Agenda item

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

The application had been presented to Planning Committee on the 4^th October 2016 with a recommendation for approval. However, consideration of the application had been deferred to allow officers to liaise with the applicant to consider changing the design, as the Planning Committee felt that the form of the development was not in keeping with the character of the surrounding area. Members had requested a complete re-design. However, the applicant had considered that the present application was the best design solution.

It was noted that if the Planning Committee was minded to refuse the application on design grounds, a reason for refusal was offered below:

·         The proposed new build element of the application is considered to present an unsympathetic design and provide an incongruous appearance in relation to the traditional, vernacular character of the surrounding built environment, designated as a conservation area. The proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and would be contrary to Policy HE1 of the adopted Monmouthshire Local Development Plan.

In response to a question raised by a Member of the Committee regarding Policy TAN 15, the Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping stated that Planning Policy allows the Committee to approve residential development on Flood Zone C1 if it is a brownfield site, if it meets local Authority regeneration or employment initiative and if the consequences of flooding are acceptable.  It was noted that Planning officers are satisfied in flood risk policy that this application complies.

The local Member for St. Mary’s, attending the meeting by invitation of the Chairman, informed the Planning Committee that he recognised that additional work had been undertaken in respect of the application and acknowledged the serious consideration given by the Committee at the previous meeting.  However, nothing of what he had said at the previous meeting has any reason to be changed.  The application has been re-submitted with some additional work but it has not met the objections that he had brought to the meeting expressed on behalf of local opinion.  Therefore, his views expressed at the previous meeting still apply.

It was noted that the design had not changed but had been better presented with coloured drawings.  Therefore, some Members were now in agreement that the application, in its current form, was the best design for this site

However, other Members still considered that the design was inappropriate and issues relating to parking had been ignored and considered that the application should be refused for the reason as outlined in the report.

Having considered the report of the application and the views expressed, it was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor R. Harris that application DC/2013/00349 be approved subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report.

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

For approval                8

Against approval         5

Abstentions                 0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2013/00349 be approved subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report.