Transcript

Good morning. Welcome to the planning. Welcome to guests we have online so far. Also, I'd like to welcome Councillor Raukely and Councillor Horton to the planning, and welcome back, Trevor. You'll be one of the successful viewers as the mayor, thank you, and very well for everything you've done and achieved. Thank you. Before we start, today's meeting is being filmed for live and subsequent broadcast by the way of Council's internet site. The images and sound recorded may also be used for trading purposes within the Council. As you will see from the agenda papers, generally the public seating areas are not filmed. However, by entering the meeting room and using the public seating area, you are consenting to be on film and to be possible use of those images and sound recordings for webcasting and/or trading purposes. Proposed public speakers have been made aware of the broadcasting arrangements prior to this meeting. Would members please use their microphones to contribute to the meeting, and please remember to switch off the microphone when you have finished. Members dial in remotely, please only turn on your camera when you wish to speak, and please remember to switch off when you have finished. Also, could you ensure that you refrain from using any mobile devices during the committee, and that any devices are silent. Taylor is not here today. He's been stuck in front of all places. I could think of worse places to be stuck, so I know we have apologies from Council Linden. Do we know whether we have any other apologies? No? Thank you. Do we have any declarations of interest on the item we have on today? OK. That's great. Thank you very much. Minutes of the previous meeting should have all received. I'm not going to go through page by page. Could I have somebody to propose them, please? Second? Thank you very much. We'll go on to the only item we have on the agenda today. I can't tell you what I can if I find it. But anyway, the Presenting Officer is Andrew. Thank you, Chair. Right. OK. Sorry, it's 22 slope 0919. Thank you, Chair. This application is for land at Oak Road. It's the redevelopment of the land to provide 43 residential homes. So I'd just like to refer members and make sure all members have seen the update sheet. Effectively, all it does is the application's been amended later on, little tweaks, and it's just updating the suite of documents in terms of to make sure everything ties in with those amendments. Right. So before us, we've got the site location plan on your screen. The application's being reported to members as a major development as the site exceeds 0.5 hectares. The site is shown in blue, hatch on the plan, comprises two separate parcels. So what you'll see, this is Oak Road coming into the site. We've got a southern spur of Oak Road down here and a northern spur as well. But as I said, the site is split by Oak Road into the northern and southern sections, hereafter referred to the northern and southern parcels. And what you've got is St. John's Crescent running north to south along the eastern boundary of the site. So the proposal seeks to demolish the existing buildings in the northern half of the site. There's blocks of flats up here, 23 in total currently, and replace them with 43 new residential homes, five dwellings and nine flats on the northern site, and 29 flats on the southern site. So this is an aerial image of the site. As I said, the site's located to the west of St. John's Crescent on either side of Oak Road. There are currently, you'll see at the top of the screen, there are currently these flat roof, three-story 1970s flats located on the northern half. You've got this L-shaped block here where my cursor is, and then a block of three staggered flats to the northern half. You'll note the southern half of the site is currently vacant. There was a single and two-story block of flats on there previously known as St. John's Court. They were demolished in circa 2012, 2013, so they've been gone a little while now. You'll also note on the aerial that there are several trees located on the site, several mature trees located around the boundaries. A lot of these are protected via a TPO, which I'll come back to later on and talk about which trees are being retained, which are being removed. So you'll notice a predominantly residential area. There is a barbers and a convenience store just off the site to the bottom. And as I said, sorry, just before, you'll notice on that picture as well, there's quite a mix of houses in the area. So on the left-hand side, you've got mono-pitched roofs, two-story brick buildings. Along St. John's Crescent, you've got a real mixture of dwelling types. Some dorma bungalows, some two-story right up to the road, some set further back. So it was residential. It does have a mixed character. These are the site photos now. The first one is the bus stop located on St. John's Crescent. This is directly in front of the southern parcel, and we're looking north now along St. John's Crescent towards the Oak Road Junction. This is looking back at the same bus stop with Oak Road Junction on the right-hand side. Again, this is looking into the site. This is the Oak Road Junction with St. John's Crescent. You'll note there's various trees of various heights along the site, and you'll note the two-story properties, brick built to the rear. This is looking across Oak Road to the northern parcel, but this is the southern block of the flats on that northern parcel, which is three-story in height, flat roof. You can also see that the land slopes down from St. John's Crescent down towards Oak Road. This is the same block, but looking at the front facing onto Oak Road. Just note, when you view along here, you've got trees. You've got a nice grass verge, which does add significantly to the character of the existing properties. This is looking at the northern blocks. These are the three staggered blocks that are joined at the northern part of the site. Again, three-story in nature fronting onto Oak Road. Sorry, onto St. John's Crescent, and this is the front looking from St. John's Crescent back down. You will see existing houses on the left-hand side, just to note, as I said, that there are different styles, characters, as you can see there, heights set back, et cetera. So this is, we're now on Oak Road, looking down south along the southern spur. So again, note the trees on the site, the green areas where the buildings previously stood, but they've now been cleared, and you've got two-story residential properties on the right-hand side. This was the old car park for St. John's Crescent. You're looking basically along here from the southern spur. You're looking east toward St. John's Crescent along the southern boundary of the site. So those trees here, these trees here are forming along the southern boundary. This is from Oak Road. Now we're looking at the northern spur on Oak Road, and this is the southern block of flats. Just to give you an idea, as I said, three-story, you have got parking underneath behind these palisade fencing. This is looking north now along that little northern spur. So the first block is on your right, and then you've got the three staggered blocks, which you can see at the top end of the screen up here. This is the side elevation of that southern block, effectively, and you'll note there's a parking maintenance area to the side on the left-hand side as you're looking at it. This is the rear of the northern flats. These are all to be demolished as part of this application. So this is the proposed layout. What we've got, the existing access will remain. You'll still have the northern and southern spurs. At the northern end of the site, you've got five split-level dwellings up here to the north of the trees. The trees on the northern side that are protected are all being retained, but I'll go into that in a bit more detail now. What you've got, you've got the set-off from the St. John's Crescent on the right, and we've got parking at the rear for these properties. You'll note as part of the application where I am here, there's a turning area there now. This has been incorporated back into the plans to allow delivery vehicles to reverse back in here and enter in a forward gear because that was causing some concern for the highways officer. On the southern end of the northern parcel, you've got a block of flats here, so where my cursor is now. Block of flats, there'll be nine flats there with parking to the north in that area that I just showed on one of the photos for parking and servicing. On the southern parcel, there are 29 flats proposed here. They are arranged in an L-shape for over 50 fives. Where my cursor is now, this will be a four-story block. You've got parking then to the west. And along the southern boundary, you've got two-story flats effectively. Again, this block will be served by 13 parking spaces to the west of the building. And you'll also note there's a communal garden in front of the units as well. So in terms of tree removals, on the left-hand side, we've got the plan showing which trees are to be removed. On the right-hand side, you've got the proposed landscaping strategy. So of the trees to be removed, these two here, where I am now, trees nine and 10 are B category trees. The rest are C category, so these ones along here, this one here, and the other two red ones along here, those are being removed for the development. This blue tree here is protected. That's being retained, as are the trees along St. John's Crescent and Oak Road. You'll note on the landscaping plan on the right-hand side, there are opportunities for new planting where new trees will be planted. So, as I said, that will be mitigated for in terms of future landscaping. So in the main category C trees are to be lost, although two are category B, but they're not protected by the tree preservation order. These are the elevations of the over-55s accommodation. These are the southern flats, effectively. So at the top, we have the northern side elevation of the flats. So this is viewed from Oak Road. So you'll see the four-story flats located on the right. They do have balconies. Look in into the communal area. You can see there. And you'll also note that the fourth floor level is actually recessed. So that's to reduce the overall scale, massing, and impact of the building when viewed from the southern sphere on Oak Road. The two-story element is brick at ground floor level. Again, we've got metal cladding above and Juliet balcony's facing onto the communal space. So the bottom elevation, this is the eastern elevation. So this is what you'll see from St. John's Crescent. Again, you've got the four-story block. These are the balconies on the sides here and here. And then this is the two-story element I was referring to. So it steps up nicely in terms of the overall design of it. These are the two other elevations. The top one is looking from the southern boundary looking north. So you've got the two-story flats above. You will note an access walkway here. This is to provide access to the first floor level. And at the bottom, this is what you will see from those residential properties on the southern sphere of Oak Road. So you've got a three-story element and then the recessed metal clad fourth floor beyond. In terms of impacting neighbors, as I said, we will come back to this, but this is just to show the impact. So what you've got on the right-hand side, these are where the sections are taken from. So the top section is from the properties on Park Avenue. This is the 25-degree line you will have seen referred to in terms of how we assess daylight. It's espoused in the supplementary planning guidance. What you'll see, this is the two-story element. You're set almost 33 meters away. So the impact is completely acceptable there. On the bottom, we've got a section from the properties on Oak Road. So these are the properties here. I don't know whether you can see my cursor there in terms of the little inset. That's what we're looking at when we look across there to the three-, four-story building. What you'll note again, as I said, we've run the 25-degree assessment. It passes that. So we're satisfied that the impact is acceptable in terms of the overall height and scale in terms of residential amenity. Moving on now to the layout of the flats. You'll note on the screen, there's a red line to the two boxes here. So these are the existing flats. The application, as you'll note, is a 22 application. We've got a lot of dialogue on this. And partly, it's to do with ensuring that we had this open character. We felt that the revised development was getting too close to St. John's Crescent. So as I said, there are a lot of constraints on site. But the site has managed to reconfigure. So this is a block of nine flats, three-story, replacing what is there in terms of overall scale. And then we've got the park in court serving those properties to the north. Elevation-wise, the flats are three-story, predominantly in brick with metal-clad monopitch roof. The northern-facing elevation is located on the left-hand side, whilst the side elevation facing St. John's Road is the eastern elevation. You'll note, again, balconies incorporated on the corners of those flats. So the other elevations on the left-hand side, this is the southern elevation facing Oak Road. So this element will be protruding. This is recessed. And on the right-hand side, this is the elevation that faces on to the spur on Oak Road. At the northern end, this is the layout of the dwellings. Again, the blue line is a little confusing here. But that is what was originally proposed in terms of the dwellings. Again, getting a lot closer to St. John's Crescent than we wanted and is existing. The red is the existing location of the flat. So again, within the root protection area, overhang of the trees. So we have got improvements here. They've all got private gardens, as you'll see. Parking at the rear for the various properties. And they are split-level properties as well. And as I said, the turning area is being retained, which the highways officer requested. Terms of design. This is on the top left. You've got the front elevation of the dwellings. So they're split-level, as you can see on the section on the top right-hand corner. They're finished in brick with metal cladding, but they do have a protruding brick detail, which is this bit here. You'll see. They step down from right to left when viewed from the front and have a flat roof. So as I said, this is what they look like, the flat roof. But you'll see on the sections, there is a pitched roof at the rear. In terms of, you've got the floor plans underneath these. So as you go in at the upper ground floor level, you will go into a kitchen area, and you've got a bedroom at the rear. That's the same for all the properties. The two on the right there where my cursor is, those are two three-story dwellings. The others are two-story. And then at first floor, you've got a bathroom and a bedroom, and then two bedrooms in the two end ones. And then the rear elevation. So as I said, you will see the pitch roof here, the mono-pitch roof here coming down. They all open out onto a garden, so onto the lower ground floor level, which comprises a lounge area, effectively opening up into the garden area. Again, designed in a similar manner to the flats. So going to some 3D renderings now. This is the view looking north, sorry, looking from the southern side of St. John's Crescent, looking north. So we've got this. These are the over 55s accommodation. These are flats. The ground floor ones will have gardens. There will be balconies for some of the flats on the four-story element. Then you've got the three-story element, which replaces what was already three-story. And the dwellings beyond, as I said, flat roof from the front, pitch roof from the rear. This is a view looking from St. John's Crescent into the over 55s section. So what you'll see here is the two-story properties on your left, four-story beyond, and this shows the communal garden in front. This is from St. John's Crescent, so you'll note that the four-story set quite far back in the site. Two-story coming a bit closer, but we're retaining the trees to help soften and screen the development from St. John's Crescent. And then you've got the three-story block on the focal point on the northern parcel. And this is what the residents, this is what you will see from the southern spur of Oak Road. So this is the four-story block. You'll note the recessed element of fourth floor. So it looks three-story in the main, and then that is recessed to reduce the overall scaled massing with use of different materials. So I'll leave it on that while I go through the rest of the presentation, and then if members want me to refer back to anything, I will. So in terms of consultation, press notice, site notice, and all neighbors within 50 meters were consulted on the application, and we had 12 neighbor objections were received from residents on St. John's Crescent, but also Western Valley Road, Oak Road, Courtfield Close, and Court Gardens. The main areas concerned from residents, they're set out in the report, but just to summarize, they're concerned about construction, noise, and traffic, concerned about overdevelopment of the site and the design scale of the development not being in keeping with the existing properties, concerns about overlooking loss of light and privacy, highway safety concerns, road layout, visibility, increased traffic, and the comments that parking provision's too low. There'll be no comments from the community council or councilors to date. So in terms of internal/external consultees, there'll be no objections from either following amendments. As I said, this has been a long process, but we're satisfied that what's before members is actually a really good scheme now that addresses the concerns. In terms of principle, sites within a residential area in the urban boundary comprising previously developed land, so it's a windfall site and seeks the reuse of vacant land, which is obviously what we want. The scheme is, the applicant is Newport City Homes, so it will be 100% affordable housing and has been submitted by Newport City Homes, but the section 106 agreement would look to secure a policy-compliant provision of 29 dwellings, so that is the 23 that are being lost and 30% of the remaining 20, but as I said, if they were to provide, do anything different than 100% affordable housing, the section 106 agreement would require payments for education and leisure. In terms of design, it's contemporary. It'll add interest to the street scene, and the scale of the existing buildings are three-story, so that's the starting point. We've got flats on the northern section will be the same. Dwellings will be two-story split level. There is obviously the four-story block, but we consider it's obviously set back from St. John's Crescent. It doesn't impact in terms of amenity, and we consider the scale to be acceptable in this location. In terms of amenity, as I said, the layouts incorporate private amenity space for some of the flats in the form of balconies and gardens for the residential properties, and there is that communal open space, which you'll see in front of the over-55 accommodation. You'll also note, and this was very important for us, the site retains its verdant nature. It's very green along the edge, which is really important for the character, so we're satisfied in that regard. Levels are considered acceptable in terms of their impact on neighboring amenity as well. As I said, you've got sufficient setback in terms of from the residential properties to the ones at the rear, over 21 meters. This is a very similar situation to existing, and actually that elevation, given the existing layout, is better than it was. The southern flats, you can see, as I said, the gardens here are very long already. These are set over 10 meters off, which is what you'd expect. So yeah, probably 31 meters away from the nearest residential accommodation there, so all the distances have been satisfied in that regard. The local highways authority has no objections to the proposed road layout as amended, but they have requested some minor tweaks in terms of, as I said, to that layout, which have been secured. The applicant has justified reduced parking provision on the basis that the flats are for elderly people, over 55s, are in a sustainable location, and they have evidenced existing parking provision capacity in the area, and a condition will be attached to ensure the flats are for over fives on the basis that that is the justification. There are also bike stores located in the flats and in the rear of the dwellings, and there's a buggy storage area within the over 55s building. So highway improvements will be secured under highway legislation, and a contribution will be required towards a traffic regulation order, so the cost is covered by the applicant, which the applicant has agreed. The tree officer, landscape officer, and ecologist have no issues with the loss of the trees or the proposals in general, which have been amended to reduce their impact on the trees. As I said, the trees to be lost are predominantly C category, low value. The two B category are not protected by TPOs. And we will be looking for replacement tree planting at a ratio of 3 to 1. Noise assessment has been submitted. The main source, unsurprisingly, is from traffic along St. John's Crescent, but mitigation measures would be included in the build, and there's no objection from the public protection manager. Evidence of bats has been found in terms of the existing building, so an EPS license would be required from National Resources Wales, given the survey found some usage. But as I said, we expect that license to be forthcoming. Finally, you'll note in the report that the loss of the existing accommodation does raise equality duty issues, but it's conditioned that a condition requiring the southern development be constructed first would overcome this. So this, the southern element would be built first. This is what NCH have indicated to us, and we're securing by condition. That would allow, then, for the existing residents to be decanted into the new building, and then for the existing properties on the north to be demolished. So overall, the proposal is considered acceptable. The officer recommendation is for approval, subject to conditions, and a section 106 agreement with regards to the affordable housing provision and the contribution for the traffic regulation order. Thank you, members. Thank you, Andrew. We do have one speaker, which is, I hope he's in favor of this, because he's a developer. So Liam, please. Thank you, chair and members of the planning committee today for the opportunity to present. Yeah, I'd like to thank the officer for a good presentation and for addressing the main planning considerations within his report. As you'll be aware, the application's been recommended for approval. The proposals include 43 affordable homes, made on behalf of Newport City Homes, and this form is part of their regeneration strategy for Newport and the wider area. In terms of affordable housing need, a response was received from the housing strategy officer on the 22nd of February. This states that the overall increase in the number of units is positive, and the provision of a mixed development is welcomed. Up-to-date information has been received from the council's housing officer, which confirms that there are currently 7,200 households on the housing register. This demonstrates there is significant demand for more affordable housing in Newport. The highways officer provided the final set of comments on the 31st of May of this year. The comments confirm no objections subject to the imposition of planning conditions. In relation to parking, the scheme will provide 13 spaces for the 29 over-55 flats in the 7 parcel, 20 spaces for the 9 flats and the 5 houses in the northern parcel, a total of 33 spaces for 43 homes. As existing, there are 23 flats, which are served by 16 car parking spaces. A car ownership survey was undertaken by Newport City Homes, and from a sample of 16 of the residents at Oak Road, there was only 6 who owned a vehicle. This equates to an average car ownership of 38% at the current properties. This also correlates with Newport City Homes officers' on-site experiences when reviewing the number of cars parked at the flats. Based on a car ownership rate of 38%, of the 29 over-55 flats, there would be a demand for 11 spaces, 13 spaces are being provided on-site. It is also noted that Newport City Homes will decant the existing residents from Oak Road directly to the new over-55 flats. Further to the above, an overnight parking survey was undertaken on 17th and 18th of May 2022. The car parking survey found there to be sufficient parking capacity on the streets surrounding the proposed development. Should there be a demand for off-site parking generated by the development, this could be accounted for. As the tendency of the proposed development will be similar to the existing, this suggests that the parking demand at the proposed development will be low, and therefore a reduced level of parking as proposed in the planning application is considered to be appropriate here. The proposals include two sets of flats. Those on the northern parcel are three storeys, and the height is as per the existing flats. The flats on the southern parcel will park a step up to four storeys and will introduce a new building to the former Keir Homes site. The fourth storey is recessed from the building edge to reduce any impacts on neighbors. The applicant has worked closely with planning officers to ensure that the flats are appropriately positioned. The proposed houses are largely in line with the scale of the existing flats, appearing as two storeys from St. John's Crescent and three storeys from Oak Road due to the level difference. The houses are positioned slightly closer to St. John's Crescent than the existing flats, and this position has been agreed with officers. The new dwellings will be compliant with Welsh Government design requirements and include solar, PV, EPCA rated properties, all electric with no gas, and as the grid decarbonizes, the properties will become net-zero in operation. The proposals will deliver critical affordable housing on Brownfield land, which is a finite resource across Wales. As set out in the Committee report, there are no objections from all consultees to the LPA, including highways, trees, landscape, environmental health, ecology, land contamination, and external technical consultees. The applicant has worked very closely with the officers to arrive at a design solution for the site, which addresses both planning, highways, and design concerns. Members are therefore respectfully requested to approve the application in line with the officers' recommendations. Thank you very much. Thank you. I now open the floor to questions. Do any Councillors have any questions? Councillor Jordan? Yeah, thanks, Chair. Just a few I've got. With the waste officers regarding the amount of bins and the house for the flats, is that adequate, the number of bins for all the flats itself? Also as well, I've looked on the houses as well, how many parking spaces are for the houses? Also, with the electric charging points, I've seen in the conclusion on page 46, they've given four electric charging points for the accommodation over 55s. Is there anything for the houses for the charging points there, or can they be able to use the electric charging points actually on the site with the flats? Also as well, if we went back to your drawing on the L shape of the flats, on the top, on the fourth floor, there was like a bit of a green area, is that an open space for the flats itself? And if so, the flats below, how far distance is that between those two flats distance from the two properties, or is it a joint together? Okay. Is that it? Okay, thanks. Thank you, Councillor. In terms of the waste officer, there's no objections from the waste officer. As I said, they've seen the layout. The applicants are aware of what they need to provide, and they've provided waste storage areas within the design of the development. In terms of parking for the houses, each dwelling would have two parking spaces. That is, as I said, the applicant has submitted a sustainability appraisal, allowing for a reduction of one space per bedroom, so that is over provisions marginally, but two is acceptable for those properties. The southern building would have four ultra-low emission vehicle charging points for all residents of the development, and I think there's one for the northern block of flats as well, off the top of my head. So again, could be used, they're all going to be under the same ownership in terms of Newport City homes. In terms of the flat roof green space, it is proposed as a green roof. It's not indicated to be used as an amenity area, but for the avoidance of doubt, we could put a condition on to say that it's not. I suspect there are sufficient distances, but it is higher, and I would be more than willing if members accept the officer recommendation. I think it would be useful to add a condition onto that effect. And also, if you put the drawing up for me as well, that one there, yeah, if we look where we've got the green space there, is the flat there joined together as a nail shape, is it, or is it just a space between the two of them? It's joined together. It's joined together. So what view with the flats on the north side, then look again to the other side there, distance wise between wind and a window? So in terms of the layout. So what you've got, this is the actual floor plan of the flats. So these are the two stories here. This is a community room here, solid wall here. So there's no potential for looking from these flats easily into those or from those into here, but obviously you do have the communal garden, which will be used by everyone. But as I did note in the presentation, and you might not be able to see it very clearly, this is an overhang just in front of the building, so they do have some private space just in front of what is their bedroom and kitchen. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Councillor Reynolds. Thank you, Chair. My first comment really is about obviously the need for affordable housing and social housing and it's been well documented. So I think this is a very sort of welcome development for the area in terms of the accommodation for the existing residents. It seems to be a massive improvement as well, so my first instinct is to go along with officer recommendations. I did have a few concerns about cycle provision, electric vehicle facilities and service facilities, but they all seem to have been dealt with by conditions, unless I've misread it, but that seems to be the case. I've got a couple of questions, though. In section 5.4 on page 23, there was a request that it be not from the plans that bin stores are present, but do not give dimensions. With the above recommendations in mind, please confirm that bin stores will be adequate sized to house and move the bins. Has that been confirmed? I've got a couple of other questions as well. Should I give them all to you now? Yes, please. Yeah. Okay. On page 24, there was a recommended conditions regarding air quality. Are those conditions enforceable in any way or are they just general guidelines that may or may not be followed? And there's also a comment on page 26, section 5.8 about the maintenance of the gardens. Obviously some people aren't going to be capable of maintaining those gardens to a level that you might want them to. Are there provisions in place from Dukeborough City Homes, I would imagine. I don't know whether you're able to answer this or not, but alternative provisions to maintain those gardens where people aren't capable of doing it themselves. And finally, on page 27, section 5.9, there was a comment as well about just confirming that the lawns are going to be actual grass lawns, not the artificial grass. Has that been confirmed as well because I do think in the current climate that is very important. Thanks, chair. Thanks, Councillor. So in terms of the bin provision, I'm not sure whether it has been confirmed, but there is a condition in terms of waste storage condition 15 is being attached requiring details. With regards to air quality, we've obviously got to be very careful about what we can and can't request. So we can't necessarily request anti-idling of vehicles. It's not within our remit. Someone could drive down that road and do whatever they wanted, but we can make suggestions in terms of some signage, things like that. They do have ultra-low emission vehicle charging, which we will secure by condition. In terms of the maintenance of gardens, and this does lead into the artificial lawn, one of the things is obviously some residents may not want large properties. Newport City Home will be aware of who are going into those properties themselves. They'll have some control over that. Some people do like gardens. So as I said, what we're trying to promote is obviously that those gardens are predominantly grassed. As I said, there's a lot of benefits to having grass gardens as opposed to astroturf, etc. We've got a condition on about landscaping, so the detailed landscaping will be confirmed with us in due course, as I said, the landscaping condition is condition six. Thank you. Thanks. Thanks. Okay, thank you. Any further questions? Councillor Harvey? Mine is a quick one. The four charging spaces, are they in addition to the 16 that's there, or are they extra? There's no ultra-low-emission vehicle charging at the moment on the site. So the five charging spaces would be new spaces. Would be included with the 16 spaces they're going to put there. So it's 16 in total? No, five new ultra-low-emission vehicle charging spaces total. Yeah, thank you. Any other Councillors online like to ask a question? No? Councillor Watkins? Thank you, Chair. Could I have the first plan up in regards to the north development and then the south development, please, Andrew? And then the turning circle on the northern development, I believe it is. Or the turning area, should we say. No, that one's fine. Okay, so where is the turning area for the southern part of the development? But no vehicle is going to turn in that area, is it? So if they drive in there, they've got to reverse back out. But they're using the parking space opposite, aren't they? But if there's vehicles parked in those parking spaces opposite, then they're not going to turn. So if we got the refuse vehicles driving in there to empty them. "But at the moment, as I said, I was also asking for a solution, I didn't know, of course, if they're possibly coming, if in which. But at the moment, this is the end of the thinking back here. The parking area, I decide and settle, drive in to the new building space. The vehicles can, by the end of turning, come back out. So I'm not sure if that's the case. I'm not sure if that's the case. Okay. So the other thing is, affordable homes, will they be in perpetuity? Yeah, so policy compliant provision would be yes. Okay. The other thing is, I'm concerned about there's no visitors parking at all. So I assume they're going to have to be parking on the highways. So there's one visitor space indicated specifically as a visitor space, which is at the northern end for the dwellings. But there is sufficient capacity for visitor space on the street. Okay. One other thing is, if we had affordable homes being developed elsewhere, take the number of five or six, we would be asking for education contribution. At the present time, on 100% affordable housing schemes, the supplementary planning guidance says we will not request contributions towards education and leisure on 100% affordable housing schemes. Okay. So it's only on 100% affordable. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councillor Watkins. Any further questions? Councillor Jordan. Yeah, just another question, access to the existing estate as well, and to the roads to the other houses, what sort of provisions are given towards them for the residents actually living on the estate? Because the work is being done at the beginning of it, what about the residents behind? What sort of impacts do you give to them? So as usual on a development like this, we have attached a condition, which is condition four, requiring a construction environment management plan. So that will look after noise disturbance, and we do have other statutory powers in place as well to ensure the impact is reduced, kept to a minimum as much as possible. Yeah, and that was on page 44 as well, on the CMS highways, on about details of hours of work and everything else, will that be in, with that as well? We tend to find hours of work in its best place for pollution control, because they have a more responsive system than we have to address any issues in that regard. So we as a council have control, but it's about finding the best tool to do that. And in this case, as I said, we consider hours of construction, they've got far greater powers to get things resolved quickly than we have. Okay, thank you. Any further questions from the panel? I just have one, and it does say on another page that it's not a planning problem, but it does say that the south side is going to be built first, and occupants will go to the south side, while the south, would they have the option to go back to the south side? So at the moment, as I said, that the properties are left by Newport City Homes, so it would be within their gift if someone wanted to go back to the northern side afterwards. But what it does ensure is that the residents can move, stay in the same locality, have first-class facilities compared to what they've got, and then, as I said, for Newport City Homes to decide if residents did feel strongly, I suspect they could potentially go back. Okay, thank you. Okay, then there's no further questions, and the recommendation is to be granted with conditions. I ask somebody to propose, please, Councillor to second, Councillor Reynolds. Could the two Councillors on screen put their cameras on, please? Councillor Orton? Sorry, Jake, it's gone bad. Okay, could all those in favour please raise their hands? Okay, okay, that's past renouncement, thank you very much. And also before we finish on this, I'd like to thank the applicants for the quality of the presentation with the photographs and 3Ds, thank you. Okay, we're going to move on now very shortly to the well-sorted presentation, but Andrew would like to make the announcement first. Yeah, thank you, Chair. It's just to make members aware, Joanne Evans is retiring next week. So I would like to place on record the local planning authorities, thanks to Joanne. I understand she's worked for the authority for circa 25 years and has dedicated, very dedicated to the service, and we're sorry to see her go. She's helped me massively since I've been here in the last couple of years to understand why we do certain things and where we come from, and has given advice on a whole range of legal planning matters and has been very helpful to me, and I know she's helped all of the team and members as well during that period. So you'll note later in Audit Wales, in the planning service review, they talk about the excellent service you get both from, thankfully, US officers, but also Joanne and the legal team, so it is recognised. And on the retirement, as I said, I just want to wish Joanne all the best for the future. Thank her for her service, and obviously wish her a very happy and healthy retirement. So thank you, Joanne. Yes, I'd like to back that up as chair of the planning committee, for those who have been on here for the last few years, and I'm sure for all those who have been on here for the years that you've been here, yes, we wish you all the very best in the future. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Joanne. Okay, Andrew, would you like to go on to the next one? Thank you, Chair. So we've got two Audit Wales reports to bring to you today. So we do have, just to let you know, we do have two members from Audit Wales, Ian Phillips and Alison Rees, who undertook the second audit. So after I've presented the second audit, I will hand over to them. But the first audit is with regards to sustainable development, so I'm just going to share my screen again, and just go through a very quick presentation with you on the sustainable development one. Right, thank you. So the first audit is the sustainable development-- That is the full screen because of everything else going on, sorry. So yeah, the title is sustainable development, making best use of brownfield land and empty buildings. So the review was undertaken between January and August 2023, and sought to understand the key barriers to councils enabling brownfield regeneration. The review utilized a variety of methods, including document review, local interviews, focus groups, national interviews, data collection, and website review. Their key conclusion was, despite notable amounts of brownfield developments being delivered by councils, regeneration could be increased significantly with a more systematic interventionist and collaborative approach. By drawing on successful approaches elsewhere and more focused planning, councils could be better equipped to overcome significant barriers. So other findings then included, councils have a broad but not comprehensive understanding of the built environment and potential for regeneration. While some regeneration is being delivered, the focus is still on easier to achieve projects. Councils are not always taking on an ambitious interventionist approach to tackle long-term standing barriers. Councils are able to name barriers to brownfield regeneration and repurpose in empty buildings but are not utilizing learning from elsewhere to overcome them. It's challenging to measure progress in delivering brownfield regeneration due to weaknesses in data and its management. And the review identified five recommendations for consideration, three for councils and two for the Welsh government. So the council's response, we have had to provide an organization response form to Audit Wales which we have done. That is located in your gender pack. This is an all Wales review, it's not just our authority. So the first recommendation, it's on the right-hand side there, it is in your report. And it is, to enable stakeholders to assess potential sites, councils should create a systematic process to find and publicize suitable sites for regeneration. This should draw on data already held by councils as well as external data sources to develop a composite and more complete picture of sites. And where known, key barriers should be named to help efforts to overcome them. So the council has confirmed firstly in the response that it will develop a brownfield land register and will seek further guidance from Welsh government to ensure consistency and avoidance of duplication with other existing policies and registers. If it's going to be useful, we need to make sure that we're doing the same as other authorities. Fundamentally development in Newport is predominantly built on brownfield land. So the latest annual monitoring report for the LDP confirmed that 91% of housing was developed on brownfield land in the year 2022-23. As a local authority, we're already effectively implementing our sustainable development objective in respect of supporting the use of brownfield land. However, it should also be noted that not all brownfield sites are in sustainable locations. And allowing residential development on land in unsustainable locations is also contrary to the policies of sustainability. So we undertake a city center's first approach, but it's not just the fact that it's been previously developed, we've got to consider other things as well. So the principle of providing a brownfield land register is not opposed, but the format for the register should be clear to ensure consistency and usability across all authorities. So the authorities of the view, the guidance should be produced by Welsh government, providing clear requirements for content in order to avoid duplication, and the authorities indicated that the completion date for that will be the 30th of April, 2025. Recommendation two is to help ensure that regeneration activity and the shaping of the environment is informed by the needs of communities. Council should increase the opportunities for community-based involvement in regeneration, both in plan-making and actual development. So in terms of the response, the response from Newport is that no further NCC action is required. We already, engagement and consultation are already embedded in the delivery of the planning and regeneration services. In respect to the replacement local development plan, there's an approved delivery agreement with the Welsh government, which includes a statement of community involvement, and the requisite consultation requirements are prescribed in legislation. An engagement strategy has been agreed for the place-making plan, including stakeholder and focus group meetings, so the authority is positively engaging with users and stakeholders of the city in that regard. Recommendation three, to provide focus and impetus to developing brownfield sites, Council should review their current regeneration approaches and, where appropriate, set clearer, more ambitious regeneration policies and targets. Together, they should set out the approach and expectations of the Council, set out how their approach will be resourced, and set out how the approach aligns with national policy goals and regional planning priorities. The Council response is that policies and commitments are already clearly identified in the corporate plan, local development plan, and service plan. The completion of the place-making plan will complement these strategies alongside the replacement local development plan. These documents will reflect the Council's approach and ensure alignment with national and regional policy. The suggestion that more ambitious targets should be set also ignores the issues of resources. This is fundamental to the ability of local authorities to become involved in unlocking and delivering on brownfield sites. Funding is a significant issue, and without the availability of capital funding or the ability to commit to significant borrowing, we are reliant on external funding sources. Smaller empty properties are a longstanding issue in all town and city centres, and Newport is proactive in using enforcement powers to target prominent sites. However, these enforcement powers cannot force owners to bring a building back into use. We proactively use our enforcement powers to force owners to invest in the appearance of the building with the expectations that this will encourage them to seek a return through either selling them or letting the premises. In terms of the Welsh Government recommendations, in addition to the above, the two recommendations are on your screen. Recommendation four, to help enable stakeholders to assess potential sites of the Welsh Government, should work with councils to ensure that listings of identified sites for regeneration are reported by council area and produce a national listing informed by the local listings and through working in conjunction with other public sector bodies. That's recommendation four. Recommendation five is to help inform scrutiny of performance both locally and nationally. The Welsh Government should create a national framework for monitoring and assessing levels of brownfield sites being developed compared to levels of sites available and levels of greenfield development. In conclusion, it must be recognised that the Audit Wales Review into the Sustainable Development of Brownfield Land is an All Wales document, and Newport is already ensuring development utilises brownfield land where it is sustainable. The review overlooks practical resource issues to a degree and could have gone further, such as suggesting the introduction of premiums to non-domestic rates for empty properties, for example, to provide additional levers to resolve the problem. The council is already incorporating several of the measures espoused in the recommendations, but there are still issues at a national level around planning policy, such as 10-15 development of flood risk. You know, these issues have remained since 2021, and whilst we're hopeful they will be resolved soon, they still persist. So that's all from me, members on the first Audit Wales Review. If members have any comments or anything they'd like to add, then please feel free to do so. Anyone have any questions? No? Okay, thank you. Oh, sorry. Councillor Watkins. I haven't seen you for so long, I keep forgetting you. I'll wear a funny tie next time. Top of page 54 of R1, this should draw on data already held by councils as well as external data sources to develop and compensate a more complete picture of the sites. So I understand in regards to discussing it with other councils, but who is going to hold that data? Is it going to be Welsh Government, the housing minister, or somebody has to hold that data so you can collaborate with other councils? So that's what I'd like to know, who's going to hold out all that data? So the suggestion is that we bring together information we already have and get other say data sources and bring them together, and we would hold the Brownfield Land Register. We would then share that with Welsh Government as well, is the expectation. But what we want to be clear on as an authority is what Welsh Government want. We don't want to do something, Cardiff do something different, Torvine do something different, and these Brownfield Land Registers are useless because if you're trying to compare a site in Newport to Cardiff or Torvine, you want to be able to have a full picture. So what we're saying is we're happy to do it, we need some guidance before we do it to avoid abortive work. So what you're saying, the data which we gather will go to the Welsh Government Housing Minister to collaborate with other councils and other councils to draw on that data as well? It wouldn't be for other councils, it would be for developers. But we would bring the data together, publish it on our website, that's what's done in England, but we also share that with Welsh Government so they have an overall picture. Okay, thank you, Chair. Okay, thank you, I'll move on to the second presentation now, which is Newport specific. Right, okay, this is a planning service review into Newport, once I find my page. So in December 2022, Audit Wales confirmed that they would be reviewing the planning service as part of their 2023-24 work programme, focusing on the governance arrangements and performance of the local planning authority. The review was subsequently undertaken by Audit Wales in February/March 2024. This involved a desk-based review of existing processes and protocols, observation at planning committee meeting, series of interviews with officers and members as noted in the project brief, and some of you may have been interviewed for that. The Audit Wales report was issued in April 2024, and that is attached as Appendix 4. The authority has submitted its organisational response form in advance of reporting to planning committee, outlining how we will address the recommendations from the report that's attached as Appendix 5. So as I've said, we do have two members of the audit team present online, and I'll hand over to them after my presentation. So in terms of the overview, the Audit Wales report outlines the key findings of this work, looking at enforcement, planning policy, and development management. The review findings were generally positive, and the key finding was this. The planning service is flexible in its use of resources in supporting the delivery of the council's well-being objectives, but there are opportunities to strengthen service planning and data quality. So other findings of note to include, the planning service is supporting the council in its delivery of its well-being objectives and reviews and uses its resources to enable this. There's a positive and supportive culture within the planning service, but there are gaps in service planning arrangements, and it's not maximising the functionality of its IT system. The planning service is taking action to improve its performance, but there has been incorrect reporting which raises concerns about data accuracy, and while there is some reporting of the performance of the planning service, the service has identified opportunities to enhance its performance reporting arrangements. Significant staff and issues have affected performance in the timeliness in determining planning applications, and members understand their role and responsibilities, however, there are inconsistencies between the planning committee code of practice and the council's constitution, and there are some gaps in the planning committee procedures. So you'll see on the bottom of that page there is the first recommendation for the authority, and it refers to service planning. The planning service should strengthen its service planning arrangements to reflect the breadth of the service's activities and contribution to the council. This would help it better demonstrate its value to the council and provide a clear focus for future service improvements. It would also help the council monitor the performance of the planning service and facilitate greater accountability of its performance. So our summary response is there are opportunities to update and expand on the service plan in the new regeneration and economic development service plan, which is in the process of being prepared. This will allow overarching objectives to be widened, additional key actions to be included. It will link back to performance indicators and clarify how they will be captured and reported to members. It's acknowledged that the service plan should reflect the range of services delivered and the positive contribution the service makes to the council and the wider public. Allied to this, the service plan will be updated to identify the key challenges, risks, and mitigating actions that the planning service is currently facing, including the risks around IT and staff recruitment, which has and will continue to impact on planning performance. So we've indicated that the service plan is in the process of being updated. Additional actions have been incorporated, and this will be finalized by October 2024. In terms of performance reporting, Recommendation 2 states the planning service should improve its performance reporting by reinstating, as intended, its annual planning performance report to allow members and the public to gain a better and more thorough understanding of the performance of the service, and restructuring, as intended, its Section 106 annual report to allow members and the public to gain a better and more thorough understanding of the allocation of Section 106 monies across the council and city. In response, we've said the annual planning performance report will be in reinstate this year and we will continue to look at identifying best practice from elsewhere. This will include data on a variety of indicators and outline challenges and successes in the previous financial year. A new format Section 106 planning contributions report will also be produced on an annual basis, identifying where development benefits will be delivered and providing more transparency. All of these documents will be linked back to the revised REDD service plan to enable improved accountability of performance across the planning and development service. These will be done in due course and reported to Planning Committee by October 2024. Recommendation 3, data quality. The council needs to assure itself that the planning service has robust data quality arrangements to ensure that it reports accurate performance data so that staff, members, Welsh Government and the public can place reliance on the integrity of the data. One data action, our response is one data collection issue was, that was identified as part of the audit, has been resolved and links back to the next recommendation. The data submitted to the Welsh Government is automatically populated by the IT system but on a further investigation, issues with recording information correctly has resulted in some minor errors. These inputting errors are being addressed with the team through further training. The service will continue to monitor and review data before submission to ensure that the information is accurately captured in the first instance to give confidence in the system. So formal training will be programmed in with all offices of the planning service in conjunction with the IT service provider to improve how the system supports the service. It's anticipated this will be completed by December 2024. Recommendation 4, the council needs to improve staff training on the planning services IT system to ensure full use of the system's functionality, improve recording and reporting of performance data and improve efficiency. As noted in the Audit Worlds report, the service introduced a new IT system in 2020, just prior to the pandemic and the opportunity for training was limited during the pandemic. While staff have developed a good operation knowledge of the system because they've had to, it is acknowledged that it's not been utilised to its full potential and further formal training will be provided. So again, in conjunction with the timescale for above, this will be provided by December 2024. The final recommendation is with regards to governance arrangements and our five states. The council should strengthen its planning services governance arrangements by ensuring the planning committee arrangements and procedures as stated in the planning committee code of practice aligned with the arrangements stated with the council's constitution, reviewing the balance of time local ward members have to speak on planning applications at committee meetings as compared to applicants and objectors, clarifying the role and voting rights of a planning committee member when addressing the committee in their capacity as a local ward member who's called a planning applications committee, to reduce the risk of conflict of interest or predetermination and providing all members with training on planning committee procedures and an overview of planning matters. So our response is that the planning committee protocol and code of practice will be updated to correct inaccuracies and inconsistencies with the council's constitution. This will also include a review of the time local ward members are allocated to speak at the committee meeting using best practice from other LPAs, clarification on the role and voting rights of planning committee members who have called a planning application to the meeting will be sought from the monitoring officer and added to the code of practice. All members will be offered further training on committee procedures and given an overview of planning related matters. So the time scale for this, the code of practice and council constitution will be updated by December 24 or the earliest date thereafter that's possible under council procedures. In conclusion, the Audit Wales review into planning service has been informative and provided an independent overview of the existing arrangements already in place as well as identifying areas for improvement. In general, the conclusions are positive and acknowledge that the planning service is clear of value and is a key enabler of the council in delivering its wellbeing objectives. However, there are further opportunities to strengthen key areas within the red service plan and the review noted the positive and supportive culture of staff within the service who work hard to ensure they ensure sustainable development. So that is positive that the attitude of staff has come across positively. The review also noted the planning service has seen improved performance in a wide variety of performance indicators and that positive changes are proposed which would see greater reporting on planning performance and service delivery. Understandably, the audit also noted some areas that the planning service needs to improve on. This is not unexpected when participating in an independent audit process and the points raised are considered reasonable. As with all changes, it's important that value is added to the process and change results in improvement. The council's proposed organization response reflects this and agreed changes will be in implemented in due course with those already in development coming through earlier. Thank you members. I'll pass over to Ian, I believe he will be speaking on behalf of audit Wales. Thank you. Hi. Yeah. Thanks Andrew. Thanks very much for that. I've done a very good job of presenting that report for me actually. So I don't propose to go through the reports in any depth given that overview you've just had. I just wanted to say that we've reviewed the organizational response form. We think it's a good response, we're content with it and the actions outlined in terms of responding to the recommendations. We it's quite an extensive review. We interviewed a lot of people, some of which are on this call, it's a very constructive engagement throughout and that has been carried through to the organizational response form and you know we see that as positive. So like Andrew says, there's a lot of positives albeit there are five recommendations, there are a lot of positives coming out of this review but Alison and I here if you'd like to ask us any questions, thanks. Thanks Ian. Members, do you have any questions for officers or audit Wales? One question, clarification really. You mentioned about staff training when doing the reviews, subject to the review being done. Will members have the opportunity to have an input into those reviews? If not, then could we have a session set aside to discuss the reviews on the reasons why those changes have been made in regards to the reviews? So in terms of the training, this is how we as officers use the backline system. So it's not, as I said, it's a complicated system and it's about ensuring officers are aware what they need to record and where. So that's all it's about, that training element that will be undertaken. We will have to report back once it's been done to advise yourselves, governance audit committee that we have achieved the timescales as set out. Yes, what I'm looking for is a set time for members to look at those changes of the review which you've done so we're aware of the regulations that have been put forward. Okay, yeah, I can arrange that in due course once we've undertaken the training with officers. Councillor Reynolds. Thank you, Chair. My question is to do with training as well, actually, it's a point of raise before about member training. Obviously, when we first come onto the planning committee, we have initial training. At that stage, especially for new councillors, newly elected councillors, at that stage, you don't know what you don't know. Obviously, you take the training, you receive the training, but you don't necessarily understand the context or the background behind it. So it does mention in the report about refresher training and I would say refreshers of the initial training, but also further training. I think we're all two years plus into our roles on planning committee now and we have a much better understanding of the backgrounds and the context behind that training, but it really is important to think that we have that refresher on a regular basis and also the further training to take things forward. I've got a second point as well, if I can. There was a point raised about ward members speaking during planning committee. I'm just wondering whether there's any scope to look at public speakers as well. I'm thinking of one in particular going back a few months ago, obviously I'm not going to raise the actual incident, but I know we have had instances where we've had public speakers speaking in favor or against a particular application, but they're only allowed to speak once. I can remember one in particular where there was a difference of opinion, a very significant difference of opinion between officers' recommendations and officers' views and the speaker, and I just personally felt that as a planning committee member, when it came to the time to vote, I only felt I had one side of the argument because we weren't allowed, we didn't have that scope to re-question the public speaker. So I'm just wondering, is there any scope to look at that so that public speakers could at least answer questions, not necessarily speak a second time, but at least answer a question if something comes up in that context? Thank you, Councillor. In terms of the first part, member training, you're all aware you can ask the trainer anything you like at any point. I do think it might be useful to add a topic to the agenda, just in terms of future member training. I think that will be useful as a reminder for members, as I said, on anything they specifically want to raise, they can do so. So I think we can do that. But I will happily look at having more training if it's, as I said, we can have a discussion about what you think will be useful to arrange more training. We're going to have to train the new members, obviously, of planning committee, and get involved with that in the first instance, and then we can go from there if that works for you in terms of training. With regard to public speakers and the Code of Practice, you'll note one of the recommendations is we do have to look at that again later this year, and I think that would be the appropriate time to consider it. I can't say we'll definitely do it, but we'll definitely look into it, look at what other authorities are doing and some of the issues around that. Councillor Ripley. Thank you, Chair. A lot of the questions are being covered by colleagues here. I don't know what's happened to me because I've actually enjoyed the Ordered Wales presentation and the response from planning officers. I'm not quite sure if I'm in an altered universe, but I think it's written well, it's written in plain English, and it makes a lot of common sense. When I go to item 12, so if you look at item 12, it says at the time of our review, the service has vacant enforcement of the position, the rollers remain vacant for several months, and the planning services have been unsuccessful in fulfilling it. Well, they haven't just sat back and accepted that. They've now looked outside the box, and because we understand the pressures of filling these roles in planning and other areas within the authority, not necessarily just the planning department, I think the introduction or rather than an additional student planner role with a focus on enforcement actually will help. It will help reduce pressure on the planning officers that are covering the enforcement side of it and other ways. So I guess I would like to congratulate the planning authority and the officers at Ordered Wales at this stage for recognising and for looking outside the box and trying to attract those that they can attract, and yes, I don't know what happened to me this morning, so thank you. Thank you for your input, Councillor Oakley. Okay, is that, I don't know whether Alison would like to come in and talk. I don't feel you have to. No. Okay. Yeah, on my behalf, as I said, thank you, members, and thank you, Ordered Wales. As I said, it was done in the spirit of collaboration, and it was, as I said, a very useful process to go through, so thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, thank you both for sitting through our meeting today and being patient. Thank you. Thanks, Chair. Sorry, just a quick one. I know over the years since I've been on the planning committee for seven years, previously when you had a speaker, British, and ward members in their ward, normally the ward members would always get a chance to speak first. Over the last, like, couple of years, it's never, it's sort of stopped. You know, they've normally got the first point of call to come to a first to speak on behalf because it's their ward, I just want to know the reason why that has stopped now. Is it due to be different, be the change, or? I'm not aware, Councillor, I don't know whether it's just an informal practice that has taken place or whether it has set out something. Again, we can look at that in terms of the code of practice for committee members going forward. I think it was just a courtesy that we were offering, you know, before, I don't know why that slipped, really, but obviously you get the opportunity to speak anyway, so. Okay, we'll look at that. Councillor Wachlands and yourself have been on the committee a lot longer than some of us, so you would remember that, and perhaps we could, we'll have a look. Councillor Wachlands, will you put your mic on, please? In regards to the member, ward member speaking, sometimes a ward member is not on the planning committee, and they are allowed to speak, besides the applicant as well. Yes, that's, well, we do have a protocol for the ward member to be able to speak, yeah. Okay, any further questions? No? Okay, I think that's, sorry? Yeah, just the final item on the agenda is the appeals, the Zoom, which is for information only. Okay, thank you all for attending, and I shall see you all next month. Thank you.