Agenda item

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the 13 conditions, as outlined in the report. Late correspondence was also received in respect of this application.

The local Member for Llanbadoc, attending the meeting by invitation of the Vice-Chair, outlined the following points:

·         There are single traffic roads to the site making it unsuitable for the proposed development.

·         Campers frequently tow trailers.  There can be no control regarding the type and size of vehicles arriving at the proposed site.

·         There are no amenities within easy walking distance.

·         In the event of the business ceasing, concern was expressed regarding the use of the new services block because that is a substantial permanent dwelling.

·         DwrCwmru is keeping a watching brief regarding the septic tank.

·         The twice yearly moving of the pods is ludicrous but by doing so, the application will comply with the policy. The local Member was not sure this was the right way to be undertaking such planning matters.

·         How will such movements be monitored?

·         The site has potential for expansion.

·         Rumble street is a short cut to Goytre. It is acknowledged that Rumble Street is a narrow rural lane with limited passing places and is signed as not being suitable for heavy vehicles.

·         The Traffic and Development Manager considered the potential traffic volume increase and is of the view that there is no longer grounds to sustain an objection on highway safety grounds.  However, the traffic department will not provide school transport for Monmouthshire’s children along this lane.  The lane is considered unsuitable to take a school bus along this route.  School children walk this route every day.

·         If the application is approved, it will further endanger children and local residents.

Mr. P. Fletcher, representing objectors to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Vice-Chair and outlined the following points:

·         Residents of Rumble Street object to the application on road safety grounds, loss of amenity and believe that the application does not comply with polices T2 and EP1.

·         Rumble Street is complex. It has unique characteristics and can only be appreciated by people who have lived there for a while.

·         Commercialising the lane will change it with the detriment to most households for the financial benefit of one person.

·         The lane is already straining under the existing demands put upon it due to traffic throughput, drainage and structural integrity.  The lane is one car wide with steep verges in places.

·         School children, cyclists, dog walkers, horse riders, elderly people walk the lane.  Large agricultural vehicles with livestock also use the lane.

·         The 60mph speed limit encourages the non-local people to drive much faster than is considered to be safe.

·         An increase in vehicle numbers will incur an increase in risk.

·         There are no amenities or organised activities within walking distance of the site. Therefore, regular car journeys are essential.

·         Noise intrusion will occur contrary to information contained within the report of the application.

·         The Services block will be a permanent feature.

·         There will be a risk to health and safety with the potential for open fires.

·         Poor access exists for emergency service vehicles.

The applicant’s agent, Mr. M. McLaughlin, attending the meeting by invitation of the Vice-Chair, outlined the following points:

·         Monitoring of the site with regard to it only being occupied during the allocated months will be easy to achieve.

·         The traffic and Development Manager has no objections to the application.

·         Policy RE6 allows for the provision of the service block.

·         Material considerations have been answered by the application case officer.

·         National Policies, not mentioned in the report of the application, i.e., Planning Policy Wales, provides support for the application at this site.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, Members considered that the proposed scheme was, on balance, a good scheme which promoted tourism within the County.

It was therefore proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor R.J. Higginson that application DC/2015/01136 be approved subject to the 13 conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

For approval              -           12

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2015/01136 be approved subject to the 13 conditions, as outlined in the report.