THIS DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE IN LARGER PRINT AND WELSH UPON REQUEST You are welcome to correspond in Welsh or English / Mae croeso i chi ysgrifennu yn Gymraeg neu Saesneg Civic Centre, Pontypool, Torfaen NP4 6YB Tel01495 762200 Fax 01495 755513 Y Ganolfan Ddinesig, Pont-y-pŵl Torfaen NP4 6YB Ffon 01495 762200 Ffacs 01495 755513 www.torfaen.gov.uk M:\Deputy Chief Executive\SSU - Democratic Services\Planning Committee\Agenda Pages & Reports 2013\15 October 2013\151013 agenda page.doc CHIEF EXECUTIVE Prif Weithredwr Alison Ward CBE Your re/Eich cyf: Please contact/Cysyllter â Ros Gwynn Our ref/Ein cyf: RG/DS.PLG/P1 Direct line/Llinell union: 01495-766057 Date/Dyddiad: 8 October 2013 Direct fax/Llinell ffacs: 01495-766059 Email: [email protected]Dear Councillor You are invited to attend a MEETING of the PLANNING COMMITTEE to be held on TUESDAY 15 OCTOBER 2013 at 4:30pm in COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIVIC CENTRE, PONTYPOOL to consider the business set out in the attached agenda. Members of the public, who have objected to a planning application, can exercise their Third Party Speaking Rights, provided they have given 2 working days notice to Democratic Services. Members of the public have the right to speak in English or Welsh; instantaneous translation facilities will be provided in Welsh as long as this is requested at the time of notifying Democratic Services that they wish to speak at the meeting. The applicant has the right of reply to the objector. Gall aelodau o’r cyhoedd, sydd wedi gwrthwynebu cais cynllunio, ymarfer eu Hawliau Siarad Trydydd Parti cyn belled â'u bod wedi rhoi rhybudd o 2 ddiwrnod gwaith i'r Gwasanaethau Democrataidd. Mae gan aelodau’r cyhoedd yr hawl i siarad yn Saesneg neu Gymraeg; caiff cyfleusterau cyfieithu ar y pryd eu darparu yn Gymraeg cyn belled ag y gwneir cais amdanynt pan roddir rhybudd i’r Gwasanaethau Democrataidd o’u dymuniad i siarad yn y cyfarfod. Mae gan y ceisydd hawl ateb y gwrthwynebydd. Yours sincerely Rosalyn Gwynn Lead Officer Regulatory Support On behalf of Alison Ward CBE CHIEF EXECUTIVE To: Councillors: Norma Parrish (Chair), Ron Burnett, Pamela Cameron, Leonard Constance, Veronica Crick JP, David Daniels, Stuart Evans, Alan Furzer, Keith James, Robert Kemp, Mandy Owen, Jessica Powell, Philip Seabourne, Barry Taylor JP, Wayne Tomlinson and Neil Waite Officers: Chief Planning & Public Protection Officer, Head of Development Control, Group Leader, Transportation & Highways Development, Assistant Chief Legal Officer For Information Only: All Other Members and all other Chief Officers For Information: Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer, Lead Officer Member Development and Civic Responsibility and Leader’s Office Manager
Transcript
THIS DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE IN LARGER PRINT AND WELSH UPON REQUEST You are welcome to correspond in Welsh or English / Mae croeso i chi ysgrifennu yn Gymraeg neu Saesneg
Civic Centre, Pontypool, Torfaen NP4 6YB Tel 01495 762200 Fax 01495 755513 Y Ganolfan Ddinesig, Pont-y-pŵl Torfaen NP4 6YB Ffon 01495 762200 Ffacs 01495 755513
You are invited to attend a MEETING of the PLANNING COMMITTEE to be held on TUESDAY 15 OCTOBER 2013 at 4:30pm in COUNCIL CHAMBER, CIVIC CENTRE, PONTYPOOL to consider the business set out in the attached agenda.
Members of the public, who have objected to a planning application, can exercise their Third Party Speaking Rights, provided they have given 2 working days notice to Democratic Services. Members of the public have the right to speak in English or Welsh; instantaneous translation facilities will be provided in Welsh as long as this is requested at the time of notifying Democratic Services that they wish to speak at the meeting. The applicant has the right of reply to the objector.
Gall aelodau o’r cyhoedd, sydd wedi gwrthwynebu cais cynllunio, ymarfer eu Hawliau Siarad Trydydd Parti cyn belled â'u bod wedi rhoi rhybudd o 2 ddiwrnod gwaith i'r Gwasanaethau Democrataidd. Mae gan aelodau’r cyhoedd yr hawl i siarad yn Saesneg neu Gymraeg; caiff cyfleusterau cyfieithu ar y pryd eu darparu yn Gymraeg cyn belled ag y gwneir cais amdanynt pan roddir rhybudd i’r Gwasanaethau Democrataidd o’u dymuniad i siarad yn y cyfarfod. Mae gan y ceisydd hawl ateb y gwrthwynebydd.
Yours sincerely
Rosalyn Gwynn Lead Officer Regulatory Support
On behalf of Alison Ward CBE
CHIEF EXECUTIVE To:
Councillors: Norma Parrish (Chair), Ron Burnett, Pamela Cameron, Leonard Constance, Veronica Crick JP, David Daniels, Stuart Evans, Alan Furzer, Keith James, Robert Kemp, Mandy Owen, Jessica Powell, Philip Seabourne, Barry Taylor JP, Wayne Tomlinson and Neil Waite
Officers: Chief Planning & Public Protection Officer, Head of Development Control, Group Leader, Transportation & Highways Development, Assistant Chief Legal Officer For Information Only: All Other Members and all other Chief Officers For Information: Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer, Lead Officer Member Development and Civic Responsibility and Leader’s Office Manager
Additional requirements
Please do not hesitate to contact Democratic Services on the number or email address below if you wish to attend a meeting and you would like us to take into account any special requirements you may have.
Induction loops for hearing aid users operate in Committee Rooms 1, 2 and 3. An infra-red system for use with headsets operates in the Council Chamber, (where we also use microphones). Please contact us if you require a headset.
Agendas and copies of reports can be provided in large print, on audio cassette and, where print deadlines permit, in Braille. Please contact us for further details.
All Committee Rooms are accessible by Wheelchair. Please contact us before the meeting and we can ensure that the room is arranged appropriately.
Cyfieithiadau Cymraeg Os hoffech dderbyn copio’r agenda hwn neu unrhyw adroddiad arall yn Gymraeg, cysylltwch â ni ar y rhif ffôn neu’r cyfeiriad e-bost uchod. Welsh Translations If you would like a copy of this agenda or a particular report in Welsh or any other Community Language, please contact us on the telephone number or email below.
We support the responsible use of social media to share, comment on and discuss the content of council meetings. You can follow Torfaen Council on Twitter @torfaencouncil and Facebook www.facebook.com/torfaen
THIS DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE IN LARGER PRINT AND WELSH UPON REQUEST You are welcome to correspond in Welsh or English / Mae croeso i chi ysgrifennu yn Gymraeg neu Saesneg
Civic Centre, Pontypool, Torfaen NP4 6YB Tel 01495 762200 Fax 01495 755513 Y Ganolfan Ddinesig, Pont-y-pŵl Torfaen NP4 6YB Ffon 01495 762200 Ffacs 01495 755513
3. Minutes of Planning Committee held on 17 September 2013
1 - 4
4. Planning Appeals 5 - 7
5. Planning Applications
8 - 29
Date of next meeting:
4pm, Tuesday November 2013 in the Council Chamber
Members are reminded to consider any possible declarations of interest and to seek advice on these before the committee meeting or site inspection visit. Please contact Tim James on 01495 – 742667 or Lynda Willis on 01495 - 742660 or if you would like to discuss any issues.
THESE MINUTES ARE DRAFT AND WILL REMAIN SO UNTIL CONFIRMED AS A CORRECT RECORD BY THE COMMITTEE AT ITS NEXT MEETING
Agenda Item 3
MINUTES OF MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OF TORFAEN COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL
held on Tuesday 17 September 2013 at 4pm to 4:20pm in Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Pontypool NP4 6YB
NB: The agenda for and the reports presented to this meeting are available to view at:
Councillor Norma Parrish (Chair) Councillor Ron Burnett
Councillor Alun Furzer Councillor Robert Kemp
Councillor Pamela Cameron Councillor Veronica Crick JP Councillor David Daniels Councillor Stuart Evans
Councillor Jessica Powell Councillor Philip Seabourne Councillor Wayne Tomlinson Councillor Neil Waite
Officers: in alphabetical order Andrew Ferguson Planner Ros Gwynn Lead Officer Regulatory Support Tim James Assistant Chief Legal Officer Richard Lewis Head of Development Control Duncan Smith Chief Planning and Public Protection Officer Paul Wheeldon Group Leader Highways and Transportation Others: There were no members of the press and public in the Public Gallery. Action 1. APOLOGIES 1.1 Councillor Apologies were received from Councillors Len Constance, Keith
James and Mandy Owen and Barry Taylor JP was absent.
2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 2.1 2.2
The Assistant Chief Legal Officer reminded members that they needed to complete the declaration of interest form in the attendance register folder if they were declaring a personal interest in any application. The following personal interests were declared:
1
THESE MINUTES ARE DRAFT AND WILL REMAIN SO UNTIL CONFIRMED AS A CORRECT RECORD BY THE COMMITTEE AT ITS NEXT MEETING
Councillor Interest
Norma Parrish Agenda Item 7 13/P/00260
Personal interest only as a member of Pontypool Community Council who had been consulted on the application
3. MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMITTEE HELD ON 13 AUGUST 2013 3.1 Members AGREED that the minutes of the Planning Committee
meeting held on 13 August 2013 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.
4. NOTIFICATION OF PRESENTATION BY THE DIRECTOR FOR THE
PLANNING INSPECTORATE FOR WALES
4.1 The Chief Planning and Public Protection Officer (CPPPO) pointed out an
error on page 18 of the report in paragraph 2.1.3. The report should read that the Appeal was allowed by the Inspector.
4.2 It was AGREED unanimously to note the report. 5. NOTIFICATION OF PRESENTATION BY THE DIRECTOR FOR THE
PLANNING INSPECTORATE FOR WALES
5.1 The CPPPO informed the committee that the Inspector would be delivering
his presentation to a number of planning committees and it was planned to present to members immediately prior to the October Planning Committee.
5.2 Members were told that the presentation would include information on
several matters including local development plans, material planning considerations, awarding of costs at appeals and overturning officers’ recommendations. The CPPPO asked members to forward any questions for the Director to planning officers by 7 October.
5.3 It was AGREED unanimously to note the report. 6. STUDY INTO THE OPERATION OF PLANNING COMMITTEES IN WALES
FINAL REPORT JULY 2013
5.1 The CPPPO explained that this was the final report following on from a
number of workshops that had been held involving members and officers. He made the following points to the committee:
The study had found there were a number of differences across
2
THESE MINUTES ARE DRAFT AND WILL REMAIN SO UNTIL CONFIRMED AS A CORRECT RECORD BY THE COMMITTEE AT ITS NEXT MEETING
Wales and it was felt there should be more uniformity There had been recommendations on the number of members
serving on Planning Committees Torfaen had been largely in line with the proposed recommendations It was planned to introduce a national protocol to deal with 90-95% of
applications under delegated powers: Torfaen was currently achieving just under 90%
Planning Committee was in place to act as a third eye and TCBC performance in respect of householder applications was in the top quartile
Torfaen did not receive a lot of complaints in relation to planning applications
5.2 Cllr Evans suggested that it might be worthwhile to visit other planning
committees. The CPPPO explained that the previous Chair of Planning and some officers had attended Newport City Council’s planning committee some months ago and added that it might be possible for members to visit other authorities should they wish to do so.
5.3 It was AGREED unanimously to note the report. 6. PLANNING APPLICATIONS 6.1 Change of use of first and second floors from community facilities to
eight no. one bedroom flats whilst retaining community facilities at ground floor level at The Play Station, 1 to 6 Ty Rosser Gwyn, Garndiffaith, Pontypool – application no. 13/P/00260
6.1.1 The CPPPO reminded the committee that a site visit had taken place to the
premises and the site notes were included in the agenda.
6.1.2 Cllr Wayne Tomlinson, Ward Member, said that the site visit had been
warranted and was pleased that so many members had attended that visit. He referred to the past history of anti-social behaviour in the areas and said that he understood that most of the concerns were outside the remit of the Planning Committee. Cllr Tomlinson felt that lessons could be learnt from past mistakes and that ward members had serious concerns about the planning application. He said that he would therefore abstain from voting.
6.1.3
Members then commented as follows (in summary): There were understandable concerns about historical anti-social
behaviour There were no sound planning reasons for refusal and therefore
supported the officers’ recommendation Accommodation of this type was much needed in the valley but
understood concerns about previous problems in the area The application was in an area where there was a dearth of this type
3
THESE MINUTES ARE DRAFT AND WILL REMAIN SO UNTIL CONFIRMED AS A CORRECT RECORD BY THE COMMITTEE AT ITS NEXT MEETING
.
of accommodation Some of the concerns expressed fell outside the planning remit and
there was enthusiasm about the project as it could change the lives of young people
TCBC should show due diligence to whoever used the community building in future and any changes that would occur
The conditions attached to the application had been well considered but who would police Condition 5?
Concerns had been previously raised about the fire escape
6.1.4 The CPPPO responded as follows:
TCBC would police Condition 5 Building Control would deal with any issues surrounding the fire
escape and the access gate
6.1.5 It was AGREED with 11 members voting for and one member
abstaining to APPROVE the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.
6.1.6 Cllr Waite as acting Chair, thanked everyone for attending and closed the
meeting at 4:20pm
Signature …………………………………………… Date……………………… Councillor Norma Parrish, Chair of Planning Committee Councillors who left the meeting briefly (e.g. for a comfort break) during an officer presentation or a debate are not listed in the minutes above as having left and returned. Councillors are only listed as having left/returned if they were absent from the Chamber when a decision was taken. Minutes written by Ros Gwynn, Lead Officer Regulatory Support on 22 August 2013
4
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 PLANNING COMMITTEE 15 OCTOBER 2013 PLANNING APPEALS Report submitted by: Duncan Smith, Chief Planning & Public Protection Officer Report written by: Richard Lewis, Head of Development Control 1 Purpose of Report 1.1 To inform members of planning appeals which have been made to the
Welsh Assembly Government and their subsequent determination. 2 Report 2.1 Appeals Decided 2.1.1 APPEAL BY MR BRIAN ROBERTS AGAINST THE DECISION OF
TORFAEN COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR THE ERECTION OF GARAGE, REAR GROUND FLOOR EXTENSION, FIRST FLOOR BEDROOM EXTENSION AND ALTERATIONS AT BOURNE, HAND FARM ROAD, NEW INN, PONTYPOOL (APPLICATION NO. 13/P/00136).
DECISION: APPEAL DISMISSED
This appeal relates to the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a garage, ground floor extension, first floor bedroom extension and alterations. The application was refused for following reasons:
1. The proposed development comprises the erection of a side
extension, rear extension and large dormer structure, the dormer structure is considered to be an unacceptable prominent feature out of character with the nature of the street and is considered to detract from the visual appearance of this part of Hand Farm Road given no other bungalows on the row have dormers, furthermore it would be detrimental to the integrity, character and appearance of the locality. Therefore the development would be contrary to Policy G1(A)(iii) of the Torfaen Local Plan.
2. The plans submitted with the application have inaccuracies
between the existing and proposed ridge height to satisfactorily determine the application and therefore cannot form the basis of an acceptable and precise level of detail to support a full planning permission.
5
The Inspector considered the representations received from neighbours. In this regard, he considered that the proposal would not result in any overlooking or loss of light, which had been raised.
The Inspector considered that the main issue was the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. With regard to the accuracy of the plans, the Inspector stated that as the appellant clarified that taking account of dpc level, the measured height of the roof from the ground would be 5.25m, he did not consider this to be a significant change in the drawings or the scale and nature of the development.
In dismissing the appeal, he did not consider that the proposed rear extension, front roof alterations or the garage would result in any significant visual harm to the area’s character and appearance. However, he accepted the Council’s position that the proposed rear dormer would result in a large and prominent feature that would be visible from public and private views from Coed Y Cando Road. He concluded that the dormer would result in an overly dominant and incongruous addition which would harm the modest simplicity of the existing dwelling and the general character and appearance of the surrounding area.
The appeal was therefore dismissed.
2.1.2 APPEAL BY MR & MRS RIDEOUT AGAINST THE DECISION OF
TORFAEN COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL TO REFUSE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR A PROPOSED WORKSHOP / GARAGE AT THE MANSE, LAMB LANE, PONTHIR (APPLICATION NO. 13/P/00026).
DECISION: APPEAL ALLOWED
This appeal relates to the refusal of planning permission for the construction of a workshop/garage in the front garden. The application was refused for following reason:
1. Given the scale, massing and position of the proposed
workshop/ancillary building, in a restricted area between the front of the existing property and the adjacent highway, the proposal represents overdevelopment of the site and would have a significant adverse impact upon the visual amenities of the streetscene. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy G1a criteria i, ii, iii and iv of the Adopted Local Plan.
The Inspector considered that the size of the proposed building (5.9 x 6 metre footprint and 5.4 metres in height) would not appear excessive in the front garden of the property. He considered that - taking into account the proposed materials - the building would ‘present an attractive appearance within the streetscene’.
6
The Inspector considered that local residents’ concerns regarding the loss of on-site parking space, impact on the drainage system and the potential commercial use of the building could be addressed through the use of conditions.
The appeal was therefore allowed.
Recommendation(s): 1. That the contents of the above report be noted. Appendices None Background Papers
Note: Members of the public are entitled, under the Local Government Act 1972, to inspect background papers to reports. The following is a list of the background papers used in the production of this report. None
For a copy of the background papers or for further information about this report, please telephone: Richard Lewis, Head of Development Control (Tel. 01633 647628)
7
AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 PLANNING COMMITTEE 15 OCTOBER 2013 PLANNING APPLICATIONS Report submitted by: Duncan Smith, Chief Planning & Public Protection Officer Report written by: Richard Lewis, Head of Development Control 1 Purpose of Report 1.1 To present details of and recommendations on, planning applications which this
Committee has powers to determine. INDEX No. APPLICATION
NUMBER PROPOSAL & LOCATION WARD RECOMMENDATION PAGE NO.
alterations & associated works to existing public house to create a class A1retail unit at Pontnewydd Inn, Commercial street, Pontnewydd, Cwmbran
Pontnewydd Approval 15-29
Recommendation(s): 1. That the contents of the above report be noted. Appendices None Background Papers
Note: Members of the public are entitled, under the Local Government Act 1972, to inspect background papers to reports. The following is a list of the background papers used in the production of this report. None
For a copy of the background papers or for further information about this report, please telephone: Richard Lewis, Head of Development Control (Tel. 01633 647628)
8
DATE OF COMMITTEE: 15-Oct-2013 APPLICATION NO. 12/P/00542 RECEIVED: 10-Feb-2013 PROPOSAL: Extension and alterations to changing facilities
9ND AGENT: Mr C Fieldhouse Forgeside RFC Forgeside Sports & Social
Club, 100, Broad Street, Blaenavon, Torfaen, NP4 9ND REPORT BACKGROUND The application relates to an existing changing room facility for Forgeside RFC, located adjacent to Clapham Terrace, Forgeside. The application is located within the Blaenavon Industrial Landscape World Heritage Site (BILWHS). Permission is sought to substantially enlarge the building by constructing an extension to the front elevation of the structure and installing a new roof. The building currently has a rectangular footprint and the proposed extension would give a more square form. The building would increase from a footprint of 13.3 metres wide and 7.8 metres deep to 13.3 metres wide and 11.8 metres deep. The maximum height of the building would increase from 3.8 metre to 5.8 metres. The Rugby Club has declined the Case Officer’s request to amend the design of the proposed extension to address an objection raised by the Authority’s Conservation Officer. The Club has requested that the application be determined as it stands. POLICY CONTEXT Planning Policy Wales Technical Advice Note 12: Design (TAN 12) TAN 12 promotes good design. The Policy document notes the importance of ‘Designing in Context’, advising that ‘Understanding the site and its immediate and wider context is the basis for meaningful and sustainable design response’ (Paragraph 3.13). Paragraph 5.6.2 states,
9
‘In areas recognised for their landscape … and/or historic value, such as … World Heritage Sites … the objective of sustaining character is particularly important. The general aspects of the “character” objective of good design should be pursued but more detailed information may be needed in relation to key issues’. Key issues identified which are of particular importance in this instance are; - the degree of architectural unity or informality in building groups and settlements
and in the landscape - the setting and views of key buildings, landscape, parks and gardens,
archaeology and skylines , to and from the area, - locally distinctive facing materials such as natural slate, brick quoins or natural
stone in both buildings and the public realm Planning Policy Wales 2012 edition 5 (PPW) Planning Policy Wales (PPW) recognises the need to protect World Heritage Sites, such as Blaenavon (Paragraph 6.5.24).
World Heritage Sites are a material consideration to be taken into account by local planning authorities in the determination of planning application …The impact of development proposals on both sites and their settings should be carefully considered.
Adopted Torfaen Local Plan 2000 The site is located within the urban boundary of Blaenavon. The application therefore needs to be considered in the context of policies G1 and G5 of the Torfaen Local Plan together with Policy H7 as the site is part of the industrial landscape of Blaenavon (World Heritage Site.) Policy G1 is a general policy which sets out criteria against which all planning applications will be assessed. These include the requirement for the proposal to respect the architectural layout and existing character of the area, as well as the setting of the site. A proposal should not have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of any neighbouring properties. Policy H7 does not allow development which would adversely affect or visually impinge upon the historical landscape of Blaenavon. BLAENAVON WORLD HERITAGE SITE DESIGN GUIDE SPG This document sets out design principles for development within the World Heritage Site. This document advises that where alterations and extensions are proposed to existing Post World War 1 buildings ‘universal principles of sound, sympathetic and responsive urban design needs to be applied, with an awareness and understanding of the overarching heritage context of the WHS’ (para 4, p13). The document states that such buildings should be ‘polite to its neighbours and is as sympathetic as possible to the overall setting and outstanding universal values of the WHS’ (section
10
2.4, p42). The document sets out design principles for extensions to these properties; of particular relevance in this instance are the following criteria, - Materials should match and / or be sympathetic with the existing building and
surrounding context. - The overall form and massing of any extension should be sympathetic to the
surrounding street scene and the character of the building it is being added to.
ISSUES ARISING FROM CONSULTATION The Authority’s Highways Engineers do not object to the proposal. The Authority’s Conservation Officer objects to the proposed extension; he considers the proposed design and materials of the extension to be inappropriate in the BILWHS. The poor quality of the materials proposed, especially the fake metal tiles are a further cause for concern. He considers the proposal would have an adverse impact upon the visual amenities of the area and fails to meet the requirements of Policy G1a of the Local Plan and the Blaenavon Industrial Landscape World Heritage Site. RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS IN THE DETERMINATION OF THIS APPLICATION Residential amenity: G1a The extension would be located over 25 metres from the nearest residential property on Clapham Terrace. The proposed extension does not include any windows and therefore there are unlikely to be any issues of overlooking. The proposal would not generate a significant increase in visitors to the site. In view of these matters, the proposal is unlikely to significantly impact upon the residential amenities of local residents. Highway Safety: G5 The Authority’s Highways Engineers do not object to the application as they consider the proposal would not generate a significant increase in vehicular trips to the site and there is an existing public car park adjacent to the playing field associated with the changing rooms. Visual Appearance/Design: G1a, H7 The application seeks to extend an existing changing room building utilised by Forgeside RFC. The existing building is of poor quality and is an unattractive building but it is relatively small in scale – it is of limited height and footprint – and is located in a sheltered position predominantly screened within the wider landscape to the north-east by a conifer hedge. This application seeks consent to extend the footprint of the building by approximately 50% (from around 100 sq metres to around 150 sq metres). There is no objection to the principle of an extension of this scale but the design of any extension is critical to ensure that the proposal does not adversely impact upon the visual amenities of the immediate area and the World Heritage Site landscape.
11
The application proposes to create a building with a square footprint and the height of its roof would be raised by 2 metres to 5.8 metres. It is considered that a building with this form and mass would adversely impact upon the visual amenities and historic character of the area as it would be more prominent than the existing building and fails to respect the historic form of buildings in this vicinity. It has been suggested to the applicants that the design of the extension be amended to create a shallow rectangular building with a lower roof, which would better integrate into the historic landscape and reflect the form of traditional industrial buildings scattered around Forgeside and the wider World Heritage Site. The applicants have declined to amend the scheme accordingly and have not provided justification as to why this more sensitive approach is unacceptable. Officer concerns regarding the acceptability of the material for the proposed new roof have also been conveyed to the applicants. The application proposes to install decra tiles on the new roof, which are considered to be unacceptable as they would not reflect the historic character of the area. This is particularly concerning given the proposed height of the building. Whilst the use of natural slate would be welcomed by the case officer, it is recognised that this would inevitably be susceptible to vandalism and/or theft. It has therefore been recommended to the applicant that a corrugated tin or lead effect roof system be installed which would respect the historic industrial nature of the area. The applicants have declined to use a more appropriate roofing material and have not provided justification as to why this more sensitive approach is unacceptable. It should also be noted that the existing row of conifers to the north-east of the application site could be removed at any point which would expose the proposed structure within the wider landscape. In conclusion, whilst the proposal is acceptable in terms of highway safety and residential amenity, there are significant concerns regarding the design and visual appearance of the proposed extension. Whilst there are strong concerns regarding the proposal in its current form, the Case Officer recognises the benefits of the proposed extensions to the Club and is therefore keen to help the applicants achieve an acceptable scheme at the site. It is worth noting that the amendments suggested by the case officer – both in terms of footprint and roof materials – would be more cost effective for the Club, as well as visually acceptable. The proposed ‘square’ footprint coupled with the increased roof height and associated decra tiles would result in a building which would have an adverse visual impact upon the immediate area and would fail to respect the historic character of the BILWHS. It is therefore recommended that consent be refused as the proposal is contrary to Policies G1a and H7 of the Local Plan and the requirements of the BILWHS Design Guide SPG. IT IS RECOMMENDED: Refuse
1. The proposed scale and mass of the proposed extended building, coupled with the proposed roof material, fails to respect the historic character and visual amenities of the immedaite area and the Blaenavon Industrial Landscape World Heritage Site
12
(BILWHS). The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies G1a and H7 of the Local Plan and the requirements of the BILWHS Design Guide SPG.
13
14
DATE OF COMMITTEE: 15-Oct-2013 APPLICATION NO. 13/P/00398 RECEIVED: 13-Sep-2013 PROPOSAL: Extension, external alterations & associated works to
existing public house to create a class A1retail unit LOCATION: Pontnewydd Inn, Commercial street, Pontnewydd,
Cwmbran, NP44 1AE APPLICATION TYPE: Full Planning APPLICANT: Duke Street Investments Ltd Pontnewydd Inn, Commercial
Number One, Waterton PArk, Bridgend, CF31 3PH REPORT BACKGROUND This application is a resubmission of that presented to Planning Committee on both the 19th February 2013 and 19th March 2013 under planning application reference 12/P/00375. The application was presented with a recommendation for approval subject to a number of conditions. Concerns were raised by Members and a substantial number of third party objectors about highway safety issues relating to both parking and deliveries to the site. A petition containing approximately 2000 signatures was also submitted in this respect. Member discussion resulted in the application being refused on the 19th March 2013 for the following reason: The proposed extension and change of use of the premises will give rise to an increase in delivery movements to a site which has a substandard vehicular access, across a public footway. The increased traffic movements of heavy goods vehicles utilising the substandard access will give rise to unacceptable highway dangers for all users particularly those pedestrians passing the site. There is also potential for the access to be obstructed by parked vehicles which will give rise to unloading on the highway to the detriment of highway safety. The proposal is therefore considered to conflict with Policies G1G and R5B of the Adopted Torfaen Local Plan in that the proposal cannot be accessed without detriment to highway safety. Following the refusal of the application, the applicant has submitted an appeal to the Welsh Government which is due to be considered by way of a Public Inquiry on 7th January 2014. During the process of preparing for the Inquiry, the Council has taken advice which was reported to Planning Committee on 8th September 2013. In considering all the options, Planning Committee formally resolved not to contest the appeal. Following on from this resolution, the applicant was invited to submit a
15
further planning application for reconsideration by the Council. This application was therefore submitted on 13th September 2013. As a result of further discussions, the applicant has presented an additional element to the scheme of minor works to the layby to the front of the site to actively discourage parking across the access to the site. The premises the subject of this application comprises a public house which has been vacant since approximately December 2011. The use of the premises as a public house falls within Use Class A3 and on that basis, conversion of the premises to an A1 retail use is lawful under permitted development rights granted by Part 3, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. This application has been submitted to obtain planning permission for a side extension which would provide sufficient floorspace to make a small supermarket type shop viable. No potential occupier of the premises has been identified to date. A similar application has recently been considered by the Council at the former Mason’s Arms public house in Griffithstown under reference 10/P/00544(V). The application was presented to Planning Committee on 19 July 2011 and refused planning permission, in accordance with the Officer recommendation, on the grounds of insufficient parking provision and inadequate visibility at the site access. No appeal against this decision was submitted. In this case, it should be noted that there was no car parking provided within the site and the only car parking available was designated as ‘residents only’ parking. In addition the site was not located close to other facilities or within a neighbourhood / local centre and therefore differed significantly in circumstances from the application currently under consideration. It is also noted that a similar application submitted in Newport for a Tesco store was allowed at appeal in November 2008 with full costs awarded against the Council. In that case, the application site was previously occupied by a car showroom which benefited from permitted development rights, enabling conversion to a retail use without the need for express planning permission. The application proposed demolition and redevelopment of the site as a retail unit. The Council argued, against Officer advice, that the scheme would have a detrimental impact on the amenities of nearby residents and would result in illegal roadside parking and congestion. The Inspector held that the proposed access and parking arrangements were an improvement on the existing situation and given that the conversion of the site could happen without the need for planning permission, the proposals represented an overall improvement. As such, he concluded that the Council had acted unreasonably and awarded full costs against them. In that case, however, the scale of the proposed redevelopment in relation to the previous building on the site is unknown. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF SITE The application relates to the former Pontnewydd Inn public house, located at 1-3 Commercial Street in Pontnewydd village. The public house is a two storey, pitched roof building with an additional basement level accessed from the rear / side. It is positioned on the northern side of Commercial Street with a two storey rear section set at a lower level in line with the sloping nature of the site. A garden area is located to the east of the building and gated access / service yard to the west. The vehicular
16
access off Commercial Street slopes downwards through the site and exits via another access point into the public car park at the rear of the site. Pedestrian access is direct into the building from Commercial Street. The site is bounded by commercial premises to the west, the public car park to the north and a public footpath / cycle path to the east beyond which lies the A4051 Cwmbran Drive. The gated access to the site from Commercial Street is protected by ‘No Parking’ road markings set within a parking lay-by fronting the premises. The rear access to the public car park is secured by double gates. Information submitted in support of the application states that the public house benefits from a right of access across the public car park. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Permission is sought for a side extension to the building comprising a ground floor and basement. The proposed extension would comprise 185.5 m2 at ground floor level which would increase the potential retail area from 141.2 m2 to a total of 327 m2. At basement level, the extension would provide 94.8 m2 and would be used for goods storage. The remainder of the basement area would be voided. The existing residential accommodation to the first floor of the building would not form part of the development and would also be removed / voided to enable a greater ceiling height within the retail store. The proposed extension has dimensions of 9.5 metres width across the front of the site and a total height of 6.4 metres to the ridge which is set down 1 metre from the ridge of the existing building. The total proposed depth of the extension is 20.1 metres, approximately 0.5 metres longer than the existing building. The proposed roof structure comprises a pitched roof to match the existing building with a gable to the front part of the side elevation and extended to the rear with a hipped pitched roof at a reduced ridge height of 7.2 metres measured from the rear ground level. The rear central part of the roof structure comprises a flat roof at a height of 5.5 metres from the rear ground level. All materials would be to match the existing building, with black slate roof and white rendered finish to the external walls. Further refurbishment works are proposed to the external elevations of the existing building comprising a new aluminium shopfront and entrance doors to the front elevation. Existing windows to the front and side elevation would be blocked up but the recesses retained. Proposed signage would be the subject of a separate application for advertisement consent. Four car parking spaces, including one disabled space would be demarcated within the service yard area. An external bin store would be located to the rear of the site. A proposed area for plant has been identified but will be the subject of a separate future application. The extension as proposed would meet the requirements of national retail operators and would enable occupation of the site as a local convenience store providing top-up shopping facilities to the local area. Such a store could create 25 to 35 full and part time employment opportunities.
17
The existing site delivery access road and yard would be resurfaced and parking spaces demarcated to the western boundary of the site. Deliveries would enter the site from Commercial Street and exit via the public car park. It is proposed that deliveries be restricted to 8.5 metre rigid vehicles and to occur before 9am and after 5pm (Monday to Saturday) to avoid the busiest times on Commercial Street and in the car park. It is anticipated that there may be up to 4 deliveries per day. The proposed works include the realignment of the kerb to the pedestrian footpath at the exit of the car park onto Station Terrace. This is required to provide greater turning space for the delivery vehicles exiting the car park and would be secured by planning condition. Following further recent discussion with the applicant, an additional plan has been submitted proposing minor works to the layby to the front of the site. Proposed works include relocation of parking spaces to enable bollards to the front of the store, tactile pavements and dropped kerbs to the pedestrian footpath, double yellow lines and road markings. Documents submitted in support of the application comprise a Planning and Retail Statement (Mango Planning & Development Limited, July 2012), a Design and Access Statement (Mango Planning & Development Limited, July 2012), a Transport Statement (Acstro, June 2012) and a Parking Survey & Service Management Plan (Acstro, February 2013). POLICY CONTEXT NATIONAL GUIDANCE: Planning Policy Wales (5th Ed., 2012) promotes the location of retail provision within town and village centres both in relation to enhancing vitality and viability of those centres and also in relation to minimising travel and re-inforcing sustainable living. Within such centres, consideration of need is not a matter which should be taken into account. Paragraph 4.11.2 states that meeting the objectives of good design should be the aim of all those involved in the development process and such principles applied to all development proposals at all scales. Paragraph 4.11.9 states that the visual appearance of proposed development, its scale and its relationship to its surroundings and context are material planning considerations. TORFAEN LOCAL PLAN: The application site is within the designated urban boundary in the neighbourhood centre of Pontnewydd. The relevant local plan policies are Policy G1, G5 and R5. Policy G1 of the local plan prevents development that has an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of residents in adjoining or neighbouring properties and states that the design and visual appearance of proposals should respect the existing architecture of the area. Policy G5 specifies the highways criteria that all proposals would be assessed against, specifically referring to safe access, compatibility with the existing road
18
network, satisfactory parking provision, suitable servicing arrangements, provision for pedestrians and available servicing by public transport. Policy R5 provides for the provision, improvement or extension of small shops where they serve the immediate locality of an existing neighbourhood centre, where the proposal can be safely accessed and where the proposal is appropriately designed and does not comprise over development of the site. DEPOSIT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Emerging Local Development Plan policies BW1 and RLT8 are relevant. Policy BW1 provides for development proposals subject to considerations of amenity, design, and transport. Policy RLT8 seeks to strengthen the role and function of local and neighbourhood centres by ensuring that proposals are appropriate to the centre and improve the range and quality of facilities available. Supermarkets / general grocery stores are identified as key facilities within such locations. CONSULTATIONS HIGHWAYS: “My concerns remain with regard to vehicle manoeuvres from Commercial Street into the site. However I have to consider retail advice that considers the existing lawful use of the premises and the likelihood of success at any subsequent appeal if I continued to oppose this application on the single issue of vehicular access to the site. The plan submitted with the application indicates improvements to formalise the access, provision of double yellow lines and extension of the bay to make up for any shortfall that occurs as a consequence of the improvement. The plan will need some amendment as it indicates road markings that suggest in /out onto Commercial Street which is not acceptable also surface treatments will need to be considered. Nevertheless the principle is acceptable. Can you add the conditions that were attached to the previous application and add a Grampian condition about the improvements on Commercial Street.” ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: No comments. CWMBRAN COMMUNITY COUNCIL: No comments received to date. TRADING STANDARDS (LICENSING): No comments received to date. FORWARD PLANNING: I previously commented on this proposal for planning application 12/P/00375 and my comments at that time were as follows: “The Adopted Local Plan, on pages 58 & 59, identifies a number of Neighbourhood Centres throughout Torfaen. Pontnewydd has been identified as one of these centres. Paragraph 5.1.7 of the Local Plan highlights the vital importance of Neighbourhood Centres ‘to the local community, especially for the elderly and those without access to a car. They also promote a sustainable form of shopping as they encourage non-car based shopping’. The Local Plan or Proposals Maps do not identify the geographical boundaries of the Neighbourhood Centres. It is my
19
professional opinion that the Pontnewydd Inn is located within the Pontnewydd Neighbourhood Centre. The objectives for retail in Torfaen are also identified in the Adopted Local Plan on page 60. The objective is ‘Each of the shopping centres is important in different ways. Their role in the community is reflected by the type and range of functions to be found in any one of them, with the primary functions being those of retail and service uses. The existing shopping pattern plays an important role within the County Borough and the Council wishes to see this maintained and enhanced. The prime objectives can be summarised as follows:
1. To encourage and stimulate enhancements that will improve the shopping environment
2. To strengthen the existing shopping centres by encouraging the expansion of the range and variety of shopping available
3. To encourage the widest possible use of existing shopping centres by the community, utilising all available modes of transport
4. To protect existing shopping centres from proposals which would have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability
5. To maintain and enhance the functions of the existing shopping centres for the benefit of the whole community
The application also needs to be considered against Policy R5 which is concerned with the provision, improvement or extension of small shops. The policy identifies 3 criteria which applications for the provision, improvement or extension of small shops must satisfy and that all of the criteria need to be satisfied for an application to be approved. The criteria for Policy R5 are as follows: -
A - The proposal serves the immediate locality of an existing neighbourhood centre or an area where facilities are inadequate; B – The proposal can be accessed without detriment to highway safety; C – The proposal respects surroundings in terms of design and does not constitute an overdevelopment of the site in terms of layout and spacing around and between buildings.
The Reasoned Justification provides further clarification on the purpose of this policy as to ‘encourage the continued vitality of neighbourhood centres and shops, which provide a valuable service to local communities’. I will limit my comments to criterion A and in this case as identified previously the site is located within the boundaries of Pontnewydd Neighbourhood Centre and would therefore, serve the existing neighbourhood centre and comply with criterion A. In terms of National Planning Policy chapter 10 of PPW 5th (Ed) 2012 identifies ‘the Welsh Assembly Government’s objectives for retailing and town centres are to:
Secure accessible, efficient, competitive and innovative retail provision for all the communities of Wales, in both urban and rural areas;
Promote established town, district, local and village centres as the most appropriate locations for retailing, leisure and for other functions complementary to it;
Enhance the vitality, attractiveness and viability of town, district, local and village centres; and to
20
Promote access to these centres by public transport, walking and cycling’. The document identifies that ‘wherever possible this provision should be located in proximity to other commercial business, facilities for leisure, community facilities and employment. Town, district, local and village centres are the best locations for such provision at an appropriate scale. Such co-location of retail and other services in existing centres, with enhancement of access by walking, cycling and public transport, to provide the opportunity to use means of transport other than the car, will provide the greatest benefit to communities. This complementary mix of uses should also sustain and enhance the vitality, attractiveness and viability of those centres as well as contributing to a reduction of travel demand’. Paragraph 10.3.2 states that ‘…consideration of the need for additional provision is not a matter that should be taken into account when proposals for uses best located in centres come forward. It is not the role of the planning system to restrict competition between retailers within centres’. On this basis the applicant is not required to submit information showing that there is a ‘need’ for the proposal as it is located within the boundary of Pontnewydd Neighbourhood Centre and competition (perceived issues of diverting trade from other retailers) with other retailers located within the Centre is not a material consideration. The provision of additional retail facilities fits with the role of the Neighbourhood Centre and I therefore, recommend that from a retail planning perspective that the application should be approved subject to comments from Highways re criterion B of R5 and consideration of design in relation to criterion C of R5.” My comments on planning application 13/P/00398 remain as those outlined above and therefore, I offer no objection on Criterion A of Policy R5. GWENT POLICE (ARCHITECTURAL LIAISON): No comments received to date. WELSH WATER: No comments received to date however previous comments identified a public sewer crossing the service yard area of the site. Suggested conditions relating to foul and surface water discharges were considered appropriate. WALES & WEST UTILITIES: No comments received to date. CONSERVATION: The design for this conversion and extension was agreed previously under application 12/P/00375. As this proposal is identical to the design agreed during negotiations at that stage, the author does not wish to object to the current proposal. PUBLICITY SITE NOTICE: Two Article 12 Site Notices were posted to the front and rear of the site on the 13 September 2013. NEIGHBOUR NOTIFICATIONS: 2, R/O 2, 4 (Carpet Craft), 5, 6, 7A, 8 (Pontnewydd Pharmacy), 8/10 (Pontnewydd News), 11 (Vince Joe & Son), 12 (Victoria Gallery),
21
17, 22 (Aardvark Electrical) and 36-38 (Athena Flowers) Commercial Street; 12 (Newbold & Co Solicitors) Russell Street; Post Office, 2 (Hathways Estate Agents), 4 (Pontnewydd Fish Bar) and 13 (RJD Jenkins Opticians) New Street; 5 (Maz’s Hairloom), 24 and 52 Chapel Street; 5 (T4tech PC & Laptop Specialists), 9 (Richmond TV) and 11 (Richmond Wines Ltd) Richmond Road; 11 Paddock Close; 6 Park View; 29 The Ellipse; 93 Trinity Road; 33 Five Locks Road; 40 Wayfield Crescent; 37 Marl Court; 2 Meadowbrook Avenue; 6 Gloucester Close; and 81 Greenwood Avenue. REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED Two responses have been received raising objections as follows:
Potential impact on local businesses (competition leading to shop closures and job losses)
Loss of community spirit Other national supermarkets a short distance away Insufficient parking provision in Pontnewydd exacerbated by proposal Insufficient access to the site by delivery vehicles crossing a busy pedestrian
footpath Potential for delivery vehicles to block the road
RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS IN THE DETERMINATION OF THIS APPLICATION This proposal relates to the extension of the existing Pontnewydd Inn to enable the use of the premises as a small supermarket. Additional works would comprise a new shop front and provision of parking spaces within the existing service yard. The application is to be determined within the context of policies G1, G5 and R5 of the adopted Torfaen Local Plan taking into account all representations received and other material considerations as appropriate. The key issues relating to this application are the visual impact of the proposed works, parking and highway safety concerns, and management of deliveries. The Pontnewydd Inn is located within Pontnewydd neighbourhood centre and therefore the proposed extension to enable a viable retail use meets policy objectives set out in Planning Policy Wales (2012) and Policy R5 criterion A for the location / expansion of retail provision within town and village centres both in relation to enhancing vitality and viability of those centres and also in relation to minimising travel and re-inforcing sustainable living patterns. Planning Policy Wales specifically states that within such centres, consideration of need is not a matter which should be taken into account. The Council’s Forward Planning Officer confirms that the proposal complies with both Planning Policy Wales and Policy R5 criterion A: “The provision of additional retail facilities fits with the role of the Neighbourhood Centre and I therefore, recommend that from a retail planning perspective that the application should be approved subject to comments from Highways re criterion B of R5 and consideration of design in relation to criterion C of R5.” The proposal also complies with the emerging policy RLT5 where, in the policy justification, supermarkets / general grocery stores are specifically identified as key
22
facilities for local / neighbourhood centres. The Planning and Retail Statement (Mango Planning & Development Limited, July 2012) suggests that between 25 and 35 full and part time jobs would be created by the development. The Pontnewydd Inn occupies a prominent position on the northern side of Commercial Street at the entrance to Pontnewydd neighbourhood centre. The Council’s Conservation Officer previously identified the reputation of the building as an 18th century coaching inn and the oldest building in Pontnewydd. Whilst not of Listable quality, the building is identified as having architectural and cultural interest and contributes positively to the wider streetscape. Negotiation during the consideration of application 12/P/00375 resulted in an amended design for the extension to comprise a pitched roof extension set at a lower ridge height to the host dwelling which the Conservation Officer supported. Concerns relating to the existing eastern wall being obscured and the potential loss of a number of significant historic features, such as the upper windows and possibly the ground floor arch resulted in a proposed planning condition to formally record the building prior to any works being undertaken. The proposed new east wall remains completely blank and in relatively close proximity to the eastern boundary of the site. The Conservation Officer had previously identified that fenestration on this elevation could provide significant passive surveillance over the adjacent footpath / cyclepath which is well used however the insertion of fenestration would conflict with the internal operational requirements of the store. It is considered that a suitable lighting strategy along the eastern site boundary could address some of the concern and again, this could be secured by planning condition. The proposed shop front design is considered acceptable taking into account the commercial nature of the building itself and the locality. In assessing this proposal and the potential for a small supermarket that the extension would enable, it is necessary to consider the changes that could be made without requiring planning permission. As stated above, the previous use of the premises as a public house falls within Use Class A3 and could therefore be lawfully converted to an A1 retail unit without the need for planning permission (Part 3, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995). This would enable a retail store of approximately 140 m2 to the ground floor of the building. In these circumstances, the Local Planning Authority would have no control over related matters such as parking and delivery arrangements. In relation to highway safety there are specifically four principle matters for consideration:
1) whether or not the existing building can be considered to represent a viable fall back position;
2) whether the frequency/type of deliveries that would be associated with the extended unit and which would be conditioned as part of any consent would be significantly worse than deliveries that would be associated with the use of the existing building for retail purposes (unrestricted);
23
3) whether the proposed service management plan is appropriate and capable of successful operation; and
4) whether the highways concern relating to deliveries outweighs the overall planning benefits.
The Council’s Highways Officer had raised numerous concerns about the proposal during the course of the previous application, namely that there is insufficient parking provision to serve the premises and the public car park to the rear is at capacity; parking in the lay-by to the front of the premises on Commercial Street may obstruct delivery vehicles entering the site; delivery vehicles may extend from the rear of the site into the public car park thereby obstructing users of the car park during delivery times; and there is insufficient turning space for delivery vehicles exiting the car park onto Station Terrace. The Parking Survey and Service Management Plan were submitted to address these concerns and amended to incorporate additional information required during the course of the application. In terms of the parking provision requirement, the four spaces proposed do not meet the requirements of the CSS Wales Parking Standards for new retail development however in this specific case, the location of the site within the neighbourhood centre and the proximity of existing parking opportunities has meant that the Highways Officer does not object to the proposal on these grounds. The four proposed spaces would be identified for use by employees only. This would significantly reduce the potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians within the site and simplify the delivery procedure. The rear gates would be kept locked other than when specifically required to be open thereby reducing the likelihood of delivery vehicles extending into the car park whilst unloading and also removing the opportunity for the site to become a short cut for access to the car park from Commercial Street. The reduced number of vehicles entering the site and the fact that users would be employees would also enable tighter control to be made over the route of exiting the site to ensure that no vehicle exits onto Commercial Street where visibility is restricted. It should be noted that the proposal to relax the requirement of on-site customer parking in favour of staff parking is specific to this set of circumstances and does not provide a precedent for future applications either on this or on other sites. The location of the premises within a neighbourhood centre is also a material consideration and it is considered that trips to the new store could be combined with other destinations in the neighbourhood centre or could be made by transport modes other than the car. The site is served by a frequent bus service, is located on a cycle route and benefits from a wide pedestrian catchment. As stated above, the parking survey identified that the public car park is generally at capacity during normal working hours (9:30am to 4:30pm). As such, it is proposed that deliveries only occur outside these times, i.e. before 9am and after 5pm Monday to Saturday. Appendix 2 of the Parking Survey and Service Management Plan (SMP) (February 2013) demonstrates that an 8.5 m delivery vehicle could undertake deliveries wholly within the site with sufficient space to unload and manoeuvre cages to the ‘goods in’ point at the rear of the store.
24
Concern is still raised regarding the potential difficulty of vehicles accessing the site from Commercial Street when cars are parked within the lay by. ‘No parking’ markings are present on the road surface. The applicant has also submitted a plan for minor works to improve the layby and actively discourage parking across the access. The proposed works comprise the installation of bollards to the front of the proposed store, tactile pavements and dropped kerbs to the pedestrian footpath, double yellow lines and road markings. One parking space would be lost but replaced by the extension of the layby to the front of 9 and 11 Commercial Street. As such there would be no overall impact on parking provision. The final details of the proposed works could be conditioned. Appendix 4 of the SMP (2013) sets out a proposal for improving the access point from the car park onto Station Terrace. Improvement is needed due to the high frequency of parked vehicles on Station Terrace which is unrestricted. In order to provide for the safe passage of delivery vehicles from the car park onto Station Terrace, the kerb of the pedestrian footway would be re-aligned to widen the access itself. Such works would be conditioned to be completed prior to beneficial occupation of the retail unit. It is considered that some of the matters raised in the Service Management Plan, should be the subject of specific conditions on any planning permission which may be issued, and these are incorporated in the recommendation. It is considered that such conditions are enforceable. There is no evidence to suggest that the restricted number and frequency of deliveries to the extended store would be significantly worse than the unrestricted deliveries than could occur at present or in relation to the fall back position of an un-extended retail store. On balance, it is considered that the site comprises a suitable location for a retail use in that it is within a neighbourhood centre and that a retail use of the scale proposed is consistent with both national and local retail planning policies. The site is vacant and its regeneration in a defined centre will create local employment and help to maintain the vitality and vibrancy of Pontnewydd. It is considered that the fall back position of an unrestricted retail use within the current building is viable and that the controls imposed by the Service Management Plan would provide an overall improvement to the current and fall back positions. In conclusion, it is considered that the planning merits of the proposal outweigh the highways concerns. The proposed extension is therefore considered acceptable subject to conditions and the parking and highways arrangements can be controlled by way of the Service Management Plan and conditions. The application is in accordance with national policy guidance, policies G1, G5 and R5 of the adopted Local Development Plan and emerging policies BW1 and RLT8 and should therefore be approved. IT IS RECOMMENDED: Approve subject to Conditions
25
1. Permission is granted subject to the provisions of Section 91(1) of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990, namely that the development to which the permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of five years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted. REASON: To comply with the requirements of Section 91, Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the proposed plans, Drawings Nos. PL02 Rev B and PL03 Rev A submitted on 13 September 2013, together with plans 008A, 010A at Appendix 2 of the Parking Survey and Service Management Plan (February 2013). REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure compliance with the approved plan.
3. No development shall take place until there has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping to identify the surface treatment and management of the enclosed space to the front and eastern side of the building. The approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the beneficial occupation of the premises and maintained thereafter. REASON: To safeguard landscape and amenity interests.
4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), details of all new boundary walls, fences and other means of enclosure to be erected on the site, showing the height, design and materials, are to be submitted for the consideration and approval of the Local Planning Authority. Implementation shall be in accordance with the approved details. REASON: To safeguard amenity interests.
5. The external finish of the proposed building as shown on the approved plan shall be applied and completed prior to the occupation of the premises. REASON: To safeguard amenity interests.
6. The premises shall not be occupied until the area shown for parking on the approved plan has been drained and surfaced and that area shall not thereafter be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles. REASON: To safeguard highway interests.
7. Any gates installed at the site shall be of a type or so constructed or adapted that they are incapable of opening outwards over any part of the adjoining highway. REASON: In the interests of highway safety to prevent any obstruction to the highway.
26
8. No surface water shall be permitted to drain from the site onto the adjoining highway, or from thence into any highway drainage system. REASON: To safeguard highway interests.
9. All goods and materials shall be stored within the building. No equipment, goods, waste or other materials shall be deposited or stored in the open outside the building on the site. REASON: To safeguard amenity interests.
10. Details of a scheme for external lighting shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority and approved in writing prior to installation. The approved scheme shall be installed and operating fully prior to beneficial occupation of the premises. REASON: In order to provide suitable security and improve the safety of pedestrians within the site and on the adjacent cycle path.
11. No occupation of the development hereby permitted shall take place prior to the completion of the kerb re-alignment works to the car park access onto Station Terrace as set out in plan reference 009A attached at Appendix 4 of the Parking Survey and Service Management Plan (February 2013). REASON: To provide for the safe egress from the car park of delivery vehicles.
12. Deliveries to and servicing of the site shall not take place other than in accordance with the parking survey and service management plan dated February 2013 prepared by Acstro. REASON: In the interests of highway safety.
13. No occupation of the development hereby permitted shall take place prior to the completion of works to improve the lay-by and access into the site in accordance with full details which shall have been first submitted to and approved, in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interest of highway safety.
14. No development to which this permission relates shall commence until an appropriate programme of historic building recording and analysis has been secured, implemented and submitted to the Local Planning Authority in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: As the building is of historic significance, the specified records are required to mitigate impact.
15. Foul and surface water discharges shall be drained separately from the site. No surface water nor land drainage run-off shall be allowed to connect, either directly or indirectly, to the public sewerage system unless otherwise approved in writing by the
27
Local Planning Authority. REASON: To protect the integrity of the public sewerage system.
16. No deliveries shall be taken at or despatched from the site outside the hours of 17.00 and 09:00. REASON: In the interests of highway safety.
17. No deliveries shall be made to the premises from outside the site. REASON: In the interests of highway safety.
18. All goods and refuse to be removed from site shall be loaded onto vehicles within the site, unless otherwise approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of HIghway Safety.
19. No goods shall be delivered to the premises in vehicles exceeding 8:5m in length. REASON: In the interests of highway safety.
20. The car parking spaces shown on the approved plans within the site shall be provided prior to the retail use hereby approved commencing, and thereafter shall be retained and remain free for parking associated with employees at the site. REASON: To avoid conflict between delivieries and parked vehicles.
21. The use hereby permitted shall not be open to customers outside the hours of 7:00 and 23:00 hours. REASON: In the interests of residential amenity.
Note(s) to Applicant
1. The Development Plan covering Torfaen County Borough is the Gwent Structure Plan and Torfaen Local Plan. The following policies were relevant to the consideration of this application: a) Torfaen Local Plan, Policies G1, G5 and R5
