Wrthi'n llwytho
Ar 18 Tachwedd 2021 ystyriodd Pwyllgor Cynllunio bedwar cais cynllunio a gwnaeth benderfyniad ar bob un ohonynt.
1.1 Apologies were received from Councillor Ron Burnett.
2.1 2.1 The following interests were declared: · Councillor Stuart Ashley declared a personal interest in agenda item 7 as a Member of Cwmbran Community Council who had been consulted on the application. · Councillor Gaynor James declared a personal interest in agenda items 4 and 5 as a Member of Pontypool Community Council who had been consulted on the applications. · Councillor Keith James declared a personal interest in agenda items 4 and 5 as a Member of Pontypool Community Council who had been consulted on the applications. · Councillor Fay Jones declared a personal interest in agenda item 7 as a Member of Cwmbran Community Council who had been consulted on the application. · Councillor Janet Jones declared a personal interest in agenda item 6 as the application site was within her ward. · Councillor Norma Parrish declared a personal interest in agenda items 4 and 5 as a Member of Pontypool Community Council who had been consulted on the applications. · Councillor David Thomas declared a personal interest in agenda item 7 as the application site was within in his ward. · Councillor Steven Evans declared a personal interest in agenda items 4 and 6 as Brecon Beacons National Park Authority of which he was a member have appointed him to sit on the outside body of Blaenavon Heritage Committee and the World Heritage Site was mentioned within the reports.
3.1 Members agreed that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 14th October 2021 be confirmed as a correct record.
4.1 The Principal Planner displayed plans and made the following comments: · The application was an outline application for 53 dwellings with all matters reserved at land at the Varteg. · There was planning history attached to the site and in 2011 outline planning consent was allowed at appeal. In 2015 the planning consent was extended and in 2017 an application for reserved matters was submitted but was subsequently withdrawn. There were no current planning consents for the piece of land. · In 2020 pre-application advice was given for the site and Officers advised that the development was acceptable in principle. · In February 2021 new National Policy, PPW 11 and Future Wales Policy came into force. These policies introduced a stronger emphasis on sustainability and placemaking. · Whilst the site was located in the urban boundary it was in an isolated area, with few local amenities, it had a pub, a welsh school and a community hall. · As part of the work for the replacement LDP, Sustainable Settlement Appraisals were being undertaken, the Varteg scored very low receiving only 6% compared to Cwmbran scoring 100%. · The new Planning Policy was about ensuring development was in the right location and minimising the need to use private vehicles. · The construction of 53 dwellings in a small and isolated community with a lack of facilities was not a sustainable development and went against both PP11 and Future Wales Policies. · A high standard of design would be required for any development in this location as it was on the key route into the World Heritage Site. The appeal which was permitted for the site in 2011 was allowed on the basis that the scheme had a good standard of design. · A key issue on the site was the 8m difference in levels across the site. The Applicant was advised at the pre-application stage that the on-site levels should not be significantly altered as it was essential that any development would sit comfortably within the landscape. Both the Council’s Landscape Officer and Conservation Officer had concerns regarding the levels and the current application lacked details of how these could be sensitively addressed. · Indicative section drawings were requested by Officers but were not provided by the Applicant. It was critical that the development would fit in with the landscape and with the absence of any evidence to demonstrate that it would, it must be assumed that scheme would harm the character and appearance of the area. · The Council’s Drainage Officer advised that the drainage scheme submitted with the application would not meet the SUDs standards. Planning Policy advises that Council’s should ensure sustainable drainage systems were an integral part of the site design. The indicative drainage strategy failed to demonstrate that sustainable drainage system could be achieved. · Given the concerns of Officers, the application was recommended for refusal. 4.2 Members asked a number of questions and Officers responded stating: · If Members chose to refuse the application and it went to appeal, the Applicant could try to claim for costs but for this to be achieved they would have to demostrate that the Council had acted unreasonably which it had not. · The site was on a bus route, but it was an isolated community with limited facilities which would encourage car journeys. · The Applicant had not submitted any details on how they would address the issues with the levels on the site. 4.3 Members commented: · It was a precious landscape that needed to be protected. · It would be an isolated estate and it was not the right location for the development. · That they were disappointed that the Applicant had not provided the information requested from Officers. 4.4 Members unanimously agreed to refuse the application for the following reasons: · The construction of 53 dwellings in this isolated location, with a lack of local facilities and employment opportunities, did not represent Placemaking or sustainable development. The proposal would therefore fail to meet the Placemaking and Sustainable Places aims and objectives of Future Wales (2021), Planning Policy Wales 11 (2021) and LDP Policies S2 and S4. · In the absence of information to demonstrate otherwise, it was considered that the proposal would unduly harm the character and appearance of the sensitive site and area, at the edge of the urban boundary and on a main route into the Blaenavon Industrial Landscape World Heritage Site. Therefore, the application did not accord with LDP Policies BW1, S4 and S7. · The application fails to demonstrate that a suitable SuDS scheme would be achieved at the site. On this basis, the scheme would not meet the Placemaking requirements of PPW11 and LDP Policies S3, S7 and BW1 which seek to safeguard drainage interests.
5.1 The Senior Planner highlighted the following points: · The application was presented to last Planning Committee and was deferred for a site visit to be undertaken. The site visit took place on 2 November. · The only update to the report was the information from the inspection carried out by the Council’s HMO Licensing Officer which were outlined in the report and contained details around the number of bathrooms, size of bedrooms and facilities within the property. 5.2 Members raised concerns and asked a number of questions and Officers responded as follows: · When the site visit was undertaken it was apparent that the adjacent car park was fairly full, however the building was already an existing family dwelling who would mostly likely have vehicles. There was however another larger car park 100m away. HMO’s usually had limited vehicle use. The Highways Officer did not oppose the application from a highway standpoint. · Planning Officers were not familiar with the HMO licence requirements and could only consider planning requirements such clothes drying areas, bin storage and parking which affected the external environment. The Applicant was required to make additional requirements to satisfy the HMO license. Following the inspection carried out by the HMO License Officer, the property was currently deemed suitable for up to 5 occupants, however it was a large enough dwelling to accommodate between 6 – 10 occupants if a number of improvements were made. · There was no planning reason to restrict the number of occupants as this is subject to different legislation requirements, Members could only consider the change of use of the building. · The property was in a sustainable location and was on a bus route and parking was not considered to be an issue. · Issues surrounding fire safety and air circulation would be considered under both the HMO and building control regulations. · The residents would have individual bedrooms with locks on and would have access to a communal living room, kitchen and bathrooms. · Officers have to assess applications on the policies contained with the Council’s LDP and the size of rooms and number of occupants were beyond the realm of planning policy, those issues would be considered under the licensing regime. · Officers were not aware that it was a retrospective application until after the last Planning Committee meeting. · The pavement outside the property was narrow, however the building already had a lawful use as a family dwelling and a family with young children in pushchairs could move in under its current use. It was unreasonable to state that the building could not be used as a HMO because of the pavement. · The application did not comply with planning policy in relation to parking, however Officers have deemed it suitable due to being in a sustainable location with lots of local services, a bus route and the residents would have access to two nearby public car parks. · Although the application was part retrospective, Officers did not have reasons to withhold planning permission and therefore would likely not pursue enforcement action. Enforcement action in this case would be harmful as it would result in making people homeless. · Members could review the policies contained in the LDP when looking at the replacement plan but would need to be careful not to stray into areas that were covered by other legislation. Officers would present the LDP Deposit Plan with suggested policies in for members consideration. · Given that there were already residents living at the property the conditions attached could be amended stating that works would need to be carried out within 3 months of any permission granted. · Officers would arrange a Members Seminar on HMO’s to provide information on how the different HMO regimes within the Council operated. · Officers only took enforcement action on schemes which were contrary to planning policy or for retrospective schemes which would not be granted planning permission. · Officers appreciated members concerns about Applicants getting away with schemes without planning permission and submitting applications retrospectively and the Council had previously written to Welsh Government about the issue, but it was in legislation, as breaches could be rectified. 5.3 Members agreed with 13 voting in favour and 1 member abstaining from voting to approve the application subject to the rewording of the conditions agreed by Members, which required works to be carried out within 3 months of permission being granted.
6.1 The Head of Planning and Development informed Members that the application was being reported for Planning Committee consideration as the Applicant was a Torfaen County Borough Council Employee. 6.2 In response to Members questions, the Head of Planning and Development commented that an Ecology Report had been submitted, however Officers would check that the proposed trees were suitable for the area and would not encroach on the properties on Coedcae Road when fully grown. As part of the Ecology report a condition had been added to install bat boxes to the side of the property. 6.3 Members commented: · That they were pleased to see that the works would not have an impact on the Heritage Site or the Highway. · They were happy with the material choices such as the Welsh pennant stone cladding which would ensure that the property fitted in well with the surrounding area. 6.4 Members unanimously agreed to approve the application subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
7.1 The Head of Planning and Development informed Members that the application was being reported for Planning Committee consideration as the Applicant was a Torfaen County Borough Councillor. 7.2 Members unanimously agreed to approve the application subject to the conditions laid out in the report.
Rhaid i gynghorwyr ddweud pan fydd ganddyn nhw gysylltiad personol â rhywbeth sy'n cael ei drafod, fel swydd, eiddo neu aelod o'r teulu. Mae buddiant sy'n rhagfarnu yn ddigon cryf i'r cynghorydd adael yr ystafell fel arfer a pheidio â chymryd rhan.
Gaynor James: Buddiant personol ar Planning Application - 21/P/0639/OUT / Cais Cynllunio - 21/P/0639/OUT
Aelod o Gyngor Cymuned Pont-y-pŵl, a ymgynghorwyd ynghylch y cais.
Gaynor James: Buddiant personol ar Planning Application - 21/P/0670/FUL / Cais Cynllunio - 21/P/0670/FUL
Aelod o Gyngor Cymuned Pont-y-pŵl, a ymgynghorwyd ynghylch y cais.
Keith James: Buddiant personol ar Planning Application - 21/P/0639/OUT / Cais Cynllunio - 21/P/0639/OUT
Aelod o Gyngor Cymuned Pont-y-pŵl, a ymgynghorwyd ynghylch y cais.
Keith James: Buddiant personol ar Planning Application - 21/P/0670/FUL / Cais Cynllunio - 21/P/0670/FUL
Aelod o Gyngor Cymuned Pont-y-pŵl, a ymgynghorwyd ynghylch y cais.
Norma Parrish: Buddiant personol ar Planning Application - 21/P/0639/OUT / Cais Cynllunio - 21/P/0639/OUT
Aelod o Gyngor Cymuned Pont-y-pŵl, a ymgynghorwyd ynghylch y cais.
Norma Parrish: Buddiant personol ar Planning Application - 21/P/0670/FUL / Cais Cynllunio - 21/P/0670/FUL
Aelod o Gyngor Cymuned Pont-y-pŵl, a ymgynghorwyd ynghylch y cais.
Steven Evans: Buddiant personol ar Planning Application - 21/P/0639/OUT / Cais Cynllunio - 21/P/0639/OUT
Mae'n aelod o Awdurdod Parc Cenedlaethol Bannau Brycheiniog, sydd wedi'i benodi ef i gorff allanol Pwyllgor Treftadaeth Blaenafon; cyfeirir at y Safle Treftadaeth y Byd yn yr adroddiadau.
Steven Evans: Buddiant personol ar Planning Application - 21/P/0806/HH / Cais Cynllunio - 21/P/0806/HH
Mae'n aelod o Awdurdod Parc Cenedlaethol Bannau Brycheiniog, sydd wedi'i benodi ef i gorff allanol Pwyllgor Treftadaeth Blaenafon; cyfeirir at y Safle Treftadaeth y Byd yn yr adroddiadau.
Janet Jones: Buddiant personol ar Planning Application - 21/P/0806/HH / Cais Cynllunio - 21/P/0806/HH
Mae safle'r cais yn ei ward hi.
Stuart Ashley: Buddiant personol ar Planning Application - 21/P/0840/FUL / Cais Cynllunio - 21/P/0840/FUL
Aelod o Gyngor Cymuned Cwmbrân, a ymgynghorwyd ynghylch y cais.
Fay Jones: Buddiant personol ar Planning Application - 21/P/0840/FUL / Cais Cynllunio - 21/P/0840/FUL
Aelod o Gyngor Cymuned Cwmbrân, a ymgynghorwyd ynghylch y cais.
David Thomas: Buddiant personol ar Planning Application - 21/P/0840/FUL / Cais Cynllunio - 21/P/0840/FUL
Mae safle'r cais yn ei ward.
Yn rhestru cynghorwyr presennol y cyngor yn unig. Nid yw aelodau cyfetholedig, swyddogion a chyn-gynghorwyr yn cael eu dangos.