Notes From Public Meeting regardingApplication Number 01678
 42 Dwellings Sudbrook Road
28th February 2008, ARW School

Councillors Present: Mr P Fox (Chair ), Mr I Standing, Mr A Griffiths, Mr G Parker, Mr G Turner, Mr P Watkins, Mr P Nurcombe

Officers Present:  Mr G Ashworth, Head of Planning MCC, Mr M Davies, Traffic and Development Manager MCC.

Mr G Hawkes from Barratt Homes was also in attendance.

Clerk to Council took notes.

CountyCouncillor Peter Fox gave his thanks to Mr Murphy for opening the school for the meeting, MCC Officers, Mr Hawkes and members of the Community Council for attending.

In excess of 60 members of the public attended the meeting. Councillor Fox stated that this meeting was important to give residents the opportunity to air concerns about the proposed development.  People in the village have grave concerns, including over development, highway safety etc.  Councillor Fox asked if there was anyone in favour of the development.  No one answered positively.

Mr Hawkes advised that at the public exhibition held by Barratts the previous week, 19 people had filled forms in.  Of that number 26% were in favour or indifferent.  This was pointed out that that was only 4 people.  Many people did not know there were forms to complete.  Others were not even aware of the exhibition.

Comment:  It should have been more widely advertised, as in the press.

 Notices had been posted in the Council’s noticeboards and on the website.

Mr Cooper, the retired highways engineer who lives in the village read his letter that had been submitted to MCC, objecting to the original application.  Mr Cooper stated that he had not even had an acknowledgement to his letter, although this was sent to MCC in February 2007.  He went on to say that the UDP had stated the area was acceptable for 10 houses.  He was not aware that Cabinet had made any decision that altered this statement. 

Mr Ashworth responded:  Extracts from the UDP should not be taken as embargoes on developments.  All over the County settlements have grown in recent years, with Chepstow having 36% growth.  In terms of the figure on the UDP the site had been restricted by Highways constraints. The figure had been notional.  The Highways department were now saying that the traffic lights access may be acceptable if not desirable.  If 10 dwellings were put on the land it could be 10 extremely large ‘mansion’ type properties.  MCC try to achieve satisfactory density for villages.

Mr Hawkes:  The site had been sold by Newport City Council on behalf of the old Gwent CC.  A percentage of the money from the development would be put back into Monmouthshire.  The policy states 30 – 50 houses per hectare is acceptable to achieve ‘best value’ and maximum density.  This was bound by national policy.  He questioned the vehicle movements and said everyone had a duty to ‘use the car less’.  Highways have looked very carefully at this development knowing the strength of feeling.  The existing traffic lights would be replaced by a reliable system, the carriageway widened.  £20k would be made available towards Safe Routes to Schools etc.  A vast improvement was anticipated.  The paper mill was closed and it was reasonable to expect it would not open again.  Although speculation, it was very likely that a new development would be proposed.  A comment was made that anything other than a paper mill would have to apply for change of use consent.

Mr Cooper:  The single carriageway through the centre of the village was already congested and the situation abysmal.  The issue of access into and out of the site was not as much of a problem as the congestion in Main Road.

Comment:  An extract from ‘Planning Policy Wales’ was read out stating that housing, referring to infrastructure, water and other utilities and schools must be considered.  How will they cope?  The formula for school numbers was 28 primary children and 23 secondary children per hundred houses.  ARW school was at capacity.  Already the village experience antisocial behaviour by youths with nothing to do.  The social infrastructure is not adequate to take any more families.  A flood risk existed up as far as Sudbrook road (government website).  It was extremely arrogant of Barratts to be advertising  the development as ‘Coming Soon to Portskewett’ when the application had not been approved.

Mr Hawkes:  All utilities have been consulted prior to submitting the application. The levels at the bottom of the site would be raised to take account of the flooding.  Barratts had bought the site subject to planning application being approved.  He felt it fair to assume houses would be built on the site as it is allocated for that purpose. 

Councillor Fox advised that the school was indeed at capacity for the next year and parental preference is law.

Comment:  The housing is not decent if the density is too great.  The village school was originally to be built on the site but it was deemed unsuitable due to the pylons amongst other issues.

Comment:  When attending the Barratts exhibition the impression was given that the plans had been approved. 

Comment:  The carbon footprint should be considered.

Comment: How are the houses called 2.5 storey?  They are not in keeping with the dormer bungalows.

Mr Hawkes:  3 storey buildings were built to increase the density of the site.  Barratts would very much like to see the houses on a larger site.  The proposed houses would be built no closer to the pylons than existing houses.  If the utilities companies anticipated problems they would make MCC Planning aware.  An upgrade to a pumping station may have to be made.
The tenure of the affordable housing had not been determined but may be able to be sold as a 50/50 share under the Homebuy scheme.

Comment:  The ‘adequate utilities’ was challenged.  At times water pressure is low at the top of the village.  This would be worsened by additional houses.  Wedgwood Drive floods in rain.

Mr Davies MCC Highways stated that he had come to gauge the feelings on the proposals.  MCC have been in consultation with Barratt Homes who had come up with signalisation and a new highway plan, which seemed to be fair. There was some reticence but as the site is in the UDP it could go to appeal if refused.  They were looking for the most viable option.  When plans for The Ridings were submitted double yellow lines along Main Road were proposed.  These were removed as a result of consultation.  There was still a lot to be considered.

Q.  How does the light system work?
A. Historical traffic data had been analysed.  3 x the actual capacity has been designed for.  The Emergency Services had been asked to comment and they have no objections (Severn Tunnel emergency) The lights will be put nearer to Canterbury Way and a 3rd phase would control access into and out of the development.  These would be traffic sensitive.

Mr Cooper:  How is it justified to put in traffic signals to facilitate a minor development?  This would not address the traffic in the centre of the village.

Q.  How many lorry movements would there be to raise the levels?
A.  There will be construction traffic.  Levelling of the site would be ‘cut and fill’.

Q.  Will the lay-by by the Church be staying?
A.  Yes.

Comment:  Pedestrian access from Sudbrook to Portskewett would be compromised when crossing the access.  A pelican/controlled crossing would be needed.  The traffic calming relating the the school had still not been implemented. (Safe Routes to Schools).

Comment:  Why not build the houses on the edge of the village in the field that is currently available for industrial use?

Comment:  Houses for older people should be designed.

Comment:  Residents from Sudbrook would be affected.  Additional traffic lights would mean more delays for them.

Mr Ashworth:  The UDP holds precedence over Planning Policy Wales.  There is always a compromise.  400 houses per year are required.  The Council has a duty to provide schools for houses that are built.  Children may have to go elsewhere.  Residents in Portskewett are able to access the facilities in Caldicot.  Building houses near pylons is not desirable but people will buy them all the same.  With regard to the density, there is no hard and fast rule.  The Planning Department are not keen on 3 storey houses

Mr Cooper:  Alarmed that the 10 houses was ‘arbitary’ in the words of the Chief Planning Officer.  He called for flexibility and to think about the traffic in Main Road.  Circumstances do change and this should be taken into account. 

Comment: Putting houses in a village where the school is full is strange when schools in Caldicot are closing due to falling numbers. 

Comment:  Is there a demand for these houses? There are lots of houses unsold in the village already.

Comment:  Where is the excess surface water going to go? (currently floods at bottom of field). 

Mr Hawkes:  A culvert will be put under the railway line.  Attenuation will be installed, this slows the water down and discharges from the site into the water course at the same rate as at present.

Comment:  This would have to be agreed with the landowner where the water discharges to.

Comment:  Hope a site meeting would be held before any decision. 

Q.  Can the community be kept informed of the next stage of the process.  The Planning Portal does not show all the correspondence including the Community Council’s comments.

Q.  How did Barratts find the site?
A.  It was marketed for sale.

Mr Hawkes asked if there was anything that could make people amenable to the development. Again no positive response was given.

Comment: Seven years ago it was said this site was too dangerous for housing – what has changed?  Nothing.

Councillor Fox thanked everyone for their contributions and comments.   The meeting was closed at 9.10 pm.