Agenda item

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

This application had been presented to Planning Committee on 1^st March 2022 for consideration.  However, the Committee had been minded to defer consideration of the application to allow officers to negotiate with the applicant with a view to identifying the number of parking spaces available and where they will be located on the site. The application is therefore re-presented to Committee for consideration.

The local Member for St. Arvans, also a Planning Committee, outlined the following points:

·         Tintern Community Council’s objections to the application have made the Press.  Details of which were read to the Committee.

·         Community Council’s comments should be taken into consideration when determining planning applications.

·         The local Member is representing the strong feelings of local residents who object to the application. In particular, the issues regarding the parking arrangements on the hotel site and the concerns raised regarding lack of parking provision.

·         Nearby car parks are often full at weekends and during the week which are used by walkers and tourists on a regular basis.  Tourism is adversely affected in Tintern due to the lack of parking provision in the village generally. Tintern is the most popular tourist venue in the County.

·         Photographs have been submitted to support the parking issues.

·         The local Member cannot equate the parking spaces with the numbers required for day visitors, residents and staff.

·         The owners wish to live on the site and manage the hotel.

·         Concern was expressed regarding the agent’s comments.

·         If the application was approved, a further condition was requested that the new property be tied to the hotel and not treated as a separate application.

·         Forge Road is narrow with a small pavement.  Emergency vehicles would have difficulty accessing this route.  The parking issue has not been resolved and no internal site visit has taken place.

·         The local Member does not accept the officer’s recommendation as outlined in the report and asked that the Committee consider refusal of the application.

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

·         The area containing the 12 parking spaces is owned by the applicant, the hotel owners.

·         Parking provision provided with the proposed development would be for the sole use of the occupiers of the house and not for use by the hotel.

·         The car parking plan for the hotel and chalet accommodations is sufficient for the use of the hotel with the addition of the dwelling as outlined in the report. The Highways department has also confirmed that the car parking plan is compliant with appropriate guidelines. 34 parking spaces would be sufficient to provide 16/17 bedrooms and also provide three staff parking spaces. Additional parking can also serve the other functions such as the Coffee shop and the lounge bar eating area.

·         A Member considered whether a hybrid parking standard should be applied in this case in view of the hotel’s usage. In response, the Development Services Manager stated that this is an historic coaching inn with 34 spaces to serve the 16/17 bedrooms, some staff, the additional function of the restaurant and bar area and the coffee shop.  In context, this is considered to be a reasonable proportion of parking provision for the type of building this is and the capacity that it has.  There are other car parks in the area that could be used at peak times.

·         In response to questions raised, it was noted that the Highways Department had seen the revised details from the agent and maintain no objection to the application on highways grounds which includes the parking provision at the front of the site.

·         It was noted that Planning does not have the ability to prevent the separation of land. Therefore, it cannot be insisted upon that land be maintained for parking provision.

·         The Development Services Manager informed the Committee that the Committee should look at the land for the proposed dwelling as an independent parcel of land in its own right, independent from the hotel.

The local Member summed up by stating that she continued to have concerns regarding the parking provision on the site.

It was proposed by County Councillor A. Webb and seconded by County Councillor L. Brown that we be minded to refuse application DM/2020/01495 on the following grounds:

The construction of the proposed dwelling would remove an area historically used for parking for customers and staff of the hotel and its associated functions. Its loss for that purpose would be likely to lead to increased on-street parking in the locality on narrow lanes to the detriment of local amenity and highway safety and would be contrary to Policy DES1 d) of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan.

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

For refusal                -           5

Against refusal         -           7

Abstentions               -           1

The proposition was not carried.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor J. Becker that application DM/2020/01495 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Agreement.

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

For approval             -           7

Against approval      -           5

Abstentions               -           1

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2020/01495 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Agreement.