Planning Committee Members at 1.30Pm in the Council Chamber

PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE WILL BE A PRE-MEETING FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS AT 1.30PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER

County Hall The Rhadyr Usk NP15 1GA

29th June 2015

Notice of Meeting:

Planning Committee

Tuesday, 7th July 2015 at 2.00pm Council Chamber, County Hall, The Rhadyr, Usk, NP15 1GA

AGENDA

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public through the medium of Welsh or English. We respectfully ask that you provide us with adequate notice to accommodate your needs.

Note: Any person wishing to speak at Planning Committee must do so by registering with Democratic Services by no later than 12 noon the day before the meeting. Details regarding public speaking can be found within the Planning Committee agenda on the Authority’s website.

Item No Item

1. Apologies for Absence.

2. Declarations of Interest.

3. To confirm for accuracy the Planning Committee Minutes dated 2nd June 2015 (copy attached).

4. To consider the following report presented on behalf of the Chief Officer – Enterprise (copy attached):

Monmouthshire Local Development Plan Supplementary Planning Guidance Primary Shopping Frontages.

5. To consider Planning Application reports from the Chief Officer – Enterprise.

Index and copy of reports attached.

Paul Matthews, Chief Executive

MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL CYNGOR SIR FYNWY

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE IS AS FOLLOWS:

County Councillors: D. Blakebrough P.R. Clarke D.L.S. Dovey D.L. Edwards R.M. Edwards D.J. Evans R.J. Higginson R.G. Harris R.J.C. Hayward P. Murphy M. Powell B. Strong F. Taylor P. Watts A.E. Webb A.M. Wintle

Aims and Values of Monmouthshire County Council

Sustainable and Resilient Communities

Outcomes we are working towards

Nobody Is Left Behind  Older people are able to live their good life

 People have access to appropriate and affordable housing

 People have good access and mobility

People Are Confident, Capable and Involved  People’s lives are not affected by alcohol and drug misuse

 Families are supported

 People feel safe

Our County Thrives  Business and enterprise

 People have access to practical and flexible learning

 People protect and enhance the environment

Our priorities

 Schools

 Protection of vulnerable people

 Supporting Business and Job Creation

 Maintaining locally accessible services

Our Values

 Openness: we aspire to be open and honest to develop trusting relationships.  Fairness: we aspire to provide fair choice, opportunities and experiences and become an organisation built on mutual respect.  Flexibility: we aspire to be flexible in our thinking and action to become an effective and efficient organisation.  Teamwork: we aspire to work together to share our successes and failures by building on our strengths and supporting one another to achieve our goals.

The Monmouthshire Local Development Plan contains over-arching policies on development and design which may relate to applications being considered by Committee but will not be rehearsed in full in each application. The full text is set out for Members’ assistance.

Policy EP1 - Amenity and Environmental Protection

Development, including proposals for new buildings, extensions to existing buildings and advertisements, should have regard to the privacy, amenity and health of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Development proposals that would cause or result in an unacceptable risk /harm to local amenity, health, the character /quality of the countryside or interests of nature conservation, landscape or built heritage importance due to the following will not be permitted, unless it can be demonstrated that measures can be taken to overcome any significant risk:

- Air pollution; - Light pollution; - Noise pollution; - Water pollution; - Contamination; - Land instability; - Or any identified risk to public health or safety.

Policy DES1 – General Design Considerations

All development should be of a high quality sustainable design and respect the local character and distinctiveness of Monmouthshire’s built, historic and natural environment. Development proposals will be required to: a) ensure a safe, secure, pleasant and convenient environment that is accessible to all members of the community, supports the principles of community safety and encourages walking and cycling; b) contribute towards sense of place whilst ensuring that the amount of development and its intensity is compatible with existing uses; c) respect the existing form, scale, siting, massing, materials and layout of its setting and any neighbouring quality buildings; d) maintain reasonable levels of privacy and amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties, where applicable; e) respect built and natural views and panoramas where they include historical features and / or attractive or distinctive built environment or landscape; f) use building techniques, decoration, styles and lighting to enhance the appearance of the proposal having regard to texture, colour, pattern, durability and craftsmanship in the use of materials;

5 g) incorporate and, where possible enhance existing features that are of historical, visual or nature conservation value and use the vernacular tradition where appropriate; h) include landscape proposals for new buildings and land uses in order that they integrate into their surroundings, taking into account the appearance of the existing landscape and its intrinsic character, as defined through the LANDMAP process. Landscaping should take into account, and where appropriate retain, existing trees and hedgerows; i) make the most efficient use of land compatible with the above criteria, including that the minimum net density of residential development should be 30 dwellings per hectare, subject to criterion l) below; j) achieve a climate responsive and resource efficient design. Consideration should be given to location, orientation, density, layout, built form and landscaping and to energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy, including materials and technology; k) foster inclusive design; l) ensure that existing residential areas characterised by high standards of privacy and spaciousness are protected from overdevelopment and insensitive or inappropriate infilling.

6 Agenda Item 3 - Page 1 -

MONMOUTHSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

Minutes of the Planning Committee held in the Council Chamber, County Hall, Usk on Tuesday 2nd June 2015 at 2.00 p.m.

PRESENT: County Councillor R. Edwards (Chairman)

County Councillors: P.R. Clarke, D.L.S. Dovey, D.L. Edwards, D.J. Evans, R.G. Harris, R.J. Higginson, R.J.C. Hayward, P. Murphy, M. Powell, B. Strong, P. Watts, A.E. Webb and A.M. Wintle.

County Councillor S. White attended the meeting by invitation of the Chairman.

OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE:

Mr. M. Hand - Head of Planning Mr. P. Thomas - Development Control Manager Mrs. P. Clarke - Planning Control Manager Mr. J. Keech - Tree Officer Mr. C. O’Connor - Development Control Officer Mr. R. Tranter - Head of Legal Services Mr. R. Williams - Democratic Services Officer

ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN

1. We elected County Councillor R. Edwards as Chairman.

County Councillor Edwards thanked the Committee and officers for their support during the previous year. She also welcomed Mark Hand, Head of Planning, to his first Planning Committee meeting.

APPOINTMENT OF VICE-CHAIRMAN

2. We appointed County Councillor P.R. Clarke as Vice-Chairman.

APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

3.- Apologies for absence were received from County Councillors D. Blakebrough and F. Taylor.

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

4.- Declarations of interest are identified under the relevant minute.

PLANNING COMMITTEE PRE-MEETINGS

5.- Members agreed that, for future Planning Committee meetings, a pre- meeting would be held for Planning Committee Members and officers, commencing at 1.30pm on the day of Planning Committee.

7 - Page 2 -

Minutes of the Planning Committee dated 2nd June 2015 continued

MINUTES

6.- The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 5th May 2015 were confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

CONFIRMATION REPORT: TREE PRESERVATION ORDER MCC253 (2014)

7.- We received a report to consider the confirmation of provisional Tree Preservation Order number MCC253 (2014) without modification.

Having considered the report the following points were noted:

 The tree was considered to be an important marker for bats.

 In response to a Member’s question regarding whether the tree was showing any signs of decay, it was noted that it was the responsibility of the owner of the tree to provide this information.

It was therefore proposed by County Councillor R.G. Harris and seconded by County Councillor D. Evans that Tree Preservation Order number MCC253 (2014) be confirmed without modification.

Upon being put to the vote, the proposition was carried unanimously.

We resolved that Tree Preservation Order number MCC253 (2014) be confirmed without modification.

REVISION OF PLANNING SCHEME OF DELEGATION AND CODE OF PRACTICE

8.- This item was placed on the agenda in error and was therefore not discussed.

PLANNING APPLICATIONS

9. - Planning applications considered at the meeting were dealt with in line with the agenda index subject to application DC/2015/00123 which was considered first.

We received the report presented by the Head of Planning, the Development Control Manager and the Planning Control Manager and resolved that the following applications be approved subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report.

Application - DC/2015/00259†* Description of Development: Proposed Mixed use of Dwelling House and Child Minding Business (Maximum of 12 Children). Location: Little Owls Childcare, Meadowgate, Forge Road, Osbaston. Monmouth NP25 3AZ

8 - Page 3 -

Minutes of the Planning Committee dated 2nd June 2015 continued

Application - DC/2015/00340* Description of Development: Extensions to SNRB/SEN Unit to Extend Teaching Area and Covered External Play Area. Location: Overmonnow Primary School, Rockfield Road, Monmouth NP25 5BA

Notes

† Denotes that objections were made to these applications.

* Denotes that late correspondence was received in respect of these applications.

The following applications were considered where debate ensued.

(a) Application DC/2015/00123†* - Description of Development: Erection of a 60 Bed Premier Inn Hotel (Use Class 1) and Integral Ancillary Café / Restaurant with Associated Access, Parking and Landscaping. Location: Portal Road, Monmouth

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the 23 conditions, as outlined in the report and also subject to a Section 106 agreement.

Mr. D. Cummings, Chairman of the Monmouth and District Chamber of Trade and Commerce, speaking as a supporter of the application, attended the meeting by invitation of the Chairman and outlined the following points:

 The need for a new hotel in Monmouth was identified by Monmouthshire County Council via the Economic Development Plan 2003-2007.

 For the last nine years, on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, he had lobbied County Councillors and senior officers to bring this essential facility to fruition.

 A 60 bed hotel would generate £1.3million per annum for the local economy.

 3* plus hotels have been identified as best meeting the current needs of the visitor, business and tourism market.

 Currently, when all rooms are taken in Monmouth, business is being lost to other towns such as Ross on Wye.

 There were no other suitable sites close to Monmouth town for this type of hotel. The current site would provide easy access to the town.

9 - Page 4 -

Minutes of the Planning Committee dated 2nd June 2015 continued

 There will be an increase in revenue for County Council owned buildings nearby for weddings. Currently, the town was losing bookings to other towns within the County due to insufficient accommodation within the Town to accommodate all of the guests.

 The general consensus was that there was a need for this hotel within Monmouth.

Members expressed their support for the application, though, some Members considered that the Section 106 funding would be better spent developing coach parking within the town. It was noted that Section 106 funding could not be used to provide coach parking in the context of this application but it was anticipated that an application would be received in the future in respect of coach parking facilities.

Reference was made to the number of car parking spaces allocated for the proposed hotel. It was noted that the 62 spaces would be adequate as not all of the staff would be on duty at the same time and not all beds would be occupied all of the time. The Highways Directorate had approved the level of car parking for this application.

In noting the detail of the application, it was considered that an additional condition regarding flooding should be added, the Natural Resource Wales conditions regarding dormice should be reviewed and the local Member should be consulted regarding Green Infrastructure proposals once they have been identified.

Having considered the report and the views expressed it was proposed by County Councillor R.J. Higginson and seconded by County Councillor A.E. Webb that application DC/2015/00123 be approved subject to the 23 conditions, as outlined in the report and also subject to a Section 106 agreement. In addition, a condition regarding flooding should be added, the Natural Resource Wales conditions regarding dormice should be reviewed and the local Member should be consulted regarding Green Infrastructure proposals once they have been identified.

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

For approval - 14 Against approval - 0 Abstentions - 0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2015/00123 be approved subject to the 23 conditions, as outlined in the report and also subject to a Section 106 agreement. In addition, a condition regarding flooding should be added, the Natural Resource Wales conditions regarding dormice should be reviewed

10 - Page 5 -

Minutes of the Planning Committee dated 2nd June 2015 continued

and the local Member should be consulted regarding Green Infrastructure proposals once they have been identified.

(b) Application DC/2014/00351 - Erection of Rural Enterprise Workers Dwelling with Treatment Plant and Use of an Existing Access. Ty Castle Farm, Newcastle, Monmouth, NP25 5NF

County Councillor D.L. Edwards declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members Code of Conduct due to his knowledge of the applicant. He therefore left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the six conditions, as outlined in the report.

In noting the detail of the application, the application had been presented to Planning Committee on 5th May 2015 with a recommendation for refusal for one reason. Information had been raised via late correspondence and following debate of these issues Members had been minded to approve the application. The Planning Committee had resolved that the application be re- presented to Planning Committee for approval with conditions.

It was considered that the information contained in late correspondence re- enforced the view that there was a need for the manager to live on site.

It was therefore proposed by County Councillor R. Edwards and seconded by County Councillor P. Murphy that application DC/2014/00351 be approved subject to the six conditions, as outlined in the report.

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

For approval - 13 Against approval - 0 Abstentions - 0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2014/00351 be approved subject to the six conditions, as outlined in the report.

(c) Application DC/2015/00191†* - Proposal: New Annexe to Provide Garaging and Granny Flat site. Address: Cobweb Cottage, Belle Vue Place, Chepstow, NP16 5PL

County Councillor R.G. Harris declared a personal and prejudicial interest pursuant to the Members Code of Conduct as the applicant was a personal friend. He therefore left the meeting taking no part in the discussion or voting thereon.

11 - Page 6 -

Minutes of the Planning Committee dated 2nd June 2015 continued

We considered the report of the application which was recommended for approval subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report.

In noting the detail of the application it was considered that the following additional conditions should be included:

 The finished floor level to be approved on site prior to works commencing and development being carried out in accordance with the approved finished floor level.

 The first floor gable window in the north eastern elevation shall be agreed prior to works commencing on site, and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

It was therefore proposed by County Councillor D. Evans and seconded by County Councillor P. Watts that application DC/2015/00191 be approved subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report. Also, that the following additional conditions should be included:

 The finished floor level to be approved on site prior to works commencing and development being carried out in accordance with the approved finished floor level.

 The first floor gable window in the north eastern elevation shall be agreed prior to works commencing on site, and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

For approval - 13 Against approval - 0 Abstentions - 0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that application DC/2015/00191 be approved subject to the four conditions, as outlined in the report. Also, that the following additional conditions should be included:

 The finished floor level to be approved on site prior to works commencing and development being carried out in accordance with the approved finished floor level.

 The first floor gable window in the north eastern elevation shall be agreed prior to works commencing on site, and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

12 - Page 7 -

Minutes of the Planning Committee dated 2nd June 2015 continued

(d) Application DC/2015/00240* - A Two Storey Extension to the Rear of the Property 14 Chestnut Drive, Parc Pen-Y-Fal, Abergavenny

We considered the report of the application which was presented for refusal for the one reason, as outlined in the report.

In noting the detail of the application, the application had been presented to the Planning Committee meeting held on 5th May 2015 with a recommendation for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report. However, Members had been minded to refuse the application owing to its impact on the residential amenity of the neighbouring dwelling and had resolved that the application be re-presented to the Planning Committee with a recommendation for refusal with appropriate reasons.

The Planning Control Manager informed the Planning Committee that the applicant had revised the original application from a two storey extension to a single storey extension. The owner of the nearby property had indicated that they did not object to a single storey extension.

Having considered the report and the views expressed, it was proposed by County Councillor M. Powell and seconded by County Councillor P.R. Clarke that the revised application DC/2015/00240 be approved for a single storey extension subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report.

Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:

In favour of the proposal - 14 Against the proposal - 0 Abstentions - 0

The proposition was carried.

We resolved that the revised application DC/2015/00240 be approved for a single storey extension subject to the conditions, as outlined in the report.

The meeting ended at 3.07p.m.

13 - Page 8 -

Minutes of the Planning Committee dated 2nd June 2015 continued

Agenda item 4 SUBJECT: MONMOUTHSHIRE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE PRIMARY SHOPPING FRONTAGES MEETING: PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE: 07 July 2015

DIVISION/WARDS AFFECTED: MAIN TOWNS

1. PURPOSE: 1.1 The purpose of this report is: To seek Planning Committee’s endorsement of new Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Primary Shopping Frontages, with a view to issuing for consultation.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS: 2.1 To endorse the Draft Primary Shopping Frontages SPG, with a view to issuing for consultation, and to recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Public Services and Housing accordingly.

3. KEY ISSUES: 3.1 Background – Adopted LDP 3.1.1 The Monmouthshire County Council Local Development Plan 2011-2021 was adopted on 27 February 2014, superseding the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan (UDP), to become the adopted development plan for the County (excluding that part within the Brecon Beacons National Park). The LDP contains sufficient policies and proposals to provide the basis for deciding planning applications, and for determining conditions to be attached to planning permissions, but it was necessary to ensure that it avoided excessive detail. Selective use of SPG is a means of setting out more detailed thematic or site specific guidance on the way in which the policies of an LDP will be applied in particular circumstances or areas.

3.1.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance LDP Wales (2005) at paragraph 5.2 states that: ‘SPG does not form a part of the development plan but must be consistent with it. It may take the form of site specific guidance such as master plans, design guides or area development briefs, or thematic such as shopfront guidance or detailed car parking standards. It should be clearly cross-referenced to the relevant adopted plan policy or proposal, which it supplements, and may be issued separately from the plan. It should be made publicly available and its status made clear.’

3.1.3 Paragraph 5.3 of LDP Wales further emphasises that SPG can be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications, provided that appropriate consultation has been undertaken and that it has been approved in accordance with the Council’s decision making process: ‘While only the policies in the development plan have special status under section 38(6) of the 2004 Act in deciding planning applications, SPG may be taken into account as a material consideration. SPG should be prepared in accordance with an authority’s CIS [Community Involvement Scheme]; consultation should involve the general public, businesses, and other interested parties and their views should be taken into account before the SPG is finalised. It should then be approved by a Council resolution. A statement of the consultation undertaken, the representations received and the authority’s response to those representations should be made 15 available with the approved SPG, either in an annex or in a separate document. In making decisions on matters that come before it, the Assembly Government and the Planning Inspectorate will give substantial weight to approved SPG which derives out of and is consistent with the development plan, and has been prepared consistent with the above advice.’

3.1.4 Programme for SPG Preparation In October 2014, Planning Committee agreed a draft programme for the preparation of SPG. This identified the Affordable Housing and Green Infrastructure (GI) SPGs as first priority for preparation, with the Primary Shopping Frontages SPG as a second priority. The preparation of a consultation draft Primary Shopping Frontages SPG is consistent with this timetable and prioritisation following the consultation on the Affordable Housing SPG and the adoption of the GI SPG.

3.1.5 Monmouthshire Town Centres Maintaining and enhancing the vitality, attractiveness and viability of primary shopping frontages in Monmouthshire’s main town centres of Abergavenny, Caldicot, Chepstow and Monmouth is a key objective of the Monmouthshire LDP. This reflects Monmouthshire’s priorities in the Single Integrated Plan and also reflects the aims of national planning policy on retail and town centres.

3.1.6 Primary Shopping Frontages – National Planning Guidance Planning Policy Wales (PPW) provides guidance in relation to support for existing town centres, advising that local planning authorities may distinguish between primary and secondary frontages and consider their relative importance to the character of the centre (paragraphs 10.2.3-10.2.8). Primary shopping frontages are those characterised by a high level of shopping uses, while secondary frontages contain a greater mix of commercial uses, including restaurants, banks and other financial institutions. PPW clearly states that such non-retail uses should not be allowed to dominate primary shopping areas in a way that can undermine the retail function. The guidance stresses the importance of ensuring that ground floor use class changes to non-retail uses are not permitted where they create a predominance of such uses, unacceptably dilute the shopping street frontage or undermine the vitality, attractiveness and viability of a centre. These principles are reflected in the LDP’s retail planning policy framework and this draft SPG.

3.1.7 Primary Shopping Frontages - Adopted Monmouthshire LDP Policy The adopted LDP reflects national planning policy by designating primary shopping frontages to cover those areas of the County’s main town centres where shopping uses (Use Class A1) predominate. LDP Policy RET1 ‘Primary Shopping Frontages’ sets out a criteria based approach for considering non-A1 retail use class proposals within the primary shopping frontages.

The policy gives priority to retail (A1 uses) in the town centre primary shopping frontages, seeking to protect the predominant shopping role and character of the main towns by controlling the loss of retail units in such frontages. In providing an enhanced level of protection for the most important shopping frontages in Abergavenny, Caldicot, Chepstow and Monmouth, the policy and SPG aim to ensure that development/redevelopment and change of use proposals are only permitted if they do not harm the shopping character and function of the primary shopping frontages.

3.1.8 Primary Shopping Frontages - Draft Monmouthshire SPG The draft SPG is intended to provide certainty and clarity for both applicants and the Council. It will help to ensure consistency in decision making by setting out clear guidance on the interpretation and implementation of LDP Policy RET1. It is not the function of the SPG to revisit the LDP or change the designated the primary shopping 16 frontage boundaries. If annual monitoring of the effectiveness of Policy RET1 identifies a need to change either the policy or the designated boundaries, this will need to be brought forward through the formal LDP review process.

3.1.9 Section 4 is the key focus of the draft SPG setting out the approach to assessing development and change of use proposals for non-retail uses within the County’s primary shopping frontages. The criteria set out in Policy RET1 consider the distribution and proximity of non-retail uses within these frontages and the location / prominence of premises, including corner units and long frontages. Particular consideration is given to the interpretation of criterion c) of the policy which is concerned with the proportion of non-retail uses that the Council considers acceptable within primary shopping frontages. Percentage figures are provided for the maximum proportion of non-retail (A2/A3 uses) considered appropriate within these frontages. Given the diversity of frontages in the County, it is not considered appropriate to apply a standardised threshold across all primary shopping frontages; accordingly, the thresholds vary according to the function and character of each specified frontage.

3.2.0 Appendix A provides further background information on each of the County’s primary shopping frontages, including the justification for the identified maximum thresholds for non-retail uses within these frontages and maps showing the extent of the frontages and ground floor uses (as at October 2014).

3.3 Next Steps 3.3.1 As referred to in paragraph 3.1.3 above, for SPG to be given weight in the consideration of planning applications, appropriate consultation needs to be undertaken and any comments received should be taken into account in the Council’s decision making process. All individuals and organisations currently on the LDP consultation database have been given the opportunity to request to be notified on some or all SPGs that they are interested in. Following a resolution to consult, targeted notifications will be sent to those considered to have an interest in the SPG topic, including all town and community councils A notice will be placed in the press. The consultation will also be publicised via our Twitter account @MCCPlanning. All consultation replies will be analysed and responses/amendments reported for Members’ consideration when seeking a resolution for the adoption of any SPG document.

4. REASONS: 4.1 Under the Planning Act (2004) and associated Regulations, all local planning authorities are required to produce a LDP. The Monmouthshire LDP was adopted on 27 February 2014 and decisions on planning applications are now being taken in accordance with policies and proposals in the LDP. SPG provides further explanation and guidance on the way in which the policies of the LDP will be applied in particular circumstances or areas.

5. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS: 5.1 Officer time and costs associated with the preparation of SPG documents and carrying out the required consultation exercises. Any costs will be met from the Planning Policy budget and carried out by existing staff.

6. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND EQUALITY IMPLICATIONS: 6.1 Sustainable Development 6.1.1 An integrated equality and sustainability impact assessment was carried out in connection with the Deposit LDP. Under the Planning Act (2004), the LDP was required, in any event, to be subject to a Sustainability Appraisal (SA). The role of the SA was to assess the extent to which the emerging planning policies would help to achieve the wider environmental, economic and social objectives of the LDP. The LPA also produced a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in accordance with 17 the European Strategic Environment Assessment Directive 2001/42/EC; requiring the ‘environmental assessment’ of certain plans and programmes prepared by local authorities, including LDP’s. All stages of the LDP were subject to a SA/SEA, therefore and the findings of the SA/SEA were used to inform the development of the LDP policies and site allocations in order to ensure that the LDP would be promoting sustainable development. SPG is expanding and providing guidance on these existing LDP policies, which were prepared within a framework promoting sustainable development.

6.2 Equality 6.2.1 The LDP was also subjected to an Equality Challenge process and due consideration given to the issues raised. As with the sustainable development implications considered above, SPG is expanding and providing guidance on these existing LDP policies, which were prepared within this framework. New SPG will be subject to integrated equality and sustainability impact assessments to ensure that informed decisions can be made. Where practicable and appropriate, consultation will include targeted involvement of those with the relevant protected characteristics.

6.2.2 Assessments of Equality Impact will be required throughout the Plan’s implementation wherever there is likely to be significant impact. In this respect, the LDP will be subject to an Annual Monitoring Report that will include consideration of Equality Impacts.

7. CONSULTEES:

 Head of Planning  Development Management Officers

8. BACKGROUND PAPERS:

 Welsh Government ‘Planning Policy Wales’ (Edition 7), July 2014.

 Monmouthshire Adopted LDP (February 2014).

 MCC ‘Primary Shopping Frontages Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance’ (June 2015).

 Monmouthshire LDP ‘Sustainability Appraisal/Strategic Environmental Assessment Report’ (February 2014).

 Monmouthshire LDP ‘Retail Background Paper’, May 2015.

9. AUTHOR & 10. CONTACT DETAILS: Jane Coppock (Planning Policy Manager). Tel: 01633 644256. E Mail: [email protected]

Primary Shopping Frontages Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance June 2015

Monmouthshire County Council Local Development Plan

Draft Primary Shopping Frontages Supplementary Planning Guidance

June 2015

Planning Policy Service Monmouthshire County Council

County Hall, Rhadyr, Usk, Monmouthshire NP15 1GA Tel: 01633 644429 Email: [email protected]

CONTENTS

Page

1. Introduction: Purpose of this Supplementary Planning Guidance 1

2. Planning Policy Context 2

3. Designation of Primary Shopping Frontages in Monmouthshire 4

4. Interpretation and Implementation of Policy RET1: The 9 Approach to Assessing Development and Change of Use Proposals for Non-retail Uses in Primary Shopping Frontages

Appendices

A. Monmouthshire Primary Shopping Frontages – Background Information and Maps

B. Use Classes Order (Wales) 1987

C. Policy RET1 Checklist for Assessing Development and Change of Use Proposals for Non-retail Uses in Primary Shopping Frontages

D. Sources of Advice

21 1 Introduction: Purpose of this Supplementary Planning Guidance

1.1 Maintaining and enhancing the vitality, attractiveness and viability of primary shopping frontages in Monmouthshire’s main town centres of Abergavenny, Caldicot, Chepstow and Monmouth is a key objective of the Monmouthshire Local Development Plan (LDP) and reflects the aims of national planning policy on retail and town centres. Policy RET1 - Primary Shopping Frontages - of the Monmouthshire LDP seeks to protect the predominant shopping role and character of the main towns by controlling the loss of retail uses in the primary shopping frontages.

1.2 This Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) is intended to provide certainty and clarity for applicants and the Council in the interpretation and implementation of Policy RET1 relating to proposals for new development/redevelopment and change of use of ground floor premises in the County’s primary shopping frontages from retail to non-retail uses. The SPG is a material consideration in relation to planning applications and appeals and helps guide applicants and the Council through the planning process with regard to proposals for development/redevelopment and changes of use in primary shopping frontages. 1.3 The SPG will assist decision making by setting out guidance on the criteria based approach for assessing proposals for non-retail use classes in the County’s primary shopping frontages. In particular, it will provide clarity on the proportion of ground floor units in non-retail use that the Council considers acceptable within the specified frontages. 1.4 The SPG contains the following information:  Section 2 provides an overview of the national and local planning policy context in relation to primary shopping frontages;  Section 3 explains the designation of primary shopping frontages in Monmouthshire; and  Section 4 provides guidance on the interpretation and implementation of the criteria set out in Policy RET1.  Appendices: . Appendix A Monmouthshire Primary Shopping Frontages – Background Information and Maps . Appendix B Use Classes Order (Wales) 1987 . Appendix C Policy RET1 Checklist for Assessing Development and Change of Use Proposals for Non-retail Uses in Primary Shopping Frontages . Appendix D Sources of Advice

22 2 Planning Policy Context

National Planning Policy

2.1 National planning policy on retail and town centres as set out in Chapter 10 of Planning Policy Wales (PPW, Edition 7 July 2014) favours the location of retailing, leisure and other complementary functions within town, district, local and village centres which are readily accessible and minimise the need to travel. Paragraphs 10.2.3-10.2.8 specifically provide guidance in relation to support for existing centres and advise that local planning authorities may distinguish between primary and secondary frontages in such areas and consider their relative importance to the character of the centre. Primary shopping frontages are those characterised by a high level of shopping uses, while secondary frontages contain a greater mix of commercial uses, including banks and other financial institutions, and restaurants. PPW clearly states that such non-retail uses should not be allowed to dominate primary shopping areas in a way that can undermine the retail function. 2.2 While national planning policy encourages diversity in town centres as a whole, it highlights the importance of ensuring that ground floor use class changes to non-retail uses are not permitted where they create a predominance of such uses, unacceptably dilute the shopping street frontage or undermine the vitality, attractiveness and viability of a centre. These principles are reflected in the LDP’s retail planning policy framework and this SPG. 2.3 Technical Advice Note 4 Retailing and Town Centres (TAN4, 1996) provides advice on the information that can be of value in measuring the vitality, attractiveness and viability of town centres. This approach has assisted in identifying the central shopping areas and primary shopping frontages in each of the County’s main town centres. Monmouthshire Local Development Plan (LDP) 2.4 The Monmouthshire LDP was adopted in February 2014 and provides the planning framework for this SPG. It builds on the positive approach of previous development plans to ensure that the County’s main town centres thrive as successful shopping and visitor destinations. A key objective of the LDP is to ‘sustain and enhance the main County towns of Abergavenny, Caldicot, Chepstow and Monmouth as vibrant and attractive centres serving their own populations and rural hinterlands’. This is reflected in the LDP’s retail policy framework, including Strategic Policy S6 - Retail Hierarchy - which seeks to focus new retail and commercial developments in the identified retail hierarchy. 2.5 Policy RET1 - Primary Shopping Frontages - which this SPG supports, specifically focuses on primary shopping frontages and sets out the criteria for considering non-retail proposals within these frontages. The policy gives priority to retail (A1 uses) in the town centres’ primary shopping frontages and seeks to protect the predominant shopping role and character of the main towns

23 by controlling the loss of retail units within such frontages. In providing an enhanced level of protection for the most important shopping frontages in Abergavenny, Caldicot, Chepstow and Monmouth, the policy aims to ensure that development/redevelopment and change of use proposals are only permitted if they do not harm the shopping character and function of the primary shopping frontages. This SPG provides further guidance on the criteria-based approach set out in Policy RET1 to controlling non-retail uses in these key frontages. Monmouthshire LDP Evidence Base

2.6 A number of studies/ assessments have been carried out to inform the LDP which provide valuable baseline information on the County’s main towns and have assisted in identifying the central shopping areas and primary shopping frontages. These include:  Retail Background Paper This sets out the Council’s annual retail ‘health check’ of the County’s main towns which involves monitoring the diversity of uses, retailer representation/demand, vacant units, environmental quality and pedestrian flows. The most recent data available is for October 2014 and is set out in the latest Retail Background Paper dated May 2015.  Floorspace and Household Surveys These surveys are undertaken every five years and form another important element of the County’s retail / town centre evidence base.  Monmouthshire Retail and Leisure Study (Drivers Jonas Deloitte, 2009) Undertaken to inform the evidence base of the LDP, this study assesses the need for further retail, leisure and other main town centre uses in Monmouthshire. As part of the study, consideration was given to the suitability of existing primary shopping frontages within the main towns.

24 3 Designation of Primary Shopping Frontages in Monmouthshire

3.1 The designation of primary shopping frontages in the LDP is a key element of the Council’s strategy to protect and enhance the vitality, attractiveness and viability of the County’s main town centres. Primary shopping frontages have been designated to cover those areas of the County’s main town centres of Abergavenny, Caldicot, Chepstow and Monmouth where retail uses (Use Class A1) predominate. It should be noted that primary shopping frontages relate only to the ground floor level of premises. 3.2 The clustering of retail uses can significantly contribute to the vitality, attractiveness and viability of the town centres. Whilst it is recognised that other non-A1 uses, such as financial and professional services and restaurants and cafés can complement and contribute to the vitality of shopping centres, there is a need to ensure that they do not reach such a level that the main retail function of a centre, or a particular frontage, is diluted and/or the vitality, attractiveness and viability of a centre is undermined. It is essential, therefore, that the retail core of the County’s main centres is protected and that developments which undermine this function are resisted. 3.3 The designation of primary shopping frontages in Monmouthshire has been informed by consideration of the following:  The LDP evidence base including the annual ‘health check’ surveys (e.g. presence of national retailers, pedestrian counts etc.) and the Monmouthshire Retail and Leisure Study. In view of the latter, one amendment was made to the Caldicot primary shopping frontage through the LDP process, whereby a number of units at the eastern end of the centre were removed from the primary shopping frontage on the basis that they did not warrant such designation.  The character and function of the frontages within the town centres (e.g. frontages with the greatest provision of existing shops).  The Council’s adopted LDP retail objectives, strategy and policies.

3.4 Maps of the towns’ designated primary shopping frontages are set out below. Further background detail on these frontages, including the maximum thresholds sought for non-retail (A2/A3) uses within these frontages, together with maps showing their extent and use class at ground floor level (at October 2014), is provided in Appendix A of this SPG.

25 Primary Shopping Frontages (PSF) in Monmouthshire

ABERGAVENNY PSF1 Cross Street (1-15 & The Angel Hotel), High Street, Frogmore Street and 1 Nevill Street PSF2 Cibi Walk (1-18) PSF3 Cross Street (51-60 & Town Hall)

26 CALDICOT

PSF4 Newport Road (7-43 & 14-Wesley Buildings)

27 CHEPSTOW

PSF5 High Street (2-23)

PSF6 St Mary Street

28 MONMOUTH

PSF7 Monnow Street (12-126)

PSF8 Church Street, Agincourt Square & Priory Street (1-4)

29 4 Interpretation and Implementation of Policy RET1: The Approach to Assessing Development and Change of Use Proposals for Non-retail Uses in Primary Shopping Frontages

4.1 This section of the guidance provides further detail on the interpretation and implementation of the criteria set out in Policy RET1, with particular consideration given to criterion c). Primary shopping frontages have been identified in the County’s main towns within which a specific criteria-based approach set out in Policy RET1 will apply when assessing proposals for new development/redevelopment and change of use from A1 to non-retail (A2/A3) uses. This approach seeks to protect the predominant shopping role and character of the main towns by controlling the loss of retail uses within the primary shopping frontages. Non-retail in the context of this policy and SPG applies to all uses outside class A1 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended and applied in Wales (see Appendix B).

Policy RET1 – Primary Shopping Frontages

Primary Shopping Frontages are designated in Abergavenny, Caldicot, Chepstow and Monmouth as shown on the Proposals Map. Within Primary Shopping Frontages, development or redevelopment proposals for Classes A2 or A3 on ground floors, or a change of use on ground floors from Use Class A1 to Classes A2 or A3, will be permitted unless: a) they would create (or further extend) a continuous frontage exceeding two or more non A1 units; or b) they would result in the loss of A1 retail units in prominent locations, corner units or those with long frontages; or c) the number, frontage lengths and distribution of Class A2 or A3 uses in the frontage create an over-concentration of uses detracting from its established retail character.

Where a proposal fails to meet the above criteria, an exception may be considered provided: i) it can be demonstrated that the proposed use would not harm the vitality of the street frontage; or ii) the premises have been vacant for a least 2 years and genuine attempts at marketing the existing use have been unsuccessful.

30 4.2 In interpreting the criteria set out in Policy RET1, the following considerations will be taken into account: a) Distribution and Proximity of Non-retail Uses in Primary Shopping Frontages: Criterion a) seeks to ensure that consideration is given to the distribution and proximity of existing non-retail uses at ground floor level in primary shopping frontages. In order to prevent concentrations of non-retail uses occurring which could dilute shopping frontages and negatively impact on vitality, attractiveness and viability, no more than two adjacent non-retail uses will be permitted.

b) Location and Prominence of Premises in Primary Shopping Frontages: Criteria b) seeks to prevent the loss of A1 retail units in prominent locations and corner units and those with long frontages. Such units are considered to have an important function in primary shopping frontages in maintaining vitality, attractiveness and viability and it is therefore essential that the loss of such units to non-retail (A2/A3) uses is controlled. Accordingly, it is unlikely that planning permission would be granted for any proposal in a primary shopping frontage involving development/redevelopment or a change of use from A1 retail use to a non-retail use in a prominent / corner location.

In determining whether a unit constitutes a prominent premises within a primary shopping frontage consideration should be given to the following factors:  Is it a key /anchor store?  Is it visually prominent? e.g. architectural quality and presence, junction location.  Is it located in a central position within the frontage?  Is it located immediately adjacent to transport facilities or in a key position in terms of pedestrian linkages? Such factors should assist in establishing the importance of the premises in the shopping frontage. This approach will also apply to proposals for development/redevelopment or a change of use to non-retail in those premises with a long frontage. For the purposes of this policy, specific consideration will be given to those units with a frontage of 10 metres or more although the significance of a particular frontage will depend on its context. c) Proportion of Non-retail Uses in Primary Shopping Frontages: Criterion c) aims to prevent the number, frontage length and distribution of non-A1 uses from creating an over-concentration of non-retail uses in primary shopping frontages which can interrupt the flow of retail units, lead to ‘dead frontages’ and negatively impact on the established shopping role

31 and character of the centres. The number of existing non-retail uses within such frontages will therefore be a key factor in deciding whether to permit an additional non-retail use.

In order to avoid a concentration of non-retail uses in primary shopping frontages there will be a restriction upon the number of units in non-A1 use classes allowed within these frontages. To assist with the interpretation of this criterion, percentage figures are provided for the maximum proportion of non-retail (A2/A3) uses that the Council considers appropriate in each of the centres’ primary shopping frontages. Development/redevelopment and change of use proposals which would increase the number of non-retail units to more than the identified percentages in each of the specified frontages, as set out in Tables 1-4 below and in Appendix A, are unlikely to be permitted.

Of note, A1 retail and non-retail uses within the primary shopping frontages are calculated from both the numbers of current A1 and non-A1 uses together with vacant units which were in A1 and non-A1 use prior to becoming vacant, and shops which have a valid A1 consent.

In identifying the maximum proportion of non-retail units considered appropriate in each of the primary shopping frontages, a number of factors have been taken into account including:  The manner in which the balance of retail to non-retail (A2/A3) uses has been changing over time within a frontage;  The contribution of the frontage to the vitality and viability of the centre as a whole;  Existing/ baseline situation based on the centres’ health check findings and Retail and Leisure Study.

The identified thresholds, as set out below and in Appendix A, are generally considered appropriate on the basis that a higher level of non-retail uses would be likely to dilute the established shopping role/character of the frontage and undermine the vitality, viability and attractiveness of the frontages and centres as a whole. Given the diversity of frontages in the County, it is not considered appropriate to apply a standardised threshold across all primary shopping frontages in all of the main towns. The thresholds therefore vary according to the function and character of the specified primary shopping frontage. Further background information on each of the frontages, including the justification for these thresholds and maps showing the extent of the specified frontages and ground floor uses (at October 2014) is provided in Appendix A and should be referred to accordingly.

32 Table 1 Abergavenny Primary Shopping Frontages – Maximum Thresholds for Non-A1 Uses Maximum % of Primary Shopping Frontage Non-A1 Units PSF1 Cross Street, High Street & Frogmore Street 25% PSF2 Cibi Walk 0% PSF3 Cross Street (51-60 & Town Hall) 45%

Table 2 Caldicot Primary Shopping Frontage – Maximum Thresholds for Non-A1 Uses Maximum % of Primary Shopping Frontage Non-A1 Units PSF4 Newport Road (7-43 & 14-Wesley Buildings) 35%

Table 3 Chepstow Primary Shopping Frontages – Maximum Thresholds for Non-A1 Uses Maximum % of Primary Shopping Frontage Non-A1 Units PSF5 High Street (2-23) 25% PSF6 St Mary Street 35%

Table 4 Monmouth Primary Shopping Frontages – Maximum Thresholds for Non-A1 Uses Maximum % of Primary Shopping Frontage Non-A1 Units PSF7 Monnow Street (12-126) 25% PSF8 Church Street, Agincourt Square & Priory 35% Street (1-4)

It should be noted that there may be circumstances where the maximum threshold for non-retail uses has already been undermined within a certain frontage. In such instances the threshold identified should be seen as an aspiration to address the existence of a weakened retail frontage and, therefore, further erosion by non-retail uses will not normally be permitted. This approach will allow for the development/ redevelopment of retail uses and change of use from non-retail to retail use in order to enhance the retail function of a frontage, but importantly it would not enable a new retail use to revert to a non-retail use. A checklist for assessing development and change of use proposals for non- retail uses in primary shopping frontages is provided in Appendix C and should be referred to accordingly. This enables an applicant / officer to quickly review whether a proposal is compliant with Policy RET1.

33 4.3 Exceptions to Criteria a) to c) of Policy RET1 Policy RET1 sets out exceptions to these criteria where a proposed development/change of use to a non-retail (A2/A3) use in a primary shopping frontage may be considered acceptable. To deal with these issues in turn: i) The applicant can demonstrate that the proposed use would not harm the vitality of the street frontage While there is a presumption in favour of retaining retail units within the centres’ primary shopping frontages, it is recognised that complementary A2 and A3 uses can add to the vitality of a centre by attracting customers and creating additional footfall. Coffee shops and cafés in particular can complement the retail offer and add to the attractiveness and vitality of the County’s historic towns which have a considerable visitor clientele. Applications for proposals for development/redevelopment and changes of use to A2/A3 uses will need to be supported by evidence that the proposed use would comply with this element of Policy RET1. For example, this could include footfall estimates (which should be akin to a retail use) and evidence to demonstrate that the proposal would bring increased vitality to the area and incorporate active ground floor frontages. In addition, it is essential that uses within these frontages are appropriate in terms of their ability to attract passing trade within general shopping hours. This could be reflected in conditions attached to a planning permission.

In instances where A2 or A3 uses are permitted in primary shopping frontages it is important to ensure that they are dispersed to maximise the benefits of diversity and create frontages which provide increased interest and pedestrian flows. It is also important that non-retail uses maintain the vitality of the street by retaining an active ground floor frontage / attractive display window.

Or ii) The premises has been vacant for at least 2 years and there have been genuine attempts at marketing the property. The possibility of a premises remaining vacant for an extended period of time will be a material planning consideration in determining the suitability of a proposed use class change in a primary shopping frontage. The Council will balance concerns about the loss of retail units with the desire to avoid long term vacancies that would have a detrimental impact on the vitality, attractiveness and viability of town centres. Proposals for use class changes to non-retail uses for vacant premises will need to be supported by suitable evidence to demonstrate the extent of marketing undertaken to secure a retail occupier. Marketing and advertising should normally be for a minimum of 12 months and be of a nature that is likely to reach potentially interested occupiers. The Council may request the applicant to provide an independent retail agent’s report on the potential for letting a unit. It is considered that such a flexible approach will assist in avoiding long-term

34 vacancies that would have a detrimental effect on the established shopping role and character of the town centres’ primary shopping frontages. A3 uses

4.4 Particular consideration will be given to assessing proposals for A3 uses within primary shopping frontages. While it is recognised that cafés and restaurants can complement retail uses, hot food take-away premises that are closed during the day make a limited contribution to the vitality of retail centres. Accordingly, further growth of such uses within these frontages will be discouraged. With regard to proposals for change of use from retail to A3 food and drink use, consideration will also be given to the amenity effects likely to arise from the proposed use. Conditions may be attached to a planning permission to restrict future trading to the particular use proposed and prevent an alternative use in the same use class e.g. a condition could restrict a restaurant from operating as a hot food take-away. 4.5 The above approach will be adopted in relation to all applications involving new development/redevelopment and/or change of use proposals for non-retail uses within ground floor premises of the County’s primary shopping frontages. The guidance is designed clarify the Council’s approach to non-retail uses in the County’s main towns and to provide clear guidance to applicants and officers in the interpretation and implementation of Policy RET1.

Appendix A

Monmouthshire Primary Shopping Frontages - Background Information and Maps

36 ABERGAVENNY PSF1 – Cross Street (1-15 & The Angel Hotel), High Street, Frogmore Street & 1 Nevill Street

These historic streets form a core primary shopping frontage within Abergavenny town centre covering High Street, Frogmore Street, the western side of Cross Street and No. 1 Nevill Street. It is a sizeable, attractive, busy area characterised by:  A range of national comparison goods retailers including Boots, Clarks, B&M Bargains, Burtons and Fat Face.  A number of local / independent comparison goods retailers including W.M. Nicholls department store.  A range of supporting services including banks, building societies and several national chain and local/independent cafés, restaurants and coffee shops.  A limited number of convenience goods retailers.

This area has a high concentration of retail floorspace and continues to be the main focus of high street retailing in Abergavenny. The presence of a range of eateries in this area means that it also has an important function in supporting the town’s evening economy. At October 2014 there were 7 vacant units within this frontage, most of which were previously in retail use, with a notable number of large vacant units towards the northern end of Frogmore Street. The Council will seek to retain these key units in A1 retail use given their prominence in the street frontage. The presence of key national chain stores, together with a range of local/independent retailers means that this area of the town centre is likely to retain its important shopping function for residents and visitors and remain the focus of retail investment /enhancement for the foreseeable future. The 2014 retail health check indicated the following findings for this primary shopping frontage: Total number of units 87  A1 units 61 (66*)  A2 units 12  A3 units 6 (8*)  Other 1 Number of vacant units 7 Length of defined retail frontage 732 metres Average unit length 8.4 metres Ground floor units retail/non-retail split (%)** 76% A1 retail / 24% non-retail *Indicates situation if vacant units return to previous use class ** Figures include vacant units current lawful use / previous use class

This is a key shopping area with a high proportion of retail units at ground floor level. In order to maintain and enhance the vitality, viability and retail character of this frontage and centre as a whole, decisions on planning applications for new development/redevelopment and change of use to A2/A3 uses should seek to ensure that the proportion of non-A1 uses at ground floor level does not exceed the identified threshold of 25%. This figure broadly reflects historical and current levels of non-retail uses within this frontage and recognises the importance of maintaining the retail function /character of the frontage and centre as a whole but also allows some scope for diversification. It is considered that a higher level of non-retail uses would be likely to dilute the established shopping role and character of the frontage and undermine the vitality, viability and attractiveness of both the frontage and centre as a whole.

37 MAP 1: Abergavenny PSF1 – Cross Street (1-15 & The Angel Hotel), High Street, Frogmore Street & 1 Nevill Street

38 MAP 2: Abergavenny PSF2 – Cibi Walk

This purpose built arcade situated off Frogmore Street opened in 1992 and is a key primary shopping frontage in Abergavenny town centre. Distinct from the historic retail core of Abergavenny, it is a busy shopping area characterised by:  A range of predominantly national multiple comparison goods retailers, including WH Smith, Wilkinson, Clinton Cards, Superdrug and Thornton’s.  A number of large retail units (average unit length of 15.3 metres).  A small number of local /independent retailers including Y Fenni Fruit and Veg.

All units in Cibi Walk were in A1 retail use at October 2014 with no vacant units present which indicates that the area is vital and viable, reflecting its designation as a primary shopping frontage and its importance for high street retailing in the town centre. The presence of key national chain stores in mainly larger units means that this area of the town centre is likely to retain its important shopping function for residents and visitors and remain the focus of retail investment /enhancement for the foreseeable future. The 2014 retail health check indicated the following findings for this primary shopping frontage: Total number of units 16  A1 units 16  A2 units 0  A3 units 0  Other 0 Number of vacant units 0 Length of defined retail frontage 245 metres Average unit length 15.3 metres Ground floor units retail/non-retail split (%) 100% A1 retail /0% non-retail

This is a key shopping area with all units in A1 retail use at ground floor level (at 2014). In order to maintain and enhance the vitality, viability and retail character of this purpose built arcade and centre as a whole, decisions on planning applications for new development/redevelopment and change of use to A2/A3 uses should seek to ensure that the proportion of non-A1 uses at ground floor level does not exceed the identified threshold of 0%. This figure reflects historical and current high levels of retail uses and extremely low levels of non-retail uses within this area and recognises the importance of maintaining the retail function /character of the frontage. It is considered that the introduction of non-retail uses would be likely to dilute the established shopping role of the area and undermine the vitality, viability and attractiveness of the frontage and centre as a whole.

39 MAP 2: Abergavenny PSF2 – Cibi Walk

40 PSF3 – Cross Street (51-60 & Town Hall)

This eastern side of Cross Street is a relatively small primary shopping frontage within Abergavenny town centre comprising a diverse mix of retail and non-retail uses and is characterised by:  A small number of retail uses including a national opticians and a few local independent retailers.  A predominance of non-retail uses including a bank, estate agent, theatre, hotel and restaurant /café.

Whilst retail remains an important element within this frontage, it is recognised that its character and function has been subject to change with a higher proportion of non-retail uses now evident.

There were no vacant units within this frontage at October 2014. Although it is no longer a focus for high street retailing, it appears to be functioning effectively with its mix of retail and complementary supporting services and supports the town’s evening economy.

The presence of the Borough Theatre, MCC One Stop Shop and established hotel, restaurant /café together with a small range of retailers suggests that this part of Cross Street will remain an important frontage within the town centre for residents and visitors for the foreseeable future. The 2014 retail health check indicated the following findings for this primary shopping frontage: Total number of units 11  A1 units 4  A2 units 2  A3 units 3  Other 2 Number of vacant units 0 Length of defined retail frontage 100 metres Average unit length 9.1 metres Ground floor units retail/non-retail split (%) 36% A1 retail /64% non-retail

In view of the mix of retail and non-retail uses within this frontage, a higher proportion of non- retail uses will be considered acceptable than in the other primary shopping frontages in Abergavenny. Accordingly, decisions on planning applications for new development/redevelopment and change of use to A2/A3 uses should seek to ensure that the proportion of non-A1 uses at ground floor level does not exceed the identified threshold of 45%. Whilst this figure will allow sufficient scope for a flexible /diverse range of uses within ground floor premises to complement the retail offer of the centre as a whole as the area changes and develops, it is recognised that the current level of non-A1 retail uses exceeds this threshold. There is, however, an aspiration to address this situation and enhance the retail function of this frontage meaning that further erosion by non-retail uses beyond the identified threshold which could undermine its designation as a primary shopping frontage will be prevented. The identified threshold of 45%, whilst generally lower than the historical and current levels of non-retail uses within this frontage, is considered appropriate in order to meet this objective.

41 MAP 3: Abergavenny PSF3 – Cross Street (51-60 & Town Hall)

42 CALDICOT PSF4 – Newport Road (7-43 & 14-Wesley Buildings)

This area forms the primary shopping frontage within Caldicot town centre. It is a purpose built, relatively compact, pedestrianised area which serves an important local shopping function for residents and is characterised by:  A range of comparison and convenience goods retailers comprising of predominantly local/ independent businesses, including RSVP Greeting Cards, Chappell Pharmacy and Country Flowers.  A small number of national retailers comprising of mainly convenience goods operators, including Waitrose and Gregg’s bakery.  A range of supporting services including banks, estate agents and several local/independent cafés and takeaways.

This area has a reasonable concentration of retail floorspace and continues to be the main focus of high street retailing in Caldicot. It is recognised that this area contains a higher proportion of non-retail uses than the primary shopping frontages of the other main towns, however, is designation as a primary frontage reflects its role as a key local retail area serving the town’s residents. There were 5 vacant units within the frontage (at October 2014) constituting 13% of outlets which represents a notable increase in the number of vacant units in the frontage in recent years. The majority of vacant units were previously in use as retail. Given that this area is the main focus for high street retailing in Caldicot the Council will seek to retain these units in A1 retail use. The presence of a range of local/independent retailers together with a small number of national operators means that this area of the town centre is likely to retain its important local shopping function for residents and provide opportunities for local retailers. The recent development of an Asda store in close proximity should generate further linked shopping trips to this area further supporting its retail function. The 2014 retail health check indicated the following findings for this primary shopping frontage: Total number of units 40  A1 units 22 (26*)  A2 units 8 (9*)  A3 units 4  Other 1 Number of vacant units 5 Length of defined retail frontage 376 metres Average unit length 9.4 metres Ground floor units retail/non-retail split (%) ** 65% A1 retail /35% non-retail * Indicates situation if vacant units return to previous use class ** Figures include vacant units current lawful use / previous use class

In order to maintain and enhance the vitality, viability and local retail function of this frontage, decisions on planning applications for new development/redevelopment and change of use to A2/A3 uses should seek to ensure that the proportion of non-A1 uses at ground floor level does not exceed the identified threshold of 35%. This figure broadly reflects the historical and current level of non-retail uses within this primary shopping frontage and the Council’s desire to prevent further erosion of retail uses beyond this level. It is considered that a higher level of non-retail uses would be likely to dilute the established important local shopping role and character of the frontage and undermine the vitality and viability of the centre.

43 MAP 4: Caldicot PSF4 – Newport Road (7-43 & 14-Wesley Buildings)

44 CHEPSTOW PSF5 – High Street (2-23)

This historic area forms a key primary shopping frontage within Chepstow town centre. It is an attractive, busy area during the day and is characterised by:  A range of national comparison goods retailers including Boots, WH Smith, Peacocks and Specsavers.  A number of local / independent comparison goods retailers including Herbert Lewis department store.  A small number of supporting services including a building society, estate agents and a restaurant.

This area contains a high concentration of comparison goods retail floorspace and is the main focus of high street retailing in Chepstow, although it is notable that evening activity is limited.

There were no vacant units within this core frontage at October 2014 which indicates that the area is vital and viable, reflecting the key shopping function of this frontage within the town centre. The presence of national comparison chain stores, together with a range of local/independent retailers means that this area of the town centre should retain its important shopping function for residents and visitors and remain the focus of retail investment /enhancement for the foreseeable future. The 2014 retail health check indicated the following findings for this primary shopping frontage: Total number of units 25  A1 units 20  A2 units 4  A3 units 1  Other 0 Number of vacant units 0 Length of defined retail frontage 234 metres Average unit length 9.4 metres Ground floor units retail/non-retail split (%) 80% A1 retail /20% non-retail

This is a core shopping area with a high proportion of retail units at ground floor level. In order to maintain and enhance the vitality, viability and retail character of this primary shopping frontage and centre as a whole, decisions on planning applications for new development/redevelopment and change of use to A2/A3 uses should seek to ensure that the proportion of non-A1 uses at ground floor level does not exceed the identified threshold of 25%. This figure, whilst generally marginally higher than historical and current levels of non- retail uses within this frontage, recognises the importance of maintaining the retail function /character of the frontage and centre as a whole and allows some scope for diversification. It is considered that a higher level of non-retail uses would be likely to dilute the established shopping role and character of the frontage and undermine the vitality, viability and attractiveness of the frontage and centre as a whole.

45 MAP 5: Chepstow PSF5 – High Street (2-23)

46 PSF6 – St Mary Street

St Mary Street is an historic, attractive, pedestrianised shopping area within Chepstow town centre located to the south of High Street. It is characterised by:  Predominantly local independent operators, with only 2 national operators present (namely Costa and Coffee@1)  A range of local independent comparison goods and speciality retailers, including two antique shops and gift shop, and hair/beauty salons.  A relatively high number of supporting services including coffee shops/cafés and restaurants, clinics and a recruitment agency.

Whilst retail, particularly in relation to local /independent and speciality operators, remains important in this frontage it is recognised the area has been subject to the growth of a diverse range of supporting services with over a third of units in non-retail use at 2014. The presence of a range of eateries in this area means that it also supports the town’s evening economy. At 2014 there were 2 vacant units within this frontage, one of which was in previous use as A1 retail and the other a D1 use (dentist). Despite these vacant units, the area appears to functioning effectively with its local / independent retail offer and supporting services. The diverse range of uses in this area suggests that it will remain an important frontage within the town centre for residents and visitors. The focus of this frontage is expected to remain on local independent shopping and complementary supporting services. It is important that any proposals for change of use do not adversely impact on the area’s character and function. The 2014 retail health check indicated the following findings for this primary shopping frontage: Total number of units 26  A1 units 16 (17*)  A2 units 1  A3 units 5  Other 2 (3*) Number of vacant units 2 Length of defined retail frontage 224 metres Average unit length 8.6 metres Ground floor units retail/non-retail split (%)** 65% A1 retail / 35% non-retail * Indicates situation if vacant units return to previous use class ** Figures include vacant units current lawful use / previous use class

In view of the mix of retail and non-retail uses within this frontage, a higher proportion of non- retail uses will be considered acceptable than in the adjacent primary shopping frontage at High Street. Accordingly, decisions on planning applications for new development/redevelopment and change of use to A2/A3 uses should seek to ensure that the proportion of non-A1 uses at ground floor level does not exceed the identified threshold of 35%. This figure broadly reflects historical and current levels of non-retail uses within this frontage. Although this will allow for a flexible /diverse range of uses within ground floor premises to complement the retail offer of the centre as a whole, the Council would not wish to see further erosion of retail uses beyond the identified threshold which could undermine its function, character and designation as a primary shopping frontage in Chepstow.

47 MAP 6: Chepstow PSF6 – St Mary Street

48 MONMOUTH PSF7 – Monnow Street

This historic street forms a key primary shopping frontage within Monmouth town centre. It is a sizeable, attractive and vibrant area characterised by:  A broad range of national comparison goods retailers, including White Stuff, WH Smith, Superdrug, Boots and Fat Face.  A number of national convenience goods stores – Marks and Spencer Food Hall and Waitrose.  A broad range of local / independent comparison goods operators including Soames Shoes and Salt & Pepper Cookshop and Gift Shop.  A number of supporting services including banks, estate agents, coffee shops/ restaurants and public houses.

This area contains a high concentration of both national and local/independent comparison goods retail units (total of 86) and is the main focus of high street retailing in Monmouth. It is also serves an important food shopping function with the presence of Marks and Spencer Simply Food and Waitrose stores. At the time of the 2014 retail health check, there were 8 vacant units within this primary shopping frontage, six of which were in previous use as A1 retail and two in A2/A3 uses. Despite these vacant units, the area appears to be vibrant and functioning effectively, reflecting the core retail function and character of this area within the town centre. The presence of national comparison retailers, together with a range of local/independent operators and supporting services means that this area of the town centre is likely to retain its important shopping function for residents and visitors and remain the focus of retail investment /enhancement for the foreseeable future. The 2014 retail health check indicated the following findings for this primary shopping frontage: Total number of units 86  A1 units 60 (66*)  A2 units 6 (7*)  A3 units 8 (9*)  Other 4 Number of vacant units 8 Length of defined retail frontage 628 metres Average unit length 7.3 metres Ground floor units retail/non-retail split (%)** 77% A1 retail / 23% non-retail * Indicates situation if vacant units return to previous use class ** Figures include vacant units current lawful use / previous use class

This is a core shopping area with a high proportion of retail units at ground floor level. In order to maintain and enhance the vitality, viability and retail character of this frontage, decisions on planning applications for new development/redevelopment and change of use to A2/A3 uses should seek to ensure that the proportion of non-A1 uses at ground floor level does not exceed the identified threshold of 25%. This figure broadly reflects historical and current levels of non- retail uses within this frontage and recognises the importance of maintaining the retail function /character of this prime retail area and centre as a whole but does allow some scope for diversification. It is considered that a higher level of non-retail uses would be likely to dilute the established shopping role and character of the frontage and undermine the vitality, viability and attractiveness of the frontage and town centre as a whole.

49 MAP 7: Monmouth PSF7 – Monnow Street

50 PSF8 – Church Street, Agincourt Square & Priory Street (1-4)

This area is located to the north of the Monnow Street primary shopping frontage covering Church Street, Agincourt Square and part of Priory Street and comprises a mix of retail and supporting uses. It is an historic vibrant area characterised by:  A range a predominantly local independent comparison goods retailers (focused on Church Street), with just two notable national retailers present (namely Joules and Iceland).  A small number of local independent convenience goods operators.  A wide range of supporting services including banks/building societies and estate agents (focused on Agincourt Square), theatre, MCC One Stop Shop, hairdressers/beauty salons, coffee shops/ cafés and restaurants.

Whilst retail remains important in this frontage, particularly for local /independent operators, it is recognised that its character and function has been subject to change with a relatively high proportion of non-retail uses now evident. The presence of a range of eateries and theatre in this area means that it also has an important function in supporting the town’s evening economy. At October 2014 there were 4 vacant units within this frontage, three of which were in previous use as A1 retail units and one in sui generis use. Despite the presence of these vacant units, the area appears to be vital and viable with its diverse range of local /independent retailers and supporting services. The variety of uses in this area suggests that it will remain an important frontage within the town centre for residents and visitors. The focus of this area is expected to remain on local/independent shopping and complementary supporting services. It is important that any proposals for change of use do not adversely impact on the area’s character and function. The 2014 retail health check indicated the following findings for this primary shopping frontage: Total number of units 47  A1 units 24 (27*)  A2 units 9  A3 units 6  Other 4 (5*) Number of vacant units 4 Length of defined retail frontage 341 metres Average unit length 7.3 metres Ground floor units retail/non-retail split (%)** 57% A1 retail / 43% non-retail * Indicates situation if vacant units return to previous use class ** Figures include vacant units current lawful use / previous use class

In order to maintain and enhance the vitality, viability and character of this frontage, decisions on planning applications for new development/redevelopment and change of use to A2/A3 uses should seek to ensure that the proportion of non-A1 uses at ground floor level does not exceed the identified threshold of 35%. Whilst this figure will allow sufficient scope for a flexible /diverse range of uses within ground floor premises to complement the retail offer of the centre as a whole, it is recognised that the current level of non-A1 uses exceeds this threshold. There is, however, an aspiration to address this situation and enhance the retail function of this frontage meaning that further erosion by non-retail uses beyond the identified threshold which could undermine its designation as a primary shopping frontage will be prevented. It is important that the area remains a focus for local independent and speciality retailers which will add significantly to both the area’s and town’s appeal to both residents and visitors.

51 MAP 8: Monmouth PSF8 – Church Street, Agincourt Square & Priory Street (1-4)

Appendix B

Use Classes Order (Wales) Extracted in Tabular Format from the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987

53 Use Use Classes Classes Permitted Description Order 1987 Order Development 1972 A1 Shops The retail sale of goods other than hot food, a post A1 to A1 of ground with Applies to buildings or Class I office; ticket or travel agency; hairdressing; the single flat over; Building land direction of funerals; domestic or personal goods or for sale or display for articles; for the washing of or cleaning of goods on sale of motor vehicles to the premises or for the reception of goods to be A1 washed, cleaned or repaired; where the sale, display and service is to visiting members of the public A2 Financial & Banks, building societies; estate and employment A2 to AI where there is a Professional Services Class II agencies, some solicitors & accountants; where the ground floor display Applies to buildings or service is provided principally to visiting members of window land the public A3 Food and Drink Restaurants, pubs, snack bars, cafes, wine bars, A3 to AI Applies to buildings or shops for sale of hot food, takeaways A3 to A2 land BI Business Offices not within A2 BI to B8 (up to 235sqm) Applies to buildings or Class II Research and Development, studios, laboratories, land high tech Class III Light Industry B2 General Industrial B2 to B1 Applies to buildings or Class IV-IX Industrial processes not falling within Class BI B2 to BB (up to 235sqm) land B8 Storage or Distribution Class X Wholesale warehouse, distribution centres, B8 to B1 (up to 235sqm) Applies to buildings or repositories land CI Hotels No permitted Applies to buildings Class XI Hotels, boarding and guest houses development C2 Residential Class XII Residential Schools and Colleges No permitted Institutions Class XIV Hospitals and convalescent/nursing homes development Applies to buildings C2A Secure Residential Use for the provision of secure residential Institution accommodation, including use as a prison, young offenders institution, detention centre, secure training centre, custody centre, short-term holding centre, secure hospital, secure local authority accommodation or use as a military barracks C3 Dwelling Houses Dwellings, small businesses at home, communal No permitted Applies to buildings housing of elderly and handicapped (Note: In development London, tenancies of less than 90 consecutive nights fall outside of this use class) D1 Non-residential Class XIII Places of worship, church halls No permitted Institutions Class XV Clinics, health centres, crèches, day nurseries, development Applies to buildings consulting rooms Class XVI Museums, public halls, libraries, art galleries, exhibition halls, Law Courts Non-residential education and training centres D2 Assembly and Class XVII Cinemas, music and concert halls No permitted Leisure Class XVIII Dance, sports halls, swimming baths, skating rinks, development Applies to buildings gymnasiums Other indoor and outdoor sports and leisure uses, bingo halls, casinos

54 Sui Generis Uses which do not fall wholly within a Use Class are (I.e. in a class of their considered ‘sui generis’ & require planning own) permission to change to another use. Some uses are expressly identified as being sui generis; Buildings selling and/or displaying for sale motor vehicles Laundrettes, Taxi and vehicle hire businesses, Amusement centres or funfairs, Petrol filling stations Class XVII Theatres

Appendix C

Policy RET1 Checklist for Assessing Development and Change of Use Proposals for Non-retail Uses in Primary Shopping Frontages

56 Diagram 1: Policy RET1 Checklist for Assessing Development and Change of Use Proposals for Non-retail Uses in Primary Shopping Frontages

YES Is the proposal Policy RET1 is for development applicable – refer /redevelopment to the check list or change of use below for non-retail use in a ground floor NO premises within a Policy RET1 is not primary shopping applicable frontage?

NO a) Would the proposal Proposal complies with criterion a) create a continuous Check compliance with criteria b) and c) frontage of 2 or more non-retail units? YES See paragraph 4.2 (a) Proposal does not comply with criterion a) No more than 2 adjacent non-retail units will be permitted

NO b) Would the proposal Proposal complies with criterion b) result in the loss of an A1 Check compliance with criteria a) and c) retail unit(s) in either a prominent/ corner YES location or with a long Proposal does not comply with criterion b) frontage? Proposals that result in the loss of such units are See paragraph 4.2 (b) unlikely to be permitted

NO c) Would the proposal Proposal complies with criterion c) result in an over Check compliance with criteria a) and b) concentration of non- retail (Class A2/A3) uses YES in a primary shopping Proposal does not comply with criterion c) frontage based on the Proposals that increase the number of non-retail maximum thresholds set units to above the identified maximum threshold out in Tables 1-4? within a primary shopping frontage are unlikely to See paragraph 4.2 (c) be permitted

57 Exceptions to Criteria a) to c) of Policy RET1

Could the proposal be considered as an exception to the policy criteria?

NO (i) Can the applicant Exception would not apply demonstrate that the proposal would not harm the YES vitality of the street frontage? Exception may apply subject to the submission See paragraph 4.3(i) and verification of appropriate supporting evidence

NO (ii) Have the premises been Exception would not apply vacant for at least 2 years and have there been genuine YES attempts at marketing the Exception may apply subject to the submission property? and verification of appropriate supporting See paragraph 4.3(ii) evidence

Appendix D

Sources of Advice

59 For retail research and retail planning policy advice please contact: Planning Policy Section County Hall, Rhadyr, Usk, Monmouthshire NP15 1GA Tel: 01633 644429 Email: [email protected]

For advice on development and change of use proposals for non-retail uses within a primary shopping frontage please contact: Development Management Section County Hall, Rhadyr, Usk, Monmouthshire NP15 1GA Tel: 01633 644800 Email: [email protected]

60 7 July 2015 PLANNING COMMITTEE INDEX Agenda item 5

Table of Contents

DC/2013/00871 COSTA COFFEE UNIT WESTGATE, LAND OFF MERTHYR ROAD, LLANFOIST RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ...... 3

DC/2014/00840 STORE FOR TOOLS AND MACHINERY FOR THE PURPOSES OF WOODLAND AND LAND MAINTENANCE, FOR THE STORAGE OF TIMBER AND PELLETS AND TO HOUSE A DOMESTIC BIOMASS BOILER SIDE A MILL, HAELS ROAD, TREGAGLE, MONMOUTHSHIRE, NP25 4RX RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ...... 17

DC/2014/01517 CONSTRUCTION OF NEW CAR PARK TO SERVE MARDY PARK RESOURCE CENTRE MARDY PARK RESOURCE CENTRE, HEREFORD ROAD, ABERGAVENNY RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ...... 24

DC/2015/00097 DEVELOPMENT OF 9 AFFORDABLE AND 6 PRIVATE DWELLINGS TOGETHER WITH NEW ACCESSES, CAR PARK FOR TRELLECH PRIMARY SCHOOL AND ANCILLARY WORKS LAND AT MONMOUTH ROAD/GREENWAY LANE, TRELLECH, NP25 4P RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ...... 35

DC/2015/00261 DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SECONDARY SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SECONDARY SCHOOL (D1) COMPRISING 14,824M2 (GROSS INTERNAL AREA) OF FLOOR SPACE, PRINCIPLES OF LANDSCAPING, CAR AND CYCLE PARKING SPACES MONMOUTH COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL OLD DIXTON ROAD MONMOUTH RECOMMENDATION: Approve ...... 49

DC/2015/00429 ERECTION OF ADVENTURE PLAYGROUND IN FARM FIELD CURRENTLY USED FOR SMALL ANIMAL PADDOCKS FOR FARM VISITORS HUMBLE BY NATURE, UPPER MEEND FARM, LYDART, MONMOUTH...... RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ...... 67

DC/2015/00582 REMOVAL OF CONDITIONS 13, 14 AND 15 OF PLANNING PERMISSION DC/2012/00168 ROCKMON VIEW, ROCKFIELD, MONMOUTH RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE ...... 70

- 1 - 61 - 2 - 62

DC/2013/00871

COSTA COFFEE UNIT

WESTGATE, LAND OFF MERTHYR ROAD, LLANFOIST

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Case Officer: Kate Bingham Date Registered: 21st November 2013

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

This application was presented to Committee on 7th January 2014 with a recommendation for refusal on design grounds. At the meeting Members resolved to defer the application to negotiate an improved design and an amended scheme has now been received and third parties re-consulted.

The original submission proposed a building with an unusual curved exterior finished using blue engineering brick, shiny anthracite grey profiled steel, timber cladding and glass curtain walling. It was considered that this approach was too far removed from the local vernacular and the design of the neighbouring Premier Inn Hotel and Brewers Fayre restaurant that have already been granted consent. As such it was considered that the proposal would appear incongruous and out of character with the adjoining development and would therefore harm the character of the area.

The amended plans show a more conventional design of building which is single storey with a simple monopitch roof. The building will be finished in aluminium glazing, timber panels and render above a brick plinth.

Since the application was last presented to Committee the Local Development Plan has been adopted. The Policies that now apply to this application are listed below. The change in development plan does not affect the principle of the development.

2.0 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

Strategic Policies

S8 - Enterprise and Economy S12 – Efficient Resource Use and Flood Risk S13 – Landscape, Green Infrastructure and the Natural Environment S16 – Transport S17 – Place Making and Design

Development Management Policies

SD2 – Sustainable Construction and Energy Efficiency

- 3 - 63 SD4 – Sustainable Drainage LC5 – Protection and Enhancement of Landscape Character GI1 – Green Infrastructure NE1 – Nature Conservation and Development EP1 – Amenity and Environmental Protection MV1 – Proposed Developments and Highway Considerations MV2 – Sustainable Transport Access DES1 – General Design Considerations

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Re-consultation Responses

Llanfoist Community Council – Recommend approval.

4.2 Neighbour Notification

Four representations received. Object on the following grounds;  This application is structured as if a reserved matters application for design detail only. There is no outline consent for this type of fast food facility. There is an outline approval for the Llanfoist Farm site only for commercial/light industrial use which was to be heavily landscape screened.  Is this atrocious motorway services conglomeration on its elevated pedestals to be the crowning glory of Abergavenny and Llanfoist to greet all as the face of Abergavenny?  Potential damage to this unique town's appeal.  Proper public consultation and a full visual and social and economic impact assessment is needed for this and other proposals on this site for their cumulative effect to be assessed.  To approve this application would be to ignore planning process and ignore local people.  This building has no part in the Usk Valley green corridor, it is completely unsympathetic to the surrounding area, nor does it even attempt to try and blend in with the countryside.  There are no details of the perimeter of the site, verges or tree planting.  The local authority should be encouraging visitors to go into Abergavenny town and enjoy the many and varied coffee shops available, not this litter producing monstrosity.  It will be a blot on the landscape and generations to come.  There is no site plan with landscaping indicated.  There is no visualisation as to how this Costa Drive Thru relates visually to adjacent developments.  No drawing shows the layout of seats either internally or externally.  Applicant claims that “The grouping of the three complimentary uses is considered to be wholly in line with the principles of sustainability". In what way, by what?  No mention of cyclists. They talk of pedestrians within the site and from the nearby housing, but there is no mention of pedestrians coming from Llanfoist under the A465 bypass or from Abergavenny.

- 4 - 64  Nothing is shown or demonstrated as to the building's environmental performance.  There is virtually no detail shown as to external night time lighting.  Drive-thru services as architecture do not respect nor respond to any other architecture since they are simply designed as a giant billboard for the passing car traveller. They are in their own category and share nothing with any other inhabited architecture. This is for driving past, leaning out of the window and being handed a drink. It’s not an architecture for inhabitation. The notion that the building would somehow relate to the domestic vernacular of Llanfoist, however diverse that is, is laughable. Just because they may share the specification of one or two elevation materials with the Premier Inn and Brewers Fayre, hardly makes them part of a local vernacular.  Not a single mention is made of the unique spectacular views to the three mountain landscape visible from this site.  This unit might as well just be in Warrington for all the applicants care or understand about the spirit of place.  I wish to object to the above planning application as it fails the following key MCC adopted planning policies S8, S11, S12, S13, S16 and RET4.  Application does not comply with Policy S8 (Enterprise and Economy) - The coffee shop sector is not a key economic sector within Monmouthshire. The Coffee unit is not a green and low carbon technology or a knowledge intensive /high technology enterprises; The Coast Coffee unit does not enable countywide faster and more accessible ICT and broadband infrastructure.  Application does not comply with Policy S11 (Visitor Economy) - The application has an unacceptable adverse impact on features and areas of tourism interest and their settings, by its and impact on the edge of Abergavenny and the edge of the National Park, introducing an urban drive through coffee cabin into a rural setting.  Application does not comply with Policy S12 (Efficient Resource Use and Flood Risk) - The application does not demonstrate sustainable and efficient resource use.  Application does not comply with Policy S13 (Landscape, Green Infrastructure and the Natural Environment) - The application fails to maintain the character and quality of the landscape in particular through failing to protecting existing key landscape views and vistas.  Application does not comply with Policy S16 (Transport) - The application does not reduce the need to travel, especially by car, nor does it promote public transport, walking and cycling.  Application does not comply with Policy RET4 (New Retail Proposals) - The application has failed to show that a demonstrable need exists for the proposed development. It has not demonstrated that no suitable sites exist in the Central Shopping Area.

4.3 Other Representations

Abergavenny and District Civic Society – Object on the following grounds;

We note that the applicants have submitted a new design for this building in response to the Planning Committee’s deferment of their decision in January

- 5 - 65 2014. You will recall that the Society objected strongly to the design of the original proposal and to aspects of the relationship of this building with others proposed for the same site.

After over a year during which we had hoped that you would be able to persuade Costa to adopt a design more sympathetic with its prominent situation, local character and the approved neighbouring hotel, the revised proposal appears to be merely another standard company design - an inadequate, even contemptuous, response.

As you know there is considerable public disquiet, shared by the Civic Society, about the approved and proposed uses on the trunk road frontage of the Westgate site. If the planning authority feels that it must approve these uses, we believe that it must mitigate their impact by insisting on building designs that respond adequately to this sensitive location.

Since the revised proposal fails to meet this test, we maintain our objection. The Design and Access Statement emphasises the complementarity of the uses on the Whitbread site yet the proposed Costa building totally fails to do this in design terms. We cannot agree that the modern design and the palette of materials respect the hotel and pub as asserted in the Statement. The hotel will have a slate substitute steeply pitched roof, substantial sections of reconstituted stone and pale cream rendering. The Costa building has a very low-pitched sheeting roof and walls of white rendering and cedar cladding, the latter presumably to be coloured pale brown as in the Warrington illustration.

Furthermore, if the drive-through servery is to be on the north elevation, it appears that the vehicle circulation determines that the pedestrian entrance is to be on the eastern elevation, furthest from those to the other buildings.

We are also concerned that the site will have undue signage and inadequate tree and shrub cover to soften the impact of development. The grassed slopes should be seeded and maintained with an appropriate mix of native pollinators.

We hope that significant improvements will be made to this design before any approval is given.

4.4 Local Member Representations

Cllr Hickman – Still the design has not been amended enough to blend in with the surroundings. This is on the side of a mountain and at the entrance to both the Brecon Beacons National Park and the Blaenavon World Heritage Site. I understand that something will be built here but whatever it is, it must be the very best use of materials and design that it can be in order to do its utmost to fit in.

5.0 EVALUATION

The site benefits from outline consent for employment use that includes the proposed restaurant in connection with the previously approved hotel and public

- 6 - 66 house/restaurant. The principle of development and all other details such as car parking and access remain unchanged since the application was last presented to Planning Committee (see previous report below). Therefore only the change to the design has been re-evaluated in this report.

5.1 Visual Impact The proposed Costa Coffee unit has been totally redesigned following the original submission and a more conventional design is now proposed consisting of a single storey building will a sloping mono-pitched metal roof. The building is commercial in appearance rather than residential which reflects its function, although domestic building materials such as brick and render will be used to finish the building. These will match the pallet of colours used on the Premier Inn and, Brewers Fayre. The scale of the building is relatively small in comparison to the already approved three storey hotel and it should be noted that there will be a buffer of landscape planting along the boundary of the site. This landscaping has been agreed as part of the outline consent for the wider site and is also included in a Section 106 Legal Agreement as well as under a license from the Welsh Government in relation to mitigation for Great Crested Newts. Furthermore, the wider site is an allocated industrial site and it is therefore anticipated that the remainder of the site will be developed for B1, B2 and B8 uses (offices, industry and storage). This would result in larger scale industrial buildings adjoining this application site. On balance, therefore, it is not considered that the proposed Costa unit will be out of character in this context and would not therefore harm the visual amenity of the wider area.

5.2 Response to Local Member Representation

Although it is accepted that the design of the proposed unit is not bespoke or unique, it is not considered that in the context of this site, which is part of an allocated employment site for commercial development, that it would now be reasonable to refuse the application on design grounds. The proposed design is clean-lined and simpler in form than the previous proposal, and is acceptable in this context.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Conditions:

1. This development shall be begun within 5 years from the date of the Outline permission or within 2 years of the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved whichever is the later. 2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the list of approved plans set out in the table below. 3. Samples of the proposed external finishes shall be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in writing before works commence and the development shall be carried out in accordance with those agreed finishes which shall remain in situ in perpetuity unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The samples shall be presented on site for the agreement of the Local Planning Authority and those approved shall be retained on site for

- 7 - 67 the duration of the construction works.

PREVIOUS REPORT

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

This is a Reserved Matters application in connection with Part A (Outline) of Planning Permission reference DC/2008/00818 granted on 14th October 2010. The principle of development has already been established by the grant of outline planning permission and reserved matters have been approved in respect of road and drainage infrastructure and the residential elements of the overall scheme.

It is proposed to construct a Costa Coffee unit with a floor space of 174 sq. metres. The access will be shared with a proposed Premier Inn and Brewer’s Fayre restaurant/public house that are subject to a separate application but are all part of the same umbrella group – Whitbread, which also operates Costa Coffee.

The proposed Costa Coffee will include a drive-through lane to maximise passing trade but will also provide seating inside for local people to use as well as guests of the nearby hotel, should it be approved.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

DC/2008/00818 - A) residential and commercial development (outline) B) Alterations and improvements to the existing highway network, improvements to the drainage network (detailed application) - Approved 14/10/10.

DC/2013/00856 - Erection of 61 bedroom hotel (Class C1) and associated restaurant / public house (Class A3) plus associated access, car parking and landscaping- Under consideration.

3.0 UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

DES 1 DES5 DES8 ENV1

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultations Replies

Llanfoist Community Council – response awaited. Dwr Cymru Welsh Water – The proposed development would overload the existing Waste Water Treatment Works. However, improvements are planned for completion by 1st April 2015 and therefore offer a condition preventing the buildings being brought into beneficial use earlier than 1st April 2015. Also

- 8 - 68 other standard conditions are requested to secure the separation of foul and surface water flows.

Rights of Way Officer - There are no Public Rights of Way recorded on the Definitive Map of Public Rights of Way or Statement at the site of the proposed development. However, the Active Travel (Wales) Bill requires new road schemes to consider the needs of pedestrians and cyclists at design stage to enable more people to walk and cycle and generally travel by non-motorised transport. Countryside Access believes that the proposal could better fulfil this requirement and would like to see an additional link formed from the Highway in to the northern side of the site.

MCC Tree Officer – There is only one tree on the site – a Weeping Willow. The tree is not protected by statutory means currently, although consideration was given to such protection some four years ago. However, it was decided at the time that it would not be expedient to make a tree preservation order, as the tree had many broken branches and was judged to be in decline, with a relatively short life-expectancy. I therefore have no adverse comments to make about the application.

MCC Development Plans - Whilst the site is located partially in an area designated as Amenity Open Space in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP), there is outline planning permission granted on this site for residential and commercial use and as a consequence this policy is no longer relevant. Further to this the site is located outside the Town Development Boundary (TDB), the outline planning permission consequently accepts the principle of development in this location.

A small portion of the site is designated as protected employment land in Policy E1, nevertheless the outline permission for the larger site relates (in part) to a commercial use. As a consequence it would be difficult to argue that the site as a whole is protected by Policy E1 of the UDP. It is important to note however that an Employment Sites and Premises Review (ESPR) has been undertaken as part of the LDP process, the ESPR highlighted that Abergavenny is short of land and premises for B1, B2 and B8 use. In the Deposit LDP the site is identified as a B1, B2 employment site under Policy SAE1, although UDP policies carry more weight at the present time.

Further to this, Policy T3 relates to visitor accommodation outside town and village development boundaries, the site is not located within one of the four identified opportunities. Policy T2 relates to visitor accommodation within settlements and states in part that ‘Within town and village development boundaries, new hotel, motel, inn, guesthouse or other serviced and self- catering accommodation, together with the extension, upgrading or the change of use of a building to provide such accommodation, will be permitted’. Whilst strictly speaking the site is located outside the TDB, due to the close proximity of the site and established principle of development in this area, in this specific instance Policy T2 could be considered applicable.

- 9 - 69 It is noted that a Costa Coffee is provided with the hotel, however they will also be open to the general public. Policy CF1 would generally provide support for such a community facility if the proposal was to ‘meet local needs’ but this is unlikely to be the case with this type of development, which would be likely to attract patrons from a wider area. In fact, these are uses that individually would best be located in a town centre and as such paragraph 10.3.1 of Planning Policy Wales would apply. There does not appear to be any indication from the planning application details that matters like the sequential approach to site selection and impact on the existing town centre have been taken into consideration. Nevertheless, it is considered that an exception can be made in this case as the coffee shop, restaurant and public house are reasonably linked to the hotel as ancillary facilities.

Overarching policies ENV1 and DES1 relate to general development considerations and therefore should be considered. Policy DES1 states (in part) that ‘all development should be of a good standard of design and respect the qualities of the character of its context’. Criterion (c) of Policy DES1 requires all new development to ‘respect the existing form, scale, siting, massing, materials and layout of its setting and any neighbouring quality buildings’, this is a detailed planning consideration and should be considered whilst on site.

MCC Landscape Officer – response awaited.

MCC Biodiversity – Interim comments: There is concern that not all matters relating to European Protected Species have been considered. On the previous application for Reserved Matters (2013/00266), we received an update from the applicant’s ecologist which enabled us to consider the potential impacts on Great Crested Newt. In this instance, there is very little reference to these protected species and development considerations. Please note that for both schemes, the landscaping information that has been submitted is different to what has been proposed on ‘plan A Mitigation Strategy’ by DCE dated July 2012. As this detail could be fundamental to whether the application would get a licence from NRW, I do not think we have enough information to make a lawful decision. There is also no reference to the position or connectivity of the newt underpasses on the plans submitted (other than that mentioned above).

MCC Highways – response awaited.

SEWBReC Search Results – Various species of bat and Great Crested Newts recorded within the vicinity of the site.

4.2 Neighbour Notification

Six representations received. Object to the application for the following reasons:

 Abergavenny does not need a coffee shop on the edge of town drawing people away from independent town centre traders.

- 10 - 70  Ill-considered and inappropriate proposal for Llanfoist considering the village location and negative impact such a development would have on the surrounding environment, local residents and businesses within Abergavenny.  It is not in keeping in any way with the surrounds, would impact the environment significantly in terms of increased traffic and congestion.  No links to encourage visitors to explore and engage with local communities.  No consultation with local residents.  No attempt by the applicant to visualise the development from various key vantage points such as the Heads of the Valleys, The Blorenge or Cae Pen-y- Dre.  No information to show that the development responds to the existing topography of the site.  Outside the Central Shopping Area and no evidence to show it meets the criteria of Policy S4 relating to retail development outside town centres.  No evidence to show it meets Policy RL7 relating to recreation and leisure facilities outside town centres.  At odds with the current adopted policy. What is the land use designation?  Development requires a full Environmental Impact Assessment and public consultation.  Drawings not produced by architects.  A green field site in proximity to the Historic Town of Abergavenny, The Brecon Beacons National Park including the Dark Skies area and the Blaenavon World Heritage Site is worthy of something more than a ‘bargain basement design’.  Abergavenny is called ‘The Gateway to Wales’. If this design/scheme was to proceed as submitted, what a depressing gateway it would be, and a very bad precedent for ‘clone town’ development in what is otherwise a unique market town.  In design, it appears to be a generic 'metal box', which gives absolutely no consideration to the local context. Clearly, this design is simply intended to convey corporate branding. No concession to surrounding buildings, or to the wider architectural context of the market town of Abergavenny has been made.  There is no attempt to orientate the building to meet the needs of local communities. Instead, it is an attempt to draw motorised trade from the Heads of the Valleys road. As such, it is in direct competition to the many local cafes and related businesses in Abergavenny town centre.  Together with the proposals to develop a hotel and restaurant on the same site, made by the same company, it will make a significant contribution to the degrading of a much loved market town and its transformation into low quality, "anytown" urban sprawl.  Life for pedestrians who wish to walk between Llanfoist and Abergavenny - including school children walking from the "Whitecastle" housing estate to the school in Llanfoist - will be made even more difficult. Crossing the access roads here is already hazardous. Another development, aimed explicitly at increasing road traffic on these roads, will make for an environment that is truly hostile to pedestrians  The local community is suspicious of the sceptical last minute timing of the submission of this proposal as an approval of reserved matters. This seems to be

- 11 - 71 an attempt to sneak an approval without a full public consultation in order to get around community engagement and opinion.  It is a site that has been allocated for business and industrial use.  Very close to the unique market town of Abergavenny with vibrant individual food and coffee outlets which will be very sensitive to development on the outskirts which catch customers before they get to the town  Noise will be an issue to the adjoining residential development with the facilities being open long hours.  The village will be strewn with litter from the service facilities. Merthyr Road has already a major litter problem.  This is a loud, brash, generic development that will undermine the unique environment of Llanfoist and Abergavenny.

4.3 Other Representations

Abergavenny Civic Society – We are concerned that an allocated ‘employment’ site was permitted in outline simply for ‘commercial’ development, thereby apparently making these trunk road service area uses admissible. However, these uses, which may employ more than would workshops and warehouses, can be more aesthetically acceptable than the sheds that might otherwise be built. We accept that the site is suitable for a budget hotel but consider that any refreshment facilities should be physically integrated with the hotel. The proposed separations are characteristic of a development targeted mainly at the motorist with no other interest in the area.

Approval of the Costa Coffee will be to some extent contrary to the interests of the town centre which is well endowed with such refreshment facilities, and which travellers should be encouraged to use. The ‘sequential approach’ to such developments may be relevant here, though on the other hand an overall net gain in local business seems likely, as extra trade will be captured. However, the developers’ claim that these developments are intended to serve the needs of Llanfoist is rather hollow, though inevitably some trade will be attracted from the local community.

We object strongly to the arrangement of buildings on the two sites, which shows little understanding of the basics of urban design. The opportunity to design to take advantage of a remarkable opportunity has been neglected and a new overall scheme for both sites should be demanded. Standardised buildings have been squeezed on to the site in a way that may present a reasonable face to the A465 and pre-determined local access roads but results in, for example, the nonsense that car-borne restaurant users have to walk around the building to enter it. If the restaurant could be turned 90 a pleasant pedestrian entry area to both buildings could be created, though the service access to the restaurant would need rethinking. No provision seems to have been made for servicing the hotel and no provision is made for pedestrians to flow between the hotel and the Costa, which also appears to suffer from the same access defect as the restaurant.

- 12 - 72 The vehicle circulation within the combined site would be much simpler if the access shown was entry only and an exit could be provided on to the waste transfer station access road.

The site is very prominent, not only from the A465 and its slip road but from the Castle, Castle Street car park and many other situations above the Usk flood plain. Having permitted development in outline, the planning authority owes special care to ensure that the appearance of the development in this key location is of sufficiently high quality.

We object strongly to the design of the self-promoting Costa building where it will be extremely obvious as one of the first buildings at an entry to an historic town. The futuristic design could be exciting at, say, the entrance to an otherwise mundane trading estate, or even within the centre of the Westgate development. If the Costa building is to be on the trunk road frontage it must be designed to blend with the more conventional style of the adjacent other buildings. We hope that the applicants can be persuaded to adopt higher than the minimum environmental standards; such buildings as these can benefit from cost savings derived from less use of energy and water.

The proposals feature steep grass slopes dropping to the slip road. The planting and management of these slopes at an entrance to the town are an opportunity to adopt the Council’s emerging policy of using native wild flower- rich grassland to sustain biodiversity and enhance public enjoyment. We hope that you will take advice on this matter from your specialist officers; cliché planting of non-native daffodils is unlikely to be compatible with this.

We can envisage a profusion of uncoordinated and overlarge company signage being submitted for these developments, and we suggest that these should be considered at this stage as part of the overall scheme.

5.0 EVALUATION

5.1 Principle of Development

Whilst the site is located partially in an area designated as Amenity Open Space in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP), there is outline planning permission granted on this site for residential and commercial use and as a consequence this policy is no longer relevant. Further to this the site is located outside the Town Development Boundary (TDB), the outline planning permission consequently accepts the principle of development in this location.

- 13 - 73 identified as a B1, B2 employment site under Policy SAE1, although UDP policies carry more weight at the present time.

It is noted that Costa Coffee unit is provided to be complimentary to the hotel, however it will also be open to the general public. Policy CF1 would generally provide support for such a community facility if the proposal was to ‘meet local needs’ but this is not necessarily the case with this type of development, which would be likely to attract patrons from a wider area. In fact, this use would best be located in a town centre and as such paragraph 10.3.1 of Planning Policy Wales would apply. There does not appear to be any indication from the planning application details that matters like the sequential approach to site selection and impact on the existing town centre have been taken into consideration. Nevertheless, it is considered that an exception can be made in this case as the coffee shop is reasonably and necessarily linked to the hotel as an ancillary facility.

5.2 Economic Development Implications

The proposed Costa Coffee unit is expected to provide 20 new jobs (10 part time and 10 full time), together with additional spend and supply chain benefits.

5.3 Design and Visual Amenity

The unit has been deliberately designed to provide a recognisable building in a modern style. As such it has an unusual curved exterior and is to be finished using blue engineering brick, anthracite grey profiled steel, timber cladding and glass curtain walling. It is considered that this approach is too far removed from the local vernacular and the proposals currently under consideration for the neighbouring hotel and restaurant/public house in a site that will be prominent when viewed from Heads of the Valleys dual carriageway and slip road. The proposal would appear incongruous and out of character with the adjoining development and thus, would harm the character of the area.

Therefore, it is considered that the proposed Costa Coffee unit does not comply with the criteria of Policies DES1 and ENV1 relating to design.

5.5 Landscaping and Biodiversity

The existing road to the Waste Transfer Station will be landscaped over and the existing ground level will be reduced resulting in a change of level of 1.15m between the slip road at 53.4m AOD and the centre of the site at 54.55m AOD. This will result in a more gradual slope upwards from the edge of the slip road and the edge of the site which will be between 11 and 16 metres wide. The site level will therefore be more similar to the Heads of the Valleys carriageways and the former Cooper Filters site opposite, rather than the height of the ground as existing.

The applicant has agreed to a landscaping scheme being a condition of any approval. The landscaping scheme for this site must be designed in accordance with the ecological framework outlined in the previously approved Great

- 14 - 74 Crested Newt Mitigation Strategy which includes new tree and shrub planting throughout the site and tree planting on the northern boundary. With regards to the Biodiversity Officer’s comments, the imposition of a landscaping condition on any approval will require such details to reflect those set out on the previously approved Great Crested Newt Mitigation Strategy. Therefore, the Authority are not making a decision on the detail of the landscaping scheme at this time, and it therefore considered that a lawful decision can be made on the remainder of the reserved matters. Although planting could help to break up the massing of the proposed building and soften the impact, it is considered that the building will still be visually at odds with its surroundings and is not acceptable.

5.6 Access, Parking and Layout

The proposed access to the site has been approved under previous applications. The site itself includes 21 car parking spaces which meets requirements of the South Wales Parking Guidelines.

Pedestrian accessibility will be improved as a result of the development and the necessary measures are in place for the diversion of footpaths. Improved footpath links in an east-west direction towards Merthyr Road are proposed as well as improved links north-south into the countryside and to adjacent housing areas and the school to the south.

The new road layout previously approved will reduce the speed of traffic leaving the A465 due to a new roundabout approximately half way down the current slip-road. Monies to improve pedestrian links between Llanfoist and Abergavenny have been secured via the Section 106 Legal Agreement that accompanied the outline consent DC/2008/00818.

5.7 Residential Amenity

There are no residential properties in the vicinity of the application site that would be directly affected by the proposed development.

5.8 Response to Other Representations

The development does not require an Environmental Screening Opinion or full Environmental Impact Assessment under the Town & Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England & Wales) Regulations 1999.

In response to criticism that the Costa Coffee unit is ‘self-promoting’ the applicant maintains that it is important that the building’s appearance reflects it function. The applicant argues that the brand needs to be legible to passers-by or it is likely to fail commercially.

The proposal for the Premier Inn and Brewer’s Fayre is a separate application to this and although part of the Whitbread group, the Local Planning Authority cannot insist that a single application for the site as a whole is submitted. Given

- 15 - 75 the proximity of the buildings however, both applications have been presented to Committee at the same time.

Given that Dwr Cymru Welsh Water did not request a condition preventing beneficial use of any buildings on the site earlier than 1st April 2015 at either outline stage or on the recent approval for 45 houses under Reserved Matters, it would be unreasonable to impose this condition on this development.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: REFUSE

Reason(s) for Refusal;

1. The design and materials of the proposed building which is on a prominent site, are not considered to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the surrounding area or the adjacent proposed development, contrary to criteria (b) and (c) of Policy DES1 and criterion (b) of Policy ENV1 of the Monmouthshire Unitary Development Plan.

- 16 - 76 DC/2014/00840

STORE FOR TOOLS AND MACHINERY FOR THE PURPOSES OF WOODLAND AND LAND MAINTENANCE, FOR THE STORAGE OF TIMBER AND PELLETS AND TO HOUSE A DOMESTIC BIOMASS BOILER

SIDE A MILL, HAELS ROAD, TREGAGLE, MONMOUTHSHIRE, NP25 4RX

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Case Officer: Craig O’Connor Date Registered: 08/01/2015

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 The application seeks retrospective planning consent for the retention and completion of a forestry building that has been partially constructed. The proposed building would have a dual purpose for forestry and also to accommodate a domestic biomass system for Side a Mill Cottage. The applicant constructed the building so that it was larger than the approved scheme submitted under the agricultural notification DC/2011/00763. As the building is larger than the approved scheme the development has not complied with the requirements of the General Permitted Development Order 1995 and therefore full planning consent is required. In addition given that a section of the building would be used to house a domestic boiler system a partial change of use is required.

1.2 The building is sited on a section of land directly opposite Side a Mill cottage on land which slopes from the west to the east. The building would be built into the slope and has a footprint measuring 11.2m x 7.4m. The applicant has submitted Drawing No SID A0 G0 Rev A to outline how the resultant building would appear once the topography of the landscape is altered. The lower level of the building would accommodate a retaining wall to stabilise the building and the land, however this area would be a void and would be subterranean. The building has a pitched roof that would measure 2.4m at the eaves and approximately 3.4m to the ridge (when measured from the proposed altered landscape). The proposed resultant forestry building would be timber clad and would have a metal sheeted roof.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

DC/2011/00763 Machinery and wood store. Agricultural notification Acceptable September 2011

DC/2010/01141 Proposed extension at Side-A-Mill Cottage (Revised scheme Approved April 2011

3.0 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

Strategic Policies

- 17 - 77

S10 Rural Enterprise S13 Landscape, Green Infrastructure and the Natural Environment S17 Place Making and Design

Management Policies

RE4 New agricultural and forestry building LC1 New built development in the open countryside LC4 Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty EP1 Amenity and Environmental Protection DES1 General Design Considerations

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultations Replies

Trellech United Community Council – recommended approval

Tree Officer – The structure is now sustainably complete and therefore a tree survey will not be required.

Biodiversity Officer – No adverse comments - work has already been conducted.

Highways Officer – The traffic generation from the site will remain unchanged from its current use with the exception of maintenance vehicles visiting the site on a yearly basis in relation to the proposed biomass boiler. Maintenance vehicles will be no larger than a 2 axle lorry and therefore no larger than the refuse vehicles currently serving the site and local area. In light of the aforementioned comments we are satisfied that the proposed development will be for domestic purposes only and therefore the traffic associated with the site will not exacerbate the existing situation to the detriment of highway safety. There are no highway grounds to sustain an objection to the application subject to a condition being applied to restrict the land use to that proposed in the application so as to restrict potential commercial business use.

4.2 Neighbour Notification

There have been two letters of objection to the application, one letter of objection relating to the state of the highway and two letters of support for the application.

The letters of support outlined the following:  The management of the woodland would make it a safe and attractive area and the wood from the building would reduce heating costs and oil.  The proposed building would not appear as an ‘eyesore’.

- 18 - 78  The visual impact of the development is noticeable at the present time due to the half built state of the structure. Once the building is clad and the general works completed it will look like a smart single storey agricultural building.

The letters of objection to the building outlined the following:  The scope of the application has significantly increased from that under DC/2011/00763.  The structure’s materials have changed significantly to those associated with industrial units. The visual appearance of the building is a concern along with the impact on the character of the area.  Vehicle parking at the site is a concern and there is a concern that the site will be partially used as a parking lot.  A lot of trees have been felled at the site and the site is being used for the parking of vehicles. There is no mention of replacing trees to recreate the Wye Valley Woodland  The floor space of the building has increased significantly from the approved scheme, DC/2011/00763  The stability of the road is a concern as there is evidence of the road slipping  The building is out of character with the Wye Valley AONB and is a ‘blot on the landscape’.  The management of 13 acres would imply this being run as a business which could result in additional heavy equipment using the highway  The access and manoeuvring space for vehicles will be difficult along the single track and will cause noise and disturbance  The development would result in further deterioration of the Hael Road as it would result in additional traffic movements associated with the forestry building  Noise pollution of the proposed activity.

There was also a letter received which outlined historic concerns with the deterioration of the highway, Hael Road, and concerns about a splintered cess pit.

Further correspondence was received from the objectors at the Delegated Panel site meeting; these comments will be available for members to view in late correspondence. A response to these comments is outlined in section 5.4 below.

5.0 EVALUATION

5.1 Visual impact

5.1.1 Policy RE4 of the Local Development Plan outlines that the construction of forestry buildings are generally permitted providing that they are reasonably required for forestry purposes and comply with the requirements of new built development in the open countryside outlined in policy LC1 of the LDP. The building is only partially constructed at present and the resultant building, if

- 19 - 79 approved and completed, would appear significantly different from the existing arrangement. The proposed amended proposal is outlined within Drawing No SID A0 G0 Rev A. The topography of the landscape would be altered so that the lower level is subterranean and the structure would appear as a single storey building. The forestry building would be timber clad and would have a metal sheeted roof. It would appear as a typical forestry building that is appropriate for this rural landscape. The resultant building would be assimilated into the landscape and would be sympathetic to the character of the area, once it is fully complete. The building would be of a simple design and appear as a functional forestry structure. The pitched roof of the forestry building is lower than ‘eye level’ of the adjacent road and as a result the structure is not visually intrusive and is not harmful to the visual appearance or character of the area. The building would also be grouped with other buildings that are situated along Hael Road and would not appear alien to the area. The development is not considered to have an unacceptable adverse impact on the rural landscape which lies within the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The rural landscape is characterised by agricultural buildings and forestry structures such as the building proposed. The development would have an acceptable visual impact on the area once the building is completed. The proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the rural landscape and would be in accordance with Polices S10, S13, S17, RE4, LC1, LC4 and DES1 of the LDP.

5.2 Residential amenity

5.2.1 The site is relatively isolated, in the open countryside with the only immediate neighbours being Underhill Cottage and The Bowery. The construction of a domestic forestry building is not considered to have an unacceptable impact on any party’s privacy or private amenity space. The development would not result in any unacceptable overlooking issues nor would it block any party’s access to sunlight. The forestry building would accommodate a domestic biomass boiler and would include an external matt black flue. The applicant would have to ensure that this flue produces emissions that would not harm public health. If the building did release harmful emissions Environmental Health would be able to take the appropriate action to remedy this problem. Given the small scale nature of the domestic biomass boiler as detailed in the application it is not considered that the development would cause unacceptable harm to public health to warrant refusing the application. The proposed forestry building with domestic heating system would not be likely to have an unacceptable impact on any party’s residential amenity and would be in accordance with Policy EP1 of the LDP.

5.3 Impact on highway

5.3.1 The Highway Officer has reviewed the proposals and has been in communication with the applicant with regards to the traffic movements at this site. The Highways Officer has outlined that given the scale of the proposed building it would not result in a significant degree of traffic accessing the site to warrant refusing the application. The maintenance vehicles that would serve the site would be no larger than a 2 axle lorry and thus would be no

- 20 - 80 larger than the refuse vehicles that currently serve the site and local area. Given the small scale nature of the building there would be no reasonable highway grounds on which to refuse the application.

5.4 Response to objections

5.4.1 The applicant has commenced construction on a building that does not comply with the previous agricultural notification DC/2011/00763. This new application has to be considered independently and determined based on its current merits and the applicant’s final proposals for the building as outlined in the application. As outlined in section 5.1 it is not considered that the proposed resultant forestry building would have an unacceptable visual impact on the area. The building would be constructed with sympathetic materials and it would have a timber clad exterior which would appear as a simple forestry structure. The development is not considered to harm the character or appearance of the rural landscape or the Wye Valley AONB. The Highways Officer has reviewed the proposals and is satisfied that given its use solely for small scale forestry works (and not commercial forestry use) the development would be acceptable. The development is not considered to result in a significant amount of additional traffic along the road to warrant refusing the application on highway grounds. The maintenance of the road would need to be conducted by the Highways Department and concerns relating to this matter should be forwarded to this section of the Council. As outlined in section 5.2 given the scale of the domestic forestry building the development would not result in an unacceptable level of noise or air pollution. The applicant would have to ensure that the development complies with current regulations relating to biomass boilers and if there were concerns relating to this matter Environmental Health could investigate the issue.

5.4.2 Response to correspondence from Dr Snelson and Mrs A J Snelson from delegated Panel meeting: 1. The previous agricultural notification has not been disregarded - however this is a different application that needs to be considered based on its own merits. 2. The pipework would be subterranean. 3. The application is for a partial change of use and it is considered this element of the development for an ancillary biomass boiler is covered by the suggested conditions. 4. No structural calculations have been provided for the building; it would be for the applicant to ensure that the structure is safe and structurally sound. 5. The applicant has outlined that the lower level would be void and the use of the building would be controlled by the suggested condition. 6. Reference to the pitched roof being lower is noted and the report has been altered accordingly. 7. Biomass details would not be required as part of the application. 8. It is considered that the building is grouped with other properties along Hael Road. 9. The amount of vehicles at the site would not be related to this application for a forestry building and the building would be conditioned to ensure that it is not for commercial use.

- 21 - 81 10. The site plan outlines the gravel hardstanding area that has been applied for and this has not been extended; if an extension is required an amendment would be required. 11. There is no additional landscaping proposed to date on the north elevation. 12. Information was submitted to the Highways Officer directly. 13. The Planning Enforcement Team did investigate the development following the building not be constructed in accordance with DC/2011/00763

5.4.3 Response to correspondence Mr B Meadowcroft and Mrs A Meadowcroft from previous delegated panel meeting: - 1. The applicant has applied to keep the lower level void and this is acceptable in planning terms. 2. The Highways Officer has not objected to the proposals. 3. This would not be a material planning consideration. 4. All comments and correspondence received in relation to the application have been considered. 5. This application relates to the forestry building only. 6. The Community Council have commented on the proposals and made their recommendation. 7. The applicant would have to ensure that noise is kept to an acceptable level. 8. The Planning Enforcement Team did investigate the larger than approved building and requested this planning application be submitted to regularise the positon. 9. The resultant building is not considered to have an unacceptable visual impact on the area.

5.5 Conclusion

The forestry building would not be harmful to the area providing that the development is conducted in accordance with the amended plans. The simple single storey timber clad building would not harm the character or appearance of the rural landscape. The building would be used for small scale forestry purposes to maintain the associated land owned by the applicant and neighbouring properties. It would not be for a commercial business. The proposed development is not considered to have an unacceptable impact on the highway network or harm any other party. The proposed development would be in accordance with the relevant policies of the LDP.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Conditions/Reasons

1. The development shall be constructed in strict accordance with the plans outlined on the decision notice in the table below. 2. The alterations to the topography of the landscape and the building shall be completed as outlined on Drawing No SID A0 G0 Rev A within 12 months of the date of this consent.

- 22 - 82 3. The hereby approved building shall be externally clad with timber and have a metal sheeted roof. 4. The hereby approved forestry building shall not be used for commercial purposes. 5. Within three months of the date of this decision, full details of the external chimney/flue including its height and design shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The chimney/flue shall be constructed as agreed.

- 23 - 83 DC/2014/01517

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW CAR PARK TO SERVE MARDY PARK RESOURCE CENTRE

MARDY PARK RESOURCE CENTRE, HEREFORD ROAD, ABERGAVENNY

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Case Officer: Andrew Jones Date Registered: 22/12/2014

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 The application was previously presented to Planning Committee held on 3rd March 2015 with a recommendation to approve. However, Members expressed concerns regarding the location of the new car park and requested alternatives be explored.

1.2 It is now proposed to site the car park to the south of the centre with a new access road running along the west of the building. The number of spaces has been reduced to 22, with 7 lighting columns positioned along the access road. A new planting screen would be created along the western edge of the access road; this would be a mix of native hedge planting.

1.3 The Council’s Tree Officer has confirmed the most prominent trees on the site are a row of five mature Copper Beech trees along the western boundary adjacent to the Hereford Road. The amended proposals show that the access remains unaltered and therefore his comments on the original scheme remain the same.

1.4 The application is therefore presented back to Committee with a recommendation to approve subject to the conditions set out in the previous report.

1.5 The proposal has been re-publicised and the following comments have been received: A local resident (The Newlands) emailed - ‘Having gone through the latest drawings to proposed car park, and even though they seem to adversely affect the properties in the Newlands, who's residents have had no consultation of this development, I would on the whole, support this application. It seems it would have the least environmental impact on the parks wildlife, the minimum effect on drainage issues, and above all be no more expensive to build. It would also stop previous objectors cutting down their hedges and foliage and pretending they had a view in the first place. I would however like to make the following observations: 1, If the Planting Screen added to the plans are for the benefit of the visual impact on adjacent properties, then it should surely run the course on the whole car park outer perimeter to keep this fair with all adjacent properties in

- 24 - 84 the Newlands, it also may help nocturnal wildlife from straying into the car park area.

2, There seems to be 12 parking bay less than on the original plans, will this be enough for the foreseeable future on the resource centre or will more be required at a future date, looking at he drawings there should be no trouble in adding a further 5 bays on the right hand side of the bend leading to the actual car parking area, and if the Planting Screen is to added would cause no further impact to anyone. I would hate further planning applications in the future if this was to be the case.

3, I still cannot see the need for 3 metre high lamp posts, surely this can be reduced to lower level lighting, as the build cost to these revised plans must be a cheaper.’

A further resident of The Newlands:

‘I would like to raise a couple of points:

1. As we are now the most affected property of this planning application, directly opposite the proposed location of the car park, we have not been consulted at all.

2. The schematic depicting mature trees in front of the car park is incorrect. There is a large expanse of land between the weeping willow and the line of conifers. This means that we in 9 The Newlands will have a direct and clear view of the whole proposed car park with no 'disguise' or screen being proposed. This is my main objection.

3. The location of the car park means that any light from car headlights as well as the lamp posts will direct light into my child's bedroom and our lounge.

4. If this proposal is likely to go ahead, please can consideration be made for added screening to be continued to avoid the light impact towards our house as well as low level lights possibly switched off during the night. Thank you.’

1.6 In light of the comments raised above relating to the new hedgerow planting, this has now been revised to extend along the length of the southerly edge of the car park and will provide additional mitigation from vehicle headlights.

The potential for further parking spaces in the future as a result of the reduced numbers, is at this stage hypothetical and therefore not material to the consideration of the revised layout.

Finally, with regard to the lighting columns this matter has been addressed at length in section 5.3 of the previous report. A condition is still proposed to agree a lighting scheme that could ensure light spill is minimised and control over the lighting at night time.

- 25 - 85 To conclude, it is considered that given the distance of the car park from the rear of The Newlands (approx. 50m) together with the screening afforded by the extended hedgerow planting and existing trees to be retained, the proposed car park would not cause unacceptable disturbance or light pollution to local residents.

PREVIOUS REPORT

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 This application relates to the Mardy Park Resource Centre which is a residential care home for elderly residents, located off the eastern side of Hereford Road in Mardy. The proposal is to construct a car park containing 31 additional spaces laid out in a linear form and located off a spur to the south of the existing access road into the site. The proposal is needed because the existing car park is at capacity and staff/ visitors often have to park on the main road or in residential streets near the building. In addition, it is proposed to make greater use of the grounds around the building for community–related uses and the car park would help to serve these potential uses.

1.2 The proposed car park would be made up of a 6m wide tarmac roadway with parking spaces either side of this. The parking spaces would be made up of permeable surfacing (open-jointed brick paviors) with a new brick pavior footway along the eastern edge of the car park. Additional landscaping would be planted along the southern, northern and western edges of the proposed car park to screen the engineered area from the residential home itself, Mardy Park Lodge and dwellings opposite the site on Hereford Road. Lighting is proposed in the form of relatively low-level lighting columns (3m high).

1.3 A large evergreen tree (a Lawson Cypress) would be removed to accommodate the proposed car park.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

There have been various applications relating to the building itself, between 1977 and 2011.

3.0 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

Strategic Policies

S5 – Community Facilities S7 – Infrastructure provision S17- Place Making and Design

Development Management Policies

EP1 – Amenity and Environmental Protection DES1 – General Design Considerations SD4 – Sustainable Drainage

- 26 - 86 GI1- Green Infrastructure EP3 - Lighting

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultations Replies

Llantilio Pertholey Community Council – Recommends approval.

MCC Highways – request clarity about tracking of vehicles using the site and the provision of disabled parking spaces, not shown on the initial drawing.

MCC Tree Officer – There are a number of trees at the site that make a positive contribution to the landscape, not least of which is a row of 5 mature Copper Beech trees along the western boundary adjacent to the Hereford Road. There is also a mature Lawson Cypress in the centre of the proposed car park which will have to be removed in order to facilitate the construction of the car park. Whilst this is regrettable, I believe that the tree has limited landscape value as it can only be seen within the site itself. The other that will be lesser affected is the mature Weeping Willow to the east of the car park site.

The proposed site layout shows that it will be necessary to construct the access within the root protection areas of Trees 1 and 2 in particular. Consequently, I advised Howard Hicks the Project Officer in Property Services that I would require an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) detailing how damage to the roots of these trees will be mitigated.

A comprehensive and detailed report was commissioned and carried out by Broadway Tree Consultancy under the terms of the above British Standard. Section 5 of the report is a detailed AMS which will suffice as a condition of the planning permission. The condition should read as follows:

Condition: All retained trees within and adjacent to the development boundary will be protected in accordance with the terms listed in Section 5.1 to 5.11 (inc.) of the Tree Report prepared by Broadway Tree Consultancy dated January 2015. Reason: To protect the Landscape and Green Infrastructure provisions of the site.

MCC Biodiversity Officer –

“Car Park grassland habitat:

The proposed car park is to be located in an area of amenity, mown grassland. Therefore, I can confirm that there are no issues with reptiles or amphibians in this instance. However, from checking the aerial images it is evident that there is a single immature tree within the footprint of the car park. As this is likely to provide suitable bird nesting habitat I would recommend that the following information note is placed on any consent as a precaution

- 27 - 87

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 and Lighting:

Bats have been recorded in the local area (SEWBReC, 2014) and are likely to be using the beech tree line as a commuting and feeding habitat. Common Pipistrelle bats are the dominant bat species within and around the application area and are more tolerant of LED lighting than slower flying bat species (Stone et al., May 2012. Conserving energy at a cost to biodiversity? Impacts of LED lighting on bats. Global Change Biology). In light of the low number of lighting columns and distance from the beech tree line (10m) I can confirm that the proposed lighting will have a negligible impact on bats. Therefore, no further information is required in relation to this protected species.

Planting Scheme

I welcome the addition of a planting scheme along the southern and northern end of the new car park as this provides additional Green Infrastructure benefits. However, no species details or planting/ maintenance information have been submitted. I would recommend that you consult with Colette Bosley (Principal Landscape Officer) on these details. As a biodiversity enhancement I would suggest the use of native shrubs/ trees of UK provenance in order to provide additional bird and pollinating insect habitat. It may also be worth considering providing further planting along the western boundary of the car park to link with the southern and northern planting strips. This will also act as a buffer to counteract any light spillage towards the beech tree line.”

4.2 Neighbour Notification

12 individual items of correspondence have been received from eight households, with all but one being from residents living close to the site. The following objections or concerns are made:

- Mardy has little in the way of green spaces, most having been developed in recent years; the lawned area in front of the building is one of the few remaining green spaces, valued for its wildlife benefits and wider community benefits, close as residents have to a village green and a link to the heritage of the area; - additional parking is accepted but could be located in a more discreet location to the rear of the building; - the proposed site is attractive and intrinsic to the charm of the centre; - the car park and its lighting would cause light pollution to nearby dwellings and would harm local wildlife interests; existing lighting already causes light pollution to local residents; if allowed lighting should not spill out onto adjoining areas; lower level lighting should be considered;

- 28 - 88 - the proposal is over-bearing, out of scale and out of character compared with existing development in the vicinity and would involve the loss of the open aspect of the neighbourhood; - loss of views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect local amenity; - there is a lack of proposed screening of the proposed car park for existing residents opposite the site; - lack of community consultation on these plans; - we acknowledge the need for further development at the resource centre but feel it must be developed sympathetically and in harmony with the surroundings, not where the proposal is intended; - allowing a car park at the front of the park would draw unwanted attention to the site and may encourage anti-social behaviour; a car park at the rear would be less likely to do so; - seek assurance that the drainage from the car park would not exacerbate existing flooding issues to identified neighbours; - expansion of the car park would lead to an increase in traffic on what is already a busy, narrow stretch of Hereford Road; - security measures for the proposed car park to deter misuse should be considered, including signage and hedging; - assurance is sought that the access would not be from the driveway to The Lodge and The Old Mill; - expansion of car park is supported; suggest space 31 is omitted as it would shine headlights into the end bedroom of the Resource Centre; the roadway should be narrowed from 6m to 3.5m to reduce the dominance of the road; bays 14-15 need to be amended to accommodate a mini-hammerhead in accordance with good design principles; - proposed car park should be reduced by six spaces so that ti is further way from The Lodge; screen hedging should be extended all along the western side for aesthetically acceptable and to reduce light pollution; - the removal of the tree near the ‘electric socket’ should be replaced in a location near it.

4.3 Local Member Representations – Cllr. Chapman: the proposed car park is not acceptable and should be at the rear of the building.

5.0 EVALUATION

5.1 Principle of Development

The proposal would benefit the Mardy Park Resource Centre, in whose grounds the site is located. The site is in the development boundary of Abergavenny/ Mardy and is not designated as an Area of Amenity Importance under Policy DES2 of the adopted Local Development Plan. The principle of constructing a car park to serve this community facility is acceptable under Policy S5 of the LDP, subject to detailed planning considerations which are considered below.

5.2 Visual Impact

- 29 - 89 The proposed car park would be set in a green, open space in front of the Resource Centre building. There is little doubt that the proposed car park would erode the sense of openness in this part of Mardy, and that is regrettable. Mitigation can be put in place by the softening of the car park with additional hedge planting to the south, west (to screen the site from Hereford Road) and the north (from the Resource Centre itself). Proposed lighting is in the form of low-level lighting columns which would be approximately half the height of a standard street light (3m compared to 5-6m high). While the illumination would be visible from the main road and to some degree from neighbouring dwellings, the lighting would be seen in the context of the building it serves and as the lighting columns would be at a relatively low level they would not be highly visible once the hedge has matured in the medium term. As such they would not be unacceptably obtrusive. The level and orientation of illumination could be controlled to minimise light spillage and to reduce its wider visual impact and a lighting plan to be agreed can be conditioned. This could involve the lighting being dimmed or even switched off during the night time.

5.3 Effect on local residential amenity

The proposed car park would to some extent reduce the standard of residential amenity in the area, by incorporating an engineered linear form into a green, open space opposite dwellings on Hereford Road and in relatively close proximity to The Lodge to the south-west of the southern end of the car park. There is the prospect of light spillage into the surrounding area as well car lights shining from cars within the car park towards residential properties.

The light spillage and pollution could be addressed through a sensitive lighting scheme to minimise illumination to that necessary to ensure the car park can safely function. The submitted lighting statement from the applicant advises that:

‘The proposed lighting scheme for the new car park uses column mounted flat glass LED lanterns. The lanterns give a sharp light cut-off which allows the light to be directed where needed with no light spill onto surrounding properties. Lighting levels have been selected to comply with the British Standards, regulations and industry guidance in order to provide an installation that gives the required illumination for pedestrian safety, security and movement of vehicular traffic. The design has also been prepared to ensure that light pollution from the site has been mitigated as far as practical, with the aim of eliminating light spill, nuisance and not over lighting the roadway and causing sky glow.

The car park illumination levels shall be in accordance with BS 5489 Part 9, CIBSE Technical Lighting Guides and E3 zone requirements. The post top lanterns shall be mounted on 3 metre columns and shall be high efficiency LED type, exceeding the requirements of Part L Building Regulations. Luminaires on the perimeter of the site shall, if necessary, be fitted with baffle plates to minimise light pollution to any adjacent areas.

- 30 - 90 As detailed on the drawings the lighting will provide no significant spill light to surrounding areas and lanterns have been selected to eliminate glare to surrounding residential properties.

When considered in the context of the wider site, adjacent buildings, highway lighting, etc. any impact from the new surface car park lighting scheme can be considered negligible and a significant improvement to the lighting scheme currently employed at the site.

The following measures have been also been considered as part of the lighting design selection process Extension of the existing car park lighting with like for like fittings was rejected as the existing lighting would fail to meet today’s design standards in particular with regards to sky spill and glare.

Bollard lighting was considered for the scheme but discounted for the following reasons: Bollards as a primary lighting source do not provide adequate vertical illumination and therefore any people, friend or foe, can be daunting to others in the area due to the fact that clear recognition of this person is not achievable. Bollards are more susceptible to damage due to their height and their location. A bollard could be reversed into at the rear of a parking bay or conversely driven into. Bollard distribution is only semi effective if the car park is empty, a car parking in a space that has a bollard located at the head will block out a high percentage of the useful light. Shadows and lower lighting levels will therefore be produced, becoming progressively worse with each car that parks in the space Bollards can cause a higher degree of glare to the driver, depending on the location and height of the bollard and also the vehicle being driven. The light source can be in the eye line region Bollards tend not to be an efficient light source as additional bollards are required to achieve the correct levels of illumination this is compounded by the fact that the more light fittings that are deployed the greater the amount of energy will be required to power them.

Further considerations as part of the lighting design selection process: Selecting luminaires to limit spill light beyond the task area and eliminate glare The provision to install baffles, etc. as required to control light output (will be assessed on site at completion) The extension of the site’s existing controls to ensure lighting is not in use when not required and the additional enhancement of night time dimming to 50% output 3 hours before midnight and 5 hours after midnight for the new car park.’

It is considered that the approval of a lighting scheme by the Planning Authority, required under a condition, could satisfactorily control the level and

- 31 - 91 extent of illumination at the site. This could well include a switching off or the dimming of the lighting during the night time period.

The proposed hedgerow planting to the front and lower end of the car park would also help screen the lighting and provide a soft, visual barrier to the car park when viewed from nearby dwellings. It is considered that while some reduction in amenity would occur, the screening mitigation proposed should ensure the car park proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to local residential amenity.

5.4 Loss of Trees/ Landscaping and green infrastructure

The loss of the large cypress tree to accommodate the proposal is unfortunate, but this is not a native variety and the more valuable trees in relation to biodiversity – the roadside beeches and the willow to the east – are being retained. The Council’s Tree Officer has no objection to the proposal subject to a tree root protection condition being applied. The additional hedgerow planting would enhance the proposal and provide additional green infrastructure in accordance with LDP Policy GI1. The Council’s Biodiversity Officer has noted that the site is presently in an area of amenity, mown grassland and has confirmed that there are no issues with reptiles or amphibians in this respect. An informative is recommended to be applied as one tree is to be removed and it is advised that this is carried out outside the bird nesting season. There is no objection to the proposed lighting on the basis of impact on biodiversity interests by the Council’s Ecologist.

5.5 Highways

The proposed car park would be accessed off the existing driveway. While the proposed access is close to the junction with Hereford Road, the Council’s Highways Engineer is satisfied that the proposed car park can be safely accessed. Moreover, the additional parking proposed would reduce parking on the main road, and would assist the free flow of traffic on Hereford Road, as well as reducing inconvenience to residential occupiers of nearby properties who would otherwise be hampered from parking outside or close to their dwellings. The car park ‘roadway’ would be 6m wide and although this was criticised by a third party, the scheme functions efficiently from a highway safety perspective and the hedge screening would reduce any visual impact to an acceptable degree. The 6m width between the opposite bays also ensures vehicles can reverse and move off without the need for a hammerhead. Space no. 31 is not directly opposite the end window of the bedroom in the Centre, and in addition planting is proposed between the bedroom and the proposed car park to help screen any light emissions from car headlights and the car park lighting.

An additional disabled parking bay is proposed within the existing car park, which would meet the Council’s adopted Parking Standards.

5.6 Drainage

- 32 - 92 The parking bays themselves would be porous and so would drain naturally into the surrounding extensive grounds which slope down towards the south- east, away from the nearest dwelling, The Lodge. The non-porous tarmac area would drain to a proposed soakaway which would again run towards the south-east and would percolate into the large, grassed open space in which Mardy Park sits. There is not anticipated to be any additional harm from surface water resulting from the proposed car park to any dwellings in the locality, including the Old Mill to the south-east.

5.7 Other issues raised by third parties

The possibility of an alternative site to the rear is not in itself material as the proposed site is considered to be acceptable on its own merits, subject to mitigation in the form of landscaping and discreet lighting. Having said that, the land suggested as the alternative location to the rear of the building is outside the development boundary of the settlement and is thus less desirable to develop than a site within the boundary. In addition, that area is earmarked for community use in the future by the Resource Centre and a car park would erode that space. It would also be less overlooked and would be less easy to supervise than the present site nearer the main road and could therefore be more vulnerable to crime.

5.8 Conclusion

It is considered that on balance, the benefits of providing the additional car parking to support this community facility, allied to the mitigation that can be put in place to reduce its visual impact or its effect on local amenity, would mean that the proposal is acceptable in planning terms, and would meet the objectives of Local Development Plan policies set out above.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Conditions:

1 This development shall be begun within 5 years from the date of this permission. 2 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the list of approved plans set out in the table below (set out on the decision notice). 3 Landscaping implementation and maintenance condition. 4 A scheme of lighting/ illumination shall be submitted to and agreed by the LPA before the car park is brought into use, and shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To minimise its impact on neighbouring properties. 5 Drainage as submitted shall be implemented prior to the car park being brought into use. 6 All retained trees within and adjacent to the development boundary will be protected in accordance with the terms listed in Section 5.1 to 5.11 (inc.) of the Tree Report prepared by Broadway Tree Consultancy dated January 2015. Reason: To protect the Landscape

- 33 - 93 and Green Infrastructure provisions of the site. 7 The colour of the parking bay paviors shall be agreed with the LPA prior to the car park being brought into use, and the agreed pavior shall be used to construct the car park, hereby approved.

Informatives:

- 34 - 94 DC/2015/00097

DEVELOPMENT OF 9 AFFORDABLE AND 6 PRIVATE DWELLINGS TOGETHER WITH NEW ACCESSES, CAR PARK FOR TRELLECH PRIMARY SCHOOL AND ANCILLARY WORKS

LAND AT MONMOUTH ROAD/GREENWAY LANE, TRELLECH, NP25 4P

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Case Officer: Jo Draper Date Registered: 12th May 2015

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 The application site forms part of an agricultural field and extends to some 1.68 ha in total. It is roughly ‘L’ shaped and currently has a single point of access from Greenway Lane. The site boundaries to the east, west and south are mainly mature hedgerows with fencing around the perimeter of the school. There is no present delineation of the northern boundary of the site. The land uses in the area are mainly agricultural to the north and east of the site. There is residential area to the west on the opposite side of Monmouth Road and a school to the south. A telephone exchange is situated directly adjoining the south eastern boundary. The layout has been designed from two cul-de-sacs with off street car parking. The site has been separated with the 60% affordable comprising 9 dwellings being accessed from Monmouth Road. This includes 2 x 1 bedroom flats, 4 x 2 bedroom houses, 2 x 3 bedroom houses and 1 x 4 bedroom house. The 40% speculative element of the proposed development comprises six dwellings with oak framed garages and car ports accessed from Greenmoor Lane. This open market element features 6 no. four bedroom houses. The two development sites are separated by an area of open space which does not serve either development on a formal basis but can be accessed by an informal footpath linking the two areas to be developed. This is to be overlooked by the adjacent housing proposed in this scheme. This area is to be maintained by the developer Edenstone Homes.

1.2 There is a defined open space provided at the Monmouth Road access to the scheme. The applicant is to enter into a s.106 Agreement to provide a financial contribution for off-site works to provide a pedestrian link back from the affordable housing site via Monmouth Road into the village centre.

1.3 The affordable housing site is to accommodate a car park providing 10 spaces to be used exclusively by Trellech Primary School. There is a pedestrian access from the car parking area to the school via steps situated in the south-west corner of the site facilitating pedestrian access from the affordable housing element of the site. The landowner is transferring this to be under the control of the school.

1.4 Green Infrastructure (GI) Plans have been submitted with this application and during the course of this application there have been revisions to improve the GI

- 35 - 95 offer at the site. There is strategic landscaping proposed along the eastern and northern boundaries of the speculative housing development off Greenmoor Lane. The northern boundary connects with the affordable housing site; this northern boundary originally proposed a native hedgerow but this has been revised with more mature and extensive planting. The open space which separates the site but does not form a part of the application site is to be planted with wildflowers and fruit trees and managed as such with an interpretation board provided. There is further strategic landscaping proposed along the eastern boundary for the affordable housing site.

1.5 All the dwellings proposed are two storey in height and those with one bedroom are arranged as a pair over two floors. There are small differences in house design with regard to treatment and position of ground floor entrances, with entrance canopies and bay windows. The proposed external materials comprise the following: 1. Amica slate roof 2. Champagne render, white grained uPVC sliding sash windows (the supporting information states that the units are textured to give a wood grained effect and are particularly high quality -. Seren Housing Association have a strong preference for uPVC windows and as there is a consistent design for both the affordable and the private housing this is reflected in the materials throughout) 3. The facia boards are uPVC to match the windows. 4. Timber door, reconstituted stone cills 5. Low level walls to be Forest of Dean cropped walling stone 6. Rainwater goods - black uPVC.

1.6 It is proposed to utilise as hard surfacing burnt-ochre paving and buff-coloured surfacing as well as tarmac throughout the site. The developer is flexible about the surfacing materials and this is covered under the Section 38 agreement relating to the adoption of the highway, although the developer has suggested a condition requiring the finishing details of the surfacing materials to be agreed by a planning condition to ensure that it is acceptable visually from a planning perspective.

1.7 The proposed drainage comprises of foul water being dealt with by an on-site package treatment plant with discharge via a reed bed to a soakaway. Plot surface water will discharge to a soakaway. Whilst highway run off from the Monmouth Road access is to be attenuated and connected into the existing gulley system in Monmouth Road, surface water drainage off Greenway Lane access is proposed to discharge into a soakaway.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

None

3.0 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

Strategic Policies S4 Affordable Housing Provision

- 36 - 96 SAH11: planning permission to be granted for the residential development of these sites subject to detailed planning considerations. Except where stated the maximum number of dwellings that will be permitted on any site will be 15. SAH11(xv) - Land Adjacent to Trellech School

Development Management Policies EP1: Amenity and Environmental Protection DES1: General Design Considerations MV1 – Proposed Developments and Highway Considerations LC4- Wye Valley AONB NE1- Nature Conservation and Development GI1: Green Infrastructure

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultations Replies

Trellech Community Council: Approve with further comments:

(1) The Design & Access Statement ignores the fact that the field is 4m higher than the B4293: a 1 in 20 rise from the B4293 to the car park entrance seems unachievable. Adequate sight lines onto the road will need considerable excavation (including of bedrock), and will require closure of the southbound carriageway while work is carried out. (2) Edenstone wants both access roads to be adopted, leading to street lighting - the car park will need to be lit, but the residential road leading from Greenway Lane should be unlit. (3) What will be the status of the central green space - what will it be used for and who will be responsible for its upkeep? This needs to be clarified before giving planning consent. (4) Surface water draining from the low cost housing site will discharge to the existing highway drainage system. This highway drainage turns and goes down beside the Far Hill road to meet the stream that runs under the road and becomes the Penarth Brook. This section of road frequently floods - might this be an opportunity to alleviate this problem? (5) The design of the low cost houses is banal design - some small additions to the design would add interest. (6) Trellech School is currently full in 6 out of 7 years. Before the scheme is approved there should be plans in place to increase the capacity of school. (7) Any S106 monies should be allocated for use within Trellech.

The agent has responded to these comments with the following:

(1) The D&AS and the layout do reflect the level difference. The first 10 metres of new roadway at the proposed junction with Monmouth Road (B4293) will be at a gradient of 1 in 20 after which point the road will rise more steeply (but still within acceptable limits to allow adoption). Excavation to achieve the necessary visibility splays will be needed but this will be restricted to the minimum required by the Highway Officer. The closure of the southbound

- 37 - 97 carriageway may be needed while these works are undertaken but this would be kept to a minimum to avoid disruption.

(2) This is for the Highway Officer to decide.

(3) The central green space will continue to be used for grazing and Edenstone Homes will be responsible for its upkeep.

(4) If there is an existing flooding issue then this could potentially be reflected in the surface water drainage scheme to help improve the current position. It will be for the Drainage Officer and the developer to agree an appropriate scheme.

(5) This is subjective. The majority of feedback on the house designs from the public consultation was positive.

(6) The allocation of this site with 60% affordable housing together with car parking for the school was on the basis that no other S106 items would be required. Any additional funding for Trellech School will have to come from other sources.

(7) See (6) above

Natural Resources Wales: No objection subject to suitable conditions being attached to a planning permission relating to protected species and a scheme for foul and surface water drainage.

Gwent Glamorgan Archaeological Trust: The proposed development has the potential to reveal and affect significant archaeological remains. Planning Policy Wales (Seventh Edition, July 2014) Section 6.5.1 notes that “The desirability of preserving an ancient monument and its setting is a material consideration in determining a planning application whether that monument is scheduled or unscheduled.”

The more detailed advice in Welsh Office Circular 60/96, Section 13, recommends that “where research indicates that important archaeological remains may exist, the planning authority should request the prospective developer to arrange for an archaeological field evaluation to be carried out before any decision on the planning application is taken.”

It is therefore our opinion in our role as the professionally retained archaeological advisors to your Members that the applicant should be requested to commission such an archaeological work.

The determination of any planning application therefore should be deferred until a report on the archaeological evaluation has been submitted to your Members.

- 38 - 98 Monmouthshire Highway Engineer: recommends approval subject to conditions to secure adoption of the estate roads, a suitable means of highway surface water drainage is achievable and off-site footway provision to link the development to both the school and wider community. The Highway Authority in earlier consultation responses to the Local Development Plan indicated that the proposed allocation should be accessed solely off the B4293. The adopted LDP recognises this and in Policy SAH11(xv) states that access to the development should be from the B4293 only. However with regard to pre-application discussions, in view of the very low density of the development and the creation of two distinct developments there are no objections to six of the dwellings being accessed directly off Greenmoor Lane. The traffic generated by an additional six dwellings would not be detrimental to Greenmoor Lane (it should also be noted that any potential future development by way of the design submitted precludes any future development being accessed from Greenmoor Lane, thus restricting access off Greenmoor Lane and promoting the extension of the B4293 access). The layout also provides for pedestrian linkage between Greenmoor Lane and the B4293 and this is welcomed but its status and future maintenance/management and retention for on-going use has not been agreed and will require further discussion and agreement to ensure its continued existence. The proposed development is generally acceptable and the developer has indicated their willingness to promote and offer the 2 distinct estate roads for future adoption subject to on-going negotiations and submissions to achieve an acceptable standard of design and construction, however, the following will need further consideration and agreement: Access off B4293: The level difference between the existing road and proposed development is considerable, although the applicant has indicated a simple junction arrangement (ref; Drawing No. 1523/100/E Planning Layout) the engineering requirements are likely to be excessive requiring considerable earthworks to achieve acceptable and adoptable standards. It is recommended therefore that the applicant submits detailed engineering drawings for approval prior to works commencing on site. Access off Greenmoor Lane: The proposed means of access off Greenmoor Lane is acceptable in principle, however further detailed engineering drawings are required to be submitted for approval prior to works commencing on site. Pedestrian Linkage / Footpath Provision: The provision of a footpath linking the two distinct sites is welcomed providing a continuous pedestrian route from Greenmoor Lane to the B42953/School and other village amenities. However although a pedestrian route is proposed from the proposed car park no footway has been indicated along the site frontage on the B4293 and the School. This will need to be covered as a financial contribution as part of the S106 to undertake off site highway works. Foul Drainage: The proposed method of foul drainage will be to discharge to soakaways following treatment using a privately maintained treatment works. Although this does not directly affect the highway it does preclude the adoption of the roads if private drainage is proposed to be laid in the prospectively adoptable highway. The applicant should therefore be aware of this and make arrangements to overcome this through the design and layout of the foul drainage.

- 39 - 99 Surface Water: The use of Soakaways and alternative sustainable drainage methods such as permeable paving in private areas such as driveways etc. is acceptable. Highways Drainage: The proposed estate road off Greenmoor Lane does not have the benefit of a positive surface water drainage system; therefore the proposed means of discharging to a dedicated highway soakaway is acceptable in principle and subject to further detailed design and submission. The proposed estate road off the B4293 is proposed to be discharged to the existing highway drain located in the B443 that discharges to the local watercourse and eventually the watercourse known as Penarth Brook. Generally the principle of connecting additional flows to existing highway drainage is not promoted but in the circumstances the highway authority are willing to consider the option subject to the applicant undertaking a detailed and comprehensive survey of the drainage system to assess its condition and capacity to accommodate the restricted/controlled discharge from the prospectively adoptable estate road. The applicant will be expected to carry out this survey and submit details for consideration by the highway authority prior to commencement of any works on site. In the event that the drainage system is inadequate or the developer is unable to improve the highway drains condition and/ or capacity an alternative means of discharging surface water from the prospectively adoptable estate road will need to be considered and submitted for approval prior to works commencing on site. Proposed Car Park: The provision of the additional car parking for the School is welcomed.

Rural Housing; Enabler for Monmouthshire: The proposed development should deliver nine affordable homes for local people, with a mix of tenures being made available and provide additional car parking for Trellech School. As identified during the formulation of Monmouthshire’s Local Development Plan, Trellech is one of the more sustainable rural settlements in Monmouthshire so this planning application, if approved, will contribute greatly to the future of the village and most importantly help nine local families who are in need of affordable housing.

4.2 Neighbour Notification

Two letters have been received raising the following issues:

(i) The developers are proposing to build (on the southern boundary) a sewage treatment plant/soakaway system to serve the whole of the development. Given the poor drainage and high water table in the area the acceptability of this is questioned. Natural Resources Wales (formerly the EA) acknowledge in their correspondence with regard to a recent nearby development (ref DC/2008/01420) that the area in question is not an ideal location for soakaway drainage and that there has been evidence of periods of a high water table. You will no doubt appreciate that the effective discharge to soakaway, especially given the volumes of effluent predicted, will be severely compromised under such conditions. You may also be aware that there have been reported problems associated with some nearby foul drainage soakaways in Greenway Lane.

- 40 - 100 (ii) What confidence has been established that the predicted volumes of sewage effluent will be effectively drained to soakaway especially under high-water table conditions? What ‘overflow’ facilities are proposed to deal with such circumstances? (iii) Given the costs of installing and maintaining ‘private’ sewage treatment plants (notwithstanding the pollution/nuisance risks referred to above) does this development not present a viable opportunity to contribute to an upgrade of the existing village STW and establish a mains drainage connection rather than add to the existing piecemeal inadequate drainage in the area ? (iv) This potential further development of the parcel of land between the affordable houses and the open-market properties would only exacerbate the problems associated with private drainage referred to above but would strengthen a business case for developer contribution/mains drainage connection. (v) The proposed entrance/exit road onto Monmouth Road will compromise the safety of a neighbour’s own vehicle access onto that road.

5.0 EVALUATION

The main issues that arise in the consideration of this application are the following: Planning Policy and Principle of Development Visual Impact Neighbour Impact Affordable Housing Green Infrastructure Highways and Drainage Archaeology Response to Community Council comments

5.1 Planning Policy and the Principle of Development

5.1.1 The site is allocated in UDP Policy SAH11 (xv) for a maximum of 15 dwellings. Policy S4 relates to Affordable Housing Provision and states that in Main Villages there is a requirement for at least 60% of the dwellings to be affordable. The proposal relates to a split of nine affordable housing dwellings and six market dwellings and this proposal therefore complies with Policies S4 and SAH11 in principle.

5.1.2 Generally, the sizes of sites allocated under Policy SAH11 have been based on an average density of 30 dwellings per hectare, in keeping with criterion i) of Policy DES1 that requires a minimum net density of 30 dwellings per hectare in order to ensure the most efficient use of land. To achieve 30 dwellings per hectare on this site of 1.68ha, even allowing for the provision of a car park to serve the adjoining school, would result in a scale of development far greater than is considered appropriate for a village like Trellech and would conflict with Policy SAH11, which sets a maximum size of development of 15 dwellings in order to preserve village character. While the overall net density of the two parts of the site put forward in this proposal does not achieve the 30 dwellings per hectare required by criterion i), this is considered to be justified given the overall size of the allocated site, which provides an opportunity for a high standard of design and layout appropriate for this conservation area village and

- 41 - 101 assists in achieving viability to support the affordable housing provision and car park for the school. Criterion l) of Policy DES1 is also of relevance as it requires that existing residential areas characterised by high standards of privacy and spaciousness are protected from overdevelopment.

5.1.3 Whilst the Policy specifically states the site is allocated ‘subject to vehicular access being from the B4293 only’ (owing to a previous concern from the highways team through the Local Development Plan process), it was noted during pre- application discussions that a small development could be accessed from Greenmoor Lane with the majority of housing units being from the B4293. Given that the highway objection to development being accessed off Greenmoor Lane has been withdrawn, the separation of the market and affordable housing elements of the development into two distinct sites, whilst not ideal, can be justified in the light of the policy considerations set out in the above paragraph. It is considered to be important, however, that there is at least a pedestrian link as proposed between the two sites to ensure appropriate pedestrian access to the village from the western part of the development.

5.1.4 The proposed high quality design of the development is welcomed, especially as the site is located close to the Trellech Conservation Area. While the site is not within the Conservation Area itself, it is considered important that the development should integrate visually with the historic character of the village and the detailed design and layout should be based on a thorough analysis of the context provided by this important conservation area village.

5.2 Visual Impact

5.2.1 This needs to be approached as two separate sites as well as any cumulative visual impact that arises from the proposed development. In both sites, the design of the scheme works well - there is very little difference in the external appearance of the affordable element and the private housing, the design is simple and clean and the form is traditional with pitched two storey dwellings all of a similar level. The proposal has been complemented with a palette of high quality materials, with a natural slate roof, smooth render and sliding sash windows. There are small design features that change between the houses in both developments, although in both cases the development is viewed as separate housing developments from surrounding viewpoints and the predominantly uniform form and design of the dwellings work well with this small housing site. The landscaping proposed is mainly addressed under Green Infrastructure below, but features the use of hedgerows to demarcate the front and side boundaries of the proposed dwellings, coupled with the strategic planting and retention of existing mature landscaping that characterises the southern and eastern boundaries. These features will soften this development both from within and outside the site. This helps the proposed development to assimilate into the surrounding rural backdrop to the north of the site and the conservation village setting to the south of the development. In both cases the development is set back from the frontage and access into the site and whilst facing towards the village the low density and layout does not result in a hard urban edge on this rural edge of settlement site.

5.2.2 There is a clear change in levels at the point of the proposed access from Monmouth Road, the level of engineering works has been softened by the

- 42 - 102 development being set back and the car park and development being separated from the highway by the defined enclosed area of open space. The existing mature landscaping which separates the access from the entrance to the school which is being retained serves to soften the impact further between the proposed new access off Monmouth Road and the existing access serving the primary school.

5.2.3 The visual impact of the proposed development is acceptable in both cases and works positively in the context of this rural edge of village site.

5.3 Neighbour Impact

There are no existing neighbouring properties situated close enough to either development to be compromised by either of the proposed housing schemes. The orientation and aspect of the proposed dwellings avoid overlooking into other houses or private amenity space. There is more than sufficient distance between the proposed dwellings and the adjacent school for there not to be a conflict between these uses.

5.4 Affordable Housing

The design as shown on the illustrative plans works well. There is very little difference in the external appearance of the affordable element and the private housing. The proposed design is simple and clean, and has been complemented with a palette of traditional natural materials. The proposed design as presented is considered acceptable. Monmouthshire County Council’s Housing Officer has confirmed that the proposal satisfies their requirements.

5.5 Green Infrastructure

The site is located within the Wye Valley AONB and Policy LC4 must be considered to ensure the proposal does not detract unacceptably from its setting. It is important that a high standard of landscaping is provided, particularly as there are no existing ‘defensible boundaries’ on the northern side of the site.

Green Infrastructure (GI) Plans have been provided and in response to this the following opportunities have been identified: GI Opportunities delivered · An ecological appraisal has been undertaken and has been used to inform the Masterplan · Existing habitats will largely be avoided or integrated into the development e.g. hedgerows · Native species of local provenance have been specified within the planting plan · The new vegetation planting along the northern boundary of the site allows the scheme to connect with the wider GI in ecological and habitat terms · The potential damage and impact on designated/sensitive sites and protected species have been considered e.g. the SINC site and habitats of dormouse, bats and badger · The scheme does contribute towards meeting local biodiversity needs/targets by the introduction of new vegetation planting along the northern boundary · he scheme seeks to make links and connections beyond the red line

- 43 - 103 · The density and break between the developments with the opportunity that the central space offers, leads the proposal to respond positively to the adjacent landscape · An overarching framework has been provided that has sought to respond to the local landscape. · There are some benefits in the local landscape edge treatments provided and connections with the wider GI in visual terms.

During the course of this application as a result of the GI Assets, Opportunities and Proposals Plans further changes have been provided with new plans showing the following changes: · New accessible areas of habitat have been created within the central field incorporating fruiting trees and the area being managed as a wildflower meadow. This will have the benefit of adding biodiversity value as well helping to define the sense of place and create an attractive environment to live in with opportunities for recreation and areas of natural play. An interpretation board has been incorporated in the scheme to connect people to nature.

There has been significant planting added to the proposed new native hedgerow which forms the new northern boundary improving this previously non-defensible boundary. · The hedgerow boundary (running north-south) between the eastern development and central open area has been reinforced to form a scalloped boundary varying in width with native woodland planting to allow opportunities for biodiversity. · The hedgerow separating the school and central open space is being reinforced with additional native planting. · Public Open Space has been improved with a scheme of planting and works to be incorporated into this space

The site benefits from existing natural infrastructure that has been incorporated into the site layout and the additional planting that has arisen as a result of the GI study will help to assimilate this development within the surrounding are. Thus when viewed from the outside, the site the development would contribute to the landscape and visual amenity of the surrounding area. Also the scheme, subject to appropriate planning conditions being imposed, will ensure the opportunities within the site are delivered and managed improving the overall living conditions of the future occupiers of this site.

5.6 Highways and Drainage

Monmouthshire’s Highways Officer has expressed no objection to the proposal in relation to the proposed road layout and access subject to conditions. These conditions control the future management and maintenance of the site, control of the phasing and specification of the estate roads, Control of the engineering works required to facilitate both vehicle accesses and the off-site pedestrian access onto Monmouth Road.

- 44 - 104 There has been concern raised by the Community Council regarding the gradients and levels of the access onto Monmouth Road. MCC Highways are satisfied with the level of detail provided for this application with visibility and ease of access considered to be acceptable. A neighbour has raised concern that the new access onto Monmouth Road will compromise her safety due to its proximity to her vehicular access. It is not considered that the new access compromises highway safety in this case. Indeed, it may actually result in traffic slowing down as the site access (serving the proposed development off Monmouth Road) is a clear indication for southbound traffic to slow down as they approach the village.

The drainage system has been raised as a concern by the Community Council and a neighbour. The concern relates to connecting in with the existing highway drainage system. The Council’s Highway Officer is satisfied that the level of detail provided at this stage is acceptable. However the onus is on the applicant to undertake a detailed and comprehensive survey of the drainage system to assess its condition and capacity to accommodate the restricted/controlled discharge from the prospectively adoptable estate road. In the event that the drainage system is inadequate or the developer is unable to improve the highway drainage system’s condition and/or capacity, an alternative means of discharging surface water from the prospectively adoptable estate road will need to be considered and submitted for approval prior to works commencing on site. This is controlled by planning condition.

With regard to foul drainage and the use of a sewage treatment plant, Natural Resources Wales have stated that they have no objection subject to suitable conditions being attached to a planning permission relating to protected species and a scheme for foul and surface water drainage to be submitted prior to development commencing on site.

5.7 Archaeology

GGAT have requested the application to be deferred until an archaeological evaluation has been submitted, this is in hand and the results of this evaluation will be ready to report as late correspondence at Planning Committee.

5.7 Response to Community Council Comments

These have been addressed above.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Subject to a Section 106 to secure the following Heads of Terms : 1. Affordable housing 2. Car parking area to serve the school 3. Public Open Space provision/ Green Infrastructure enhancements. 4. Section 38 Agreement for off-site highway works including provision of a pedestrian footway on Monmouth Road.

Conditions

1. Time Condition (5 years in which to commence development).

- 45 - 105 2. Prior to development commencing on site the finishing materials on the garaging and car ports to be agreed prior to development commencing on site 3. Prior to development commencing on site a scheme of surface water and foul drainage to be submitted to an agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 4. No development shall be commenced until details of the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. [The streets shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details until such time as an agreement has been entered into under section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or a private management and maintenance company has been established). 5. No development shall be commenced until an Estate Street Phasing and Completion Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Estate Street Phasing and Completion Plan shall set out the development phases and the standards that estate streets serving each phase of the development will be completed 6. No development shall be commenced until the comprehensive survey of the existing highway drainage system in the B4293 indicating the condition and capacity of the system and the proposed improvements to facilitate connection of the proposed surface water run-off from the estate road has been submitted to and approved in writing the Local Planning Authority. 7. No development shall be commenced until detailed drawings for the means of access off both the B4293 and Greenmoor Lane have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 8. No development shall be commenced until the finishing materials for the roads, pedestrian walkway and private driveways have been agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The approved materials shall be carried out before the development is brought into us and shall be retained in perpetuity unless written consent is granted by the Local Planning Authority for an alternative finish. 9. No development shall be commenced until details of the boundary materials have been submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority. The approved materials shall be carried out before the development is brought into us and shall be retained in perpetuity unless written consent is granted by the Local Planning Authority for an alternative boundary finish. 10. No development shall be commenced until details of the proposed off-site footway has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The footway shall be provided as agreed, prior to the 11. A Green Infrastructure Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the development. The content of the Management Plan shall build upon the principles in the submitted Landscape Masterplan Plan and include the following; a) Description and evaluation of Green Infrastructure assets to be managed. b) Trends and constraints on site that might influence management. c) Aims and objectives of management. d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives. e) Prescriptions for management actions. f) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a twenty-year period).

- 46 - 106 g) Details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of the plan. h) Submission of a monitoring report for year 1, 5 and 10 and remedial measures. The Management Plan shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the Green Infrastructure Management Plan are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning Green Infrastructure objectives of the originally approved scheme. The approved plan shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 12. No development, vegetation clearance or earth moving shall take place or material or machinery brought onto the site until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The method statement shall include as a minimum: 1) Badger method statement Hedgerow clearance method statement Nesting birds method statement 2) Arboricultural Method statement in accordance with British Standard 5837 2012 Trees in relation to Design Demolition and Construction Recommendations. The construction Method Statement shall be completed in consultation with an appropriately experienced ecologist.

13. Prior to commencement of works, a “lighting design strategy” shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall: a) identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and dormice and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory, for example, for foraging; and b) show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above species using their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting places. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the strategy, and these shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the strategy. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be installed without prior consent from the local planning authority. 14 Prior to commencement of works, a scheme of enhancements for bats and birds on the new buildings shall be submitted to the LPA for approval in writing. This must include but not be limited to: integrated nest box provision for house sparrows and starlings 1) Integrated bat roost provision for crevice dwelling bats The scheme shall thereafter be implemented in full.

- 47 - 107 Notes to Applicant

1. The Green Infrastructure Management Plan shall build upon the principles outlined in the Green Infrastructure Plan. In addition the management plan shall identify and provide;  Opportunities for education and interpretation associated with Green Infrastructure Assets to be incorporated.  Planting to fulfil the following;  Strengthening of boundaries vegetation

2. The applicant is advised that to discharge condition 4 that the Local Planning Authority requires a copy of a completed agreement between the applicant and the local highway authority under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980 or the constitution and details of a Private Management and Maintenance Company confirming funding, management and maintenance regimes.

3. 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.

4. Please note that the hazel dormouse is protected under The Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) Regulations 2012 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended). This includes protection for individual dormice 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 dormice are found during the course of works, all works must cease and the Natural Resources Wales contacted immediately. 5. 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.

- 48 - 108 DC/2015/00261

DEMOLITION OF EXISTING SECONDARY SCHOOL BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SECONDARY SCHOOL (D1) COMPRISING 14,824M2 (GROSS INTERNAL AREA) OF FLOOR SPACE, PRINCIPLES OF LANDSCAPING, CAR AND CYCLE PARKING SPACES

MONMOUTH COMPREHENSIVE SCHOOL OLD DIXTON ROAD MONMOUTH

RECOMMENDATION: Approve

Case Officer: Craig O’Connor Date Registered: 17/03/2015

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 The application seeks consent to demolish the existing secondary school and construct a new 21st Century School and an integrated swimming pool including all associated works as outlined in the submitted details. Monmouthshire County Council’s 21st Century School project is aimed to transform teaching and learning throughout Monmouthshire such as to provide learners with the best life and work chances and an opportunity for them to reach their full potential. The existing school is at the end of its useful life and no longer suitable for the current or future curriculum. The proposed new school would provide a sustainable fit for purpose educational building with a variety of learning spaces and would make Monmouth Comprehensive School central to a robust and sustainable community. The proposed development would ensure that the school is fit for purpose and would be designed to accommodate 1600 pupils. The proposed school has been designed to ensure that it harmonises with the locality.

1.2 The existing site is located adjacent to the development boundary of the town of Monmouth within the northern edge of the town. The site is bounded by Dixton Road to the north-west and by The Burgage to the south-west. The south- eastern boundary is formed by both Old Dixton Road and by the embankment of the A40 dual carriage way. The site is shared with the town’s leisure centre and the swimming pool. The site comprises of six groups of buildings for the school and two buildings for the leisure centre. The existing school buildings vary in height from single storey to three storeys. All of the school buildings are proposed to be demolished as part of the proposals apart from the Phoenix building which is located on the western edge of the site; this building would be retained within the resultant scheme. The existing swimming pool building would also be demolished and a new swimming pool would be integrated into the new building.

1.3 The proposed new school building would be sited in the south-west of the site in the same location as the existing school buildings and swimming pool. The footprint of the building would measure approximately 5659m² and it would connect with the existing leisure centre building. The building would be three

- 49 - 109 storeys in height and would measure approximately 11.6m high. It would also include a replacement swimming pool that would be sited in the eastern section of the building. This element of the building would be a two storey section that would measure approximately 8.4m high and would accommodate a terrace area on the roof. The internal arrangement of the proposed building has been designed so that it is separated into different educational departments and key spaces and facilities with the proposed layout being outlined on the submitted floor plans. The main entrance of the building would be to the south and the plans also outline an external courtyard in a central location within the building. The external materials for the building would include a buff brick mainly for the external walls, the roof would be a hot melt rubberised bitumen system with natural stone ballast, with the terraced area being concrete flag paving and the window and door openings would be powder coated grey aluminium.

1.4 The proposed site plan and submitted reports also outline the proposed vehicular access arrangements, parking arrangements and landscaping proposals for the site. The existing access off Dixton Road would be utilised and would provide access to 93 staff car parking spaces and coach, minibus and taxi drop off points. There would also be a visitor car parking area located to the south of the site in close proximity to the main entrance that would accommodate 14 visitor car parking spaces. The existing leisure centre parking provision to the east of the leisure centre would be retained. The plans also outline pedestrian and cycle access arrangements.

1.5 Since the original submission of the planning application an amendment was made to the proposals relating to the size of the swimming pool. The proposed amended plans outline that a six lane swimming pool (6 x 25m lanes) would be integrated into the new school building rather than the previously proposed four lane pool. The amended plans have been put out to consultation with the local community. Any further responses will be reported as late correspondence.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

Most recent: DC/2008/01293 Provision of new demountable temporary classroom following the removal of condemned demountable science room 48; Approved January 2009

3.0 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

Strategic Policies

S1 Spatial distribution of new housing provision S5 Community and Recreation facilities S12 Efficient resource use and flood risk S13 Landscape, Green Infrastructure and the Natural Environment S16 Transport S17 Place making and design

Local Policies

- 50 - 110 EP1 Amenity and environmental protection DES1 General Design considerations DES2 Areas of amenity importance SD1 Renewable Energy SD2 Sustainable construction and energy efficient SD3 Flood risk SD4 Sustainable drainage GI1 Green Infrastructure NE1 Nature conservation and development MV1 Proposed development and highway considerations MV2 Sustainable Transport Access

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultations Replies

Monmouth Town Council – recommended approval but has made the following comments:  School is not large enough for present or future pupil capacity – MCC projections up until September 2020 show an increase of pupil numbers to 1,700  The site is poor. There are severe ground difficulties which has increased the cost of the development and is resulting in services being cut.  The Town pool proposed is too small and has less capacity than the existing one. An express commitment was made that it could be expanded in the future but the plans submitted make this highly unlikely.

Natural Resources Wales – There were two letters of correspondence in relation to the application, the first objected to the application on ecological grounds and the second withdrew the objection following the submission of additional information as requested. There is now no objection to the proposals subject to the suggested conditions. Flood risk Flood modelling was undertaken to establish any effects of flooding elsewhere as a result of the development. The FCA has shown that the design of the development has minimised the loss of flood storage. The modelling does show a slight loss of flood plain storage, however we agree with the findings of the FCA that the loss in comparison to the total volume of flood plain can be quantified as insignificant. Based on the above and given the proposal is for a redevelopment of an existing building that provides higher finished floor levels, we advise the potential consequences of flooding are acceptable.

Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust – The proposal has an archaeological restraint. We have considered the need for a pre-determination archaeological evaluation but given the location of the area and the site has been developed and hard landscaped with drainage and sports pitches it would be difficult to guarantee the success of an evaluation in locating archaeological deposits. We therefore recommended that a condition requiring the applicant to submit a

- 51 - 111 detailed programme of investigation for the archaeological resource should be attached the any consent.

Welsh Government Transport – No objection to the proposed development The staffing levels/pupil numbers and associated traffic movements remain unchanged and no new access is proposed off the Trunk Road Network. However Welsh Government would direct that for completeness their suggested condition is added to any consent.

Cadw – the proposed development is located within 5km of the scheduled ancient monument known as MM008 Monnow Bridge, MM125 Dixton Motte, MM036 Clawdd Du and MM159 Monmouth Castle. The views to the proposed school development from all the above designated monuments area are blocked by topography and existing buildings, therefore there will be no impact on the setting of any designated monument. The site lies within the Registered Wye Valley Landscape of Outstanding Historic Interest and more specifically in historic landscape character 010 Dixton Transport Corridor. The presence of the School is noted in the characterisation report and therefore the replacement of the school is in accordance with the registered historic landscape.

Gwent Police – No objection to the proposals and offer their assistance to ensure that the school is designed to meet Police Secured by Design New Schools Guide 2014

Dwr Cymru Welsh Water – offer no formal objection to the proposed development subject to the suggested condition and informatives.

Wales and West Utilities – no objections to the proposals however our apparatus may be at risk during development therefore please contact us direct prior to construction.

Development Plans Officer – offers no objection to the proposals and refers to the Local Development Plan Policies that need to be considered as part of the development.

Highways Officer – the proposals and the details submitted in support of the application are acceptable. I would offer no objections to the proposals from a highway standpoint as the proposal enhances the transport provision and improves the means of access to the site due to the following: the development promotes vehicle access from Dixton Road reducing the reliance on Old Dixton Road and the adjacent local highways; the proposal has increased on- site parking for staff, visitors, etc., from 86 spaces to 141, an increase of 55 spaces; all bar the 14 visitor spaces, the car parking is accessed directly off Dixton Road therefore reducing the historical congestion and disruption experienced on Old Dixton Road and the adjacent network; the proposal also includes the re-engineering of the access and egress and internal layout for the home to school transport providing improved arrangements for the buses at the start and end of the school day as well a the segregation of taxis and mini buses; the proposal provides for a substantial increase in cycle parking from

- 52 - 112 10 to 115, an increase of 105 that will encourage and promote cycling to and from the school; the proposal adequately provides for pedestrian access and more appropriate, direct and enhanced provision has been provided that will promote and encourage students, staff and visitors to walk to and from the school. Construction Traffic Management Plan - the logistics of providing temporary facilities during the demolition and building of the new school are duly noted, however further information is required in respect of how construction traffic and particularly the delivery and transport of materials to and from the site is organised. The type, size and number of deliveries need further consideration and appropriate management measures need to be in place to minimise congestion and disruption on the adjacent local highway network. Surface Water Management - the proposal generally seeks to utilise the existing surface water network and enhance the system to afford greater management and robustness by way of controlling surface water discharge through storing/attenuating surface water with the introduction of surface water storage cells and restricting discharge run–off and introduction of sustainable drainage by way of permeable paving, etc., in the staff car parking areas. No objection subject to a condition regarding Construction Management Plan.

Green Infrastructure Team – the submission of the following plans to support LDP Policy GI1 is acknowledged and welcomed along with information relating to Ecology studies and Trees. Significant Green Infrastructure Assets are present on and adjacent to the site. The scheme has sought to embrace these assets and opportunities. No adverse comments to proposals subject to the suggested conditions relating to a Green Infrastructure Management Plan being attached to any approval.

Tree Officer – no adverse comments to the proposals subject to the suggested conditions.

Biodiversity Officer – the application site lies approximately 100m from the River Wye which is designated as a SSSI and Special Area for Conservation (SAC). Considering the proximity and the hydrological connection of the site to the internationally protected river (as noted on the Existing Drainage Plan), a Habitats Regulations Assessment has been completed by the planning authority. Risks posed to the River Wye SAC are associated with the Construction and Operational phases of the development. Reduction in water quality of the watercourse by pollution / siltation and increased surface water run-off is considered and foul water arrangements referenced. The HRA concludes that there will be no Significant Effect caused by changes in water chemistry or flow rates during the operational phase due to the design of the drainage systems at the site. Any Significant Effect that could arise during the construction phase will be avoided with the adoption of appropriate measures to safeguard the site; secured via planning condition for a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to be submitted to the planning authority before works commence at the site. With these measures in place, the potential magnitude of the effect is not considered to be significant. Bats

- 53 - 113 The bat report describes the pipistrelle mitigation and more detail of this e.g. locations of boxes etc., will be needed post determination in the form of a Method Statement and Plan(s) (and will be needed to support a licence application to NRW). A void is to be provided for the brown long eared bat mitigation. This mitigation is positioned well with good vegetation links and good aspect. We will need to consider the finer detail post determination (which will be finalised with NRW for licencing) this is likely to include; positioning of access points (i.e. lower may produce better internal temperatures) and the internal detail. The Just Mammals report suggests that the void should be a minimum 2.3m high, 4m wide and 5m length (volume = 46m3). The plans indicate the void to be (2400mm height, 3800mm width, 7300mm length) which gives a volume of 66m3. No objections to the proposed mitigation subject to the suggested conditions. Environmental Health Officer – Having reviewed the documents in particular Geotechnical Desk Study undertaken by ARUP, it appears that there is a potential for land and ground water contamination. ARUP have undertaken a conceptual site model and identified several contaminates of concern that will require further investigation in the form of soil samples, groundwater sampling and gas monitoring. Should it be considered appropriate to grant planning approval prior to a contaminated land site investigation I would recommend that the conditions (EH01 and EH03) be attached to ensure that the site is fully investigated and, if necessary, remediated to ensure the protection of public health.

4.2 Neighbour Notification

There were seven letters of objection to the application and two letters of support.

The letters of objection outlined the following:  The proposed three storey school will have a harmful impact on the privacy and residential amenity of the occupiers of Strelna. There will also be a loss of view and the amount of light the property receives will be affected.  The planting along the boundary of Ferndale would enclose the property  The noise for delivery vehicles at the rear of the property would be unacceptable. A road to the rear of the residential property would cause noise pollution.  There were no paper plans made available to the public at the One Stop Shop  Concerns over access of the right of way from The Burgage to the path across the school grounds was dealt with correctly  The position of the school in this location is unsuitable as it is on a floodplain.  The objection of the school so close to Ferndale it will overlook the property and affect its privacy  The three storey building will block light to Ferndale  The siting of the school next to the trunk road would harm their health in terms of air quality

- 54 - 114  The development will devalue property in the area  The proposed plans for the swimming room changing rooms are inappropriate. Separate sex changing rooms are required, open spaces for changing is required and helps promote social interaction, inadequate provision of shower facilities  The swimming pool only having four lanes is a big disappointment and the pool should have six lanes.  The proposed pool is too narrow for fitness, rotational swimming and for use for people with disabilities.  Pupils will be substantially disadvantaged during the construction of the new school particularly at exam times  The site is too small and sports grounds inadequate  The pollution adjacent to the school is above acceptable levels and likely to increase.  The school should be sited on an alternative site.

The letters of support outline the following: The current school is too small and is unfit for purpose - the pupils need more space and better buildings. This is bound to enhance academic achievement and give all the children in the area a school environment to be proud of.

5.0 EVALUATION

5.1 Principle of development

5.1.1 The site is in the main located within the existing Monmouth Town Development Boundary (TDB) as identified by the Local Development Plan (LDP). Whilst part of the site is located outside the TDB this area has been historically used by the existing school and the leisure centre and therefore the proposed re-development is considered to be acceptable. The planning uses of the existing site are well established with the site currently accommodating the school, swimming pool and leisure centre. There would not be a material change in use of the site with the application seeking consent for a replacement building that provides a sustainable educational facility in terms of its design and efficiency. Strategic Policy S5 of the Local Development Plan supports applications relating to Community and Recreation Facilities and states in part that ‘development proposals that provide and/or enhance community and recreation facilities will be permitted within or adjoining town and village development boundaries subject to detailed planning considerations’. This is a major 21st Century School project and is aimed to provide a centre of excellent for education. Therefore, this application is fully in accordance with the objective of promoting sustainable communities in Monmouthshire.

5.2 Flood Risk

5.2.1 The site lies within Flood Zone C2 as shown on the latest Welsh Government Technical Advice Note 15 (TAN15) maps. Policy SD3 of the LDP outlines that proposals for highly vulnerable development such as a school will not be permitted unless the proposals is to extend an established tourism, leisure or educational establishment. The site has historically been utilised for educational

- 55 - 115 and leisure purposes and therefore the proposed development to build a new school and leisure building at the site is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with the requirements of Policy S12 and SD3 of the LDP.

5.2.2 The proposed development is justified in the proposed location in accordance with Section 6 of TAN15 given that the building would be sited on an established developed site that is currently used for educational and leisure purposes and that the development would sustain the existing settlement of Monmouth by providing a modern 21st Century School. The development would be in accordance with the justification tests outlined within 6.2 of TAN 15.

5.2.3 Natural Resources Wales (NRW) the statutory body to comment on flooding matters have reviewed the proposals and the submitted Flood Consequence Assessment (FCA) and have no objections to the proposals. The potential consequences of flooding at the site are considered to be acceptable and meet the requirements of A1.14 of TAN 15. Flood modelling was undertaken to establish any effects of flooding elsewhere as a result of the development and the design of the development has minimised the loss of flood storage. NRW have advised that the potential consequence of flooding is acceptable. The proposed development also aims to incorporate water management measures to reduce flood risk including permeable paving, surface water attenuation and long term storage, hydro brakes to control discharge off site and slot drains along the facades of the building. The proposed development would not result in an unacceptable level of flood risk and would be in accordance with Policies S12, SD3 and SD4 of the LDP.

5.3 Design and visual impact

5.3.1 The proposed school will be of a contemporary design and the form of the building is derived from its functionality and energy efficiency. The concept of the building is to provide a variety of teaching and learning spaces by bringing all the students and staff together under one roof to improve connectivity and learning integration. The design approach sought to achieve a degree of coherence and consistency between Monmouth Comprehensive School and Caldicot School and therefore the form, design and materials are similar. By virtue of the proposed form and the proposed materials the new school building would appear as a contemporary functional building that is fit for purpose. It would have a positive presence in the locality; in addition, it has been designed to ensure that it relates well to its surrounding context including the retained Phoenix building and the nearby residential properties. The building would be three storeys in height but it would not be overly dominant in respect of the surrounding buildings. It is considered that the building would enhance the visual appearance of the area as the existing dated school buildings would be removed. The replacement contemporary building would be appropriate for the site and would harmonise well with the character of the area.

5.3.2 The modern contemporary tree storey building would be constructed with high quality materials that are durable and of a relatively simple palette. The uniformity of using mainly buff brick for the external walls gives the building

- 56 - 116 presence and outlines that the building is a community/public building. Prior to submitting the application the school had undertaken extensive consultation with the stakeholders on the design aspects of the new school. The proposed school is clean-lined and a has a well-mannered modern form which will feature high performance materials that will ensure the building’s appearance is maintained to a high standard in the medium to longer term. The proposed appearance, scale and design of the new building is considered to be acceptable. The proposed development would result in the existing dated school buildings being replaced with a well-designed contemporary building which would enhance the visual amenity of area. The proposal would be in accordance with policies S17 and DES1 of the LDP.

5.3.3 The site lies adjacent to Monmouth’s Conservation Area which is located on the western edge of the site. The proposed development would enhance the visual appearance of the site with the removal of the existing buildings and therefore the development would enhance the character of the Conservation Area. The proposed modern building would be set back from The Burgage and the proposed landscape features at the main entrance to the building would soften the appearance of the development as viewed from the Conservation Area. As outlined above, the form, design and proposed materials are considered to be appropriate for the school building and the development would harmonise well with the existing built environment. Significant views into and out of the Conservation Area would not be harmed by the proposed new, modern building. The development would enhance the character and appearance of the area to the benefit of Monmouth’s Conservation Area and would be in accordance with the objectives of Policy HE1 of the LDP.

5.3.2 The site lies within the built environment of Monmouth and the proposed building’s impact on the wider landscape is considered to be acceptable. The proposed building would be contained within the built form of Monmouth and the resultant building would enhance the visual amenity of the area. The retention and enhancement of the green infrastructure features within the development ensure connectivity with the wider landscape and would enable the development to integrate well with the wider area. The proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the wider landscape or the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which is designated to the east of the Town. The development would be in accordance with Policy LC4 of the LDP.

5.4 Amenity Open Space and Green Infrastructure

5.4.1 Part of the site lies within an area designated as an Area of Amenity Importance within Policy DES2 of the LDP. Policy DES2 aims to protect and enhance existing important green space within the built and natural environment that adds to the area’s character. The proposed development is not considered to have a harmful impact on this amenity area. The proposed new building on the site is considered to improve the visual appearance of the locality and the well- designed educational facility would integrate well with the built environment and the existing open space.

- 57 - 117 5.4.2 The application has been supported by green infrastructure (GI) assets, constraints and opportunities plans and the landscaping of the site has been carefully considered by the Council’s Landscape Officer, Biodiversity Officer and Tree Officer. The proposed landscaping of the site is considered to be acceptable and would ensure that green infrastructure assets are protected and enhanced. The landscaping proposals around the building would enhance the visual, functional and nature conservation value of the site. Given the design and form of the proposed building and the proposed sympathetic landscaping, the development would have an acceptable visual impact on the wider landscape. The proposed development would enhance the visual amenity of the area and the sense of open amenity space and linked areas of green infrastructure would be retained within the development. The proposed development would be in accordance with the objectives of the Policies S13, S17, DES2 and GI1 of the LDP. The GI proposals will be incorporated into a Green Infrastructure Management Plan for the whole site in accordance with LDP policies S13, GI1 and NE1, and this element will be conditioned if approval of the scheme is granted.

5.5 Highway safety and network

5.5.1 The proposed development is considered to have a positive impact on highway safety and the highway network. The development would enhance transport provision and improve the means of access to the site. The proposals would utilise the existing vehicle access from Dixton Road and this would reduce the historical congestion and disruption currently experienced on Old Dixton Road and the surrounding highway network. Parking provision at the site would also be increased from 86 spaces to 141 which would provide a significant betterment than the existing arrangement. The proposal encourages pedestrian access and promotes cycling, encouraging sustainable modes of transport for users of the school. The drawings and submitted information have been assessed and the overall layout has been designed according to current design standards and the proposed parking provision is considered to be acceptable. The Highways Officer supports the proposals subject to a condition relating to a construction traffic management plan being added to any consent to ensure that construction traffic does not have a detrimental impact on the highway network. The proposed development would enhance transport provision and encourage sustainable modes of transport and the development would be in accordance with the requirements of Policies S16, MV1 and MV2 of the LDP in relation to transport and highway considerations.

5.6 Biodiversity

5.6.1 Natural Resources Wales (NRW) and the Council’s Biodiversity Officer have reviewed the submitted ecological reports and the proposed mitigation and have no objections to the proposed development subject to their suggested conditions. The existing buildings are roosts for bat species and the development will also result in the loss of a pond that is used by a common species of amphibian. The proposals include detailed bat mitigation proposals to ensure that the development does not have an unacceptable impact on bat species. Compensatory ponds and nesting boxes to enhance wildlife opportunities at the

- 58 - 118 site will also be developed within a detailed green infrastructure management and landscaping plan. The proposed development is not considered to have a significant adverse impact on wildlife interests and would be in accordance with Policy NE1 of the LDP.

5.6.2 A Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) has been undertaken for the scheme to assess the impact that the development would have on the River Wye (SAC and SSSI). This assessment is required by Regulation 61 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, in accordance with the EC Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EDC) before the Council as the ‘Competent Authority’ under the Regulations can grant permission for the project. The Council’s Biodiversity officer has conducted the HRA and the risk relating to this development are associated with the construction and operational phases of development. The HRA concludes that there will be no Significant Effect caused by changes in water chemistry or flow rates during the operational phases due to the design of the drainage systems at the site. Any Significant Effect that could arise during the construction phase will be avoided with the adoption of appropriate measures to safeguard the site, secured via planning condition for a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) prior to the commencement of development. The proposed development would not have an unacceptable impact on any habitats subject to the CEMP condition being added to any approval.

5.6.3 Monmouthshire County Council as the Local Planning Authority is required to have regard to the Conservation of Species & Habitat Regulations 2010 (the Habitat Regulations) and to the fact that derogations are only allowed where the three tests set out in Article 16 of the Habitats Directive are met. In the present case bats – a European Protected Species – are known to use the application site

(i) The derogation is in the interests of public health and public safety, or for other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature and beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment. Comment: The proposed development would result in the provision of a significant modern educational and leisure facility within the town of Monmouth that would benefit the local community and result in the settlement being sustainable for many years to come. The development provides significant benefits to the area and it has been evidenced that the proposed development can occur without harming wildlife interests subject to the proposed conditions. (ii) There is no satisfactory alternative Comment: The site is currently being used for educational and leisure purposes and there is no change of use of the site. The site is located in a sustainable location within the town development boundary and built form of the settlement. The site is a suitable location for a secondary school and there is no feasible alternative site for the proposed development. (iii) The derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the population of the species concerned as a favourable conservation status in their natural range. Comment: It has been evidenced within the proposed mitigation that on-site mitigation can ensure that the long term effects of the development would not

- 59 - 119 have a significantly detrimental impact on the maintenance of the population of bats. The development has been reviewed by the Council’s Biodiversity Officer and NRW and there are no objections to the proposals. The development would not have an unacceptable impact on wildlife interests.

5.7 Amenity and environmental protection

5.7.1 The use of the site for educational and leisure facilities is well established. The proposed building is not considered to have a harmful impact on the residential amenity of the nearby dwellings. The two dwellings most affected by the development would be Strelna and Ferndale which are located to the north east of the proposed building. On balance it is not considered that the development would have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of these properties to warrant refusing the application. The new building would be 20m from the two storey element of Strelna and 16m from the two storey element of Ferndale. Drawing MON-BDP-XX-XX-SE-A-900001 P1 outlines how the development would impact on these properties. The new building would be on a lower finished floor level and the Section plan outlines how the view from a 45 degree angle from the ground floor window of Strelna would not be obstructed. The building would not be overbearing or unacceptably dominant on either Strelna or Ferndale to warrant refusing the application. The building would not result in a significant amount of light being obstructed given the finished floor level of the new building and the intervening distance between the buildings. In terms of overlooking windows, given the intervening distance between the new school building and the dwellings, together with the proposed landscaping (and given that the building would only be used within school hours and term time) the impact on these properties is considered to be acceptable.

5.7.2 There are also four residential properties to the south of the building along The Burgage and Old Dixton Road. The new three storey building would be located at a minimum of 30m from these properties with the existing building close to the boundaries of these properties being demolished. Given this intervening distance, the orientation of the sun and the finished floor level of the new building the development would not result in overlooking issues, and nor would it be overly dominant or adversely affect access to light.

5.7.3 The development is not considered to present any significant pollution risks to warrant refusing the application. The new school building would be sited o the current school site within the built form of Monmouth and would not produce an unacceptable amount of light pollution to the surrounding area. It is considered that the noise emission from the school would also be acceptable, given its current usage. The application has been supported by the appropriate light and noise reports that outline that the development would have an acceptable impact. The geotechnical environmental report has outlines that there is potential for land and ground water contamination. ARUP have undertaken a conceptual site model and identified several potential contaminates of concern that will require further investigation in the form of soil samples, groundwater sampling and gas monitoring. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer (EHO) has reviewed this information and is satisfied that the potential risks can be overcome with a condition that the site is fully investigated and, if necessary,

- 60 - 120 remediated to ensure the protection of public health. Subject to the suggested conditions by the EHO the development is not considered to harm public health and would be in accordance with Policy EP1 of the LDP.

5.7.4 In summary, the proposed development is considered to have an acceptable impact on adjacent residential properties and would not have an unacceptable effect on the privacy, amenity or health of the occupiers of these dwellings in accordance with Policies S13, S17, EP1 and DES1 of the LDP.

5.8 Response to Monmouth Town Council

5.8.1 The 21st Century School Team has provided information to outline that the school does meet the capacity requirements of the catchment area and as such it is large enough. The housing development sites within the area allocated in the Local Development Plan have also been taken into consideration in establishing the size of the new school and fed into the pupil projections. The information provided by the 21st Century School Team outlines that the projected number within the catchment area would reduce over time from 1479 in term 2015/2016 to 1256 in 2020/2021. The capacity of the school would not be a material planning consideration when determining the application. However as outlined above the 21st Century School team is satisfied that the school is fit for purpose and meets the projected requirements of the catchment area.

5.8.2 The cost of the proposed development and the difficulties of the site would not be a material planning consideration when determining this application. The size of the proposed swimming pool has altered since the original submission of the application and amended plans have been submitted and consulted on regarding extending the swimming pool from a four lane pool to a six lane pool. The existing swimming pool provides 4 x 20m lanes whilst the new amended pool integrated within the school building would be for six lanes measuring 25m in length. This would be an improvement on the existing pool which would benefit the local community. This pool would also conform to competition standards and overcome the concerns and objections from Monmouth Town Council and local residents and users of the swimming pool.

5.9 Response to objections

5.9.1 As outlined in Section 5.7 the proposed development would have some impact on the neighbouring residential properties, however it would not have a significantly adverse impact to warrant refusing the application. The loss of view would not be a material planning consideration when determining the application and it has been demonstrated that the view from the ground floor level of Strelna would not be obstructed. The planting of trees along the boundary of Ferndale is considered to soften the appearance of the new school building and would help to protect the privacy of the occupiers of Ferndale. There are existing landscape features in this location and it is not considered that the trees would result in the property being unacceptably enclosed. The noise implications of the development have been assessed by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer and the development is not considered to result in an unacceptable level of noise pollution. The road behind the properties has

- 61 - 121 been outlined as an emergency access lane only and therefore it would not be intensively used. Plans of the proposed development were available electronically and paper copies were available in County Hall, Usk. As outlined in section 5.2 the proposed development would not result in an unacceptable level of flood risk and NRW have no objections to the proposals. The site has been used historically for a school and the siting of the building near the dual carriageway is considered to be acceptable in terms of air quality. The concern that the development would reduce property values in the area is not a material planning consideration.

5.9.2 There were several letters received relating to concerns regarding the changing room facilities and the size of the pool. These comments made regarding the internal arrangement of the swimming pool element of the school building would not be a material planning consideration and would not be a reason to refuse the application. There was a request for separate changing rooms, however it is noted that modern leisure facilities are generally communal and result in maximising the useable space of the building. As outlined above (section 5.8) the Council has outlined that it is the intention to provide a six lane swimming pool at the site and amended plans have been provided to illustrate this amendment.

5.9.3 The construction phase of the development would have to be sensitively managed to ensure that it would not harm existing pupils. However this would not be a material planning consideration to refuse planning consent. The site is considered to be adequate for its intended use and there are considered to be sufficient sports facilities on the existing playing fields associated with the school. An alternative site has not been considered as part of this application and the LPA has reviewed the proposals based on its merits.

5.10 Conclusion

The proposed new school building is considered to be a positive form of development that would sustain the settlement of Monmouth in the long term. The new school building would provide a modern, fit for purpose, sustainable building that promotes inclusive teaching and learning for the community and the improved swimming pool would enhance recreation facilities in the town. The principle of constructing the building at this site is acceptable and the development would not result in an unacceptable level of flood risk to the users or any other party. The building is considered to be of a high standard of design that would enhance the visual appearance of the area by replacing the existing outdated structures. The proposals have been developed with the consideration of green infrastructure and the proposed landscaping of the site would support ecology and ensure connectivity with the wider area. The proposed development would significantly enhance educational and recreations facilities of the town and would be in accordance with the relevant Policies of the LDP.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Conditions/Reasons

- 62 - 122 1. Development shall be begun within 5 years of the date of this consent. 2. The development shall be constructed in strict accordance with the approved plans listed in the table on the decision notice. 3. No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 4. Prior to the commencement of development samples of the proposed materials shall be confirmed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 5. Foul water and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. 6. 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 7. Land drainage run off shall not be permitted to discharge, either directly or indirectly, into the public sewerage system. 8. Prior to the commencement of development a Transport Statement shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority; development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 9. No part of the development hereby permitted shall commence until: a) An appropriate Desk-Study of the site has been carried out, to include a conceptual model and a preliminary risk assessment, and the results of that study have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. b) If potential contamination is identified then an appropriate intrusive site investigation shall be undertaken and a Site Investigation Report to BS 10175:2011, containing the results of any intrusive investigation, shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. c) Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority as unnecessary, a Remediation Strategy, including Method statement and full Risk Assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 10. Prior to import to site, soil material or aggregate used as clean fill or capping material, shall be chemically tested to demonstrate that it meets the relevant screening requirements for the proposed end use. This information shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority. No other fill material shall be imported onto the site. 11. Prior to the commencement of development a Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved 12. Prior to the commencement of development detailed plans of the temporary buildings/ structures outlined in the Construction Plan shall be submitted and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The temporary structures shall be constructed as agreed. 13. The temporary structures on the site agreed within condition 12 shall be removed from site within three months of the building, hereby approved,

- 63 - 123 being brought into beneficial use and the site shall be developed in accordance with the proposed site plan MON-BDP-XX-00-PL-L-90002 REV P1. 14. No development shall be carried out until the local planning authority has approved in writing the full details of the protection of all retained trees in accordance with the Tree Removal and Retention Plan (Drg. No. Mon-BDP- XX -00-PL- L-90004). The details shall be in the form of a Tree Survey in accordance with British Standard 5837:2012 Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations and shall include the following information:

 A scaled plan of retained trees and their root protection areas (RPAs) shown on the proposed layout.  An arboricultural impact assessment.  An Arboricultural Method Statement where construction activity within the RPA of any retained tree is unavoidable.

15. No development, to include demolition, shall commence until an Arboriculturalist has been appointed, as first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to oversee the project (to perform a Watching Brief) for the duration of the development and who shall be responsible for – o Supervision and monitoring of the approved Tree Protection Plan; o Supervision and monitoring of the approved tree felling and pruning works; o Supervision of the alteration or temporary removal of any Barrier Fencing; o Oversee working within any Root Protection Area; o Reporting to the Local Planning Authority; o The Arboricultural Consultant will provide site progress reports to the Council's Tree Officer at intervals to be agreed by the Councils Tree Officer.

16. No development shall take place (including demolition, ground works, vegetation clearance) until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall consider the biodiversity interests of the site and the hydrological links to the River Monnow and River Wye SAC and include the following. a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities. b) Identification of “biodiversity protection zones”. c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (may be provided as a set of method statements). d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features. e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works. f) Responsible persons and lines of communication. g) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person. h) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs.

- 64 - 124

The approved CEMP shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

17. The landscaping of the site shall be implemented in strict accordance with the planting plan MON-BDP-XX-00-PL-L-90005 during the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development of the site or that part of the site to which the landscaping relates. Any trees, shrubs or hedges dying, being severely damaged, or becoming seriously diseased within five years from the date of planting shall be replaced with trees, shrubs and hedges of similar size and species to those originally required to be planted. 18. Prior to the structures being erected detailed plans of the cycle shelters, bin stores and sprinkler tanks shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented as agreed.

19. A Green Infrastructure Management Plan shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of the development. The content of the Management Plan shall build upon the principles in the submitted Landscape Masterplan Plan and include the following; a) Description and evaluation of Green Infrastructure assets to be managed. b) Trends and constraints on site that might influence management. c) Aims and objectives of management. d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives. e) Prescriptions for management actions. f) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a twenty-year period). g) Details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of the plan. h) Submission of a monitoring report for year 1, 5 and 10 and remedial measures. The Management Plan shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the Green Infrastructure Management Plan are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning Green Infrastructure objectives of the originally approved scheme. The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Informatives

The proposed development is crossed by a public sewer with the approximate position being marked on the attached Statutory Public Sewer Record. Under the Water Industry Act 1991 Dwr Cymru Welsh Water has rights of access to its apparatus at all times. No part of the building will be permitted within 3 metres either side of the centreline of the public sewer.

- 65 - 125

If a connection is required to the public sewerage system, the developer is advised to contact Dwr Cymru Welsh Water’s Developer Services on 0800 917 2652.

The proposed development is crossed by a distribution water main, the approximate position being shown on the attached plan. Dwr Cymru Welsh Water as Statutory Undertaker has statutory powers to access our apparatus at all times. The developer must consult Dwr Cymru Welsh Water before any development commences onsite.

Reference to Bats / Nesting Birds

- 66 - 126 DC/2015/00429

ERECTION OF ADVENTURE PLAYGROUND IN FARM FIELD CURRENTLY USED FOR SMALL ANIMAL PADDOCKS FOR FARM VISITORS

HUMBLE BY NATURE, UPPER MEEND FARM, LYDART, MONMOUTH

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Case Officer: Craig O’Connor Date Registered: 18th May 2015

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 The application seeks retrospective planning consent for the construction of an informal playground that is located to the north-west of the farm buildings associated with Upper Meend Farm. The children’s play area is constructed with wood and the surface around the playground area is laid with wood chippings.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

DC/2014/00606 Creation of a new field gate into an orchard field from the no- through road known locally as The Craig. Approved August 2014

DC/2014/00605Agrovutural Notification Two agricultural storage sheds Acceptable June 2014

DC/2013/00995 Change of use of scrubby corner of an agricultural field into a temporary camping area with accommodation for 2 people in shepherds hut and 'lamp hut' Approved February 2014

DC/2013/00657 Agricultural Notification for A passive solar greenhouse Acceptable August 2013

DC/2012/00819 Change of use of existing redundant agricultural buildings into a rural skills and education centre. Approved January 2013

3.0 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

Strategic Policies S10 Rural Enterprise S13 Landscape, Green Infrastructure and the Natural Environment

Development Management Policies EP1 Amenity and Environmental Protection DES1 General Design Considerations RE3 Agricultural diversification

- 67 - 127 RE6 Provision of Recreation, Tourism and Leisure Facilities in the Open Countryside LC1 New Built Development in the Open Countryside LC4 Wye Valley AONB

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultations Replies

Trellech United Community Council – recommended approval subject to the following : - 1. Had councillors been consulted before construction, they would have requested that a location closer to the farm be chosen, both for safety considerations and to minimise noise for neighbours. It should now be relocated closer to the farm. 2. A commitment should be sought that any further diversification of business at Meend Farm will only take place after consultation. The original business purpose of a working farm supported by a centre of excellence and education centre in rural skills seems to be receding into the distance.

4.2 Neighbour Notification

No response received.

5.0 EVALUATION

5.1 Principle of development

5.1.1 The principle of constructing the informal playground area at the site is considered to be acceptable. The children’s playground area is a minor, subservient element of the existing agricultural diversification of the farm unit which was previously approved under DC/2012/00891 for a rural skills and education centre. The playground would provide a recreational element in relation to the rural skills and education centre and would be used to entertain children visiting the site. The playground area is of a small scale and due to its informal construction the wooden playground assimilates with the surrounding landscape and does not cause any harm to the character and appearance of the rural landscape. The principle of constructing the children’s playground area is in accordance with Policies S10, RE3 and RE6 of the Local Development Plan (LDP).

5.2 Visual impact

5.2.1 The visual impact of the informal small scale children’s playground is considered to be acceptable. The playground is constructed with sympathetic materials, mainly wood. The natural materials ensure that the play structure site integrates well with the surrounding landscape features and it does not appear alien to the area. The playground is situated in an isolated field and is not particularly noticeable within the wider landscape. The playground is viewed in connection with the rural skills centre and appears as an ancillary

- 68 - 128 element of the overall site. The development does not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the landscape and does not harm the natural beauty of the Wye Valley AONB in accordance with Policies S13, S17, DES1 and LC4 of the LDP.

5.3 Residential amenity

5.3.1 The field is relatively isolated and the children’s playground is not considered to have an unacceptable impact on any other party. There are two properties to the north-east of the playground, namely Ridge Lea and The Graig. The playground is over 220 metres from these dwellings. The playground would not have an unacceptable impact on the occupiers of these properties in terms of their privacy or private amenity space. The playground would not be in use continuously and would only be used when the rural skills centre has visitors. The existing landscape features would also act to mitigate some of the noise generated. The playground would not result in a significant amount of noise that would warrant refusing the application. There have been no objections to the proposals.

5.3.2 The development in itself would not result in a significant amount of additional traffic to the site. The playground is a secondary part of the rural skills centre and as such additional traffic would not be generated by the development as the primary reason for the visit to the site would be to visit the rural skills centre.

5.4 Response to comments from Trellech Community Council

5.4.1 The applicant has applied for retrospective planning consent to regularise the construction of the playground and the merits of its location have been considered above. An alternative location for the children’s playground has not been considered as part of this application. As outlined in section 5.3 it is not considered that the playground has an unacceptable impact on any other party.

5.5 Conclusion

The small scale children playground would be used as an ancillary element of the existing agricultural diversification of the farm and run in conjunction with the agricultural and related activities of the farm unit. Its visual impact on the area is acceptable and it does not harm the natural beauty of the rural landscape which is within the AONB. The development would be in accordance with the relevant Policies in the LDP.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Conditions

None

- 69 - 129 DC/2015/00582

REMOVAL OF CONDITIONS 13, 14 AND 15 OF PLANNING PERMISSION DC/2012/00168

ROCKMON VIEW, ROCKFIELD, MONMOUTH

RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Case Officer: Craig O’Connor Date Registered: 18th May 2015

1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

1.1 The application seeks consent to remove conditions 13, 14 and 15 of the previous consent DC/2012/00168 for a second (retirement) dwelling at the established farm which relate to the Code of Sustainable Homes requirements. The application is presented to Committee as the applicant is a close relative of a Member of Planning Committee.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

DC/2015/00293 - Non material amendment (alteration of window to UPVC door to match) in relation to planning permission DC/2012/00168. Approved April 2015

DC/2014/01350 Discharge of condition 4 from application DC/2012/00168 Approved January 2015

DC/2014/00822 ‐ Discharge Condition 1 and condition 3 of DC/2014/00130. Highways Drainage and brick course; Approved September 2014

DC/2014/00130 Approval of details of layout, scale and appearance, landscaping and access. DC/2012/00168 Approved June 2014

DC/2012/00168 A second dwelling on an established farm for retirement purposes Approved August 2012

3.0 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

Strategic Policies S13 Landscape, Green Infrastructure and the Natural Environment S17 Place making and design

Development Management Policies EP1 Amenity and Environmental Protection DES1 General Design Considerations

- 70 - 130

4.0 REPRESENTATIONS

4.1 Consultations Replies

Llangattock Vibon Avel – No adverse comments to the application.

5.0 EVALUATION

5.1 Principle of removal of condition

5.1.1 The previous conditions that were added to the original planning consent DC/2012/00168 related to guidance within the previously cancelled Technical Advice Note (TAN) 22: Sustainable Buildings. This TAN was cancelled on 31 July 2014 which coincided with changes to Part L of the Building Regulations legislation. The requirement to build sustainable buildings is now implemented and monitored through the Building Regulations legislation. Rockmon View has been built to be a sustainable building under the recent Building Regulations and given that the TAN has now been cancelled the previously imposed conditions are not required. Thus, this application to remove the previously imposed conditions is considered to be acceptable.

6.0 RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE

Conditions

None

- 71 - 131