Agenda item

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the six conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.

 

The local Member for Llanbadoc, County Councillor V. Smith, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         An access along Wainfield Lane had been created on this site before the Planning application had been made.

 

·         A previous application for this site had been approved in 2007, as indicated in the report of the application, following extensive negotiations regarding the ridge height and that it should not intrude and spoil the view of the rural landscape.

 

·         A further application to the site had been submitted in 2007 in which new proposals had been approved.  However, it was assumed that the ridge height, as agreed for the previous application, would also apply for this building. However, this was not the case and the application went forward with a higher ridge height than had been previously supported.

 

·         The ridge height impacts on the view of the landscape.  There is no reference in the report of today’s application to an appeal that had been refused many years ago.

 

·         There had been an appeal against the development of residence on the land adjacent to the new plot on this site.  The reasons provided for that refusal were visual impact in such an elevated location. On the other side of the road a corner site had also been refused.

 

·         The local Member considers that there would not be any great social economic, environmental and cultural wellbeing by squeezing in an additional dwelling on a constrained rural site.

 

·         Rural development differs from urban development.

 

·         The Monmouthshire Landscape Officer commented on the ridge line of plot 1, the height of that dwelling, the impact that it would have and the trees to help disguise it.

 

·         The Local Member considers that the design of the link is inappropriate for that site.

 

·         The original plots on Wainfield Lane had been required to have half an acre of land to deal with foul water and sewage.  Over the years, there has been an increase in the number of developments in this area.  Residents are concerned regarding the way the treatment of sewage and foul water is being dealt with.

 

·         The local Member does not object to the single replacement dwelling subject to an appropriate design and a ridge height that does not intrude onto the landscape.

 

·         The local Member has concerns regarding the sub-division on the plots.

 

·         It would be less of an inconvenience to neighbours to build both plots at the same time.

 

·         The proposed development is not suitable for the area.

 

Mr. T. James, representing objectors to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         The net result of the proposal is an additional property on the end of the line of properties within Wainfield Lane, extending the development and setting a precedent here.

 

·         Plot 2 is presented as the infill plot.  However, the resident considered that this would be the replacement plot as the garage and the dwelling straddles the footprint of the original bungalow.

 

·         A planning application for that as a replacement plot should not be granted.  It is not close to the footprint of the original bungalow and it also extends the ribbon of development on that side of the lane.

 

·         The objector considers that he has not had an opportunity to make comment on plot 1 as a replacement plot.  He therefore asked the Planning Committee to refuse the application and force the applicant to make an application for a single dwelling and then make an application for an infill development allowing residents an opportunity to make representations on that as a replacement plot.

 

·         Two precedents will be set if the application is approved, namely, pulling down a property and replacing with two properties and it would allow the extension of the ribbons of development on Wainfield Lane. This would lead to further development of Wainfield Lane.

 

·         The development that is happening on Wainfield Lane is already beginning to cause drainage issues in respect of foul water and stormwater running onto the roads.

 

·         The density of the site is too great.

 

·         The ridge height varies on existing properties making it impossible to have a consistent ridge height, going forward.

 

The applicant’s agent, Mr. G. Buckle, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

·         The scheme has been amended following consultation with the local Authority to ensure that it complies fully with Planning Policy H3, relating to infill dwellings in minor villages.

 

·         By amending the proposal a larger frontage for both properties has been achieved and an amended landscape proposal should be welcomed.

 

·         The amended proposal does not extend beyond the existing bungalow footprint.

 

·         There have been no objections to the proposal received via the Highways Department.

 

·         The scheme accommodates parking requirements laid down by the local Authority.

 

·         The visual impact with the adjacent property has been minimised by the existing garage which was originally attached the client’s land, Homestead.

 

·         The garage has been purchased by the adjoining owners and can remain as a permanent screening.

 

·         There have been numerous infill developments along Wainfield Lane, all of which comply with Local Development Plan (LDP) Policy.  The majority of objections come from residents of these infill properties, all of which had similar planning concerns at the time.

 

·         The area of the site is a third of an acre and can accommodate two dwellings which ensures that the proposal makes the best use of development land.

 

·         The area of land for each plot is similar to other approved infill developments along Wainfield Lane.

 

·         In the redesign of the site the properties are well set back within the site and coupled with a sustainable landscape proposal, will reduce the visual impact.

 

·         The ridge heights adjacent to Ty Cwtch are the same and will have limited impact.

 

·         The large gardens to the front and rear will provide areas for sustainable urban drainage.

 

·         Highway safety will not be adversely affected as there is only a net increase of one dwelling.

 

·         There is sufficient space to provide the turning area on site allowing vehicles to enter and exit the site in a forward direction.

 

·         There is ample parking for at least three vehicles per plot.

 

·         The proposed double garage adjacent to the neighbour’s property will provide a screening to Ty Cwtch.

 

·         Soft landscaping will screen any negative visual impact.  In addition, it is proposed to plant a native species hedgerow to maintain the integrity of the Wainfield Lane frontage.

 

·         The proposals will not affect the village character which extends beyond Wainfield Lane to the village of Gwehelog.

 

·         The proposed dwellings are to be finished externally with natural materials including a natural slate roof.

 

·         The design and appearance of both dwellings is appropriate to the surrounding area reflecting the mixed and varied styles of properties which have been constructed in recent years.

 

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

 

·         It was considered that there were no planning grounds to refuse the application.

 

·         The plot is large enough to accommodate the proposed dwellings. The dwellings would fall within the curtilage and would not be located outside of the village boundary.

 

·         Concern was expressed regarding the position of the double garage in front of plot two.  The roofline could be reduced as the current proposal might have a negative impact on the outlook from Ty Cwtch.

 

·         The proposed dwellings will be served by two separate treatment plants.  Therefore, it would be appropriate for a foul drainage system to be conditioned if the application was approved and subject to meeting Building Regulations.

 

·         A Member considered that the criteria that the Committee should be applying is covered in Policy DES1, overdevelopment of the site and whether the plot is as spacious as the existing properties in the area or not. In response, the Head of Planning informed the Committee that under Policy H3, the site could be considered as redevelopment of the site, allowing an efficient use within the residential curtilage and a natural boundary to the settlement. The Member considered that the correct policy was not being applied in this instance.

 

·         The application is making efficient use of the land.  The houses are being set into the plot and not on the road frontage and it is no different to other developments that happen across the County.  The Application is sympathetic to the space.

 

The local Member summed up as follows:

 

·         Concern was expressed regarding the height of the building and the impact that it will have on the surrounding landscape.

 

·         Should the application be approved, the local Member asked that the design of the properties be looked at again and that the ridge height also be reviewed and the affect that this will have on the surrounding landscape.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor R. Harris that application DM/2019/00800 be approved subject to the six conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement. Also, that an additional condition be added to approve the details of foul drainage including the removal of the existing arrangement.

 

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

 

In favour of the proposal                 -           8

Against the proposal                       -           0

Abstentions                                       -           5

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DM/2019/00800 be approved subject to the six conditions as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 legal agreement. Also, that an additional condition be added to approve the details of foul drainage including the removal of the existing arrangement.