Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest made by Members.

The minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting dated 6^th December 2016 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 10 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement requesting that three of the units be affordable units and passed on to a social housing provider.

In noting the detail of the application, Members were reminded that the application had been presented to Planning Committee at its meeting on 6^th December 2016 with a recommendation for refusal. The decision regarding the application had been deferred in order to consider amendments to the proposed layout and design of development.

Amended plans have now been submitted showing alterations to the design of the residential units and with an amended layout showing a less engineered access roadway and a more rational parking arrangement. Amendments have also been made to the two flats on plots 5 and 6. The entrance has been relocated to the northern side of the building and there is now a covered stairway. There are now only two windows on the north-east elevation (facing towards Llangybi House) and these both serve a bathroom.

Councillor J. Love, representing Llangybi Community Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The Community Council regrets that no proper site inspection had been held.  Community Councillors arrived on the December date only to learn of the postponement pending the submission of requested amendments.

·         Committee Members did not go to the site to obtain a clearer picture of the locations features.

·         The Community Council’s key concerns could not be demonstrated in their actual context.

·         The County Council’s Heritage Officer contends that the lowest, most easterly part of Llangybi has a distinctively different, unique character bordered by the narrow historical country Ynys Lane, with several listed buildings, a Grade II* listed church with unique wall painting, very susceptible to earth vibrations, two church yards and a Cadw scheduled ancient holy well.  All of which will be seriously diminished by the closeness and density of the development.

·         The green view of Llangybi from Wentwood across the ancient water meadows will be spoilt and the Community Council predicts that future potential residents on this site will either complain about flooding or the ringing of eight church bells.

·         What also makes the plans inappropriate is the over dominance of the five large market value properties with the too few affordable properties being unattractive in design with the proposed three properties actually being just one small block with two semi-detached one bedroom flats and one other, none with any garaging.

·         The 2014 Community Led Plan commits the Community Council to supporting residents’ wishes for more affordable housing, but for no further large market value housing, yet this proposed development makes little more than token gestures towards affordability.

·          The Community Council’s other major concern is the access onto a very busy, dangerous main road.  One which when approved in 2012 was for two vehicles to the cottage but could now see  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

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

The local Member for St. Kingsmark, also a Planning Committee Member, expressed his support for the officer recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons outlined.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed by the local Member, Members also expressed their support for the officer recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons outlined.

It was therefore proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor R. Hayward that application DC/2013/00571 be refused for the four reasons, as outlined in the report, with the additional reason for refusal, as outlined in late correspondence.

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

For refusal                 -           13

Against refusal         -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2013/00571 be refused for the four reasons, as outlined in the report, with the additional reason for refusal, as outlined in late correspondence.

We considered the report of the application which was presented for refusal for the one reason, as outlined in the report.

In noting the detail of the application, Members were reminded that Planning Committee had been minded to refuse the application at its meeting on 6th December 2016 and that it be re-presented to the Committee with appropriate reasons for refusal.

Having considered the report of the application, it was proposed by County Councillor B. Strong and seconded by County Councillor P. Clarke that application DC/2015/01588 be refused for the one reason, as outlined in the report.

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

For refusal                 -           13

Against refusal         -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2015/01588 be refused for the one reason, as outlined in the report.

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

In noting the detail of the application, Members were reminded that the Planning Committee had been minded to approve the application at its meeting on 6th December 2016 and that it be re-presented to the Committee for approval with appropriate conditions.

Having considered the report of the application, the majority of the Committee expressed their support for the application with the conditions outlined.  However, some Members reiterated that the application was contrary to planning policy and they could not support approval of the application.

It was therefore proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor R.J. Higginson that application DC/2016/00287 be approved subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

For approval              -           9

Against approval      -           3

Abstentions               -           1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2016/00287 be approved subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

The local Member for Usk, also a Planning Committee Member, expressed his support for the application.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed by the local Member, it was proposed by County Councillor B. Strong and seconded by County Councillor P. Clarke that application DC/2016/00322 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              -           13

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2016/00322 be approved subject to the five conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

Having considered the report of the application it was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor R. J. Higginson that application DC/2016/00388 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              -           13

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2016/00388 be approved subject to the five conditions, as outlined in the report.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to two appeal decisions following a site visit that had been made on 25^th October 2016. 

Appeal A – App. E6840/C/16/3154351 - Site:  Land at Caxton Tower, Newbolds Farm, Rockfield, Monmouth, Monmouthshire, NP25 5SY.

1.  The appeal is allowed on grounds (f) and (g), and the enforcement notice is varied: by the deletion of the requirement in Schedule 4 and the substitution of the requirement.

 “Partially demolish the outbuilding by removing the roof and lowering the walls to the eaves levels specified on Drawing No. 1233-02c, as approved under planning permission ref DC/2013/00623, and remove from the land any surplus materials not required to complete the outbuilding in accordance with that Drawing; and by the deletion of 3 calendar months and the substitution of 6 calendar months as the Time for Compliance.

2. Subject to these variations the enforcement notice is upheld and planning permission is refused on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act as amended.

Appeal B App. /E6840/A/16/3154336 – Site:  Caxton Tower, Newbolds Farm, Rockfield, Monmouth, NP25 5SY.

The appeal had been dismissed.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit that had been made on14th December 2016.  Site:  109A Chapel Road, Abergavenny, NP7 &DR.

The appeal had been dismissed.

We received the Planning Inspectorate report which related to an appeal decision following a site visit that had been made on 22^nd November 2016.  Site: Land adjoining Old Coach House, Llanishen, Chepstow, NP16 6QH.

The appeal had been dismissed.