Agenda item

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to a Section 106 agreement and planning conditions as set out in the previous report to Planning Committee of 6^th November 2018.

 

The application is re-presented to Planning Committee for consideration due to the data error on housing completions against Local Development Plan (LDP) targets, included in the 20^th September 2019 Council report and duplicated in the 6^th November 2018 Planning Committee report for this item.  The Committee was invited to consider the application afresh. In addition, the application has been reviewed against Planning Policy Wales 10 (PPW10), which is an updated national planning policy which has been published since the Committee considered the application in November 2019.  The impact on Scheduled Ancient Monuments has been considered by Cadw and no objection is offered.

 

The proposed development would make a significant and timely contribution to the Authority’s housing land supply shortfall and the 35% affordable housing would help to address the significant affordability challenge facing Monmouthshire’s communities.  The proposal is considered to comply with the 11 ground rules agreed by Council on 21^st February 2019, and it is considered to accord with the policies set out in PPW10. 

 

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

 

·         The local Member stated that she was in attendance to represent the views of local residents in respect of this application which included many objectors and a small number of supporters for the application.

 

·         Concerns were expressed regarding the infrastructure within Caldicot.  The local GP surgery has long waiting times and there are difficulties for residents to obtain a NHS dentist.

 

·         Local schools are at capacity.

 

·         Aneurin Bevan University Health Board has had difficulties with regard to recruitment.

 

·         Schools are covered by the Section 106 arrangement.  Schools are already full and it was considered that the Authority cannot wait for the houses to become occupied, obtain the Section 106 Funding before building the extra school places that are required.

 

·         Concerns have been raised regarding the archaeological remains found in the Neddern Rise and whether more artefacts might be found on this site.

 

·         Concerns have been raised regard the increased traffic flows and the impact on air quality which might cause damage to the Roman ruins in Caerwent.

 

·         The site contains a public right of way. Although the site will retain the right of way, it will no longer be an attractive country walk as it will traverse a housing estate.  There are concerns that this will force the walkers into the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) which could create a negative effect on the wildlife.

 

·         Natural Resources Wales (NRW) has stated that it wishes to deter walkers from the SSSI while the birds are wintering at this location.

 

·         Concerns have been expressed that people will chose to walk in the countryside rather that use the right of way.

 

·         The local Member expressed her grave concerns regarding road safety on Church Road, especially at school drop off and pick up times. An increase in traffic on Church Road would exacerbate an already dangerous situation.

 

·         Another road safety concern is having the main entrance to the site being through Heol Sirhowy and Heol Trothy.  These are very small estate roads with children playing in the streets.

 

·         There is a high pressure gas main through the site and there are concerns with regard to how this site will be developed. Recent incidents on the site have caused considerable stress and concern to residents.

 

·         Concern was expressed regarding the increased strain on the roads surrounding Caldicot and the nearby areas, potentially leading to increased strain on all of these commuting routes.

 

·         Noise pollution from the M48 will potentially become an increasing problem if the tree barrier is reduced.

 

·         Several people have expressed concerns regarding increased flooding risks in the Castle grounds.

 

·         The primary area of concern has been the proximity of the proposed development to the ecology of the SSSI.  The site is valuable to over wintering birds, bats and insects. Insect habitats are threatened.

 

·         In permitting a development so close to the SSSI, there are concerns that this might set a precedent.

 

·         The local Member would prefer that this site is considered as a candidate site as part of the review of the Local Development Plan (LDP).

 

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

 

·         There was a major error in the supporting evidence concerning the availability of affordable housing which was a County Council error.  The error had been identified by a member of the public.

 

·         The evidence relied upon to justify the original decision to approve the application in November 2018 had changed significantly. The decision had been made based on incorrect data that indicated a shortfall in housing availability, particularly affordable housing.  The shortfall is now significantly less.  According to the Authority’s targets, it is now 38.

 

·         Concern was expressed that this incorrect information went unnoticed and had been used to justify a departure from the LDP.

 

·         The Church Road Development is outside of the LDP. 

 

·         To ensure that there are no other errors, objectors consider that this site should go forward into the next LDP and go through proper considered and validated processes in scrutiny to ensure that all facts are known.

 

·         It has been stated in previous meetings and supporting documents that the 45 affordable homes, included this development are non-negotiable.

 

·         A question was raised regarding how many developments inside of the LDP have achieved the target on affordable homes.

 

·         Similar questions regarding five key sites were asked by a County Councillor at the February 2019 Council meeting which have not been answered.

 

·         The Sudbrook development will only achieve 9% affordable housing and not 25%. Sudbrook was in the LDP and was a brownfield site.  If the 25% affordable housing had been achieved on this development, the target would have been met based on the corrected data.

 

·         Penalties should be incurred by developers for not meeting the 25% / 35% affordable housing provision.

 

·         The consequences have resulted in approval of further developments in order to achieve the affordable housing targets, resulting in environmental and financial costs being associated with this course of action.

 

·         The County Council’s justification for this development is based on affordable housing without due regard for the local overstretched infrastructure or the SSSI.

 

·         Safety has become a major concern. Wales and West Utilities was not given advanced notice of work being undertaken at the site which contains a high pressure gas line. This is critical to public safety.

 

·         Previous Church Road developments have not delivered in what had been agreed at this stage of the process.

 

·         The Planning Committee’s decision must be made on facts linked to the revised evidence.

 

·         This development should be rejected and put forward to the next LDP for full and considered appraisal on all facts.

 

·         The principle reasons for allowing the departure from the LDP have been shown to be flawed and therefore invalid and that the original decision should be reversed as there is no justification for allowing this development.

 

·         An overwhelming number of residents, Caldicot Town Council and Caerwent Community Council are against this development.

 

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

 

·         All the points raised over the previous 10 months since the planning application was submitted have been thoroughly assessed by the Planning Department and it had been concluded that, on balance, the application should be recommended for approval.

 

·         The Planning Committee, in November 2018, had resolved to approve the application.  The case in favour of the application is now even stronger than it was in November 2018.

 

·         We now have the new PPW10 which sets out strong guidance on how sites for development should be selected and how they should be planned and developed. This scheme is in accordance with that advice.

 

·         With regard to housing numbers, there is still a serious deficiency in terms of the five year supply.

 

·         The economic and social needs of the County, which are impacted by that deficiency remain unchanged.

 

·         There still remains the serious prospect of a shortfall in delivery by the end of the current Local Development Plan period.

 

·         The need for affordable housing remains a high priority.

 

·         There is no improvement in terms of the housing supply and delivery position.  In fact, it remains even more acute than in November 2018.

 

·         This is a well considered and sustainable scheme expected to create a distinctive place fostering social cohesion and the wellbeing of its residents.

 

·         The scheme adheres to the Council’s 11 ground rules.

 

·         The scheme has been to Welsh Government who has indicated that it is content with it.

 

·         There is an overwhelming planning logic for this land to be developed.

 

·         If permission is granted to develop the site, work will commence quickly with the planning benefits also arriving quickly.

 

The Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the Planning Committee that he had received some correspondence from Caldicot Town Council, details as follows:

 

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 doctor’s 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.

 

Further information from Councillor Rachel Garrick of Caldicot Town Council was also provided, as follows:

 

‘I am one of the town councillors for Caldicot Castle ward. As you are aware, the application for the Church Road housing development is due at the Planning Committee today. There appears to have been an oversight in that Caldicot Town Council did not receive any formal notification from Monmouthshire County Council on this application going back to Planning. As a result, the Town Council has missed the opportunity to formally nominate a councillor to address the planning meeting on behalf of the council and residents. The Town Council has previously objected to this development.

 

As a town council ward councillor for the area, residents have raised concerns with me on the development. Many concerns focus on the transport issues in and around Church Road at peak times. I am particularly concerned about this in light of the recent upheaval in Chepstow where additional planning is desperately needed to alleviate congestion. At the moment, Church Road is heavily congested during peak time and has similar geographic features to Chepstow in that the surrounding hill creates a basin which is, in effect, a sink for pollution.

 

Much of the congestion focuses around school pick-ups and drop offs and the congestion will affect young children who are particularly susceptible to air pollution. The concern has also been expressed about the safety of children who currently play and cycle in the local housing estate which will become a through route for the new development. This concern is particularly high as there does not seem to be a fully formed plan for an alternative access route to the development.

 

Further concerns have been raised by the residents on environmental factors with genuine worry that the building work will affect the species present in the adjacent site of special scientific interest. There is concern the tree screen that is proposed may be far from adequate and will take many years to reach maturity to actually provide the break needed between the development and the SSSI to protect its habitat (by which time it will be too late).

 

There are additional concerns running along pollution potential for the Neddern brook which has previously been affected by local housing developments. Whilst I appreciate that there will be no direct discharge into this body of water from the proposed houses, there is concern that a development will affect the area’s ability to drain and that washings from activities such as car washing and window washing will ultimately pollute the Neddern. I am also concerned about the potential for construction discharges under any construction water discharge permits being able to affect this local body of water. 

 

Concerns have been raised by local residents who use the public right of way for recreational purposes and feel that this will be changed and devalued as part of the development.

 

Significant concern has been raised by residents over the presence of the high pressure gas line running through the development. Having worked in the construction, electricity and utilities industries for around 20 years I am very familiar with the realities of utility strikes in construction work. Striking a high pressure gas line would be potentially devastating to the local community in terms of danger to life. Whilst safe systems of work will exist, a busy building site will inevitably suffer some utility strikes and this is a very real safety risk.

 

The Town Council objected to this development based on a lack of planning for schools. The Town Council is aware of the County Council's plan to raise around £1.6 million for education contributions from local development across the Severnside area. However, no plans exist for an additional primary school and proposals are that the places will be created in already space compromised local schools. A proposal to extend the capacity of the local faith school as a principle solution to general requirements is not acceptable to many families who wish the children to either pursue other religions or enjoy a largely secular education and should not be the main solution to a dearth of educational places.

 

It should also be noted that some of the schools in Caldicot have now slipped to amber ratings, including the school located in the ward, and that an approach of cramming more children into the oversubscribed schools is not the way to improve education.’

 

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

 

·         Members expressed sympathy for the objectors to the application.  However, affordable housing is required at this location, in particular for local young people.

 

·         There is not a requirement to wait for the funding to be provided in order to make improvements to schools.  The Authority can borrow against this.  Therefore, any improvements to school buildings or extra capacity required can be built in preparation for the demands on the system.

 

·         In response to a question raised regarding the viability of sites impacting on the numbers of affordable housing, it was noted that the Sudbrook site was a brownfield site with significant viability issues. This site has a clear corridor to allow the gas main to go through.

 

·         The error in the calculations has reduced the amount of the shortfall.  However, there is still a substantial shortfall on the houses being built, despite planning permission having been given for many of them.

 

·         Waiting for the new LDP will not help in this situation but only delay development at the site.

 

·         More houses, in particular affordable houses, are required in the area and development at this site will achieve this.

 

·         Concern was expressed regarding the infrastructure of the site. There is a need to look at surrounding roads and the corridor between Lydney in Gloucestershire and Caldicot, as it impacts Chepstow in relation to the traffic that travels towards the motorway commute to Bristol.

 

·         There is difficulty for local people in the area obtaining appointments to see their GP.  Concern had been previously expressed regarding this matter when the application had been considered in November 2018 and it was considered that this matter had not been addressed. Development of the site should be considered against the new LDP so that infrastructure of the roads could be addressed across the area and address the cumulative impact.

 

·         In response, the Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the Committee that with regard to the road infrastructure, comments had been made at the November 2018 Planning Committee in respect of this matter and it had been noted that roads were looked at across the wider network and not to the nearest T junction.  A seminar regarding this matter was being arranged for Members in the near future.  The cumulative impact is looked at for other consented or LDP schemes that are coming forward. 

 

·         In terms of primary healthcare facilities, the Head of Planning, Housing and Place Shaping informed the Committee that there is no further change to that reported at the November 2018 Planning Committee meeting.  The Health Board has outlined in the report that there is a capacity concern but the solution to that is by expanding the local GP surgery with an extra GP.  That does not require the building or the car park to be extended so there is no requirement for a Section 106 contribution.  The Health Board recognises a capacity issue in this locality and can address it by providing an additional GP at the local surgery.

 

It was proposed by County Councillor P. Murphy and seconded by County Councillor M. Powell that application DM/2018/00880 be approved subject to a Section 106 agreement and planning conditions as set out in the previous report to Planning Committee of 6^th November 2018.

 

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

 

For approval              -           7

Against approval      -           1

Abstentions               -           2

 

The proposition was carried.

 

We resolved that application DM/2018/00880 be approved subject to a Section 106 agreement and planning conditions as set out in the previous report to Planning Committee of 6^th November 2018. The application will be referred to Welsh Government under the 2012 Notification Direction.