Councillor M. Feakins and seconded by County Councillor A. Webb that application DM/2018/00374 be approved subject to the 14 conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement. Also, that an additional condition be added to agree external finishes.

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

In favour of the proposal                 -           14

Against the proposal                       -           0

Abstentions                                       -           1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2018/00374 be approved subject to the 14 conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement. Also, that an additional condition be added to agree external finishes.

We received the report of the application and late correspondence which was presented for refusal subject to the two reasons outlined in the report.

The local Member for Mitchel Troy attended the meeting by invitation of the Vice-Chair and outlined the following points:

·         This is a re-submitted application that has been significantly changed. It has been reduced in scale by over 50%.

·         The defective outbuildings had been omitted from the latest submission.

·         A consulting engineer’s report on the buildings to be retained within this development are deemed suitable for conversion and considered to be in serviceable condition.

·         This application has given full consideration to the rural setting both in terms of its design and finishing.

·         The application does not have the modern, urban style and characteristics of the previous application.

·         The re-submission proposes to lower the floor level of the building by adopting an underpinning exercise to accommodate a two storey element.  The underpinning is not untypical of barn conversions and will enhance the foundations of the existing stone walls.

·         It also increases the scale and the usable space in the building.

·         The Planning Department had indicated that it would support conversion of the buildings as a holiday let. However, the local Member expressed concern as the appearance, design and scale of the development would be the same for residential use.

·         The applicant’s agent has drawn attention to a number of similar developments which have been granted planning permission.  The applicant considered that the Authority could be seen to be inconsistent having approved similar applications for conversions of ancillary structures.

·         The development, which includes an original stone barn structure, together with conversion of ancillary buildings built in the 1950s, would not be deemed modern in accordance with planning records.

·         If the application is refused, it is likely that the applicant will consider submitting a formal appeal.

·         The application has received many letters of support from nearby neighbours and from Mitchel Troy Community Council which recognises the need for affordable housing provision in rural Monmouthshire.

·         The proposed development meets all supplementary planning guidelines.

·         There have been no local objections to the proposed development.

·         Development of this site for residential use would visually enhance the area and would ensure that the buildings currently falling into disrepair would be removed.

·         If the site is not developed, it will continue to be an eyesore.

·         Neighbours recognise that his would be a conversion to bring these buildings, currently in poor condition, back into use as a home.

·         The local Member asked the Planning Committee to consider approval of the application.

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

·         There is not enough stonework or architectural merit to the buildings to allow conversion to take place for a residential dwelling.

·         It would result in development in the countryside in an unsustainable location outside of the settlement boundary.

·         The application is against planning policy.

It was proposed by County Councillor M. Powell and seconded by County Councillor G. Howard  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

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

In doing so, the following points were noted:

·         The Committee thanked the officers for their hard work in preparing the two applications for consideration. Support was received for the residential properties and for the care home. Both applications will complement the area.

·         An additional condition could be added to retain parking spaces for parking purposes only.

·         A further additional condition could be added to remove permitted development rights for roof extensions.

·         The construction traffic management plan was conditioned in the outline application. This application is for reserved matters.

·         In terms of bus provision, there was a £50,000 contribution within the Section 106 Agreement for this site to be used in improving the local bus services.  How that is used is a decision to be made by the Local Council’s Transport Department where assessments will be made to determine where the improvements need to be made. Planning Officers could liaise with the Transport Department and the Estates Department to ascertain whether it is proposed to provide additional bus stops on this site.

·         The site has been designed with permeability in mind with cycling and pedestrian links being provided.  Funding is available from the Section 106 funding to develop the railway line.

It was proposed by County Councillor J. Higginson and seconded by County Councillor A. Easson that applications DM/2019/01041 and DM/2019/01629 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the reports. Also, that the following conditions be added:

·         The condition outlined in late correspondence regarding pumping station details.

·         To retain parking spaces for parking purposes only.

·         To remove permitted development rights for roof alterations.

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

For approval             -           14

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that applications DM/2019/01041 and DM/2019/01629 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the reports. Also, that the following conditions be added:

• The condition outlined in late correspondence regarding pumping station details.

• To retain parking spaces for parking purposes only.

• To remove permitted development rights for roof alterations.

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

In doing so, the following points were noted:

·       Excavation work has taken place on the site and concern was raised that the land at the rear of the site may now be unstable with the removal of trees, vegetation and stones.  This might need to be investigated before approval of the application is considered.

·       Concern was expressed that the amount of proposed development would result in overdevelopment of the site, particularly when the touring vehicles are on site.

·       The site adjoins Border Waste Crick.  This site had not been granted planning permission as there was a concern regarding land slippage towards the motorway.

·       Concern was expressed that the excavation work might adversely affect the residential safety of the applicant and his family as there might be the potential for a landslip at the site.

·       Mathern Community Council had looked at Planning Policy H8 and consider that the application does not meet the requirements of the policy.  It was considered that the site was not large enough to house the proposed development resulting in overdevelopment of the site. It was considered that not all of the site was suitable for development.

·       Under the parking policy, the two park homes, as the residential units, will require five parking places. A turning area should be required in order to allow vehicles to leave the site in a forward gear when joining the highway.

·       Caravan model conditions outline the need for a six metre gap between caravans and mobile homes due their flammable nature.

·       The local Authority has undertaken a gypsy and traveller assessment and it has been outlined that there is a need for eight sites around the County.

·       This site is privately owned and the applicant for this site falls within the assessment.  The applicant has established a need to find a home within the County.  This site would provide that need.

·       The site has been looked at in terms of Policy H8 and it was established that the development meets that criteria. 

·       It is situated in a sustainable location.

·       The visual amenity is considered to be acceptable.

·       The highway safety aspect has been investigated and it has been identified that visibility is good from the site.

·       In terms of the proposed amount of development on the site, if it is considered to be over development of the site, the applicant has indicated that he would be willing to have just the two park homes on the site for himself and his son, which would be a personal consent for him and his family to have a home within the County.

·       With regard to the excavation work at the rear of the site, the applicant had indicated to the Planning Department that he had not undertaken any work which required planning consent.  The removal of trees and landscaping does not require planning consent.  However, if the Committee had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

We noted the new appeals received between 21^st November 2019 and 27^th January 2020.