Delegated Decision 15 Oct 2015

Transcription

Report
Delegated
Part 1
Date:
15th October 2015
Subject
Planning Decision Schedule
Purpose
To notify Members of decisions made on Planning Applications
Author
Head of Regeneration, Investment and Housing
Ward
As indicated on the schedule
Summary The Head of Regeneration, Investment and Housing has delegated powers to determine
planning applications in accordance with the Council’s Scheme of Delegation. The
schedule attached details decisions made during the week up to 15th October 2015.
This report details planning decisions already taken and is provided for information
purposes. The reports contained in this schedule assess the proposed development
against relevant planning policy and other material planning considerations, and take into
consideration all consultation responses received.
The decisions made are expected to benefit the City and its communities by allowing good quality
development in the right locations and resisting inappropriate or poor quality development in the wrong
locations.
Proposal
To issue Decision Notices as shown on the attached schedule
Action by Head of Regeneration, Investment and Housing
Timetable Immediate
This report was prepared after consultation with:



Local Residents
Members
Statutory Consultees
The decisions detailed in this report were made following consultation as set out in the Council’s
approved policy on planning consultation and in accordance with legal requirements.
Signed
Background
This report details planning decisions already taken and is provided for information purposes. The
reports contained in this schedule assess the proposed development against relevant planning policy
and other material planning considerations, and take into consideration all consultation responses
received.
The decisions made are expected to benefit the City and its communities by allowing good quality
development in the right locations and resisting inappropriate or poor quality development in the wrong
locations.
Applications can be granted subject to planning conditions. Conditions must meet all of the following
criteria:
 Necessary;
 Relevant to planning legislation (i.e. a planning consideration);
 Relevant to the proposed development in question;
 Precise;
 Enforceable; and
 Reasonable in all other respects.
Applications can be granted subject to a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 (as amended). This secures planning obligations to offset the impacts of the
proposed development. However, in order for these planning obligations to be lawful, they must meet all
of the following criteria:
 Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
 Directly related to the development; and
 Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
The applicant has a statutory right of appeal against the refusal of permission in most cases. There is no
third party right of appeal against a decision.
Work is carried out by existing staff and there are no staffing issues. It is sometimes necessary to
employ a Barrister to act on the Council’s behalf in defending decisions at planning appeals. This cost is
met by existing budgets.
Where applicable as planning considerations, specific issues relating to sustainability and environmental
issues, equalities impact and crime prevention impact of each proposed development are addressed in
the relevant report in the attached schedule.
Financial Summary
The cost of determining planning applications and defending decisions at any subsequent appeal is met
by existing budgets and partially offset by statutory planning application fees. Costs can be awarded
against the Council at an appeal if the Council has acted unreasonably and/or cannot defend its
decisions. Similarly, costs can be awarded in the Council’s favour if an appellant has acted
unreasonably and/or cannot substantiate their grounds of appeal
Risks
Three risks are identified in relating to the determination of planning applications by Planning Committee:
decisions being overturned at appeal; appeals being lodged for failing to determine applications within
the statutory time period; and judicial review.
An appeal can be lodged by the applicant if permission is refused or if conditions are imposed. Costs
can be awarded against the Council if decisions cannot be defended as reasonable, or if it behaves
unreasonably during the appeal process, for example by not submitting required documents within
required timescales. Conversely, costs can be awarded in the Council’s favour if the appellant cannot
defend their argument or behaves unreasonably.
An appeal can also be lodged by the applicant if the application is not determined within the statutory
time period. However, with the type of major development being presented to the Planning Committee,
which often requires a Section 106 agreement, it is unlikely that the application will be determined within
the statutory time period. Appeals against non-determination are rare due to the further delay in
receiving an appeal decision: it is generally quicker for applicants to wait for the Planning Authority to
determine the application. Costs could only be awarded against the Council if it is found to have acted
unreasonably. Determination of an application would only be delayed for good reason, such as resolving
an objection or negotiating improvements or Section 106 contributions, and so the risk of a costs award
is low.
A decision can be challenged in the Courts via a judicial review where an interested party is dissatisfied
with the way the planning system has worked or how a Council has made a planning decision. A judicial
review can be lodged if a decision has been made without taking into account a relevant planning
consideration, if a decision is made taking into account an irrelevant consideration, or if the decision is
irrational or perverse. If the Council loses the judicial review, it is at risk of having to pay the claimant’s
full costs in bringing the challenge, in addition to the Council’s own costs in defending its decision. In the
event of a successful challenge, the planning permission would normally be quashed and remitted back
to the Council for reconsideration. If the Council wins, its costs would normally be met by the claimant
who brought the unsuccessful challenge. Defending judicial reviews involves considerable officer time,
legal advice, and instructing a barrister, and is a very expensive process. In addition to the financial
implications, the Council’s reputation may be harmed.
Mitigation measures to reduce risk are detailed in the table below. The probability of these risks
occurring is considered to be low due to the mitigation measures, however the costs associated with a
public inquiry and judicial review can be high.
Risk
Decisions
challenged at
appeal and
costs awarded
against the
Council.
Appeal lodged
against nondetermination,
with costs
Impact of
risk if it
occurs*
(H/M/L)
M
M
Probability
of risk
occurring
(H/M/L)
L
L
What is the Council doing or
what has it done to avoid the
risk or reduce its effect?
Ensure reasons for refusal can
be defended at appeal.
Who is
responsible
for dealing
with the risk?
Development
Services
Manager
Ensure planning conditions
imposed meet the tests set out
in Circular 016/2014.
Development
Services
Manager
Provide guidance to Planning
Committee regarding relevant
material planning
considerations, conditions and
reasons for refusal.
Development
Services
Manager and
Senior Legal
Officer
Ensure appeal timetables are
adhered to.
Development
Services
Manager
Avoid delaying the
determination of applications
unreasonably.
Development
Services
Manager
Risk
Impact of
risk if it
occurs*
(H/M/L)
Probability
of risk
occurring
(H/M/L)
H
L
What is the Council doing or
what has it done to avoid the
risk or reduce its effect?
Who is
responsible
for dealing
with the risk?
awarded
against the
Council
Judicial review
successful
with costs
awarded
against the
Council
Ensure sound and rational
decisions are made.
Development
Services
Manager
* Taking account of proposed mitigation measures
Links to Council Policies and Priorities
The Council’s Corporate Plan 2012-2017 identifies five corporate aims: being a Caring City; a Fairer
City; A Learning and Working City; A Greener and Healthier City; and a Safer City. Key priority
outcomes include ensuring people live in sustainable communities; enabling people to lead independent
lives; ensuring decisions are fair; improving the life-chances of children and young people; creating a
strong and confident local economy; improving the attractiveness of the City; promoting environmental
sustainability; ensuring people live in safe and inclusive communities; and making Newport a vibrant and
welcoming place to visit and enjoy.
Through development management decisions, good quality development is encouraged and the wrong
development in the wrong places is resisted. Planning decisions can therefore contribute directly and
indirectly to these priority outcomes by helping to deliver sustainable communities and affordable
housing; allowing adaptations to allow people to remain in their homes; improving energy efficiency
standards; securing appropriate Planning Contributions to offset the demands of new development to
enable the expansion and improvement of our schools and leisure facilities; enabling economic recovery,
tourism and job creation; tackling dangerous structures and unsightly land and buildings; bringing empty
properties back into use; and ensuring high quality ‘place-making’.
The Corporate Plan links to other strategies and plans, the main ones being:
 Single Integrated Plan;
 Newport Local Development Plan 2011-2026 (Adopted January 2015)
The Newport Single Integrated Plan (SIP) is the defining statement of strategic planning intent for the
next 3 years. It identifies key priorities for improving the City. Its vision is: “Working together to create a
proud and prosperous City with opportunities for all”
The Single Integrated Plan has six priority themes, which are:
• Skills and Work
• Economic Opportunity
• Health and Wellbeing
• Safe and Cohesive Communities
• City Centre
• Alcohol and Substance Misuse
Under Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 all planning applications must
be determined in accordance with the Newport Unitary Development Plan (Adopted May 2006) unless
material considerations indicate otherwise. Planning decisions are therefore based primarily on this core
Council policy.
Options Available
Not applicable. This report details decisions already made under delegated powers.
Preferred Option and Why
Not applicable. This report details decisions already made under delegated powers.
Comments of Chief Financial Officer
In the normal course of events, there should be no specific financial implications arising from the
determination of planning applications. There is a risk of decisions being challenged at appeal. The
costs of defending decisions and any award of costs must be met by existing budgets.
Comments of Monitoring Officer
There are no legal implications as the Reports are for information only and the decisions have already
been taken in accordance with the officer scheme of delegation.
Staffing Implications: Comments of Head of People and Business Change
Development Management work is undertaken by an in-house team and therefore there are no staffing
implications arising from this report. Officer recommendations have been based on adopted planning
policy which aligns with the Single Integrated Plan and the Council’s Corporate Plan objectives.
Local issues
Ward Members were notified of planning applications in accordance with the Council’s adopted policy on
planning consultation. Any comments made regarding a specific planning application are recorded in the
report in the attached schedule
Equalities Impact Assessment
The Equality Act 2010 contains a Public Sector Equality Duty which came into force on 06 April 2011.
The Act identifies a number of ‘protected characteristics’, namely age; disability; gender reassignment;
pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation; marriage and civil partnership.
The new single duty aims to integrate consideration of equality and good relations into the regular
business of public authorities. Compliance with the duty is a legal obligation and is intended to result in
better informed decision-making and policy development and services that are more effective for users.
In exercising its functions, the Council must have due regard to the need to: eliminate unlawful
discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other conduct that is prohibited by the Act; advance
equality of opportunity between persons who share a protected characteristic and those who do not; and
foster good relations between persons who share a protected characteristic and those who do not. The
Act is not overly prescriptive about the approach a public authority should take to ensure due regard,
although it does set out that due regard to advancing equality involves: removing or minimising
disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics; taking steps to meet the needs
of people from protected groups where these differ from the need of other people; and encouraging
people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities where their participation is
disproportionately low.
An Equality Impact Assessment for delivery of the Development Management service has been
completed and can be viewed on the Council’s website.
Children and Families (Wales) Measure
Although no targeted consultation takes place specifically aimed at children and young people,
consultation on planning applications and appeals is open to all of our citizens regardless of their age.
Depending on the scale of the proposed development, applications are publicised via letters to
neighbouring occupiers, site notices, press notices and/or social media. People replying to consultations
are not required to provide their age or any other personal data, and therefore this data is not held or
recorded in any way, and responses are not separated out by age.
Consultation
Comments received from wider consultation, including comments from elected members, are detailed in
each application report in the attached schedule.
Background Papers
NATIONAL POLICY
Planning Policy Wales (PPW) Edition 7 (July 2014)
Minerals Planning Policy Wales (December 2000)
PPW Technical Advice Notes (TAN):
TAN 1: Joint Housing Land Availability Studies (2006)
TAN 2: Planning and Affordable Housing (2006)
TAN 3: Simplified Planning Zones (1996)
TAN 4: Retailing and Town Centres (1996)
TAN 5: Nature Conservation and Planning (2009)
TAN 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities (2010)
TAN 7: Outdoor Advertisement Control (1996)
TAN 8: Renewable Energy (2005)
TAN 9: Enforcement of Planning Control (1997)
TAN 10: Tree Preservation Orders (1997)
TAN 11: Noise (1997)
TAN 12: Design (2014)
TAN 13: Tourism (1997)
TAN 14: Coastal Planning (1998)
TAN 15: Development and Flood Risk (2004)
TAN 16: Sport, Recreation and Open Space (2009)
TAN 18: Transport (2007)
TAN 19: Telecommunications (2002)
TAN 20: The Welsh Language: Unitary Development Plans and Planning Control (2013)
TAN 21: Waste (2014)
TAN 23: Economic Development (2014)
Minerals Technical Advice Note (MTAN) Wales 1: Aggregates (30 March 2004)
Minerals Technical Advice Note (MTAN) Wales 2: Coal (20 January 2009)
Welsh Government Circular 016/2014 on planning conditions
LOCAL POLICY
Newport Local Development Plan (LDP) 2011-2026 (Adopted January 2015)
Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG):
Affordable Housing (adopted August 2015)
Archaeology & Archaeologically Sensitive Areas (adopted August 2015)
Flat Conversions (adopted August 2015)
House Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings (adopted August 2015)
Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) (adopted August 2015)
New dwellings (adopted August 2015)
Parking Standards (adopted August 2015)
Planning Obligations (adopted August 2015)
Security Measures for Shop Fronts and Commercial Premises (adopted August 2015)
Wildlife and Development (adopted August 2015)
OTHER
The Colliers International Retail Study (July 2010) is not adopted policy but is a material consideration in
making planning decisions.
The Economic Development Strategy is a material planning consideration.
Section 17(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 imposes a duty on the Local Authority to exercise its
various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need
to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area.
The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations
1999 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Amendment)
(Wales) Regulations 2008 are relevant to the recommendations made.
Other documents and plans relevant to specific planning applications are detailed at the end of each
application report in the attached schedule
Dated: 15th October 2015
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 1
15/1110
Type:
FULL
Ward:
ALLT-YR-YN
Expiry Date: 08-NOV-2015
Applicant:
NATIONAL AUTISTIC SOCIETY
Site:
ST MARKS HOUSE, 3, GOLD TOPS, NEWPORT, NP20 4PG
Proposal:
CHANGE OF USE OF PROPERTY FROM VACANT OFFICES (B1) TO A DAY
SERVICE USE WITH ANCILLARY OFFICES (D1)
DECISION
GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
NEWPORT ACCESS GROUP: No response.
2.
2.1
INTERNAL COUNCIL ADVICE
HEAD OF STREETSCENE AND CITY SERVICES (HIGHWAYS): No objection.
2.2
HEAD OF LAW AND REGULATION (ENV.HEALTH): No objection.
2.3
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY REGENERATION MANAGER: No response.
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: All neighbours sharing a common boundary with the application site were
consulted (4 properties). No responses received.
4.
RELEVANT SITE HISTORY
None relevant
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks full planning permission for the change of use from offices to a day service
and ancillary offices, to be used by the National Autistic Society. The building is a semi detached
property located on Gold Tops. Accommodation is provided over four floors and the front
forecourt can provide parking for up to 7 cars. It is anticipated that the building would be used by
up to 20 people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder and around 10 full time members of staff.
5.2
Policies SP12 (Community Facilities), SP18 (Urban Regeneration), GP2 (General Amenity), GP4
(Highways and Accessibility), EM3 (Alternative Uses of Employment Land) and T4 (Parking) of
the Newport Local Development Plan are relevant to the determination of this application.
5.3
Policy SP12 states that the development of new community facilities in sustainable locations will
be encouraged including: places of worship and church halls, cemeteries, community centres,
health centres, day nurseries, clinics and consulting rooms.
5.4
Policy SP18 (ii), (iii) an (iv) state that proposals will be favoured which assist the regeneration of
the urban area, particularly where they contribute to:
ii) the provision of residential and business opportunities within the urban area;
iii) reuse of vacant, underused or derelict land;
iv) encourage the development of community uses where appropriate.
5.5
These policies give overall support for the change of use as it would provide some degree of
community/health care support. It would also bring a currently vacant building back into use and
create employment opportunities (although the loss of employment land is discussed in
paragraphs 5.6 to 5.9).
5.6
Policy EM3 states that development proposals promoting alternative uses on existing
employment sites will be resisted unless:
i) the site has been marketed unsuccessfully for employment purposes for a minimum of 12
months;
ii) there remains a sufficient range and choice of employment land and premises to meet LDP
requirements and local demand;
iii) the development has no adverse impact on existing or allocated employment sites;
iv) the development has no adverse impact on amenity or the environment.
5.7
The applicant has provided a summary of how the building has been marketed for an office use
since November 2013. The property was advertised by two agents and the price has been
reduced during that time. It is considered that the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that marketing has been unsuccessful for a minimum of 12 months.
5.8
The applicant has also provided sales particulars for 10 vacant office buildings which are being
actively marketed in the vicinity of the application site. These buildings range in size from 59 sqm
to 490 sqm (the application building is 470 sqm). It is considered that there is a sufficient range
and choice of office accommodation in the surrounding area to meet local demand; and the
proposed change of use would not significantly alter this. Furthermore the Employment Land
Review (2013) produced to inform the preparation of the Local Development Plan has indicated
that there is 7.5-9 years worth of supply of available office accommodation within Newport; and
there is an over supply of second hand accommodation relative to demand, with a significant
proportion located within the city centre.
5.9
The nearest allocated employment site is around 100m away and is the Godfrey Road site which
is a 2 Ha site recommended for B1 office development. It is not considered that the proposed
change of use would have any adverse impacts on this allocation. The surrounding area consists
of a number of office buildings it is not considered that the proposed use would conflict with any
of these existing employment sites.
5.10
Policy GP2 (i) states that development will be permitted where, there will not be a significant
adverse effect on local amenity, including in terms of noise, disturbance, privacy, overbearing,
light, odours and air quality.
5.11
Two residential properties are located south of the application site. It is not considered that the
proposed use would give rise to any harmful impacts in terms of noise or disturbance on these
properties. The Head of Law and Regulation (Environmental Health) has no objection in this
respect. There are no external alterations proposed and therefore there are no issues of
overbearing or loss of light and privacy.
5.12
Policy GP4 and T4 require development proposals to provide suitable provision for car parking.
5.13
In line with the Parking Standards Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), the existing office
use would generate a demand for 14 No parking spaces. The site can currently provide 7 parking
spaces. The proposed use is not expressly identified in the SPG however it is most akin to a
health centre or an educational setting. The worst case scenario for parking requirements would
be 1 space per each staff member and 1 commercial vehicle space. This would equate to 11
parking spaces which is a lesser demand than the existing use and the Head of Streetscene and
City Services (Highways) has no objection to the proposals.
6.
6.1
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Crime and Disorder Act 1998
Section 17(1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 imposes a duty on the Local Authority to
exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions
on, and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent, crime and disorder in its area. This
duty has been considered in the evaluation of this application. It is considered that there would
be no significant or unacceptable increase in crime and disorder as a result of the proposed
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act 2010 identifies a number of ‘protected characteristics’, namely age; disability;
gender reassignment; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex; sexual orientation;
marriage and civil partnership.
6.3
Having due regard to advancing equality involves:
 removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected
characteristics;
 taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these differ from the
need of other people; and
 encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities
where their participation is disproportionately low.
6.4
The above duty has been given due consideration in the determination of this application. It is
considered that the proposed development does not have any significant implications for, or
effect on, persons who share a protected characteristic, over and above any other person.
6.5
Planning (Wales) Act 2015 (Welsh language)
considered that the proposed development does not materially affect the use of the Welsh
language in Newport.
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
The proposed development is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with Policies
SP12, SP18, GP2, GP4, EM3 and T4 of the Newport Local Development Plan 2011-2026.
Planning permission is granted with conditions.
8.
DECISION
01 The development shall be implemented in accordance with the following plans and
documents: proposed/existing floor plans, site location plan, sales particulars, access statement
(Asbri Planning Ltd) and Planning Statement (Asbri Planning Ltd).
Reason: In the interests of clarity and to ensure the development complies with the submitted
plans and documents on which this decision was based.
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 The development plan for Newport is the Newport Local Development Plan 2011 – 2026
(Adopted January 2015). Policies SP12, SP18, GP2, GP4, EM3 and T4 were relevant to the
determination of this application.
02 Due to the minor nature of the proposed development (including any demolition) and the
location of the proposed development, it is considered that the proposals did not need to be
screened under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 2
15/0914
Type:
FULL
Ward:
ALWAY
Expiry Date: 11-OCT-2015
Applicant:
G WELLAND
Site:
508, CHEPSTOW ROAD, NEWPORT, NP19 9DB
Proposal:
PROPOSED SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION AND BALCONY WITH LOWER
GROUND FLOOR GARDEN ROOM BELOW, TO REPLACE EXISTING
CONSERVATORY (WITH UNDER ROOM), AMENDED SIDE ACCESS RAMPS TO
REAR GARDEN AND NEW RAISED ACCESS AND STEPS TO SIDE
DECISION
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
DWR CYMRU/WELSH WATER: Advise that there is a public sewer on site and no development
is permitted to take place within the protected zone.
2.
2.1
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: All properties sharing a common boundary were consulted (two addresses). No
responses were received.
4.
None
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks full planning permission for a proposed single storey rear extension and
balcony (with a lower ground floor garden room below) to replace an existing conservatory (with
under room) with amended side access ramps to rear garden and new raised access and steps
to side at 508 Chepstow Road in the Always Ward.
5.2
The property is a 1930s bay fronted semi-detached domestic dwelling located in a row of similarly
designed semi-detached properties that front onto the southern carriageway of the busy main
route of Chesptow Road. The property is set within a curtilage comprised of a front garden with
driveway (that slopes downwards from the highway level to the house) and a private rear garden.
The rear garden is set on a lower ground level than the ground floor of the property by
approximately 0.6 metres.
5.3
The proposal is to remove an existing conservatory and to construct a single storey rear
extension with a balcony area and garden room at basement level. The extension would provide
a breakfast/sitting area for the property with storage room below. A timber ramp providing access
to the rear garden from the driveway and a new set of steps providng a side access to the
property are also proposed.
5.4
The rear extension would measure a depth of 4.1 metres with a width of 4.7 metres. It would
have an eaves height of 4.7 metres to the rear garden level with a ridge height of 5.1 metres to
ground level adjacent to the rear building line of the original house. The rear balcony would
project at ground floor level from the breakfast/sitting room at a depth of 2 metres with a width of
4.7 metres (equal to the extension). The deck level of the balcony would be 2 metres from garden
level at the highest point. A 1.8 metre high privacy screen would be installed along the northeastern elevation of the balcony.
5.5
Fenestration would be comprised of patio doors (with two small windows either side) serving the
breakfast/sitting room at ground floor level and an access door serving the garden room at
basement level in the south-east facing rear elevation of the extension. No doors or windows
would be installed into either side elevation of the proposed extension. Existing windows within
the south-west facing side elevation of the main house are to be altered and a new side access
door installed that would serve the kitchen.
5.6
Policies GP2 (General Amenity) and GP6 (Quality of Design) of the Newport Local Development
Plan (NLDP) 2011-2026 (adopted January 2015) are relevant to the determination of this
application. The adopted House Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings supplementary planning
guidance (SPG) is also relevant to the determination of this application.
5.7
The proposed extension would not have the potential to impact on neighbouring amenities in
terms of access to daylight as it would be set significantly away from both north-eastern and
south-western intervening boundaries. In terms of privacy no windows or doors are proposed to
be installed within the extension that would face directly over neighbouring properties. The
existing conservatory has glazed (and un-obscured) side elevations that provide views directly
towards neighbouring properties. The removal of any side facing windows would improve privacy
to both 506 and 510 Chepstow Road. The balcony has the potential to offer views over
neighbouring properties. To the north-east any direct views over 510 Chepstow Road would be
screened by a 1.8 metres high timber privacy screen. To the south-west a detached garage at
506 would provide screening to a rear patio so no direct overlooking from the balcony would be
created towards either neighbouring property.
5.8
The new kitchen door to be installed within the side elevation of the existing house would
effectively create a new kitchen window with potential to overlooking existing side facing windows
at 506 Chepstow Road. The kitchen door would be considered to serve a habitable room (as the
kitchen would also have a breakfast/sitting area so there is potential for some overlooking to
occur. A planning condition can be used to require that the door is installed with obscure glazing
(as per the existing side facing windows at the property) in order to preserve privacy to the
occupiers of 506 Chepstow Road. As such it is considered that, subject to conditions, the
proposals are in accordance with policy GP2 of the NLDP and the adopted SPG and are
acceptable.
5.9
The rear extension would be constructed using materials to match the existing house so would
preserve the character and appearance of the property. A small section of the side elevation of
the extension would be viewable from the public highway at Chepstow Road, but this would have
very little impact on the setting within the street scene. In design terms the proposed extension
and associated alterations would preserve the visual appearance of the property and the street
scene and would be in accordance with policy GP6 of the NLDP and the adopted SPG and are
acceptable.
5.10
Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water have commented that there is a public sewer running through the site. A
plan extract provided shows that the sewer runs through the front garden of the property so would
be unaffected by the works to the rear of the property. As such there is no reason to conclude
that the proposal would have any adverse impacts on the public sewer system. The Head of
Streetscene and City Services (Highways) has offered no objection to the proposed scheme.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
The proposed single storey rear extension and balcony (with a lower ground floor garden room
below) to replace an existing conservatory (with under room) with amended side access ramps to
rear garden and new raised access and steps by reasons of the location, scale and design would
preserve visual amenities, access to daylight and privacy to neighbouring occupiers and would
preserve the character and appearance of the property and the street scene.
7.2
The proposal is therefore in accordance with policies GP2 and GP6 of the Newport Local
Development Plan (NLDP) 2011-2026 (adopted January 2015) and the adopted House
Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings supplementary planning guidance.
7.3
Planning Permission is granted subject to the following conditions.
8.
DECISION
documents: KD1525/2A - Proposed.
Pre –occupation conditions
02 Prior to the first beneficial use of the balcony hereby approved the 1.8 metre high solid timber
privacy screen shall be installed along the north-eastern edge in accordance with approved plan
no. KD1525/2A – Proposed and shall be retained in accordance with those details thereafter.
Reason: To protect privacy to neighbouring occupiers.
General conditions
03 The rear extension hereby approved shall be constructed using materials to match the
external appearance of the main house and shall be retained in that state thereafter.
Reason: To ensure development that is compatible with its surroundings.
04 Glazing to the kitchen door and relocated kitchen window shall be obscure glazed in its
entirety and shall be retained in that state thereafter.
05 No window or door openings shall be formed in either side elevation of the extension hereby
approved.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity.
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to plan Nos: KD1525/1 – Existing and Site Plans; KD1525/2A –
Proposed; Site Location Plan.
(Adopted January 2015). Policies GP2 and GP6 were relevant to the determination of this
application.
03 The following supplementary planning guidance was adopted following consultation and was
relevant to the determination of this planning application House Extensions and Domestic
Outbuildings.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 3
15/1036
Type:
FULL
Ward:
ALWAY
Applicant:
B. MCDONAGH
Site:
67, ABERTHAW DRIVE, NEWPORT, NP19 9QB
Proposal:
TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION
DECISION
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
DWR CYMRU (WELSH WATER): Have offered no specific comments on the application, but
have advised that some public sewers and lateral drains may not be recorded on their maps so
the applicant is advised to contact Dwr Cymru to establish the location of the sewer.
2.
2.1
HEAD OF LAW AND REGULATION (CONTAMINATION): A planning condition to control
unforeseen contamination is required.
2.2
HEAD OF STREETSCENE AND CITY SERVICES (HIGHWAYS): Raises a concern that three
off-street parking spaces may not be available following the development. No parking plan has
been submitted to confirm parking provision.
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
4.
None
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks full planning permission for the erection of a two storey side extension at
67 Aberthaw Drive in the Alway Ward.
5.2
The property is a 1970s end-of-terrace domestic dwelling located in an area characterised by
similarly designed terraced and semi-detached dwellings. The property is set within a curtilage
comprised of a front yard with driveway parking for two vehicles and a private rear garden with
side vehicular access to Aberthaw Drive providing an additional off-street parking space. The
proposal is to construct a two storey side extension, over an area of side yard, to provide an
additional lounge and dining room at ground floor level and two additional bedrooms at first floor
level.
5.3
The extension would measure a width of 3.65 metres and would have a depth of 6.95 metres.
The front elevation of the extension would be set back 1 metre from the front building line of the
main house and the rear of the extension would be flush with the existing rear building line of the
main house. The extension would have an eaves height of 5.4 metres with a ridge height of 7.5
metres to the main ridge of the extension.
5.4
Fenestration would be comprised of a lounge window at ground floor level and a bedroom
window at first floor level in the front facing north-west elevation. No windows or doors would be
installed into the south-west facing side elevation. Patio doors serving the dining room would be
installed at ground floor level and a first floor bedroom window would be installed at first floor
level within the south-east facing rear elevation. The extension would be constructed from brown
woodgrain UPVC windows, red rustic brick cills, smooth render walls painted white and brown
concrete roof tiles.
5.5
Policies GP2 (General Amenity), GP4 (Highways and Access) and GP6 (Quality of Design) of the
Newport Local Development Plan (NLDP) 2011-2026 (adopted January 2015) are relevant to the
determination of this application. The adopted House Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings and
Parking Standards 2015 supplementary planning guidance (SPG) are also relevant to the
5.6
The adopted House Extensions SPG outlines the acceptable design criteria that most two storey
extensions are expected to adhere to in order to be considered to be of a good design. For side
extensions it is expected that a minimum front set back of 1 metre should be provided and the
roof of the extension should be set down from the ridge height of the existing house. The
proposal incorporates both a roof set down and adequate front set back. However, the SPG
states that side extensions should not normally exceed 50% of the width of the existing house. In
this case the proposed extension marginally exceeds this 50% width at the front elevation. The
visual impact of the proposed width would not appear out of scale with the existing house and
would result in a subservient addition to the property. It is considered overall that the side
extension would not harm the character and appearance of the main house or the setting within
the street scene so is acceptable.
5.7
No daylight would be reduced to neighbouring domestic properties since the closest neighbouring
properties to the north and south that could be affected are located significant distances from the
proposed extension. The proposed extension would create additional windows at first floor level
that would overlook domestic properties to the north and south. The distances would be near to
21 metres in both cases and the windows that would be overlooked would be front facing and
already overlooked by existing windows in the property as well as from users of the public
highway, so it is not a concern that any reduction in privacy would be harmful or over and above
that currently experienced.
5.8
The Head of Streetscene and City Services (Highways) has raised a concern that the three offstreet parking spaces that would remain on the front drive and side parking area may be
inadequate in terms of the size. The front driveway at the property is large (approximately 9
metres depth by 8.5 metres width) and can accommodate 2-3 off street parking spaces. An
additional off-street parking space is located at the south-west area of the rear garden. As such it
is considered that the proposal would be in accordance with policy GP4, the Parking Standards
SPG and highway safety would not be affected.
5.9
The wider area is marked as a potential historic landfill site which means that there is potential for
contaminated materials to be discovered during ground disturbance works. The Head of Law and
Regulation (Contamination) has confirmed that, in the event that unforeseen contamination is
discovered, construction must cease and a contamination remediation report be submitted to the
Council. Given the scale of the development the imposition of a planning condition is reasonable
in this case.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
The proposed two storey side extension by reasons of its location, scale and design would
7.2
The proposal is therefore in accordance with policies GP2, GP4 and GP6 of the Newport Local
Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings and Parking Standards 2015 supplementary planning
guidance.
7.3
8.
DECISION
documents: 21767 - 6A - Proposed Ground Floor Plan; 21767 - 7A - Proposed First Floor Plan;
21767 - 8A - Proposed Front Elevation; 21767 - 9A - Proposed Side Elevation; 21767 - 10A Proposed Rear Elevation.
General conditions
02 Three off-street parking spaces shall be retained and kept available for the parking of motor
vehicles at all times.
Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision is retained at the property.
03 Any unforeseen ground contamination encountered during development, to include
demolition, shall be notified to the Local Planning Authority as soon as is practicable. Unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority as unnecessary, an appropriate
ground investigation and/or remediation strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority, and the approved strategy shall be implemented in full prior to
further works on site. Following remediation and prior to the occupation of any building, a
Completion/Verification Report, confirming the remediation has being carried out in accordance
with the approved details, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority.
Reason: To ensure that any potential risks to human health or the wider environment which may
arise as a result of potential land contamination are satisfactorily addressed.
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to plan Nos: 21767 – 1 – Existing Ground Floor Plan; 21767 – 2 –
Existing First Floor Plan; 21767 – 3 – Existing Front Elevation; 21767 – 4 – Existing Side
Elevation; 21767 – 5 – Existing Rear Elevation; 21767 - 6A - Proposed Ground Floor Plan; 21767
- 7A - Proposed First Floor Plan; 21767 - 8A - Proposed Front Elevation; 21767 - 9A - Proposed
Side Elevation; 21767 - 10A - Proposed Rear Elevation; Site Location Plan.
(Adopted January 2015). Policies GP2, GP4 and GP6 were relevant to the determination of this
application.
Outbuildings and Parking Standards 2015.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 4
15/0747
Type:
FULL
Ward:
BEECHWOOD
Expiry Date: 16-SEP-2015
Applicant:
IAN BELL
Site:
4, KENSINGTON GROVE, NEWPORT, NP19 8GJ
Proposal:
PART TWO STOREY, PART FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSION
DECISION: REFUSED
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
NONE
2.
2.1
HEAD OF REGENERATION, INVESTMENT AND HOUSING (CONSERVATION): The extension
will be highly visible from Chepstow Road where it’s seen in the context of the formal elevations
on Kensington Court Clinic. The extension is fine in principle as it’s an informal rear elevation
that’s currently pebble dashed, although the window proportions/details should be changed so
that they’re more traditional.
2.2
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: Neighbours with a common boundary were consulted and a site notice was
erected outside the property. No representations have been received.
4.
4.1
NONE
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a two-storey extension to the rear
of this terraced property, located in the Kensington Grove Conservation Area. There is an
existing part two-storey, part single-storey element extending from the rear of the property and it
is proposed to increase the width of the single storey section and extend its height to two storeys.
The resultant extension will measure 3.4m in width by 4m in depth (7.7m when combined with the
existing two storey element) with a maximum height of 7.2m underneath a pitched roof. A window
and door are provided in the northern elevation at ground floor level and two windows in the rear
elevation, one at ground floor level and one at first floor level. No windows are proposed in the
southern elevation overlooking the rear garden of no. 2 Kensington Grove.
5.2
The terrace within of which the application property is sited, all have limited space to the rear and
their rear boundaries run perpendicular to and abut the side boundary of 197 Chepstow Road, a
three storey former hotel building, now known as Kensington Court Clinic. The rear gardens of
these properties are small and many of them have two storey protrusions to their rear (seemingly
original features) and by the nature of the setting there is an existing degree of overlooking and
limited natural day-light.
5.3
No. 2 and 4 Kensington Grove share a two-storey gable ended element to their rear. The existing
single storey element at no. 4 extends beyond this and forms part of the northern boundary with
no. 2.
5.4
In 2007 planning permission was granted to convert the first floor of Kensington Court into
residential flats (planning permission 05/1369). The approved floor plans show that the windows
overlooking the rear of the application site serve habitable rooms; being a bedroom and living
area.
5.5
Policies GP2 (General Amenity) and GP6 (Good Design) and CE7 (Conservation Area) of the
Newport Local Development Plan 2011 – 2026 (Adopted January 2015) are relevant to the
determination of this application. GP2 seeks to prevent significant harm to amenity of
neighbouring occupants and future occupants of proposals. GP6 states that development should
be sensitive to the context of the site and be appropriately scaled. Policy CE7 states that
development within or adjacent to conservation areas will be required to preserve views or
enhance its character or appearance and avoid adverse impact on any significant within towards
and outward from the conservation area.
5.6
The Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings
(Adopted August 2015) is also relevant to the determination of this application. It states that the
size and form of extensions should be appropriate to the building and space around it and that
rear extensions should generally not be more than 3m deep. It also states that high level
protected windows overlooking neighbouring properties will almost always be unacceptable and
where they do face each other should be a minimum of 21m apart.
5.7
The first floor window of the proposed extension would be 7.5m away from the protected
windows in the adjacent flat. The existing window is 11.5m away, which breached the 21m
separation distance in the SPG, however, this was a historic scenario and to reduce that distance
by a further 4m would have a significant adverse effect on the privacy of both the occupants of
197 Chepstow Road and no. 4 Kensington Grove. It is noted that the windows in the flat in 197
Chepstow Road are set at a higher level than the application site, however the potential for
overlooking is still an issue and is considered unacceptable.
5.8
Owing to its two storey height and depth, there is a risk that the proposal could appear
overbearing to its neighbours at 2 and 6 Kensington Grove. However, the impact of the proposal
is not considered to have any significant adverse effect over and above the existing scenario.
Furthermore, light splays from protected windows are already affected by original features on the
rear of these properties, which owing to their orientation already receive very little light, so there
will not be an additional impact in terms of loss of light.
5.9
The Head of Streetscene and City Services (Highways) has not objected to the proposal. The
extension will be visible when looking towards the Conservation Area from Chepstow Road,
however, it is considered that since it is viewed within the context of the pebble-dashed rear of
the existing property, it will not have a significant adverse effect on the character or appearance
of the Conservation Area, although a better window design would be preferable.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3



removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected
characteristics;
taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these differ from the
encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
The proposed extension would reduce the distance between protected windows in 197 Chepstow
Road to an unacceptable level which will have an adverse impact upon the privacy of both the
occupants of the application property and those of 197 Chepstow Road. This is contrary to
policies GP2 and GP6 of the Local Development Plan and the guidance within the SPG. Planning
permission is therefore refused.
8.
DECISION
REFUSED
01
The proposed extension would reduce the distance between protected windows in the
application property and windows in the flat at 197 Chepstow Road to an unacceptable level to
the detriment of the residential amenities of occupants of both properties in terms of loss of
privacy and contrary to policies GP2 and GP6 of the Newport Local Development Plan 2011 to
2026 (Adopted January 2015) and the Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions
and Domestic Curtilages (Adopted August 2015).
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to: site location plan, Proposed side elevation (south), proposed rear
elevation, block plan, Proposed ground floor plan, proposed side elevation, existing side
elevation, existing rear elevation, existing first floor plan, existing ground floor plan, proposed first
floor plan.
(Adopted January 2015). Policies GP2, GP6 and CE7 were relevant to the determination of this
application.
03 The Newport Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions and Domestic
Curtilages (Adopted August 2015) was relevant to the determination of this application.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 5
15/0866
Ward:
BETTWS
Type:
RENEWALS AND VARIATION OF CONDITIONS
Expiry Date: 13-SEP-2015
Applicant:
T FAULKNER
Site:
CRAIG-Y-CEILIOG LANE, BETTWS, NEWPORT, NP20 7AE
Proposal:
VARIATION OF STANDARD CONDITION TO EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR
COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT BY 1 YEAR OF PLANNING PERMISSION
10/0475 FOR CONVERSION OF STORAGE BARN AT STABLES TO RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY
DECISION: GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
NATURAL RESOURCES WALES: No adverse comment to make in light of the application to
extend the time limit. However, the applicant should seek a European Protected Species licence
from NRW under Regulation 53(2)e of The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations
2010 before any works on site commence that may impact upon bats.
1.2
DWR CYMRU WELSH WATER: As the applicant intends utilising private drainage facilities it is
advised that they contact Natural Resources Wales who may have an input in the regulation of
this method of drainage disposal. However, should circumstances change and a connection to
the public sewerage system/public sewerage treatment works is preferred Dwr Cymru Welsh
Water must be re-consulted.
1.3
GWENT BAT GROUP: No response.
1.4
GWENT WILDLIFE GROUP: No response.
1.5
WALES AND WEST UTILITIES: No response.
2.
2.1
HEAD OF STREETSCENE AND CITY SERVICES (HIGHWAYS): No objections
2.2
HEAD OF STREETSCENE AND CITY SERICES (BIODIVERSITY): No objection as the bat
survey carried out confirmed the presence of bats and the requirement to provide a method
statement remains the same. A license from NRW must be applied for to undertake the proposed
works.
2.3
HEAD OF REGENERATION, INVESTMENT AND HOUSING (CONSERVATION): No response
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NONE
4.
10/0475 CONVERSION OF STORAGE BARN AT STABLES TO RESIDENTIAL GRANTED
PROPERTY
CONDITIONS
5.
ASSESSMENT
WITH
5.1
This application seeks permission to vary the standard time limit condition of planning permission
15/0866 to extend the time period for commencement by one year. The time period for
commencement of the original application expired on 24 August 2015, 5 years after the decision
date.
5.2
The applicant states that the additional time is necessary in order to carry out survey work
required by the previous permission.
5.3
Although the Local Development Plan 2011 – 2026 (Adopted May January 2026) is now in place
rather than the Newport Unitary Development Plan, the principles of the countryside conversions
policy are similar. There have been no substantial changes in the relevant policies or
circumstances applicable to the proposal since planning permission was granted in 2010.
5.4
There have been no objections to the proposed variation of condition and the Head of
Streetscene and City Services (Biodiversity) has not objected to the extension in the time for
commencement since the presence of bats is known and has already been demonstrated and
mitigation measures proposed.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
The proposed application to vary the standard time limit condition of planning permission 10/0475
is considered acceptable and planning permission is therefore approved.
8.
DECISION
APPROVED
Standard Conditions
The development must begin no later than the expiration of ONE YEAR from the date of this
permission
Reason: To conform with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act
1990.
Additional conditions
documents: TF 01/03b, Bat Mitigation Strategy dated August 2010 by David Clements Ecology,
and email from applicant’s ecologist dated 18th August 2010 submitted with application 10/0475.
Pre-commencement conditions
02 Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, full details of the proposed boundary treatments
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to
development commencing. The boundary treatments shall be constructed in accordance with the
approved details prior to the first occupation of the converted barn and then maintained
thereafter.
Reason: To ensure the development is completed in a satisfactory manner and to ensure that the
curtilage is clearly defined.
03 Notwithstanding the details on the plans hereby approved and prior to the commencement of
any works on the construction of the approved scheme, full details of the roof lights shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The roof lights shall be
inserted as approved.
Reason: To ensure that the roof lights do not represent overly bulky additions to the roof in the
interest of maintaining the barn’s character and appearance.
04 Full details of the foul and surface drainage systems shall submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority prior to development commencing. The details shall be
implemented fully in accordance with the approved scheme prior to the occupation of the
converted barn.
Reason: To ensure adequate drainage is provided.
05 No site works shall be undertaken until the implementation of an appropriate programme of
building recording and analysis has been agreed with the local planning authority, to be carried
out by a specialist acceptable to the local planning authority and in accordance with an agreed
written brief and specification.
Reason: As the building is of significance the specified records are necessary to mitigate the
impact of the proposed development.
Pre – construction conditions
06 No work shall be commenced on the construction of the approved scheme until
details/samples of materials and finishes to be used on the external surfaces (to include walls,
roof, windows, rainwater goods and doors) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out using the approved
materials.
Reason: To ensure that the development is completed in an acceptable manner that preserves
the architectural character of the building.
07 No use shall be made of the building hereby approved until the parking and access area have
been provided as indicated on the plan(s) hereby approved in accordance with details of the hard
landscaping that have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Thereafter, this area shall be kept available for car parking purposes for the converted
barn only at all times.
Reason: To ensure that adequate parking provision is provided and in the interests of highway
safety.
General conditions
08 No lighting or lighting fixtures shall be attached to the barn or be positioned in the curtilage so
as to illuminate the bat roosts entrances as shown on the plans hereby approved.
Reason: To protect the European protected species of conservation concern.
09 Bat monitoring surveys shall be undertaken each year during the months of June or July in
years 1, 3 and 5; the date of the project completion and occupation of the barn being year 0.
Surveys shall be undertaken by an appropriately experienced and qualified ecologist and shall be
submitted to the local planning authority at the end of each yearly survey period.
Reason: To protect the European protected species of conservation concern.
10 The occupation of the barn conversion shall be limited to a person(s) solely or mainly
employed (or if not employed, last employed), with the equestrian business at the site (including
any dependants of such a person residing with him/her) or a widow or widower of such a person.
Reason: Policy H8 of the current development plan (Newport Unitary Development Plan) 19962011 (Adopted May 2006)) states that barn conversion must be justified and a business re-use
should be considered firstly. In this case the development is only justified because of the
proximity of the barn to the existing equestrian use and the separation of the two would give rise
to general noise and disturbance issues.
11 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 as amended (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order),
Schedule 2, no development within Part 1 Classes A, B, C, D, E, or H, nor any development
within Part 40 Classes A, B, C, D, E or F shall be carried out without the prior written permission
of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory form of development takes place and to protect the rural
character of the area in accordance with Policy H8.
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to plan Nos: TF 01/03b, TF 01 / 03, supporting photos sent in on 29th
June 2010 with email from agent, Bat Mitigation Strategy dated August 2010 by David Clements
Ecology, email from applicant’s ecologist dated 18th August 2010, design, justification and
access statement, site location plan, initial bat report by Smith Ecology, structural report by Steve
Morgan Associates.
(Adopted January 2015). Policies SP5, SP7, GP2, GP3, GP5, GP6, H10 and CE6 were relevant
to the determination of this application.
03 Where any species listed under Schedule 2 or 4 of the Conservation (Natural Habitats & C.)
Regulations 1994 is present on site, as is the case here, no works of site clearance, demolition or
construction shall take place in pursuance of this permission unless a licence to disturb any such
species has been granted in accordance with the aforementioned Regulations. Please contact
natural resources Wales for more information.
04 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the developer should
contact the Council's Spatial Data Unit on 01633 233263 regarding street naming and numbering.
05 As consideration of this request did not raise significant additional environmental matters over
and above those previously considered as part of the original application, it is considered that the
proposals did not need to be screened under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 6
15/1065
Type:
FULL
Ward:
CAERLEON
Applicant:
J MOORE
Site:
23, HIGHFIELD CLOSE, CAERLEON, NEWPORT, NP18 3DW
Proposal:
RETENTION AND COMPLETION OF BALCONY
DECISION
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
None
2.
2.1
None
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: All properties sharing a common boundary were consulted (two addresses). One
letter in support of the application was received from the occupiers of 48 Northfield Road stating
that the replacement balcony is an improvement to the balcony that was previously in place.
4.
None
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks full planning permission for the retention and completion of a balcony at 23
Highfield Close in the Caerleon Ward.
5.2
The property is a detached domestic dwelling located in an area of detached properties of
varying design. The property is set within a curtilage comprised of a front garden with large paved
driveway and a rear private garden. The current balcony is a recent replacement of a smaller
balcony that had been in place for a number of years. The former balcony did not appear to have
been used in recent years as it did not have any kind of balustrade or support surrounding the
platform. The replacement balcony spans a width of 7.8 metres (equal to the previous balcony)
and has a depth of 2.2 metres (0.3 metres greater in depth than the previous balcony). A 1.1
metre high aluminium frame balustrade, with clear glazed panels between, has also been erected
around the perimeter of the balcony. 1.8 metre high timber privacy screens are proposed to be
installed along each side elevation of the current balcony.
5.3
Plan (NLDP) 2011-2026 (adopted January 2015) are relevant to the determination of this
application. The adopted House Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings supplementary planning
guidance (SPG) is also relevant to the determination of this application.
5.4
The major concern with this application is the potential harm to neighbouring privacy caused by
overlooking from the balcony. The application is to retain the current balcony that had been
constructed as a replacement of an existing balcony. As such it is reasonable to consider that
there would have been a degree of overlooking to neighbouring properties from the previous
balcony. It does appear that the previous balcony had not been used in recent years as no
balustrade had been present. However, the potential for it to have been repaired or used without
a balustrade did exist so it cannot be considered that the replacement balcony creates an entirely
new impact on neighbouring privacy. The replacement balcony is marginally larger than the
previous and has a balustrade to allow it to be safely used, so it can be considered that the
overlooking created as a result is worse than previously experienced.
5.5
To reduce any harm to neighbouring privacy the applicant proposes to construct 1.8 metre high
timber privacy screens along each side elevation of the balcony. Both intervening boundaries
(shared with 22 Highfield Close and 48 Northfield Road) feature substantial boundary hedges
that provide significant screening between the gardens of the properties. The hedges do not run
directly up to the properties and on both boundaries there is a gap where direct overlooking
would be created from the side of the balcony. The proposed screens would remove this
overlooking and any views left of neighbouring properties from the rear of the balcony would be
mainly screened by boundary hedges and would not be harmful to neighbouring privacy. Subject
to planning conditions requiring the installation and retention of the proposed privacy screens the
proposal is considered to be in accordance with policy GP2 of the NLDP and the adopted House
Extensions SPG and is acceptable.
5.6
In design terms the current balcony is an improvement to the previous balcony and is considered
to be in accordance with policy GP6 of the NLDP and the adopted SPG and is acceptable.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
The rear balcony by reasons of its location, scale and design would preserve visual amenities,
access to daylight and privacy to neighbouring occupiers and would preserve the character and
appearance of the property and the street scene.
7.2
Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings supplementary planning guidance.
7.3
8.
DECISION
documents: DRG REF 2 – ‘As-Built’ Elevations of 23 Highfield Close, Caerleon; DRG. REF 3 –
Site Plan of 23 Highfield Close, Caerleon; Example Photo of Privacy Screen.
General conditions
02 Within one month of the date of this decision the 1.8 metre high solid timber screens shall be
installed in the location shown on approved plan no. DRG. REF 2 - ‘As-Built’ Elevations of 23
Highfield Close, Caerleon and shall be retained in that state thereafter or until such a time that
the rear balcony is removed.
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to plan Nos: DRG. REF 1 – Previous Elevations of 23 Highfield Close,
Caerleon; DRG. REF 2 - ‘As-Built’ Elevations of 23 Highfield Close, Caerleon; DRG. REF 3 – Site
Plan of 23 Highfield Close, Caerleon; DRG. REF 4 – Location Plan of 23 Highfield Close,
Caerleon; Example Photo of Privacy Screen.
application.
Outbuildings.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 7
15/1107
Ward:
Type:
DISCHARGE CONDITIONS
CAERLEON
Applicant:
D YOUNG
Site:
90, MILL STREET, CAERLEON, NEWPORT, NP18 1BL
Proposal:
DISCHARGE OF CONDITION 02 (WATCHING BRIEF) OF PLANNING PERMISSION
14/0947 FOR SINGLE STOREY GARDEN STORE AND REPLACEMENT SIDE PORCH
EXTENSION
DECISION
APPROVED
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
GLAMORGAN GWENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRUST: No objection.
2.
2.1
None
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
None
4.
14/0947
SINGLE
STOREY
GARDEN
STORE
REPLACEMENT SIDE PORCH EXTENSION
AND
GRANTED WITH
CONDITIONS
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks to discharge condition 02 (archaeological watching brief) of planning
permission 14/0947 for a proposed single storey garden store and replacement side porch
extension at 90 Mill Street in the Caerleon Ward.
5.2
Condition 02 of planning permission 14/0947 states that:
The developer shall ensure that a suitably qualified archaeologist is present during the
undertaking of any ground disturbing works in the development area, so that an archaeological
watching brief can be conducted. The archaeological watching brief shall be undertaken to the
standards of the Institute of Field Archaeologists. The Local Planning Authority shall be informed,
in writing, at least two weeks prior to the commencement of the development of the name of the
said archaeologist and no work shall begin until the Local Planning Authority has confirmed, in
writing, that the proposed archaeologist is suitable. Two copies of the watching brief shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority within two months of the fieldwork being completed.
Reason: To identify and record any features of archaeological interest discovered during the
works, in order to mitigate the impact of the works on the archaeological resource.
5.3
An Archaeological Watching Brief has been undertaken during the recent ground works. The
Watching Brief confirms that no significant archaeological features were found other than a small
number of finds of Roman and post medieval date, found in the top soil. Glamorgan Gwent
Archaeological Trust have stated that the Watching Brief is acceptable and the planning condition
should be discharged.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
The submitted information is considered to be acceptable and condition 02 of planning
permission 14/0947 can be discharged.
8.
DECISION
APPROVED
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to plan Nos: Monmouth Archaeology – Archaeological Watching Brief –
MA16.15 - September 2015.
(Adopted January 2015). No policies were relevant to the determination of this application.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 8
15/0953
Type:
FULL
Ward:
LANGSTONE
Applicant:
M EVANS
Site:
HIGH VIEW HOUSE, LOWER ROAD, LLANDEVAUD, NEWPORT, NP18 2AE
Proposal:
CONSTRUCTION OF A LAND DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND THE RETENTION OF
EXISTING GROUND LEVELS
DECISION: REFUSED
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
NONE
2.
2.1
HEAD OF STREET SCENE AND CITY SERVICES (DRAINAGE): It has not been sufficiently
demonstrated that the proposed system reduces the risk of surface water flooding to adjacent
land owners to pre-construction levels. It is not beneficial to attenuate and restrict flows on this
site and the pre-construction arrangement of unrestricted open channel flow of the water course
offered the best system to alleviate the risk flooding to the adjacent property across a range of
storm scenarios. The restoration of the water course is the most desirable outcome and all
riparian land owners should restore and maintain their sections of the water course to minimise
the risk of surface water flooding in the future.
2.2
The drainage design information is limited, there is no evidence the proposed system has been
hydraulically designed, no construction details are presented for the proposed drainage system,
in addition there is no detail provided of the proposed flow control chamber and device.
2.3
The applicant advises "it is now intended to construct a land drainage system that will intercept
the excess surface water flow that enters the application site from the adjacent highway and
route this water via an open top French Drain, into an existing manhole, which will be modified to
act as a controlled flow storage chamber, which will then allow this controlled flow discharge to
continue into the existing application site surface water outfall" This design is proposing the
equivalent of a sustainable drainage system of attenuation, flow control system as an alternative
to the unrestricted pre-construction situation of open channel flow that existed due to presence of
the water course. This is not suitable for this site and a reduction of flows rates over the preexisting water course would not be desirable. In an open channel such as a water course system
flow rates increase as the depth of water increases giving the system the ability to convey water
away from the site faster in peak rainfall conditions reducing the risk of flooding. When the water
course on this site passes beyond the houses it runs to open green space/farmland down stream
therefore the flood risk downstream is not a consideration in peak flows. The permanent
restriction of flow would lead to the storage of water at a high point in the system when it would
be more desirable to safely discharge surface water from the highway, associated impermeable
areas such as drives and impermeable areas within the applicant's property through an
unrestricted method and provide capacity to receive a subsequent storm. This attenuation of
surface water at a high point within the water course could potentially increase flood risk to
downstream properties in the event of blockage or exceedance of the system.
2.4
If however planning are minded to grant permission for the proposed system and change of
ground levels, the attenuation and controlled release systems would need to be hydraulically
designed in accordance to the latest EA guidance to accommodate 1/1, 1/30, 1/100 +30% year
storm return period, to take account of all contributing impermeable areas including the adjacent
highway, without the risk of increasing flooding to adjacent land. There would have to be an
assessment of drain down times and it would have to be shown that the system had capacity to
accommodate a subsequent storm. There is no evidence this has been done. Without the system
being designed there is the risk that the storage capacity of the system is inadequate and the risk
of surface water flooding will still be greater than the pre-construction situation of the water
course.
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: 2 neighbouring properties were consulted and three letters of objection have
been received, one of which contains a preliminary report from Drinkwater Consulting. These can
be summarised as follows:
 It is not clear where the drainage system is to divert the water to;
 There is no natural path for the water to run off without affecting someone’s property
 The height of the land at High View House has been raised by 10 to 12 feet and there is
no retention structure beyond some trees between it and the property ‘Omaru’. No
structural information has been submitted to show how this raised land is to be made
safe.
 The continuation tank installed is ineffective
 The application doesn’t cover the issues in the enforcement notice
 The asbestos and debris from the original house has been buried on the site and poses a
risk to human health
 The application is substandard and a delaying tactic to avoid correcting the problem set
out in the enforcement notice
 The Ordnance Survey plan submitted is incorrect and the application is therefore invalid
 If this scheme was to be granted, it is asked for the Council to confirm where liability lay if
flooding was to occur at ‘Pridwin’ and no consent has been given to pipe water onto this
property
 The gulley near to the entrance of High View House is ineffective where traditionally water
drained into a ditch
 The hedgerow removed and identified in the original application has not been replanted
as proposed
 The proposal does not meet the requirements of Policy GP1 of the LDP to ensure
developments are designed to reduce flood risk on site and elsewhere
 No calculations for run off from the site or for the inflow and outflow from the soakaway
have been provided, or of outflow for the acceptable outflow from the manhole
downstream
 The soakaway itself can receive only a limited amount of run-off. Capacity calculations
assume the soakaway is horizontal and this is not the case and so its capacity is
considerably reduced.
 No permission to infill the ditch has been sought and no alternative for dealing with the
flow which would have originated down the system have been provided
 Other concerns exist regarding the lack of detail regarding the levels and sizes of pipes
 Inadequate information has been submitted to assess the application
3.2
LANGSTONE COMMUNITY COUNCIL: No objection.
4.
08/1476
DEMOLITION OF DWELLING AND ERECTION OF
REPLACEMENT 2 STOREY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE
09/0916 PARTIAL DISCHARGE OF CONDITION 02 (SURFACE WATER
DRAINAGE) OF PLANNING 08/1476 FOR THE ERECTION OF A
REPLACEMENT DWELLING AND GARAGE
E13/0534 ENFORCEMENT NOTICE: RAISING OF GROUND LEVEL AND
INSTALLATION OF A CONCRETE INSPECTION CHAMBER.
GRANTED
CONDITIONS
APPROVED
WITH
APPEAL
(APP/G6935/C/14/2229332)
DISMISSED
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks planning permission to retain existing ground levels and implement a land
drainage system as an alternative to that imposed by an enforcement notice (E13/0534) issued in
October 2014, subsequently dismissed at appeal and should have been complied with by 7
September 2015. The main issue in terms of the deemed application is the effect of the
development on surface water drainage, with particular regard to flooding within the neighbouring
property, therefore policies GP1 (Climate Change), GP2 (General Amenity) and GP6 (Quality of
Design) of the Newport Local Development Plan 2011 – 2026 (Adopted January 2015) are
relevant to its determination.
5.2
Planning permission was granted in 2009 (08/1476) for a replacement dwelling. Due to the scale
of the replacement dwelling it was sited into the earth bank on which the original house stood
resulting in a large amount of earth being dug out and the remaining earth was used to increase
the levels over the site to the rear of the property. This levelling work resulted in the natural
watercourse running along the boundary between High View House and Pridwin being filled in.
5.3
A surface water drainage scheme, in accordance with condition 2 of planning permission
08/1476, was also approved by the Council under reference 09/0916. In this application it was
proposed to connect the surface water drainage system into the watercourse. This has not been
implemented.
5.4
The in-filling of the original drainage ditch and the land levels at High View House being altered,
means that water flowing over the land has no option but to cross the application site and enter
the neighbouring site at Pridwin. This has previously caused flooding issues in recent years and
evidence submitted at the appeal against the enforcement notice (appeal ref:
APP/G6935/C/14/2229332) led the inspector to conclude that the unauthorised works are
contrary to policy GP1 of Newport’s Local Development Plan and have contributed to flooding
events at the neighbouring property.
5.5
The enforcement notice served required:
i) Return the land to its previous state before engineering works took place as shown by the
levels on plan 01, and
ii) Remove the concrete inspection chamber and any associated drainage infrastructure that
is visible above the reinstated garden level
However, the current proposal instead seeks to retain ground levels as they are and resolve
drainage issues using an overland French drain system which will flow into the drainage channel
which runs through the garden of Pridwin, and was originally part of the ditch which has been infilled.
5.6
A number of neighbour objections have been received in respect of the proposal, questioning
both the stability of the un-retained land and the effectiveness of the alternative drainage
arrangements and stating that current arrangements are ineffective. It has also been stated that
either incorrect information has been submitted, such as the Ordnance Survey plan, or
substandard information has been submitted in able to assess the suitability of the proposed
scheme. From the site location plan from a previous application (08/1476) and comparing it to the
site location plan submitted with this application, it does appear as though the location of the
drainage ditch has been altered to be largely within the garden of Pridwin when previously this
section of it was in the curtilage of High View House. The complainant has requested written
confirmation of this from Ordnance Survey support Team. Article 5 of the Town and Country
Planning (Development Management Procedure) (Wales) Order 2012 requires that applications
for planning permission must be accompanied by a plan which identifies the land to which the
application relates. An error on that plan doesn’t necessarily in-validate the application as the
applicant has met the requirement of providing a plan which identifies the land.
5.7
The application includes a letter from a chartered Structural engineer, David Fowler, which states
that the drainage scheme proposed will deal with the surface discharge from the property.
However, the Head of Street Scene and City Services (Drainage) has confirmed that insufficient
information has been submitted which evidences how the proposed drainage system would work
and its ultimate effectiveness. It has also been stated that the proposed system is not suitable for
this site and a reduction of flow rates over the pre-existing water course would not be desirable.
In an open channel such as a water course system flow rates increase as the depth of water
increases giving the system the ability to convey water away from the site faster in peak rainfall
conditions reducing the risk of flooding. The proposal attenuates surface water at a high point
within the water course which could potentially increase flood risk to downstream properties in
the event of blockage or exceedance of the system. The Head of Street Scene and City Services
(Drainage) has commented that the restoration of the water course is the most desirable outcome
and all riparian land owners should restore and maintain their sections of the water course to
minimise the risk of surface water flooding in the future.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
It has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed system reduces the risk of surface
water flooding to adjacent land owners to pre-construction levels. Furthermore, it is not beneficial
to attenuate and restrict flows on this site and the pre-construction arrangement of unrestricted
open channel flow of the water course offered the best system to alleviate the risk flooding to the
adjacent property across a range of storm scenarios. The restoration of the water course is the
most desirable outcome and all riparian land owners should restore and maintain their sections of
the water course to minimise the risk of surface water flooding in the future. The design of the
proposed system is therefore unacceptable as it does not reduce the risk of flooding on the site
and elsewhere to the detriment of the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties
contrary to policies GP1, GP2 and GP6 of the Newport Local Development Plan 2011 – 2026
(Adopted January 2015). Planning permission is therefore refused.
8.
DECISION
REFUSED
01
The design of the proposed system is unacceptable as it does not reduce the risk of
flooding on the site and elsewhere to the level experienced prior to the changing of site levels and
in-filling of the drainage ditch to the detriment of the residential amenities of the neighbouring
properties and contrary to policies GP1, GP2 and GP6 of the Newport Local Development Plan
2011 – 2026 (Adopted January 2015).
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to plan Nos: 1560/01 Existing drainage plan, 1560/02 Proposed
Drainage Plan, 1560/03 Location Plan, Planning Justification by C J Projects, letter reference
df/omo/959 from David Fowler Chartered Structural Engineer, Calculations of surface water
drainage dated 28.8.2015 and sketch of proposed land drain cross section dated 17.8.2015,
existing ground levels 1560/06
(Adopted January 2015). Policies GP1, GP2, and GP6 were relevant to the determination of this
application.
03 The application has screened under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and it
was considered that an Environmental Statement is not required.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 9
15/0931
Type:
FULL
Ward:
LLISWERRY
Applicant:
P GOODWIN, WASTESAVERS CHARITABLE TRUST LTD
Site:
UNIT 6, ESPERANTO WAY, NEWPORT, NP19 0RD
Proposal:
ERECTION OF COVERED STORAGE BAYS AND STORAGE AREAS AND
EXTENSION TO EXISTING BUILDING FOR STORAGE AND UNLOADING,
REPOSITIONING OF EXTERNAL STORAGE BAY, ADDITIONAL STAFF AND
COLLECTION VEHICLE PARKING, ALTERATIONS TO INTERNAL ROAD LAYOUT,
CREATION OF ACCESS AND CREATION OF WEIGHBRIDGE
DECISION – GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
NATURAL RESOURCES WALES (FLOODING): Given that the proposed development is an
extension to aid the existing development, and additional car parking is for staff and collection
vehicles only, we consider the risk could be acceptable subject to the applicant being made
aware of the potential flood risks, and advised to install flood-proofing measures as part of any
future development.
1.2
1.3
DWR CYMRU – WELSH WATER: Request conditions relating to drainage.
1.4
GLAMORGAN GWENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRUST: Archaeological mitigation is not required.
2.
2.1
2.2
HEAD OF STREETSCENE AND CITY SERVICES (ECOLOGY): A detailed management plan of
the proposed planting areas will need to be conditioned. This must be submitted and agreed by
the Council prior to commencement of works. This area will need to be specifically managed for
invertebrates and monitoring in year 5 will be required to ascertain if the onsite management has
been successful.
2.3
HISTORIC BUILDINGS CONSERVATION OFFICER: Does not consider that the proposals
would materially impact on the setting of the bridge or any other designated historic assets.
2.4
HEAD OF LAW AND REGULATION (POLLUTION): It is understood that a permit application has
been submitted to NRW and that application will contain information in respect of controls on
noise, odour, dust etc. As this is a public consultation process we will seek to evaluate that
application and make any necessary representations to NRW for environmental controls. We are
not aware of any complaints about the existing activity and as such, subject to confirmation that a
suitable NRW application has been duly made, I would have no adverse comments to make in
respect of the planning aspects for the proposed development.
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: Properties with a common boundary were consulted and a site notice was
displayed. No response received.
4.
04/0353 ERECTION OF RECYCLING FACILITY WITH Granted with
ASSOCIATED
OFFICE
ACCOMMODATION Conditions
(AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMISSION
03/0592
03/0592 ERECTION OF NEW RECYCLING FACILITY WITH Granted with
ASSOCIATED OFFICE ACCOMMODATION ON Conditions
MEZZANINE
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks consent for the erection of covered storage bays and storage areas and
extension to existing building for storage and unloading, repositioning of external bay, additional
staff and collection vehicle parking, alterations to internal road layout, creation of access and
creation of weighbridge at Unit 6, Esperanto Way. The application site is located within an
existing industrial area approximately 1.8km to the south east of Newport City Centre. To the
south of the application site is an area of scrub and a drainage lagoon. To the west is the River
Usk which is separated from the site by an area of scrub. To the east and north of the site are
industrial premises. The wider area is mainly industrial in nature. The existing recycling depot
was constructed on the site over 10 years ago.
5.2
Wastesavers Recycling Ltd (“Wastesavers”) has an existing recycling facility which it proposes to
reconfigure and extend in order to improve operational efficiency, increase throughput and to
provide additional parking and covered storage. The facility handles recyclable materials
including glass, paper, card, cans, plastics, textiles and food waste. The application site is 0.87ha
in size which includes the existing recycling depot and an additional area of 0.28ha to the north
east directly adjacent to the existing facility. The additional area is currently vacant land.
5.3
It is estimated that the waste throughput of the facility will increase to approximately 20,800
tonnes per annum as a result of the proposed development. The proposals comprise:







A new building for food waste and paper storage and loading measuring 13m x 22.5m
and 8m high. This would be a steel framed building with fabric metal cladding similar to
the existing building on site;
An extension to the existing building to be used for cardboard, plastic and can storage
and offloading measuring of 10.5m x 20m and 5m high. This would also be steel framed
with fabric metal cladding similar to the existing building;
A re-positioned external storage bay for glass, plastic overspill and textiles;
19no additional staff car parking spaces plus a motorcycle parking space;
Reconfiguration of, and increase in, collection vehicle parking to 20 spaces;
A new one-way circulation route around the site with a new egress onto Esperanto Way;
and
An additional weighbridge at the new egress.
5.4
The proposed development will result in a number of key benefits including greater operational
efficiency through improved vehicle circulation and parking arrangements, covering of stored
recyclables to reduce litter and amenity impacts, enhanced recycling, bulking and storage
facilities to enabling higher levels of recycling to be achieved, an associated increased
contribution towards the ability of the Council to meet its statutory waste targets and avoid fines
and additional staff parking which will remove the need for on-street parking.
5.5
Planning Policy
Policy W1 - Sites for Waste Management Facilities, promotes all allocated, permitted and existing
B2 industrial sites as potential locations for new waste management facilities.
Policy W2 states:
Development proposals for sustainable waste management facilities will be permitted provided
that:
i) the proposal would not result in an unacceptable harm on nature conservation interests or of
archaeological or geological importance,
ii) the risks and consequences of flooding can be acceptably managed,
iii) the proposal is of a high quality design and would not result in an unacceptable impact on
landscape quality,
iv) there is no impact on amenity through noise, air pollution, odours, dust and emissions that
cannot be appropriately controlled by mitigating measures.
v) the development would not result in unacceptable harm to health,
vi) the traffic generated can be accommodated safely on the existing highway network or suitable
arrangements are made for the transportation of waste by rail,
vii) the need for proposals for disposing of the type, quantity and source of waste assessed
against requirements being established
Policy SP20 states: The sustainable management of waste arising in Newport will be facilitated
by promoting and supporting additional treatment facilities that have regard to the waste
hierarchy, the proximity principle and contribute to an integrated network of facilities.
Policy EM3 states: Development proposals promoting alternative uses on existing employment
sites will be resisted unless:
i) the site has been marketed unsuccessfully for employment purposes for a minimum of 12
months;
ii) there remains a sufficient range and choice of employment land and premises to meet LDP
requirements and local demand;
iii) the development has no adverse impact on existing or allocated employment sites;
iv) the development has no adverse impact on amenity or the environment.
Policy GP5 General Development Principles – Natural Environment states that proposals should
be designed to protect and encourage biodiversity and ecological connectivity and ensure there
are no negative impacts on protected habitats. Proposals should not result in an unacceptable
impact of water quality or the loss or reduction in quality of agricultural land (Grades 1, 2 and 3A).
There should be no unacceptable impact on landscape quality and proposals should enhance the
site and wider context including green infrastructure and biodiversity.
Policy GP6 General Development Principles – Quality of Design states that good quality design
will be sought in all forms of development. In considering proposals, a number of factors are
listed which should be considered to ensure a good quality scheme is developed. These include
consideration of the context of the site; access, permeability and layout; preservation and
enhancement; scale and form of the development; materials and detailing; and sustainability.
Policy SP3 states: Newport’s coastal and riverside location necessitates that development be
directed away from areas where flood risk is identified as a constraint and ensure that the risk of
flooding is not increased elsewhere. Development will only be permitted in flood risk areas in
accordance with national guidance. Where appropriate a detailed technical assessment will be
required to ensure that the development is designed to cope with the threat and consequences of
flooding over its lifetime. Sustainable solutions to manage flood risk should be prioritised.
Policy SP9 Conservation of the Natural, Historic and Built Environment protects habitats and
species as well as Newport’s listed buildings, conservation areas, historic parks and gardens,
scheduled ancient monuments, archaeologically sensitive areas and landscape designated as
being of outstanding historic interest.
5.6
The Council has not permitted any significant non-employment uses on any allocated
employment sites and there is currently sufficient land for employment purposes in the City.
Whilst no information has been submitted about the marketing of the site for employment
purposes to satisfy criterion i) of Policy EM3, as the Council currently has a sufficient level of land
for employment purposes, in this instance it is not considered that the loss of the unit for
employment purposes would be harmful.
5.7
Being previously developed land and allocated as employment land in the Local Development
Plan, it is considered that in principle, the development of the site as proposed is in accordance
with the aims and objectives of the Local Development Plan and the development is justified.
5.8
Visual Impact
The site occupies a prominent riverfront location near to the Grade I Listed Transporter Bridge
and there are potential visual implications for the proposals. However, by reason of the scale and
industrial nature of the existing neighbouring buildings, it is considered that the proposals would
not result in a detrimental impact to the visual amenity of the area. The Council’s Conservation
Officer confirms that he does not consider that the proposals would materially impact on the
setting of the bridge or any other designated historic assets.
5.9
The application site is within an area of industrial character and by reason of the scale and
industrial nature of the neighbouring buildings, the proposal would not result in a detrimental
impact to the visual amenity of the area.
5.9.1
Ecology
Whilst the proposal is for the expansion of an existing recycling centre, due to the proximity of the
site to the River Usk SAC and SSSI there is potential for the proposal to have ecology
implications. An Ecology Appraisal Report has been submitted with the application. The Council’s
Ecology Officer has confirmed that no objections are offered to the proposals subject to a
detailed management plan of the proposed compensatory planting areas being conditioned.
5.9.2
Highways
A key element of the proposal is to provide an additional 19no staff parking spaces on site to
minimise the need for on-street parking and to improve the flow of vehicles through the site. The
Head of Streetscene and City Services (Highways) confirms no objection is offered to the
proposals noting that the applicant has demonstrated that the number of staff parking spaces will
be increased which will help to alleviate the demand for parking on Esperanto Way.
5.9.3
It is not considered that the proposals would result in any detriment to highway safety. To the
contrary, the proposals represent improvements to the existing highways and parking
arrangements.
5.9.4
Flood Risk
The proposed development site lies entirely within Zone C1 as defined by the Development
Advice Map (DAM) referred to under Technical Advice Note 15: Development and Flood Risk
(TAN15) (July 2004). Natural Resources Wales (NRW) Flood Map information, which is updated
on a quarterly basis, confirms the site to be within the 0.5% (1 in 200 year) and 0.1% (1 in 1000
year) annual probability tidal flood outlines of the River Usk, a designated main river.
5.9.5
In response to the proposals NRW states, the proposed development is for low vulnerable
development on previously developed land within a flood risk area. NRW have reviewed the
Flood Consequences Assessment (FCA), submitted in support of this application and advise that
the assessment in the FCA regarding flood levels for the proposed site is not sufficient to
determine the flood risk to the proposed site. No assessment of the 1 in 200 year plus climate
change event (with a 75 year lifetime of development) has been undertaken. There is also no
assessment of the extreme 1 in 1000 year event. The FCA states that the flood risk to the site is
assessed to be low. However there is no evidence to support this statement. Using the data
request and undertaking their own assessment based on proposed ground floor levels of 7.2m
AOD the additional parking and bays will experience a degree of flooding. Therefore NRW
consider the risk to be high. Using the data in Table 1: Defended with Climate Change of the data
request the potential flood depths are:
- 1 in 200 year plus climate change (75 year lifetime of development): 9.22m AOD
- 1 in 1000 year current day: 8.78m AOD
5.9.6
However, given that the proposed development is an extension to aid the existing development,
and additional car parking is for staff and collection vehicles only, NRW consider the risk could be
acceptable subject to the applicant being made aware of the potential flood risks, and advised to
install flood-proofing measures as part of any future development.
5.9.7
It is not considered that the development would result in an increased flood risk.
5.9.8
Archaeology
The proposed development area is within the Archaeologically Sensitive Area of the Gwent
Levels as defined in the Newport LDP. Policy CE6 Archaeology states that proposals in areas
known to have archaeological interest or potentially have archaeological interest will be required
to undertake an archaeological impact assessment. Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust have
offered no objection to the proposals, noting that the area has been significantly disturbed by
20th century industrial activity and work undertaken during the construction of the existing
building encountered no archaeological remain.
5.9.9
Amenity
The applicant states that in addition to the proposed physical works at the depot, it is proposed
that the operating hours are increased to 7.00–17.30 including the Saturdays following Bank
Holidays (currently 7.30-17.00). On an occasion basis, usually following bank holidays it is also
necessary for the centre to be open on a Sunday in order to provide a 5 day a week service. This
is the way in which the centre already operates and the occasional operating on a Sunday does
not therefore represent a change in hours of operation. The operation hours were not restricted
as part of the original consent for the facility. In view of the industrial nature of the surrounding
area, it is not considered that the proposed hours of operation would be detrimental to amenity of
neighbouring occupiers and is acceptable. However, as there is a residential property on
Stephenson Street approximately 90m from the site, it is considered pertinent to impose a
condition restricting hours of operation as proposed.
5.9.10 The operation of the reconfigured and extended depot would be controlled by a new
Environmental Permit issued by NRW. The Permit sets out environmental standards
relating to the control of air and noise emissions, drainage and site management and would
ensure that these matters are appropriately managed and monitored. The Head of Law and
Regulation (Pollution) has confirmed that Environmental Health are not aware of any complaints
about the existing activity and as such, subject to confirmation that a suitable NRW application
has been duly made, no adverse comments are made in respect of the proposed development.
The applicant has confirmed that a permit application has been made and has provided
confirmation from NRW that it has been received.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
The proposals represent the development of a Brownfield site and accord with National and Local
Planning Policy providing improved recycling facilities to help enable the Council to achieve
statutory waste targets.
7.2
It is not considered that the proposals would result in a detrimental impact to the local highways
networks, ecological interests or the character of the area.
7.3
The application is granted subject to the following conditions.
8.
DECISION
documents: JPW0557-004 Revision A, 0557-0002-05, 0557-0004-06, 0557-0003-07, 200
Revision A, 0557-0006-01.
Pre- commencement conditions
02 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of a scheme for
surface water drainage shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and
written approval received. The development shall be carried out fully in accordance with the
approved details.
Reason: To ensure the site is adequately drained and in the interests of adjacent River Usk SAC
and SSSI.
03 Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, full details of a
management plan of the compensatory planting areas as referred to by the Ecological Appraisal
Report dated July 2015 shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and
written approval received. The development shall be carried out fully in accordance with the
management plan.
Reason: In the interests of the ecological features of the site.
Prior to first use
04 Prior to the first use of the development hereby approved, parking provision shall be provided
in accordance with the approved plans and shall remain in perpetuity.
Reason: To ensure the site is served by adequate parking provision in the interests of highway
safety.
General conditions
05 The hours of operation of the recycling centre shall be restricted to between 07:00hrs to 17:30
hours Monday to Sundays. Outside of these hours the premises shall be vacated.
Reason: In the interests of the amenities of occupants of the residential property on Stephenson
Street.
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 The following plans and documents were relevant to the determination of the application:
RP281501, 200, 0557-0001-01, Design and Access Statement, Ecological Appraisal Report July
2015, Ground Conditions Summary Report, Flood Consequence Assessment, Heritage
Assessment and Supporting Statement.
(Adopted January 2015). Policies GP5, GP6 SP3, SP9, SP20, W1, W2 and CE6 were relevant to
the determination of this application.
02 On behalf of Natural Resources Wales the applicant is advised that consideration be given to
the incorporation of flood resistance/resilience measures into the design and construction of the
development. These could include flood barriers on ground floor doors, windows and access
points, implementation of suitable flood proofing measures to the internal fabric of the ground
floor, and locating electrical sockets/components at a higher level above possible flood levels.
Additional guidance including our leaflet “Prepare your Property for flooding” can be found on the
following website:
https://www.gov.uk/prepare-for-a-flood. The developer can also access advice and information on
protection from flooding from the ODPM publication ‘Preparing for Floods: Interim Guidance for
Improving the Flood Resistance of Domestic and Small Business Properties’, which is available
from the Planning Portal website: www.planningportal.gov.uk.
03 The applicant may need to apply to Dwr Cymru / Welsh Water for any connection to the public
sewer under S106 of the Water industry Act 1991. If the connection to the public sewer network
is either via a lateral drain (i.e. a drain which extends beyond the connecting property boundary)
or via a new sewer (i.e. serves more than one property), it is now a mandatory requirement to
first enter into a Section 104 Adoption Agreement (Water Industry Act 1991). The design of the
sewers and lateral drains must also conform to the Welsh Ministers Standards for Gravity Foul
Sewers and Lateral Drains, and conform with the publication "Sewers for Adoption"- 7th Edition.
Further information can be obtained via the Developer Services pages of www.dwrcymru.com.
04 The proposed development (including any demolition) has been screened under the
Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations and it is considered that an Environmental
Statement is not required.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 10
15/0613
Type:
FULL
Ward:
MALPAS
Applicant:
N. PARTON
Site:
184, CLAREMONT, NEWPORT, NP20 6PQ
Proposal:
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE, CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STOREY SIDE
EXTENSION AND ALTERATIONS TO PARKING LAYOUT TO CREATE 2NO.
PARKING BAYS AND GROUND FLOOR GARAGE (RESUBMISSION OF
WITHDRAWN APPLICATION 15/0337)
DECISION
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
DWR CYMRU/WELSH WATER: Advise that there are public sewers on site and that no
development is permitted to take place within the protected zone surrounding each sewer.
2.
2.1
HEAD OF STREETSCENE AND CITY SERVICES (HIGHWAYS): No response.
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
4.
None
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks full planning permission for the demolition of an existing garage,
construction of a two storey side extension and alterations to the existing parking layout to create
2no. parking bays and a ground floor garage (resubmission of withdrawn application 15/0337) at
184 Claremont in the Malpas Ward.
5.2
The property is a radburn style semi-detached domestic dwelling located in an area characterised
by similarly designed domestic properties. The property is set within a curtilage comprised of a
front garden accessing a pedestrian footway and a private rear garden with off-street parking on
a driveway and a vehicular access to an integral garage. The principal elevation of the
dwellinghouse faces north-west over the front garden and pedestrian pathway and the rear
elevation faces south-east over the rear garden and public vehicular highway. The proposal is to
demolish the existing integral garage and to construct a two storey side extension to provide a
new garage at ground floor level and additional bedroom with ensuite at first floor level.
5.3
The extension would measure a depth of 6.6 metres with a width of 3.3 metres. It would be set
back from the principal elevation of the main house by 1 metre. The rear elevation of the
extension would be set in 0.6 metres from the rear building line of the main house. The extension
would have an eaves height of 4.8 metres with a ridge height of 6.8 metres.
5.4
Fenestration would be comprised of a ground floor garage window and first floor bedroom
window installed into the north-west facing front elevation. No windows or doors would be
installed into the side elevation and a ground floor garage door and first floor ensuite window
would be installed into the south-east facing rear elevation. The extension would be constructed
from facing brick and render walls, UPVC windows and concrete roof tiles.
5.5
determination of this application. The adopted House Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings and
Parking Standards 2015 supplementary planning guidance (SPG) are also relevant to the
5.6
The extension would project towards the neighbouring property at 185 Claremont which would
result in the potential for impacts to be caused to neighbouring amenities. A side facing window at
ground floor level and the side elevation of a conservatory at no.185 may receive some reduction
in daylight for the early part of the day. This is not expected to be significant and the daylight
available to the rear conservatory (also serving the ground floor kitchen) would be unrestricted so
ample direct daylight would be available to the ground floor of the property. As such, it is not
considered that the reduction in daylight posed by the side extension would be harmful or
significantly over and above the existing situation and would be acceptable. No windows are
proposed that would directly overlook the property at 185 Claremont so privacy to neighbouring
occupiers would be preserved. Overall the proposed side extension is considered to be in
accordance with policy GP2 of the NLDP.
5.7
The extension is proposed to be constructed from materials to match the existing house so the
character and appearance of the property would be preserved. The side extension is proposed to
be set back a minimum distance of 1 metre from the front building line of the main house and
would have a roof set down. It would also not project beyond the rear building line of the house.
As such the side extension would appear as a subservient addition to the property from both the
pedestrian pathway at the front of the property and the vehicular highway to the rear and is
considered to be in accordance with policy GP6 of the NLDP and the adopted House Extensions
SPG.
5.8
The property is currently served by three off-street parking spaces and the proposal would not
alter this provision. Furthermore increasing a three bedroom property to four bedrooms does not
require the creation of any additional parking demand as defined within the Parking Standards
SPG. Since the property is served by three off street parking spaces and the parking demand is
not increasing it is considered that there would be no impact on highway safety. A planning
condition can be used to restrict conversion of the new garage in order to prevent a future deficit
in off-street parking.
5.9
Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water (DCWW) has provided information to confirm that a public sewer runs
underneath the area of the property where the side extension is proposed. DCWW have stated
that no works are permitted to be undertaken within a ‘protected zone’ surrounding the public
sewer. The applicant has confirmed that the development has been discussed with DCWW and it
has been agreed to allow the sewer to be built over providing that affected manhole covers are
repositioned to retain access to them. Since there is an agreement between DCWW and the
applicant for the works to go ahead there is no reason to conclude that the proposal would have
any adverse impact on the public sewer system. Any mitigation work agreed between DCWW
and the applicant is subject to a legal agreement that is outside of planning controls and therefore
no additional planning conditions are required.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
The proposed two storey side extension by reasons of its location, scale and design would
7.2
Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings and Parking Standards 2015 supplementary planning
guidance.
7.3
8.
DECISION
documents: Drawing No. 694 7 – Proposed Plans with Garage; Drawing No. 694 8 – Proposed
Elevations, Two Storey Extension with Garage.
General conditions
02 The garage hereby approved shall be used for the parking of motor vehicles and at no time
shall it be converted into additional living accommodation.
Reason: To ensure adequate off-street parking provision is retained at the property.
03 The two storey side extension hereby approved shall be constructed using materials to match
the external appearance of the main house and shall be retained in that state thereafter.
Reason: To ensure development that is compatible with its surroundings.
04 No doors or windows shall be installed into the south-west facing side elevation of the two
storey extension hereby approved.
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to plan Nos: Drawing No. 694 1 – Existing Floor Plans; Drawing No. 694
2 – Existing Elevations; Drawing No. 694 7 – Proposed Plans with Garage; Drawing No. 694 8 –
Proposed Elevations, Two Storey Extension with Garage; Site Location Plan.
(Adopted January 2015). Policies GP2, GP4 and GP6 were relevant to the determination of this
application.
Outbuildings and Parking Standards 2015.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 11
15/1034
Ward:
Type:
TREE PRESERVATION ORDERS
MALPAS
Applicant:
S GRAHAM, DERWEN
Site:
LAND ENCOMPASSING 9 TO 22, CHAPMAN CLOSE, NEWPORT
Proposal:
REMOVAL OF BRANCHES OF
PRESERVATION ORDER 20 OF 2008
TREES
T1-T8
PROTECTED
BY
TREE
DECISION: GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
None.
2.
2.1
HEAD OF STREETSCENE (TREE OFFICER: TPOs AND PRIVATE LAND): No objections.
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: All neighbours with a common boundary were consulted (25no. properties) and a
site notice was displayed. No response received.
4.
None.
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
The application relates to the request to trim the boundary line of trees between Chapman Close
and the residents of Edison Ridge, this comprises ash, hazel and hawthorn in the main.
5.2
The proposal is to trim the trees back from the properties of Chapman Close. A site meeting with
the applicant and contactor was held to ascertain the extent of the work. It transpired that the
work is of a minimal nature and forms part of a routine maintenance programme. The requested
work should ensure the trees continued health and not compromise their life expectancy.
5.3
Therefore the Councils Tree Officer (TPOS and Private land) has no objections the proposals.
6.
6.1.
duty has been considered in the evaluation of this application. It is considered that there would be
no significant or unacceptable increase in crime and disorder as a result of the proposed
decision.
6.2.
Equality Act 2010
6.3.



Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected
characteristics;
Taking steps to meet the needs of people from protected groups where these differ from the
Encouraging people from protected groups to participate in public life or in other activities
6.4.
6.5
7.0
7.1.
CONCLUSION
The application is granted subject to the following condition.
8.0
DECISION
01 The extent of the work hereby approved shall be agreed on site by the Council's Woodland
Officer prior to any works to the trees commencing.
Reason: In the interests of the health and longevity of the tree and preserving its amenity value.
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to the Plan received on 18 August 2015.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 12
15/0999
Type:
FULL
Ward:
MARSHFIELD
Applicant:
G HARRIS
Site:
159, MALLARDS REACH, MARSHFIELD, CARDIFF, CF3 2NL
Proposal:
RAISE EXISTING RIDGE AND CONSTRUCT THREE APEX DORMERS TO FORM
ADDITIONAL BEDROOMS AND BATHROOM (RESUBMISSION FOLLOWING
REFUSAL OF APPLICATION 15/0449)
DECISION
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
GLAMORGAN GWENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRUST: No objection. However, previously advised
that the Trust should be contacted if any archaeological material is uncovered during the course
of the work.
2.
2.1
HEAD OF STREETSCENE AND CITY SERVICES (HIGHWAYS): No comments received.
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: All properties with a common boundary were consulted (5). One neighbour
commented that the roof height of the application property should not be higher than no.161
Mallards Reach as being higher by even a small margin would detract from the balanced look
and setting of properties in the cul-de-sac.
3.2
MARSHFIELD COMMUNITY COUNCIL: No objection.
4.
15/0449
RAISE EXISTING RIDGE AND CONSTRUCT Refused
THREE APEX DORMERS TO FORM TWO
ADDITIONAL BEDROOMS
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks permission to increase the ridge height of the existing roof, the
construction of 3no. dormer windows on the rear roof slope and the installation of 3no. roof lights
on the front roof slope.
5.2
The dwelling is a detached home located at 159 Mallards Reach, Marshfield and to date has not
been extended in any form. The proposed dormer will provide space to accommodate two
bedrooms plus a bathroom. The application boundary is adjacent to two slightly smaller two
storey detached properties to the north (161) and south (157).The property overlooks the
countryside to the east. The surrounding area is characterised by a mixture of house sizes and
styles.
5.3
The application proposes an increase of the ridge height of the existing roof by 1 metre and to
therefore increase the pitch of the roof as a result. It is proposed to insert 3no. dormer windows
into the rear pitch of the roof. The dormer windows would be set down from the ridge of the
enlarged roof by 0.15 metres and set back from the eaves by 0.8 metres. The dormer will be 1.25
metres in length, 2.25 metres in height and 2.90 metres in depth. The walls of the dormer will be
red facing brickwork, the roof will consist of brown concrete tile and the windows will be made
from brown UPVC, which will match the existing materials of the house in texture and colour.
5.4
In the previously approved scheme it was proposed to increase the height of the roof by 1.4
metres which was considered to be unacceptable due to its height and resulting appearance,
which would not be sympathetic to the street scene and would be visually intrusive contrary to
Plan 2011-2026 (Adopted January 2015) and the advice in the Council’s Supplementary Planning
Guidance - House Extensions. The Applicant submitted a revised scheme which is subject of this
report.
5.5
As the properties within the area are staggered, views are limited into neighbouring gardens. This
staggered effect will prevent the new roof height appearing out of place in the street scene. Due
to the location of the dormer rear windows, which overlook the countryside, there would not be an
unacceptable impact on the privacy of surrounding occupiers. The public Right of Way which
passes behind the property is infrequently used and the new roof height would not appear
considerably large when viewed from this area. While the proposed dormer windows have been
retained for this resubmission, due to the reduction in roof height by 0.4 metres, the development
as a whole would appear less prominent, reducing the impact of the dormer windows. The
proposed dormer windows, by virtue of their design and set-down from the ridge, comply with the
adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings
(Adopted August 2015). It is also relevant to note that the proposed dormer windows could be
constructed as permitted development.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
It is considered that the proposal to raise the existing roof and construct three apex dormers to
the house is acceptable and will not have a detrimental impact on the occupiers of the adjacent
dwellings and the general street scene. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be
granted with conditions.
8.
DECISION
documents: PL-01-B.
General conditions
02 The external surfaces of the extension hereby approved shall only be of materials to match
those of the existing building.
Reason: To ensure the development is completed in a manner compatible with its surroundings.
NOTE TO APPLICANT
(Adopted January 2015). Policies GP2 (General Amenity) and GP6 (Quality of Design) were
relevant to the determination of this application.
02 The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance for House Extensions and Domestic
Outbuildings (Adopted August 2015) was also relevant to the determination of this application.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 13
15/1033
Type:
FULL
Ward:
MARSHFIELD
Applicant:
EVOL (WALES) LTD.
Site:
LAND WEST OF AND ADJACENT TO TITHE BARN, CHURCH ROAD, ST BRIDES
WENTLOOGE, NEWPORT
Proposal:
RETENTION OF CHANGE OF USE OF LAND TO FORM RESIDENTIAL CURTILAGE
FOR 2NO. DWELLINGS PERMITTED UNDER APPLICATION 13/0658
DECISION
REFUSED
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
DWR CYMRU/WELSH WATER: Provide generic conditions/advisories which are not relevant to
this application.
1.2.1
GLAMORGAN GWENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRUST: We responded to the submission of
13/0658 in our letter of 11th July 2013, in which we noted that the information held in the Historic
Environment Record curated by this Trust shows that the application site is located on the Gwent
Levels, an artificially created landscape dating back to Neolithic times. Located to the north east
of the medieval church, the application area is set within a turn in the reen; the area of St Brides
is noted to have had an early settlement area that included the church and an oval enclosure to
the south east. This is therefore a later settlement and whilst some of the buildings are shown on
the late 19th century OS maps, the barn that stood where the houses are now positioned is not
shown.
1.2.2
The retention of the land to the west of the dwelling as a garden curtilage does not present any
archaeological issues, however, we note that the line of the reen to the north and west of the
houses has been moved 380m to the west since we examined the previous application in 2013.
This is a matter of concern to us as diverting a water course of this size will have undoubtedly
have meant major ground works. We have not been consulted about this change and have a
concern that archaeological deposits are likely to have been disturbed when this change was
made. Had we had the opportunity to comment at the time, we would have recommended
archaeological support for the work.
1.2.3
The application area is located inside a Registered Landscape of Outstanding Historic
Importance, within character area HLCA015 Eastern St Brides characterised as a complex
irregular landscape on a higher coastal area. We have therefore considered the impact of the
current application on the historic landscape and have concluded that this is only of local
relevance. It is therefore our opinion that this impact will not be a factor in the determination of
this application.
2.
2.1.1
PLANNING POLICY MANAGER: Provides a comprehensive assessment, which concludes;
The unauthorised gardens are contrary to national and local planning policy. A departure from
policy on this occasion would make it very difficult for the council to resist similar proposals in the
other rural and semi-rural areas of Newport. Over time, and without conferring any benefit on
those working in rural enterprises or seeking affordable housing in the villages, such
development would result in a marked contraction of the countryside.
2.1.2
The agent has responded to the initial comments, in a further attempt to justify the development,
and also stating that the Planning Policy department do not present “fair and justifiable
arguments. In their comments, the agent claims that;
 The development is not unacceptable in principle and that certain forms of development
are acceptable in the Countryside in accordance with PPW,
 The Council is duty bound to only consider the development proposal on its individual
merits, and may not consider whether the proposal, if approved, would set an undesirable
precedent,
 The proposal development would be acceptable with a condition relating to outbuildings,
ornamental planting and landscaping,
 The creation of two privately owned gardens in the countryside would benefit the local
community, and
 That the reen constitutes a defensible boundary that would prevent subsequent extension
of the gardens.
2.1.3
The Planning Policy Manager then responds to each of these points in turn, summarised as
follows;
 PPW does not attempt to explore particular circumstances or to prescribe approaches for
every conceivable planning situation, but it is clear that LPAs are expected to direct
development towards previously developed land inside the settlement boundary.
Development in the Countryside should be permitted only in limited circumstances; for
instance, the LPAs are encouraged to take favourable views of proposals that will create
affordable housing for local people or help to sustain rural enterprises, but even the most
socially or economically beneficial schemes must preserve the valuable characteristics of
their surroundings,
 Each development requires the LPA to consider local and national planning policy, but
material considerations can prove decisive in the assessment. Paragraph 3.1.3 of PPW
states that material considerations must be “relevant to the regulation of the development
and use of land in the public interest, towards the goal of sustainability” and paragraph
3.1.4 states that material considerations must be “fairly and reasonably related to the
development concerned”. In this instance therefore, it is felt that the possibility of setting
an undesirable precedent for similar,
 Examples of case law and appeal decision which reaffirm that setting a precedent and its
cumulative effects is a reasonable planning assessment to make,
 The use of the land for domestic curtilage means it would soon cease to have the
appearance of the countryside. Simply cutting the grass would create a sharp visual
contrast between the undeveloped land nearby. Suggests that a condition restricting
landscaping, outbuildings and ornamental plants would nullify the benefit of the
permission, fail to protect the countryside and that it would fail the test of
‘reasonableness’.
 Questions how the enlargements of a private residence would benefit the local
community.
 The reen, as it currently stands, is a man-made feature, which has been moved in order to
allow the development and the LPA would have little control over any subsequent
relocation.
2.2
HEAD OF STREETSCENE AND CITY SERVICES (LANDSCAPE OFFICER): No objection
providing that the re-location of the reen was undertaken legally.
2.3
HEAD OF STREETSCENE AND CITY SERVICES (ECOLOGY OFFICER): The site is allocated
as Countryside in the LDP therefore I would object in principle. I do not know the history of the
site but I would recommend that NRW are consulted given the location on the Gwent Levels
SSSI and the re-alignment of reens etc.
2.4
HISTORIC BUILDINGS CONSERVATION OFFICER: Thanks for consulting me on this
application, the site of which lies to the north of grade II* listed medieval Parish Church of St
Bridget. Prior to recent unauthorised development, the character of the church’s rural setting on
the historic Gwent Levels (a Registered Landscape of Outstanding Historic Importance),remained
intact to this side, and it is my view that domestic intrusion into this area of countryside is
unwelcome in principle. Whilst the use of the areas outlined on the plan as residential curtilage
may not in itself be particularly harmful to the setting of the church, it would seem difficult to
control the potential accumulation of domestic paraphernalia and, if approved, it would seem
likely that this development would set a precedent for further development of residential curtilage
in close proximity to the church. As such, I am concerned that the setting of the listed building
would be adversely affected and therefore feel unable to support this application.
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: All properties that share a common boundary with the application site were
consulted (6No addresses). 2No representations were received, objecting to the proposal on the
following grounds;
i. The houses were granted permission without back gardens and within the village
boundary,
ii. The reen has been moved twice, which has resulted in their property, and the Church,
being flooded as they had been filled in. Additional drains had to be dug to relieve the
flood waters.
iii. Point out that outbuildings have been erected in the garden, along with the placement of a
large red shipping container.
iv. Being landowners in the area, they would be looking to extend their gardens/move their
boundaries if this application is granted, implying a precedent would be set.
v. A 10ft high wall has been erected around the property as well as a considerably sized
play area, which is inappropriate for two properties, being larger than the one which
serves the whole village. Its appearance creates an ‘eyesore’.
vi. Previous views of the countryside have now been replaced by this wall.
vii. A road had been constructed to provide access to the new properties so that traffic does
not have to pass by Sunnybank, but means that there are additional vehicle movements
nearer to Church Farm.
viii. The fence, wall, pillars and new entrances have all been constructed without planning
permission.
ix. The properties are not in keeping with the area.
3.2
SITE NOTICE: Posted 21st August 2015.
3.3.1
WENTLOOGE COMMUNITY COUNCIL (WCC): Considers that this current application should be
refused. The previous application 13/0658 indicated houses clearly facing east with no gardens
other than that frontage facing east towards the former Tythe Barn. On this basis the applicants
received planning consent and appeared content with this initial design scheme. The scheme
included block planting and timber stock fencing which were also approved to 'break up views to
the site and dwellings' - elements which it appears have not been forthcoming.
3.3.2
This latest application presents the possibility that there has been a planning strategy where
incremental applications will be submitted to provide a vehicle/open up the potential to have a
longer term housing development programme in St Brides. The end result of these successive
planning applications is potentially what was originally intended by the applicant, i.e. that the
original submitted/approved design was used to establish building plots because the longer term
goal, if it had been submitted initially, would have been deemed inappropriate in this rural
location.
3.3.3
The re-routing of the reen to the west of the former Tythe Barn is a matter of concern not only
due to the impact on the immediate environment but also as it highlights yet another incremental
scheme design change. The reen was previously shown moved more westwards from its original
alignment on drawing 0652/51RevC to better facilitate the development of the additional two
houses. Considerable numbers of indigenous trees and hedges have been removed over time
and the character of the area changed from 'rural agricultural' to a more 'semi-suburban'
ambience.
3.3.4
The current application shows the reen moved yet again, and further straightened, to better
facilitate the gardens that are the subject of this application. WCC are unclear whether approvals
have been given for these series of sequential re-alignments of the reen over time by either NRW
or NCC, or whether environmental impact assessments have been undertaken prior to
permission being granted and works commencing. Nevertheless, it is clear that by doing so even
further site development potential has been 'opened up' and undoubtedly will come forward as
applications in due course.
3.3.5
Wentlooge Community Council are in total agreement with, and support, the views of NCC's
Planning Policy Officer, Mr Mark Stringer, with regard to this site and the implications for other
areas of Newport if permission to effectively change the designated boundary were to be granted.
Whilst every case should be judged on its own merits, WCC consider that there are definitive
policy statements and guidance in relation to development within these villages which if ignored
will have serious implications for this and other rural areas, and, for the 'authority' of Newport City
Council. The Council has a responsibility to protect all its residents and the communities within
which they live whether that be in an urban or rural setting.
3.3.6
WCC are also extremely anxious that if this application is allowed there is the potential for other
developments to be proposed to 'build out' this field between the new houses and the Church of
St Bridget thereby changing the very character of the area and encouraging others to propose
developments outside the established village envelope.
4.
12/0657 DEMOLITION OF BARN AND CONSTRUCTION OF 2NO.
DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS
13/0200 DEMOLITION OF BARN AND CONSTRUCTION OF 2NO.
DWELLINGS AND ASSOCIATED WORKS (RESUBMISSION
FOLLOWING APPROVAL OF 12/0657)
Granted with
Conditions
Granted with
Conditions
13/0658 PROVISION OF 2NO. RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS AND Granted with
ASSOCIATED WORKS, TOGETHER WITH PROVISION OF Conditions
9NO. CAR PARKING SPACES FOR WORSHIPPERS OF ST.
BRIDGET'S CHURCH (AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED SCHEME 13/0200)
15/0841 NON-MATERIAL AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMISSION Approved
13/0658 FOR ELEVATION ALTERATIONS, INSERTION OF
WINDOW TO GARAGE OF HOUSE 2 AND INSTALLATION OF
FLUE
5.
5.1
5.2
5.3
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks retrospective planning permission for the change of use of land from
designated Countryside and Green Wedge to residential curtilage, to be used in association with
the 2No recently erected dwellings on land west of and adjacent to Tythe Barn, Church Road, St
Brides Wentlooge, Newport.
The site history
As outlined in section 4 above, there is an extensive planning history on site. Planning permission
was initially granted for 2No dwellings on site by application 12/0657. At the time of that
submission, the land housed a large, steel agricultural barn, which lay adjacent to a reen/field
ditch, until this reen was relocated some 10-15m to the west in order to facilitate the development
prior to the initial submission.
A later submission, 13/0200, granted amendments to the initial scheme, comprising the addition
of a small triangular parcel of land, the re-siting of one of the properties, as well as various
fenestration amendments. An extension to each of the properties was then granted under
application 13/0658, as well as the provision of parking bays for the use of Church worshippers.
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
The application site and the settlement boundary
The application site in question is an area of land which is currently, without the benefit of
planning permission, being used as residential curtilage in association with the 2No recently
constructed dwellinghouses which were granted planning permission by application 13/0658. As
mentioned, the land is designed as ‘Countryside’ as it falls outside of the urban/village boundary
of St Brides, and is also designed as ‘Green Wedge’ and a ‘Special Landscape Area’ in the
Newport Local Development Plan 2011-2026 (adopted January 2015).
At present, and at the time of the previous applications, the settlement boundary follows the
original line of the reen. This encompasses the area of the original barn and then tapers in
towards the access road to the west of Sunnybank.
The approved schemes
Initially (12/0657) the scheme proposed rear gardens to the properties of depths varying between
approximately 3.5m and 6.5m (from the rear elevation of the dwelling), although these were
removed following discussions between the applicant and the planning officer as it would have
involved the domestication of a substantial portion of land outside of the settlement boundary.
The rear boundaries to the properties were amended so that they were in very close proximity to
the rear elevations and only a small section of the application sites were located outside of the
settlement boundary. The officer’s report to that original application states;
“The site does encompass a small portion of land outside of the settlement boundary to the rear
of both houses and to the side of House 1. The scheme does not propose any access onto this
land and the proposed gardens would be restricted to the side of both houses. The applicants
have included this small portion of land to allow for foundations to be constructed within the
development site. Whilst it is acknowledged that there would be a small encroachment into the
countryside the portion of land is so small that it is not considered to have a significantly harmful
impact on the open character of the countryside”.
The result of this amendment was that the properties had little to no rear garden/amenity space,
although the same officer report addresses this by stating;
“In terms of the residential amenity of future residents it is recognised that gardens would be
limited to the side and front of the houses. However, it is considered that extent of the gardens
would be a personal choice and any future occupiers would decide for themselves whether they
would offer sufficient amenity space to meet their needs”.
The current proposal
The properties in question have since been constructed, along with the Church parking bays.
This application seeks to regularise the use of an area to the west of the properties in question
for use as residential curtilage. A plan has been submitted as part of this application which
indicates the area of land in question. The land has been identified as being to the west of the
dwellings, approximately 28m in depth from the rear walls of the dwellings as built. The agent’s
planning statement describes the land as “a strip of mowed grassland to the west of two recently
constructed dwellings… [which is] currently being used as gardens…contained by a timber post
and rail fence…” and that “there are no built structures within the confines of the site”.
It is noted that the reen shown on the plans does not correspond with the reen as exists on site;
however, as this is outside of the red line of application site, it is not considered that this is
necessarily an issue for the purposes of this application. For clarification, and in response to the
concerns raised by the Community Council and neighbours, it is the Council’s understanding that
the works to relocate the reen did not require planning permission by virtue of Part 14 of the
Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995; development by
drainage bodies.
Officer observation
5.10
The agent states that “The change of use of the land does not prejudice the openness of the
Green Wedge since there are no built structures, formal landscaping or ornamental planting”.
However, it was noticed during the site visit that a multiple structures had indeed been erected on
the land in question (namely a ‘summer house’ and a children’s play house), as well as planting
beds and other residential paraphernalia such as decking, patio furniture, plant pots and clothes
drying facilities.
5.11
In addition, it is noted that extensive unauthorised works have also taken place outside of the
application site; namely the erection of a boundary wall on to Church Road, creation of access
tracks and reen crossings, creation of ornamental planting beds and the installation of a
(permanently attached) play area. Whilst these do not form part of this application, it
demonstrates the extent of the works which have been undertaken without the benefit of planning
permission.
5.12
Policy context
Policies SP5 (Countryside), SP7 (Green Wedge), SP8 (Special Landscape Areas), GP2 (General
Amenity) and GP6 (Quality of Design) of the Newport Local Development Plan 2011-2016
(Adopted January 2015) are considered relevant to the determination of the application, as well
as Planning Policy Wales (Edition 7, July 2014), “PPW”.
5.13
Policy SP5 states;
“DEVELOPMENT IN THE COUNTRYSIDE (THAT IS, THAT AREA OF LAND LYING BEYOND
THE SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES SHOWN ON THE PROPOSAL AND INSET MAPS) WILL
ONLY BE PERMITTED WHERE THE USE IS APPROPRIATE IN THE COUNTRYSIDE,
RESPECTS THE LANDSCAPE CHARACTER AND BIODIVERSITY OF THE IMMEDIATE AND
SURROUNDING AREA AND IS APPROPRIATE IN SCALE AND DESIGN. HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT, RURAL DIVERSIFICATION AND RURAL ENTERPRISE USES, BEYOND
SETTLEMENT BOUNDARIES, WILL ONLY BE APPROPRIATE WHERE THEY COMPLY WITH
NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY”.
5.14
Policy SP7 states;
“WITHIN [Green Wedge] AREAS, DEVELOPMENT WHICH PREJUDICES THE OPEN NATURE
OF THE LAND WILL NOT BE PERMITTED…”. The supporting text to this policy confirms that
the prime purpose of Green Wedges is to prevent coalescence between urban areas and that
these areas tend to have significant importance for their openness and for their role in
maintaining the distinct identity of separate communities.
5.15
Policy GP2 states;
"DEVELOPMENT WILL BE PERMITTED WHERE, AS APPLICABLE:
i) THERE WILL NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECT ON LOCAL AMENITY,
INCLUDING IN TERMS OF NOISE, DISTURBANCE, PRIVACY, OVERBEARING,
LIGHT, ODOURS AND AIR QUALITY;
ii) THE PROPOSED USE AND FORM OF DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL
TO THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF NEARBY OCCUPIERS OR THE CHARACTER OR
APPEARANCE OF THE SURROUNDING AREA;
iii) THE PROPOSAL SEEKS TO DESIGN OUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CRIME AND
ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR;
iv) THE PROPOSAL PROMOTES INCLUSIVE DESIGN BOTH FOR THE BUILT
DEVELOPMENT AND ACCESS WITHIN AND AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT;
v) ADEQUATE AMENITY FOR FUTURE OCCUPIERS”.
5.16
PPW states that local designations such as a green wedge may be justified where land is to
serve the same purpose to a Green Belt, which is to;
 prevent the coalescence of large towns and cities with other settlements;
 manage urban form through controlled expansion of urban areas;
 assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
 protect the setting of an urban area; and

5.17
5.18
assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.
It states that factors such as openness, topography and the nature of urban edges should be
taken into account when defining green wedges and that clearly identifiable physical features
should be used to establish defensible boundaries. It also mentions that the general policies
controlling development in the countryside apply in green wedges, but there is, in addition, a
general presumption against development which is inappropriate in relation to the purposes of
the designation. PPW continues to state that Local Planning Authorities should attach substantial
weight to any harmful impact which a development would have on a Green Belt or Green Wedge,
and that inappropriate development should not be granted planning permission except in very
exceptional circumstances where other considerations clearly outweigh the harm. It states that, in
relation to development which is not the erection of dwellings or the re-use of buildings, other
forms of development would be inappropriate development unless they maintain the openness of
the Green Belt or Green Wedge and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.
In relation to development in the Countryside, it states that all new development should respect
the character of the surrounding area and should be of appropriate scale and design.
The agent’s contention
The supporting planning statement explains that the site is located adjacent to the settlement
boundary without any physical demarcation denoting where the settlement ends and where the
Countryside begins, although concedes that the reen (which has been relocated) would have
previously served this purpose in its original location. The statement claims that the relocation of
the reen was “necessary” as it no longer served an ecological function.
5.19
Following the relocation of the reen, the agent states that a new “natural and defensible physical
boundary” has been created, redefining the nature of the site and resulting in the land subject to
this application appearing as part of the settlement and is “more easily read against the backdrop
of the recently constructed dwellings”. Hence it is claimed that “the site is more akin to [the]
suburban nature of the settlement than the wider open countryside”. Further justification is given
in that “whilst being used as garden, the land remains rural in its appearance”, continuing by
explaining that a post and rail fence is a common feature of the Countryside.
5.20
The agent refers to Planning Policy Wales, stating that it allows for “certain types of development
in the countryside”, and that minor extensions to existing settlements can be considered
acceptable, claiming that development in the countryside is not precluded, and should be
considered in terms of its relationship with the settlement.
5.21
The agent considers that, despite the site’s strong relationship with the settlement, the visual
impact of the change of use of the land is minimal and does not adversely impact on the wider
countryside particularly since the site not does appear differently to the former situation.
Reference is made to the removal of the rear gardens from the original application, claiming that
it had resulted in a “residual piece of land which is difficult to maintain and has no effective use
for agriculture” and the agent believes that the dwellings are better served by larger gardens (as
proposed by this application).
5.22
In reference to the impact on the Green Wedge, the supporting statement states that the change
of use does not prejudice the openness of the Green Wedge since there are no built structures,
formal landscaping or ornamental planting and that the prevention of built structures and
ornamental planting can also be restricted in the future via planning condition. Nor will it
compromise its designation as Green Wedge or dilute its purpose, it is claimed.
5.23
It also considers that, due to the limited physical delineation between the settlement and the
Green Wedge allocation, the site has an intimate relationship with the 2no. dwellings constructed,
and that the site is therefore read in views with the residential backdrop rather than the Green
Wedge making it more analogous to the settlement. Overall, the agent considers that the
proposal complies with both local and national planning policy.
5.24
Officer assessment
At the time of the adoption of the current development plan, the village boundary of St Brides
followed the original course of the reen, with the plan having been prepared over a number of
years – this reen was a distinct physical feature of the land and was therefore a logical boundary
for both the village boundary and the Green Wedge. But, following the relocation of this reen, the
boundary no longer follows a topographical feature. The agent asserts that this boundary is
therefore no longer “defensible”, although the Council considers that the approved rear
boundaries of the dwellings, which are in the same location as the bank of the reen (in its original
position), would serve the purpose of being a “clearly identifiable” physical feature, creating a
defensible boundary, which would represent a physical and visual boundary between the village
boundary and the Green Wedge/Countryside.
5.25
The agent has attempted to justify the retention in the application’s supporting information. The
agent suggests that an appropriate planning condition to preclude the erection of outbuildings
would prevent any harm to the openness of the green wedge and the character of the
Countryside and that the change of use would result in any detrimental impact.
5.26
Policy SP5 relates to development in the countryside and states that development will only be
permitted where the use is appropriate in the countryside, respects the landscape character of
the immediate and surrounding area and it appropriate in scale and design, whilst policy SP7
states, in relation to Green Wedges, that development which prejudices the open nature of the
land will not be permitted. As outlined in paragraph 5.14 above, further guidance is provided in
PPW, particularly in relation to the purpose of a green wedges, and states that its purpose is to,
amongst other things, assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Furthermore, it
mentions that there is, in addition to the general policies controlling development in the
countryside, a general presumption against development which is inappropriate in relation to the
purposes of the Green Wedge designation. Development, which is not the erection of dwellings
or the re-use of buildings, would be inappropriate development unless they maintain the
openness of the Green Belt or green wedge and do not conflict with the purposes of including
land within it.
5.27
There is an argument that the use of the land for residential curtilage would not technically
reduce the openness of the Green Wedge (especially if the erection of outbuildings were to be
restricted by an appropriately worded planning condition), furthermore the Council acknowledges
that the erection of the fencing is permitted development. Regardless, the Council does not
consider that the characteristics of the development and use of the land as curtilage would be
appropriate. The containment of this land and its use in association with the recently erected
residential dwellings would result in development which is out of character with its countryside
setting, as it would represent a very domestication of the countryside. The land, by virtue of its
landscaped/maintained state, is in contrast to the lesser maintained appearance of the
countryside. In addition, a site visit undertaken as part of this application reveals that a number of
outbuildings have already erected on the land (along with a vast number of other works, outside
of the “application site”), as well as the placement/erection of numerous items of residential
paraphernalia. The presence of said outbuildings and residential paraphernalia further erodes the
character of the countryside and results in additional domestication of the countryside.
5.28
To gain a full appreciation of impact on the character of the area, one must consider the previous
(and lawful) use and condition of the land in question. This was unmaintained pasture land (along
with the reen) and was very much typical of a countryside setting. However, the change of use of
the land to residential curtilage has resulted in the creation of a manicured lawn in a countryside
location (along with the erection of outbuilsdings and the placement of various items of residential
paraphernalia), very much out of character with its countryside setting. When considering the
views/appearance of the site, the physical relationship between the recently erected
dwellinghouses and the land in question results in the perception of the dwellinghouses also
being located firmly within the countryside, exacerbating their own visual impact. The agent
themselves state “the site is more akin to [the] suburban nature of the settlement than the wider
open countryside”, emphasising the previous point. If the original scheme were to have been
properly implemented, the two dwellinghouses would benefit from an obvious physical separation
from the countryside and Green Wedge, and the land the subject of this application would remain
as unaltered countryside/green wedge.
5.29
As previously discussed, the dwellinghouses were granted on the basis that they were (almost
entirely) contained within the village boundary, with no rear gardens in order to prevent intrusion
in to the countryside and green wedge, a fact that the applicant, developers and occupiers were
all aware of. It seems that, throughout the duration of project, the intention has always been to
erect dwellings with extensive rear gardens in the countryside, despite the knowledge that such
development would be unacceptable; arguably this is evidenced by the fact that the works have
been undertaken without the necessary planning permission.
5.30
Policy SP5 explains that housing development beyond settlement boundaries, which arguably
this would represent, will only be appropriate where they comply with national planning policy. As
stated in PPW, one of the purposes of designating land as a Green Wedge is to assist in
safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Inarguably, this proposal represents
encroachment in to the countryside, resulting in its domestication, and therefore conflicts with the
purposes of including land within the Green Wedge in the beginning, contrary to both national
and local planning policy.
5.31
PPW states that Local Planning Authorities should attach substantial weight to any harmful
impact which a development would have on a Green Belt or Green Wedge, and that
inappropriate development should not be granted planning permission except in very exceptional
circumstances where other considerations clearly outweigh the harm. It is not considered that the
proposal would represent very exceptional circumstances and would clearly outweigh the harm
identified.
5.32
The Council does not consider that a condition which would prevent the erection of outbuildings
would be appropriate, nor would it overcome the harm identified above. Arguably such a
condition would be unreasonable on the occupiers and would nullify the benefit of any permission
for residential curtilage in the beginning.
5.33
5.34
5.35
Special Landscape Area (SLA)
The area is also designated as a Special Landscape Area; as such, policy SP8 is considered of
relevance. The supporting text to this policy states that “within Special Landscape Areas, priority
will be given to landscape conservation and enhancement. The designation of a SLA does not
preclude development but any proposals must demonstrate that they have been designed to
respect the valued characteristics of the recognised landscape as well as being in accordance
with other Policies of this Plan” and that “Developers will be required to ensure that proposals do
not impact or affect the intrinsic character, quality, feature or conservation value of the SLA.
Designs will be required to be of a high standard, appropriate in scale and massing, integrated
sympathetically into the landscape as well as ensuring long term management”.
As shown in the assessment above, it is considered that the proposal does not respect the
characteristics of the area and that it is not considered in accordance with other policies of the
LDP. As a result, it is also considered that the development is unacceptable due to its impact on
the character of the SLA, contrary to policy SP8.
Setting a precedent
Paragraph 9.3.6 of PPW should also be borne in mind; proposals that seem acceptable on an
individual basis can, in combination with one another, change the character of an area for the
worse. The Council must consider the future implications that granting this permission would
have, not only in the local area, but also for all other rural and semi-rural areas of Newport. The
approval of this application would set an undesirable precedent for similar development
throughout Newport which, when considering the combination effect of similar developments
taking place elsewhere, would result in a marked contraction of the countryside. Such a result
would confer no benefit on those working in rural enterprises or on those seeking affordable
housing in villages, and it would benefit nobody but the owners of the houses concerned. The
agent contests that the Council should be able to consider such implications, quoting chapter 3 of
PPW which states that “the duty is to decide each case on its planning merits”. The agent
continues by arguing “The Council cannot pre-empt something that “may” or “may not” occur in
the future, however, has to consider what is in front of them at the time of decision making”.
5.36
5.37
5.38
5.39
5.40
5.41
6.
6.1
Despite the agent’s assertion, numerous court and appeal decisions (quoted in full by the
Planning Policy Manager) demonstrate that the council may treat the creation of such a
precedent as a material consideration. Paragraph 3.1.3 of PPW states that material
considerations must be “relevant to the regulation of the development and use of land in the
public interest, towards the goal of sustainability” and that material considerations must be “fairly
and reasonably related to the development concerned” In this instance, it is felt that the possibility
of setting an undesirable precedent for similar development proposals is a perfectly reasonable
material consideration.
The setting of the Parish Church of St Bridget.
The application site lies approximately 70m to the north of the curtilage of the Grade II* Listed
Building, the medieval Parish Church of St Bridget. The Council’s Conservation Officer notes
that, prior to the unauthorised development which has taken place, the character of the church’s
rural setting on the historic Gwent Levels remained in tact on the northern side. He comments
that the potential accumulation of domestic paraphernalia and setting of a precedent for further
curtilage development in close proximity to the church causes concern of an adverse affect on
the setting of the Listed Building.
Despite it not being a consideration for this application, the aforementioned unauthorised
development outside of the application site is likely to have a detrimental impact on the setting of
the Listed Building, as well as mirroring the harm to the Countryside and Green Wedge as
identified above. The Council is exploring appropriate means of recertifying to unauthorised
development to restoring the land to its former condition. Given the lawful condition of the land
between the church and the application site, and the distance of the application site from the
curtilage of the Listed Building, officers do not consider that the proposed development would
have a detrimental impact on the setting of the Listed Building.
Other considerations
Further representation has been made by the agent in response to the consultation response
provided by the Planning Policy Manager, further attempting to justify why they consider the
application is acceptable, contrary to the planning policy response. However, it is not considered
that the content of this representation further justifies the proposal as, in the main, in reiterates
the contents of the planning statement, providing no new or convincing arguments in favour of
the development.
The agent has since enquired as to whether the Council would consider a smaller portion of land
acceptable for use as curtilage. However, for the reasons set out above, officers do not consider
that any form of garden area is appropriate in this instance so this request was declined.
Neighbour comments
The comments submitted by neighbouring occupiers are noted although a number of comments,
such as the design of the dwellings, the relocation of the reen (and its impact) and construction of
a new road, are not relevant to this specific application. It is considered that the other
concerns/points raised have been suitably addressed in the assessment above.
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
Having regard to the aforementioned policies of the LDP and the content of PPW, it is concluded
that the development in question results in an unacceptable urban intrusion in to the countryside,
and one which would also be out of keeping with the character of the countryside itself, without
representing exceptional circumstances which outweigh the harm identified. In addition, it would
set an undesirable precedent for both the local and wider areas of Newport’s countryside. As
such, it is concluded to be contrary to policies SP5, SP7, SP8 and GP2 of the LDP as well as
PPW. Planning permission is therefore refused.
8.
DECISION
REFUSED
01 By virtue of its siting outside of the village boundary, and its designation as a Green Wedge
and Special Landscape Area, the use of the land as residential curtilage in association with the
recently constructed dwellings is considered detrimental to the character of the countryside,
Special Landscape area and the purpose of Green Wedge, resulting in an unacceptable urban
intrusion in to the countryside. This is exacerbated by the presence of domestic paraphernalia
and the association of the land with the dwellings themselves. The development would also
represent an undesirable precedent for similar development elsewhere. The scheme is therefore
contrary to policies SP5, SP7, SP8 and GP2 of the Newport Local Development Plan 2011-2026
(Adopted January 2015), as well as Planning Policy Wales (Edition 7, July 2014).
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to plan Nos: 0652/450 rev.A, 0652/452 rev.A, 0652/453 rev.B and
Planning Statement dated August 2015.
(Adopted January 2015). Policies SP5, SP7, SP8 GP2 and GP6 were relevant to the
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 14
15/1041
Ward:
Type:
MARSHFIELD
Applicant:
MARK DAWKES
Site:
LAND TO REAR OF 1 TO 3, THE HOLLIES, MARSHFIELD, CARDIFF
Proposal:
PARTIAL OF DISCHARGE 05 (ARCHAEOLOGICAL WATCHING BRIEF) OF
PLANNING PERMISSION 14/0994 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DWELLING
AND ASSOCIATED DRIVEWAY AND EXTERNAL WORKS
DECISION
APPROVED
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
GLAMORGAN GWENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRUST: No response.
2.
2.1
No internal Council advice was sought.
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: None
4.
14/0994 CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DWELLING AND ASSOCIATED Granted with
DRIVEWAY AND EXTERNAL WORKS
Conditions
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks to partially discharge condition 05 of planning permission 14/0994, as
referenced above.
5.2
Condition 05 relates to archaeological works and states;
“The developer shall ensure that a suitably qualified archaeologist is present during the
undertaking of any ground disturbing works in the development area, so that an archaeological
watching brief can be conducted. The archaeological watching brief shall be undertaken to the
standards of the Institute of Field Archaeologists. The Local Planning Authority shall be informed,
in writing, at least two weeks prior to the commencement of the development of the name of the
said archaeologist and no work shall begin until the Local Planning Authority has confirmed, in
writing, that the proposed archaeologist is suitable. Two copies of the watching brief shall be
submitted to the Local Planning Authority within two months of the fieldwork being completed.
Reason: To identify and record any features of archaeological interest discovered during the
works, in order to mitigate the impact of the works on the archaeological resource”.
5.3
The archaeolologist commissioned to undertake the works is Archaeology Wales Limited. They
have prepared a report, titled ‘Specification for an Archaeological Watching Brief’, detailing the
methodology for a watching brief to be undertaken as part of the approved development. It sets
out a program of works to ensure that the archaeological watching brief will meet the standard
required by The Chartered Institute for Archaeologist’s Standard and Guidance For
Archaeological Watching Briefs, with the objective being to safeguard the potential archaeological
resource through observation and recording during the course of the intrusive ground works.
5.4
The Council’s has consulted its archaeological advisors, Glamorgan Gwent Archaeological Trust,
on the information received. In the absence of an objection from its advisors, the Council must
conclude that the information provided is acceptable.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
In the absence of an objection from the Council’s archaeological advisors, it is concluded that the
information provided is acceptable. This application is therefore approved.
8.
DECISION
APPROVED
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to plan Nos: Specification for an archaeological watching brief at
Wellfield Road, Marshfield, Cardiff (dated August 2015).
03 Consideration of this subsequent consent did not raise significant additional environmental
matters over and above those previously considered as part of the original application. It is
therefore considered that the proposals do not need to be screened under the Environmental
Impact Assessment Regulations.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 15
15/1042
Ward:
Type:
MARSHFIELD
Applicant:
MARK DAWKES
Site:
Proposal:
PARTIAL OF DISCHARGE 02 (MATERIALS) OF PLANNING PERMISSION 14/0994
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW DWELLING AND ASSOCIATED DRIVEWAY
AND EXTERNAL WORKS
DECISION
APPROVED
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
No external consultation was undertaken.
2.
2.1
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: None
4.
Conditions
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks to partially discharge condition 02 of planning permission 14/0994,
as referenced above.
5.2
Condition 02 relates to materials and states;
“No work shall be commenced on the construction of the approved scheme until details/samples
of materials and finishes to be used on the external surfaces have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out
using the approved materials.
Reason: To ensure that the development is completed in a manner compatible with its
surroundings”.
5.3
Details have been provided of the materials to be used in the constructon of the dwelling. The
elevations would be finsihed in a white painted smooth sand/cement render, with staffordshire
smooth red bricks up to the DPC and a natural slate roof. It is considered that the materials
proposed would sympathetically relate to the materials seen in the immediate vicinity, and it is
therefore considered that they are acceptable.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
The materials proposed are concluded to be acceptable. This application is therefore approved.
8.
DECISION
APPROVED
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to plan Nos: Staffordshire smooth red brick, elevation plans and details
contained within the application form.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 16
15/1048
Ward:
Type:
MARSHFIELD
Applicant:
M DAWKES
Site:
Proposal:
PARTIAL DISCHARGE
OF CONDITION 04 (SURFACE AND FOUL WATER
DRAINAGE) OF PLANNING PERMISSION 14/0994 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
NEW DWELLING AND ASSOCIATED DRIVEWAY AND EXTERNAL WORKS
DECISION
APPROVED
1.
1.1.1
CONSULTATIONS
DWR CYMRU/WELSH WATER: The discharge of foul flows only from the proposed development
site can be accommodated within the public sewerage system. Surface water flows from the
proposed development will have to be disposed of by other means, i.e. using soakaways or
discharging directly to a watercourse in liaison with the Land Drainage Authority and/or
Environment Agency. Discharge of surface water to the public sewer is only to be made as a last
resort. No highway or land drainage run-off will be permitted to discharge directly or indirectly into
the public sewerage system. The proposal to combine foul and surface water from the site and
connect to the 225mm foul public sewer is unacceptable.
1.1.2
The applicant has amended the drainage scheme to address the concerns above by
disposing of surface water by way of soakaway. Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water comment on the
amendment as follows;
I am pleased to note that the applicant appears prepared to amend his scheme so that surface
water will go to a soakaway and surface water will not be connected to the public sewerage
system, as originally indicated. This amendment would now address the concerns we originally
raised.
2.
2.1
HEAD OF STREETSCENE AND CITY SERVICES (DRAINAGE MANAGER): No objection.
2.2
PUBLIC PROTECTION MANAGER: No comments.
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: None
4.
Conditions
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
referenced above.
5.2
Condition 04 relates to foul and surface water drainage and states;
“Prior to work first commencing on site, full details of the proposed methods of surface and foul
water drainage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
These details shall be fully implemented in compliance with the approved scheme prior to the
occupation of the dwelling.
Reason: To ensure the provision of adequate drainage.”
5.3
Details of the proposed method of foul and surface water disposal have been provided. The foul
water is to discharge to the public sewerage network at a point adjacent to the site entrance.
Initially the surface water was also to be disposed in this way, although an objection from Welsh
Water to this method has resulted in an amended surface water scheme. It is now proposed that
surface water would be disposed of via a soakaway. Details of the soakaway design and
performance calculations have been provided for consideration.
5.4
Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water and the Council’s Drainage Manager have offered no objections to the
proposal. It is therefore considered that the drainage scheme proposed is acceptable.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
The drainage details provided are concluded to be acceptable. This application is therefore
approved.
8.
DECISION
APPROVED
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to plan Nos: 1916-209 rev.C, Typical soak-away design drawing and
soakaway calculations.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 17
15/1032
Ward:
Type:
PILLGWENLLY
Applicant:
PAYNE LETTING & FINANCE
Site:
LAND ADJACENT TO AND ENCOMPASSING 3A, EAST MARKET STREET,
NEWPORT
Proposal:
PARTIAL DISCHARGE OF CONDITION 03 (BIN STORAGE) OF PLANNING
PERMISSION 14/0783 FOR THE CONVERSION OF EXISTING FIRST AND SECOND
FLOOR OFFICES TO 2NO. THREE BEDROOM APARTMENTS
DECISION
APPROVED
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
2.
2.1
HISTORIC BUILDINGS CONSERVATION OFFICER: Informally confirmed no objection.
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
None.
4.
14/0783 CONVERSION OF EXISTING FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR Granted with
OFFICES TO 2NO. THREE BEDROOM APARTMENTS
Conditions
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
referenced above.
5.2
Condition 03 relates to bin storage and states;
“Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby approved full details of the bin storage, to
include elevations and finish detail, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The approved details shall be fully implemented as approved and then
maintained thereafter in that state.
Reason: To ensure adequate bin storage in provided for the site in the interest of visual and
residential amenity and to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.”
5.3
Details and a plan have been provided with regards to the storage of bins, stating that the bins
will placed in a side alleyway adjacent to the building, away from the public areas in an attempt to
prevent vandalism. No structures are proposed to contain these bins. It is considered that this
would provide the property with adequate bin storage and it would not affect the character and
appearance of the Conservation Area.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
The details provided are considered to be acceptable. This application is therefore approved.
8.
DECISION
APPROVED
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to plan Nos: Covering letter (dated 17/08/2015) and drawing 14:60:7
rev.A.
04 This permission does not grant permission for a replacement door.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 18
15/1049
Ward:
PILLGWENLLY
Type:
Applicant:
CHARTER HOUSING ASSOCIATION LTD.
Site:
55, CAPEL CRESCENT, NEWPORT, NP20 2FT
Proposal:
REMOVAL OF CONDITION 3 (SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES) AND CONDITION 4
(FAMILY CARE) OF PLANNING PERMISSION 1/11934 FOR CHANGE OF USE OF
HOUSE TO 2NO. SELF CONTAINED FLATS
DECISION
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
NEWPORT ACCESS GROUP: No response received.
2.
2.1
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: All properties with a common boundary were consulted (eight addresses). No
representations were received.
4.
1/11934
CHANGE OF USE OF HOUSE INTO 2 SELF Granted
CONTAINED FLATS
Conditions
with
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks permission for the removal of conditions 03 and 04 of planning permission
1/11934 for the change of use of the residential dwelling to 2no. 1 bed flats.
5.2
Condition 03 states; “The occupation of the premises shall be limited to one parent families only
and if at any time the property ceases to be used for this purpose then it shall revert back to use
as one single dwelling.
Reason: The property is not considered suitable for conversion to flatted accommodation in
normal circumstances because of the lack of car parking provision within its curtilage.”
5.3
Condition 04 states; “This permission shall enure for the benefit of Family Care only.
5.4
The Human Rights Act would not have been a factor when the original application was
determined. Any decision taken now to pursue enforcement action would need to have regard to
the Human Rights Act and notably Article 8 of the Act and the right to respect for a person’s
family and home. Whilst the Council can interfere with this right, it would need to be justified in
doing so and for this to be the case, such action would need to serve the public interest and be
proportionate in seeking to remedy any harm caused to the public interest. In this case, such
judgements may, for example, centre upon whether or not the eviction of someone is a
proportionate remedy to a parking problem linked to a breach of the planning condition.
5.5
When imposing planning conditions, there are tests relating to reasonableness, precision and
enforceability. A limitation to Family Care lacks precision. It appears to limit the benefit of the
consent to one organisation and therefore make it a personal permission. Family Care does not
exist as an entity and there are no conditions to back this restriction up should it cease to exist.
The condition has no value now and it is recommended that this be removed.
5.6
In the case of the condition restricting occupation to “single parent families”, it is a restriction that
is enforceable and precise although perhaps not as precise a wording as we would aspire to
now. Nevertheless, although enforcement would be possible, it would potentially be intrusive
having regard to the Human Rights Act and the matters discussed above.
5.7
Newport City Council Parking Standards (Adopted August 2015) are relevant to the determination
of this application. It is considered that the parking requirement would be 1no. space per flat. The
proposed removal of conditions 03 and 04 would not result in an increase in parking requirement
as the number of bedrooms have not increased. The removal of both conditions would not give
rise to harm to public interests to justify refusing this application.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
It is considered that the removal of conditions 03 and 04 would not result in an increase in
parking demand and would therefore not have a detrimental impact on highway safety.
8.
DECISION
documents: Design and Access Statement.
NOTE TO APPLICANT
02 Newport City Council Parking Standards (Adopted August 2015) are relevant to the
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 19
15/1060
Ward:
Type:
ADVERT CONSENT
RINGLAND
Applicant:
MITCHELLS & BUTLERS PLC
Site:
TOBY CARVERY, CHEPSTOW ROAD, NEWPORT, NP19 9FL
Proposal:
DISPLAY OF INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED FASCIA AND FREESTANDING SIGNS
DECISION
PART GRANTED/PART REFUSED
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
None
2.
2.1
HEAD OF STREETSCENE AND CITY SERVICES (HIGHWAYS): No response.
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: None
4.
00/1381
01/0254
01/1166
05/1480
ERECTION OF FREE STANDING AND WALL
MOUNTED SIGNS
DISPLAY
OF
1
NO
DOUBLE
SIDED
ILLUMINATED SIGN
DISPLAY OF PART EXTERNALLY AND PART
INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED FREE STANDING
DOUBLE POST SIGN
RETENTION OF NON-ILLUMINATED SIGN
GRANTED
WITH
CONDITIONS
REFUSED (DISMISSED
AT APPEAL)
GRANTED
WITH
CONDITIONS
REFUSED
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks consent to display an internally illuminated fascia sign and a number of
freestanding signs at the Toby Carvery, Chepstow Road in the Ringland Ward.
5.2
The property is a pub/restaurant located within grounds that include a rear car park, a small beer
garden and rear service area. A row of commercial properties are located to the south and
residential properties are located to the east along Chepstow Road and Royal Oak Hill. The
property has had various adverts historically displayed and the proposal is to replace several
recently displayed adverts and to display one additional sign.
5.3
A large illuminated totem sign displaying the company logo and slogan ‘Home of the Roast’
would be displayed on a landscaped area within the south-eastern area of the site adjacent to the
junction of Royal Oak Hill and Chepstow Road. The sign would be replacing a formerly displayed
illuminated banner sign. It would measure a height of 4.6 metres with a width of 2 metres. The
sign would be illuminated using internal LEDs within the logo section, an up-lighting for the top
section with an overhead trough light for the lower slogan sign. An illuminated logo sign would be
displayed on the north-east facing side elevation of the building replacing a similarly sized
illuminated sign. It would measure 1.6 metres in height by 1.5 metres in width and would be
displayed at a height of 3.15 metres from ground level.
5.4
A free standing illuminated sign displaying the company logo would be displayed adjacent to an
area to the east of the main building that is currently landscaped with shrubs. It would be
illuminated with an external trough light. A non-illuminated sign displaying the text ‘Welcome to
Toby Carvery’ would be displayed adjacent to the site entrance in place of a similarly displayed
welcome sign. A small entrance sign displaying the company slogan would be displayed above
the main entrance to the building, in place of a similarly displayed sign.
5.5
5.6
The restaurant building is located in an area surrounded by a mix of residential, commercial and
retail units. With the exception of the much larger proposed totem sign similar advertisements
were previously displayed at the property and it is considered that the proposed advertisements
would not appear out of place given the character and appearance of the property and
surrounding area. The building itself would not appear overly cluttered with advertisements and
the location of the majority of the advertisements would relate well to existing window layouts.
5.7
The totem sign would be significantly higher than the previously existing illuminated sign
(approximately 1.3 metres higher). A planning appeal for a 4 metre high sign in the same location
was dismissed on visual amenity grounds in 2001 (ref: 01/0254). The proposed totem sign would
be higher than the previously dismissed sign and would result in an advertisement that was out of
proportion with the building and the surroundings in general. It would dominate views of the
property and would appear as a very prominent structure within the street scene to the detriment
of visual amenities in the area. As such it is considered that the proposed totem sign is contrary
to policy GP6 of the NLDP and advertisement consent should be refused on visual amenity
grounds.
5.8
There are nearby residential properties, but it is not considered that occupiers would be affected
by the illumination from the advertisements at night. The majority of the illuminated
advertisements face onto Chepstow Road. A row of residential properties are located opposite,
but they are approximately 40 metres from the nearest illuminated sign and are likely to receive
far more disturbance at night from the busy highway of Chepstow Road, and the junction with
Royal Oak Hill, than the illuminated advertisements.
5.9
The proposed advertisements would also have little effect on users of the highway at Chepstow
Road and Royal Oak Hill. The only advert with potential for an impact on highway safety would
be the totem sign located close to the junction with Chepstow Road and Royal Oak Hill. The sign
would not interfere with any visibility currently available from the junction. Although the totem sign
would be visually prominent, none of the illumination measures proposed should directly face the
highway so users of the public highway should be generally unaffected. There is no reason to
believe that the advertisements would have any wider effect on public safety and it is considered
(with the exception of the illuminated totem sign) that the proposed advertisements are
acceptable in both design and public safety terms.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
With the exception of the illuminated totem sign the proposed advertisements are considered to
maintain adequate visual amenities and do not pose any harm to public safety, therefore they are
in accordance with Policies GP2 and GP6 of the development plan and should be granted
advertisement consent is granted.
7.2
The illuminated totem sign would represent a prominent addition to the property that would be
out-of-scale with the building and would dominate views of the property and surrounding area to
the detriment of visual amenities contrary to policy GP6 of the Newport Local Development Plan
2011-2026 (adopted January 2015) and advertisement consent is refused.
8.
DECISION
PART GRANTED/PART REFUSED
01 The illuminated totem sign would represent a prominent addition to the property that would be
out-of-scale with the building and would dominate views of the property and surrounding area to
the detriment of visual amenities contrary to policy GP6 of the Newport Local Development Plan
2011-2026 (adopted January 2015).
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to plan Nos: 23179v01 – Pages 1 to 11 – Existing and Proposed
Elevations, Sign Details, Photographs and Location Plans.
application.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 20
15/1071
Type:
FULL
Ward:
ROGERSTONE
Applicant:
J HOLLAND
Site:
13, HILLSIDE CRESCENT, ROGERSTONE, NEWPORT, NP10 9BH
Proposal:
AMENDMENT TO PLANNING PERMISSION 11/0089 TO ALLOW FOR ERECTION OF
FIRST FLOOR ABOVE APPROVED GROUND FLOOR REAR EXTENSION
DECISION
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
2.
2.1
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: All properties that share a common boundary with the application site were
consulted (3No addresses). No representations were received.
3.2
ROGERSTONE COMMUNITY COUNCIL: No response.
4.
11/0089
PART SINGLE STOREY / PART TWO STOREY SIDE EXTENSION
WITH AMENDED PARKING ARRANGEMENT
Granted with
Conditions
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks planning permission for the erection of a first floor extension to the semidetached property known as 13 Hillside Crescent, Rogerstone, Newport.
5.2
Planning permission 11/0089 granted a part two storey, part single storey side extension to the
property. This extension was set back by 1m from the front of property at first floor level. At the
rear, the first floor was level with the existing rear wall of the property, but the ground floor
protrudes 1.27m beyond it. It is now proposed to extend the first floor of the extension beyond the
rear wall of the existing property by the same distance, allowing for an en-suite to the first floor
bedroom; its depth would therefore match that of the ground floor section.
5.3
The additional section proposed measures 1.27m in depth and 3.48m in width. The roof would tie
in to the pitched roof of the approved extension and would be 5.8m in height where it adjoins the
approved extension and 5.2m at the eaves.
5.4
Policies GP2 and GP6 of the Newport Local Development Plan 2011-2026 (Adopted January
2015), “the LDP”, are considered relevant to the determination of this application, as well as the
guidance contained within the Council’s House Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings
Supplementary Planning Guidance (Adopted August 2015), “the SPG”.
5.5
The design of the proposed extension is considered in keeping with the design of the approved
extension and the original dwelling. It would utilise matching materials and tie in with the pitch of
the roof.
5.6
With regards to the impact on the neighbouring properties, its minimal depth and distance from
the adjoining property would prevent a detrimental impact on the occupier’s residential amenities
at that property. Similarly, with regards to 15 Hillside Crescent, which could be more directly
affected by the proposal, the minimal depth of the extension would prevent a detrimental impact
on their residential amenities by way of overbearing impact, loss of light and loss of privacy.
Daylight tests have been carried out in accordance with the guidance of the SPG, involving taking
a 45° splay from the neighbour’s nearest opening in both plan and elevation view. Where a
proposal breaches both of these splays, it is considered that it would result in a detrimental
impact on daylight to the neighbouring property. This proposal passes both tests.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
Having regard to the aforementioned policies of the LDP and the guidance of the SPG, it is
concluded that the proposed extension would be acceptable in terms of its design and impact on
neighbouring properties. Planning permission is therefore granted with conditions.
8.
DECISION
documents; Proposed rear elevation, proposed side elevation, section through extension,
proposed ground floor plan, first floor view, proposed front elevation, KD1164/1, KD1164/2A and
Site Location Plan.
02 The external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall only be of materials to match
those of the existing building.
NOTE TO APPLICANT
application.
02 The Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance – House Extensions and Domestic
Outbuildings (Adopted August 2015) was adopted following consultation and is relevant to the
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 21
15/1001
Ward:
Type:
ADVERT CONSENT
STOW HILL
Applicant:
LDS GROUP LTD
Site:
77-78, LOWER DOCK STREET, NEWPORT, NP20 1EH
Proposal:
DISPLAY OF 2NO. PAINTED ELEVATION SIGNS AND 1NO. SWING SIGN
DECISION
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
2.
2.1
2.2.1
HISTORIC BUILDINGS CONSERVATION OFFICER: 77 and 78 Lower Dock Street are Grade II
Listed as an early 19th Century houses with Greek Revival detailing. Such buildings would not
normally be expected to have any form of signwriting on their façades. However, the commercial
uses of buildings on Lower Dock Street in the late 19th Century led to a tradition of large
corporate signage being painted on to the upper floors. The re-painted signage on the
“Jesseman’s” building on the corner of George Street is the best example of this, and it is
something that lends considerable character to the Lower Dock Street Conservation Area in
which these buildings prominently stand.
2.2.2
The restoration of number 77-78 was an early project in the Lower Dock Street Townscape
Heritage Initiative. It was during this restoration that the existing lettering for “The Chandlery” was
painted. Whilst this is not a replica of any known historic signage, it fits well onto the building
without cluttering the façade. Historic photographs show that there was previously some painted
signage on this building to the string course between the ground and first floors. This proposal
seeks to apply new signage to this string course. As this is traditional in nature and based on
historic precedent, and as the lettering at a higher level would be reduced so that the total extent
of signage on the building does not seem excessive, I have no objection to this.
2.2.3
I do not consider that the proposed changes to the existing hanging sign or paint colour will have
any adverse impact on the historic character of the building.
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: None.
4.
01/1369 DISPLAY OF EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED FASCIA SIGNS AND Granted
PROJECTING SIGN
15/1000 LISTED BUILDING CONSENT FOR REPLACEMENT PAINTED Undetermined
SIGNAGE AND REPAINTING OF EXISTING DOORS IN BOLD
TERRACOTTA
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks advertisement consent for the display of 2No painted elevation signs and
1No swing sign to the end of terrace property known as 77-78 Lower Dock Street, Newport. The
property is question is Grade II Listed and is prominently sited within the Lower Dock Street
Conservation Area.
5.2
At present, the building has ‘The Chandlery’ painted across its front elevation between the first
and second floor windows in green capital letters, font Times New Roman. It is proposed that this
would be replaced by the name of the new occupiers, ‘Hathi’, measuring 2.22m in width x 0.5m in
height. In addition, there is a string course between the ground and first floor on the front
elevation of the building where it is proposed to paint ‘Fine dining Indian cuisine’, measuring
5.16m in width x 0.25m in height. All lettering would be Times New Roman in font and bold
terracotta in colour. The content of the existing hanging sign would be amended to relate to the
new occupiers; as the sign is already in place with only its content altering, consent is not actually
required for the amendments to the swing sign.
5.3
Policies GP2, GP6 and CE7 of the Newport Local Development Plan 2011-2026 (Adopted
January 2015) as well as Technical Advice Note (TAN) 7 (Outdoor advertisement control) are of
relevance to the determination of this application. TAN 7 states that applications for
advertisement consent can only consider amenity and public safety.
5.4
It is considered that the signage proposed would suitably relate to both the appearance and the
character of the building on which it is to be placed. As mentioned by the Conservation Officer,
the signage represents a historic precedent so is considered to relate to its historic character.
Similarly, the signage design and type is considered to preserve the character and appearance of
the wider Conservation Area.
5.5
The Council’s Highways officer has offered no objection to the proposal.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
It is concluded that the proposed signage is acceptable with regards to amenity and public safety.
This application is therefore granted with conditions.
8.
DECISION
documents; Signage specification sheet (dated 30/07/2015), Annotated photograph of front
elevation, paint colour samples, Design and Access Statement and Site Location Plan.
NOTE TO APPLICANT
application.
_____________________________________________________________________________
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 22
15/1054
Ward:
STOW HILL
Type:
Applicant:
CHARTER HOUSING ASSOCIATION LTD.
Site:
LAND AND PROPERTIES ENCOMPASSING 8 9 10 AND 11, GEORGE STREET,
NEWPORT
Proposal:
REMOVAL OF CONDITION 03 (SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES) AND 04 (FAMILY CARE)
OF PLANNING PERMISSION 1/8796, TO ALLOW FOR FOR THE RETENTION OF
USE AS 9NO. SELF CONTAINED FLATS
DECISION
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
NEWPORT ACCESS GROUP: No response received.
2.
2.1
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: All properties with a common boundary were consulted (eight addresses). No
representations were received.
4.
1/18796
CHANGE OF USE OF HOUSE INTO 9 SELF Granted
CONTAINED FLATS FOR ONE PARENT Conditions
FAMILIES
with
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks permission for the removal of conditions 03 and 04 of planning permission
1/11934 for the change of use of the residential dwelling to 9no. flats, 3no. 2 bed flats and 6no. 1
bed flats.
5.2
Condition 03 states; “The occupation of the premises shall be limited to one parent families only
and if at any time the property ceases to be used for this purpose then it shall revert back to use
as one single dwelling.
5.3
Condition 04 states; “This permission shall enure for the benefit of Family Care only.
5.4
The Human Rights Act would not have been a factor when the original application was
determined. Any decision taken now to pursue enforcement action would need to have regard to
the Human Rights Act and notably Article 8 of the Act and the right to respect for a person’s
family and home. Whilst the Council can interfere with this right, it would need to be justified in
doing so and for this to be the case, such action would need to serve the public interest and be
proportionate in seeking to remedy any harm caused to the public interest. In this case, such
judgements may, for example, centre upon whether or not the eviction of someone is a
proportionate remedy to a parking problem linked to a breach of the planning condition.
5.5
When imposing planning conditions, there are tests relating to reasonableness, precision and
enforceability. A limitation to Family Care lacks precision. It appears to limit the benefit of the
consent to one organisation and therefore make it a personal permission. Family Care does not
exist as an entity and there are no conditions to back this restriction up should it cease to exist.
The condition has no value now and it is recommended that this be removed.
5.6
In the case of the condition restricting occupation to “single parent families”, it is a restriction that
is enforceable and precise although perhaps not as precise a wording as we would aspire to
now. Nevertheless, although enforcement would be possible, it would potentially be intrusive
having regard to the Human Rights Act and the matters discussed above.
5.7
Newport City Council Parking Standards (Adopted August 2015) are relevant to the determination
of this application. It is considered that the parking requirement would be 1no. space per flat. The
proposed removal of conditions 03 and 04 would not result in an increase in parking requirement
as the number of bedrooms have not increased. The removal of both conditions would not give
rise to harm to public interests to justify refusing this application.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
It is considered that the removal of conditions 03 and 04 would not result in an increase in
parking demand and would therefore not have a detrimental impact on highway safety.
8.
DECISION
documents: Design and Access Statement.
NOTE TO APPLICANT
02 Newport City Council Parking Standards (Adopted August 2015) are relevant to the
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 23
15/1080
Ward:
Type:
ADVERT CONSENT
STOW HILL
Applicant:
CHRISTOPHER BAKER, UNIONBURGER LTD
Site:
25-26, COMMERCIAL STREET, NEWPORT, NP20 1YD
Proposal:
INSTALLATION OF 3NO. HALO ILLUMINATED FASCIA SIGNS
DECISION
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
2.
2.1
HISTORIC BUILDINGS CONSERVATION OFFICER: No objection.
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: None
4.
92/1198 ERECTION OF INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED PROJECTING
AND FASCIA SIGNS
03/0316 DISPLAY OF INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED FASCIA SIGN AND
PROJECTING SIGN
03/0942 DISPLAY OF ILLUMINATED FASCIA AND PROJECTING SIGN
(RESUBMISSION)
15/0543 CHANGE OF USE OF GROUND FLOOR TO A3 USE, USE OF
BASEMENT FOR INCIDENTAL STORAGE, SHOPFRONT
ALTERATIONS AND INSTALLATION OF EXTRACT FLUE
15/0564 LISTED BUILDING CONSENT FOR SHOPFRONT AND
INTERNAL ALTERATIONS, INSTALLATION OF EXTRACT
FLUE AND INSTALLATION OF FASCIA SIGNAGE
Granted
Refused
Granted with
Conditions
Granted with
Conditions
Granted with
Conditions
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks advertisement consent for the display of 3No halo illuminated fascia signs
at the site of the future Burger King, 25-26 Commercial Street, Newport. The property is Grade II
Listed and occupies a prominent position within the Town Centre Conservation Area.
5.2
The site has a dual frontage, one on to Commercial Street, the other on to Austin Friars, with a
chamfered corner entrance. The proposed adverts would comprise 3No halo-illuminated fascia
signs. The flat section of the building’s fascia has been measured to be 455mm high. The one
fascia sign (sign B) would comprise the Burger King logo in powder coated metal, placed on the
chamfered corner. It would be 400mm in diameter, 75mm deep and be set on 30mm studs,
protruding from the fascia by a total of 105mm. Signs A&C would be identical, with one placed on
the Commercial Street elevation, the other on the Austin Friars elevation, sensitively placed on
the elevation to align with the architectural details of the building. These signs would be black
individual powder coated metal letters, measuring 400mm high, 3700mm in width and also 75mm
in depth, protruding by 105mm. In an attempt to reduce the level of drilling to the building’s
original and delicate stonework fascia, adverts A & C would be placed on stainless steel rails.
5.3
Policies GP2, GP6 and CE7 of the Newport Local Development Plan 2011-2026 (Adopted
January 2015) as well as Technical Advice Note (TAN) 7 (Outdoor advertisement control) are of
relevance to the determination of this application. TAN 7 states that applications for
advertisement consent can only consider amenity and public safety.
5.4
In terms of visual amenity, the size, materials and design of the proposed signage is considered
to be an acceptable and they would align with the architectural features of the building. The
means of illumination is also considered appropriate on such a prominent, historic building and in
terms of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The siting and size of the
adverts are considered acceptable in terms of public safety. It is therefore considered that the
proposed adverts comply with the aforementioned policies of the LDP.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
The amenity and public safety aspects of the signage are concluded to be acceptable. This
application is therefore granted with conditions.
8.
DECISION
documents; A3/02 rev.A, A3/200 rev.J, A3/700 rev.H and Site Location Plan.
NOTE TO APPLICANT
application.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 24
15/1081
Ward:
Type:
STOW HILL
Applicant:
PREZZO PLC
Site:
65 FRIARS WALK SHOPPING CENTRE, USK PLAZA, NEWPORT
Proposal:
PARTIAL DISCHARGE OF CONDITION 22 (DEMARCATION OF EXTERNAL SEATING
AREA) (PREZZO) OF PLANNING PERMISSION 11/1317 FOR DEMOLITION OF
EXISTING BUILDINGS, AND REDEVELOPMENT FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT
INCLUDING RETAIL (USE CLASS A1), LEISURE / CINEMA (USE CLASS D2), CAFÉS
AND RESTAURANTS (USE CLASS A3, EXTENSION TO EXISTING PUBLIC HOUSE
(USE CLASS A3), NEW BUS STATION, LANDSCAPING AND ACCESS AND
ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING
DECISION
APPROVED
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
2.
2.1
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: This discharge of condition application was treated as a ‘subsequent consent’
under the EIA Regulations and therefore a press notice to advise of the submission of information
against the planning conditions attached to planning permission 11/1317 was published in the
South Wales Argus on 14th March 2015. No representations were made.
4.
11/1317 DEMOLITION
OF
EXISTING
BUILDINGS,
AND Granted with
REDEVELOPMENT FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Conditions
INCLUDING RETAIL (USE CLASS A1), LEISURE / CINEMA
(USE CLASS D2), CAFÉS AND RESTAURANTS (USE CLASS
A3, EXTENSION TO EXISTING PUBLIC HOUSE (USE CLASS
A3), NEW BUS STATION, LANDSCAPING AND ACCESS AND
ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
referenced above. This application relates to the future Prezzo restaurant.
5.2
Condition 22 relates to the demarcation of external seating areas and states;
“Prior to first use of any A3 use (as defined under the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)
Order 1987 as applicable to Wales on the date of this planning permission) involving the use of
external seating areas, details of measures to demarcate such seating areas shall be submitted
to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such seating areas shall thereafter be
located and demarcated in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the safety of people with sight or sensory impairments”.
5.3
Drawings have been provided to show that the external seating areas will be demarcated by
branded breeze screens (1m high) and planting pots, a maximum of 3m out from the shopfront.
These would separate the al fresco dining areas from the public realm and pedestrian walkways.
5.4
No response has been received from Newport Access Group. In the absence of an objection, it is
considered that the demarcation proposed would be acceptable as they resemble the standard
demarcation methods used at a number of Prezzo restaurants throughout the UK. There would
also be ample circulation space around the restaurant and within Usk Plaza.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
The information provided is concluded to be acceptable. This application is therefore approved.
8.
DECISION
APPROVED
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to plan Nos: P03 and P05.
matters over and above those previously considered as part of the original application, which was
subject to an ES. It is therefore considered that the proposals do not need to be screened under
the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 25
15/1122
Ward:
Type:
STOW HILL
Applicant:
BEN COOK, PEGASUS PLANNING GROUP LTD
Site:
65 FRIARS WALK SHOPPING CENTRE, USK PLAZA, NEWPORT
Proposal:
PARTIAL DISCHARGE OF CONDITIONS 18 (ROOF MOUNTED PLANT) AND 19
(FUME EXTRACTION) (PREZZO) OF PLANNING PERMISSION 11/1317 FOR MIXED
USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING RETAIL (USE CLASS A1), LEISURE/CINEMA (USE
CLASS D2), CAFES AND RESTAURANTS (USE CLASS A3), EXTENSION TO
EXISTING PUBLIC HOUSE (USE CLASS A3), NEW BUS STATION, LANDSCAPING
AND ACCESS AND ASSOCIATED CAR PARKING
DECISION
APPROVED
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
2.
2.1
PUBLIC PROTECTION MANAGER: No objection.
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: None
4.
11/1317 MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING RETAIL (USE Granted with
CLASS A1), LEISURE/CINEMA (USE CLASS D2), CAFES AND Conditions
RESTAURANTS (USE CLASS A3), EXTENSION TO EXISTING
PUBLIC HOUSE (USE CLASS A3), NEW BUS STATION,
LANDSCAPING AND ACCESS AND ASSOCIATED CAR
PARKING
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application seeks to partially discharge conditions 18 and 19 of planning permission
11/1317, as referenced above. The submitted information relates to the future Prezzo restaurant,
Usk Plaza, Friars Walk, Newport.
5.2
Condition 18 states;
“Prior to first occupation of each unit, details of the sound power output [in dB(A)] and octave
band levels of the plant and the exact location of the plant relating to the respective unit shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity are
protected”.
5.3
Condition 19 states;
“Fumes from the food preparation areas of any unit proposed for A3 use (as defined under the
Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as applicable to Wales on the date of this
planning permission) shall be mechanically extracted and the extraction system shall be provided
with de-greasing and de-odorising filters. Details of the extraction equipment (including scaled
schematics, location plans, odour attenuation measures and future maintenance) shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to its installation, and
the equipment shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to the
commencement of use for the cooking of food. The equipment shall thereafter be maintained in
accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity are protected
and in the interests of visual amenities”.
5.4
Details have been provided with regards to the roof plant for the unit, as well as details of fume
extraction, as required by conditions 18 and 19.
5.5
In relation to condition 18, details of the roof mounted equipment has been provided (including
noise levels) as well as a location plan. The roof mounted plant would consist of; kitchen extract
fan, fan and filter housing, 4No AC condensers and all associated ducting. The plant would be
located on the roof of the adject block (block D) and would be obscured by a plant screen along
the edge facing Kingsway.
5.6
Details of the fume extraction system (and its maintenance) have also been provided in respect
of the requirements of condition 19.
5.7
The Council’s Public Protection Manager has confirmed that the information provided is
acceptable.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
It is concluded that the information provided is acceptable. This application is therefore approved,
partially discharging conditions 18 and 19.
8.
DECISION
APPROVED
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to plan Nos: LX8135-1, LX8135-2 and Ventilation specification.
matters over and above those previously considered as part of the original application, which was
subject to an ES. It is therefore considered that the proposals do not need to be screened under
the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 26
15/1137
Ward:
Type:
STOW HILL
Applicant:
M LOUGHER
Site:
THE POTTERS, 22-24, UPPER DOCK STREET, NEWPORT, NP20 1DL
Proposal:
PARTIAL DISCHARGE OF CONDITION02 (MATERIALS) OF PLANNING PERMISSION
OF 15/0727 FOR PART TWO STOREY, PART SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION WITH
ROOF TERRACE (AMENDMENT TO EXTENSION GRANTED BY PLANNING
PERMISSION 11/1317)
DECISION
APPROVED
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
2.
2.1
3.
3.1
REPRESENTATIONS
NEIGHBOURS: None
4.
15/0727 PART TWO STOREY, PART SINGLE STOREY EXTENSION Granted with
WITH ROOF TERRACE (AMENDMENT TO EXTENSION Conditions
GRANTED BY PLANNING PERMISSION 11/1317)
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
referenced above.
5.2
Condition 02 relates to materials and states;
“No work shall be commenced on the construction of the approved scheme until details/samples
of materials and finishes to be used on the external surfaces have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall then be carried out
using the approved materials.
Reason: To ensure that the development is completed in a manner compatible with its
surroundings”.
5.3
The applicant has provided details of the materials to be used in the construction of the
extension; grey/black brickwork and grey aluminium doors and window frames.
5.4
The brickwork sample provided would suitably relate to the adjacent Friars Walk development
which has used a brick of similar appearance and would contrast well with the host property,
allowing for a visual distinction between the modern addition and the original historic section of
the public house. Similarly, it is considered that the grey aluminium doors and window frames
would have an acceptable high quality appearance.
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
It is concluded that the materials provided are acceptable. This application is therefore approved.
8.
DECISION
APPROVED
NOTE TO APPLICANT
01 This decision relates to plan Nos: Email from Martin Lougher dated 10/09/2015 and brick and
aluminium frame samples provided.
APPLICATION DETAILS
No: 27
15/0968
Ward:
VICTORIA
Type:
Applicant:
DJD BUILDERS LTD
Site:
LAND TO REAR OF 97 TO 101, CHEPSTOW ROAD, NEWPORT
Proposal:
VARIATION OF CONDITION 10 (SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE) OF PERMISSION
08/0264 FOR THE ERECTION OF 3NO. TERRACED DWELLINGS TO ALLOW
CONNECTION TO THE PUBLIC SEWER
DECISION
1.
1.1
CONSULTATIONS
Dwr Cymru: No Objection
2.
2.1
None
3.
REPRESENTATIONS
None
4.
08/0264 Erection of 3no. terraced dwellings
Granted with
conditions
13/0524 Partial discharge of conditions 06 (contamination Approved
survey and remediation), 01 (landscaping) and 04
(boundary treatments) of planning permission
08/0264 for the erection of 3no. terraced
dwellings
13/0529 Partial discharge of condition 3 (materials) of
Approved
planning permission 08/0264 for erection of 3no.
terraced dwellings
5.
5.1
ASSESSMENT
This application is to vary condition 10 (Surface Water Drainage) of planning permission 08/0264
which states:
“Prior to the commencement of development, details of the means of surface water drainage
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The means of
surface water drainage shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the development.
Foul water and surface water discharges must be drained separately from the site. No surface
water shall be allowed to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system. No
land drainage run-off will be permitted, either directly or indirectly into the public sewerage
system.”
5.2
This application seeks to vary the above condition so that surface water and land drainage run off
will be permitted to connect into the public sewerage system via an attenuation tank.
5.3
As part of this application Welsh Water were consulted and they confirmed that an agreement
has been reached with the developer to connect surface water into the public sewer network at a
discharge rate of 5 litres per second. However they did note that as the statutory sewerage
undertaker they are not legally obliged to accept land drainage into the public system and
therefore no agreement exists for these flows.
5.4
It is therefore proposed that the details as provided by the applicant are acceptable and the
condition can be varied to read:“The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the details submitted within plan
001 RevA and shall not exceed a discharge rate of 5 litres per second.”
6.
6.1
decision.
6.2
Equality Act 2010
6.3
characteristics;
6.4
6.5
7.
7.1
CONCLUSION
It is considered that the variation of condition 10 is acceptable. The application is granted subject
to the following conditions (conditions which have already been discharged or partially
discharged have been amended or are not repeated to reflect this).
8.
DECISION
documents: Plan 001 Rev A.
02 Prior to first beneficial occupation of the dwellings hereby approved the boundary treatments
shall be implemented in accordance with the details agreed under application reference 13/0524.
Reason: To ensure the development is completed in a satisfactory manner.
General Conditions
03 The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the details submitted within plan
001 Rev A and shall not exceed a discharge rate of 5 litres per second
Reason: To prevent hydraulic overload of the public sewerage system and pollution of the
environment
04 The scheme of landscaping and tree planting agreed under planning application 13/0524 shall
be carried out in its entirety by a date not later than the end of the full planting season
immediately following the completion of that development. Thereafter, the trees and shrubs shall
be adequately maintained for a period of 5 years from the date of planting and any which die or
are damaged shall be replaced and maintained until satisfactorily established. For the purposes
of this condition, a full planting season shall mean the period from October to April.
Reason: To ensure that the site is landscaped in a satisfactory manner.
05 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
Development) Order 1995 (or any Order revoking or re enacting that Order), Schedule 2, Part 1,
no development within Classes A, B, C, D, and E shall be constructed without the prior written
permission of the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that a satisfactory form of development takes place and to protect the
amenities of occupiers of adjoining properties.
06 The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details/samples of materials and
finishes to be used on the external surfaces agreed under application reference 13/0529.
07 Floor levels of the development approved by this permission shall be set no lower than 7.89m
AOD.
Reason: To reduce the risk of flooding.
08 Development shall be carried out in accordance within the Geotechnical and GeoEnvironmental report agreed under application reference 13/0524
Reason: To ensure that the proposed site investigations and remediation will not cause pollution
of Controlled Waters and in the interests of safeguarding human health
09 If, during development, contamination not previously identified is found to be present at the
site then no further development shall be carried out until the developer has submitted, and
obtained written approval from the Local Planning Authority for, an amendment to the Method
Statement detailing how this unsuspected contamination shall be dealt with.
Reason: To ensure that the development complies with approved details in the interests of
protection of Controlled Waters.
NOTE TO APPLICANT
02 The development plan for New port is the New port Local Development Plan 2011 – 2026
03 No construction work shall be carried out other than between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00
Monday to Friday and between the hours of 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturdays.
04 The applicant is advised to contact the Street Naming and Numbering section of the Council
on 01633 656656.

Delegated Decision 15 Oct 2015

Transcription

Similar documents

Arch C (18 x 24) - ShopIrvineCompany.com

dESIGn Plaza @ 240 | nEWPOrt bEaCh, Ca

Registration/more information

Gateway Plaza Brochure

20351 SW Acacia Street | Newport Beach, California | 92660

Not Stuck - Roger Williams University

newport coast® shopping center

895 Dove Street | Newport Beach | CA | 92660

File