Agenda item

We received the report of the application and late correspondence which was presented for refusal subject to the two reasons outlined in the report.

The local Member for Mitchel Troy attended the meeting by invitation of the Vice-Chair and outlined the following points:

·         This is a re-submitted application that has been significantly changed. It has been reduced in scale by over 50%.

·         The defective outbuildings had been omitted from the latest submission.

·         A consulting engineer’s report on the buildings to be retained within this development are deemed suitable for conversion and considered to be in serviceable condition.

·         This application has given full consideration to the rural setting both in terms of its design and finishing.

·         The application does not have the modern, urban style and characteristics of the previous application.

·         The re-submission proposes to lower the floor level of the building by adopting an underpinning exercise to accommodate a two storey element.  The underpinning is not untypical of barn conversions and will enhance the foundations of the existing stone walls.

·         It also increases the scale and the usable space in the building.

·         The Planning Department had indicated that it would support conversion of the buildings as a holiday let. However, the local Member expressed concern as the appearance, design and scale of the development would be the same for residential use.

·         The applicant’s agent has drawn attention to a number of similar developments which have been granted planning permission.  The applicant considered that the Authority could be seen to be inconsistent having approved similar applications for conversions of ancillary structures.

·         The development, which includes an original stone barn structure, together with conversion of ancillary buildings built in the 1950s, would not be deemed modern in accordance with planning records.

·         If the application is refused, it is likely that the applicant will consider submitting a formal appeal.

·         The application has received many letters of support from nearby neighbours and from Mitchel Troy Community Council which recognises the need for affordable housing provision in rural Monmouthshire.

·         The proposed development meets all supplementary planning guidelines.

·         There have been no local objections to the proposed development.

·         Development of this site for residential use would visually enhance the area and would ensure that the buildings currently falling into disrepair would be removed.

·         If the site is not developed, it will continue to be an eyesore.

·         Neighbours recognise that his would be a conversion to bring these buildings, currently in poor condition, back into use as a home.

·         The local Member asked the Planning Committee to consider approval of the application.

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

·         There is not enough stonework or architectural merit to the buildings to allow conversion to take place for a residential dwelling.

·         It would result in development in the countryside in an unsustainable location outside of the settlement boundary.

·         The application is against planning policy.

It was proposed by County Councillor M. Powell and seconded by County Councillor G. Howard that application DM/2018/01720 be refused for the two reasons outlined in the report.

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

For refusal                -           13

Against refusal         -           0

Abstentions               -           1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2018/01720 be refused for the two reasons outlined in the report.