Agenda item

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the seven 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:

 

“Shirenewton Community Council’s recommendation to the Planning Committee is for refusal on the following grounds:

 

There is an existing 2017 consent for a smaller cottage than is now proposed. We had objected to the 2017 application as an unwarranted intrusion on the open countryside but as consent was granted we take the pragmatic view that its appearance better reflects the local architecture and landscape compared to the current application. A much larger building was applied for last year and refused by Monmouthshire County Council.

 

The current application seeks consent for a larger dwelling over 50% more than the existing consent and the design has been significantly revised with hipped roof ends and a Juliet balcony. Roof hips are not a traditional Monmouthshire building feature and Juliet balconies are most certainly not, and both features are out of keeping.

 

We are not persuaded by the argument that the applicant could put a larger caravan on the site without the need for further consent. The certificate of lawfulness was in the opinion of the Planning Officer at the time of the 2017 application merely an authorisation that caravan could remain on site but once its use as a residence had ended (and it has been unoccupied for some years) it should be removed and the land restored to its original agricultural state.

  

No garaging or other outbuildings are included in the floor area and volume calculations and further development in these regards can be expected. At the least a condition should be imposed removing the application of the general development order.

 

We wish to encourage this community's young families to remain close to their roots. Larger houses in this area are too expensive for them. For this reason we prefer the 2017 design. We note that as this application represents a replacement dwelling no infrastructure contribution is required and the community will not therefore have additional funds to provide resources for our inhabitants.  If this application is approved we would wish to see a condition requiring local connection occupation only.

 

The site is partly screened from the road by trees which we consider important in alleviating the overall impact of the building and these should be retained in any event by a planning condition. We would further request that the comments of the landscape and biodiversity officers be included in the conditions were consent to be given.”

 

Mr. D. Glasson, applicant’s agent, had submitted a written statement in support of the application which was read to the Planning Committee by the Head of Planning, as follows:

 

“This application is simply a revision to the replacement dwelling approved in 2018. It is not a rural enterprise dwelling and is compliant with Policy H5 which permits replacement dwellings in the countryside.

 

Negotiations with officers have addressed initial scale and design concerns such that the dwelling is now policy compliant and a comprehensive range of landscaping measures and biodiversity benefits have also been incorporated.

 

The applicant is grateful for the cooperation of officers during the course of negotiations and looks forward to the support of the Committee.”

 

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

 

·         There has been some confusion regarding the way the report has been presented.  In 1997 the mobile home was there and on appeal was allowed temporary consent for three years. It was supposed to be removed in 2000.

 

·         From 2001 to 2016 there was evidence of occupation and it received a certificate of lawful occupation.

 

·         In 2017, the residence which only applied to the mobile chalet and not the garden as stated in the report, there was a replacement dwelling there.  That replacement dwelling was smaller than the application being presented to the Planning Committee today.

 

·         The applicant applied for an even larger dwelling of 640 cubic metres.  This was not refused but was withdrawn via negotiation as being too large and not complying with Policy H5.

 

·         This new application is larger than the original application of 2017, which has not been built and implemented.  Therefore, the local Member considers that it is not a modification of what is already there and been approved, as stated by the agent as it is a separate application for the demolition of the mobile home to be replaced by a new larger dwelling.  The local Member considers that this does not comply with Policy H5.

 

·         Policy H5 indicates that the replacement dwelling shall be of similar size to the replaced.  The application is not of a similar size to the mobile home.

 

·         Policy H5 also indicates that planning permission may be granted for larger replacement dwellings of high quality sustainable design in the open countryside where it can be demonstrated that the absence of high quality dwellings prevents the attraction of significant economic investment to Monmouthshire and the proposals do not cause unacceptable harm to their setting and the landscape.

 

·         There is not a demand in the area for larger replacement dwellings.  The application does not conform to Policy H5.

 

·         The local Member also disagrees that a caravan of a larger size could be put on the site.  If this did occur and it was a private dwelling then even if it didn’t require planning permission it would have to have stringent licensing conditions applied to it, unless it was for agricultural use.  If it was used for agricultural use, it would help provide local affordable agricultural usage.

 

·         With regard to the 640 cubic metres property, this was offered with an agricultural condition attached.  The agricultural condition was looked at in terms of TAN 6 and the need to have an agricultural worker on site.  There has been no offer of agricultural occupancy provision.

 

·         Consideration may be required to bring back the agricultural occupancy condition.

 

·         The application does not comply with TAN 6.

 

·         There is nothing in Policy H5 regarding caravans.

 

·         Shirenewton Community Council prefers the smaller design which complies with Policy H5 as it is more in keeping with a modest farm style dwelling and is more in line with the current footprint.

 

·         The Juliet balcony and hipped roof of the proposed application does not reflect the rural setting that that it would be occupying.

 

·         The local Member considers that it is unnecessary to give consent to the proposed dwelling as it does not comply with Policy H5.

 

·         The local Member considers that the application should either be refused or deferred for officers and applicant look again at this application.  Also, that the certificate of lawful residence be looked at to see if it has been suspended as there has not been any residents at this location which would mean that the agricultural condition would apply.  Deferral of the application would allow for the legal and policy considerations to be considered.

 

·         The applicant has not followed the Planning Inspector’s decision which was to remove the mobile chalet.

 

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

 

·         The certificate of lawfulness does not restrict any occupancy.  It is not like an agricultural tie or a rural enterprise dwelling. There is no restriction on residential occupancy.

 

·         The certificate of lawfulness was granted and is now in perpetuity.

 

·         In 1997 when the temporary permission was granted, the building should have been removed after three years but this did not occur. It was in place for 16 years with 10 of those years showing evidence to prove that it was occupied as a residential dwelling. Hence, the certificate of lawfulness being granted.

 

·         It is accepted that 21 years ago the building should have been removed.  Procedures have been put in place now to check temporary consents.

 

·         The application is for a building that is 407 cubic metres.  The previous application of 343 cubic metres was approved by Planning Committee and therefore could be implemented.

 

·         The current application is for a larger building than the previous approved application but is smaller than a structure that could be legally replaced.

 

·         The certificate of lawfulness grants permission for a caravan with unrestricted residential use which could legally be replaced with another caravan of up to 415 cubic metres with an unrestricted residential use. The current application proposes a building that is smaller than could be legally put on the site at present.

 

·         The local Member considered that a caravan would be preferable as it would be more likely to provide an agricultural worker.  The aim of TAN 6 is to provide for an agricultural worker. This site would more likely be used by an agricultural worker with an affordable dwelling in place.

 

·         It was noted that the size of the proposed dwelling was similar to the approved application and the design of the proposed dwelling was considered to be superior.

 

·         A Member expressed concern regarding the history of the site and whether someone had previously lived in to the caravan as stated. It was considered that the property should have been taken down in 2000. The Member supported the local Member in that consideration of the application should be deferred. In response, it was noted that sufficient evidence had been provided to indicate that the property had been occupied.

 

·         Under the replacement dwelling policy it does not prescribe that the Authority needs to know who occupies a property.  It is an application to remove one building and replace with another building of the same residential use.

 

·         Under the replacement dwelling policy there is no requirement for an affordable housing contribution as there is no additional residential unit created.

 

·         Once the certificate of lawful use has been issued the property is immune from enforcement action on that site for that use.

 

·         The Head of Planning stated that it has been established via the certificate of lawfulness that there is a residential use on the site.  Agricultural ties under TAN 6 is not relevant to this application.  A smaller dwelling has already been approved for the site and an affordable housing contribution was not sought for this unit. This matter is not covered via the Supplementary Planning Guidance.

 

·         Ensure the mullions and transoms of the windows match up on the front and rear of the dwelling.

 

The local Member summed up as follows:

 

·         An agricultural condition should be considered. The application had been amended to provide a smaller unit.  The original application did offer an agricultural condition which has not been included in this application.

 

·         The provision of a replacement caravan would assist in providing affordable accommodation for an agricultural worker.

 

·         The proposed dwelling is larger than the dwelling already approved by Planning Committee in 2017.

 

·         Policy H5 should also be looked in respect of this application.

 

·         Shirenewton Community Council had expressed concern for the need for affordable housing accommodation in the area.

 

·         There has been no affordable housing contribution added to this application.

 

·         Shirenewton Community Council had suggested that there should be a condition that the person who purchases this private residential dwelling would have a local connection but this has not been considered.

 

·         It was considered that the approved 2017 application was a better option and was more modest in the size of the dwelling.

 

·         Deferral of the application should be considered with a view to referring back to the assessment report from Mr R. Anstis, reconsider Policy H5, consider an agricultural condition as well as considering an affordable housing contribution.

 

The Head of Planning informed the Committee that certificate of lawfulness has established that a mobile home and chalet can be located on the site with residential use.  The same volume has been allowed under the Caravan Act, which could allow for the proposed replacement dwelling. The previous consent agreed in 2017 does not have an agricultural tie.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor L. Brown and seconded by County Councillor A. Easson that we be minded to defer consideration of application DM/2020/01157.

 

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

 

For deferral               -           2

Against deferral        -           9

Abstentions               -           0

 

The proposition was not carried.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor A. Easson and seconded by County Councillor M. Feakins that application DM/2020/01157 be approved subject to the seven conditions outlined in the report and subject to an additional condition to include an affordable housing contribution.

 

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

 

In favour of the proposal                 -           5

Against the proposal                       -           6

Abstentions                                       -           0

 

The proposition was not carried.

 

On the advice of the Planning Committee’s legal representative, Members voted on the Officer’s recommendation to approve application DM/2020/01157 subject to seven conditions outlined in the report and that an additional condition be added that mullions and transoms of the windows match up on the front and rear of the dwelling.

 

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

 

In favour of the proposal                 -           7

Against the proposal                       -           2

Abstentions                                       -           0

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved to approve application DM/2020/01157 subject to seven conditions outlined in the report and that an additional condition be added that mullions and transoms of the windows match up on the front and rear of the dwelling.