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 that condition 3 be amended as follows:

 

·         Within three months of the date of this permission details of the three bat and bird boxes, one to the front and two closest to the rear of the dwelling as shown on drawing LSC/01 A shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority.  The approved details should be implemented within three months of the approval and retained as such in perpetuity.

 

Ms. A.M. Smale, objecting to the application, had prepared a video recording which was presented to Planning Committee and the following points were outlined:

 

·         Condition 1 of the officer’s report asks the Committee to approve plans in the table below.  However, there is no table in the report to be reviewed. Concern was expressed regarding which drawings were being asked to be approved and questioned whether the table had been published in sufficient time for due consideration.

 

·         The Local Government Planning Advisory Service states in relation to Planning Conditions ‘does it form part of the application area?’ A valid condition is only relevant to the red line within the development unless it is a Grampian condition.  If it is outside of the red line it needs to form part of a Section 106 agreement.

 

·         Condition 2 of the officer’s report requires ecology work to be carried out on land that is outside the application red line.  This condition is likely to be unenforceable.

 

·         Monmouthshire’s Planning Portal under the heading ‘do I need SAB approval’ defines construction work under Section 3 of the Floodwater Management Act 2012 as anything that covers land such as patios or drives as a structure for the purposes of SAB approval. The act applies to all work over 100 sq.m. The report of the application states that there is no new construction area under the concurrent application.  However, it was considered to be untrue and if accepted would be a breach of the act. The applicant’s drawing states that the area of construction work is 333 sq.m created by the unlawfully constructed retaining wall.

 

·         The proposed drainage scheme is outside the red line so cannot be controlled via this planning permission.

 

·         Engineering works proposed in the rear garden in close proximity to trees, with no tree survey or aboricultural method statement. It was considered that this needs to be rectified before the application is determined.

 

·         The report of the application states that the proposed garage has an upper level for ancillary storage.  A single storey garage with attic space or even a one and a half storey building would suffice.

 

·         The proposed garage report states that the proposal is acceptable sitting alongside the host property.  It was suggested that given none of the proposed elevations show any context, it would be difficult to judge the scale of the proposal and whether it is acceptable and in accordance with Policy DES1. It is essential that the existing house is drawn accurately on the proposed garage drawings in order for an informed decision to be made.

 

·         The report refers to other ancillary garages on Wainfield Lane. The objector had carried out a detailed study and noted that these garages are not two-storey.  A request was made for the Planning Committee to undertake its own site inspection to determine if the proposed scale is appropriate or whether a single storey garage with storage space in the attic would be a better solution.

 

·         Concern was expressed whether the proposed landscape scheme was sufficient given the decimation of the boundary hedgerow and the tree damage as a result of the unlawful construction work.

 

·         Concern was expressed regarding the accuracy and legal validity of the application and the report of the application.  The objector asked that these matters be referred to the Planning Committee’s legal advisor to ensure the correct advice is being given to Members.

 

·         There is no boundary dispute with Ty Cerrig.

 

In response, The Development Management Area Manager informed the Committee that:

 

·         With regard to the phrase ‘table below’ in the condition, in this context it refers to the decision notice document and is a standard form of words of a planning condition.  It is clear within the report which plans are being brought before the Committee.

 

·         With regard to the red line and some of the ecological enhancements proposed, this matter was addressed in the Officer’s presentation, hence the revision of the wording to Condition 3.

 

·         SAB is a separate approving body of the Council and it is the applicant’s responsibility to seek that consent.

 

·         The site has been visited by the Council’s Tree Officer. None of the trees are subject to individual or group tree preservation orders.

 

·         A site inspection had been held on 7^th June 2022.

Mr. S. Matthews, applicant, had submitted a written statement in respect of the application which was read to the Planning Committee by a Planning Officer, as follows:

 

‘I would like to take this opportunity to clarify several points made in relation to the planning application submitted for retrospective planning. I would also like to apologise for not fully appreciating the need to apply for planning permission for the building of the plant room back in late 2016. As discussed with the planning officer, I believed that anything under 12sqm did not require planning permission, however I had not appreciated that this didn’t apply to buildings at the front of a property. The points I would like to make against the objections are as follows.

 

Reference to 5.2.1 The Submission

 

• The residents of The Gables understand that planning permission should have been requested prior to the commencement of any building works as outlined above. Had we realised our error we would have submitted a planning application at that time.

 

• The Oak tree on the boundary of the properties was only discovered after the removal of the Conifers and Leylandii. It was suffering from strangulation by Ivy. Since the removal of the surrounding trees and Ivy, the Oak tree has flourished.

 

Ref: - 5.2.3 – comments in relation to the design of the buildings

 

• When the garage is built, and the hedgerow matures, the plant room will not be visible from the lane.

 

Ref: - 5.2.4 Residential Amenity

 

·         To minimise the view of the plant room on neighbouring properties, and in preparation of further development to the property, a Beech Hedgerow was planted. This was selected by Ty-Gerrig and jointly planted with The Gables. Once fully mature, this should reach a height of between 3m-5m thus minimising the visual impact of any aspect of the plant room that can be seen.

 

Ref: - 5.2.6 Building regs and Environmental Health

 

• The new domestic flue location will be positioned further away from the boundary line original 1.8m, new position 6m and 4m higher.

 

Ref: - Biodiversity / Ecology

 

• A full landscaping plan has been submitted detailing all new trees planted.

 

• 2 National Trust ARUNDEL bat boxes have been installed to both the front and rear of the property. 7 bird boxes are housed throughout the property, many of which have / are being occupied during the nesting season.

 

We believe the case for objection by some residents of Wainfield Lane have no relevance to the development / enhancement of the property, especially given that each property is individualised with no set standard or finish to benchmark against.

 

Residents, including those of Ty-Gerrig, were very complimentary and supportive of the initial development to The Gables. At the time, the plant room was already built. 

 

The development of the Gables is coming to completion, but we find ourselves in the unfortunate situation of battling to finalise, what we hope, will be a property that fully complements the other properties on Wainfield Lane. We hope that the Planning Committee are supportive of helping us finalise this development.’

 

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

 

·         With regard to applying separately for Sustainable Urban Drainage systems, it had been suggested that the overall floor area would be in  excess of 100 sq.m which would require the need for separate approval from the County Council.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor B. Callard and seconded by County Councillor J. McKenna that application DM/2020/01288 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and that condition 3 be amended as follows:

 

·         Within three months of the date of this permission details of the three bat and bird boxes, one to the front and two closest to the rear of the dwelling as shown on drawing LSC/01 A shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority.  The approved details should be implemented within three months of the approval and retained as such in perpetuity.

 

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

 

In favour of the proposition            -           16

Against the proposition                   -           0

Abstentions                                       -           0

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DM/2020/01288 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report and that condition 3 be amended as follows:

 

·         Within three months of the date of this permission details of the three bat and bird boxes, one to the front and two closest to the rear of the dwelling as shown on drawing LSC/01 A shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local Planning Authority.  The approved details should be implemented within three months of the approval and retained as such in perpetuity.