Agenda item

We considered the application and late correspondence, which was recommended for approval subject to the seven conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure a financial contribution towards affordable housing in the area.

Ms. Y. Spencer, objecting to the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following information:

Local residents asked that new build housing densities not be applied this infill development in an existing residential area. The case officer states that there is already a precedent in a locality relevant to this application.  Local residents contend that there is not.  The other application for two semi-detached dwellings in Park Crescent was never built and that permission has now expired. 

The cumulative effect of the proposal in this current application and the developers previously approved application is the creation of a mini housing estate on a site where there was one property.  Other people are waiting for the Planning Committee’s decision before submitting similar applications in established areas of the town.  The Committee’s decision will set a new precedent.  The appeal of an older area is the space and character that it has.

The case officer’s report mentioned proposals to demolish a garage and shed.  When the original property was purchased the two plots were registered under two separate title deeds.  The garage and shed are situated within the boundary of the other plot where planning permission has already been given.  This demolition should have been included when that application should have been considered. As the demolition relates to another property, residents request that it is subject to a separate application.  If Planning Committee agrees to the demolition of these buildings, this will allow access from the south.  The case officer states that the current application will be accessed from the north.  However, residents have concerns that construction and other traffic will access from Park Crescent if this proposal is approved.  This will present a danger to both pedestrians and traffic on a busy road.

With regard to the access, the public right of way between Park Crescent and Ysguborwen will be crossed by vehicles using this access.  A resident survey indicated that 154 pedestrians but no vehicles used this access between 8.00am and 9.00am on a busy Tuesday morning. Therefore, pedestrians are not used to encountering vehicles at this location.

Residents welcome the condition to lower the hedge along the western edge of the application site.  However, there are restricted areas to the land to the north which still presents a danger to pedestrians.  Health and safety provisions should be established before any movement of traffic to and from the site is allowed given the types of vulnerable pedestrians that use this route.

The land in question is owned by Monmouthshire Housing Association (MHA).  The case officer states that the applicant might have to obtain consent from MHA.  Residents assert that they must obtain consent.  Advice received form a planning inspector states if MHA allows for vehicular right of way, it should be evidenced because the public right of way is on foot and not for vehicles.  If MHA has objected, and not granted a right for vehicles to pass, that would be a fundamental reason why any planning permission could not be implemented. It is understood that MHA has not commented on this application but their response to the outline application is known, .i.e., MHA had objected to it.  There seems to be a need for a legal discussion to take place regarding this matter.  Therefore, there is a fundamental issues that has to be answered. Residents ask that Planning Committee does not make a recommendation on this application until the applicant can legally prove vehicular right of way granted by MHA.

The applicant, Mr. P. Thomas, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chair, outlined the following points:

·         The principle of the development has already been established by virtue of outline planning consent.

·         The proposed dwelling will be built in a sympathetic way to fit in with the vicinity and enhance the surrounding area to help meet the new houses in Abergavenny.

·         The application does not contravene any planning policies.

·         Regarding neighbours’ objections to loss of privacy, the dwellings are located a sufficient distance from the neighbours’ houses so does not contravene planning policy in any respect, or loss of privacy to first floor windows. Habitable rooms with windows will be facing the footpath.

·         There have been no objections from the Highways Department and the application is support by the Planning Department.

·         Therefore, the applicant asks the Planning Committee to consider granting planning permission for the application.

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

·         MHA is not the applicant and is not benefiting from the application. No comments have been received from MHA.

·         Concern was expressed form one Member regarding the safety aspect of the entrance to the site.

·         Other members considered that the application allows for an improvement in safety for pedestrians as some trees / vegetation will be removed.

·         Access from the north would improve the access to the site.  This could be added as a condition to the application.

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor R. Harris that application DC/2016/00714 be approved subject to the seven conditions, as outlined in the report, with the inclusion of an additional condition that the access should be located at the north of the site.  Also, the application should be subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure a financial contribution towards affordable housing in the area.

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

In favour of the proposal                13

Against the proposal                       1

Abstentions                                       0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2016/00714 be approved subject to the seven conditions, as outlined in the report, with the inclusion of an additional condition that the access would be located at the north of the site.  Also, the application would be subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure a financial contribution towards affordable housing in the area.