Monmouthshire Council - Planning Committee

Subscribe to updates

You'll receive weekly summaries about Monmouthshire Council every week.

If you have any requests or comments please let us know at community@opencouncil.network. We can also provide custom updates on particular topics across councils.

Please note, emails for this council have been paused whilst we secure funding for it. We hope to begin delivering them again in the next couple of weeks. If you subscribe, you'll be notified when they resume. If you represent a council or business, or would be willing to donate a small amount to support this service, please get in touch at community@opencouncil.network.

Planning Committee - Tuesday, 4th June, 2024 2.00 pm

June 4, 2024 View on council website Watch video of meeting

Transcript

Everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the Planning Committee on Tuesday, the 4th of June, 2024. Can we just go to the first item on the agenda, please, and that's the election of the chair. Can I have any nominations, please? Councilor Powell? Can I nomination Councilor Bill Murphy, please? Okay, can I have someone to second that, please? Jan, Councilor Powell, thank you. Thank you. Do I have any other nominations? No, okay. Councilor Murphy? I can't hear. Can't hear anything. Thanks very much, everybody. Let's hope we have as productive a year as we had in the last two. We've dealt with some quite tricky applications, and no doubt, we'll continue to get some tricky applications. So thanks to everybody for them. I'll get a hand up. I'll come in to, I've just seen you, Faye, I'll come in to you now. I'm sorry, Phil, we can't hear anything online. No, we can't, Phil. Nothing at all? No, it's a little bit better now, but it's very quiet, so we've missed your appointment. I do apologize, congratulations. Is that any better? Is that any better? Yes. Yeah, okay, yeah, Richard's work is magic. Thank you. Sorry. Sorry, now you can hear me. Can I just double check there wasn't any other nominations for Chair? No, okay, thank you very much. Right, just bear with me while I log in and everything. Right, okay. So back to business. As you would have gathered by now, anybody looking in, I'm Councillor Phil Murphy, the Chair of the Committee. And Dale? Chair, I think we still need to settle the-- Vice Chair. Vice Chair position first. Yeah, I was gonna come to the agenda, but there we are, we'll do it now. Can we have nominations then, please, for Vice Chair? Tony? We nominate Councillor Ruck, Chair. Seconded. Any other nominations? Do you wanna confirm it? Yeah, I can confirm then, Councillor Ruck is Vice Chair. So you can now confirm who you are, Dale? Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you very much, members. Councillor Dale Ruck representing Chepstow Castle and Larkfield walls, and the Vice Chair of this Committee, thank you. Craig? Craig O'Connor, Head of Placemaking. Philip Thomas, Development Services Manager. Andrew Jones, Development Management Area Manager. Okay. Paige? Paige Moseley, Solicitor to Planning Committee. Richard Williams, Democratic Services. Do we have any apologies for absence, Richard? Just one apology, Chair, from Councillor McConnell. Okay, and declarations of interest, anybody? As and when, if you come up with something. So, the next item on the agenda is the accuracy of the minutes of the previous meeting. Can I have somebody propose the adoptals? Thank you, Councillor Burt. Chair? Yes, Tom? Chair, would it be appropriate to briefly show respects to the passing of our past Chairmen, Chair?

That's just taken the words out of my mouth, but thanks for bringing it up. Yes, just to recall the sad passing of Councillor Sheila Woodhouse. She was Chairman of this authority for two years on the Trump during COVID, and a very great servant of Monmouthshire generally, not just Monmouthshire County Council. Sheila will be very sadly missed. Coming on to the meeting again now, then we have two reports before us today. And the first one is DM-2020-01438, the development of 15 dwellings in Little Mill. This is being presented by Andrew.
Yes, thank you, Chair. Let's wait, the slides are on screen now. So, as you stated, this is a full application, and it's for the erection of 15 dwellings with associated infrastructure, and it's within the village of Little Mill. And just to confirm as a point of clarity, it's presented to you today, members, as the number of representations objecting has exceeded five households, which is the threshold. So, just go through the slides, and a number of members were able to attend the site visit back in May now. But for the benefit of those who weren't able to join us, as well as any watching members of the public at home, I'll just run through these. So, first, this shows the vehicle access to the site, and this is taken off Tiguan Road, so you can see the gateway there of the termination of the carriageway. So, that would be the primary route into the site. And then the next photograph. There we go. So, this shows the neighboring property along Tiguan Road. Again, this is by the site entrance, and this is approximately where plot number one would sit. Turning then to the next slide. This is, again, stood at the site entrance, looking to the south, and this is what would be closest to plot number 15. We've then got some views across the site. So, this is taken looking in an easterly direction from the site. And then there's some... Oh, some feedback there. Apologies if that caused any disturbance. So, there's views then looking from Tidraw Lane in a westerly direction across the site. That's, again, from the same location. Looking back across, say, to the west through the site. I think, yeah, you can see there the mature tree there in the site that's to be retained. And I think that shows there. If you can just leave it on that, Phil. So, that's the, the next slide then, say, is the site extent, the red line boundary of the site. You can see clearly edged, it's the northerly part of the village. So, turning to the layout, and I'll just quickly identify... Oh, I'm not sure if you're able to see on screen, so I'll just identify where the affordable housing are on the next slide. So, hopefully you could see, but plots one to four as you come in on your left-hand side, sorry, plots one, two, three, four, five, are all the open market, as is plot 15 directly to the south on the corner. Thanks, Phil. The remainder of the units then comprise the affordable dwellings. So, we'll just quickly run through the dwellings and the appearance and floor plans on the next slide. So, this is the Humberston, this is the open market units. So, these would be four-bedroom units. You can see there with solar PV panels and perhaps less clear on the rear elevation is the provision of air source heat pumps, and that's found throughout the dwelling types. So, if we just run through the rest, so that's the floor plan, say, for the four-bed open market units. And then these are the affordable housing types. So, just to confirm in terms of the mix of the affordables, there would be four three-beds, three two-beds, and two two-bed walk-up flats that comprise the affordable housing mix, but that is the elevational treatment of house type 211, and that'll just take you through then to the conclusion of the, so that's the slightly different house type 421. Again, these are the affordable units. So, as I said, they've been designed in a way to sort of complement with the open market units. That's the final type there. So, in terms of the principle, then, of development and the residential development of this site, this is established through allocation in the currently adopted local development plan. Policy SAH11 allocates sites within main villages for up to 15 units, and a particular note here is allocation SAH11-5 includes land subject to this application, which is referred to as land north of Little Mill. Now, the purpose of this policy is to deliver affordable housing in our villages, and in this instance, the proposal, which would be delivered via registered social landlord, RSL Pobble, would deliver the required 60% affordable housing units on site, and that equates to nine units in this instance, and just to confirm that the mix, the preferred mix, has been engaged with our housing officer to ensure that's the appropriate mix of house sizes, and also to ensure DQR compliance, and to confirm that nine or four units would be secured by way of section 106 agreement. So, the development, therefore, in principle, subject to the relevant policies and material considerations is considered acceptable. The officer's committee report does provide a detailed appraisal of these, so I'll just provide an overview for your benefit. In terms, firstly, of placemaking, and as you know, placemaking is key to current policy, as highlighted in both PPW Planning Policy Wales Edition 12, as well as future Wales, and in this instance, the site layout forms a logical extension to the development pattern along Tiguan Road being served by an existing point of vehicle access. So, yeah, that would be helpful if you just pop it back onto the, there we go, yeah, the layout. So, the layout is characterized by active frontages to replicate the existing dwellings, and the existing sort of urban pattern and grain, and of note, plot 15 has been orientated on a corner, so that the front elevation is visible on approach to the site, rather than a less inviting and engaging side elevation. The dwellings themselves, as I noted earlier, adopt a simple, traditional architectural form, including both detached and semi-detached units, and this form of layout is considered an appropriate response to that of the existing village. The inclusion of street trees and swales on the southern side of the highway will also help, be helpful to define the street, and given its particular proximity to the edge of the settlement, is appropriate in this more fringe to rural setting. So, subject to appropriate conditions, the development, in terms of placemaking, is considered acceptable and compliant with the relevant policies with the LDP, as well as those targets and aims within national policy, PBW 12. In terms of sustainability, it is acknowledged that Little Mill, as a settlement, offers few employment opportunities and amenities, such as schools or adopted surgery. However, there is need to use transport links to commute to facilities and amenities in areas such as Usk, Pontifor, Combrane, Abigvini, and further afield. However, in the context of the county, we are a primarily rural authority, and Little Mill, as a village, is identified within the local development plan as a main village. It does have some local facilities along Berthon Road, including a village hall, public house, multi-use games area, equipped play area, and recreation space. All of these facilities are within approximately 400 meters walk of the proposed development site. Further in terms of sustainability, offices have gone back to Pobble in respect of the inclusion of renewable energy features within the development. And as I stated in the initial run-through of the plans, each dwelling is now proposed to be served by both solar PV panels, as well as air source heat pump, which is welcomed as part of the development's overall sustainability credentials. At present, there are no policy grounds to withhold planning permission for not including features such as EV charging points. However, as stated, the features that are now proposed are an appropriate step to reducing the carbon footprint of the dwellings. And it's also worth noting that future occupants could provide further renewable features under permitted development rights afforded throughout Wales. In terms of green infrastructure and biodiversity, it's certainly recognized that whilst the site is not within any local or national landscape designation, it is nevertheless a greenfield site on the edge of the settlement. The scheme, which has been subject to consultation and negotiation, has taken a robust and appropriate approach to green infrastructure, biodiversity enhancement, and sustainable drainage, which have been presented a part of this planning application, including permeable paving, planted rain gardens, swales, and an infiltration basin. These features would be secured via appropriate planning conditions. With regards to biodiversity, and of note, a preliminary ecological appraisal, as well as bat and reptile surveys, have been submitted in support of this application. It is acknowledged that both reports are now over three years old, and beyond the normally acceptable lifespan of ecological reports to inform planning applications. However, advice has been sought from the council's in-house ecologist, who has confirmed that based on the relevant advice note on this matter, having regard to the confirmed presence of protected species, and the incorporated measures to avoid and mitigate for impacts on protected species, any new survey information would be unlikely to require any different mitigation, and therefore is not considered reasonably necessary. Therefore, the recommended conditions that were previously advised in 2021 by the ecologist are set out still in the current officer's committee report. The next issue, to surmise, is that of noise, and as members will be aware, the site is directly adjacent to the railway line that runs between Abbegveni and the Pontypool-Newen station. The railway runs along the northwest side of the site, and is the dominant source of noise in the area. Accordingly, in order to achieve acceptable internal acoustic conditions within relevant standards, the applicants have provided noise mitigation measures in terms of facade insulation and ventilation provisions in the most areas most exposed to the railway noise. This has been informed by overheating and noise assessments that have been subject to detailed consultation with the council's environmental health officer. And indeed, the environmental health officer is satisfied that it's been demonstrated that there is no adverse noise impact to occupants of the dwellings, neither would they be subject to unacceptable overheating conditions. So subject to appropriate planning conditions, which are set out in the committee report, the dwellings can be suitably designed and the overheating risks can be controlled without the windows opening of the affected plots. In terms then of active travel and more broader highway issues, as I stated originally, the vehicle and pedestrian access to the site is proposed through an extension to Tiguan Road. Safe protection access to the local facilities and public transport connections at the mill are proposed via the existing lit footway along Tiguan Road, Millbrook Close, and Berthing Road. And then from there, onward journeys can be served by bus service 61, 63, and 66, which is approximately 250 meters walk from the site, which can connect Little Mill with locations throughout Monmouthshire and neighbor authorities such as Tor Vine. Connectivity to the public right of way along T Draw Lane to the east of the site have been considered. However, there is no proposed connection through the site, in this instance, that it would be provided through the red line boundary of the site, as it would involve access through two sets of post and wire fencing, crossing through agricultural land, through SEDS features, and the required pumping station. So officers are of the view that therefore, in this instance, whilst desirable in principle, for the practical reasons given, this easterly collection is not achievable as part of this development. And finally, in respect to vehicle traffic, no objection is offered by the council's highways engineer. The development would provide an appropriate layout and carriageway width, with each dwelling being served by policy-compliant levels of off-street parking. Turning then to water, and specifically the matter of phosphates, which has resulted in the application being held in abeyance since early 2021, the site does lie within the phosphorous-sensitive catchment of the River Usk Sack. And now, through negotiation and matters that have been resolved with Natural Resources Wales and Doer Cymru Wash Water, the proposed 15 dwellings would now connect to Main's foul drainage network. The NRW permit for these works has been reviewed against revised phosphorous targets, and it's concluded that the existing permit is adequate, and that there is sufficient headroom capacity to accommodate flows from this proposed development. In addition, Doer Cymru Wales Water have also confirmed that there is capacity to treat additional wastewater within revised environmental permit limits, and that the sewer network has the hydraulic capacity to accommodate additional wastewater without contributing to an increase in frequency or duration of storm overflows. So accordingly, the Council has undertaken a test of likely significant effect as part of the habitat regulations process, and this has concluded that impacts from phosphates, that there is unlikely to be a significant effect on the River Asksac, and therefore, a full appropriate assessment is not required. So members, just to bring matters to a conclusion, the application, say, which has been held in abeyance for some time solely for the reason of phosphates, has been subject to considerable discussion, amendment, and negotiation. This is allocated within the current local development plan, and for the reasons that I've detailed, as well as those in more detail in the officer's report, is considered to be a policy-compliant scheme that would deliver much-needed affordable homes. So therefore, it's presented to you today, members, with a recommendation for approval, subject to the signing of the Section 106 Agreement to secure the nine affordable units, as well as the detailed conditions set out in your officer's committee report. Thank you.
Thank you, Andrew, for that very comprehensive summary of the application. Can I remind everybody before we discuss it to keep your cameras on so we can see you, and to use that hands-up facility in the chat? We have no external speakers, but we did get some late correspondence from the Community Council. Can everybody confirm that they'd seen that? Yeah, okay, thank you very much. The first person I've got on here is Councillor Bonfield, was that from saying there was no volume, or did he want to speak on this application?
Yeah, thanks, Phil. I've got some concerns with the application, actually. You just mentioned the late correspondence from the Community Council, but it's my understanding that the late correspondence is from a member of the Community Council, and not the Community Council as a whole. I think as soon as the boundaries were changed, and this moved from Guy Treval Community Council to Lambadoc, they should have been offered the opportunity to make comment on it, as any planning application in a parish council ward is. Lambadoc haven't had that opportunity. In regards to the section 106, I would feel more comfortable knowing figures before we're asked to make a decision on this application, just because of the proportion of affordable housing on this site. And, you know, communities with developments planned, especially rural communities, are in desperate need of section 106 money. So, you know, I'd like to see some figures before we're asked to make a decision on that. I wonder if the Community Council also was given the opportunity to make representation at this committee meeting, because like I said, the boundaries change. So, you know, it could have been that one of the Community Councilors wanted to come and talk on this application, considering that they weren't actually consulted on it. So, at this present stage, I don't feel comfortable making a decision on this, and I would prefer that it was deferred until Lambadoc Community Council have had the opportunity to be consulted on and possibly make representation at a future committee meeting, if they wanted to.
Okay, thanks, Councillor Bonfield. A couple of points there. I'll ask Andrew to come in on the points, and perhaps Paige will come in on the last point you raised. I believe that the section 106 is only in respect of the affordable housing. There'll be no financial contribution, but I'm sure Andrew will enlighten us there.
Yeah, just to confirm on the section 106 agreement, yeah, the section 106 would be solely to secure those nine affordable units, because of the nature of the policy, the 60/40 policy. It's not required to provide any financial contributions towards any other interests. So, that is the heads of terms under the 106 is solely to secure nine affordable units. So, in terms of the consultation, I'm just looking into that, so if there's any other further questions, I'll come back to that point shortly. If there's any other further points or questions, I'll come back to that shortly.
Okay, thank you, Andrew. Councillor Butler.
Thank you, Chair. Coming back to what Councillor Bromfield has just mentioned, I would have thought that it's, I'm not quite sure which community council this is under now, but would they not have received some information on this? Was that what you're checking? Okay, all right then. My interest in the development goes back to November, 2020, when Little Mill fell in the ward of Goitre Valley. And although I was not a county council at that point, I was and still am a member of Goitre Community Council. So, I well remember looking at this application in some depth. And in fact, these words that you might have read are my words. If not included, provision should be made for the later easy installation of EV charging points. The proposal should consider the inclusion of climate change mitigation measures, such as heating assisted by ground/air source heat pumps, solar panels, et cetera, and future technologies, limiting the use of fuels such as gas oil and biofuels. So, I'm really pleased to note that now that this is presented with 60% affordable housing, so it offers the opportunity, especially for some of our younger residents, to have a house, a home of their own. It's encouraging to note that some of the comments made by Goitre Community Council four years ago do seem to have been given proper consideration and now reflected in the plan. And they relate to that the site boundary should be extended to allow the inclusion of communal green spaces, play area, et cetera, and to allow integration with the existing play area at the end of Mellon-Bark Avenue. However, I do note on the site visit the other day, I took a moment to pop down there, and that play area actually is not usable at present, and I do hope that that play area is actually going to be restored so that any young people moving into these houses will be able to access it. The overhead power line crossing development site was re-routed, I'm pleased to notice that. And I also note that as near as possible, the houses at the entrance follow the line as much as possible with existing residences. As was said before, that we won't be seeing the end walls that looks like the end of a street. At that time, Goitre Community Council made the following recommendations. It recommended that the allocation of affordable dwelling units should be weighted in favor of existing local community members. And by that, at that time, we actually meant residents in both Little Mill and in Goitre-Pen-Plenny. So I was wondering whether we can be reassured that Popple will be considering the needs of local residents first, and whether priority will be given to the residents of Monmouthshire and not for Torvine, which I know that this bounds the edge of Monmouthshire. I also noted the design maximizes the value of the open market units to facilitate the cross-subsidation of the proposed affordable dwellings. And I'm pleased to note that these homes have kept pace with current trends relating to energy use, and have been future-proofed. I noticed the solar panels and the air source heat pumps, very pleased to note that. But could the developer advise us if new residents of the affordable homes will be reliant on the gas network for their heating source, and also whether any charge points are being fitted for electric vehicles at all to any of the properties? If not, this will be future expenses added to the new, these will be future expenses for the new owners or the landlord in Popple's case. As always, when I look at planning applications, I try to imagine myself moving into the houses. What will it need to make it feel like a home? How high is the standard of fittings, and what will my expenses be like in relation to the running costs of the home? What will my carbon footprint be? Can I charge my car? These would all be questions that I would be asking myself if I were to be thinking of moving into one of these homes. You know, I would expect there to be solar panels, a charge point for the car, air source, heat pump. And I know these matters are for building regulations where legal obligations lag behind real life needs. So therefore, I am very pleased to see that developments in heating terms are building for the next century, and future-proofing some of the homes. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Beattler. Angela, there was a couple of points that you could possibly come back in on there. I don't know about Popple's Latin policy, but no, that would be outside of our remit. But all I can say is in terms of the local community, our affordable housing officer has been heavily engaged with that process, and first of all, must ensure that the mix and the type of housing being provided to be secured as affordable are appropriate to what the local need and demand is for. Certainly take the point, and please, as we are, to welcome some of the climate change measures that have been included. These, you know, I say, at the moment, there's not policy levers for us to insist upon a sort of minimum standards, but certainly, EV points are something that's not included in this application. But until policies, be it local or national, are updated to reflect that, it would not be a reason, policy failure, to withhold a granting of planning permission on that basis. You know, obviously, policy is moving at a rapid pace towards that, and that's something that the replacement development plan will seek to achieve through its own policies on sustainability. But at present, it is, as I say, a welcome move in the right direction, and it obviously would need to meet TQR standards for the affordables. Current building regulations obviously improving as time passes, as and when these are built out. So, it's certainly a positive step. We are still just checking on the consultation in terms of Councilor Bromfield's point earlier. We're just clarifying on that point in terms of consultation. Once the application came in, it would have been under the previous boundaries of GOITRA. That has changed through the lifetime of the application, which, as I say, has been held in abeyance for some time because of phosphates. We're just still checking that, so if there's any other further queries, well, please let me know, I'll respond to those whilst we just confirm on that point.
Thank you, Andrew. Councilor Easton.
Thank you, Chair. I'm coming back to Councilor Bromfield's question about the Section 106 contributions. Am I right in saying that it's for six properties, the properties for sale on the market, which will provide the Section 106 money? And would that, I was saying, Craig is shaking his head, would the nine affordable properties be producing Section 106 monies? I don't think that's the case. It would be the six ones for sale, sure, isn't it?
Councilor Easton, so this site is an affordable housing-led scheme, 60% affordable, 40% private market. There's no Section 106 contributions 'cause they're exempt. All of the 15 sites allocated in existence in LDP are exempt, so what this site is delivering is affordable housing, so it's exempt from the other Section 106 contributions. So the Section 106 is purely in relation to the delivery of affordable housing.
Okay, I, right, okay, I notice on the report that it says subject to a Section 106 contributions.
That's a legal agreement to secure the affordable housing. So those affordable houses are kept in perpetuity, so there needs to be a Section 106 to confirm they will be affordable housing for the lifetime of that building, ultimately. That's the legal reason for contributions.
Within the application, then, it's been encompassed as a whole that the Section 106 money is within the affordable housing structure as well, then?
Yes, so it's-- - Okay, so there's no actual figure. I couldn't find a figure.
No, there's no financial contributions. These sites, affordable housing-led, 60% delivery. The reason why the 40% is then exempt from any final contributions is 'cause they're holding up the viability of the whole scheme and delivering that high level of affordable housing, and therefore, there isn't a requirement, then, to deliver any additional contributions.
Right, that was the agreement you came to. That's fine. The other question, the other point, is that Councillor Butler mentioned that there doesn't seem to be a modernized view of raising the ecological footprint on these properties. If this plan came in 2020, as a truancy being given to charging points and things like that within, it's a complicated report. I tried to read it. It was very, very difficult. Thank you.
Sorry, just so I can confirm I understand the question, Councillor Newsom, is that in terms of what provisions are made for future-proofing of EV? At this stage, there's, I say, there isn't the, I'm not sure what the practicalities in the construction and installation for these matters, but at this stage, we can't insist that applicants provide and demonstrate that on the submitted plans, because there aren't the policy levers for us to insist upon that, and quite entitled to provide what they have, which exceeds current standards in any event. So if there are extensive, as I said in the presentation, there are extensive permitted development rights for EV charging points to stop development having to go through the planning process to try and encourage the use of that. So if future occupiers, be it the affordable units, be it the open market units, decide that they wish to install those sort of facilities, then there are permitted development rights to facilitate that. But my point, I suppose, is that through the planning application process and the current policy framework, we can't insist that even sort of connectivity is shown up to a point. We can only determine it in line with current policy. So it's a matter of choice for future occupiers. I know POBL have done a lot of work on their sites in West Wales, for example, where they've tried to push sustainable credentials. That's mostly reflected now in the offering of PV panels and air source heat pumps. But certainly moving forward, that'll be something that we'll be looking for. But like I said, I'm repeating myself, at this stage, we can't take it to that point.
Okay, thanks.
Okay, thank you, Andrew. And I think generally, we've got to stop thinking in terms of Section 106 money, and Section 106 agreements probably is a better way of thinking about it now. Councilor Howells.
Thank you, Chair. Thanks for the report. I was looking at the comments made by Natural Resources Wales, and I quote, There appears to be no information or assurance from Doar Cymru on whether the sewer network and associated treatment works has a hydraulic capacity to accommodate the additional waste water without contributing to an increase in frequency or duration of the storm from." And they are requiring to determine the application. We advise to seek the final piece of information from Doar Cymru. Has that been obtained? And also, I've got one on network rail. There were concerns about the crossing, the rail crossing, rail crossing there, whether any conversations have taken place with network rail to see what safety measures could be put in place along there, and noting that there had been recent near-miss incidents along there. And also, rights of way, MCC rights of way draw attention to our Active Travel Act requesting sort of links to T Drow Road, sort of if there could be, has that been looked at? Is that other routes gonna go into, or active travel routes gonna go into T Drow Lane? And yeah, finally, you know, along with Councillor Butler and Councillor Bromfield, I was surprised not to see a comment from Lumbatic Community Council, but I do appreciate this application was put in before 2020, or in 2020, sort of, since the border changes, but I would have liked to see some consultation from them as well. I am pleased to read that there's, you know, if this is allowed to go ahead, there are quite some stringent conditions that are put in place. Thank you, that's all.
Yep, thank you, Councillor. Just to confirm on the first point, yeah, apologies if I hadn't made that clear through the presentation. We needed that confirmation from Doer Cymru-Walsh Water to be able to complete our test of likely significant effects, and they have provided that confirmation in order for us to be able to conclude that there wouldn't be that impact on the, especially our conservation, the Riveruske sack. So we have had that confirmation as required by NNRW had highlighted in their consultation response. In terms of the rights of way comments and the potential for active travel linkages towards the east, and particularly to connecting up with the right-of-way network along T-DRAW lane, for the reasons I'd set out in the presentation, that is, in theory, a logical route that the pedestrians and other users would wish to take, but there are practical reasons that I outlined why that couldn't be achieved. Agricultural land, the pumping stations, such features, the basin, et cetera. So yes, it's been discussed and put to the applicant, but there are genuine practical reasons why that couldn't be achieved in this instance. Unfortunately, people will use the, say, the existing footways back through into the main village and onwards. In terms of network rail and some of the comments that they've made, I think they were seeking some financial contributions in terms of issues with safety and crossings, et cetera. But again, the officer's report does cover that. And in terms of the scale of this development and the sort of six tests you'd need to apply, four tests, rather, you'd need to apply for Section 106 agreements, it's not considered that they would meet those tests in order to make this development acceptable. I mean, the sites, the properties closest to the railway line would be afforded, because of the acoustic fence, the 1.8 meter acoustic fence, there is a natural barrier, a physical barrier, not just planting, but a natural barrier with planting that would provide a degree of protection over that. So we didn't feel that there was grounds to sort of pursue that further, relative, say, to the scale of the development and the tests you need to satisfy in order to require 106 contributions to make a development acceptable.
Sorry, Andrew, if I could just come to that. I mean, that was more to do with the footpath that's crossing the rail track there, whether or not some safety features could be put on there.
I mean, ultimately, any features that would be outside of the Red Line development boundary would be beyond the scope of this planning application. Like I said, there's a natural barrier through the acoustic fence that's gonna be provided along those northerly plots. Obviously, I certainly understand the safety issues and its proximity to the boundary, but I mean, at present, it's an open field. There are existing, potentially, if somebody was looking to get in and make close access to that railway line, but any additional security features that extend beyond the Red Line boundary, this would be beyond the scope of this planning application. So we're satisfied that the site is appropriately enclosed for residential development, for an edge of settlement development. And that there weren't grounds, say, to pursue anything further outside of the site with Network Rail, because we don't feel that would satisfy the 106 tests.
Okay, Councillor Byrne.
Yeah, Councillor Muthi. Thank you for putting this planning application to us. I'm a little conflicted as to how this application fits with our promise to build sustainable, resilient communities where people have good access to employment and shops and public transport and active travel and healthcare facilities, being as there's no shop or school or healthcare facilities here. The application states that they save pedestrian access to the bus stops and mentions a proposed active travel route south of Little Mill. But as far as I'm aware, there are no plans for that actually to be, the active travel route to be actualized in the near future. And from what I could see, the buses run about four times a day in each direction and wouldn't get anybody to employment in time. So I am concerned that the affordable housing will only actually be affordable for people that can afford to rent private vehicles. And I'm not quite sure how this fits with our desire to have a carbon neutral future in Monash where we are less reliant on private vehicles.
Okay, thanks.
Yeah, I certainly understand the points raised. And I did acknowledge in the presentation that we are a rural authority. What this does though is provide local people with an opportunity, if they wish, to stay within communities, to help local communities. There isn't that outward migration of younger people that can't stay in communities. The links are primarily to onward destinations, employments, or other such sort of uses. There are, bus services is typical of Monash in that sense. But it is fundamentally an allocated site within the current local development plan. The replacement plan and sort of you mentioned then sort of carbon neutral future. We need to look at this under the remit of the current local development plan. And that's our policy framework for members, yourselves, to make decisions on this planning application. And within that development plan and that policy framework, this is an allocated site. It's a main village, it's not a minor village. It does enjoy some facilities. Let's say it doesn't have school doctors, et cetera. But I think in terms of that context, it makes an appropriate contribution in terms of how it can connect. Say there's footpaths that would work back and connect back through to the existing route. There may be, in lots of areas of Monash, a higher dependency on car usage than there is perhaps in larger towns and cities that have better access to more sustainable modes of transport. But within the context of our LDP and the context of us as a county, it was allocated as a main village and allocated for this level of housing for those reasons, say, to try and support that local community to provide homes for those that otherwise would migrate out of the county and out of the village. So, certainly accept the points and the challenges you've raised. They're very pertinent, very topical, but we've got to determine this within the current policy framework. And those bigger challenges of carbon neutral, et cetera, will be higher standards, higher bar set by future policy.
Craig's got some points to clarify, including those made online by one of the local members.
Thank you, Chair. Yes, Councilor Britain, that was certainly a, it's an interesting conversation with regards to rural counties and how they provide affordable housing to their rural communities, while also the challenge for sustainable development to ensure we've got public transport and access to active travel links. I think this is gonna be an ongoing conversation, as we have with regards to the developments, the replacement local development plan, 'cause we do want to provide housing to some of our more rural locations, which don't have that potential at the moment. So, it is definitely a balance, and Andrew's articulated the rationale there quite well. But obviously this site was allocated in 2014, so it was a significant amount of time ago. There's 15 sites in the existing LDP, which have provided a high level of affordable housing, 60% affordable housing schemes. I think you have to, with Little Mill, it is interesting in terms of the cluster, and I think we shouldn't think of Momshire boundary as being a solid boundary. I mean, people don't move like that. There are obviously transport improvements within the local area into a vine, which people could access and utilize. So, I think in terms of Little Mill being a sustainable settlement, it is scored in very high, it's part of the replacement local development plan as well. And I think this is gonna be an ongoing conversation, is how do we provide housing to our rural communities, while also meeting the sustainable transport agenda. Assured a conversation will continue with regards to that. But I do think in terms of providing affordable housing to Little Mill, this is the right site to do that on. In terms of Section 106 contributions, as I said, all of the 15 sites in the existing LDP are exempt from financial contributions, 'cause the contribution they're delivering is social housing, is affordable housing for those communities. That's the reason why there isn't any additional funding in terms of Section 106 contributions. That has been the same for the other sites that have gone through. And ultimately, that is the way they've been agreed as part of the local development plan process. The concern that Councilor Bromfield has raised with regards to the boundary change, that is quite unique, ultimately, to this particular application. Obviously, there has been a boundary change during the lifetime of this planning application, and the application has taken, over the passage of time, quite a significant amount of time to deal with with regards to the phosphates and the water quality issue that we have within the Riverdesk. So that's the reason why this is a unique situation where we have consulted the Community Council at the time, and then there has been a boundary change. What I would suggest to members, and maybe an option that might be available to you, is if you are in agreement that this application should be approved today in accordance with the recommendation outlined in the report, it might be that we could then consult Lambadaganas Community Council for comments for the delegated panel, maybe, to consider that as part of their deliberations, if there's anything new which is raised. But this is a unique situation with this particular planning application because of the passage of time. Unfortunately, there has been a boundary change, and so there hasn't been a formal letter sent to Lambadaganas. But I think that is probably an option available to members if they wanted to. If you are minded to approve the application today, to give that time for Lambadaganas to also provide comments to the delegated panel for consideration, and that can go then to a future delegated panel. So that's maybe one option available to members if they wanted to consider it.
Thank you, Craig. Councillor Bonfield, your hand's not up in the chat, but it is on my screen, so.
Sorry, I didn't know if I could still put my hand up in the speak now for that application. Do you want me to put it there?
No, you speak on.
So if it went to delegated panel after Lambadaganas Community Council had been consulted, you know, would the local member be able to also make representation at delegated panel? And even if committee approved it today, would delegated panel, if they felt the need after listening to Lambadaganas Community Council and the board member be able to refuse the application or not? So I understand the process.
I was gonna say, we wouldn't be able to refuse it. What we could do is bring it back to committee.
Oh, right, okay. Thank you.
All right, so I've got, oh, Councillor, Councillor Butler, you wanted to come back in, and then it's Councillor Riley.
Thank you, Chair, is it okay for me to come back in? I just wanted to reassure Councillor Bromfield that the current chair of Lambadaganas Council sat on Goitra Community Council, and he contributed to the comments that were made in 2020. So if that helps at all, thank you.
Okay, thank you for that, Councillor Riley.
Thank you, Chair, and I just really wanted to comment on the point that Craig made about there not being a hard Monmouthshire boundary, because that site is very, very close to my Milewood Park Estate that has a number of facilities on it, and also just up the road from there on the old Warner Lambert site, there is going to be a number of houses built, and it's my understanding there will be a doctor's surgery in the school there. So I think, Craig, you make an important point that there isn't a wall around Monmouthshire. I just wanted to add that, thank you.
Thank you for that. I've got no other people asking to speak. It's been suggested, sorry?
Can we just have a minute?
Yeah.
If we can just have, oh, Councillor Eason, you've--
Yeah, Chair, could we take Councillor Bronfeuil's suggestion and bring it back to the next meeting in July on the basis of the comments of the Community Council?
Do you want to say that now?
Yeah, if members want to defer it to give time for Lambda Guiness to comment on it rather than go to the panel, that's absolutely fine. It's down to members to make that decision.
Is that the general view of the committee? Can I have thumbs up there on the screen? Yeah, and in here, everybody happy to defer it to the next meeting following that conversation? Okay, can I just have a chat to Paige in a minute then? (audio cuts out) (audio cuts out)
Sorry, excuse me, Chair.
We're back, yes, Councillor.
I would actually propose that we deal with this now and not defer it again. I think it's been deferred enough.
Can I second that, please?
Right, well, what will--
I withdraw my suggestion. (laughing) (audio cuts out)
Right, we've had our discussion now. Craig is just going to put a thought and then I'm gonna take a vote.
Just wanted to help members ultimately. This is a unique situation. Obviously, where there has been a boundary treatment change. I think given the concerns that Councillor Bromfield's raised and obviously, as an inclusive planning committee, it'd be right to get the views of Lambatagas Community Council to feed into this. So, I think it might be worth deferring and having that full debate then in the next meeting. I think given there's a unique set of circumstances here with the application to be with us for a number of years, got on hold because of phosphates. We want to make sure that the correct community council now are also consulted. I would suggest to members to go with Councillor Easton's suggestion ultimately, but if it's a member decision and also, Councillor Butler's also made the suggestion. But this is a unique situation. I think as an inclusive council, maybe it might be more appropriate to give that opportunity and time for community council to comment on it. And I would apologize on behalf of colleagues for overlooking that element, but this is a unique situation with regards to that planning application being in for a significant amount of time.
Right, thank you for that, Craig. What we're gonna do then, Councillor Easton made a proposal, so in a minute, in the chat, Richard will put up a voting card for defer or not defer. So, do I have a seconder for Councillor Easton's vote? Thank you.
Chair, Chair, with respect, we already had a vote on this. You already asked us all. So, a point of order is we've already discussed this, surely, 'cause we all put our thumbs up, didn't we?
Yeah, you did, but there was some dissension here. So, to make it absolutely clear what we are, we'll have a vote on the chat and everybody can say just what they want to do. So, we can have that vote. Can somebody propose that we don't defer?
We've had someone put forward, sorry. We've had Councillor Easton put forward the motion to defer. That's now been seconded by Councillor Howells. We vote on that, and then I think if that is carried, that is how we will proceed. And obviously, the point raised by Councillor Butler was after that was put forward, okay. (muffled speaking)
A vote to defer in the chat now.
Yeah, yeah, so there's gonna be a vote to defer in the chat. That's come up now, so if everybody can vote now, please. (muffled speaking)
That's clear.
Okay, so that motion for deferral is being carried. 11 for deferral and four against.
Right, so on the basis of that, we'll defer it to allow for that additional consultation. It'll come back probably to the next meeting.
Yeah, next meeting.
Yeah, come back to the next meeting, having collected those views. Right, thank you for that. We can move on now to DM202400384, which is a change of views of some agricultural land to facilitate the siting of a ground-mounted solar array. That one is being presented by Phil.
Thank you, Chair. This is a proposal that some of us went to see yesterday on site. Yeah, so it's deep in the countryside. It's near the north, it's in the hamlet of Pennevan, which is a scattering of isolated dwellings, forming a sort of broad hamlet. The proposal is to site 72 solar panels in an array in the northeastern corner of a field, as you see on that plan there. The array is proposed to provide all the power needed for the residential property Woodfield House, which is located 52 metres southeast, so you see down to that corner there. That's the host property. It's near the north, as said, in the hamlet of Pennevan, and it's in the Wye Valley National Landscape, which we all probably know better as the area of outstanding natural beauty. The panels would be arranged in four rows of 18, with two metres between the rows, and five centimetres between panels. Each panel would measure 1.7 metres by 1.1 metres, and be three centimetres thick. This will make the total area of the array approximately 335 square metres. Each panel would be positioned on a mount, which is 50 centimetres high, 1.7 metres long, and 0.97 metres wide. And some levelling will be required, but it will not cause a change in levels of more than 30 centimetres. National Planning Policy provides a strong basis of support for proposals for renewable energy, with various references in both Future Wales and Planning Policy Wales 12, the latest version. Future Wales Policy 17 sets out that the Welsh Government strongly supports the principle of developing renewable and low carbon energy from all technologies, and at all scales, to meet our future energy needs. And Planning Policy Wales states, low carbon electricity must become the main source of energy in Wales. Renewable electricity will be used to provide both heating and transport, in addition to power, and then it continues. Local authorities should facilitate all forms of renewable and low carbon energy development. And Technical Advice Note 6 also provides support for renewable energy in rural areas. And in terms of the LDP, even though it's slightly out of date in terms of renewables, given its age, but it does set out the criteria against which proposals for renewable energy are to be assessed, including impacts upon landscape, townscape historic features, biodiversity, and residential amenity. So the principle of providing a renewable energy installation is broadly supported, as we can see, by policy, and therefore, the proposal is considered acceptable, subject to its visual impact. If consent is granted, it would be necessary to attach a condition requiring the land to be reinstated to its current form when the technology is no longer operational, in the interest of protecting the special character of the countryside and the national landscape. The site does not feature best or most versatile agricultural land, so this would not be a constraint to its development. The application site is within open countryside, and as said, in the Wye Valley National Landscape, and the proposal has potential to impact the special character of the area. Planning authorities have a statutory duty to have regard to national landscape purposes, and planning authorities should give great weight to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of national landscapes, and should have regard to the wildlife, cultural heritage, and social and economic well-being of the area. In this instance, although the proposal is larger than most domestic arrays, the panel will be set into supports which are 50 centimeters high, and the array will be sited along an existing field boundary in an incline which slopes away from the road, which is up above it, which is over here to the west, and that's the location we looked from here down the field, here, and we looked across here, down the neighbor's drive, and from the neighbor's land here. So if I just take that opportunity to run through the slides, that's a view down the field, that's the neighbor's greenhouse, which you saw yesterday, and the pegged out area, slightly further down the field, actually, than that red line shows, is where the actual array would be located. Yeah, that's showing a little bit more closer. Then that's looking towards Woodfield House, which you can't actually see because of the trees, that would be the host property, and then that's looking back up to the field, and there was a sort of gateway in there which we would look to view down the field towards the location of the proposed array. Then that's looking across to the other side, that's actually the neighbor's driveway that runs down the slope, and then goes down off to the right hand side there. And then that's showing a similar slide to the first one, which shows where the tree planting would be going in that corner, to help screen the site from that entrance. That's a side view showing the three centimeter thickness of the array, and its height above the ground, of 50 centimeters, that's typical elevation of the panel, 1.1 by 1.7, and then that's the sort of console that they will fit in between, which will be placed on the ground. And that shows the actual aerial photograph showing where the site is, and you can see from views from the east, there's a very thick belt of trees, which would screen that development for any longer distance views from the Wai Valley. Yeah, and that's a photograph taken, the actual consoles would, again, the array wouldn't be seen visible from the A466. And that's, again, showing something, a view from Stowe Road, and the arrays would be perfectly indistinguishable, set right down on the ground behind trees. That's a typical example of the array, so it would be on the ground, close to the ground, and low-lying, and again, low impact. That's one that was actually in the field, there's a demonstration of how they would, what impact they may have, albeit there would be a lot more of them, 72 in fact. And then that's it in the field, looking towards the neighbor's property, and the driveway, and the greenhouse. Then that's it sitting in the field. And that's a summary of the issues. So the proposed array would be visible from the road, runs to the west of the field, as we saw yesterday, but because of its low profile on the slope of the field, an unacceptable level of harm to the amenity or character of the surroundings would not result. The alternative location of the array, say putting it on the house itself, on the roof, or within the residential curtledge, has been explored, but would not be viable due to its position within a wooded area. Citing the array within the residential curtledge may have resulted in loss of some trees in order for the array to gain sufficient sunlight. The Wye Valley National Landscapes Officer has provided comments on this proposal, suggesting an amended scheme or siting, as they considered it would be visible in the wider area. These comments have been taken into account, but your officers note that owing to the topography and the existence of trees, it would not be visible either from the public right of way to the east, or from the other side of the River Wye in England. Given this, it's considered that the array should not result in an adverse visual impact that would have an unacceptable effect upon the character of the wider area or landscape, or display a level of harm that would warrant the refusal of this application. It's considered that from a landscape and green infrastructure perspective, the proposal would be acceptable, subject to further appropriate landscaping being provided, and maintained to mitigate for localized visual impacts. Visual impact is likely to be more prominent, as viewed from the slightly higher nearby highway, as we saw yesterday, and the two gateways adjacent to the site. The site is likely to be more visible from the private realm in paddocks to the west of the site, and that adjacent residential curtilage that was viewed yesterday. The applicant has indicated that 70 metres of native species hedge is proposed on the northern boundary and native species tree group planting is to be provided adjacent to the gateway, which would be appropriate. The low profile of the proposal, 50 centimetres above ground level, set within the slope of the hill, would have less of a visual impact than a typically higher solar array structure. The information provided also indicates that the proposed solar array would have a stock fence, a stock-proof fence enclosing an area of 36 metres by 15 metres. That stock fence will help to break up the visual form of this low-lying structure. The alignment of transmission cables and methodology for excavation and installation is acceptable and should have no adverse impact on trees and roots. Biodiversity enhancement has been secured in the form of bird nest boxes to be installed in appropriate locations on surrounding trees. With the addition of suitable landscaping conditions, it's considered that the array would not cause an unacceptable ecological or landscaping impact and would comply with LDP policies. In terms of amenity, the site is located close to the boundary of the northern neighbour and approximately 47 metres from that dwelling. The slope of the land and intervening trees and hedgerows mean that the array would not be directly visible from that dwelling, although it would be visible from the nearest part of the residential curtilage of that property. A scheme of hedge planting is proposed along the length of boundary between the field and the neighbouring property, which would mitigate the visual impact of the development. The array will be close to the ground and so would not appear overbearing and would not cause any noise nuisance. Given all these things, it's considered that the development will not have an acceptable impact on the amenity of local residents or that of the wider area and complies with policy TES1 and EP1 of the LDP. In conclusion, the proposal is considered an appropriate form of development in response to the acknowledged climate emergency by enabling this property to become self-sufficient in respect of renewable energy. And while it is noted the site is located within the Wye Valley National Landscape, offices consider that development subject to the conditions would be subservient to the primary purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area. In addition, the development is considered acceptable having regard to all other material planning considerations and relevant policy. We'd recommend approval subject to those conditions. Thank you.
Thank you, Phil, and yes, this was a very interesting one. Yesterday we had a very good look around, so we got a good feel for it.
Councillor McKellan.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak on behalf of both myself and Councillor Richard John as ward members of Mitchell-Troy and Trellock United. And thank you to Helen Edmonton for the officer's report and Phil for the presentation today. As we have heard, the application is for the change of use of agricultural land to facilitate the siting of a ground mountain solar array or wood field house in the hamlet of Pennyfan near the north. The application is for 72 panels. I personally have no objection to solar or thermal panels, and I always welcome seeing applications which involve renewable energy. I am, however, drawn to the 10 objections, which is the high number within a hamlet and the one from the Wye Valley National Landscape, forming AOMB. Regarding scale, visual impact, the AOMB, the adverse impact on biodiversity and visibility of the development from the road and the Wye Valley Walk. Furthermore, Trellock United Community Council have no objection per se to solar panels, but they do have concerns over the visual impact on the character of the environment. I did visit the site on Sunday evening, and in the balance of fairness, I visited both the applicants at Woodfield House and the nearest neighbors to the potential development site. When I was speaking to the applicants, I was pleased to hear of their aspirations to be off grid and of their flexibility to cooperate with the planning department to get a favorable outcome by way of planting hedgerows, planting wildflowers, letting hedgerows grow up, et cetera. Likewise, I was pleased to hear from the neighbors that they do not have an objection to solar panels per se, however, not to the scale that is proposed due to being in a national landscape area. I've done some research, and whilst I confess that I'm not an expert when it comes to solar panels, my findings show that a four to five bed house could need 14 panels, which equates to five KWP. Other findings have said that a family of four would need three to eight solar panels, and another site quoted that for a family of four to five people, a five kilowatt system should be sufficient. Indeed, when I have traveled around our ward, I've seen no more than approximately 16 panels on a property. Whilst I admire the applicant's desire to be off-grid, it is worthy to note that even if powering an electric car using air conditioning and other such general usage, 72 panels does seem to be excessive. It is also worthy to note that there are other forms of renewable energy and ways to be off-grid that can also be considered, such as ground source heat pumps, biofuels, air source heat pumps, and wind energy. So therefore, there are other forms of being off-grid available to the applicants. I understand the concept that cloudier days may not produce as much energy, but I understand that additional factories can be added to a solar panel system to store any excess energy for cloudier days. I feel that extra batteries, along with other forms of renewable energy sources, will allow a home to be fully off-grid. I would therefore propose to the committee that this application gets deferred and is brought back to us with an application of a smaller scale, which is more in keeping with the usage of a fortified bed house, one that involves less panels, and therefore one that will have a reduced visual impact in this national landscape area. Indeed, as Phil has mentioned in his presentation, I acknowledge that national planning policy provides a strong basis of support for proposals for renewable energy. But the report does not mention size or the surroundings. In section 6.1.3 of the Office's report, it states that SD1 provides the following criteria for proposals to be considered against the renewable energy schemes will be permitted where, one, there are no unacceptable adverse impacts upon the landscape, with regard to the protection and enhancement of landscape character. With regards to this point, I would question whether there are no unacceptable adverse impacts upon the landscape, and also whether this application protects and enhances the landscape character. In my personal opinion, it doesn't. Point two goes on to say, renewable energy schemes will be permitted where there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on biodiversity. On this point, I acknowledge that the carbon footprint will be decreased on the host dwelling, but I wonder whether this impact outweighs the biodiversity within the area. The field looked like it had a lot of wild grasses, wild flowers and animal habitat. Indeed, I noticed a common spotted orchid in the field on my visit. This made me wonder whether there is a need for an ecological report regarding the flora and fauna in the field. At the visit, I was able to view one of the panels and the consoles as we've just seen in the report as well. And I noticed that the consoles completely covered the grass area underneath, which over time would destroy any flora or fauna underneath it. Maybe officers could clarify whether such an ecological report would be necessary. I do also note within the report that Subaru, which is also known as Southeast Wales Biodiversity Records Centre, that their search results show red alerts for bluebells and butterflies. I also note that some levelling is required, which would indeed mean earthworks taking place. And I further note in the report an example of what the base would look like, which shows pebbles or a hard standing base. And I wonder whether officers could please clarify whether this will be the case in this development. Furthermore, the site is near a sink, also known as Site of Interest for Nature Conservation. And this is in the woodland to the south of the site. Point four of 6.13 in the report says that renewable energy schemes will be permitted where the wider environmental, economic, social, and community benefits directly related to the scheme outweigh any potential adverse impacts. Again, I would argue the point on whether this application does indeed meet that criteria. And finally, point five contained within 6.13 states that renewable energy schemes will be permitted where the distinct identity of Monmasha will not be compromised. Again, I have concerns whether this point is truly met, as I do believe that solar panel arrays are not commonplace in this national landscape area and form part of the identity of our beautiful county. Indeed, when I look out across the rolling countryside of Monmasha, it is rare to see an array that has as many as 72 solar panels, which have the potential to blight the landscape and the natural beauty of the area. I would like to refer to the objection from the Wai'i Valley National Landscape, where they state, putting such PV panels on the ground in a traditional small open field, which formed part of the key feature of small clusters of historic squatter settlements on valley sides, surrounded by intricate patterns of small fields, dry stone walls, narrow lanes, and small deciduous woodlands of this part of the national landscape clearly appears to be more intrusive. Within their consultation comments, they further go on to say that landscaping is not forever and should not be used to screen poor development. Deciduous vegetation is also not in leaf during winter months, so cannot be relied upon. And I think that this is a noteworthy point considering the time of year where we, if we've been out on a site visit, that we've viewed this from. They further go on to say that the proposed development will be visible from across the valley on the English side of the national landscape. I did not view the development from the Forest of Dean area, so I cannot comment on this further. They further go on to say that without any consideration for consideration and assessment of alternative locations by virtue of exciting and considering that the proposed landscaping put forward would not be able to mitigate the development to an acceptable degree, the proposed visual effects would be to the detriment of scenic beauty as the AOMB designation. Hereabouts altering an identified key feature in the Wye Valley Gorge LM Z09, which in turn will go on to affect a special quality. For these reasons, we consider the application to conflict with strategic objectives of the Wye Valley AOMB management plan 21 to 26. We object to this application in its current guise. The LPA of which we are all a part of here has a statutory duty to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the national landscape. The local planning authority should ensure at an absolute minimum that planning decisions are consistent with relevant national and local planning policy and guidance, including the Wye Valley area of Outstanding Natural Beauty management plan 2021 to 26. We trust you will take the above into consideration when arriving at your decision. Now moving on to the conditions in the--
Councillor McKenna, I know you're the local member, you're also a member of this committee, but you have had an awful lot of time.
I just have another minute or so to sum up.
Okay.
Sum up, please.
So just moving on to the conditions, if members are minded to go against my recommendation, decide to approve the application, then I would like to see a condition that the height of the hedges are kept to above 2.4 metres to allow the visual impact of the development to be lowered. And I would also like condition four to be reconsidered where it states that any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season. And I would like to see this change so that the condition remains in perpetuity. I welcome the 70 metres of native species hedge that's to be planted, but I would like to point out that some sort of deer proofing needs to take place. When I visited the site on Sunday, I saw two deer close to the edge of the field and it is well known in the area that deer can wreak havoc on saplings, both within residents gardens and the fields. And with this in mind, the applicants may wish to ensure that the height of the stockproof fence cannot be jumped over by deer. So just to sum up in the case of this application, I do not object to the concept of being off grid by way of solar panels, but I do have grave concerns regarding the scale and the setting that the proposed development is in. Thank you.
Okay, thank you for that. Phil, there were some points in there.
Yeah, in terms of scale being excessive, yeah, there are quite a lot of panels, but I must admit, I've never seen an array that's so low to the ground before. It's 50 centimetres high. So when we actually looked on site, useful to go there yesterday, when you look from the roadway down, there was a bit of a dip wasn't there in the field. And the applicants thought about this quite carefully as to where to put the array, because they'd be set down into the sort of two thirds down the field where the land slopes into a dip, whilst and obviously whilst open, that dip will again, reduce the actual degree of prominence of the arrays. So really, I mean, I know the National Landscape Officer has made comments, but we've analyzed those and we just don't agree with him in terms of any landscape impact. The landscape impact would be extremely localized, really, and really only affects anyone walking along the lane at the top. And even then you'd only be subject to views of it through the gaps, through that gateway, and then again down by the neighbour's driveway where they're proposing a group of trees to be located. So we think that the conditions proposed will mitigate any very limited harm that this array will provide, given it's so low profile. The other issue is, this will require SAB approval. So any surfacing will need approval of the SAB authority. It would appear that the actual panels are gonna go on some sort of like level gravel surface. So yeah, there will be a change to the land. But again, you're not talking about any deep foundations to this form of structure. That it's not heavy, it'll be light, and it's reversible in a sense that it could be taken up and re-topsoiled and are used again for grazing or whatever purposes. The land in the report is described as semi-improved grassland. There's no objection from NRW in terms of any ecology impacts to the development. And there's no concerns in terms of any impacts on the sink nearby from this, obviously what is a static development. It's not gonna move around, it's not gonna impact on the sink in terms of having any impacts on it. So there's no ecological concerns to this either. And in terms of changing the condition, that's a standard five-year maintenance condition for landscape. We could consider about increasing it, but is it necessary? Yes, in terms of actually having it beyond the five years. What normally the five years is to allow something to establish and get growing. I mean ultimately it's down to members if they wanted to secure a longer period, but we as officers think that that is appropriate in terms of its maintenance period. And I don't think the applicant would seek to change and rip out landscaping after the event, having been a responsible person who wants to actually secure renewable energy for his property. So yes it is large, but we wanted to actually look at it in terms of its impacts. So we don't think it's needed to make it smaller just because that would be more domestic. You look at it on its merits, it's a large-ish array, but it's so low to the ground, its impacts can be managed quite acceptably, and it would not harm the natural beauty of the AOMB, particularly with the landscape that's provided, and which would be needed anyway as a form of a GI improvement for that development. So we're quite satisfied and happy to recommend it for approval in its current guise. Thank you.
Thank you Phil, and having been there yesterday, you'd have to know it was there to look for it. I think 'cause 72 sounds like a large number, but they are very small. So anyway, that's just a personal observation having been to the site. Councillor Pinn.
Yeah, an improved grassland is usually species rich and can support up to 30 to 40 different plant species per square metre and various butterflies and other wildlife. Can you tell me how much of this pasture will be lost to the trenches that are dug for the panels and the tree planting that will be put in to hide it, and will the remainder of the field be protected? And the proposal is for the change of use of agricultural land. Can you tell me what the land will be classed as following this application, and if it will relate to the area on which the panels sit only? I was pleased to see that the restoration plan is included as part of the conditions. Can you tell me what the land will, if the land will automatically be reinstated as agricultural land upon their decommission. Do you have a?
Go.
Yes, well, yes, the answer to the last question is, yeah, it'll have to be restored to its current condition, so it'll be put back to grassland. We've done a quick check in terms of our own ecologist's views, and if it was a larger area of take, then our ecologist would have recommended preliminary ecological assessment, but given it was a limited area, a relatively small part of the field, we didn't consider it necessary to ask for it in that instance, and it's grazed pasture, and I think the gentleman we met did acknowledge that they had livestock on it at one time, even though there was just one sheep or goat on there later on, but it had been grazed, and it's certainly in the relatively recent past. And the comments are the woodland to the south of the site is a classified sink, but that wouldn't be affected by the proposals, and the enhancement look acceptable in terms of biodiversity. In terms of the take-up of it, it was, I think we said it's 335 square metres of the field, but the field is fairly large, and it's a relatively small part of it. It will be enclosed by livestock fencing, so it sounds as if the intention is to graze the field when that is in place, so that the arrays don't, you know, interfere with any--
So it's only that one area that's gonna be--
Yes, yes, sorry, yeah, yeah.
And what will it be classed as then once it's not, it's not agricultural land, what will it be classed as?
It wouldn't have a land classification, really, so we're generous, really, it's a renewable energy form, so it wouldn't have a use class.
So it's just a temporary removal of an agricultural classification, basically, whilst it's in use.
Yeah, yeah.
Okay, yeah.
Okay, thanks for that. Councillor Powell.
Thank you, Chairman. Looking at that little field, if the farmer decided, right, we'll plough that up and plant potatoes, would he have to have planning permission for that? No, so really, we're very lucky that the majority of that field is going to remain a natural, old-fashioned pasture, where you have many things, as Councillor Friend said, growing there, it's not gonna affect them, it's only one piece of the field, the rest of that will go on growing, and if it's grazed, it will grow up again, so we're not losing all that, so I can't say that that's a real problem, because you're not going to lose all those plants, because it's not going to be ploughed up, it's going to be grazed. It's only a small part, and really, you couldn't, if you walk down the road, and you didn't know it was there, you wouldn't see it, you wouldn't notice it. I think that renewable energy is such a help in the countryside, and it's obvious, with all the trees, sorry, with all the trees around there, that the actual property that's gonna benefit from it can't use panels on their house, because there never is any light on it, and it's doing a good thing from that point of view, and I can't say that it's causing an awful lot of problems, so there you are, I would support it myself, 'cause we'll have plenty of nice meadow left, and plenty of nice things growing there, and I would go with the proposition.
Okay, thank you, Councillor Powell. Yeah, all of those properties there seem to be facing east, don't they? The building must have liked the morning sun or something. Councillor Easton.
Yeah, thank you, Chair. Yes, it's good to have solar panels and methods of reducing energy off the grid, but I try to imagine this array as being like two cricket pitches long, and maybe four cricket pitches wide to make 335 square meters. You couldn't, it's 30 odd meters long, maybe 10 meters deep, that's 335 square meters, according to your report. At that size, I would suggest that there should be probably a feeding tariff somewhere, and it doesn't say that in the application. For a property of the size that it is, and I know the properties in that area, that would be far, far too big for what's required, so I don't know why they need such a large array of that sort of requirement at this particular time if it's just for domestic use. I accept the point that Councillor, I forgot your name, it's the same at the front. It is important, and it may not affect the meadow, but all in all, I wonder why it's got to be so large for one property.
Phil, have you got any?
It still, Councillor, are you looking for some sort of community benefits stemming from the, it's still very much of a domestic scale, 30 kilowatts, so you're not talking about megawatts.
I don't know, but if you're on a property like you need a row of terrace houses to put that on. 335 square metres, two cricket pitches long, 40 metres, plus about eight metres of depth, that would take up four terrace houses. It's a big area, I'm just wondering, is it an overkill for the property, and is it going to be used for feeding tariff, is that mentioned in there?
It's not, but it's not really relevant to it. We're looking at it on its merits and its visual impact, and how it affects the national landscape, so it might appear to be fairly large in domestic terms, but it's still acceptable in landscape and other impact terms, and it isn't of a scale where, the feeding tariff doesn't exist now anyway, does it? It's gone, yeah. We wouldn't be in a sound position to ask for some sort of contribution to local community schemes from something of this small scale.
Councillor Butler.
Thank you, Chair. Some interesting comments coming out, very, very interesting. Like Councillor McKenna, my concerns actually initially related to the very large number of panels proposed, but I don't think they're particularly large panels compared to what you might see on people's roofs, because I think these have to be a slightly different construction because of the way in which they're gonna be set in the receptacle, I can't remember what they call that, to sit in the ground. So I don't think they're as big as your average panel that goes on a domestic four bedroom house, for example. Although I did wonder actually whether they might be better off spending some of their money on installing a battery for storage. And of course we don't know whether they have proposals relating to air source or ground source heat pumps for their property, so only they know the answer to things like that. But my other consideration when I visited the site yesterday was around the tree planting or hedgerow planting that is proposed. I did notice that the applicant had actually replaced or planted a beech hedge sometime earlier, and it was just a beech hedge, it was sort of a monoculture, as it were. And I would like to ask whether the proposed new hedgerow is, or tree planting is of more mixed species. So that is one question I would like to have answered, please, but like others, when I was there, you really couldn't see this from the road, and I think once trees have been allowed to grow up, you're not going to see them at all. Thank you.
Phil.
Yes, the new hedge plan to be mixed species, native species hedge, so you'd have likes of Hawthorn, Holly, all the typical hedgerow plants in double staggered row. And then the tree planting, I think, well, again, those will be indigenous species. Bear with me, I'll try and find the green infrastructure statement. (humming) Sorry, shall I come back to that? And do any other members wanna raise anything while I'm looking?
I'll come on to Councillor Birch.
Thank you, Chair. I think it was a very interesting and informative visit yesterday. Really, as a matter of principle, if people are going to continue to live in the future in large detached properties in counties such as ours, then the planning system needs to facilitate for those properties to become zero-carbon. And here we have an example of a householder who proposed to do precisely that. We have, and I think in the supply to the planning portal, the information regarding why they need a large array, because it is an all-electric property, and there is a proposal for battery storage. And also, because the panels on the ground are at the angle that was proposed, this low angle so that there is less visual impact, is actually less efficient than if they were on a south-facing roof. So I think some of those questions have been answered. And in terms of their visual impact, really, it has been, I think, very sensitively designed to minimize visual impact, either from the road or from the footpaths, the adjoining properties, or the valley opposite. So I think we have no reason to refuse it and should move to approve.
Thank you, Councillor Burch. Phil, have you come up with those?
Yes, so in terms of the mix of tree planting in that corner near the neighbour's driveway, that would be a mix of alder, blackthorn, crabapple, and dogwood, and then the actual hedge row planting will be a mix of hawthorn, field maple, hazel, bird cherry, holly, blackthorn, and dog rose. That's the 70-metre length of hedge roads going to be planted.
Quite nice, that.
Thank you.
Councillor Loughton.
Thank you, Chair. Just to support what Councillor Burch just said, we're moving forward and we're looking to reduce our carbon footprint and then we question why people want to do it in a rural setting. The other concern I have is when it comes to this array, we're looking at siting it in a field, but what about all the other necessary infrastructure? There's going to be some form of cabling that's going to be needed to come off of these units to a transformer, to a battery storage site. Is that able to happen under permitted development, which is why we see nothing here? Are they able to accommodate that within the current buildings, within the curtilage? It's just one or two answers there would be kind of useful for me to understand how this development fits as a whole within the whole of the landscape, because if you're going to go around digging cable trenches everywhere, putting up a plant room, say, for all the infrastructure, why haven't we seen any of that now? Thank you. Go.
Yeah, as part of the submission, there was a cabling statement to do with the cabling specification. So the cables we installed in a 100 millimeter reinforced underground duct and laid in this trench of 60 millimeter depth with 125 meter width of bucket. It'd be dug by a very experienced ground worker. I won't read all of this out, sorry. We do not want to damage any trees and would hand dig where necessary and then feed the duct in under any roots as required. Then carefully backfill with clean soil. They've identified a route that they're going to take towards the property from the array. So that is on the application file and it would be part of the approved documents if they need to abide by, if they, if members are minded to approve the scheme today. So there is a, they have thought it through and they thought about how they are going to tackle the route and deal with any nearby trees and roots so that they don't harm those. Thank you.
Thank you, thank you, Phil. Could I just ask, is there any other developments on the, around the curtilage of the building to allow for a plant room or can they accommodate that in the existing structures?
No information on that. So presumably they'll cable into the existing property and provide what electricity generating needs or storage they'll need within the property itself or any outbuildings they've got there existing.
Thank you.
They'd have to have it there anyway, put in there otherwise it would be on the application.
They've got an electric car apparently, which they're going to need to, to have.
Councillor Garrett.
Thank you, chair. It was very helpful to go to the site yesterday to see that it wasn't very visible from the road at all and from the side of the property and Duke's house as well that doesn't actually look onto it. The only concern I had was from their immediate perspective was where the greenhouse is. They put a hedge in, which they said had taken five years to reach the state it was in. And there was a gap then where they had a table of chairs, a sitting area where they would, that was the closest point of their property to the array. But even then with the cross having grown, there's just one sheep I think we were told on the, although we didn't see it yesterday, it was hiding from us I assume. The impact on their view is minimal, but it obviously the proximity was a concern to the residents of the property. The Trent specification form in the report is quite good as well. As Phil said, they've thought very well about how they're gonna route the cabling through. Just mentioned as well in the applicant's details about having two EVs in the future. And I can see why they need this. They're looking at 27,000 kilowatts of power and it will produce about 30,000. So yeah, there'll be some excess and it mentions about buying some of the grids, but not a huge amount and they've got battery storage. I think it's a well thought through plan. Yes, it's sensitive area, but I think overall, we need to encourage people to do these kind of things in the future. Thank you. Okay, thanks for that. We've got nobody else indicating that they want to speak. We do have a recommendation from officers that this application is approved. Can we have the voting function up then, please, Richard? And we're on the, yeah, yeah, yeah. As I say, we'll just go for a proposal. Councillor Powell is proposing it, seconded by Councillor Birch. Right, can everybody vote now, please? (mumbles) Okay, so that's approved. 13 for approval, one against, and one abstained. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. That's the end of the applications today. We've got no reports, so we just go back, no, no reports. So thank you, everybody. Can you just stay where you are? 'Cause after we've finished recording, we just need a quick chat. Thanks very much. (mumbles) (silence) (silence) [BLANK_AUDIO]

Watch video of meeting

Transcript

Everyone. Welcome to this meeting of the Planning Committee on Tuesday the 4th of June, 2024. Can we just go to the first item on the agenda, please, and that's the election of the chair. Can I have any nominations, please? Council Powell. Can I nomination Council Bill Murphy, please? Okay, can I have someone to second that, please? Jan, Council Member, thank you. Thank you. Do I have any other nominations? No, okay, Councilor Murphy. I'm here, can't hear anything. Thanks very much, everybody. Let's hope we have as productive a year as we had in the last two. We've dealt with some quite tricky applications, and no doubt, we'll continue to get some tricky applications. So thanks to everybody for them. Look around, I'll come into it. I've just seen you fail, come into it now. I'm sorry, Phil, we can't hear anything online. No, we can't, Phil. Nothing at all? It's a little bit better now, but it's very quiet, so we've missed your appointment. I do apologize. Congratulations. Is that any better? Is that any better? Yes? Yeah? Okay, yeah, Richard's work is magic. Thank you. Sorry. Sorry, now you can hear me. Can I just double check there wasn't any other nominations for chair? No, okay, thank you very much. Right, just bear with me while I log in and everything. Right, okay. So back to business. As you would have gathered by now, anybody looking in, I'm Councillor Phil Murphy, the chair of the committee. And Dale? Chair, I think we still need to settle the-- Vice-chair. Vice-chair position first. Yeah, I was gonna come to the agenda, but there we are, we'll do it now. Can we have nominations, then, please, for vice-chair? Tony? We nominate Councillor Ruck, chair. Seconded. Any other nominations? Do you wanna confirm it? Yeah, I can confirm then, Councillor Ruck is vice-chair. So you can now confirm who you are, Dale? Thank you very much, chair, and thank you very much, members, Councillor Dale Ruck representing Chepstow Castle and Larkfield walls, and the vice-chair of this committee, thank you. Craig? Craig O'Connor, head of placemaking. Philip Thomas, development services manager. Andrew Jones, development management area manager. Thank you. Paige Moseley, sister to planning committee. Richard Williams, democratic services. Do we have any apologies for absence, Richard? Just one apology, chair, from Councillor McConnell. Okay, and declarations of interest, anybody? As and when, if you come up with something. So, the next item on the agenda is the accuracy of the minutes of the previous meeting. Can I have somebody propose me adoptals? Thank you, Councillor Perks. Chair? Yes, Tom? Chair, would it be appropriate to briefly show respects to the passing of our past chairmen, chair? That's just taken the words out of my mouth, but thanks for bringing it up. Yes, just to recall the sad passing of Councillor Sheila Woodhouse. She was chairman of this authority for two years on the trot during COVID, and a very great servant of Monmouthshire generally, not just Monmouthshire County Council. So, yeah, Sheila will be very sadly missed. Coming on to the meeting again now, then we have two reports before us today. And the first one is DM-2020-01438, the development of 15 dwellings in Little Mill. This is being presented by Andrew. Yes, thank you, Chair. And the slides are on screen now. So, yep, as you stated, this is a full application, and it's for the erection of 15 dwellings with associated infrastructure, and it's within the village of Little Mill. And just to confirm as a point of clarity, it's presented to you today, members, as the number of representations objecting has exceeded five households, which is the threshold. So, I'll just go through the slides, and a number of members were able to attend the site visit back in May now. But for the benefit of those who weren't able to join us, as well as any watching members of the public at home, I'll just run through these. So, first, this shows the vehicle access to the site, and this is taken off Tiguan Road, so you can see the gateway there of the termination of the carriageway. So, that would be the primary route into the site. And then the next photograph. There we go. So, this shows the neighboring property along Tiguan Road. Again, this is by the site entrance, and this is approximately where plot number one would sit. Turning then to the next slide. This is, again, stood at the site entrance, looking to the south, and this is what would be closest to plot number 15. We've then got some views across the site. So, this is taken looking in an easterly direction from the site. And then there's some... Oh, some feedback there. Apologies if that caused any disturbance. So, there's views then looking from T Draw Lane in a westerly direction across the site. That's, again, from the same location, looking back across, say, to the west through the site. I think, yeah, you can see there the mature tree there in the site that's to be retained, and I think that shows there. If you can just leave it on that, Phil. So, that's the, the next slide then, say, is the site extent, the red line boundary of the site. You can see clearly edged, it's the northerly part of the village. So, turn into the layout, and I'll just quickly identify... Oh, I'm not sure if you're able to see on screen, so I'll just identify where the affordable housing are on the next slide. So, hopefully, you can see, but Plots 1 to 4, as you come in on your left-hand side, sorry, Plots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, are all the open market, as is Plot 15 directly to the south on the corner. Thanks, Phil. The remainder of the units then comprise the affordable dwellings. So, we'll just quickly run through the dwellings and the appearance and floor plans on the next slide. So, this is the Humberston, this is the open market units. So, these would be four-bedroom units. You can see there, with solar PV panels, and perhaps less clear on the rear elevation, is the provision of air source heat pumps, and that's found throughout the dwelling types. So, if we just run through the rest. So, that's the floor plan, say, for the four-bed open market units. And then, these are the affordable housing types. So, just to confirm, in terms of the mix of the affordables, there would be four three-beds, three two-beds, and two two-bed walk-up flats that comprise the affordable housing mix. But that is the elevation of treatment of House Type 211. And I'll just take you through, then, to the conclusion of the, so that's the slightly different House Type 421. Again, these are the affordable units. So, as I said, they've been designed in a way to sort of complement with the open market units. That's the final type there. So, in terms of the principle, then, of development and the residential development of this site, this is established through allocation in the currently adopted Local Development Plan. Policy SAH11 allocates sites within main villages for up to 15 units. And a particular note here is allocation SAH11-5 includes land subject to this application, which is referred to as land north of Little Mill. Now, the purpose of this policy is to deliver affordable housing in our villages. And in this instance, the proposal, which would be delivered via Registered Social Landlord, RSL-POBL, would deliver the required 60% affordable housing units on site. And that equates to nine units in this instance. And just to confirm that the mix, the preferred mix has been engaged with our housing officer to ensure that's the appropriate mix of house sizes, and also to ensure DQR compliance. And to confirm, the nine or four units would be secured by way of Section 106 agreement. So the development, therefore, in principle, subject to the relevant policies and material considerations is considered acceptable. The officer's committee report does provide a detailed appraisal of these, so I'll just provide an overview for your benefit. In terms, firstly, of placemaking, and as you know, placemaking is key to current policy, as highlighted in both PPW Planning Policy Wales Edition 12, as well as future Wales. And in this instance, the site layout forms a logical extension to the development pattern along Tiguan Road, being served by an existing point of vehicle access. So, yeah, that'd be helpful if you just pop it back onto the, there we go, yeah, the layout. So the layout is characterized by active frontages to replicate the existing dwellings and the existing sort of urban pattern and grain. And of note, plot 15 has been orientated on a corner, so the front elevation is visible on approach to the site, rather than a less inviting and engaging side elevation. The dwellings themselves, as I noted earlier, adopt a simple, traditional architectural form, including both detached and semi-detached units. And this formal layout is considered an appropriate response to that of the existing village. The inclusion of street trees and swales on the southern side of the highway will also be helpful to define the street, and given its particular proximity to the edge of the settlement, is appropriate in this more fringe to rural setting. So subject to appropriate conditions, the development, in terms of placemaking, is considered acceptable and compliant with the relevant policies within the LDP, as well as those targets and aims within national policy, PBW 12. In terms of sustainability, it is acknowledged that Little Mill, as a settlement, offers few employment opportunities and amenities, such as schools or adopted surgery. However, there is need to use transport links to commute to facilities and amenities in areas such as us, Pointe-aux-Combrane, Abercrombie, and further afield. However, in the context of the county, we are a primarily rural authority, and Little Mill, as a village, is identified within the local development plan as a main village. It does have some local facilities along Berthon Road, including a village hall, public house, multi-use games area, equipped play area, and recreation space. All of these facilities are within approximately 400 meters walk of the proposed development site. Further, in terms of sustainability, offices have gone back to Pobble in respect of the inclusion of renewable energy features within the development. And as I stated in the initial run-through of the plans, each dwelling is now proposed to be served by both solar PV panels, as well as air source heat pump, which is welcomed as part of the development's overall sustainability credentials. At present, there are no policy grounds to withhold planning permission for not including features such as EV charging points. However, as stated, the features that are now proposed are an appropriate step to reducing the carbon footprint of the dwellings. And it's also worth noting that future occupants could provide further renewable features under permitted development rights afforded throughout Wales. In terms of green infrastructure and biodiversity, it's certainly recognized that whilst the site is not within any local or national landscape designation, it is nevertheless a greenfield site on the edge of the settlement. The scheme, which has been subject to consultation and negotiation, has taken a robust and appropriate approach to green infrastructure, biodiversity enhancement, and sustainable drainage, which have been presented a part of this planning application, including permeable paving, planted rain gardens, swales, and an infiltration basin. These features would be secured for appropriate planning conditions. With regards to biodiversity, and of note, a preliminary ecological appraisal, as well as bat and reptile surveys, have been submitted in support of this application. It is acknowledged that both reports are now over three years old and beyond the normally acceptable lifespan of ecological reports to inform planning applications. However, advice has been sought from the council's in-house ecologist, who has confirmed that based on the relevant advice note on this matter, having regard to the confirmed presence of protected species and the incorporated measures to avoid and mitigate for impacts on protected species, any new survey information would be unlikely to require any different mitigation, and therefore is not considered reasonably necessary. Therefore, the recommended conditions that were previously advised in 2021 by the ecologist are set out still in the current officer's committee report. The next issue, to surmise, is that of noise, and as members will be aware, the site is directly adjacent to the railway line that runs between Abigveni and the Pontypool-Newen station. The railway runs along the northwest side of the site and is the dominant source of noise in the area. Accordingly, in order to achieve acceptable internal acoustic conditions within relevant standards, the applicants have provided noise mitigation measures in terms of facade insulation and ventilation provisions in the most areas most exposed to the railway noise. This has been informed by overheating and noise assessments that have been subject to detailed consultation with the council's environmental health officer. And indeed, the environmental health officer is satisfied that it's been demonstrated that there is no adverse noise impact to occupants of the dwellings, neither would they be subject to unacceptable overheating conditions. So subject to appropriate planning conditions, which are set out in the committee report, the dwellings can be suitably designed and the overheating risks can be controlled without the windows opening of the affected plots. In terms then of active travel and more broader highway issues, as I stated originally, the vehicle and pedestrian access to the site is proposed through an extension to Tiguan Road. Safe protection access to the local facilities and public transport connections at Little Mill are proposed via the existing lit footway along Tiguan Road, Millbrook Close, and Berthing Road. And then from there, onward journeys can be served by bus service 61, 63, and 66, which is approximately 250 metres walk from the site, which can connect Little Mill with locations throughout Monmouthshire and neighbor authorities such as Tor Vine. Connectivity to the public right of way along T Draw Lane to the east of the site have been considered. However, there is no proposed connection through the site, in this instance, that it would be provided through the red line boundary of the site, as it would involve access through two sets of post and wire fencing, crossing through agricultural land, through SEDS features, and the required pumping station. So officers are of the view that, therefore, in this instance, whilst desirable in principle, for the practical reasons given, this easterly collection is not achievable as part of this development. And finally, in respect to vehicle traffic, no objection is offered by the council's highways engineer. The development would provide an appropriate layout and carriageway width, with each dwelling being served by policy-compliant levels of off-street parking. Turning then to water, and specifically the matter of phosphates, which has resulted in the application being held in abeyance since early 2021, the site does lie within the phosphorous-sensitive catchment of the River Usk Sack. And now, through negotiation and matters that have been resolved with Natural Resources Wales and Doer Cymru Wash Water, the proposed 15 dwellings would now connect to Maine's foul drainage network. The NRW permit for these works has been reviewed against revised phosphorous targets, and it's concluded that the existing permit is adequate, and that there is sufficient headroom capacity to accommodate flows from this proposed development. In addition, Doer Cymru-Wash Water have also confirmed that there is capacity to treat additional wastewater within revised environmental permit limits, and that the sewer network has the hydraulic capacity to accommodate additional wastewater without contributing to an increase in frequency or duration of storm overflows. So accordingly, the Council has undertaken a test of likely significant effect as part of the habitat regulations process, and this has concluded that impacts from phosphates, that there is unlikely to be a significant effect on the River Sksak, and therefore, a full appropriate assessment is not required. So members, just to bring matters to a conclusion, the application, say, which has been held in abeyance for some time solely for the reason of phosphates, has been subject to considerable discussion, amendment, and negotiation. This is allocated within the current local development plan, and for the reasons that I've detailed, as well as those in more detail in the officer's report, is considered to be a policy-compliant scheme that would deliver much-needed affordable homes. So therefore, it's presented to you today, members, with a recommendation for approval, subject to the signing of the Section 106 Agreement to secure the nine affordable units, as well as the detailed conditions set out in your officer's committee report. Thank you.

Thank you, Andrew, for that very comprehensive summary of the application. Can I remind everybody, before we discuss it, to keep your cameras on so we can see you, and to use the hands-up facility in the chat? We have no external speakers, but we did get some late correspondence from the Community Council. Can everybody confirm that they'd seen that? Yeah, okay, thank you very much. The first person I've got on here, who is Councillor Bonfield, was that from saying there was no volume, or did he want to speak on this application?
Yeah, thanks, Phil. I've got some concerns with the application, actually. You just mentioned the late correspondence from the Community Council, but it's my understanding that the late correspondence is from a member of the Community Council, and not the Community Council as a whole. I think as soon as the boundaries were changed, and this moved from Guy-Travale Community Council to Lambadoc, they should have been offered the opportunity to make comment on it, as any planning application in a parish council ward is. Lambadoc haven't had that opportunity.
With regards to the section 106, I would feel more comfortable knowing figures before we're asked to make a decision on this application, just because of the proportion of affordable housing on this site. And, you know, communities with developments planned, especially rural communities, are in desperate need of section 106 money. So, you know, I'd like to see some figures before we're asked to make a decision on that. I wonder if the Community Council also was given the opportunity to make representation at this committee meeting, because like I said, the boundaries change. So, you know, it could have been that one of the Community Councilors wanted to come and talk on this application, considering that they weren't actually consulted on it. So, at this present stage, I don't feel comfortable making a decision on this, and I would prefer that it was deferred until Lambadoc Community Council have had the opportunity to be consulted on and possibly make representation at a future committee meeting, if they wanted to.
Okay, thanks, Councillor Bonfield. A couple of points there. I'll ask Andrew to come in on the points, and perhaps Paige will come in on the last point you raised. I believe that the section 106 is only in respect of the affordable housing. There'll be no financial contribution, but I'm sure Andrew will enlighten us there.
Yeah, just to confirm on the section 106 agreement, yeah, the section 106 would be solely to secure those nine affordable units, because of the nature of the policy, the 60/40 policy. It's not required to provide any financial contributions towards any other interests. So, that is the heads of terms under the 106 is solely to secure nine affordable units. So, in terms of the consultation, I'm just looking into that. So, if there's any other further questions, I'll come back to that point shortly. If there's any other further points or questions, I'll come back to that shortly.
Okay, thank you, Andrew. Councillor Butler.
Thank you, Chair. Coming back to what Councillor Bromfield has just mentioned, I would have thought that it's, I'm not quite sure which community council this is under now, but would they not have received some information on this? Was that what you're checking? Okay, all right then. My interest in the development goes back to November 2020, when Little Mill fell in the ward of Goitre Whar. And although I was not a county council at that point, I was and still am a member of Goitre Community Council. So, I well remember looking at this application in some depth. And in fact, these words that you might have read are my words. If not included, provision should be made for the later easy installation of EV charging points. The proposal should consider the inclusion of climate change mitigation measures, such as heating assisted by ground/air source heat pumps, solar panels, et cetera, and future technologies, limiting the use of fuels such as gas oil and biofuels. So, I'm really pleased to note that now that this is presented with 60% affordable housing. So, it offers the opportunity, especially for some of our younger residents, to have a house, a home of their own. It's encouraging to note that some of the comments made by Goitre Community Council four years ago do seem to have been given proper consideration and now reflected in the plan. And they relate to that the site boundary should be extended to allow the inclusion of communal green spaces, play area, et cetera, and to allow integration with the existing play area at the end of Mellon-Bark Avenue. However, I do note on the site visit the other day, I took a moment to pop down there, and that play area actually is not usable at present, and I do hope that that play area is actually going to be restored so that any young people moving into these houses will be able to access it. The overhead power line crossing development site was rerouted, I'm pleased to notice that. And I also note that as near as possible, the houses at the entrance follow the line as much as possible with existing residences. As was said before, that we won't be seeing the end walls that looks like the end of a street. At that time, Goitre Community Council made the following recommendations. It recommended that the allocation of affordable dwelling units should be weighted in favor of existing local community members, and by that, at that time, we actually meant residents in both Little Mill and in Goitre-Pen-Plenny. So I was wondering whether we can be reassured that Popple will be considering the needs of local residents first, and whether priority will be given to the residents of Monmouthshire and not for Torvine, which I know that this bounds the edge of Monmouthshire. I also noted the design maximizes the value of the open market units to facilitate the cross-subsidation of the proposed affordable dwellings. And I'm pleased to note that these homes have kept pace with current trends relating to energy use, and have been future-proofed. I noticed the solar panels and the air source heat pumps, very pleased to note that. But could the developer advise us if new residents of the affordable homes will be reliant on the gas network for their heating source, and also whether any charge points are being fitted for electric vehicles at all to any of the properties? If not, this will be future expenses added to the new, these will be future expenses for the new owners or the landlord in Popple's case. As always, when I look at planning applications, I try to imagine myself moving into the houses. What will it need to make it feel like a home? How high is the standard of fittings, and what will my expenses be like in relation to the running costs of the home? What will my carbon footprint be? Can I charge my car? These would all be questions that I would be asking myself if I were to be thinking of moving into one of these homes. You know, I would expect there to be solar panels, a charge point for the car, air source, heat pump. And I know these matters are for building regulations where legal obligations lag behind real life needs. So therefore, I am very pleased to see that developments in heating terms are building for the next century and future-proofing some of the homes. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bechler. Angela, there was a couple of points that you could possibly come back in on there. I don't know about Popple's Latin policy, but no, that would be outside of our remit. But all I can say is in terms of, you know, the local community, our affordable housing officer has been heavily engaged with that process, and first of all, must ensure that the mix and the type of housing being provided to be secured as affordables are appropriate to what the local need and demand is for. Certainly take the point, and please, as we are, to welcome some of the climate change measures that have been included. These, you know, I say, at the moment, there's not policy levers for us to, you know, insist upon a sort of minimum standards, but certainly, EV points are something that's not included in this application. But until policies, be it local or national, are updated to reflect that, it would not be a reason, policy, you know, failure to withhold granting a planning commission on that basis, you know, obviously, policy's moving at a rapid pace towards that, and that's something that the replacement development plan will seek to achieve through its own policies on sustainability. But at present, it is, as I say, a welcome move in the right direction, and it obviously would need to meet, you know, TQR standards for the affordables. Current building regulations obviously improving as time passes, as and when these are built out. So it's certainly a positive step. We are still just checking on the consultation in terms of Councillor Bromfield's point earlier. We're just clarifying on that point in terms of consultation. Once the application came in, it would have been under the previous boundaries of GOITRA. That has changed through the lifetime of the application, which has been held in abeyance for some time because of phosphates. We're just still checking that, so if there's any other further queries, well, please let me know, I'll respond to those whilst we just confirm on that point.
Thank you, Andrew. Councillor Easton.
Thank you, Chair. I'm coming back to Councillor Bromfield's question about the section 106 contributions. Am I right in saying that it's for six properties, the properties for sale on the market, which will provide the section 106 money? And would that, you say, Craig is shaking his head, would the nine affordable properties be producing section 106 monies? I don't think that's the case. It would be a six when it's a sale, sure, wouldn't it?
Councillor Easton, so this site is an affordable housing-led scheme, 60% affordable, 40% private market. There's no section 106 contributions 'cause they're exempt. All of the 15 sites allocated in existing LDP are exempt. So what this site is delivering is affordable housing, so it's exempt from the other section 106 contributions. So the section 106 is purely in relation to the delivery of affordable housing.
Okay, I, right, okay, I notice on the report that it says subject to a section 106 contributions.
That's a legal agreement to secure the affordable housing. So those affordable houses are kept in perpetuity. So there needs to be a section 106 to confirm they will be affordable housing for the lifetime of that building, ultimately. That's the legal reason for contributions.
Within the application, then, it's been encompassed as a whole, the section 106 money is within the affordable housing structure as well, then.
Yes, so it's-- - Okay, so there's no actual figure. I couldn't find the figure.
No, there's no financial contributions. These sites, affordable housing-led, 60% delivery. The reason why the 40% is an exempt from any final contributions is 'cause they're holding up the viability of the whole scheme and delivering that high level of affordable housing, and therefore, there isn't a requirement, then, to deliver any additional contributions.
Right, that was the agreement you came to. That's fine. The other question, the other part is, Councillor Butler mentioned that it doesn't seem to be a modernized view of raising the ecological footprint on these properties. If this plan came in 2020, as assurance has even been given to charging points and things like that within, it's a complicated report. I tried to read it. It was very, very difficult. Thank you.
Sorry, just so I can confirm I understand the question, Councillor Houston. Is there, in terms of what provisions are made for future proofing of EV? At this stage, there's, I say there isn't the, I'm not sure what the sort of practicalities in the construction and installation for these matters, but at this stage, we can't insist that applicants provide and demonstrate that on the submitted plans, because there aren't the policy levers for us to insist upon that. Quite entitled to provide what they have, which exceeds current standards in any event. So if there are extensive, as I said in the presentation, there are extensive permitted development rights for EV charging points to stop development having to go through the planning process to try and encourage the use of that. So if future occupiers, be it the affordable units, be it the open market units, decide that they wish to install those sort of facilities, then there are permitted development rights to facilitate that. But my point, I suppose, is that through the planning application process and the current policy framework, we can't insist that even sort of connectivity is shown up to a point. We can only determine it in line with current policy. So it's a matter of choice for future occupiers. I know POBL have done a lot of work on their sites in West Wales, for example, where they've tried to push sustainable credentials. That's mostly reflected now in the offering of PV panels and air source heat pumps. But certainly moving forward, that'll be something that we'll be looking for, but like I said, I'm repeating myself, at this stage, we can't take it to that point.
Okay, thanks.
Okay, thank you, Andrew. And I think generally we've got to stop thinking in terms of Section 106 money, and Section 106 agreements probably is a better way of thinking about it now. Councillor Howells.
Thank you, Chair. Thanks for the report. I was looking at the comments made by Natural Resources Wales, and I quote, There appears to be no information or assurance from Durkhamri on whether the sewer network and associated treatment works has the hydraulic capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater without contributing to an increase in frequency or duration of the storm from." And they were requiring to determine the application. We advise to seek the final piece of information from Durkhamri. Has that been obtained? And also I've got one on network rail. There were concerns about the crossing, the rail crossing, rail crossing there, whether any conversations have taken place with network rail to see what safety measures could be put in place along there and noting that there had been recent near-miss incidents along there. And also rights of way, MCC rights of way draw attention to our active travel act, requesting sort of links to T Drow Road, sort of if there could be, has that been looked at? Is that, are the routes gonna go into T, or active travel routes gonna go into T Drow Lane? And yeah, finally, along with Councillor Butler and Councillor Bromfield, I was surprised not to see a comment from Plumbaddock Community Council. But I do appreciate this application was put in before 2020, in 2020, sort of, since the border changes. But I would have liked to see some consultation from them as well. I am pleased to read that there's, you know, if this is allowed to go ahead, there are quite some stringent conditions that are put in place. Thank you.
Yep, thank you, Councillor. Just to confirm on the first point, yeah, apologies if I hadn't made that clear through the presentation. We needed that confirmation from Doer Cymru-Walsh Water to be able to complete a test of likely significant effects. And they have provided that confirmation in order for us to be able to conclude that there wouldn't be that impact on the special area of conservation, the River Usk-Sachs. So we have had that confirmation as required by NRRW had highlighted in their consultation response. In terms of the rights of way comments and the potential for, you know, active travel linkages towards the east, and say, particularly to connecting up with the right of way network along T-DRAW lane. For the reasons I'd set out in the presentation, that is, in theory, a logical route that pedestrians and other users would wish to take, but there are practical reasons that I outlined why that couldn't be achieved, agricultural land, the pumping stations, such features, the basin, et cetera. So yes, it's been discussed and put to the applicant, but there are genuine practical reasons why that couldn't be achieved in this instance. Unfortunately, people will use the, say, the existing footways back through into the main village and onwards. In terms of network rail and some of the comments that they've made, I think they were seeking some financial contributions in terms of issues with safety and crossings, et cetera. But again, the officer's report does cover that, and in terms of the scale of this development and the sort of tests, the six tests you'd need to apply, four tests, rather, that you'd need to apply for Section 106 agreements, it's not considered that they would be reasonably, that they would meet those tests in order to make this development acceptable. I mean, the sites, the properties closest to the railway line would be afforded, you know, because of the acoustic fence, the 1.8-meter acoustic fence, there is a natural barrier, a physical barrier, not just planting, but a natural barrier, and with planting, that would provide a degree of protection over that. So we didn't feel that there was grounds to sort of pursue that further, relative, say, to the scale of the development and the tests you need to satisfy in order to require 106 contributions to make a development acceptable.
Sorry, Andrew, if I could just come to that. I mean, that was more to do with the footpath that's crossing the rail track there, were it not some safety features could be put on there?
I mean, ultimately, any features that would be outside of the Red Line Development boundary would be beyond the scope of this planning application. Like I said, there's a natural barrier through the acoustic fence that's gonna be provided along those northerly plots. Obviously, I certainly understand the safety issues and its proximity to the boundary, but I mean, at present, it's an open field. There are existing, potentially, if somebody was looking to get in and make close access to that railway line, but any additional security features that extend beyond the Red Line boundary, this would be beyond the scope of this planning application. So we're satisfied that the site is appropriately enclosed for residential development, for an edge of settlement development, and that there weren't grounds to pursue anything further outside of the site with Network Rail, because we don't feel that would satisfy the 106 tests.
Okay, Councillor Payne.
Dear Councillor Muthi, thank you for putting this planning application to us. I'm a little conflicted as to how this application fits with our promise to build sustainable, resilient communities where people have good access to employment and shops and public transport and active travel and healthcare facilities, being as there's no shop or school or healthcare facilities here. The application states that they save pedestrian access to the bus stops, and mentions a proposed active travel route south of Lytton Mill, but as far as I'm aware, there are no plans for the active travel route to be actualized in the near future. And from what I could see, the buses run about four times a day in each direction and wouldn't get anybody to employment in time. So I am concerned that the affordable housing will only actually be affordable for people that can afford to rent private vehicles, and I'm not quite sure how this fits with our desire to have a carbon neutral future in Monash, where we are less reliant on private vehicles.
Okay, thanks.
Yeah, I certainly understand the points raised, and I did acknowledge in the presentation that we are a rural authority. What this does, though, is provide local people with an opportunity, if they wish, to stay within communities, to help local communities. There isn't that outward migration of younger people that can't stay in communities. The links are primarily to onward destinations, employment, or other such sort of uses. There are, bus services is typical of Monash in that sense, but it is fundamentally an allocated site within the current local development plan. The replacement plan, and sort of, you mentioned then, sort of carbon neutral future. We need to look at this under the remit of the current local development plan, and that's our policy framework for members, yourselves, to make decisions on this planning application. And within that development plan and that policy framework, this is an allocated site. It's a main village, it's not a minor village. It does enjoy some facilities. Let's say it doesn't have school doctors, et cetera. But I think, in terms of that context, it makes an appropriate contribution in terms of how it can connect. Say there's footpaths that would work back and connect back through to the existing route. There may be, in lots of areas of Monash, a higher dependency on car usage than there is, perhaps, in larger towns and cities that have better access to more sustainable modes of transport. But within the context of our LDP and the context of us as a county, it was allocated as a main village and allocated for this level of housing for those reasons, say, to try and support that local community to provide homes for those that otherwise would migrate out of the county and out of the village. So, certainly accept the points and the challenges you've raised. They're very pertinent, very topical, but we've got to determine this within the current policy framework. And those bigger challenges of carbon neutral, et cetera, will be higher standards, higher bar set by future policy.
Craig's got some points to clarify, including those made online by one of the local members.
Thank you, Chair. Yes, Councilor Britain, that was certainly a, it's an interesting conversation with regards to rural counties and how they provide affordable housing to their rural communities, while also the challenge for sustainable development to ensure we've got public transport and access to active travel links. I think this is gonna be an ongoing conversation, as we have with regards to the developments, the replacement local development plan, 'cause we do want to provide housing to some of our more rural locations, which don't have that potential at the moment. So, it is definitely a balance, and Andrew's articulated the rationale there quite well. But obviously, this site was allocated in 2014, so it was a significant amount of time ago. There's 15 sites in the existing LDP, which are providing a high level of affordable housing, 60% affordable housing schemes. I think you have to, with Little Mill, it is interesting in terms of the cluster, and I think we shouldn't think of Momshire boundary as being a solid boundary. I mean, people don't move like that. There are obviously transport improvements within the local area into a vine, which people could access and utilize. So, I think in terms of Little Mill being a sustainable settlement, it is scored in very high, it's part of the replacement local development plan as well. And I think this is gonna be an ongoing conversation, is how do we provide housing to our rural communities, while also meeting the sustainable transport agenda. Assured a conversation will continue with regards to that, but I do think in terms of providing affordable housing to Little Mill, this is the right site to do that on. In terms of Section 106 contributions, as I said, all of the 15 sites in the existing LDP are exempt from financial contributions, 'cause the contribution they're delivering is social housing, is affordable housing for those communities. That's the reason why there isn't any additional funding in terms of Section 106 contributions. That has been the same for the other sites that have gone through, and ultimately, that is the way they've been agreed as part of the local development plan process. The concern that Councilor Bromfield has raised with regards to the boundary change, that is quite unique, ultimately, to this particular application. Obviously, there has been a boundary change during the lifetime of this planning application, and the application has taken, over the passage of time, quite a significant amount of time to deal with with regards to the phosphates and the water quality issue that we have within the Riverdesk. So that's the reason why this is a unique situation where we have consulted the Community Council at the time, and then there has been a boundary change. What I would suggest to members, and maybe an option that might be available to you, is if you are in agreement that this application should be approved today, in accordance with the recommendation outlined in the report, it might be that we could then consult Lambadaganas Community Council to comment for the delegated panel, maybe, to consider that as part of their deliberations, if there's anything new which is raised. But this is a unique situation with this particular planning application because of the passage of time. Unfortunately, there has been a boundary change, and so there hasn't been a formal letter sent to Lambadaganas. But I think that is probably an option available to members if they wanted to. If you are minded to approve the application today, to give that time for Lambadaganas to also provide comments to the delegated panel for consideration, and that can go then to a future delegated panel. So that's maybe one option available to members if they wanted to consider it.
Thank you, Craig. Councillor Bonfield, your hand's not up in the chat, but it is on my screen, so.
Sorry, I didn't know if I could still put my hand up in the Speak Now for that application. Do you want me to put it there?
No, you speak on.
So if it went to delegated panel after Lambadaganas Community Council had been consulted, you know, would the local member be able to also make representation at delegated panel? And even if committee approved it today, would delegated panel, if they felt the need after listening to Lambadaganas Community Council and the ward member, be able to refuse the application or not? So I understand the process.
So say, we wouldn't be able to refuse it. What we could do is bring it back to committee.
Oh, right, okay. Thank you.
All right, so I got, oh, Councillor, Councillor Butler, you wanted to come back in and then it's Councillor Biley.
Thank you, Chair, is it okay for me to come back in? I just wanted to reassure Councillor Bromfield that the current chair of Lambadaganas Council sat on Goitra Community Council and he contributed to the comments that were made in 2020. So if that helps at all, thank you.
Okay, thank you for that, Councillor Biley.
Thank you, chair. And I just really wanted to comment on the point that Craig made about there not being a hard Monmouthshire boundary, because that site is very, very close to Mylod Park Estate that has a number of facilities on it. And also just at the road from there on the old Warner Lambert site, there is going to be a number of houses built and it's my understanding there will be a doctor surgery in the school there. So I think, Craig, you make an important point that there isn't a wall around Monmouthshire. I just wanted to add that, thank you.
Thank you for that. I've got no other people asking to speak. It's been suggested, sorry.
Can you just have a minute?
Yeah.
If we can just have a, oh, Councillor Eason, you've--
Yeah, chair, could we take Councillor Bromfield's suggestion and bring it back to the next meeting in July on the basis of the comments of the Community Council?
Do you want to say that now?
Yeah, if members want to defer it to give time for Lambda Guiness to comment on it rather than go to the panel, that's absolutely fine. It's down to members to make that decision.
Is that the general view of the committee? Can I have thumbs up there on the screen? Yeah, and in here, everybody happy to defer it to the next meeting following that conversation? Okay, can I just have a chat to Paige in a minute then? (audio cuts out) (audio cuts out)
Sorry, excuse me, chair.
We're back, yes, Councillor.
I would actually propose that we deal with this now and not defer it again. I think it's been deferred enough.
Can I second that, please?
Right, well, what we'll--
I withdraw my suggestion. (laughing) (audio cuts out)
Right, we've had our discussion now. Craig is just going to put a thought and then I'm gonna take a vote.
Just wanted to help members ultimately. This is a unique situation. Obviously, there has been a boundary treatment change, so I think given the concerns that Councillor Bromfield has raised and obviously as an inclusive planning committee, it'd be right to get the views of Lambard-Tigas Community Council to feed into this. So I think it might be worth deferring and having that full debate then in the next meeting. I think given, there's a unique set of circumstances here with the application to be with us for a number of years, got on hold because of phosphates. We want to make sure that the correct community council now are also consulted. I would suggest to members to go with Councillor Easton's suggestion ultimately, but it's a member decision and Councillor Butler's also made the suggestion. But this is a unique situation. I think as an inclusive council, maybe it might be more appropriate to give that opportunity and time for community council to comment on it. And I would apologize on behalf of colleagues for overlooking that element, but this is a unique situation with regards to that planning application being in for a significant amount of time.
Right, thank you for that, Craig. What we're gonna do then, Councillor Easton made a proposal, so in a minute. In the chat, Richard will put up a voting card for defer or not defer. So do I have a seconder for Councillor Easton, thank you.
Chair, Chair, with respect, we already had a vote on this. You already asked us all. And so a point of order is we've already discussed this, surely, 'cause we all put our thumbs up, didn't we?
Yeah, you did, but there was some dissension here. So to make it absolutely clear what we are, we'll have a vote on the chat and everybody can say just what they want to do. So we can have that vote. Can somebody propose that we don't defer? So that's-- - We've had someone put forward. We've had Councillor Easton put forward the motion to defer. That's now been seconded by Councillor Howells. We vote on that. And then I think if that is carried, that is how we will proceed. And obviously the point raised by Councillor Butler was after that was put forward, okay. (muffled speaking)
A vote to defer in the chat now.
Yeah, yeah, so there's gonna be a vote to defer in the chat. That's come up now. So if everybody can vote now, please. (muffled speaking)
That's clear.
Okay, so that motion for deferral is being carried. 11 for deferral and four against. Right, so on the basis of that, we'll defer it to allow for that additional consultation. It'll come back probably to the next meeting.
Yeah, next meeting.
Yeah, come back to the next meeting, having collected those views. Right, thank you for that. We can move on now to DM202400384, which is change of views of some agricultural land to facilitate the siting of a ground-mounted solar array. That one is being presented by Phil.
Thank you, Chair. This is a proposal that some of us went to see yesterday on site. Yeah, so it's deep in the countryside. It's near the north, it's in the hamlet of Pennevan, which is a scattering of isolated dwellings, forming a sort of broad hamlet. The proposal is to site 72 solar panels in an array in the northeastern corner of a field, as you see on that plan there. The array is proposed to provide all the power needed for the residential property Woodfield House, which is located 52 metres southeast, so you see down to that corner there. That's the host property. It's near the north, as said, in the hamlet of Pennevan, and it's in the Wye Valley National Landscape, which we all probably know better as the area of outstanding natural beauty. The panels would be arranged in four rows of 18, with two metres between the rows and five centimetres between panels. Each panel would measure 1.7 metres by 1.1 metres and be three centimetres thick. This will make the total area of the array approximately 335 square metres. Each panel would be positioned on a mount, which is 50 centimetres high, 1.7 metres long, and 0.97 metres wide. And some levelling will be required, but it will not cause a change in levels of more than 30 centimetres. National Planning Policy provides a strong basis of support for proposals for renewable energy, with various references in both Future Wales and Planning Policy Wales 12, the latest version. Future Wales Policy 17 sets out that the Welsh Government strongly supports the principle of developing renewable and low carbon energy from all technologies and at all scales to meet our future energy needs. And Planning Policy Wales states, low carbon electricity must become the main source of energy in Wales. Renewable electricity will be used to provide both heating and transport in addition to power, and then it continues. Local authorities should facilitate all forms of renewable and low carbon energy development. And Technical Advice Note 6 also provides support for renewable energy in rural areas. And in terms of the LDP, even though it's slightly out of date in terms of renewables, given its age, but it does set out the criteria against which proposals for renewable energy are to be assessed, including impacts upon landscape, townscape historic features, biodiversity, and residential amenity. So the principle of providing a renewable energy installation is broadly supported, as we can see, by policy, and therefore the proposal is considered acceptable, subject to its visual impact. If consent is granted, it would be necessary to attach a condition requiring the land to be reinstated to its current form when the technology is no longer operational, in the interest of protecting the special character of the countryside and the national landscape. The site does not feature best or most versatile agricultural land, so this would not be a constraint to its development. The application site is within open countryside, and as said, in the Wye Valley National Landscape, and the proposal has potential to impact the special character of the area. Planning authorities have a statutory duty to have regard to national landscape purposes, and planning authorities should give great weight to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of national landscapes, and should have regard to the wildlife, cultural heritage, and social and economic well-being of the area. In this instance, although the proposal is larger than most domestic arrays, the panel will be set into supports which are 50 centimeters high, and the array will be sited along an existing field boundary in an incline which slopes away from the road, which is up above it, which is over here to the west, and that's the location we looked from here down the field, here, and we looked across here, down the neighbor's drive, and from the neighbor's land here. So if I just take that opportunity to run through the slides, that's a view down the field, that's the neighbor's greenhouse, which you saw yesterday, and the pegged out area, slightly further down the field, actually, than that red line shows, is where the actual array would be located. Yeah, that's showing a little bit more closer. Then that's looking towards Woodfield House, which you can't actually see because of the trees, that would be the host property, and then that's looking back up to the field, and there was a sort of gateway in there which we would look to view down the field towards the location of the proposed array. Then that's looking across to the other side, that's actually the neighbor's driveway that runs down the slope, and then goes down off to the right-hand side there. And then that's showing a similar slide to the first one, which shows where the tree planting would be going in that corner, to help screen the site from that entrance. That's a side view showing the three centimeter thickness of the array, and its height above the ground, of 50 centimeters. That's typical elevation of the panel, 1.1 by 1.7, and then that's the sort of console that they will fit in between, which will be placed on the ground. And that shows the actual aerial photograph showing where the site is, and you can see from views from the east, there's a very thick belt of trees which would screen that development for any longer distance views from the Wai Valley. Yeah, and that's a photograph taken, the actual consoles would, again, the array wouldn't be seen visible from the A466. And that's, again, showing something, a view from Stowe Road, and the arrays would be, you know, perfectly indistinguishable, set right down on the ground behind trees. That's a typical example of the array, so it would be on the ground, and close to the ground, and low-lying, and again, low impact. That's one that was actually in the field. There's a demonstration of how they would, what impact they may have, albeit there would be a lot more of them, 72 in fact. And then that's it in the field, looking towards the neighbour's property, and the driveway, and the greenhouse. Then that's it sitting in the field. And that's a summary of the issues. So the proposed array would be visible from the road that runs to the west of the field, as we saw yesterday, but because of its low profile on the slope of the field, an unacceptable level of harm to the amenity or character of the surroundings would not result. The alternative location of the array, say putting it on the house itself, on the roof, or within the residential curtledge, has been explored, but would not be viable due to its position within a wooded area. Citing the array within the residential curtledge may have resulted in loss of some trees in order for the array to gain sufficient sunlight. The Wye Valley National Landscapes Officer has provided comments on this proposal, suggesting an amended scheme or siting, as they considered it would be visible in the wider area. These comments have been taken into account, but your officers note that owing to the topography and the existence of trees, it would not be visible either from the public right-of-way to the east, or from the other side of the River Wye in England. Given this, it's considered that the array should not result in an adverse visual impact that would have an unacceptable effect upon the character of the wider area or landscape, or display a level of harm that would warrant the refusal of this application. It's considered that from a landscape and green infrastructure perspective, the proposal would be acceptable, subject to further appropriate landscaping being provided, and maintained to mitigate for localized visual impacts. Visual impact is likely to be more prominent, as viewed from the slightly higher nearby highway, as we saw yesterday, and the two gateways adjacent to the site. The site is likely to be more visible from the private realm in paddocks to the west of the site, and that adjacent residential curtilage that was viewed yesterday. The applicant has indicated the 70 metres of native species hedge is proposed on the northern boundary, and native species tree group planting is to be provided adjacent to the gateway, which would be appropriate. The low profile of the proposal, 50 centimetres above ground level, set within the slope of the hill, would have less of a visual impact than a typically higher solar array structure. The information provided also indicates that the proposed solar array would have a stock-proof fence enclosing an area of 36 metres by 15 metres. That stock fence will help to break up the visual form of this low-lying structure. The alignment of transmission cables and methodology for excavation and installation is acceptable and should have no adverse impact on trees and roots. Biodiversity enhancement has been secured in the form of bird nest boxes to be installed in appropriate locations on surrounding trees. With the addition of suitable landscaping conditions, it's considered that the array would not cause an unacceptable ecological or landscaping impact and would comply with LDP policies. In terms of amenity, the site is located close to the boundary of the northern neighbour and approximately 47 metres from that dwelling. The slope of the land and intervening trees and hedgerows mean that the array would not be directly visible from that dwelling, although it would be visible from the nearest part of the residential curtilage of that property. A scheme of hedge planting is proposed along the length of boundary between the field and the neighbouring property, which would mitigate the visual impact of the development. The array will be close to the ground and so would not appear overbearing and would not cause any noise nuisance. Given all these things, it's considered that the development will not have an acceptable impact on the amenity of local residents or that of the wider area and complies with policy TES1 and EP1 of the LDP. In conclusion, the proposal is considered an appropriate form of development in response to the acknowledged climate emergency by enabling this property to become self-sufficient in respect of renewable energy. And while it is noted the site is located within the Wye Valley National Landscape, officers consider that development subject to the conditions would be subservient to the primary purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area. In addition, the development is considered acceptable having regard to all other material planning considerations and relevant policy. We'd recommend approval subject to those conditions. Thank you.
Thank you, Phil. And yes, this was a very interesting one. Yesterday, we had a very good look around, so we got a good feel for it. Councillor McKelvie.
Thank you, Chair. And thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak on behalf of both myself and Councillor Richard John as ward members of Mitchell-Troy and Trellock United. And thank you to Helen Everton for the officer's report and Phil for the presentation today. As we have heard, the application is for the change of use of agricultural land to facilitate the siting of a ground-mounting solar array for Woodfield House in the hamlet of Pennyfan near the North. The application is for 72 panels. I personally have no objection to solar or thermal panels, and I always welcome seeing applications which involve renewable energy. I am, however, drawn to the 10 objections, which is the high number within a hamlet and the one from the Wye Valley National Landscape, forming AOMB. Regarding scale, visual impact, the AOMB, the adverse impact on biodiversity and visibility of the development from the road and the Wye Valley Walk. Furthermore, Trellock United Community Council have no objection per se to solar panels, but they do have concerns over the visual impact on the character of the environment. I did visit the site on Sunday evening, and in the balance of fairness, I visited both the applicants at Woodfield House and the nearest neighbours to the potential development site. When I was speaking to the applicants, I was pleased to hear of their aspirations to be off-grid and of their flexibility to cooperate with the planning department to get a favourable outcome by way of planting hedgerows, planting wildflowers, letting hedgerows grow up, et cetera. Likewise, I was pleased to hear from the neighbours that they do not have an objection to solar panels per se, however, not to the scale that is proposed due to being in a national landscape area. I have done some research, and whilst I confess I am not an expert when it comes to solar panels, my findings show that a four to five bed house could need 14 panels, which equates to five KWP. Other findings have said that a family of four would need three to eight solar panels, and another site quoted that for a family of four to five people, a five kilowatt system should be sufficient. Indeed, when I have travelled around our ward, I have seen no more than approximately 16 panels on a property. Whilst I admire the applicant's desire to be off-grid, it is worthy to note that even if powering an electric car, using air conditioning and other such general usage, 72 panels does seem to be excessive. It is also worthy to note that there are other forms of renewable energy and ways to be off-grid that can also be considered, such as ground source heat pumps, biofuels, air source heat pumps, and wind energy. So therefore, there are other forms of being off-grid available to the applicants. I understand the concept that cloudier days may not produce as much energy, but I understand that additional factories can be added to a solar panel system to store any excess energy for cloudier days. I feel that extra batteries, along with other forms of renewable energy sources, will allow a home to be fully off-grid. I would therefore propose to the committee that this application gets deferred and is brought back to us with an application of a smaller scale, which is more in keeping with the usage of a four to five bed house, one that involves less panels and therefore one that will have a reduced visual impact in this national landscape area. Indeed, as Phil has mentioned in his presentation, I acknowledge that national planning policy provides a strong basis of support for proposals for renewable energy. But the report does not mention size or the surroundings. In section 6.1.3 of the office's report, it states that SD1 provides the following criteria for proposals to be considered against the renewable energy schemes will be permitted where one, there are no unacceptable adverse impacts upon the landscape with regard to the protection and enhancement of landscape character. With regards to this point, I would question whether there are no unacceptable adverse impacts upon the landscape and also whether this application protects and enhances the landscape character. In my personal opinion, it doesn't. Point two goes on to say renewable energy schemes will be permitted where there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on biodiversity. On this point, I acknowledge that the carbon footprint will be decreased on the host dwelling, but I wonder whether this impact outweighs the biodiversity within the area. The field looked like it had a lot of wild grasses, wild flowers, and animal habitat. Indeed, I noticed a common spotted orchid in the field on my visit. This made me wonder whether there is a need for an ecological report regarding the flora and fauna in the field. At the visit, I was able to view one of the panels and the consoles as we've just seen in the report as well. And I noticed that the consoles completely covered the grass area underneath, which over time would destroy any flora or fauna underneath it. Maybe officers could clarify whether such an ecological report would be necessary. I do also note within the report that Subaru, which is also known as Southeast Wales Biodiversity Records Center, that their search results show red alerts for bluebells and butterflies. I also note that some leveling is required, which would indeed mean earthworks taking place. And I further note in the report an example of what the base would look like, which shows pebbles or a hard standing base. And I wonder whether officers could please clarify whether this will be the case in this development. Furthermore, the site is near a sink, also known as Site of Interest for Nature Conservation. And this is in the woodland to the south of the site. Point four of 6.13 in the report says that renewable energy schemes will be permitted where the wider environmental, economic, social, and community benefits directly related to the scheme outweigh any potential adverse impacts. Again, I would argue the point on whether this application does indeed meet that criteria. And finally, point five contained within 6.13 states that renewable energy schemes will be permitted where the distinct identity of Monmasha will not be compromised. Again, I have concerns whether this point is truly met, as I do believe that solar panel arrays are not commonplace in this national landscape area and form part of the identity of our beautiful county. Indeed, when I look out across the rolling countryside of Monmasha, it is rare to see an array that has as many as 72 solar panels, which have the potential to blight the landscape and the natural beauty of the area. I would like to refer to the objection from the Wye Valley National Landscape, where they state, Putting such PV panels on the ground in a traditional small open field, which formed part of the key feature of small clusters of historic squatter settlements on valley sides surrounded by intricate patterns of small fields, dry stone walls, narrow lanes, and small deciduous woodlands of this part of the national landscape, clearly appears to be more intrusive. Within their consultation comments, they further go on to say that landscaping is not forever and should not be used to screen poor development. Deciduous vegetation is also not in leaf during winter months, so cannot be relied upon. And I think that this is a noteworthy point considering the time of year where we, if we've been out on a site visit, that we've viewed this from. They further go on to say that the proposed development will be visible from across the valley on the English side of the national landscape. I did not view the development from the Forest of Dean area, so I cannot comment on this further. They further go on to say that, "Without any consideration for consideration and assessment of alternative locations by virtue of exciting and considering that the proposed landscaping put forward would not be able to mitigate the development to an acceptable degree, the proposed visual effects would be to the detriment of scenic beauty as the AOMB designation, hereabouts altering an identified key feature in the Wye Valley Gorge LM Z09, which in turn will go on to affect a special quality. For these reasons, we consider the application to conflict with strategic objectives of the Wye Valley AOMB Management Plan 21 to 26. We object to this application in its current guise. The LPA, of which we are all a part of here, has a statutory duty to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the national landscape. The local planning authority should ensure at an absolute minimum that planning decisions are consistent with relevant national local planning policy and guidance include in the Wye Valley area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2021 to 26. We trust you will take the above into consideration when arriving at your decision. Now moving on to the conditions in--
Councillor McKenna, I know you're the local member, you're also a member of this committee, but you have had an awful lot of time.
But I just have another minute or so to sum up.
Yes.
Sum up, please.
So just moving on to the conditions, if members are minded to go against my recommendation, decide to approve the application, then I would like to see a condition that the height of the hedges are kept to above 2.4 metres to allow the visual impact of the development to be lowered. And I would also like condition four to be reconsidered where it states that any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season. And I would like to see this change so that the condition remains in perpetuity. I welcome the 70 metres of native species hedge that's to be planted, but I would like to point out that some sort of deer proofing needs to take place. When I visited the site on Sunday, I saw two deer close to the edge of the field and it is well known in the area that deer can wreak havoc on saplings both within residents gardens and the fields. And with this in mind, the applicants may wish to ensure that the height of the stockproof fence cannot be jumped over by deer. So just to sum up in the case of this application, I do not object to the concept of being off grid by way of solar panels, but I do have grave concerns regarding the scale and the setting that the proposed development is in. Thank you.
Okay, thank you for that. Phil, there were some points in there.
Yeah, in terms of scale being excessive, yeah, there are quite a lot of panels, but I must admit, I've never seen an array that's so low to the ground before. It's 50 centimetres high. So when we actually looked on site, it was useful to go there yesterday, when you look from the roadway down, there was a bit of a dip wasn't there in the field. And the applicants thought about this quite carefully as to where to put the array, because they'd be set down into the sort of two thirds down the field where the land slopes into a dip. Whilst and obviously whilst open, that dip will again, reduce the actual degree of prominence of the arrays. So really, I mean, I know the National Landscape Officer has made comments, but we've analyzed those and we just don't agree with him in terms of any landscape impact. The landscape impact would be extremely localized, really, and really only affects anyone walking along the lane at the top. And even then you'd only be subject to views of it through the gaps, through that gateway, and then again down by the neighbour's driveway where they're proposing a group of trees to be located. So we think that the conditions proposed will mitigate any very limited harm that this array will provide given it's so low profile. The other issue is this will require SAB approval. So any surfacing will need approval of the SAB authority. It would appear that the actual panels are gonna go on some sort of like level gravel surface. So yeah, there will be a change to the land. But again, you're not talking about any deep foundations to this form of structure. That it's not heavy, it'll be light and it's reversible in the sense that it could be taken up and re-topsoiled and are used again for grazing or whatever purposes. The land in the report is described as semi-improved grassland. There's no objection from NRW in terms of any ecology impacts to the development. And there's no concerns in terms of any impacts on the sink nearby from this, obviously what is a static development. It's not gonna move around. It's not gonna impact on the sink in terms of having any impacts on it. So there's no ecological concerns to this, either. And in terms of changing the condition, that's a standard five-year maintenance condition for landscape. We could consider about increasing it, but is it necessary? Yes, in terms of actually having it beyond the five years. Normally the five years is to allow something to establish and get growing. I mean, ultimately it's down to members if they wanted to secure a longer period, but we as officers think that that is appropriate in terms of its maintenance period. And I don't think the applicant would seek to change and rip out landscaping after the event, having been a responsible person who wants to actually secure renewable energy for his property. So yes, it is large, but we wanted to actually look at it in terms of its impacts. So we don't think it's needed to make it smaller just because that would be more domestic. You look at it on its merits. It's a large-ish array, but it's so low to the ground its impacts can be managed quite acceptably and it would not harm the natural beauty of the AOMB, particularly with the landscape that's provided and which will be needed anyway as a form of a GI improvement for that development. So we're quite satisfied and happy to recommend it for approval in its current guise. Thank you.
Thank you, Phil, and having been there yesterday, you'd have to know it was there to look for it, I think. 72 sounds like a large number, but they are very small. So anyway, that's just a personal observation having been to the site. Councillor Pinn.
Dear, an improved grassland is usually species-rich and can support up to 30 to 40 different plant species per square metre and various butterflies and other wildlife. Can you tell me how much of this pasture will be lost to the trenches that are dug for the panels and the tree planting that will be put in to hide it? And will the remainder of the field be protected? And the proposal is for the change of use of agricultural land. Can you tell me what the land would be classed as following this application? And if it will relate to the area on which the panels sit only. I was pleased to see that the restoration plan is included as part of the conditions. Can you tell me what the land will, if the land will automatically be reinstated as agricultural land upon their decommission?
Yes, well, yes, the answer to the last question is, yeah, it'll have to be restored to its current condition, so it'll be put back to grassland. We've done a quick check in terms of our own ecologist's views, and if it was a larger area of take, then our ecologist would have recommended preliminary ecological assessment, but given it was a limited area, a relatively small part of the field, we didn't consider it necessary to ask for it in that instance. And it's grazed pasture, and I think the gentleman we met did acknowledge that they had livestock on it at one time, even though there was just one sheep or goat on there later on. But it had been grazed in the relatively recent past. And the comments are the woodland to the south of the site is a classified sink, but that wouldn't be affected by the proposals, and the enhancement look acceptable in terms of biodiversity. In terms of the take-up of it, I think we said it's 335 square meters of the field, but the field is fairly large, and it's a relatively small part of it. It would be enclosed by livestock fencing, so it sounds as if the intention is to graze the field when that is in place, so that the arrays don't interfere with any-- - Just on that one area that's gonna be-- - Yes, sorry, yeah, yeah.
And what will it be classed as then, once it's not agricultural land, what will it be classed as?
It wouldn't have a land classification, really, so it would be generous, really. It's a renewable energy form, so it wouldn't have a use class.
So it's just a temporary removal of an agricultural classification, basically, whilst it's in use? - Yeah, yeah.
Okay, yeah.
Okay, thanks for that. Councillor Powell.
Thank you, Chairman. Looking at that little field, if the farmer decided, right, we'll plough that up and plant potatoes, would he have to have planning permission for that? No. So really, we're very lucky that the majority of that field is going to remain a natural, old-fashioned pasture, where you have many things, as Councillor Friend said, growing there. It's not gonna affect them. It's only one piece of the field. The rest of that will go on growing, and if it's grazed, it will grow up again. So not losing all that. So I can't say that that's a real problem, because you're not going to lose all those plants, because it's not going to be ploughed up. It's going to be grazed. It's only a small part, and really, you couldn't, if you walk down the road and you didn't know it was there, you wouldn't see it, you wouldn't notice it. I think renewable energy is such a help in the countryside, and it's obvious, with all the trees around there, that the actual property that's gonna benefit from it can't use panels on their house, because there never is any light on it. And it's doing a good thing from that point of view, and I can't say that it's causing an awful lot of problems. So there you are, I would support it myself, 'cause we'll have plenty of nice meadow left and plenty of nice things growing there. And I would go with the proposition.
Okay, thank you, Councillor Powell. We have all of those properties there seem to be facing east, didn't they? The building must have liked the morning sun or something. Councillor Eason.
Yeah, thank you, Chair. Yes, it's good to have solar panels and methods of reducing energy off the grid, but I tried to imagine this array as being like two cricket pitches long, and maybe four cricket pitches wide, to make 335 square meters. You couldn't, it's 30 odd meters long, maybe 10 meters deep, that's 335 square meters, according to your report. At that size, I would suggest that there should be probably a feed-in tariff somewhere, and it doesn't say that in the application. For a property of the size that it is, and I know the property's in that area, that would be far, far too big for what's required. So I don't know why they need such a large array of that sort of requirement at this particular time, if it's just for domestic use. I accept the point that, Councillor for what you mean, it's seen in the front, it is important, and it may not affect the meadow, but all in all, I wonder why it's gotta be so large for one property.
Phil, have you got any?
It still, yeah, you can look for some sort of community benefits stemming from the--
I just wondered, it's still very much of a domestic scale, 30 kilowatts, so you're not talking about megawatts, so--
No, but if you're at a property like, you need a row of terrace houses to put that on. 335 square meters, two cricket pitches long, 40 meters, plus about eight meters depth, that would take up four terrace houses. It's a big area, I'm just wondering, is it an overkill for the property, and is it gonna be used for feed-in tariffs, is that mentioned in there?
It's not, but it's not really relevant to us. We're looking at it on its merits, and its visual impact, and how it affects the national landscape, so it might appear to be fairly large in domestic terms, but it's still acceptable in landscape, another impact term, so, and it isn't of a scale where, you know, the feed-in tariff doesn't exist now anyway, does it, it's gone, yeah. We wouldn't be in a sound position to ask for some sort of contribution to local community schemes from something of this small scale.
Councillor Butler.
Thank you, Chair, some interesting comments coming out, very, very interesting. Like Councillor McKenna, my concern's actually initially related to the very large number of panels proposed, but I don't think they're particularly large panels compared to what you might see on people's roofs, because I think these have to be a slightly different construction because of the way in which they're gonna be set in the receptacle, I can't remember what they call that, to sit in the ground. So I don't think they're as big as your average panel that goes on a domestic four bedroom house, for example. Although I did wonder, actually, whether they might be better off spending some of their money on installing a battery for storage. And of course, we don't know whether they have proposals relating to air source or ground source heat pumps for their property, so only they know the answer to things like that. My other consideration when I visited the site yesterday was around the tree planting or hedgerow planting that is proposed. I did notice that the applicant had actually replaced or planted a beech hedge sometime earlier, and it was just a beech hedge. It was sort of a monoculture, as it were, and I would like to ask whether the proposed new hedgerow is, or tree planting is of more mixed species, so that is one question I would like to have answered, please. But like others, when I was there, you really couldn't see this from the road, and I think once trees have been allowed to grow up, you're not going to see them at all. Thank you.
Phil.
Yes, the new hedge planting with mixed species, native species head, so you'd have likes of hawthorn holly, all the typical hedgerow plants in double staggered row, and then the tree planting, I think, well, again, those will be indigenous species. Bear with me. I'll try and find the green infrastructure statement. Sorry, shall I come back to that? And do any of the members want to raise anything while I'm looking? I'll come on to Councillor Birch.
Thank you, Chair. I think it was a very interesting and informative visit yesterday. Really, as a matter of principle, if people are going to continue to live in the future in large detached properties in counties such as ours, then the planning system needs to facilitate for those properties to become zero-carbon. And here we have an example of a householder who proposed it to do precisely that. We have, and I think in the supply to the planning portal, the information regarding why they need a large array because it is an all-electric property. And there is a proposal for battery storage. And also, because the panels on the ground are at the angle that is proposed, this low angle so that there is less visual impact is actually less efficient than if they were on a south-facing roof. So I think some of those questions have been answered. And in terms of their visual impact, really it has been, I think, very sensitively designed to minimize visual impact, either from the road or from the footpaths, the adjoining properties, or the valley, opposite. So I think we have no reason to refuse it and should move to approve.
Thank you, Councillor Birch. Phil, have you come up with another street?
Yeah, so in terms of the mix of tree planting in that corner near the neighbour's driveway, that would be a mix of alder, blackthorn, crabapple, and dogwood. And then the actual hedge row planting will be a mix of hawthorn, field maple, hazel, bird cherry, holly, blackthorn, and dog rose. That's a 70-metre length of hedge rows going to be planted.
Quite nice, that. - Thank you.
Councillor Loughton. - Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. Just to support what Councillor Birch just said, we're moving forward and we're looking to reduce our carbon footprint, and then we question why people want to do it in a rural setting. The other concern I have is when it comes to this array, we're looking at siting it in a field, but what about all the other necessary infrastructure? There's gonna be some form of cabling that's gonna be needed to come off of these units to a transformer, to a battery storage site. Is that able to happen under permitted development, which is why we see nothing here? Are they able to accommodate that within the current buildings, within the curtilage? It's just one or two answers there would be kind of useful for me to understand how this development fits as a whole within the whole of the landscape. Because if you're gonna go around digging cable trenches everywhere, putting up a plant room safe or the infrastructure, why haven't we seen any of that now? Thank you.
Yeah, as part of the submission, there was a cabling statement to do with the cabling specification. So the cables were installed in 100 millimetre reinforced underground duct and laid in this trench of 60 millimetre depth with 125 metre width of bucket. It'd be dug by a very experienced ground worker. I won't read all of this out, sorry. We do not want to damage any trees and would hand dig where necessary and then feed the duct in under any roots as required. Then carefully backfill with clean soil. They've identified a route that they're going to take towards the property from the array. So that is on the application file and it would be part of the approved documents if they need to abide by, if members are minded to approve the scheme today. So they have thought it through and they thought about how they are gonna tackle the route and deal with any nearby trees and roots so that they don't harm those. Thank you.
Thank you, thank you, Phil. Could I just ask, is there any other developments on the, around the curtain of the building to allow for a plant room or can they accommodate that in the existing structures?
No information on that. So presumably they'll cable into the existing property and provide what electricity-generating needs or storage they'll need within the property itself or any outbuildings they've got there existing.
Thank you.
They'd have to have it there anyway, wouldn't they, otherwise it would be on the application.
They've got an electric car apparently which they're gonna need to, to help see.
Councillor Garrett.
Thank you, Chair. It was very helpful to go to the site yesterday to see that it wasn't very visible from the road at all and from the side of the property and Duke's house as well that does not actually look onto it. The only concern I had was from their immediate perspective was where the greenhouse is. They put a hedge in which they said had taken five years to reach the stage it was in. And there was a gap then where they had a table and chairs, the sitting area where they were, that was the closest point of their property to the array. But even then with the cross having grown and there's just one sheep, I think we were told on the, although we didn't see it yesterday, it was hiding from us, I assume. You know, the impact on their view is minimal, but it obviously the proximity was a concern to the residents of the property. The Trent specification form in the report is quite good as well. As Phil said, you know, they thought very well about how they're gonna route the cabling through. Just mentioned as well in the applicant's details about having two EVs in the future. And I can see, you know, why they need this. They're looking at 27,000 kilowatts of power and it will produce about 30,000. So, yeah, there'll be some excess and it mentions about supplying some for grids, but not a huge amount and they've got battery storage. I think, you know, it's a well thought through plan. Yes, it's sensitive area, but I think overall, you know, we need to encourage people to do these kinds of things for the future. Thank you.
Okay, thanks for that. We've got nobody else indicating that they want to speak. We do have a recommendation from officers that this application is approved. Can we have the voting function up then, please, Richard? And we'll-- Sorry, yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's just say we'll just go for a proposal. Councillor Powell is proposing it.
Yeah, we'll propose it.
By Councillor Burch.
Right, can everybody vote now, please? That's it. Okay, so that's approved, 13 for approval, one against and one abstained. Thank you.
Thank you, everybody. That's the end of the applications today. We've got no reports, so we just go back, no, no reports. So thank you, everybody. Can you just stay where you are? 'Cause after we've finished recording, we just need a quick chat. Thanks very much. (gentle music) (gentle music) [ Silence ]

Watch video of meeting

Transcript

Thank you, Andrew, for that very comprehensive summary of the application. Can I remind everybody, before we discuss it, to keep your cameras on so we can see you, and to use the hands-up facility in the chat? We have no external speakers, but we did get some late correspondence from the Community Council. Can everybody confirm that they'd seen that? Yeah, okay, thank you very much. The first person I've got on here, who is Councillor Bonfield, was that from saying there was no volume, or did he want to speak on this application?
Yeah, thanks, Phil. I've got some concerns with the application, actually. You just mentioned the late correspondence from the Community Council, but it's my understanding that the late correspondence is from a member of the Community Council, and not the Community Council as a whole. I think as soon as the boundaries were changed, and this moved from Guy-Travale Community Council to Lambadoc, they should have been offered the opportunity to make comment on it, as any planning application in a parish council ward is. Lambadoc haven't had that opportunity.
With regards to the section 106, I would feel more comfortable knowing figures before we're asked to make a decision on this application, just because of the proportion of affordable housing on this site. And, you know, communities with developments planned, especially rural communities, are in desperate need of section 106 money. So, you know, I'd like to see some figures before we're asked to make a decision on that. I wonder if the Community Council also was given the opportunity to make representation at this committee meeting, because like I said, the boundaries change. So, you know, it could have been that one of the Community Councilors wanted to come and talk on this application, considering that they weren't actually consulted on it. So, at this present stage, I don't feel comfortable making a decision on this, and I would prefer that it was deferred until Lambadoc Community Council have had the opportunity to be consulted on and possibly make representation at a future committee meeting, if they wanted to.
Okay, thanks, Councillor Bonfield. A couple of points there. I'll ask Andrew to come in on the points, and perhaps Paige will come in on the last point you raised. I believe that the section 106 is only in respect of the affordable housing. There'll be no financial contribution, but I'm sure Andrew will enlighten us there.
Yeah, just to confirm on the section 106 agreement, yeah, the section 106 would be solely to secure those nine affordable units, because of the nature of the policy, the 60/40 policy. It's not required to provide any financial contributions towards any other interests. So, that is the heads of terms under the 106 is solely to secure nine affordable units. So, in terms of the consultation, I'm just looking into that. So, if there's any other further questions, I'll come back to that point shortly. If there's any other further points or questions, I'll come back to that shortly.
Okay, thank you, Andrew. Councillor Butler.
Thank you, Chair. Coming back to what Councillor Bromfield has just mentioned, I would have thought that it's, I'm not quite sure which community council this is under now, but would they not have received some information on this? Was that what you're checking? Okay, all right then. My interest in the development goes back to November 2020, when Little Mill fell in the ward of Goitre Whar. And although I was not a county council at that point, I was and still am a member of Goitre Community Council. So, I well remember looking at this application in some depth. And in fact, these words that you might have read are my words. If not included, provision should be made for the later easy installation of EV charging points. The proposal should consider the inclusion of climate change mitigation measures, such as heating assisted by ground/air source heat pumps, solar panels, et cetera, and future technologies, limiting the use of fuels such as gas oil and biofuels. So, I'm really pleased to note that now that this is presented with 60% affordable housing. So, it offers the opportunity, especially for some of our younger residents, to have a house, a home of their own. It's encouraging to note that some of the comments made by Goitre Community Council four years ago do seem to have been given proper consideration and now reflected in the plan. And they relate to that the site boundary should be extended to allow the inclusion of communal green spaces, play area, et cetera, and to allow integration with the existing play area at the end of Mellon-Bark Avenue. However, I do note on the site visit the other day, I took a moment to pop down there, and that play area actually is not usable at present, and I do hope that that play area is actually going to be restored so that any young people moving into these houses will be able to access it. The overhead power line crossing development site was rerouted, I'm pleased to notice that. And I also note that as near as possible, the houses at the entrance follow the line as much as possible with existing residences. As was said before, that we won't be seeing the end walls that looks like the end of a street. At that time, Goitre Community Council made the following recommendations. It recommended that the allocation of affordable dwelling units should be weighted in favor of existing local community members, and by that, at that time, we actually meant residents in both Little Mill and in Goitre-Pen-Plenny. So I was wondering whether we can be reassured that Popple will be considering the needs of local residents first, and whether priority will be given to the residents of Monmouthshire and not for Torvine, which I know that this bounds the edge of Monmouthshire. I also noted the design maximizes the value of the open market units to facilitate the cross-subsidation of the proposed affordable dwellings. And I'm pleased to note that these homes have kept pace with current trends relating to energy use, and have been future-proofed. I noticed the solar panels and the air source heat pumps, very pleased to note that. But could the developer advise us if new residents of the affordable homes will be reliant on the gas network for their heating source, and also whether any charge points are being fitted for electric vehicles at all to any of the properties? If not, this will be future expenses added to the new, these will be future expenses for the new owners or the landlord in Popple's case. As always, when I look at planning applications, I try to imagine myself moving into the houses. What will it need to make it feel like a home? How high is the standard of fittings, and what will my expenses be like in relation to the running costs of the home? What will my carbon footprint be? Can I charge my car? These would all be questions that I would be asking myself if I were to be thinking of moving into one of these homes. You know, I would expect there to be solar panels, a charge point for the car, air source, heat pump. And I know these matters are for building regulations where legal obligations lag behind real life needs. So therefore, I am very pleased to see that developments in heating terms are building for the next century and future-proofing some of the homes. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bechler. Angela, there was a couple of points that you could possibly come back in on there. I don't know about Popple's Latin policy, but no, that would be outside of our remit. But all I can say is in terms of, you know, the local community, our affordable housing officer has been heavily engaged with that process, and first of all, must ensure that the mix and the type of housing being provided to be secured as affordables are appropriate to what the local need and demand is for. Certainly take the point, and please, as we are, to welcome some of the climate change measures that have been included. These, you know, I say, at the moment, there's not policy levers for us to, you know, insist upon a sort of minimum standards, but certainly, EV points are something that's not included in this application. But until policies, be it local or national, are updated to reflect that, it would not be a reason, policy, you know, failure to withhold granting a planning commission on that basis, you know, obviously, policy's moving at a rapid pace towards that, and that's something that the replacement development plan will seek to achieve through its own policies on sustainability. But at present, it is, as I say, a welcome move in the right direction, and it obviously would need to meet, you know, TQR standards for the affordables. Current building regulations obviously improving as time passes, as and when these are built out. So it's certainly a positive step. We are still just checking on the consultation in terms of Councillor Bromfield's point earlier. We're just clarifying on that point in terms of consultation. Once the application came in, it would have been under the previous boundaries of GOITRA. That has changed through the lifetime of the application, which has been held in abeyance for some time because of phosphates. We're just still checking that, so if there's any other further queries, well, please let me know, I'll respond to those whilst we just confirm on that point.
Thank you, Andrew. Councillor Easton.
Thank you, Chair. I'm coming back to Councillor Bromfield's question about the section 106 contributions. Am I right in saying that it's for six properties, the properties for sale on the market, which will provide the section 106 money? And would that, you say, Craig is shaking his head, would the nine affordable properties be producing section 106 monies? I don't think that's the case. It would be a six when it's a sale, sure, wouldn't it?
Councillor Easton, so this site is an affordable housing-led scheme, 60% affordable, 40% private market. There's no section 106 contributions 'cause they're exempt. All of the 15 sites allocated in existing LDP are exempt. So what this site is delivering is affordable housing, so it's exempt from the other section 106 contributions. So the section 106 is purely in relation to the delivery of affordable housing.
Okay, I, right, okay, I notice on the report that it says subject to a section 106 contributions.
That's a legal agreement to secure the affordable housing. So those affordable houses are kept in perpetuity. So there needs to be a section 106 to confirm they will be affordable housing for the lifetime of that building, ultimately. That's the legal reason for contributions.
Within the application, then, it's been encompassed as a whole, the section 106 money is within the affordable housing structure as well, then.
Yes, so it's-- - Okay, so there's no actual figure. I couldn't find the figure.
No, there's no financial contributions. These sites, affordable housing-led, 60% delivery. The reason why the 40% is an exempt from any final contributions is 'cause they're holding up the viability of the whole scheme and delivering that high level of affordable housing, and therefore, there isn't a requirement, then, to deliver any additional contributions.
Right, that was the agreement you came to. That's fine. The other question, the other part is, Councillor Butler mentioned that it doesn't seem to be a modernized view of raising the ecological footprint on these properties. If this plan came in 2020, as assurance has even been given to charging points and things like that within, it's a complicated report. I tried to read it. It was very, very difficult. Thank you.
Sorry, just so I can confirm I understand the question, Councillor Houston. Is there, in terms of what provisions are made for future proofing of EV? At this stage, there's, I say there isn't the, I'm not sure what the sort of practicalities in the construction and installation for these matters, but at this stage, we can't insist that applicants provide and demonstrate that on the submitted plans, because there aren't the policy levers for us to insist upon that. Quite entitled to provide what they have, which exceeds current standards in any event. So if there are extensive, as I said in the presentation, there are extensive permitted development rights for EV charging points to stop development having to go through the planning process to try and encourage the use of that. So if future occupiers, be it the affordable units, be it the open market units, decide that they wish to install those sort of facilities, then there are permitted development rights to facilitate that. But my point, I suppose, is that through the planning application process and the current policy framework, we can't insist that even sort of connectivity is shown up to a point. We can only determine it in line with current policy. So it's a matter of choice for future occupiers. I know POBL have done a lot of work on their sites in West Wales, for example, where they've tried to push sustainable credentials. That's mostly reflected now in the offering of PV panels and air source heat pumps. But certainly moving forward, that'll be something that we'll be looking for, but like I said, I'm repeating myself, at this stage, we can't take it to that point.
Okay, thanks.
Okay, thank you, Andrew. And I think generally we've got to stop thinking in terms of Section 106 money, and Section 106 agreements probably is a better way of thinking about it now. Councillor Howells.
Thank you, Chair. Thanks for the report. I was looking at the comments made by Natural Resources Wales, and I quote, There appears to be no information or assurance from Durkhamri on whether the sewer network and associated treatment works has the hydraulic capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater without contributing to an increase in frequency or duration of the storm from." And they were requiring to determine the application. We advise to seek the final piece of information from Durkhamri. Has that been obtained? And also I've got one on network rail. There were concerns about the crossing, the rail crossing, rail crossing there, whether any conversations have taken place with network rail to see what safety measures could be put in place along there and noting that there had been recent near-miss incidents along there. And also rights of way, MCC rights of way draw attention to our active travel act, requesting sort of links to T Drow Road, sort of if there could be, has that been looked at? Is that, are the routes gonna go into T, or active travel routes gonna go into T Drow Lane? And yeah, finally, along with Councillor Butler and Councillor Bromfield, I was surprised not to see a comment from Plumbaddock Community Council. But I do appreciate this application was put in before 2020, in 2020, sort of, since the border changes. But I would have liked to see some consultation from them as well. I am pleased to read that there's, you know, if this is allowed to go ahead, there are quite some stringent conditions that are put in place. Thank you.
Yep, thank you, Councillor. Just to confirm on the first point, yeah, apologies if I hadn't made that clear through the presentation. We needed that confirmation from Doer Cymru-Walsh Water to be able to complete a test of likely significant effects. And they have provided that confirmation in order for us to be able to conclude that there wouldn't be that impact on the special area of conservation, the River Usk-Sachs. So we have had that confirmation as required by NRRW had highlighted in their consultation response. In terms of the rights of way comments and the potential for, you know, active travel linkages towards the east, and say, particularly to connecting up with the right of way network along T-DRAW lane. For the reasons I'd set out in the presentation, that is, in theory, a logical route that pedestrians and other users would wish to take, but there are practical reasons that I outlined why that couldn't be achieved, agricultural land, the pumping stations, such features, the basin, et cetera. So yes, it's been discussed and put to the applicant, but there are genuine practical reasons why that couldn't be achieved in this instance. Unfortunately, people will use the, say, the existing footways back through into the main village and onwards. In terms of network rail and some of the comments that they've made, I think they were seeking some financial contributions in terms of issues with safety and crossings, et cetera. But again, the officer's report does cover that, and in terms of the scale of this development and the sort of tests, the six tests you'd need to apply, four tests, rather, that you'd need to apply for Section 106 agreements, it's not considered that they would be reasonably, that they would meet those tests in order to make this development acceptable. I mean, the sites, the properties closest to the railway line would be afforded, you know, because of the acoustic fence, the 1.8-meter acoustic fence, there is a natural barrier, a physical barrier, not just planting, but a natural barrier, and with planting, that would provide a degree of protection over that. So we didn't feel that there was grounds to sort of pursue that further, relative, say, to the scale of the development and the tests you need to satisfy in order to require 106 contributions to make a development acceptable.
Sorry, Andrew, if I could just come to that. I mean, that was more to do with the footpath that's crossing the rail track there, were it not some safety features could be put on there?
I mean, ultimately, any features that would be outside of the Red Line Development boundary would be beyond the scope of this planning application. Like I said, there's a natural barrier through the acoustic fence that's gonna be provided along those northerly plots. Obviously, I certainly understand the safety issues and its proximity to the boundary, but I mean, at present, it's an open field. There are existing, potentially, if somebody was looking to get in and make close access to that railway line, but any additional security features that extend beyond the Red Line boundary, this would be beyond the scope of this planning application. So we're satisfied that the site is appropriately enclosed for residential development, for an edge of settlement development, and that there weren't grounds to pursue anything further outside of the site with Network Rail, because we don't feel that would satisfy the 106 tests.
Okay, Councillor Payne.
Dear Councillor Muthi, thank you for putting this planning application to us. I'm a little conflicted as to how this application fits with our promise to build sustainable, resilient communities where people have good access to employment and shops and public transport and active travel and healthcare facilities, being as there's no shop or school or healthcare facilities here. The application states that they save pedestrian access to the bus stops, and mentions a proposed active travel route south of Lytton Mill, but as far as I'm aware, there are no plans for the active travel route to be actualized in the near future. And from what I could see, the buses run about four times a day in each direction and wouldn't get anybody to employment in time. So I am concerned that the affordable housing will only actually be affordable for people that can afford to rent private vehicles, and I'm not quite sure how this fits with our desire to have a carbon neutral future in Monash, where we are less reliant on private vehicles.
Okay, thanks.
Yeah, I certainly understand the points raised, and I did acknowledge in the presentation that we are a rural authority. What this does, though, is provide local people with an opportunity, if they wish, to stay within communities, to help local communities. There isn't that outward migration of younger people that can't stay in communities. The links are primarily to onward destinations, employment, or other such sort of uses. There are, bus services is typical of Monash in that sense, but it is fundamentally an allocated site within the current local development plan. The replacement plan, and sort of, you mentioned then, sort of carbon neutral future. We need to look at this under the remit of the current local development plan, and that's our policy framework for members, yourselves, to make decisions on this planning application. And within that development plan and that policy framework, this is an allocated site. It's a main village, it's not a minor village. It does enjoy some facilities. Let's say it doesn't have school doctors, et cetera. But I think, in terms of that context, it makes an appropriate contribution in terms of how it can connect. Say there's footpaths that would work back and connect back through to the existing route. There may be, in lots of areas of Monash, a higher dependency on car usage than there is, perhaps, in larger towns and cities that have better access to more sustainable modes of transport. But within the context of our LDP and the context of us as a county, it was allocated as a main village and allocated for this level of housing for those reasons, say, to try and support that local community to provide homes for those that otherwise would migrate out of the county and out of the village. So, certainly accept the points and the challenges you've raised. They're very pertinent, very topical, but we've got to determine this within the current policy framework. And those bigger challenges of carbon neutral, et cetera, will be higher standards, higher bar set by future policy.
Craig's got some points to clarify, including those made online by one of the local members.
Thank you, Chair. Yes, Councilor Britain, that was certainly a, it's an interesting conversation with regards to rural counties and how they provide affordable housing to their rural communities, while also the challenge for sustainable development to ensure we've got public transport and access to active travel links. I think this is gonna be an ongoing conversation, as we have with regards to the developments, the replacement local development plan, 'cause we do want to provide housing to some of our more rural locations, which don't have that potential at the moment. So, it is definitely a balance, and Andrew's articulated the rationale there quite well. But obviously, this site was allocated in 2014, so it was a significant amount of time ago. There's 15 sites in the existing LDP, which are providing a high level of affordable housing, 60% affordable housing schemes. I think you have to, with Little Mill, it is interesting in terms of the cluster, and I think we shouldn't think of Momshire boundary as being a solid boundary. I mean, people don't move like that. There are obviously transport improvements within the local area into a vine, which people could access and utilize. So, I think in terms of Little Mill being a sustainable settlement, it is scored in very high, it's part of the replacement local development plan as well. And I think this is gonna be an ongoing conversation, is how do we provide housing to our rural communities, while also meeting the sustainable transport agenda. Assured a conversation will continue with regards to that, but I do think in terms of providing affordable housing to Little Mill, this is the right site to do that on. In terms of Section 106 contributions, as I said, all of the 15 sites in the existing LDP are exempt from financial contributions, 'cause the contribution they're delivering is social housing, is affordable housing for those communities. That's the reason why there isn't any additional funding in terms of Section 106 contributions. That has been the same for the other sites that have gone through, and ultimately, that is the way they've been agreed as part of the local development plan process. The concern that Councilor Bromfield has raised with regards to the boundary change, that is quite unique, ultimately, to this particular application. Obviously, there has been a boundary change during the lifetime of this planning application, and the application has taken, over the passage of time, quite a significant amount of time to deal with with regards to the phosphates and the water quality issue that we have within the Riverdesk. So that's the reason why this is a unique situation where we have consulted the Community Council at the time, and then there has been a boundary change. What I would suggest to members, and maybe an option that might be available to you, is if you are in agreement that this application should be approved today, in accordance with the recommendation outlined in the report, it might be that we could then consult Lambadaganas Community Council to comment for the delegated panel, maybe, to consider that as part of their deliberations, if there's anything new which is raised. But this is a unique situation with this particular planning application because of the passage of time. Unfortunately, there has been a boundary change, and so there hasn't been a formal letter sent to Lambadaganas. But I think that is probably an option available to members if they wanted to. If you are minded to approve the application today, to give that time for Lambadaganas to also provide comments to the delegated panel for consideration, and that can go then to a future delegated panel. So that's maybe one option available to members if they wanted to consider it.
Thank you, Craig. Councillor Bonfield, your hand's not up in the chat, but it is on my screen, so.
Sorry, I didn't know if I could still put my hand up in the Speak Now for that application. Do you want me to put it there?
No, you speak on.
So if it went to delegated panel after Lambadaganas Community Council had been consulted, you know, would the local member be able to also make representation at delegated panel? And even if committee approved it today, would delegated panel, if they felt the need after listening to Lambadaganas Community Council and the ward member, be able to refuse the application or not? So I understand the process.
So say, we wouldn't be able to refuse it. What we could do is bring it back to committee.
Oh, right, okay. Thank you.
All right, so I got, oh, Councillor, Councillor Butler, you wanted to come back in and then it's Councillor Biley.
Thank you, Chair, is it okay for me to come back in? I just wanted to reassure Councillor Bromfield that the current chair of Lambadaganas Council sat on Goitra Community Council and he contributed to the comments that were made in 2020. So if that helps at all, thank you.
Okay, thank you for that, Councillor Biley.
Thank you, chair. And I just really wanted to comment on the point that Craig made about there not being a hard Monmouthshire boundary, because that site is very, very close to Mylod Park Estate that has a number of facilities on it. And also just at the road from there on the old Warner Lambert site, there is going to be a number of houses built and it's my understanding there will be a doctor surgery in the school there. So I think, Craig, you make an important point that there isn't a wall around Monmouthshire. I just wanted to add that, thank you.
Thank you for that. I've got no other people asking to speak. It's been suggested, sorry.
Can you just have a minute?
Yeah.
If we can just have a, oh, Councillor Eason, you've--
Yeah, chair, could we take Councillor Bromfield's suggestion and bring it back to the next meeting in July on the basis of the comments of the Community Council?
Do you want to say that now?
Yeah, if members want to defer it to give time for Lambda Guiness to comment on it rather than go to the panel, that's absolutely fine. It's down to members to make that decision.
Is that the general view of the committee? Can I have thumbs up there on the screen? Yeah, and in here, everybody happy to defer it to the next meeting following that conversation? Okay, can I just have a chat to Paige in a minute then? (audio cuts out) (audio cuts out)
Sorry, excuse me, chair.
We're back, yes, Councillor.
I would actually propose that we deal with this now and not defer it again. I think it's been deferred enough.
Can I second that, please?
Right, well, what we'll--
I withdraw my suggestion. (laughing) (audio cuts out)
Right, we've had our discussion now. Craig is just going to put a thought and then I'm gonna take a vote.
Just wanted to help members ultimately. This is a unique situation. Obviously, there has been a boundary treatment change, so I think given the concerns that Councillor Bromfield has raised and obviously as an inclusive planning committee, it'd be right to get the views of Lambard-Tigas Community Council to feed into this. So I think it might be worth deferring and having that full debate then in the next meeting. I think given, there's a unique set of circumstances here with the application to be with us for a number of years, got on hold because of phosphates. We want to make sure that the correct community council now are also consulted. I would suggest to members to go with Councillor Easton's suggestion ultimately, but it's a member decision and Councillor Butler's also made the suggestion. But this is a unique situation. I think as an inclusive council, maybe it might be more appropriate to give that opportunity and time for community council to comment on it. And I would apologize on behalf of colleagues for overlooking that element, but this is a unique situation with regards to that planning application being in for a significant amount of time.
Right, thank you for that, Craig. What we're gonna do then, Councillor Easton made a proposal, so in a minute. In the chat, Richard will put up a voting card for defer or not defer. So do I have a seconder for Councillor Easton, thank you.
Chair, Chair, with respect, we already had a vote on this. You already asked us all. And so a point of order is we've already discussed this, surely, 'cause we all put our thumbs up, didn't we?
Yeah, you did, but there was some dissension here. So to make it absolutely clear what we are, we'll have a vote on the chat and everybody can say just what they want to do. So we can have that vote. Can somebody propose that we don't defer? So that's-- - We've had someone put forward. We've had Councillor Easton put forward the motion to defer. That's now been seconded by Councillor Howells. We vote on that. And then I think if that is carried, that is how we will proceed. And obviously the point raised by Councillor Butler was after that was put forward, okay. (muffled speaking)
A vote to defer in the chat now.
Yeah, yeah, so there's gonna be a vote to defer in the chat. That's come up now. So if everybody can vote now, please. (muffled speaking)
That's clear.
Okay, so that motion for deferral is being carried. 11 for deferral and four against. Right, so on the basis of that, we'll defer it to allow for that additional consultation. It'll come back probably to the next meeting.
Yeah, next meeting.
Yeah, come back to the next meeting, having collected those views. Right, thank you for that. We can move on now to DM202400384, which is change of views of some agricultural land to facilitate the siting of a ground-mounted solar array. That one is being presented by Phil.
Thank you, Chair. This is a proposal that some of us went to see yesterday on site. Yeah, so it's deep in the countryside. It's near the north, it's in the hamlet of Pennevan, which is a scattering of isolated dwellings, forming a sort of broad hamlet. The proposal is to site 72 solar panels in an array in the northeastern corner of a field, as you see on that plan there. The array is proposed to provide all the power needed for the residential property Woodfield House, which is located 52 metres southeast, so you see down to that corner there. That's the host property. It's near the north, as said, in the hamlet of Pennevan, and it's in the Wye Valley National Landscape, which we all probably know better as the area of outstanding natural beauty. The panels would be arranged in four rows of 18, with two metres between the rows and five centimetres between panels. Each panel would measure 1.7 metres by 1.1 metres and be three centimetres thick. This will make the total area of the array approximately 335 square metres. Each panel would be positioned on a mount, which is 50 centimetres high, 1.7 metres long, and 0.97 metres wide. And some levelling will be required, but it will not cause a change in levels of more than 30 centimetres. National Planning Policy provides a strong basis of support for proposals for renewable energy, with various references in both Future Wales and Planning Policy Wales 12, the latest version. Future Wales Policy 17 sets out that the Welsh Government strongly supports the principle of developing renewable and low carbon energy from all technologies and at all scales to meet our future energy needs. And Planning Policy Wales states, low carbon electricity must become the main source of energy in Wales. Renewable electricity will be used to provide both heating and transport in addition to power, and then it continues. Local authorities should facilitate all forms of renewable and low carbon energy development. And Technical Advice Note 6 also provides support for renewable energy in rural areas. And in terms of the LDP, even though it's slightly out of date in terms of renewables, given its age, but it does set out the criteria against which proposals for renewable energy are to be assessed, including impacts upon landscape, townscape historic features, biodiversity, and residential amenity. So the principle of providing a renewable energy installation is broadly supported, as we can see, by policy, and therefore the proposal is considered acceptable, subject to its visual impact. If consent is granted, it would be necessary to attach a condition requiring the land to be reinstated to its current form when the technology is no longer operational, in the interest of protecting the special character of the countryside and the national landscape. The site does not feature best or most versatile agricultural land, so this would not be a constraint to its development. The application site is within open countryside, and as said, in the Wye Valley National Landscape, and the proposal has potential to impact the special character of the area. Planning authorities have a statutory duty to have regard to national landscape purposes, and planning authorities should give great weight to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of national landscapes, and should have regard to the wildlife, cultural heritage, and social and economic well-being of the area. In this instance, although the proposal is larger than most domestic arrays, the panel will be set into supports which are 50 centimeters high, and the array will be sited along an existing field boundary in an incline which slopes away from the road, which is up above it, which is over here to the west, and that's the location we looked from here down the field, here, and we looked across here, down the neighbor's drive, and from the neighbor's land here. So if I just take that opportunity to run through the slides, that's a view down the field, that's the neighbor's greenhouse, which you saw yesterday, and the pegged out area, slightly further down the field, actually, than that red line shows, is where the actual array would be located. Yeah, that's showing a little bit more closer. Then that's looking towards Woodfield House, which you can't actually see because of the trees, that would be the host property, and then that's looking back up to the field, and there was a sort of gateway in there which we would look to view down the field towards the location of the proposed array. Then that's looking across to the other side, that's actually the neighbor's driveway that runs down the slope, and then goes down off to the right-hand side there. And then that's showing a similar slide to the first one, which shows where the tree planting would be going in that corner, to help screen the site from that entrance. That's a side view showing the three centimeter thickness of the array, and its height above the ground, of 50 centimeters. That's typical elevation of the panel, 1.1 by 1.7, and then that's the sort of console that they will fit in between, which will be placed on the ground. And that shows the actual aerial photograph showing where the site is, and you can see from views from the east, there's a very thick belt of trees which would screen that development for any longer distance views from the Wai Valley. Yeah, and that's a photograph taken, the actual consoles would, again, the array wouldn't be seen visible from the A466. And that's, again, showing something, a view from Stowe Road, and the arrays would be, you know, perfectly indistinguishable, set right down on the ground behind trees. That's a typical example of the array, so it would be on the ground, and close to the ground, and low-lying, and again, low impact. That's one that was actually in the field. There's a demonstration of how they would, what impact they may have, albeit there would be a lot more of them, 72 in fact. And then that's it in the field, looking towards the neighbour's property, and the driveway, and the greenhouse. Then that's it sitting in the field. And that's a summary of the issues. So the proposed array would be visible from the road that runs to the west of the field, as we saw yesterday, but because of its low profile on the slope of the field, an unacceptable level of harm to the amenity or character of the surroundings would not result. The alternative location of the array, say putting it on the house itself, on the roof, or within the residential curtledge, has been explored, but would not be viable due to its position within a wooded area. Citing the array within the residential curtledge may have resulted in loss of some trees in order for the array to gain sufficient sunlight. The Wye Valley National Landscapes Officer has provided comments on this proposal, suggesting an amended scheme or siting, as they considered it would be visible in the wider area. These comments have been taken into account, but your officers note that owing to the topography and the existence of trees, it would not be visible either from the public right-of-way to the east, or from the other side of the River Wye in England. Given this, it's considered that the array should not result in an adverse visual impact that would have an unacceptable effect upon the character of the wider area or landscape, or display a level of harm that would warrant the refusal of this application. It's considered that from a landscape and green infrastructure perspective, the proposal would be acceptable, subject to further appropriate landscaping being provided, and maintained to mitigate for localized visual impacts. Visual impact is likely to be more prominent, as viewed from the slightly higher nearby highway, as we saw yesterday, and the two gateways adjacent to the site. The site is likely to be more visible from the private realm in paddocks to the west of the site, and that adjacent residential curtilage that was viewed yesterday. The applicant has indicated the 70 metres of native species hedge is proposed on the northern boundary, and native species tree group planting is to be provided adjacent to the gateway, which would be appropriate. The low profile of the proposal, 50 centimetres above ground level, set within the slope of the hill, would have less of a visual impact than a typically higher solar array structure. The information provided also indicates that the proposed solar array would have a stock-proof fence enclosing an area of 36 metres by 15 metres. That stock fence will help to break up the visual form of this low-lying structure. The alignment of transmission cables and methodology for excavation and installation is acceptable and should have no adverse impact on trees and roots. Biodiversity enhancement has been secured in the form of bird nest boxes to be installed in appropriate locations on surrounding trees. With the addition of suitable landscaping conditions, it's considered that the array would not cause an unacceptable ecological or landscaping impact and would comply with LDP policies. In terms of amenity, the site is located close to the boundary of the northern neighbour and approximately 47 metres from that dwelling. The slope of the land and intervening trees and hedgerows mean that the array would not be directly visible from that dwelling, although it would be visible from the nearest part of the residential curtilage of that property. A scheme of hedge planting is proposed along the length of boundary between the field and the neighbouring property, which would mitigate the visual impact of the development. The array will be close to the ground and so would not appear overbearing and would not cause any noise nuisance. Given all these things, it's considered that the development will not have an acceptable impact on the amenity of local residents or that of the wider area and complies with policy TES1 and EP1 of the LDP. In conclusion, the proposal is considered an appropriate form of development in response to the acknowledged climate emergency by enabling this property to become self-sufficient in respect of renewable energy. And while it is noted the site is located within the Wye Valley National Landscape, officers consider that development subject to the conditions would be subservient to the primary purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area. In addition, the development is considered acceptable having regard to all other material planning considerations and relevant policy. We'd recommend approval subject to those conditions. Thank you.
Thank you, Phil. And yes, this was a very interesting one. Yesterday, we had a very good look around, so we got a good feel for it. Councillor McKelvie.
Thank you, Chair. And thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak on behalf of both myself and Councillor Richard John as ward members of Mitchell-Troy and Trellock United. And thank you to Helen Everton for the officer's report and Phil for the presentation today. As we have heard, the application is for the change of use of agricultural land to facilitate the siting of a ground-mounting solar array for Woodfield House in the hamlet of Pennyfan near the North. The application is for 72 panels. I personally have no objection to solar or thermal panels, and I always welcome seeing applications which involve renewable energy. I am, however, drawn to the 10 objections, which is the high number within a hamlet and the one from the Wye Valley National Landscape, forming AOMB. Regarding scale, visual impact, the AOMB, the adverse impact on biodiversity and visibility of the development from the road and the Wye Valley Walk. Furthermore, Trellock United Community Council have no objection per se to solar panels, but they do have concerns over the visual impact on the character of the environment. I did visit the site on Sunday evening, and in the balance of fairness, I visited both the applicants at Woodfield House and the nearest neighbours to the potential development site. When I was speaking to the applicants, I was pleased to hear of their aspirations to be off-grid and of their flexibility to cooperate with the planning department to get a favourable outcome by way of planting hedgerows, planting wildflowers, letting hedgerows grow up, et cetera. Likewise, I was pleased to hear from the neighbours that they do not have an objection to solar panels per se, however, not to the scale that is proposed due to being in a national landscape area. I have done some research, and whilst I confess I am not an expert when it comes to solar panels, my findings show that a four to five bed house could need 14 panels, which equates to five KWP. Other findings have said that a family of four would need three to eight solar panels, and another site quoted that for a family of four to five people, a five kilowatt system should be sufficient. Indeed, when I have travelled around our ward, I have seen no more than approximately 16 panels on a property. Whilst I admire the applicant's desire to be off-grid, it is worthy to note that even if powering an electric car, using air conditioning and other such general usage, 72 panels does seem to be excessive. It is also worthy to note that there are other forms of renewable energy and ways to be off-grid that can also be considered, such as ground source heat pumps, biofuels, air source heat pumps, and wind energy. So therefore, there are other forms of being off-grid available to the applicants. I understand the concept that cloudier days may not produce as much energy, but I understand that additional factories can be added to a solar panel system to store any excess energy for cloudier days. I feel that extra batteries, along with other forms of renewable energy sources, will allow a home to be fully off-grid. I would therefore propose to the committee that this application gets deferred and is brought back to us with an application of a smaller scale, which is more in keeping with the usage of a four to five bed house, one that involves less panels and therefore one that will have a reduced visual impact in this national landscape area. Indeed, as Phil has mentioned in his presentation, I acknowledge that national planning policy provides a strong basis of support for proposals for renewable energy. But the report does not mention size or the surroundings. In section 6.1.3 of the office's report, it states that SD1 provides the following criteria for proposals to be considered against the renewable energy schemes will be permitted where one, there are no unacceptable adverse impacts upon the landscape with regard to the protection and enhancement of landscape character. With regards to this point, I would question whether there are no unacceptable adverse impacts upon the landscape and also whether this application protects and enhances the landscape character. In my personal opinion, it doesn't. Point two goes on to say renewable energy schemes will be permitted where there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on biodiversity. On this point, I acknowledge that the carbon footprint will be decreased on the host dwelling, but I wonder whether this impact outweighs the biodiversity within the area. The field looked like it had a lot of wild grasses, wild flowers, and animal habitat. Indeed, I noticed a common spotted orchid in the field on my visit. This made me wonder whether there is a need for an ecological report regarding the flora and fauna in the field. At the visit, I was able to view one of the panels and the consoles as we've just seen in the report as well. And I noticed that the consoles completely covered the grass area underneath, which over time would destroy any flora or fauna underneath it. Maybe officers could clarify whether such an ecological report would be necessary. I do also note within the report that Subaru, which is also known as Southeast Wales Biodiversity Records Center, that their search results show red alerts for bluebells and butterflies. I also note that some leveling is required, which would indeed mean earthworks taking place. And I further note in the report an example of what the base would look like, which shows pebbles or a hard standing base. And I wonder whether officers could please clarify whether this will be the case in this development. Furthermore, the site is near a sink, also known as Site of Interest for Nature Conservation. And this is in the woodland to the south of the site. Point four of 6.13 in the report says that renewable energy schemes will be permitted where the wider environmental, economic, social, and community benefits directly related to the scheme outweigh any potential adverse impacts. Again, I would argue the point on whether this application does indeed meet that criteria. And finally, point five contained within 6.13 states that renewable energy schemes will be permitted where the distinct identity of Monmasha will not be compromised. Again, I have concerns whether this point is truly met, as I do believe that solar panel arrays are not commonplace in this national landscape area and form part of the identity of our beautiful county. Indeed, when I look out across the rolling countryside of Monmasha, it is rare to see an array that has as many as 72 solar panels, which have the potential to blight the landscape and the natural beauty of the area. I would like to refer to the objection from the Wye Valley National Landscape, where they state, Putting such PV panels on the ground in a traditional small open field, which formed part of the key feature of small clusters of historic squatter settlements on valley sides surrounded by intricate patterns of small fields, dry stone walls, narrow lanes, and small deciduous woodlands of this part of the national landscape, clearly appears to be more intrusive. Within their consultation comments, they further go on to say that landscaping is not forever and should not be used to screen poor development. Deciduous vegetation is also not in leaf during winter months, so cannot be relied upon. And I think that this is a noteworthy point considering the time of year where we, if we've been out on a site visit, that we've viewed this from. They further go on to say that the proposed development will be visible from across the valley on the English side of the national landscape. I did not view the development from the Forest of Dean area, so I cannot comment on this further. They further go on to say that, "Without any consideration for consideration and assessment of alternative locations by virtue of exciting and considering that the proposed landscaping put forward would not be able to mitigate the development to an acceptable degree, the proposed visual effects would be to the detriment of scenic beauty as the AOMB designation, hereabouts altering an identified key feature in the Wye Valley Gorge LM Z09, which in turn will go on to affect a special quality. For these reasons, we consider the application to conflict with strategic objectives of the Wye Valley AOMB Management Plan 21 to 26. We object to this application in its current guise. The LPA, of which we are all a part of here, has a statutory duty to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the national landscape. The local planning authority should ensure at an absolute minimum that planning decisions are consistent with relevant national local planning policy and guidance include in the Wye Valley area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2021 to 26. We trust you will take the above into consideration when arriving at your decision. Now moving on to the conditions in--
Councillor McKenna, I know you're the local member, you're also a member of this committee, but you have had an awful lot of time.
But I just have another minute or so to sum up.
Yes.
Sum up, please.
So just moving on to the conditions, if members are minded to go against my recommendation, decide to approve the application, then I would like to see a condition that the height of the hedges are kept to above 2.4 metres to allow the visual impact of the development to be lowered. And I would also like condition four to be reconsidered where it states that any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season. And I would like to see this change so that the condition remains in perpetuity. I welcome the 70 metres of native species hedge that's to be planted, but I would like to point out that some sort of deer proofing needs to take place. When I visited the site on Sunday, I saw two deer close to the edge of the field and it is well known in the area that deer can wreak havoc on saplings both within residents gardens and the fields. And with this in mind, the applicants may wish to ensure that the height of the stockproof fence cannot be jumped over by deer. So just to sum up in the case of this application, I do not object to the concept of being off grid by way of solar panels, but I do have grave concerns regarding the scale and the setting that the proposed development is in. Thank you.
Okay, thank you for that. Phil, there were some points in there.
Yeah, in terms of scale being excessive, yeah, there are quite a lot of panels, but I must admit, I've never seen an array that's so low to the ground before. It's 50 centimetres high. So when we actually looked on site, it was useful to go there yesterday, when you look from the roadway down, there was a bit of a dip wasn't there in the field. And the applicants thought about this quite carefully as to where to put the array, because they'd be set down into the sort of two thirds down the field where the land slopes into a dip. Whilst and obviously whilst open, that dip will again, reduce the actual degree of prominence of the arrays. So really, I mean, I know the National Landscape Officer has made comments, but we've analyzed those and we just don't agree with him in terms of any landscape impact. The landscape impact would be extremely localized, really, and really only affects anyone walking along the lane at the top. And even then you'd only be subject to views of it through the gaps, through that gateway, and then again down by the neighbour's driveway where they're proposing a group of trees to be located. So we think that the conditions proposed will mitigate any very limited harm that this array will provide given it's so low profile. The other issue is this will require SAB approval. So any surfacing will need approval of the SAB authority. It would appear that the actual panels are gonna go on some sort of like level gravel surface. So yeah, there will be a change to the land. But again, you're not talking about any deep foundations to this form of structure. That it's not heavy, it'll be light and it's reversible in the sense that it could be taken up and re-topsoiled and are used again for grazing or whatever purposes. The land in the report is described as semi-improved grassland. There's no objection from NRW in terms of any ecology impacts to the development. And there's no concerns in terms of any impacts on the sink nearby from this, obviously what is a static development. It's not gonna move around. It's not gonna impact on the sink in terms of having any impacts on it. So there's no ecological concerns to this, either. And in terms of changing the condition, that's a standard five-year maintenance condition for landscape. We could consider about increasing it, but is it necessary? Yes, in terms of actually having it beyond the five years. Normally the five years is to allow something to establish and get growing. I mean, ultimately it's down to members if they wanted to secure a longer period, but we as officers think that that is appropriate in terms of its maintenance period. And I don't think the applicant would seek to change and rip out landscaping after the event, having been a responsible person who wants to actually secure renewable energy for his property. So yes, it is large, but we wanted to actually look at it in terms of its impacts. So we don't think it's needed to make it smaller just because that would be more domestic. You look at it on its merits. It's a large-ish array, but it's so low to the ground its impacts can be managed quite acceptably and it would not harm the natural beauty of the AOMB, particularly with the landscape that's provided and which will be needed anyway as a form of a GI improvement for that development. So we're quite satisfied and happy to recommend it for approval in its current guise. Thank you.
Thank you, Phil, and having been there yesterday, you'd have to know it was there to look for it, I think. 72 sounds like a large number, but they are very small. So anyway, that's just a personal observation having been to the site. Councillor Pinn.
Dear, an improved grassland is usually species-rich and can support up to 30 to 40 different plant species per square metre and various butterflies and other wildlife. Can you tell me how much of this pasture will be lost to the trenches that are dug for the panels and the tree planting that will be put in to hide it? And will the remainder of the field be protected? And the proposal is for the change of use of agricultural land. Can you tell me what the land would be classed as following this application? And if it will relate to the area on which the panels sit only. I was pleased to see that the restoration plan is included as part of the conditions. Can you tell me what the land will, if the land will automatically be reinstated as agricultural land upon their decommission?
Yes, well, yes, the answer to the last question is, yeah, it'll have to be restored to its current condition, so it'll be put back to grassland. We've done a quick check in terms of our own ecologist's views, and if it was a larger area of take, then our ecologist would have recommended preliminary ecological assessment, but given it was a limited area, a relatively small part of the field, we didn't consider it necessary to ask for it in that instance. And it's grazed pasture, and I think the gentleman we met did acknowledge that they had livestock on it at one time, even though there was just one sheep or goat on there later on. But it had been grazed in the relatively recent past. And the comments are the woodland to the south of the site is a classified sink, but that wouldn't be affected by the proposals, and the enhancement look acceptable in terms of biodiversity. In terms of the take-up of it, I think we said it's 335 square meters of the field, but the field is fairly large, and it's a relatively small part of it. It would be enclosed by livestock fencing, so it sounds as if the intention is to graze the field when that is in place, so that the arrays don't interfere with any-- - Just on that one area that's gonna be-- - Yes, sorry, yeah, yeah.
And what will it be classed as then, once it's not agricultural land, what will it be classed as?
It wouldn't have a land classification, really, so it would be generous, really. It's a renewable energy form, so it wouldn't have a use class.
So it's just a temporary removal of an agricultural classification, basically, whilst it's in use? - Yeah, yeah.
Okay, yeah.
Okay, thanks for that. Councillor Powell.
Thank you, Chairman. Looking at that little field, if the farmer decided, right, we'll plough that up and plant potatoes, would he have to have planning permission for that? No. So really, we're very lucky that the majority of that field is going to remain a natural, old-fashioned pasture, where you have many things, as Councillor Friend said, growing there. It's not gonna affect them. It's only one piece of the field. The rest of that will go on growing, and if it's grazed, it will grow up again. So not losing all that. So I can't say that that's a real problem, because you're not going to lose all those plants, because it's not going to be ploughed up. It's going to be grazed. It's only a small part, and really, you couldn't, if you walk down the road and you didn't know it was there, you wouldn't see it, you wouldn't notice it. I think renewable energy is such a help in the countryside, and it's obvious, with all the trees around there, that the actual property that's gonna benefit from it can't use panels on their house, because there never is any light on it. And it's doing a good thing from that point of view, and I can't say that it's causing an awful lot of problems. So there you are, I would support it myself, 'cause we'll have plenty of nice meadow left and plenty of nice things growing there. And I would go with the proposition.
Okay, thank you, Councillor Powell. We have all of those properties there seem to be facing east, didn't they? The building must have liked the morning sun or something. Councillor Eason.
Yeah, thank you, Chair. Yes, it's good to have solar panels and methods of reducing energy off the grid, but I tried to imagine this array as being like two cricket pitches long, and maybe four cricket pitches wide, to make 335 square meters. You couldn't, it's 30 odd meters long, maybe 10 meters deep, that's 335 square meters, according to your report. At that size, I would suggest that there should be probably a feed-in tariff somewhere, and it doesn't say that in the application. For a property of the size that it is, and I know the property's in that area, that would be far, far too big for what's required. So I don't know why they need such a large array of that sort of requirement at this particular time, if it's just for domestic use. I accept the point that, Councillor for what you mean, it's seen in the front, it is important, and it may not affect the meadow, but all in all, I wonder why it's gotta be so large for one property.
Phil, have you got any?
It still, yeah, you can look for some sort of community benefits stemming from the--
I just wondered, it's still very much of a domestic scale, 30 kilowatts, so you're not talking about megawatts, so--
No, but if you're at a property like, you need a row of terrace houses to put that on. 335 square meters, two cricket pitches long, 40 meters, plus about eight meters depth, that would take up four terrace houses. It's a big area, I'm just wondering, is it an overkill for the property, and is it gonna be used for feed-in tariffs, is that mentioned in there?
It's not, but it's not really relevant to us. We're looking at it on its merits, and its visual impact, and how it affects the national landscape, so it might appear to be fairly large in domestic terms, but it's still acceptable in landscape, another impact term, so, and it isn't of a scale where, you know, the feed-in tariff doesn't exist now anyway, does it, it's gone, yeah. We wouldn't be in a sound position to ask for some sort of contribution to local community schemes from something of this small scale.
Councillor Butler.
Thank you, Chair, some interesting comments coming out, very, very interesting. Like Councillor McKenna, my concern's actually initially related to the very large number of panels proposed, but I don't think they're particularly large panels compared to what you might see on people's roofs, because I think these have to be a slightly different construction because of the way in which they're gonna be set in the receptacle, I can't remember what they call that, to sit in the ground. So I don't think they're as big as your average panel that goes on a domestic four bedroom house, for example. Although I did wonder, actually, whether they might be better off spending some of their money on installing a battery for storage. And of course, we don't know whether they have proposals relating to air source or ground source heat pumps for their property, so only they know the answer to things like that. My other consideration when I visited the site yesterday was around the tree planting or hedgerow planting that is proposed. I did notice that the applicant had actually replaced or planted a beech hedge sometime earlier, and it was just a beech hedge. It was sort of a monoculture, as it were, and I would like to ask whether the proposed new hedgerow is, or tree planting is of more mixed species, so that is one question I would like to have answered, please. But like others, when I was there, you really couldn't see this from the road, and I think once trees have been allowed to grow up, you're not going to see them at all. Thank you.
Phil.
Yes, the new hedge planting with mixed species, native species head, so you'd have likes of hawthorn holly, all the typical hedgerow plants in double staggered row, and then the tree planting, I think, well, again, those will be indigenous species. Bear with me. I'll try and find the green infrastructure statement. Sorry, shall I come back to that? And do any of the members want to raise anything while I'm looking? I'll come on to Councillor Birch.
Thank you, Chair. I think it was a very interesting and informative visit yesterday. Really, as a matter of principle, if people are going to continue to live in the future in large detached properties in counties such as ours, then the planning system needs to facilitate for those properties to become zero-carbon. And here we have an example of a householder who proposed it to do precisely that. We have, and I think in the supply to the planning portal, the information regarding why they need a large array because it is an all-electric property. And there is a proposal for battery storage. And also, because the panels on the ground are at the angle that is proposed, this low angle so that there is less visual impact is actually less efficient than if they were on a south-facing roof. So I think some of those questions have been answered. And in terms of their visual impact, really it has been, I think, very sensitively designed to minimize visual impact, either from the road or from the footpaths, the adjoining properties, or the valley, opposite. So I think we have no reason to refuse it and should move to approve.
Thank you, Councillor Birch. Phil, have you come up with another street?
Yeah, so in terms of the mix of tree planting in that corner near the neighbour's driveway, that would be a mix of alder, blackthorn, crabapple, and dogwood. And then the actual hedge row planting will be a mix of hawthorn, field maple, hazel, bird cherry, holly, blackthorn, and dog rose. That's a 70-metre length of hedge rows going to be planted.
Quite nice, that. - Thank you.
Councillor Loughton. - Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. Just to support what Councillor Birch just said, we're moving forward and we're looking to reduce our carbon footprint, and then we question why people want to do it in a rural setting. The other concern I have is when it comes to this array, we're looking at siting it in a field, but what about all the other necessary infrastructure? There's gonna be some form of cabling that's gonna be needed to come off of these units to a transformer, to a battery storage site. Is that able to happen under permitted development, which is why we see nothing here? Are they able to accommodate that within the current buildings, within the curtilage? It's just one or two answers there would be kind of useful for me to understand how this development fits as a whole within the whole of the landscape. Because if you're gonna go around digging cable trenches everywhere, putting up a plant room safe or the infrastructure, why haven't we seen any of that now? Thank you.
Yeah, as part of the submission, there was a cabling statement to do with the cabling specification. So the cables were installed in 100 millimetre reinforced underground duct and laid in this trench of 60 millimetre depth with 125 metre width of bucket. It'd be dug by a very experienced ground worker. I won't read all of this out, sorry. We do not want to damage any trees and would hand dig where necessary and then feed the duct in under any roots as required. Then carefully backfill with clean soil. They've identified a route that they're going to take towards the property from the array. So that is on the application file and it would be part of the approved documents if they need to abide by, if members are minded to approve the scheme today. So they have thought it through and they thought about how they are gonna tackle the route and deal with any nearby trees and roots so that they don't harm those. Thank you.
Thank you, thank you, Phil. Could I just ask, is there any other developments on the, around the curtain of the building to allow for a plant room or can they accommodate that in the existing structures?
No information on that. So presumably they'll cable into the existing property and provide what electricity-generating needs or storage they'll need within the property itself or any outbuildings they've got there existing.
Thank you.
They'd have to have it there anyway, wouldn't they, otherwise it would be on the application.
They've got an electric car apparently which they're gonna need to, to help see.
Councillor Garrett.
Thank you, Chair. It was very helpful to go to the site yesterday to see that it wasn't very visible from the road at all and from the side of the property and Duke's house as well that does not actually look onto it. The only concern I had was from their immediate perspective was where the greenhouse is. They put a hedge in which they said had taken five years to reach the stage it was in. And there was a gap then where they had a table and chairs, the sitting area where they were, that was the closest point of their property to the array. But even then with the cross having grown and there's just one sheep, I think we were told on the, although we didn't see it yesterday, it was hiding from us, I assume. You know, the impact on their view is minimal, but it obviously the proximity was a concern to the residents of the property. The Trent specification form in the report is quite good as well. As Phil said, you know, they thought very well about how they're gonna route the cabling through. Just mentioned as well in the applicant's details about having two EVs in the future. And I can see, you know, why they need this. They're looking at 27,000 kilowatts of power and it will produce about 30,000. So, yeah, there'll be some excess and it mentions about supplying some for grids, but not a huge amount and they've got battery storage. I think, you know, it's a well thought through plan. Yes, it's sensitive area, but I think overall, you know, we need to encourage people to do these kinds of things for the future. Thank you.
Okay, thanks for that. We've got nobody else indicating that they want to speak. We do have a recommendation from officers that this application is approved. Can we have the voting function up then, please, Richard? And we'll-- Sorry, yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's just say we'll just go for a proposal. Councillor Powell is proposing it.
Yeah, we'll propose it.
By Councillor Burch.
Right, can everybody vote now, please? That's it. Okay, so that's approved, 13 for approval, one against and one abstained. Thank you.
Thank you, everybody. That's the end of the applications today. We've got no reports, so we just go back, no, no reports. So thank you, everybody. Can you just stay where you are? 'Cause after we've finished recording, we just need a quick chat. Thanks very much. (gentle music) (gentle music) [ Silence ]

Watch video of meeting

Transcript

Thank you, Andrew, for that very comprehensive summary of the application. Can I remind everybody, before we discuss it, to keep your cameras on so we can see you, and to use the hands-up facility in the chat? We have no external speakers, but we did get some late correspondence from the Community Council. Can everybody confirm that they'd seen that? Yeah, okay, thank you very much. The first person I've got on here, who is Councillor Bonfield, was that from saying there was no volume, or did he want to speak on this application?
Yeah, thanks, Phil. I've got some concerns with the application, actually. You just mentioned the late correspondence from the Community Council, but it's my understanding that the late correspondence is from a member of the Community Council, and not the Community Council as a whole. I think as soon as the boundaries were changed, and this moved from Guy-Travale Community Council to Lambadoc, they should have been offered the opportunity to make comment on it, as any planning application in a parish council ward is. Lambadoc haven't had that opportunity.
With regards to the section 106, I would feel more comfortable knowing figures before we're asked to make a decision on this application, just because of the proportion of affordable housing on this site. And, you know, communities with developments planned, especially rural communities, are in desperate need of section 106 money. So, you know, I'd like to see some figures before we're asked to make a decision on that. I wonder if the Community Council also was given the opportunity to make representation at this committee meeting, because like I said, the boundaries change. So, you know, it could have been that one of the Community Councilors wanted to come and talk on this application, considering that they weren't actually consulted on it. So, at this present stage, I don't feel comfortable making a decision on this, and I would prefer that it was deferred until Lambadoc Community Council have had the opportunity to be consulted on and possibly make representation at a future committee meeting, if they wanted to.
Okay, thanks, Councillor Bonfield. A couple of points there. I'll ask Andrew to come in on the points, and perhaps Paige will come in on the last point you raised. I believe that the section 106 is only in respect of the affordable housing. There'll be no financial contribution, but I'm sure Andrew will enlighten us there.
Yeah, just to confirm on the section 106 agreement, yeah, the section 106 would be solely to secure those nine affordable units, because of the nature of the policy, the 60/40 policy. It's not required to provide any financial contributions towards any other interests. So, that is the heads of terms under the 106 is solely to secure nine affordable units. So, in terms of the consultation, I'm just looking into that. So, if there's any other further questions, I'll come back to that point shortly. If there's any other further points or questions, I'll come back to that shortly.
Okay, thank you, Andrew. Councillor Butler.
Thank you, Chair. Coming back to what Councillor Bromfield has just mentioned, I would have thought that it's, I'm not quite sure which community council this is under now, but would they not have received some information on this? Was that what you're checking? Okay, all right then. My interest in the development goes back to November 2020, when Little Mill fell in the ward of Goitre Whar. And although I was not a county council at that point, I was and still am a member of Goitre Community Council. So, I well remember looking at this application in some depth. And in fact, these words that you might have read are my words. If not included, provision should be made for the later easy installation of EV charging points. The proposal should consider the inclusion of climate change mitigation measures, such as heating assisted by ground/air source heat pumps, solar panels, et cetera, and future technologies, limiting the use of fuels such as gas oil and biofuels. So, I'm really pleased to note that now that this is presented with 60% affordable housing. So, it offers the opportunity, especially for some of our younger residents, to have a house, a home of their own. It's encouraging to note that some of the comments made by Goitre Community Council four years ago do seem to have been given proper consideration and now reflected in the plan. And they relate to that the site boundary should be extended to allow the inclusion of communal green spaces, play area, et cetera, and to allow integration with the existing play area at the end of Mellon-Bark Avenue. However, I do note on the site visit the other day, I took a moment to pop down there, and that play area actually is not usable at present, and I do hope that that play area is actually going to be restored so that any young people moving into these houses will be able to access it. The overhead power line crossing development site was rerouted, I'm pleased to notice that. And I also note that as near as possible, the houses at the entrance follow the line as much as possible with existing residences. As was said before, that we won't be seeing the end walls that looks like the end of a street. At that time, Goitre Community Council made the following recommendations. It recommended that the allocation of affordable dwelling units should be weighted in favor of existing local community members, and by that, at that time, we actually meant residents in both Little Mill and in Goitre-Pen-Plenny. So I was wondering whether we can be reassured that Popple will be considering the needs of local residents first, and whether priority will be given to the residents of Monmouthshire and not for Torvine, which I know that this bounds the edge of Monmouthshire. I also noted the design maximizes the value of the open market units to facilitate the cross-subsidation of the proposed affordable dwellings. And I'm pleased to note that these homes have kept pace with current trends relating to energy use, and have been future-proofed. I noticed the solar panels and the air source heat pumps, very pleased to note that. But could the developer advise us if new residents of the affordable homes will be reliant on the gas network for their heating source, and also whether any charge points are being fitted for electric vehicles at all to any of the properties? If not, this will be future expenses added to the new, these will be future expenses for the new owners or the landlord in Popple's case. As always, when I look at planning applications, I try to imagine myself moving into the houses. What will it need to make it feel like a home? How high is the standard of fittings, and what will my expenses be like in relation to the running costs of the home? What will my carbon footprint be? Can I charge my car? These would all be questions that I would be asking myself if I were to be thinking of moving into one of these homes. You know, I would expect there to be solar panels, a charge point for the car, air source, heat pump. And I know these matters are for building regulations where legal obligations lag behind real life needs. So therefore, I am very pleased to see that developments in heating terms are building for the next century and future-proofing some of the homes. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Bechler. Angela, there was a couple of points that you could possibly come back in on there. I don't know about Popple's Latin policy, but no, that would be outside of our remit. But all I can say is in terms of, you know, the local community, our affordable housing officer has been heavily engaged with that process, and first of all, must ensure that the mix and the type of housing being provided to be secured as affordables are appropriate to what the local need and demand is for. Certainly take the point, and please, as we are, to welcome some of the climate change measures that have been included. These, you know, I say, at the moment, there's not policy levers for us to, you know, insist upon a sort of minimum standards, but certainly, EV points are something that's not included in this application. But until policies, be it local or national, are updated to reflect that, it would not be a reason, policy, you know, failure to withhold granting a planning commission on that basis, you know, obviously, policy's moving at a rapid pace towards that, and that's something that the replacement development plan will seek to achieve through its own policies on sustainability. But at present, it is, as I say, a welcome move in the right direction, and it obviously would need to meet, you know, TQR standards for the affordables. Current building regulations obviously improving as time passes, as and when these are built out. So it's certainly a positive step. We are still just checking on the consultation in terms of Councillor Bromfield's point earlier. We're just clarifying on that point in terms of consultation. Once the application came in, it would have been under the previous boundaries of GOITRA. That has changed through the lifetime of the application, which has been held in abeyance for some time because of phosphates. We're just still checking that, so if there's any other further queries, well, please let me know, I'll respond to those whilst we just confirm on that point.
Thank you, Andrew. Councillor Easton.
Thank you, Chair. I'm coming back to Councillor Bromfield's question about the section 106 contributions. Am I right in saying that it's for six properties, the properties for sale on the market, which will provide the section 106 money? And would that, you say, Craig is shaking his head, would the nine affordable properties be producing section 106 monies? I don't think that's the case. It would be a six when it's a sale, sure, wouldn't it?
Councillor Easton, so this site is an affordable housing-led scheme, 60% affordable, 40% private market. There's no section 106 contributions 'cause they're exempt. All of the 15 sites allocated in existing LDP are exempt. So what this site is delivering is affordable housing, so it's exempt from the other section 106 contributions. So the section 106 is purely in relation to the delivery of affordable housing.
Okay, I, right, okay, I notice on the report that it says subject to a section 106 contributions.
That's a legal agreement to secure the affordable housing. So those affordable houses are kept in perpetuity. So there needs to be a section 106 to confirm they will be affordable housing for the lifetime of that building, ultimately. That's the legal reason for contributions.
Within the application, then, it's been encompassed as a whole, the section 106 money is within the affordable housing structure as well, then.
Yes, so it's-- - Okay, so there's no actual figure. I couldn't find the figure.
No, there's no financial contributions. These sites, affordable housing-led, 60% delivery. The reason why the 40% is an exempt from any final contributions is 'cause they're holding up the viability of the whole scheme and delivering that high level of affordable housing, and therefore, there isn't a requirement, then, to deliver any additional contributions.
Right, that was the agreement you came to. That's fine. The other question, the other part is, Councillor Butler mentioned that it doesn't seem to be a modernized view of raising the ecological footprint on these properties. If this plan came in 2020, as assurance has even been given to charging points and things like that within, it's a complicated report. I tried to read it. It was very, very difficult. Thank you.
Sorry, just so I can confirm I understand the question, Councillor Houston. Is there, in terms of what provisions are made for future proofing of EV? At this stage, there's, I say there isn't the, I'm not sure what the sort of practicalities in the construction and installation for these matters, but at this stage, we can't insist that applicants provide and demonstrate that on the submitted plans, because there aren't the policy levers for us to insist upon that. Quite entitled to provide what they have, which exceeds current standards in any event. So if there are extensive, as I said in the presentation, there are extensive permitted development rights for EV charging points to stop development having to go through the planning process to try and encourage the use of that. So if future occupiers, be it the affordable units, be it the open market units, decide that they wish to install those sort of facilities, then there are permitted development rights to facilitate that. But my point, I suppose, is that through the planning application process and the current policy framework, we can't insist that even sort of connectivity is shown up to a point. We can only determine it in line with current policy. So it's a matter of choice for future occupiers. I know POBL have done a lot of work on their sites in West Wales, for example, where they've tried to push sustainable credentials. That's mostly reflected now in the offering of PV panels and air source heat pumps. But certainly moving forward, that'll be something that we'll be looking for, but like I said, I'm repeating myself, at this stage, we can't take it to that point.
Okay, thanks.
Okay, thank you, Andrew. And I think generally we've got to stop thinking in terms of Section 106 money, and Section 106 agreements probably is a better way of thinking about it now. Councillor Howells.
Thank you, Chair. Thanks for the report. I was looking at the comments made by Natural Resources Wales, and I quote, There appears to be no information or assurance from Durkhamri on whether the sewer network and associated treatment works has the hydraulic capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater without contributing to an increase in frequency or duration of the storm from." And they were requiring to determine the application. We advise to seek the final piece of information from Durkhamri. Has that been obtained? And also I've got one on network rail. There were concerns about the crossing, the rail crossing, rail crossing there, whether any conversations have taken place with network rail to see what safety measures could be put in place along there and noting that there had been recent near-miss incidents along there. And also rights of way, MCC rights of way draw attention to our active travel act, requesting sort of links to T Drow Road, sort of if there could be, has that been looked at? Is that, are the routes gonna go into T, or active travel routes gonna go into T Drow Lane? And yeah, finally, along with Councillor Butler and Councillor Bromfield, I was surprised not to see a comment from Plumbaddock Community Council. But I do appreciate this application was put in before 2020, in 2020, sort of, since the border changes. But I would have liked to see some consultation from them as well. I am pleased to read that there's, you know, if this is allowed to go ahead, there are quite some stringent conditions that are put in place. Thank you.
Yep, thank you, Councillor. Just to confirm on the first point, yeah, apologies if I hadn't made that clear through the presentation. We needed that confirmation from Doer Cymru-Walsh Water to be able to complete a test of likely significant effects. And they have provided that confirmation in order for us to be able to conclude that there wouldn't be that impact on the special area of conservation, the River Usk-Sachs. So we have had that confirmation as required by NRRW had highlighted in their consultation response. In terms of the rights of way comments and the potential for, you know, active travel linkages towards the east, and say, particularly to connecting up with the right of way network along T-DRAW lane. For the reasons I'd set out in the presentation, that is, in theory, a logical route that pedestrians and other users would wish to take, but there are practical reasons that I outlined why that couldn't be achieved, agricultural land, the pumping stations, such features, the basin, et cetera. So yes, it's been discussed and put to the applicant, but there are genuine practical reasons why that couldn't be achieved in this instance. Unfortunately, people will use the, say, the existing footways back through into the main village and onwards. In terms of network rail and some of the comments that they've made, I think they were seeking some financial contributions in terms of issues with safety and crossings, et cetera. But again, the officer's report does cover that, and in terms of the scale of this development and the sort of tests, the six tests you'd need to apply, four tests, rather, that you'd need to apply for Section 106 agreements, it's not considered that they would be reasonably, that they would meet those tests in order to make this development acceptable. I mean, the sites, the properties closest to the railway line would be afforded, you know, because of the acoustic fence, the 1.8-meter acoustic fence, there is a natural barrier, a physical barrier, not just planting, but a natural barrier, and with planting, that would provide a degree of protection over that. So we didn't feel that there was grounds to sort of pursue that further, relative, say, to the scale of the development and the tests you need to satisfy in order to require 106 contributions to make a development acceptable.
Sorry, Andrew, if I could just come to that. I mean, that was more to do with the footpath that's crossing the rail track there, were it not some safety features could be put on there?
I mean, ultimately, any features that would be outside of the Red Line Development boundary would be beyond the scope of this planning application. Like I said, there's a natural barrier through the acoustic fence that's gonna be provided along those northerly plots. Obviously, I certainly understand the safety issues and its proximity to the boundary, but I mean, at present, it's an open field. There are existing, potentially, if somebody was looking to get in and make close access to that railway line, but any additional security features that extend beyond the Red Line boundary, this would be beyond the scope of this planning application. So we're satisfied that the site is appropriately enclosed for residential development, for an edge of settlement development, and that there weren't grounds to pursue anything further outside of the site with Network Rail, because we don't feel that would satisfy the 106 tests.
Okay, Councillor Payne.
Dear Councillor Muthi, thank you for putting this planning application to us. I'm a little conflicted as to how this application fits with our promise to build sustainable, resilient communities where people have good access to employment and shops and public transport and active travel and healthcare facilities, being as there's no shop or school or healthcare facilities here. The application states that they save pedestrian access to the bus stops, and mentions a proposed active travel route south of Lytton Mill, but as far as I'm aware, there are no plans for the active travel route to be actualized in the near future. And from what I could see, the buses run about four times a day in each direction and wouldn't get anybody to employment in time. So I am concerned that the affordable housing will only actually be affordable for people that can afford to rent private vehicles, and I'm not quite sure how this fits with our desire to have a carbon neutral future in Monash, where we are less reliant on private vehicles.
Okay, thanks.
Yeah, I certainly understand the points raised, and I did acknowledge in the presentation that we are a rural authority. What this does, though, is provide local people with an opportunity, if they wish, to stay within communities, to help local communities. There isn't that outward migration of younger people that can't stay in communities. The links are primarily to onward destinations, employment, or other such sort of uses. There are, bus services is typical of Monash in that sense, but it is fundamentally an allocated site within the current local development plan. The replacement plan, and sort of, you mentioned then, sort of carbon neutral future. We need to look at this under the remit of the current local development plan, and that's our policy framework for members, yourselves, to make decisions on this planning application. And within that development plan and that policy framework, this is an allocated site. It's a main village, it's not a minor village. It does enjoy some facilities. Let's say it doesn't have school doctors, et cetera. But I think, in terms of that context, it makes an appropriate contribution in terms of how it can connect. Say there's footpaths that would work back and connect back through to the existing route. There may be, in lots of areas of Monash, a higher dependency on car usage than there is, perhaps, in larger towns and cities that have better access to more sustainable modes of transport. But within the context of our LDP and the context of us as a county, it was allocated as a main village and allocated for this level of housing for those reasons, say, to try and support that local community to provide homes for those that otherwise would migrate out of the county and out of the village. So, certainly accept the points and the challenges you've raised. They're very pertinent, very topical, but we've got to determine this within the current policy framework. And those bigger challenges of carbon neutral, et cetera, will be higher standards, higher bar set by future policy.
Craig's got some points to clarify, including those made online by one of the local members.
Thank you, Chair. Yes, Councilor Britain, that was certainly a, it's an interesting conversation with regards to rural counties and how they provide affordable housing to their rural communities, while also the challenge for sustainable development to ensure we've got public transport and access to active travel links. I think this is gonna be an ongoing conversation, as we have with regards to the developments, the replacement local development plan, 'cause we do want to provide housing to some of our more rural locations, which don't have that potential at the moment. So, it is definitely a balance, and Andrew's articulated the rationale there quite well. But obviously, this site was allocated in 2014, so it was a significant amount of time ago. There's 15 sites in the existing LDP, which are providing a high level of affordable housing, 60% affordable housing schemes. I think you have to, with Little Mill, it is interesting in terms of the cluster, and I think we shouldn't think of Momshire boundary as being a solid boundary. I mean, people don't move like that. There are obviously transport improvements within the local area into a vine, which people could access and utilize. So, I think in terms of Little Mill being a sustainable settlement, it is scored in very high, it's part of the replacement local development plan as well. And I think this is gonna be an ongoing conversation, is how do we provide housing to our rural communities, while also meeting the sustainable transport agenda. Assured a conversation will continue with regards to that, but I do think in terms of providing affordable housing to Little Mill, this is the right site to do that on. In terms of Section 106 contributions, as I said, all of the 15 sites in the existing LDP are exempt from financial contributions, 'cause the contribution they're delivering is social housing, is affordable housing for those communities. That's the reason why there isn't any additional funding in terms of Section 106 contributions. That has been the same for the other sites that have gone through, and ultimately, that is the way they've been agreed as part of the local development plan process. The concern that Councilor Bromfield has raised with regards to the boundary change, that is quite unique, ultimately, to this particular application. Obviously, there has been a boundary change during the lifetime of this planning application, and the application has taken, over the passage of time, quite a significant amount of time to deal with with regards to the phosphates and the water quality issue that we have within the Riverdesk. So that's the reason why this is a unique situation where we have consulted the Community Council at the time, and then there has been a boundary change. What I would suggest to members, and maybe an option that might be available to you, is if you are in agreement that this application should be approved today, in accordance with the recommendation outlined in the report, it might be that we could then consult Lambadaganas Community Council to comment for the delegated panel, maybe, to consider that as part of their deliberations, if there's anything new which is raised. But this is a unique situation with this particular planning application because of the passage of time. Unfortunately, there has been a boundary change, and so there hasn't been a formal letter sent to Lambadaganas. But I think that is probably an option available to members if they wanted to. If you are minded to approve the application today, to give that time for Lambadaganas to also provide comments to the delegated panel for consideration, and that can go then to a future delegated panel. So that's maybe one option available to members if they wanted to consider it.
Thank you, Craig. Councillor Bonfield, your hand's not up in the chat, but it is on my screen, so.
Sorry, I didn't know if I could still put my hand up in the Speak Now for that application. Do you want me to put it there?
No, you speak on.
So if it went to delegated panel after Lambadaganas Community Council had been consulted, you know, would the local member be able to also make representation at delegated panel? And even if committee approved it today, would delegated panel, if they felt the need after listening to Lambadaganas Community Council and the ward member, be able to refuse the application or not? So I understand the process.
So say, we wouldn't be able to refuse it. What we could do is bring it back to committee.
Oh, right, okay. Thank you.
All right, so I got, oh, Councillor, Councillor Butler, you wanted to come back in and then it's Councillor Biley.
Thank you, Chair, is it okay for me to come back in? I just wanted to reassure Councillor Bromfield that the current chair of Lambadaganas Council sat on Goitra Community Council and he contributed to the comments that were made in 2020. So if that helps at all, thank you.
Okay, thank you for that, Councillor Biley.
Thank you, chair. And I just really wanted to comment on the point that Craig made about there not being a hard Monmouthshire boundary, because that site is very, very close to Mylod Park Estate that has a number of facilities on it. And also just at the road from there on the old Warner Lambert site, there is going to be a number of houses built and it's my understanding there will be a doctor surgery in the school there. So I think, Craig, you make an important point that there isn't a wall around Monmouthshire. I just wanted to add that, thank you.
Thank you for that. I've got no other people asking to speak. It's been suggested, sorry.
Can you just have a minute?
Yeah.
If we can just have a, oh, Councillor Eason, you've--
Yeah, chair, could we take Councillor Bromfield's suggestion and bring it back to the next meeting in July on the basis of the comments of the Community Council?
Do you want to say that now?
Yeah, if members want to defer it to give time for Lambda Guiness to comment on it rather than go to the panel, that's absolutely fine. It's down to members to make that decision.
Is that the general view of the committee? Can I have thumbs up there on the screen? Yeah, and in here, everybody happy to defer it to the next meeting following that conversation? Okay, can I just have a chat to Paige in a minute then? (audio cuts out) (audio cuts out)
Sorry, excuse me, chair.
We're back, yes, Councillor.
I would actually propose that we deal with this now and not defer it again. I think it's been deferred enough.
Can I second that, please?
Right, well, what we'll--
I withdraw my suggestion. (laughing) (audio cuts out)
Right, we've had our discussion now. Craig is just going to put a thought and then I'm gonna take a vote.
Just wanted to help members ultimately. This is a unique situation. Obviously, there has been a boundary treatment change, so I think given the concerns that Councillor Bromfield has raised and obviously as an inclusive planning committee, it'd be right to get the views of Lambard-Tigas Community Council to feed into this. So I think it might be worth deferring and having that full debate then in the next meeting. I think given, there's a unique set of circumstances here with the application to be with us for a number of years, got on hold because of phosphates. We want to make sure that the correct community council now are also consulted. I would suggest to members to go with Councillor Easton's suggestion ultimately, but it's a member decision and Councillor Butler's also made the suggestion. But this is a unique situation. I think as an inclusive council, maybe it might be more appropriate to give that opportunity and time for community council to comment on it. And I would apologize on behalf of colleagues for overlooking that element, but this is a unique situation with regards to that planning application being in for a significant amount of time.
Right, thank you for that, Craig. What we're gonna do then, Councillor Easton made a proposal, so in a minute. In the chat, Richard will put up a voting card for defer or not defer. So do I have a seconder for Councillor Easton, thank you.
Chair, Chair, with respect, we already had a vote on this. You already asked us all. And so a point of order is we've already discussed this, surely, 'cause we all put our thumbs up, didn't we?
Yeah, you did, but there was some dissension here. So to make it absolutely clear what we are, we'll have a vote on the chat and everybody can say just what they want to do. So we can have that vote. Can somebody propose that we don't defer? So that's-- - We've had someone put forward. We've had Councillor Easton put forward the motion to defer. That's now been seconded by Councillor Howells. We vote on that. And then I think if that is carried, that is how we will proceed. And obviously the point raised by Councillor Butler was after that was put forward, okay. (muffled speaking)
A vote to defer in the chat now.
Yeah, yeah, so there's gonna be a vote to defer in the chat. That's come up now. So if everybody can vote now, please. (muffled speaking)
That's clear.
Okay, so that motion for deferral is being carried. 11 for deferral and four against. Right, so on the basis of that, we'll defer it to allow for that additional consultation. It'll come back probably to the next meeting.
Yeah, next meeting.
Yeah, come back to the next meeting, having collected those views. Right, thank you for that. We can move on now to DM202400384, which is change of views of some agricultural land to facilitate the siting of a ground-mounted solar array. That one is being presented by Phil.
Thank you, Chair. This is a proposal that some of us went to see yesterday on site. Yeah, so it's deep in the countryside. It's near the north, it's in the hamlet of Pennevan, which is a scattering of isolated dwellings, forming a sort of broad hamlet. The proposal is to site 72 solar panels in an array in the northeastern corner of a field, as you see on that plan there. The array is proposed to provide all the power needed for the residential property Woodfield House, which is located 52 metres southeast, so you see down to that corner there. That's the host property. It's near the north, as said, in the hamlet of Pennevan, and it's in the Wye Valley National Landscape, which we all probably know better as the area of outstanding natural beauty. The panels would be arranged in four rows of 18, with two metres between the rows and five centimetres between panels. Each panel would measure 1.7 metres by 1.1 metres and be three centimetres thick. This will make the total area of the array approximately 335 square metres. Each panel would be positioned on a mount, which is 50 centimetres high, 1.7 metres long, and 0.97 metres wide. And some levelling will be required, but it will not cause a change in levels of more than 30 centimetres. National Planning Policy provides a strong basis of support for proposals for renewable energy, with various references in both Future Wales and Planning Policy Wales 12, the latest version. Future Wales Policy 17 sets out that the Welsh Government strongly supports the principle of developing renewable and low carbon energy from all technologies and at all scales to meet our future energy needs. And Planning Policy Wales states, low carbon electricity must become the main source of energy in Wales. Renewable electricity will be used to provide both heating and transport in addition to power, and then it continues. Local authorities should facilitate all forms of renewable and low carbon energy development. And Technical Advice Note 6 also provides support for renewable energy in rural areas. And in terms of the LDP, even though it's slightly out of date in terms of renewables, given its age, but it does set out the criteria against which proposals for renewable energy are to be assessed, including impacts upon landscape, townscape historic features, biodiversity, and residential amenity. So the principle of providing a renewable energy installation is broadly supported, as we can see, by policy, and therefore the proposal is considered acceptable, subject to its visual impact. If consent is granted, it would be necessary to attach a condition requiring the land to be reinstated to its current form when the technology is no longer operational, in the interest of protecting the special character of the countryside and the national landscape. The site does not feature best or most versatile agricultural land, so this would not be a constraint to its development. The application site is within open countryside, and as said, in the Wye Valley National Landscape, and the proposal has potential to impact the special character of the area. Planning authorities have a statutory duty to have regard to national landscape purposes, and planning authorities should give great weight to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of national landscapes, and should have regard to the wildlife, cultural heritage, and social and economic well-being of the area. In this instance, although the proposal is larger than most domestic arrays, the panel will be set into supports which are 50 centimeters high, and the array will be sited along an existing field boundary in an incline which slopes away from the road, which is up above it, which is over here to the west, and that's the location we looked from here down the field, here, and we looked across here, down the neighbor's drive, and from the neighbor's land here. So if I just take that opportunity to run through the slides, that's a view down the field, that's the neighbor's greenhouse, which you saw yesterday, and the pegged out area, slightly further down the field, actually, than that red line shows, is where the actual array would be located. Yeah, that's showing a little bit more closer. Then that's looking towards Woodfield House, which you can't actually see because of the trees, that would be the host property, and then that's looking back up to the field, and there was a sort of gateway in there which we would look to view down the field towards the location of the proposed array. Then that's looking across to the other side, that's actually the neighbor's driveway that runs down the slope, and then goes down off to the right-hand side there. And then that's showing a similar slide to the first one, which shows where the tree planting would be going in that corner, to help screen the site from that entrance. That's a side view showing the three centimeter thickness of the array, and its height above the ground, of 50 centimeters. That's typical elevation of the panel, 1.1 by 1.7, and then that's the sort of console that they will fit in between, which will be placed on the ground. And that shows the actual aerial photograph showing where the site is, and you can see from views from the east, there's a very thick belt of trees which would screen that development for any longer distance views from the Wai Valley. Yeah, and that's a photograph taken, the actual consoles would, again, the array wouldn't be seen visible from the A466. And that's, again, showing something, a view from Stowe Road, and the arrays would be, you know, perfectly indistinguishable, set right down on the ground behind trees. That's a typical example of the array, so it would be on the ground, and close to the ground, and low-lying, and again, low impact. That's one that was actually in the field. There's a demonstration of how they would, what impact they may have, albeit there would be a lot more of them, 72 in fact. And then that's it in the field, looking towards the neighbour's property, and the driveway, and the greenhouse. Then that's it sitting in the field. And that's a summary of the issues. So the proposed array would be visible from the road that runs to the west of the field, as we saw yesterday, but because of its low profile on the slope of the field, an unacceptable level of harm to the amenity or character of the surroundings would not result. The alternative location of the array, say putting it on the house itself, on the roof, or within the residential curtledge, has been explored, but would not be viable due to its position within a wooded area. Citing the array within the residential curtledge may have resulted in loss of some trees in order for the array to gain sufficient sunlight. The Wye Valley National Landscapes Officer has provided comments on this proposal, suggesting an amended scheme or siting, as they considered it would be visible in the wider area. These comments have been taken into account, but your officers note that owing to the topography and the existence of trees, it would not be visible either from the public right-of-way to the east, or from the other side of the River Wye in England. Given this, it's considered that the array should not result in an adverse visual impact that would have an unacceptable effect upon the character of the wider area or landscape, or display a level of harm that would warrant the refusal of this application. It's considered that from a landscape and green infrastructure perspective, the proposal would be acceptable, subject to further appropriate landscaping being provided, and maintained to mitigate for localized visual impacts. Visual impact is likely to be more prominent, as viewed from the slightly higher nearby highway, as we saw yesterday, and the two gateways adjacent to the site. The site is likely to be more visible from the private realm in paddocks to the west of the site, and that adjacent residential curtilage that was viewed yesterday. The applicant has indicated the 70 metres of native species hedge is proposed on the northern boundary, and native species tree group planting is to be provided adjacent to the gateway, which would be appropriate. The low profile of the proposal, 50 centimetres above ground level, set within the slope of the hill, would have less of a visual impact than a typically higher solar array structure. The information provided also indicates that the proposed solar array would have a stock-proof fence enclosing an area of 36 metres by 15 metres. That stock fence will help to break up the visual form of this low-lying structure. The alignment of transmission cables and methodology for excavation and installation is acceptable and should have no adverse impact on trees and roots. Biodiversity enhancement has been secured in the form of bird nest boxes to be installed in appropriate locations on surrounding trees. With the addition of suitable landscaping conditions, it's considered that the array would not cause an unacceptable ecological or landscaping impact and would comply with LDP policies. In terms of amenity, the site is located close to the boundary of the northern neighbour and approximately 47 metres from that dwelling. The slope of the land and intervening trees and hedgerows mean that the array would not be directly visible from that dwelling, although it would be visible from the nearest part of the residential curtilage of that property. A scheme of hedge planting is proposed along the length of boundary between the field and the neighbouring property, which would mitigate the visual impact of the development. The array will be close to the ground and so would not appear overbearing and would not cause any noise nuisance. Given all these things, it's considered that the development will not have an acceptable impact on the amenity of local residents or that of the wider area and complies with policy TES1 and EP1 of the LDP. In conclusion, the proposal is considered an appropriate form of development in response to the acknowledged climate emergency by enabling this property to become self-sufficient in respect of renewable energy. And while it is noted the site is located within the Wye Valley National Landscape, officers consider that development subject to the conditions would be subservient to the primary purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area. In addition, the development is considered acceptable having regard to all other material planning considerations and relevant policy. We'd recommend approval subject to those conditions. Thank you.
Thank you, Phil. And yes, this was a very interesting one. Yesterday, we had a very good look around, so we got a good feel for it. Councillor McKelvie.
Thank you, Chair. And thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak on behalf of both myself and Councillor Richard John as ward members of Mitchell-Troy and Trellock United. And thank you to Helen Everton for the officer's report and Phil for the presentation today. As we have heard, the application is for the change of use of agricultural land to facilitate the siting of a ground-mounting solar array for Woodfield House in the hamlet of Pennyfan near the North. The application is for 72 panels. I personally have no objection to solar or thermal panels, and I always welcome seeing applications which involve renewable energy. I am, however, drawn to the 10 objections, which is the high number within a hamlet and the one from the Wye Valley National Landscape, forming AOMB. Regarding scale, visual impact, the AOMB, the adverse impact on biodiversity and visibility of the development from the road and the Wye Valley Walk. Furthermore, Trellock United Community Council have no objection per se to solar panels, but they do have concerns over the visual impact on the character of the environment. I did visit the site on Sunday evening, and in the balance of fairness, I visited both the applicants at Woodfield House and the nearest neighbours to the potential development site. When I was speaking to the applicants, I was pleased to hear of their aspirations to be off-grid and of their flexibility to cooperate with the planning department to get a favourable outcome by way of planting hedgerows, planting wildflowers, letting hedgerows grow up, et cetera. Likewise, I was pleased to hear from the neighbours that they do not have an objection to solar panels per se, however, not to the scale that is proposed due to being in a national landscape area. I have done some research, and whilst I confess I am not an expert when it comes to solar panels, my findings show that a four to five bed house could need 14 panels, which equates to five KWP. Other findings have said that a family of four would need three to eight solar panels, and another site quoted that for a family of four to five people, a five kilowatt system should be sufficient. Indeed, when I have travelled around our ward, I have seen no more than approximately 16 panels on a property. Whilst I admire the applicant's desire to be off-grid, it is worthy to note that even if powering an electric car, using air conditioning and other such general usage, 72 panels does seem to be excessive. It is also worthy to note that there are other forms of renewable energy and ways to be off-grid that can also be considered, such as ground source heat pumps, biofuels, air source heat pumps, and wind energy. So therefore, there are other forms of being off-grid available to the applicants. I understand the concept that cloudier days may not produce as much energy, but I understand that additional factories can be added to a solar panel system to store any excess energy for cloudier days. I feel that extra batteries, along with other forms of renewable energy sources, will allow a home to be fully off-grid. I would therefore propose to the committee that this application gets deferred and is brought back to us with an application of a smaller scale, which is more in keeping with the usage of a four to five bed house, one that involves less panels and therefore one that will have a reduced visual impact in this national landscape area. Indeed, as Phil has mentioned in his presentation, I acknowledge that national planning policy provides a strong basis of support for proposals for renewable energy. But the report does not mention size or the surroundings. In section 6.1.3 of the office's report, it states that SD1 provides the following criteria for proposals to be considered against the renewable energy schemes will be permitted where one, there are no unacceptable adverse impacts upon the landscape with regard to the protection and enhancement of landscape character. With regards to this point, I would question whether there are no unacceptable adverse impacts upon the landscape and also whether this application protects and enhances the landscape character. In my personal opinion, it doesn't. Point two goes on to say renewable energy schemes will be permitted where there are no unacceptable adverse impacts on biodiversity. On this point, I acknowledge that the carbon footprint will be decreased on the host dwelling, but I wonder whether this impact outweighs the biodiversity within the area. The field looked like it had a lot of wild grasses, wild flowers, and animal habitat. Indeed, I noticed a common spotted orchid in the field on my visit. This made me wonder whether there is a need for an ecological report regarding the flora and fauna in the field. At the visit, I was able to view one of the panels and the consoles as we've just seen in the report as well. And I noticed that the consoles completely covered the grass area underneath, which over time would destroy any flora or fauna underneath it. Maybe officers could clarify whether such an ecological report would be necessary. I do also note within the report that Subaru, which is also known as Southeast Wales Biodiversity Records Center, that their search results show red alerts for bluebells and butterflies. I also note that some leveling is required, which would indeed mean earthworks taking place. And I further note in the report an example of what the base would look like, which shows pebbles or a hard standing base. And I wonder whether officers could please clarify whether this will be the case in this development. Furthermore, the site is near a sink, also known as Site of Interest for Nature Conservation. And this is in the woodland to the south of the site. Point four of 6.13 in the report says that renewable energy schemes will be permitted where the wider environmental, economic, social, and community benefits directly related to the scheme outweigh any potential adverse impacts. Again, I would argue the point on whether this application does indeed meet that criteria. And finally, point five contained within 6.13 states that renewable energy schemes will be permitted where the distinct identity of Monmasha will not be compromised. Again, I have concerns whether this point is truly met, as I do believe that solar panel arrays are not commonplace in this national landscape area and form part of the identity of our beautiful county. Indeed, when I look out across the rolling countryside of Monmasha, it is rare to see an array that has as many as 72 solar panels, which have the potential to blight the landscape and the natural beauty of the area. I would like to refer to the objection from the Wye Valley National Landscape, where they state, Putting such PV panels on the ground in a traditional small open field, which formed part of the key feature of small clusters of historic squatter settlements on valley sides surrounded by intricate patterns of small fields, dry stone walls, narrow lanes, and small deciduous woodlands of this part of the national landscape, clearly appears to be more intrusive. Within their consultation comments, they further go on to say that landscaping is not forever and should not be used to screen poor development. Deciduous vegetation is also not in leaf during winter months, so cannot be relied upon. And I think that this is a noteworthy point considering the time of year where we, if we've been out on a site visit, that we've viewed this from. They further go on to say that the proposed development will be visible from across the valley on the English side of the national landscape. I did not view the development from the Forest of Dean area, so I cannot comment on this further. They further go on to say that, "Without any consideration for consideration and assessment of alternative locations by virtue of exciting and considering that the proposed landscaping put forward would not be able to mitigate the development to an acceptable degree, the proposed visual effects would be to the detriment of scenic beauty as the AOMB designation, hereabouts altering an identified key feature in the Wye Valley Gorge LM Z09, which in turn will go on to affect a special quality. For these reasons, we consider the application to conflict with strategic objectives of the Wye Valley AOMB Management Plan 21 to 26. We object to this application in its current guise. The LPA, of which we are all a part of here, has a statutory duty to have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the national landscape. The local planning authority should ensure at an absolute minimum that planning decisions are consistent with relevant national local planning policy and guidance include in the Wye Valley area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2021 to 26. We trust you will take the above into consideration when arriving at your decision. Now moving on to the conditions in--
Councillor McKenna, I know you're the local member, you're also a member of this committee, but you have had an awful lot of time.
But I just have another minute or so to sum up.
Yes.
Sum up, please.
So just moving on to the conditions, if members are minded to go against my recommendation, decide to approve the application, then I would like to see a condition that the height of the hedges are kept to above 2.4 metres to allow the visual impact of the development to be lowered. And I would also like condition four to be reconsidered where it states that any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season. And I would like to see this change so that the condition remains in perpetuity. I welcome the 70 metres of native species hedge that's to be planted, but I would like to point out that some sort of deer proofing needs to take place. When I visited the site on Sunday, I saw two deer close to the edge of the field and it is well known in the area that deer can wreak havoc on saplings both within residents gardens and the fields. And with this in mind, the applicants may wish to ensure that the height of the stockproof fence cannot be jumped over by deer. So just to sum up in the case of this application, I do not object to the concept of being off grid by way of solar panels, but I do have grave concerns regarding the scale and the setting that the proposed development is in. Thank you.
Okay, thank you for that. Phil, there were some points in there.
Yeah, in terms of scale being excessive, yeah, there are quite a lot of panels, but I must admit, I've never seen an array that's so low to the ground before. It's 50 centimetres high. So when we actually looked on site, it was useful to go there yesterday, when you look from the roadway down, there was a bit of a dip wasn't there in the field. And the applicants thought about this quite carefully as to where to put the array, because they'd be set down into the sort of two thirds down the field where the land slopes into a dip. Whilst and obviously whilst open, that dip will again, reduce the actual degree of prominence of the arrays. So really, I mean, I know the National Landscape Officer has made comments, but we've analyzed those and we just don't agree with him in terms of any landscape impact. The landscape impact would be extremely localized, really, and really only affects anyone walking along the lane at the top. And even then you'd only be subject to views of it through the gaps, through that gateway, and then again down by the neighbour's driveway where they're proposing a group of trees to be located. So we think that the conditions proposed will mitigate any very limited harm that this array will provide given it's so low profile. The other issue is this will require SAB approval. So any surfacing will need approval of the SAB authority. It would appear that the actual panels are gonna go on some sort of like level gravel surface. So yeah, there will be a change to the land. But again, you're not talking about any deep foundations to this form of structure. That it's not heavy, it'll be light and it's reversible in the sense that it could be taken up and re-topsoiled and are used again for grazing or whatever purposes. The land in the report is described as semi-improved grassland. There's no objection from NRW in terms of any ecology impacts to the development. And there's no concerns in terms of any impacts on the sink nearby from this, obviously what is a static development. It's not gonna move around. It's not gonna impact on the sink in terms of having any impacts on it. So there's no ecological concerns to this, either. And in terms of changing the condition, that's a standard five-year maintenance condition for landscape. We could consider about increasing it, but is it necessary? Yes, in terms of actually having it beyond the five years. Normally the five years is to allow something to establish and get growing. I mean, ultimately it's down to members if they wanted to secure a longer period, but we as officers think that that is appropriate in terms of its maintenance period. And I don't think the applicant would seek to change and rip out landscaping after the event, having been a responsible person who wants to actually secure renewable energy for his property. So yes, it is large, but we wanted to actually look at it in terms of its impacts. So we don't think it's needed to make it smaller just because that would be more domestic. You look at it on its merits. It's a large-ish array, but it's so low to the ground its impacts can be managed quite acceptably and it would not harm the natural beauty of the AOMB, particularly with the landscape that's provided and which will be needed anyway as a form of a GI improvement for that development. So we're quite satisfied and happy to recommend it for approval in its current guise. Thank you.
Thank you, Phil, and having been there yesterday, you'd have to know it was there to look for it, I think. 72 sounds like a large number, but they are very small. So anyway, that's just a personal observation having been to the site. Councillor Pinn.
Dear, an improved grassland is usually species-rich and can support up to 30 to 40 different plant species per square metre and various butterflies and other wildlife. Can you tell me how much of this pasture will be lost to the trenches that are dug for the panels and the tree planting that will be put in to hide it? And will the remainder of the field be protected? And the proposal is for the change of use of agricultural land. Can you tell me what the land would be classed as following this application? And if it will relate to the area on which the panels sit only. I was pleased to see that the restoration plan is included as part of the conditions. Can you tell me what the land will, if the land will automatically be reinstated as agricultural land upon their decommission?
Yes, well, yes, the answer to the last question is, yeah, it'll have to be restored to its current condition, so it'll be put back to grassland. We've done a quick check in terms of our own ecologist's views, and if it was a larger area of take, then our ecologist would have recommended preliminary ecological assessment, but given it was a limited area, a relatively small part of the field, we didn't consider it necessary to ask for it in that instance. And it's grazed pasture, and I think the gentleman we met did acknowledge that they had livestock on it at one time, even though there was just one sheep or goat on there later on. But it had been grazed in the relatively recent past. And the comments are the woodland to the south of the site is a classified sink, but that wouldn't be affected by the proposals, and the enhancement look acceptable in terms of biodiversity. In terms of the take-up of it, I think we said it's 335 square meters of the field, but the field is fairly large, and it's a relatively small part of it. It would be enclosed by livestock fencing, so it sounds as if the intention is to graze the field when that is in place, so that the arrays don't interfere with any-- - Just on that one area that's gonna be-- - Yes, sorry, yeah, yeah.
And what will it be classed as then, once it's not agricultural land, what will it be classed as?
It wouldn't have a land classification, really, so it would be generous, really. It's a renewable energy form, so it wouldn't have a use class.
So it's just a temporary removal of an agricultural classification, basically, whilst it's in use? - Yeah, yeah.
Okay, yeah.
Okay, thanks for that. Councillor Powell.
Thank you, Chairman. Looking at that little field, if the farmer decided, right, we'll plough that up and plant potatoes, would he have to have planning permission for that? No. So really, we're very lucky that the majority of that field is going to remain a natural, old-fashioned pasture, where you have many things, as Councillor Friend said, growing there. It's not gonna affect them. It's only one piece of the field. The rest of that will go on growing, and if it's grazed, it will grow up again. So not losing all that. So I can't say that that's a real problem, because you're not going to lose all those plants, because it's not going to be ploughed up. It's going to be grazed. It's only a small part, and really, you couldn't, if you walk down the road and you didn't know it was there, you wouldn't see it, you wouldn't notice it. I think renewable energy is such a help in the countryside, and it's obvious, with all the trees around there, that the actual property that's gonna benefit from it can't use panels on their house, because there never is any light on it. And it's doing a good thing from that point of view, and I can't say that it's causing an awful lot of problems. So there you are, I would support it myself, 'cause we'll have plenty of nice meadow left and plenty of nice things growing there. And I would go with the proposition.
Okay, thank you, Councillor Powell. We have all of those properties there seem to be facing east, didn't they? The building must have liked the morning sun or something. Councillor Eason.
Yeah, thank you, Chair. Yes, it's good to have solar panels and methods of reducing energy off the grid, but I tried to imagine this array as being like two cricket pitches long, and maybe four cricket pitches wide, to make 335 square meters. You couldn't, it's 30 odd meters long, maybe 10 meters deep, that's 335 square meters, according to your report. At that size, I would suggest that there should be probably a feed-in tariff somewhere, and it doesn't say that in the application. For a property of the size that it is, and I know the property's in that area, that would be far, far too big for what's required. So I don't know why they need such a large array of that sort of requirement at this particular time, if it's just for domestic use. I accept the point that, Councillor for what you mean, it's seen in the front, it is important, and it may not affect the meadow, but all in all, I wonder why it's gotta be so large for one property.
Phil, have you got any?
It still, yeah, you can look for some sort of community benefits stemming from the--
I just wondered, it's still very much of a domestic scale, 30 kilowatts, so you're not talking about megawatts, so--
No, but if you're at a property like, you need a row of terrace houses to put that on. 335 square meters, two cricket pitches long, 40 meters, plus about eight meters depth, that would take up four terrace houses. It's a big area, I'm just wondering, is it an overkill for the property, and is it gonna be used for feed-in tariffs, is that mentioned in there?
It's not, but it's not really relevant to us. We're looking at it on its merits, and its visual impact, and how it affects the national landscape, so it might appear to be fairly large in domestic terms, but it's still acceptable in landscape, another impact term, so, and it isn't of a scale where, you know, the feed-in tariff doesn't exist now anyway, does it, it's gone, yeah. We wouldn't be in a sound position to ask for some sort of contribution to local community schemes from something of this small scale.
Councillor Butler.
Thank you, Chair, some interesting comments coming out, very, very interesting. Like Councillor McKenna, my concern's actually initially related to the very large number of panels proposed, but I don't think they're particularly large panels compared to what you might see on people's roofs, because I think these have to be a slightly different construction because of the way in which they're gonna be set in the receptacle, I can't remember what they call that, to sit in the ground. So I don't think they're as big as your average panel that goes on a domestic four bedroom house, for example. Although I did wonder, actually, whether they might be better off spending some of their money on installing a battery for storage. And of course, we don't know whether they have proposals relating to air source or ground source heat pumps for their property, so only they know the answer to things like that. My other consideration when I visited the site yesterday was around the tree planting or hedgerow planting that is proposed. I did notice that the applicant had actually replaced or planted a beech hedge sometime earlier, and it was just a beech hedge. It was sort of a monoculture, as it were, and I would like to ask whether the proposed new hedgerow is, or tree planting is of more mixed species, so that is one question I would like to have answered, please. But like others, when I was there, you really couldn't see this from the road, and I think once trees have been allowed to grow up, you're not going to see them at all. Thank you.
Phil.
Yes, the new hedge planting with mixed species, native species head, so you'd have likes of hawthorn holly, all the typical hedgerow plants in double staggered row, and then the tree planting, I think, well, again, those will be indigenous species. Bear with me. I'll try and find the green infrastructure statement. Sorry, shall I come back to that? And do any of the members want to raise anything while I'm looking? I'll come on to Councillor Birch.
Thank you, Chair. I think it was a very interesting and informative visit yesterday. Really, as a matter of principle, if people are going to continue to live in the future in large detached properties in counties such as ours, then the planning system needs to facilitate for those properties to become zero-carbon. And here we have an example of a householder who proposed it to do precisely that. We have, and I think in the supply to the planning portal, the information regarding why they need a large array because it is an all-electric property. And there is a proposal for battery storage. And also, because the panels on the ground are at the angle that is proposed, this low angle so that there is less visual impact is actually less efficient than if they were on a south-facing roof. So I think some of those questions have been answered. And in terms of their visual impact, really it has been, I think, very sensitively designed to minimize visual impact, either from the road or from the footpaths, the adjoining properties, or the valley, opposite. So I think we have no reason to refuse it and should move to approve.
Thank you, Councillor Birch. Phil, have you come up with another street?
Yeah, so in terms of the mix of tree planting in that corner near the neighbour's driveway, that would be a mix of alder, blackthorn, crabapple, and dogwood. And then the actual hedge row planting will be a mix of hawthorn, field maple, hazel, bird cherry, holly, blackthorn, and dog rose. That's a 70-metre length of hedge rows going to be planted.
Quite nice, that. - Thank you.
Councillor Loughton. - Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. Just to support what Councillor Birch just said, we're moving forward and we're looking to reduce our carbon footprint, and then we question why people want to do it in a rural setting. The other concern I have is when it comes to this array, we're looking at siting it in a field, but what about all the other necessary infrastructure? There's gonna be some form of cabling that's gonna be needed to come off of these units to a transformer, to a battery storage site. Is that able to happen under permitted development, which is why we see nothing here? Are they able to accommodate that within the current buildings, within the curtilage? It's just one or two answers there would be kind of useful for me to understand how this development fits as a whole within the whole of the landscape. Because if you're gonna go around digging cable trenches everywhere, putting up a plant room safe or the infrastructure, why haven't we seen any of that now? Thank you.
Yeah, as part of the submission, there was a cabling statement to do with the cabling specification. So the cables were installed in 100 millimetre reinforced underground duct and laid in this trench of 60 millimetre depth with 125 metre width of bucket. It'd be dug by a very experienced ground worker. I won't read all of this out, sorry. We do not want to damage any trees and would hand dig where necessary and then feed the duct in under any roots as required. Then carefully backfill with clean soil. They've identified a route that they're going to take towards the property from the array. So that is on the application file and it would be part of the approved documents if they need to abide by, if members are minded to approve the scheme today. So they have thought it through and they thought about how they are gonna tackle the route and deal with any nearby trees and roots so that they don't harm those. Thank you.
Thank you, thank you, Phil. Could I just ask, is there any other developments on the, around the curtain of the building to allow for a plant room or can they accommodate that in the existing structures?
No information on that. So presumably they'll cable into the existing property and provide what electricity-generating needs or storage they'll need within the property itself or any outbuildings they've got there existing.
Thank you.
They'd have to have it there anyway, wouldn't they, otherwise it would be on the application.
They've got an electric car apparently which they're gonna need to, to help see.
Councillor Garrett.
Thank you, Chair. It was very helpful to go to the site yesterday to see that it wasn't very visible from the road at all and from the side of the property and Duke's house as well that does not actually look onto it. The only concern I had was from their immediate perspective was where the greenhouse is. They put a hedge in which they said had taken five years to reach the stage it was in. And there was a gap then where they had a table and chairs, the sitting area where they were, that was the closest point of their property to the array. But even then with the cross having grown and there's just one sheep, I think we were told on the, although we didn't see it yesterday, it was hiding from us, I assume. You know, the impact on their view is minimal, but it obviously the proximity was a concern to the residents of the property. The Trent specification form in the report is quite good as well. As Phil said, you know, they thought very well about how they're gonna route the cabling through. Just mentioned as well in the applicant's details about having two EVs in the future. And I can see, you know, why they need this. They're looking at 27,000 kilowatts of power and it will produce about 30,000. So, yeah, there'll be some excess and it mentions about supplying some for grids, but not a huge amount and they've got battery storage. I think, you know, it's a well thought through plan. Yes, it's sensitive area, but I think overall, you know, we need to encourage people to do these kinds of things for the future. Thank you.
Okay, thanks for that. We've got nobody else indicating that they want to speak. We do have a recommendation from officers that this application is approved. Can we have the voting function up then, please, Richard? And we'll-- Sorry, yeah, yeah, yeah. Let's just say we'll just go for a proposal. Councillor Powell is proposing it.
Yeah, we'll propose it.
By Councillor Burch.
Right, can everybody vote now, please? That's it. Okay, so that's approved, 13 for approval, one against and one abstained. Thank you.
Thank you, everybody. That's the end of the applications today. We've got no reports, so we just go back, no, no reports. So thank you, everybody. Can you just stay where you are? 'Cause after we've finished recording, we just need a quick chat. Thanks very much. (gentle music) (gentle music) [ Silence ]

AI Generated

Summary

The Monmouthshire Planning Committee met on June 4, 2024, to elect a new chair and vice-chair and discuss two significant planning applications. The meeting also paid respects to the late Councillor Sheila Woodhouse.

Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

Chair: Councillor Bill Murphy was elected as the new chair.
Vice-Chair: Councillor Dale Ruck was elected as the vice-chair.

Respect for Late Councillor Sheila Woodhouse

The committee paid respects to Councillor Sheila Woodhouse, who served as the chairman during COVID and was a dedicated servant of Monmouthshire.

Development of 15 Dwellings in Little Mill (DM-2020-01438)

Proposal: Erection of 15 dwellings with associated infrastructure in Little Mill.
Details: The development includes 60% affordable housing (9 units) and 40% open market units (6 units). The affordable units will be managed by registered social landlord, RSL Pobble.
Concerns:
- Community Council Consultation: Councillor Bonfield raised concerns about the lack of consultation with the Lambadoc Community Council after boundary changes.
- Section 106 Agreement: Clarification was sought on financial contributions, which are solely for securing affordable housing.
- Sustainability: Councillors discussed the inclusion of renewable energy features like solar panels and air source heat pumps.
- Environmental Impact: The development's impact on local biodiversity and noise from the nearby railway line were addressed.
Decision: The application was deferred to allow for consultation with the Lambadoc Community Council and will be revisited in the next meeting.

Ground-Mounted Solar Array in Pennevan (DM-2024-00384)

Proposal: Installation of 72 solar panels in a field near Pennevan to power Woodfield House.
Details: The panels will be low-profile, set 50 cm above ground, and cover an area of approximately 335 square meters. The site is within the Wye Valley National Landscape.
Concerns:
- Visual Impact: The Wye Valley National Landscape Officer and local residents raised concerns about the visual impact.
- Biodiversity: The potential impact on local flora and fauna was discussed, with assurances that the land will be reinstated to its current form after decommissioning.
- Scale: Some councillors questioned the necessity of 72 panels for a single property.
Decision: The application was approved with conditions for landscaping and biodiversity enhancements.

The meeting concluded with no additional reports. The meeting began with the election of the chair and vice-chair of the Planning Committee. Councillor Bill Murphy was elected as chair, and Councillor Dale Ruck was elected as vice-chair. The committee then moved on to discuss the accuracy of the minutes from the previous meeting and paid respects to the late Councillor Sheila Woodhouse.

Development of 15 Dwellings in Little Mill

Application DM-2020-01438 was discussed in detail. This application involves the development of 15 dwellings in Little Mill, including associated infrastructure. The application was presented by Andrew, who explained that the number of objections exceeded five households, necessitating the committee's review.

Key Points Discussed:

Site Details: The site is located within the village of Little Mill, with vehicle access from Tiguan Road. The development includes both open market and affordable housing units.
Housing Mix: The development will include four three-bedroom, three two-bedroom, and two two-bedroom walk-up flats as affordable housing units.
Policy Compliance: The development complies with the Local Development Plan (LDP) Policy SAH11, which allocates sites within main villages for up to 15 units. The proposal aims to deliver 60% affordable housing on-site.
Sustainability: Each dwelling will be equipped with solar PV panels and air source heat pumps. However, there are no policy grounds to mandate the inclusion of EV charging points at this stage.
Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity: The scheme includes permeable paving, planted rain gardens, swales, and an infiltration basin. Preliminary ecological appraisals and surveys have been conducted.
Noise and Active Travel: Noise mitigation measures will be implemented due to the site's proximity to a railway line. The development will also include safe pedestrian access to local facilities and public transport.
Phosphates Issue: The site lies within the phosphorous-sensitive catchment of the River Usk Sack. The development will connect to the mains foul drainage network, and there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater.

Concerns Raised:

Community Consultation: Councillor Bonfield expressed concerns about the lack of consultation with the Lambadog Community Council following boundary changes. He suggested deferring the decision until the council had an opportunity to comment.
Section 106 Agreement: Councillor Bonfield also wanted more clarity on the Section 106 agreement, particularly regarding financial contributions.
Sustainability and Local Needs: Councillor Butler and Councillor Payne raised concerns about the sustainability of the development and whether it meets the needs of local residents, particularly in terms of transport and amenities.

Decision:

The committee decided to defer the application to the next meeting to allow for consultation with the Lambadog Community Council and to gather additional information.

Ground-Mounted Solar Array in Pennevan

Application DM-2024-00384 was discussed next. This application involves the change of use of agricultural land to facilitate the siting of a ground-mounted solar array in Pennevan.

Key Points Discussed:

Site Details: The array will consist of 72 solar panels arranged in four rows of 18, located in the northeastern corner of a field. The panels will be 50 centimeters high and set into mounts.
Policy Support: National and local policies strongly support renewable energy developments. The proposal aligns with these policies, subject to its visual impact.
Visual Impact: The array will be low-profile and set into a dip in the field, minimizing its visibility from the surrounding area. Additional landscaping, including native species hedges and trees, will further mitigate visual impact.
Ecological Impact: The site is semi-improved grassland, and no significant ecological concerns were raised. Biodiversity enhancements, such as bird nest boxes, will be included.
Amenity Impact: The array will be located approximately 47 meters from the nearest dwelling. The low profile and additional landscaping will minimize any potential impact on residential amenity.

Concerns Raised:

Scale and Necessity: Councillor McKenna and Councillor Eason questioned the necessity of 72 panels for a single property and suggested that the scale might be excessive.
Biodiversity: Councillor Payne raised concerns about the impact on the semi-improved grassland and the need for an ecological report.
Infrastructure: Councillor Loughton inquired about the necessary infrastructure for cabling and battery storage.

Decision:

The committee approved the application, with 13 votes for approval, one against, and one abstention. Conditions were included to ensure the land is reinstated to its current form when the technology is no longer operational. The meeting began with the election of the chair and vice-chair. Councillor Phil Murphy was elected as chair, and Councillor Dale Rook was elected as vice-chair. The committee then discussed the accuracy of the minutes from the previous meeting and paid respects to the late Councillor Sheila Woodhouse. The main agenda item was a planning application for the development of 15 dwellings in Little Mill, which led to a detailed discussion.

Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

Chair: Councillor Phil Murphy was elected.
Vice-Chair: Councillor Dale Rook was elected.

Accuracy of Previous Meeting Minutes

The minutes were adopted after a proposal by Councillor Perks.

Tribute to Councillor Sheila Woodhouse

The committee paid respects to the late Councillor Sheila Woodhouse, who served as chair during COVID-19.

Planning Application for 15 Dwellings in Little Mill

Application Number: DM-2020-01438
Presenter: Andrew Jones, Development Management Area Manager
Details: The application is for the erection of 15 dwellings with associated infrastructure in Little Mill. The application was presented due to exceeding the threshold of five household objections.
Site Visit: A site visit was conducted in May.
Key Points:
- Vehicle Access: Via Tiguan Road.
- Affordable Housing: 60% of the units (9 out of 15) will be affordable, delivered by Registered Social Landlord (RSL) POBL.
- Sustainability: Each dwelling will have solar PV panels and air source heat pumps.
- Green Infrastructure: Includes permeable paving, planted rain gardens, swales, and an infiltration basin.
- Noise Mitigation: Measures to address noise from the nearby railway line.
- Active Travel: Safe pedestrian access to local facilities and public transport.
- Phosphates: The site lies within the phosphorus-sensitive catchment of the River Usk Sack. The development will connect to the main foul drainage network, with sufficient capacity confirmed by Doer Cymru-Welsh Water.

Concerns and Discussions

Councillor Bonfield:
- Raised concerns about the lack of consultation with Lambadoc Community Council due to boundary changes.
- Suggested deferring the decision until Lambadoc Community Council could be consulted.
Councillor Butler:
- Supported the development but emphasized the need for local residents to have priority for affordable housing.
- Raised questions about the inclusion of EV charging points and other renewable features.
Councillor Easton:
- Clarified that the Section 106 agreement is solely for securing affordable housing units.
Councillor Howells:
- Asked about the hydraulic capacity of the sewer network and safety measures for the nearby railway crossing.
Councillor Payne:
- Expressed concerns about the sustainability of the development, given the lack of local amenities and reliance on private vehicles.

Decision

The committee voted to defer the decision to allow for consultation with Lambadoc Community Council. The motion to defer was carried with 11 votes for deferral and 4 against.

Second Planning Application: Ground-Mounted Solar Array in Pennevan

Application Number: DM202400384
Presenter: Phil Thomas, Development Services Manager
Details: The application is for the change of use of agricultural land to facilitate the siting of a ground-mounted solar array in Pennevan.
Key Points:
- Size: 72 solar panels arranged in four rows.
- Location: Northeastern corner of a field, screened by existing trees and hedgerows.
- Visual Impact: Low profile (50 cm above ground) and additional landscaping to mitigate visual impact.
- Ecology: No significant adverse impacts on biodiversity; bird nest boxes to be installed.
- Amenity: The array will not be directly visible from the nearest dwelling due to intervening trees and hedgerows.

Concerns and Discussions

Councillor McKenna:
- Raised concerns about the scale of the array and its impact on the Wye Valley National Landscape.
- Suggested deferring the application for a smaller scale proposal.
Councillor Pinn:
- Asked about the impact on the semi-improved grassland and the classification of the land post-development.
Councillor Powell:
- Supported the application, emphasizing the minimal impact on the field and the benefits of renewable energy.
Councillor Eason:
- Questioned the necessity of the large array for a single property.
Councillor Butler:
- Inquired about the species mix for the proposed hedgerow and tree planting.
Councillor Birch:
- Supported the application, highlighting the need for zero-carbon properties in rural areas.
Councillor Loughton:
- Asked about the infrastructure required for the solar array and its impact on the landscape.
Councillor Garrett:
- Noted the minimal visual impact and the well-thought-out plan for the array.

Decision

The committee voted to approve the application with 13 votes for approval, 1 against, and 1 abstention. The meeting began with the election of the chair and vice-chair for the Planning Committee. Councillor Phil Murphy was elected as chair, and Councillor Dale Ruck was elected as vice-chair. The meeting then moved on to discuss two main reports.

Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

Chair: Councillor Phil Murphy was nominated and elected as chair.
Vice-Chair: Councillor Dale Ruck was nominated and elected as vice-chair.

Passing of Councillor Sheila Woodhouse

The committee paid respects to the late Councillor Sheila Woodhouse, who served as chairman during COVID and was a great servant to Monmouthshire.

Development of 15 Dwellings in Little Mill (DM-2020-01438)

Proposal: Erection of 15 dwellings with associated infrastructure in Little Mill.
Presentation: Andrew presented the application, highlighting the vehicle access, site layout, and the mix of affordable and open market units.
Affordable Housing: 60% of the units (9 out of 15) will be affordable, delivered via Registered Social Landlord (RSL) POBL.
Sustainability: Each dwelling will have solar PV panels and air source heat pumps. No EV charging points are included due to current policy limitations.
Green Infrastructure: The development includes permeable paving, planted rain gardens, swales, and an infiltration basin.
Noise Mitigation: Measures include facade insulation and ventilation provisions to address noise from the nearby railway line.
Phosphates Issue: The site lies within the phosphorous-sensitive catchment of the River Usk Sack. The development will connect to the main foul drainage network, with sufficient capacity confirmed by Doer Cymru-Wash Water.
Community Concerns: Councillor Bonfield raised concerns about the lack of consultation with Lambadoc Community Council due to boundary changes. He suggested deferring the decision until the council could provide input.
Decision: The committee voted to defer the application to allow Lambadoc Community Council to comment.

Ground-Mounted Solar Array in Pennevan (DM-2024-00384)

Proposal: Installation of 72 solar panels in a field near Woodfield House to provide renewable energy for the property.
Presentation: Phil presented the application, noting the low profile of the panels (50 cm above ground) and the proposed landscaping to mitigate visual impact.
Concerns: Councillor McKenna raised concerns about the scale of the array and its impact on the Wye Valley National Landscape. She suggested deferring the application for a smaller scale proposal.
Ecology: The site is semi-improved grassland, and the development will include biodiversity enhancements such as bird nest boxes.
Decision: The committee voted to approve the application, with 13 votes for, 1 against, and 1 abstention.

The meeting concluded with no additional reports or items for discussion.

Attendees

County Ann Webb
County Dale Rooke
County Emma Bryn
County Fay Bromfield
County Jan Butler
County Jayne McKenna
County Jill Bond
County John Crook
County Maureen Powell
County Meirion Howells
County Phil Murphy
County Sara Burch
County Steven Garratt
County Su McConnel
County Sue Riley
County Tony Easson
Adam Fall
Alison Jones
Amy Gullick
Amy Longford
Andrew Jones
Anna Hawker
Bettina Broadway-Mann
Craig O'Connor
David Wong
Frances O'Brien
Helen Hinton
James Williams
Jane Rodgers
Joanne Chase
John Pearson
John Rogers
Kim Lloyd
Lowri Hughson-Smith
Mark Davies
Matthew Gatehouse
Nicola Perry
Paige Moseley
Paul Matthews
Peter Davies
Philip Thomas
Rachel Keeble
Rachel Lewis
Richard Williams
Tracey Hacker
Wendy Barnard
Will McLean

Subscribe to updates

Planning Committee - Tuesday, 4th June, 2024 2.00 pm

Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

Transcript

Summary

Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

Respect for Late Councillor Sheila Woodhouse

Development of 15 Dwellings in Little Mill (DM-2020-01438)

Ground-Mounted Solar Array in Pennevan (DM-2024-00384)

Development of 15 Dwellings in Little Mill

Key Points Discussed:

Concerns Raised:

Decision:

Ground-Mounted Solar Array in Pennevan

Key Points Discussed:

Concerns Raised:

Decision:

Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

Accuracy of Previous Meeting Minutes

Tribute to Councillor Sheila Woodhouse

Planning Application for 15 Dwellings in Little Mill

Concerns and Discussions

Decision

Second Planning Application: Ground-Mounted Solar Array in Pennevan

Concerns and Discussions

Decision

Election of Chair and Vice-Chair

Passing of Councillor Sheila Woodhouse

Development of 15 Dwellings in Little Mill (DM-2020-01438)

Ground-Mounted Solar Array in Pennevan (DM-2024-00384)

Attendees

Documents