Agenda and minutes

None received.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 6^th September 2022 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 conditions outlined in the report.

The local Member for Mitchel Troy and Trellech United, also a Planning Committee Member, outlined the following points:

·         The modern building will be an upgrade to the current building being used.

·         The proposed building will benefit families within Trellech and within the wider catchment providing better access to nursery provision and affordable childcare.

·         There were no objections to the application by local residents.

·         The proposed building can easily be accommodated on the site without having a detrimental impact on play provision at the Primary school. Also, there will be no detrimental impact to village and residents.

·         Having the nursery and primary school will be beneficial during the transition from nursery into Foundation phase and Key Stage 1.

·         It will be easier for parents to access one site if they have children attending nursery and primary school at the same time.

·         Parking matters raised have been mitigated by creating additional parking provision and having staggered start and finish times.

·         The site will be much safer with children and staff being located on a secure gated and fenced site.

·         The two local Members support approval of the application.

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

·         A designated area for bicycle parking would not require planning consent.

·         Further solar panels could be provided on the roof of the proposed building under permitted development rights.

·         The nursery has a capacity of 24 pupils and there are no plans to increase this figure.

·         In terms of the potential for air / ground source heat pumps, currently, there are no policy levers for these devices to be insisted upon as part of a development.  However, as an Authority, we can encourage and promote these features.

·         With regard to the opening hours, condition 3 could be amended or removed which would allow for wider use of the proposed building such as evening use for the community.

It was proposed by County Councillor A. Webb and seconded by County Councillor B. Callard that application DM/2021/01950 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report but with the removal of condition 3.

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

In favour of the proposition            -           15

Against the proposition                   -           0

Abstentions                                       -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2021/01950 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report but with the removal of condition 3.

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

The local Member for Llanfoist and Govilon, also a Planning Committee Member, outlined the following points:

·         There has been local opposition to the proposed development. Llanfoist Fawr Community Council is also opposed to this scheme.

·         The proposed extension will be very close to the neighbouring property, just under two metres from the boundary wall.

·         The residents of the neighbouring property will be looking out onto a large wall creating a visual impact.

·         The addition of a two-storey extension along a bat corridor may have a negative effect on the local bat population.

·         The development is considered to be too large.

·         The local Member supports refusal of the application.

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

·         The structural integrity of the wall and any works undertaken in its proximity would need to be subject to the provisions of the Party Wall Act and fall outside of Planning Committee’s remit.  If the application was approved, an informative could be added to refer to the Party Wall Act.

·         The proposed extension would be 7.6metres to the ridge and 4.1 metres to the eaves.

·         Condition 6 relates to hard and soft landscaping works being undertaken on the site. In addition, condition 7 requires a landscape maintenance programme for a minimum of five years.

·         The dark corridor has been considered by both Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and Monmouthshire County Council’s Ecologist. The amendments to the application and planting are considered to be acceptable with the impact also being acceptable.

·         Planning Officers considered that there are mitigating factors why the gable end is not an overbearing development and would not cause unacceptable harm to third party privacy.

The local Member summed up as follows:

·         Had the original planning conditions been met for the development the trees that would have been planted would have to be removed for the extension to be built.  In response, the Development Management Area Manager stated that whilst the application differs to the original approval, the application presented today has not affected the officer recommendation which is for approval.

It was proposed by County Councillor M. Powell and seconded by County Councillor J. McKenna that application DM/2022/00395 be approved subject tothe conditions outlined in the report and that an informative be added referencing the Party Wall Act.

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

For approval             -           12

Against approval      -           3

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2022/00395 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and that an informative be added referencing the Party Wall Act.

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for refusal for the three reasons outlined in the report.

The application had been presented to Planning Committee on the 6th September 2022 with a recommendation for approval. However, the Committee had been minded to refuse the application and had resolved that the application be re-presented to Planning Committee with appropriate reasons for refusal.

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

For refusal                -           12

Against refusal         -           1

Abstentions               -           1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2022/00696 be refused for the three reasons outlined in the report.