Venue: Chamber - County Hall, Carmarthen. SA31 1JP. View directions
No. | Item | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Additional documents: Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J.A. Davies and K. Madge. |
|||||||||||
DECLARATIONS OF PERSONAL INTERESTS Additional documents: Minutes: There were no declarations of personal interest. |
|||||||||||
TO CONSIDER THE HEAD OF PLANNING'S REPORTS ON THE FOLLOWING PLANNING APPLICATIONS (WHICH WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF EARLIER SITE VISITS BY THE COMMITTEE) AND TO DETERMINE THE APPLICATIONS Additional documents: |
|||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: The Development Management Officer (East) referred to the private site visit undertaken by the Committee earlier that day (see Minute 3 of the Planning Committee Meeting on the 9th March 2017), the purpose of which had been to enable the Committee to view the site in relation to neighbouring properties. He referred, with the aid of presentation 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 the 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 the written report.
Representations were received objecting to the proposed development. These included:
· The size of plot was too small for the proposed development. · There was still Welsh Water apparatus / infrastructure crossing the site. · The development would have a detrimental impact on the privacy / amenity of the occupiers of Bryngoiallt. · The development would lead to disturbance and noise pollution for the occupiers of Bryngoiallt, particularly due to holidaymakers coming and going and the use of an electric generator. · Inadequate parking on the site. · The development would impact on the security and health of the occupiers of Bryngoiallt.
Representations were also received in support of the proposed development. These included:
· The application was an unique and unusual proposal for a brownfield site and redevelopment of such sites was actively encouraged by both national and local policies. · The conversion of the existing structure was for business use. · The neighbour opposing the development bought their property in the knowledge that this was an industrial site. · Welsh Water was happy with the parking proposals and the plans for the site. · The electric generator was a modern appliance which would produce very little noise. · Access to the site was not a problem as demonstrated by the Committee’s site visit bus accessing the lane. · The development would benefit the area as a whole, bringing in tourists to the area. · As outlined in the report, the neighbouring residential curtilage had been extended below the application site even though it had not previously been part of the immediate garden area.
RESOLVED that:
3.1.1 The following planning application be refused, contrary to the Head of Planning’s recommendation, on the basis that it would not comply with the relevant planning policies of the Carmarthenshire Local Development Plan, namely Policies TSM4 and H5.
3.1.2 The Head of Planning submit a report to a future meeting detailing the Committee’s refusal and suggested planning reasons for refusing the application based on the above. |
|||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: The Development Management Officer (East) referred to the private site visit undertaken by the Committee earlier that day (see Minute 3 of the Planning Committee Meeting on the 9th March 2017), the purpose of which had been to enable the Committee to view the site in relation to the green space and the former, soon to be reopened, Glanmarlais Care Home. He referred, with the aid of presentation 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 the 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 the written report.
Representations were received objecting to the proposed development. These included:
· The impact of the development on the road accessing the Maespiode site which was extremely narrow and made worse by parked cars, especially in the evenings and at weekends. Development would see an increase in traffic in Maespiode, exasperated further by the proposed redevelopment of the former Glanmarlais Care Home. · The removal of a pavement due to the development. · The green space was a formal recreational space under the former UDP but was removed from the current LDP without consultation with the local members. · The green space was an integral part of the local community and had been used regularly for fetes and by residents of the former Glanmarlais Care Home (which was soon to be reopened with specific emphasis on dementia care). · The development would have a detrimental effect on the residents of Maespiode and could jeopardise the redevelopment of Glanmarlais. · There were discrepancies in the report in relation to the policies relevant to this application.
RESOLVED that the following application be granted subject to the conditions detailed within the report of the Head of Planning. |
|||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: The Development Management Officer (South) referred to the private site visit undertaken by the Committee earlier that day (see Minute 4.2 of the Planning Committee Meeting on the 9th March 2017), the purpose of which had been to enable the Committee to view the site in relation to adjacent properties. He referred, with the aid of presentation 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 the 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 the written report.
Representations were received objecting to the proposed development. These included:
· Disappointment that the Committee had not viewed the site from neighbouring properties. · The ridge height of the proposed development was higher than the surrounding houses. · Loss of privacy to would be experienced by neighbouring properties. · The proposed amendments to the height of windows in the development would still not prevent a loss of privacy for neighbouring properties.
RESOLVED that the following application be granted subject to the conditions detailed within the report / addendum of the Head of Planning. |
|||||||||||
TO DETERMINE THE PLANNING APPLICATIONS DETAILED WITHIN THE FOLLOWING REPORTS OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING: Additional documents: |
|||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: 4.1.1 UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that the following application be granted subject to the conditions detailed within the report of the Head of Planning.
4.1.2 UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that consideration of the following planning application be deferred to enable the Committee to undertake a site visit.
REASON: To enable the Committee to view the application site in light of concerns expressed by third parties in relation to the LDP settlement limits and proportion of development in relation to the plot.
|
|||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: 4.2.1 UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that the following applications be granted.
4.2.2 RESOLVED that the following that the following applications be granted.
4.2.3 UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that the following application be granted subject to the conditions detailed within the report of the Head of Planning.
The Committee’s attention was drawn to the fact that the meeting had been underway for 3 hours. It was therefore UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED to suspend Standing Orders in order that the remaining items on the agenda could be considered.
4.2.4 RESOLVED that:
4.2.4.1 The following planning application be granted, contrary to the Head of Planning’s recommendation, on the basis that it would (i) provide employment opportunities for the area, (ii) promote the efficient use of land, (iii) creating a safe, attractive and accessible environment which would contribute to people’s health and wellbeing and (iv) improve social and economic wellbeing.
4.2.4.2 The Head of Planning submit a report to a future meeting detailing, for the Committee’s endorsement and suggested planning reasons for the granting of the application based on the above.
|