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

 

Councillor I. Martin, representing Shirenewton Community Council, had submitted a written statement outlining the community council’s objections to the application which was read to the Planning Committee by the Head of Planning, as follows:

 

‘In our response on 7th August Shirenewton Community Council highlighted four issues which require updating:

 

1. Highway safety. We remain concerned as do at least 6 neighbours, that widening the access risks greater usage including larger longer vehicles and/or machinery requiring a wide turning circle and very slow speed on exit from the site. This is on a blind bend and at the junction of the B4523 with Weyloed Lane thereby creating a considerable road safety hazard to other road users particularly the many cyclists and motorcyclists.  We maintain our objection to the application on the grounds of highway safety.

  

2. The route of footpath 17. Having referred to the maps showing the legally defined footpath we observe that the route of footpath 17 has been abandoned (“Abandoned Footpath”) through the site. The public have used an established unrecorded footpath for at least 40 years (“Alternative Footpath”). We understand that in the 1980s Monmouthshire County Council erected a footpath, steps and sign for this Alternative Footpath.

 

We agree with the Footpath Officer in his report of 30th October that the Abandoned Footpath cannot be used on its legally recorded alignment.

 

We understand that the Footpath Officer does now have concerns over the footpath route and the Planning Officer's report that he has no objection is no longer correct.

 

Any proposal to reopen the Abandoned Footpath would be heavily criticised by the local community for its negative impact on our environment and posing a safety threat as it would emerge on the B4523 on the blind bend mentioned above.  The adverse gradient at the bottom of Weyloed Lane causes traffic travelling in both directions to use that side of the road. Residents have raised the dangers of pedestrians crossing this particular intersection. The Alternative Footpath is in a safer location.

 

Clarification of the applicant's amended plan is needed as it does not show the installed fence posts extend beyond the canopy of the oak tree and incorrect in not following the Abandoned Footpath.

 

Monmouthshire County Council’s Footpath and Protocols guide makes clear the Planning Authority can consider the existence of the Alternative Footpath needs to be resolved in association with the consideration of the planning application. We consider the application should be refused or deferred until the footpath route is settled. 

As the applicant intends to keep animals on the site then if the Committee is minded to give consent we would request that the Alternative Footpath be protected and fenced for the safety of the public.

 

3. Tree preservation orders. We endorse the Tree Preservation Officer's site requirements.

 

4. Removal of the hedgerows. If the Committee is minded to give consent we would request that the replanting and nurturing of the hedgerows and the Tree Preservation Officer's recommendations be included as conditions.

 

We consider that the application should be refused on the above grounds or at the very least deferred pending resolution of the route of the footpath.’  

 

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

 

·         Until recently there was a rarely used standard agricultural gate to the field outside the development boundary for Shirenewton and close to Wayside House at the bottom of Weyload Lane.

 

·         The access was doubled in size on a bank holiday weekend with excavation works undertaken to remove hedgerows and the piling of stones by protected trees.

 

·         This is a retrospective application following a request for the original access and hedgerow to be restored.

 

·         The local Member hoped that action would be taken to ensure that the gate and hedgerow removed would be restored or alternatively that the officer recommendation would be refusal in view of its dangerous highway location, as it has in other access applications close to blind bends on the B4235.

 

·         The access is close to the exit to and from Weyloed Lane. There is a sharp drop and the visibility of Weyloed Lane is limited and obstructed onto the B4235. The height and camber of the road is such that it is difficult to exit from Weyloed Lane onto the B4235 without going onto the other side of the road.  This manoeuvre is difficult and dangerous with the angle and drop onto the B4235.

 

·         In addition, the site is close to a sharp, blind bend and in an area that is noted as being hazardous due to the double no passing hazard lines.

 

·         It is also a road known to be frequented by fast motorcyclists.

 

·         One of the highway arguments may be based on ‘no more use than currently’.  However, the report refers to the expected daily use of this site, which will increase its usage by 100% on a very dangerous access. The Highways Department has tried to improve this situation by stating that the gate should be placed at least 12 metres from the highway.  The applicant’s plan states that this is 11 metres back from the road but there is no highway condition on there being no gate until 13 metres back to help with the free flow of traffic. This should be stated as a highway gate condition.

 

·         A condition is needed that the field gate should be set back a minimum of 12 metres (13 metres in the plans from the edge of the adjoining highway and shall be constructed to be incapable of opening outwards towards the highway). This is to ensure any vehicles serving the site can be removed from the highway when opening and closing the field gate in the interests of highway safety and the free flow of traffic along the B4235 in accordance with LDP policy MV1.

 

·         The original plan went back to the end of the field as this was where the loose stone drive has already been placed.  This needs to be shortened slightly to avoid harm to an oak tree. However, as a 9.2 metre horse box will be entering the field, then it will also require a turning circle, which was in the original plan but has been removed from the amended plan. A turning circle is required to prevent a long horse box having to reverse onto the busy, hazardous road and allow for the vehicle to leave the site in a forward gear as per the original plan for this application.

 

·         The plan shows footpath 17. However, this abandoned footpath has not been used since the 1980s. Monmouthshire County Council had erected a style and signpost for a safer route in the middle of the field which has been used by local people since the 1980s.  This is a regularly used footpath and the community would like to continue to use it as a safer route. The current footpath was diverted at least 35 years ago.

 

·         According to local knowledge, Wayside House and the field was owned by the applicant about 40 years ago.  The garden was extended into the field with Wayside House being hedged and fenced.  An alternative safe and public right of way, in the middle if the field, was established at least 35 years ago.

 

·         Wayside House was sold about 30 years ago to its current owner.  The local Member believes that in view of the Monmouthshire County Council actions, there is a strong moral, if not legal duty for this to be confirmed by a diverted footpath order as a part of this application.

 

·         There will be considerable community concerns if this current route is not maintained and considers that the Planning Committee should take account of this.

 

·         The local Member would like the application to be deferred on planning grounds that it is not properly to scale or accurate.  The applicant’s original plan had a turning circle which is no longer there. On highway safety grounds, this needs to be included. At the same time, a footpath order should be introduced to divert this footpath in its current usage.

 

·         It would be better if the original plans submitted by the applicant were maintained with a turning circle but slightly shorter, if possible to avoid the tree issues with a condition that the footpath order should cover the diverted and used route.

 

·         Footpath 17 is not used and comes into a field in an unsafe location at the bottom of Weyloed Lane.  If the turning circles are not identified and planned then turning might impact the current pedestrian route.

 

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

 

·         The consideration of footpaths is a material consideration in planning matters.

 

·         If the Planning Committee was minded not to defer the application then the local Member requested that refusal of the application be considered on highway safety grounds.

 

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

 

·         A Member considered that the Definitive Map needs to be referred to for the footpath to be considered properly in its current state with the Rights of Way Department before determining the planning application.

 

·         The application is considerable betterment of the site.

 

·         The Development Services Manager informed the Committee that, in terms of the public right of way, it is material consideration to some extent but there is a need to establish whether the development impacts on the public right of way.  The definitive line of the right of way runs through the neighbour’s garden and across the field but it is not impacted by this proposal even extended back with the gates 13 metres.  As currently proposed, without the extended access track and turning circle, there is no impact on the definitive route. Where it is temporarily waymarked, for many years, that has also not impacted on by this development.

 

·         The Highway Development Manager stated that the applicant has come forward with minor amendments to improve the safety of the access and egress from the field.  By setting the gates back by 12 metres enables all agricultural vehicles to open the gates and not wait on the public highway.  This is a significant highway safety improvement. It also allows for leaving the site and closure of the gate which is a safety improvement for livestock within the field. The provision of a hard apron of five metres will greatly reduce the likelihood of any loose material and mud from the field being dragged onto the public highway.  The Highways Department has no grounds to object to this application.

 

The local Member summed up as follows:

 

·         A better solution would be the first idea put forward by the applicant, i.e., the plan with the turning circle.  This is already in situ but could be slightly shortened to avoid impacting on the oak tree.  Hence, the request for Planning Committee to consider deferral of the application to review this option. It was considered that the footpath issue could also be resolved at the same time.

 

The Development Services Manager informed the Planning Committee that the scheme has been negotiated to exclude the turning head.  Planning Officers are endorsing the scheme to the Planning Committee accordingly. There is scope to manoeuvre and turn vehicles around in the field and leave in a forward gear.  The gates will be set back 13 metres into the site.

 

With regard to the public right of way, this matter would be the responsibility of the Public Rights of Way Team in the Countryside Division.  The Team is aware of the issue. However, the right of way, does not impact on the application.

 

The current turning area is unauthorised and is not a part of the scheme.  Therefore, there is a need for condition 2 in the report to re-instate it with grass to be part of the field.

 

The local Member had proposed that the Planning Committee be minded to defer consideration of the application on planning grounds that it is not properly to scale or accurate.  However, this was not seconded.

 

In response to the additional condition raised by the local Member, namely:

 

‘That the field gate should be set back a minimum of 12 metres (13 metres in the plans from the edge of the adjoining highway and shall be constructed to be incapable of opening outwards towards the highway). This is to ensure any vehicles serving the site can be removed from the highway when opening and closing the field gate in the interests of highway safety and the free flow of traffic along the B4235 in accordance with LDP policy MV1.’

 

The Development Services Manager stated that this condition could be included.

 

The local Member had proposed that we be minded to refuse the application on highway safety grounds. However, this was not seconded.

 

The Chair asked the Committee to vote on approval of application DM/2020/00712 subject to the five conditions outlined in the report and subject to an additional condition, as follows:

 

That the field gate should be set back a minimum of 12 metres (13 metres in the plans from the edge of the adjoining highway and shall be constructed to be incapable of opening outwards towards the highway). This is to ensure any vehicles serving the site can be removed from the highway when opening and closing the field gate in the interests of highway safety and the free flow of traffic along the B4235 in accordance with LDP policy MV1.’

 

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

 

For approval                   -           10

Against approval            -           1

Abstentions                     -           1

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DM/2020/00712 be approved subject to the five conditions outlined in the report and subject to an additional condition, as follows:

 

That the field gate should be set back a minimum of 12 metres (13 metres in the plans from the edge of the adjoining highway and shall be constructed to be incapable of opening outwards towards the highway). This is to ensure any vehicles serving the site can be removed from the highway when opening and closing the field gate in the interests of highway safety and the free flow of traffic along the B4235 in accordance with LDP policy MV1.’