Agenda and minutes

County Councillor P.R. Clarke declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of Planning Application DC/2015/01291, as he is a Board Member of Monmouthshire Housing Association.  He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

County Councillor D. Evans declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of Planning Application DC/2015/01291, as he is a Board Member and tenant of Monmouthshire Housing Association.  He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

County Councillor V.E. Smith declared a personal interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of Planning Application DC/2015/01291, as she is a Board Member and tenant of Monmouthshire Housing Association.

County Councillor A.M. Wintle declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of Planning Application DC/2015/01291, as he is a Board Member of Monmouthshire Housing Association.  He left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 12^th April 2016 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the five conditions, as outlined in the report.

Councillor G. Thomas, representing Llanover Community Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chairman and outlined the following points:

·         Representing a community of more elderly residents.

·         Original access to the building was along Tyrpengwm House.  This has now been extinguished by the applicant.

·         A more commodious access would be onto the R53 which has a lesser direct access onto the B4598 which is a busy road.

·         This is creating an additional road hazard on this busy road.

·         There is road frontage from other fields onto the R53.

·         Llanover Community Council would like the Planning Committee to reconsider the application to see if a more commodious access could be provided on safety grounds.

The applicant was given the opportunity to exercise his right of reply.  However, he declined the offer to address the Planning Committee.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed Members noted that the improvements that had been made to the application had removed the traffic issues accessing onto the B4598.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor R.J. Higginson that application DC/2015/01380 be approved subject to the five conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

For approval              -           11

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2015/01380 be approved subject to the five conditions, as outlined in the report.

We considered the report of the application which was presented for refusal for the one reason, as outlined in the report. The Head of Planning informed the Committee of the changes to the application, as identified in late and further late correspondence.

The local Member for Wyesham, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, outlined the following points in favour of the application:

·         Much consultation has taken place.

·         The general consensus is that approval of the application would result in increased employment to the Monmouth town, and would provide much needed accommodation for tourist visiting the town.

·         The site would be visually improved if the application was approved.

Mr. D. Cummings, representing Monmouth Chamber of Commerce, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, outlined the following points in support of the application:

·         Many letters of support have been received in favour of the application.

·         Approval of the application would provide a financial benefit to Monmouth in the sum of £3.1M per year, every year.

·         The proposed development would be more in keeping with the surrounding area adding to the improvements that have already been made over the previous 15 years.

·         There will be a minimal effect on the local traffic flows.

·         The developers have met the demands of the flooding issues in the area.

·         There is ample notice of potential flooding in this area, i.e., a minimum of seven hours notice is received.

·         There will be no risk to people or property should the application be approved.

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

·         The flooding issues needed to be balanced with the benefits of the scheme.

·         The tests set out in TAN 15 include the implications of flooding.  There are three tests that the application has to pass and this is achieved in respect of the first two. However, the third test indicates that the consequences of flooding have to be acceptable.

·         The amended plans show that the development will be erected above flooding levels which includes car parking.

·         There is a need for Natural Resources Wales (NRW) to check with the applicant the modelling that has been provided.  Until this is undertaken an objection to the scheme remains via planning officers. If this is the only objection the decision could be delegated to the Delegation Panel for the scheme to be approved subject to the modelling being completed by NRW.

·         It was noted that there is no dry escape route which would be dangerous to emergency services.

·         The applicants have said that if there were a significant flood their management plan would result in the site being vacated in time.

·         If the application were approved, the Minister would have to be notified who might then call in the application.

·         In response to a Member’s question regarding the visual impact of the proposed scheme, it was noted that this matter would be dealt with at the reserved matters application stage.

·         The benefits of having a hotel at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the 13 conditions, as outlined in the report.

The local Member for Glascoed, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, considered that the application did have some issues that required resolving.  However, these could be accommodated.  Appropriate screening should be considered.

In response to a question raised by a Member it was considered that a condition should be added to ensure the gate is set back into the site to avoid obstructing the lane; details to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority and carried out as approved.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor R. Hayward that application DC/2015/00499 be approved subject to the 13 conditions, as outlined in the report and that a condition should be added to ensure the gate is set back into the site to avoid obstructing the lane; details to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority and carried out as approved.

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

For approval              -           11

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2015/00499 be approved subject to the 13 conditions, as outlined in the report and that a condition should be added to ensure the gate is set back into the site to avoid obstructing the lane; details to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority and carried out as approved.

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report.  The Planning Applications and Enforcement Manager outlined the report, as well as the late and further late correspondence to Members.

Having received the report, it was considered that an additional condition should be added to ensure the visibility is improved at the site access by maintaining the hedge at a height of 1 metre along the western edge of the site, adjoining the pedestrian path.

It was proposed by County Councillor M. Powell and seconded by County Councillor P. Murphy that application DC/2015/01291 be approved subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report and that an additional condition be added to ensure the visibility is improved at the site access by maintaining the hedge at a height of 1 metre along the western edge of the site, adjoining the pedestrian path.

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

For approval              -           8

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2015/01291 be approved subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report and that an additional condition be added to ensure the visibility is improved at the site access by maintaining the hedge at a height of 1 metre along the western edge of the site, adjoining the pedestrian path.

We considered the report of the application which was presented for refusal for the two reasons, as outlined in the report and late correspondence.

The Development Services Manager reminded the Planning Committee that the application had been presented to Committee on 12^th April 2016 with a recommendation for approval.  However, the Planning Committee had been minded to refuse the application on the following grounds:

·         The proposed school would result in a significant and unacceptable amount of additional traffic in the area which cannot be acceptably accommodated on Common Road (which has limited capacity as it is a rural lane) and would cause vehicular conflict and harm to highway safety.  The proposed development would have a detrimental impact on highway safety in the area and would be contrary to Policy MV1 of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan (MLDP)

·         The proposed school would have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area as a result of increased noise and activity with additional traffic movements that would have a harmful impact on the character of this rural area, contrary to Policy EP1 of the Local Development Plan.

It was agreed that the application be re-presented to Planning Committee with appropriate reasons for refusal.

Having received the report and the late correspondence, it was proposed by County Councillor P.R. Clarke and seconded by County Councillor A.M. Wintle that application DC/2015/01322 be refused for the two reasons, as outlined in the report and late correspondence.

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

For refusal                 -           11

Against refusal         -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2015/01322 be refused for the two reasons, as outlined in the report and late correspondence.

We considered the application which was recommended for approval subject to the 17 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Agreement, also outlined in the report.

The local Member for Castle Ward, also a Planning Committee Member, indicated that some of the trees by Holywell close looked to be dying off and it was hoped that some of the better trees might be retained.

Having received the report and the views expressed, it was proposed by County Councillor M. Powell and seconded by County Councillor D. Evans that application DC/2015/01587 be approved subject to the 17 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Agreement, also outlined in the report.

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

For approval              -           11

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2015/01587 be approved subject to the 17 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Agreement, also outlined in the report.

We considered the application which was recommended for approval subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to the issues raised in late correspondence.

The local Member for Castle Ward, also a Planning Committee Member expressed her support for the application.

Having received the report and the views expressed, it was proposed by County Councillor M. Powell and seconded by County Councillor R.J. Higginson that application DC/2016/00219 should be approved subject to the issues outlined in late correspondence, namely:

·         Condition 2 relating to controlling hours of opening of the proposed nursery be should be omitted.

·         That the word ‘day’ should be omitted from condition 3 to avoid confusion, as the premises could be open beyond the hours of daylight.

·         That a condition be added to ensure details of the proposed outdoor play facility, including its surfacing and means of enclosure, be approved  by the Local Planning Authority before the use of the unit and outdoor play area commences.

·         That a car park management plan should be implemented.

Upon being put to the vote, the following points were noted:

For approval              -           11

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2016/00219 be approved subject to the issues outlined in late correspondence, namely:

• Condition 2 relating to controlling hours of opening of the proposed nursery to be omitted.

• That the word ‘day’ to be omitted from condition 3 to avoid confusion, as the premises could be open beyond the hours of daylight.

• That a condition be added to ensure details of the proposed outdoor play facility, including its surfacing and means of enclosure, to be approved by the Local Planning Authority before the use of the unit and outdoor play area commences.

• That a car park management plan would be implemented.

We received the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance Draft Programme.

We resolved to endorse the draft programme for the preparation of supplementary planning guidance and to recommend to the Cabinet Member with responsibility for planning matters, accordingly.

We received a report regarding the revised Planning Scheme of Delegation to reflect changes to legislation and change to job titles and improve clarity.

We resolved:

(i)            to endorse the revised Planning Scheme of Delegation for adoption by Full Council;

(ii)          that the Head of Planning be authorised to update the revised Planning Scheme of Delegation in the future in relation to factual corrections to the job titles.

We received a review of the current formal Planning Pre-Application Advice Service and details of the proposal to increase the fees that the Council charges customers.

We resolved to note the review of the Planning Pre-Application Advice Service and endorse the proposed increase in charges for this service, for the Cabinet Member to adopt.

Planning Inspectorate Appeal Decision for 10 Abergavenny Road, Usk, Monmouthshire. NP15 1SB

Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

The Head of Planning provided the Planning Committee with an update in respect of the following:

·         The draft Planning Committee Protocol will shortly be distributed to Members of the Planning Committee for comment, with a view to comments being forwarded to the Welsh Government by 25^th May 2016.