Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors L. Bowen, J. Gilasbey, H.I. Jones and J.E. Williams.

The Chair, Councillor A. Lenny having earlier declared an interest in this application and in the absence of the Vice Chair, Councillor H.I. Jones, sought nominations to Chair Agenda Item 3.1. 

It was UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED to appoint Councillor T. Evans as Chair for Agenda Item 3.1.

The Chair, Councillor A. Lenny vacated the chair and left the meeting during its determination. Councillor T. Evans, chaired the meeting in the Chair’s absence.

[Note, Councillor K. Lloyd and Mrs L. Quelch, Head of Planning having earlier declared an interest in this application also left the Chamber during its determination.]

The Development Management Officer (East) referred to the private site visit undertaken by the Committee earlier that day (see Minute 3.3 of the Planning Committee Meeting on the 29th June, 2017), the reasoning for the site inspection to afford the committee the opportunity of viewing the development from the objector’s perspective and to see the building within the context of the brewery site as a whole. 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 refusal of the application for the reasons detailed within the written report.

A representation was received from the local member who spoke and conveyed his initial concern regarding the ‘temporary structure on the site’ and offered the following observations which reiterated the points detailed within the Head of Planning’s written report:-

·           “The local Town Council have queried that this building is classed as a ‘temporary building” but it seems to me it is a permanent building with a likely lifespan of more than 10 years. So I cannot understand why it is classified as ‘temporary’”;

·           While it is regrettable that the building has already been erected prior to planning permission being obtained, it is located in a commercial area of the town;

·           There have been no objections from nearby neighbours;

·           Residents along Heol Bethlehem, across the valley, have expressed concern with regard to the size of the building, disruption to their view and light pollution;

·           This retrospective application is for a different type of building to the more traditional design that was granted planning permission under reference E/27895;

·           The application should not be an officer decision ‘in view of the past history with the local office’. No clarification has been provided with regard to the purported ‘past history’;

·           The bottling plant provides important employment in a rural community.

The Local Member concluded by informing the Committee that he was in support of the application.

The Development Management Officer (East) responded to the issues raised.

RESOLVED that planning application E/35395 be approved, contrary to the recommendation of the Head of Planning, as the Committee was satisfied that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.1

The Development Management Officer (East) referred to the private site visit undertaken by the Committee earlier that day (see Minute 3.3 of the Planning Committee Meeting on the 29th June 2017), the purpose of which had been to enable the Committee to view the site to assess whether the proposal could adversely impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties in terms of loss of light.  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.

RESOLVED that planning application E/35434 be granted subject to the conditions detailed within the Head of Planning’s written report.