Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor J.E. Williams.

[Note: In accordance with paragraph 8a of the Members Code of Conduct Councillor Gareth Thomas left the meeting prior to consideration and determination thereof].

The Senior Development Management Officer (South) referred to the private site visit undertaken by the Committee earlier that day (Minute 3.1 of the Planning Committee held on the 11^th January, 2018 refers) the purpose of which was to enable the Committee to assess visibility and access to the site from Fforest Road.  He thereupon referred, with the aid of powerpoint slides, to the written report of the Head of Planning which provided an appraisal of the site together with a description of the development, a summary of consultation responses received and information on the local and national policies which were relevant to the assessment of the application.

The Committee was advised that the Head of Planning was recommending approval of the application for the reasons detailed within her written report.

Representations were received objecting to the application re-iterating the objections detailed within the Head of Planning’s Report with the main emphasis of the objections concentrating on concerns regarding the attenuation pond and head wall, the impact upon the overall character of the Llwchwr Valley Special Landscape Area and the capacity of the junction of Clos Benallt with the A48.

The Applicant, Senior Development Management Officer and the Assistant Engineer – Planning Liaison responded to the issues raised.

RESOLVED that:-

3.1.1    planning application S/35215 be refused contrary to the Head of Planning’s recommendation as the Committee was of the opinion that the development was contrary to LDP policies EQ6, TR3 and TAN 12;

3.1.2    the Head of Planning to submit a report to a future meeting detailing, for the Committee’s endorsement and suggested planning reasons for the refusal of the application based on the above.

The Senior Development Management Officer (South) referred to the private site visit undertaken by the Committee earlier that day (Minute 3.2 of the Planning Committee held on the 11^th January, 2018 refers) the purpose of which was to enable the Committee to view the site to gain a better perception of the location of the proposed nightclub in relation to the neighbouring properties.  

He thereupon referred, with the aid of powerpoint slides, to the written report of the Head of Planning which provided an appraisal of the site together with a description of the development, a summary of consultation responses received and information on the local and national policies which were relevant to the assessment of the application.

The Committee was advised that the Head of Planning was recommending approval of the application for the reasons detailed within her written report.

A representation from the local member was received objecting to the application re-iterating the objections as detailed within the Head of Planning’s Report. The Senior Development Management Officer responded to the issues raised.

RESOLVED that planning application S/35962 be granted subject to the conditions detailed with the Head of Planning’s written report.

The Senior Development Management Officer (South) referred to the private site visit undertaken by the Committee earlier that day (Minute 3.2 of the Planning Committee held on the 11^th January, 2018 refers) the purpose of which was to enable the Committee to assess whether the proposal could adversely impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property in terms of loss of light and to consider the character of the proposal in relation to the area.  He thereupon referred, with the aid of powerpoint slides, to the written report of the Head of Planning which provided an appraisal of the site together with a description of the development, a summary of consultation responses received and information on the local and national policies which were relevant to the assessment of the application.

The Committee was advised that the Head of Planning was recommending approval of the application for the reasons detailed within her written report.

Representations were received objecting to the application re-iterating the objections detailed within the Head of Planning’s Report with the primary areas of concern relating to the over-bearance and loss of light along with concerns that the application would result in a change of character to the street scene of Stradey Park Avenue.

The Applicant and Senior Development Management Officer responded to the issues raised.

RESOLVED that planning application S/36429 be refused contrary to the Head of Planning’s recommendation as the Committee was of the opinion that the development was contrary to LDP policy GP6 on the basis that the amenity of the proposed extension would adversely impact upon the neighbouring property in terms of loss of light.

[Note: Councillor Joseph Davies was not present at the Planning Committee held on the 11th December 2017 and therefore did not participate in the determination or vote on the decision of the application.]

The Senior Development Management Officer (South) referred to the private site visit undertaken by the Committee earlier that day (Minute 3.2 of the Planning Committee held on the 11^th January, 2018 refers) the purpose of which was to enable the Committee to view the site and its access in view of the concerns raised regarding highway safety.  He thereupon referred, with the aid of powerpoint slides, to the written report of the Head of Planning which provided an appraisal of the site together with a description of the development, a summary of consultation responses received and information on the local and national policies which were relevant to the assessment of the application.

The Committee was advised that the Head of Planning was recommending refusal of the application for the reasons detailed within her written report.

The local member who was in support of the application informed the Committee that the applicant had now signed the section 106 and that the neighbour on the right hand side of the property was amenable to discuss any developments required.

The Assistant Engineer – Planning Liaison responded to queries raised in relation to the possible visibility improvements on third party land at the site.

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that the planning application be deferred to enable the case officer to contact the applicant to discuss possible visibility improvements over adjacent third party land.

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on the
1^st December 2017 be signed as a correct record.

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on the
14^th December 2017 be signed as a correct record.