Agenda item

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the 15 conditions outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

 

Llanfoist Community Council, objecting to the application, had prepared a written statement which was read out to the Planning Committee by the Head of Planning as follows:

 

‘Llanfoist Fawr Community Council has raised a number of detailed objections to this proposal during the relevant statutory consultation opportunities. These are documented and remain valid.

 

This said, the Community Council would like to submit this statement to Planning Committee to reinforce its objection to this application and to add emphasis regarding the sheer scale of the development.

 

Members of the Community Council considered it difficult to accurately appreciate the scale of the development and the impact on adjacent properties from various iterations of submitted elevation plans. On closer examination, it would appear that the scale of the development would be on a par with certain elevations of local commercial premises such as the Premier Inn and Waitrose. Clearly, this is unacceptable in the more traditional residential area of Llanfoist. The impact is exacerbated by an elevated location at the junction of the B4246 and B4269.

 

Furthermore, LDP 5.135 states: ‘There is a need to ensure that all new development is of a high quality, sustainable and inclusive design and respects and enhances its surroundings. Development of an inappropriate scale and character will not be supported.’

 

The Community Council would strongly argue that this development will not enhance its surroundings and is clearly of ‘an inappropriate scale’ for the location i.e.: among smaller residential homes.

 

Members of Llanfoist Fawr Community Council would strongly urge refusal of this application.’

 

Mr. P. Rennie, objecting to the application, had prepared a video which was presented to Planning Committee and the following points were outlined:

 

·         The development is described as being an active living retirement apartment complex that is environmentally friendly, but it is none of these things.

 

·         The luxury apartment block is for wealthy people over the age of 60.

 

·         The scheme also demonstrates no genuine commitment to sustainability.

 

·         This development was originally registered for planning permission in December 2018 on the last working day before Christmas.  The Christmas break delayed notification to neighbours reducing the period of public consultation to the bare minimum before the statutory decision date.

 

·         Residents complained that a large development required a public consultation and the developer was forced to withdraw the application.  However, this was to reissue the proposals on a questionnaire.  There was no attempt to explain the proposals or have any opportunity to raise questions. Residents were required to navigate many technical documents online.

 

·         The application was submitted and proposals amended with revised proposals uploaded in June and October 2019 and in February and July 2020.  There was no clear explanation of what changed and no attempt to address the fundamental principle the community objected to.

 

·         It is important the Planning Committee looks back to objections received to the December 2018 planning application, as many people grew weary of re-submitting objections.

 

·         It was considered that this alone should be enough to reject this application and it was requested that the process of consultation be undertaken meaningfully and community engagement be encouraged rather than avoided.

 

·         The scheme is in a village bordering the National Park which has been noted by the landscape officer that it is out of scale.

 

·         The scheme will result in mass excavations at great environmental cost and disruption to the community.

 

·         The site already has planning permission for additional houses which could be built with the topography at lower environmental costs.

 

·         There is no drainage scheme condition which is crucial.

 

·         The scheme drawings and the perspectives are inconsistent.  The plans show large gates at the entrances but are omitted from the perspectives.  Is this a gated community or not? That would be an affront to the community.

 

·         The Transport and Planning Officers failed to acknowledge that pedestrian and cycle routes between Llanfoist and Abergavenny have been made unsafe and unpleasant by traffic growth and are a deterrent to sustainable transport. Any additional traffic would be a problem.

 

·         Planning Officers have responded to the Well-being of Future Generations Act with a standard paragraph of the dismissal.

 

·         The objector and a number of residents have spent considerable time navigating unhelpful planning documents.  He would rather spend this time working with the developer in consultation to produce a scheme that works for the community.

 

·         Concern was expressed that elderly residents that have lived in the community have been marginalised and ignored by the developers.

 

·         Most residents are content to see appropriate development in the community and will help to enable it when the developer shows respect for the community and environment.

 

·         However, this proposal goes against the principles that should be upheld by the Planning Committee and it was considered that the application should be rejected.

 

Mr. P. Sully, applicant’s agent, had prepared an audio recording which was presented to Planning Committee and the following points were outlined:

 

·         The proposed scheme seeks to provide high quality sustainable residential development for older people (60+) where an element of care will be provided for residents.

 

·         The proposals will result in an exemplar zero carbon design which will ensure a highly sustainable building, thereby helping address the Council’s Climate Emergency. The scheme provides solar PV and a green roof which will provide biodiversity, drainage and decarbonisation benefits. All car parking spaces will have electric charging points, well in excess of PPW10 requirements, therefore reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

 

·         In response to concerns raised during the application, the scale and massing has been significantly reduced. The southern gable end has been stepped back by two metres and the roof has been reduced at second floor level by creating a gap between the two wings.

 

·         The tallest ridge of the roof has been reduced by 1.7 metres, meaning that the highest part of the scheme is lower than the existing dwelling, and lower than the extant consent on site for four dwellings. The building has been repositioned 3 metres further away from Merthyr Rd, thereby allowing more landscaping to soften the scheme. The extent of brickwork has also been reduced, with timber cladding included at upper levels to further soften the building.

 

·         One of the main architectural features is the green roof, designed to reflect The Blorenge to the south. The roof slopes down towards the neighbouring boundary, thereby reducing its visual impact and improving the relationship to the surrounding street scene, all of which is in line with the applicant’s highly sustainable agenda.

 

·         A natural high quality material palette has been selected to integrate within the rural settlements and preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the landscape setting.  This includes natural timber, light buff brick and the grass seeded roof.

 

·         A substantial landscaping scheme is proposed within the site.  This will include the retention of some on site landscaping with additional native species planted throughout the site to further soften the scheme from the street scene.

 

·         A Management Plan has been produced which details how the site will be managed, with particular regard to car parking. The proposals relate to high quality older persons accommodation where an element of care will be available for the residents, therefore car ownership is far fewer than open market or affordable housing.

 

·         21 parking spaces are proposed on site for 18 units. Spaces are provided for carers and visitors as set out in 6.2.2 of the committee report, with spaces leased separately to residents, therefore those who do not own a car will not need a space. This will assist with parking management as there will be an appropriate balance between spaces available for residents, carers and visitors. The scheme also provides a better parking ratio than the recently approved McCarthy and Stone scheme on Tudor Road.

 

·         The level of car parking is therefore sufficient and, with all spaces having charging points, is highly sustainable. The Council’s Highways Officers have raised no objections. There will also be a financial contribution of over £100,000 for affordable housing for local needs.

 

·         There are no objections to the scheme from the technical consultees and it is evident from the committee report that officers find all matters such as design, overlooking, sustainability, biodiversity, highways, landscape and green infrastructure acceptable and in accordance with the Local Development Plan (LDP). The Planning Committee were therefore requested to approve the application in line with officer’s recommendation.

 

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

 

·         With regard to the tree marked TN2 on some of the plans, the ecology report states that the large mature sycamore tree on the south west boundary of the site provides structural diversity with strands of Ivy possibly concealing more significant features that might provide moderate roosting suitability for bats.  The tree was felled earlier this year despite it being identified for retention within the concept landscape proposals. This had been highlighted to the Case Officer in July 2020 but none of the supporting documents have been revised. The latest September 2020 versions of the site layout plan and ecological management plan still shows the tree in place months after its removal, which raises several issues.

 

·         The written response from the Council’s Biodiversity Officer is based on incorrect plans.

 

·         Condition 12 requires a submission of evidence to demonstrate compliance with the ecological management plan.  However, the plan is incorrect so cannot be complied with.

 

·         Something outside the ownership or control of the developer cannot be subject to a condition and may not be relied upon as part of the scheme.

 

·         The ecology plan proposes a substantial bat roof building under the canopy of the missing tree but since the tree is no longer there the mitigation must be re-assessed.

 

·         The Biodiversity Officer’s response states that it will be necessary to ensure the retention of dark corridors around the curtilage of the site protecting existing and new planting at the boundaries.  This is to ensure the ecological functionality of the mitigation and enhancement features, particularly on the western side of the boundary.

 

·         We cannot be sure of the ecological functionality and whether the bat roofs will be located in the most appropriate place or provide the necessary enhancement.

 

·         The local Member had sought advice from an independent ecologist with experience in Planning who agreed that the local Member’s interpretation is correct.

 

·         Welsh Government has clarified that mitigation alone is not sufficient and schemes should be able to show and provide biodiversity enhancement.  If not, they should be refused.

 

·         Whilst the design of the building is favourable with the choice of materials, the green roof, the landscaping and the overall concept.  If it were proposed for a location like West Gate then the local Member would have had little objection to the application.

 

·         This large building is proposed to be the most prominent part of Llanfoist Village where the surrounding character is village like.

 

·         Around Gypsy Lane, Woodland Crescent and Merthyr Road towards Govilon, there is nothing comparable within the street scene where all of the existing properties comprise of two storey houses or bungalows and a village hall.

 

·         Of all of the issues identified in objectors’ correspondence and heard during the public meeting pre-Covid-19 there was a sense of disbelief about how something so large could be suitable.

 

·         The local Member showed plans to the Committee indicating that the application would be at odds with the street scene.

 

·         In July 2019 and February 2020 the local Member asked Planning officers for a north / south cross section to show the relationship of the apartment block with Merthyr Road and the dwellings on the opposite side.  This was also requested by Llanfoist Community Council. However, this information was not provided. The local Member considered that this would be required to show the impact on the street scene in relationship of scale.

 

·         The local Member showed drawing that he had prepared based on the applicant’s scale drawings, measurements from GIS mapping and the datum levels of ridge heights given in the design and access statement.  The elevations of the apartments facing towards Merthyr Road and Gypsy Lane are 49.4 metres and 51 metres respectively. The proposed building would be as wide and longer than the Premier Inns in Abergavenny and Monmouth, as wide as but longer and taller than County Hall, Usk and larger than the leisure centres in Monmouth, Caldicot and Abergavenny, to identify just a few.

 

·         There can be no justification for supporting a development of this scale and footprint in this village location.  It was considered that the scheme will contravene Policies DES1 – points b,c,d,e,g and l.

 

·         Existing outline consent - The drawing appears to show the new scheme in a good, less impactful light, almost as betterment, but this is misleading.  Presenting the mass of the five dwellings as if one continuous elevation close to the site boundary takes no account of perspective, intervening structures or landscaping.  The dwellings will be set well in from the site boundary and those towards the centre of the site will be much less visible than suggested.  The 2015 outline consent approved matters of layout, access and scale and landscaping and appearance were reserved.  In respect of scale, this relates to the parameters of the dwelling.  No elevation drawings were provided and no site surveys given to show ground levels pre or post development. The 2019 application to extend the outline consent by a further three years was approved in November 2019. Condition 1 identifies all matters as being reserved.  This means that the comparison drawing is a representation of a situation that does not exist.  There is no extant consent and no material weight should be given to it.

 

·         The scheme represents major development in the centre of a rural settlement to which considerable representation has been received.

 

·         It was considered that it was a mistake that the report did not reference the national sustainable place making outcomes.

 

·         It was considered that the development has not been demonstrated to be in accordance with national policy on place making.

 

·         Some of the plans listed in the report include gated accesses for vehicles and pedestrians.  The report advises that there will not be any gates.

 

·         The management plan is out of date.

 

·         Condition 14 appears to be unenforceable in respect of compliance with the out of date management plan. The condition contains no detail about how ongoing compliance will be measured and whether or not a breach could be identified.

 

·         The plans presented are designed to show the development in its best light. 

 

·         The elevation of montage drawing present the scheme as being enveloped in trees.  In order to be considered acceptable, the building has to be hidden.

 

·         The original far too large proposal has been amended to try and make a still too large development acceptable.

 

·         The ecological plans and supporting information is obsolete so biodiversity mitigation and enhancements cannot be guaranteed in accordance with national local policy contrary to policies S13 and NE1. Condition 12 is unenforceable, condition 14 is imprecise and also unenforceable. The scale, mass, appearance and design of the proposal is contrary to LDP Policy DES1.  No consideration has been given to the national sustainable place making outcomes. The proposal appears to be in conflict with national and local planning policy.

 

·         The local Member asked that the Committee consider refusal of the application for the following reason: By virtue of its massing, excessive scale, design and prominent position, the proposed development would be detrimental to the appearance of the site and surrounding street scene and would therefore result in an insensitive, intrusive and alien building which would fail to respect and assimilate the form, scale, siting and materials of its setting.  In addition, the proposed scheme will be harmful to the outlook and privacy of neighbouring occupiers in an area characterised by high standards of privacy and lower density of development and would restrict long views towards the Blaenafon World Heritage Site. Furthermore, the proposed development is unable to demonstrate positive biodiversity mitigation or enhancement and protection of species of importance. Consequently, the development would not be in accordance with policies NE1, S13 and DES1 b,c,d,e,g and l of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan.

 

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

 

·         Concerns were raised regarding the restricted car parking spaces available with only six parking spaces available for 18 retirement apartments. The proposed parking provision is insufficient.

 

·         This site is not located within a town where there are amenities close by.  Therefore, there is a greater reliance on having a car at this location.

 

·         The proposed building is out of context to the street scene in terms of its mass and scale.  Also, the building line is not in line.

 

·         Parking space 9 is not 2.8 metres.  It is 2.5 metres and is inaccessible. Therefore of the 21 spaces, there are only 20 in which a car could be parked.

 

·         Parking provision beneath the building has 300mm wide columns at their entrance leaving only six inches on either side of the vehicle at the point of the columns which is considered to be impractical.

 

·         This development does not have an internal connection corridor like similar developments elsewhere.  The proposed development will be connected via balconies resulting in residents having to go outside in order to visit a neighbour on the development.

 

·         Concern was expressed that disabled parking provision had not been addressed.

 

·         It was suggested that consideration of the application be deferred in order to address the concerns raised before determining the application.

 

·         Whist there are some good attributes to the scheme, such as the green roof and the timber cladding, there is an issue relating to the scale of the proposed development.

 

The Head of Planning responded as follows:

 

·         The issue regarding the tree raised by the local Member would need to be investigated.

 

·         The application has been through a rigorous design process in terms of the number of amendments that have been made to the scheme to ensure the mass and the scaling of the proposed building has been reduced.

 

·         In terms of energy efficiency and sustainability of the proposed building, it is of a very high standard.  The developers have stated that the building will be zero carbon with high credentials.

 

·         The size of the plot is an efficient use of the scheme.  There is a lot of green infrastructure on the site, a communal space for the wellbeing of residents.  All provided to a high standard.

 

·         In terms of the scale and massing, this matter has been debated internally and work has been undertaken with an urban designer to ensure that the mass of the proposed building has been reduced.  There is a 23 metre intervening distance on the road.  It is a prominent location on a corner plot with the development being a primal focal building on entering into Llanfoist.  Planning officers consider that this would enhance the location in terms of place making, going forward providing an innovative sustainable development.

 

·         With regard to the parking provision on the site, Planning Policy Wales policy is to move towards public transport provision and active travel links.  Llanfoist is connected to Abergavenny and the wider area and there are public transport links already in place. Going forward, there is a need to consider sustainable developments in terms of transport movements with a view to there being less reliance on the car with more use of public transport.

 

The local Member for Llanfoist summed up as follows:

 

·         This is the fourth iteration of the proposal which has been through numerous amendments.

 

·         The scale of the proposed building is massive and inappropriate in this location and will have a negative impact on the street scene.

 

·         It was considered that the scheme could not be amended to the point where it would satisfy the local Member, Llanfoist Community Council or local residents.

 

·         The proposed scheme is unacceptable and should be refused due to its sheer scale.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor G. Howard and seconded by County Councillor S. Woodhouse that we be minded to refuse application DM/2019/01004 on the following grounds and that the application be re-presented to a future Planning Committee meeting for consideration with appropriate reasons for refusal:

 

Reason for refusal:

 

By virtue of its massing, excessive scale, design and prominent position, the proposed development would be detrimental to the appearance of the site and surrounding street scene and would therefore result in an insensitive, intrusive and alien building which would fail to respect and assimilate the form, scale, siting and materials of its setting.  In addition, the proposed scheme will be harmful to the outlook and privacy of neighbouring occupiers in an area characterised by high standards of privacy and lower density of development and would restrict long views towards the Blaenafon World Heritage Site. Furthermore, the proposed development is unable to demonstrate positive biodiversity mitigation or enhancement and protection of species of importance. Consequently, the development would not be in accordance with policies NE1, S13 and DES1 b,c,d,e,g and l of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan.

 

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

 

For refusal                -           10

Against refusal         -           2

Abstentions               -           0

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that we be minded to refuse application DM/2019/01004 on the following grounds and that the application be re-presented to a future Planning Committee meeting for consideration with appropriate reasons for refusal:

 

Reason for refusal:

 

By virtue of its massing, excessive scale, design and prominent position, the proposed development would be detrimental to the appearance of the site and surrounding street scene and would therefore result in an insensitive, intrusive and alien building which would fail to respect and assimilate the form, scale, siting and materials of its setting.  In addition, the proposed scheme will be harmful to the outlook and privacy of neighbouring occupiers in an area characterised by high standards of privacy and lower density of development and would restrict long views towards the Blaenafon World Heritage Site. Furthermore, the proposed development is unable to demonstrate positive biodiversity mitigation or enhancement and protection of species of importance. Consequently, the development would not be in accordance with policies NE1, S13 and DES1 b,c,d,e,g and l of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan.