Appendix 1 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4

MINUTES OF AN EXTRAORDINARY MEETING OF TORFAEN COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL

Part 1 held on Tuesday 20 November 2012 at 5.00pm till 9.50pm approx

Part 2 held on Thursday 29 November 2012 at 5.00pm till 6.10pm approx

both in the Council Chamber at the Civic Centre, Pontypool

NB the agenda for and the reports presented to this meeting are available to view by searching for the name and date of the meeting at

http://www.torfaen.gov.uk/en/CouncillorsAndCommittees/Committees/CommitteeDirectory.aspx

MINUTES - PART 1 OF THE MEETING (20 NOVEMBER 2012)

Following prayers led by the Mayor’s Chaplain and a minute’s silence in memory of Community Councillor Huw Corfield who had recently passed away, the Mayor formally opened the meeting and:

welcomed everyone to the meeting, including those in the Council Chamber and in the Ceremony Room downstairs (where the meeting was being televised live) and

outlined procedural arrangements, such as councillors standing to speak, councillors stating their names, muting or switching off phones, the emergency evacuation procedures and the need for motions or amendments in writing.

IN ATTENDANCE Councillors

Wayne Tomlinson (Mayor) Stuart Ashley Stuart Evans Brian Mawby (after item 5) Mary Barnett Alan Furzer Raymond Mills Huw Bevan Maria Graham Mandy Owen Stephen Brooks KSS JP Kelvin Harnett JP Norma Parrish Pamela Cameron Mike Harris Jessica Powell Glyn Caron Elizabeth Haynes Jeff Rees Richard Clark Anthony Hunt Philip Seabourne Leonard Constance Mike Jeremiah Barry Taylor JP Veronica Crick JP Alan Jones Colette Thomas Fiona Cross Lewis Jones Neil Waite John Cunningham MBE KSG Robert Kemp Bob Wellington (Leader) David Daniels John Marshall David Yeowell Giles Davies Neil Mason (Deputy Mayor)

Officers on the dais Peter Durkin Deputy Chief Executive Richard Gwinnell Lead Officer, Council and Member Support Tim James Principal Solicitor Alison Ward Chief Executive Lynda Willis Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer Planning and Public Protection Team: Richard Lewis Head of Development Control Craig Mead Development Planner Robert Murray Principal Planner (Forward Planning) Kim Pugh Head of Public Protection Duncan Smith Chief Officer, Planning and Public Protection Helen Smith Principal Planner (Development Control) Steve Thomas Development Planner Paul Wheeldon Group Leader, Transportation and Highways Development Adrian Wilcock Principal Planner (Forward Planning) Other officers attending or observing for particular parts of the meeting/reasons: Democratic Services: Ros Gwynn, Liz Monk Members Services: Nikki Marsh, Nansi Salkeld, Geraint Thomas Dave Congreve Assistant Chief Executive (Communities) Mark Duggan Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer Richard Edmunds Head of Strategic and Democratic Services Vincent James Equalities Manager Lyndon Puddy Interim Head of Public Services Support Jacky Rue Community Development Officer Other attendees 70 members of the press and public (in the public gallery or Ceremony Room) Chief Inspector Steve Corcoran, Head of Neighbourhood Policing, Torfaen Reverend Anthony Gregory – Mayor’s Chaplain A Police Constable (during items 6 and 7) APOLOGIES – COUNCILLORS: Cynthia Beynon MBE David (Keith) James Ron Burnett Graham Smith ABSENT – COUNCILLORS: Gwyneira Clark (suspended)

Action

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 3.1 The Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer (CLO&MO) explained

that Councillor Mawby had sent his apologies for the first part of this meeting because, had he been here, he would have had to declare a personal and prejudicial interest in the SCCC (Specialist and Critical Care Centre), as he was a member of the Aneurin Bevan Health Board, which was the applicant for the SCCC.

3.2 The Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer (CLO&MO) explained

that she did not expect councillors to have personal or prejudicial interests in the Local Development Plan (LDP), as the LDP was a high level strategic document, which would set planning/land development policy for the next 10 years or so. Any connection councillors had to specific sites would normally be too remote in terms of today’s decisions.

3.3 Councillor Taylor asked whether his membership of the Community

Health Council (on behalf of Torfaen Council) constituted a personal interest. The CLO&MO stated that it did not.

3.4 Councillor Barnett declared (later in the meeting) a personal but not

prejudicial interest in the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation issue, as she was a Council representative on Coleg Gwent (which had been consulted on the issue).

3.5 The Mayor reminded councillors that they should write any interests

declared on the form which was circulated at the meeting.

4. PETITIONS 4.1 There were no petitions for this meeting.

NB The Mayor pointed out that all the public questions submitted for today were about the Local Development Plan focused changes. He suggested, and Council agreed, to defer the public questions until the planning application for the Specialist and Critical Care Centre (SCCC) at Llanfrechfa Grange had been dealt with.

5. LLANFRECHFA GRANGE HOSPITAL, CAERLEON ROAD, LLANFRECHFA, CWMBRAN, TORFAEN, NP44 8YN - OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF HOSPITAL BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION OF A SPECIALIST AND CRITICAL CARE CENTRE (D1) WITH UP TO 450 BEDS, HOSPITAL STERILISATION UNIT, ENERGY CENTRE, HELICOPTER LANDING PAD AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE

NB The Specialist and Critical Care Centre is otherwise referred to as

the “SCCC”

5.1 Council considered a report of the Chief Officer, Planning and Public Protection (COP&PP), giving details of and seeking approval to the SCCC planning application, subject to conditions.

5.2 The Principal Planner outlined the report in detail, by way of a presentation. In summary, she commented:

that this was an outline planning application, with further reserved matters applications to be submitted at a later time, if outline permission was granted

on the components of the proposed development, which included a new hospital, an energy centre and compound and a helicopter landing pad (“helipad”)

on the Site Masterplan (which she illustrated) and the specific elements and locations of various aspects of the proposal

that the development included a new roundabout on Caerleon Road and that access arrangements were part of the outline proposal

on the substantial variety of associated documents, strategies, studies and assessments which supported the application

on the large amount of public consultation undertaken by the applicant, prior to their submission of the application

on the site boundaries and surrounding land

on site photographs (which she displayed)

on the objections to the application, about:

parking provision

increased traffic

construction traffic

increased traffic “rat running” on Crown Road

that the highway improvements were inadequate

noise

helicopter noise

that the Welsh Government Highways Agency and the Council’s own Highways Officer were content with the proposals

that a Travel Plan would be required to ensure any impacts were managed effectively

on specific aspects of the proposals in terms of

visual impact

ecological impacts

drainage

residential amenity

the Construction Plan

the location of the helipad, which was a significant concern for some local people

that the helipad was located on the site proposed as that was the optimum clinical location for it, given the need to be as close as possible to the Accident and Emergency ward access

that the applicant (the Aneurin Bevan Health Board) (ABHB)

predicted up to 3 helicopter movements per day, depending on the number of emergencies requiring airlifting patients

that the helipad would be used in emergencies only – with landing or taking off limited to less than 5 minutes per incident.

5.3 The COP&PP continued, commenting in summary:

on the local planning context

that this was a significant departure from the Local Plan, as it involved development outside the Urban Boundary – into a Special Landscape Area

that Newport City Council had objected on those grounds

that, if the new Local Development Plan (LDP) was in place, the hospital would be inside the Urban Boundary

that, as a departure from the current Local Plan, this was an instance where the need for the development was a material planning consideration

that such a proposal required substantial justification and needed to demonstrate a significant need for such a departure

that a departure from the Local Plan was justified: the SCCC was an essential healthcare facility, not just for Torfaen but for South East Wales and potentially beyond; and it would bring considerable economic as well as health benefits to the region

that approval was therefore recommended

that appropriate conditions were also recommended

that negotiations were still ongoing with the applicant in respect of the conditions, so he was seeking delegated power also to add, delete or amend conditions as appropriate.

5.4 A copy of the presentation is available from the Democratic Services Team on request.

5.5 The Mayor then invited statements from public speakers.

5.6 John Walker (of Ysgubornewydd Farm, Croesyceiliog) commented on his (and his family’s) objections to the scheme (in summary) because:

it involved the loss of rural land, which had been farmed for many years, and was the subject of environmental grants

his property and his son’s property were on the edge of the site

he accepted the need for the new hospital on the site, but not in the exact location proposed

he felt the hospital building should be on the brownfield part of the site, not on the greenfield part of the site

the current proposals were against Torfaen policy

the helipad would be 30 metres from his son’s property – and the reassurances given were not believed

the earlier position of the helipad was less intrusive

the noise from the helipad would be unbearable; this was a

quiet rural location, not a busy city location

the frequency of use of the helipad had only been guessed at; the SCCC was likely to serve the whole region, so helicopter movements would inevitably exceed expectations

the family also ran a caravan storage business next to the site – the helicopter would set off caravan alarms, causing issues with insurance and hence business viability concerns

the footpath had been re-routed, right next to his son’s house, causing concerns about safety, crime and privacy

the ground at the suggested path location was saturated; an alternative path through the woods was available

his family would suffer five years noise and dust whilst the building took shape, then a building more than 30 metres high overlooking them

this would devalue their properties and worsen their quality of life

the proposed screening trees would take years to mature

his family felt badly treated and that their views were ignored.

5.7 Mike Moran (a local resident) stated (or questioned) in summary that: representing residents of Crown Road:

residents were concerned about vehicle access to the site and whether the highway mitigation measures would be adequate

whether approval of these plans would mean the ruling out of the Caerleon Road Bypass (which was in the Local Plan)?

how foul sewage would be dealt with and whether it would discharge into local houses?

that the current sewer was inadequate and residents already had to put up with sewage in their gardens on a regular basis

the biggest fear of residents was about traffic, particularly on Crown Road, which was already a “rat-run”

this new hospital would mean very many new cars; better mitigation of the impact was required; it would be intolerable

residents were concerned at the cumulative effect of the traffic increase, especially when this application was viewed along with the several other developments planned on Caerleon Road

the Caerleon Road Bypass should be provided (or at the very least protected) as part of this application

representing the Friends of Llantarnam Action Group:

the proposed SCCC would not improve quality of life, but be a significant intrusion

the SCCC building would be up to 32 metres in height according to the plans, but the Health Board had said recently it would be 45 metres high in places

measures were needed to screen the SCCC from Caerleon

Road

lighting should be designed to protect residents’ amenity

vehicle access was the greatest concern – there would be traffic jams throughout the day – even more so than now

the traffic island would be better inside, not outside, the hospital grounds

the Caerleon Road Bypass needed to be more explicit – it was referred to in the documents but not shown on the plans, and should be the established route

people objected to the proposed access/island/roundabout on Caerleon Road itself

the local infrastructure should be improved before any building works commenced on the site.

5.8 Becky Cocker, agent for the applicant, commented in reply to the earlier speakers (in summary) that:

the SCCC was an absolutely key component of modern care in Wales – and it would be the only centre of its kind in Wales

the SCCC would be of major benefit to residents of Torfaen and Gwent, as well as those further afield

significant consultation had been undertaken with the local community, for example around the location and design of the SCCC, and the Health Board was fully committed to working with local people and stakeholders to find the best solutions

the Health Board wanted to do everything possible to minimise any negative impact on local communities

the exact location of the building within the overall site had been the subject of lengthy consideration: among the key issues were access; the relationship of the building to existing large communities and the consequent need to set the SCCC back from Caerleon Road; and ensuring views from the hospital for patients, families and staff

tree planting would be significant and ensure screening

the helipad was critical to the scheme and would be of major benefit to Torfaen and Gwent residents

the key issue was that the helipad needed to be as close as possible to the Accident and Emergency ward entrance: the time involved in getting to A&E could be a matter of life or death

the helipad also had to be some distance from other obstacles to ensure safety whilst the helicopter blades were spinning

this meant the helipad needed to be closer to the farm – but the Heath Hospital in Cardiff only had 17 helicopter arrivals per month; the SCCC was likely to see a lot less

once a helicopter landed, it had to switch off its engine very quickly, so the noise period would be very brief

the footpath proposed was in the optimum location for access to the countryside

there would be fast-growth large trees screening the site, to

minimise the SCCC’s visual impact and construction impact

a Construction Management Plan would also be in place (and subject to local consultation) to help minimise the impact

any traffic impact would not be significant, according to the studies carried out, including on Crown Road

any impact would be carefully managed through a Travel Plan, which would enable monitoring of any impacts and hence the ability to see where mitigating measures may be needed

the location, size and design of the site access features had been supported by the various Highways agencies

the Caerleon Road Bypass was not required for the SCCC

the current drainage system was subject to regular surges; the hospital development would help solve this problem by having separate and improved drainage pipes

the new drainage system had been designed and modeled with Welsh Water, who were confident of its robustness

this was an outline planning application: the Health Board had every intention of continuing to work closely with local people on the detailed design and to minimise the impact of the SCCC.

5.9 The Principal Planner confirmed that:

acoustic fencing was proposed on the boundary nearest to the farm

the Public Rights of Way Officer would be involved in the detail of the footpath design, including the land drainage

the application was in outline – a detailed Drainage Scheme would be required at a later stage and

Construction and Environmental Management Plans would be in place to minimise any negative impacts.

5.10 The Group Leader, Highways Development Control commented briefly (in summary) that:

the development involved improvements on Caerleon Road

the road network was already quite good – this would improve it further

a substantial tree belt was planned

there would be an increase in traffic of only 6.8% on Caerleon Road as a result of the SCCC

Crown Road was already a well known local “rat run”

Planning Condition 30 proposed in the report would ensure stringent management of any traffic impact

the Caerleon Road Bypass was not explicit but an alternative future route could be accommodated

the bypass was not needed as a result of this development, but the need for it would continue to be kept under review.

5.11 Concerns were raised by a councillor, who commented that:

950 car parking spaces would be inadequate for the staff of a 450 bed hospital, let alone patients and visitors

a footbridge should be provided across the dual carriageway

a great deal more traffic would be generated

“blue light traffic” in particular (i.e. emergency vehicles), which would be travelling at very high speed, would present more danger for local pedestrians

the at-grade crossing of the A4042 would be a particular risk.

5.12 The Group Leader, Highways Development Control commented briefly (in summary) that:

the Welsh Government Highways Agency had not raised any concerns on the need for a pedestrian bridge in respect of this development

commitment had however been secured from the Health Board, to upgrade existing subway access for pedestrians

there was a limit to what local improvements could be expected

the SCCC would be unique in England and Wales – it was a first – so there was nothing to compare it against in terms of the need for parking

robust traffic assessments had however been carried out and he was content that the proposed parking would be sufficient

nevertheless on-street parking in the local area would not be welcome (if on site parking was insufficient)

the Travel Plan would ensure monitoring of any impacts and overspill, so, if any occurred, it could be addressed.

5.13 The recommendations in the report were moved and seconded and

5.14 COUNCIL AGREED (with all members voting in favour, except one, who abstained from the vote):

(1) That the application be approved, subject to the conditions and advice notes listed in the report and

(2) that the Chief Officer, Planning and Public Protection be given delegated power to add, amend or remove any conditions as necessary.

5.15 The Council adjourned for a 20 minute recess at this point. All members of the Council returned to the meeting after the recess.

5.16 Councillor Mawby entered the meeting after the recess (having missed the SCCC application due to his interest as a member of the Aneurin Bevan Health Board).

6. PUBLIC QUESTIONS

6.1 Doug Goff (Upper Race resident) asked:

The current Council proposal would increase the number of caravans in the Race area of Cwmynyscoy from around 59 to over 100. No social sustainability assessment of the impact of this increase has been made. Given Welsh Assembly Government guidelines that Gypsy Traveller site populations should not be allowed to dominate local communities, will TCBC now suspend current proposals and get an independent impact assessment carried out in the Race area before finalising arrangements for Gypsy Traveller accommodation in the Borough?

6.2 The Chief Officer Planning and Public Protection responded:

Firstly, it is important to note that a Gypsy and Traveller household occupies one pitch, which could accommodate 1 or 2 caravans / mobile homes and an amenity block. Therefore, it is more appropriate to refer to pitches rather than caravans. Members should note that we are planning for the forecast increase from 37 households (pitches) in 2011 to between 55 & 77 households (pitches) in 2021 and that the proposed Race AFC site will address overcrowding on Shepherds Hill and provide for existing residents and families as children grow up who are part of the local Cwmynyscoy settled community. This is about the existing community – not about new people coming in from outside the area. Secondly, Welsh Government’s Circular 30/2007 on ‘Planning for Gyspy and Traveller Caravan Sites’ states (paragraph 26) that: -

“Sites on the outskirts of built-up areas may be appropriate. …

Sites should respect the scale of and not be so large as to dominate the nearest settled community serving them. They should also avoid placing an undue burden on the local infrastructure.”

I consider that the WG guidance relates more to the physical scale of all of the existing and proposed Gypsy and Traveller sites in the area in the settlement of Cwmynyscoy / Upper Race, which I consider will not dominate the area and furthermore, will not overburden the local infrastructure. Thirdly, as regards Mr Goff’s concerns regarding ‘social sustainability’, Circular 30/2007 also states (in para. 20) that: -

“… All sites … must have their social, environmental and

economic impacts assessed in accordance with the requirements of sustainability appraisal …”.

Furthermore, the Welsh Government’s ‘Good Practice Guide in

Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites in Wales’ (July 2009) states (paragraph 19): - “Issues of site sustainability are important for the health and well being of Gypsy and Travellers not only in respect of environmental issues but also for the maintenance and support of family and social networks. ... consideration may include: -

opportunities for growth within family units; the promotion of peaceful and integrated co-existence between

the site and the local community;”

Both the proposed Rose Cottage (which is already allocated in the Local Plan) and former Race AFC Gypsy and Traveller sites have been subject to sustainability appraisal and both score positively for SA Objective 23 of the LDP.

6.3 Doug Goff asked the following supplementary question (in summary):

Gypsies and Travellers would far outnumber the settled population of Cwmynyscoy (at a rate of 4 to 1) if this expansion went ahead. Why is the Council so determined that Gypsies and Travellers should dominate the population of Cymynyscoy?

6.4 The Chief Officer Planning and Public Protection responded:

This is not about Gypsies and Travellers dominating the community. My report is quite clear on that.

6.5 Adrian Bold (of the Cwmynyscoy Neighbourhood Action Group)

asked: Hill Park Homes have offered the Woodlands Road (sic) site as an alternative to the development of the Shepherds Hill site. This appears to have been summarily discounted without proper investigation. Can the Council officers say what the purchase cost of the site would be, what the cost per acre would be and say what financial or economic implications there are for the Council if the site was purchased?

6.6 The Chief Officer Planning and Public Protection responded:

This site is referred to in the papers. We received a proposal in October, from the owner of the Woodland Park site, to locate more Gypsy and Traveller pitches on his site. NB the Chief Officer, Planning and Public Protection displayed plans and photographs of the Woodland Park site as he spoke. The agent for Hill Park Homes has now confirmed (in the last few days) that the owner would prefer to sell the whole park to the Council. The purchase price for the whole park would be £2 million.

The total site area is approximately 7 acres and therefore, the cost per acre would be just under £286,000. However, it should be noted that given the historical development of the park, site topography, presence of Tree Preservation Orders and the requirement for a distinct separation for a Gypsy and Traveller site, the only area which could be used by the Council is to the right of the park entrance. The agent for Mr Hill indicates the potential suitability of this location. The COP&PP showed the site on displayed maps. This parcel of land measures approximately 1.25 acres (0.5 ha) (excluding 4 existing residents who would need to be moved in order to create a separate site). Applying Welsh Government standards to this part of the site, it would only accommodate 10 pitches for Gypsies and Travellers. The financial or economic implications for the Council if the site was purchased are not fully known at this stage. We only received this offer in October and the valuation of the site has only been determined in the last few days, so we have not had time to fully assess the proposal. However, there are considerable concerns, which may be summarised as follows: -

Given the existing residents on the site, the capability of the site to accommodate the pitches required is unproven;

The site is heavily treed;

The site is sloping, with the potential need for retaining structures;

The area indicated by the owner will only accommodate 10 pitches designed to Welsh Government standards;

4 residents would need to be moved to create the site;

The Council is not in the business of running Park Home sites with the subsequent costs of management and maintenance; and

The Site is located in a Coal Authority Referral Area, so there would also be underground issues to deal with.

6.7 Adrian Bold asked the following supplementary question:

It appears the Woodland Road (sic) site would cost £285,000 per acre – for a site which is more or less already developed. The football field site would cost £370,000 per acre. This shows that alternative sites could be found, at a competitive price, if the Council chose to look. Would the Chief Officer agree that that should be done?

6.8 The Chief Officer Planning and Public Protection responded:

No direct comparison of costs has been done. The Woodland Park site offer was only received on 3 October and the land valuation only became clear last week. The £285,000 per acre does not include any development costs; that was purely the cost of buying the land. The Race AFC pitch does not involve any purchase cost at all – as it already belongs to the Council. How much any infrastructure would cost at the Woodland Park site is not known. There were topographical challenges at Woodland Park – being a steeply sloping site – which may cost a great deal to overcome. Also, at Woodland Road, there was only room for 10 pitches. No direct comparison between these sites was therefore possible.

6.9 Meryl Nicholls (Upper Race resident) asked:

The offer of the Woodlands Road (sic) site suggests that there may have been options for other sites within the Borough which might have been identified if the Council had carried out the survey into possible Gypsy and Traveller accommodation proposed in their 2009 General Approach Report. The Council has refused to carry out this survey and has insisted that all Gypsy and Traveller accommodation is placed only in the Race area of Cwmynyscoy. They have said in their Policy Impact Assessment “There are few examples nationally of where the establishment of new Gypsy Site provision has not been met with a considerable degree of resistance from the receiving community. These tensions are often played out through the media, local community meetings and at school settings. Concern must therefore be that similar responses may occur locally in considerable excess of what has been expressed regarding the proposals around further site development within the Cwmynyscoy area”. Such concerns are biased and not a sound basis for ignoring the imposition of a large number of caravans in such a small area. Will the Council therefore reject this unfair proposal and now consider Woodlands Road (sic) and other sites?

6.10 The Chief Officer Planning and Public Protection responded:

Firstly, there is no national planning policy requirement to evaluate a number of candidate site options in considering what Gypsy and Traveller site(s) to allocate in an LDP. There is no legal requirement on the Council to do so. Members have already evaluated one site option and resolved to allocate the Rose Cottage Gypsy and Traveller site (which was the only candidate site put to the Council by the local Gypsy and Traveller community), whilst the Council awaited the outcome of the Capita Symonds Studies on the future of the Council’s Shepherds Hill Gypsy and Traveller site. This was because, until the future of the site was known, the Council did not know whether it was looking for an additional site, or sites, dependant on the future of the Shepherds Hill site.

The CDN Planning ‘Torfaen Gypsy and Traveller Study: Identification of Permanent Gypsy and Traveller Sites: General Approach Report’, October 2009 concluded: - “Meeting this identified need will however be dependent on the future of the Council’s only permanent residential Gypsy and Traveller site at Shepherds Hill. The Council will shortly undertake a study to determine the future of the site and address concerns over ground stability and overcrowding and if this would result in the need to identify a new site within the Borough.” The Capita Symonds Reports have concluded that the Shepherds Hill site can remain with a proposed layout redesign and site management measures to address overcrowding and coal mining legacy issues. Representations from Shepherds Hill residents received as part of the LDP consultation process confirmed the view of the local Gypsy and Traveller community that they have a clear preference to stay in the Upper Race area given their strong cultural identity, the wish to maintain close family ties and the fact that their additional support service requirements, especially health and education, are set up in this area. I stress once again – this is about planning for the existing local Gypsy and Traveller community. The Cabinet Report evaluated the potential of other sites in Option 2 (actively manage the risks at Shepherds Hill and provide an allocation for 20 - 32 pitches at 1-2 new sites on land to be acquired) and discounted this option for financial reasons on the assumption that a new site would have to be purchased at market value, which for a Gypsy and Traveller site would be at residential value (assuming a willing vendor). Furthermore, the Race AFC site, which is already owned by the Council, even with the costs of remediating the shallow mine workings, is likely to involve less cost than buying a similar sized site(s) at residential value elsewhere – especially as the local Gypsy and Traveller community want to stay there.

6.11 Meryl Nicholls asked the following supplementary question:

The Council is meant to consult residents and listen to them. Residents don’t want the existing site extended. Whose interests are you protecting here?

6.12 The Chief Officer Planning and Public Protection responded:

There will be further public consultation as and when the planning application progresses. If there are people who want to object, they are very welcome to get in touch.

6.13 Goff Jones (Race resident) asked:

The Council officer’s report says that a reason for the exclusion of the Woodland Road (sic) site is that “Further planning consent would be required and the suitability of the site is therefore, unproven”. However, there is no planning consent on the Rose Cottage site, which is allocated in the LDP, or on the proposed allocation of the football pitch. Therefore, the Woodland Road (sic) site is not being treated equally. Will the Council withdraw this objection and proceed with a full evaluation of the possibilities for the Woodland Road (sic) site?

6.14 The Chief Officer Planning and Public Protection responded:

I have given my views on the Woodland Park site in response to earlier questions and don’t intend to repeat what I have already said. In terms of Rose Cottage the owners of this private site have appointed a planning agent and have held a pre-application meeting with the Council’s Planning and Environmental Health Teams. The applicant has supplied the Council with a contamination study and a draft layout and has also undertaken percolation tests on the drainage. We have reason to believe therefore that a planning application for that site is imminent.

6.15 Goff Jones asked the following supplementary question:

No further action should have been taken on the Rose Cottage site. The Council has ignored us. Why has further action been taken prior to proper consideration being given to issues raised by the public and before planning permission is given?

6.16 The Chief Officer Planning and Public Protection responded:

Most sites go into the Local Development Plan (LDP) as allocations, without planning permission and indeed before planning permission is sought. The LDP is about planning for future possibilities.

6.17 Joanne Strange (of the Cwmynyscoy Neighbourhood Action Group)

asked: TCBC have said that they will ignore the Welsh Assembly Government Guidelines for the size of Gypsy Traveller sites and proceed with Shepherds Hill and other developments which make, effectively, two large sites in a small area. What justification is there for this position given that there must be substantial reasons why such guidance is given, particularly concerning the impacts on local settled residents and, if no convincing reasons can be provided to show the acceptability of such large sites, will the Council now reconsider the proposals for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation in the Borough?

6.18 The Chief Officer Planning and Public Protection responded:

Firstly, we have not ignored Welsh Government guidelines. In my reply to Meryl Nicholls, I have already commented on the impacts on local ‘bricks & mortar’ residents and have stated the financial and timescale advantages of developing the former Race AFC site. Secondly, it is important to note that the WG ‘Good Practice Guide’ states (section 1.1) that it:-

“contains advice and examples of good practice and should be used as a basis to facilitate authorities in making decisions specific to their own particular local circumstances”;

“It is not the intention of the Welsh Government to impose uniform solutions since situations may vary considerably across regions in Wales”;

“it is not statutory guidance”; and “The Welsh Government appreciates that it will not be possible to

implement the Good Practice Guides in every respect on every site.”

Finally, the WG ‘Good Practice Guide’ with regards to the ‘Size of Sites’ states (paragraph 3.1.1) that: -

“…Having smaller sites makes the management of the site much easier and is more likely to attract compatible family units. Sites bigger than 20 pitches should only be developed where there is a clear and demonstrable need to act against such a presumption and where consultation and engagement has taken place with all stakeholders.”

Noting that the Council has recently consulted stakeholder on the proposal for up to 32 pitches on the former Race AFC site there are clear and demonstrable reasons why a site bigger than 20 pitches is being proposed ; and these are: -

The financial and timescale advantages as already stated; There are examples of large sites elsewhere in Wales (e.g. in

Cardiff), and indeed the Shepherds Hill site itself, where site management is not a major issue - noting that there will be a site warden managing both sites with a site office proposed on the new site and the Council’s Gypsy and Traveller Liaison Officer is based in the ‘pod’ on the nearby Shepherds Hill site; thus addressing the first of WG’s two main concerns with larger sites;

The local Shepherds Hill Gypsy and Traveller community have expressed strong support for the proposed layout for the former Race AFC site, which contains two yards of 10 pitches each; which makes it attractive to family units - thus addressing the other of WG’s concerns with larger sites; and

Also, the WG Guide (para 3.1.1) recognises that “local authorities may consider it necessary to be flexible by allowing more pitches on a site when taking into account local circumstances and the

current level of need”. Indeed, the WG grant aid team (who we have worked closely with) are fully aware of the Council’s proposal for the former Race AFC site, to address forecast need, and have not objected to its proposed size.

6.19 The public questioners were thanked. They returned to the gallery. 7. TORFAEN LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (LDP) - FURTHER

FOCUSSED CHANGES

7.1 Council considered a report of the Chief Officer, Planning and Public

Protection (COP&PP), seeking: 1. consideration and approval of ‘Further Focused Changes’ and

‘Minor Amendments’ to the Deposit LDP with regards to Gypsy and Traveller and recreation sites; and retail, minerals, urban boundary, open space, allotments & housing matters;

2. agreement that the ‘Further Schedule of Focused Changes’ be subject to 6 weeks public consultation, with any resultant representations being forwarded to the LDP Inspector for consideration;

3. agreement that the LDP Background Papers on the ‘Torfaen Retail Study: Retail Floorspace Capacity Update’, November 2012’ produced by GVA and the Council’s ‘Gypsy and Traveller Study - Identification of Permanent Gypsy and Traveller Sites: Sites Options Report, July 2012’ and all associated supporting documents can be ‘Submitted’ to the Welsh Government / Planning Inspectorate; and

4. agreement that the ‘Definitive LDP Timetable’ be submitted to the Welsh Government.

7.2 The Chief Officer, Planning and Public Protection (COP&PP)

informed Council of late correspondence which had been received. This he described in summary:

an email from Coleg Gwent regarding access to the proposed new playing field

an email from the Welsh Government about the nature of focused changes

an email from the Cwmynyscoy Neighbourhood Action Group (CwmNAG) which had been sent to all members

a letter from GVA Consultants acting on behalf of Mr Hill, of Woodland Park, with an offer to sell the site to the Council for £2 million: an offer which had not yet been fully evaluated

a letter from Woodland Park Residents Association, saying that the owner of the site had not kept them informed; that they disputed his figures; that they claimed breach of contract; that they had legal protection for their rights; that Woodland Park was a retirement village, with the vast majority of residents of retirement age; and that they felt vulnerable.

7.3 The COP&PP then presented the report in detail. In summary, he outlined:

the letter sent to the LDP Inspector and his reply

that one key issue remaining was the need for sufficient Gypsy and Traveller accommodation

the large number and variety of studies undertaken

the need for 20 to 42 permanent pitches and 2 transit pitches

that the Rose Cottage site allocation had been accepted

the outstanding need now for 10 to 32 pitches in the LDP, on a site which was “implementable”

the conclusions of the CDN Study: that the future of the Shepherds Hill site had to be resolved (or the Council may have to find 3 or more sites elsewhere)

that the majority of the existing Gypsy and Traveller community wished to stay at Shepherds Hill

the Cabinet decision and the subsequent challenge

that the Cabinet had considered 6 options and decided to recommend the extension of the Shepherds Hill site, with the replacement of the football field and associated costings

that Council needed to decide today whether Shepherds Hill should go into the LDP as the desired location for more pitches

details of the proposed site, the playing field site and the proposed site layouts (he displayed plans)

that the report included answers to the questions asked at the Council Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 31 July 2012

that there was no evidence connecting particular members of the Cwmynyscoy community to incidents of crime or fly tipping, so these issues could not be given material weight

that the report gave details of site selection issues, alternative site issues and public consultation responses

the recommendations shown in the report regarding Gypsy and Traveller site provision

various other LDP Focused Changes proposed in the report (for example relating to The British, Llanfrechfa Grange, the Animal Pound, Pontypool College and several other sites and policies)

various Urban Boundary changes proposed

that a Sustainability Appraisal had been carried out

the LDP timetable

the need for a sub-committee of the Planning Committee to deal with any changes to the LDP required by the Inspector, where such changes fell beyond his delegated powers

the next stages of the LDP, particularly the expected start of the Examination in Public in April 2013.

7.4 A copy of the COP&PP’s full presentation can be obtained from the

Democratic Services Team on request.

7.5 Councillor Mawby suggested, and Council agreed, to deal only with

the Gypsy and Traveller site provision at this stage of the meeting, and to move on to other matters after the Gypsy and Traveller site issue had been dealt with (as most members of the public attending the meeting were interested in the Gypsy and Traveller site issue).

7.6 Comments were made (or questions were asked) by various other

members:

that many settled residents of the Cwmynyscoy area were very concerned at the expansion proposed

that the Chief Officer had presented news of various developments, for example in relation to the Woodland Park site, for which more time should be given to allow proper analysis

that these were life changing decisions for many people – the Welsh Government should be involved too

that local people needed more opportunity to put their views

that people supported providing more accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers but people in Cwmynyscoy felt that this was not the site for 30 extra pitches

that people in Cwmynyscoy felt discriminated against

that a Working Party of members and officers was needed, to deal with these sensitive issues

that there were bylaws on the Woodland Road site which made that site impossible to progress

that the Woodland Park park would only allow people aged over 55 to occupy the site: no children were allowed on the site

that more options should be developed, for where the growing Gypsy and Traveller population could live

that other councils (e.g. Newport) were actively looking at options, but Torfaen was not

that the reasons for not looking for alternatives were weak

whether the Council could submit its LDP for examination whilst still looking for better solutions for Gypsy and Traveller sites?

that all the facts should be presented, before a decision could be made on further Gypsy and Traveller accommodation

that Cwmynyscoy had been neglected over the years

that the regeneration options discussed several years ago (by the Cwm Lickey Sub-Committee among others) should be resurrected and pursued.

7.7 Councillor Mawby moved:

That recommendations (a) to (c) in the report be agreed, with the addition of the following words (shown in bold): That Council approves the:

a. allocation of the land known as the ‘Former Race AFC Playing

Pitch, Cwmynyscoy’ as a Gypsy & Traveller site for up to 32 pitches in the Deposit Torfaen Local Development Plan as a Further Focused Change;

b. allocation of land known as the ‘Eastern Fields, Cwmynyscoy’ as a playing field in the Deposit Torfaen Local Development Plan as a Further Focused Change;

c. the LDP Background Paper ‘Gypsy & Traveller Study - Identification of Permanent Gypsy and Traveller Sites: Sites Options Report, July 2012’ - TCBC, as a preliminary study, pending further work on alternative locations;

7.8 Councillor Mawby explained that such a decision would enable the site to be allocated in the LDP, but also leave the way open for potentially better options to be explored.

7.9 The motion was seconded.

7.10 Clarity was sought through Points of Order. The Lead Officer Council and Member Support confirmed that Council was only dealing at this stage (as agreed earlier) with the Gypsy and Traveller site allocation. A motion had been moved and seconded in relation to that issue.

7.11 Council then adjourned for approximately 15 minutes.

7.12 The Leader of the Council moved the following amendment: That recommendations (a) to (c) in the report be agreed - as they are shown in the report – and that a new (d) is inserted as follows:

d. establishment of a working party, with a remit to develop and move forward the previous scrutiny review undertaken by the then Regeneration Committee in 2007/08 for the regeneration of Cwm Lickey.

7.13 The Leader clarified that he was proposing:

that recommendations (a) to (c) in the officer report be agreed without any amendment to their wording and

that a working party be set up to move forward the previous work done on regenerating the area.

7.14 The Leader’s amendment was seconded. 7.15 The validity of the amendment was questioned (in terms of whether it

negated the original motion). Its validity was confirmed by the Lead Officer, Council and Member Support. Further Points of Order were also raised and answered by the Mayor and/or the Chief Executive and/or the Lead Officer Council and Member Support, about the order of debate.

7.16 The Chief Officer, Planning and Public Protection (COP&PP) was

asked for advice on the implications of the motion from Councillor Mawby and the amendment from the Leader of the Council. In response, the COP&PP stated in summary that (or questioned):

the addition of the words “up to” in part (a) were not problematic

the addition of the words to part (c) in Councillor Mawby’s motion could be problematic, as they could cast doubt on the validity of the allocation of the new site for the Gypsy and Traveller community

the evidence presented to the LDP Inspector should be final, not preliminary

there was a great degree of difference between being open to new sites, as opposed to actively looking for new sites

whether Councillor Mawby was suggesting an active search for other sites?

whether the word “preliminary” could be removed from the motion?

7.17 Councillor Mawby confirmed that he was content for any site to be

considered, and was proposing that further sites should be actively looked for. He wished the Council to continue to look elsewhere, for example at the Woodland Road site, and to see the LDP as a work in progress. The word “preliminary” was needed, to ensure the LDP Inspector understood that the Council had allocated the Race AFC site but was continuing to look for other sites.

7.18 Further points of order were raised about the discussion of several

opposing ideas at one time. It was confirmed again that Councillor Mawby had moved a motion, the Leader had moved an amendment and the relative merits of both were being explored.

7.19 Further questions were asked about the ramifications of the

decisions proposed in both the motion and the amendment, and whether it might be possible to combine them in some way.

7.20 The COP&PP clarified specifically that he would be not be able to

justify going into the Examination in Public of the LDP without a clear message on the allocation of the additional Gypsy and Traveller site which was required. The idea that the Council had allocated a site but was continuing to look elsewhere, for a different site, was confusing. The Council was obliged in any event to consider any alternative sites which may be suggested to it, so the allocation of the Race AFC site did not mean that all other potential sites would be discounted. In summary, the wording of the motion, if passed, would send a mixed message, which he did not recommend.

7.21 Other members commented that:

the motion implied that the LDP was a “moveable feast”: in fact it was not - what was needed was certainty

windfall sites may come along, which could be considered, but

the starting point was to allocate the best sites

they urged support for the amendment

not everyone in the Gypsy and Traveller community wanted to go on the football field.

7.22 Councillor Mawby replied that he wished for alternative sites to be

explored further and more vigorously as soon as possible, and that it would be a mistake in his view to concentrate all efforts on one site. He suggested that it was possible to adopt the LDP and allocate sites within it, but to keep looking for alternatives.

7.23 The amendment from the Leader of the Council (shown in paragraph

7.12 above) was put to the vote and with 20 members voting in favour and 17 against, it was declared CARRIED.

NB The various recommendations and/or motions and/or amendments

on the Gypsy and Traveller site/LDP issue were agreed in several stages at the meeting. For ease of reference, and for the avoidance of doubt, all the decisions made on this issue are listed collectively (in paragraph 7.32 below and in paragraph 7.60 below).

7.24 Councillor Waite proposed further that a working group be set up. It

was acknowledged that the decision made above included such a working group.

7.25 Following further questions and process clarification, Councillor Hunt

moved a further amendment: that the words “up to” be included before “32” in clause (a) of the decision (see paragraph 7.7 above).

7.26 The amendment was seconded. 7.27 The COP&PP reiterated, in response to questions, that the addition

of those words would not be problematic. Further Points of Order were raised about the need for advice on amendments. The Mayor and Chief Executive emphasised the importance of advice, to ensure that members were clear about the potential consequences of any decision they might make, before they voted either way.

7.28 The further amendment from Councillor Hunt was put to the vote and

with 37 members voting in favour and 2 against, it was declared CARRIED.

7.29 Various members referred to a letter which had been received from a

current resident of the Shepherds Hill site, complaining about some of the conditions on the site. The letter contained additional information which might help members decide, but had not been sent to the Chief Officer. The letter complained of substandard conditions, pipes and toilets freezing, no reliable showering or laundry facilities, serious overcrowding and other matters.

7.30 Members agreed to take the views expressed in the letter on board and to refer the letter to the Chief Officer for further work to be done.

7.31 The vote was then taken on the substantive motion. 7.32 Council AGREED (with 2 members voting against and all others in

favour) That Council approves the:

a. allocation of the land known as the ‘Former Race AFC Playing Pitch, Cwmynyscoy’ as a Gypsy and Traveller site for up to 32 pitches in the Deposit Torfaen Local Development Plan as a Further Focused Change;

b. allocation of land known as the ‘Eastern Fields, Cwmynyscoy’ as a playing field in the Deposit Torfaen Local Development Plan as a Further Focused Change;

c. the LDP Background Paper ‘Gypsy and Traveller Study - Identification of Permanent Gypsy and Traveller Sites: Sites Options Report, July 2012’ - TCBC,

d. establishment of a working party, with a remit to develop and move forward the previous scrutiny review undertaken by the then Regeneration Committee in 2007/08 for the regeneration of Cwm Lickey.

Chief Officer, Neighbourhood

Services

7.33 The Mayor announced the decision and the end of the debate on the

Gypsy and Traveller site allocation. Most members of the press and public left the meeting at this point.

7.34 A further motion was circulated by Councillor Mawby. After several

Points of Order, the Mayor called an adjournment, so that members could digest this new information. The adjournment lasted 20 minutes approximately.

7.35 Councillor Mawby asked questions about whether it was possible to

change a Development Framework, after it had been approved by the Council. He cited the change in the South Sebastopol case, from the need some years ago for the developer to provide a primary school, to the need now for the developer to provide a contribution towards educational provision.

7.36 The COP&PP explained that the Council itself had decided that a

school was no longer needed on the South Sebastopol site, so, when the planning application was refreshed, without a school, this change was accepted by the Council, since the Council itself had initiated the change. There was a disparity therefore between what the Development Framework required, and what would actually be provided, but that was a choice made by the Council.

7.37 Councillor Mawby sought clarity on whether the Development

Framework could be changed after it was agreed or whether, if a proposal did not comply with the Framework, it could be accepted.

7.38 The COP&PP confirmed that the Development Framework itself had

not changed; educational provision was still included. The change to the planning application came about because a school was not now needed on the site – so it would have been unreasonable to refuse the application on that basis. The Framework was not therefore being followed, but the departure from it was fully justified and was in line with Council priorities, which had changed over time.

7.39 Councillor Mawby then moved that a new paragraph (h) be added to

the recommendations as follows: “in view of the fact that the original proposal to allocate 1200 dwellings to the South Sebastopol proposed development in the Adopted Local Plan (prepared during the period 1996-2000) and later included in the Development Framework (first draft published in 2001) preceded significant and material planning considerations, including the following:

(i) the ratification of green wedges by Planning Policy Wales in 2002, which should have been followed by a further review of the housing allocation in the development framework for the site;

(ii) the development of other significant housing projects in the Cwmbran and South Pontypool areas which had not been anticipated when the figure of 1200 was set;

(iii) the continuing increases in vehicle ownership and traffic congestion in the vicinity of the site during the last 10 years, partly the consequence of neighbouring housing development;

(iv) the designation of the Canal Conservation Area in 2011; (v) the increasing acceptance of the importance of protecting

and supporting ecosystems and biodiversity when developing the countryside,

it is contended that the South Sebastopol development framework should be further amended by appropriate changes to appropriate documentation including the statement of buffer principles applicable to the site, to include increases to the widths of buffers to be applied between peripheral and new development, alongside woodlands belts and adjacent to the canal corridor, and that specifically SAA6 of the Deposit LDP be amended so that that the bullet point following the third paragraph reads “provision of 750 dwellings (with 690 dwellings to be delivered during the plan period).”

7.40 Councillor Mawby explained that he was not attempting to change

the South Sebastopol site allocation, but wished to reduce the number of new houses which would be allowed on the site, from 1200 to 750, given the changing circumstances (listed in his motion) since the LDP was first drafted. He stated that the LDP Inspector did

not wish to enter the debate on the number of houses which may be allowed on the site and that the Council’s intentions (which had changed over time in relation to the school provision for example) should be clarified. He stated that this would affect the delivery of the Development Framework, but this was fully justified, based on the reasons listed in his motion. This was not about the in principle allocation of the site for development, but was about the Council exercising its discretion on the number of houses to be allowed to go at South Sebastopol, in the interests of making the development more sustainable.

7.41 The motion was seconded. 7.42 Questions were asked about how such a change would affect the

LDP and whether this would go to the heart of the plan.

7.43 The COP&PP explained that the developer had based his

assumptions about the viability of the site on being able to build 1200 houses. Reducing that number now would remove the certainty of any development taking place. This was not about the specifics or detail of the application, but about the principle of development of the site. In his view, limiting the site to 750 houses would render it unviable. For that reason he advised that doing so would take the Council back to the situation before 23 October 2012 (i.e. an unviable LDP).

7.44 Discussion took place amongst various members on the motives

behind the motion. Points of Order and Explanation were raised.

7.45 Various other members commented in summary that:

this motion went to the heart of the LDP

the land availability study undertaken in 2011 made clear that Torfaen had 4.8 years housing supply with South Sebastopol

without South Sebastopol, supply fell to 3.6 years

the proposed change would seriously reduce the availability of land for housing in Torfaen

the Welsh Government would have no faith in the Council to decide planning policy, if this change was made

this would lead to planning by appeal, and planning in Torfaen being done by the Welsh Government: the motion should be opposed

the last time Council voted on the issue, South Sebastopol was reinstated in the LDP, by one vote

the argument was made then that, if South Sebastopol was not reinstated, the LDP would fall

the Council should have the opportunity to change the LDP if it wished to do so

the principles of a sustainable village, with a significant amount of social housing provision at South Sebastopol had already been moved away from

South Sebastopol was a greenfield site: the motion did not

change the principle of development and should be supported. 7.46 During the debate, the COP&PP was again asked for advice. He

commented that, if the Council limited the number of houses allowed on the site to 750, the site would become unviable. The LDP Inspector would therefore find the LDP unsound, due to the insufficiency of land supply. The motion, in this way, affected the principle of development.

7.47 In reply to the debate, Councillor Mawby commented in summary

that:

he did not intend to derail the LDP

the land supply figures were taken out of context – the relevant issue was the land supply for the whole period of the plan

South Sebastopol was in the plan already; this motion was about seeking to limit the number of houses on the site

no other new development of 750 or more houses had taken place for very many years

400 houses was usually considered a large site

his motion would not change the Development Framework

1200 houses may have been appropriate in 1998/99, but that number was not appropriate now

it was reasonable for the Council to review the position

the motion did not go to the heart of the LDP

the change may impact on the developer, but that was not known

the motion allowed the LDP to progress but gave the Council more control over the amount of development on the site.

7.48 The Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer reminded members of

the need to be clear on the implications before voting.

7.49 A further question was asked, about whether or not there would be

enough funding available within the South Sebastopol scheme to pay for the necessary highway improvements.

7.50 Further Points of Order were raised, about the order of speeches. 7.51 The Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer reminded members of

her duty to ensure members were clear on the advice being given.

7.52 The Chief Officer, Planning and Public Protection repeated that the

South Sebastopol site would be rendered unviable if the number of houses allowed was reduced. Imposing such a limit would effectively remove the site from the LDP and render the LDP itself unsound. In these circumstances the “soundness” of the LDP would be very difficult to evidence. Taking this course of action could therefore have serious repercussions, including reputational damage.

7.53 Councillor Mawby asked, at what point the site would potentially

become unviable (i.e. how many houses that equated to). 7.54 The COP&PP reiterated that reducing the number of dwellings

proposed on the site would render its development unviable.

7.55 The motion from Councillor Mawby was then put to the vote. The

Lead Officer, Council and Member Support took the names as follows (after councillors agreed to hold a recorded vote):

COUNCILLOR MAWBY’S AMENDMENT

FOR AGAINST ABSTAIN

Councillor Ashley √

Councillor Barnett √

Councillor Bevan √

Councillor Brooks √

Councillor Cameron √

Councillor Caron √

Councillor Richard Clark √

Councillor Constance √

Councillor Crick √

Councillor Cross √

Councillor Cunningham √

Councillor Daniels √

Councillor Davies √

Councillor Evans √

Councillor Furzer √

Councillor Graham √

Councillor Harnett √

Councillor Harris √

Councillor Haynes √

Councillor Hunt √

Councillor Jeremiah √

Councillor Alan Jones √

Councillor Lewis Jones √

Councillor Kemp √

Councillor Marshall √

Councillor Mason √

Councillor Mawby √

Councillor Mills √

Councillor Owen √

Councillor Parrish √

Councillor Powell √

Councillor Rees √

Councillor Seabourne √

Councillor Taylor √

Councillor Thomas √

Councillor Tomlinson √

Councillor Waite √

Councillor Wellington √

Councillor Yeowell √

TOTAL

19

20

0

NB any councillor not listed above was absent for this vote

7.56 The amendment was declared LOST. 7.57 The Leader of the Council then moved approval of the remaining

recommendations, as set out in the report. The motion was seconded

7.58 In answer to a question, the COP&PP confirmed that the Education

Department had originally asked for a 210 place school on the South Sebastopol site.

7.59 The remaining recommendations, as moved by the Leader, were then

put to the vote.

7.60 COUNCIL AGREED (with 3 members abstaining from the vote and

the remainder all voting in favour)

e. to approve the LDP Background Paper ‘Torfaen Retail Study: Retail Floorspace Capacity Update’, November 2012 - GVA;

f. to approve the ‘Further Schedule of Focused Changes’ to the Deposit Torfaen LDP (attached at Appendix 1);

g. to approve the ‘Further Schedule of Minor Amendments’ to the Deposit Torfaen LDP (attached at Appendix 2);

h. to approve the ‘Definitive LDP Timetable’ (attached at Appendix 4)

for submission to the Welsh Government; 2. that the ‘Further Schedule of Focused Changes’ and the

‘Further Schedule of Minor Amendments’ be subject to 6 weeks public consultation; with any resultant representations being forwarded to the LDP Inspector for consideration;

3. that the Sustainability Appraisal of the ‘Further Focused Changes’ and ‘Further Minor Amendments’ (attached at Appendix 3); the LDP Background Papers on the ‘Gypsy & Traveller Study - Identification of Permanent Gypsy and Traveller Sites: Sites Options Report, July 2012’ & the ‘Torfaen Retail Study: Retail Floorspace Capacity Update, November 2012’; and all associated supporting documents can be ‘Submitted’ to the Welsh Government / Planning Inspectorate; and

4. to delegate relevant decisions with regards to the finalisation of documents to be ‘Submitted’ under resolution 3 above to the Chief Officer Planning & Public Protection.

COP&PP

COP&PP

COP&PP

NB Clauses (a) to (d) of the decision were dealt with earlier in the meeting

and are listed in paragraph 7.32 above. 8. EXCLUSION OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC 8.1 COUNCIL AGREED to exclude the press and public at this point and

for the remainder of the meeting as the next report was not for publication under paragraph 16 of part 4 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order Wales 2007) because it contained information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege could be maintained in legal proceedings.

9. SOUTH SEBASTOPOL APPEAL 9.1 The Leader reminded members that papers had been circulated but

discussions were still ongoing with the appellant. He moved: a) That this meeting be adjourned until next Tuesday 27 November at 5pm, and decisions on the Chief Officer Planning and Public Protection’s recommendations in the report entitled “South Sebastopol Appeal” be deferred until the reconvened meeting, to allow time for outstanding documentation to be supplied to all Councillors. b) That a closed-to-the-public seminar for all Councillors be held immediately on this adjournment, to allow the Chief Officer Planning and Public Protection and the Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer to make an informal presentation to members to clarify the position in relation to negotiations with the appellants to date.

9.2 The motion was seconded. 9.3 Discussion ensued on when the seminar should take place, as it was

nearly 10pm now. The Chief Executive suggested that a seminar be held on another day (to be arranged and notified).

9.4 COUNCIL AGREED

a) That this meeting be adjourned until next Tuesday 27 November at 5pm, and decisions on the Chief Officer Planning and Public Protection’s recommendations in the report entitled “South Sebastopol Appeal” be deferred until the reconvened meeting, to allow time for outstanding documentation to be supplied to all Councillors. b) That a closed-to-the-public seminar for all Councillors be held as soon as possible during this adjournment, to allow the Chief Officer Planning and Public Protection and the Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer to make an informal presentation to members to clarify the position in relation to negotiations with the appellants to date.

9.5 The Mayor thanked councillors for their participation and closed the

first part of the meeting at 9.50pm approximately.

MINUTES – PART 2 OF THE MEETING (29 NOVEMBER 2012)

OPEN SUMMARY OF THE MINUTES OF THE EXEMPT PART OF THE MEETING

The Deputy Mayor reminded Council that this was a continuation of the meeting which had started on 20 November 2012 and that the Council had already decided to exclude the press and public, due to the nature of the business.

IN ATTENDANCE Councillors

Neil Mason (Deputy Mayor) (in the Chair) Stuart Ashley Anthony Hunt Jessica Powell Mary Barnett Mike Jeremiah Jeff Rees Stephen Brooks KSS JP Lewis Jones Philip Seabourne Pamela Cameron Robert Kemp Graham Smith Richard Clark John Marshall Barry Taylor JP David Daniels Brian Mawby Neil Waite Giles Davies Raymond Mills Bob Wellington (Leader) Maria Graham Mandy Owen David Yeowell Mike Harris Norma Parrish

Officers on the dais Peter Durkin Deputy Chief Executive Richard Gwinnell Lead Officer, Council and Member Support Tim James Principal Solicitor Alison Ward Chief Executive Lynda Willis Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer Planning and Public Protection Team:

Richard Lewis Head of Development Control Craig Mead Development Planner Duncan Smith Chief Officer, Planning and Public Protection Helen Smith Principal Planner (Development Control) Adrian Wilcock Principal Planner (Forward Planning) Other officers attending or observing for particular parts of the meeting/reasons: Richard Edmunds Head of Strategic and Democratic Services Nansi Salkeld Members Services Other attendees Reverend Anthony Gregory – Mayor’s Chaplain Simon Emson – Mayer Brown Consultants Stephen Stoney – Wardell Armstrong Consultants APOLOGIES – COUNCILLORS: Huw Bevan John Cunningham MBE KSG David (Keith) James Cynthia Beynon MBE Stuart Evans Alan Jones Ron Burnett Alan Furzer Colette Thomas Veronica Crick JP Kelvin Harnett JP Wayne Tomlinson (Mayor) Fiona Cross Elizabeth Haynes ABSENT – COUNCILLORS: Glyn Caron Gwyneira Clark (suspended) Leonard Constance

Action 10. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 10.1 The Chief Legal Officer and Monitoring Officer (CLO&MO) explained

that this part of the meeting was specifically about the South Sebastopol appeal; that different members may be in attendance (than on 20 November); and that there may therefore be a few new interests to be declared. The CLO&MO advised on specifics and answered queries and consequently:

10.2 Councillor Graham declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the

next agenda item, as she was a close personal associate of someone who was directly affected by the outcome of the South Sebastopol planning appeal. She then left the room.

10.3 Councillor Rees declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the next agenda item, as he was a close personal associate of someone who was directly affected by the appeal. He then left the room.

10.4 Councillors Ashley, Brooks, Jeremiah, Kemp, Parrish and Taylor

declared personal but not prejudicial interests in the next agenda item, as they were Community Councillors at the time of the planning application and hence commented in that capacity at the time.

10.5 Councillor Ashley declared a personal but not prejudicial interest as a

member of Torfaen Friends of the Earth, which was directly involved as a party in the South Sebastopol appeal.

10.6 Councillor Daniels declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the

South Sebastopol appeal as he lived in a house which overlooked the site and would therefore be directly affected by the outcome of the appeal. He then left the room.

10.7 The Mayor reminded councillors that they should write any interests

declared on the form which was circulated at the meeting.

11. SOUTH SEBASTOPOL APPEAL 11.1 The Chief Officer, Planning and Public Protection (COP&PP) referred

to the late papers circulated to members; the fact that negotiations took place up to the last minute; the amended recommendations which had been circulated today; and the letter dated 29 November from Asbri Planning which had been circulated around the room and which replaced previous appendix 12 to the report. He also introduced the Mayer Brown and Wardell Armstrong Consultants.

11.2 Members took a few minutes to read the letter from Asbri Planning

and the amended recommendations.

11.3 The COP&PP briefly presented the latest report and facts. In summary

he outlined:

that the principle of development on the South Sebastopol site had been reinstated in the LDP

that the appeal against the previous refusal of planning permission was about the grounds on which the application was refused – i.e. the traffic/highway/access/circulation issues and the “green wedge” argument

that meetings had been held with Torfaen Friends of the Earth and the appellants as decided by Council in October

that the appeal timetable was very tight and

the advice received from the Council’s QC.

11.4 Simon Emson, of Mayer Brown, then gave a detailed presentation

relating to highway, access and traffic circulation issues (displaying plans, maps, statistics, traffic impact mitigation proposals, highway improvements planned etc).

11.5 Stephen Stoney, of Wardell Armstrong, gave a detailed presentation

on the green space issues. He also displayed plans, maps, tree planting and site buffering proposals, photographs and plans of future vistas. He commented on the protection of views, hedgerows, trees, listed buildings and other site features which had been agreed with the appellant, with the appellant having provided a more detailed version of the Masterplan.

11.6 The COP&PP concluded and answered questions of detail. He also

confirmed that local ward members would be kept up to date with further specific local developments as appropriate.

11.7 In answer to questions about the status of the documentation (i.e.

when it may become public and whether different documents may become public at different times), the COP&PP stated that he would email members as soon as possible with further clarification.

11.8 COUNCIL AGREED (with 2 members abstaining from the vote and all

others voting in favour)

1. That the Council agrees not to contest the appeal, given that Wardell Armstrong and Mayer Brown are satisfied that matters outstanding in relation to the reasons for refusal and rule 6 statements can be dealt with satisfactorily by conditions and/or a section 106 agreement.

2. That Wardell Armstrong and Mayer Brown be authorised to negotiate in terms of reaching common grounds with the Appellant prior to the Public Inquiry.

3. The CPPPO, in conjunction with Wardell Armstrong and Mayer Brown (and on significant matters in consultation with the Leader of the Council and the Chair of the Planning Committee) be authorised to negotiate and reach agreement on a set of potential draft conditions and Section 106 Agreement in the event the appeal is allowed.

11.9 The Deputy Mayor closed the meeting at 6.10pm approximately.

Signed as a correct record by the Mayor ………………………………………… Explanatory notes

1. The minutes do not generally list councillors leaving the meeting early, arriving late,

or briefly leaving the room during a particular debate or decision. Councillors are only listed as having left or returned to the meeting if they were absent due to a declared personal and prejudicial interest (or specifically announced their departure or arrival for some other reason).

2. Councillors’ first names are used to identify their gender in the attendance and voting registers. They are referred to by surname only in the remainder of the minutes – unless there are two people with the same surname.

3. Where quotations are shown above, any clear typographical or grammatical errors (including proper names) have been corrected and/or abbreviations explained.

4. The minutes provide a summary of the meeting and the flavour of the discussions which took place, leading to the decisions made. They are not a verbatim record.

Minutes produced by Richard Gwinnell, Lead Officer, Council and Member Support