Agenda item

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the 14 conditions as outlined in the report.

Councillor A. Thomas, representing Trellech Community Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Vice-Chairman and outlined the following objections of the Community Council:

·         Highway Safety concerns regarding the rural lane as it takes a considerable amount of east / west traffic across the Wye Valley linking up the Coleford Chepstow Road at Bigsweir Bridge.  It also links traffic through Trellech onto the main routes to Abergavenny.  Bigsweir Bridge is the crossing between the Forest of Dean and Monmouthshire through the centre of the Wye Valley between Monmouth and Chepstow.

·         There is a blind spot at this location causing traffic issues.

·         Llandogo is located in a Conservation Area as well as being located within the Wye Valley AONB and could be seen from many vantage points.

·         Development had been occurring in isolation without recognising the duty to protect and enhance contributing to the ongoing decline over the previous 40 years.

·         Residents living above the proposed dwelling have concerns regarding potential land slippage as building work could disturb underground water courses and could seriously jeopardise the higher properties within this location.

·         There has been a history of land slippage in the area resulting in the road having to be closed for several months.

·         The proposal to introduce additional parking will lead to road closure during construction and could seriously inconvenience the residents of Llandogo.

The applicant’s agent, Mr. B. Spencer, attended to meeting by invitation of the Vice-Chairman and outlined the following points:

·         With regard to rural safety, it is a rural lane but with the layby proposed to park vehicles in that location, it will not allow the vehicles to overlap onto the road.  Therefore, it should be a highway gain.

·         The Heritage Officer had concluded that conservation area would be enhanced and preserve the special character of the conservation area which complies with Planning Policy H2.

·         The residents located above where the proposed works would take place would be for the management of the site to take into account and would form a small part of the works.

·         Planning Officers, the Bio Diversity Officer and the Heritage Officer had recommended support for the application.

The local Member for Trellech and also a Planning Committee Member, expressed concern regarding the highway safety if this application was approved.  The site inspection had revealed that the rural road was narrow and winding and considered that it was not a safe route to school.

Having considered the views expressed, some Members expressed their support for the application as it was noted at the site inspection that there was adequate room for vehicles to pass at this location.  The design of the proposed dwelling was in keeping with the surrounding properties.

In response to a Member’s question it was noted that the applicant would be willing to set back the retaining wall by a further 0.5 metre.

However, other Members expressed concern that the steepness of the site would require a considerable amount of earth to be removed to accommodate the proposed new dwelling.  This was a concern as the area was notorious for land slippages.

It was noted that it was the responsibility of the developer to make the site safe for development.

Following the debate it was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor D.L. Edwards that application DC/2014/01533 be approved subject to the 14 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to the proposed retaining wall being set back by a further 0.5m.

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

For approval              5

Against Approval     4

Abstentions               2

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2014/01533 be approved subject to the 14 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to the proposed retaining wall being set back by a further 0.5m.