Agenda item

General Matters - Appeal against non-determination of full application for the construction of 13 No. detached houses and associated works at land to the rear of Rock Bank, Main Road, New Brighton (051424)

Decision:

 

            That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that the Council raise no objection to the development subject to the recommended conditions, an Unilateral Undertaking to ensure the payment of £1,100 per dwelling in lieu of on site play provision and a Section 106 Obligation to secure the payment of £36,771 for primary school places at Mynydd Isa primary School and £36,938 for secondary school places at Argoed High School (as reported in the late observations).

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report.  Additional comments received since the preparation of the report along with matters of clarification were circulated at the meeting.

 

            The officer detailed the background to the report.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee held on 12 March 2014 to confirm surface water drainage proposals to serve the proposed development, the implications for the development given the previous mining history on the site and in order to further assess the impact of the two storey development on occupiers of existing bungalows at Argoed View.  The applicant had lodged an appeal on non-determination so the decision on the planning application would be made by the Planning Inspectorate and this report  to Committee sought to establish the Authority’s stance on the appeal.   The officer recommended that the Planning Inspectorate be advised that the Council raise no objection to the development subject to conditions, an Unilateral Undertaking to ensure the payment of £1,100 per dwelling in lieu of on site play provision and a Section 106 Obligation to secure the payment of £36,771 for primary school places at Mynydd Isa primary School and £36,938 for secondary school places at Argoed High School (as reported in the late observations).

 

            Mrs. J. Walters spoke against the application on behalf of the 27 residents who had signed a petition on the amended scheme but added that they were opposed to this application, but were not opposed to development of the site.  The proposal was for three and four bedroomed houses on higher ground than the existing properties of which 70% were bungalows.  No amount of screening would allow the residents to maintain their privacy and Mrs. Walters would be able to see numerous windows of the new dwellings from her property if approval was granted.  She commented on an earlier layout for development on the site which was to be recommended for refusal due to space around dwellings guidelines not being complied with.  Mrs. Walters said that the officer had since indicated that space around dwellings guidance had been relaxed for this development and there had been no insistence to build bungalows.  The ridge height was to be four metres higher than the existing dwellings.  A mining report which had been undertaken indicated that entry to a mine shaft was under the site and that building on plot 1 should be avoided but the applicant proposed to build on this plot.  She also raised concern about surface water and the proposed access to the site which would be at the end of the dual carriageway.  She added that the application was in contravention of the UDP and she asked the Committee to refuse the application. 

 

            Mr. S. Jones spoke in support of the application on behalf of the applicant.  He reinforced the positive report of the Planning Officer.  When the design decision was taken it was felt that the character of the development should reflect the two storey dwellings on the front of the site but account had also been taken of the properties on Argoed View which were mostly one or one point five storey bungalows.  The issue had been discussed with the officer and the floor levels had been reduced and proposed dwellings moved within the layout but space around dwellings guidelines had been complied with.  The other issues which had caused concern were drainage and mining.  A pipe system had been designed and agreed with Welsh Water and Natural Resources Wales and conditions 6, 7, 8, 9 and 21 addressed the concerns.  The developer had addressed the issue of mining and the Coal Authority had not raised any objections.  He commended the report and asked the Committee not to raise any objection to the appeal.     

 

            Councillor Gareth Roberts proposed the recommendation that the Council raise no objection to the appeal; this was duly seconded.  Councillor Roberts said that the concerns had been addressed.  Councillor Chris Bithell concurred and said that there was a mixture of dwellings on the site which reflected surrounding properties.  There had been no issues on highway grounds and there was no basis to uphold any objection to the appeal. 

 

            The Local Member, Councillor Amanda Bragg, said that she was not against development but she had material concerns about this development.  She quoted from an email sent in December 2013 which indicated that the two storey dwellings had a lesser distance to the border than was required in the Council’s policy and the development would therefore be detrimental to the privacy and amenity of the existing dwellings.  The ridge heights had not been reduced and the development would have a significant impact on the residents of Argoed View.  The two storey dwellings would overshadow the existing properties and would overlook into the bungalows.  She referred to a bungalow which had been approved on the neighbouring site in 2010 as it had not been overbearing and was not overdominant or contrary to amenity.  Councillor Bragg felt that reducing the ridge heights would be more in line with the character of the area and she referred to TAN12 on the scale of developments compared to surrounding areas.  She spoke of the Tree Canopy Report where it was reported that Tree Preservation Orders were in place, but this was not the case..  She had contacted the Coal Authority who had confirmed that there was a mine entry under the proposed plot 1 and had indicated that it was likely there would be more mine entries in the area. She stated that properties on the main road could not get a mortgage because of subsidence and were sold for cash.

 

            Councillor Ron Hampson said that the developer had made no attempt to reduce the ridge height and some of the properties were to be built over a mine shaft which could result in subsidence.  He felt that the developer had not made any attempt to meet the demands and concerns of the residents and therefore the application should be refused. 

 

            Councillor Mike Peers sought clarification on the proposed plot over the mine shaft and asked if details of what the developer had originally proposed and what changes had been undertaken by the developer since then. 

 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that:-

 

- the applicant had been aware of the concerns of residents about the ridge height on the common boundary with Argoed View.  They had taken the comments on board and in plots 1 to 4 the garden depth had been significantly short of the requirements in the guidelines so the layout had been adapted accordingly.

- there was a mix of house types on the boundary

- he explained that it would not have been appropriate to insist on bungalows, but that would have been an option for the applicant and agent

- space around dwellings guidance related to where main habitable windows faced each other but in this instance, the guidance did not apply because the properties were at a 45 degree angle to the existing dwellings, but in any case the distances were far in excess of the requirements.

- it was recognised that there were two mine shafts (one at the access and one under plot 1) but there were no objections from the Coal Authority.  The issue could be addressed by capping the mine shaft

- a proposal for piped surface water onto agricultural land had been identified and there had been no objections from Welsh Water to the proposal

 

In summing up, Councillor Gareth Roberts referred to ways that the issue of the mine shaft could be overcome which were by infilling or putting a concrete slab over it. 

 

            RESOLVED:

 

            That the Planning Inspectorate be advised that the Council raise no objection to the development subject to the recommended conditions, an Unilateral Undertaking to ensure the payment of £1,100 per dwelling in lieu of on site play provision and a Section 106 Obligation to secure the payment of £36,771 for primary school places at Mynydd Isa primary School and £36,938 for secondary school places at Argoed High School (as reported in the late observations).

 

Supporting documents: