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 by Councillors Jon Horlor, Gaynor James and Jon James.
2.1 The following interests were declared: • Councillor Stuart Ashley declared a personal interest in agenda item 5 as a Member of Cwmbran Community Council who had been consulted on the application. • Councillor Mark Jones declared a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 4 as he was an acquaintance of the applicant.
3.1 The minutes of the meeting held on 22nd October 2025 were confirmed as a true and accurate record.
4.1 The Principal Planner presented the report including plans and photos to Members making the following comments: · The application had been amended to ensure that the proposal was on land under the applicant’s ownership. The applicant owned the site along with a nearby bungalow. · The proposal was to change the use of the land to a transit caravan site to accommodate two caravans, which had been reduced from six, with associated facilities and landscaping. · The shower block would be retained but repositioned and would connect to the nearby bungalow for water and drainage. · The site would consist of two caravans, with a 3m separation to comply with fire safety compliance, parking spaces, storage area, and landscaping. · Access would be via the adopted highway and through the applicant-owned land. There was suitable manoeuvrability for the caravans. · The Highways Authority raised no objections on access or egress. · Welsh Water had no objection to water and drainage arrangements. · The Council’s Environmental Health Officers raised no concerns regarding noise. · The existing boundary fence was approx. 2.4m high; and 18.5m away from the nearest habitable room in the neighbouring property. · The impact on neighbours’ privacy was considered acceptable given existing structures and screening. · The Applicant no longer resided in the adjacent bungalow, however a revised management plan had been submitted and deemed workable and could ensure proper caravan siting and manoeuvring. · Officers were recommending approval for a two-year temporary period which would allow monitoring of neighbour concerns and the effectiveness of the management plan. · One year was considered insufficient and any longer than two years could be detrimental if issues arose. · The temporary permission was considered reasonable given the sites relationship with the wider community. 4.2 The Chair informed Members that there was a third-party speaker who wished to speak in relation to the application and Mr Bryne (objector) was invited to address the committee. Mr Bryne was accompanied by his daughter who read a statement out on behalf of her father which stated: · He thanked the Planning Committee for the opportunity to outline not only his concerns and objections but also the concerns, objections and fears of the local community with regards to the planning application at Blue Boar, Talywain. · As already mentioned in the report, not all of the land was in the applicant’s ownership. · There were in excess of 70 objections, new and old, as well as his own, which represented the local communities’ views and it was clear that there were issues in the area with regards to access. · If the application was successful, how could the community be sure that the site would be reconfigured to be compliant with the revised plan and the new site management plan. · The site was not completely in the applicant's ownership and there had been no enforcement action taken so far. · Members of the local community brought the activity, which was happening in the area, to the attention of the relevant authorities back in July 2023, but up until this day there had been limited enforcement or acknowledgement of this. · The local community have had the ongoing support of their local councillors, which they were completely grateful for, and he asked the Members of the Planning Committee as an elected body, which had a duty to represent the Community, to seriously consider the impact the application would have on the local area and the local community. 4.3 In response to comments raised by the objector and questions asked by Members of the Planning Committee, the Principal Planner gave the following responses: · There had been no evidence submitted or any complaints raised regarding the access into the site. · The proposal to grant two-year temporary planning permission would act as a test period and any issues could be monitored and addressed. · There were access rights for Bluebell Bungalow and the garages. · The traffic generation for the proposed site was considered minimal. · Any breaches of conditions would be dealt with via the Council’s Enforcement Policy. · Private land disputes were outside of planning control. · The proposal had reduced from six caravans to two and it was a transit site, not a permanent site. · The application site and access route to the site were in the Applicant’s ownership. Easement rights existed for neighbouring properties. The land outside the application site was removed from consideration. · The Council’s Enforcement resources were limit but spot checks would occur and any complaints would be investigated. · The two-year temporary period would allow an assessment of the management plan to be undertaken. · A transit site was defined by the Housing Act which states that a maximum stay is three months. The site was too small for permanent use. · Arrival and departure hours would primarily be monitored via complaints from residents which would then trigger an enforcement investigation. The applicant or a representative was expected to be present for both arrivals and departures. · The applicant was required to keep a log which should include caravan and associated vehicle registrations and the register must be available on 24-hour notice. · Many of the objections received related to the Applicants behaviour and were not planning matters. · The smaller site with two caravans was considered manageable. · If evidence showed that the site was detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring properties and/or highway safety, permanent permission could be refused, but the Applicant could appeal that decision. · If approved the use of the site would cease on the expiry date unless renewed. · Enforcement action was possible for any breaches of the conditions during the two-year period. · The concern from local residents to raise complaints is noted but the officer encourages that any concern, with evidence, should be reported to the planning department where any complaint is anonymous. It was important residents raise these concerns during the test period. 4.4 Members unanimously agreed to approve the application subject to the conditions laid out in the report.
5.1 The Principal Planner presented the report to Members in detail and displayed photographs and plans of the site and made the following comments: · It was a Brownfield site near the town centre. It was the former Lidl Store, which consisted of a single-storey retail unit with a large car park. · The proposal was for 29 affordable housing units consisting of a mix of flats and houses, with parking, shared spaces, and a central amenity area with play equipment. · The proposal incorporated a SuDS attenuation basin. · There would be three-storey blocks at the frontage of the site, transitioning to two-storey buildings internally. The design would consist of brick, (two-tone) for durability and visual interest; cladding and window detailing for articulation. · The properties would have active frontages, defensible spaces including hedgerows and fencing and shared pedestrian/vehicle zones. · The existing vegetation on site would be retained, and additional hedgerows and trees would be planted for ecological and visual benefits. · There would be bird and bat boxes installed. · The properties met the Welsh Government internal space standards. · The properties included solar panels and high-quality building fabric. · The development passed the daylight/sunlight assessment, and it confirmed that it would have no significant impact on the nearby House of Multiple Occupancy. · A noise assessment had been carried out and the proposal included acoustic glazing, reinforced building fabric, 2.4m acoustic fence with a minor exceedance for plots 14 & 15 which would be mitigated by conditions. · The road within the site could be adopted. · The parking provision on site complied with local and national policy. · As part of the planning permission a section 106 contribution would be made for pedestrian crossing, tactile paving, and active travel improvements. · The proposal supported Welsh Government’s aim for higher density on sustainable brownfield sites and complied with Planning Policy Wales and local LDP policies and Officers were recommending approval subject to conditions and Section 106 agreement. 5.2 Members asked a series of questions, and the following replies were given by the Principal Planner: · The noise assessment undertaken already considered the existing trees. The acoustic fencing would be added without undermining the trees. · The site was not within a flood zone but there is minor surface water flooding on parts of the site. The developer had taken this into account in the design of the development so gardens may flood in extreme cases, but the buildings would remain safe. · Section 106 improvements must be proportionate and linked to the development. The improvements would focus on access improvements and active travel. · The scheme includes cycle racks and storage for recycling receptacles. · The children from the site could attend Maendy Primary School which was nearby and had surplus places. · The parking on site complied with council and national policy and the site was also in a sustainable location and residents could walk to town and the local school. · It was acknowledged that the play space on the site was small, but it was a compromise for the affordable housing need. · The ground floor flats and buggy stores could accommodate mobility scooters. · There was a high demand for one-bedroom units in the borough. 5.3 A Member raised concerns regarding the lack of section 106 contribution for the primary school, the limited parking provision on the site and the insufficient play space for children on the site. 5.4 Members agreed with 6 voting in favour and 1 voting against that upon completion of an Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act concerning the matters referred to in the report, the Group Leader (Development Management) be authorised to grant permission subject to the conditions laid out in the report or any amendments additions or deletions of the conditions he may deem necessary.
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.