Agenda and minutes

County Councillors P. Clarke, D. Evans, A. Webb and A. Wintle declared personal and prejudicial interests in relation to application DC/2015/00688, as members of Monmouthshire Housing Association. County Councillors Clarke, Evans, Webb and Wintle left the meeti g during consideration of this item.

The Chairman confirmed and signed the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 3^rdDecember 2015, subject to the following amendment:

Present: Addition: County Councillors R. Edwards and P. Clarke.

The Head of Planning clarified concerns that were expressed, as a result of public speaking at the previous meeting. Members had expressed concerns that there had been a request to speak, but this had not been allowed.

We were informed that Public Speaking emails had been received for the previous meeting, however, one request was received after the deadline and there had been an oversight with another, despite requests being submitted to speak. Sincere apologies were submitted on behalf of officers, the system and protocol for public speaking register had been amended.

The Committee were reassured and thanked officers for clarification.

Mr D. Cummings, supporting the application, attending the meeting by invitation of the

Chairman and outlined the following points:

· Wholeheartedly supported application and justified why application was retrospective.

· Significant consultation had been held by Monmouth Chamber of Commerce and money had to

be spent by end of 2014.

· Not aware of need for planning consent until early 2015.

· 3 panels had been installed and one would be moved.

· Monmouth Chamber of Commerce considered the application as a business development

opportunity.

We recognised the importance of the application in relation to promoting tourism.

In response to a query regarding a misprint, we were advised that paragraphs 5.31 and 5.32

highlighted views of highways and planning officers respectively.

It was proposed by Councillor A. Wintle and seconded by Councillor R. Hayward that application

DC/2015/00086 be approved subject to conditions outlined in the report.

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

For approval - 14

Against Approval - 0

Abstentions - 0

We resolved that application DC/2015/00086 be approved subject to conditions outlined in the

report.

The committee received the planning officer’s report on the application and heard the officer’s

presentation.

It was proposed by County Councillor M. Powell and seconded by County Councillor R. Harris

that application DC/2015/00973 be approved subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

For approval - 14

Against Approval - 0

Abstentions - 0

We resolved that application DC/2015/00973 be approved subject to the conditions, as outlined

in the report.

The committee received the planning officer’s report on the application and heard the officer’s

presentation.

It was proposed by County Councillor R. Higginson and seconded by County Councillor D.

Evans that application DC/2015/01106 be approved subject to conditions as outlined in the

report.

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

For approval - 13

Against Approval - 1

Abstentions - 0

We resolved that application DC/2015/01106 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in

the report.

The committee received the planning officer’s report on the application and heard the officer’s

presentation.

It was proposed by County Councillor D. Blakebrough and seconded by County Councillor R.

Hayward that application DC/2015/01321 be approved subject to conditions as outlined in the

report.

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

For approval - 14

Against Approval - 0

Abstentions - 0

We resolved that application DC/2015/01321 be approved subject to the conditions as outlined

in the report.

Members commented that as an agricultural building, some form of daylight would be required

inside the building. It was agreed that officers would give the applicant an opportunity to

incorporate this into the design before issuing the decision.

County Councillors P. Clarke, D. Evans, A. Webb and A. Wintle declared personal and

prejudicial interests due to association with Monmouthshire Housing Association.

County Councillors Clarke, Evans, Webb and Wintle left the meeting during

consideration of this item.

The local member addressed the committee and advised that letter from MHA had been

received which outlined concerns. It was suggested that in order to remain socially inclusive the

development had one entrance, for market and social housing (not separate).

The committee recognised that other developments had been completed with one integrated

entrance. However, we were informed that changing entrances would cause redesign or

highways safety issues and all sites were individual.

It was proposed by County Councillor R. Hayward and duly seconded by County Councillor D.

Blakebrough, that application DC/2015/00688 be refused on the basis of 1 access to be

provided.

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

For refusal - 3

Against refusal - 7

Abstentions - 0

The proposal was defeated. It was proposed by County Councillor R. Harris and seconded by

County Councillor R. Higginson that application DC/2015/00688 be approved subject to

conditions outlined within the report.

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

For approval - 7

Against Approval - 3

Abstentions - 0

We resolved that application DC/2015/00688 be approved subject to conditions outlined within

the report.

Mr A. Robertson, objecting to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the chairman

and outlined the following points:

· Don’t believe latest amendments reflect views of people at Green Pastures

· Road down to village is already narrow and a ditch either side would be a major hazard

· Turning of the house now overlooks The Hollies and not Stone Barn, but it is an equally

intrusive problem

· Site density is unprecedented, even with changes don’t believe that design meets local

vernacular it is more of a pastiche

· Issue with drainage is untrue, raw slurry from White House Farm was discharging into

culvert in 1990, nothing done to eliminate surface water run off

· Danger that water supply is contaminated with water arrangements, MCC must have

changed mind on pollution issues.

Mr P. Thornton, agent to the applicant, attending the meeting by invitation of the chairman

outlined the following points:

· Allocated in local plan for 10 houses, with significant proportion of affordable housing.

Long process, initially began autumn 2014, met officers in January 2015. Very

significant amendments to account for local authority comments. Planning application

submitted May 2015 and continuous collaborative process with various parties

· Numerous changes to drawings, high quality proposal, which meets demand.

· Shared access road for all dwellings. Layout supported by SEREN housing group, social

inclusion and practical.

· Style fits with local area, highways drainage has been established with local authority

and will provide betterment to highways system locally. Any perceived issues can be

dealt with by glazing solution.

· Also proposed native planting around the site, which will integrate the whole site. Will

have specialist designers, overall will be high quality design which will meet local needs.

In considering the application, the committee highlighted several issues, such as; drainage,

design of site for rural area, availability of open space.

In response, the Head of Planning clarified that some amendments suggested by Members

would require a new application and affordable housing requirements would be within the policy.

The policy included 60/40 affordable housing, some members recognised the need for

affordable housing, however, some members felt that there were too many properties in the

development for the area.

The local member had raised concerns, officers advised that aspects such as parking would

need a re-design of the layout which could not be done via an amendment to the current

application. A change to the open space arrangements could be made if Members considered

this to be necessary, but this was not pursued further.

We agreed that, once completed, the site should be included on the annual tour.

It was proposed by County Councillor R. Higginson and seconded by Councillor R. Harris that

application DC/2015/00606 be approved subject to the conditions as outlined within the report.

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

For approval - 12

Against Approval - 2

Abstentions - 0

We resolved that application DC/20115/00606 be approved subject to the conditions as outlined

in the report.

4.1. DC/2013/00862 - 34 Pen y Pound

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to appeal decision following site

visit on 29/01/15, site 34 Pen y Pound, Abergavenny, Monmouthshire, NP7 7RN.

The appeal had been dismissed.