Agenda and minutes

None received.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 5th July 2022 were confirmed and signed by the Chair.

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

The local Member for Shirenewton, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chair, outlined the following information:

·         The landscape contrast between the two buildings, with its impact on the setting next to Mounton Church, is illustrated by comparing the planned drawing of the existing and the proposed northwest elevation in context.

·         The use of stone at the bottom of the property reflects both the property to the right coming from the roundabout to the church and the church itself.

·         The use of black slate is in sharp contrast to its local setting and may appear to have an institutional like appearance out of keeping with its local context.

·         The black timber colour will not fade to silver birch.

·         Whilst the site inspection was held during a warm summer day, the area gets very dark and dull for much of the winter months.

·         The current cottage has been described as unobtrusive, which is side on to the road but the proposed building will be more prominent as it faces the road.

·         According to Mathern Community Council’s comments, although recognising the flooding issues posed at this site and the architectural merits of the proposed dwelling, it was felt that it was the wrong building for this location.

·         The current cottage sits subserviently in its conservation area of Mounton Church at present but the proposed building does not. The proposal does not blend in, compliment or reflect the local vernacular, and its proportions and lines are at odds with the other dwellings in the hamlet of Mounton.

·         The materials proposed are at odds to those elsewhere within the conservation area in the hamlet.

·         For the reasons mentioned, Mathern Community Council would recommend refusal of the application.

·         In terms of Planning Policies DES1, section C refers to the sense of place and section G refers to the need to use the vernacular tradition where appropriate.

·         In terms of the area of natural beauty, Policy LC4 refers to the degree to which the design quality and use of appropriate materials harmonise with the surrounding landscape and built heritage. Policy LC5 mentions the importance of traditional features and patterns. TAN 12 refers to good quality design as applied to the local context.  It also mentions local distinctiveness.

·         On the site visit along St. Lawrence Road, prior to Mounton, there is a loss of character to the area due to the variety of house designs. Conservation is about preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

·         The existing building has been described in the heritage statement as unobtrusive but this building is in stark contrast to that and there are no other properties with a similar appearance or using black exterior timber cladding. It will be a prominent change in the area and may lose its character. The importance of the church in this small hamlet may be compromised.

·         There is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval.

In noting the detail of the application, the following information was identified:

·         There is enough room available for two vehicles to park outside the property.

·         An area had been identified as being turned into a decorative area which could be turned back into a parking space.

·         There is enough space within the compound for visitor parking.

·         There is unrestrictive roadside parking outside compound.

·         The applicant is now the sole owner of the land which is now private property.

·         It was considered that there were no reasons to refuse the application on Planning grounds.

It was proposed by County Councillor B. Callard and seconded by County Councillor J. McKenna that application DM/2022/00699 be approved as per the officer recommendation within 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 DM/2022/00699 be approved as per the officer recommendation within the report.

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.

The application was re-presented to Planning Committee on a point of clarification. At the Planning Committee meeting held on 8th June 2022, Members debated the proposal and resolved to approve the application subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and that Condition 9 be amended as follows:

·         The upper and lower scale parameters for the height of the dwelling be 8m upper and 4m lower.

At the meeting it had been noted that there was some lack of clarity in the debate about the distinction between the access and the driveway / parking area and what was being considered at the outline stage. Therefore, in order to clarify this matter, the application was re-presented to Planning Committee.

It was noted that the point of access to the plot from the lane was fixed within the outline application which has not reserved the means of access to the site. Beyond the access itself, the layout of the driveway / parking area will be considered as part of the reserved matters.

In noting the detail of the application it was proposed by County Councillor S. McConnel and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DM/2021/00037 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.

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 DM/2021/00037 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.  

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

The application was presented to Planning Committee on 5^th July 2022 with a recommendation for approval. However, Planning Committee had resolved to defer consideration of the application for further negotiations to be held with the applicant.

Following the Planning Committee meeting on 5^th July 2022, Officers gave three options to the applicant:

·         Revert back to the original (approved) scheme.

·         Reduce by 500mm for further consideration.

·         Keep the proposal as it is.

Following discussions with Officers, the applicant requested that the Planning Committee determine the application as originally presented to Committee on 5^th July 2022.

On this basis, the following reason for refusal was suggested for consideration in the event that the Planning Committee considers the current proposal to be unacceptable:

·         By virtue of its unacceptable scale and mass, the proposal fails to respect the existing form, scale, massing and layout of its setting and is therefore contrary to criterion c) of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan Policy DES1.

In noting the detail of the application the Planning Committee expressed disappointment that the applicant had not considered the concerns raised at the previous meeting.

It was therefore proposed by County Councillor B. Callard and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DM/2021/01735 be refused for the following reason:

·         By virtue of its unacceptable scale and mass, the proposal fails to respect the existing form, scale, massing and layout of its setting and is therefore contrary to criterion c) of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan Policy DES1.

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

For refusal                -           11

Against refusal         -           1

Abstentions               -           2

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2021/01735 be refused for the following reason:

·         By virtue of its unacceptable scale and mass, the proposal fails to respect the existing form, scale, massing and layout of its setting and is therefore contrary to criterion c) of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan Policy DES1.

We noted the new appeals received by the Planning Department for the period 28^th May to 20^th July 2022.