We received the report of the application which was presented for refusal for two reasons outlined in the report.

Mr. P. Williams, representing the applicant’s agent, had prepared a video which was presented to Planning Committee and the following points were outlined:

·         The proposed scheme has been amended to reduce the volume percentage increase.

·         Planning officers had indicated that the percentage increase threshold as identified in the Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) has been exceeded.

·         SPG states that an increase of more than 50% in the volume of a rural dwelling would not normally be considered to comply with Policy H6.

·         Policy H6 requires extensions to be subordinate to the existing building and respect its existing form.

·         The SPG on replacement dwellings and extensions to dwellings in the countryside refers in paragraph 2.7 to it being not relevant to proposed extensions to dwellings that have been converted from other buildings such as barns.  Such proposals would be subject to Policy H4 of the LDP, the criteria of which would be subject to buildings that have already been converted.  This is the case that is being presented to Planning Committee today.

·         As an example of policy interpretation, the Local Planning Authority had granted planning permission for over 70% volumetric increase for a two storey extension of a domestic dwelling, a former derelict farmhouse. The report had indicated that there was no harmful impact on the landscape.  The agent considered that this was also the case for this application.

·         The application site comprises of a large plot in which a modest dwelling is located.  The dwelling is limited in its scale to accommodate sufficient space for family needs and an extension, which represents the form, bulk and design of the current building and has used sympathetic materials and complimentary roof form in its design.

·         The application site is not in open countryside but forms an integral part of the hamlet with residential properties on both sides.  Within 100 metres of the site is a large agricultural and commercial building that significantly impacts on the local landscape.

·         The application site has a large curtilage, capable of accommodating the proposed extension and allows for the retention of an extensive garden and off-street parking facilities.

·         The application has attracted local support in the form of a formal response from Caerwent Community Council which had recommended approval of the application, as well as receiving five letters of support from local residents.  This demonstrates the acceptability of the proposal at the local level.

·         Planning Committee needs to ensure that Local Development Plan (LDP) policies are used in an objective and flexible way recognising that each application should be determined on its merits and having regard to the development plan and all other material considerations.

·         In this case there is no material harm to the landscape where the proposal is located and the grant of planning consent does not prejudice the LDP policy framework.

·         There would be no harmful intrusive impact on the landscape.

·         There are no material planning considerations that would warrant a refusal of planning consent.

·         The agent asked that Planning Committee grants planning permission for a sensitively designed scheme, which is supported by the local community and provides much needed additional accommodation space for a local family to remain in the locality.

The local Member for Caerwent, also a Planning Committee Member, outlined the following points:

·         The local Member shares the views expressed by the applicant’s agent, as does Caerwent Community Council and local residents.

·         The plot is large and located on a lane that has some large properties.  It was considered that the plot could accommodate the extension with the street scene being unaffected.

·         Though the application appears to go against Planning Policy, the local Member considers that this application could be an exception on this occasion.

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

·         The site is outside of the settlement boundary and therefore located within the countryside.

·         Policy H4 is an established policy and there is a need for the Planning Committee to be consistent in its decision making with regard to this policy.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor D. Evans that we be minded to approve application DM/2020/00537 with appropriate conditions.

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

For approval             -           3

Against approval      -           8

Abstentions               -           1

The proposition was not carried.

We resolved that application DM/2020/00537 be refused for the two reasons outlined in the report.