Agenda item

We considered the report of the application, and late correspondence, which was recommended for approval subject to the 13 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a unilateral undertaking.

 

The local Member for Caldicot Castle attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         This has been a highly controversial proposed development. Many residents have contacted the local Member outlining their objections to the proposal. Also, a small number of residents have come forward indicating their support for the affordable housing proposals.

 

·         The vast majority of residents have opposed the scheme for a myriad of reasons.

 

·         This site does not form a part of the Local Development Plan (LDP). The Council has only agreed to give appropriate weight to the lack of five year land supply rather than considerable weight.

 

·         Concerns have been raised regarding the infrastructure within Caldicot. The Doctor’s surgery has very long waiting times and it is very difficult to obtain a NHS dentist in Caldicot, leading to higher prices for dental treatments.

 

·         The local primary schools are at capacity.

 

·         Aneurin Bevan University Health Board has stated that there are issues with recruitment rather than building size, but this is no consolation to elderly residents struggling to obtain an appointment to see their G.P.

 

·         Schools are addressed via Section 106 Agreements.  However, Caldicot’s primary schools are at capacity.  The Town cannot wait for houses to be built and then receive Section 106 funding before the primary school places are put in place to accommodate the additional need. Primary school children within Caldicot are currently having to travel across the town to attend a school that can accommodate them.

 

·         Capacity needs to be built into the primary schools to accommodate the additional children that will arrive as a result of approving the application to provide additional housing within the Town.

 

·         Concern has been expressed that the proposed houses will appeal to Bristol commuters which could lead to a reduction in Welsh language provision that currently exists within Caldicot.

 

·         Concerns have been raised regarding the archaeological remains that have been found in Nedern Rise and whether more will be discovered and damaged by the development of the site.

 

·         Increased traffic flow could have a negative impact on the air quality and cause damage to the Roman ruins at Caerwent.

 

·         The site contains a public right of way which is used by ramblers and the local community. The right of way will no longer be an attractive route as it will traverse a housing estate. Concerns have been raised that walkers will change their route and walk through the site of special scientific interest (SSSI), potentially creating a negative impact on wildlife. Natural Resources Wales (NRW) aims to deter walkers from the SSSI.

 

·         Concerns have been raised regarding road safety issues on Church Road, especially around the beginning and end of the school day. An increase in traffic flow on Church Road will exacerbate an already dangerous situation.

 

·         Another road safety concern is the entrance to the site via Heol Sirhowy and Heol Trothy. These are small estate roads with children playing in the streets. A second access is required.

 

·         There is concern regarding the increased strain on the road network to and from the Severn Bridge with the potential need for a slip road on and off the M48.

 

·         Noise pollution may become a problem, especially if the tree barrier is reduced between the existing development and the M48.

 

·         A number of residents have been concerned regarding the loss of views of the countryside and are further concerned that the gifted country park section might be developed in the future.

 

·         Concerns has been expressed regarding the increased flooding risks from the Castle grounds that might encroach in to Heol Teifi.

 

·         The primary concern regarding the proposed development is the ecology of the SSSI, as this site is valuable to flora and fauna which could be damaged should the proposed development be approved.

 

·         This site is not in the LDP.  The application does not have to be approved. Existing residents did not anticipate that this site would be developed.

 

Councillor O. Edwards, representing Caldicot Town Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         Caldicot Town Council supports the need for affordable housing. However, the Town Council had refused the application.

 

·         The proposed development is outside of the LDP.

 

·         There is insufficient infrastructure.

 

·         There is a lack of primary school places in the Caldicot area.

 

·         The doctors surgery will struggle due to the increased numbers of patients, not just from this development but from developments at Crick, Sudbrook, Magor and Undy.

 

·         Church Road is the main road that traverses Caerwent and into the town centre.  Additional traffic will cause a ‘bottle neck’, especially during school opening and closing times causing a risk to the children’s safety.

 

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

 

·         Over 200 concerned residents have registered their opposition to the proposed development.

 

·         There have been three public meetings held in the last six months with many valid reasons for objections to the proposal being raised.

 

·         John Griffiths AM has also attended a public meeting and had expressed his support for residents’ opposition to the proposed development in a subsequent newspaper article.

 

·         Caldicot Town Council and Caerwent Community Council have objected to the proposed development.

 

·          420 homes are proposed for the Caldicot area which will have a detrimental effect to the infrastructure of the town in the short term with the two developments being one mile apart.

 

·         Over 1000 people and associated vehicles will join the network that currently exists, in the coming years.

 

·         The area for the proposed development is an area of open countryside and has no special circumstances. It is contrary to policy and is a departure from the LDP.

 

·         Two weeks ago a new notice was posted in the area to change the route for the existing public right of way. The right of way is located in existing open countryside away from the SSSI.  The change will take the right of way through the new housing estate.

 

·         HGH Consulting considers that the gifted community park will compensate for the loss of green area and the existing right of way.  Caldicot Castle is already a well used community park with a maintained and policed infrastructure. The current field is not planned to include any infrastructure. Entry and exit of the proposed community area will be across private driveways.

 

·         The Castle Community Park will also be impacted by the proposed new estate, as it will be within 100 metres of the development. Reports indicate moderate to high negative impacts on views and amenities to the proposed development.

 

·         The existing right of way runs alongside a nearby lake. All views of the lake and wildlife will be lost.

 

·         There could be a risk to the SSSI as close proximity of construction to the protected area is a material planning consideration and should remain a protected site.  A full environmental impact should be commissioned.

 

·         EDP is used by Monmouthshire County Council and HGH Consulting. Concern was expressed that this might result in a conflict of interest.

 

·         The SSSI habitat supports species that are listed as of principal importance for conservation in Wales and has been upgraded to a priority habitat.

 

·         The British Geological Survey has recommended that the SSSI site be reclassified as a UK bat priority habitat.

 

·         The majority of the site is grade 1,2,3 agricultural land. Planning Policy Wales (PPW) gives weight to the protection of land in grades 1,2 and 3a.  The proposal for development of this land is not in accordance with the objectors of PPW. Land of this grade is capable of producing high yields of arable and horticultural crops.

 

·         There is a strong feeling within the local community that this development is a development that is too far and will be detrimental to the local environment and infrastructure and should not be progressed.

 

The applicant’s agent, Mr. R. Hepher, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         Development of this area of land has always been envisaged up the boundary of the SSSI but no further.

 

·         A large proportion of the land is reserved as green space. The community park is in the region of seven acres which will be given to the County Council with funds to provide for its future maintenance.

 

·         Planning decisions need to be based on evidence. The applicant and officers have been working together to ensure that the best proposed development scheme is produced and independent verification has been sought when required.

 

·         Officers have ensured that if any mitigation / policy compliance is required, it is achieved via a Section 106 Agreement and conditions.

 

·         The total value of the Section 106 Agreement, including the affordable housing element, equates to a figure in the region of £4.5m.

 

·         This application has been amended and improved during the process and now satisfies the ground rules indicated by Council on 20^th September 2018.

 

·         The application has been a well conceived and well assessed scheme and there is no reason for the application to be refused.

 

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

 

·         Members noted that the site is not allocated for development in the LDP.  Members considered the application in the light of the decision made by Council on 20th September 2018 which provided the Council’s position, in principle, for residential development on unallocated sites.  The shortfall in housing land supply was given ‘appropriate weight’ and the application was considered against the 11 ‘ground rules’ agreed by Council on 20th September 2018.

 

·         Approval of the application will ensure that the site is fully developed and is complimentary to existing housing developments.

 

·         It is a natural site for development.  It is bounded by the belt of trees which contain tree preservation orders. The site cannot be developed any further east.

 

·         Concern was expressed regarding the effects to the junction in Caerwent and ideas to mitigate this have been submitted to the Highways Department.

 

·         The Authority does not have to wait for the Section 106 funding to extend the school as it can borrow money on the strength of the Section 106 Funding that is coming into the Authority.

 

·         G.P. provision is decided on population. The current surgeries have the facilities to bring in additional G.P.s.

 

·         The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the Committee that there is a clause within the agreed unilateral undertaking in which there is a restriction that the community park shall only be utilised for the purposes of public recreation and for no other purpose.

 

·         There is a need for additional housing in the area.

 

·         There will be 35% affordable housing provided, should the application be approved, providing an additional 14 affordable houses.

 

 

·         The woods and the SSSI creates a natural barrier preventing further development of the site.

 

·         Investigations are underway regarding Castle Park Primary School to provide parking for school staff and to provide a drop off area for parents.

 

·         Concern was expressed regarding the junction between Church Road and the Roman Road which was considered to be a dangerous access point. A Member considered that traffic assessments needed to be looked at on a wider basis, as there is a traffic impact on the surrounding villages when large housing developments are implemented. There are issues regarding the infrastructure within the area that incorporates the site.  The advantages of having developments within the LDP means that the larger infrastructure requirements are looked at.  Piecemeal applications create a cumulative impact in the area which is not accounted for.  The Local Health Board had indicated that up to the year 2026 there are a total of 4484 houses proposed with a potential increase in the population of 11658. Potentially, six G.P.s will be required. Currently, it is difficult to obtain routine G.P. appointments in the area due to the existing pressures on G.P surgeries as a result of the existing population. Developments require proper infrastructure provision.

 

·         In response, the Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping stated that with regard to education, records are kept regarding which applications have been approved and what is already allocated within the LDP.  Therefore, this process will be undertaken for this application. The same applies for traffic assessments and the work being undertaken on a regional and all Wales basis with the local Health Board and the NHS to ensure that the interaction that takes place between Planning and Health facilities is incorporated, going forward.

 

·         With regard to the application, the Health Board has indicated that there is a capacity issue which needs to be addressed.  The solution is to appoint an extra G.P. at the Caldicot surgery. The building and car park can accommodate this. There is no requirement to extend the building or car park so no Section 106 Funding will be required for this.

 

·         The Delegation Panel, together with the local members, should be involved with the design of the proposal.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor M. Feakins and seconded by County Councillor D. Evans that application DM/2018/00880 be approved subject to the 13 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a unilateral undertaking.

 

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

 

For approval              -           9

Against approval      -           2

Abstentions               -           0

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DM/2018/00880 be approved subject to the 13 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a unilateral undertaking.