To consider report of the Service Manager Development & Estates
Consideration was given to the report of the Service Manager Development and Estates.
RESOLVED that the report be accepted and Members carefully considered each reason for refusal and agreed the following reasons for formally refusing planning permission:-
(1) The view of the highways officer was disagreed on this occasion and stand by comments made at the March meeting of the Planning Committee. It was felt that parking was a major issue in Charles Street and caused a lot of disruption to residents – these concerns were raised in correspondence and reported to the Planning Committee. Historically, when the Tredegar By-Pass was first constructed Charles Street was closed off at the bottom in an attempt to make it more of a residential area and within weeks the closure was rescinded because of the absolute chaos caused as a result. There are major parking concerns already in this area as shown in the original planning report.
(2) The management is controlled by other regulators, but this is very much our decision which places them in a potentially dangerous position. The public house, as with all public houses sometimes has customers using the outside area for smoking or other uses, which puts the residents in close proximity to potential harmful situations such as those outlined by the residents who live in the area.
(3) The proposal will reduce amenity space currently enjoyed by existing residents in the daytime and will impact on their wellbeing.
(4) The proposed development is not in the best interests of the community surrounding the development.
(5) The proposed development will result in a Class C3
building next to a public house. These uses should not be located next to each other.
· Members noted that under the terms of the adopted Blaenau Gwent Planning Committee Protocol, in the event of an appeal, officers would not be able to defend the decision. Members would be called upon to present the case, including if necessary be subject to cross examination at a public inquiry.
· Members noted that in the event of an appeal, the potential for an award of costs was high unless substantive evidence to support the reasons for refusing planning permission be brought to the case.