Venue: Council Chamber, Civic Centre, Hanbury Road, Pontypool, NP4 6YB
Contact: Rachel Beale Senior Business Support Officer (Democratic Services)
Attendance and Apologies/ Presenoldeb ac Ymddiheuriadau
1.1 Apologies were received from Councillors Huw Bevan, Ron Burnett, Fay Jones and Richard Overton.
Declarations of interest/Datganiadau o fudd
2.1 The Principal Solicitor reminded Members that they needed to complete the declaration of interest form in the attendance register folder if they were declaring an interest in any application.
2.2 The following interests were declared:
· Councillor Gaynor James declared a personal interest in agenda items 5 and 6 as a Member of Pontypool Community Council who had been consulted on the applications.
· Councillor Norma Parrish declared a personal interest in agenda items 5 and 6 as a Member of Pontypool Community Council who had been consulted on the applications.
3.1 Members agreed that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 21st May 2019 be confirmed as a correct record.
New dwelling within existing garden (revised application from 18/P/0113/FUL with updated flood consequences report) at 12 Hafod Close, Ponthir, Cwmbran.
T?annedd newydd mewn gardd bresennol (cais diwygiedig o 18/P/0113/FUL gydag adroddiad canlyniadau llifogydd wedi’i ddiweddaru) yn 12 Hafod Close, Ponthir, Cwmbrân.
4.1 Members agreed to note the decision made by the Planning Inspectorate.
Residential development comprising 34 houses, associated road access points and infrastructure at the Former Pontypool Hospital Site, Hospital Road, Pontnewynydd, Pontypool.
Datblygiadpreswyl yn cynnwys 34 o dai, pwyntiau ffordd fynediad a seilwaith cysylltiedig ar Hen Safle Ysbyty Pont-y-p?l, Hospital Road, Pontnewynydd, Pont-y-p?l.
5.1 The Principal Planner displayed photos of the site, plans of the proposed development and made the following comments:
· A Member Site Inspection was recently carried out to the site which was the site of the former Pontypool Hospital.
· The proposal was for 34 terraced properties, associated road access points and infrastructure.
· Planning Committee resolved to approve the original application subject to a Section 106 Agreement in 2016, however there was a delay in signing the agreement. The issues in relation to the agreement had now be resolved and the applicant wanted to progress with the application.
· Access in to the site would be off Hospital Road.
· The proposal would include an onsite play area.
· A footpath would be installed along Hospital Road for the full extent of the site.
· There was traffic calming proposed on Hospital Road and the re-arrangement of the existing traffic calming measures on Leigh Road.
· There were protected trees on site which would be retained and would not be affected by the development.
· There had been 15 neighbour comments received on the application when it was originally consulted on and the local ward member had submitted comments on behalf of the residents which had been received more recently. The concerns raised were in relation to highway safety, the impact on the protected trees, overdevelopment of the site, a reduction in property values in the area, poor pedestrian access and there had been queries raised regarding the ground stability.
· The Section 106 Agreement was SPG complaint and included 25% affordable housing, an onsite play area, £179 per additional dwelling over 25 (9 in total) contribution for an offsite play area and £1136 per dwelling for adult recreation.
· Approximately 6 years ago, excavation works took place on site which destabilised the road to the rear, however that had been resolved and would be controlled by highway legislation.
5.2 In response to Member questions, Officers gave the following replies:
· There was 25% affordable housing proposed which included 80% social rented and 20% intermediate (which was the equivalent of a help to buy scheme).
· A pedestrian link would be provided from within the site to an existing pedestrian track from Hospital Road up to Leigh Road.
· There were traffic calming measures proposed on Hospital Road and as part of the works there would be an opportunity to dedicate a footpath route around the bend via a painted white line on the road which would give car users a warning of pedestrians walking on the road.
· Officers would try and link the new footway into the existing pedestrian network.
· The junction of Leigh Road and Hospital Road had already had improvements to widen it.
· A condition was attached to the application regarding the height of the shrubs in the visibility splay area.
· The houses would be set back to give a sufficient view around the bend.
· There was scope within the Highway Agreement to change the style of traffic calming measures, Officers would look to get the best measures for ... view the full minutes text for item 5.
Installation of a 17.5m slim line Jupiter column supporting 3 no. shrouded antennas, 1 no. transmission dish, 2 no. equipment cabinets, 1 no. meter cabinet and ancillary development hereto at a Grass Verge, High Street, Pontypool, NP4 6EY.
Gosodcolofn Jupiter denau 17.5m gyda 3 antena dan amdo, 1 ddysgl ddarlledu, 2 gabinet offer, 1 cabinet mesurydd a datblygiad ategol ar Ymyl y Ffordd, High Street, Pont-y-p?l, NP4 6EY.
6.1 The Senior Planner displayed photos of the proposed site and plans and made the following comments:
· The development was permitted development and the application was a prior notification application and the Local Authority were required to determine if the siting and appearance were acceptable.
· The proposed site was on a grass verge off the A4043.
· The proposed mast was 17.5m high, with 3 antenna and there would be 2 ground cabinets.
· The mass would be shared between Telefonica and Vodafone.
· The nearest residential properties were 26m away from site.
· Given that the applicant had submitted the specific details of the mast, it was recommended that prior approval was not required, which would allow the development to proceed in accordance with the details submitted.
6.2 The following responses were given to questions asked by Members:
· It was a permitted development and legislation required Members to determine whether prior approval was required for the siting and design. Officers were happy with the design and location and were recommending that prior approval was not needed.
· The ancillary equipment included the cabinets, dish and the 3 antennas.
6.3 The local ward member and a member whose ward was adjacent stated that they had not received any complaints to the proposal from residents and felt that it was necessary for the area.
6.4 Members unanimously agreed that prior approval was not required.