- 1 -

1st July 2014 PLANNING COMMITTEE INDEX Agenda Item 4

TableofContentsDC/2010/00084 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (OUTLINE) .................................  LAND AT GARTHALAN DRIVE, CALDICOT ...........................................................  RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE ................................................................................ 3 DC/2012/00931 ERECTION OF TWO WIND TURBINES (GENERATING CAPACITY UP TO 3.0 MW) WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 100 METRES, TOGETHER WITH ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT .............................................. 15 GREAT HOUSE FARM, UNDY RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE ....................... 15 DC/2013/00253 ERECTION OF ONE DETACHED DWELLING ...............................  GLASSERTON, GRANGE ROAD ST ARVANS .........................................................  RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ........................................................................... 27 DC/2013/00973 . AGRICULTURAL BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED TRACK FOR ACCESS LLYN YSGUBOR, LLANHENNOCK, NEWPORT, NP18 1LT ..................  RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ........................................................................... 34 DC/2014/00087 DEVELOPMENT OF A DWELLING AND GARAGE ......................  LAND AT PARC CLOSE, LLANGYBI .........................................................................  RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ........................................................................... 37 DC/2014/00100 ONE FIVE-BEDROOM DWELLING WITH GARAGE ....................  ST JOHNS COTTAGE, CATBROOK ............................................................................  RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE .............................................................................. 42 DC/2014/00258 ERECTION OF TWO NEW HOUSES IN THE CAR PARK TO REAR OF HIGH TREES; HIGH TREES, STEEP STREET, CHEPSTOW ..................  RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ........................................................................... 46 DC/2014/00289 CHANGE OF USE TO ALLOW SEASONAL TENTED CAMPING IN FIELD USED FOR OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES. .................................................... 55 LAND AT DIXTON FIELDS, OFF OLD DIXTON LANE, MONMOUTH .................  RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE .............................................................................. 55 DC/2014/00291 PROPOSED ERECTION OF DWELLING ON LAND THAT PREVIOUSLY FORMED PART OF THE RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGE TO THE MOUNT ...........................................................................................................................  LAND ADJACENT TO THE MOUNT, COED Y PAEN, PONTYPOOL ....................  RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE .............................................................................. 62 DC/2014/00402 ............................................................................................................ 69 RENOVATION OF FORMER INN TO FORM HOLIDAY COTTAGE ......................  FORMER FOX AND HOUNDS INN, ADJ. THE OLD RECTORY, WOLVESNEWTON RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE ........................................... 69

- 2 -

DC/2014/00518 73PORTAL FRAMED EXTENSION TO AN EXISTING AGRICULTURAL BUILDING TO PROVIDE ADDTIONAL LIVESTOCK HOUSING SPACE WHITEHALL FARM ROCKFIELD MONMOUTH .....................  RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ........................................................................... 73 REMOVAL OR VARIATION OF CONDITION NO.3 (LIMIT ON OPENING AND WORKING HOURS) OF PLANNING PERMISSION DC/2007/00540 .......................  MONMOUTHSHIRE LIVESTOCK CENTRE, CROESBYCHAN, BRYNGWYN, RAGLAN .........................................................................................................................  RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ........................................................................... 75 

- 3 -

DC/2010/00084 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (OUTLINE) LAND AT GARTHALAN DRIVE, CALDICOT RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE Date Registered: 05/02/2010 Case Officer: Kate Young 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 The application site measures 2.7 hectares and comprises former railway land

adjoining the south-western corner of Caldicot; an adjoining wedge of land to the west (roughly 1 hectare) is shown edged blue and is intended as a landscaped / play area. The main South Wales – London railway runs on an embankment immediately to the south of the site, and is separated from it by a ditch and fencing. The main part of the site is essentially linear in shape and narrows to Garthalan Drive to the east. Garthalan Drive is carried in a narrow corridor to link to the east with Station Road. The site is disused and overgrown and evidence of its industrial past can be seen in areas of hard surfacing as well as the remnants of former buildings and structures, and short sections of old railway line. To the west, the wedge shaped area of adjoining former railway land narrows at the approach to Severn Tunnel Junction at Rogiet. Garthalan Drive is adjoined to the north by long-established housing on the south-western edge of Caldicot, while the main part of the site is adjoined to the north by playing fields and grazing land designated in the development plan as a ‘Green Wedge’ between Caldicot and Rogiet. Beyond the railway line to the south is the flat landscape of the Gwent Levels.

1.2 The application is in outline with all detailed matters reserved for subsequent approval. The layout plan submitted with the application shows the main part of the site laid out for 102 dwellings (82 houses and 20 maisonettes/flats) with access from both Garthalan Drive (which would be upgraded to the requisite standard) and a new access off Betjeman Avenue which in turn links to Longfellow Road. A play area would be located close to these accesses at the ‘entrance’ to the housing area with a second play area at the western end of the housing site; the adjoining wedge of land to the west would be reclaimed and landscaped. The site falls generally towards the east with levels of 8.8m AOD decreasing to 7.2m AOD. The site lies within a C1 coastal flood zone.

1.3 The application was accompanied by: a Pre-Assessment Check report confirming that the scheme could meet Level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes and achieve 6 credits under Ene1. Flood Consequences Assessment. It is assumed that the intention is to connect to mains drainage for sewage disposal; The agent has indicated that the development will be served with separate foul and surface water drainage arrangements. The agent has suggested that the surface water is likely to involve a connection to an adjacent water course

- 4 -

at the boundary of the site with attenuation on site to ensure that the discharge does not exceed greenfield flows. Details of this would have to form part of any reserved matters application.

1.4 Caldicot is one of the main urban centres in the County with a good range of local facilities including shops, schools, community facilities and public transport.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

DC/2008/00531 Refused 17-06-08 MM04874

Residential development of land at Garthalan Drive, Caldicot including access, (and the reclamation of adjoining land to the west)

Withdrawn 31-08-00

DC/1995/00505 MB38794

Residential development Approved 14-02-96

3.0 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

Strategic Policies S1 Spatial Distribution of New Housing S2 Housing Provision S3 Strategic Housing Sites S4 Affordable Housing Provision S7 Infrastructure Provision S12 Sustainable Development S13 Landscape, Green Infrastructure and the Natural Environment S16 Transport S17 Place Making and Design Development Management Policies H1 Residential Development in Main Towns, Severnside Settlements and Rural Secondary Settlements. H2 Residential Development in Main Villages CRF2 Outdoor Recreation, Public Open Space and Allotment Standards and Provision. SD3 Flood riskSD4 Sustainable Drainage LC1 New Built Development in the Open Countryside LC5 Protection and Landscape Character LC6 Green Wedges GI1 Green Infrastructure NE1 Nature Conservation and Development EP1 Amenity and Environmental Protection EP2 Protection of Water Sources and the Water Environment. EP5 Foul Sewerage Disposal MV1 Proposed Developments and Highway Considerations MV2 Sustainable Transport Access DES1 General Design Considerations

- 5 -

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

Most of the responses below have been summarised. The responses are available in full on the Council’s website.

4.1 Consultation Replies Caldicot Town Council – Initial response - Recommend refusal on grounds of: Contamination issues on the land Impact on flooding issues. The Town council wrote again to suggest that MCC defer a decision until the “full environmental study has been completed” Re-consultation: Recommend approval.

Rogiet Community Council – Initial response: Recommend refusal; reasons refer to the need to keep the small settlement of Rogiet separate to conserve its identity; local school inadequate for a large influx; lack of local employment; vehicular access problems; overdevelopment; local public services inadequate; possible ground contamination. Re-consultation – No response received to date.

Highways – Initial response: It is noted that the site is a candidate site for the LDP under reference number CS/0071. The site abuts the South Wales Main Line Railway to the south and fields to the north. It was originally developed for rail-based freight activities, with limited vehicular access available along an extended track from Station Road, Caldicot. I would also make reference to candidate site ref. CS/0049 known as land east of Rogiet. The site consists of three parcels of land, which are located north of CS/0071. There are concerns that the submitted drawings show proposals to develop the application site (CS/0071) in isolation. If developed in isolation there would be a considerable increase in vehicular traffic passing through Longfellow Road and Station Road. Also the extended length of Garthalan Drive plus the extended length of the main body of the site would result in properties being a considerable distance from local amenities, resulting in even most ‘local’ journeys being undertaken by car, contrary to sustainability objectives. In view of the aforementioned it is recommended that the application site be included with candidate site CS/0049. Access to the site can then be obtained from the B4245 as part of that development, resulting in a far more inclusive and balanced estate layout. Development of this site in isolation with access from Station Road and Longfellow Road is considered to be inappropriate. Re-consultation: 23/06/14 In the absence of a Transport Assessment we are unable to assess the application to establish whether the additional traffic generated from such a development will have a negative impact on the existing public highway network. In light of this awe are unable to support the application as presented. Access and Highway Network – The primary access is proposed off Garthalan

- 6 -

Drive onto Station Road via a proposed mini roundabout. A secondary access is proposed via the existing estate road, Betjeman Avenue and Longfellow Road. No Transport Assessment has been submitted to justify the need for a mini roundabout junction and secondary access through Betjeman Avenue. In the absence of a Transport Assessment we remain concerned there will be a considerable increase in vehicular traffic passing through the existing highway network leading to the B4245. Also the extended length of Garthalan Drive plus the extended length of the main body of the site would result in properties being a considerable distance from local amenities, resulting in even most ‘local’ journeys being undertaken by car, contrary to sustainability objectives. Parking – The design and access statement states that the development includes a total of 208 vehicle parking spaces. The schedule of proposed units shows the majority having 2 or 3 bedrooms. The requirements of the Monmouthshire Parking Standards 2012 are 1 parking space per bedroom (maximum of 3) per unit. Based on the proposed schedule of units the proposed level of parking required is 244 therefore the 208 as proposed is considerably below standard.

Environmental Health – Initial response: The response noted that the former use of the site as railway land gave rise to the possibility that the site might be contaminated; the proposed end-use as residential would be vulnerable to such contamination. The memorandum recommended a site investigation and risk assessment and provided guidance on how these should be carried out. Conditions were also suggested in the event of planning permission being granted. Re-consultation: Views unchanged from previous consultation response.

Development Plans – Initial response: The site is located outside the Caldicot Town Development Boundary, as designated under Policy H3 of the Unitary Development Plan. Its development for residential purposes therefore, would extend the built up area of Caldicot into the open countryside with no justification under Policy H6 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan. The site also lies within an area designated as Green Wedge under Policy C4 of the UDP which states that ‘development will only be permitted which does not prejudice the open characteristics of the land’ (page 146-147). Furthermore the site is located within Zone C1 floodplain; the development of the site for a residential use should therefore be applied to policy ENV9 of the Unitary Development Plan and also with Welsh Assembly Guidance set out within TAN15. It is considered that as the proposed development will be classed as a form of ‘highly vulnerable development’ the development of the site does not comply with the requirements of policy ENV9 of the UDP or the guidance set out within TAN15. Finally, the site has been submitted as a Candidate Site for inclusion in the Local Development Plan. It is not anticipated that the site will go forward in the Local Development Plan as it is not a preferred option at this stage, however, the Deposit Plan remains to be finalised. Re-consultation – Nothing to add other than by way of an update to say the site has not been included as an allocation in the Deposit LDP. The proposer of the site submitted it as an objection to the Deposit Plan; it was subsequently included in the Site Representations Consultation (reference ASN110) and may be heard at

- 7 -

examination as an alternative to the Crick Road, Caldicot, site. Update – the site was rejected by the Local Plan Inquiry Inspector as an additional housing site and is regarded as Green Wedge (open countryside) to which LDP Policy LC6 relates.

Recreation (MCC) – Initial response: For an estate of this size two Local Areas for Play (LAPs) would be required and one Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP); the scheme is one play area short. Open space appears sufficient. Adult recreation would require a sum of £2769 per unit based upon 2010 costs. Re-consultation – No response received to date.

Environment Agency – Initial response: In respect of flood risk, the EA say that having considered the submitted assessment of flooding consequences, they do not object on flood risk grounds subject to finished floor levels being set no lower than 7.60m above AOD. In respect of surface water the EA note that the area is subject to a greenfield runoff rate of 3.5 litres/ hectare and refer to the associated storage volume required. The EA suggest a condition requiring the prior approval of a scheme of surface water regulation. The response goes on to point out that the IDB should be consulted, that the site may be contaminated and that foul drainage should discharge to the public foul sewer. Re-consultation: The EA (4th December 2012) have considered the revised FCA (12th September 2012) and note their previous comments have been incorporated. The FCA concludes that the site would remain flood free during extreme flood events, even in the event of a breach of the flood defences. This is partially due to the site’s distance from the flood defences and its elevated position in relation to the defences. However, it is also because the site is protected by the presence of the M4 motorway embankment, the railway line and the embankment to the south of the site. I can therefore confirm that we are satisfied with the information provided in the FCA and therefore raise no objection to the application as submitted. We would highlight that the FCA recommends, for added protection, that the finished floor levels of the proposed development be placed 0.5m above existing ground levels. We support this recommendation. Finally, we note the comments relating to surface water drainage within the FCA; we are satisfied with these drainage proposals. However, should there be any changes to the proposed design, we ask to be re-consulted, so that we may offer further advice if appropriate.

Welsh Water – Initial consultation: Object. The proposed development would overload the Waste Water Treatment Works. No improvements are planned within Welsh Water Dwr Cymru’s Capital Investment Programme. We consider any development prior to improvements being made to be premature and we therefore object to the development. Re-consultation: No objection subject to conditions including separate foul and surface water drainage arrangements.

Caldicot & Wentlooge IDB – Initial consultation: They point out that the site is at high risk of flooding and that the proposed development could affect the Board’s operational interests. The response goes on to require surface water run-off at greenfield rates and the provision of an on-site storage facility; the letter sets out the parameters for the necessary calculations.

- 8 -

Re-consultation: The Board’s views are unchanged from their original response.

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust – Initial consultation: The response noted that the application site was located in an area known as the ‘fen edge’ where a potentially important archaeological resource may be situated. An archaeological desk-based assessment carried out ahead of the land reclamation for the Severn Tunnel Junction noted that although some disturbance to the former ground surface has probably been caused, the tendency to lay sidings on terraced embankments has probably preserved a significant proportion of the former land surface and so there remains a possibility that buried archaeological remains may be revealed during construction works. GGAT recommend a condition requiring an archaeological watching brief. Re-consultation: Views unchanged from previous consultation response.

Network Rail – Initial consultation: Object on the grounds that the site includes a portion of land in their ownership although the letter goes on to indicate that this was capable of resolution (Note: the applicant subsequently served notice on Network Rail). The response sets out a number of requirements relating to the siting and dimensions of fencing, drainage facilities, built form and landscaping and included an advisory note that there could be a noise, vibration and dust nuisance from the nearby passage of trains. Re-consultation: Their objection still stands.

Gwent Police – No objection. The response goes on to set out guidance relating to more detailed matters of design and inviting the applicant to contact the Police Architectural Liaison Officer.

4.2 Neighbour Notification Original consultation: One letter of objection has been received from a local resident in Goldfinch Close. The respondent’s concern relates to increased traffic movements at a location where on-street parking already makes for difficulties entering and leaving Goldfinch Close. Suggest yellow lines and/or a one way system. Re-consultation: No response received to date.

4.3 Other Representations

Police Liaison Officer – No objection. The response set out a number of detailed comments on design issues, and local crime statistics (below average compared with the rest of Gwent).

SEWBREC Report – Bats within 200m.

4.4 Local Member Representations Councillor Guppy – I would like to express my concerns with this application in regard to the size of the development which is in the ward of Rogiet. This would bridge the area between Rogiet and Caldicot and would potentially have a detrimental effect upon the community of Rogiet which has its own identity as a

- 9 -

stand-alone community. If this development went ahead, the join to Caldicot may give rise to further development. The increase of traffic to access the site may put a strain upon the roads which are already congested with on-road parking. The plans make reference to Severn Tunnel Junction which is not a public path and/or cycle route. The plans omit how access would be gained over private land. With reference to the flood risks further consultation would be needed.

5.0 EVALUATION

The main issue is the principle of housing development at this location which is part of a ‘Green Wedge’ and within a floodplain. Other considerations include drainage arrangements, access, contamination and archaeology.

5.1 The principle of residential development of the site

5.1.1 Strategic Policies S1, S2 and S3 of the recently adopted of Monmouthshire Local Development Plan (UDP) potentially provide for additional housing development within the town development boundary as identified in the Proposals Maps. Policy S1 identifies that the main focus for new housing will be within or adjoining the main towns of Abergavenny, Chepstow and Monmouth and that in the Severnside sub-region a smaller amount of new housing will be provided. Policy S3 identifies new Strategic Housing sites of between 35 and 370 units. The site which is the subject of this application is not identified as one of those strategic housing sites and it is outside the Caldicot Development Boundary. The site was however promoted as a candidate site for the LDP and was rejected by the Inspector. The application site adjoins the south-west corner of Caldicot but none of the site, including Garthalan Drive, lies within the development boundary. There is no notation on Garthalan Drive or the adjoining railway land to the south but that portion of the application site immediately beyond the western termination of Garthalan Drive – this being the main part of the application site - comprises part of the Green Wedge between Caldicot and Rogiet. Policy LC6 deals with green wedges and says: “In order to prevent the coalescence of settlements including Rogiet and Caldicot the areas between them are identified as Green Wedges, as shown on the proposals map.” The policy seeks to prevent the coalescence of settlements by safeguarding the character and identity of settlements in the south of Monmouthshire. Development proposals within Green Wedges will only be allowed where they do not prejudice the open character of the land. The development of the site for 102 houses would clearly be at odds with the designation of the site as Green Wedge.

- 10 -

5.1.2 Policy S1 of the LDP identifies the development boundaries that have been drawn around the Main Towns, Severnside settlements, Rural Secondary settlements and the Main villages. The policy states that outside these development boundaries planning permission for new residential development will not be allowed unless it is for the conversion of a rural building, subdivision of existing dwellings or dwellings necessary for rural enterprise. As this proposal does not qualify as one of these exceptions the proposal is clearly a departure from adopted development policy. Policy LC1 of the LDP presumes against new built development in the open countryside unless it is justified under national planning policy and/or policies S10, RE3, RE4, RE6, T2 and T3 of this plan. No such justification had been put forward to support this, and therefore the proposal is clearly contrary to Policy LC1.

5.1.3 The land contained in the application site (including a landscaped area at the western end) was promoted as a housing site through the LDP process as a candidate site. The inspector dismissed the site stating that “I appreciate that comparatively few additional dwellings have been provided in the Caldicot and Portskewett area and that it appears to residents of Magor and Undy that their villages are bearing the brunt of the need for more allocations. In identifying sites several factors other than the Spatial Strategy must be taken into account, not least the availability of suitable alternatives. The difficulty of finding sites of any size at Caldicot because of its development history was described by the Council at the hearings and, as well as encroaching into the important gap between Rogiet and Caldicot, the Garthalan Drive site has significant access constraints.”

5.1.4 The LDP was adopted in February 2014 and has identified sufficient housing sites to meet the 5 year land supply. Although this is a brown field site, it was not included in the strategic housing sites under Policy S1. This site relates poorly to the existing form of Caldicot and would represent a significant intrusion into the open countryside between Rogiet and Caldicot which has been designated as a Green Wedge precisely to prevent the coalescence of these two settlements. It is particularly important that the narrow undeveloped gap between Caldicot and the village of Rogiet is maintained in order to protect the distinct identities of these two settlements. Houses built on the site would relate poorly to the existing form of Caldicot. They would be seen, particularly from the railway line, as a significant intrusion into the countryside between Caldicot and Rogiet that would seriously compromise the function of this already narrow gap.

5.2 Flood risk 5.2.1

The application site is potentially liable to inundation by the sea and lies within a C1 Flood Zone described in Technical Advice Note 15 “Development and Flood Risk” as “Areas of the floodplain which are developed and served by significant infrastructure, including flood defences”. Figure 1 of TAN 15 suggests that “…development can take place subject to application of justification test, including acceptability of consequences”. Paragraph 6.2 of TAN 15 says that new development should be directed away from zone C and should only be permitted if the Local Planning Authority determine it to be justified against four tests, namely: i. Its location in zone C is necessary to assist or be part of, a local authority

- 11 -

regeneration initiative or a local authority strategy required to sustain an existing settlement; or ii. Its location in zone C is necessary to contribute to contribute to key employment objectives supported by the local authority, and other key partners, to sustain an existing settlement or region; and, iii. It concurs with the aims of PPW and meets the definition of previously developed ;and…; and, iv. The potential consequences of a flooding event for the particular type of development have been considered, and in terms of the criteria contained in sections 5 and 7 and appendix 1 found to be acceptable.” The proposals do not meet either of the first two criteria, the development plan position having been identified in section 5.1 of this report and so it is not relevant to consider whether the consequences of a flooding event would be acceptable, notwithstanding that the Environment Agency (now NRW) have not objected on flood risk grounds subject to the floor levels being raised and appropriate surface water drainage arrangements being put in place. The Environment Agency considered the revised FCA submitted by the applicants in September 2012, and responded in December 2012. In that response they noted that their previous comments had been incorporated into the revised FCA and were satisfied with the information provided and therefore had no cause for objection. The revised FCA concluded that the development would remain flood free during extreme flood events, even in the event of a breach of the flood defences. This is partially due to the distance from the flood defences and the site’s elevated position in relation to those defences. However it is also because the site is protected by the presence of the M4 motorway embankment, the railway line and the embankment to the south of the site.

5.2.2 A further consideration under the topic of flood risk is LDP Policy SD3 which opens with the statement that “Proposals for highly vulnerable development or emergency services will not be permitted in areas which may be liable to flooding”.

5.3 Drainage

5.3.1 Foul water drainage Welsh Water no longer object provided there are separate, and satisfactory, foul

and surface water drainage arrangements.

5.3.2 Surface water drainage The applicant has suggested surface water drainage will involve a connection to an

adjacent water course at the boundary of the site, with site attenuation to ensure that discharge will not exceed greenfield flows. This is compatible with the objectives of policy SD4 of the LDP which states that development proposals will be expected to incorporate water management measures, including SUDS, to reduce surface water run-off and minimise its contribution to flood risk elsewhere.

5.4 Other considerations

5.4.1 Access

- 12 -

The Council’s Highway Officers have expressed concern about the potential increase in traffic on Longfellow Road and Station Road. Highway Officers also suggest that the main body of the site would be a considerable distance from local amenities thus generating additional car journeys contrary to sustainability objectives. Policy MV1 says that all planning applications for development which are likely to have a significant impact on trip generation and travel demands must, as appropriate, be accompanied by a Transport Assessment. This proposed development of over 100 dwellings will have a significant impact on trip generation and should be accompanied by a Transport Assessment. Policy MV1 continues by saying that development that is likely to create significant and unacceptable additional traffic growth in relation to the capacity of the existing road network and/or fails to provide a safe and easy access for road users will not be permitted, unless appropriate proposals for related improvements to the highway system can be made. In this case the highway engineers are not satisfied that the existing highway network will be able to cope with the additional traffic generated by this proposal and with no evidence to the contrary, the proposal must be considered contrary to the objectives of Policy MV1.

5.4.2 Contamination The historic use of the land as railway land gives rise to the clear possibility that it may be contaminated. The proposed residential end use is one that would be vulnerable to the presence of contamination but no information has been submitted to address this. If the application were to be recommended for approval it would not be unreasonable to ask for more information on this topic.

5.4.3 Archaeology

The site potentially has an archaeological resource as the railway operators may well have surfaced the site without intrusive groundworks. This aspect could be addressed by a suitable condition.

5.4.4 Recreational/public open space and general layout

5.4.5

The suggested layout is deficient by one play area although in practice there is adjoining land which could be incorporated into the developed area to accommodate the additional play facilities which would be required. The application is in outline and so the submitted layout is for illustrative purposes but it has a regimented layout which does not sit comfortably with the rural aspect of the adjoining fields and playing fields, nor does the layout incorporate a satisfactory level of ‘permeability’ through the site. The proximity of the site to the railway line is also problematic particularly if maximum use is made of a south facing aspect (facing the railway line) in order to maximise solar gain. The site sits as an uncomfortable ‘add-on’ to the built up area of Caldicot. Affordable Housing Policy S4 of the LDP requires that development sites with a capacity for 5 or more dwellings, in the Severnside Sub Area, will need to make provision for 25% of the

- 13 -

total number of the dwellings on the site to be affordable. This could be secured through a 106 agreement if the application was to be approved.

5.5 Comments on Town and Community Councils’ consultation responses

5.5.1 Issues of flooding, contamination, access and coalescence have all been addressed in preceding sections of this report. The latest returns to the Assembly Government indicate that there is spare capacity available in the nearest primary and secondary schools in Caldicot and Rogiet.

6.0 Conclusion

6.1 The site has been shown to be unsuitable for development on policy grounds, the land comprising part of the Green Wedge between Caldicot and Rogiet and is outside any development boundary. Policy LC1 provides that there is a presumption against new development in the open countryside without a justification. There is no justification in this case. The site has not been included as any part of the strategic housing allocations identified in the recently adopted LDP. The proposal is clearly contrary to the strategic Housing Policies set out in the LDP. There is no justification for allowing this development contrary to recently adopted LDP policies. There are also concerns about the suggested layout of the site although the application is in outline and so the submitted layout is illustrative at this stage. The site is considered not to relate well to the existing pattern of development which in turn gives rise to questions about the sustainability of the proposed housing scheme as it would lead to a significant number of car based journeys as it is not related well to local facilities such as shops or schools. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material indications indicate otherwise. In the present case, no material considerations have been identified such as might justify setting aside the policy presumption against the release of the site for housing development.

6.2 The recommendation set out below is for refusal. In the event of that recommendation being accepted and a subsequent appeal, there would be a requirement for a draft S106 Agreement for discussion purposes and the consideration of the appeal Inspector. The heads of terms would potentially cover: affordable housing, recreation and open space, education, transport/highways, biodiversity, drainage, and green transport issues.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE

Reasons The proposed site lies entirely outside the development boundary for Caldicot and therefore is contrary to the objectives of Policy S1 of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan (MLDP). Outside these development boundaries, planning permission for new residential development will not be allowed and open countryside policies will apply. Policy S1 supports the LDP objective of providing for appropriate levels of housing in sustainable communities in the most

- 14 -

sustainable settlements. As the proposed housing development would be outside any identified development boundary it would be contrary to Policy LC1 of the MLDP as it would constitute new built development in the open countryside. The proposed housing would extend the built form of Caldicot into the open countryside where it could not be satisfactorily assimilated into the landscape. The proposed housing would introduce an unacceptable form of development which would significantly adversely affect the character of the area, giving it a more urban appearance, especially when viewed from main South Wales railway line. The proposed development would significantly extend the built form of Caldicot into the Green Wedge between Rogiet and Caldicot which would result in the visual coalescence of these two settlements. This would have a damaging effect upon the individual identity of the two settlements and would therefore be contrary to the objectives of Policy LC6 of the MLDP. A development of this size is likely to have a significant impact on trip generation and travel demands, however no Transport assessment has been included as part of the application so that, in the absence of such an assessment, there is no evidence to suggest that the existing highway network will be able to cope with the additional traffic generated by this proposal. The site of the proposed development is not well related to services and community facilities within the settlement of Caldicot which would result in most local journeys being undertaken by car. Thus the proposal would be contrary to the objectives of Policy MV1 of MLDP

- 15 -

DC/2012/00931 ERECTION OF TWO WIND TURBINES (GENERATING CAPACITY UP TO 3.0 MW) WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 100 METRES, TOGETHER WITH ANCILLARY DEVELOPMENT GREAT HOUSE FARM, UNDY RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE Case Officer: Kate Young Registered: 14th November 2012 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 The application relates to two free standing wind turbines with a maximum tip height of 100 metres and ancillary works, to be located on the Gwent Levels between Rogiet and Undy, just to the west of the M4 toll plaza. The final detailed specification of the towers and turbines would be subject to a competitive tender process and thus no details are given but the applicants have suggested that the colour and finish could be the subject of conditions. The turbines would have ‘upwind’ rotors that would all rotate in the same direction. Rotational speeds would vary between 6 and 22.3 revolutions per minute. For safety reasons the turbines would automatically shut down when the wind speed exceeds approximately 25m/s. Access to the site would be via Station Road in Rogiet although abnormal loads bringing the larger components to the site would be via a slip road off the toll plaza. The ancillary works would include electrical substation kiosks to be .located at the base of each tower, underground cabling to Caldicot pumping station approximately 2.5 km to the east of the site (about 1.2 metres deep), crane hard standing, new access track, temporary construction compound and site signage. The site area covers approximately 28 hectares. 1.2 The site is located within a designated Special Landscape Area, the Coastal Protection Zone and an Area of Special Archaeological Sensitivity. It is also located immediately to the north of the Magor and Undy Site of Special Scientific Interest. The proposed development falls within Schedule 2 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and an Environmental Statement has been submitted as part of the application. The site is also located within the Gwent Levels Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest. 2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY DC/2004/00712 – Conversion of an agricultural building to dwelling – Approved DC/2004/00968 – Conversion of agricultural building to dwelling LBC – Approved DC/2004/00600 – Prior notification for 15metre high telecom mast – Acceptable DC/2000/00804 - Erection of telecom mast – Acceptable. 3.0 UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

- 16 -

DES1 General Design Considerations ENV1 General Development Considerations C6 Coastal Protection Zone C4 Green Wedges C3 Special Landscape AreasCH10 areas of Special Archaeological Sensitivity NC1 International Sites NC2 Sites of Special Scientific Interest NC4 Green Wedges SP14 Energy SP8 Countryside and Nature Conservation ENV8 Renewable Energy DES8 Nature Conservation and Development CH14 Historic Landscapes, Parks and Gardens SP7 Conservation of the Historic Environment. CH10 Archaeology 4.0 REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Consultation Responses Magor with Undy Community Council – Approve. Supports projects that encompass renewable energy and therefore, in principle, recommend approval of the application; however the Council is mindful of the eco-system in close proximity to the site (Severn Estuary SPA and RAMSAR, Severn Estuary SSSI and Gwent Levels SSSI) and would like to urge the LPA to carry out an appropriate assessment, looking at the possible impact of the turbines on the integrity of the Severn Estuary SPA and Gwent Levels. Upon completion of the assessment, it is recommended that the relevant agencies be re-consulted. Rogiet Community Council – Approve but have concerns Station road is unsuitable for heavy vehicles and has a weight restriction; it is also a ‘safe route to school’ with a 20 mph zone. There is concern about the extra traffic on the B4245 between Magor and Rogiet. It would be helpful if all construction traffic could use the toll plaza slip road. Highways - Further information required before we can support the application. There is no county highway connecting directly with the site. The developer will need to determine the acceptability of using the over bridge with the applicable interested parties and the Highway Authority would welcome confirmation when this has been achieved. Require clarification of the specific areas within MCC highway ownership that could potentially require modification. The proposed delivery route associated with construction traffic is along the B4245 and Station Road. Station Road is principally a residential road accommodating traffic calming, on street parking and bus services as well as providing access to the primary school, railway station and Network Rail depot. We would therefore request that a second option is also presented for review illustrating a route via Church Road in Undy; this could reduce the traffic impact on local residents and services. Also requests that the applicant confirms as to whether all construction deliveries could actually be made via the toll

- 17 -

plaza as a third option for consideration. We would need, in writing, confirmation that Network Rail is happy that the construction traffic will comply with the weight restrictions imposed on the road over rail bridges. It is requested that the applicant provides a detailed Construction Traffic Management Plan and Traffic Management Plan prior to any approval of the application. Recommend that the plans are also reviewed by all other interested parties including Welsh Government, SWTRA, Severn River Crossing Plc and Network Rail. Glamorgan-Gwent Archaeological Trust - refuse. The applicants have identified that there is a high potential for archaeological features of at least national importance to be located in the application area. There are no mitigation measures that can be implemented which will mitigate the impact of the development on the archaeological resource as this will be over a much larger area than the footprint of the development. The impact of the development on the setting of the scheduled ancient monuments and listed buildings will also be much greater than stated in the applications. Therefore the proposed development is contrary to Section 6.5.1 of Planning Policy Wales (2012), and Policy CH10 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan and therefore the current application should be refused. Welsh Water – There is a rising main crossing the site. No part of the building will be permitted within 6 metres of the centreline of the public sewer. Countryside Council for Wales (now National Resources Wales) Ecological Comments – Withdraws its objection to the scheme providing that the conditions and recommendations in the HRA for the scheme are attached to any permission that may be granted. The application site is located approximately 1 km to the north-west of the Severn Estuary Special Protection Area, a site noted for its internationally important wintering of shelduck and an internationally important assemblage of 19 species of waterfowl. Surveys to inform the application have also confirmed that the site and surrounding land provides habitats for wintering lapwing. The proposed development will lead to the direct loss of some feeding habitat for wintering lapwings. It may also result in displacement of lapwing through indirect habitat loss caused by disturbance from the operation and maintenance of the turbines. The application site lies approximately 1km north-west of the Severn Estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and RAMSAR sites, however we do not consider that the proposal is likely to significantly affect these sites and an appropriate assessment is not required in respect of these sites. The site lies approximately 1km from the Severn Estuary SSSI. Although the SSSI is mentioned in the Environmental Statement, there has been no detailed assessment of the likely impacts of the scheme for which it is notified. Whilst it seems unlikely that the proposal will significantly affect the shelducks this will only be confirmed with post construction monitoring which can be imposed by condition. The site lies approximately 1km north-west of the Gwent Levels Magor to Undy SSSI, noted for its ditch/reen network however CCW is of the view that they are unlikely to be affected by the proposal providing that appropriate measures are put in place to prevent spillages of oil, etc.

- 18 -

The surveys supplied with the application recorded several bat species flying over the site CCW therefore recommends condition that the turbines be sited at least 50 metres from any boundary features and that post construction monitoring takes place. Biodiversity Officer – No objection subject to detailed conditions and monitoring. The submittal of the addendum to the EIA is welcomed, as is the appropriate consideration of ‘high’ and ‘medium’ risk species of bats. The mitigation offered is also welcomed and must be secured via robust conditions. Breeding Lapwings. The loss of breeding habitat of lapwing must be considered. Lapwing are a Priority Species in Monmouthshire. The extent of breeding here is significant as good quality breeding habitat is limited. The competent authority must take steps to secure the preservation, maintenance and re-establishment of a sufficiently diverse area of habitat for wild birds, including the means of the upkeep, management and creation of such habitat. This can be secured by conditions and monitoring. CCW Landscape Comments – Object. The development would have a significant and adverse impact on the general landscape and historic landscape of the Gwent Levels. Any decision should be deferred pending the outcome of a cumulative impact assessment on the Gwent Levels. There are already a number of wind turbines operational across the Gwent Levels and there are further proposals across the three local planning authority areas. We are concerned that these single turbines are contributing to the impression of a wind farm. It is important that the cumulative impacts are fully assessed. This is a departure from other turbine schemes that have been consented on the levels which were on brown field sites and designed primarily for local generation. This current application is on a green field site and feeds wholly into the grid. We do not agree with the applicant’s assessment of the potential impact on the Historic Landscape and consider that these proposals could have an adverse impact on the Historic Landscape’s special qualities and significance. Landscape and Countryside Officer - Recommend Refusal. 1 The conclusions of the LVIA are based on; inaccurate baseline data, poor interpretation of the impacts on the historic landscape, underestimation of the sensitivity, location and capacity of the landscape to absorb development as a multiple designated area and the inability to mitigate the proposals. 2 The conclusions of the cumulative impact assessment are misleading and incomplete not having addressed either the requirements for assessment of additional grey infrastructure or the impact on the Historic Landscape. 3 There is a consensus of opinion from CADW, GGAT and NRW that conclusions regarding the impact on the Gwent Levels Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest have underestimated impacts on the underlying archaeology and the Historic Landscape. 4 No mitigation has been provided for the access tracks, underground cables and the substation. On the basis of the above issues the proposals are therefore contrary to the following UDP policies;

- 19 -

ENV1 General Development Considerations ENV8 Renewable Energy DES 1 General Design Considerations C3 Special Landscape Area of the UDP CH14 Historic Landscapes, Parks and Gardens CH10 Archaeology C6 Coastal Protection Zone RSPB – Support the views of CCW. Cadw – there are 24 scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAM’s) within 5km of the site. There are no direct impacts on the SAM’s but indirect impacts are a material consideration. The ZTV study supplied by the applicant demonstrates that the turbines are likely to be inter-visible to some extent from most of the SAM’s within the 5 km radius. In addition the study indicates that the turbine will appear in other significant views across the levels from a number of more distance monuments. Whilst there are several modern heavy industrial installations, including other turbines, ranged around the northern and western edges of the Caldicot Levels, the proposed towers and moving blades will introduce a substantial vertical out-of-scale element to an otherwise undeveloped landscape. Views across this landscape form an important element in the setting of the multiple SAM’s and it is likely that the turbines will appear in some of these views, albeit at a distance. There will therefore be a potential impact on the setting of a number of the SAM’s in the area. The EIA assesses the individual impact on the nearest four SAM’s but does not consider the cumulative impact on the group of designated monuments. Cadw questions the validity of the assessment. The EIA does not clearly demonstrate the potential impact on the setting of Caerwent Roman City. The development has the potential to have an adverse impact on a large number of SAM’s to a greater degree than is described in the EIA. The proposal also lies within 5km of the historic parks and gardens known as Dewstow House. There will be no direct impact on this historic park but according to the ZTV study it is likely that the turbines will be visible from the historic garden and therefore there may be some limited visual impact. The proposal also lies within the Historic Landscape of HLW Gwent Levels. Cadw considers that there is a risk that the impacts on the HLW and the cumulative impact may have been underestimated. Cadw find it difficult to agree with the statement in the ASIDOHL that the landscape impacts will be insignificant and that the character and quality of the landscape will be left intact. As far as historic character is concerned, there will be some impact and some change. Caldicot and Wentlooge Levels Drainage Board – outlines conditions. Welsh Water – no objection. Tree Officer – no objection. There are no trees on or near the site which are the subject of any statutory protection; trees in the area are predominantly confined to the banks of the drains. None of the trees make a significant contribution to the visual amenity of the area. 4.2 Neighbour Consultation Responses

- 20 -

Objections received from five addresses. - light flicker - noise impact - visual impact - difficulty selling properties - impact on wildlife especially birds - impact on horse riders and walkers - will lead the way for other turbines - visual impact on the entrance to Wales - too far away from the grid - there are better sites, further from housing. - too close to local properties – the area already suffers from motorway and railway noise - turbines are not necessary and power output is so small. - need more power stations and wave power - little benefit to local residents - locals should be compensated for devaluation of their properties - turbines should be erected in industrial areas. 5.0 EVALUATION 5.1 Principle of Renewable Energy 5.1.1 It is national policy to encourage the generation of power from renewable energy sources. This sentiment is reflected in the advice given in Technical Advice Note (TAN) 8 Planning for Renewable Energy (July 2005). The Welsh Government (WG) has established targets for the amount of energy to be produced from renewable resources and a large proportion of this is to come from onshore wind sources. Therefore it is recognised that onshore wind power does offer a great potential for an increase in the generation of renewable energy. Paragraph 1.6 of TAN8 sets out that as well as developing new sources of renewable energy, the WG is committed to promoting energy efficiency and energy conservation. In order to try to meet the targets for onshore wind production, the WG has identified seven Strategic Search Areas (SSAs) where large scale wind developments should be concentrated. None of these SSAs are in Monmouthshire. TAN8 then considers Onshore Wind in other areas and found that there may be further opportunities for the development of wind farms or other renewable energy schemes on urban/industrial brown field sites up to 25MW and that these should be encouraged. This application site, unlike other turbine sites on the Gwent Levels, is neither on a brownfield site or an industrial or urban location. Rather it is located in the open countryside on agricultural land. 5.1.2 It is also expected that LPAs will encourage smaller community based wind farm schemes (generally less than 5MW). Paragraph 2.13 of the TAN says that LPAs may wish to consider the cumulative impact of small schemes in areas outside the SSAs and identifies there will be a balance to be struck between the desirability of renewable energy and landscape protection.

- 21 -

5.1.3 While this proposal would be classified as small, in that the two turbines together would generate approximately 3.0MW, the towers themselves could not be considered small with a total height to tip of 100 metres. Whilst that balance should not result in severe restriction on the development of wind power capacity, there is a case for avoiding a situation where wind turbines are spread across the whole country. The Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement of 01/2005 states in paragraph 12.8.11 that “smaller domestic or community based wind turbine development may be suitable within and without SSAs subject to material planning considerations”. This application does not relate to either domestic or community based development. 5.1.4 Therefore while the principle of renewable energy is supported by the WG and this Council, each case for a wind turbine needs to be considered on its merits, especially with regards to its visual impact, impact on biodiversity and its impact on local residential amenity. 5.2 Development Plan Policy 5.2.1 Policy SP14 of the adopted Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan encourages the promotion of energy generation from renewable sources where that is consistent with other policies. Whilst the starting point for determining this application is that applications for renewable energy will be favourably considered, due regard must be paid to other policies in the plan on a site specific basic. 5.2.2 Policy SP8 of the Unitary Development Plan seeks to promote the enhancement of Monmouthshire’s natural environment and to protect it from inappropriate development. As will be demonstrated later in the report, it is the Council’s view that such an intrusive feature will not enhance Monmouthshire’s natural environment. It will have a damaging visual impact upon the character of this landscape which has been designated as a Landscape of Outstanding Historical Interest and a Special Landscape Area. 5.2.3 Policy ENV1 of the UDP provides in criterion (d) that development should have regard to the privacy, amenity and health of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. There are three residential properties within about 500 metres of the proposed site, the turbine would have a huge visual impact on these properties and also could have an adverse impact on the health of the occupiers of these dwellings. Criteria (h) says that development should not prejudice the qualities of the countryside, in particular any qualities that have resulted in areas being designated as having special nature conservation, landscape, geological or historical importance. As already stated, this site is in close proximity to internationally recognised sites for nature conservation and is a Landscape of Outstanding Historical Interest and a designated Special Landscape Area. The proposed turbines, at 100 metres high, would prejudice the open rural qualities of the landscape. 5.2.4 Policy ENV8 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan provides that proposals for the generation of power from renewable energy sources will be permitted if the proposed development meets the following criteria: (a) the development will not have an unacceptable adverse effect on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers by reason of noise emission, visual dominance, shadow flicker, reflected light, the emission of smoke, fumes, harmful gases or dust;

- 22 -

(b) that no electromagnetic disturbance is likely to be caused by the development to any existing transmitting or receiving systems of (if such disturbance may be caused) that measures will be taken to remedy or mitigate any such disturbance; and (c) transmission lines between the development and the point of connection to the grid do not have an unacceptable adverse effect on the environment. 5.2.5 As already stated, the principle of encouraging renewable energy including wind turbines within the County is supported. However it is important that the potential benefits of the renewable energy developments are balanced carefully against the need to protect the built, natural and historic environment. It is clear that the occupiers of the neighbouring properties will be adversely affected by reason of visual dominance and shadow flicker. It is not expected that any electromagnetic disturbance is likely to be caused to existing transmitting or receiving systems. There would be a cable run between the proposed towers and Caldicot Pumping station, a distance of approximately 2.5km. The cable would be laid underground, and while this will have minimum visual impact, it may have implications for the historic landscape. The underground cable run is permitted development and therefore does not form part of the application. 5.2.6 Policy DES1 sets out that all development should be of a good standard of design and respect the qualities of the character of its context. Criterion (d) requires that development should maintain reasonable levels of privacy and amenity in relation to the occupiers of neighbouring properties. It is considered that two 100 metre high turbines, so close to residential properties, would adversely impact upon the amenity of the residents of those neighbouring properties. 5.2.7 Policy DES 9 of the UDP requires that development proposals must ensure the protection and enhancement of wildlife and landscape resources by appropriate building design, site layouts, landscape techniques and choice of plant species. The design of the turbines is fixed and so large that no amount of landscaping will be able to screen them. Mitigation measures would be put in place to try to protect the wildlife resources but inevitably there will be disruption to wildlife interests. 5.2.8 Policy DES8 requires that development should accord with natural ecological processes and nature conservation interests. The proposal would not conserve or enhance existing and potential habitats and features of nature conservation interest, although mitigation and compensation could be used to ensure that disturbance to wildlife would be kept to an acceptable level. If the turbines were approved and constructed, then on-going monitoring of certain species would be required and if the effects were found to be too harmful cessation or curtailment of the operation may have to be considered., 5.2.9 This part of the Gwent Levels has been identified as a Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest. Policy CH14 of the UDP states that development that would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character, appearance or setting of an historic landscape will not be permitted. The Council will have regard to the information contained in Part 2 of the Cadw Register when considering proposals affecting historic landscapes listed in the register. There is a consensus of opinion from Cadw, Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust (GGAT), Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the Council’s own Landscape Officer that the conclusions of the

- 23 -

Landscape Visual Impact Assessment, submitted by the applicants are inaccurate and that the cumulative impact assessment is misleading. It is considered that the impact on the Gwent Levels Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest has been underestimated as have the impacts on the underlying archaeology. 5.2.10 Policy C3 says that within Special Landscape Areas development will not be permitted if, taking into account its scale and nature, it would have a serious harmful effect on those characteristics of the area that have led to its designation, unless that harm is outweighed by benefits to the rural economy that could not be achieved by development on sites outside SLAs and statutorily designated areas. Where development is acceptable in principle it must respect the high quality of the landscape and be sensitively integrated into it. The application is supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). The Council believes that the harm caused by the proposal would not be outweighed by the benefits to the rural economy given the large scale of the visual impact compared with the low output of electricity generated. The purpose of Special Landscape Area designation is to identify those landscapes which are of particularly high intrinsic value and which require special protection for their own sake as part of the County’s landscape resource. It is considered that a wind turbine with a maximum height of 100 metres, in such a visually prominent location would have a serious harmful effect on the landscape characteristics of the area. Within Special Landscape Areas it is important that the effect of the proposal on the overall landscape character, the visibility of the development and the integration of the development into the landscape is assessed to minimise impact. 5.2.11 While the principle of renewable energy is supported by Policy SP14 and Policy ENV8 of the adopted Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan, the visual impact of two 100 metre high turbines in this visually prominent location, its effect on the Special Landscape Area and historic landscape, and upon the amenity of local residents means that the proposal in this location is contrary to the objectives of several development plan policies. These are explored in greater detail below. 5.3 Visual Impact 5.3.1 A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) was submitted as part of the application and found that the turbines would be seen over a large area from Wentwood and Grey Hill to the north, the outskirts of Chepstow to the east and Newport to the west. The turbines would be a prominent feature when viewed from the M4 and from residential properties in Undy. The assessment acknowledges that ‘in the majority of available views, the proposed development would result in a discernible change’. Other wind turbines have been approved to the south of the M4, most noticeably in Newport, although these differ considerably from the ones proposed within the current application in that they have been constructed on brownfield sites adjacent to other large structures. 5.3.2 The Countryside Council for Wales (CCW - now Natural Resources Wales) objects to the proposal on landscape grounds, believing that the development would have a significant and adverse impact on the general landscape and historic landscape of the Gwent Levels. CCW recommend that a cumulative impact assessment be carried out for the whole of the Gwent Levels. While such an assessment would be

- 24 -

desirable, the Council is not in a position to carry out such an undertaking and feel that it would be too onerous to expect the applicants to undertake it. 5.4 Biodiversity 5.4.1 Over the course of the application considerable work has been undertaken in relation to the impact on protected species. Following the submission of an addendum to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) which now recognises the high to medium risk to bats, the Council’s Biodiversity Officer now has no objection to the proposal, in relation to bat species, provided that the mitigation submitted is adhered to and that suitable conditions are imposed relating to the micro siting of the towers, lighting and post construction monitoring. 5.4.2 A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) has been undertaken by MCC as the competent authority. This concluded that there will not be a significant effect on the Severn Estuary SPA with appropriate conditions and restrictions on development relating to timing of works, early warning monitoring and a mitigation agreement to demonstrate how mitigation will be implemented if monitoring illustrates a significant effect. 5.4.3 Breeding Lapwings have been considered separately from the HRA. It was concluded that the site should be made unsuitable for lapwing prior to construction and decommissioning and that a scheme for monitoring during operation should be secured by condition. 5.4.4 A Construction Environment Management Plan would be needed and can be secured by condition. 5.5 Highway Implications 5.5.1 It has been estimated that there would need to be approximately 1,600 two way vehicular movements during the five month construction phase, this includes 18 one way abnormal loads. The equipment (stone, turbine structural components, erection cranes, steel, portable building, etc.,) would be mainly brought to the site on HGVs. The large turbine components including the blades would be brought to site on abnormal load vehicles up to 37.3 metres in length. The abnormal loads would be transported to the site from the eastbound Toll plaza access slip road (Severn Crossing Plc have agreed to this in principle) and then onto Station Road, crossing the bridge over the M4 and then onto a private access track, which would have to be upgraded. All other construction traffic would use the B4245 and then Station Road to get to the private access track. The proposed new access track would be 755 metres long and 5 metres wide. Minor road improvement works would be required to enable the abnormal load vehicles access to the development site. A detailed Access Road Assessment has been undertaken for the abnormal vehicle route to the site including swept path analyses for a ridged 37.3 metre blade trailer. The option of using Church Road in Undy was considered by the applicants for the proposed delivery route but this was ruled out due to the narrow width of the access track, its horizontal geometry and the fact that there were no passing bays.

- 25 -

5.5.2 The Council’s Highway Engineers have requested clarification of the specific areas within MCC highway ownership that could potentially require modification. While this is desirable, this is not strictly a matter which has to be resolved at this stage, it being an issue between the Highway Authority and the developer. It is not a key determining factor in the determination of this planning application. Given the sensitivities of Severn Road (it is principally a residential road accommodating traffic calming, on street parking, bus services and access to the primary school) Highways have requested that a second option via Church Road, Undy is considered. This has been done by the developer and was dismissed by them as being unsuitable. There is a weight restriction on the Severn Road over rail bridge, and Highways would like written confirmation that Network Rail are in agreement with the bridge being used. Highways have also requested a Construction Management Plan and a Traffic Management Plan. 5.6 Residential Amenity 5.6.1 As stated above, there are three properties situated approximately 500 metres from the proposed turbines and the village of Undy is only 1km to the west of the site. There is no topographical or large vegetation features between these properties and the proposed turbines which would help to screen the impact. The amenity of the occupiers of the of the properties so close to the turbines will obviously be compromised by the visual dominance of the structures and also the disturbance caused by the moving blades. Although the analysis undertaken on behalf of the applicants conclude that the development would not result in a material reduction to residential amenity as a result of shadow flicker, two towers of this size with rotating blades will inevitably cause a reduction in residential amenity to the occupiers of the dwellings within 550 metres. The proposal is considered to be contrary to the objectives of criterion (d) of both policy DES1 and ENV1 of the adopted UDP as the development will not have regard to or maintain the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. 5.7 Archaeology and Landscape 5.7.1 There is known significant archaeology in this area dating back to the Mesolithic period. There have been finds locally that have included those from the Bronze Age and from the Roman and Medieval periods. The site is included in the Register of Landscape of Outstanding Historical Importance. The proposed development will have two impacts on the historic environment, firstly the direct impact on the buried archaeological sites caused by the construction of the turbines and associated structures (including the 2km long cable run which is not included as part of the application) and secondly the indirect impact on the setting of the ancient monuments and the residual impact on the buried archaeological sites and palaeo-environmental resource. In order to try to identify if any archaeological features are present in the development area the applicants commissioned a geo-physical survey using magnetometers, which has a typical depth penetration of 0.5 to 1.0 metres. In this case the archaeological features are likely to be buried at a much greater depth. The information provided in the desk based assessment found there is a high potential for prehistoric remains to be present within the proposed development site and that such sites are going to be of high value. The only proven methodology for detecting waterlogged archaeology is the excavation of trial pits and this is very destructive to

- 26 -

the archaeological resource itself. Therefore GGAT recommend that such destructive techniques should only be used when the proposed development is determined to be of national importance and its value therefore outweighs the need to protect the archaeological resource. Palaeo-environmental evidence will be present in the development area, this material is of high value and its loss will be significant and in the opinion of GGAT, unacceptable. The residual effect of the proposed works on the buried archaeological is not considered in the reports submitted with the applications. The need for deep excavations into the ground for the foundations of the turbines will add oxygen to the anaerobic environment that is currently preserving the archaeological and palaeo-environmental resource. The area that would be affected by the addition of this oxygen is not known but is likely to be considerable and will cause substantial damage to a national (or even international) resource for which no mitigation measures are possible. 5.7.2 The applicants have determined that there is a high potential for archaeological features of a least National Importance to be located in the application area. There are no mitigation measures that could be implemented which would be effective, as the impacts are much greater than just the footprint of the development. Once oxygen has been introduced to the waterlogged area the archaeology in the wetlands would be damaged. The proposed development is thus considered to be contrary to Policy CH10 of the UDP as serious harm to archaeological interests would occur. 6.0 RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE Reasons: 1. The proposal for two100 metre high wind turbines in this location is contrary to Policy CH14 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan as it would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the character and appearance and setting of the Gwent Levels Registered Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest. 2. The proposal is contrary to the objectives of criterion (d) of both Policy DES1 and ENV1 of the adopted UDP as the development will not have regard to or maintain the amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties. 3. Two wind turbines in this location would be contrary to criteria (a) of Policy ENV8 of the adopted UDP Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan as the development, being within 500 metres of residential properties, would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the amenity of those neighbouring occupiers by reason of visual dominance, shadow flicker and noise emissions.

- 27 -

DC/2013/00253 ERECTION OF ONE DETACHED DWELLING GLASSERTON, GRANGE ROAD ST ARVANS RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Case Officer: David Wong Date Registered: 28/03/2014 APPLICATION DETAILS This is an outline planning application with some matters reserved. The intention of the proposal is to erect a detached dwelling on the side garden of Glasserton with a new access to serve the site. The matters that are to be considered at this stage are the new vehicular access for the site and the overall scale of the proposed dwellinghouse. The proposal had been amended on a few occasions and the latest version proposes to have the new vehicular access located nearer to Glasserton. A schematic elevation plan has been submitted to illustrate the overall scale of the proposed dwelling in relation to the streetscene/immediate neighbour. The proposed dwelling would have an L-shape and would measure approximately 6m in depth (7.1m the longer depth), 10.5m in width and 7.5m to the ridge. It is noted that planning permission for an outline application for a dwelling was previously approved on the same application site. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 12114 - Erection Of A Dwelling (Outline). Approved 14/05/1980 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES Strategic Policies S1 – Spatial distribution of new housing provision S13 – Landscape, green infrastructure and natural environment S17 – Place making and design Development Management Policies EP1 – Amenity and environmental protection DES1 – General design considerations H2 – Residential development in main villages HE – Development in conservation areas REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Consultations Replies

- 28 -

St Arvans – It was recommended to approve the proposal on the initial submission but there was then a recommendation to refuse the revised proposal: The application differs from the original outline planning application. The proposed property is larger than that proposed in the previous applications and makes no provision for a garage. There is a conflict whereby it appears to be impossible to carry out the construction without encroaching into the protected area surrounding the Walnut tree. The Community Council is in principle in favour of development of in-fill sites and recommends that the application be re-submitted showing how the above issues might be addressed. Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust – No objection but the proposals will require archaeological mitigation. It is recommended that a condition is attached to any planning consent granted in respect of the current application, requiring all ground disturbing work to be undertaken under archaeological supervision. MCC Tree Officer – No objection to the proposal. Standard Tree Protection Condition is recommended. MCC Conservation – In this sensitive area, the scale of the proposed dwelling must reflect the neighbouring properties along the same street frontage. MCC Highways – No objection to the revised drawings and the proposal is considered to be satisfactory from a highways perspective. Whilst it is appreciated that development of the site will further increase traffic along Grange Road it is considered that the proposal will be a benefit to all users in that a new access will provide an informal passing area. In addition, the removal of the existing hedgerow and replacement boundary wall will provide extra width assisting with the safer passing of two vehicles. SEWBREC Search Results – No significant ecological record found on the site. 4.2 Neighbour Notification There had been amendments to the proposal and a total of three households have objected and these are summarised below: The garden of 13 Laurel Park is very narrow (less than 9 m deep) and is in a slightly elevated position and has a large 2.5m high hedge running the length of the garden. The kitchen, dining room and patio is very private as is expected for properties in the surrounding area. If the site is developed there will be two different owners and there is the possibility that the existing hedge could be taken down and replaced with an unsightly boundary which completely changes the character of the property. There are errors on the application on the application form. There are a number of trees and a boundary hedge and they provide a natural habitat for wildlife. The members of the planning committee are invited to come and view the proposed development from our perspective. The mature walnut tree is protected and any development within close proximity would damage the roots of the tree.

- 29 -

If the site is developed, Grange Road will be taking an increased level of traffic. The road is serving the barns at Rogerstone Grange as well as the local play area; often unaccompanied children use the road for access. The proposed dwelling will take the view of 14 Laurel Park, reduce privacy and will change the character of this property. Grange Road is very narrow and where are the builders’ vehicles going to park? We feel that a small bungalow would have less impact on, not only the quality of our lives and local wildlife, but the safety and privacy of other neighbours and people living in the village. A previous planning application for a two storey extension of a neighbouring property was refused and the current proposal is for a two storey detached dwelling. Therefore, this application should be refused. Currently, the boundary hedge acts like a soft barrier for vehicles. There is no provision for a garage. All houses in St Arvans built in the last 40 years have garages. This proposed development would clearly not be in keeping with the area. The proposed location of the property is less than 21m away from 13 Laurel Park The location of the access is dangerous with very limited visibility The occupiers of Grange House would like the applicant to carry on some additional works (general improvement works) on his land. As well as the above objections, two households have commented on this application: A further property on Grange Road will result in an increased level of traffic on a small residential road. Grange Road is a narrow road which helps to reduce the speed of traffic travelling through it. Therefore, if the width of Grange Road is widened, it would result in an increased speed of traffic. St Arvans is in a Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a Conservation Area. If this application were to be successful, this part of St Arvans would become more increasingly crowded. We are quite happy for a bungalow to be built on the site. 4.3 Local Member Representations Councillor Webb – Requested that this application be determined by the Planning Committee. EVALUATION 5.1 Principle of development St Arvans is identified as a Main Village in the Local Development Plan (Policy HE2). The site is within the development boundary of St Arvans within which planning permission will be granted for new residential development subject to detailed planning considerations. The size of the plot is modest and is comparable to some of the neighbouring sites. The proposed plot is able to accommodate a dwelling

- 30 -

of this size and would provide amenity space and parking on-site. Given the above, there is no objection to the principle of this proposed development. 5.2 Visual Impact This is an outline planning application and the appearance of the proposal is selected as a reserved matter. The site is located on the edge of the St Arvans Conservation Area. In this part of St Arvans, there is no uniformity in the pattern of housing development that would normally shape new dwelling proposals. It is considered that the proposed dwelling could be accommodated on the site without appearing out of character with the surround dwellings, and the proposed dimensions appear to be similar to some of the nearby properties, in accordance with the thrust of Policy DES1 of the Local Development Plan. 5.3 Effect on the Chepstow Conservation Area Policy HE1 of the LDP applies as the site is within the Chepstow Conservation Area. The Council’s Conservation Team was consulted and there is no objection to the proposal in this location. Properties in this part of the village are different with a variety of architectural designs and plot sizes. However, it is advised that the scale of the proposed dwelling must reflect the neighbouring properties along the same street frontage. The scheme had been modified and it is now shown that the ridge height is lower than Glasserton and Grange House. The proposed dwelling houses are set back from Grange Road and it is considered that the resulting proposal would respect the character of the Conservation Area of St Arvans. As part of the proposal, the existing boundary hedgerow would be removed and a new stone wall (natural stone wall not exceeding 600mm high) would be erected as a replacement. It is considered that the resulting proposal would have some visual impact upon the streetscene. However, this visual impact is limited to Grange Road only. In addition, due to the fact that the most of the properties along Grange Road have a low stone wall to the front of their curtilages this element is considered to be acceptable. 5.4 Neighbour amenity It is considered that appropriate design and location of any proposed openings on the dwelling can minimise or even prevent potential overlooking. This is an outline planning application and the appearance of the proposal is a reserved matter. Therefore, it would not be justifiable to refuse the application on overlooking grounds at this stage. In addition, there would be a sufficient gap (greater than 21m) from the habitable windows of the properties to the north of the site (13 and 14 Laurel Park). Some neighbours believe that the plot size of the development is disproportionate and there is no garaging provided to serve this dwelling. However, houses in this part of St Arvans have a wide range of plot sizes. In terms of garaging provision, it would be ideal to provide a garaging structure on site to serve this dwelling, but this would not be a prerequisite to permitting this application. Provided the car parking provided

- 31 -

would not harm the appearance of the Conservation Are then it would be unreasonable to refuse this application based on these grounds, and it is evident that such parking would not harm this character. Some neighbours living in Laurel Park have expressed that the future occupiers could potentially remove the dividing boundary hedgerow and that the character of their outlook would then be adversely affected. However, there is no mention of the removal of this dividing boundary hedgerow under this planning application. With regard to the outlook from these neighbours, there is no doubt that the outlook from these neighbours would be different. However, due to the distances involved and the differences in the site levels, the visual impact of this proposal would not be significant enough to warrant a refusal. Given the above, the principle of Policy EP1 is considered to be met. 5.5 The protection of the existing tree The Council’s Tree Officer was consulted. There is no objection with regard to the proposed development as the existing walnut tree would be retained. A standard condition will be applied to protect the tree during the course of the development. 5.6 The impact upon the wildlife Some of the neighbours have expressed concerns with regard to the loss of suitable habitats for wildlife as a result of this development. Photos of wild birds have been submitted as part of their objections. The site is part of the domestic garden of Glasserton and there is no feature of significant ecological value. In addition, the existing mature walnut tree will be retained. In addition, the local biodiversity record centre was consulted which has revealed no significant ecological record on the site. 5.7 Highway matters The vehicular arrangement of the proposal had been amended to address the issues raised by the Council’s Highway Department. The latest proposal was produced under the guidance of the Council’s Highway Department. Although no garaging will be provided, there is no highway objection, there being sufficient on-site parking proposed. The Highway Department noted that Grange Road is narrow. Whilst it is appreciated that development of the site will further increase traffic along Grange Road it is considered that the proposal will be a benefit to all users in that a new access will provide an informal passing area. In addition, the removal of the existing hedgerow and replacement boundary wall will provide extra width assisting with the safer passing of two vehicles. It is noted that some neighbours have concerns regarding traffic movements during the construction period. This is understandable and the developer will be required to submit a traffic management plan/construction method statement prior to the development commencing to minimise traffic congestion in this part of St Arvans.

- 32 -

It is noted that Grange Road serves the barns at Rogerstone Grange as well as the local play area. However, there is no technical evidence to demonstrate that a small increase in traffic in this part of St Arvans will reduce safety to the users of the road. In addition, a good management plan will eliminate danger throughout the construction period of the development. 5.8 Other issues Some local residents consider that a small bungalow would have less impact on, not only on the quality of their lives (and on local wildlife), but on the safety and privacy of other neighbours and people living in the village. The application submitted is for a two storey dwellinghouse which will have to be considered on its merits. It is noted that a neighbouring planning application for a two storey rear extension was amended during the planning stage as it was considered unacceptably close to Glasserton. Each case must be treated on its own merits and this application is a different scheme entirely and it has demonstrated that the proposed development will provide the necessary intervening distances between the proposed dwelling and neighbouring properties. The occupiers of Grange House would like the applicant to carry on some additional works (i.e. general improvement works to the existing boundary fence and the removal of some existing overgrown vegetation) on his land/the shared boundary. However, these are considered to be a private matter and the neighbours have been advised to pursue them directly with the applicants. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Conditions/Reasons Standard outline condition OUT1A (except for the access and scale) OUT2A Sample of materials shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA prior to the development commencing; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. A scheme of foul and water drainage shall be submitted to the LPA and approved by the LPA prior to the development commencing. Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system A traffic management plan /construction method statement shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA prior to the development commencing; the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details No surface water shall be allowed to connect, either directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No surface water shall drain onto the highway An archaeological watching brief (use standard condition) The proposed finished floor levels shall be submitted and approved by the LPA as part of the reserved matter planning application.

- 33 -

The protection of any existing tree to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars shall be achieved as follows: (a) Underground services shall be routed clear of trees to avoid root damage. (b) Prior to building works commencing on site (including any demolition and refurbishment works), an exclusion zone shall be established by the erection of protective fencing around each tree or group of trees, at a minimum radius from the trunk of the tree(s) of 12 times the main stem's diameter, measured at 1.5 metres above ground level. (c) The fencing shall comprise a vertical and horizontal framework of scaffolding, no less than 2.3 metres in height and well braced to resist impacts, with vertical tubes spaced at a maximum interval of 3 metres. Onto this framework weldmesh panels shall be fixed using wire or scaffold clamps. The fence shall be maintained for the duration of construction activity on the site. It shall be constructed and erected in accordance with the recommendations published in British Standard 5837:2005 ("Trees In Relation To Construction"), Clause 9.2. (d) No storage of plant or materials, landfill, excavation, burning of materials cement mixing, movement of vehicles or other such harmful activities identified in British Standard 5837:2005 shall be allowed within the fenced off area. Informative: Please refer to the Advisory Notes of the letter from Welsh Water, dated the 30th April 2013. Nesting birds Bats Party wall

- 34 -

DC/2013/00973 AGRICULTURAL BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED TRACK FOR ACCESS LLYN YSGUBOR, LLANHENNOCK, NEWPORT, NP18 1LT RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Case Officer: Jo Draper Date Registered: 23.12.2013 APPLICATION DETAILS The application site relates to a field that is adjacent to the main highway that runs through Llanhennock and forms part of a large parcel of land that is associated with the residential property. It is proposed to construct an agricultural building with a new access to serve the building leading from the private access that serves the dwelling. The proposal has been subject to amendments and in response to neighbour and community council comments the applicant has reduced the scale of the building to measure 6.5m in width and 12m in length, height to eaves is 3.2m (this was reduced from 14m in length, 8m in width and 4.3m to eaves) The proposed building is to be situated adjacent to the boundary hedgerow with the gable facing the main highway. The external materials comprise single skin coated plastisol with a profile tin roof in Juniper Green and a galvanised steel roller shutter door. The applicant has provided supporting information to justify the use of the building in response to a neighbour objection. The suggestion from the local objector is that the building would be used in relation to the applicant’s non-agricultural business. The applicant has advised that the office above the applicant’s garage (which is registered for business rates) is used as the office for the renewable energy business that the applicant is involved in. The applicant has rented a yard from a local farmer on a different holding as well as a unit at the Mamhilad Park estate to store and supply materials for this business. The building is to be used to help the applicant start using his land for agricultural purposes. The building is required to house the equipment required to enable this to be undertaken. The application site is within Llanhennock Conservation Area. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY DC/1999/00793 Double Garage (Already approved) with extension to connect to existing dwelling Approved 20.01.2000 DC/2006/01603 Alterations and Extension to Existing Dwelling Approved 15.06.06 DC/2006/01702 Alteration to previously approved extension to existing dwelling

- 35 -

Approved 22.03.07 DC/2011/00314 Garage/Workshop Approved 26.07.11 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES Development Management Policies EP1 Amenity and Environmental Protection DES1 General Design Considerations HE1 Development in Conservation Areas REPRESENTATIONS Consultations Replies Llanhennock Community Council – the response is still to be received in relation to the applicant’s revised plans; the original drawings were declined on the basis that the agricultural building and track were considered excessive for the size of the area and would have a detrimental visual impact. 4.2 Neighbour Notification It has become clear that a new business is being run from the property, the business is openly advertised on the internet and there is a noticeable increase in commercial traffic, a build-up of palletised materials and daily use of a forklift truck. The previously built garage store building is in regular occupation and probably supporting the new business Misleading for the applicant to claim that the ground was used for agricultural grazing, the hay collected is in an unusable condition. Concern that the proposed new building is not for agricultural purposes but would be supporting the new business with implications upon the local community The property does not warrant a new building for agricultural purposes The same neighbour objected to the original proposal on the basis of the following: The visual impact is significant; a clear view can be obtained from the neighbour’s property of the 14m side elevation with a height of 4.5m being excessive. The screening effect of small fruit trees would be minimal due to their limited height and during colder seasons The building is in excess for what is needed for that site, the property already has a similar agricultural building and a useful medium-sized shed/stable and a recently built 2 storey 3 bay garage with storage above. EVALUATION 5.1 Visual Impact upon the Conservation Area

- 36 -

The proposal has been situated close to the boundary with the highway, whilst this may indeed allow for glimpsed views from the highway during winter months through the foliage, if it was situated away from the boundary this would lead to the building have a wider visual impact as it would be situated against an open backdrop. The glimpsed viewpoint (during winter months) would be of the smaller 6.5m length with a low eaves height of 3.2m and a shallow roof. The scale and mass of this building would not be unacceptable in this location and coupled with the form and design of the building which is clearly agricultural in appearance the proposal is considered to work in this setting. The proposal does not have any serious impact upon significant views into and out of the Conservation Area. 5.2 Residential Amenity There is only one neighbouring property that is potentially affected by this proposal, this being Highcroft (as this is the only property that can obtain a view of the proposal from their property). There is a significant distance that separates the proposal from the neighbouring property and whilst a view can be obtained of the proposal it is not close enough to have any adverse impact upon the amenity of the neighbouring property. There is no right of a view over someone else’s property/land. The neighbour has raised other concerns that are addressed below. 5.3 Other Issues Raised The issue of need has been addressed by the neighbour. The first floor of the existing garage is being used in association with the applicant’s business purposes, but home offices are acceptable as ancillary elements to domestic properties; also the applicant has clearly expressed his intentions to start farming the land, and the building as proposed is to be used for this purpose. 5.4 Design Amendments/ Negotiations The building has been reduced in length, width and height in an attempt to reduce the massing and provide a building which is more in scale with the size of the agricultural land it is proposed to serve. 5.5 Response to the Representations of the Community Council These concerns are addressed above. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Conditions: Five year time condition. The use of the building shall be used for the purposes of agriculture only.

- 37 -

DC/2014/00087 DEVELOPMENT OF A DWELLING AND GARAGE LAND AT PARC CLOSE, LLANGYBI RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Case Officer: Andrew Jones Date Registered: 07/02/2014 APPLICATION DETAILS This is an outline application for a single dwelling and garage with all matters reserved. The site is currently an area of open grassland located within Parc Close in the village of Llangybi. The plot is located at the entrance to Parc Close, which currently consists of six dwellings, off Parc Road. The site as noted is predominantly grassland at its northern end with a number of trees to the south. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY None. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES Strategic Policies S1 – Spatial Distribution of New Housing Provision S13 – Landscape, Green Infrastructure and the Natural Environment S17 – Place Making and Design Development Management Policies H2 – Residential Development in Main Villages EP1 – Amenity and Environmental Protection DES1 – General Design Considerations NE1 – Nature Conservation and Development REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Consultations Replies Llangybi Fawr Community Council – objects to the application, raising the following areas of concern: The village lacks open space; the loss of any such space makes the situation worse. Valuable amenity space; site contains a number of trees and a pond which support wildlife. Llangybi suffers from the effects of poor dispersion of groundwater and sewerage.

- 38 -

Dwelling would be in prominent position and would dominate surroundings. Threaten privacy of adjacent dwellings. MCC Trees – provided the following comments: The Tree Protection Order (TPO) which protects trees on this site was placed in 1972 prior to the development of Parc Close. Since that time it would appear that many of the trees have now been removed leaving a large open space upon which it is proposed to construct the house and garage. The TPO therefore now effectively only covers those trees on the eastern boundary of the proposed development site. The ownership of these boundary trees is unclear; however, it is my opinion that the proposals, if implemented in accordance with the AMS and the Site Layout Plan will have a minimal effect on Root Protection Areas. A simple Planning Condition should secure this. I have also considered the effect that this proposal may have on trees within the grounds of the adjacent property known as Dale Brow. It is my opinion that the Root Protection Areas of trees on this property would not be affected. I therefore have no adverse comments. MCC Public Rights of Way – provided the following comments: The applicant’s attention should be drawn to Public Footpath No. 122 in the community of Llangybi which runs adjacent to the site of the proposed development and over the access to it. Public Footpath No. 122 must be kept open and free for use by the public at all times, alternatively, a legal diversion or stopping-up Order must be obtained, confirmed and implemented prior to any development affecting the Public Rights of Way taking place. Also the applicant needs to be sure that they have vehicular access to the site as my information suggests that there is no public vehicular access along the access. You might want to contact Highways to confirm this. MCC Highways – have not responded to date. MCC Biodiversity – provided the following comments: I am aware that there is pond located in the rear garden property in the adjacent property to the east. However, I have carried out a SEWBReC data search and there are no records of Great Crested Newt (GCN) within the local area. In addition the site consists predominantly of uniform, improved grassland with a small area of mixed woodland located along the eastern and southern boundary. In light of the lack of GCN records and suitable grassland habitat available on site I can confirm that there are no further issues with this species. Dwr Cymru-Welsh Water - no objections subject to standard conditions to separate private and foul drainage. SEWBREC Search Results – no records of Great Crested Newt within the local area. 4.2 Neighbour Notification Five representations received. Object on the following grounds:

- 39 -

Foul water drainage has been problematic for 14 years. Sewer appears to run under other private gardens. Indicative proposal show garage close to road which would not be in keeping with estate. Although plans show parking for four vehicles there would almost certainly be parking along Parc Close. Proposed development does not respect restrictions with regards to proximity to protected trees. Environmental impact on protected species. Loss of valuable open space. Loss of privacy and overlooking. There is an excess of properties of the size proposed in the application, as witnessed by the number of units for sale, some of which have remained on the market for years. Applicants have shown no interest in the land over last 30 years including maintenance and repair. 5.0 EVALUATION 5.1 Principle of Development Development Management Policy H2 of the Local Development Plan (LDP) allows new residential development within Main Villages (which Llangybi is designated as under Strategic Policy S1) in principle, subject to detailed planning considerations. Additionally although the site is currently an open green space it is not afforded specific designation within the LDP as an Area of Amenity Importance under Policy DES2. 5.2 Design Amendments / Negotiations The layout of the proposal has been amended since originally submitted in order to avoid damaging the root protection area of the protected trees. The site is cover 5.3 Visual Impact Parc Close is generally characterised by large detached dwellings set within generous plots. It is considered that the proposed site would comfortably accommodate a single dwelling and would not detract from the open, spacious character of the immediate environment. The site is covered by a TPO dating back to 1972 and now serves to protect three trees along the eastern boundary of the site. The layout has been revised and a tree protection statement submitted to ensure the root protection area of these trees is not compromised by the proposed development. This would be secured by appropriate planning condition(s). Whilst it is acknowledged that the existing dwellings within Parc Close are set back into their plots, it is not considered that the proposed indicative location would appear unduly prominent or out of character. Subject to a high standard of design, to be agreed at reserved matters stage, with appropriate soft landscaping a dwelling in this location would not appear unacceptably dominant or out of keeping with the character of the existing environment.

- 40 -

5.4 Residential Amenity As all matters are reserved, details of window positions would not be included until the reserved matters application. However the indicative layout shows that the dwelling would front onto Parc Road to the north. Therefore given this orientation, the nearest adjoining properties would be facing the sides of the proposed dwelling. As such it is anticipated that with the appropriate positioning of first floor windows at the reserved matters stage, the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to existing levels of privacy of those properties adjoining the site. 5.5 Trees As noted previously the site is covered by a TPO placed originally in 1972. Whilst a number of trees have been felled on the site since then, three remain along the eastern boundary. Consequently the proposal has been subject to close consideration by the Council’s Tree Officer which has seen an Arboricultural Method Statement provided and the location of the proposed dwelling amended, albeit marginally. As a result subject to appropriate condition, the Tree Officer is satisfied that the construction of a single dwelling and garage would not prejudice the continued survival of the protected trees. 5.6 Access and Parking Whilst all matters are reserved, the indicative layout shows the vehicular access along the western boundary onto Parc Close. It is noted that ownership of the highway through Parc Close is subject to private ownership amongst the local residents. However, any agreement with regards to creating an access would be a private legal matter between the relevant interested parties. The site itself would provide more than sufficient room for off street parking and also there is space to turn so that vehicles can enter and exit in a forward gear. 5.7 Biodiversity/Ecology The neighbouring dwelling to the east features a sizeable domestic pond within its curtilage. Consequently consultation with the Council’s Ecology Officer has been undertaken. Local Biodiversity records indicate that there is no evidence of Great Crested Newts in the vicinity and therefore no formal survey work has been requested. In addition the grassland on the site is well maintained and therefore is unlikely to have high potential ecological value. Furthermore the protection of existing trees on site, detailed in Section 5.5, would also safeguard existing features on the site. 5.8 Response to the Representations of the Community Council and Third Parties

- 41 -

A number of the areas of concern raised in the representations received have already been addressed within the above sections of this report and therefore shall not be repeated. Other issues highlighted include that of foul sewerage and drainage, this matter will be fully considered at the reserved matters stage. The consideration of this would be informed accordingly by consultation with the relevant statutory consultees, although it is noted that Welsh Water have not objected to the proposed connection to the public sewerage system. Finally whilst it is duly noted that the parcel of land has been maintained for some time by local residents, at personal cost, this is not a material planning consideration that can inform the decision made by the Local Planning Authority. RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Conditions: Approval of the details of the layout, scale and appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called the reserved matters) shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority prior to any works commencing on site. (a) Application for approval of all the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. (b) The development hereby approved must be begun either before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later. Root Protection Areas of retained trees shall be fenced off in accordance with the Arboricultural Method Statement prior to the commencement of any works on site and will remain in-situ until the end of the scheme. If the fencing requires temporary movement this may one be carried out with the express written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. No surface water shall be allowed to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA. Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system. Informatives: Note that a Public Right of Way runs adjacent to the site. If a connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water.

- 42 -

DC/2014/00100 ONE FIVE-BEDROOM DWELLING WITH GARAGE ST JOHNS COTTAGE, CATBROOK RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE Case Officer: Craig O’Connor Date Registered: 14/03/2014 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 The application seeks outline consent for the construction of a new dwelling and garage within the residential curtilage of St Johns Cottage in the village of Catbrook. The proposed dwelling would be sited to the east of St Johns Cottage and it would have a footprint measuring approximately 200m². The submitted plans outline a five bedroom dwelling that would have a roof that would measure 8m to the ridge. The proposed garage on the submitted plans has a footprint measuring 5m x 6m. The proposed materials would include stone for the external walls, natural slate for the roof and oak for the windows and doors. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY DC/2007/01424 Erection of detached house including garage Refused March 2008 E06/179 Conversion of Former Church Building with Extension Appeal APP/E6840/C/07/1201139 Appeal Allowed, the enforcement noticed was quashed. July 2007 M/10334 Conversion of Former Church Building with Extension Approved April 2005 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES Strategic Policies S1 Spatial distribution of new housing provision S13 Landscape, Green Infrastructure and the Natural Environment S17 Place Making and design Development Management Policies EP1 Amenity and Environmental Protection DES1 General Design Considerations H3 Residential development in Minor Villages LC1 New built development in the open countryside LC4 Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty REPRESENTATIONS

- 43 -

4.1 Consultations Replies Trellech United Community Council - recommended refusal. The Council considers that although it is in the garden of an existing dwelling it would be development in the open countryside. Development Plans - Policy H3 relates to planning permission being granted for minor infill of a small gap between existing dwellings, residential redevelopment, conversion to residential or sub-division of large dwellings subject to detailed planning considerations. The proposal relates to a new dwelling, however due to its proposed location adjacent St John’s Cottage the site does not appear to be located in a small gap between existing dwellings and as a consequence cannot be considered as infill. Public Rights of Way – There are public rights of way in the vicinity of the site; please use suggested informative. Welsh Water Dwr Cymru – We advise that there are no public sewers in this area. It appears the application does not propose to connect to the public sewer, and therefore Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has no further comments. Tree Officer – I accept that this is an outline application only and a more detailed site plan showing the trees outside the root protection areas would be submitted at the full application stage. This will inform the application whether an Arboricultural Method Statement is also required. I therefore have no adverse comments to this development in principle. Biodiversity Officer - The main consideration would be prevention of lighting of the hedgerow and trees immediately to the east of the proposal which would probably require moving the property further away, avoiding any lighting on the eastern side of the building and preventing illumination of these trees. Not only could this be detrimental to the foraging/commuting bats in the area but other wildlife such as nesting birds etc. I would not recommend a bat survey unless lighting of this boundary was unavoidable. 4.2 Neighbour Notification No response to date. 4.3 Other Representations A third party has requested that a bat survey be requested with regards to the site outlining that the site has a good potential for bat species due to a large pond along Cat brook and nearby ancient woodlands. 4.4 Local Member Representations Cllr D Blakebrough – Requested that the application be considered by the Planning Committee

- 44 -

EVALUATION 5.1 Principle of development 5.1.1 The principle of constructing a dwelling within the residential curtilage of St Johns Cottage is considered to be unacceptable as the proposed site is not an infill development plot. Policy H3 of the Local Development Plan (LDP) outlines that the village of Catbrook is a classified as a minor village. Policy H3 outlines the following, “In Minor Villages planning permission will be granted for minor infill of no more than 1 or 2 dwellings resulting from the filling in of a small gap between existing dwellings, or residential redevelopment, or conversion to residential or sub-division of large dwellings, subject to detailed planning considerations, including no unacceptable adverse impact on village form and character and surrounding landscape, and other policies of the LDP that seek to protect existing retail, employment and community uses.” The proposed site is not a small gap between two existing dwellings, is not residential redevelopment of the existing residential unit at the site and it is not conversion of an existing building. The site is a section of land that lies within the residential curtilage of St Johns Cottage and to the east of the site is open countryside. It is not a small gap between two dwellings and therefore the proposed development would result in unjustified residential development on the periphery of the minor village of Catbrook, contrary to Policy H3 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan. The proposed dwelling would be unjustified and would result in a large dwelling being sited within what is considered to be the open countryside. The dwelling would not harmonise with the form of the village, would unacceptably extend the urban form of the village into the countryside and would have an unacceptable adverse impact on the area. 5.1.2 Policy LC1 of the LDP states that “there is a presumption against new built development in the open countryside unless justified under national planning policy and/or LDP policies S10, RE3, RE4, RE5, RE6, T2 and 3, for the purposes of agriculture, forestry, ‘one planet development’, rural enterprise, rural diversification schemes or recreation, leisure or tourism.” None of these policies are applicable as the proposed development relates to a new speculative dwelling within the open countryside. Thus, the proposed development would be contrary to Policy LC1 of the LDP. Visual impact 5.2.1 The proposed development would not respect the existing form, scale, siting, massing and layout of its setting contrary to Policy DES1 of the LDP. The substantially-sized dwelling would be insensitively sited on the plot. It would appear out of keeping with the pattern and scale of other dwellings in the locality by virtue of its siting, size and outlined design. The visual impact of the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the village as the resultant dwelling would not be an inappropriate form or scale and would unacceptably extend the urban form of the village into the countryside. It would not sympathetically integrate with

- 45 -

the surrounding dwellings or the rural landscape and would be contrary to Policy DES1 and EP1 of the LDP. 5.2.2 The site lies within an isolated rural village that lies within the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The insensitive form of development of the site would harm the character and appearance of the village and as a result the development would harm the visual appearance of the wider landscape. The proposed development would not be subservient to the primary purpose to preserve the natural beauty of the area and therefore it would be contrary to Policy LC4 of the LDP. The development would harm the natural beauty of the area by virtue of a new unjustified dwelling being sited within the open countryside. 5.3 Conclusion The principle of erecting a dwelling and garage at the site is contrary to Policy H3 of Monmouthshire’s Local Development Plan as the site is not considered to be an infill plot and would result in unjustified residential development on the edge of the rural village, Catbrook. The form set out in the scale parameters indicates that the proposal would be overly large and it would be viewed to be a development of excessive, inappropriate scale in this sensitive location. It would not harmonise with the rural village setting and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the locality and the wider landscape which is part of the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposed development would be contrary to Polices S1, S13, S17, DES1, EP1, H3, LC1 and LC4 of the Local Development Plan. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE Reasons for refusal The proposed dwelling is not an infill plot as it is not a small gap between two existing dwellings, and thus the proposal would be contrary to Policy H3 of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan (MLDP). A new house at this site would represent unjustified residential development in the open countryside contrary to Policies S1, S17, H3 and LC1 of the MLDP. The proposed large dwelling would result in an over-development of the site and it would not harmonise with the form of the village and appear incongruous, harming the character and appearance of the edge of this rural village to the detriment of the wider landscape which lies within the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The proposed dwelling would be contrary to Policies S13, S17, DES1, EP1, LC1 and LC4 of the MLDP.

- 46 -

DC/2014/00258 ERECTION OF TWO NEW HOUSES IN THE CAR PARK TO REAR OF HIGH TREES HIGH TREES, STEEP STREET, CHEPSTOW RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Case Officer: David Wong Date Registered: 23/04/2014 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS This planning application seeks permission for the erection of two detached dwellings on grounds of High Trees, Chepstow. High Trees is a Grade II listed building and is within the Chepstow Conservation Area. High Trees is situated at the top of Steep Street and is well set back, up its driveway in a large walled garden. High Trees was previously occupied as Council offices. The site can be accessed via Steep Street and Vauxhall Lane. The overall ground area of the application site measures approximately 0.4 hectares with two parking areas serving the site; one to the front of High Trees (via Steep Street) and one to the side of High Trees (via Vauxhall Lane). This application relates to that car parking area reached via Vauxhall Lane. The proposal is for the erection of two detached dwellings. It is proposed to demolish part of the existing stone boundary wall, which is considered to be a later addition to the property. It is proposed to utilise the loft space of the proposed dwellings. Therefore, each of the dwelling houses has three floors – the ground floor, first floor and the second floor (loft space). To the front of the proposed dwellings, a new retaining wall is proposed and each of the properties will have three on-site parking spaces. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY No recent planning history LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES Strategic Policies S1 - Spatial distribution of new housing provision S17 - Place making and design S13 - Landscape, green infrastructure and the natural environment Development Management Policies H1 - Residential development in main towns EP1 - Amenity and environmental protection

- 47 -

DES1 - General design consideration HE1 - Development in conservation areas REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Consultations Replies Chepstow Town Council – Refuse The Town Council considers that the proposed development of two dwellings within the setting of this important and highly visible Listed Building to be detrimental, and that the scale, size and design of the proposed new dwellings does not respect the character of the existing building and landscape. MCC Conservation – No objection The proposed development site is located to the rear of High Trees, which is a Grade II listed building. The listed building has undergone many changes from its original form including addition and extension to the rear. The proposal for two dwellings to the rear of the property is acceptable; I still have some concern for the overall mass and style, however we have worked with the agent to improve the design of the proposed dwellings. This has resulted in a less ostentatious design than was originally proposed. The ridge height has been lowered and the design of the dormers changed, the proportions have been worked on to improve the overall visual impact and architectural detailing has been reduced. The design could be simplified further. The proposed development will have some visual impact on the setting of High Trees in terms of the size and proximity; however the rear elevations of High Trees have limited value, being later additions with no particular architectural style. With regards to the surrounding area there is no predominant style or grain and with properties having been built at different times over the last 50 years and with further infill development, in different styles. A modern approach was suggested to the developer but the proposed design was what was submitted as their preferred option. Due to the random nature of development and materials in and around the development site, and due to the fact that it is unlikely to have a major impact on the setting of High Trees there is insubstantial argument to negotiate for a different scheme over a matter of taste. MCC Highways – No objection There are no highway grounds to sustain an objection to this application subject to relevant conditions. Dwelling 1 – Drawing PL03 Rev. D demonstrates that dwelling 1 will have a new vehicular access and parking area for 3 cars which meets the maximum standard as set out in the Monmouthshire Parking Standards 2012. No turning area has been provided within the site however it is accepted that Vauxhall Lane is a ‘no through’ road which is not dissimilar to a typical residential cul-de-sac where reversing manoeuvres are commonplace. Vauxhall Lane widens in the area adjacent to the development site which offers additional space for reversing vehicles and increased forward visibility for drivers approaching from either direction.

- 48 -

Dwelling 2 – Drawing PL03 Rev. D demonstrates that dwelling 2 will have shared vehicular access with High Trees. The access is shown to be 5m wide with is sufficient for a shared vehicular access. Parking provision for dwelling 2 is shown at 3 spaces which meets the maximum requirement as set out in the Monmouthshire Parking Standards 2012. The parking area for dwelling 2 has the added benefit of a shared turning area within the site. Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust – No objection No objections to the determination of this application. The area is located outside the walled area of the medieval town and the early post-medieval suburb. It is advised that it is unlikely that ground disturbing works would reveal evidence of earlier settlement or activity. High Trees was built on the site of an earlier house, which in turn was built in the 18th century. It is a Listed Building of early to mid-19th century date; it has however been altered and extended and the aspect that faces the car park is modern. It is our opinion that therefore there is no archaeological restraint to the proposed development. SEWBREC Search Results – No significant ecological record found on site. 4.2 Neighbour Notification Three letters of objections received and they are summarised below: Every beautiful period building that is in and around Chepstow has the majority of its ground sold off and a horrible new build(s) is built in the plots. Historically High Trees was a focal point of Chepstow town, prior to the view being blocked. High Trees is a beautiful building and an important part of Chepstow history, why ruin it by cramming some ugly standard looking new builds in that don't compliment the building. Item 20 Trees and shrubs states:- The application states 'No' to any trees and shrubs. High Trees and its garden dominants the Chepstow sky line and is an important part of the local landscape character. As this is a conservation area the total development of all of the site should be submitted for review. Would the residence of the proposed new properties have access to part of High Trees’ garden? If so the owners of no. 1 and 2 High View have a right to privacy as from this garden they could look down a short distance into the 1st floor bedrooms over a very low wall 1 metre in height. The 2 no. three storey four-bedroom houses are being sited onto a small proportion of land available The proposed houses are out of context with the property directly behind and opposite side of the road. The height of the proposed dwellings will seriously diminish the grandeur of the listed building and will adversely affect the appearance of the existing street scene. The boundary of the proposal is not clearly shown on the plans. The plans do not include all of the neighbouring properties for consideration. Are the first floor windows and rooflights on the rear elevation obscure glazed?

- 49 -

It is not clear whether the proposed ridge height of the dwelling houses is higher or lower than the parapet wall of High Trees. The Savilles’s property details (approved by MCC) issued to prospective purchasers advised that there may be development potential within the parking courtyard for a single plot or extension to the main house. Some previous planning applications for the intensification of residential use on adjacent sites have been refused due to overdevelopment of the site and any development must be single storey and moved at least 5m away from the highway. Previously, MCC would not allow vehicles to drive into the drive and reverse off the drive on to the highway. MCC did not allow a three storey development at the new flats on Vauxhall Lane. The description of the proposed development and the submitted documents are not clearly filled in and correctly presented. 4.3 Other Representations The Chepstow Society – Strong reservations regarding this development. The site has important landscape considerations for the town as a whole and there are some good specimen trees. The Society would prefer to see a comprehensive scheme of development for High Trees rather than the two houses applied for as there is a strong suggestion that more development will follow. The design of the proposed dwellings are not impressive and the site being within the curtilage of an important listed building and on the border of the conservation area, these dwellings should respect the main Georgian house and give ‘breathing space’ between them and the main house. The proposal would potentially increase risk for both the elderly and young residents due to the existing narrow streets that are without pavements. EVALUATION The main issues are: Principle of Development having regard to the Local Development Plan Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Chepstow Conservation Area Effect on the listed building Neighbour amenity Highway issues The loss of trees Biodiversity Archaeology Other issues 5.1 Principle of Development having regard to the Local Development Plan Policy H1 of the Local Development Plan (LDP) applies as the proposed site is within the Chepstow Town Development Boundary. Therefore, planning permission would normally be granted for residential development in this location subject to detailed planning considerations.

- 50 -

5.2 Effect on the Chepstow Conservation Area Policy HE1 of the LDP applies as the site is within the Chepstow Conservation Area. The Council’s Conservation Team was consulted and has offered no objection to the erection of the two detached properties in this location. Properties in this part of Chepstow are different with a variety of architectural designs and plot sizes, and there is no formal building line that any new development ought to follow. The scheme has been modified on several occasions and the ridge height is now lower and the design of the dormers has changed. The proposed dwelling houses are set back from Vauxhall Lane and it is considered that the resulting design and scale of the proposal are in proportion and will have the effect of preserving the character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. In terms of the size of the plots, due to the fact that there is a range of properties with different plot sizes, it is considered that the proposed development would be acceptable and would not be out of character with the pattern and layout of development in the locality. High Trees is located some way away (approximately 120m) from the entrance of Vauxhall Lane and is the dominant feature on Vauxhall Lane. Within this proposal, part of the existing stone boundary wall will be demolished to make way for the proposed dwelling houses. It is considered that the resulting proposal would have some visual impact on the streetscene. However, this visual impact is limited to Vauxhall Lane only. In addition, due to the fact that the proposed dwelling houses are set back from the highway (with a reduced overall height), High Trees will continue to be a focal point when entering Vauxhall Lane. It is noted that there are reservations from the Chepstow Society in that they would prefer to see a comprehensive scheme of development for High Trees rather than merely the two houses applied for as there is a strong suggestion that more development could follow. However, each case should be treated on its merits and this is the only scheme currently submitted for consideration. Any future development would be treated on its merits and would need to take into account any planning permissions already place in relation to the effect on the setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area... 5.3 Effect on the listed building High Trees is a Grade II Listed Building. Thus, any proposed development within the curtilage of the listed building should relate sensitively to the parent building in terms of scale, location, design, detail and material and avoid dominating its appearance as advised within national policy guidance for listed buildings. It is considered that the proposed development will have some visual impact on the setting of High Trees in terms of the proposal’s size and proximity. However, the rear elevations of High Trees have limited value, being later additions with no particular architectural style. This view is shared by the Council’s Conservation Officer and the Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust. The Council’s Conservation Officer has advised that this application complies with the thrust of the national policy for listed buildings. In addition, it is noted that there is no predominant style or grain of

- 51 -

adjacent development, with properties having been built at different times and with further infill development, in different styles. The proposal has been amended to show that the ridge height of the proposed dwelling houses would be similar to the parapet wall of High Trees and they will be set back from the highway. It is considered that High Trees will still be the dominant feature along Vauxhall Lane. Adopting a contemporary approach to the proposed design was suggested to the developer but the proposed design has utilised a traditional approach as the preferred option. It is considered that the design, form and bulk of the proposed dwelling houses are in proportion and there is a sufficient gap between the proposal and High Trees to maintain the openness of the area immediately surrounding the listed house. Given the above, there is no objection to the proposal. 5.4 Neighbouring amenity The proposed site is in front of Vauxhall Ridge (the south-west elevation of Vauxhall Ridge). The proposed dwelling houses would be aligned at an angle from this neighbouring property and the shortest distance between Vauxhall Ridge and plot 1 is some 11m and 13.5m being the furthest. The site is currently divided by the existing high stone wall that belongs to High Trees, and site levels of Vauxhall Ridge are lower than that of the proposed site. Therefore, the outlook from this property towards Vauxhall Lane is already limited by this existing stone wall. In addition the levels of this part of Chepstow are significant higher than the in other parts of the town. It is considered that the primary outlook from Vauxhall Ridge is on its north-east elevation, with an unrestricted open outlook that overlooks the Chepstow Town Centre direction and the Severn Estuary. There are three first floor windows on the dormer extension on Vauxhall Ridge that face the proposed dwellings and two of which are obscured glazed. The distance from the non-obscure glazed window and the rear building line of the proposed development is approximately 13.5m. In addition, that window would look towards the gap between plot 1 and plot 2. To avoid potential overlooking, the first floor rear windows of the proposed dwelling houses will serve the en-suites and they will be obscured glazed (a planning condition can control this element). On each of the proposed dwellings, it is proposed to install three high level rooflights on the second floor (the loft space). Two of these rooflights will serve the bedroom area and the remaining one will serve a stairwell. The primary function of these high level rooflights is to allow more light/ventilation into the dwellings and the applicant has agreed to use obscured glazing with restrictive mechanism (no greater than a 150mm gap) on these rooflights to further protect privacy between the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings and the neighbours at Vauxhall Lane. Given the height differences, angles of the openings and the use of obscured glazing with a restrictive mechanism, the proposed rooflights are considered to be acceptable. The neighbour at no.1 High View enquired whether or not the proposed new properties would have access to part of High Trees’ garden. No. 1 and 2 High View are within a close distance of the north-east boundary of High Trees and the

- 52 -

neighbour is concerned that his privacy would be adversely affected, as they could look down a short distance into the first floor bedrooms over a very low wall one metre in height. High Trees is situated within an extensive curtilage. However, the current proposal does not include this part of the curtilage. The area of land identified by this neighbour has always been part of the existing curtilage of High Trees and the occupiers of High Trees would have the rights to enter this area of land without the need for planning permission. 5.5 Highway matters The Highway Authority has been consulted and there is no highway objection; the amount of resulting traffic utilising Vauxhall Lane would be insignificant, especially having regard to the level of traffic from the previous use of the site (Council offices). It is advised that the proposal meets the maximum standard as set out in the Monmouthshire Parking Standards. It is noted that no turning area has been provided within the site for plot 1. However, it is advised that Vauxhall Lane is a ‘no through’ road which is not dissimilar to a typical residential cul-de-sac where reversing manoeuvres are commonplace. In addition, this section of Vauxhall Lane widens (in the area adjacent to the development) which offers additional space for reversing vehicles and increased forward visibility for drivers approaching from both directions. Plot 2 will have a shared vehicular access with High Trees. The access is shown to be 5m wide with is sufficient for a shared vehicular access. Parking provision for plot 2 is shown at 3 spaces which meets the maximum requirement as set out in the Monmouthshire Parking Standards 2012. The parking area for dwelling 2 has the added benefit of a shared turning area within the site. Given the above, there is no objection to the proposal in terms of parking and turning. 5.6 Trees The proposed site is on the existing car parking/hardstanding area of High Trees. No tree will be removed as a result. Therefore, no issue of this kind is anticipated. 5.7 Biodiversity Having checked the local ecological records there is no significant ecological activity identified on site. In addition, the proposal does not require the removal of any trees and/or existing buildings of a significant value to ecology. Therefore, no issue of this kind is anticipated. 5.8 Archaeological matters There is no archaeological objection from the Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust as the area is located outside the walled area of the medieval town and the early post-medieval suburb. It is advised that it is unlikely that ground disturbing works would reveal evidence of earlier settlement or activity. It is also advised that High Trees was built on the site of an earlier house, which in turn was built in the 18th century. It is a Listed Building of early to mid-19th century date; it has however been altered and extended and the aspect that faces the car park is modern. Therefore, there is no issue anticipated regarding the need to protect any archaeological resource..

- 53 -

5.9 Other issues One of the neighbours expressed that the boundary of the proposal is not clearly shown on the plans. It is noted that some of the plans have included some further potential development within the immediate curtilage of High Trees; they are administrative errors. However, the plans have been re-adjusted to provide a clear boundary of the current proposal and have omitted any potential development. A neighbour pointed out that not all of the neighbouring properties are drawn on the plans for considerations. It is good practice to include all of the neighbouring properties on the plans. However, it is not an obligation as part of the planning application. A neighbour advised that on the Savilles’s property particulars issued to prospective purchasers (approved by MCC as landowner) it is suggested that there may be development potential within the parking courtyard for a single plot or extension to the main house. The sale/property particulars of High Trees were produced and conducted between the estate agent and the Council’s Estates Department, and there is no implications for this application which is considered on its planning merits. A neighbour explained that some previous planning applications for the intensification of residential use on adjacent sites have been refused due to overdevelopment of the site and to his knowledge; any development in front of the property must be single storey and moved at least 5m away from the highway. Furthermore, it is expressed that with his previous planning application (Woodlands), MCC would not allow vehicles to drive into the drive and reverse off the drive on to the highway. It is considered that the site conditions of the current application at High Trees are not comparable to Woodlands; they are not identical or replicable. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Conditions/Reasons Standard 5 years development commencement Permitted development rights parts 1 & 2 removed Sample of materials shall be submitted to the LPA and agreed in writing by the LPA prior to the development commence. The hereby approved rooflights shall be of a conservation type and obscure glazed. The details of the rooflights shall be submitted to the LPA and agreed in writing by the LPA prior to the development commence. The approved rooflights shall be installed with a restrictive opening mechanism which prevents them being opened more than 150mm. This mechanism shall be fitted prior to the occupation of the hereby approved dwelling houses and retained in place in perpetuity. The first floor windows on the rear first floor level shall be obscure glazed and they shall be fitted prior to the occupation of the hereby approved dwelling houses and retained in place in perpetuity (use standard condition).

- 54 -

A detailed drainage scheme shall be submitted to the LPA and agreed in writing by the LPA prior to the development commence. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Surface water drainage shall not be drained onto the adjacent highway.

- 55 -

DC/2014/00289 CHANGE OF USE TO ALLOW SEASONAL TENTED CAMPING IN FIELD USED FOR OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES. LAND AT DIXTON FIELDS, OFF OLD DIXTON LANE, MONMOUTH RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE Case Officer: Craig O’Connor Date Registered: 04/04/2014 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 The application is for the change of use of part of a field at Dixton fields, off Old Dixton Road for seasonal camping for a maximum of twenty tents. The submitted plan identifies the camping area as well as an area of land proposed for temporary, mobile toilet and shower units. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY DC/2010/01015 Construction of building for teaching & training of canoeing, rock climbing & other outdoor activities; Approved February 2013 MM/11007 Application for Camping Site Restricted to Tents Only; Refused February 2005; Appeal Dismissed August 2005; Appeal reference APP/E6840/A/05/1182935. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES Strategic Policies S11 Visitor Economy S12 Efficient Resource Use and Flood Risk S13 Landscape, Green Infrastructure and the Natural Environment S17 Place making and design Development Management Policies EP1 Amenity and Environmental Protection DES1 General Design Considerations T1 Touring Caravan and Tented Camping Sites SD3 Flood Risk LC4 Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty HE1 Development in Conservation Area NE1 Nature Conservation and Development

- 56 -

REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Consultations Replies Monmouth Town Council – Recommend approval Natural Resources Wales – Objects to the proposed development. The application site lies entirely within Zone C2, as defined by the Development Advice Map (DAM) referred to in Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk (TAN15). Our Flood Map information, which is updated on a quarterly basis, confirms the site to be within the 1% (1 in 100 year) and 0.1% (1 in 1000 year) annual probability fluvial flood outlines of the River Wye, which is a designated main river. Our records show that the proposed site has also previously flooded from the River Wye. Our advice is that the applicant needs to demonstrate, through submission of a flood consequences assessment, that the consequences of flooding can be managed over the lifetime of the development. The evidence submitted in the FCA does not demonstrate this, therefore we object to this application as submitted. The planning application proposes seasonal tent camping, which, in our opinion, is classed as highly vulnerable development in TAN15 (not less vulnerable as stated in the FCA). With reference to Section 6 of TAN15, highly vulnerable development should not be permitted in Zone C2. Development Plans - confirm the following Local Development Plan Policies apply: Policy T1 relates to Touring Caravan and Tented Camping Sites, the supporting paragraph 6.2.32 should also be taken into consideration. The application is located in both the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Dixton Conservation Area, policies LC4 and HE1 respectively apply. Finally, the site is located within Zone C2 floodplain, Policy SD3 relating to Flood Risk therefore applies. It is considered that as the proposed development is a form of ‘highly vulnerable development’ it would be contrary to Policy SD3 and Welsh Government Guidance set out in TAN15. Public Rights of Way – The applicant’s attention should be drawn to Public Right of Way No 9 in the community of Monmouth which runs adjacent to the site of the proposed development. Please add informative. Conservation Officer – The proposals are for a camping site set in currently open fields in the conservation area. I understand that there are a number of other issues, for example flooding, that are a cause of concern. From a conservation perspective, the site is currently completely open and provides a positive setting for the intimate nature of the conservation area. The conservation area is characterised by this green and open space with important historic buildings nestled in a group in the middle and the fields overlooking the river. This is a relatively unspoilt area, despite the proximity to the road, which creates an important green wedge between the road and the river. Despite this it is considered that the camping site will have a visual impact on the setting of the conservation and listed buildings as identified above. In addition the proposed toilet block provides no details of the building and so the impact of this part of the development cannot be fully considered. If it is considered acceptable, it is suggested that this would be the maximum capacity for the use of the site, as further enlargement or cumulative impact of additional camping utilities would encroach on

- 57 -

the open setting of this part of the conservation area to an unacceptable level. In addition, if approved, full details of the proposed toilet block shall be submitted and shall include appropriate screening in order to protect views into and out of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Listed Buildings. Highways Officer - the single application for 20 tents on a site that has permission for a training activity centre does not warrant refusal as presented; however the advice presented is restrictive. Restrictive use centred on school holidays would be preferable to avoid conflict with the adjoining school. Biodiversity Officer - It was considered that we do not need to undertake a Habitats Regulations Assessment (required under Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010) for this development. The reason for this is that it was considered that the scheme would not have any way of affecting the River Wye SAC or the Interest Features of the River Wye SAC. The issues raised for the previous scheme are not applicable here as there will be no change to the drainage which already has consent and there has been buffer planting and fencing between the area that would be used for camping and the watercourse which already has a busy footpath adjacent SEWBREC Search Results – No search by SEWBREC as this is a change of use application. 4.2 Neighbour Notification There was one letter of objection to the application, objecting to the proposed development on flooding grounds, traffic concerns and safeguarding the safety of children attending the nearby school. 4.3 Other Representations There have been 30 letters of support for the application Monmouth and District Chamber of Trade and Commerce has also written a letter that outlines its support for the application. 4.4 Local Member Representations Cllr R Hayward – requested that the application be determined by Planning Committee. EVALUATION 5.1 Principle of development The principle of the development is deemed to be unacceptable based on the flooding issues relating to the proposed development and the site. Natural Resources Wales have formally objected to the proposals and NRW are the Local Planning Authority’s expert advisor on flooding grounds we would normally accept their professional advice unless there is good evidence to warrant a different view. The proposed

- 58 -

development is considered to be highly vulnerable development as outlined by TAN15 and it has been identified that the site is liable to flood as it lies within a C2 flood zone. NRW considers that the proposed development would be subject to an unacceptable flood risk and in addition, the applicants have not demonstrated that the risks can be acceptably managed. The proposed development is considered to be contrary to Technical Advice Note 15 (TAN 15): Development and Flood Risk and Policies S12 and SD3 of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan. A similar application for camping was refused by the Local Planning Authority in December 2005 (under application M/11007). This decision was later appealed and the appeal was dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate on flooding grounds. The Inspector was of the view that the proposed camp site users would be subject to an unacceptable risk of flooding. Given the planning history of the site and that there has not be a material change in policy with regards to flooding, the proposed development would remain unacceptable and not in accordance with TAN 15 or Policies S12 and SD3 of the Local Development Plan. The previous appeal decision is attached as an addendum to this report. Response to the Representations of the Town Council and third parties It is noted that there has been no objection from Monmouth Town Council to the proposed development and there has been 30 letters of support to the application. Monmouth and District Chamber of Trade and Commerce have also outlined their support for the application. The Local Planning Authority accepts that the proposed development would have economic benefits to the area however this does not overcome the concerns of Natural Resources Wales regarding the unacceptable risk of flooding at the site.. 5.3 Conclusion The proposed development would represent an unacceptable flood risk that would be contrary to guidance from the Welsh Government within TAN 15 and also to Policies S12 and SD3 of the Local Development Plan. The Planning Inspector previously dismissed a similar application for camping on Dixton fields on flooding grounds and therefore there is no overriding reason why this application should be approved. The application is thus recommended for refusal. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE Reason: The development would result in the location of highly vulnerable development in Zone C2 as identified by development advice maps referred to under Technical Advice Note 15 - Development and Flood Risk. The proposal, therefore, would increase the risk of adverse flooding consequences and is contrary to advice contained in Technical Advice Note 15 and Policies S12 and SD3 of the Local Development Plan.

- 59 -

- 60 -

- 61 -

- 62 -

DC/2014/00291 PROPOSED ERECTION OF DWELLING ON LAND THAT PREVIOUSLY FORMED PART OF THE RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGE TO THE MOUNT LAND ADJACENT TO THE MOUNT, COED Y PAEN, PONTYPOOL RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE Case Officer: Kate Bingham Date Registered: 7th April 2014 APPLICATION DETAILS This application relates to a site that forms part of a site that was the subject of a previous planning application for a large detached dwelling. The application was refused in 2004 and the subsequent appeal was dismissed in 2005, the Inspector concluding that the development would have a ‘damaging effect’ at the centre and focal point of the village where the public house and church are ‘essential components’. This current application is for a smaller dwelling on a reduced plot within the southern half of the site with the northern end of the site being retained as an open area which would be dedicated to the local community as a village green. The application has been presented to committee because the applicant is related to an Elected Member. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY M/9471 – Erection of detached dwelling and garage. Refused 2004. Appeal Dismissed 2005. M/12487 – Change of Use to Residential Curtilage. Approved 2006. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES Strategic Policies S1 – Spatial Distribution of New Housing Provision. S13 – Landscape, Green Infrastructure and the Natural Environment S17 – Place Making and Design Development Management Policies DES1 – General Design Considerations EP1 – Amenity and Environmental Protection H3 – Residential Development in Minor Villages

- 63 -

REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Consultations Replies Llangybi Fawr Community Council – Recommends refusal. The location of this piece of land is very sensitive in the context of Coed-y-Paen - a small rural village - being located at the centre of the village, adjacent to the church, the pub, and two of its oldest dwellings. The village’s only other communal amenities, the bus shelter, telephone box (now the village library) and church and council noticeboards are also located adjacent the site. Also, villagers have worked hard to improve this location by planting bulbs and other wild flowers along the banks and verges to create a pleasant area at the centre of the village. We believe that to allow this proposed dwelling to be built on this site would destroy an important focal point in the village. An earlier application (M/9471) to build a dwelling on this site was refused by Mon CC on the grounds that “The site is a prominent open space within the village of Coed-y-Paen and its development would have an adverse visual impact on the landscape appearance and rural character of the area contrary to Policy H3 of the Monmouth Borough Local Plan, which seeks to avoid insensitive or inappropriate infill development.” Policy H3 has been carried forward through subsequent development plans to the current LDP which again states in Policy H3 that permission will only be granted “subject to detailed planning considerations, including no unacceptable adverse impact on village form and character and surrounding landscape”. Monmouthshire CC’s decision in M/9471 was appealed by the then applicant, but the decision was upheld by the Welsh Government appointed Inspector. In upholding the decision to refuse permission, the inspector said “The greater part of the appeal site is the centrepiece of what is an archetypical rural scene in which the public house and the church are essential components. Use of the area concerned for the construction of a new dwelling, no matter where it was located, would because of its mass, form and the almost inevitable use of modern materials and constructional methods, introduce an incompatible element into what is a tranquil, almost ageless, traditional vista of considerable charm. The visual effect of doing so would be both disruptive and harmful to a view of considerable worth: it would also effectively obliterate the focal point of the village and the sense of place which it engenders”. This view of the importance of this site in the village context is in our view more important now than ever. Mon CC has already granted the present applicant permission for two additional houses on The Mount site, though fortunately they are largely screened from the present site by tall hedges and trees. Any further building in this focal point of the village would totally destroy its character. We note that the applicant is proposing to dedicate a small parcel of the site to the village as ‘a village green’ but with respect, we would suggest that this in no way compensates for the destruction of the village centre.

- 64 -

There are several additional issues with the present application which give us cause for concern. Firstly, the proposed access to the site is in a dangerous position being located close to a blind bend in one direction, and having virtually no visibility splay in the other direction (the 20 metres shown on the plan seems to indicate a view of a vehicle approaching on the wrong side of the road). Secondly, given the elevated position of this site and the fact that the ground level of the site is several feet higher than the adjacent roads, the visual aspect from the road to the east and from the churchyard would be of a massive dominant gable end overshadowing the bus shelter and other amenities. The applicant suggests this is a small dwelling but in the context of the site it is not so. We note that the applicant states that the site was part of the residential curtilage of The Mount, but we wonder whether this is actually the case. Villagers of long standing believe that in fact the land was originally part of the curtilage of the pub and thus may in fact be commercial land. The location of the old pub sign on this land supports that belief. A previous owner of The Mount acquired this piece of land when he bought the pub, and then sold the pub on without this plot. If this is the case, it would appear to require a change-of-use application before the present application can be considered. We request that this application be referred to the full Planning Committee for determination. MCC Highways – No comments received to date. 4.2 Neighbour Notification 14 representations received. 13 object on the following grounds; The site for this proposed dwelling is on part of the land which has traditionally been thought of as the "Village Green". It is an area of grass adjacent to The Carpenter's Arms which during the 45 years we have lived in the village has been used for village barbecues and firework parties, has accommodated swings and picnic tables and has been open for access until the land was sold to a private owner. As open land, it has been a huge asset to the village, helping to create a central focus along with the pub and the church. A previous application for a dwelling on this land was refused by the County Council and on appeal by the Welsh Office. Three new houses have already been built, two in the garden and one replacing the garage of The Mount, fully developing the site. The application does not appear to be within the category of housing infill. We believe that the site of the pub and its original surrounding land (including the site of this application) was designated as commercial and open space, and not housing. Access to the house is on a particularly difficult stretch of the lane, near a sharp bend leading to Usk. Any extra movement of vehicles between the road junction and the entrance to the pub would increase the risk of accidents. Any parking of the vehicles of visitors or for deliveries in the lane would produce an undesirable hazard.

- 65 -

A house of the proposed height and size in an elevated position would be out of scale with the surrounding area and would dominate the centre of the village. This area is perceived as a village green by the residents. Extremely outraged when the land was allowed to be fenced in as we believe it has been open land and used by the village as an important amenity for many, many years. The Village was known as Common Coed y Paen and we believe this piece of land was part of the common. To allow building on this site would destroy the picturesque centre of Coed y Paen. It would then merely be a collection of haphazard houses with no sense of planning or vision for the future. Open space is vital for the welfare of any community and certainly the inhabitants of the village. The village may be set in a rural area but we do not necessarily have access to the fields surrounding the village for recreational purposes as this is farmed agricultural land. The property also near the village, owned by the Crown, displays "Keep Out" notices. So this open space is an essential part of our village and should be protected. Strongly object to any building on this land and wish it to remain as open space, an important visual centre and, as we have known it, as an amenity to our small village. If this planning were to be allowed it would destroy the focus of our village which could never be recovered. This piece of land is in front of the village Church and the village pub so creating a desirable and unique setting. The latest Application suggests that the offer of land as a ‘Village Green’ can only be considered as a token gesture and does not in any way diminish the grounds for objection. Reduction in natural light and overlook kitchen, dining room, living room, bathroom and two bedrooms of Garden Cottage. Loss of view for Garden Cottage. The applicant has sought to distinguish the current proposals from those earlier ones, on the basis that they no longer involve the whole of the available site and involve the construction of a more modest dwelling. However these differences do not even come close, in my view, to addressing the fundamental objections that led the Inspector to dismiss the previous appeal. Because the previous application was made in outline that the Inspector considered alternative forms of dwelling and the alternative positioning of it within the overall plot. He concluded, in effect, that wherever the dwelling was located or whatever it looked like it would still destroy a central characteristic of the village that he considered it was important to retain. The current proposals do not change anything. The applicant’s agent has made a valiant attempt to distinguish the current scheme from the previous one, but there is no escape from the inevitable conclusion that any dwelling on this site, or part of it, would fly in the face of the earlier appeal decision. In fact the current proposals are actually worse than their predecessors, because the new dwelling would now actually be closer to the public house and the church than would have been the case in the 2004 version, at least insofar as the dwelling was indicated as being located on the plans submitted with that application. Since then, two new houses have been built in the grounds of The Mount and this has forced the dwelling now proposed further north towards the pub and church – making the previous Inspector’s conclusions more, not less, relevant than they were in 2004/05.

- 66 -

The land in question lies at the very heart of the village, and although it may not be publicly accessible it nonetheless contributes materially to the character and appearance of the village and also to the setting of the church. Open spaces are just as important as buildings in establishing and protecting the character of a settlement. The offer of a small piece of ground as a ‘village green’ is simply not adequate recompense to the community for having to accept the loss of its heart, or its central feature, as so ably described by the previous Inspector. Policy S1 which lists Coed-y-Paen as a ‘minor village’ where limited infilling, as defined in policy H3, may be acceptable in principle. Policy H3, however, is quite clear about how such acceptability is defined. It states: In Minor Villages planning permission will be granted for minor infill of no more than 1 or 2 dwellings resulting from the filling in of a small gap between existing dwellings, or residential redevelopment, or conversion to residential or sub-division of large dwellings, subject to detailed planning considerations, including no unacceptable adverse impact on village form and character and surrounding landscape, and other policies of the LDP that seek to protect existing retail, employment and community uses. Exceptionally planning permission may be granted for up to 4 dwellings on an infill site that demonstrably fits in with village form (including not resulting in the loss of an open space that forms an important gap or open area) and is not prominent in the landscape. The underlined sections above are once again my emphasis, but they form the core of the relevant considerations in this case. The Mount has already received 2 new dwellings by way of infill in recent years, and so what is now proposed is effectively the third. This is, in itself, contrary to the aims and objectives of policy H3. However any infilling whatsoever is predicated on the assumption that it will have no adverse impact on village form, character and landscape, and that is precisely the harm that the previous Inspector found that a dwelling here, wherever it was located, would have. I would therefore submit that the current application is a speculative attempt to test the LPA’s resolve and that it should be confidently refused on the basis that it would cause significant and irreparable harm to the character and appearance of the settlement, contrary to the requirements of policies S1 and H3 of the recently adopted Local Development Plan. 1 representation supporting the application for the following reasons; We would have a designated village green - which we do not have at the moment. An opportunity for an affordable and smaller property. A maintained garden and hedge in a prominent position in the village. Concerns over what will happen to the land and who will maintain it if planning consent is refused. We would also like to add that there were originally objections to our own new build in the village, however we have only received positive comments about our new home and how the plot has been transformed. 4.3 Other Representations Llangybi with Coed-y-Paen Parish Church Council – Would like to register the Council's objection to the proposal. The grounds for objection are: 1. The plot is in an elevated position in the centre of the village and will tower above

- 67 -

the church and diminish its presence as village feature 2. The building will be on a historically open space in the heart of the village (despite recent attempts to disguise this fact with a hedge which is already an eyesore) which along with the Carpenter's Arms forms a classic village centre. 3. Parking arrangements for people attending the church or visiting graves will be made more difficult. Coed-y-Paen Residents Association - This piece of land has been the subject of an attempt in 2003 & 2004 to designate it as "village green." The application was eventually withdrawn due to legal precedents being set elsewhere in the UK. As you are aware, this land was the subject of an application for a dwelling in 2004, which was refused by Monmouthshire County Council. An appeal was lodged which was refused by the Inspector appointed by the National Assembly for Wales. We draw your attention to the inspector's reasoning for refusal. His written comments were widely accepted by the local community as a sensible vision of the heart of the village. At a recent meeting, residents strongly believed this reasoning still applies. The "Proposed Village Green" shown on the site layout plan is too small to be of any practical use and is no substitute for the open space bordered by the church and the pub envisaged by the inspector. We also comment on two other points: Parked vehicles are an ongoing problem, especially with narrow highways. For example, vehicles park outside the church to tend graves etc. or when the Carpenters Arms car park becomes full due to a function, or to use the post box etc. Delivery and visitors vehicles will need to park outside the proposed dwelling which is close to two right-angled blind corners. Congestion is inevitable. Secondly, we believe this land is designated as "commercial" because it was land belonging to the Carpenters Arms. EVALUATION 5.1 Principle of Development Coed y Paen is designated as a minor village under Policy S1 of the Monmouthshire Local Plan. Within minor villages, new residential development will be granted for minor infill of no more than 1 or 2 dwellings resulting from the filling of a small gap between existing dwellings or residential development subject to detailed planning considerations. It is considered that this plot is a small gap between existing dwellings (Garden Cottage and Trees) and the development is therefore acceptable in principle, but needs to be assessed against detailed planning considerations. 5.2 Visual Impact A previous application for a similar development on the site was refused and appeal dismissed. In his decision, the Inspector concluded (at paragraph 17) that “the greater part of the appeal site is the centrepiece of what is an archetypal rural scene in which the public house and the church are essential components. Use of the area concerned for the construction of a new dwelling, no matter where it was located would, because of its mass, form and the almost inevitable use of modern materials and construction methods, introduce an incompatible element into what is a tranquil,

- 68 -

almost ageless, traditional vista of considerable charm. The visual effect of doing so would be both visually disruptive and harmful to a view of considerable worth: it would also effectively obliterate the focal point of the village and the sense of place which it engenders and I find the proposal unsatisfactory for this reason.” The previous application was made in outline and although the scale and design of the current proposed dwelling is considered to be in keeping with the area (the dwelling being a relatively small cottage-style three bedroom property with traditional detailing and materials) there has been no change in planning circumstances since the dismissed appeal and therefore it would not be reasonable to allow this current application, contrary to the Inspector’s conclusions. Of particular note is his view that any new dwelling would introduce an incompatible element into a traditional vista, no matter where it was located on the site, which would be visually disruptive and harmful. Although a hedge has since been planted between the site and the road through the village, this does not completely screen the site and in colder months would not provide screening as it is a deciduous hedge. The building of a dwelling and the engineered breach of the hedge by the proposed site access would erode the aforementioned sense of place and urbanise this important space that contributes to the focal point of the village with the traditional buildings, the Parish Church and public house. It is noted that an area of 339 sq. metres between the application site and the car park of the Carpenters Arms would be dedicated to the local community as a village green. While this is welcomed, it is considered that it is the area of land as a whole which creates the vista to which the Inspector referred and that the loss of any part of this land would lead to the loss of a key part of the focal point of the village. This would be contrary to LDP Strategic Policies S13 and S17 and Development Management Policies H3, DES1 and EP1. 5.3 Residential Amenity A single window serving a bathroom is the only one proposed on the eastern elevation of the new dwelling meaning that there will be no overlooking of the recently constructed neighbouring dwelling known as Garden Cottage. There are no other neighbouring dwellings within close proximity of the application site. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE Reason for Refusal: The site is a prominent open space in the centre of the village of Coed-y-Paen and its development would have an adverse impact on the rural character of the area, contrary to the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan Strategic Policies S13 (criterion i) and S17 and Development Management Policies H3, DES1 (criteria (b), (c), (e), (g) & (l)) and EP1.

- 69 -

DC/2014/00402 RENOVATION OF FORMER INN TO FORM HOLIDAY COTTAGE FORMER FOX AND HOUNDS INN, ADJ. THE OLD RECTORY, WOLVESNEWTON RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE Case Officer: Craig O’Connor Date Registered: 02/05/2014 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 The proposal is to convert the redundant dilapidated cottage into a holiday let accommodation. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY DC/2011/01205 Refurbishment of former cottage to provide holiday accommodation; Refused May 2013 DC/2011/01124 Removal of existing conservatory; construction of new single storey side extension. New gates in enlarged opening front boundary wall; Approved January 2012 MB 31284 Renovation and Rebuilding Of Property; Refused October 1989 MB 26997 Retention of dwelling Permission Required December 1986 E05/337 – enforcement notice issued alleging unauthorised erection of blockwork walls to create a new dwelling, requiring the demolition of the building. Appeal withdrawn at Inquiry stage, notice upheld but varied to remove demolition requirement LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES Strategic Policies S1 Spatial distribution of new housing provision S11 Visitor accommodation S13 Landscape, Green Infrastructure and the Natural Environment S17 Place making and design Development Management Policies EP1 Amenity and Environmental Protection DES1 General Design Considerations T2 Visitor Accommodation outside Settlements LC1 New built development in the open countryside

- 70 -

LC5 Protection and Enhancement of Landscape Character NE1 Nature Conservation and development H4 Conversion of redundant building in the open countryside REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Consultations Replies Devauden Community Council - recommend approval. The Council felt that the building was an eyesore and the planning application was a genuine attempt to resolve a situation which has pertained for some time. Although work had been done by the previous owner – believed to be without permission – the Council believed this application should be fully supported as it would conspicuously improve the area. Natural Resources Wales – No objections to the application subject to conditions. Biodiversity Officer - I have read the updated ecological appraisal report undertaken by Abbey Sanders Ecology dated January 2014. Following an updated preliminary roost inspection of the dilapidated cottage the report concludes that the building is classified as a feeding perch/ night roost for a low number of Brown Long-Eared bats. I am satisfied that the bat survey has been carried out by a suitably qualified bat ecologist. NRW confirm in their letter dated 8th May 2014 that the development will need an EPS derogation licence. Please see our internal guidance note on consideration of the ‘Three Tests’ for licencing and report template. NRW have also confirmed that they do not object to the scheme and that favourable conservation status will not be detrimentally affected subject to the submission of a detailed method statement together with the inclusion of a suitable bat roost resource. Therefore, I would recommend the following conditions and informative are attached to any consent that the LPA may be minded to grant: 4.2 Neighbour Notification No response to date 4.3 Local Member Representations Cllr Greenwood – has requested that the application be considered by Planning Committee EVALUATION 5.1 Principle of development 5.1.1 The principle of converting the redundant dilapidated building at the site for residential use has previously been refused within planning applications, DC/2011/01205, MB 31284 and MB 26997 and an enforcement notice was issued with regard to unauthorised works. The Planning Inspectorate outlined the following reasons for refusal in relation to application MB31284:

- 71 -

The proposal cannot be considered as renovation and rebuilding because the existing building is in such a poor structural state that proposal would be tantamount to the erection of a new dwelling on the site. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the provisions of Policy S11 (a) of the Gwent Structure Plan. The site of the proposal lies in the open countryside and the erection of a new dwelling for which there is no overriding justification on agricultural or horticultural grounds is therefore contrary to Policy S9 (a) of the Gwent Structure Plan. The erection of a new dwelling on the site would result in the removal of a substantial number of trees which overhang the existing building resulting in the proposed dwelling becoming visually prominent in open countryside and would be an intrusive feature in the rural area. The date of the above Planning Inspectorates decision was 21/7/1989, and since then the building had been left to deteriorate further prior to the unauthorised rebuilding works in 2005. The building is being supported by scaffolding. The structure is now considered to be a ruin and not a structure that is suitable for conversion as outlined in the previous decision by the Planning Inspectorate. This application relates to the dilapidated building being converted into a holiday let unit rather than a residential unit. However the criteria for conversion are the same, be they for permanent residential or holiday let purposes, with the building needing to be structurally sound in order for it to be converted. Policy T2 of the Local Development Plan (LDP) allows for the conversion of and adaptation of buildings in the open countryside for tourist accommodation providing the proposals meet the criteria for conversion as outlined in Policy H4 of the LDP. The proposals are not considered to meet criterion c) of Policy H4 as the conversion of the existing ruin would require substantial reconstruction that would be tantamount to a new building within the open countryside. The development would also not be in accordance with criterion e) as the building has been significantly altered and is now largely constructed with modern block work and within Policy H4 it outlines that buildings of modern construction would not be considered favourably for residential conversion. Given the substantial rebuilding of the structure that was and is required, it would be tantamount to a new build holiday let. Policy T2 of the LDP does not permit the construction of new build visitor accommodation in the open countryside and therefore the proposed development would be contrary to this policy. 5.1.2 The proposed development would also be contrary to Policy LC1 of the LDP, new built development in the open countryside. The policy outlines how there is a presumption against new built development in the open countryside unless justified under policies S10, RE3, RE4, RE5, RE6, T2 and T3. The proposed development is considered to be tantamount to a new building by virtue of the substantial amount of rebuild that has already occurred and would be required to convert the building for residential use. The proposed development would represent unjustified new built development in the open countryside contrary to Policy LC1 of the LDP. 5.2 Conclusion The proposed conversion of the redundant dilapidated building has been previously considered and refused within planning applications DC/2011/01205, MB31284 and MB26997. The proposal cannot be considered as a refurbishment and conversion

- 72 -

because the existing building is in such a poor structural state that the proposal would be tantamount to the erection of a new holiday let within the open countryside, contrary to Policies LC1, T2 and H4 of the LDP. There are no overriding reasons why the previous decisions on the conversion of the structure should be recommended any differently and therefore the principle of the conversion of the structure remains unacceptable. The proposed conversion of the building would be contrary to Polices S1, S11, S13, LC1, T2 and H4 of the Local Development Plan. RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE Reason: The proposal cannot be considered as renovation and refurbishment of an existing cottage because the existing building was largely re-built around 2005, and as such is a modern building which would not be suitable for conversion under criterion e) of Policy H4 of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan (MLDP) and moreover is in such a poor structural state that the proposal to convert the building would be tantamount to the erection of a new holiday let within the open countryside, contrary to Policies S1, S11, S13, LC1, T2 and H4 of the MLDP.

- 73 -

DC/2014/00518 PORTAL FRAMED EXTENSION TO AN EXISTING AGRICULTURAL BUILDING TO PROVIDE ADDTIONAL LIVESTOCK HOUSING SPACE WHITEHALL FARM ROCKFIELD MONMOUTH RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Case Officer: Craig O’Connor Registered: 02/05/2014 APPLICATION DETAILS 1.1 The application is to extend an existing agricultural building to the east of the site. The proposed extension would have a footprint 12.2m x 22.8m. The proposed extension would be on the eastern elevation (the side of the building) and the proposed plans also illustrate the creation of a concrete yard. The extension would be of the same form and height as the existing agricultural building. It would have a pitched roof and it would measure approximately 7.2m to the ridge. The proposed materials for the extension would match the existing arrangement and would include profile steel sheets for the roof and timber cladding for the walls. 2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY DC/2014/00130 Approval of details of layout, scale and appearance, landscaping and access. DC/2012/00168 Approved May 2015 DC/2012/00836 Portal frame infill building to provide a cover over an existing collecting area. Approved December 2012 DC/2012/00168 A second dwelling on an established farm for retirement purposes Approved August 2013 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES Strategic Policies S10 Rural enterprise S13 Landscape and Natural Environment S17 Place making and design Development Management Policies EP1 General Development Considerations DES1 General Design Considerations LC5 Protection and Enhancement of Landscape Character RE4 Agricultural and Forestry Buildings

- 74 -

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Consultation Responses Llangattock Vibon Avel Community Council – recommend approval 4.2 Neighbour consultation No responses received to date 5.0 EVALUATION 5.1 Visual impact 5.1.1 The visual impact of the proposed agricultural building extension and the concrete yard is considered to be minimal. The proposed extension would be of an appropriate form and design and would be of an acceptable size. The extension would integrate well with the existing building and it would be grouped with other agricultural buildings at the farmstead. The proposed building would not appear as an alien addition and its impact on the wider rural landscape would be minimal. The proposed concrete yard would be associated with the agricultural building and is characteristic of farmsteads. It would not be harmful to the wider area. The proposed development would respect the existing form, scale, siting, massing, materials and layout of its setting and is considered to be acceptable in accordance with the relevant policies in Monmouthshire’s Local Development Plan (LDP). 5.2 Residential Amenity 5.2.1 Whitehall Farm is relatively isolated in the open countryside and the proposed extension would not harm any other party’s residential amenity. The development would be in accordance with Policy EP1 of the LDP. 5.3 Conclusion The proposed agricultural building extension and concrete yard would be grouped with other agricultural buildings within the farmstead and would not be prominent within the wider landscape. The extension would be in character with the appearance of the rural setting and would be characteristic of the area. The development would be in accordance with the relevant policies in the Local Development Plan and is therefore recommended for approval. 6.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Conditions Standard 5 years in which to commence development. DC/2014/00520

- 75 -

REMOVAL OR VARIATION OF CONDITION NO.3 (LIMIT ON OPENING AND WORKING HOURS) OF PLANNING PERMISSION DC/2007/00540 MONMOUTHSHIRE LIVESTOCK CENTRE, CROESBYCHAN, BRYNGWYN, RAGLAN RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Case Officer: Kate Bingham Date Registered: 16/05/2014 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS This application seeks to vary Condition 3 on the existing planning consent for the livestock market that controls opening times. The condition limits opening hours to 07.00 to 20.00 Monday to Saturday with no use on Sundays or Bank Holidays. However, since opening in December 2013, the market has proved more successful than expected with the amount of livestock being marketed on the premises being well over expectation with regularly 500 cattle and 2000 sheep being present on a Wednesday alone with the second market day which is held on a Monday attracting over 1500 sheep. As such, this application now seeks an extension to opening hours and allowance to trade on bank holiday Mondays. It is suggested that condition 3 be amended from: The working and opening hours of the livestock market shall be restricted to 07.00-20.00 hours, Mondays to Saturdays, with no use on Sundays and Bank Holidays. to: The working and opening hours of the livestock market shall be restricted to 06.00-21.00 hours, Mondays to Saturdays, with no use on Sundays. 2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY DC/2007/00540 – Livestock Market - Approved 2009. E14/059 – Alleged breach of condition. Breach of Condition Notice served 14.05.14 (28 days to comply) 3.0 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES Strategic Policies S10 – Rural Enterprise S16 - Transport Development Management Policies EP1 – Amenity and Environmental Protection MV1 – Proposed Developments and Highway Considerations 4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

- 76 -

4.1 Consultations Replies Llanarth Community Council – No comments received to date. MCC Environmental Health – Noise monitoring being undertaken. Results are to be presented as Late Correspondence. MCC Highways – From a highway safety and traffic management perspective I would not object to the centre opening earlier and/or later to accommodate the delivery of livestock to and from the centre, particularly if it avoids the practice of livestock vehicles waiting on the road, as the applicant has indicated this is not a safe or sensible practice considering the category of road. 4.2 Neighbour Notification Two representations received. Object on the following grounds; • Hours were restricted on specific recommendation of MCC Environmental Health Section and there have been no changes in circumstances since this time that would justify a change of view now. • The Council’s position as landlord means that they are themselves complicit in the breach of their own regulations. • Operations in breach of condition 3 cause early morning noise, smell and pollution to those properties on the route to the market (from 5.30am on Wednesdays) • The planning report from the original approval states that the market was designed to handle 2400 sheep per day and 790 cattle per day. This means that the site is currently operating at 17% below capacity on sheep and 27% below capacity on cattle suggesting the problem is one of management not opening hours. • The current application is general and does not state how many traffic movements are actually taking place. As the market is operating below capacity, we must assume that traffic movements are also well within the site design criteria. This points to management issues relating to traffic movements on site and does not justify lengthening the opening hours. • The provision of bunding does not screen out all noise and smell and does nothing in relation to passing traffic. • No noise assessment has been undertaken by the site operators. • No significant data relating to seasonality is presented and so it is not possible to judge if the claimed operational issues described will be experienced all year around or relate to spring trade only. • Early morning light pollution clearly visible from a distance. • Early morning opening would mean that animals are penned for longer periods. • No reason given for why the market day was switched from Tuesdays to Mondays. By making this change the operators would have known that they would lose 3 market days in spring. • Applicant states that no complaints about operations have been made. This is incorrect. • Applicant states that other markets operate without conditions being imposed upon them. No evidence is presented to support this and a phone call to another market confirmed that their licence does impose conditions on operations.

- 77 -

• No traffic flow information has been presented. • Reason for imposing Condition 3 was to ‘protect properties from noise and other disturbance’ and there has been no change in circumstance since planning was granted. 4.3 Other Representations Farmers’ Union of Wales and NFU Cymru – Support the application. The livestock centre has been a tremendous success attracting vendors from across South East Wales and Mid Wales as well as the border counties. A consequence of this success has been the strain put upon operators of the market with regard to unloading and sorting the animals presented in time for a prompt start to the sale. In addition, extended time is needed for all the livestock present to be safely loaded and dispatched on the same day. We feel that the relaxation of the condition would not only benefit the users of the market but also the local community as it would negate the need for vehicles to queue at the market gates prior to opening. Not to allow trading on a bank holiday Monday is having a detrimental effect due to the fact that the second market day has been moved from a Tuesday to a Monday. This has become very popular with buyers because of the need to meet the weeks demand for the meat trade. We believe that the relaxation of the planning condition to allow trading on Bank Holiday Monday will increase the through-put of the market, particularly in the spring, and therefore lead to the facility becoming more viable. Having fought for such a long time to achieve this marvellous marketing facility, the slight variation in condition 3 of the planning approval will greatly benefit the smooth running of profitability and therefore viability of the livestock centre. 5.0 EVALUATION 5.1 Detailed Reasons for the Proposed Variation to Opening Hours The large numbers of people choosing to use the market mean that the stock take longer than anticipated to process. All cattle have to be matched to their passports and numbered through the handling races and sheep have to be sorted and weighed on the weighbridge prior to sale. The market has taken on more staff but is still finding it difficult to process all stock in time for the sale to begin promptly. Most hauliers and many farmers have two or more loads to deliver and it is imperative that they are able to make the first delivery early enough to allow them to make their subsequent return trips and be back at the market in time for the commencement of the sale. As no stock can be unloaded until the current opening time of 7am, stock vehicles have been arriving early in order to be first in the queue so that they can unload quickly and make further trips before the sale starts. If the gates are closed then these vehicles queue on the highway causing an obstruction and increase noise, smell and pollution to neighbouring residents whose houses they may be queuing up outside. If the gates are open but no unloading can take place then hauliers and farmers are spending up to

- 78 -

an hour in a queue inside the site waiting for their turn to unload which causes animal welfare issues arising from keeping animals in vehicles for longer than is necessary. Similarly, at the end of each sale, most stock is transported away on lorries. However, the number of hauliers is limited and at busy times they will have to make many journeys to make in order to clear the market of stock. Frequently they will be returning for second or third loads well into the evening and occasionally at night. The number of vehicles clearing the site later into the evening after the current permitted closing time of 8pm is small, and it is essential for the working of the market that they are able to do so. There is also some ancillary use of the market outside the current opening times such as washing out in the evenings on the occasions when there are markets on consecutive days or use of the café as a venue for meetings organised by the Welsh Government Agricultural Department but in general the vast majority of market users and visitors are only on site from an hour before and an hour after sales (sales are 8am – 5pm). 5.2 Highway Safety There is currently no restriction on the road outside the market to prevent vehicles queuing outside. Given that the sales commence at 8am, if the market was allowed to open at 6am rather than 7am, it is unlikely that farmers and hauliers would arrive at the site any earlier than they already do but it would give an extra hour to process the animals, thereby reducing waiting times which would in turn negate the need for vehicles to queue up on the road approaching the market to the benefit of highway safety. 5.3 Residential Amenity Local residents have raised objections to the proposed variation to the condition on the basis of early morning noise, smell and pollution. Obviously hauliers and farmers are already arriving before the market is open and this behaviour is difficult to control as they are using a public road. By increasing the opening hours in the mornings, the problem of vehicles queuing back from the market gates past neighbouring residential dwellings and the garden centre should be remedied. There is no easy way to enforce the prevention of vehicles queuing up on the public highway but it follows that if they are given more time to unload and process their stock then there will be less reason to arrive early. A restriction on the use of flood lights outside the current opening hours should be added to any consent to prevent early morning light pollution. 5.4 Economic Development Implications The applicant has argued that having established Monday as the second market day, it is now necessary to hold sales on Bank Holidays in order to maintain consistency for buyers. If unable to operate on Mondays then three market days are lost in a 6-8 week period in the spring when the Welsh Spring Lamb trade is at its best. If the market is not open then farmers and buyers may take their trade elsewhere thereby affecting the

- 79 -

economic viability of the market. Furthermore, the applicants are not aware of any other livestock markets in the area that are subject to the same restrictions which could significantly affect the market’s ability to compete. The current hours of operation are restricting the efficient running of the market which is not in the economic interests of the site in terms of competing with other local livestock markets for customers. Allowing the market to open on Bank Holidays and extending the opening hours would therefore improve the competitiveness and economic viability of the market. 5.5 Conclusion The current restriction on opening times is preventing the efficient running of the market in terms of the service to the farming community, animal welfare, highway safety and local residential amenity. Allowing the market to open an hour earlier in the morning and an hour later in the evenings will give more time for unloading, processing and loading of livestock which should alleviate the current unforeseen operational problems identified. It is therefore considered that the variation in condition to allow opening times of 6am to 9pm is reasonable. The opening of the market on Bank Holidays will enable the market to compete with others in the wider areas which are allowed to open without such restriction, an issue particularly important in April and May when there are three Bank Holidays on market days during the spring lamb season. 6.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Conditions: Flood lights not to be used outside the following times; 7am – 8pm.

- 80 -