Venue: The Council Chamber, County Hall, The Rhadyr, Usk, NP15 1GA
Contact: Democratic Services
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: None received. |
|
|
Confirmation of Minutes Minutes: The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting dated 2nd June 2026 were confirmed as an accurate record. |
|
|
Minutes:
We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
https://www.youtube.com/live/t5fNC83biVs?si=gyuUr0dbSQheaahn&t=386
In noting the detail of the application and the views expressed, it was proposed by County Councillor Dale Rooke and seconded by County Councillor Su McConnel that application DM/2026/00024 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:
For approval - 6 Against approval - 10 Abstentions - 0
The proposition was not carried.
It was therefore proposed by County Councillor Meirion Howells and seconded by County Councillor Phil Murphy that consideration of application DM/2026/00024 be deferred to the next available Planning Committee meeting with reasons for refusal.
Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:
For deferral - 11 Against deferral - 2 Abstentions - 2
The proposition was carried.
We resolved that consideration of application DM/2026/00024 be deferred to the next available Planning Committee meeting with reasons for refusal.
|
|
|
Minutes: We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was presented for refusal for the reason outlined in the report.
https://www.youtube.com/live/t5fNC83biVs?si=VaKaAUFrlhWEDwz3&t=5543
In noting the detail of the application and the views expressed, it was proposed by County Councillor Emma Bryn and seconded by County Councillor John Crook that application DM/2026/00169 be refused for the reason outlined in the report.
Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:
For refusal - 12 Against refusal - 3 Abstentions - 0
The proposition was carried.
We resolved that application DM/2026/00169 be refused for the reason outlined in the report.
|
|
|
Minutes: We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval to modify or discharge a Section 106 planning obligation ref. DC/2009/00910.
https://www.youtube.com/live/t5fNC83biVs?si=XbYNPEqATW0n7RUq&t=7147
In noting the detail of the application and the views expressed, it was proposed by County Councillor Dale Rooke and seconded by County Councillor Su McConnel that application DM/2022/01398 be approved to modify or discharge a Section 106 planning obligation ref. DC/2009/00910.
Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:
For approval - 12 Against approval - 1 Abstentions - 0
The proposition was carried.
We resolved that application DM/2022/01398 be approved to modify or discharge a Section 106 planning obligation ref. DC/2009/00910.
|
|
|
Minutes: 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 Agreement.
https://www.youtube.com/live/t5fNC83biVs?si=i7ykzhdLgTD0EZFw&t=7714
In noting the detail of the application and the views expressed, it was proposed by County Councillor Dale Rooke and seconded by County Councillor Su McConnel that application DM/2024/01188 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 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/2024/01188 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Agreement.
|
|
|
Minutes: We considered the report of the application which was presented for refusal with one reason outlined in the report.
This application had been presented to Planning Committee on 2nd June 2026 with an officer recommendation for approval. However, the Planning Committee had resolved to defer the application to be refused and that it be re-presented to Planning Committee with a reason for refusal.
https://www.youtube.com/live/t5fNC83biVs?si=o2Mdk4XrCa6RmpKV&t=8163
In noting the detail of the application and the views expressed, it was proposed by County Councillor Su McConnel and seconded by County Councillor Emma Bryn that application DM/2025/01039 be refused for the one reason outlined in the report.
Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:
For refusal - 14 Against refusal - 0 Abstentions - 0
The proposition was carried.
We resolved that application DM/2025/01039 be refused for the one reason outlined in the report.
|