Agenda item

We considered the report of the application, and late correspondence, which was recommended for approval subject to the 16 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a unilateral undertaking.

 

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

 

·         Raglan is a rural secondary settlement and only 10% of the overall housing provision for Monmouthshire is required in rural secondary settlements.

 

·         The current application for 111 houses would result in a 36% rise in the number of houses in the village.

 

·         The application is contrary to the Local Development Plan (LDP). This site is inappropriate in an unsustainable location.

 

·         It is set in an area of good agricultural land and is not within the LDP. It is a development set outside of defined settlement boundaries.

 

·         The development will create a negative impact on the local infrastructure.  In particular, the A40 crossing and junction will experience a 33% increase in traffic in the morning peak times and an 18% increase in the afternoon peak.

 

·         There have been five recorded road traffic accidents in the previous five years, two of which were serious accidents. There is a likelihood of further road traffic accidents with increased traffic flow, should the application be approved.

 

·         The A40 has been a concern for Raglan residents for some time. Concern has been exacerbated with increased pressure on this junction, as the junction is unsafe.

 

·         The high street will also be under considerable pressure, should the application be approved.

 

·         Most residents recognise that there is a need for housing throughout Monmouthshire and that Raglan will not be exempt. Raglan, in particular, requires affordable housing provision. However, there are other, more suitable sites which will generate less pressure on the highway infrastructure and make use of the by-pass.

 

·         Approval of this application could be seen as a catalyst for further development in the area.

 

·         Raglan lacks the infrastructure and opportunities to accommodate a large development which threatens to alter the existing village status.

 

Councillor R. Moorby, representing Raglan Community Council, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         The representative had contributed to the creation of the existing LDP.

 

·         The application is ignoring a number of clauses within the LDP.

 

·         In terms of the number of houses proposed, considerable weight is being applied as opposed to appropriate weight.

 

·         With the 45 houses on Chepstow Road that have already received planning permission, the additional 111 houses would result in a 36% rise in the number of houses in the village, which is considered to be far beyond appropriate.

 

·         The scale of development is not acceptable.

 

·         Local shopkeepers do not require the proposed added patronage that the development would bring to the village.

 

·         The primary school is currently at capacity and could not accommodate any additional children coming into the village.

 

·         The development will be built on a significant portion of the best agricultural land in Monmouthshire.

 

·         Planning Policy Wales (PPW) states that note should be taken of existing infrastructure.  It is considered that this is not being taken into account.

 

·         The Spatial Plan for Wales 2008 refers to sustainability. People moving into the area would not be working in Raglan but would be commuting out of the village.

 

·         The Community Council requested that the application be refused.

 

Mr. C. Knight, representing objectors, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chair and outlined the following points:

 

·         200 posts objecting to the application have been placed on the planning portal.

 

·         It was considered that the proposed scheme has been engineered to exploit a loophole created by Welsh Government promoting sites outside of LDPs where local authorities have a shortage of planned housing development.

 

·         In July 2018, Lesley Griffiths AM stated that such speculative applications generate uncertainty for communities and add to the detriment of the plan led system.

 

·         Residents are disappointed as the site is owned by a former County Councillor.

 

·         It was considered that the Planning Department takes a strong approach in the Raglan area with refusal for domestic type fences in fields, enforced removal of play items in fields and policed the fenestration of new extensions.

 

·         It was considered that the report of the application is flawed, for example, the school has 210 places with 204 pupils on roll leaving only 6 places for the 10 pupils generated from the 45 homes already approved.  It is impossible to extend the school.  Therefore, the 24 children generated via this scheme will be required to go to a primary school in Abergavenny.

 

·         It is disingenuous for the proposed site to be located close to the primary school as these pupils will not be attending their local primary school.

 

·         The covenant remains in place.

 

·         The recreation contribution within the Section 106 Agreement is halved from £3000 to £1500 per unit.

 

·         David Davies MP has written to the Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping supporting Raglan Community Council’s suggestion that the application be refused and then referred to the new LDP process.

 

·         The Community Council is supportive of sustainable development and acknowledge the need for affordable housing in the village.

 

·         If the scheme is approved, in addition to the 45 houses already granted, it will increase the size of the village by 36%.  Such over development will incapacitate the local infrastructure.

 

·         The Community Council asked that the Planning Committee considers refusing the application and work with the Community Council alongside others in the new LDP.

 

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

 

·         The scheme has been carefully and sensitively designed focussing on a high quality, design led scheme.

 

·         The scheme is a result of a collaborative process, engaging with officers via of the pre-application service and with the community via a public exhibition, resulting in a high quality thought out scheme.

 

·         No statutory consultees, other than Ragan Community Council, have objected to the proposed scheme.

 

·         A significant package of affordable housing and financial contributions are also proposed.

 

·         The development will provide in excess of £800,000 worth of planning contributions.  This could include a contribution towards a new village hall, widened and new footways, improved public transport and provision of primary school places. These contributions will benefit existing and new residents of Raglan.

 

·         It had been accepted that residential development could come forward on unallocated sites where schemes are otherwise acceptable in planning terms and the agreed ground rules are met. The proposed scheme accords with both and should be supported.

 

·         The scheme will aid people to access the local housing market.

 

·         39 affordable housing units form a part of the scheme. Letters of support have been received in respect of the need for affordable housing in the area.

 

·         With a signed unilateral undertaking and a shortened time period for delivery, there will be no delay to these houses being built, should the application be approved.

 

·         The proposed scheme will make a difference to those in need.

 

·         If new houses are delayed until the LDP review has been completed, there will unlikely be any provision of housing in settlements such as Raglan before 2023.

 

·         The scheme will bring a number of benefits and will make a significant contribution to addressing the existing housing shortfall.

 

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.

 

·         LDP policy S1 identifies Raglan as a rural secondary settlement which under Policy S2 was to take 45 houses over the planned period. At that time it had been considered to be a reasonable degree of growth for a settlement of this size. Compared with the LDP allocation and the household size at Raglan the scale of what is now proposed is disproportionate. Raglan village comprises of an historic core around which development has grown sporadically and at a low level. A large development at one end of the village does not respect its character and will be incongruous in scale. As part of the ground rules that have been approved by Council and outlined in the report of the application, point 6 states that the scale of the additional residential development will be considered in the context of the LDP social strategy. It was considered that this application does not meet the test of the ground rules. Raglan is not in a sustainable location and public transport is limited. Employment centres are some distance away and it was considered that the development will be contrary to Policy S16, as it would generate commuting by private car. Using Grade 3a, agricultural land is contrary to Planning Policy Wales (PPW) where there is no overriding need to develop it.

 

·         There is a need for this development within Raglan.

 

·         The application, if approved, will provide 35% affordable housing in Raglan which will help young people to remain within the village.

 

·         The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the Committee that with regard to agricultural land classification there are three grades of best and most versatile agricultural land, 1, 2 and 3a. National Planning Policy states that local authorities should avoid building on these unless there is overriding need.  A detailed site survey indicates that two thirds of the site is 3a. The remaining third is 3b or 4. The two thirds of the site is classified as best and most versatile, albeit at the lesser side of best agricultural quality. The scale of the proposed development is a subjective assessment and is considered to be appropriate for Raglan. With regard to the Council decision on 20^th September 2018, a hybrid approach had been agreed. This spatial option looked at both the pressing need in the south of the County and the LDP settlement hierarchy. Raglan is a rural secondary settlement and falls somewhere between the two. It is acknowledged that there are not key employment opportunities in Raglan and there will be reliance new residents commuting by car. However, in terms of connectivity, Raglan is well connected.  A contribution will be made to improve public transport provision. 45 homes have been allocated in Raglan. With regard to school capacity, the Authority cannot build schools larger than is required and is not allowed to plan for surplus places. Currently, children are brought into Raglan to attend the primary school. In future, there is potential for this to change with additional local children being able to attend the primary school with children residing outside of the village attending a primary school elsewhere. The covenant is relevant in in this case in as far as it affects whether this application can come forward quickly. The applicant considers that the covenant issues have been resolved.

 

·         Concern was expressed that the global picture was not being recognised in relation to the County. Monmouthshire is an employment commuter region covering Cardiff, Newport and Bristol but there are no traffic assessments covering these issues. Monmouthshire has a 3.9 year supply of housing. However, household projections have dropped significantly over the previous 10 years. If looking at projected population growth, it was considered that Monmouthshire does not have a five year land supply shortfall as the LDP could have been reviewed to lower population projections. It was considered that an influx of people are anticipated to move into the whole of the County from the Bristol area and this needs to be recognised.  In response, the Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the Committee that in terms of household projections, they have reduced in terms of percentages in the last three census rounds but the starting point has been higher than originally estimated.  One of the reasons for the shrinking of household formations is due to young people still having to live at home with their parents.  In planning policy terms, household projections are the starting point, then factor in growth aspirations or other policy concerns. People will continue to migrate into Monmouthshire which has always been a population growth tradition.

 

·         Concern was expressed regarding the highways issues that currently exist within Raglan including the need to cross on-coming traffic.

 

The local Member summed up, as follows:

 

·         The proposed development looks like urban sprawl in a village.

 

·         This application stands alone and is not similar to previous applications considered.

 

·         Suitability of the site the Committee is being asked to be considered and the large number of proposed houses.

 

·         There are alternative sites for housing provision.

 

·         45 houses are already being built within Raglan.

 

·         There have been serious road traffic accidents within the village.

 

·         If approved, the development will not be sustainable.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor G. Howard and seconded by County Councillor L. Brown that we be minded to refuse application DM/2018/01050 on the grounds that the application is contrary to LDP Policies S1, S2, S16 and H4.

 

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

 

For refusal                 -           4

Against refusal         -           5

Abstentions               -           1

 

The proposition was not carried.

 

We resolved that application DM/2018/01050 be approved subject to the 16 conditions, as outlined in the report and subject to a unilateral undertaking.