Application DM/2019/02076 - Discharge of condition no. 5 of planning consent DM/2019/00595 (management plan). 62 Chepstow Road, Caldicot, NP26 4HZ
We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval.
The Development Services Manager read out a statement by objectors to the application from Mr. Lund and Mr. Parrish, as follows:
‘Once again you have placed your own wording amendment to this proposed Management Plan. The Monmouthshire County Council Planning Committee proposed and seconded that the terminology " no single people" will be placed in this building. At a later date at a meeting held in Caldicot Town Council meeting room alongside Monmouthshire Housing Association Officials, MHA stated to Craig O'Connor that they as the applicants "had no objections to the Planning Committee’s proposal and statement of wording of "No Single People" to be placed in this property. Craig O'Connor stated "that he would get this amendment placed within 28 days but likely to be within the week" (Quoted and document by Craig at this meeting) and has yet again failed to do so and renegaded on his.
The management plan should state "as proposed" "No Single People will be placed within this dwelling it will be used for families only with a maximum of six people".
MHA - the applicant, of this property stated at the 20th August 2020 meeting that they have no objections to these conditions or statements and Karen Tarbox their legal representative stated that the wording "No Single People" should be included in the Management Plan and there would be a clear breach of the law if any single people are placed there. Still Not Actioned.
Kate Young and Craig O'Connor decided as stated in an email that they did not like this and you would change it going against Planning approval committee documented agreement.
What right and authority do you have to alter what the Planning Committee and the applicant have both approved?
It certainly brings into question the total honesty and integrity of the MCC Planning department and its obvious dishonest and unprofessional members within this area.
With the current amount and proposed increases in house building within the Caldicot area it beggars belief that more suitable properties cannot be found where families each have their own front door and garden area rather than shared accommodation which is fully illustrated by the current pandemic does not work both for health, safety and social reasons.
As this property has a blind corner alongside the steepness of this driveway is still non compliant and presents a hazard to pedestrians, cyclists and other road users, you as a council have a "Duty of Care" to all those involved in this decision and are accountable for this. There is a danger and you have repeatedly recognised this danger and now this is to become an Active Travel Route of Monmouthshire with no alterations undertaken for the safety of the whole community. As you have recognised this hazard and yet not acted upon it should any incident occur, you are now personally liable for ignoring your duty of care within the community. As this property is owned by MHA and intended for use by MCC, the legal representative stated "if it did not confirm it would not be offered to MCC to lease as they have a Duty of Care to their employees and MCC staff, public services and any future tenants - "occupiers liability and occupants liability – responsibilities as owners if not safe then we can’t use – will take this away and look next Wednesday on return from Annual Leave and will respond. - Still waiting an update.
The unsafe incline of the driveway itself 'self inspection will illustrate the problem that exists'. MHA stated at the 20th August 2020 meeting they would investigate this problem and inform residents of their finding prior to the next meeting.
Still not actioned.
Continual monitoring of this property suggest that MCC have an intention to use this as a regular place of work, often known as a hub which indicates as well as a domestic property commercial uses and regulations come into play which again effects the total community of the surrounding area and was not declared in the original planning application.
Whereas we as residents do not object to the property being used for a single family, this current Management Plan is flawed and continues to be presented in a deceitful manner.
The Head of Planning responded as follows:
· Planning consent has been granted for this property to be used as a house of multiple occupancy (HMO) for C4 use for a maximum of six people and for families only.
· The discharge condition application has been brought to Planning Committee to determine how the HMO will function and be managed.
· The Committee is asked to consider whether the management plan is acceptable or not.
· Local residents have continued to express concern that the condition on the planning permission is not what the Planning Committee requested.
· This dispute relates specifically to no single people. The complaint has been thoroughly investigated and has been upheld.
· The building should be occupied by families only. Single parent families would be allowed. However, single adults would not be allowed to reside here.
· Local residents had requested the inclusion of the term ‘families but no single people’. However, this would make the condition ambiguous.
· The new proposed wording to meet the local residents’ concerns is that no more than six people shall occupy the building at any time and it shall be occupied by families only including lone parent families and no lone adults.
· Local residents have been consulted on the management plan.
· The non-material planning application only became valid in December 2020. The non-material amendment is now out for consultation.
· The dwelling would not become a hub. It would be used as a minor agile working space for the housing officer to use for short periods only.
The local Member for Severn, also a Planning Committee Member, expressed highways concerns, in particular the blind corner. The volume of traffic will increase along the very narrow drive to and from the HMO.
In noting the detail of the application the following points were identified:
· In response to questions raised, the Head of Planning stated that the application referred to the discharge of a condition to approve the management plan. In terms of reference made to the wording ‘in perpetuity’ this would not be required as only families would be allowed to reside at the property.
It was proposed by County Councillor M. Feakins and seconded by County Councillor R. Harris that application DM/2019/02076 be approved.
Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:
For approval - 10
Against approval - 1
Abstentions - 0
The proposition was carried.
We resolved that application DM/2019/02076 be approved.