Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor P. Edwards and Councillor K. Lloyd.

[Note: Councillor J. James, having earlier declared an interest in this item, left the Council Chamber prior to the consideration and determination thereof.]

The Senior Development Management Officer (South) referred to the private site visit undertaken by the Committee earlier that day (minute 4 of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 7^th February, 2019 refers) the purpose of which was to enable the Committee to view the site and access arrangements.  He 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 proposed development, a summary of consultation responses received and information relating to local and national policies relevant to the assessment of the application. He advised that the Head of Planning was recommending approval of the application for the reasons detailed within her written report.

The Senior Development Management Officer (South) informed the Committee that recommendations for refusals had been received from Pembrey and Burry Port Town Council and that Local Members had responded on behalf of local residents.  The main issues of concern were in relation to the access combined with the current car parking situation in Parcyminos Street and the surface water drainage problems during periods of heavy rainfall. 

The Senior Development Management Officer (South) responded to the issues raised as detailed within the Head of Planning’s written report.

Members noted that the Head of Highways and Transport had not objected to the application and that they the recommendation was reflective of the established use of the site and the fact that the proposed development was considered a least intensive use of the site.

RESOLVED that Planning Application S/38052 be granted subject to the conditions detailed within the Head of Planning’s written report.

The Senior Development Management Officer (East) referred to the private site visit undertaken by the Committee earlier that day (minute 6.4 of the Planning Committee meeting held on the 13^th December, 2018 refers) the purpose of which was to enable the Committee to view the site and access arrangements.  He 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 proposed development, a summary of consultation responses received and information relating to local and national policies relevant to the assessment of the application. He advised that the Head of Planning was recommending refusal of the application for the reasons detailed within her written report.

The Senior Development Management Officer (East) highlighted to the Committee that the refusal recommendation number 2 within the Head of Planning’s written report should read as follows:

‘The proposal is contrary to paragraphs 9.3.6 of Planning Policy Wales (Edition 10, December 2018) which state:-’

The Senior Development Management Officer (East) reported that whilst Newchurch and Merthyr Community Council had no objection to the application, a number of concerns had been submitted along with letters from four neighbouring homes and a petition which contained twenty names.  The main concerns included were in relation to:

·         the lack of pedestrian facilities between the hamlet of Sarnau and the nearest village of Bancyfelin;

·         the speed of the road which being the national speed limit of a road with continuous traffic;

·         the private right of way through the application site to the rear of their properties to allow emptying of septic tanks/cess pits.

Further concerns were received from a neighbouring property expressing a number of issues relating to the proposed development which was detailed within the Head of Planning’s written report.

The Head of Highways and Transport had concerns in relation to the visibility standards at the location of the proposed access of the site in a westerly direction and that the application was contrary to Policy TR3.

The Senior Development Management Officer (East) and the Senior Technician (Planning Liaison) responded to the issues raised.

RESOLVED that Planning Application W/37267 be refused for the reasons detailed within the Head of Planning’s written report.

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that the following planning applications be granted subject to the conditions detailed within the Report/Addendum of the Head of Planning and/or reported at the meeting.