Agenda and minutes

You are welcome to use Welsh at the meeting a minimum notice period of 3 working days is required should you wish to do so.  A simultaneous translation will be provided if requested.

It was noted that no requests had been received for the simultaneous translation service.

To receive.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors S. Healy and B. Thomas.

To consider any declarations of interest and dispensations made.

There were no declarations of interest or dispensations reported.

To consider the report of the Service Manager Development & Estates.

Members considered the report of the Service Manager Development & Estates.

The Service Manager explained that this was the standard report which provided details of the present caseload in respect of Appeals, Consultations and DNS.  One of the main challenges experienced during the Covid-19 lockdown period had been the difficulty in supplying the Planning Inspector with background information for these cases and, as a result a number of these appeals had been held in abeyance.  However, the process had now recently been reactivated and officers were in the process of preparing and submitting statements on behalf of the Council in respecting the appeals detailed in the report.  It was noted that the appeal relating to Star Fields, Mountain Road, Ebbw Vale was the subject of a separate report on the agenda (Item No. 5).

Members who wished to submit their own individual representations in respect of any of the appeals would be required to quote the planning inspectorate appeal reference number detailed on the report.

It was unanimously,

RESOLVED that the report be accepted and the information contained therein be noted.

To consider the report of the Team Leader Development Management.

Members considered the report of the Team Leader Development Management.

The Service Manager – Development and Estates spoke briefly to the report and explained that the previous Planning Committee had refused permission for the above proposal based on the grounds that the main building was a large and prominent feature and was sited within a Special Landscape Area.

However, the Inspector had acknowledged that after the Decision Notice for refusal had been issued, the Council had issued a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use of Development (CLEUD) in relation to the appeal site which confirmed the lawfulness of the six substantially completed structures on site but did not extend to the lawful use of the buildings.

Therefore, the Inspector noted that the granting of the CLEUD represented a material change in circumstances since the planning application had been determined and that he had to have regard to it.  This had directed the Inspector to allow the appeal and whilst the Inspector noted that some of the structureson site had an unkempt visual appearance, given that a CLEUDhad been issued he advised that in the event that he was todismiss the appeal the structures were likely to remain in place.

In relation to the separate application for costs, the Planning Inspector had acknowledged that the lawfulness of the structures was not verified at the time the decision was taken to refuse the planning application and that whilst he found that the buildings did not harm the Special Landscape Area he had acknowledged that they did have a visual impact from public viewpoints.  The reason for refusal was, therefore, not without foundation and the Council had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate its reason for refusal and dismissed the application for costs.

In reply to a concern raised regarding the location of the proposal, the Service Manager confirmed that it was Mountain Road, Ebbw Vale and not Mountain Road, Rassau.

A Member expressed her appreciation to the previous Planning Committee for taking the decision to vote against the proposal and to the organisations who had taken the time to write to the Planning Department and the Planning Inspectorate expressing their concerns relating to the proposal. She also acknowledged and welcomed the view from the Inspector’s report that the grounds for refusal had been reasonably substantiated.

The Member continued by welcoming the conditions to restrict noise levels and a condition prohibiting the sale and purchase of dogs at the site.  She advised that when Lucy’s Law came into force, the appellant would not be lawfully able to use the premises for this purposes -  puppies would have to be sold from the place that they had been bred.

She continued by referring to Condition no. 8 i.e. that within 2 months of the date of the decision letter (8^th April, 2020) a Waste Management Plan specifying the method of disposal of all waste produced was required to be submitted in writing to the local planning authority for approval and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider the report of the Senior Business Support Officer.

Consideration was given to the report of the Senior Business Support Officer, whereupon:-

The Service Manager Development and Estates advised that the report covered the period between 24^th February to 12^th June, 2020 i.e. the Covid-19 lockdown period.  He said that it had been a very challenging time for the planning service and paid tribute to the efforts of officers during this this period. Three officers namely, the Team Manager - Eirlys Hallett, Team Leader - Steph Hopkins and Planning Officer - Jo White who covered the Ebbw Fach Valley had been redeployed onto other Covid related duties and said that it was worth noting that those officers had continued to carry their caseload assisted by the efforts of other staff to deal with applications in their absence. Members noted that on this particular report there were close to 80 applications that had been determined and whilst it had not been ‘business as usual’ officers had managed to continue providing the planning service as best they could.

The Chair congratulated officers on their continued efforts to deliver the planning service during this unprecedented and challenging time.

C/2020/0026 – Unit 58 Festival Park Shopping Centre, Ebbw Vale

In reply to a concern raised, the Service Manager undertook to discuss a matter outside of the remit of the Planning Committee with the Member following the meeting.

C/2019/0278 – Land East of Blaina Road, Brynmawr

In reply to a question, it was confirmed that the grant of planning permission did provide provision for housing at the bottom end of the site but he was unaware of any further discussion with officers regarding implementing this part of the consent.

It was unanimously,

RESOLVED, subject to the foregoing, that the report be accepted and the list of applications decided under delegated powers between 24^th February to 12^th June, 2020 be noted.

To consider the report of the Team Manager Development Management.

Consideration was given to the report of the Team Manager Development Management.

Application No. C/2020/0106 – PCI Pharma Services  Unit 23-24 Tafarnaubach Industrial Estate Tredegar  - Construction of New Packaging Line Building, Retaining Wall and Covered Pedestrian Walkway Linking New Packaging Line Building with New Car Park

At the invitation of the Chair, the Team Manager Development Management gave details of the planning application which related to the proposed construction ofa large new packaging line building within the existing PCI Pharma ServicesLtd complex (formerly known as Penn Pharmaceuticals) located on theeastern edge of the Tafarnaubach Industrial Estate, Tredegar. The currentapplication also related to some associated development, namely abridge/covered pedestrian walkway that would link the new building with arecently constructed car park to the north of the existing complex and anextended section of reinforced concrete retaining walling.  It was noted that at this stage it was unknown whether the extended section of the retaining walling would be required.

Over recent months PCI, had embarked upon what they explain to be ‘an expansion of its facility to enhance its highly potent drug manufacturing and development capabilities, including both clinical and commercial supply which would support the growth of the business’ and during the last 12 months planning permission had been granted by the Authority for two separate developments on the site namely, the construction of a large new pharmaceutical containment facility building with a new large car parking area to the north of the existing complex and a new replacement laboratory facility. Such developments and the current proposal were viewed by the company as the first phase of a growth programme which would potentially see a significant increase to their workforce over the next five years.

Members were advised that the car parking provision would provide 183 spaces and would cover the parking needs of this current development plus the two separate developments that had already been granted planning permission.

Details of the proposals were viewed on the images contained in paragraphs 1.5, 1.8 and 1.11 of the report and this included the elevation of the building and a section as viewed from the west showing relative levels of car park, bridge/walkway, proposed building and existing buildings at the rear of existing complex.

On the basis of the scale of the development, the proposed application was classed as a ‘major’ planning application which required determination by the Planning Committee. In this context the application details had been the subject of a statutory pre-application consultation process and the application had been supported by numerous supporting documents detailed in Paragraph 1.13 of the report.  In addition, the company had undertaken significant discussions with the Team Manager at the early stage of the development.

Highways - In terms of consultation, the Highways Authority had raised no objection to the scheme provided that the new car park area previously approved be available for use before the proposed building was brought into use.  It was also confirmed that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To receive and consider the following report which in the opinion of the proper officer was an exempt items taking into account consideration of the public interest test and that the press and public should be excluded from the meeting (the reason for the decision for the exemption was available on a schedule maintained by the proper officer).

To receive and consider the following report which in the opinion of the proper officer was an exempt items taking into account consideration of the public interest test and that the press and public should be excluded from the meeting (the reason for the decision for the exemption was available on a schedule maintained by the proper officer).

To consider the report of the Service Manager Development.

Having regard to the views expressed by the Proper Officer regarding the public interest test, that on balance the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information and that the report should be exempt.

RESOLVED that the public be excluded whilst this item of business is transacted as it is likely there would be a disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 12, Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

Consideration was given to the report of the Service Manager Development & Estates.

It was unanimously,

RESOLVED that the report which contained information relating to a particular individual be accepted and the information contained therein be noted.

Appreciation

Appreciation was expressed to the Service Manager Development and Estates and his team for the work undertaken to provide the service during this challenging time.  Appreciation was also expressed to the Head of Democratic Services and her team for work undertaken to allow the democratic process to be undertaken on a virtual basis.