Loading
There is no summary of this meeting yet. Summaries are written once the council publishes the minutes, which are its official record of what a meeting decided. They usually appear a few weeks after the meeting.
1.1 Apologies were received from Councillor Jon James.
2.1 Councillor Stuart Ashley declared a personal interest in agenda item 4 as a Member of Cwmbran Community Council who had been consulted on the application.
3.1 Members agreed that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 17th March 2022 be confirmed as a correct record.
4.1 The Development Planner displayed photos and plans and highlighted the following points: · The application was for 25 dwellings positioned either side of a north south spine road accessed from Rosemead to the north. · The dwellings would be a mix of three pairs of semi-detached properties, a row of three terraced properties and the remaining dwellings would be detached properties. · The properties would consist of a mix of two and three storeys and would vary in design and style. · The road would be an extended cul-de-sac constructed to adoptable standard for its full length with two sections of private drive and pedestrian connectivity to Ty Canol Way towards the southern end. · Significant landscaping works were proposed to address the gradient of the site. · There was an area of public open space proposed to the south of the site and an additional area to the north. 4.2 Members asked a number of questions and Officers responded as follows: · The topography survey undertaken for the site showed that there was a 20m difference in height from the top of the site to the bottom of the site. · There was previously an application submitted in 2018 for the development of four properties on the site, however the application was withdrawn at the Applicants request. · The site was originally allocated for development in the Council’s Local Development Plan (LDP), however since the LDP was drawn up, new National Planning Policy, Future Wales, had come in to effect and the proposed development on the site did not comply with Planning Policy and was deemed unacceptable. · Development on the site would result in the loss of ecology. · A tree survey had not been submitted with the application. · It was proposed to put a 2m buffer zone around the existing trees and hedges on the site, however the Council’s Tree Officer had requested that larger buffer zones be put in place to protect the trees and hedges on site. · The application failed to demonstrate that adequate buffer zones could be achieved to ensure sufficient protection for the existing trees and hedgerows around the north eastern and eastern boundaries of the site which had the most ecological and biodiversity value and this was one of the reasons the application was being recommended for refusal. · The site was identified as part of Ty Canol Site of Importance for Nature Conservation and development of the site would result in the loss of the ecological corridor which extended from Cwmbran to the open uplands and Planning Policy states the need to maintain and enhance ecological connectivity. · Planning Officers assessed the candidate sites for the last LDP in 2010 before it was formally adopted in 2013. At this time only a basic desk top assessment was done on the pre-allocation of sites, however a number of issues such as the ecological value and steepness of the site were recognised at the time. The current policy context is very different from that which applied when the LDP was adopted in 2013 and it was considered that there was justification to revisit the principle of the development at this location. Officers have redone the methodology of the site and put it through a more rigourous assessment. Place making was a key issue for the site, it was important to look at connectivity, and what facilities were in the area that could be accessed via foot, bike or bus and it was deemed that the site would be very much a car dependent site. · There were two listed buildings in close proximity to the site which were identified by the Case Officer, who brought this to the Applicants attention. The scheme was amended to take the listed buildings in to consideration and they proposed to put an area of public open space in as a buffer between, however Officers felt that the mitigation was not sufficient. 4.3 Members unanimously agreed to refuse the application for the following reasons: · The construction of 25 dwellings on the greenfield site in a semi-rural location, with a lack of local facilities and lack of feasible active travel opportunities, did not represent high quality placemaking or sustainable development. The proposal therefore failed to meet the Placemaking and Sustainable Places aims and objectives of Future Wales (2021) (Policy 2), Planning Policy Wales 11 (2021) and adopted Local Development Plan Policies S2 and S4. · It was considered that the proposed scale of development and design approach was incompatible with the site conditions and local character. Which was evidenced by the inability to provide parking spaces in accordance with adopted standards; road gradients; the need for extensive engineering works resulting in numerous retaining structures; lack of useable garden spaces and a resulting proposal that was visually and physically dominated by the built form and associated surfacing. The proposal therefore represented inappropriate and unacceptable development at the semi- rural edge of settlement location contrary to Planning Policy Wales Ed 11 (2021), TAN 12 (2014) and adopted Local Development Plan Policies BW1, S4 and S7. · The proposed development provides insufficient level of Affordable Housing and the proposal did not include adequate evidence to justify a reduction in the provision of Affordable Housing, contrary to Policy H4 of the Adopted Torfaen Local Plan and Adopted Updated Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Guidance December 2021. · The construction of 25 dwellings at the location within proximity of Grade II listed Tyr Y Wen Barn and Tyr Y Wen Farmhouse would irreversibly eradicate the rural setting of the listed farm buildings both in terms of visual impact and also in terms of ambience, urban noise and disturbance. The proposed buffer zone of public open space identified on submitted plan reference 180509/AR/PL/111 P03 (Site Plan as Proposed) would not be sufficient to address the level of detrimental impact. As such, it was considered that the proposal did not meet the legislative requirements of the Planning (LB&CA) Act 1990 nor the planning policy guidance set out in PPW11 and TAN 24 (2017). It was therefore considered contrary to adopted Local Development Plan policies S4, S7 and BW1. · The application failed to demonstrate that adequate buffer zones could be achieved to ensure sufficient protection for the existing trees and hedgerows around the north eastern and eastern boundaries of the site which represent the most valuable ecological and biodiversity resource at the location. Without such information, it was not possible to assess the ecological impact of the proposals nor whether the recommended mitigation measures were feasible. On this basis, the proposal cannot evidence compliance with the Section 6 duty of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, Policy 9 of Future Wales (2021), guidance contained within Planning Policy Wales Ed 11 (2021), TAN 5 (2009) and adopted Local Development Plan Policies S2, S3, S4, S7, BW1 and BG1. · The application failed to demonstrate that a suitable SUDS scheme could be achieved at the site. On this basis, the proposal did not meet the requirements of Planning Policy Wales Ed 11 (2021) and adopted Local Development Plan Policies S3, S7 and BW1 which seeks to safeguard surface water management and drainage interests.
5.1 The Principal Planner showed the committee plans and visuals of how the development would look and made the following points: · The application was for development of industrial units for use as industrial and office space, access, landscaping, car parking, sustainable drainage and associated works. · The Principal Planner made a correction to the description of development which was published in the agenda which referred to the proposal as ‘light industrial use’, this was incorrect as the application was for all industrial uses. · The application site was located at the end of the existing adopted Industrial Estate access road serving units at Kays and Kears. There were existing industrial units adjacent to the site and some residential units to the north of the site, however the dwellings were separated from the site by a significant landscape area. · The application was on a section of long standing allocation for employment use being included in both the previous Torfaen Local Plan and the existing LDP. · Full planning permission was being sought for the construction of a courtyard of new industrial/business units located in 7 separate blocks. · The application had been accompanied by a wide range of assessment and details relating to the coal mining risk, land contamination, drainage, ecology, transport assessment, noise, design and access, heritage, landscape and visual assessment. · The main vehicular and pedestrian access to the site would be from the industrial estate road to the east. · The proposed scheme was considered to bring a disused brownfield site back into beneficial use and would provide much needed employment land which was an identified issue for Torfaen in the LDP. · A number of issues had been identified, however the Applicant had undertaken numerous assessments that addressed the issues. · Historically the development had proved difficult to bring forward on viability grounds and it was considered that with no issues causing severe harm that the application should be recommended for approval. 5.2 Members asked a number of questions and Officers responded as follows: · An Ecological Assessment and a Landscaping Assessment had been submitted with the application. It was proposed that buffer zones be put in place to protect existing habitat. The Council’s Ecologist was happy with the proposal and the trees and hedgerow proposed to be planted were appropriate for the location and scale of development. · Planning Officers always looked to secure Electric Vehicle Charging points on developments and a condition was attached to the application. Planning Policy Wales required at least 10% of spaces on any new development to be for Electric Vehicles. · The Council’s Highways Officer raised a number of concerns regarding the proposal and was looking to secure improvements as part of the application. In response to the concerns raised the Applicant had carried out a Traffic Assessment and their highway consultants had addressed the concerns. The site was within an existing industrial estate and the development would not have detrimental impact on the transport infrastructure in the vicinity and therefore Officers were not recommending wider road improvements. · A Coal Mining Risk Assessment Report had been carried out and a condition had been added to the application which would prevent the development starting until site investigations had been carried out to establish the risks posed to the development by past coal mining activity, and any remediation works or mitigation measures have been implemented on site in full in order to ensure that the site was made safe and stable for the development proposed. · The design of the units allowed the floorspace to be flexible for different uses on the site. · A condition had been added to the application for the Applicant to submit a travel plan outlining details of measures to encourage active travel and sustainable forms of travel and measures for the monitoring of demand for parking for the site. 5.3 Members commented that it was pleasing to see that the development proposed to install a number of cycle spaces above the minimum requirements. They welcomed the number of small units and added that it was important to promote this for future take up. 5.4 Members unanimously agreed to approve the application subject to the conditions laid out in the report.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
Declarations are read from the minutes once they are published.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.