Agenda and minutes

Planning, Regulatory & General Licensing Committee
Thursday, 4th November, 2021 2.00 pm

Venue: Hybrid Meeting: Via MS Teams/Abraham Derby Room at the General Offices, Ebbw Vale (if you would like to attend this meeting live via Microsoft Teams please contact committee.services@blaenau-gwent.gov

Contact: Democratic Services  6139

Media

Items
No. Item

1.

Simultaneous Translation

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.

Minutes:

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

 

2.

Apologies

To receive.

Minutes:

No apologies for absence were reported.

 

3.

Declarations of Interest and Dispensations

To consider any declarations of interest and dispensations made.

Minutes:

The following declaration of interests were raised:-

 

Item No. 4 -C/2021/0179

Glanyrafon Court and adjacent grounds, Site of

former sheltered housing at Allotment Road,

Ebbw Vale, NP23 5NS

Construction of 15 residential dwellings with a new road, car parking, gardens, hard and soft landscaped areas

 

Councillor C. Meredith

Councillor M. Day

 

Item No. 5 - Application: C/2020/0168 Site: Rhes yr Ysgol, 1 - 7 Cwmcelyn Road, Blaina, NP13 3LT

Proposal: retention of one detached and six semi-detached 2 storey houses (not constructed in accordance with planning Approval C/2014/0257)

 

Councillor L. Winnett

 

4.

Planning Applications Report pdf icon PDF 3 MB

To consider the report of the Team Manager Development Mangement.

Minutes:

C/2021/0209

53 Larch Lane, Bedwellty Gardens, Tredegar

Proposed two storey rear extension

 

The Planning Officer advised that the application sought planning permission for a two storey extension to the rear of 53 Larch Lane, Tredegar. The property was an end of link two storey house situated within the Bedwellty Gardens development site, located on a corner, which fronted onto the estate road which extended around the side boundary.

 

The planning Officer added that the proposal had been assessed against policies DM1 and DM2 of the adopted Local Development Plan (LDP) and the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for Householder Development Note 1 (Extensions and Conservatories) (SPG). The proposed extension met the requirements of the SPG in relation to its size, finish and roof design along with the remaining amenity space. The positioning of the extension was such that it would inevitably have some impact upon the immediate neighbouring property which would result some loss of light. However, the Planning Officer felt that any overshadowing would not be significant enough to justify refusal of the application. The Planning Officer was also satisfied that the proposal would not have an overbearing impact upon the amenities of the occupiers. The proposal would result in the windows on the first floor being brought closer to the garden of the property to the rear. However, this garden area was already overlooked and the Planning Officer was of the opinion that the impact would not be significant enough to justify refusal of the application.

 

The proposal was considered compliant with policy DM1 2c.

 

In conclusion, the Planning Officer stated that whilst the principle of a two storey extension was acceptable, the projection beyond the side building line was not considered an acceptable form of development and the approval of this development would set an unacceptable precedent for other such developments on the estate. Therefore, the Planning Officer referred Members to the officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused.

 

At the invitation of the Chair, Councillor J. Morgan, Ward Member addressed the Committee.

 

Councillor Morgan advised that he supported the application for the 2 storey extension. The application had been submitted to allow the homeowner to convert his home from 2 bed to 3 bed property. The Applicant loved the area and wished to increase his property to accommodate 3 bedrooms. The Ward Member added that if this application was refused the Applicant would be unable to increase the size of his home.

 

The Ward Member noted that refusal was due to poor design, however other houses in the area are of mixed design, size and finishes and the Ward Member felt that this gave the area character. The Ward Member was of the opinion that the development would utilise similar materials and would make the pine end wall more attractive, therefore improving the property.

 

It was further reported that the proposed extension would be standing where there was currently a high garden wall and the extra height on the property would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Application: C/2020/0168 Site: Rhes Yr Ysgol, 1 - 7 Cwmcelyn Road, Blaina, NP13 3LT Proposal: Retention of one detached and six semi-detached 2 storey houses (not constructed in accordance with planning approval C/2014/0257) pdf icon PDF 658 KB

To consider the report of the Team Manager Development Mangement.

 

Minutes:

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

 

The Team Manager Development Management advised that at the July Planning Committee considered the report for the retention of the development. The officer’s recommendation was that planning permission be refused based on highway safety grounds relating to unacceptable visibility splays and driveway gradients. The Planning Committee considered the application and upon a vote it was resolved that the application be deferred for the agent to explore measures to overcome the highway safety concerns and to submit plans to the Council for further consideration.

 

The Team Manager Development Management further outlined the key points as detailed in the report and gave an overview of the options for consideration.

 

The Ward Member reported that she had declared an interest in this application and would not take part in the vote.

 

The Ward Member welcomed the that application was deferred to look at options and asked the Committee to support Option 2. The Ward Member noted the 2 months for the works to be undertaken and although this was accepted it was pointed out that winter would soon be upon us and inclement weather could have an impact on works.

 

A Member seconded the Ward Member and proposed Option 2.

 

In response to a question raised in relation conditions being added to application in terms of inclement weather. The Team Manager Development Management noted the wording of conditions and advised that it was important that works are done as a matter of urgency due to highway safety concerns and that 2 months was a reasonable timescale. The Team Manager stated that although 2 months had been stated as a timeframe it was acknowledged that inclement weather could impact on these timescales but that the enforcement team to monitor progress and consider whether any enforcement action was required. The Team Manager Development Management stated that if Members are minded to recommend option 2 it was important the timeline remained in place to ensure that works were undertaken as a matter of urgency.

 

In response, to a question raised in relation to liability, the Service Manager Development and Estates advised that liability was a legal question which would be up to the  courts to answer. In terms of highways, advice had been sought from the highways team and it was deemed dangerous and planning should be refused.

 

A Member referred to Option 2 and raised concerns that it noted that the owners would be responsible for compliance and felt that the it gave the developer an opportunity to walk away from the project which would put further pressure on the homeowners. The Member felt that Option 3 would be a better way forward as owners would make their own arrangements to protect their vehicles from rolling onto the public highways

 

The Member felt that this was a very contentious situation the only people victims are the home owners who bought their homes in good faith and the Member was not happy with option  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Appeals, Consultations and DNS Update November 2021 pdf icon PDF 150 KB

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

 

Minutes:

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.

 

7.

List of applications decided under delegated powers between 24th September 2021 and 15th October 2021 pdf icon PDF 172 KB

To consider the report of the Senior Business Support Officer.

 

Minutes:

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

 

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

 

8.

Enforcement closed cases between 29th September 2021 and 20th October 2021

To consider the report of the Service Manager Development.

 

Minutes:

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 Management.

 

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