‘I have revisited this site and appreciate that it is a retrospective application. The site of this operation is small and has little capacity for storage of vehicles to enhance the business at his location currently within the applicant’s control. The highway leading to the site is narrow with few passing places. Whilst I would prefer there was not this type of business and associated vehicles using the highway, it must be understood that subject to them being road worthy, I would be unable to offer any adverse comment on vehicles legitimately using a public highway. On saying that, I would not wish to support any increase of activity or business using the access and public highway without extensive improvements to the rural highway at this location. The limited passing area will detract from over intensive use of the site.’

In the light of the above comments which suggest the scale of activity is such that highway safety would not be unacceptably compromised by this proposal, it would not be reasonable to refuse the application on highway grounds. The previous report and recommendation are therefore represented. There are appropriate conditions recommended to be imposed to prevent any intensification of use occurring without reference to the Planning Authority.

PREVIOUS REPORT

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 This application seeks the retention of the change of use of a former egg production unit to a workshop and commercial garage for the repair of motor vehicles. The unit has an area of approximately 220 sq. metres and was previously used to house free range chickens. However, land adjoining the unit is no longer in the applicant’s control, thus removing the area where the chickens would range outdoors and therefore precluding the use of the building for free range chickens. The building therefore became redundant but is now being used as a garage and workshop employing one person. This application seeks the retention of that use.

1.2 No external alterations to the building are proposed as part of this application.

- 3 -

1.3 There is a concurrent planning application for the erection of a new chicken unit to replace the unit referred to in the paragraph above, also on this agenda. This is recommended for approval.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

DC/2011/01241 New chicken unit for egg Concurrent, production (relocation of recommended existing) for approval.

DC/2011/00878 49kwh solar panel system roof Approved 2011 mounted DC/2009/01104 Agricultural storage Approved 2010 building/maintenance building for farm’s own machinery DC/2009/00719 Extension to existing chicken Approved 2009 sheds for free range egg production

Various others between 1985 and 2009.List available on request.

3.0 UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DES1 General Design Considerations ENV1 General Development Considerations RE1 Employment within the Countryside

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultation Replies

Llanover Community Council – Recommends refusal. The proposed commercial use is not acceptable because of potential noise, the location of the shed in the open countryside and the poor access for large vehicles including car loaders carrying vehicles for repair.

MCC Environmental Health – I am aware any permission granted will contain conditions in relation to hours of work permitted and also to prevent change of use within and between planning classification. On the basis of the matters outlined above I cannot substantiate an objection to this application.

MCC Development Plans - Policy RE1 of the Unitary Development Plan relates to proposals for conversion to employment use within the Countryside; criteria (a), (b), (c) and (e) do not appear to apply in this instance. Criterion (f) relates to whether the building is capable of accommodating the proposed use without substantial extension, which appears to be the case. Presumably, criterion (d) would also not apply, depending on the nature of the building. Policy RE2 relates to agricultural diversification, there is possibly some support for

- 4 - the proposal from Policy RE2 of the Unitary Development Plan which states that: ‘Development proposals which make a positive contribution to agriculture or its diversification will be permitted where the new use or building meets the following criteria: ) the new units are grouped with existing buildings or satisfactorily assimilated into the landscape; ) the proposed non-agricultural development is run in conjunction with, and complementary to, the agricultural activities of the farm.’ The proposal appears to comply with criterion (a). With regard to criterion (b) further details of the agricultural unit are needed before determining whether it could be considered as an ancillary use to the agricultural holding. The details relating to the type of commercial garage is ambiguous, it is unclear whether the garage is used for repairs etc… as if so this would be more closely linked to a B2 use that could cause disturbance to surrounding residents through noise, smells etc.... It is noted that there is a residential property in close proximity to the development which would be a concern if it were considered to be a B2 use. Furthermore, it is not evident that the proposed site is in a particularly sustainable location or whether the development would result in an increase of cars compared to the previous use, this could potentially have implications if the adjoining highway network does not have the capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated. Finally, overarching Policies DES1 and ENV1 should also be considered relating to general development consideration.

4.2 Neighbour Notification

Four written representations received.

Two representations objecting on the following grounds;

Unsuitable Access. This is a single track road, partly privately owned and partly council maintained with no passing places. This presents the following problems: 1. Cars more often than not have to pull onto house drives or private parking areas to pass each other. Whilst this was not a problem when it was home owners and their visitors were using the road, the volume of traffic has more than trebled with vehicles including low loaders, servicing the garage as it is now. 2. Unsuitable speed and number of vehicles using the road. I own the fields either side of the private road and keep horses on these fields. We move feed, water, horses and other materials across the road on a daily basis. 3. The condition of the road has been affected by the increase in traffic. Pot holes are not good for cars.

Unsuitable use on Agricultural Land. A garage would not be in keeping with an organic farm andwould present noise and dust pollution.

Security. Wary of the number of strangers who now walk, drive past and wait for lifts to and from the garage in the close vicinity of my home.

Contrary to Policy. Not agricultural diversification and so not in accordance with Policy RE2 of the UDP.

- 5 -

Two representations in support of the application for the following reasons;

All businesses have to reinvest and modernise to keep up to date with continual changes. The applicant is doing this by applying to build a purpose built efficient poultry unit, to reuse existing buildings for a workshop. In doing so he is showing a progressive attitude to farming in being able to diversify. The workshop would not only give an opportunity to local people for employment but also provide a service to the local farms.The provision of a workshop would be a benefit to the local agricultural community.

4.4 Local Member Representations

Cllr Sara Jones recommends refusal. I would like to register the following concerns for the planning applications:

DC/2011/01241 DC/2011/01240

I wish to address my concerns across these applications. I note that there have been nine registered planning applications since 2007 and I am concerned about the level of creeping development at this site and the visual impact this is having on an area of significant tourism impact.

I have the following primary concerns:

Highways – that Parc Llettis lane from the B4598 to the property is not sufficient for additional highways movements, in particular in relation to the commercial garage. It is a small, single lane road and currently only sufficient for agricultural and residents traffic movements. Note that the lane in front of the property ‘The Blorenge’ leading to Ty’r Pwll Farm is a private road and there is currently no clarity on who owns this road. It is worth noting that the land on either side of the road belongs to the resident of The Blorenge, the resident also owns the strip of land next to the road which is used to pull into for passing. Environmental Health – There are issues regarding the run off from the existing chicken sheds and the fact that this farm has organic farm status. There are also concerns that a commercial garage will lead to increasing and inappropriate noise levels. Countryside – I am concerned about the level of creeping development at this site. It is highly visual from the main road and does not provide an attractive outlook for an area of key tourism activity. We are moving away from simple farm diversification to the types of business that are not appropriate, in my opinion, for this agricultural location.

I believe that there should be a holistic approach taken to considering this application from the perspectives of highways, countryside and environmental health.

I would draw your attention to the letter received from The Brock Planning Consultancy. I support the sentiment and concerns in this letter. I would suggest

- 6 - that ENV1 and DES1 are the overriding planning guidelines which would lead to the refusal of the above applications. I would add, as outlined in the letter, that the application for the garage in particular is B2 use and not appropriate for this location – note the concerns that Sarah Bessell (MMC Senior Development Officer) raises in her letter to the Planning Officer.

5.0 ASSESSMENT

5.1 Principle of Development

Policies RE1 applies to this application as well as overarching Policies DES1 and ENV1. Criteria (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) refer to physical changes to the building and so do not apply in this case and the building has been shown to have been used for agricultural purposes for a significant period of time prior to this application and so the conversion meets criteria (d) of RE1. The applicant has not submitted the application with a view to the workshop/garage being agricultural diversification to support the income of the farm and so Policy RE2 does not apply.

Given that the majority of the site is still used in conjunction with agriculture it is considered that the proposed use of this relatively small building for an employment use would therefore not compromise the main agricultural use of the site.

5.2 Visual Impact

There would be no external changes to the existing units and so criteria (b) and (c) of policy DES1 and criterion (b) of Policy ENV1 do not apply to this application. A condition is proposed to prevent any outside storage, so as to protect local amenity.

5.3 Residential Amenity

The proposed workshop/garage is approximately 45 metres from the nearest neighbouring dwelling, Blorenge View. Works to vehicles take place inside the unit and so it is not considered that noise over and above that associated with an active farm will be produced by the use. Furthermore, the Council’s Environmental Health Officers have not offered an objection on the grounds of noise to the application. As such it is not considered reasonable to refuse the application for those reasons.

As the workshop is relatively small in scale, it is not anticipated that there will be a substantial increase in vehicles visiting the farm although conditions to limit the use within Class B2 to small scale car repairs only will be needed to ensure that the enterprise does not out-grow its rural location or a more harmful use within Class B2 is carried out within the unit.

5.4 Access

The proposed access is currently used by agricultural vehicles visiting the farm and so there is no reason to determine that it could not support the small amount of

- 7 - traffic that will be associated with this small-scale workshop/garage, bearing in mind that there is only one employee.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Conditions

1. Hours of opening – 08:00 – 18:00 (Mon – Sat) with no working on Sundays or Public holidays. 2. No other use within B2 except maintenance and servicing of cars (not lorries or larger vehicles). 3. No more than one person to be employed on the site unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 4. There shall be no outside storage of vehicles, bodies, parts or equipment in association with this use, hereby permitted.

- 8 - DC/2012/00168

SECOND DWELLING ON AN ESTABLISHED FARM FOR RETIREMENT PURPOSES

LAND AT WHITEHALL FARM, ROCKFIELD, MONMOUTH

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Case Officer: Ann Yearsley Date Registered: 14/06/2012

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 This is an outline application for a second (three-bedroom) dwelling at Whitehall Farm, Rockfield to enable the current farmer and his wife to retire and, in conjunction with a succession agreement, hand on the farm (and existing farmhouse) to the next generation of the family to continue farming the land. All matters are reserved for future consideration, and thus, the principle of this proposal is before Members.

1.2 The application is accompanied by a Rural Enterprise Dwelling Appraisal to inform the application, a Design & Access Statement (outlining the proposed siting and scale of the new dwelling), together with a Code for Sustainable Homes Report in conjunction with the requirements of Technical Advice Note (TAN) 22 ‘Planning for Sustainable Buildings’. A copy of unaudited accounts has also been made available within the submission. During the determination period a Succession Agreement (albeit in draft form) was provided for consideration.

2.0 PLANNING HISTORY

MB38125 Erection of cattle building AN acceptable, Jan 1995

M/9210 Extension to existing farmhouse Approved, November 2003

DC/2010/00905 Building for housing cattle AN acceptable and feeding area

DC/2012/00780 New portal frame building Withdrawn

DC/2012/00836 New portal frame building Approved 7 December 2012

3.0 UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

H6 New Dwelling in the countryside DES1 – General design considerations. ENV1 – General development considerations. DES5 - Existing Trees, Hedgerows and development

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

- 9 - 4.1 Consultation Replies

Llangattock Vibon Avel Community Council – recommend refusal of the application on the grounds that the proposed siting of the retirement dwelling is inappropriate on a greenfield site and would set a precedent – Councillors felt it should be closer to farm buildings to provide security for both properties.

The Council’s Tree Officer has identified two semi-mature oak trees in the hedge line adjacent to the proposal. Both trees make a significant contribution to the local landscape and are considered visually important. A tree survey in accordance with British Standard 5837 is required and can be conditioned accordingly.

The Public Rights of Way Section has confirmed that there are no public footpaths recorded on the Definitive Map at the site of the proposed development.

Welsh Water confirms that as the applicant intends utilising private drainage arrangements the Environment Agency (EA – now Natural Resources Wales) should be contacted who may have an input in the regulation of this method of drainage disposal.

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust (GGAT) note that the application area is outside the essential setting of The Hendre (Gt17) which is included in the Register of Parks & Gardens – the Trust also notes the works are small scale and unlikely to have an impact on the setting of the registered park.

Highways have advised that although the required visibility splays of 2.4m x 215m required by Technical Advice Note TAN 18 cannot be achieved, the applicant shall provide a scheme outlining the optimum visibility splays in both directions that can be achieved (following hedgerow removal) and evidence of average speeds at this location, to be satisfied that a relaxation of this requirement is acceptable, bearing in mind a farm access currently exists in this location. In addition, a plan indicating the required three parking spaces and a suitable turning area, have been requested. Appropriate conditions are therefore to be attached to any permission.

The Council’s Ecologist has noted that the proposal will result in a small loss of habitat – the exact amount and of what composition is unclear. Preliminary ecological assessment confirms that the land is arable with low density interest and the hedgerow is of low value. In accordance with Policy DES8 it is necessary to secure appropriate boundary treatment in the form of a native species hedgerow to compensate for the length lost to access and for net gain for biodiversity. A condition requiring the necessary planting should be attached to any permission. An Informative in respect of nesting birds should also be attached.

4.2 Neighbour Notification

Four letters of objection have been received in respect of the proposal, and one of the objectors is represented by ‘Bruton Knowles Property Consultants’ who have requested to attend and speak at Committee. Two of the objection letters are anonymous. The objections are based on the following points:

- 10 -  The location of the new dwelling is on a greenfield site  Relocation of the access to accommodate the dwelling  The dwelling would be prominent in the landscape  Highway safety/visibility issues with access  The functional/financial tests are not fully justified  Other buildings available in the locality  Size of holding does not justify a second dwelling  Red House Farm (which the applicant has an interest in) is available; also the farmer’s son already owns a house in Monmouth.

4.3 Other Representations

SEWBReC: There are no Special Areas of Conservation or Sites of Interest for Nature Conservation in the locality.

5.0 ASSESSMENT

5.1 The proposal to erect a rural enterprise (second) dwelling has been considered in accordance with the requirements of Policy H6 of the Monmouthshire Adopted Unitary Development Plan (June 2006), which states that new dwellings will only be permitted in open countryside close to an agricultural or forestry place of work, where they cannot be sited in a nearby settlement or where there is no available building suitable to convert. The aim of the Policy is to strictly control and at the same time reduce the environmental impact of such new dwellings in the open countryside, which in this instance is designated as a Special Landscape Area (SLA). A proven need for such a dwelling has to be demonstrated and supported by robust evidence, requiring rigorous assessment by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). This evidence needs to address the Welsh Government’s functional and financial tests, also referenced in the Technical Advice Note (TAN) 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (July 2010).

5.2 The Council has assigned an independent advisor to undertake an assessment of the agricultural appraisal presented with the case. The advisor’s initial response in a report dated July 2012 was to accept that the enterprise is a qualifying rural enterprise where the financial test had been adequately proven but that additional information from the applicants was required to address, in line with relevant planning policy and guidance, the functional need and the ‘other dwellings’ tests. This exercise has been on-going. On the basis of the subsequent information received, including a ‘succession agreement’ as required by the exception to the policy and as set out in par. 4.5.1 of TAN 6, the Council’s advisor has submitted several other interim statements outlining concerns about the wording of the agreement but his final email of 12th February 2013 accepts that a rigorous assessment of the case has been undertaken in accordance with the guidance in TAN 6. The relevant tests are considered below.

5.3 Financial Test - The requirements of this test are that the enterprise concerned has been established for at least three years and profitable for at least one of them and both the enterprise and the business need for the job is currently sound and has a clear prospect of remaining so. In essence the test is to prove evidence of financial sustainability of the justifying enterprise and to identify the size of dwelling that the enterprise can sustain, ensuring that the size of dwelling is commensurate with its

- 11 - functional need and financial justification (to guard against abuse and new executive- type housing in the open countryside).

5.4 In this respect, the figures supplied are sufficient to identify that the existing business is a qualifying rural enterprise. It should however be noted that the plans submitted with this outline application set out a site plan only, and the size of the proposed dwelling is not indicated. If a need were proven, anything beyond 200 sq. m, even for a primary house, would be considered in excess of the commensurate need of the enterprise. As a second dwelling, the dwelling’s floor area, commensurate with the needs of the holding, should be no more than 150sqm.

5.5 The agricultural appraisal (dated July 2012) confirms that the applicants are applying under the requirements of par. 4.5 of TAN 6 which is the exception to the Policy as set out in par.4.4. This however requires that par. 4.4.1 points c-e must be met. That is that the financial test (par.4.10) has to be proven and the functional test, other dwelling test and time test all have to be sufficiently satisfied, to ensure the planning authority has carried out a robust assessment of the proposal to introduce a second dwelling on the rural enterprise.

5.6 The Council’s independent advisor’s initial assessment report (dated July 2012) par. 3.5 clearly accepts that the enterprise is a qualifying rural enterprise, is financially sound and therefore the financial test is passed. In that initial report it was noted that the functional test was not fully proven and therefore the exception should be discounted. However at that stage the ‘succession agreement’ had not been received or considered.

5.7 The functional test is for the applicant to provide evidence of whether there is a need for one or more resident worker to be readily available at all times for the proper functioning of the enterprise. This should relate to and demonstrate unexpected situations that might arise and for which workers are required to be on hand outside the normal working hours, for the particular enterprise. Such requirements might arise, for example if workers are needed to be on hand day and night to deal with emergencies that might threaten the continued viability of the enterprise, without immediate attention. Such circumstances must be demonstrated to be essential.

5.8 Evidence within the Appraisal suggests that, based on current stocking levels, the business warrants two full-time workers to live on the holding to provide the necessary supervision of livestock. In fact, the figures identify (under standard man days (SMD)) that an additional full-time dairy person and a standard worker are also required. In this respect the Succession Agreement identifies that the son of the farmer is to become the person responsible for the management of the enterprise, whilst the applicant will continue to assist in the running of the farm.

5.9 The other dwellings test. This requires the consideration of the buildings within the holding. The appraisal confirms these all to be fully utilised for agriculture, including livestock and storage. In addition, a thorough on-site inspection of the other buildings was undertaken in September 2012. The potential for the conversion of two stone barns together with the subdivision of the existing farmhouse were issues raised, requiring further consideration. In this respect the farmhouse has already been substantially extended and any additional extension to form a separate dwelling would

- 12 - be likely to be contrary to Policy H15 of the UDP, and could compromise the character of the existing dwelling which is an attractive traditional farmhouse. Conversion of the stone barns (referred to as barns 1 and 2 in par. 2.3.1 of the assessment report) has also been considered, but barn 1 is considered inappropriate as it is only 106sq.m. and without substantial extension and a separate amenity space provided would not be adequate for residential purposes, which would be contrary to Policy H7 of the UDP (this policy seeks to avoid extensions to rural building conversions, unless very modest in scale). Use of this barn with a livestock store below, would require the rationalisation of all the farm outbuildings including the introduction of a new livestock shelter which again appears onerous. Barn 2 would not qualify for conversion under Policy H7 of the UDP as it would require substantial reconstruction and extension.

5.10 The question of whether the functional need could be served by a nearby property requires addressing. This has been discounted in the Appraisal as house prices within this desirable rural area would be well beyond the affordability of an average farm worker’s budget. This leads on to Redhouse Farm situated at the end of the access lane to Whitehall Farm and is claimed by several objectors to be in the ownership of the applicants’ family (and indicated as such on the application plans). In fact, the property is only part-owned by the applicants, with siblings also having an interest in this property. In this respect the property is therefore not available for use. Representation letters also refer to the applicants’ son, David Edwards, having a property nearby. The son currently rents a property in Monmouth town but this is some distance from the farmstead and as the son would assume responsibility for the management of the enterprise, it is reasonable for that person to be located on the farm itself.

5.11 Visual impact. The proposed (second) dwelling is to be sited off the B4233 directly above The Steppes farmhouse and holiday cottages at the top of an incline and between Hillcrest. The siting is within the land holding of Whitehall Farm which can, if necessary, be accessed across fields, by tractor or quad bike. With adequate landscaping, a sympathetically designed property of a modest scale would soon integrate into the landscape and is not considered to pose an unacceptable intrusion within the open countryside as there are already sporadic dwellings along this route, which although not on a regular bus route, is served by the Grass Routes service. The proposal is considered to comply with Policies ENV1, DES1 and C3 in this regard as its siting would not be incongruous, given the sporadic grouping of rural dwellings along the roadside in this locality.

5.12 The Council’s Tree Officer has outlined the fact that there are two semi-mature oak trees in the adjacent hedge line which make a significant contribution to the landscape and are visually important. There is ample scope to set the proposed dwelling and access away from the trees or their root system. This can be properly assessed at reserved matters stage. An informative is provided to alert the developer to this matter.

5.13 Residential Amenity – the nearest householder/ property owner to the proposed dwelling has employed a consultant, Bruton Knowles, to address concerns about the siting of the proposed dwelling in such close proximity to his farm and tourist business where numerous wedding and other social events are held. It is claimed that the siting of the new dwelling would give rise to conflict with the on-going use of Steppes Farm for tourism and event purposes. It should be noted however that the marquee and

- 13 - function rooms are on the eastern (lower) side of the development, set away from the proposed application site (which lies to the west). The nearest elements to the site are a car park and holiday cottages, which are located at a lower level than the application site. It is considered that a car park and holiday cottages are relatively low-key uses which are unlikely to harm the amenity of the prospective occupiers of this new dwelling. In addition, the proposed dwelling’s position is set a reasonable distance form the holiday cottages and would not cause overshadowing, overlooking or loss of privacy, thereby complying with Policies ENV1 and DES1 of the adopted UDP.

5.14 Parking and Access - The Council’s Highway Engineer has reservations about the required visibility (which is not fully compliant with the requirements as set out in TAN18) and in this vein requires a scheme to be drawn up to satisfy the Council’s Highway Engineers that the optimum visibility is being achieved and appropriate off street parking turning facilities are provided. A revised plan has been submitted by the applicant’s agent to address this matter. Full details of the access would be provided at reserved matters stage, although further comments would be provided o this aspect in late correspondence.

5.15 Conclusion

The Council’s independent advisor confirms in his email dated 12th February 2013, that a rigorous assessment, challenging all aspects of TAN 6 has been carried out involving the need for substantial evidence from the applicant’s agent. It is fair to say that the wording of the ‘succession agreement’ still needs to be amended to qualify (the final document is awaited and any permission, if forthcoming, would not be issued until that agreement is completed and signed following thorough scrutiny by the Council’s Legal Department). This would appear to be a bone fide application for the handing over of an established rural enterprise to the younger generation to ensure this farming business is maintained whilst allowing the retiring farmer to remain on hand within the wider holding. It is not considered to result in the fragmentation of the farm. The Council therefore accept that in principle the proposed development is acceptable and within the spirit of the requirements of TAN 6 and other local plan policies as listed above.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE subject to the applicant entering into a succession (legal) agreement to enable the farm to be managed by the applicant’s son.

1. Reserved matters conditions (OUT1A and OUT2) 2. The floor area of the approved dwelling shall not exceed 150 sq.m. 3. Drainage condition. 4. Ecological Mitigation 5. Remove permitted development rights for extensions/ outbuildings/ enclosures. 6. The occupancy of the dwelling shall be restricted to: a) a person solely or mainly working, or last working on a rural enterprise in the locality, or a widow, widower or surviving civil partner of such a person, and to any resident dependants; or, if it can be demonstrated that there are no such eligible occupiers, b) a person or persons who would be eligible for consideration for affordable housing under the local authority’s housing policies, or a widow, widower or

- 14 - surviving civil partner of such a person, and to any resident dependants. 8. Each dwelling hereby permitted shall be constructed to achieve a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes "Level 3" and achieve a minimum of 1 credit under category 'Ene1 - Dwelling Emission Rate' in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes : Technical Guide Version 3. The development shall be carried out entirely in accordance with the approved assessment and certification. 9. Construction of any dwelling hereby permitted shall not begin until an 'Interim Certificate' has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority, certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and a minimum of 1 credit under . 'Ene1 - Dwelling Emission Rate', has been achieved for that individual dwelling or house type in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide Version 3. 10. Prior to the occupation of the individual dwelling hereby permitted, a Code for Sustainable Homes 'Final Certificate' shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 and a minimum of 1 credit under 'Ene1 - Dwelling Emission Rate', has been achieved for that dwelling in accordance with the requirements of the Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide Version 3.

Informatives: It should be brought to the attention of the applicant that in the event of a new or altered vehicular access being formed, the requirements of Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 must be acknowledged and satisfied. In this respect the applicant shall apply for permission pursuant to Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 prior to commencement of access works via the MCC Highways.

At reserved matters stage, the layout and scale of the proposed dwelling and its access shall be such that full account is given of the integrity of the roadside hedgerow(s) and trees.

- 15 - DC/2012/00707

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DWELLING IN THE GROUNDS OF EXISTING DWELLING WITH NEW ACCESS

7, CHAPEL ORCHARD, ABERGAVENNY

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE

Case Officer: Kate Bingham Date Registered: 9/10/2012

This application was re-presented to the Committee held on 4th June 2013 where Members did not accept the recommendation to approve the application, and thus, the application is now returned with reasons for refusal, in accordance with the committee protocol.

Reasons for refusal:

1. The proposed development would represent an overdevelopment of this site, which would lead to a relatively cramped form of development in a residential area characterised by high standards of privacy and spaciousness. This would represent inappropriate and insensitive infilling, contrary to Policy H3 of the adopted Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan (UDP). 2. The proposed design is of a form and mass that fails to have regard to the character of adjoining dwellings, and whose close proximity would harm the amenity of those dwellings to the south of the site, contrary to policies ENV1 d), DES1 b), c) and d) and H3 of the UDP.

The following was reported as late correspondence to the meeting of Committee held on 4th June 2013:

‘Letter from a resident of Avenue Crescent objecting that the property would be close to her property and would reduce the amenity of that dwelling; it would be elevated well above the dwellings in Avenue Crescent.’

PREVIOUS REPORT (4th June 2013)

This application was deferred by Members at Planning Committee on the 9th April 2013 in order that an improved design could be negotiated. Following a meeting involving the Planning Application Delegation Panel, officers, the applicant and his agents, it was noted that the 45 degree pitched roof was required to enable solar PV panels to be installed and that the flat roof element would be seeded (a green roof), resulting in a high energy efficiency rating for the dwelling. On further consideration it was therefore decided that the design as previously presented to Committee was the best solution for the plot and that it would not harm the character or appearance of the nearby Conservation Area. The proposed layout and roof design had been arrived at to ensure there was no adverse impact on the nearby trees and the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings.

- 16 -

The previous report and recommendation are therefore represented.

PREVIOUS REPORT (9th April 2013)

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 This is a full application for a single storey dwelling located in the large rear garden of 7, Chapel Orchard which is itself a single storey dwelling. The proposed dwelling would be linear in form with a natural slate and sedum green roof. It is also proposed to construct a new access along the boundary with no.6 Chapel Orchard that would lead to a single garage. 1.2 The site is within the Abergavenny Conservation Area.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

M/11418 One new dwelling in garden Refused 2005 and Appeal dismissed 2006 M/4600 Detached bungalow and garage Refused and Appeal dismissed 2001

3.0 UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DES1 General Design Considerations DES5 Existing Trees/Hedgerows and Development DES7 Protection of Trees DES8 Nature Conservation and Development ENV1 General Development Considerations CH1 Development within Conservation Areas H3 Town and Village Development Boundaries for Residential Development

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultation Replies

Abergavenny Town Council – Recommend refusal. Contravenes Development Plan policy of having at least 20m between overlooking windows and is not in keeping with the local environment.

MCC Tree Officer - I have read the documents and can confirm that the methods of construction and tree protection specified therein would, if followed, address my earlier concerns. I would therefore recommend that, if consent is to be granted, conditions are appended to such consent which will reflect all of those methods.

MCC Highways – No objection subject to conditions (added below).

MCC Biodiversity Officer - Received a copy of the ecological appraisal undertaken by Abbey Sanders Ecology in relation to Great Crested Newts. The survey is of an

- 17 - acceptable standard to inform the planning decision. There are no further considerations, conditions or information note requirements from a Biodiversity perspective. There is no requirement to consult the Countryside Council for Wales.

4.2 Neighbour Notification

Three representations received. Object on the following grounds:

Trees  The applicant has submitted a report which suggests that the tree on the adjacent plot may be adequately protected during the development and afterwards. While the general points made in the letter seem reasonable, we cannot see how it would be possible to guarantee that significant roots might not be damaged during the development of the new property. Reference is made particularly to the one large cypress tree, but it should be pointed out that when the other trees along the boundary were removed with the approval of the Council as a result of a survey which showed them to be dangerous, we were required to replant with Fastigiate Hornbeam and an Ash, and it is understood that they are also protected by the Tree Preservation Order. If so, they should also be taken into account with any protection measures. The plan has omitted one of the Hornbeam trees as well as the Ash.

 We do have concerns that although the large Cypress tree is sound at present, if some unforeseen event occurs, such as accidental damage during construction, the liability for it damaging a property built in such close proximity, knowing that the tree is already there, must surely fall on the owners of such new property if it is allowed to proceed. We are seeking a view from our insurers on that. We recognise our responsibilities to ensure it is kept in good order by having regular inspections of the tree by a qualified tree surgeon.

 We also do not see in the proposal any acknowledgement of the recommendation that the drive should be set on a steel frame to limit pressure on the ground, although the technical requirements for this may be just as hazardous to the trees as if it were not done at all.

 It is difficult to comprehend why anyone would want to build a dwelling within 15 feet of a mature 70 foot high tree!

 The Tree Officer of the County Council should be consulted on the opinion from the applicant’s expert.

Parking  The access to the proposed new property is on the crown of a blind bend. That would not be a problem if vehicles are parked off the road, but if on-street parking occurs close to this access, it will create a significant hazard to other road users in this area. It is noted that the proposed garage is very close to a boundary and immediately adjacent to yet another large fir tree. It would surely make sense for it to be further from the base of the tree, even with the construction method proposed, bearing in mind that if maintenance is needed

- 18 - it will be too close to the boundary to carry it out without trespassing into the adjacent garden.

 We were also aware that the Environment Agency required access to be maintained to the stream when it was culverted with the original development. We do not see reference to that in this application.

 Garage and turning area proposed close to the boundary with no.16 Avenue Crescent and any misjudgement in driving could result in cars overshooting and dropping into the garden which is at a lower level. This is dangerous.

Density of development/overdevelopment  When this whole area of land was developed some 20 years ago, the density of development was a key feature. The proposed application infers that by reducing the size of the building it becomes more acceptable but it is still an additional property in an area where the numbers of properties were clearly stipulated at the beginning in the planning decision for the site, ref no A29408, condition 12, and where all of the property owners were also protected from further development by restrictive covenants in their deeds preventing additional development While not a Planning Issue, this development, if allowed to proceed, will probably initiate compensatory claims for the overdevelopment it creates.

Development levels  Initially the land was significantly lower, but it has been raised by the importing of soil so that its present levels are probably 3 or 4 feet higher than the original ground level. The proposed property will not be built into the ground in an attempt to avoid damage to the tree roots, but the consequence of this is that it continues to overlook the adjoining properties to the south and south-west. The reference in the previous decision to oppressive and detrimental impact will surely still remain.

 Proposed dwelling being built closer to neighbouring properties and not dug into the ground at all to avoid tree roots. This means it will have a greater detrimental impact on the occupants of these properties.

 If this development is allowed to proceed it erodes the original Planning conditions in 1988 and would surely open the door for other property owners to exploit their properties in the same way. This will run counter to the original intention to allow the development to contribute to the range of different properties in Abergavenny.

 House on Avenue Crescent will be looking up at a 10ft fence on top of a 5ft wall. This will be oppressive in itself.

5.0 ASSESSMENT

5.1 Principle of Development and Previous Appeal Decisions

The proposed site is within the development boundary for Abergavenny as defined

- 19 - under Policy H3 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan within which the principle of new residential development is acceptable subject to detailed planning considerations and other relevant polices.

It should be noted that an application to erect a dwelling at this site was refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal in 2006. The previous application was for a dormer bungalow with a larger foot print than the current application and was dismissed for the following reasons;

 Likely damage to the root system of a tree protected by a Preservation Order  Loss of amenity to neighbouring residential properties on Avenue Road due to the proposed dwelling being elevated and sufficiently bulky within close proximity to no.16. Therefore unacceptably overbearing.

The Inspector held that the siting and design of the dormer bungalow proposed, although undistinguished in appearance, would integrate acceptably into the street scene. He also stated that overlooking could be overcome with a sufficiently tall hedge or fence along the boundary with the houses on Avenue Crescent which could be erected or planted without the need for planning permission. An appeal was dismissed in 2001 for a dwelling on this site, that dwelling while also being a bungalow, having a greater depth, and being nearer the boundary with 12-16 Avenue Crescent than the current proposal.

The issue is now whether or not this application has overcome the previous reasons for the dismissal of the appeal and if any other matters are now relevant.

5.2 Visual Amenity and Impact on the Conservation Area

There is a mix of types of housing in this area with the host dwelling being a bungalow and the neighbour to the north being a substantial detached two storey dwelling. As such, it is not considered that what is proposed in this application would be incongruous in this setting.

The proposed dwelling will be finished with a natural slate roof and rendered walls. The flat roofed section to the rear of the building would have a green ‘living’ roof and the entire building has been designed to be energy efficient. There were some concerns that the western corner of the building would be too close to the road but given the relatively low profile of the building with a maximum height of 5m, it is not considered that this would cause any harm to the street scene or wider Conservation Area.

The density of development was not cited by the Inspector at the 2006 appeal as a reason for dismissing the appeal and has not been put forward as a reason for refusal for either of the previous applications. The subdivision of the garden of no.7 Chapel Orchard will leave both the existing and proposed properties with substantial gardens by modern development standards and is similar to other plot sizes in the area.

It is noted that it is proposed to remove the well-established laurel hedgerow that runs along the boundary between the plot and the road and replace it with a wall but this is considered to be detrimental to the character of the appearance of the Conservation

- 20 - Area which is characterised by green boundaries and mature foliage. As such, a condition has been added requiring the retention of the hedge in perpetuity.

The proposed dwelling is not therefore considered to be contrary to Polices DES1, ENV1 or CH1.

5.3 Residential Amenity

In the previous appeal, the Inspector took the view that the proposed dwelling at this site would have an overbearing effect on the gardens and living areas of some of the properties to the south of the site on Avenue Crescent. The current proposal is therefore for a smaller single storey dwelling. The proposed dwelling has an eaves height of approximately 3.7m and a maximum ridge height of 5 metres. Because of the differences in ground levels in the area, the ridge height of the proposed single storey dwelling would be approximately 3.93 metres above that of no.16 Avenue Crescent and approximately 5metres above that of no.14 Avenue Crescent. These are single storey and one and a half storey dwellings but they stand on ground which is lower than the application site.

In contrast to the previous applications on the site, the orientation of the dwelling (with the ridge running directly east to west) results in the south-eastern corner of the building being the closest part of the dwelling to no.16 Avenue Crescent, at a distance of 2 metres from the boundary and 12.5 metres from the neighbouring dwelling itself with 45 degree views of the end gable of the proposed dwelling limited to no.16 only. The southern boundary of the site with14-16 Avenue Crescent is already screened by an existing timber fence, which it is proposed to supplement with a trellis and deciduous climbing plants. There is also substantial planting towards the rear of the garden of no.16 that screens the site effectively. It should be noted that a single garage is also shown on the site plans as being proposed adjacent to this boundary but no elevations of this have been submitted and so this is not considered to be part of this application.

In relation to no.14 Avenue Crescent, the nearest part of the proposed new dwelling to this would be the front (southern) elevation at a minimum distance of approximately 17 metres. There would be a minimum distance of 4.5m between the proposed new bungalow and the common boundary.

Views between the proposed dwelling and the properties on Avenue Crescent will be obscured by building up the existing retaining wall bounding these properties and although it could be said that this would be oppressive in itself to the occupiers of Avenue Crescent, the applicant has Permitted Development Rights to erect a boundary wall or fence up to 2 metres in height measured from the application site side of the boundary or to plant a hedge along this boundary without the need for any consent. Due to the differences in levels between the two sites, with the introduction of a 2m wall/fence or hedge on this boundary, views of the actual building from nos.14 and 16 Avenue Crescent will be limited and there would be no overlooking or loss of privacy.

On balance therefore, by virtue of its scale and siting, it is not considered that the proposed bungalow will have an overbearing impact upon the properties on Avenue

- 21 - Crescent and therefore meets the criteria of Polices DES1 and ENV1 relating to residential amenity. While it could be argued that a boundary fence/wall or hedge on the common boundary could be considered detrimental to the enjoyment of these same properties, as there is no requirement for planning consent for such an enclosure, it is not considered that it would be reasonable to refuse this application on those grounds.

5.4 Tree Protection

There is a row of protected trees on the boundary between nos. 6 and 7, Chapel Orchard which should not be harmed by development. Information has been submitted with this application showing that the proposed structural system and method of construction of the dwelling would not cause damage to or threaten the health of these trees and the method statement has been accepted by the Council’s Tree Officer. Furthermore, the proposed dwelling has been designed with minimal north-facing windows and those that are proposed serve non-habitable rooms only. This is to avoid the potential pressure for future occupiers to seek to secure the lopping, topping or felling of the trees for amenity reasons, even though the trees are protected by TPOs. Subject to a condition requiring the construction of the dwelling to be in complete accordance with this method statement, it would not now be reasonable to refuse this application on the grounds of harm to trees and the application is not in conflict with Unitary Development Plan Policies DES5 and 7.

5.5 Access and Highway Safety

The application site is located off the existing County highway (Chapel Orchard) that has a posted speed limit of 30mph. The highway is circa 6m in width and there is a pedestrian footway adjacent to the application site. There is an existing gated access into the application site and the site’s frontage has a hedge boundary. Footfall and vehicle traffic is anticipated to be relatively low in this location. In line with current guidelines, vehicle visibility splays of 2.4m x 40m in both directions measured to the nearside kerb would be required. The Council’s Highway Engineer has indicated that this is achievable and has raised no objections subject to conditions. Similarly, access was not raised as a reason for refusal previously or by the Inspector in dismissing the 2006 appeal.

5.6 Biodiversity Considerations

As there is a watercourse running within close proximity to the site and a pond know to be in the grounds of the property across the road from the application site, it was considered that a survey for Great Crested Newts should be undertaken. The records for the location of this European Protected Species (EPS) are poor but none were found to be using the site. As such, it is not considered that any harm will be caused to an EPS as a result of this application and no further action is required.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Conditions/Reasons

1. Standard 5 year start time limit.

- 22 - 2. Laurel hedge boundary with highway to be retained where removal is not required for access. 3. Development shall be in accordance with arboricultural method statement submitted by UPM dated 27/11/12. 4. Notwithstanding site plan, garage is not included in this consent. 5. Prior to the commencement of any other development on site the vehicle access, together with visibility splays, shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with an updated plan to be submitted to and accepted in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the access shall be retained, unobstructed, in this form in perpetuity. 6. Development shall not commence, and the approved vehicular access shall not be brought into use, until the existing vehicle access to the site has been permanently stopped up. 7. Visibility splays of 2.4m x 40m in both directions measured from the centre line of the proposed access shall be provided and maintained. Nothing which may cause an obstruction to visibility shall be placed, erected or grown in this splay area. 8. The applicant must take appropriate measures to safeguard members of the public using the adjacent highway during the course of these works. 9. The proposed access shall have a hard surface of concrete or bituminous material for a minimum distance of 5m from the highway boundary. 10. Gates shall not open outwards and shall be set back a minimum of 5m from the highway boundary. 11. The maximum gradient of the access shall not exceed 1 in 8 (12%) 5m from the highway boundary. 12. The access shall be over a properly constructed dropped crossing with a minimum kerb upstand of 25mm. 13. The development shall not be brought into use until the specified area for the parking of a minimum of two vehicles has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purposes other than the parking of vehicles. The associated turning areas shall be retained and maintained within the curtilage of the site in perpetuity, free from obstruction, to ensure vehicles are always able to access and egress from the site in forward gear. 14. No surface water from the site shall drain onto the County highway or into the County highway drainage system. Soakaways shall be sited a minimum distance of 5m from the highway boundary. If applicable, the applicant shall take positive measures to prevent surface water from the adjacent highway ingressing into the site of the proposal. 15. Removal of Permitted Development Rights for extensions. 16. Landscaping condition. 17. Landscaping implementation condition, including precise southern boundary treatment. 18. -20. Code for Sustainable Homes Conditions.

- 23 - DC/2012/00822

ERECTION OF STEEL FRAMED BUILDING TO BE USED AS A GENERAL PURPOSE STORAGE SHED FOR TRACTOR & IMPLEMENTS ALONG WITH HAY.

PARK COTTAGE, LLANTILIO CROSSENNY

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Case Officer: Andrew Jones Date Registered: 02/11/2012

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 This application relates to a 12 acre site located immediately to the south of the B4233 just outside the village of Llantilio Crossenny. The site contains a number of buildings in addition to the main dwelling; there is a small group that provides stabling and a home office. The site also falls within the boundary of the Historic Park and Garden to Llantilio Court, which is contained within the Register of Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest at Grade II.

1.2 It is proposed to erect an agricultural building at the site; the scheme has been subject to a redesign and relocation to address a number of issues. Originally the building would have been positioned along the elevated, most northerly boundary of the site and would have been unacceptably prominent in the sensitive landscape and physically divorced from the existing group.

1.3 The proposed building would now sit immediately south of a small group of stable/home office buildings. The revised building would measure 9.14m x 9.14m, standing 4.8m to the ridge. Proposed external finishes include fibre cement roof sheets and profile sheeting (juniper green). In addition it is indicated that additional landscaping would be incorporated to the south of the building.

1.4 The application is presented to Planning Committee at the request of the Local Member.

2.0 PLANNING HISTORY

DC/2011/01251 Change of use of wood store to Approved 03/06/2012 office for use by residents of cottage only. Retention of decked area to building.

- 24 - DC/2009/00288 Extension to existing cottage to Approved 09/07/2009 provide ancillary sitting room that can be used as a bedroom; erection of single garage with basement level to provide storage; cladding of existing lean-to to match cottage; DC/2003/00583 erection of porch; construction of Approved 29/09/2003 two bay garage adjacent to existing stables; new wildlife pond. Extension To Barn To Form Stables And New Vehicular Access.

3.0 UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (UDP) POLICIES

Policy DES1 – General Design Considerations Policy ENV1 – General Development Considerations Policy RE3 – New Agricultural and Forestry Buildings Policy CH14 – Historic Parks, Landscapes and Gardens

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultation Responses

Llantilio Crossenny Community Council – Recommended the original proposal for refusal due to its prominent location and concerns from neighbours.

The Community Council acknowledges the location of the amended scheme is more acceptable; however it is felt that there is no justification for the building and maintains a recommendation to refuse.

Cadw – Provided the following comments in respect of the original proposal:  This proposal lies within the registered historic park known as Llantilio Court.  It is the view of Cadw that so long as the landscaping is extended so as to screen the building from the parkland to the south, the development would not have a seriously adverse effect on the character of the registered historic park.  The building would be set in open parkland close to its boundary.  A hedge is proposed to screen the building on the north andeast sides but no screening is proposed for the other two sides.  The parkland in which the building would be set lies mainly to the south and the building would be clearly visible from this direction.  In order to address this problem screen planting (a hedge) is needed to the south of the building. This should be of native, rural character and match the hedges proposed on the north and east sides.

In respect of the amended plans the following comments have been received:  The status of the registered historic park is acknowledged in the amended Design & Access Statement.

- 25 -  Building has been located adjacent to and in line with existing agricultural buildings and has been designed to be in keeping with the existing outbuilding in terms of size, scale, profile and materials.  Also shows improved landscaping as previously requested.  The application will have minimal impact on the registered historic park.

MCC Conservation Officer– Provided the following comments in respect of the original proposal:  The agricultural shed is outside the Conservation Area, although it does occupy a position where it will be in the main longer views out of and into the Conservation Area.  It is also within the Registered Garden.  The position of the shed is prominent being adjacent to the main road where there are open fields on either side of the road and a small hedge to either side.  The modern shed will be very obvious and dominant in the landscape.  It would be far preferable to see the shed positioned closer towards the existing farm buildings on the site to maintain the group of agricultural buildings in one area.  In addition it is suggested that more appropriate materials could be chosen, such as profile metal sheeting and not box section, this could be painted a dark green/grey to reduce its impact.  The roof should also be curved profile sheeting and not fibre cement panels.

No further comments have been received following the amendment to the scheme.

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust – Provided the following comments in respect of the original proposal:  Application has a significant archaeological restraint.  Site is inside boundary of the Historic Park and Garden to Llantilio Court.  Building also lies directly in line of the Significant View.  Documents submitted do not mention or assess impact on the historic use of the site.  No information as to why building is not located closer to the existing area of buildings.  Without this information application should be refused.

No further comments have been received following the amendment to the scheme.

4.2 Neighbour Consultation Responses

One letter of objection, in relation to the original plans, has been received raising the following concerns:  No need or justification for the building.

- 26 -  Too close to the main road and therefore harmful to the countryside.  Position would obstruct vision of motorists.

No further comments have been received following the amendment to the scheme.

4.3 Local Member Representations

County Councillor Ruth Edwards – Requests that the application is presented to Planning Committee.

5.0 ISSUES AND EVALUATION

5.1 Principle of Development

The site covers a total of 12 acres. However whilst there are existing stables at the site the level of agricultural activity at the site appeared low. As a result an agricultural justification for the building was requested by the Local Planning Authority (LPA). It was confirmed that the building would house implements including a tractor and harrow; the building would also provide storage for hay. The revised Design and Access Statement advises that the proposed building would also be used as a lambing shed, as this is something the applicant is looking to establish on the land.

Thus, on balance, it is considered that the modest size of the proposed building is commensurate to the equally modest level of agricultural use of the 12 acre site. The principle of an agricultural building at the site is therefore considered to be acceptable.

5.2 Visual Amenity and Impact on Registered Historic Park

As highlighted above, the site falls within the boundary of the Historic Park and Garden to Llantilio Court and therefore the visual impact of the proposed building has been carefully considered in close consultation with the appropriate bodies. The original building would have been prominently located within the sensitive landscape including important views to St.Teilo’s Church to the south. The revised location would see the building form part of an existing group of buildings as advocated by UDP Policy RE3 New Agricultural and Forestry Buildings which states that buildings should ‘form part of a group rather than stand in isolation, and relate to existing buildings in size and colour’. This has been taken into account with the revised scheme. The proposed building is now similar to those existing and the colour of juniper green would allow the building to assimilate comfortably into the sensitive historic landscape. A landscaping scheme is illustrated as being located to the south of the proposed building, providing important screening as requested by Cadw. Whilst accepted in principle, the level of detail provided in the landscaping scheme is not considered to be enforceable and therefore appropriate conditions are to be attached to agree a detailed scheme and its

- 27 - implementation. Thus, it is concluded that the application will have minimal impact on the registered historic park.

5.3 Residential Amenity

The revised location would see the building set much further from the neighbouring properties along the opposite side of the B4233(90m in total). In addition it would now be set at a significantly lower level and behind an existing grouping of buildings. Therefore it is not considered that a modestly- sized agricultural building in this rural location would cause unacceptable harm to residential amenity of the nearest neighbouring properties.

5.4 Response to Community Council’s Representations

These have been addressed above.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Conditions

1. This development shall be begun within 5 years from the date of this permission. 2. Landscaping Scheme to be submitted to and agreed by the LPA prior to any works commencing on site. 3. Implementation of Landscaping Scheme and maintenance.

- 28 - DC/2012/00825

PROPOSED TEMPORARY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT AND RETENTION OF WORKS TO RETAINING WALL, PATIO AREAS AND SHEDS

LAND AT GROSVENOR ROAD, ABERGAVENNY

RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE

Case Officer: Andrew Jones Date Registered:25th March 2013

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 This is application relates to a new housing site located along Grosvenor Road, backing onto Richmond Road, in the town of Abergavenny. Planning Permission was granted in March 2012 for 8 new dwellings (see section 2.0 below) subject to a section 106 Agreement and a number of planning conditions including the following:

The foul drainage for the site shall connect to the mains sewer within three months of the upgrading of the waste water treatment works; any interim measure for a private treatment plant shall only be installed provided it meets the requisite British Standard, and shall be the subject of a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority before any works commence on site; the private treatment plant, if installed, shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall be disconnected and removed as soon as reasonably practicable following the upgrading of the Dwr Cymru-Welsh Water waste water treatment works. In the event the proposed private treatment plant cannot meet the approval of the Local Planning Authority, the development shall not be occupied until the waste water treatment plant has been upgraded by the statutory undertaker.

1.2 Permission is now sought for a temporary sewage treatment plant to serve the new dwellings until Welsh Water have completed necessary upgrade works to the public sewerage system in Abergavenny. Prior to submission of this application the applicant successfully obtained an Environmental Permit (Water Activity) from the Environment Agency (now Natural Resources Wales). The tank, an Acorn Platinum D Series, would have the potential to serve up to 30 people, with a capacity of 9000 litres and be served by four zones of outfall drainage.

1.3 This application also incorporates other works that have carried out that are not in accordance with the approved scheme DC/2011/00785. These include enlarged patio areas in the rear gardens and associated garden sheds, as well as an amended retaining wall along the southern boundary of the site backing onto the properties of Richmond Road.

1.4 The application is presented to Planning Committee due at the request of the Local Member, Council John Prosser.

- 29 -

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

DC/2011/00785 Erection of eight dwellings, Approved 12/03/2012 layout of parking facilities and ancillary works.

M9637 Residential Development Approved 14/07/2006

MB38068 Residential Development Approved 01/03/1995

MB34082 Residential Approved 22/10/1991

GW16520 Residential Development Approved 09/02/1982

3.0 UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

ENV1-General Development Considerations

ENV13-Foul Sewage Disposal

DES1-General Design Considerations

H3-Town and Village Development Boundaries for Residential Development

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultation Replies

Abergavenny Town Council – Recommend the application is refused, raising the following comments:  Failure to meet British Standards  Failure to follow Environment Agency depth requirement of 1.5m below the adjoining gardens  Failure to protect existing trees on site  Failure to follow Policy H2 as it is not possible to do so within the constrained area of the development.

MCC Environmental Health - Whilst I am not in a position to object if the treatment plant and soakaway are installed to current Building Regulation standards, I am concerned with the very close proximity of the proposed soakaway system to the adjoining properties in Richmond Rd, the rear gardens of which are at a lower level than the development site. My concern relates to the potential for the seepage of effluent to break out to the surface of the adjoining gardens, particularly the longer the soakaway system remains in use. I therefore recommend that if permission is granted that it is subject to a condition requiring the developer to remain responsible for the sewage treatment plant and soakaway system and to rectify any problems that may arise with the proper

- 30 - functioning of the plant and soakaway, until it is decommissioned.

MCC Structural Engineer – Advised the following:  Would increase the top of the wall from 225mm to 450mm to make it more robust.  The fixings of the fence posts are critical and advice sought from the Design Structural Engineer.  Unfortunate that blockwork has been chosen, is not particularly strong in tension and aesthetically may require work to provide a reasonable aspect for the neighbours.  The Design Engineer should be made aware that there is a treatment plant proposed that would be percolated locally to the gardens.  The Design Engineer should verify that the predicted flow rates will not undermine the retaining wall foundation and whether it will adversely impact on the dwelling foundation system.  If the trees as part of the landscaping scheme are a requirement there will definitely be an issue regarding the root effect on the new retaining walls and foundations.

MCC Building Control – advised the following:  The retaining walls do not fall under Building Control.  The exact location of the tank needs to be clarified however the relevant approved document Part H and BS 6297 suggest that it should be positioned as far away as practical from habitable buildings – recommended 7m.  It should not be within 2m of a boundary of adjoining site.  Highways may want to comment given proximity to the public road.

Welsh Water – The proposed development site is crossed by a 300mm public sewer, no part of the building will be permitted within 3m either side of the centre line of the pipe.

Natural Resources Wales (formerly Environment Agency) – provided the following comments:  We are aware that the site holds an Environmental Permit (Water Activity) issued by the Environment Agency on 28th August 2012 (Permit no. EPR/UP3928GR).  The consent holder (Pricewise Homes Ltd) must comply with all the conditions in the permit, in particular the temporary status of the permit.  This requires the site to be connected to the public sewer within three months of Llanfoist Waste Water Treatment Works being upgraded (currently due in April 2014).  We recommend that a connection to mains sewer is made as soon as possible.  In view of the above, should your Authority be minded to grant permission, you may wish to impose a condition requiring the development to connect to the main sewer and the private treatment plant to be decommissioned within three months of the improvement works on Llanfoist Waste Water Treatment Works being upgraded.

- 31 -  The reason being to reduce the potential of pollution of the water environment.  We note the former use of the site as a railway. The Capita Symonds Geotechnical Report dated July 2007 concludes that there is a low level of risk with respect to controlled waters from potential land contamination from the former railway.

4.2 Neighbour Notification

42 neighbouring occupiers notified and site notice posted 25th March 2013. 16 representations received. Object on the following grounds:

 Concern over proximity of treatment plant to households.  Previous objections from local residents have been completely disregarded.  Potential for landslides.  Plant has the potential for causing smell, flooding and sewage leakage.  Houses are built on flooded soil.  Developer has ridden roughshod over planning rules.  Will have a negative impact on wildlife and trees.  Fails to meet conditions set out by Environment Agency (EA) and H2 Building Regulations.  Pipe network will be set 900mm below the lowest level garden of 1-31 Richmond Road.  Conditions set by EA stated that filtration pipework was to be set at 1.5m below lowest garden level of Richmond Road properties 1-31.  There is no one specified to deal with the plant in times of power failure.  Developer has back filled retaining wall and placed a land drain alongside.  Landscaping to the site has not been started.  Existing sewer line still has problems and is evidenced by repeated overflow in Ross Road.  Would be in contravention of Policy ENV13 and Welsh Circular 10/99.  Housing and site levels appear significantly higher than originally proposed.  Question whether a tank with a capacity for 30 people is sufficient.  Who would be responsible for maintenance of the treatment plant?  Who would enforce decommissioning of plant?  Potential for vermin at the site.  Site was/is prone to flooding, with the upper surface area retaining ground water.  Dwellings could still be sold as market housing and as such determination that seeks to rely in this argument is flawed without such control in place.  Wording of condition 8 of DC/2011/00785 was not transparent and not properly consulted on.  MCC has failed to enforce its own planning conditions.  No spot levels have been taken from any of the gardens of Richmond Road.  Capita Symonds report undertaken in 2007 in support of retaining wall did not account for foul water draining into the ground.  The change in topography of the site will have an impact on surface water

- 32 - drainage and flooding.  There is no strategic need for affordable housing.  Cost of decommissioning plant would be considerable; as a minimum an appropriate S.106 Agreement should be sought.  As it stands there is a gap of c.300mm to 400mm between outer edge of retaining wall and boundaries of Richmond Road.  Applicant’s Engineers’ calculations acknowledge masonry wall has limited capacity and the design will assume the backfill is well drained i.e. no water pressure behind the wall.  The difference in levels has resulted in approx. 1m difference in height between dwellings.

The applicant’s Planning Consultant provided the following response to the objections raised:  There is an urgent need for new housing.  Discharge Permit was approved by the EA, confirming that the unit met with all relevant criteria.  There appears to be two areas of non-compliance with British Standards, distance from housing and the fact that the discharge will be beneath a car park/driveway.  Concerned that local opposition has led to recommend refusal.  Local Authority appears to be disregarding the view of the EA.  Retaining wall is some 200mm higher than originally indicated, construction of the wall has been verified by a Structural Engineer.  There is a land drain behind the wall to avoid the build-up of water pressure.  No distinction was made as to whether the properties would be sold on the open market or utilised as social housing.  There is no distinction within the Development Plan policies between properties constructed to be sold or rented, either privately or as social housing.  Architects have provided porosity tests which conclude that concerns raised in this regard appear to be ill-founded.  There is no evidence of flood risk, a matter which the EA would have considered.  Architects confirm that the scheme has been implemented in accordance with agreed site levels, with the exception of the increase in height to the retaining wall and garden levels.  To allege that that the properties have been built up to 1m higher than originally agreed is unjustified.  Suggestion that there are significant differences in roof heights is also incorrect.

4.3 Local Member Representations

Cllr John Prosser –Formally requested that the application be considered by the Planning Committee.

- 33 - 4.4 Other Representations

David Davies MP – Provided the following comments:  It has been previously advised that if the proposed sewerage works could not meet British Standards your department would recommend refusal of the application.  It appears that all involved agree that British Standards cannot be met; however the development is still progressing.

Nick Ramsey AM – Advised the considerable objections have been received, hope that serious consideration will be given to all the objections that have been received, particularly as the area has had a history of drainage/sewage problems in the past.

5.0 ISSUES/EVALUATION

5.1 Principle of Development (Treatment Plant)

Policy ENV13 Foul Sewage Disposal of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan states that ‘in sewered areas all development shall connect to the mains sewer. Small private sewage treatment or retention facilities will not be permitted’. At present the mains sewer in the town of Abergavenny is inadequate and subject to improvement works to be carried out by Welsh Water no later than April 2014. As such no dwellings are permitted to connect to the mains until such time that the required improvement works have been completed. When Planning Permission was granted for the 8 dwellings, it was conditioned that they would connect to the mains sewer and that any interim measure for a private treatment plant shall only be installed provided it meets the requisite British Standard, and shall be the subject of a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. In this instance the requisite British Standard is BS 6297:2008. In order for the proposal to be considered acceptable as a departure from the aforementioned Policy ENV13 it would have to meet all criteria within the Standard. On the basis of the documents and supporting information provided the proposed treatment plant would not fully comply with the requisite British Standard and is therefore considered unacceptable in principle. Whilst it is acknowledged that the plant has received the appropriate Environmental Permit (Water Activity) from the then Environment Agency (EA), Condition 8 of DC/2011/00785 requires compliance with British Standards, not simply the acquiescence of the EA.

5.1.1 The Geotechnical Report (Capita Symonds, 2007) submitted in support of the proposal states in Section 7.7 that ‘Soakaways should not be situated in proximity to the foundations of any new structures as washing out of fines and soil saturation will dramatically decrease the bearing capacity of the ground’. Supporting comments from the applicant state that the house foundations have been designed with piles that extend some 6000mm into the groundand therefore do not have any bearing on the capacity of the ground to carry the loads of the dwellings. However, this does not override the fundamental concern that it does not meet the British Standard.

- 34 - BS 6297:2008 sets out in terms advice on good practice and guidelines that warns access roads, driveways and paved areas should not be positioned within the disposal area. Given the natural constraints of the size of the site it is not possible to meet this; the disposal area would be positioned in close proximity to parking areas and the new patio areas. Consequently the proposal fails to meet this British Standard.

5.1.2 BS 6297:2008 also advices that with regard to the positioning of waste water treatment equipment that they should be sited so as to be a minimum of 7m from habitable buildings.The proposal fails to meet this recommended minimum standard and therefore it cannot be assured that it would protect the amenity levels of the habitable buildings. BS 6297:2008 footnotes that the recommended distances are indicative only and may be more stringent depending on local regulatory or policy positions. It is for this reason that given the densely populated locality, the failure to meet even the minimum standard is considered to be unacceptable.

5.1.3 Welsh Office Circular 10/99 ‘Planning Requirements in respect of the use of Non Mains Sewerage incorporating Septic Tanks in New Development’ asserts that where developments‘are likely to lead to a significant environmental, amenity or public health problem in any area, it would normally be sufficient to justify refusal of planning permission for the development’.As the relevant British Standards are not able to be met owing to the physical constraints of the site, the development would not accommodate all the appropriate safety standardsand as such the proposed means of foul drainage is considered unacceptable. This is echoed in concerns raised by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer who has voiced unease relating to the potential for the seepage of effluent to break out to the surface of the adjoining gardens, particularly the longer the soakaway system remains in use.

5.2 Retaining Wall

The scheme as originally approved under DC/2011/00785 allowed for the garden areas to slope away reflecting the natural slope of the land. Following the granting of permission the site was sold to Melin Homes, the Housing Association then instructed that gradient of the gardens be amended from 1in 8 to 1 in 15, this then necessitated retaining walls to support the raised garden levels which have been built at the rear of the development.

5.2.1 The structural integrity of the unauthorised wall(s) as erected has been carefully considered by the Council’s Structural Engineer who has sought clarification from the applicant on a number of matters. A 1.8m high timber fence is to be placed atop the wall and therefore the fixings of the fence post was highlighted as being critical. The applicant, in consultation with their own Structural Engineer, has advised that independent supports would be used so no additional stress is brought on the retaining wall. The Council’s Engineer has accepted this solution to the matter.

5.2.2 The location of the proposed treatment plant in relation to this retaining wall has also been highlighted as something that may cause potential issues with regard to

- 35 - the structural integrity of the wall due to the outfall drainage. The applicant has advised the plant has been accounted for in the structural calculations and that the closest outfall drainage is shown 2000mm from the wall. Again the Council’s Structural Engineer has accepted that this matter has been taken into consideration within the design of retaining wall.

5.2.3 Condition 7 of DC/2011/00785 required implementation of an agreed landscaping scheme along the southern boundary of the site. This planting is an important part of the original scheme to maintain levels of privacy for the residents of Richmond Road. The erection of the wall as built has called into question this important planting scheme and whether the root systems would undermine the wall. The Council’s Structural Engineer has accepted that because the majority of the boundary the retained element is less than 900mm, trees will be kept back from the top of the wall so not to compromise its integrity. Where the retained element rises up to 1400mm, if necessary the wall can be strengthened but it would not preclude the complete implementation of the agreed landscaping scheme.

5.2.4 The retaining wall has been constructed with concrete blockwork and runs along the southern boundary of the site with its highest point measuring approximately 1.4m in height. Whilst blockwork is not strong in tension, the calculations submitted have been accepted by the Council’s Structural Engineer. However, the blockwork is also aesthetically poor and as built provides an unacceptable aspect for a number of the properties along Richmond Road. Had it been constructed with brick not only would have it been stronger in terms of tension, but also it would have had a less harmful impact on neighbours. Therefore it is considered that the retaining wall facing towards the properties of Richmond Road would have an unacceptable impact on the levels of amenity previously enjoyed.

5.3 Other Issues

The final important issue to consider is that of the site levels. As discussed in section 5.2 of this report, the garden areas have been built up noticeably at the request of Melin Homes to provide a more level area. The original site sloped down from Grosvenor Road to Richmond Road in places by approximately 2m and declined approximately 1m from east to west. This is reflected in the site plans, existing and proposed, submitted in respect of the original application (DC/2011/00785). However the street scene drawing submitted in respect of that earlier application did not, in error, illustrate the difference of approximately 1m between the 2 semi-detached dwellings and the nearest terrace of 3. The applicant’s planning consultant has advised that the dwellings have been built in accordance with the levels detailed on the original site plans (DC/2011/00785), the only area of non-compliance being the aforementioned raised garden areas. As referred to previously it has been confirmed that the unauthorised retaining wall as built would not prejudice the implementation of the agreed landscaping scheme which would therefore still be able to provide an essential means of privacy and screening to the residents of Richmond Road.

5.3.1 Whilst the issues raised in the response provided by the applicant’s Planning Consultant have been addressed in the evaluation above, one matter not addressed is the local need for affordable housing. Whilst it is acknowledged that such a

- 36 - need exists, this does not outweigh the potential harm to existing residents in the locality by the proposed treatment plant. Correspondence received from neighbouring properties note that the dwellings are not controlled via a legal mechanism, such as a Section 106 agreement, as being affordable units and therefore are not bound to provide such accommodation. However as stated irrespective of the tenancy of the dwellings, the proposed treatment plant fails to meet the appropriate British Standards and therefore in this instance the need to provide affordable units is not considered to justify a departure from Policy EN13.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION:REFUSE

Reasons

1. The proposed temporary sewage treatment plant fails to meet all relevant British Standards (BS 6297:2008) and therefore would not be able to provide all appropriate measures to protect local residential amenity, andas such it is considered contrary to Policy ENV13 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan.

2. The exposed blockwork retaining wall, by virtue of its incongruous appearance in close proximity to the boundary of neighbouring properties along Richmond Road, causes unacceptable harm to the amenity of those dwellings, contrary to Policy ENV1 (d) of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan.

- 37 - DC/2012/00918

CONVERSION OF TWO BARNS TO 2 NO. DWELLINGS INCLUDING A DRIVE AND ON SITE PARKING

BRADBURY’S FARM, CRICK

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Case Officer: Jo Draper Date Registered: 16th May 2013

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 The application site relates to two outbuildings that previously formed part of the Bradbury Farm site. The house and land has been sold separately and this is a Council application to convert the two buildings into two independent residential units. The application site forms part of the built up area of Crick which is designated as a settlement capable of accommodating suitable residential development under Policy H4 of the UDP.

1.2 The proposed scheme has been subject to various amendments to change the design of the proposed development. An ecological and full archaeological assessment has been submitted with this application.

1.3 It is proposed to utilise the existing access to the site to serve the existing farmhouse and the two new proposed dwelling units. The new access is to be accessed over an existing culvert. The internal access arrangements have been changed in response to highway requirements to improve the manoeuvrability within the site.

1.4 Barn 1 is a single storey building constructed predominantly in stone. Part of the building that is constructed in blockwork is to be finished in horizontal boarding, existing openings have been retained, new openings have been kept to a minimum and a small open fronted lean-to log store is proposed to the front elevation. A natural slate roof is proposed.

1.5 Barn 2 has been constructed in a variety of materials comprising brick, stone and blockwork. It is made up of two wings that have clearly been constructed at different times. This building is proposed to be treated in a similar form to Barn 1 - the stonework would be left exposed, modern elements would be treated with horizontal boarding, and a natural slate roof is proposed. The existing boundaries are being retained.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

DC/2006/00390 Conversion of traditional farm buildings, demolition of existing buildings to provide a residential development for four properties Withdrawn 22-01.09

- 38 -

3.0 UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

H4 DES1 DES9 NC4 ENV1 ENV13 ENV14

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultations Replies

Caerwent Community Council: No representations received to date.

Gwent Glamorgan Archaeological Trust: No objection but requires archaeological mitigation A watching brief condition is required.

Monmouthshire County Council’s Highway Engineer: Having assessed the application details and drawings that there is no objection from a highway standpoint provided that the driveway within the site which abuts the culverted access is improved to provide a shared driveway arrangement. At present the driveway is too narrow to accommodate the safe passing of 2 vehicles which is necessary for its proposed shared use. A suitable driveway width of 4.5m for a minimum distance of 5m from the culverted access is required in order to allow the safe passing of two vehicles. This will allow any vehicle exiting the site to wait allowing any vehicle entering the site to pass safely without the need for any reversing manoeuvres. It is noted that the internal layout satisfies the requirements for parking and turning within the site. I would wish to see the following conditions applied to any grant of approval. 1. The driveway from the culverted access shall be improved to provide a shared driveway of 4.5m wide for a minimum distance of 5m. 2. The driveway shall be of a hard surface material of concrete or bituminous material for a minimum distance of 5m from the site boundary.

Monmouthshire County Council’s Ecologist: An ecological assessment has been undertaken by Just Mammals for the barns that are part of this scheme as well as the main farm building. The survey is of a sufficient standard to inform the planning decision. No objection to the proposal subject to relevant conditions being imposed relating to ecological enhancement for bats and birds, details of roof lining and a lighting scheme.

Natural Resources Wales: Foul Drainage The planning application originally indicated the method of foul drainage to be a septic tank draining to soakaway. As the site is within a Source Protection Zone 1 the

- 39 - method of foul drainage is to be a cesspool. No objection to this subject to the relevant conditions being imposed. Surface Water Drainage The site must be drained by a separate system of foul and surface water drainage (with all clean roof and surface water being kept separate from foul water). Roofwater drainpipes must be connected to the drainage system either directly or by means of back inlet gullies provided with sealing plates instead of open gratings. Condition to be imposed. Biodiversity Any planning permission granted should impose a planning condition requiring a scheme to be agreed to protect a 3 metre wide buffer zone around the watercourse. Cesspools are vulnerable to misuse which will result in pollution. This misuse involves disposal of the contents of a cesspool down a manhole or drain, rather than legitimately by a licensed waste carrier for proper treatment at a sewage works. In some instances tanks are deliberately punctured to allow sewage to drain into the ground. As such it is recommended that the relevant condition relating to the cess pool is imposed. A condition is required for a scheme for the provision and management of a 3 metre wide buffer zone alongside the watercourse to protect the ecology of the watercourse. Development that encroaches on watercourses has a potentially severe impact on their ecological value. Land alongside is particularly valuable for wildlife and it is essential this is protected. Bats: No objection to this aspect of the proposal as the barns that are the subject of this proposal were found to have low bat roost potential and no evidence of bat use was found. However, the applicant should be aware that any works to the farmhouse and garage could affect bat roosts. Whether or not such works require planning permission they could require derogation under a European Protected Species licence. Advice should be obtained from us before undertaking any such works. Flood Risk The application site lies within Zone B, as defined by the Development Advice Map (DAM) referred to under Technical Advice note 15: Development and Flood Risk (TAN15). We do not hold relevant flood risk information for this application site.

Monmouthshire County Council’s Drainage Officer: The land drainage officer has confirmed that there is a watercourse at the edge of the proposed site. All development should be at least 3 metres away from it. The area is prone to flooding and is being investigated currently. The property St Donats has historically flooded on occasion. However in this case, the buildings for conversion are acceptable subject to the applicants being aware of the local flooding and to build accordingly.

4.2 Neighbour Notification

One letter of objection has been submitted raising the following issues: 1. Proposed site does not accurately reflect the boundary of my property or existing structures 2. The entrance and egress to the site will not conform to Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and Part M of the current building regulations. 3. The application does not consider the impact of the sewerage requirements. A septic tank is proposed yet I cannot see how Section H2 of the current Building

- 40 - Regulations could be met. The downslope of the disposal area would be Bradbury’s Farm which is not acceptable. 4. Application form, the applicant has incorrectly marked that the proposed site is not within 20 metres of a watercourse and that the area is not at risk to flooding. Both of these points are incorrect. 5. No attempt to address the general disturbance, noise and traffic that would directly affect me or my neighbours on this lane or the impact of the narrow culvert access for the vehicles during the works.

5.0 EVALUATION

The main issues that arise in the consideration of this application are addressed below:

5.1 Consideration of proposal in relation to UDP policies H4, ENV1 and DES1

Whilst this application proposes the conversion of two agricultural out-buildings, both buildings are situated within the built up area of Crick. Policy H7 does not therefore apply in this case. The relevant policies that apply in this case are Policies H4, DES1 and ENV1 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan. The proposed scheme seeks to retain the most worthwhile parts of each building; the existing openings have been retained, with new openings kept to a minimum. In the case of Barn 2 where there are areas of block work this has been clad in horizontal boarding. Visually the buildings represent a significant improvement over the existing buildings. The boundaries are demarcated by existing natural boundaries and with the exception of a small open fronted wood store serving Barn 1 there are no extensions proposed to the scheme. The proposals have been sympathetically designed to accord with Polices H4, ENV1 and DES1.

5.2 Neighbour Impact

There is one neighbouring property in close proximity to the site, this being Bradbury farmhouse. There is a sufficient distance separating the application site from this neighbouring property with no conflict in use or potential overlooking arising from the proposed development. . With regard to the other neighbouring properties situated to the north of the site a strong landscaping belt that demarcates the northern boundary to both barns will screen the proposed development from neighbouring properties to the north. With regard to any potential conflict that can arise between the two new units that are being created the aspects of both Barn 1 and 2 are oriented to prevent direct overlooking; there is a one window in the gable that serves the kitchen that will need to be obscure glazed to prevent direct overlooking into the front garden area of Barn 2. A condition is recommended accordingly. The use of the proposed access driveway by the prospective occupiers of the two converted barns would not harm the amenity of the residents of Bradbury Farm, because the access adjoins outbuildings, rather than habitable parts of the farmhouse.

5.3 Flooding and Drainage

The application was initially submitted proposing to use a septic tank, but this has subsequently been changed to a cesspit in response to consultations with National Resources Wales. The application forms indicated originally that the site was not in

- 41 - an area at risk of flooding and is not within 20m of a watercourse; this has subsequently been amended, and has been assessed accordingly. National Resources Wales have recommended a number of conditions to be imposed to ensure that the drainage is acceptable within this area. The Council’s Drainage Officer is satisfied with the proposals and comments are in line with retaining a buffer zone of 3 metres around the watercourse on site. This can be accommodated without compromising the scheme.

5.4 Highways

There is a right of access over the existing culvert which provides access to the proposed units and the existing farmhouse which is now in separate ownership. The Council’s Highways Engineer has recommended conditions ensuring that the site accommodate safe vehicle movements and be able to serve three dwelling units without compromising highway safety.

5.5 Other Issues Raised

The new owner of Bradbury farmhouse has raised concern regarding the proposed development. The issues regarding flooding have been addressed above. The site ownership boundary was correctly raised as being incorrect. To clarify this, when the application was submitted the red line demarcating the application site did include an area of land that is now owned separately by the neighbour who has recently purchased Bradbury farm. The site location plan however was correct when the application was originally submitted back in 2012. Delays that have resulted from design amendments and the requirement for a full archaeological evaluation have resulted in this proposal taking many months to reach a point whereby it can be determined (as a Council planning application) by Planning Committee. The site boundaries have since been changed and a new site location plan has been submitted that correctly shows the ownership boundaries. The site plan has also been altered slightly whereby the proposed turning head would be accommodated within the revised site boundary line.

The neighbour has raised issues regarding disabled access but this would be addressed through the Building Regulations. With regard to noise and disturbance resulting from the construction works on site this is covered under separate legislation.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: Approve

Conditions/Reasons

1. Time condition (five years in which to commence development). 2. Submission of external materials for agreement on site. 3. Archaeological Watching Brief. 4. Removal of permitted development rights – extensions, outbuildings and alterations. 5. The kitchen window on the eastern elevation of ‘Barn 1’ shall be obscure glazed, and remain as such in perpetuity. 6. The driveway from the culverted access shall be improved to provide a shared driveway of 4.5m wide for a minimum distance of 5m.

- 42 - 7. The driveway shall be of a hard surface material of concrete or bituminous material for a minimum distance of 5m from the site boundary. 8. A scheme for enhancements for bats and birds including built in nesting and roosting opportunities shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval prior to works commencing on site and thereafter implemented. 9. A roof lining of traditional 1F bitumen only shall be used in the development, hereby approved. 10. Prior to development commencing on site a scheme shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA for lighting of the site, designed for minimal impact on roosting bats and new roosting opportunities. 11. The development hereby permitted shall not be commenced until such time as a scheme to dispose of foul drainage to a cesspit/pool has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The cesspit shall meet the requirements of British Standard BS 6297. The scheme to be submitted shall provide detailing and justifying the proposed location and size of the cesspool, its intended construction / design, and a proposed schedule for emptying the tank. 12. The drainage shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details agreed in Condition 9. 13. Landscaping scheme to be submitted prior to development commencing on site. 14. Full implementation of landscaping and protection of existing 15. Final details of boundary materials shall be agreed prior to development commencing on site, no other boundary material to be erected other than that approved as part of this application. 16. The site must be drained by a separate system of foul and surface water drainage (with all clean roof and surface water being kept separate from foul water). 17. Roof water drainpipes must be connected to the drainage system either directly or by means of back inlet gullies provided with sealing plates instead of open gratings 18. No development shall take place until a scheme for the provision and management of a 3 metre wide buffer zone alongside the watercourse shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and any subsequent amendments shall be agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The buffer zone scheme shall be free from built development including lighting, domestic gardens and formal landscaping; and could form a vital part of green infrastructure provision. The scheme shall include:

 plans showing the extent and layout of the buffer zone  details of any proposed planting scheme (for example, native species, local provenance)  details demonstrating how the buffer zone will be protected during development and managed/maintained over the longer term including adequate financial provision and named body responsible for management plus production of detailed management plan  details of any footpaths/ fencing.

- 43 - DC/2012/00920

CHANGE OF USE TO RESIDENTIAL DWELLING INCLUDING A DRIVEWAY AND ON SITE PARKING

PORTSKEWETT BARN, MANOR WAY, CHEPSTOW

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Officer: Nia Morrison Date registered: 22nd February 2012

This application was presented to Committee on 7thMay 2013 with the recommendation that the proposed conversion to a residential use should be approved. A condition set by Natural Resources Wales however required finished floor levels to be set at 9.9m AOD, which meant that the ground floor level needed to be raised, together with the height of the barn. This has been achieved by making external design changes to the fenestration of the barn, such as external and internal steps to ensure the barn is useable and protected from flood risk but these changes also ensure the external design does not detract from the barn’s rustic character and its visual impact within the surrounding street scene. The increase in the roof pitch was inevitable in any case because the existing barn has a round-topped section that would not provide a good design solution if left unaltered. Re-consultation letters regarding these changes to the design were sent to all consultees on the 16th May 2013 and no objections have been received. Since re-consultation there have been further minor alterations to the external appearance of the barn to improve its integrity as a conversion. It has also been established that the barn is located outside the Portskewett Village Development Boundary. The proposed principle of the conversion of the barn and the visual changes to the barn have been re-assessed in the planning report, re-presented below.

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 The application relates to a redundant barn located within the centre of Portskewett, but outside the Village Development Boundary (VDB). The site is within a C1 flood plain and Source Protection Zone (SPZ) and an archaeological sensitive area (ASA). The site is located within a prominent location in the village, north and east of the site is the village green and immediately south of the site it is noted that there is a current consent for 4 new residential houses, although this consent has not yet been implemented. East of the site (to the other side of the village green) are two converted stone barns. There is an existing vehicular access point into the site off Manor Way which runs adjacent to the western boundary of the site.

1.2 It is proposed to convert the existing building to a residential use, which includes the following elements:  Replacement of the existing curved corrugated roof with a slate roof.  A glazed screen to the north elevation  A new roof to the existing projecting gable on the south elevation

- 44 -  A glazed screen to the projecting gable  3 no. rooflights to the south elevation  A car parking area for three vehicles and car turning area. This is to be surfaced in a resin-bound gravel  A landscaped garden area, with traditional five-bar field gate access, a stone boundary wall to the west elevation and hazel hurdle fencing as a means of enclosure on the eastern boundary  The barn is to connect to the public mains sewerage system.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

No history in relation to the application site. There is a current application for land immediately south of the site for 4 new dwellings.

DC/2010/00246 – Reserved matters for 4 dwellings following outline permission M11748 – Approved 13.12.2010

3.0 UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

ENV1 General Development considerations DES1 General Design considerations H7Rehabilitation of rural buildings within the open countryside ENV9 Development on a flood plain CH10 Archaeology

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultation replies

Portskewett Community Council – recommends approval

Highways - provides the following comments: - We would require the provision of three car parking spaces in line with the MCC Parking Standards (2012) that states one car parking spaces should be provided per bedroom. Bays should be a minimum of 2.6m x 4.8m. A revised plan should be provided to clarify the provision of the three car parking spaces.

- Whilst we are satisfied that a splay of 2.4m x 40m (the recommended splay for 30mph roads) is achievable to the north, the southern splay is currently obstructed by a hedgerow fronting the development site that reduces visibility. I do however note that this hedgerow is not included as part of the application site and therefore potentially outside the control of the applicant. I would therefore request that the applicant clarifies whether the hedge is within their control and if so, provides an updated plan showing the provision of a 2.4m x 40m splay to be contained within the curtilage of the site. If the hedgerow is not within their control, we would condition that the maximum available stopping sight distance be maintained to the south of the access, measured from the centre line 2.4m back from the highway to

- 45 - the nearside kerb of the County highway. It would be difficult to sustain an objection on the basis of this issue given the site access already exists and formally served an agricultural based land-use. It is considered that the width of the access shown at circa 5.0m would actually help with enhancing the visibility splay to the south (should the hedgerow not be within the control of the applicant) although the distance of 2.4m would be reduced to circa 2.0m.

- The plan proposal provides pedestrian / vehicle inter-visibility splays of at least 3m x 3m to the rear of the footway / highway boundary such that there would be no obstruction to vision above a height of 600mm above the adjoining highway level.

- The proposed access will need to have a hard surface of concrete or bituminous material for a minimum distance of 5m from the highway boundary. Gates if provided shall not open outwards and shall be set back a minimum of 5m from the highway boundary.

- The maximum gradient of the access shall not exceed 1 in 12 (8.3%) 5m back from highway edge.

- The level of the property is below the level of the adjacent highway. It is therefore recommended that the design proposal considers the necessity to implement positive measures to prevent surface water from the adjacent highway ingressing into the site of the proposal.

Caldicot Wentlooge levels IDB – No objections and welcomes the intention to use sustainable drainage systems to control surface water run-off. Draws attention to the Board’s requirements for surface water disposal

Natural Resources Wales (formerly the Environment Agency) – The flood data submitted as part of the application relates to flood levels within the river channel, and not those that will be experienced on site. Therefore although the flood levels are higher than the finished floor levels recommended in the FCA (9.9m AOD) the likelihood of these flood levels reaching the development site is considered minimal for the following reasons:

- Flood waters will dissipate as they overtop the flood defences in the area, and given the extensive flood plain it is considered the flood level will drop. - The development site is ‘defended’ by two main infrastructure components, the M4 and a railway and it is considered highly unlikely that any flood event would overtop these structure and cause flooding to the development site.

We are therefore satisfied there is minimal flood risk providing floor levels are set no lower than 9.9m AOD in accordance with the FCA.

The site is located within Source Protection Zone 1 (SPZ1) and drinking water protection area. The development will be acceptable if the planning conditions

- 46 - are included requiring submission and subsequent agreement of details in relation to the storage of oil and other fuel.

Natural Resources Wales (from an ecological perspective, containing the functions of the former Countryside Council for Wales) -we welcome the submission of the bat report and the mitigation measures detailed within Section 10 ‘Recommendations’. Subject to the implementation of the recommendations set out in that report we do not consider the proposed development will result in a detriment to bats providing the following conditions are implemented as part of a consent:

The scheme should be implemented in accordance with Sections 10.2-4 ‘Recommendations’ of the report ‘Portskewett Barn, Portskewett, Monmouthshire. An ecological site assessment’, Just Mammals Consultancy, dated October 2012.

- The preparation of a method statement to detail how bats will be conserved during the development to be submitted and agreed in writing with Monmouthshire County Council prior to the start of works. This must address but not exclusively the timing of works; schedule of works; number, dimensions and locations of any replacement bat access points and roost sites; action to be taken in the event that bats are encountered. To be implemented as agreed’.

We also advise that the applicant seeks a European Protected Species licence from Natural Resource Wales under Regulation 53 (2)e of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 before any works on site commence that may impact upon bats. Please note that the granting of planning permission does not negate the need to obtain a licence.

Biodiversity Officer-The buildings have been identified as bat roosts of low to medium conservation significance (depending on which species are actually using the building). Suitable mitigation and compensation for the loss of the roost and further potential roosting areas has been proposed including a dedicated loft space to the specifications necessary for brown long eared and myotis bats. Work will have to be carried out under the auspices of a Welsh Government derogation licence (confirmed by NRW). As a result of this, the LPA needs to appropriately consider the Three European Protected Species Tests under the Conservation of Habitat and Species Regulations 2010. It is noted that NRW do not consider the proposed development will result in a detriment to favourable conservation status of bats (letter dated 02/04/2013). Due to the low conservation significance of the roost and the fact that the work will be carried out under the auspices of a WG licence, it is considered appropriate for us to condition the provision of a detailed method statement – as suggested by NRW.

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust - On receipt of the submitted archaeological evaluation there are no objections providing a condition is imposed that requires a photographic record of the building is made.

- 47 - Cadw – There are no scheduled ancient monuments, historic parks and gardens or historic landscapes affected by this proposal. Cadw therefore, does not have any concerns to raise in respect of this application.

Conservation Officer - The application is for the conversion of the barn to residential use. The building is prominently sited adjacent to the Scheduled Ancient Monument; however it does not include any part of the SAM site. In essence the application proposes to add a pitched roof to the main barn and to incorporate the existing pitched roof over the projecting element. The principle of conversion to residential is not contested, however it is considered that improvement could be made to the application to ensure that the conversion is sympathetic to the building and its surroundings. I am unsure of the proposed materials but the roof will need to be a natural slate, a sample should be conditioned, together with the roof having a pointed verge and should not incorporate a boxed eaves. It should incorporate butt jointed ridge tiles and cast aluminium rain water goods. The application proposes eight roof lights which will create significant clutter to the roof and should be reduced to the very minimum, with them being on the south elevation only as this is the least prominent. The internal space could be re-organised to make the best use of the existing windows. Where roof lights are proposed, these should be conservation style roof lights. The windows and doors should be of a painted timber, 1:10 section details of the units should be conditioned. In the most part the openings follow those of the existing apart from the solid door to the utility and the larger opening to the lounge is less in keeping with the agricultural character of the building. In addition landscaping is also important, the surface treatment of the yard should also be considered and a stone wall to the east elevation rather than hazel fencing should also be considered.

Public Right of Way Officer – The applicant’s attention should be drawn to Public Footpath No. 10 in the community of Portskewett. Public Footpath No. 10 must be kept open and free for use by the public at all times, alternatively, a legal diversion or stopping-up Order must be obtained, confirmed and implemented prior to any development affecting the Public Right of Way taking place. No barriers, structures or any other obstructions should be placed across the legal alignment of the path and any damage to the surface of the path as a result of the development must be made good at the expense of the applicant.

Tree Officer - No adverse comments. The tree survey report is very comprehensive and I agree with its recommendations. The trees to be removed are either dead or small and insignificant. There are no TPOs on the site and it is not a conservation area.

Welsh Water – No objections to connecting to the public mains; requests conditions in relation to foul and surface water.

4.2 Neighbour consultation

Two neighbour representations from local residents have been received with the following concerns:

- 48 - - The site is prominent and must be monitored closely. There must not be any access from the private dwelling onto the village green. During any building construction and afterwards the green must be protected and restored to its usual village prominence.

- The barn is directly opposite my house. There is concern the proposed window on the west elevation will look into the habitable rooms of my property.

5.0 ASSESSMENT

5.1 Principle of the proposal

The site is located just outside the Portskewett Village Development Boundary and therefore classed within the open countryside. Policy H7 of the Monmouthshire UDP therefore applies, which states that :‘the form, bulk and general design of the proposal, including any extensions respect the rural character and design of the building; the conversion does not constitute substantial reconstruction ; is not constructed from modern materials; is capable for providing adequate living space with only modest extension allowed. In this case Portskewett Barn is constructed from stone walls and is considered suitable for conversion without the requirement for substantial reconstruction. Although a new roof and some rebuilding of the walls to accommodate the new pitched roof will be required, it is considered that as the site is in close proximity to the built up area of Portskewett Village and due to the positive visual impact of converting the barn in a sensitive way there is scope in this specific instance for these rebuilding works and the proposed roof extension is considered to enhance the appearance of the barn, providing the extra living accommodation to ensure it is comfortably habitable.

5.1.1 The principle of having a residential conversion from this building is therefore accepted providing all other material considerations are acceptable. This includes development within a flood plain, visual amenity, residential amenity, highway safety and parking, landscaping, and biodiversity considerations, discussed within the ensuing sections.

5.2 Development on a flood plain

5.2.1 The proposal is within a zone C1 flood plain as defined by TAN15, within which new residential dwellings, classed as highly vulnerable development, are normally permitted. Natural Resources Wales have been consulted and advise that the risk level is acceptable provided floor levels are implemented no lower than 9.9m AOD as it is noted that the flood plain is extensive and flood waters are likely to dissipate before reaching the application site and the application site is defended by the railway and M4 road infrastructure. It is therefore considered in this particular instance the flood risk can be acceptably managed and acceptable design changes have been incorporated into the building to accommodate the required finished floor levels.

- 49 - 5.2.2 It is also important to note that the site is within a Source Protection Zone (SPZ) and drinking water protected area. It is therefore very important that oil and fuels do not contaminate this water storage area and a condition would ensure this. An informative will also draw the developer’s attention to this important issue and an environmental permit is likely to be required.

5.3 Visual amenity

The application barn is located within a prominent location in the village, with the building fronting the public green and main road. Its physical presence and thus its visual appearance therefore have a very important role in the street scene and the visual character of the Portskewett. Proposed materials of natural stone walls, a natural slate roof and timber fenestration(illustrated painted in a pale green colour) are considered visually pleasing and will enhance the appearance of the building and also the surrounding street scene. Rooflights have been rationalised and a condition will ensure they are conservation-style rooflights that do not project above the roof plane. Conditions will also ensure the specific external materials, including the colour of the fenestration, external stone and slate are agreed, as would the proposed external surfacing and sectional details of windows and doors would need to be submitted.

5.4 Residential amenity

It is not considered that the application proposals would cause unacceptable harm to the amenities and privacy of surrounding residential properties as the site. Although there is concern from the property opposite that there is potential overlooking from the window on the western side elevation, this window is small and also high-level, and this is demonstrated on the sectional drawing that the window is above ‘viewable’ height. The plans have also been amended for this window to have obscure glazing and this will be ensured with a condition. This window is therefore not considered to cause unacceptable overlooking. Windows to the north of the barn will front the public village green and there is no access straight out onto the green from the north elevation. Access into the building is on the south elevation via the enclosed private residential curtilage.

5.5 Highway considerations

Highway officers have concerns with regard to the proposed visibility splay to the south, where the minimum splay of 2.4m x 40m cannot be achieved due to an existing hedgerow that is not within the control of or part of the application site. It is considered that although this splay cannot be achieved, the access is an existing one which has historically been used by vehicles. Visibility can be achieved to the north and vehicles approaching from the south are on the other side of the road (therefore there is the opportunity for a car to edge out onto the highway / to pull forward before turning onto the road). It is also noted that the hedge is due to be removed to form a garden curtilage as part of the as yet unimplemented consent DC/2010/00246 (although this development may not be carried out). All other highway concerns have been met and there is sufficient parking for three vehicles and cars to turn and exit in a forward gear.

- 50 - 5.6 Landscaping

Proposed initial landscaping is considered acceptable. Proposed materials for the driveway and patio are appropriate for the traditional character of the barn and enclosures are sensitive and respect the traditional appearance of the barn. Existing stone walls on the western boundary with the highway are to be retained. There are hazel hurdles in the surrounding area, for instance on the boundary enclosures on the barn conversion east of the site, and the proposed hazel hurdles are not considered to be out of character with the barn and surrounding area. A condition will ensure further landscaping details are submitted prior to development commencing.

5.7 Biodiversity

Bats are present in the barn. Appropriate mitigation has been put forward and this will be conditioned to ensure that this requirement is undertaken and further details of the method of mitigation are submitted prior to works commencing. A licence will also need to be applied for from the Welsh Government and the developer will be made aware of this with an informative.

5.8 Conclusion

Overall, the proposed conversion is reasonably sensitive and is considered to enhance the appearance of the site and the wider streetscene of Portskewett. All other concerns with regard to flooding, archaeology, biodiversity and amenity have been addressed and the application is therefore acceptable development, in accordance with policies H7, DES1, ENV1, CH10 and ENV9 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: Approve

Conditions

1. 5 years in which to commence development.

2. Remove permitted development rights for extensions outbuildings.

3. No part of any wall other than shown on the plans shall be demolished without the LPA’s consent.

4. No walls/ fences to be constructed other than approved under this permission, unless agreed in writing with the LPA.

5. The plan proposal provides pedestrian / vehicle inter-visibility splays of at least 3m x 3m to the rear of the footway / highway boundary such that there would be no obstruction to vision above a height of 600mm above the adjoining highway level.

6. The proposed access shall have a hard surface of concrete or bituminous material for a minimum distance of 5m from the highway boundary. Gates if

- 51 - provided shall not open outwards and shall be set back a minimum of 5m from the highway boundary.

7. The maximum gradient of the access shall not exceed 1 in 12 (8.3%) 5m back from highway edge.

8. The development shall not be brought into use until the specified area for the parking of private motor vehicles has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and that area shall not thereafter be used for any other purposes other than the parking of vehicles. The associated turning areas shall be retained and maintained within the curtilage of the site in perpetuity, free from obstruction, to ensure vehicles are always able to access and egress from the site in forward gear.

9. Development shall not begin until an appropriate photographic survey of the existing buildings on the site has been carried out in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The resulting photographs should be deposited with National Monuments Record and the Historic Environment Record operated by the Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust (Heathfield House, Heathfield Swansea, SA1 6EL Tel: 01792 655208).

10. The roof material shall be natural slates. A sample of natural slate for the roof shall be submitted and agreed in writing with the Local planning Authority. The approved slate shall remain in situ in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

11. The proposed stone shall be of local natural stones, properly dressed and coursed. A sample of the stone shall be submitted and agreed in writing with the Local planning Authority. The approved stone shall remain in situ in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

12. The external walls of the barn shall be lime-washed in a minimum of 3 coats unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

13. The ridge tiles shall be butt-jointed and remain as such in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing.

14. Prior to commencement a 1:10 section details of windows and doors shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The windows and doors shall be implemented as shown on the approved sectional drawing and shall remain as such in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing.

15. Proposed windows shall not have a cill that projects beyond the face of the wall.

16. The proposed rooflights shall have black metal frames and shall not project more than 25mm above the plane of the roof.

- 52 -

17. The exact type and colours of the window and door fenestration shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The approved materials shall be used on the development and remain as such in perpetuity unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

18. All enclosures shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Drwg A837/01-02 with the existing stone boundary wall on the western boundary to be retained and remain as such in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority

19. LAN 12 (Landscaping scheme to be submitted) samples for the driveway and patio shall be submitted.

20. LAN 13 (Landscaping scheme to be implemented)

21. Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site.

22. No surface water shall be allowed to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the LPA

23. Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system.

24. The finished floor levels shall not be set lower than 9.9 metres Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) in accordance with the recommendations of the submitted FCA by Chris Dartnell dated 29thJanuary 2013.

25. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be provided with secondary containment that is impermeable to both the oil, fuel or chemical and water, for example a bund, details of which shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The minimum volume of the secondary containment should be at least equivalent to the capacity of the tank plus 10%. If there is more than one tank in the secondary containment the capacity of the containment should be at least the capacity of the largest tank plus 10% or 25% of the total tank capacity, whichever is greatest. All fill points, vents, gauges and sight gauge must be located within the secondary containment. The secondary containment shall have no opening used to drain the system. Associated above ground pipe work should be protected from accidental damage. Below ground pipe work should have no mechanical joints, except at inspection hatches and either leak detection equipment installed or regular leak checks. All fill points and tank vent pipe outlets should be detailed to discharge into the bund.

26. All works shall be carried out in strict accordance with the submitted Section Recommendations of the report ‘Portskewett Barn, Portskewett, Monmouthshire. An ecological site assessment’, Just Mammals Consultancy, dated October 2012.

- 53 - 27. Prior to the commencement of development, a method statement and illustrative plans to build on what is set out in Section 10 'Recommendations' of the Ecological Site Assessment by Just Mammals dated October 2012 shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. This shall address, but not be limited to, the timing and phasing of works, how works will avoid killing, injuring or disturbance to bats, the dimensions and location of bat roost areas and bat access points, details of the location of external lighting (if any) to demonstrate that bat access points and commuting routes are not illuminated, details and confirmation of the maintenance / management of the vegetation on site to maintain flight paths for bats.

28. Notwithstanding the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no external lighting or lighting fixtures shall be placed so as to illuminate any new bat roosting features and shall be in accordance with proposals in the Method Statement.

Informatives

Public Footpath No. 10 must be kept open and free for use by the public at all times, alternatively, a legal diversion or stopping-up Order must be obtained, confirmed and implemented prior to any development affecting the Public Right of Way taking place. No barriers, structures or any other obstructions should be placed across the legal alignment of the path and any damage to the surface of the path as a result of the development must be made good at the expense of the applicant.

The access between the edge of the carriageway and the site boundary shall be constructed to a highways specification to be agreed with the Operations Manager. In the event of a new or altered vehicular access being formed, the requirements of Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 must be acknowledged and satisfied. In this respect the applicant shall apply for permission pursuant to Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 prior to commencement of access works via the MCC Highways. No surface water from the site shall drain onto the County highway or into the County highway system

Very High ground water levels are experienced. Please find attached a copy of correspondence from Caldicot & Wentlooge Levels IDB which sets out the requirements for the management of surface water runoff.

The Environment Permitting Regulations 2010 make it an offence to cause or knowingly permit a groundwater activity unless authorised by an Environmental Permit which we will issue. A groundwater activity includes any discharge that will result in the input of pollutants to groundwater. Any waste material brought on site with the intention of being used for construction requires an Environmental Permit or an exemption, please contact your local office for advice. Any waste material produced on site should be disposed of by an authorised facility and transported by a registered waste carrier. Please also refer to the attached Planning Advice Note for additional comments and information.

- 54 - A licence is required from the Welsh Assembly Government under the conservation regulations in order to carry out work that will be detrimental to bats. The conditions of any licence issued would ensure that there is no detrimental effect to the bats.

Please note that Bats are protected under The Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. This protection includes bats and places used as bat roosts, whether a bat is present at the time or not.

Please note that all birds are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The protection also covers their nests and eggs. To avoid breaking the law, do not carry out work on trees, hedgerows or buildings where birds are nesting. The nesting season for most bird species is between March and September.

- 55 -

DC/2013/00004

RESERVED MATTERS SUBMISSION TO PROVIDE FIVE DETACHED DWELLINGS, INCLUDING ADOPTABLE ACCESS ROAD, MEANS OF ENCLOSURE & LANDSCAPING

LAND AT PLEASANT RETREAT, PENPERLLENI

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Case Officer: Kate Bingham Date Registered:18th January 2013

This application was deferred by Members at Planning Committee on the 9th April 2013 in order that an improved layout could be negotiated as Members expressed concern over the size of the dwellings. The application has therefore been amended in the following ways;

 Plot 5 has been moved so that the single storey garage is now 3.5 - 4m off the boundary.  The gable end of Plot 5 is 6.9m off the boundary.  There is space for planting along the boundary to Brynteg.  There will be no windows in the gable end of Plot 5.  Plot 2 has been amended from a double garage to a single garage.  The footprint of Plot 3 has been reduced.  The areas of each plot have been indicated together with the % ratio of building footprint to curtilage area: plot 1 - 350 sq. m and 32% of the plot is made up by the building; plot 2 – 395 sq. m and 26% of the plot is made up by the building; plot 3 – 455 sq. m and 28% of the plot is made up by the building; plot 4 – 409 sq. m and 31% of plot is made by the building; plot 5 – 351 sq. m and 33% of the plot is made up by the building.  The open space around each dwelling is comparable to the Burrium Gate development in Usk.

The neighbours, Local Member and community council were re-consulted on the revised drawings.

Re-consultation Responses

Goytre Fawr Community Council – No objections. Please note that concern was expressed that the visibility splay was not wide enough to give good vision either way.

Three representations from neighbouring occupiers received. Object on the following grounds;

 Access onto Star Road is unsafe.

- 56 -  Additional dwellings will overwhelm the existing sewerage system.  Excess rain/spring water drains to Waterperri and Montana which are at a lower elevation than the new build. New dwellings will exacerbate this problem.  Crows that previously nested in the trees that have been felled on the site are now nesting at the back of Waterperri leading to noise disturbance in the early hours and damage to the roof and windows of Montana and Waterperri by crows.

The amended layout has resulted in reduced house sizes and increased garden areas for the proposed dwellings as well as improved the gaps between the houses. It has also allowed space for planting along the boundary with Brynteg. The proposed layout is considered to comply with the terms of policies ENV1 and DES1 of the adopted UDP, and the proposal would not harm the amenity of neighbouring properties, maintaining a reasonable distance between the new and existing dwellings, particularly in relation to plots 4 and 5.

The objections received to the amended layout relate to wider issues that are not related to the layout which have already been addressed in the previous report. The nuisance issue in respect of the crows has been passed to Environmental Health.

The previous report and recommendation are therefore represented.

PREVIOUS REPORT

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 This is a Reserved Matters application following outline approval for five new dwellings in 2009. The application site is situated Star Road, to the east of the main railway line between Cwmbran and Abergavenny. The site has road frontage onto Star Road.

1.2 The dwellings do not need to meet the Code for Sustainable Homes as the outline permission was granted prior to the legislation being implemented.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

DC/2008/00188 Outline application for the Approved 20/01/2009 development of five dwellings.

DC/1991/00624 Development For Residential Withdrawn 29/04/1996 Purposes. DC/1990/01156 Development For Residential Refuse 13/02/1991 Development.

3.0 UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

ENV1-General Development Considerations

DES1-General Design Considerations

- 57 -

H3-Town and Village Development Boundaries for Residential Development

H2-New Housing Land

H9-Affordable Housing

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultation Replies

Goytre Fawr Community Council – It is considered that there is poor access to the development and too many houses. There were originally three. There are also concerns regarding the sewerage.

MCC Highways - It is noted that the site has outline planning approval dated January 2010 under planning application DC/2008/00188. The highways department accepted application 2008/00188 in our correspondence dated 9th January 2009 on the basis that suitable vehicle access and parking provision is provided for the existing Pleasant Retreat dwelling.

It should be reconfirmed that it is the Highway Authority’s normal requirement that access to more than 2 units should be constructed to adoptable standards and offered for adoption under a Section 38 agreement (Highways Act 1980). All roads and footways or ancillary features shall therefore be constructed to Section 38 adoption standards, and in accordance with the requirements laid down in the Monmouthshire County Council Estate Development Highway Design Guide.

Parking for at least 3 vehicles has been provided for each dwelling. Wherever possible we would usually advocate that a dedicated turning area is provided within the curtilage of each dwelling, however given the low traffic volumes and speeds that will be prevalent on the adjacent highway, reversing manoeuvres are considered acceptable in this instance. Vegetation adjacent to the accesses should not impact on pedestrian / vehicle inter-visibility splays.

We do however note that no formal drainage proposal has been provided as part of the application. Prior to lending our full support to the application the applicant should submit a scheme of drainage for the site for review and approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

MCC Tree Officer - Please note that an Oak tree in the south eastern corner of the application site is protected by Tree Preservation Order MCC235/T1 – Pleasant Retreat, Star Road, Penperlleni.

The applicant is therefore required to submit an Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan in accordance with British Standard 5837Trees In Relation To Design, Demolition And Construction – Recommendations 2012.

SEWBREC Search Results – Various species of bats recorded foraging/commuting

- 58 - within the vicinity of the application site.

4.2 Neighbour Notification

Eight neighbouring occupiers notified and site notice posted 17th January 2013. Four representations received. Object on the following grounds;

 There has been a historic issue relating to the sewerage system and the addition of extra homes will place inordinate strain on the existing infrastructure.  Additional traffic movements commensurate with contractor’s plant or extra residential car trips will place a strain on the road system.  No footpath for the whole length of Star Road or some of Plough Road. Given that local school children walk to the nearby school the provision of a footpath must be considered a priority.  20mph speed limit has limited effect. Road calming measures are ineffective/ignored.  Noise levels will increase during construction and when the development is complete as it is not unreasonable to assume that each household will have access to 2 cars and some light commercial traffic.  Access to and from all properties is prejudiced by the inadequate width of Star Road. This can to an issue when it comes to emergency vehicles navigating in these dimly lit streets.  Increased risk of flooding to Montana and Waterperri as a result of the proposed new access road.  There are underground springs to the rear of Pleasant Retreat. If these springs are tapped or diverted it will exacerbate the problem of flooding on Star Road.  The developers and MCC should be held responsible for all damage and costs incurred should any flooding occur to Waterperri or Montana.  No pavement to the west of the new access road which is an important safety issue.  Double yellow lines must be painted on each side of Start Road to stop all excess parking of vehicles over-flowing from the new build.  Householders will end up parking on the new road and delivery vehicles will end up parking outside Montana and Waterperri. It only talks one property to convert their garage to add to the problem.  Visibility onto Star Road is poor.  Increase in noise pollution from vehicles turning into new development.  Headlights of traffic exiting the new access road would shine directly into the front bedroom and lounge of Waterperri and Montana causing nuisance and intrusion on privacy.  Traffic entering the new road would use the area in front of Waterperri and Montana as a pull-in area for extra manoeuvrability.  Sufficient drainage should be placed both side of Star Road outside Waterperri and Montana.  Heavy construction vehicles would make the area a total mess.  The approval of these dwellings should not preclude future development on land adjacent to Montana based on drainage issues because it is not

- 59 - considered that there is one with regards to this application.  Reference made to existing trees on the boundary that are to be retained but a large number of mature trees were removed on 17th October 2012without consultation.  All of the new houses will be overlooking the garden of Bryn Golau which is at a lower level to the site and block light.  Who will the commuted sum for affordable housing be paid to and who will it benefit?  Previous objections from local residents and Community Council have been completely disregarded.

4.3 Local Member Representations

Cllr Bryan Jones – Requests that the application is presented to Committee.

5.0 ASSESSMENT

5.1 Principle of Development

The principle of housing on the site is established through the outline approval DC/2008/00188. The site for the proposed residential development is located within an area suitable for new residential development under Policy H3 of the Unitary Development Plan. There has been some confusion in the past that the site is also part of a UDP allocation under Policy H2 but this is not the case (that site is to the south of the present application site). It should be noted that the layout of this proposal does not leave a turning head that could be used to access the allocated site from Star Road. However, the development of this site does not preclude access to the allocated site from Plough Road where there is sufficient frontage to allow this.

5.2 Visual Amenity

The proposed dwellings would be detached with integral garages. They will be a traditional two storey design finished in facing brick with natural slate roofs, uPVC or aluminium windows with timber vertical boarded garages. The proposed dwellings have relatively large footprints but all allow amenity space around the dwellings to both the front and the rear and the development is not dissimilar in scale and density to other dwellings within the vicinity of the site.

The existing hedgerow surrounding the site will be retained together with the remaining trees, one of which has a Tree Preservation Order upon it. At the time that the outline consent was granted there were more trees along the boundaries which acted to screen the development from neighbouring properties and wider views. A condition of any Reserved Matters consent should be to replace some of the trees that have been removed. The layout of the proposed site has been amended following further discussions with planning and highway officers and has resulted in slightly larger garden areas for Plots 2 and 3 as well as a more informal access and footway area. On balance, it is considered that the proposed development meets criteria (b), (c) and (e) to (i) of Policy DES1 and criteria (a), (b), (l) and (m) of Policy ENV1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

- 60 - 5.3 Residential Amenity

The existing dwelling at the site ‘Pleasant Retreat’ would retain enough land to ensure that they still have a fairly large private garden and space for off street parking for at least 2 vehicles. Potential overlooking of other existing properties adjacent to the site is managed through good design. In this case, the proposed new dwellings have been designed so that there are no habitable room windows (only bathrooms and landing areas) on the side elevations of the dwellings. This way, there would be no overlooking between dwellings or of the existing dormer bungalows Brynteg and Bryn Golau which are located to the north of Plot 5. These properties are sited on substantially lower ground than the application site which is set on a level with the eaves of these dwellings. Although there will inevitably be some loss of light to these properties, there are only three roof lights facing the application site that are not already below the level of the existing close boarded timber fence boundary. The closest part of the proposed dwelling on plot 5 to Brynteg and Bryn Golau would be the single storey garage which further mitigates the impact of the new dwelling on these properties.

The rear of Plots 4 and 5 will face the side elevation of The Gables which is to the west of the application site. There is a distance of approximately 10 metres between The Gables and the site boundary and then a further 6 – 10 metres between the boundary and the rear elevations of Plots 4 and 5. The Gables has no windows on the side elevation facing the application site and so there can be no overlooking between habitable rooms. The garden area to the west of the house will be subject to some overlooking from the proposed houses on plots 4 and 5. However, this would be from a reasonable distance and would be over an area that is currently occupied by single storey outbuildings. Further screening through tree planting can be required along this boundary by condition, to mitigate any impact

It is therefore considered that the proposed development will maintain reasonable levels of privacy and amenity for occupiers of neighbouring properties as required under criteria (d) of Policy ENV1 and criteria (c) of Policy DES1.

5.4 Access and Parking

The application site is located and accessed off the existing County highway (Star Road) that has a posted speed limit of 20mph and a highway width of about 5m. Traffic calming features are present near to the application site and the highway is generally bounded by hedgerows. Access to other nearby dwellings is also provided off Star Road. There is an existing vehicle access that serves the dwelling Pleasant Retreat.

Following a review of the site plans the Council’s Highway Engineers are satisfied that the key highway design features are acceptable, encompassing the provision of an internal access road with road narrowing, pedestrian footways, and dedicated turning facility. The minimum width of the access road is shown at 5.5m near to the site access with informal one metre margin strips either side for pedestrians; this is acceptable given the anticipated volume and composition of the development traffic, and the provision of off-street parking for each dwelling (Manual for Streets). The development would also allow for a 2 metre landscaped strip along the

- 61 - site frontage with Star Road which would be adopted by Highways. The existing hedge would be retained to maintain the privacy of the existing properties on Star Road. The hedge would be cut back only where required clear of the visibility splay.

Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development meets criterion e) of Policy ENV1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

The application site is not required for access to the adjoining site allocated under Policy H2 of the Unitary Development Plan.

5.5 Affordable Housing

Given the development costs, including the length of the access road and the limited scale of the development, it has been agreed by Monmouthshire County Council’s Housing Officer that the affordable dwelling shown on the outline application can be omitted and replaced with a commuted sum instead. The sum has been secured via an amendment to the existing Section 106 Agreement and would still be used for affordable housing in the local area. The proposal therefore meets the criteria of Policy H9.

5.6 Other Issues

The principle of five dwellings on the site has been established through the outline consent and the access is considered to be up to adoptable standards by the Council’s Highway Engineers. With regards to drainage, Welsh Water has not objected to the proposed development and it cannot be established that a small increase in dwellings would exacerbate any pre-existing problem. Moreover, in view of the fact that the site has outline planning permission, to seek to refuse the application on these grounds would be unreasonable and it is considered that the application meets criteria i) of Policy ENV1 which relates to infrastructure.

The parking arrangement for the proposed new development meets current standards and Permitted Development Rights to convert garages to habitable rooms will be removed to ensure the retention of enough off road parking spaces.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Conditions

1. Additional Tree Planting to be agreed in a scheme submitted to and approved by the LPA. Trees to be planted in first planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees that die or are damaged within five years shall be replaced.

2. Prior to the commencement of development, an Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan in accordance with British Standard 5837Trees In Relation To Design, Demolition And Construction – Recommendations 2012 shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA. The recommendations of the agreed Arboricultural Method Statement shall

- 62 - be implemented during the construction of the development.

3. The access shall be constructed to adoptable standards and offered for adoption under a Section 38 agreement (Highways Act 1980). All roads and footways or ancillary features shall therefore be constructed to Section 38 adoption standards, and in accordance with the requirements laid down in the Monmouthshire County Council Estate Development Highway Design Guide. All works must be carried out at the applicant’s expense and shall not commence without prior consultation with the Highways Maintenance Engineer.

4. Visibility splays of 2.4m x 60m to the west and 2.4m x 90m to the east measured from the centre line of the proposed site access shall be provided and maintained. Nothing which may cause an obstruction to visibility shall be placed, erected or grown in the visibility splay areas. The visibility splays must be contained within the curtilage of the application site and should not utilise areas of adjacent land ownership.

5. No other development shall commence on site until such time as the vehicular access to serve the development off Star Road, including visibility splays, has been completed in accordance with the approved plans. Thereafter it shall be retained, unobstructed, in this form in perpetuity.

6. In relation to all vehicle accesses to individual dwellings the following shall apply. The accesses shall be constructed with 45° ease of access splays and the actual driveway widths shall be no less than 3m. The accesses shall be over a properly constructed dropped crossing with a minimum kerb upstand of 25mm. Pedestrian / vehicle inter-visibility splays of at least 3m x 3m will be required to be maintained by the owner of the land (to the rear of the footway / highway boundary) such that there is no obstruction to vision above a height of 600mm above the adjoining highway level. The accesses shall have a hard surface of concrete or bituminous material for a minimum distance of 5m from the highway boundary. Gates if provided shall not open outwards and shall be set back a minimum of 5m from the highway boundary. The maximum gradient of the access shall not exceed 1 in 20 (5%).

7. The development shall not be brought into use until the specified areas for the parking of private motor vehicles has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and those areas shall not thereafter be used for any other purpose other than the parking of vehicles. No garages shall be used so as to preclude their availability for the parking of cars.

8. The proposed garages shall be retained for the parking of private motor vehicles and for any other purposes incidental to the domestic use of the related dwellings in perpetuity. At no time shall the garages be occupied as separate residential units or for any other purposes or use.

9. No surface water from the site shall drain onto the County highway or into the County highway system. Soakaways or septic tanks shall be sited a

- 63 - minimum distance of 5m from the highway boundary. No herring bone drainage shall be laid within 5m of the highway. There shall be no interference with, or connection to the existing highway drainage without the express permission of the Head of Client Services, Maintenance. Where applicable, the applicant shall take positive measures to prevent surface water from the adjacent highway ingressing into the site of the proposal.

10. In the interests of highway safety, no development shall commence, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and been approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

11. Materials shall be agreed with LPA. Samples to be provided.

Informatives

It should be brought to the attention of the applicant that in the event of a new or altered vehicular access being formed, the requirements of Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 must be acknowledged and satisfied. In this respect the applicant shall apply for permission pursuant to Section 184 of the Highways Act 1980 prior to commencement of access works via the MCC Highways.

The applicant must take appropriate measures to safeguard members of the public using the adjacent highway during the course of these works.

In the interests of highway safety, existing public highway boundaries must not be encroached in the course of any works. Should the works require access from or over the County highway, or if there are any queries as to the position of the public highway at the site, then these offices must be contacted in the first instance prior to the commencement of any works. Where applicable, all appropriate highway licences shall be acquired by the applicant prior to the start of any works, including the issue of a Section 50 licence under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.

Bats in Buildings warning (for the existing garage that is to be demolished).

- 64 -

DC/2013/00006

CONSTRUCTION OF A SOLAR PARK TO INCLUDE THE INSTALLATION OF SOLAR PANELS TO GENERATE UP TO 10MW OF ELECTRICITY WITH TRANSFORMER HOUSINGS, SECURITY FENCING AND CAMERAS, LANDSCAPING WITH OTHER ASSOCIATED WORKS

LAND AT MANOR FARM, LLANVAPLEY

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Case Officer: Kate Bingham Date Registered:30/01/2013

1.1 This is a full application for a solar park of approximately 10 megawatts on land at Manor Farm and Crossways Farm, about 1km to the north of the village of Llanvapley and 1km to the south of the village of Llanvetherine. The site covers 27 hectares of a mixture of arable land and pasture and falls under two Community Councils; Llanover to the south and Grosmont to the north. The proposed site is not covered by any wildlife, conservation or landscape designations.

1.2 Seven small to medium-sized, irregular shaped fields make up the site and these are largely bounded by mixed species (native) hedgerows with hedgerow trees. The site is located on a ridge between the River Trothy valley to the east and the Llanmynach valley to the west. In general terms the site slopes downwards from north to south. There would be a minimum 4 - 5m margin around the outside of the site separating the proposed photovoltaic (pv) panels from the hedgerows, facilitating maintenance of hedgerows and providing a maintenance buffer.

1.3 The proposed development comprises approximately 45,000 pv panels installed in linear rows known as strings from east to west with suitable spacing of 2-3 metres to enable grass maintenance and ensure that each row does not shadow the next. Bright sunshine is not essential as the panels convert daylight into electricity. Each panel will be mounted on metal framework securely fixed to the ground and will have a maximum height of 1.54 metres (around 1m lower that the panels at the recently approved solar farm at Usk). They will be set at a shallow angle of approximately 25 degrees from the horizontal facing in a southerly directly to optimise overall annual output. The pv panels do not make any sound while generating electricity.

1.4 The electricity generated by the pv panels would be transferred via cables to inverter stations where the voltage will be changed from Direct Current (DC) to Alternating Current (AC) before being connected to the electricity grid via a substation. The inverter stations are small boxes that would be located beneath the solar panels. They would be sited in banks of ten, one bank for every 720 panels, so that there would be approximately one bank of ten inverters every six-eight rows. An image showing a bank of inverters was submitted with the application but it should be noted that the ones proposed will be grey in colour. The proposed substation will have two basic components; the housing for the switches and distribution board, etc., and an external fenced compound where the transformer sits together with the H-poles that support

- 65 - the cables that will run to the existing overhead line. The proposed housing will be approximately 5m x 8m (40 sq. m) and 4.9m high while the external compound will be approximately 39m x 18m (702 sq. m).

1.5 It is proposed to secure the site with a 2.1m high mesh fence around the perimeter of the site. It is proposed that the fencing will be colour coated black but this detail can be agreed via condition. The only lighting on site will be at the substation compound for the Health and Safety of staff working there during construction. There will be no lighting at all once the site is operational. For security however, CCTV and infrared cameras are proposed. These will be mounted on 2.5 - 2.7m posts approximately every 70m along the boundary, located at least 2m away from the perimeter fence (inside the site) for earthing reasons.

1.6 The solar farm has an expected life span of 25 years plus 6 months construction and 6 months decommissioning.

1.7 There are no new accesses proposed from the highway with the existing Manor Farm access road being used and all existing hedgerows being retained. A number of permanent stone tracks would be provided within the site to enable access around the site during construction and operation. Once the solar farm is operational, the vehicle trips have been identified as approximately two to three visits a year being mostly associated with the monitoring, upkeep and cleaning of the site. These trips would typically be made in small vans. It is anticipated that the construction/installation delivery period of the solar park will take approximately three months. During this period there would be trips associated with the arrival and departure of construction staff by van or car and the delivery of parts and construction materials by HGV. It is estimated that the construction of the solar park will result in 154 HGV deliveries to the site over the three month installation period and even at the most intense period of construction, no more than nine deliveries in any one day.

1.8 With regard to the construction of the proposed development, the method of installation has been detailed in supporting information. A surveyor sets out the pile positions, a specialist track piling machine is located at the markings, and the pile is driven into the ground with 20-40 impacts per pile until the right depth or resistance is achieved. The process takes about one minute per pile. The track machine moves on to the next pile. Meanwhile the rest of the support structure is bolted to the pile, ready to receive the pv panel modules. The decibel rating at the pile head is suppressed by a compressible gasket and noise is probably equivalent to a timber fence post being driven into the ground by a pneumatic arm attached to the back of a tractor.

1.9 One Public Footpath crosses the application site. This will be kept open and free from obstruction for continued use and will be separated from the pv panels by a 2.1m fence screened with new planting. Further new native hedgerow planting is proposed on the north-eastern boundary edge of the two most northerly fields to provide screening for the panels at that location as well as around the proposed substation.

1.10 The proposal would contribute towards the Welsh Government’s renewable energy target from non-wind power sources. The maximum output capacity of the proposed installation would be 10MW which would provide 2788 average households with

- 66 - their total electricity needs which equates to a total of 7.9% of all the homes in Monmouthshire.

1.11 Additional information submitted with the application comprises a Transport Assessment, Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, an extended Phase 1 Ecological survey and Ecological Appraisal, Agricultural Assessment, an Archaeological and Heritage Assessment and although the site is not within any designated floodplain, a Flood Consequences Assessment.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

None relating to this site.

Two solar farms have been approved in the County:

DC/2011/0196 Installation of up to 22,000 photovoltaic panels, erection of inverter and converter buildings, erection of site boundary fencing and CCTV cameras and the underground connection of 11kv cable to existing sub-station at Prioress Mill – Approved 20/5/11 (now built).

DC/2012/00666 Installation of Photovoltaic Panels (Circa 32,400 panels), installation of Inverter & Converter Stations, erection of site boundary fencing & CCTV cameras and connection to the existing electricity grid – Lower Church Farm, Kemeys Commander. Approved 10/12/12.

3.0 UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

SP14 : Energy ENV1: General Development Policy ENV8:Renewable Energy DES1 : General Design Policy DES8 : Nature Conservation and Development DES9 : Design for Wildlife C3 : Development within Special Landscape Areas RE5: Agricultural Land NC2National Nature Conservation Sites

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Local Members

Cllr Sara Jones - Would like raise the following general points in relation to application;

‐ The company Camborne Energy ltd has made contact with me as the County Councillor (note that the majority of the application is not in my ward). In my capacity they have be helpful and accessible and noted to me a willingness to engage with the community. ‐ In relation to the arguments with regards retaining the land for sole farming use as it is grade 3 land, I do not support this argument. With falling grain

- 67 - and meat prices farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to survive on current incomes. I feel that they should be provided with opportunities to diversify to increase revenue and that projects such as these are indeed a good way to expand and grow their business during times of hardship. ‐ In principle I support applications which promote the use of solar energy providing they are in suitable locations and I also welcome the opportunities for diversification of agricultural businesses.

However, it is my duty, as the elected member, to represent the views of the residents within my ward. I have not had any contact from a supporter of this planned application. Rather I have had calls and emails from individuals who are opposed to this development.

There are a number of arguments which they raise which hold merit and should be strongly considered by the planning committee. I will note the primary concerns which I share with the community, the largest of which is over the visual impact of this development.

Tourism is a vital for the economy of Monmouthshire and there are concerns that this development will have a visual impact from many of the local areas which attract tourists and walkers. This development has the potential to have a detrimental impact on the landscape from a visual perspective. As outlined in the development plan, preservation of our historic and natural environment must be considered. I would draw attention to the email from Mr. Christopher Johns who makes a number of valid references to the UDP and deposit LDP.

There are concerns that this project will have an impact on the local highways network and will not provide any investment or employment opportunities for the local community. Both of these points should be considered when identifying what benefit this project will bring to the local area.

The overwhelming concern appears to be that this site is not right for a development of this scale. It is an extremely large development and it will clearly have an impact on the local area given the sentiments that have been shared by the community. I must represent the views of those people who live in the local area and are directly affected and for that reason, and given the contact I have received from them, I am unable to support the proposal in its current form.

4.2 Consultation Replies

Llanarth Community Council – Recommend refusal.

Grosmont Community Council – Recommend refusal. The Community Council is concerned over the scale of the development and its impact on the environment in an area of outstanding natural beauty, the effect on tourism and the loss of good agricultural land. The landowner addressed the meeting explaining the economic need to diversify. Having weighed up the need for increased energy production against the impact on the environment, the members voted to recommend refusal.

MCC Highways - Updated Transport Method Statement to be submitted for review

- 68 - and approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to lending our full support to this application:

- The hours of HGV delivery shall be reduced to limit the traffic impact on the local highway network. All HGV deliveries shall be restricted to 09:30 – 16:00 Monday – Friday to ensure the network peak hour periods are avoided. No HGV deliveries shall be permitted on Saturdays.

- All other non-HGV trips can be made within the timeframe programme currently stipulated within the Transport Statement.

- Sufficient space should be provided within the curtilage of Manor Farm to ensure all vehicles would be able to safely park, and associated turning areas should also be provided to ensure all vehicles can turn and access the local highway in forward gear. The specified areas for parking and turning should be maintained clear of obstacles throughout the construction phase. A clear site plan should therefore be provided illustrating the proposed parking, turning and material storage areas within the curtilage of the application site.

- The maximum size of HGV vehicles to be used shall be stipulated. Please provide a swept path analysis of the route between the B4521 and site access to help clarify that safe delivery can be achieved.

- Based against the largest vehicles to use the route, please provide an indication of all convenient passing places between the B4521 and Manor Farm site access, including the distances between these passing places. Subject to the determination of suitable passing locations, this may necessitate the requirement for localised traffic management along the route to ensure vehicle conflict is minimised.

- To minimise the impact on local landowners, the applicant will be required to inform all local residents / businesses located off Firs Road between the B4521 and B4233 at least 1 week prior to the start of construction. The impact of development traffic should also be suitably advertised on this route throughout the period of construction.

- The applicant shall ensure that all those requiring vehicle access to and from the site are made aware of the Transport Method Statement. An updated Construction Programme shall be provided to the Local Planning Authority prior to the start of any works on site.

The Transport Statement outlines that circa three operational trips will be generated to the site per annum following construction of the development. This is considered to be lower than would actually be anticipated. However, following reviews of other applications associated with such a proposed land use, it is accepted that annual trips would be sufficiently low so as not to establish an adverse impact on the local highway network.

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust(GGAT) – The supporting information

- 69 - includes a Heritage Desk Based Assessment. This has examined the known archaeological resource in the area and also a study area around the site. There are no known features or finds within the development area; although the remains of Cross Cottage and the line of a trackway are noted and a hedgerow deemed as historic. These will not be directly impacted by the development and will essentially be preserved within the site. As the land has formed part of an agricultural unit of at least post medieval original, the assessment concludes that there is therefore low potential for any previously unknown features to be encountered. We therefore have no objection to the positive determination of this application, and taking into account both the nature of the findings of the report and the type of ground disturbance required for the solar park, it is our opinion that no further archaeological mitigation will be necessary.

Natural Resources Wales (formerly CCW, Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission)–NRW previously objected to this application pending the submission of further information with regards to the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA). Although the further information did not include photomontages of all of the viewpoints requested, it is the opinion of NRW that whilst there is potential for some erosion of the visual amenity/character of Ysgyryd Fawr/BBNP, the impacts overall are concluded not to be large enough to affect the special qualities and purposes of the National Park. Based on the above NRW therefore no longer object to this proposal. However, given that there is potential for some impacts, we strongly recommend that the following matters are given due consideration; That the potential impacts of this proposal are mitigated for by appropriately situated landscaping features. That any future applications within this area are assessed for their cumulative impacts on important landscape and views.

NRW’s previous comments:

Brecon Beacons National Park The proposed solar farm stands to cover an area of approximately 27 hectares and is located approximately 2km south east of the Brecon Beacons National Park (BBNP). We acknowledge receipt of the document titled ‘Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, Proposed Solar Park, Manor Farm, Llanvapley, Monmouthshire’ produced by Pegasus Environmental, dated 20th November 2012. We note from this report that the proposal will be clearly visible from the BBNP (at YysgyrydFawr) and that the landscape character of the site will change as a result of the proposals. NRW require further information to enable an assessment of the impacts of this scheme on the overall landscape character of the wider area and amenity views from the Brecon Beacons National Park. In order to determine the impacts on the Brecon Beacons National Park, NRW require the submission of further information in the form of:- photomontages (from viewpoints previously agreed with the local authority landscape architect) providing a ‘visualisation’ of the proposed scheme within the landscape, to include the photocells, security fence, substation and overhead circuit connection.

Local Landscape The proposal also falls within the ‘East Abergavenny’ historic landscape of outstanding value and will be clearly visible from the Offa’s Dyke National Trail. NRW welcome the proposed mitigation relating to the maintenance and planting of

- 70 - new hedgerows and planting of arable bird seed mixes around the site within Section 5 of the report titled ‘Land at Manor Farm and Crossway, Llanvapley, Abergavenny, Monmouthshire: Ecological Appraisal (Phase I habitat Survey & Assessment) for Proposed Solar PV Farm’ produced by Abbey Sanders dated August 2012. We feel that these measures will contribute to protecting the ‘irregular fieldscape’ elements of this historic landscape which make this a regionally rare landscape in the southeast of Wales.

Flood Risk The application site lies entirely outside any of the Zones defined by the Development Advice Map (DAM) referred to in Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk (TAN15) (July 2004). We have consulted our flood map information, which is updated quarterly and this shows that the development site is not located within a flood outline. We do not hold any relevant flood risk information for this application site. We refer you to Monmouthshire County Council’s Drainage Department for further advice. We note that a Flood Consequences Assessment was undertaken and submitted to support this application, produced by PFA, dated 19 December 2012, which states: The lifetime of development for the development is identified as 25 years. The site will remain as 'soft' surface, with grassland surrounding and underneath the photovoltaic panels. Any access roads being constructed will use permeable materials. The photovoltaic modules proposed for this site will each have a small surface area, thus the total surface area of the photovoltaic array is not considered an impermeable area. The site lies within flood zone A, which TAN 15 defines as having little or no risk of fluvial or tidal/coastal flooding. The most likely cause of potential flooding would be extreme rainfall falling on the sub-catchment area exceeding the soil's natural infiltration rate or capacity, leading to an increase in the volume and rate of runoff and resulting in overland flood flows. It is proposed to provide cut-off swales in the lower part of the site along its Eastern boundary to intercept extreme flows. The swales will have a depth of 300mm. It is therefore considered that the provision of swales would lead to an overall reduction in surface water flow rates from the site. The photovoltaic array would therefore have a negligible impact upon site drainage and the natural drainage regime would be retained with no potential adverse impact on the underlying secondary aquifer.

Brecon Beacons National Park Authority – Having reviewed the information submitted by the applicant in relation to the glint and glare impact of the proposal on the National Park, we can confirm that the Authority is satisfied with the information provided and therefore no longer wishes to object to the proposal.

In the event that permission is granted, the BBNP Authority requests that conditions are imposed that require the removal of the solar strings and all associated infrastructure after a period of 25 years, or if the use of the solar panels cease, whichever is the soonest and that the land be fully restored to its previous state in order to protect the special qualities of the Nation Park.

- 71 - Previous comments:

Holding objection. Having reviewed the submitted LVIA and relevant photographs, by virtue of its height, scale and location relative to the National Park, the farm would not necessarily be readily visible within the overall view from within the National Park. However, the submitted Planning Statement comments that the proposed technology to be used seeks to minimise solar glare which suggest that there may well be instances when glare will occur. The Authority is concerned that the LVIA does not acknowledge the potential for solar glare which may result in the farm being a far more prominent feature within the landscape similar to horticultural sheeting evidence in Photoview 1 of the LVIA which in the Authority’s opinion, would have a detrimental visual impact on views from within the Park. (Information was provided by the applicant in the light of this response and BBNP was consulted on this additional information 22/4/13. At the time of writing no response has been received.)

It is therefore requested that the applicant provides further information on this aspect of the proposal and that an addendum to the LVIA is prepared to assess the landscape and visual impact of potential solar glare on the special qualities of the National Park.

Cadw – The proposed development is located in the vicinity of the scheduled ancient monuments known as White Castle (MM006), Hen Gwrt Moated Site (MM094), Penrhos Mound & Bailey Castle (MM097), Remains of St Michael’s Chapel and Skirrid Fawr Defended Enclosure (MM182), St James’s Churchyard Cross, Llanvetherine (MM317) and St. Mabil’s Churchyard Cross, Llanvapley (MM318). Of these, the substantially complete 12th and 13th century masonry and earthworks of White Castle (MM006) comprise one of the finest examples of its type in Britain. MM182 covers monuments of two periods, the earthworks of a large, probably prehistoric defended enclosure encircling the summit of the isolated ridge of Ysgyryd Fawr, which is capped by the remains of the medieval chapel of St Michael. MM094 comprises the moated platform of a medieval manor house, whilst MM097is a well- preserved motte and bailey castle, one of the few in the region to be recorded by history. MM317-8 are medieval churchyard cross bases set within the yards of listed churches.

The LVIA has identified views from both Ysgyryd Fawr (Photoview 1) and White Castle (Photoview 5) as being of high sensitivity due to their designated status although no specific consideration is made of their settings. Both monuments, including the hillfort and chapel on Ysgyryd Fawr and White Castle are likely to have been deliberately sited in order to command expansive views of their common broader setting. At present this comprises a rolling agricultural landscape characterised by a patchwork of boundaries and dispersed settlement dating to the medieval period and later. When viewed from either monument this landscape is largely free of large scale modern development. MM182 Photoview 1 establishes that the development will be visible in the middle/distance from St Michael’s Chapel on the summit of Ysgyryd Fawr, 3.5km to the NW. The ZTV study and Cadw’s own field visits confirm that substantial areas of the proposed site are likely to be visible from most points within the eastern hillfort defences and on the approach to these and the chapel along the ridge and its upper slopes to the S. Paragraphs 7.17 and 7.28-30 conclude that ‘..due to the distance, the site will be unobtrusive in the overall landscape context..

- 72 - ..because of the visually prominent existing manufactured elements in the landscape (power lines and large fields covered with horticultural plastic), and the unobtrusive size and muted colours of the solar park development materials’.

7.29-30 conclude that there will be a ‘low magnitude of change’ and ‘moderate to minor effect’ on these views. In Cadw’s view it is difficult to assess independently the full impact of the proposed solar farm on these views without a more developed visualisation of the proposed scheme and its reflective panels than the indicative lines on a photograph provided. The presence of plastic horticultural sheeting in the landscape is highlighted as an extenuating factor although this is only a seasonal measure and markedly less extensive than the solar farm itself in the photograph provided. MM006 Photo view 5 is taken from the Offa’s Dyke path, below and to the W of White Castle, approximately 2km to the NE of the proposed site. This, the ZTV study and Cadw’s observations confirm that substantial areas of the proposed site will potentially be visible from this position, occupying a considerable proportion of views W from the castle. Paragraphs 7.18, 7.21 and 7.40-2 conclude that: ‘the prominence of the horticultural plastic in the middle and far distance is considerable and within the overall panorama the solar park will sit relatively unobtrusively into the field matrix’ and that ‘in the short term there would therefore be a medium magnitude of change, but as the mitigation planting establishes this will be reduced to a low magnitude of change’. Whilst it is likely that intervening vegetation will provide some degree of visual screening the magnitude of this impact is again difficult to assess independently without more developed visualisations of the scheme. In this case, more extensive views towards the development from the top of the gatehouse, which the castle was sited to command, should also have been taken into account. A site visit indicates that the solar farm will occupy a substantial proportion of the skyline when seen from this position, potentially more so than any areas of seasonally laid horticultural sheeting. The Glint and Glare assessment supplied with this application indicates that White Castle will fall within the more easterly glint zone created by the solar farm. Such effects should have been considered in conjunction with the LVIA. MM094 / MM097 Cadw would agree with the conclusion in paragraph 7.19 of the LVIA that the development will not be visible from Hen Gwrt due to intervening topography and only to a limited extent from the Penrhos Motte and bailey some 4.8km distant and at a similar elevation. MM317-318 The Heritage Desk-Based Assessment and the LVIA do not consider these monuments. Based upon site visits undertaken in the process of assessing this application, there is likely to be no inter-visibility with MM318 and limited, if any with MM317, although it was not possible to fully assess the latter on the ground.

Conclusions The LVIA, its accompanying ZTV study, photo views and observations made during the recent site visit by a Cadw officer indicate that elements of the proposed development are likely to fall within significant views of the surrounding landscape from both Ysgyryd Fawr and White Castle. Whilst views of the solar farm from these monuments will be relatively distant ones and will not, in Cadw’s view affect our understanding of the castle, hillfort or chapel site, the reflective panels, their associated ancillary structures, tracks and security fences will still represent a substantial addition to the otherwise undeveloped rural landscape within which they

- 73 - are now experienced. There will therefore, in Cadw’s opinion, be some adverse impact on the present settings of both monuments. Whilst Cadw agrees with the conclusion of the LVIA that these impacts are likely to be at most moderate ones, their magnitude is difficult to fully assess without photo-montage visualisations of the completed development from these viewpoints and a more detailed study specifically relating to the monuments themselves.

Photo-montages and a Heritage Setting Assessment were provided by the applicant after this response was received and Cadw made the following further comments;

The supplied photomontages demonstrate that the view of the central portion of the solar farm from the western gateway tower of White Castle will be largely hidden by existing topography. The 'ends' of the development will be visible, but the overall development appears smaller and is broken up, reducing the overall impact of the development on the setting of the monument. The photomontage for Ysgyryd Fawr demonstrates that the proposed solar farm will be visible from the higher elevated monument in its entirety in the middle distance and that it will not be screened by intervening topography. However, here the distance and orientation of the proposed development are helpful, as the perspective as depicted in the photomontage shows that the development would be viewed 'end-on'. As such the view of the development appears compacted and in our opinion the impact of the development on the setting of this monument is correspondingly diminished.

In conclusion, the Cotswold Archaeology report and its accompanying photomontages have demonstrated that there will be a visual impact on the setting of both monuments as a new element will have been introduced into the environs of both monuments. However, given the comments above, in Cadw's opinion the impact of the proposed development on the setting of the monuments will be minor and not a cause for concern.

MCC Biodiversity Officer - The site composes six arable fields bounded by hedgerows. The ecological assessment reports that the site has limited biodiversity value although it is anticipated that the hedgerows provide some passage for species such as bats. A pond exists close to the boundary of the site.

A series of issues to be covered by condition are included below (see also Section 5.0: Conclusions of the submitted ecological report and comments made by Gwent Wildlife Trust 15/04/2013.) The basis of the requirements is explained with a reason for each condition.

MCC Landscape Consultant - The Review concludes that there are significant effects on users of Ysgyryd Fawr in the National Park, on users of White Castle, on dwellings and users of footpaths in the valleys to the east and west of the proposed development [including a stretch of Offa’s Dyke Walk].The level of significance is not stated, however. The purpose of attributing significance is to raise those issues that should be taken into account, and which the LVIA understated. However, in my view, none of the effects are at the level of significance that is severe i.e. a showstopper, and the number of receptors is relatively limited. This series of significant effects therefore do not necessarily mean that the development should not be approved for planning, on balance, when other factors are taken into consideration,

- 74 - including the temporary nature of the development and policies supporting renewable energy. The arrays, though more widely visible than the LVIA states, and clearly constituting built form, are relatively low and are located within the hedged pattern of the landscape, responding to the curves of the landform. However, in order to mitigate effects, especially from White Castle, it is recommended that the mitigation proposals mentioned in the review are put in as planning conditions. It may be helpful to discuss these with the developer prior to ensure that landowner agreement is given. It would be hoped that in around twenty years time the landscape could be improved in this location with the mitigation measures remaining in place and the arrays, substation and associated infrastructure removed.

MCC Tree Officer - I do not believe the trees at this site are under threat of serious damage or destruction as a result of this proposal. The trees are mainly hedgerow specimens on the boundaries of the site. The proposed additional native tree and hedge planting plus the reinforcement planting of existing hedgerows are to be welcomed. As an added safeguard a condition to this effect should be imposed on any consent. I do not feel that a tree preservation order for this site is necessary and I have no further comment to make.

Public Rights of Way Officer- Public Footpath Nos. 242, 240A, 147 and 44 must be kept open and free for use by the public at all times, alternatively, a legal diversion or stopping-up Order must be obtained, confirmed and implemented prior to any development affecting the Public Rights of Way taking place.

Public Rights of Way are concerned about the proposal for the following reasons.  Enclosed nature of fenced in section of Footpath detracting from their enjoyment.  Future surface maintenance of enclosed sections of Public Path which currently require little work because of the agricultural use of the land. Enclosed paths are likely to become very overgrown. If however Development Control is minded to authorise the development Public Rights of Way require that the following be conditioned into the permission.  That any fence lines enclosing public paths be a minimum of 3m apart.  That surface maintenance of public paths to be enclosed becomes the responsibility of the landowner for the life of the site.

Gwent Wildlife Trust - No objection to the above development, but would like to make the following comments:

There are three biodiversity concerns relating to this site – the protection of species present and retained habitats, compensating for the loss of arable habitats, and maintenance of wildlife corridors through the site. We agree with the findings of the ecological report, and welcome initiatives to enhance existing habitats and create new habitats. Protection of species that may be present and retained habitats can be conditioned as follows:  Timing of hedgerow cutting to outside of the bird breeding season  Badger survey, with licence applications and timing/avoidance measures as needed

- 75 -  Protection of retained trees and hedges during construction to BS5387  Protection of ponds during construction, by fencing a buffer area  Use of inert materials for access tracks  Storage of materials away from trees, hedges and ponds

Farmland Birds It is difficult to assess the value of the arable fields for farmland birds. Lack of overwintering food sources is a contributory factor to the decline in farmland birds, so the value of the arable fields depends on the crop and management. Farmland birds include UKBAP and S42 species such as yellowhammer, tree sparrow, linnet, reed bunting, skylark and starling, all of which are red or amber listed.

TAN 5 (2009) states that ‘The potential effects of a development on habitats or species listed as priorities in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), habitats or species listed by the Assembly Government as of principal importance for the purposes of conserving biological diversity and by local biodiversity partnerships are capable of being a material consideration in the preparation of local development plans and in making planning decisions.’

The ecological report states that wild bird seed mix will be planted within ‘retained grassland areas at site access corridors’ but it is unclear exactly where these will be. Given that some of these areas may need to be kept short for vehicle access, some are inaccessible between the security fence and hedges and that the site is proposed to be grazed, we are concerned that these areas will be minimal, and may not be managed appropriately. We therefore recommend that a specific area of wild bird seed planting and its subsequent management for the life of the development is conditioned – 1.5 to 2ha, for example, would equate to approximately 10% of the area of arable lost.

Equally, we welcome the production of a management plan, which should also be conditioned. This should cover management and monitoring of each feature (trees, hedges, ponds, grassland and wild bird seed planting) for the life of the project (25 years).

Ecological connectivity Although we know little about the effects of solar farms on wildlife, it is reasonable to expect that movement patterns could be affected by the installation of the panels, and by the erection of the security fence. Monmouthshire’s UDP protects ecological connectivity through policy NC6.Measures to reduce the impact of the development are listed below, and should be conditioned if possible:  Provision of badger gates (informed by the badger survey)  Protection and maintenance of hedges, with gaps filled with native species  Buffering of hedges so that the panels and access tracks are at least 3m away  Where the field margins are not being used for wild bird seed, the developer could consider planting traditional hedgerow plants or wildflower mix.

The NERC Act (2006) states that ‘Every public body must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity’. This places a statutory obligation on the council to preserve biodiversity where possible.

- 76 -

NFU Cymru – Support the application. NFU Cymru has played a leading role in recognising the many opportunities for agriculture to tackle climate change and harness renewable energy resources from the land, and in developing a Greenhouse Gas Action plan for our sector. The union has submitted robust responses to Government consultations on its Renewable Energy Strategy and more recently the incentive schemes for renewable electricity and heat. It is the Union’s stated aspiration that all farmers and growers should have the opportunity to diversify their business into supplying renewable energy services. The many different kinds of renewable energy are now becoming as important as tourism in terms of farm diversification, with up to a third of all farmers and growers involved in some way. Renewable energy products such as the one proposed by our member, will contribute significantly towards fostering socio-economic development as well as producing green energy. We therefore support the recommendation of this project for planning approval.

Brecon Beacons Park Society – The site is some 2.2km from the eastern border of the National Park. The proposed development would clearly be visible from the summit ridge of Ysgyryd Fawr, from the scheduled monument of St Michael’s Chapel, and the long distance path the Beacons Way, as well as other points in the National Park. The scale and massing of 27 ha of rectangular black solar panels would cause an ugly intrusion into this rural and unspoilt landscape. The landscape is described in Landmap as “an undulating patchwork of managed hedges, hedge banks, hedgerow trees and small copses with streams, of high scenic quality...... The area has an unspoilt character and maintains its integrity and settlement limited to small linear hamlets and scattered farmsteads. The area has a moderate sense of place through its common character, topographic and visual unity and rhythm. A rural landscape of moderate rarity due to its lack of development.”

The views of this beautiful area are enjoyed by visitors and local people alike and a solar park of this scale would be totally out of keeping with it. We ask you to ensure the protection the scenic beauty of this area by rejecting this application.

The Village Alive Trust - The Trust works to conserve the local landscape for the economic, social and heritage benefit of rural people and the many visitors to this part of Monmouthshire. We object in the strongest terms to the proposed Solar Farm development at Llanvapley for the following reasons;

1. The Village Alive Trust has real concerns about this application in terms of its impact on the landscape and believes that the scale of this development is inappropriate for this location. It is insensitively and unsympathetically sited, with particularly adverse effects on the amenity value of White Castle and Ysgyryd Fawr. 2. Planning Policy Wales states that biodiversity and landscape considerations must be taken into account when determining planning applications. The Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment bases its argument on a flawed premise. In paragraph 7.8 it states that “in the context of the landscape panorama, the site is unobtrusive in the matrix of agricultural fields. Prominent manufactured features in the landscape include the fields of horticultural plastic, pylons and power lines as well as the isolated settlements and homesteads.” 3. The existing site is unobtrusive – it is an agricultural field pattern set in an

- 77 - agricultural landscape. If built, the development will be obtrusive. It is an alien feature in the landscape. The term “manufactured features” is entirely misleading. This landscape is essentially man-made. The isolated settlements and homesteads are an integral part of the landscape contributing to its evaluation by Landmap as “high” in visual terms, “high” in cultural terms and “outstanding” in historic terms. The LVIA appears to support the idea that the presence of pylons and powerlines within the existing landscape undermines its value and therefore additional degradation is acceptable. 4. The LVIA refers to the visual intrusion presented by the horticultural fleece and the photographic evidence is presented for us to agree. The fact is that this is a necessary and ephemeral horticultural method to optimise growing conditions in the colder months. Take these photographs in a different season and the view will have changed. The same cannot be said of the 25 year unchanging scene on offer with this development. An unscientific estimate of the fields shown with fleece would suggest about half the acreage of the proposed “solar farm”. Thus, even the partial views referred to in the LVIA will have an adverse visual impact. 5. The nature of the construction proposed, its straight lines, uniform massing, uniform texture, artificial colours etc. will draw the attention of any viewer and will be an aberration in this landscape, no matter how panoramic. The fleece underlines this problem; it does not provide an excuse for development. And unfortunately the viewers in this instance are likely to be located in our tourist hotspots, vital to our local economy. 6. The LVIA states in paragraph 7.2 “The proposed development would use a limited palette of both colours and materials. Visibility of the proposed development…would not be considered to be incongruous.” This seems to be a naive assessment, especially when elsewhere in the document it states that the proposed “solar park would bring about a major magnitude of change on the site with the introduction of a new element of energy infrastructure into an open field. “ It continues “The characteristic elements of the wider landscape would remain physically unaffected with the development in place and as a consequence there would be no change in the landscape character of the surrounding area.” This seems to show a very poor understanding of what affects character. Introducing views into an industrial style development from a rural context has an effect of that rural character: a negative effect. 7. A similar specious argument is presented in paragraph 6.3. It states “new planting would create and enhance the Green Infrastructure of the site….by linking the existing hedgerows with new native planting to increase the biodiversity . . “ This, the LVIA contends, will elevate the impact of the proposals from “adverse” to “beneficial”. However, such linkages are not available. The site is effectively isolated from its immediate environment by a security fence. Obviously not a problem for the birds. But it is hard to appreciate how small mammals and amphibians will be able to access this new wildlife corridor given the design of the fence – 2.1m high anti-climb mesh with openings of 12.7mm. The ecologist's report specifically identifies the need for gaps in the fence to accommodate the badgers that access this land. Doubtless the developers will not allow this on security grounds. How then will biodiversity be improved by excluding some elements of wildlife? 8. Similarly the mitigation measures shown on the “Block plan” in appendix 7 “Landscape Mitigation Plan” do not tally with the ecologist's recommendations. It is hard to understand how biodiversity will be enhanced when the existing hedges have more species diversity than those proposed. 9. We cannot find any reference to “glint and glare” from the panels, an issue the

- 78 - Local Planning Authority specifically requested form part of the impact assessment in the letter dated 1st November 2012 to Pegasus Environmental. Perhaps we have overlooked this information (Subsequently submitted by the developer).

The Village Alive Trust looks forward to some amendments to the proposals, if not a re-siting to a more suitable, less sensitive location. We note that other solar developments exist, such as that in Usk. This development appears to be on low lying ground with few, if any, vistas on higher ground from which to observe the development and with considerably less negative impact on tourism. We note also that it is half the size of this proposal – possibly easier to integrate into Monmouthshire's beautiful landscapes? The Trust supports alternative sources of power generation, if appropriately sited and based on sustainable technologies.

We conclude that to allow the proposed development runs counter to planning guidance designed to protect and enhance the countryside and, if approved, would bring planning and tourism blight with consequent economic and social effects that would far outweigh the commercial gain envisaged by the developers.

Llanvapley Sports & Social Association – Support the Welsh Government’s advice in TAN8 (renewable energy) and understand the need to involve the local community on proposed developments such as this one. The Sports and Social Association would have been happy to meet with the developers but were not given the opportunity at any stage prior to the application. As we consider that a due and diligent process has not been adhered to, we object to the application.

SEWBREC search results – No records of any protected species within the vicinity of the site found.

4.2 Neighbour Notification

At the time of writing this report, 114 representations had been received together with a petition of support for the application signed by 10 individuals. Some of the correspondence received was multiple representations from the same household.

A total of 45 separate households object to the proposed development and have raised the following concerns which have been grouped into similar categories for ease of reference.

Visual Impact and Location

- Totally unsympathetic to the landscape. - Development is 21st Century ‘Rape of the Fair Countryside’ - Will result in a loss of amenity for everyone who lives, travels or works in the area. Other sites are available that would have a smaller environmental impact that this site will have. - Development would have an unacceptable adverse impact on features and areas of tourism interest and their settings, namely The White Castle, views from the Skirrid, Offa’s Dyke footpath and the Beacon Way. - Site will be visible from Footpaths nos. 242, 240A, 147 and 44.

- 79 - - Wrong size, wrong place. - Represents an obtrusive eyesore on a beautiful part of Monmouthshire – damaging rural tourism. - Development highly visible. Whatever planting is proposed, it will not disguise this eyesore. - Harmful visual impact of the substation (and question why substation plan was amended late in the process). - Visually dominant to neighbouring occupiers. - Too close to Firs Road. - Development should be reduced in size to avoid the upper boundary clipping the horizon from various local viewpoints. - Site is on a prominent ridge. - South and southeast boundary has no natural screening. - Screening must be mature planting. - Fence too high. - Highly visible to occupiers of Chapel Farm. - Public and planners reliant on LVIA submitted by the applicant.

Loss of Agricultural Land - Loss of good agricultural land. - Nation should concentrate on producing food, not relying on foreign imports of dubious origin. - UK has small quantity of agricultural land per capita relative to neighbouring countries. - Development would be better located on a brownfield site. - Panels will shadow the ground and therefore grass quality for grazing will be poor. - Agricultural land should not be used for industry. - More suitable alternative sites. - Land should be used for managed woodland to be used in converted coal fired power stations.

Impact on Local Community - Large scale commercial development will bring no benefit to the local community in terms of jobs, income or other developments. - This will set a precedent for future speculative green energy developments in this area. - No gain for local economy - developer not a Welsh company, no gain in jobs for local people and panels are manufactured outside Wales. - Developer should be charged for the degradation of the roads due to HGVs. - Reduction in value of local houses. - Impact of HGVs on local residents. - Object to CCTV cameras next to residential properties.

Policy - The planned development does not fit in with the stated intention of MCC UDP countryside objectives. - The proposal is not compatible with the MCC UDP stated objective to control development and land use change that would adversely affect important landscape and wildlife features.

- 80 - - The proposal is not consistent with UDP Policies CH7, CH12, C1, DES1, ENV8, T1, S13, SD1, LC3, LC5, DES2 and Strategic Policy SP8. - Costs to the environment do not outweigh the benefits. - MCC already met targets on renewable energy. - Proposal contrary to the guidelines contained in the REEES addendum published in February as part of the LDP process.

Application Details - Comparing panels to horticultural plastic/fleece is misleading. - Application is lazy, opportunistic and unprofessional. - 25 years is not temporary. - Company only out to make money. - No consultation prior to the application being submitted. - Community Councils should have been contacted sooner. - Vehicle passing places not feasible. - Request 3D CAD drawing. - Transport Assessment is incomplete. - Errors in application form. - LVIA is subjective and inconsistent - Substation plan not definitive. - Possible plans by Westminster to increase incentives for communities to accept renewable energy projects. Therefore this application should be rejected so that the correct community benefits can be gained the next time an application is made.

Other - Amount of electricity produced is minimal - Not enough sunny days and so no point. - Costs to the tax payer subsidising the project. - Disruption to stock in nearby fields and problems moving stock across the B4598. - Piecemeal approach to renewable energy. - Reduction in landing areas for paragliders. - Harm to Red Kites who are shy and don’t like disturbance. - Possible wind noise through the fence and hum of inverters. - Site is too remote for such a large installation/ - Potential land contamination from lead leakage from panels. - CCTV monitoring not compatible with rural area. - Must not lose sight of long term impacts of our decision, despite the attraction of short term benefits.

A total of 36 separate households support the proposed development for the following reasons:

- Visual concerns can be addressed with the correct tree and hedge planting measures. - Need to do our bit locally to provide renewable energy but do not need inefficient, noisy and visually horrific wind turbines or wholesale destruction that would result from a major project like the Severn Barrage. - No noise.

- 81 - - Site is relatively isolated and sparsely populated. - No loss of agricultural land. - Connection to grid requires no upgrade. - Land not in any special landscape or conservation area. - Not readily visible from Llanvapley or any other village. - Potential gain outweighs any fears people have locally. - Local objections are short sighted. - Additional tree and hedgerow planting may attract wildlife. - Need for farming diversification. - When tracking along Firs Road from the top of the Skirrid, the site is largely hidden by an area of woodland further up firs Road. - May be visible from White Castle tower but area of land covered by application relative to the view as a whole is minimal. - Solar farm will provide interest and education on renewable energy. - We should encourage alternative power production schemes. - Most of the footpaths skirt the site and are behind tall hedges. - From a distance, solar farms look similar to water reflecting the colour of the sky. - It would be reassuring to see the council approve such a forward thinking proposal. - Compelling need for energy from alternative sources. - The land will continue to be used for agriculture and will remain a greenfield site. - Other alternative sites across the county could be considered to be of equal if not greater landscape value than this. - Number of people employed on the farms will remain the same as now. - Local community will benefit from approx. £15,000 per year of rates. - Famers who own the fields should be thanked for allowing their land to be used for such projects. - This type of alternative power is needed for future generations. - The area of land to be used is negligible compared to the land available in Monmouthshire. - Tourists will be attracted to the area to come and look at the panels and learn about them. - The substation will look no worse than a garage. - The site does not fall under any special designation such as AONB, SLA or SSSI. - Site is divided by hedges and so will not be viewed as one vast panel. - Better than a wind farm or nuclear generator. - Must look at the benefits for society as a whole. - Limited environmental impacts. - No loss of tourism experienced at Llancayo where a solar farm has been developed. - Solar farm at Llancayo provides useful grazing for sheep. - Solar farm at Llancayo has blended into the landscape very well. - Solar farm at Llancayo visible from Grade II Listed Trostrey Church but excites little comment. - Parts of the solar park will be visible from White Castle and the Skirrid but this is not important as there is nothing objectionable about a solar park. It is quiet, clean and does not smell.

- 82 - - Should be some pride in seeing a problem (need for green energy) and offering a solution. Panels should be seen so that electricity generation is not taken for granted. - Reassured to find that Monmouthshire County Council is prepared to do something about the energy problem.

One general comment was received querying why an associated community contribution will not be provided.

5.0 ASSESSMENT

The main issues regarding this proposal concerns the following:

- Principle of Development; - Landscape/ visual impact; - Biodiversity; - Agricultural land quality; - Neighbour Impact - Access/ Traffic; - Glint and Glare; - Rights of Way - 5.1 Principle of Development

5.1.1 Chapter 4, Planning for Sustainability, of Planning Policy Wales (2012) encourages renewable and low carbon energy sources at all scales. Chapter 12 Paragraph 12.8.9 sets out that ‘Local planning authorities should facilitate the development of all forms of renewable and low carbon energy to move towards a low carbon economy’ subject to protection of designated sites for nature conservation and the historic environment.

PPW paragraph 12.8.1 provides that ‘The UK is subject to the requirements of the EU Renewable Energy Directive. These include a UK target of 15% of energy from renewables by 2020. The UK Renewable Energy Strategy (2009) and the UK National Renewable Energy Action Plan (2010) sets the path for the delivery of these targets, promoting renewable energy to reduce global warming and to secure future energy supplies. The Welsh Government is committed to playing its part by delivering an energy programme which contributes to reducing carbon emissions as part of its approach to tackling climate change (see 4.5). The Welsh Government’s Energy Policy Statement (2010) identifies the sustainable renewable energy potential for a variety of different technologies as well as establishing the commitment to energy efficiency. It explains the aim by 2050, at the latest, to be in a position where almost all of Wales’ local energy needs can be met by low carbon electricity production. The approach is to reduce energy consumption and improve energy efficiency first and maximise renewable and low carbon energy generation at every scale across Wales. This is part of a concerted effort to tackle climate change in Wales (see 4.5)’.

Additional advice on solar arrays is provided in the WG publication Practice Guidance – Planning implications of Renewable and Low Carbon Energy.

- 83 - In this case the proposal will contribute towards the Welsh Government Assembly’s renewable energy target from non-wind power sources. The maximum output capacity of the proposed installation would be 10MW which would provide 2788 average households with their total electricity needs.

5.1.2 The Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policy SP14 sets out that ‘The Plan will promote the generation of energy from renewable sources where that is consistent with other polices and will encourage appropriate energy conservation measures in the design of development.’ Policy ENV8 permits proposals for the generation of power from renewable energy sources subject to: (a) the development not having an unacceptable adverse effect on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers by reason of noise emission, visual dominance, shadow flicker, reflected light, the emission of smoke, fumes, harmful gases or dust; (b) no electromagnetic disturbance is likely to be caused by the development to any existing transmitting or receiving systems of (if such disturbance may be caused) that measures will be taken to remedy or mitigate any such disturbance; and (c) transmission lines between the development and the point of connection to the grid do not have an unacceptable adverse effect on the environment.

Planning conditions may be imposed to secure restoration of a renewable energy site within an agreed timescale following permanent decommissioning.

As regards these criteria, the proposed solar farm would have no effects on local amenity by way of noise (other than the very brief construction period), smoke, fumes, gases or dust. Visual impact and reflected light are considered below. As regards criterion b) above, there would be no electromagnetic disturbance as the electricity is cabled directly to the substation and then to the Grid. Transmission lines are already largely in place, and any new cabling would be ground based, and thus have no visual intrusion.

Subject to consideration of the visual impacts below, these two policies are considered to be satisfied by the proposal.

5.1.3 The principle of the development is broadly acceptable and encouraged by national and local planning policy (to reduce global warming and to secure future energy supplies) subject to local impact, which is considered in the following paragraphs.

5.2 Landscape/ visual impact.

5.2.1 The main issue is whether the development can be accommodated without having an adverse impact upon the character and visual amenity of the surrounding area. To ensure that the decision is not based solely upon a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment submitted by the applicant, an independent landscape consultant has been employed by the Council and his comments have been taken on board and included in the evaluation below.

5.2.2 The proposed solar farm is located on the top and upper sides of a low rounded ridge flanking the Trothy valley to the east and the Llanymynach Brook to the west. The elevation of the site ranges roughly from around 108m AOD in the south-east rising to 138mAOD to the north-west. The valley floors are around 70m AOD to the south-

- 84 - east and 80m AOD to the south-west. The surrounding landscape consists of lowland undulating ridges, hills and valleys in productive mixed farming. The fields are generally bounded by low cut hedgerows with some trees. Most tree cover tends to be associated with riparian corridors, settlement and occasional copses. There are some poplar plantations on lower valley sides and floors and orchards further afield. Settlement is widely scattered and rural outside the small villages of Llanvapley, Llanvetherine and Llantilio Crossenny. A power line with pylons runs across the landscape between Llanvapley and Llantilio Crossenny. The upland landscape of the Brecon Beacons lies as a backcloth to the north-east with Ysgyryd Fawr as the most prominent landform but the distinctive profile of Sugar Loaf Mountain is also apparent. To the north-east, the isolated and distinct hill of Graig Syfyrddin is a landmark.

5.2.3 The area is not designated for its special landscape character although a Special Landscape Area [SLA] is located around 700m to the east and wraps around the site around 1.7km to the north and west. The Brecon Beacons National Park (BBNP) boundary lies 2.2km to the north-west. The fine medieval White Castle [a scheduled monument] lies on the ridge 1.8km to the east. The Offa’s Dyke Path National Trail and the Three Castles Walk promoted paths meet here.

Potentially the most concerning viewpoint relates to the summit ridge of Ysgyryd Fawr (Skirrid) and the White Castle which is a Scheduled Ancient Monument. There will also be limited views from the Offa’s Dyke Footpath and the Three Castles Walk at a distance of approximately 1.5km.

5.2.4 Ysgyryd Fawr

Ysgyryd Fawr is a distinctive steep sided outlying hill with a ridge shaped spine which is part of the Brecon Beacons National Park. It is very popular for walks to its top including the remains of St Michael’s Chapel, and is also on the Beacon’s Way. There are panoramic views from the top and wide views from the path along the ridge spine. To the west, there are views of the bleak, wild uplands of the Black Mountains and to the east there are views across to the Malverns and Trellech plateau across the settled but unspoilt undulating farmed lowlands of Monmouthshire. This marked contrast is one of the great pleasures of views from this location. Views to the east are important as this tends to be the sheltered side of the hill where people linger more often to admire the view. Abergavenny lies to the south-west [away from the site] and forms a detractor, so views from the Ysgyryd are not entirely unspoilt. The proposed development is located around 3.5 km to the east situated running away from Ysgyryd along the low ridge. Views look down on the rear of the solar panels. Whilst the rear of the panels are light coloured laminate they would generally be in shade although there may be some reflection from the grey galvanised steel tops. In summer, there is likely to be sun on the backs of some panels for short periods at either end of the day which may make them more prominent. The development is likely to appear light grey with linear elements and slightly ragged edges set within a series of hedged fields so the grain of the landscape would remain. The original Photoview 1 prepared by Pegasus shows an unbroken area of horticultural plastic at a similar distance which is indicated as being prominent in the landscape. It is likely that though this is smaller in size than the proposed solar farm that the development would be less reflective and therefore more recessive. However, the developer has

- 85 - stated that the horticultural plastic is in position for eight months of the year so during the winter months the solar farm would be the only large-scale slightly reflective/light grey built element located centrally in the view. As such, it will draw the eye rather than other features such as White Castle. The revised photomontage prepared shows the development as a dark forest/olive green. It is considered that this is not an accurate representation as no elements of the development are this colour and the panels will be more apparent than the grass beneath which may not be visible at all.

Overall, the development is likely to be apparent in this mostly unspoilt extensive rural view, depending on light and weather conditions. The effect is considered to be of moderate/slight magnitude on a high sensitivity receptor which is a significant effect, albeit at the lower end of the significance scale.

5.2.5 White Castle

White Castle is a fine Medieval Castle and a scheduled monument managed by Cadw. It is located in a commanding position on a gentle ridge overlooking the Trothy Valley with views to the Black Mountains including the Ysgyryd, and the Blorenge and associated ridge to the south in the National Park. The main elements of the castle remain, including the deep moat and a series of towers and walls, and have recently undergone careful renovation. The castle is in a very tranquil and unspoilt rural location, and has a very strong sense of place. There is a viewpoint from the top of the main remaining tower across the landscape which tends to be focussed towards the south and west due to the location of trees and outer walls to the north and east. This unspoilt view across the Trothy valley towards the Blorenge [and the site] is of an undulating countryside of three parallel ridges with mixed farming and scattered ruralsettlement. The proposed development site is located 1.8km from the castle at its nearest northern and southern extents. The lines of solar arrays will be viewed from the side and slightly to the rear. Not all the development would be apparent, which is helpful. Arrays on the two south-eastern fields would be visible, along with the substation and compound. The field to the south east would be mostly screened in summer. Arrays on the eastern parts of the two northern fields would also be visible rolling over the ridge top. These will be partly screened by hedgerow trees including poplars in the summer. Arrays in the intervening fields would be almost totally screened by hedges and trees in the summer with only filtered views in the winter.

At this distance, the lines of arrays would be clearly apparent man-made features, some on the ridgetop, although they would follow the curve of the landform. The development is likely to appear light grey with linear elements and slightly ragged edges set within a series of hedged fields so the grain of the landscape would remain. Clear views towards the development would be possible from the viewing tower and from the south-western edge of the monument site, outside the walls. There are also filtered views through trees from the bridge across the moat and alongside the moat to the west of this. Elsewhere, views are limited by walls or vegetation. The Blorenge and associated ridge to the south on the skyline would act as part of the backcloth to the development.

The mitigation originally proposed was raising the hedges by around 1m in all fields, with occasional trees, and new hedgerows and trees in the two northern fields. Whilst the existing hedges could grow to the required level in a couple of seasons the

- 86 - proposed new tree and hedge planting would take around 10-15 years to have any noticeable mitigating effect i.e. around half the lifetime of the proposed development.

Visualisations prepared for the viewpoint initially were inaccurate in terms of the fields used by the development. The revised photomontage received in April 2013 appears accurate although missing out any indication of arrays in the middle fields due to the technical difficulty of presenting these filtered through trees. It is also not at a specified viewing distance.

The LVIA states that the effect initially would be moderate adverse magnitude of effect on a high sensitivity receptor [which would be significant] but this is reduced by the mitigation to a low magnitude of effect meaning that the effect is not significant. The Council’s Landscape Consultant considers that the view is important and there would be a moderate adverse magnitude of effect on visitors to the castle who are high sensitivity receptors reducing to moderate/slight over time as mitigation takes effect. Both effects are significant. In terms of effects on visitors to the monument overall, there are significant parts of the castle that would not have views of the development.

5.2.6 Treadam

Photoview 6 in the LVIA does not accurately show the full extent of the site which extends further to the right/north to include grass fields beyond the poplar plantation. It would be expected that arrays would be visible on the far right of the extent and the far left of the extent with very limited visibility of the arrays in between as these would be screened by intervening trees and hedgerows. The effect is considered to be of moderate/slight magnitude at worst on a high sensitivity receptor [houses nearby] which is a significant effect, albeit at the lower end of the significance scale. It is noted that most of the dwellings at Treadam would have oblique views of the development. The view from the road would be glimpsed only and would be oblique. Clearer views from the road, footpaths and scattered properties are possible to the south

5.2.7 B4233 and footpath adjacent

Photoview 11 appears to indicate that there is no visibility of the site from this direction. This does not reflect the full reality of views from this area. A better viewpoint further east along this road is shown in Photo C. A similar view to this would be seen from nearby footpaths and rural dwellings, albeit a glimpsed oblique view from the road. This indicates that the full length of the site is visible on top of the ridge across the Llanymynach valley in front of Graig Syfyrddin. The arrays would be viewed from the front. The hedges in front of the development would be raised but the arrays on the rising landform behind these would still be visible. There would be a moderate adverse magnitude of effect on users of public footpaths and some properties which are high sensitivity receptors. The effects on these receptors could be regarded as significant. The effects of oblique views on the medium/low sensitivity road users would be unlikely to be significant.

5.2.8 Firs Road

- 87 - The photo viewpoints in the LVIA do not show the full extent of the view along the road which borders the site, or intermediate viewpoints between the two locations. It would be expected that there would be close views of the arrays at various points and they would be noticeable above the hedges, especially in winter on the crowned site. The effect would be expected to be at least high/moderate on a medium/low sensitivity receptor- i.e. of moderate significance.

5.2.9 Brecon Beacons National Park

With regards to views from the Brecon Beacons National Park (BBNP), the proposed development at its nearest points is located approximately 2km to the east of the BBNP boundary The submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment document includes a viewpoint taken from within the National Park, referred to as Photoview 1 on top of Skirrid Fawr, which is also a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The BBNP Landscape Character Assessment (2012) specifically identifies this area to fall within Landscape Character Area 12: Sugar Loaf and Skirrid and specifically identifies the long views attainable from the Skirrid over open land and particular need to protect these long views from development including outside the National Park. Having reviewed the submitted LVIA and relevant photographs, the officers in the National Park have indicated that by virtue of its height, scale and location relative to the National Park, the farm would not necessarily be readily visible within the overall view from within the National Park. They did raise some concerns about the potential impact of solar glare which had not been addressed in the LVIA and subsequently the applicant provided more information.

5.2.10 Overall, it is considered that there are significant adverse effects in views from Ysgyryd Fawr, White Castle and some isolated properties and public footpaths in the valleys and valley sides to the east and west of the site, as well as on the site itself for the duration of the development’s life. The effect on landscape character as a whole is of moderate adverse significance and major moderate on the site itself. The effect from White Castle is of greatest concern as this is very special historic feature with clear views to the site from its viewing tower. The other key issue is that this development is located in the middle of a largely unspoilt, tranquil rural landscape. However, it is acknowledged that the site is not visible from any of the surrounding villages, power lines on pylons do cross the landscape to the south and the area is excluded from the SLA. Apart from White Castle and the Ysgyryd, the number of receptors would be limited. It is also considered that there is also no significant effect on the National Park’s special qualities or purpose. The views from White Castle are limited to a few, albeit important, locations. The development is temporary although replacement panels may be installed subject to further planning permission in the future, which may be easier because of the established use.

5.2.11 Hedgerows provide an effective screen from close, mid and long range viewpoints, and the same will be applied in this case in association with supplementary planting including new and enhanced hedgerows and tree planting. The visualisations provided demonstrate that allowing the existing and proposed hedgerows to establish a height of 3m will reduce the visual impact of the solar farm, and the mitigation measures suggested in the report by the Council’s landscape consultant have also been included in the application. This includes two new temporary Poplar tree plantations to the north eastern edge of the site and additional tree planting in the

- 88 - northern hedgerow of the south-eastern parcels to enhance screening from the White Castle and the introduction of Oak tree planting in the north-western hedgerow to provide some additional screening of views from the Skirrid. It is anticipated that in around twenty years time the landscape will be improved in this location with the mitigation measures remaining in place and the arrays, substation and associated infrastructure removed. When this is considered together with the dark appearance of the panels (the glare from the surface of the panels is mitigated by using an anti- reflective coating which reduces reflection to 4% of incident light compared to 10% for normal glass) the proposed development would be less visible within the broader landscape. Closer vantage points from the public footpaths will be screened by existing woodland and hedgerow, whilst the one key viewpoint that can be achieved from the Usk Valley Walk is to be softened significantly by the hedgerows and tree planting that will form a significant screen and distraction from the proposed development.

5.2.12 In summary it is concluded that although there will be some adverse impacts upon the character and visual amenity of the landscape as a result of the proposal, on balance these will be limited and none are considered to be ‘severe’. The Landscape Strategy and Management Plan will seek to mitigate these impacts. In view of this limited range of vantage points from where the site will be visible and with the mitigating landscaping measures proposed, it is concluded that, overall, the proposed development can be accommodated on the site without causing significant harm to the wider landscape and is compliant with Policies C3, ENV1 (h) and (l) and DES1 (e) and (h) of the UDP.

5.3 Biodiversity.

5.3.1 A Phase 1 Habitat Survey or ‘Ecological Appraisal’ has been carried out by Abbey Sanders Ecology on behalf of Camborne Energy Investments Limited, in August 2012. The focus of the study was, to assess the potential ecological impact of the proposed development. No designated sites or protected areas have been identified at or in close proximity to the site and no records of protected or important species were found within the site boundary, although these were identified within 2km of the site boundary. The site contains arable land and semi-improved grassland margins with semi-natural hedgerows within and around the site.

5.3.2 Signs of Badger were found during the survey and this species is therefore likely to roam across the site and may have a sett nearby. The ponds at Manor Farm and Crossway, outside of the site boundary hold some potential for amphibians, including great crested newts, although these are not known in the locality around the site and the ponds are not of high habitat value. Hedgerows at the site were considered to hold potential for nesting birds, and as commuting routes for bats and are also considered as lower potential shelter habitat for amphibians and reptiles.

5.3.3 The Habitats Survey found that existing habitats within the main part of the site were considered to hold low value for wildlife, with some potential for ground nesting birds. Proposals to introduce low sheep level grazing of new grassland below the panels offer some benefits to wildlife at the site, through increased plant diversity, as does new hedgerow planting, with ungrazed arable field margins planted with a wild bird seed mix offering continued potential ground-nesting opportunities. Overall

- 89 - therefore, impacts of the scheme on priority and protected species were assessed as being mainly low or minor. However, wildlife protection measures described within the report by Abbey Sanders Ecology should be put in place (via conditions) including management of hedgerows, potentially containing nesting birds, through timing and frequency of cutting and protection of potentially emerging amphibians and reptiles through the avoidance of any works to hedgerows and ponds around the construction area during works. It is considered that following these measures the proposals will not have an unacceptable impact on nature conservation features. Positive ecological management of retained habitats should be implemented.

5.3.4 It is concluded that providing the relevant conditions are imposed, which includes the submission of a Habitat Management Plan that will be tied in with a Landscape Management Plan, the scheme is now acceptable in terms of impacts on biodiversity. The proposal will not harm any protected species and will enhance nature conservation features at the edges of the fields within the site. As such the proposals accord with Policies NC2 and DES8 and 9 of the UDP.

5.4 Agricultural land Quality

5.4.1 The majority of the site is identified on the Provisional Agricultural Land Classification Map (1977) as Grade 3 agricultural quality (although there is no information on whether the classification is 3a or 3b) with potentially some Grade 4 quality land at the east of the site. PPW steers development away from the best quality agricultural land, in that paragraph 4.10.1 states that, ‘In the case of agricultural land, land of grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) Agricultural Land Classification system (ALC) is the best and most versatile, and should be conserved as a finite resource for the future. In development plan policies and development control decisions considerable weight should be given to protecting such land from development, because of its special importance. Land in grades 1, 2 and 3a should only be developed if there is an overriding need for the development, and either previously developed land or land in lower agricultural grades is unavailable, or available lower grade land has an environmental value recognised by a landscape, wildlife, historic or archaeological designation which outweighs the agricultural considerations. If land in grades 1, 2 or 3a does need to be developed, and there is a choice between sites of different grades, development should be directed to land of the lowest grade.’ UDP Policy RE5 echoes this policy.

5.4.2 The proposed site is in the ownership of two separate agricultural businesses. The arable fields at the south of the site are owned and operated by the farming business based as Manor Farm while the pasture land to the north of the site referred to as Crossways, is owned and operated by a farming business based as Perth-y-Pia to the south of Manor farm. The arable land at Manor Farm (approximately 36.4 hectares) is currently arable farmland producing cereal crops and fodder turnips. The remaining land at Manor Farm (approx.12.1 hectares) is down to pasture and a commercial poplar tree plantation (approx. 7.7 ha). Around 300 sheep owned by a local farm graze on the holding from October to March. The land at the north of the site known as Crossways is down to pasture and extends to approx. 52.6 ha. The holding is a former organic dairy unit but is now rented to a nearby large dairy unit for grazing and silage production.

- 90 -

5.4.3 If the proposal is constructed, the landowners propose to graze sheep under and among the arrays. At other times the pasture could still be mowed. The installation of the solar panels requires relatively unobtrusive construction methods with only the frames of the panels being pile-driven into the grounds and as such, the agricultural land will not be irreversibly developed as the soil and land quality will be unaffected. Furthermore, at the end of the life of the development, the land could easily revert to being used for growing arable crops. As such, the development will not involve irreversible development on high quality land and therefore accords with Unitary Development Plan Policy RE5. Furthermore, both land owners will benefit from long term rental agreements on the land which will provide a useful source of income to supplement their farm businesses..

5.5 Neighbour Amenity

5.5.1 There are ten residential properties within 500m of the site. With the exception of Crossways there are no neighbouring properties immediately adjacent to the application site.

Once in place, the vehicular movements would be minimal, the main potential impact relates to the construction traffic. The Traffic Management Plan that has been submitted states that a maximum of nine heavy goods vehicles will access the site during the 12 week construction period. Also all deliveries are proposed to be restricted to between 09.30 and 16.00. This level of movement during these times will not have a significant adverse impact upon neighbour amenity. Finally, with regard to noise during construction times the supporting structures are to be driven in by piling, (a surveyor sets out the pile positions, a specialist track piling machine is located at the markings, and the pile is driven into the ground with 20-40 impacts per pile until the right depth or resistance is achieved. The process takes about 1 minute per pile. The track machine moves on to the next pile. Meanwhile the rest of the support structure is bolted to the pile, ready to receive the PV panel modules). The db rating at the pile head is suppressed by a compressible gasket and noise is probably equivalent to the driving of a timber fence post being driven into the ground by a pneumatic arm attached to the back of a tractor. Indeed in this case given the separating distance and physical buffers of hedgerows that are situated in between, this noise, which would arise over a relatively brief period, is not considered to be intrusive to a level that will adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

5.6 Access/ Traffic

5.6.1 The application site is accessed off the existing rural County highway (The Firs) that has a derestricted speed limit of 60mph. From the site access point The Firs connects to the B4521 2.26km to the north, and the B4233 1.4km to the south. The highway is single lane, varies in width along its length and is predominantly bounded by hedgerows. The site access has wide radii capable of accommodating large vehicles and is metalled adjacent to the highway. The access narrows to 2.75m approximately 10m back from the highway boundary.

5.6.2 The maintenance of the proposed facility would involve low levels of traffic that

- 91 - would have minimal impact. The main issue is the construction period which will be carried out over a period of 12 weeks. During this time there will be a limited number of heavy goods vehicles delivering to Manor Farm a maximum of 8 times in any one day.The proposal represents a significant development requiring the extensive delivery of materials and components through local rural communities. The applicant has subsequently provided a Transport Method Statement as part of the application to highlight the construction proposals and traffic impact associated with the development.

5.6.3 It is proposed that construction access to the site will be via the B4521, The Firs, and then via the existing site access road to Manor Farm 2.26km south of the B4521 with delivery times stated as 07:00 – 18:30 Monday to Friday, and 07:00 – 12:30 on Saturdays. The delivery route has been proposed to avoid trips beingcompleted via the village of Llanvapley 1.4km to the south of the farm access (via Firs Road) located on the B4233. It is noted that arrivals and departures will be coordinated to ensure that they will not be required to pass on Firs Road between the B4521 and the site access. The proposed route is therefore considered acceptable as it also avoids trips being made via the town of Abergavenny with trips being made via the A465 - B4521 - The Firs.

The following is a summary of the number of HGV construction trips associated with the development; Weeks 1–2 = 25 HGV trips Weeks 2–10 (Inverters, transformers, support frames, control room 400 solar panels per HGV (45,000 panels to be delivered)) = 121 HGV trips (mainly in weeks 3 – 4 resulting in circa 42 deliveries per week) Weeks 11–12 = 8 HGV trips

5.6.4 The above framework establishes 154 total HGV trips (308 2-way trips) with the majority delivered within weeks 3–4. It is considered that the projected delivery trips to and from the site provide a reasonable assumption but that this should be followed up with a robust updated Transport Method Statement for review and approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior development commencing. This can be conditioned. A condition ensuring that delivery times are managed in accordance with details agreed by theCouncil’s Highways Section should also be imposed.

5.6.5 The Council’s Highway Engineer suggested that a temporary access be constructed for the site to the north of the site for the construction phase of the development. This would require significant engineering operations to be undertaken which would harm the appearance of the area and could affect the landscaping of the site. Given the relatively short period of construction together with the number of trips required, on balance it is considered that a temporary access is not necessary subject to a detailed transport method statement being submitted prior to commencement of development by the developer.

5.7 Glint and Glare and Impact on Highway Safety and Visual Amenity

5.7.1 Although ‘glint and glare’ are commonly referred to together, glint is the direct reflection of sunlight, whereas glare is diffuse reflection (or reflection of the bright sky around the sun). Glint is normally much more intense – hence significant – than

- 92 - glare. Where glint from the proposed Manor Farm solar array may be seen by ground-based receptors (see Glint and Glare Report Appendix 1 for glint zones, and Appendix 5 for glint zones overlaid on the Zone of Theoretical Visibility), it could only ever be observed:  In the mornings to the west of the solar farm in arcs between approximately west-northwest and west-southwest from the solar farm:  for most receptors, from 27 February to 14 October between 05:08 and 07:04 Greenwich Mean Time (GMT)/ 06:08 to 08:04 British Summer Time (BST);  for a few receptors very close to the site and on steep slopes from it, from 4 February to 7 November between 04:59 and 07:50 GMT/ 05:59 to 08:50 BST.  In the evenings to the east of the solar farm in arcs between approximately east-northeast and east-southeast from the solar farm:  for most receptors, from 7 February to 3 November: from 16:38 to 18:42 GMT/ 17:38 to 19:42 BST;  for a few receptors very close to the site and on steep slopes from it, from 3 January to 7 December between 15:54 and 19:04 GMT/ 16:54 to 20:04 BST.

5.7.2 The sun will never be more than 44° from any glint as observed by most ground- based receptors and normally much closer (although some receptors very close to the site on steep slopes from it may observe glint at up to 63° from the sun on rare occasions), so the worst case described above can never occur, and the glint is often virtually insignificant due to the proximity of the sun. Effects of glint may be further significantly reduced by boundary fencing and hedges around the solar farm and off- site within the Manor Farm landholding, including planned tree planting.

5.7.3 The only significant receptors likely to be able to observe glint are the roads in the vicinity and isolated dwellings. It should be noted that any glint observed will be negligible compared to the brightness of the sun (which will be bright and from the same general direction as any glint). Any glint will normally pass over a static, point receptor in less than approximately 6 minutes.

5.7.4 B4233 Road

The solar farm is a significant distance from points on the road from which glint may be observed. Any glimpses of the solar farm site will be fleeting. Any impact from glint on the B4233 will therefore be negligible with no impact on safety.

5.7.5 B4521 Road

Only the undersides of the PV panels will be visible from this road, so glint will never be observed.

5.7.6 Firs Road

Glint will never be observed from directly in front of a vehicle on this road, so if it does occur, it will be well to the side of a driver’s field of view when looking at the road ahead. Glint will only be observed in the mornings before 07:50 GMT/ 08:50 BST. Impact from any glint on this road is therefore assessed as negligible with no impact on safety.

- 93 - 5.7.7 Unclassified Road Approximately 1km to the East of the Site

Only fleeting, distant glimpses of the solar farm, and hence any glint will be minimal. Glint can only be observed in the evenings between 16:38 and 18:42 GMT/ 17:38 and 19:42 BST. Impact from any glint on this road is therefore assessed as negligible with no impact on safety.

5.7.8 Isolated Buildings

Isolated buildings (which may or may not be dwellings) in the vicinity of the solar farm may receive glint for up to approximately 6 minutes on any day in the mornings or evenings. As such, no significant nuisance is expected.

5.8 Public Rights of Way

5.8.1 Although some landscaping work is proposed adjacent to the public footpath that crosses the site, this would not impinge on the continued use of that footpath. The proposed landscaping will to some degree enclose the relatively short length of the PROW and reduce its open aspect and therefore have some adverse impact. However, it is not considered that the impact will be significant enough to justify refusal of the application given the wider benefits of the scheme. The views from the Public Rights of Way have been addressed in the Landscape Assessment, Section 5.2, above.

5.9 Conclusion

5.9.1 This form of renewable energy proposal is generally supported by national and local planning policy to combat climate change and to tackle concerns about energy security, subject to the proposal not having harmful impacts on landscape, the historic environment and nature conservation interests. Having regard to the relatively low- impact nature of the development, allied to the proposed mitigation measures relating to landscape, nature conservation and amenity concerns, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and would accord with national and UDP policy.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Conditions/Reasons

1. This development shall be begun within 5 years from the date of this permission. 2. All landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and to a reasonable standard in accordance with the relevant recommendations of appropriate British Standards or other recognised Codes of Good Practice. The works shall be carried out prior to the development being brought into use or in accordance with the timetable agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Any trees or plants that, within a period of five years after planting, are removed, die or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective, shall be replaced as soon as is reasonably practicable with others of species, size and number as originally approved, unless the Local Planning Authority gives its written consent

- 94 - to any variation. 3. The existing hedgerows shall be maintained at a minimum height of 3 metres and appropriate trees within the hedgerows, as agreed with the Local Planning Authority, shall be tagged to allow them to grow on. Where necessary, hedgerows shall be reinforced, by not later than practical completion of the development hereby approved, with further planting of appropriate species, as agreed with the Local Planning Authority.

4. Following the cessation of use of the site as a solar farm, or within 30 years of the date of this permission, whichever is the sooner, the PV’s and associated plant and equipment on the land shall be removed and the site returned to agriculture, unless written consent to any alternative use has been granted by the Planning Authority prior to this. 5. There shall be no lighting at the site, both during construction and post construction 6. Any trees, or hedgerow plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, become seriously damaged or diseased, or become (in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority) otherwise defective, shall be replaced within the current planting season or the first two months of the next planting season, whichever is the sooner, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. Reason: To maintain and improve the landscape and habitat value of the area. 7.A Construction Method Statement Production and implementation of a Construction Method Statement to cover the following principles as outlined in the Ecological Appraisal (phase 1 Habitat Survey and Assessment) for Proposed Solar PV Site by Abbey Saunders Ecology Dated August 2012; i) Scheme ecologist to monitor the project ii) Measures to protect retained features including hedgerows and trees through appropriate fencing to British Standard 5837. iii) Measures to protect the pond iv) Storage of materials away from hedges, trees and pond v) Precautions in respect to badgers including but not limited to; pre-construction check, construction phase measures, badger gates, advice for site workers. vi) Detail of any lighting during the construction phase Reason: Protection of Habitat Features used by species of conservation concern in accordance with NC4, DES8, ENV14 and the NERC Act 2006.

8. Ecological Habitat Management Plan A landscape management plan, including long term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas within the scheme, including retained and new habitats, shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the construction phase of the development. The

- 95 - duration of the plan shall be for the duration of the Solar PV scheme. The Plan shall be monitored before year 11 and reviewed thereafter. Results of monitoring and review shall be submitted in writing to the Local Planning Authority. The plan shall cover but not be limited to; i) Hedgerow management including consideration of the timing of works and the bird nesting season ii) New planting for biodiversity including a minimum of 365m of hedgerows iii) Grassland management iv) Field buffers including wild bird seed mix for a minimum of 1.5ha v) Fencing of hedgerow corridors to protect biodiversity interest from livestock Reason: Compensation for loss of arable land and new benefits for biodiversity in accordance with DES8 and the NERC Act 2006.

9. Any fence lines enclosing public paths shall be a minimum of 3m apart. 10. Prior to the commencement of development, an updated Transport Method Statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Transport Method Statement. 11. Construction delivery times shall be managed strictly in accordance with details agreed in the updated Transport Method Statement.

Informatives:

Public Footpaths Nos. 242, 240A, 147 and 44 must be kept open and free for use by the public at all times, alternatively, a legal diversion or stopping-up Order must be obtained, confirmed and implemented prior to any development affecting the Public Rights of Way taking place.

Surface maintenance of public paths to be enclosed would be the responsibility of the landowner for the life of the site.

The Site Management Plan for the whole site referred to in condition 8 shall cover the life time of the proposal and detail how the bird cover crop will be maintained and when and how any necessary re-sowing shall occur. The Council will also require details of: improvements to be made to the existing hedgerows, the new hedgerow and management of these features. The plan shall include details of ecological monitoring to be undertaken of the site the results of which will be used to update the management plan.

Nesting Birds Please note that all birds are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). The protection also covers their nests and eggs. To avoid breaking the law, do not carry out work on trees, hedgerows or open habitats where birds are nesting. The nesting season for most bird species is between March and September. A pre-

- 96 - construction check may be appropriate and must involve an appropriately experienced ecologist.

Bats Please note that Bats are protected under The Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (As amended). This protection includes bats and places used as bat roosts, whether a bat is present at the time or not. Trees on this site have been identified as having bat roost potential. If tree works are proposed, consult a bat ecologist for advice.

Badgers Please note that Badgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. It is illegal to wilfully kill, injure, take, possess or cruelly ill-treat a badger, or attempt to do so; to intentionally or recklessly interfere with a badger sett by damaging or destroying it; to obstruct access, or any entrance of, a badger sett and to disturb a badger when it is occupying a sett. To avoid breaking the law, follow the advice provided by the consultant ecologist and if work is within 30m of a sett consult with Natural Resources Wales.

- 97 - DC/2013/00110

ERECTION OF A NEW DWELLING TO AN ALTERNATIVE DESIGN TO THAT APPROVED BY CONSENT DC/2006/00847 AND SUBSEQUENT RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION DC/2011/00183

LAND AT REAR OF TREGARON LLANTRISANT, USK

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Case Officer: Craig O’Connor Date Registered: 12/02/2013

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 Tregaron is a modern bungalow property that is situated on a large plot within the village of Llantrisant. The property is set back from the highway and there is a lane that provides access at the rear. The site was previously granted planning consent for a dwelling under the outline application DC/2006/00847 and the subsequent reserved matters application DC/2011/00183. This application is for an alternative design and scale of dwelling at the site. The proposals have been amended twice since the original submission and the proposed dwelling is significantly different from the original plans. The proposed dwelling would be L – shaped and have a footprint measuring approximately 154m² and it would have a pitched roof that would measure 5.6m to the ridge. It would be a bungalow type property although it would have three bedrooms within the roof. The proposed dwelling would be constructed with facing brick, concrete roof tiles and white uPVC for the windows and doors.

1.2 The proposals also include the construction of a double garage within the proposed curtilage of the dwelling that would have a footprint measuring 6.3m x 6.3m with a pitched roof that would measure 4.3m to the ridge. The garage would be constructed with materials to match the proposed dwelling. The dwelling would have the same access arrangements as those approved previously, the proposed access would be onto the private lane at the rear. The submitted site plan illustrates the proposed curtilage of the dwelling.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

DC/2011/00183 Reserved matters for DC/2006/00847 (New dwelling) Approved May 2011

DC/2009/00969 Modification of condition 2 of outline permission DC/2006/00847 (granted for a detached bungalow with garage located within rear garden) to enable reserved matters to be submitted later than 17th January 2010. Approved February 2010

DC/2006/00847 Detached bungalow with garage located within rear garden Approved January 2007

- 98 - 3.0 UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

ENV1 General Environment Considerations DES1 General Design Considerations C3 Special Landscape Area H4 Villages Suitable for Infill Development

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultations Replies

Llantrisant Fawr Community Council – recommends refusal on the originally submitted plans stating that there was no need for a car port at the site as a garage was integral to the proposed house. The Community Council were asked to comment on the amended scheme but they did not provide a response and the Clerk advised Officers that the Community Council wanted the application to be reviewed by the Planning Committee.

Tree Officer - There are no protected trees at the application site. Of the trees that are growing there i.e. a mixture of small to medium-sized ornamental coniferous species plus some closely planted native and non-native specimens on the boundaries, none could be said to merit retention with a tree preservation order. I therefore have no adverse comments to make. Highways – No adverse comments to the application subject to the proposed conditions and informatives.

4.2 Neighbour Notification

There have been three letters of objection to the originally submitted scheme and subsequently one letter of objection to the proposed amendments that are now being considered which stated the following: -

 The application is trying to force a large dwelling onto a small plot which is incapable of supporting it without causing nuisance, loss of privacy and potential pollution to its neighbours.  Concerns over drainage at the site.  Questions relating to the size of the proposed dwelling.

In addition to the previous comments made by the neighbouring property (above) an additional letter was received at a later date regarding damage that has occurred to the hedgerows along the boundary with the neighbouring property The Shrubbery.

5.0 EVALUATION

5.1 Principle of Development

The proposals are an alternative scheme to the previously approved planning consent DC/2011/00183 and thus the principle of a dwelling being built at this site has already been established. Policy H4 of the Monmouthshire Unitary

- 99 - Development Plan (UDP) identifies Llantrisant as a settlement that is suitable for infill, in the form of infilling a small gap between existing dwellings. This is permitted subject to detailed planning considerations and ensuring that the development does not harm the character and appearance of the residential area. The proposed dwelling would be sited within the residential curtilage of Tregaron and inside the physical boundary of the village. The proposed development would not extend the settlement beyond its current form and limits. The principle of the proposed dwelling at the site is acceptable given the planning history of the site.

5.2 Visual impact

5.2.1 The proposed dwelling would be sited within the rear garden of Tregaron and would not be immediately noticeable within the area. The dwelling would not be prominent within the locality due to it being grouped within other residential dwellings, the topography of the surrounding landscape and existing landscaping at the site. The development would occur within the physical boundary of the village and therefore the impact on the surrounding rural landscape would be acceptable. The dwelling would not be detrimental to the character or appearance of either the existing dwelling, Tregaron, or the village.

5.2.2 There is not a uniform pattern of development within Llantrisant and therefore the proposed siting of the dwelling would not be harmful. The submitted drawings illustrate the siting and design of the proposed dwelling which has been amended significantly since its first submission. The form and design of the dwelling is now considered to be acceptable and it would be of a similar design and form to the previously approved scheme (DC/20011/00183) with the main alteration being to its overall size. The proposed dwelling would be larger, although the size of the resultant bungalow would be acceptable to the Local Planning Authority. It would be the same height as the previously approved scheme but it would have a larger footprint. This scheme omits the proposed conservatory granted under DC/2011/00183 and introduces a new en-suite bathroom on the first floor. The dwelling would still appear as a bungalow and it would not be visually intrusive. The revised scheme remains sympathetic to the existing dwelling, Tregaron, as well as the neighbouring properties, and it would be appropriate for the site and the locality. The proposed materials would be confirmed at a later date, but it is felt that an appropriate arrangement can be accommodated. The proposals are considered to respect the existing form, scale, siting, massing, materials and layout of its setting in accordance with Polices ENV1 and DES1 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan.

5.2.3 The submitted plans also illustrate the siting of a garage to the south of the proposed dwelling which is the same scale and design of the previously approved garage under DC/2011/00183. The form and design of the proposed garage would integrate well with the proposed dwelling and would be in accordance with the relevant Policies in the UDP. 5.3 Residential amenity

- 100 -

5.3.1 Tregaron is sited on a large plot between two dwellings, The Willows and The Shrubbery. It is not considered that the proposed bungalow-style dwelling would be harmful to the privacy or private amenity space of the neighbouring properties to warrant refusing the application. The proposed first floor window on the east elevation would be conditioned to be obscured glazed to ensure that the privacy of the garden of The Willows is retained. The dwelling would not have a detrimental impact on any party’s access to natural sunlight or appear overbearing. The proposed dwelling would not have a detrimental impact on any party’s privacy or private amenity space and would be in accordance with Policies ENV1 and DES1 of the UDP.

5.4 Impact on Special Landscape Area

5.4.1 The proposed dwelling would be single storey in form and would not be prominent within the wider landscape as it would be sited within the built form of the village of Llantrisant. The dwelling would have minimal visual impact and would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the wider landscape. The proposed dwelling would not harm the characteristics of the area that have led to its designation and would be in accordance with Policy C3 of the UDP.

5.5 Response to Community Council and Third Parties

5.5.1 Llantrisant Fawr Community Council did recommend that the originally submitted scheme be refused as they did not feel that the proposed car port was necessary for the site. The scheme has been substantially amended since the original submission and the Community Council were asked to comment on the revised proposals but were not able to meet within the given time and therefore suggested that the application be determined by Planning Committee. For the reasons outlined above the Local Planning Authority are of the view that the proposed dwelling would not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the locality and would be an acceptable form of development.

5.5.2 There was three letters of objection to the original scheme which in summary commented that the proposed dwelling was an overdevelopment of the site and that it would harm the privacy of the neighbouring properties. The scheme has been substantially amended so that it resembles the previously approved scheme (DC/2011/00183) and it is now considered that although the proposed dwelling is larger in scale it would not be visually dominant and it would not harm the privacy of the neighbouring properties. There was one letter received regarding the amended scheme. The proposed development is not considered to be an overdevelopment of the site and the proposals have outlined that the drainage arrangements would include a septic tank regarding which further details would be conditioned to be approved prior to the commencement of development. The proposed amended scheme is not considered to harm any other party’s residential amenity and the resultant dwelling would integrate well with other dwellings in the village. The proposed bungalow is considered to have an acceptable visual impact.

- 101 -

5.5.3 The neighbouring party has reported damage made by the applicant to their hedgerows (Please see submitted letter). The damage caused to the hedgerows would be a civil matter between the two parties concerned however it is considered that the loss of the hedgerow is considerably regrettable. A condition to outline that a proposed landscaping scheme is submitted prior to the commencement of development shall be added to any approval.

5.6 Conclusion

The proposed resultant dwelling would be larger than the previously approved scheme under DC/2011/00183 however it would be of a similar design and it would not harm the character and appearance of the area. The proposed bungalow would integrate well with the other dwellings in the village and it would not have a detrimental visual impact on the locality. The proposals are considered to be in accordance with Policies ENV1, DES1, C3 and H4 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan and the application is therefore recommended for approval.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Conditions/Reasons

1. Standard 5 years 2. Window obscured on East Elevation and remain as such in perpetuity. 3. Samples of the proposed materials shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. 4. The proposed garage will be ancillary to the proposed dwelling. 5. Details of the hardstanding to be agreed 6. Drainage details to be agreed 7. Landscaping scheme to be submitted. 8. -10 Code for Sustainable Homes conditions.

- 102 - DC/2013/00121

NEW SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION TO THE EXISTING THORNWELL PRIMARY SCHOOL AND ASSOCIATED WORKS TO THE SITE

THORNWELL PRIMARY SCHOOL, THORNWELL ROAD, BULWARK, CHEPSTOW

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Case Officer: David Wong Date Registered: 17/05/2013

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 The application proposes to extend the existing Thornwell Primary School building to replace the accommodation lost during a fire in 2011, which destroyed the infants’ building. Since then the infants have been accommodated in temporary cabins on site. These cabins are located to the north-east of the site on the existing hardstanding surface.

1.2 According to the Design & Access Statement, one of the main objectives of the proposal is to replace the temporary cabins, bringing the school together under one roof. Also, it is the school’s intention to control the flow of pedestrian movements for security purposes. The proposal is to erect a single storey building, measuring some 51m in length, 27m in width and 6m to the higher ridge (the eave height is 3.2m). The proposed extension will be erected on the existing playground (a tarmac area), which is located east of the main school building.

1.3 As part of the scheme, the school boundary is proposed to be altered; the administration office which is located to the north west of the site will return to Property Services. Thus, this building is not part of this planning application.

1.4 There will be some changes to the internal circulation of the school site. The vehicular access to the site will be as per the existing school layout with the staff parking to the north and the drop-off turning circle to the south of the site. However, the main pedestrian entrance of the resulting scheme is approached from the south, off Thornwell Road. The proposed extension would provide a new entrance for the school building, with the visitors’ approaching the building via a covered area and entering a secure entrance lobby which is served by the main administrative office.

1.5 The primary material for the new school building is brick to match with the existing buildings and the surrounding houses. In terms of fencing, new 2.4m high close weldmesh fencing is proposed along Thornwell Road and it is proposed to replace part of the existing fencing with the same 2.4m high weldmesh fencing; this is recommended by the Police to improve site security.

- 103 - 1.6 Two households made observations and five households have objected on the initial scheme. Since then, two local resident meetings were arranged to engage with the local residents in order to discuss and seek solutions to their concerns. Following the meetings, the scheme has been amended and most of the initial objectors are satisfied with the changes; however, one household is sustaining their objections – it should be noted that this neighbour has objected on three separate occasions.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

M2870 – Single Storey 5 Classroom Extension. Approved 16/11/1998

M1295 – Amendment To Siting Of Demountable Classroom As Approved In Planning Application M/701. Approved 30/06/1997

M701 – Erection Of 2 Demountable Classroom. Approved 03/12/1996

MB36131 – Single Storey Extension To Infants School Comprising Glazed Link, 2 Classrooms, Quiet Room, Store, General Area, Cloakroom And Toilet Provision. Approved 09/07/1993

3.0 UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

CF3 DES1 ENV1

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultations Replies

Chepstow Town Council – Observations: In view of clear and strong concerns of the local residents, Chepstow Town Council has requested a site visit with all interested parties including Willmot Dixon Construction, Monmouthshire County Council Planners, Local Education Department, Head teacher and local residents.

MCC Environmental Health – No objection: Having reviewed the above application whilst some change in the aural amenity may be experienced as a result of the development this department is not in a position to substantiate a level of problems on which to base an objection. This department also does not envisage a level of problems on which to base an objection in relation to the potential impact on the flow of wind to nearby properties from the development.

MCC Trees – No objection: Having looked at the plans and had discussions with John Davies of Property Services I am satisfied that only 4 trees are scheduled for removal. The majority of trees on the site will remain largely unaffected. Those to be removed are shown on the Proposed Site Plan (drawing no. 6210 D 0102) they include:

- 104 - T16 Sycamore – to make a new entrance route. T25 Silver Maple – to make way for bin store and sprinkler tank. T55 and T56 Willows – damaged by fire. The trees to be retained as per the Tree Survey Plan submitted with the Report prepared by RPS and dated 24th September 2012 must be protected in accordance with BS 5837 during construction. A condition must be imposed. MCC Highways (Drainage) – I am not aware of any reports of flooding in this area previous to the comments on the planning application.

MCC Biodiversity – Conditions and informative requested.

MCC Highways (Traffic and Development) – No objection and we would not be looking for any improvements to the existing access/egress arrangements, nor localised improvements to Thornwell Road.

Welsh Water – No objection; conditions requested.

SEWBREC Search Results – Some ecological records identified.

Natural Resources Wales – No objection; Subject to the implementation of the recommendations set out in the Amphibian Mitigation Method Statement, we do not consider the proposed development will result in detriment to the favourable conservation status of great crested newts. Therefore, should your authority be minded to grant planning permission, we advise that suitable conditions are attached to the permission to address the following;  The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the methods set out in “Amphibian Mitigation Method Statement Thornwell Primary School Chepstow on behalf of Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd” by RPS and dated February 2013.

We note the proposal for a soakaway in respect of surface water drainage. The site is located over a Principal Aquifer which has a high vulnerability. In order to protect the groundwaters, the development should be carried out in accordance with the drawing CC1108 DR 303A, entitled surface Water Drainage. If there are any changes proposed to surface water drainage system, then we would refer the applicant to our Position Statement G9 from the Groundwater protection: Principles and practice (GP3).

4.2 Neighbour Notification

4.2.1 No.9 Summerhouse Lane objections: There had been no proper consultation in the first place The proposed siting, height of the extension and proximity of the proposed extension to my property is unacceptable The proposed design is out of keeping The view from the kitchen window, conservatory and back garden will be affected and the submitted artist’s impressions do not represent proposal accurately It is not necessary to put two schools under one roof

- 105 - The scheme is to free up space for the new houses planned The proposed extension will create an echo chamber and act as an amplifier, creating noise pollution to residents of Summerhouse Lane The position and design of the proposed extension will create a wind tunnel, collecting the prevailing wind which sweeps up the Bristol Channel regularly closing the Severn Bridge, and accelerate it towards his property

4.2.2 Objections to the initial scheme; it is useful to note the following objections and they are also be addressed later in this report: The proposed extension is an encroachment to the rear garden areas of Summerhouse Lane The proposed French Drain and soakaway are not sufficient The Newt survey was not properly conducted The proposed footpath/service road behind the gardens of Summerhouse Lane would decrease security to those houses The working hours will need to be properly controlled The proposed extension would create overlooking into the private space of houses along Summerhouse Lane The proposed fencing should be erected prior to the construction of the extension The proposed CCTV on the new school extension will affect privacy of neighbouring properties More trees are required to hide the proposed extension from the existing neighbours The proposed parent waiting area will invade privacy and increase noise to neighbouring properties The proposed nursery play area will increase noise to neighbours along Summerhouse Lane The proposed extension will be on elevated ground and is within close proximity to properties of Summerhouse Lane The proposed extension will completely block our views and light in the evening

5.0 EVALUATION

5.1 Visual amenity

5.1.1 The proposed extension is to replace the fire damaged teaching accommodation. The infants have been accommodated in temporary cabins to the north-east of the site on the existing hardstanding surface. The proposed extension is measures some 51m in length, 27m in width and 6m to the higher ridge (with an eaves height of 3.2m). It is proposed to erect this extension on the existing playground east of the main school building. The floor levels of the existing playground vary. The difference between the existing hardstanding and proposed finished floor level therefore ranges from 150mm to 510mm. Thus, the tallest height of the proposed extension would be 6.51m to the ridge.

5.1.2 Policy CF1 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan provides for the expansion of existing schools and further education establishments. Objection

- 106 - has been received from no.9 Summerhouse Lane in relation to the siting, design and dimensions of the proposed extension. The proposed building is set back about 10 metres from the southern edge of the existing playground/hardstanding. The total distance between the school boundary and the shortest elevation of the proposed extension (which would be 3.2m in height) would be 23m and the total distance between the school site boundary and the tallest point of the proposed extension (6m in height) would be 33.5m. It is considered that the design of the proposed extension is functional and would not detract from the appearance of the site; most importantly, it would meet the needs of the school. In addition, the site is set back from the highway. Therefore, is it unlikely to adversely affect the local streetscene.

5.1.3 One of the objections received is that the proposed extension would over- dominate the nearby housing. Neighbours at no.7 and 9 Summerhouse Lane have been visited in order to gain a better understanding of the existing views (both ground and first floor) from the houses and the potential visual impact of the proposed extension. The agent has produced a set of photomontages comparing the ‘before and after’ situation. It is appreciated that they are not entirely accurate, but they do provide a broad visualisation of the resultant extension. It is evident that the proposed application would bring the school building closer to the houses at Summerhouse Lane. For no.9 Summerhouse Lane, there will be a gap of 23m between the external wall of the proposed extension and the school boundary. In addition, the proposal is single storey and the roof is designed to ‘taper’ away from the neighbours. Given the proposed gap and the height of the extension, the extension is unlikely to over- dominate the outlook from the gardens of no.7 and 9 Summerhouse Lane.

5.2 Neighbour amenity

5.2.1 The Council’s Environmental Health Department was consulted as there was objection in relation to potential noise echo from the proposed extension and there was concern that the extension would create a wind tunnel, collecting the prevailing wind which sweeps up the Bristol Channel regularly closing the Severn Bridge, accelerating it towards no.9 Summerhouse Lane. There is no Environmental Health objection; it is recognised that whilst some change in the aural amenity may be experienced as a result the development the Council’s Environmental Health Section is not in a position to substantiate a level of problems on which to base an objection. In addition, it does not consider an objection is sustainable in relation to the potential impact on the flow of wind to nearby properties from the development.

5.3 Other issues

5.3.1 Objection has been received in relation to the lack of public consultation about the proposed extension. This comment related to the school and the local residents. In terms of planning consultation, the initial neighbour consultation letters and the re-consultation letters were hand-delivered to the neighbours and subsequently, two evening meetings were called to meet with the school, local residents and the construction contractor to discuss the overall proposal and the local resident concerns.

- 107 -

5.3.2 Some residents considered that it is not necessary to put two schools under one roof. Provided the proposal is acceptable in planning terms, this is not relevant.

5.3.3 Some local residents suspect that the reason to site the proposed extension in the current location is to free up space for new houses. If houses are proposed on the school site in the future, that proposal would be treated on its merits. This application relates to the extension of the school only.

5.3.4 Local residents have questioned the effectiveness of the proposed french drain and soakaway. Natural Resources Wales has been consulted and there is no objection to the proposed surface water drainage method.

5.3.5 Ecological assessments have been undertaken and there is no significant ecological issue identified. Natural Resources Wales has been consulted and there is no objection to the method of the survey and the results are sufficient to inform a decision.

5.3.6 The proposed footpath/service road behind the gardens of Summerhouse Lane will only be used for the maintenance of the school grounds and is not intended to be used frequently. The proposed CCTV is a form of passive surveillance and it is not designed to overlook the neighbouring properties. The school have received advice from the Police to use 2.4m high fencing for general deterrent.

5.3.7 Some neighbours would like to see more trees being planted along the school boundary. It is understanding that the school is in contact with the Forestry Commission in order to obtain additional trees that can be planted on site.

5.3.8 On the initial scheme, it was proposed to site the parent waiting area by no.5 The Hop Garden. However, the scheme has been amended and the parent waiting area would now be located by the main entrance of the proposed extension, away from the school boundary. There are no more objections in relation to this matter.

5.3.9 As part of the proposal, it is proposed to formalise some of the play areas within the school grounds. The area immediately adjacent to Summerhouse Lane will be designated for the infants. Some neighbours objected that the proposed nursery play area would increase noise to neighbours along Summerhouse Lane. However, this area is currently used by the pupils of the school and it is the responsibility of the school to manage noise.

5.3.10 Concerns over the loss of views and light in the evening have been received. As considered under the Visual Amenity section above, the height of the proposed extension, coupled with the distance between the extension and the neighbouring properties mean that the outlook of, and availability of natural sunlight light to the neighbours, will be unlikely to be compromised.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: Approve

- 108 -

Conditions/Reasons

1. Five year time period in which to commence development. 2. Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. 3. No surface water shall be allowed to connect, either directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 4. Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system. 5. Tyre-wash facility at the entrance during construction period. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 6. Working hours shall be submitted and approved by the LPA before works commence. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 7. Details of the proposed external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to commencing development. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 8. The scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the methods set out in “Amphibian Mitigation Method Statement Thornwell Primary School Chepstow on behalf of Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd” by RPS and dated February 2013. 9. Details of the proposed new sprinkler tank shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA prior to works commencing. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 10. Landscaping condition (LAN12). 11. Landscaping maintenance condition (LAN13). 12. All retained trees as shown on Drawing no.700 of the Tree Survey shall be protected in accordance with BS5837 Trees In Relation To Design, Demolition And Construction Recommendations 2012.

Informatives:

Great crested newts Please note that Great Crested Newts are protected under The Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This includes protection for individual newts from killing, injury, capture or disturbance. It is also an offence to damage or destroying breeding sites or resting places even if the animal is not present. If great crested newts are found during the course of works, all works must cease and Natural Resources Wales contacted immediately. A protected species licence must then be obtained before work can be continued. Nesting birds Please note that all birds are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The protection also covers their nests and eggs. To avoid breaking the law, do not carry out work on trees, hedgerows or buildings where birds are nesting. The nesting season for most bird species is between March and September. Bats

- 109 - Please note that Bats are protected under The Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This protection includes bats and places used as bat roosts, whether a bat is present at the time or not. If bats are found during the course of works, all works must cease and Natural Resources Wales contacted immediately.

Party Wall Act informative.

- 110 - DC/2013/00128

RETENTION OF ONE STEEL FRAMED BARN BUILDING FOR LIVERY PURPOSES

RIDGE HOUSE STABLES, EARLSWOOD, CHEPSTOW, MONMOUTHSHIRE

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Case Officer: Alison Pankhurst Date Registered: 5/4/2013

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 This application seeks the retention of the erection of a steel framed barn building with cladded roof and concrete panels at Ridge House Stables, Earlswood. The unit has an area of approximately 883 sq. metres (approximately 36m x 24m) and will be used to house additional horses on site. The land adjoining the site is within the ownership of the applicant; the remaining land is predominantly used for agricultural purposes and not owned by the applicant. The application site is part of a large working livery with an established complex of stables and horse paraphernalia.

1.2 This application has been submitted as a result of an enforcement case.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

DC/2006/00490 Retention of the use of part of stable Approved block for residential use in association 18/12/2006 with the stables M6622 Racecourse training establishment – new Approved 13/02/02 stable block, storage shed, and external works M6379 Demolish existing house and barn, erect Approved 15/01/02 detached dwelling, change of use from agricultural, new drive

3.0 UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DES1 General Design Considerations ENV1 General Development Considerations RE1 Employment within the Countryside C3 Special Landscape Area

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultation Replies

- 111 - Shirenewton Community Council – refuse, pending investigation for the following reasons: Provision of a detailed plan for waste disposal and management, to include environmental aspects and consideration of neighbour. An enforcement order is involved, the business is not agricultural, it is equestrian, and there has been no previous application for change of use and no mention of it in this planning application. Council questions whether the correct procedure has been followed. There appears some confusion over whether footpath no119 and 120 are accessible or have been moved. There has been no public consultation or planning application and again Council questions whether the correct procedure has been followed. Health and Safety risks to the public using a Right of Way (ROW) through business premises exercising houses.

Highways – no adverse comments to this proposal and therefore have no highway objections subject to the following conditions: nothing which may cause an obstruction to visibility shall be placed, erected or grown in the vehicle access visibility splay areas; this proposal must not compromise the turning and parking provision already existing within the curtilage of the site.

Environmental Health - has concerns if there were going to be more horses on site resulting in more waste due to the location of the current manure pile and the potential for statutory nuisance in the future. It is recommended that a condition be added that approval is subject to the waste being stored away from residential properties in a location satisfactory to the planning authority.

Highways/Drainage – the building is certainly rather large but with good roof drainage. The roof water goes into a soakaway. I cannot see any reason for it to be a nuisance other than the site is on a ridge. So there is a steep fall down after the yard. Without looking at the site in periods of heavy rainfall I cannot say how much water is being contributed to the amount flowing downhill.

Rights of Way comments that the applicant’s attention should be drawn to Public Rights of Way no 119 in the community of Shirenewton which runs immediately adjacent to the site of the proposed development and might be obstructed by it. Public footpath nos. 119 and 120 must be kept open and free for use by the public at all times, alternatively a legal diversion or stopping-up order must be obtained, confirmed and implemented to both resolve existing issues and prior to any development further affecting the Public Right of Way taking place. The applicant should contact the Public Rights of Way Team.

4.2 Neighbour Notification

Due to the location of the site and the sporadic location of neighbours a site notice was erected on site informing the public of the application.

Three representations have been received objecting on the following grounds:

Concerned about poor waste management at site and the adverse influence that it

- 112 - has on quality of life. The new barn/stable block will result in more horses and more waste increasing the already intolerable amount of horse bedding dumped local to our property. Tonnes of waste bedding are unloaded daily and our property is directly in line with the waste pile and the prevailing wind direction. After consultation with Environmental Health the applicant agreed to change the location but a new pile is being created in the original location. It is noted that in terms horse owners, phrases such as ‘duty of care’, ‘does not cause a nuisance to neighbours’, ‘waste should be located as far away from residential housing as possible’ and ‘waste should be screened from view’, are used, but there are no requirements to comply, they are purely suggestions which rely on the owners’ behaviour.

Concerned about any medication horses may have been given, and may result in particles being transferred in the air. Planning Committee is requested to review this retrospective planning application with consideration to our quality of life and impose a restriction on the waste dump location associated with this business.

There are other comments with regard to the submitted Design & Access Statement. There is concern that the statement states that “where the site has been levelled, the boundaries have been enclosed by fencing to ensure safety for adjoining neighbours and anyone who may be walking using the footpath”. This is clearly not the case as the earth has been pushed onto my land in order to level, and there is no fence in the corner. The levelled soil is covering tree trunks on the boundary; where there are no trees horses and people could easily access from one area to the other. It is requested for there to be a condition to any permission to ensure a suitable fence/planting is secured. Additional screening is required as while it is mentioned that the proposal has a very small impact to the land, in terms of view, this is not the case, the barn being very visible from the adjoining land, and also would be prominent from the across the valley.

The third representation sets out that as a local walking group leader, there is objection to obstruction of footpath 30/119, which has been unwalkable for some time and now with stiles and boundary hedges removed.

5.0 EVALUATION

5.1 Consideration of proposal in relation to UDP Policies ENV1 and DES1

The main issue is whether the retention of the stable is acceptable having regard to UDP policies.

5.1.1 The application site is located in the open countryside surrounded by fields to the north and east, a paddock to the south-east and existing barn buildings to the north-west. Vehicle access to the site is from the current internal driveway of Ridge House Stables. The existing race horse training stables complex is now well established to the north-west of the site. The use of the proposed barn would be for the stabling of horses. The current arrangement of two barns allows the stabling of 45 horses, and the new (third) barn would create an additional 20 stalls, ten of which are already in use.

- 113 - 5.1.2 The proposed barn takes form of a steel framed barn, with cladding to roof with concrete panels. The length will be 36.6m x 24.13m. The height of the external walls would be 3.66m. To the front and rear entrances there would be concrete walkways linking the existing barn buildings. The development is intended to be an efficient use of the site. The building is built into the land so that when viewed from south to north it is almost invisible in the landscape and therefore respects visual amenity. The proposed barn creates a building in keeping with the existing site characteristics / layout and with the existing countryside and surrounding area. The proposal is considered to accord with the criteria within Policies ENV1 and DES1 of the UDP, although the impact on residential amenity is considered below.

5.2 Visual Impact

5.2.1 The site is situated towards a ridge, is set into the landscape and not visible from any public highway. There is a public right of way near the barn but the development does not obstruct this footpath. Rights of Way have suggested that the footpath be diverted so that the general public do not walk through the site. The footpath would be maintained and while it may be desirable to divert the path, it is not considered reasonable in this instance to insist on this via the planning process. The applicant may wish to resolve this matter voluntarily with the Council’s PROW Officer.

In terms of the retention of the barn, one neighbour was concerned that where the site has been levelled, the boundaries should be enclosed by fencing to ensure safety for adjoining neighbours and anyone who may be walking using the footpath. To overcome this, a landscaping scheme can be requested which could include stock proof fencing to prevent animals or the general public accessing the area. The applicant is open to a landscaping scheme to enhance the new building, with the aim being not to hide the building but to soften its hard outline.

One other objection received was not in connection with the retention of the barn, but the extra waste created from the stables. The current waste disposal is in close proximity to a residential property to the south of the site, which is harmful to the landscape, as well as residential amenity. Environmental Health has been consulted on this application and has suggested that waste is disposed of in a suitable location that does not affect any residential properties and in a location that is acceptable to the local authority. As this proposal would create additional waste it would be reasonable to control this matter and ensure the waste is disposed of in a more suitable location and some screening is implemented to the north east of the barn. This will be conditioned.

It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in accordance with policies DES1, ENV1, C3 and RE1 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan.

5.3 Residential Amenity

5.3.1 There are no neighbours near the development itself, but there are properties in close proximity to the overall site. The application proposal would not, as such,

- 114 - affect them but as the additional stables mean that extra waste would be created on site and then disposed of, the need to control this, as referred to earlier, is important and can be achieved to protect local residential amenity.

In addition, another concern is that there is no screening to the north-east of the site onto land not owned by the applicant. It is concerned that the land can be accessed by the public or animals. In the Design & Access Statement it states that where the site has been levelled the boundaries have been enclosed by fencing to ensure safety for adjoining neighbours. The land has not been enclosed by fencing. Therefore in order to ensure the safety of adjoining neighbours a condition is essential to ensure a means of enclosure is erected in terms of the safety of all concerned.

Provided the conditions are applied to control the aspects described above, it is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with policies ENV1 and DES1 of the Monmouthshire UDP.

5.4 Other Issues

The Community Council raised some issues which are addressed below:

It is proposed that a condition will be imposed on the application to identify a suitable location to dispose of the waste created on site so that it does not affect any neighbouring properties. The Community Council raised an issue with regard to permission for the equestrian use. Planning permission was granted in 2002 for the change of use from agriculture to the use for the keeping horses. In terms of the rights of way issue, the Council’s Right of Way Officer has requested that an informative be added to any permission regarding the need to ensure the PROW is kept free from any obstruction and/or have the footpath diverted to a suitable location. In addition it would appear that footpath 120 has already been diverted to a suitable location as it previously ran through the site. The owners have signs on site to show users of the footpath that there are horses training and exercising on the land adjacent to footpath.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: Approve

Conditions:

1. The waste management/location of disposal of storage of waste from the equestrian enterprise at the site shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority within two months of the date of this permission. No waste shall be deposited or stored on the site other than in the location approved by the LPA. Any existing waste stockpile shall be removed and stored in the approved location within two months of the date the LPA approved the location of the waste storage area. 2. Details of the means of enclosure / screening of the barn to the north / north-east of the site with fencing shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA within two months of the date of this permission. The screening, as approved, shall be erected within two months of the date the LPA approve the means of enclosure. 3. Landscaping scheme to be submitted to and approved by the LPA within three

- 115 - months of the date of this permission and implemented within the first planting season following the Local Planning Authority’s approval of the scheme. Reasons: 1. In the interest of residential/visual amenity 2. In the interest of visual amenity. 3. As 2 above.

Informative:

Standard Public Rights of Way informative.

- 116 - DC/2013/00237

RENEWAL OF APPLICATION DC/2008/00156 – ERECTION OF DETACHED TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH INTEGRAL GARAGE

2 MODEL COTTAGES, MONMOUTH ROAD, RAGLAN

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Case Officer: Kate Bingham Date Registered: 10th May 2013

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 This is a renewal of a planning consent for a new dwelling within the side garden of an existing semi-detached dwelling. It is located approximately 40 metres from the junction of Monmouth Road with Castle Road. Planning permission was granted in both 2003 and 2008 for the same proposed development.

The proposed dwelling is to be 2 storey and will continue the building line of 2 Model Cottages with materials to match. The access, which would remain unaltered, is to be shared with the existing dwelling.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

DC/1988/01148 Single Dwelling on Part Of Refused 1998 Garden. DC/2002/00447 Erection of Detached Two Refused 2002 Storey Dwelling With Integral Garage DC/2003/00035 Erection of Detached Two Approved 2003 Storey Dwelling With Integral Garage DC/2008/00156 Erection of Detached Two Approved 2008 Storey Dwelling With Integral Garage.

3.0 UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DES1 – General Design Considerations ENV1- General Development Considerations H3 – Town and Village Development Boundaries for Residential Development CH1 – Development in Conservation Areas

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultation Replies

Raglan Community Council – After attending a site meeting and considering comments from local residents, Raglan CC Members believe that the properties to

- 117 - the rear of the site will lose their privacy. This is not in line with MCC Policy ENV1 criteria (d) or DES1 criteria (d). Members have considered the Design and Access Statement and additional comments and are concerned about the height of the dwelling and the integral garage being converted to living accommodation.

MCC Conservation Officer - The application is a renewal of a previous application in 2003 which was renewed in 2008. We have however had the draft Conservation Area Appraisal since the previous approval and so the application should now take this into account. The application does however propose natural stone, natural slate roof and painted timber windows. It would be good to add conditions agreeing samples of the proposed materials and details of the windows to be agreed. Also details of hard and soft landscaping would be preferable.

MCC Tree Officer - There is one tree - a stunted ornamental cherry, which will need to be removed in conjunction with this proposed development. I would recommend that a fencing condition be applied to any consent. A large walnut tree, seen behind the cherry, should not be adversely affected, provided that its root-area is fenced off prior to and during construction.

MCC Highways – No comments received to date. Previously commented: No objections subject to turning facilities for each dwelling being provided and the existing hedgerow along the frontage being kept at a height that avoids interference with vision from the site access.

4.2 Local Member

Cllr Penny Jones requests that the application is presented to Committee if recommended for approval for the following reasons;

 Issue with plans regarding height  Raglan not on the list of villages potentially suitable for infill development  View from surrounding houses obstructed

4.3 Neighbour Notification

Three representations received. Object to the development on the following grounds;

 Building of the dwelling on this relatively small plot would diminish the sense of space that residents of this rural area currently enjoy.  Do not believe that the size of the building is proportionate to the size of the plot.  Two new houses being constructed on Castle Road and feel that the construction of another dwelling would significantly alter the character of the immediate area.  The proposed dwelling would significantly obscure our view (4, Castle Road and Parklands, Castle Road and Damson Cottage) of the open countryside.  Loss of the view would impact on the value of home.  New dwelling will destroy the rural openness of the area.

- 118 -  Dangerous precedent to other owners building in their gardens.  Inaccurate drawings.  Drawings don’t show accurate height of dwelling.  Inconsistencies in the number of dormer windows shown on drawings.  Site boundaries and siting of Damson Cottage incorrect.  Design and Access Statement is misleading.  Integral garage not required for parking provision and is a ploy to get a four bedroom dwelling on the site.  Damson Cottage is already hemmed in and new dwelling will add to claustrophobic feel.  Dormer windows proposed on the north elevation will overlook Damson Cottage and it is understood that the developer successfully objected to what he considered to be intrusive windows originally planned for Damson Cottage when built twelve years ago.  Ugly conifer hedge to remain.  Will the council give occupiers reassurances that the loss of value of neighbouring dwellings and increased value to the application site will be reflected in a revision of the Council Tax valuations?

4.4 Other Representations

SEWBREC Search Results – Various species of bats recorded foraging/commuting within the vicinity of the site.

5.0 EVALUATION

The site is within the development boundary for Raglan as designated under Policy H3 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan within which, new residential development is acceptable in principle. The principle of the development and the design and materials of the dwelling have already been deemed to be acceptable under the previous consent. At the time of the previous approval it was also considered that the impact of the proposal on neighbouring dwellings would also be acceptable.

There are no objections from Highways subject to turning facilities for each dwelling being provided and the existing hedgerow along the frontage being kept at a height that avoids interference with vision from the site access.

There have been no significant changes in planning policy since the previous consent was issued that would justify refusal of this renewal application

5.1 Consideration of proposal in relation to UDP Policies ENV1 and DES1

The plot has a frontage of 16m and an average depth of 30m. The site slopes upwards from Model Cottages towards the side boundary and also towards the rear and so the slab level has previously been conditioned to be agreed prior to development commencing to ensure that the ridge height, is not detrimental to local visual or residential amenity. The proposed new dwelling has been designed to look like a traditional cottage having a slate roof, a stone finish to the walls and

- 119 - timber windows. The cottage character would be further achieved by accommodating the first floor accommodation in the roof, also ensuring that the ridge height is kept at a similar level to the surrounding properties, including Model Cottages. The proposed design of the dwelling has already been agreed through the previous two applications. However, the Conservation Officer has commented that there is now a draft Raglan Conservation Area Appraisal and as such, traditional materials should be conditioned. It is considered that the proposed dwelling meets all of the criteria of Policies DES1 and ENV1 as well as CH1.

5.2 Residential Amenity

The nearest dwelling is the host dwelling, no. 2 Model Cottages which is approximately 7.1 metres away from the side elevation of the proposed new dwelling. There are no windows on the side elevation of the proposed new dwelling. The existing dwelling to the east of the site (Oaklands) is approximately 14 metres away from the side of the proposed new dwelling and there will only be an obscure glazed bathroom window facing this property. To the north of the site, the nearest dwelling (Damson Cottage) is approximately 17 metres away and this property has no first floor windows facing the site. A line of conifers are to remain along this boundary and although these could be removed at some point in the future, a standard 2m boundary fence or wall together with the distance between the existing and proposed dwellings will ensure that there will not be any loss of privacy for any of the local residents or future occupiers of the proposed dwelling.

The plot size is comparable to those around it and given the distance between the proposed new dwelling and the neighbours, it is not considered that new house would represent an over-development of the site or be overbearing to neighbouring occupiers and therefore harmful to their living conditions. Objections relating to loss of view of the countryside beyond the site or loss of property value are not material considerations.

5.3 Response to Objections

The slab level (and therefore finished ridge height) has been subject to a condition (no.9) on the previous two planning approvals for the same development. Nothing has changed in respect of policy or physically on the site since the previous approvals and this application is simply a renewal of those two previous approvals. As such, it would now be unreasonable to require details of the slab level prior to determination of the application. This may not be considered to be satisfactory to the neighbouring occupiers but it should be noted that officers will not agree to a slab level which would adversely affect neighbouring occupiers.

With regards to the other issues raised, although Raglan is not designated as an ‘infill’ village under Policy H4 of the Unitary Development Plan, it is designated as suitable for new residential development under Policy H3 of the Unitary Development Plan. Policy H4 relates to smaller settlements than Policy H3.

The floor plans and elevations show three dormer windows on the rear elevation of the dwelling. The site plan has been amended to reflect this.

- 120 - The conversion of the integral garage to a bedroom would not be contrary to policy or involve any additional building and so would not be resisted by the Local Planning Authority should a future occupier wish to carry out such work, there being ample off-street parking on the proposed driveway to serve this dwelling. Being ground floor however, it would be more likely that the room would be used as a kitchen or reception room rather than a bedroom.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Conditions/Reasons

1 This development shall be begun within 5 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2 Not Withstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995, as amended (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no development within Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order, shall be carried out on land to which this permission relates, without express planning permission having first been obtained from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the amenities of the area.

3 Before the permitted access is used visibility splays of 2 metres by the site frontage in both directions measured from the centre line of the proposed access shall be provided. Reason: To ensure adequate visibility is provided.

4 No structure or erection or planting exceeding 0.9 metre in height shall be placed, erected or grown in the visibility splay defined in condition 3. Reason: To ensure adequate visibility is provided.

5 No surface water shall be permitted to drain from the site onto the adjoining highway or into the highway drainage system. Reason: To ensure no surface water drains onto the highway.

6 None of the existing trees, shrubs or hedges on the site shall be felled, lopped or topped, uprooted or wilfully damaged without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Any of these trees, which are removed, die or are severely damaged, shall be replaced with trees of similar species or such alternative as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

- 121 - Reason: To protect valuable tree or other landscape features on site in the interest of preserving the character and appearance of the visual amenities generally.

7 The first floor window on the side (east) elevation shall be obscure glazed and remain so in perpetuity. Reason: To safeguard privacy interests.

8 No occupation of the new dwelling shall take place until turning facilities have been provided to serve the existing and proposed dwelling in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and that area shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles. Reason: To ensure provision is made for the parking of vehicles.

9 No part of the development shall be brought into use until the works for disposal of foul water drainage have been provided in accordance with details to be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure adequate provision of drainage facilities.

10 Precise details of the slab level of the new dwelling shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed slab level. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development takes place.

11 All proposed new windows and door openings shall be recessed a minimum of 100mm from the fascia of the building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory form of development takes place.

12 The protection of any existing tree to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars shall be achieved as follows: (a) Underground services shall be routed clear of trees to avoid root damage. (b) Prior to building works commencing on site (including any demolition and refurbishment works), an exclusion zone shall be established by the erection of protective fencing around each tree or group of trees, at a minimum radius from the trunk of the tree(s) of 12 times the main stem’s diameter, measured at 1.5

metres above ground level. (c) The fencing shall comprise a vertical and horizontal framework of scaffolding, no less than 2.3 metres in height and well braced

- 122 - to resist impacts, with vertical tubes spaced at a maximum

interval of 3 metres. Onto this framework weldmesh panels shall be fixed using wire or scaffold clamps. The fence shall be maintained for the duration of construction activity on the site. It shall be constructed and erected in accordance with the recommendations published in British Standard 5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations). (d) No storage of plant or materials, landfill, excavation, burning of materials cement mixing, movement of vehicles or other such harmful activities identified in British Standard 5837:2012 shall be allowed within the fenced off area.

Reason: To protect valuable tree features on site in the interest of preserving the character and appearance of the visual amenities generally. 13. Samples of external materials shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to works commencing on site. Agreed materials shall remain as such in perpetuity.

Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the Raglan Conservation Area

14 - 16 Code for Sustainable Homes standard conditions x 3

- 123 -

Table of Contents