ENCLOSURE 5

Brecon Beacons National Park Authority

PLANNING, ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY

COMMITTEE

27 January 2009

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AREA PLANNING MANAGERS

ON APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION BY

THE PLANNING, ACCESS AND RIGHTS OF WAY

COMMITTEE

Page 1 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

INDEX

ITEM APP No. APPLICANT ADDRESS RECOMMEN- DATION

1 06/00343/FUL Melin Housing Area Of Land Bordering Refuse Association Llanvihangel Crucorney, Monmouthshire, .

2 08/02118/CON Mr And Mrs Arthur Glenview, Llanwenarth Permit Citra, Abergavenny.

Page 2 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

ITEM NUMBER: 1

APPLICATION NUMBER: 06/00343/FUL APPLICANTS NAME(S): Melin Housing Association SITE ADDRESS: Area Of Land Bordering Llanvihangel Crucorney Monmouthshire GRID REF: E: 332645 N:220779 COMMUNITY: Crucorney DATE VALIDATED: 17 October 2007 DECISION DUE DATE: 12 December 2007 CASE OFFICER: Mr Jonathan James

PROPOSAL 8 No. proposed residential units to provide affordable housing for local people ADDRESS Area Of Land Bordering Llanvihangel Crucorney, Monmouthshire,

CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS Consultee Received Comments

NP Rights Of Way 21st Aug 2006 21/8/06 - a public right of way footpath traverses/abuts Officer the site of the proposed development.

If the proposed development directly and permanently affects the route of the footpath a public path diversion or extinguishment order will be necessary. Enquiries should be made of the right of way secion as soon as possible as the footpath will usually have to be diverted before development can commence.

Page 3 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

Crucorney Community 6th Sep 2006 6/9/06 - next meeting hold on 19th September. Council 18-10-06 - Faxed Comments - supports the concept of low cost housing but not at this site because of issues associated with access, services and visual impact.

19-10-06 - Hard Copy Comments - reiteration of above.

NP Rural Practice Considers the TPO to relate to a group order however Surveyor cannot access the map.

Monmouthshire County 23rd Aug 2006 23/8/06 - Acknowledged receipt of consultation identifies Council Highways passed to Mrs Mustow for attention

4/9/06 - Comments - No objections, recommends a turning facility and parking provisions in accord with South Wales Counties parking guidelines, visibility splays of 2.4m x 60m in either direction shall be provided, recommends that no surface water to drain onto county highway. Identifies that normal requirement on site of more than two dwellings that access shall be to an adoptable standard, however in this instance will not insist on this requirement. However it would not then be acceptable for it to be maintained at public expense.

18/9/06 - Comments - Offer the following response to supersede the previous comments. The highway must be constructed to adoptable standards with footways, turning area for refuse collection and emergency vehicles, access to comply with DDA. This layout requires amendments. Details of retaining structures at highway boundaries need to be submitted for approval, visibility splays of 4.5m x 70m must be provided, details of drainage proposals needed and contributions towards transport related facilities. Unable to support the current application as it does not comply with relevant guidance.

Environment Agency 22nd Aug 2006 22/8/06 - Standard advice applies Wales

Monmouthshire County 18th Jul 2007 18/7/07 - Provides site appraisal carried out for the Council Housing Llanfihangel Crucorney Area already carried out. Identifies that the this site has been approved by the Welsh Assembly for a Social Housing Grant programme. Identifies that should this site not go ahead it will be a lost opportunity to provide eight much needed affordable units for the Crucorney area.

Page 4 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

Dwr Cymru Welsh 22nd Nov 2007 Comments - Welsh Water would request that if the Water BBNPA are minded to grant planning consent for this proposal and would recommend conditions be imposed in relation to the provision of sewerage facilities for this site, this would require further details to be submitted. Objects to this proposal as considers it premature without the provision of necessary works for the supply of water to this site.

Rural Housing Enabler 22nd Aug 2006 22/8/2006 - Identifies that the RHE, local authority housing department, the housing association and the architects have been working closely with the Crucorney Community Council since the projects commencement in August 2003. Identifies that housing needs survey has been carried out for the area which recognizes a local need for 12 affordable houses. The proposal will provide affordable housing in perpetuity and can be controlled by local occupancy restrictions in any section 106 agreement. Application is an opportunity to deliver affordable housing specifically for people local to Crucorney area. This is a much needed housing resource for the community.

Ramblers Association Monmouthshire

Open Spaces Society 26th Sep 2006 26/9/06 - Objects to this proposal. Considers that they should receive all relevant documents relating to a planning application, does not make a site visit at the planning stage. Considers given the limited detail supplied that the application is for an outline application and draws the authority's attention to WO circular 5/93 and 16/94. Considers the level of information provided does not allow for an assessment of the likely impact upon the ROW.

British Horse Society

Heddlu Gwent Police

Heddlu Gwent Police

British Horse Society

Crucorney Community 14th Nov 2007 Comments - fully agrees to the concept of low-cost Council housing but finds that it cannot support this application in its present form because of continuing concerns/issues associated with access, services and the visual impact. Also concerned about the housing mix not matching local needs. Crucorney Community Council strongly objects

Page 5 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

to this planning application in its present form and requests the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority to ask the Housing Association and Milsom Architect to work with the Council to create an acceptable solution.

Environment Agency 12th Nov 2007 No objection standard advice applies Wales

Dwr Cymru Welsh 22nd Nov 2007 Comments - Welsh Water would request that if the Water BBNPA are minded to grant planning consent for this proposal and would recommend conditions be imposed in relation to the provision of sewerage facilities for this site, this would require further details to be submitted. Objects to this proposal as considers it premature without the provision of necessary works for the supply of water to this site.

Monmouthshire County Council Highways

Monmouthshire County Council Housing

NP Rights Of Way Officer

NP Rural Practice Surveyor

Open Spaces Society

Ramblers Association Monmouthshire

Rural Housing Enabler

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water

CAIR Monmouthshire 22nd Nov 2007 Comments - has not had a reply to their email requesting Disablement plans and access statement and a response to how their Assosciation comments are handled by the BBNPA. Does not consider that the proposal complies with WAG's best practice. Disabled people could only realistically live in this area if they have access to a car. Consider that the proposed dwellings should be designed to accommodate for all and be flexible for future change in circumstances. Does not consider that any of the dwellings are suitable for disabled persons. Do not consider the layout arrangements of the development site to be acceptable

Page 6 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

for disabled access. Considers that the short right of way should be considered for disabled access.

23/11/07 - Hard copy of comments reiterate above.

NP Ecologist 20th Nov 2008 Comments received from the NPA Ecology note that the land affected by the proposed development is an existing arable set-aside field and in its present state it may support a greater number of species than a managed cereal field. However, it is also recognised that this is a temporary status and its return to arable production is not within the control of the NPA. Confirmation was sought as to the potential impact on the trees to the south-east of the site from the excavations work; this has been clarified as no proposed excavations work in this area. Officers of the NPA Ecology section suggest that the hedge can be translocated and if this method fails to recreate using the same species. Also recommends that there should be additional planting along the western boundary and a communal orchard.

Comments initially suggested that substantial additional planting should be sought along the western border of the site and to provide allotment space, however it is acknowledged that the topography of the land and maintenance may not allow this. With regard the habitat connectivity it is suggested that this can be achieved through a low maintenance scrub edge to development. This will provide additional landscaping which will appear more native to the area and a species corridor.

British Horse Society

CAIR Monmouthshire 7th Apr 2008 Reiterate previous comments, maintain objection. Disablement Assosciation

Crucorney Community 20th Feb 2008 Comments - questions the feasibility of the footpath Council along the rear of Trehonddu and the possibility of crime because of the new footpath. Suggests that there are more suitable sites within the area.

Dwr Cymru Welsh 27th May 2008 Comments, prior to being in a position to remove Water objections to this proposal, a water model assessment would be required. The conclusion of this assessment will determine the nature of the works required.

Environment Agency 28th Jan 2008 No objection, standard advice applies. Wales

Page 7 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

Heddlu Gwent Police 22nd Feb 2008 Comments that their guidance is based on Secure by Design. Identifies that as the properties are based on Welsh Assembly Pattern Book Design there are no comments. Suggests that amendments would be required for boundary treatments, lighting, signage etc. Suggests that ideally the footpath to the rear of Trehonddu should be removed, however as they understand that disabled access is required they draw the authorities attention to the guidance of secure by design in terms of the footpaths overall design.

Dwr Cymru Welsh 5th Feb 2008 No additional comments to make with regard the Water amendment from 11 dwellings to 8 dwellings, reiterate that previous comemnts apply.

4/3/08 - Reiterates previous comments.

Monmouthshire County 11th Feb 2008 Comments - the concerns relating to pedestrian Council Highways access/egress of the site have been taken into consideration and the amended proposal has been assessed as to highway standards for adoption. Pedestrians will have the benefit from several pedestrian links, an adoptable footpath and right of way. From a highway viewpoint they would support the proposal for 8 units at this location.

Monmouthshire County Council Housing

NP Ecologist 12th Mar 2008 Comments - the site comprises arable and improved pasture surrounded by hedgerows, verges and mature trees. The latter will presumably retained and enhanced. M Williams has advised you as to the relevance or not of the Hedgerow Regulations here. Recommends landscaping incorporate elements of

NP Rights Of Way Officer

NP Rural Practice Surveyor

Open Spaces Society

Ramblers Association Monmouthshire

Rural Housing Enabler

Page 8 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

Crucorney Community 7th Apr 2008 Comments - provision of a STAMS report issued by Council Welsh Water concerning sewerage incidents within the Crucorney area.

Crucorney Community 19th Nov 2008 Comments - considers the housing needs survey to now Council be invalid due to its age

NEIGHBOURS CONSULTED

The Owner/Occupier, 13 Trehonddu, Llanvihangel Crucrney The Owner/Occupier, 14 Trehonddu, Llanvihangel Crucrney The Owner/Occupier, 1 Penybont, Llanfihangel Crucorney The Owner/Occupier, 2 Penybont, Llanfihangel Crucorney The Owner/Occupier, Lower Cottage, Llanfihangel Crucorney The Owner/Occupier, K Caswell And P Roper, Bridge Cottage The Owner/Occupier, Millbrook, Llanfihangel Crucorney The Owner/Occupier, Nant-y-Felin, Llanfihangel Crucorney The Owner/Occupier, Tyllwyd, Llanfihangel Crucorney The Owner/Occupier, The Mill, Llanfihangel Crucorney The Owner/Occupier, Mrs E Harris, BrynEnid The Owner/Occupier, C J Mepham, Ty Cwm Hela The Owner/Occupier, Ty Cwm Hela, Llanvihangel Crucorney The Owner/Occupier, Mr And Mrs Harris, Ty-Honddu The Owner/Occupier, Mrs E James, 2 Chapel Grove The Owner/Occupier, Mrs S Smith, 17 Werngifford The Owner/Occupier, P Jones, Gothlands The Owner/Occupier, 6 Chapel Grove, Llanvihangel Crucorney The Owner/Occupier, Bryn Enid, Lllanvihangel Crucorney The Owner/Occupier, Mr T Harris, Mardy House The Owner/Occupier, Mr And Mrs Williams, Maerdy Villa The Owner/Occupier, The Stores, Llanvihangel Crucrney The Owner/Occupier, Harris Bros, Llanvihangel Crucrney The Owner/Occupier, Ty Sophia, Llanvihangel Crucrney The Owner/Occupier, Celtic Cottage, Llanvihangel Crucrney The Owner/Occupier, Ty Hapus, Llanvihangel Crucrney The Owner/Occupier, Crud Y Dail, Llanvihangel Crucrney The Owner/Occupier, 7 Trehonddu, Llanvihangel Crucrney The Owner/Occupier, 8 Trehonddu, Llanvihangel Crucrney The Owner/Occupier, 9 Trehonddu, Llanvihangel Crucrney The Owner/Occupier, Mr D Trevett, C/o Mrs V Trevett The Owner/Occupier, 15 Trehonddu, Llanvihangel Crucrney The Owner/Occupier, 16 Trehonddu, Llanvihangel Crucrney The Owner/Occupier, 10 Trehonddu, Llanvihangel Crucorney The Owner/Occupier, 11 Trehonddu, Llanvihangel Crucorney The Owner/Occupier, 12 Trehonddu, Llanvihangel Crucorney

CONTRIBUTORS P H Evans, Lower Cottage, Llanfihangel Crucorney S Bell, Nant-y-Felin, Llanfihangel Crucorney

Page 9 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

F M Lott, Tyllwyd, Llanfihangel Crucorney Mrs E Harris, BrynEnid C J Mepham, Ty Cwm Hela Mrs S J Mepham, Ty Cwm Hela, Llanvihangel Crucorney Mr And Mrs Harris, Ty-Honddu Mrs E James, 2 Chapel Grove Mrs S Smith, 17 Werngifford P Jones, Gothlands Mr P Smith, 6 Chapel Grove, Llanvihangel Crucorney Mr T Harris, Mardy House Mr And Mrs Williams, Maerdy Villa Mr And Mrs Webb, Ty Sophia, Llanvihangel Crucrney Dr I C Butler, Ty Hapus, Llanvihangel Crucrney Jean Girffiths, Crud Y Dail, Llanvihangel Crucrney Mr And Mrs G Rogers, 7 Trehonddu, Llanvihangel Crucrney P J Griffiths, 8 Trehonddu, Llanvihangel Crucrney Mr D Trevett, C/o Mrs V Trevett Mrs P Oliver, 16 Trehonddu, Llanvihangel Crucrney Mr R Stow, Nant Y Felin, Llanvihangel Crucorney M Catley, 74 WernGifford, Pandy A Betham, Sunnybank, Llanthony B Morgan, Berry Farm, Llanvihangel Crucorney Mr B Morgan, Berry Farm, Llanvihangel Crucorney Joseph W Wilson, 66 Queen's Crescent,, West Kentish Town, W P Walkey, Swn-y-nant, Pen-y-bont C Evans, , E M Gallagher, Rhiwlas, Pen-yr-Ale Lane Mr G Fiddler, The Skirrid Inn, Llanfihangel Crucorney R L EVANS, 1 TREHONDDU, LLANFIHANGEL CRUCORNEY Mr D Wright, The Wiral, Llanthony D B And G G James, Twr Mihangel, Llanfihangel Crucornau M Catley, Rosewood House, Twyn-y-Sheriff Mrs Sara Smith, 17 Werngifford, Pandy B Erskine, The Old Vicarage, Llanvihangel Crucorney

NEIGHBOUR/THIRD PARTY RESPONSE SUMMARY Responses

The following is a summary of the objections and support that have been received by this Authority in relation to this case:

Issues raised

Landscaping details supplied inaccurate, dispute over ownership details, reduction in numbers does not lessen the objection, affordable housing needs to be considered as a whole within the area looking at both inside and outside the park.

Accepts principle of affordable housing when need is established must be in consultation with community at large and not just community council about siting and design, does not consider this has happened, request that all stakeholders including the community get together to resolve

Page 10 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5 with a proper solution rather than a hurried one.

Consider that Crucorney Community Council have not assessed enough sites in leading up to this site and have not consulted with the public. Relates to the meeting at Pandy and the concerns raised by local people regards the access and infrastructure. Recalls Community Council objections on principle of highway safety, inadequate infrastructure and visual intrusion, CPRW endorses these views.

Considered guidance on Affordable Housing ie ES30 make the following comments based on the flow chart:

Disputes survey, requests another one to be carried out. Considers that a proportion of the affordable houses for the area can be accommodated on the nearby Penydre site, considers that the NPA have missed an opportunity to insist on higher numbers on this site. Quotes the Sandford principle as to why other sites outside the National Park should be considered first.

Disputes that this is a logical extension and identifies what it considers to be a logical extension, within the white land. Concerned if mains water will be sufficient to cater for all these extra dwellings. Concerned over mains electricity supply. The existing mains drainage would be unable to cope with additional dwellings connected to it. Suggests that land should be acquired by compulsory purchase order to form access or building on it to the south of the site.

Considers proposal a visual intrusion in landscape, light pollution, also unsustainable.

Do not consider amended plans to resolve highway safety situation. Does not consider the expense of creating such a highway to be acceptable or compliant with WAG policies on sustainability. Comments on details of the drawings – does not show how surface water will be dealt with, concerned that details show inadequate methods of surface water drainage, suggests that details indicate that all water will be drained onto highway, suggests that adjacent cottage could be liable to flood from massive runoff of this site. Does not consider an access statement has been supplied

No pedestrian access along adjacent highway, considers highway to be very dangerous for pedestrians. No pedestrian access along proposed vehicular access which will present further hazards to users. The access road is too steep for wheel chair users and prams and would be unacceptable in terms of highway safety. New proposed footpaths do not go anywhere and are a waste of public money. Considers the foot path is shown incorrectly on the plans. Considers style inappropriate and gate to be more acceptable, should be a hand rail to the foot path steps, requests that the Local Access Forum is consulted on all access details to this site.

Quotes NERC Act 2006, identifies that applicant has not addressed this area. Vision splay involves the removal of the hedge, identifies that this may be permitted work within regulation 6(1)(c) Hedgerow Regulations 1997, considers such a loss is objectionable in landscape and biodiversity terms. Quotes policy ES11 loss of agricultural land, should not be built on.

Does not consider that the proposal meets the requirements of the flow chart (affordable housing guidance note). Objects on layout and landscaping grounds, loss of hedge unacceptable, who is responsible for the proposed landscaping and fences, details of fences should be provided. Objects to the design, understood housing needs survey required 1 & 2 bedroom houses.

Page 11 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

Considers no vernacular tradition in this area of horizontal timber cladding, considers this detail not in keeping, consider rendering more sustainable and acceptable, and how are properties to be heated.

Concern that footpath to rear of site will lead to anti-social behavior, drink, drugs and abusive language, seeks guarantees that security of people put first. Loss of views, visual impact, site of scientific interest, access is poor, no mention within plan for development of this site, lack of facilities within the area ie PO, doctors, increased traffic movements would have pollution impact and traffic safety, brown field land preferred option, light pollution, site topography does not offer ease of construction.

Letter of objection – issues raised – Notes that site notices were not erected until 16th Nov and letters were dated 2nd Nov. Insists that correct procedures and policies be followed in achieving the goal of affordable housing for this area, considers that no consultation has been carried out with all stakeholders on choice of sites which would breach policy ES30, considers members of the community totally excluded from consultation, challenges that this proposal does not address the conclusion of the local housing needs survey, considers the management of this application to be a fiasco, considers that established protocols are being abused, ignored and distorted to suit the minority while ignoring all other possibilities to the detriment of the community, unlike that carried out in surrounding communities. Identifies that Community Council requested opportunity to sit down with all parties to create an acceptable solution, hopes that BBNPA takes serious notice of this request by the elected representatives of the community. Requests that BBNPA take lead on this project and insist on all parties coming together to discuss other sites. Refers to meeting with B Eacock where assurance was given that alternative sites would be assessed within the National Park and outside, needed to be convinced that this development could not be placed within the park before first considered outside.

Argument switches to the site history and the fact that two previous dwellings were refused here, referring to the appeal decision as well. Considers that this development would place houses on an unsympathetic and inappropriate artificial and raised plateau in open countryside, which does not relate to the settlement pattern and would be out of character with the existing environment. Also a loss of good grade agricultural land. Challenges the economic viability of this site and suggests that the NPA should be establishing the implications in both financial and sustainable feasibility.

Letters of support

Petition of 18 names in favour of this proposal, people are against these houses as they want to stay private, give other families the opportunity to live here and stop being selfish, locality is a wonderful place for children, village needs these houses, seeking approval for proposal to support those in need of such development to stay within the area.

Identifies they were involved in the Community Council for last eight years which covered this period of conception for affordable homes in Llanfihangel Crucorney area and resigned after the Council withdrew support for this project, worked closely with RHE over period of three years in developing this project. Considers some objections are made out of self interest rather than for the good of the community. Identifies that it has been five years since the result of the housing survey and the first consultations with the public and considers that it is time to

Page 12 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5 progress this application through to completion.

PLANNING HISTORY App Ref Description Decision Date

M10349 Outline application for two Application Refused 8th Sep 1989 dwellings. (Revised Application)

K9878 Outline planning permission for Application Refused 13th Jan 1989 erection of two detached dwellings

RELEVANT POLICIES Policy Description Plan

G3 Development in the National Park Unitary Development Plan 2007 G6 Design Unitary Development Plan 2007 ES30 Affordable Housing Outside Dvpt Limits Unitary Development Plan 2007 G4 Development Affecting Trees Unitary Development Plan 2007 Q4 Protected and Important Wild Species Unitary Development Plan 2007 Q5 Biodiversity and Development Unitary Development Plan 2007 Q11 Sites of Archaeological Importance Unitary Development Plan 2007 Q21 Rights of Way and Long Distance Routes Unitary Development Plan 2007 ES11 Protection of Agricultural Land Unitary Development Plan 2007 ES28 Provision of Open Space in Housing Sites Unitary Development Plan 2007 ES39 Boundary Features Unitary Development Plan 2007 ES47 Water Sewage Supply New Developments Unitary Development Plan 2007 ES48 Use of Non Mains Sewerage Solutions Unitary Development Plan 2007 H3 Reducing the Risk of Flooding Unitary Development Plan 2007 LPG1 Conformity. Local Plan 1999 LPG2 Allocation of Land for development. Local Plan 1999 LPG3 Development in the National Park. Local Plan 1999 LPG6 Development in the National Park. Local Plan 1999 LPG7 Design and energy conservation. Local Plan 1999 LPG8 Accessibility and safety. Local Plan 1999 LPG11 Development and flood risks. Local Plan 1999 LPCL7 Wildlife and landforms. Local Plan 1999 LPCL9 Archaeology and cultural features. Local Plan 1999 LPCB10 Open space in settlements. Local Plan 1999 LPH5 Affordable housing. Local Plan 1999 LPAG1 The protection of agricultural land Local Plan 1999 LPR6 Estate roads and access to properties. Local Plan 1999

OFFICER’S REPORT

Site description

Page 13 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

The site lies on the edge of the development boundary of Llanfihangel Crucorney and is considered countryside as defined in the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and the Local Plan (LP, 1999). Within Crucorney Community, Llanfihangel Crucorney is the main village within the Park. It stands above the Honddu at the southern entrance to the Llanthony Valley.

The site lies on the edge of the village of Llanfihangel Crucorney and is part of an agricultural field. A selection of trees protected by a tree preservation order (TPO’s) and other trees line the boundary on the southeast of the site. To the north/north east of the site is situated an existing residential estate, to the south/south west of the site are detached residential units, to the northwest is agricultural land. The site area is visible as you enter the village from the northwest (Pen-y-bont), the land adjacent to the Afon Honddu being level slopes up (Skirrid Pitch) to the main “street” of the village. The village then slopes down towards the southeast and the adjacent highway (A465). The site would be visible from surrounding vantage points although it will be back-dropped by the surrounding dwellings and tree line within the village.

The style and quality of existing residential units varies from listed buildings to post war local authority housing. The use of materials utilised for existing structures also varies from predominantly stone in the main road through to render on the ex-local authority estate adjoining the site.

The A465 is a busy through route of the area which connects to the nearby market town of Abergavenny. Llanfihangel Crucorney has existing facilities such as a public house, a garage with shop and bus stops. To the northeast is Werngifford which has a school and further north is Pandy which again has additional facilities. Llanfihangel Crucorney is identified as a second tier settlement within the UDP’s settlement hierarchy.

Proposal

The current proposal is for eight affordable houses with associated infrastructure submitted by Melin Homes Ltd a registered social landlord (RSL). The proposal will involve some cut and fill to create a level area for the dwellings, the creation of a new access to the southwest of the site and a surfaced footpath running to the north/northeast of the site for disabled access. In order to create this development an existing right of way would require a diversion, although this would still be maintained running through this field.

The original application sought planning permission for eleven affordable units; however this number was reduced through negotiation when more affordable units were granted under outline on a nearby site within the Llanfihangel Crucorney development boundary.

The site the subject of this application is outside the development boundary of Llanfihangel Crucorney in both the Unitary Development Plan and the Local Plan (1999) and would therefore not be considered acceptable for general needs housing. However, as a site for affordable housing (defined under policy ES30 of the BBNPA UDP and policy H5 of the LP) it is considered that it can be viewed as an exception to planning policy (as defined under policy ES30 of the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan and policy H5 of the Local Plan) being immediately adjacent to the existing development boundary.

Issues of the case

Page 14 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

The main issues of the case are: • is the principle of this type of development acceptable here, for example is there a recognised need; • will the proposal have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties; • will the proposal create a harmful impact upon the character of the landscape and village; • will there be an unacceptable loss of agricultural land; • will the proposal have a detrimental impact on highway safety; • does the proposal provide adequate disabled access; • will the proposal create a detrimental impact upon protected species and biodiversity; will the proposal have a detrimental impact upon the sewage system and water supply.

Appraisal

Whilst the Local Plan remains the formal statutory policy framework for the area, the Authority Approved UDP provides a more up to date and relevant planning framework. The UDP may not have been formally adopted but it has been subject to all the statutory consultation and procedures required for development plans. It is for this reason that the NPA has determined to afford greater weight to the UDP in the determination of planning applications than the Adopted Local Plan of 1999.

This application has been assessed against policies G3, G4, G6, Q4, Q5, Q11, Q21, ES11, ES28, ES30, ES39, ES47 and ES48 of the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority Unitary Development Plan and policies G1, G2, G3, G6, G7, G8, G11, CL7 Cl9 CB10, H5, AG1 and R6 of the BBNPA Local Plan (adopted 1999).

In recommending this application, the Authority has taken into consideration the relevant policies of the appropriate Development Plans and the comments made by the consultees and other interested parties and the following national guidance:

Planning Policy Wales (PPW, 2002) Ministerial Interim Planning Policy Statement 01/2006 – Housing (2006) Wales Transport Strategy – Connecting Wales Secured by Design Principles – 2004 version Technical Advice Note 1 (TAN 1) – Joint housing land availability studies (2006) Technical Advice Note 2 (TAN 2) – Planning and affordable housing (2006) Technical Advice Note 6 (TAN 6) – Agriculture and Rural Development (2000)

Planning history

Part of the site is the subject of previous planning applications. To the southwest of Crud-y-dail two previous applications (M9878 and M10349) were submitted which sought permission for two dwellings.

Application M9878 was refused on four reasons, namely the proposal was contrary to existing policy at that time and did not consist of limited infill within the village, access was not adequate, development could not be served by overloaded sewage treatment works, such a proposal if approved would extend the built environment into countryside to the detriment of the character and appearance of this area.

Page 15 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

Application M10349 was also refused on four reasons, as per M9078 although the sewage reason was no longer used however it was considered that an approval here would set a precedent for further development in the countryside.

Application M10349 was taken to appeal where the Planning Inspectorate considered that such development was not considered infill, the site within an agricultural boundary is manifestly open countryside on the edge of the village and to allow two dwellings here would create an extension of the village into countryside. This would fail to enhance or preserve the rural character of the area and would not only breach but undermine planning policy which seeks to contain development within village boundaries. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Objections have referenced the above applications and have suggested that the current proposal should not be considered acceptable on the same principle. However, the applications for determination under the above cases were made by private individuals and were not recognised as fundamentally for affordable housing. These proposals were considered as new development in the countryside and as such were considered contrary to local, regional and national policy.

Constraints

The Brecon Beacons National Park Local Plan (adopted May 1999) hereby referred to as the Local Plan, historically identifies the site as beyond the settlement development boundary.

The Local Plan, as referenced in letters objecting to this proposal, identifies land either side the B4423 which runs down to Pen-y-bont from Llanfihangel Crucorney as important open space. This categorisation has been removed from the current Unitary Development Plan. The proposed access to the site crosses this strip of land in order to create an access from the proposal site to the B4423.

A constraint’s check is run on all applications in order to identify possible restrictions to development of a site. The check on this site has identified that it falls within the buffer zone of a Status 3 Archaeological Site; there are trees with Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) on them adjacent and a Right of Way (ROW) footpath crosses the site.

Objectors have suggested that the site is an important open space as per the Local Plan and that it is a site of special scientific interest (glacial moraine). Neither of these constraints has been identified within the check on this site and the allocation of important open space has been removed from the Unitary Development Plan.

The right of way (ROW) was not identified within the original application by the applicant, however the National Parks constraint check picked this up and the necessary consultees notified. No adverse comments have been received from the National Parks ROW Officer or other statutory consultees such as the Ramblers Association or British Horse Society. However the Open Spaces Society have objected identifying that ROW’s should not be diverted along estate roads, should be wide and open landscaped, overlooked and lit at night, corridors through high fences should be avoided.

The proposed diverted path and proposed new path will be designed with this in mind. The ROW detail is now clearly included within the application forms and details, whilst it would be required to be diverted this would be covered by separate legislation. The proposal would therefore be considered compliant with policy ES21.

Page 16 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

The Status 3 Archaeological site refers to the dwelling Twr Mihangel nearby. The site referred to is a Victorian Tower erroneously identified as medieval. The site is of a sufficient distance from this feature and as identified by the National Parks Conservation Officer cannot be read in conjunction within the landscape and would therefore not affect its setting. As the proposed development does not impact upon the archaeological interest policy Q11 bears no weight on this proposal.

The adjacent trees (covered by TPO’s) will not be affected by this development; however this is dealt with in more detail in subsequent chapters. With due consideration to policy G4 development affecting trees, as this development does not affect said trees the proposal will not be contrary to this policy.

Housing Requirement

Policy ES30 provides for affordable housing sites outside of settlement development limits, exceptionally where, amongst other criteria there has been established a proven need.

Comments have been received from local residents calling into dispute the quality and robustness of the local housing needs survey that has been carried out within the Llanfihangel Crucorney area.

A similar instance occurred in an application in Llangynidr where the survey was brought into question. The overall response rate to the Llangynidr survey was 19%. The application in question was taken to appeal, the appeal inspectorate did in fact identify that the response was considered low. However they did consider that the survey captured the housing need of the area with reasonable reliability and could find no reason to contest its findings.

A housing needs survey was carried out in the Crucorney area and the results published in May 2003. The Crucorney area achieved a response rate of 30%, the results of the survey identified that a scheme of around 12 affordable houses would be required within the Crucorney area over the following five years from the date of the survey. It is suggested that given the considerably greater response rate shown with this survey supports the findings shown and that this survey also reasonably captures the housing need for the area.

The survey identifies that any local scheme should provide predominantly one and two bedroom accommodation. Objectors have raised issue with the proposal as it stands claiming that the requirements do not match what is offered here. The proposal offers 50% of the dwellings to be two bedrooms and the other 50% to be three bedroom dwellings. The scheme therefore fundamentally offers a high level of two bedroom units in line with the need.

Officers consider that the provision of three bedroom units here would positively add to the affordable housing market within the area attracting families to stay where they might have otherwise had to move for larger properties which in turn supports local facilities such as the school at Werngifford.

Comments have also been received from the Community Council suggesting that the housing needs survey is out of date and should be considered invalid. Subsequent comments received from the current Rural Housing Enabler have confirmed that whilst the figures quoted within the survey will have changed it is still the most up to date evidence available and bearing in mind the

Page 17 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5 changes to the housing market since then, there is no doubt that an affordable housing need still exists within the area.

Officers are therefore satisfied that the survey that has been carried out is to a satisfactory standard and as supporting evidence is still a clear indication of the affordable housing requirement within the Crucorney area.

Impact on neighbours

Policy G3 (v) (x) aims to ensure that new development does not have a detrimental impact upon the amenity of an area, adjacent properties or the general public.

There are existing neighbouring properties to the northeast, southeast and south which lie directly adjacent to the site area, there are also dwellings to the northwest which form Pen-y- bont approximately 160 metres away.

The dwellings to the southeast of the site sit at a higher level than the proposed buildings, in addition an old tramway with mature trees along (some of which are protected through Tree Preservation Order’s) forms a barrier between this field and the existing dwellings. The dwellings to the south and northeast of the site are at a similar level or set at a slightly lower level.

Objections have been raised regards this proposal from members of the local community regarding the impact they consider will affect their dwellings.

Loss of view by existing properties and loss of value of home have been raised as issues. Whilst it is considered that the proposal would undoubtedly lead to the loss of views of some of the existing dwellings this is not a material planning consideration and would not support a recommendation for refusal. The consideration of affect such a development would have on the value of neighbouring properties is also not a material planning consideration.

Overlooking and loss of privacy are other issues that have been raised. House types 1 and 2 have windows in elevations that face towards the Trehonddu cul-de-sac the nearest of which is approximately 33 metres away. Number 8 Trehonddu has its rear elevation and garden facing the proposed development. The rear boundary of this property to the boundary of the house types 1 and 2 being approximately 27 metres apart and rear elevation to rear elevation approximately 45 metres apart. The distance between number 16 Trehonddu (gable elevation) and the rear elevation of house types 1 and 2 is approximately 34 metres. The distance between Crud y dail and House types 1 and 2 is approximately 33 metres, Crud y dail would be sited at approximately the same level or even slightly higher than this development.

House types 3 to 8 have rear elevations facing to the rear of the properties to the south/southeast of the site. These proposed houses will be set at a reduced level of over 3 metres to these existing dwellings and over 22 metres horizontally away. Between the rear of the existing and proposed properties is an area of land formerly a tramway and existing mature trees.

House number 8 is the closest to Brynenid to the south/southwest of the site, the proposed gable elevation, which has minor fenestration (serving landing and hallway), sits over 38 metres away from the rear elevation of this property.

Page 18 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

Guidance such as the 2002 document Better Places to Live suggests that minimum distances of 20 metres between back to back elevations are ideally the minimum distance, however this should be treated as a flexible figure and not used to stifle development. Normally it is accepted that a distance of 21 metres between habitable rooms directly overlooking is an acceptable standard to protect privacy.

These dimensions are considered a guide and in some situations where elevations are at angles can be reduced. This proposal surpasses this guidance, officers therefore do not consider that there is a significant detrimental impact of overlooking from the proposed dwellings or associated garden space with regards this proposal.

Landscaping is proposed as part of this scheme in order to soften the proposed features into the landscape, however the inclusion of trees, hedges and shrubbery will not only add to the current biodiversity of the area but will also screen any perceived overlooking.

Light pollution by proposed lighting columns and the dwellings themselves has been raised as an issue. The applicant has demonstrated a willingness to have low level lighting where appropriate and levels can be maintained to a minimum. It is considered that the level of lighting against the backdrop of existing residential units, existing street lighting and surrounding residential area would not have such a significant negative impact as to warrant a refusal in this instance.

Noise pollution through the construction of the proposed development would only be for a limited period and could be conditioned not to be carried out at unreasonable hours. Noise pollution through the increased human activity of the site would create an impact over that of the current use however, this proposal is for the construction of 8 new units only and would not be considered to create a level significant to warrant a refusal.

The proposed footpath/disabled access to the rear of Trehonddu cul-de-sac has raised concern as residents perceive a threat from potential vandals, light pollution and also consider that their privacy will be affected.

The proposed path will be at field level which is set lower than the rear gardens of these properties and indeed the ground floor level of the existing dwellings. The proposed plans indicate a boarded fence between the rear of these properties and the proposed path. Lighting will be low level bollards with illumination reflecting down onto the path.

The proposed path will be sited below the existing levels and will be screened with a fence; Officers would conclude that there would not be a significant imposition on the privacy of neighbouring dwellings. Lighting would be low level along this path which it is suggested would not significantly impact upon neighbouring properties. The potential issue of vandals is an assumption based on no merit as comments received from Gwent Police Architectural Liaison Officer for community safety have identified that the incident level for the area is very low.

As identified there is an existing foot path that crosses this field although it does not cross behind Trehonddu. There is also a footpath that follows the river (which forms the north boundary of this field from Pen-y-bont. Neither of these form routes directly adjacent the dwellings of Trehonddu but they do open the field up to members of the public.

Officers therefore do not consider that the proposals will have a significant detrimental adverse

Page 19 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5 effect on the amenity of the area, adjacent properties or the general public and consider the proposal to comply with policy G3 (v) (x) of the UDP.

Impact on character and appearance of the area

Policy G3 (i) (iii) (iv) aims to ensure that proposed development will not have an adverse impact upon the beauty of the National Park, is appropriate to its surroundings and is integrated into the landscape through appropriate planting. Policy G6 (ii) expects proposed development to sustain and enhance character and townscape. Policy G4 aims to ensure that where development is proposed that may affect existing trees, that are considered important, the trees and root systems will be retained and adequately protected prior to, during and after development takes place.

Concern has been raised at the impact this proposal would have on the character of this area. Previous cases have been refused on this site as they have been considered to have a negative impact on the character and on policy.

The proposed works will have an impact on the rural character of this area, however the design has been developed through extensive negotiations with former senior officers of the National Park Authority to arrive at the current design. The scheme when taken in context with the existing styles of the village is considered acceptable to this area.

The proposed materials are to be either render or cedar cladding finish to the walls, composite slate to the roof, timber doors and windows painted and metal rainwater goods. Comments have been received that the materials are inappropriate for this village, especially as some previous permissions for new development have been stipulated that stonework facing should be used.

There is a mixture of materials used on the buildings within the village, ranging from painted render on Trehonddu cul-de-sac and on individual dwellings to the southwest of the site to stone dwellings to the south and along the main through road in the village. These mixtures equally apply to roof materials concrete tile to natural slate, uPVC windows to timber. To the far south east of the site are some existing pre-agricultural structures which have been converted to accommodation constructed from stone with timber cladding.

It is considered that the proposed materials reflect adequately existing styles within the village and utilise a natural resource as timber to soften the proposed hard surfaces of the buildings and offer encouragement for the use of renewable materials such as timber for development. Officers consider that the mix of materials existing within the village would allow for the proposed materials identified for this development.

The proposal was originally for 11 dwellings this has now been reduced to 8 due to a provision of further affordable housing on another site within the area. Through this reduction the impact this proposal will have on the landscape is considered to have been reduced.

Landscaping is proposed throughout the site however details need to be considered and provided for along the proposed footpath as well. While some landscape details are provided additional detail will be required prior to commencement to create the right setting and most appropriate species. The planting scheme will provide a natural and organic break which will lessen the impact of this proposal and create a landscaped screen between these sets of

Page 20 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5 dwellings.

Objections have been received over the proposed loss of mature hedgerow in order to provide access and visibility to the site. From the plans it is ascertained that approximately 68 metres of hedgerow will be affected through the provision of a new access point here. However this will be predominantly achieved either through the translocation of the existing hedge or through the replanting with like species of the hedge, in a new position to allow for visibility splays leaving only a seven-metre gap for the proposed access road. This complies with policy ES39 of the UDP which requires such boundary features to be retained as far as possible or recreated where visibility splays for new accesses require. As such and with due regard to the provision of new hedgerow it is considered that this element would not have a significant detrimental impact on the landscape in this instance.

Comments have been received from objectors who have stated that alternative sites should be considered prior to this site on the principle of the National Park Status. One letter of objection has referred to the Sandford Principle.

The 1949 Act established the National Parks Commission for England and Wales. It required the Commission to make orders designating National Parks in suitable areas of high scenic quality using the statutory criteria.

The Hobhouse Committee recommended the creation of twelve National Parks. The spirit of the "founding fathers" in selecting areas for National Parks was that of combining wild rugged natural beauty with opportunities, in the main, for walking. The classic grand upland scenery which was considered traditional rambling ground, accessible to large numbers of the population, was reflected in the designation of amongst others the Brecon Beacons (1957).

However, the Sandford Report published in 1974, reviewed how far the National Parks had fulfilled their purposes and considered the implications of changing economic and social conditions for their future. Further a Government Response in DOE Circular 12/96 identified that "The National Parks are areas of exceptional beauty. They contain important wildlife species and habitats, many of which have been designated as being of national and international interest. But the Parks are also living and working landscapes and over centuries their natural beauty has been moulded by the influence of human activity”.

The National Parks primary priority is to conserve and enhance its natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage. However at times development is inevitable for the future safeguard of rural communities both economically and socially. This proposal forms part of the social and economic development of the urban fabric of this part of the park. It is therefore considered that the provision of affordable housing overrides the potential detrimental impact to the landscape in this instance.

With due regard to the established need for affordable housing and the provision of such housing if this application is approved it is considered that this outweighs the harm this development would have on the rural character in this instance. It is therefore considered that there is a demonstrable overriding need for development of this site.

Loss of agricultural land

Policy ES11 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) aims to ensure the protection of grade 3a

Page 21 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5 or above agricultural land. Both PPW and the UDP state that planning permission will only be granted on high grade land agricultural land of 3a or above where it is demonstrated that there is an overriding need for development on that site.

Objections consider this land to be high-grade agricultural land and the loss of such land through development should be avoided. Planning Policy Wales (PPW) states that, “in the case of agricultural land (grades 1, 2 and 3a) shall be conserved as a finite resource”.

The site is designated grade 3 land by the indicative agricultural land classification maps of England and Wales. Farming activities appear to be predominantly for the growing of crops over use for stock. The land slopes from the southern edge down to the northern part of the field adjacent to the river.

It is argued that a proposal for affordable housing here in view of the local needs established outweighs the harm such a development would have on the minimal loss of agricultural land in this instance. It is therefore considered that there has been demonstrated an overriding need for development of this site.

Vehicular Access and Parking

Policy G3 (vii) and (ix) of the BBNPA UDP aims to ensure that the proposed development is compatible with the National Park road hierarchy in that it is within the capacity of existing approach roads does not have an unacceptable impact upon traffic circulation or highway safety; and that adequate means of access and parking can be provided.

Concerns have been raised from local residents with regard to the access and the supporting highway. It has been identified that the road is very busy not only during the summer season by tourist vehicles but also by lorry haulage business’, pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. The Hay-on-Wye – Gospel Pass – Llanthony Valley route is a recognised tourist pressure route which is heavily used by recreational traffic.

The site is accessed via a single carriageway road which, runs northwest along the Llanthony Valley. The highway also runs approximately south of the site, which joins with the main highway through Llanfihangel Crucorney. This joins to the A465, the main highway to Abergavenny and to Hereford. The length of carriageway from the access point of this site to the main road which, runs through Llanfihangel Crucorney is approximately 100 metres. The highway then opens up onto a wide two way road. The length of carriageway, whilst a single highway, is capable of accommodating two vehicles passing each other along its stretch.

Initially comments from the Local Highways Authority suggested that there were no objections with the proposal (11 dwellings) at that stage. Recommendations for conditions were detailed within their response. Subsequently, two weeks later another letter was received from the Highways Authority superseding the previous comments and now objecting to the proposal requesting alternative amendments.

These concerns were expressed to the agent/applicant who consequently has been in negotiations with the highways authority in order to try and overcome issues with access to this site. Amendments have been carried out to the proposed scheme, the reduction to eight dwellings, increased visibility splays etc, and amended comments have been received from the Highways Authority.

Page 22 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

The Local Highways Authority has now indicated that their concerns relating to pedestrian access/egress have been taken into consideration and the amended proposal has been assessed to highway standards for adoption. Pedestrians will have the benefit from several pedestrian links, an adoptable footpath and a public right of way. From a highway point of view they support this proposal for eight units at this location.

With regard to the level of development of this proposal (i.e. eight dwellings) and with regard to the Local Highways amended comments Officers consider that this proposal would be compliant with relevant policy G3 (vii) (ix) of the Unitary Development Plan and relevant Local Plan policy and in accord with PPW.

Pedestrian Access

Policy G3 criteria (xi) and G6 (vi) of the UDP requires adequate consideration is given to those with limited mobility, for example wheelchair users, elderly people and people with young children in the design and layout of the development and ensuring adequate provision for people with disabilities with existing routes through inclusive design principles.

The disabled access group CAIR for the Monmouthshire area have expressed concern with the design of the proposed units and do not consider them to be suitable for disabled people. Concerns have also been expressed by the Community Council and local residents that the proposed access road does not offer safe pedestrian access (including disabled access). CAIR, the Community Council and local residents have also expressed concern on the disabled access to the properties along the proposed path behind Trehonddu cul-de-sac.

Concern has also been expressed by local residents at the potential for anti social behaviour by the new inhabitants and the catalyst the creation of a new pedestrian path along the rear of Trehonddu will provide for criminal activity.

The dwellings as affordable units will have to be constructed to design requirements as laid down by Welsh Assembly Government, such requirements for development of this type create new dwellings which have to meet the standards of socially inclusive housing that is dwellings and amenity space that are accessible by all. With due regard to these requirements officers are fully satisfied that the layout of the development and each individual unit would meet the requirements of all.

Further detail has been provided on the access behind Trehonddu; the gradients provided appear now to be acceptable for disabled access and have been confirmed by Monmouthshire County Council Highways department as meeting the requirements.

CAIR have been re-consulted with the amendments and recognise that such development is needed and long awaited for this area. They recognise that the proposed disabled access connects to the existing estate highway and that the path is well lit. They suggest that the route is too long and that no consideration has been given to the short length of right of way through the wooded area. However they stand by their previous objections to this proposal.

Officers would consider that the right of way through the wooded area would create a more direct approach to the main road through Llanfihangel Crucorney, however it is the understanding of the authority that the land is under private ownership of the neighbouring

Page 23 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5 property. As such the land would not be available for the provision of an upgraded path at this point. It has been established that to provide a pedestrian access along the existing highway would not be achievable therefore the proposed path has been suggested as the only alternative.

The Gwent Police Architectural Liaison Officer for community safety was consulted on this scheme. There comments are based on guidance contained within the “Secure by Design” scheme promoted by the Home Office and Welsh Assembly. They identify that the incident level for the area is very low and should be borne in mind when considering crime and disorder prevention methods. They identify that as the properties are to be to Welsh Assembly Pattern Book Design they do not wish to comment on the individual buildings. Comments are provided that suggest improvements to garden boundaries, security planting and levels of lighting. Whilst these issues can be accommodated with due regard to the low incident levels these details can be achieved through condition.

In conclusion it is considered that the proposal will provide an attractive, safe route which integrates with an existing right of way and meets the needs of all members of society. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be compliant with policy G3 and G6 of the UDP and relevant Local Plan policy.

Ecological impact

Policy G3 (i) (iv) and Q4 and Q5 aim to protect important wild species and habitats through preventing development where relevant or ensuring adequate mitigation is provided which protects and enhances the environment. This can involve using native plant species for positive enhancement of habitat features.

Objections received from local residents raise concern over the potential impact this proposal will have on protected species and their habitats and on the TPO’s to the rear of the site.

Comments received from the NPA Ecology note that the land affected by the proposed development is an existing arable set-aside field and in its present state it may support a greater number of species than a managed cereal field. However, it is also recognised that this is a temporary status and its return to arable production is not within the control of the NPA. Confirmation was sought as to the potential impact on the trees to the south-east of the site from the excavations work; this has been clarified as no proposed excavations work in this area. Officers of the NPA Ecology section suggest that the hedge can be translocated and if this method fails to recreate using the same species. Also recommends that there should be additional planting along the western boundary and a communal orchard. It is considered that such details can be reasonably and satisfactorily covered by condition.

Comments initially suggested that substantial additional planting should be sought along the western border of the site and to provide allotment space, however it is acknowledged that the topography of the land and maintenance may not allow this. With regard the habitat connectivity it is suggested that this can be achieved through a low maintenance scrub edge to development. This will provide additional landscaping which will appear more native to the area and a species corridor.

Officers therefore do not consider that the proposals will have a significant detrimental adverse effect on the ecology and biodiversity of the area and are satisfied that enhancements and mitigation can be provided through additional details to be supplied through appropriate

Page 24 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5 conditions. As the proposal is considered to comply with policy G3 (i) (iv) and Q4 and Q5 of the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan.

Utility facilities

Policy G3 (viii) aims to ensure that proposed development is supported by adequate existing services. Policy ES47 indicates that development will only be permitted if adequate water and sewerage infrastructure exists or can be provided without detriment to the local environment, where appropriate the NPA will impose a planning condition or obligation to ensure that adequate services are available. Policy ES48 indicates that non mains sewerage will only be permitted where connections to a public system are not available, ground conditions are suitable and will not give rise to pollution problems, and that the interests of public health and the environment will not be detrimentally affected.

Objections and concerns have been raised by local residents and the Community Council with regard the public sewerage system and water supply within the area. This has been supported by evidence from the Community Council whom have supplied documentation indicating blockage of the sewerage system from Dwr Cymru with the area.

This concern has been further highlighted through comments received from Welsh Water (Dwr Cymru) who recommend conditions to be imposed to provide further detail for foul, surface and land drainage systems prior to the commencement of development.

However Welsh Water also maintains an objection to this proposal on the basis of the public water supply to the area. It has been identified that the water mains serving this area has a minimal head of pressure at peak times and as such Welsh Water consider this proposal premature until completion of the necessary water works to the public water supply system.

With due regard to the issues relating to mains foul drainage there are numerous foul drainage systems, for example the Biodigester Model T36 which can facilitate development in excess of eight dwellings. Such systems have the capacity treat polluted water to a degree that makes it safe for discharge straight to a water course whilst others would need to filtrate through soil. Officers are therefore satisfied that accommodation of foul drainage can be provided through conditions as suggested by Welsh Water.

The applicant has been given the opportunity to negotiate with Welsh Water over the issues relating to this site, however to date the provision of water supply to this site has not been achieved.

With regard to the provision of water supply officers consider on the basis of Welsh Waters advice that the development could not be supplied without having an impact upon the existing services. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be contrary to policy ES47 and G3 (viii) and should be recommended for refusal.

CONCLUSION

Suggestion has been made that other sites should be considered first including those beyond the National Park boundary and that this proposal has not followed procedures as set out in the

Page 25 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5 flow chart relating to policy ES30 for enabling affordable housing outside development limits. The guidance referred to by objectors was adopted by the BBNPA in November 2006, some three months after the application was received.

With regard to other sites it can debated that there may be other acceptable sites and some of these may come forward as exception sites in their own right in the medium to long term. However what has to be determined here is whether or not this proposal on this site currently before the Committee is acceptable as an exceptions site.

The mechanisms for identifying and taking forward exception sites for affordable housing is an evolutionary process, where procedures that are recognised as beneficial now may not have previously been in place, for example the Affordable Housing Guidance Note, should not result in invalidating the provision of affordable housing under this current application.

However supporting evidence provided by Monmouthshire County Council Strategy and Policy was, on the 18th July 2007, demonstrates that other sites were considered within the area. The information details communications between Crucorney Community Council, Monmouthshire CC, the then Rural Housing Enabler and Registered Social Landlord dating back to November 2003, where the provision of affordable housing was presented to the Community Council. Subsequent meetings were then held and the Community Council formed an affordable housing sub-group in February 2004. In March 2004 it is identified that a meeting was held to consider potential sites within the community, from this a site was identified at Wern Gifford which was publicised at Pandy Show in August 2004. However this was rejected due to Environment Agency issues over the floodplain. In October 2005 the current site was identified with the involvement of the Community Council sub-group who were to take it to their full Council meeting in October 2005. In November 2005 provisional discussions were then entered into with the Brecon Beacons National Park Authority for the potential provision of an exceptions site here. The application was submitted on the 20th July 2006.

The creation of eight new dwellings here will provide additional growth to the area, homes for local families who would fundamentally support the existing services and facilities within the area. It would provide homes for families who historically, currently and with the future foreseeable credit crunch would struggle to secure a home within this area. It would provide housing which has been identified as required within the 2003 housing needs survey for the area, a survey which has been confirmed by the Rural Housing Enable as still valid today with a likelihood of an increase in need.

In general the proposal is considered to comply with policy G3 and G6 of the UDP although it is recognised to have an impact on the rural setting here, however national, regional and local requirement for affordable housing is considered to be an overriding need for this development and as such outweighs this harm in this instance. As identified within PPW (2002) and MIPPS (2006) at paragraph 9.2.14 “a community’s need for affordable housing is a material planning consideration”

In making a recommendation on this application, the National Park Authority has taken into consideration the relevant policies of the Development Plan, Regional and National Planning Guidance and the comments made by the consultees and other interested parties.

The proposal is considered contrary to the relevant policy of the Development Plan and is hereby recommended for refusal.

Page 26 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

RECOMMENDATION

Refuse for the following reasons:

1 The water supply pressure for the area is considered inadequate to facilitate this proposed development without there having a detrimental impact on the facilities of existing residents. It is therefore considered that the proposal would be contrary to policy ES47 and G3 (viii) of the Brecon Beacons National Park Unitary Development Plan.

Page 27 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

ITEM NUMBER: 2

APPLICATION NUMBER: 08/02118/CON APPLICANTS NAME(S): Mr And Mrs Arthur SITE ADDRESS: Glenview Llanwenarth Citra Abergavenny Monmouthshire NP7 7LA GRID REF: E: 327771 N:216210 COMMUNITY: Llanfoist Fawr DATE VALIDATED: 21 August 2008 DECISION DUE DATE: 16 October 2008 CASE OFFICER: Mr Lloyd Jones

PROPOSAL Renewal of planning permission M19461- proposed extension, erection of garage and store for private water supply ADDRESS Glenview, Llanwenarth Citra, Abergavenny

CONSULTATIONS/COMMENTS Consultee Received Comments

Environment Agency 23rd Sep 2008 No comments Wales

Monmouthshire County 20th Oct 2008 No objection subject to conditions Council Highways

Page 28 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

Llanfoist Fawr No response Community Council

NP Rights Of Way 10th Oct 2008 No comments Officer

Open Spaces Society No response

British Horse Society No response

Ramblers Association No response Monmouthshire

CONTRIBUTORS None

NEIGHBOUR/THIRD PARTY RESPONSE SUMMARY None received to date,

PLANNING HISTORY App Ref Description Decision Date

M19461 Proposed extension, erection of Application Permitted 5th May 2004 garage and store for private water supply

RELEVANT POLICIES Policy Description Plan

G3 Development in the National Park Unitary Development Plan 2007 G6 Design Unitary Development Plan 2007 ES27 House Extensions and Ancillary Buildings Unitary Development Plan 2007 LPG3 Development in the National Park. Local Plan 1999 LPG7 Design and energy conservation. Local Plan 1999 LPH14 House extensions and ancillary buildings Local Plan 1999

OFFICER’S REPORT

Site Description

The application site comprises a traditionally designed, two-storey stone property set at the foot of the Sugar Loaf. By virtue of its location, the application site slopes steeply upwards from its road frontage. There are no properties within the immediate vicinity, the nearest being Pen- yr-heol some 180m to the north east. An existing lean-to and a corrugated garage project off the side elevation of the dwelling. The existing dwelling including extension has an overall cubic capacity of 378 cubic metres. Vehicular access to the dwelling is off the road to the south eastern corner of the site.

Page 29 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

Relevant Planning History

The property benefits from full planning permission (Reference No: M19641) for an extension, and a detached garage/store for private water supply, which was approved subject to conditions on 5th May 2004.

Proposal

This application seeks permission for the renewal of the above planning permission (Reference No: M19641).

The application details the demolition of the existing side extension and its replacement with a side extension that will have the maximum dimensions 8.1m by 7.1m.A pitched roof, 1.0m lower than that extending over the main dwelling will be provided to a maximum height of 6.15m. The proposed extension has an overall cubic capacity of 250 cubic metres. Full length windows and a door will be provided in the front eleveation, with conservation roof lights in the front plane of the roof. Further windows will be provided in the side elevation and three rooflights will be provided in the rear plane. The exterior will be finished in natural stone and a slate roof.

The final element of the proposal is the provision of a detached garage/water store situated to the south east of the existing dwelling. A natural spring will fill the water tanks, which will be used by the dwelling as their own water supply. The garage/store will be built into the existing bank that runs along the frontage of the site. The front elevation will be set back 2.1m from the highway at its minimum point. This building will measure 10.15m by 7.2m and have a gabled roof to a maximum height of 5.9m from ground level at the front. The exterior will be finished in natural stone and roof slate.

Off-street parking will be provided on the existing drive and in the proposed garage.

Material Planning Considerations

This planning application is for a renewal and the fundamental issues in assessing this application is the extant planning permission (expires in May 2009) and whether there has been a material change in planning circumstances since the original permission was granted.

Planning Policy Context

Whilst the development plan for the area includes the adopted Local Plan (1999), it has been largely superseded by the more up to date UDP (2007) which stopped short of formal adoption but was adopted for development control purposes. The UDP therefore provides a more up to date and relevant planning framework. This application is considered against policies G3, G6, and ES27 of the UDP and policies G3, G7, and H14 of the Local Plan. Local Plan policies will only be considered where they differ significantly from their UDP counterparts.

The dwelling lies outside the “white areas” as defined by policy G3(ii) of the UDP and is therefore considered as being located within the open countryside. With regards design policy G3 (iii) and G6 are relevant. Policy G3 (iii) aims to ensure that the scale, form, design, layout, density, intensity of use and use of materials will be appropriate to the surrounding and will maintain or enhance the quality and character of the Park’s landscape and built environment. Policy G6 refers to design and states that development will be expected

Page 30 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5 to meet the WAGs key design objectives and respond to the local context.

Policy ES27 relates to extensions to dwellings and again it is re-iterated that the proposal should be appropriate to the scale and design of the existing dwelling. Of more importance is the introduction of a Guidance Note entitled ‘Policies ES26 & ES27: Replacement of Dwellings & Extensions to Dwellings in the Countryside’ in September 2008. This guidance identifies that all proposals to extend dwellings in the countryside must therefore:

• Be considerably smaller than the existing dwelling; • Be lower than the existing dwelling in relation to ridge height; • Be of similar form to the existing dwelling and constructed with materials to match; and • Be subordinate to the existing dwelling with the original form of the dwelling being clearly recognizable when the new works are completed.

Moreover, the Guidance Note also prescribes that “proposals for an extension to a dwelling in the countryside that would increase the volume of the building by more than 30% will be contrary to Policy ES27.”

In terms of the impact on any neighbour amenity policies G3 (v) ES27 (iv) are relevant.

Appraisal

Advice on the status of Policy ES27 of the UDP and the Guidance Note on this policy has been sought from the National Park Authorities Solicitor. The advice received is that the extant planning permission is a material consideration in the determination of this application and that Policy ES27 and the Guidance Note forms part of the unadopted UDP and not the adopted Local Plan. Therefore, the Guidance Note does not outweigh the other material planning considerations.

Despite the proposal exceeding the 30% threshold by 12% a set out in the Guidance Note on policy ES27, this does not outweigh other material planning considerations. The overall design of the proposal has previously been considered to be acceptable, and by virtue of the fact of its relatively isolated location it will not unduly harm neighboring amenity. Furthermore, there have been no material changes in highway considerations. Nevertheless Monmouthshire County Council Highways Section offer no objection to the proposal subject to a condition requesting that the mode of conveyance for filling or distrubuting the water shall not be via the highway network. This was a condtion that was previously not requested in the determination of the original planning application, and it is consdiered there are no reasonable grounds for requesting such a condition as part of this application. In any event the water store is for the applicant's own private use and the tanks will be filled via a natrual spring.

It is therefore considered appropriate to recommend approval subject to conditions, which reflect those on the previous consent.

Conclusion

It is considered that there has been no material change in circumstances since the 5th May 2004 planning permission that would result in a refusal of planning permission being justified, and it is therefore recommended that the renewal of planning permission be approved.

Page 31 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

RECOMMENDATION

Permit subject to the following conditions:

1 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of five years from the date of this permission.

2 The development shall be carried out in all respects strictly in accordance with the approved plans (drawing nos. NP2-V1, NP3-V1, NP4 -V1 , NP5-V1 and NP6-V1), unless agreed otherwise in writing by the National Park Authority

3 Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 55 2 (a)(ii) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 no alterations to the southern elevation of the building the subject of this permission including rooflights, new openings shall take place without the prior written consent of the National Park Authority.

4 All stone walling shall be carried out using either new or second-hand natural local stone; or equivalent material with appropriate colour, texture and weathering characteristics. Details of the source and samples shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Authority before any work commences. The stone shall be laid on its natural bed, with (in the case of second-hand stone) its undressed weathered face exposed on the external face of the wall, and shall be coursed and pointed so as to match the stonework to match existing dwelling; . All stone walling shall be completed prior to the building being brought into use.

The developers shall complete only the first three to five square metres of stone walling which shall be subject to inspection by an officer of the Authority. Written approval must be obtained before further stone walling is undertaken. All subsequent walling shall closely match the approved sample walling in terms of colour, size and coursing and in colour, thickness and style of pointing.

5 Prior to the roof being slated a sample of the natural slate to be used shall be submitted to and be agreed in writing with the National Park Authority.

6 Prior to the garage being brought into use visibility splays of 2 metres by 33 metres in both directions measured from the centre line of the proposed access shall be provided in accordance with approved plan (drawing no NP4-V1). Any variation in the treatment of the banks shall be first agreed in writing with the National Park Authority. Nothing which may cause an obstruction to visibility above a height of 1.05 metres shall be placed, erected or grown in the splay area.

7 Soakaways or septic tanks shall be sited a minimum of 5 metres from the highway boundary. No herringbone drainage shall be laid within 5 metres of the highway.

8 Provision shall be made within the curtilage of the site for the parking of not less than two cars excluding any garage space provided.

9 Details of all rooflights to be used shall be submitted to and be agreed in writing with the National Park Authority prior to being installed.

Page 32 of 33 ENCLOSURE 5

Reasons:

1 Required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 To ensure adherence to the approved plans in the interests of a satisfactory form of development.

3 To ensure the amenities of the adjacent properties are maintained at a level commensurate with those properties.

4 In the interest of the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area.

5 In the interests of visual amenity

6 In the interests of highway safety

7 In the interests of highway safety

8 In the interests of highway safety

9 In the interests of visual amenity

Page 33 of 33