CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SINCE CLOSING REPORT
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 6th November 2018
Page
Item
13
Application DC/2018/00138 - Erection of 1 no. stable block & Change of Use of
land for the grazing of horses. Land Adjacent Box Bush Farm For Development
Of Stable Blocks Box Bush Road Great Oak Bryngwyn Monmouthshire
Representations received from local residents to amended plan:
“I have commented several times on this application and would like to state that
these objections are still very relevant. I realise it is difficult to refuse planning for
stables in a rural area but I would like you to consider what is the INTENT of the
applicant?
The plans submitted are very LARGE for 'private use'; most people would only
need 2 or 3 stables for private use, especially if they are not living on the premises.
The size of the development(which is not in keeping with the locality) also restricts
the amount of land needed for grazing for 6 horses. The applicant quotes BHS
guidelines for land needed per horse but these are 'minimum guides' especially
where the land is not well drained.
The applicant has owned this land for approximately 18 months during which time
he has done nothing to maintain the land. If he has a large number of horses that
need stabling, surely he also requires large amounts of fodder-so why has he not
utilised the land the last 2 summers for haymaking? There has been no hedge
trimming, clearing ditches or checking fences since the applicant has become the
owner. If he did not need the hay he could have arranged for local farmers to have
used the land for sheep grazing in order to keep the land in a good condition.
As I have written in my previous comments if these plans go ahead the applicant
will need to visit the site at least once a day to check on his livestock or else will
require someone to be present on the site to manage the animals and security-
the next request will be for accommodation! Is there anyway you could consider
putting a restriction on this request? I am aware there are clauses you can include
that would prevent accommodation on such a site, having been subject to one in
the past.”
“The new location, although now further from my property, is still not nearly far
enough and is now significantly closer to my neighbours at The Box Bush. We
will both have to endure smells and flies from the stables which could become
intolerable in the summer. I am anxious it may affect my health as my kitchen
faces the field.
The increase in activity and noise at antisocial hours is still bound to impact on
me. I am also very worried about the increased security risk of having animals
and valuables located on an unmanned site. There has still been no explanation
or reassurance to explain how the site will be made secure and the animals’
welfare maintained should there be an incident.”
“Although there has been some consideration given to my mother’s wellbeing, I
still wish to object to the proposed development as there will be adverse effect on
her and neighbours. The new location is still too near and flies and smell will
impact adversely on her and neighbours' wellbeing and potential health. The
greater concern is now of security and likelihood of her and neighbours becoming
involved should there either being an animal welfare incident or burglary. The
vulnerability of the unmanned site will undoubtedly increase potential risk to their
properties.”
‘The applicant is required by law to submit with his application a Design and
Access Statement meeting the requirements of the Town and Country Planning
(Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order (SI 2012/801), art. 7. A
Design and Access Statement must be provided for any ‘major development’,
which is defined by the Order to include any development carried out on a site
having an area of 1 hectare or more (art.2). The applicant’s documents indicate
that the area of the site is 2.43 hectares. It therefore meets the definition of major
development. Article 7 of the Order states that a Design and Access Statement
must: "(a) explain the design principles and concepts that have been applied to
the development;
(b) demonstrate the steps taken to appraise the context of the development and
how the design of the development takes that context into account;
(c) explain the policy or approach adopted as to access, and how policies relating
to access in the development plan have been taken into account, and
(d) explain how any specific issues which might affect access to the development
have been addressed.”
The applicant has neither submitted such a statement nor otherwise sought to
address the matters that it would be required to deal with. Unless and until the
applicant does submit a compliant statement, it is not open to the Council to
approve it. The applicant’s failure to provide the required statement is not simply
a technical omission. The matters that it is required to address are matters that
would allow the Council and persons such as myself on neighbouring land to
understand and evaluate the proposal, the design of the buildings and roadworks,
and how it will affect the locality. I note in particular that the applicant has, despite
having had several opportunities to reconsider and resubmit the plans, given no
explanation or assurance of several important issues. These include the
following. First, how it is proposed to manage a relatively large number of animals
on land where the owner does not live on the property and it is understood that
he resides a very considerable distance away. This is especially so given that it
is proposed to house 6 horses on the site, at the very limit of the minimum
guidelines recommended by the BHS of 1 to 1.5 acres per horse. The application
proposes 6 horses on 6 acres. This is a relatively intense use of the land. No
indication has been provided as to how the applicant proposes to keep the
property secure given that he is absent from it. Second, on a related note, it is
proposed that muck would be removed twice per year. No explanation has been
given as to how this proposal was made, and whether it takes account of advice
on the volume of muck that can be expected from this number of horses, or the
impact of odours on the adjoining residential properties. Third, it is also clear that
the proposal has been conceived with no proper consideration for the local
context. The scheme as initially conceived was based on the assumption that the
buildings on the adjoining land were agricultural buildings, when they are in fact
my home. Rather than rethink the application afresh, the revised proposal simply
moves the site of the proposed stables some distance, but this in turn simply
places the structures much closer to another home across the street. No
explanation has been given as to why the structures need or should be placed
where it is now proposed, rather than on another part of the site at a greater
distance. I have raised these points, as have others in the area. It is, however, for
the applicant to address these points in his application so that the Council and
neighbours may consider it.’
17
Application DM/2018/00696 - Outline application (with all matters reserved except
for access) for residential development of up to 291 dwellings, a care home and
public open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure works. Land
Development South Of Crick Road, Portskewett, Monmouthshire.
Notes of site inspection 5th November 2018
Attending: R. Edwards, P. Clarke, M. Powell, D. Evans, M. Feakins, A. Davies,
G. Howard, L. Brown and D. Dovey.
We noted the following:
1. Main access would be via the B4245 while a secondary access off the
narrower Crick Road is proposed.
2. An area of more elevated ground where there were established oak
trees was to be retained as public open space.
3. The position of existing landscape features on and adjoining the site, the
nearby residential estate and the railway embankment were noted.
Scale parameters clarified by the applicant’s agent:
Proposed scale parameters
Unit type
Width
Depth
Height
4 Bed Open
8m-12m
8m-11m
9m-14m
Market
3 Bed Open
6m-10m
7m-10m
9m-14m
Market
2 Bed Open
6m-10m
7m-10m
9m-14m
Market
Bungalow
10m-12m
10m-12m
5m-7m
3 Bed
7m-10m
5m-7m
9m-14m
Affordable
2 Bed
7m-10m
4m-6m
9m-14m
Affordable
Terraces
12-30m
7m-10m
9m-14m
Apartment
22m-36m
7m - 18m
9m -18m
Representations from Portskewett Community Council:
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE APPLICATION BE Approved taking account
of concerns raised.
REASON/CONDITION:
Whilst the council recognises the need for additional housing and has therefore
recommended the application for approval they would like the following concerns
to be taken into account:
1. Access onto Crick Road – From the plans, it would appear that a significant
majority of the properties within the development would use the Crick Road for
access, as opposed to the B4245, due to their location within the proposed
development. The council already receives numerous complaints regarding the
volume and speed of traffic using Crick Road and therefore any increase because
of the development will only exacerbate the problem. Additionally the road is
narrow in places and does not allow vehicles to pass easily along its whole length.
2. Infrastructure – The council receives regular complaints with regard to the
availability of GP Services in Portskewett, concerns are regularly raised in respect
of the availability of school places within the village and there is no current nursey
provision within the village. Again, these are issues that will only be compounded
by such a significant housing development, unless additional provision for these
services is made.
Caldicot Town Council comments: APPROVED IN PRINCIPLE
Observations from Town Council, to be considered:
Infrastructure
Transport
GP Surgery
Capacity for education
Neighbour comments received from date of writing report.
A further 6 representations received raising the following points:
Bare minimum of information is provided for perusal, maintain vociferous
objection to this application on the following grounds.
- The application is to its own council body, which demonstrates lack of
transparency and clarity.
- Owing to the above the density of housing is disproportionate to other private
applications such as Rockfield Grove Undy in which last week’s application by
Bellway homes have proposed 266 homes in 13.7 hectares.
- The Rockfield Grove plans have shown fine detail in the planning out of the
varying types of dwellings so that more accurate comment may be made, as
opposed to this application which does not easily show such detail for
consideration.
- Detailed water management reports seem to have been overlooked in respect
of flooding, discharge and run off considerations.
- The increase in the community populace will have a devastating effect on local
services and traffic congestion causing excess waiting times and air pollution
especially for those commuters accessing the M4.
- No provision has been made for the maintenance on the protected dividing
hedgerow between the development and Tree Tops and other properties. What
access will there be to allow this necessary task.
- All new dwellings adjoining the above boundary should be of a single story as
indicated and approved in the LDP with a sufficient green corridor to reduce visual
impact on these original properties.
- Should this development get underway then the suggested Construction Traffic
Management Plan CTMP should be implemented and checked on a daily basis
with a published 'hotline' for residents to report issues of dust, noise and any other
nuisances should they arise during construction.
-This development is totally unnecessary and if successful will have a debilitating
effect on all of the residents of Portskewett and its surrounding community.
Objections to the block of 4 houses to the rear of my home have not been
addressed. Two houses and a garage will back onto my garden and the same for
my next door neighbour. This will no doubt also have an effect on the natural
light/sunshine that I currently get and again the invasion of my privacy and that of
my family.
Our houses are slightly elevated to the land of the proposed building. What effect
will that have on flooding and drainage. We have small drains in our back
gardens, so if existing pipework is utilised, then surely this will mean more
problems with water seepage and sewerage problems and blockages.
Perhaps a 3D drawing would be more beneficial.
Please tell us what housing on our boundaries will be allocated to Melin Homes,
etc.
1. The area has already faced significant development with the Papermill in
Sudbrook. The village school is already over-subscribed, as are other services
such as Drs and dentists.
2. The site is not suitable for several reasons:
- Access. The transport access plans are wholly inadequate and it will create an
unsafe and polluted environment for existing residents, especially our children.
- Drainage - these concerns have not been sufficiently addressed. Annual
flooding of the Nedern and fields around the castle proves that there is not enough
drainage. Concreting over this area with just exacerbate the problem and cause
distress and/or harm to residents of Caldicot. Are they being consulted?
- Water supply etc. Welsh Water's objections have not been addressed. This is a
very serious issue and the lack of any mention of it is insulting.
3. The current plan is unsuitable:
- too many houses - exceeds the build density set out in the LDP and capability
of the local infrastructure.
- The layout shows blocks of houses on the border with Treetops. This is unfair
to residents who chose their houses based on the fact there was nothing behind
them. At the very least the developer could have the courtesy to build
sympathetically to the style of houses on Treetops, e.g. detached, single or at
most two storey dwellings
By allowing 'blocks' outside just some of the houses, you will create an inequitable
situation where some Treetops residents are impacted more than others, whose
house prices are reduced by more than others, causing financial loss. This needs
to be addressed.
The plans do not make adequate provision for the maintenance of the protected
hedgerows. It is not acceptable to make the hedge the border of the properties
on the development and abdicate responsibility for their upkeep to these
individual residents.
Assurances were also given that any houses along the Tree Tops boundary would
not be more than two storeys high and whilst this detail is not provided in this
planning application, the expectation is that this will prevail.
Our views seem to have been totally disregarded.
It is unethical that MCC own the land, has submitted a planning application to its
own planning department and will make the final decision on that planning
application
Continued Objection on the grounds that the latest Amendment still continues to
breach the LDP numbers both for housing and social housing. MCC planning is
aware of these numbers and are leaving themselves open to legal challenge
Bollards on Crick road will be totally unsuitable for a road that will see over a
million additional car journeys per year. There are other solutions.
This plan is taking into consideration an outdated traffic assessment
(conveniently) which did not include the Redrow development in Sudbrook or its
proposed due application increase.
The land alongside Crick road which this plan proposes to use for footpath access
is the ownership of the houses adjacent and as such would involve compulsory
purchase which was also make clear by the LDP inspector would not be allowed
It is remarkable that MCC planning continue to flout all planning consent and
restrictions for this site and that conveniently they are not looking closer at the
current transport issues in the area let alone the increased problems on Crick
road as a result of the Development in Sudbrook which never had the traffic
assessment done or taken into consideration.
Representation from David Broome Events Centre:
“In regards to the imminent proposed development of the houses and the care
home off Crick Road, we feel it very important to bring to your attention the
existence of our established Event Centre on the other side of the B4245 which
has been running for over 50 years.
Our events run around 150 days a year and, as a result, there will be some noise
spill from our Public Address System onto the fields, which are being built on.
This includes starting signals and commentary which whilst we make every effort
to keep noise to a minimum, depending on the direction and wind speed can
occasionally be heard from that side of the B4245. There is also an increase in
traffic on Thursday and Fridays from March to October and again on Sunday
evenings as up to 300 lorries and horseboxes leave the Centre.
It may be worth considering a roundabout of sorts at the dogleg of Crick Road
and the B4245 that already has changed over the last 6 months quite dramatically
due to increased traffic when trying to turn right from any direction.
It is worth mentioning that this Event Centre is responsible for local employment
of up to 80 people a year and one of, if not the biggest, best known Equestrian
Event Centres in Wales.
We believe it is an important part of the local employment and therefore local
economy as well as a prestigious Welsh landmark and would like to ensure that
we are allowed to continue in the same way we have for many years to come.”
53
Application DM/2018/00731 - Full planning application for the development of a
workshop (B2), two storey office (B1), valet / car preparation area (Sui Generis),
parking areas for car storage (B8) and associated infrastructure works (revised
Phase 2 Ecological Survey, Planning Statement and FCA received 27.07.2018
and 02.08.2018; Revised FCA received 05.09.2018). Land At Newhouse Farm
Industrial Estate, Chepstow, NP16 6UD.
Notes of site inspection 5th November 2018
Attending: R. Edwards, P. Clarke, P. Murphy, M. Powell, D. Evans, M. Feakins,
A. Davies, G. Howard, L. Brown and D. Dovey.
We noted the following:
1. The site was largely covered by a hardstanding and was set at the edge
of Newhouse Park Industrial Estate.
2. The building heights of nearby developments was noted.
3. Access was off the existing roundabout within the industrial estate.
73
Application DM/2018/00880 - Outline Application (With All Matters Other Than
Access Reserved For Future Determination) For The Erection Of Up To 130
Dwellings (Use Class C3), Provision Of New Open Space Including A New
Community Park And Other Amenity Space, Engineering And Landscaping
Works Including Sustainable Urban Drainage System And Enabling Works. Land
To East Of Church Road, Caldicot, Monmouthshire
Notes of site inspection 5th November 2018
Attending: R. Edwards, P. Clarke, P. Murphy, M. Powell D. Evans, A. Davies, M.
Feakins, G. Howard, L. Brown and D. Dovey.
We noted the following:
1. We observed the point of access off Heol Sirhowy.
2. We walked along the public right of way in the more southerly part of the
site and noted the location of the potential second access.
3. The location of the access to the proposed community park in the north
of the site was observed.
Scale parameters provided for clarification by the applicant’s agent:
Minimum (m) Maximum (m)
Ridge 4.5 11
Height
Building Width 4 14
Building Depth 4 14
Observations from the Council’s Housing Officer:
“Monmouthshire County Council (MCC), Monmouthshire Housing Association
(MHA), Melin Homes and Charter Housing (part of the Pobl group) have
established a partnership called the Monmouthshire Housing Register
Partnership (MHRP). The Register is held on behalf of MCC and administered
on behalf of all partners by Monmouthshire Housing Association to create a
single point of access for social housing in Monmouthshire.
There are currently 3,068 applicants registered on the waiting list with housing
need having being assessed in bands ranging from band 1 (Urgent Housing
Need) to band 5 (No Housing Need).
Of the 3,068 households in bands 1 – 5, 986 households wish to live in the
Caldicot area. There are 581 households in bands 1 – 4.
Type
GN
OAP
1 bed flat
387
117
2 bed house
313
15
3 bed house
126
10
4 bed house
14
5 bed house
4
844
142
To reiterate there are currently 581 applicants (households), who, having been
assessed as being in housing need (bands 1 – 4), are waiting for social housing
in the Caldicot area.
Unfortunately I can’t interrogate the CHR to get the additional information
supplied by MHA for Raglan.”
32 no further objections setting out the following:
-
Not needed as site is not allocated on the LDP;
-
Disapplication of par. 6.2 means this site is not necessary and should be
refused;
-
Development would not address shortfall in housing as buyers are most
likely to be from Bristol area, not local residents, especially with bridge
tolls being removed;
-
Lack of social infrastructure to cope with increased housing;
-
Adverse change to a scenic and much used footpath that currently runs
through rural area;
-
Traffic congestion on Church Road outside Castle Park school plus
during events at the Castle, and also on roads approaching and in
Caerwent;
-
Traffic issues as local people try to park to access the proposed
community park;
-
Loss of greenfields;
-
Increased pressure on SSSI;
-
Adverse impact on ecology;
-
Site will rely on car borne traffic – residents will not walk to the town
centre from this site;
-
Local trains to major employment centres are full at peak times from
local stations and this site will rely on such infrastructure;
-
Increased air pollution;
-
Potential flooding to properties downstream;
-
Damage to setting of Castle that brings visitors to the area;
-
Proposed improvements to the town centre would slow traffic on church
Road leading to more congestion, so this scheme should not add to that;
-
Impact of potential new housing on tree roots near pumping station.
113
Application DM/2018/01050 - Residential development of up to 111 dwellings,
new vehicular access from Monmouth Road and emergency vehicle access to
Station Road, public open space and associated landscaping, engineering and
infrastructure works. Land Development off Monmouth Road, Raglan,
Monmouthshire
Notes of site inspection 5th November 2018
Attending: R. Edwards, P. Clarke, P. Murphy, M. Powell, D. Evans, M. Feakins,
A. Davies, G. Howard and D. Dovey.
We noted the following:
1. The site was viewed from Station Road and the extent of the site was
observed.
2. We noted the location of the proposed access off Monmouth Road.
3. The site’s location relative to the village centre was recognised.
Scale parameters provided for clarification by the applicant’s agent
Height – 5.5m to 9.5m
Width – 4.35m to 15m
Length – 5m to 12m
Observations from The Council’s Ecologist:
“See recommended conditions below (as per previous email updated to include
reference to most recent docs):
Mitigation
The works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the submitted documents
and drawings:
-
The Green Infrastructure Masterplan Drawing Number 11094/P14a, dated
October 2018
-
Great Crested Newt Mitigation Strategy, by Tyler Grange LLP (Report
Reference 11094_R08b_DJM_LP, dated 25th October 2018)
-
Dormouse Mitigation Strategy, by Tyler Grange LLP (Report Reference
11094_R08b_DJM_LP, dated 25th October 2018)
Reason: To safeguard habitats and species protected under the Conservation of
Habitats and Species Regulations 2017
Tree Roost Inspection and Clearance
Prior to the removal of or maintenance to any tree on site, a Method statement
for the safe removal of the tree (T01 – dead ash tree drawing ref. 11094/P03)
shall be submitted to the LPA for approval in writing. The method statement shall
include;
a)
Methods in accordance with Best Practice to assess the tree for bat roosts
b)
Methods in accordance with Best Practice to sensitively fell the tree
including climbing and section felling under the supervision of a licenced bat
worker
c)
Measures and actions to be undertaken if roosts are identified at any time.
The method statement shall thereafter be implemented in full.
Reason: To safeguard species protected under the Conservation of Habitats and
Species Regulations 2017
Breeding Bird Monitoring
Prior to the Reserved Matters Application, a strategy for carrying out bird
monitoring surveys will be agreed with the LPA and implemented in full to assess
the continued use of the site by breeding birds. If any Schedule 1 (Wildlife and
Countryside Act, 1981) birds are identified appropriate mitigation shall be
incorporated in to the RMA.
Reason: To safeguard nesting bird species protected by Schedule 1 of the Wildlife
and Countryside Act, 1981, as amended.
Construction Environmental Management Plan (Biodiversity)
No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation
clearance) until a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP:
Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall include the following:
a)
Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities;
a)
Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”;
b)
Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working
practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a
set of method statements);
c)
The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity
features;
d)
The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be
present on site to oversee works;
e)
Responsible persons and lines of communication;
f)
The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works
(ECoW) or similarly competent person; and
g)
Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.
The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the
construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
NOTE: See BS 42020:2013, Clause 10, for a comprehensive list of issues and
activities that may be considered and included within a CEMP.
Reason: To safeguard habitats and species protected under the Conservation of
Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
(as amended), and Environment (Wales) Act 2016.
Lighting
Prior to occupation, a “lighting design strategy for biodiversity” for the
development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The strategy shall: a) identify those areas/features on site that are
particularly sensitive for bats and great crested newts and that are likely to cause
disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places or along important
routes used to access key areas of their territory, for example, for foraging; and
b) show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of
appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be
clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above
species using their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting
places. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications
and locations set out in the strategy, and these shall be maintained thereafter in
accordance with the strategy. Under no circumstances should any other external
lighting be installed without prior consent from the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard protected species in accordance with Environment
(Wales) Act 2016 and Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.”
147
Application DM/2018/01122 - Retrospective application to extend curtilage to side
of dwelling. Construction of 2m high brick wall 1.1m from inside of kerb. 46
Treetops, Portskewett, Caldicot, NP26 5RT
Notes of site inspection 5th November 2018
Attending: R. Edwards, P. Clarke, P. Murphy, M. Powell, D. Evans, M. Feakins,
A. Davies, G. Howard, L. Brown and D. Dovey.
We noted the following:
1. The location and colour of the brick wall that is already built was noted.
2. The appearance of the bricks used on the properties in the immediate
area and on other means of enclosure on the estate was also observed.
Additional comment from a local resident:
“Further to my earlier objection, I understand that at least two further houses on
corners of this development are looking at this case with interest and are planning
themselves to extend to the footpath should this be granted - which will further
damage the look of this estate and damage any view splay for drivers in those
areas with potential not just for car drivers but also children who play in those
areas of the road.
In addition a property on the entrance road to TreeTops has just had the garage
converted using the correct (original) bricks, which basically underlies the fact that
original brick is available and obtainable - unlike what has previously been said.”
153
Application DM/2018/01292 - Installation of a portrait bench and figures adjacent
to old Cattle Market site and Monnow Bridge. Land Adjacent Monnow Bridge,
Monnow Street, Monmouth
Notes of site inspection 5th November 2018
Attending: R. Edwards, P. Clarke, P. Murphy, M. Powell, D. Evans, M. Feakins,
A. Davies, G. Howard and D. Dovey.
We noted the following:
1. The location of the proposed bench and sculptures near the Monnow
Bridge.
2. The design of the cattle market-themed figures.