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.

An apology for absence was received Councillor M Day.

To consider any declarations of interest and dispensations made.

The following declarations of interest and dispensations were reported:-

Councillor W. Hodgins - Item No. 6 - Planning Report

(Application No. C/2019/0190 - Land at Leyton Williams Haulage Yard, Parkside Garage, Catholic Road, Brynmawr)

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

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

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

To consider the report of the Senior Business Support Officer.

Consideration was given to the report of the Senior Business Support Officer.

RESOLVED, that the report be accepted and the list of applications decided under delegated powers between 15^th June, 2020 and 13^th July, 2020, be noted.

To consider the report of the Team Manager Development Management.

PLANNING REPORT

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

Application No. C/2020/0100

Plasgeller, Intermediate Road, Brynmawr NP23 4SF

Two single storey extensions to provide a complex care unit to the east side (front elevation) of the existing care home together with

removal of 2x TPO trees

At the invitation of the Chair, the Planning Officer outlined the application which related to the proposed two storey extensions to provide a complex care unit to the east site of Plasgeller, Intermediate Road, Brynmawr.  The development site was one of four large detached two storey buildings which operated as a complex of care homes.

With the assistance of slides, the Planning Officer noted that two mature Sycamore trees which were located along the front boundary, adjacent to the highway. These trees along with others trees on the Road are feature of the area and were protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs). The Officer advised that planning permission had been refused under delegated powers in 2019 on the basis that there would be a loss of TPO trees. It was added that no appeal was made against this decision and the time for appeal had now lapsed. Therefore, the applicant chose to resubmit the application, however, this application proposed that the extensions would protrude approximately 2m closer to the street frontage as well as the removal of the trees.

The Officer further provided an overview of the application which outlined the proposed extensions, development plans and responses received from the consultation. It was informed that the objections received from residents had been fully supported by Alun Davies, AM.

The Officer reiterated the loss of two important street trees that were protected by a tree preservation order due to the high amenity value. The mature sycamore trees were healthy and well established trees which showed no evidence of health and safety concerns. Given the health of the trees and their valuable contribution to the character and appearance of the area, the Officer felt that the removal of the trees purely to facilitate this development was not justified. The Applicant had felt that the trees overshadowed the care home and posed a health and safety risk to residents. However, the Officer advised that no request had been made to the Council to carry our works to the trees.

The Officer felt that although parts of the site required excavation due to the sloping nature of the land, it would not be impossible to construct in these areas. It had been suggested that the wrap-around extension could be accommodated on the opposite side of the existing day room or attached to the adjacent building within the site. The additional space would be desirable and would be beneficial to residents within the home. However, the Officer was of the opinion that there was no reason that the extensions could not be accommodated elsewhere within the site.

The Officer added that the agent had suggested that without the proposed extensions  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

To consider.

The Chair proposed that future meetings be held at 2.00 p.m.

RESOLVED accordingly.

To receive and consider the following report which in the opinion of the proper officer is an exempt item 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 is 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.

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