Agenda item

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the 20 conditions, as outlined in the report.

 

Councillor V. Long, representing Mitchel Troy Community Council, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, outlined the following points:

 

• In the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan Mitchel Troy Common is designated as open countryside with a presumption against development.

 

• In the eyes of local People, Monahawk Barn has been controversial because it was designed to look like a house.  The original plans that were given permission in 2005 state the size of the barn to be 47 square metres.  The current application states the dimensions as being 149.76 square metres, more than three times bigger than the one for which consent was granted.  The Planning Department had stated that this was irrelevant as the barn had been standing for more than four years.

 

• Common Road has no pedestrian footway and is barely wide enough for two cars to pass.  It has a national speed limit of 60 mph.

 

• A traffic survey indicates that common Road is not a quiet road.  In fact, it is a busy road, particularly at peak times.
• The Community Council has often expressed concern regarding the safety of Common Road and were surprised that the Highways Officer had not made any comments in respect of this application.

 

• Other teachers and staff will be travelling along this road adding to the potential danger.

 

• Developments are meant to be sustainable with the presumption of not using cars.

 

• Access to the public highway must meet the standards of the Highway Authority.  Any additional traffic created by the development must be incorporated into the existing road network without detriment to the area or highway safety.

 

• At the January 2016 meeting with the Priory Group, many residents expressed their fears about road safety at this location.

 

• Although the Highways Department has asked for the splay to the drive entrance to be widened, there will still be a blind bend to the north.

 

• Local people are not aware of the gated entrance being used for a number of years because of the sight lines.

 

• Under Planning Policy H4, the conversion of buildings that are suited to business will not be permitted unless the applicant has made every reasonable attempt to secure other business property.  Has the developer satisfied this requirement?

 

• It is proposed that 50 places will be available at Monmouth Comprehensive School for children with learning difficulties.  Has the need for this proposed school in Monmouthshire been proven?

 

• The application does not provide an open space for the children to exercise.

 

• The application is not sustainable.

 

Mr. J. Imber, the applicant’s agent, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, outlined the following points:

 

• The proposed development will provide for additional specialist educational space providing four classrooms.

 

• The children attending the school will have learning difficulties and will most likely reside in care homes in the local area.

 

• The school would have to be registered with Estyn and meet stringent regulatory requirements.

 

• The school will cater for young people with learning difficulties.  There is an increasing level of demand for places.
• Welsh Educational Services are keen for these places to be provided.

 

• Some children find it easier to be educated in a smaller setting and commissioning authorities are in favour of smaller settings.

 

• In terms of vehicular activity, the small scale nature of the proposed school means that vehicular movements will not be significant.

 

• The Highway Authority has no objection to the proposed use.

 

• The Priory Group has a long standing record of providing schools of this type.

 

• The proposal is in accordance with the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan.

 

Having viewed the report of the application and the views expressed, some Members considered that the application should be refused as there were better facilities available within the County and that approval of the application subject to the 20 conditions, as outlined in the report would result in additional traffic movements on Common Road.  If approved, the driveway should be made of grasscrete and not gravel.

 

It was noted that the Wye Valley AONB Officer had submitted no objections to the application.

 

Other Members expressed their support for the application and it was proposed by County Councillor D.J. Evans and seconded by County Councillor R.J. Higginson that application DC/2015/01322 be approved subject to the 20 conditions, as outlined in the report.

 

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

 

For approval              -           4

Against approval      -           8

Abstentions               -           1

 

The proposition was not carried.

 

We were therefore minded to refuse application DC/2015/01322 on the following grounds:

 

• Traffic / impact on highway and pedestrian safety.

 

• Harm to amenity from increased noise and disturbance associated with the proposal.

 

The application will be re-presented to a future Planning Committee Meeting with appropriate reasons for refusal.