Agenda item

We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was

presented for refusal for the three reasons, as outlined in the report.

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

·         With regard to the Section 106 agreement, the reason for refusal was a safeguard for any subsequent appeal.  If this was not attached to the application and the decision was overturned on appeal then the community sum of money could not be clawed back at a later date.

·         With regard to the amenity space issue, the property has been lived in by two separate families since 2003 and live entirely separately from each other.  There is no shared space other than the turning and parking areas.  There is no sharing of amenity space.

·         The amenity space to the rear of number one, whilst not ideal, is comparable to some of the small garden backyard spaces as seen on some new housing development sites.  Therefore, it was considered that the backyard area was suitable for this property.

·         The source of the flooding stems from the Cibi Brook which is approximately one kilometre to the north of the site.  This is identified on the Natural Resources Wales (NRW) maps and covers in the region of 85% of the western side of Abergavenny. On a recent site that the agent had been working on, the flood consequences assessment highlighted a worst case scenario of a 1 in 1000 year event taking into account a 30% increase for climate change and had the flood water flowing at approximately 8cm in depth. The standard curb edge is 12.5cm in depth. It is believed that none of these properties would be affected because the highways network would control the flow of water.  No exercise has been undertaken to look at the capture from the existing drainage. Therefore, it is believed that there is no immediate risk from flooding in this area.  Monmouthshire County Council’s flood engineers are in discussion with NRW regarding the diversion culverts of the Cibi Brook with a view that these flood maps be amended. Therefore, there is serious doubt regarding the accuracy of the flood maps provided by NRW.

·         Based on the information presented, the applicant’s agent asked the Planning Committee to consider approving the application.

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

·         With regard to the issues raised in respect of flooding, the Planning Committee has to adhere to the findings as outlined in the report by Natural Resources Wales (NRW).

·         The amenity to the rear of the property is very small.

·         It was considered to be an unnecessary application as both families are currently living separately.

·         The whole of the land and all of the amenity space is available to the one family. If the application is approved, each of the individual parts of the property could be sold off separately which would considerably alter the dynamic at this location.

·         The application does not adhere to current planning policy.

·         It was suggested that the first reason for refusal be amended to indicate that it is referring to an intensification of residential development in C2 by the introduction of a separate household. The detail to be agreed by the Delegation Panel.

·         Planning history of the site indicated that there had been lawful development certificates applied on the site previously to establish the property as two separate households which had been refused.  This application originally began as another certificate of lawfulness. However, Planning Officers’ view was that there was not sufficient evidence, hence, it becoming a full planning application.

It was proposed by County Councillor M. Powell and seconded by County Councillor P. Murphy that application DM/2018/01591 be refused for the three reasons, as outlined in the report.

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

For refusal                 -           10

Against refusal         -           0

Abstentions               -           0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DM/2018/01591 be refused for the three reasons, as outlined in the report.