Agenda item

We considered the application and late correspondence, which was recommended for approval subject to the 13 conditions and subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure four units of affordable housing on site.

 

The Planning Committee was informed that the application was a long standing proposal that had been deferred by the Committee on 5^th November 2013 to allow officers to liaise with the applicant regarding amendments to the design of the houses, parking provision to comply with the Council’s adopted guidelines, to obtain the observations of Highways, to receive a contamination report and a report on the stability of the land.

 

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

 

·         The residents of Wyesham have expressed their concerns in respect of the application.

 

·         A petition of 278 signatures had been received regarding the application.

 

·         There are three concerns but the greatest is the contamination on the site. Tests have been undertaken and the specialist environmental officer recommended additional sampling.

 

·         The tests have indicated a variety of pollutants but the main findings are benzopyrene, asbestos and made up soil.

 

·         Welsh Government guidelines for benzopyrene is 5mg per kilogramme. The results indicate 6.06mg per kilogramme.

 

·         Over a period of years there is evidence that tipping had occurred on the site. It was common practice for this to occur involving the tipping of hazardous material across the whole of the site.

 

·         The site had been used as a holding by for the Council when building the replacement prefabs.

 

·         The proposal is to build over the most polluted area of the site. There will be a membrane placed over the site and topped with topsoil.  The deeds to the properties will have a note attached making owners aware of this matter.  This is of no reassurance to residents.

 

·         Subsidence has occurred on one side of the site. Some residents have experienced movement in their gardens and garages.

 

·         Residents are not reassured by the engineer’s proposals.

 

·         There are concerns about the new road and access onto Hillcrest Road.

 

·         The local Member asked the Committee to consider deferral of the application until further tests have been undertaken.

 

·         Further investigation is required as well as a full remediation strategy.

 

Councillor S. Wilson, representing Monmouth Town Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         The Town Council Planning Committee, several years ago, voted for refusal and the reasons are identified in the outline report.

 

·         As a Town Councillor for this area, Councillor Wilson has been asked to speak on behalf of local people as some wanted to make a certain level of support for the development.

 

·         The petition gave a general feel that everyone was against the development and some residents considered that that was not the case.

 

·         The concerns are of the people who are opposed to the development and the reasons for people supporting it refer to the same issue of contamination of the site.

 

·         Both supporters and objectors of the development want to see the correct conditions applied to the development for sufficient testing and precautions taken when intervening on the development itself.

 

·         Supporters say that the site is contaminated, is not going to improve and is being used as a site for illegal tipping.  Children could easily access this dangerous site. Therefore, the supporters see the housing development as a potential way of solving the issues mentioned regarding the site.

 

·         With regard to access to the site, the Town Council considers that any construction management plan would have to make it clear how the development is safely accessed.

 

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

 

·         There are strict conditions attached to the application which address the issues raised.

 

·         Concern was expressed regarding the contamination of the site.  However, the Development Services Manager stated that condition 10 refers to a full remediation strategy being required.  However, for the level of assessment required for the planning application, officers are aware of the risk and that it can be managed subject to mitigation.

 

·         As more mitigation was required regarding the site it was considered that the application could be deferred until the required tests have been undertaken.  The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping stated that such a requirement would not be reasonable as the applicant would be expected to spend a considerable amount of money with no certainty that they will receive consent for residential development.  The conditions within the application would control the concerns raised in respect of contamination.

 

The Local Member summed up by asking the Planning Committee to consider deferral of the application to allow the remedial strategy to be put in place.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor R. Harris and seconded by County Councillor R. Chapman that we be minded to defer consideration of application DC/2012/00754 to allow further contamination testing to be undertaken.

 

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

 

For deferral               -           2

Against deferral        -           11

Abstentions               -           0

 

The proposition was not carried.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor A. Webb that application DC/2012/00754 be approved subject to the 13 conditions and subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure four units of affordable housing on site.

 

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

 

For approval              -           11

Against approval      -           0

Abstentions               -           2

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DC/2012/00754 be approved subject to the 13 conditions and subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure four units of affordable housing on site.