Loading
The committee considered a planning application for a plant to process stone on land north of Abercanaid Industrial Estate and approved it subject to conditions. It also adopted guidance for the Town Centre Conservation Area Management Plan, and received four appeal decisions and a report on delegated decisions.
Apologies for absence received from Councillor B Carter and Councillor D Isaac.
No Declarations of Interest were received.
Decision as recorded
Resolved that: The application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
The Planning Officer A Foote introduced the report and provided the committee with a power point presentation outlining the application. The following questions were raised by the committee and were responded to in detail by the officers in attendance. · The report states that there were five responses from objectors in three properties, can you where those properties are located · Clarity was sought in relation to the acoustic barriers highlighted in the report · Page 9 of the report states that the proposed development is not in one of the preferred sites identified within policy EcW14 as being suitable for such a use. Can you confirm if other sites were suggested to the developer · Page 11 of the report highlights noise characteristics and levels can very substantially according to their source and the type of activity involved. Over 45,000 tonnes of stone can be processed at this plant, that is a lot of potential for noise and dust, how do you know beforehand that the acoustic barriers will be sufficient · Can you explain how you know the noise levels won’t exceed the levels outlined in the report · Page 12 of the report states ‘there are no residential dwellings that immediately adjoin the site, however, given the nature of the development there is potential for the use to have a harmful impact that could have an effect upon the living conditions of nearby residents’. In relation to the mitigations outlined to the committee with inert material being crushed you won’t know until the site is in operation what the noise levels will be and I anticipate you will receive complaints and am I right in saying it is for Environment Health Officers to deal with complaints. There is no Environmental Health Officer in attendance, but can you explain how they came to the conclusion that noise levels won’t exceed the levels outlined when the plant isn’t yet in operation · Do Environmental Health provide a written response to the Planning department when they are consulted on applications · Can the committee request site of the written response from Environment Health · Page 13 of the report states ‘in respect of dust, much of this would be controlled by NRW via environmental permits, which the applicant would be required to obtain for the operation of the site. However, information has been submitted in support of the application which outlines the methods of minimising dust output from the site. This has been reviewed by the Environment Health Manager and is deemed to be acceptable’. If the application is granted can you confirm whether residents would raise complaints about dust with NRW or our Environmental Health Department · Clarity was sought in relation to the business operating hours and working days · As already highlighted by Councillor C Jones page 12 of the report states that given the nature of the development there is potential for the use to have a harmful impact that could have an effect upon the living conditions of nearby residents. Can you please tell the committee which residents you believe will be affected by the development · Clarity was sought in relation to highway safety and suitability as there is a new large residential development that has recently been granted planning that will also utilise the road network in the area, concern was also raised in relation to the vehicle weights and the strength of the existing bridge crossing the River Taff · How many vehicles per day would access the site · How widely has the proposed development been advertised · Are you aware if the developer has experience in this field or has a similar site elsewhere · Clarity was sought as to whether the main role of the site was to crush waste material · With all the concerns raised by the committee can you confirm if ongoing monitoring will be carried out in relation to noise and dust and will there be monitors onsite · Will checks be carried out to ensure all materials processed at the site will be inert · Further clarity was sought in relation how residents can raise complaints and whether there is guidance available to residents to assist them in carrying out the process correctly · As stated earlier the site wasn’t one of the preferred sites, where other sites an option and why was this site chosen Following further comments by the committee in relation to the application is was Resolved that: The application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
The minutes record no declarations of interest.
Decision as recorded
Resolved that: Committee approve the post-consultation version of “Supplementary Planning Guidance Note – Town Centre Conservation Area Management Plan (CAMP)” as adopted planning policy
Planning Officer C Watkins led the committee through the report and highlighted the salient points. The following questions were raised by the committee and were responded to in detail by the officers in attendance. · Clarity was sought on whether there has been a tightening up on for example the type of guttering a building should have and whether it would make it more expensive for premises to comply with the guidance Councillor L Davies left the meeting · With the policy being in place are you saying businesses may become more eligible for grant funding · Page 33 of the report states ‘the concentration of take-away food outlets, particularly along High street, Ponntmorlais which contribute little to daytime activity and accentuate toe poor mix of uses in this commercial area’ this is an accurate statement but all of these outlets have had planning permission to be there, is this likely to change the planners thinking if another food outlet applied for permission in the area · There is limited parking in the area due to the set up of the one-way system – there seems to be a suggestion in the report that the parking provision in the area should be improved is that correct · Page 33 of the report highlights poor management of domestic and commercial waste; instances of fly-tipping and graffiti in areas that are not on the main thoroughfares, why can’t these issues be resolved by departments within the local authority · Graffiti is a major issue but it doesn’t seem to be cleaned immediately which gives a bad impression · There were only five responses to the consultation, are you disappointed with that level of response · The report mentions Section 215 of the Planning Act, this is seen as being an ineffective piece of legislation but it states that it can be invoked if need be do you think it would be of use · Will residents and business owners in different conservation areas throughout the county Borough be treated differently · Over the years certain things haven’t been implemented in some conservation areas does the introduction of this policy mean that there could be retrospective action taken against building or owners Resolved that: Committee approve the post-consultation version of “Supplementary Planning Guidance Note – Town Centre Conservation Area Management Plan (CAMP)” as adopted planning policy
Decision as recorded
Resolved that: Appeal Decision be received.
P/21/0168 - Outline Planning for erection of dwelling, Land opposite Brynteg, Stables Yard. Resolved that: Appeal Decision be received.
Decision as recorded
Resolved that: Appeal decision be received.
P/22/0215 - Erection of dwelling, Land off Cardiff Road A4054 and to the North of 21 Mount Pleasant Resolved that: Appeal decision be received.
Decision as recorded
Resolved that: Appeal Decision be received.
P/22/0271 – Change of use of ground floor A1 Hairdressers to A3 Takeaway, 57 Pontmorlais, High Street Resolved that: Appeal Decision be received.
Decision as recorded
Resolved that: The appeal decision be received.
P/23/0165 – Change of use of ground floor Installation of digital advertising hoarding to display static advertisements on rotation, 21 Station Terrace, Cardiff Road Resolved that: The appeal decision be received.
Decision as recorded
Resolved that: The delegated report be received.
Delegated Report 1st October 2023 – 30th November 2023 Resolved that: The delegated report be received.
No other business was deemed urgent by the Chair and he closed the meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.