Planning Applications Table

To be considered at the September meeting of the Town Council.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised but any external lighting to be dark sky compliant.

Considered at the June meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections to the application but the Council would like to ask that any external lighting be dark sky compliant. Members also commented that the office did not seem to have a toilet facility.

Considered at the June meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised but asks that any external lighting be dark sky compliant.

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections to the application but the Council would like to ask that any external lighting be dark sky compliant. Members also commented that the office did not seem to have a toilet facility.

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Resolved that the Town Council has no objections to the application but would like to ask that the tree be replaced with another more suitable for the location.

Resolved no objections be raised.

Resolved no objections be raised.

Resolved to strongly support the application and to ask for dark sky compliant external lighting and for swift bricks/boxes to be installed if this is possible/practical.

Resolved to strongly support the application and to ask for dark sky compliant external lighting and for swift bricks/boxes to be installed if this is possible/practical.

Resolved no objections be raised.

Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the March meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to ask that any lighting be dark sky compliant in line with the town's status as a dark sky community. Other than this request the Council wished to support the application.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no comment be made.

Considered at the 16th February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to make the following comments -

Considered at the 19th January meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to object to the application due to the lack of visibility given the proposed high fence and lack of visibility splay.

Considered at the 19th January meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Work had already been completed.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Members noted the comments of Welsh Water regarding the lack of detail on foul and surface water drainage and the need for the applicant to consult with NRW. Members felt that there was insufficient information in a number of areas, these being - details of the provision of toilets and showers; more information needed on the proposed foul water drainage; more information needed on proposed surface water drainage; information on mitigation measures to protect biodiversity and on the compliance of any external lighting with dark sky requirements; confirmation that no excavation has or will take place given that the land is contaminated (despite the application form stating it is not a contaminated site); measures to mitigate any noise nuisance from music etc. The Council would wish to make further comments once this information has been received.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to make the following comments - concern  about the flat roof proposed, given other nearby properties had pitched rooves and that there seemed to be no response from CADW which the Council felt was important given the location of the property in the vicinity of an ancient monument - The Warden.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council.

Members had no objections but felt that the sparrow terrace and house martin nest cups should be located on the eaves of the property. They also asked that any external lighting be dark skies compliant.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Members wished to make the following comments - a need for the dwellings to be highly energy efficient with the aim of achieving as close to net zero as possible - this should be achieved via air source heat pumps, solar panels, insulation etc. no detail provided on the management of the 11 affordable housing units e.g. ownership, shared ownership, renting etc. all external lighting needs to be dark skies compliant, Members noted that NRW had raised a number of matters from the 2019 ecological report and it supports these comments, The large oak on site should have its roots protected during construction in line with BS5837, it was felt that in order for residents of the new properties to access a safe pavement to get into the town from the site a new pedestrian crossing should be provided across Joe Deakins Road and also that in order for this new crossing to be as safe as possible the 30mph limit should be extended so traffic has slowed sufficiently before the crossing is reached.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections to the application but to be noted that due to the large South facing roof there was a good opportunity for the installation of solar panels.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections to the application but noted that due to the South facing roofs there was a good opportunity for the installation of solar panels and this was not currently being considered.

To be considered at the October meeting of the Town Council.

To be considered at the October meeting of the Town Council.

To be considered at the October meeting of the Town Council.

https//berrys.uk.com/presteigne. Considered at a meeting of the Town Council on 24th June and the following comments submitted -

Affordable Housing – Members referred to the Presteigne Town Investment Regeneration Plan which says – ‘The contaminated site of the old Kaye’s Foundry, in the centre of Presteigne …holds the key to providing more affordable housing for existing, particularly younger, residents who are currently locked out of the housing market.’ It was felt that the current proposal placed too much emphasis on one-bedroom properties when in fact there was a very real need for affordable family homes. The current Powys housing list shows Presteigne with a high need for such homes. The Town Council therefore feels that the affordable element of the development needs to include a high percentage of family sized properties. At present the designation of the affordable properties is not given.  The Council also believes that there is a real need for shared ownership homes to enable people to get on the property ladder.

Housing Generally: It was felt that there were too many one bedroom properties given the town’s need for more family homes. Members would like to see the properties built to the highest possible environmental standard and feels that, given the site is not as contaminated as was expected thus reducing costs, then achieving Passivhaus standard should be the aim. As would the inclusion of the appropriate electrical installation to allow the future connection of electrical vehicle charging points. The Council supports the fitting of air source heat pumps.

Site Layout: Some Members commented that the layout of the site did not reflect the distinctive medieval layout of the historic town centre and it was agreed that I ask if this could be considered when reviewing the current layout.

The location of the play area, to the very edge of the site was discussed and it was felt that it would be better sited in the centre of the housing – this would create a ‘village green’ type area which would promote a sense of community and allow parents to watch their children more easily. It was also noted that with the current arrangement it was necessary to cross a road for it to be reached.

It was also felt that orienting the houses East/West would maximise solar gain from photovoltaic roof panels.
Play Area: Members would like to know what arrangements will be in place to maintain the area both for regular maintenance and in the long term.

Traffic/Highways – Members noted that the County Highways Department believed that the junction from the site was adequate but Members had concerns about the subsequent increased use of Broadaxe Lane and Greenfield Road. It was felt that promoting use of the Hereford Street Car Park by providing pedestrian access to the development from there would be a way of reducing traffic directly from the site. The Council would be very interested in seeing the results of the traffic analysis once complete. Members confirmed that Back Lane was not suitable for use for access to the site but were very interested in the possible land donation discussed with Cllr. Ross to improve the bottom end of the lane. It would be keen to support this.

Lighting on Site: Members were pleased to note your agreement that the whole site, including the retail building, would have dark sky compliant lighting.

Siting of Healthcare Facility: It was felt that it was more logical to site this nearer to the current Doctor’s Surgery.

Retail: No comment other than the need to provide a pedestrian link to the Hereford Street car park.

Surface Water Drainage: The need for this to be fully assessed was stressed by Members. The proposed SUDS basin should be more than capable of coping the with the site water run-off.

Heritage Impact Statement: At one point this stated that the site would enhance the adjacent conservation area. See comments on layout above.

Materials: At this stage there is no detail on the materials to be used in construction. The Council wishes to be advised of this information in due course.

Trees etc: Retention of existing trees fully supported.

Footpaths: Noted that the footpath currently re-routed to the edge of the site was to be returned to its original line. This was felt to be a positive step.

Contamination on Site: Two comments were made – the Town Council would appreciate more detail on the proposals for the removal of contaminated material and the intentions for the infill subsequent to this and it would also like details on how the contaminated material will be removed to avoid any risk to residents of the town.

To be considered at the July meeting of the Town Council.

Considered at the meeting of the Town Council held on 24th June. Resolved no objections be raised but to ask why the new door needed to be painted white.

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Members were unable to comment fully as there was a lack of detail included within the application e.g. dark skies compliant lighting information, materials to be used, any SUDs implications etc. Noted that the site was also close to an historic monument - the Warden. The Clerk would submit comments to this effect

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application and to welcome action after a long delay.

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objection to the application providing the units are not converted into permanent buildings in the future

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application and to welcome action after a long delay.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised subject to the approval of the Built Heritage Officer.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised subject to the approval of the Built Heritage Officer.

Considered at the March meeting of the Town Council. Resolved

no objections to this application providing there is no development into accommodation at a later date.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to make the following comment - the application states that 'Having lived in Presteigne over the last summer we have noted that there is steady flow of tourists in the town but a shortage of short stay affordable accommodation in or close to the town centre.' Members were of the opinion that there is currently sufficient holiday accommodation. Other than this the Council had no comment to make.

This is a Town Council application.

Members were concerned that there appeared to be no professional opinion obtained on the need to remove the tree and felt that the applicant should commission such an opinion in order to confirm or otherwise that the work is necessary.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Reslved No objections be raised.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to object to the application until a replacement ATM is installed.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council.

Considered at the September meeting of the Town Council. No objections but work already believed to be complete.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections to this application but would draw thew attention of the Built Heritage Officer to the existence of Napoleonic friezes in the building and which need to be protected.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections to this application but would draw thew attention of the Built Heritage Officer to the existence of Napoleonic friezes in the building and which need to be protected.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Block demolished. No further comment.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application but to request that any lighting on the site comply with the town's dark sky status - as per the lighting policy supplied to the County Council. In addition Members noted the concerns of Environmental Health as the site was currently served by a septic tank.

Considered at the June meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the June meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to make the following comments - The application appears to relate to two developments and the Council feels it would have been clearer for two separate applications to be made. Members agreed the following -Timber Frame Outbuilding: the Council is disappointed that this has been applied for retrospectively; otherwise no objections. Manager's Cottage: the Council is disappointed that this has been applied for retrospectively; the retrospective nature means no professional bat or reptile survey was carried out prior to development; application says no reptiles but area is known as a slow worm site; the comments of Natural Resources Wales regarding the connection for foul flows from the development were noted. Other than the above comments the Council has no objections providing the Built Heritage Officer is satisfied.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to make the following comments - The application appears to relate to two developments and the Council feels it would have been clearer for two separate applications to be made. Members agreed the following -Timber Frame Outbuilding: the Council is disappointed that this has been applied for retrospectively; otherwise no objections. Manager's Cottage: the Council is disappointed that this has been applied for retrospectively; the retrospective nature means no professional bat or reptile survey was carried out prior to development; application says no reptiles but area is known as a slow worm site; the comments of Natural Resources Wales regarding the connection for foul flows from the development were noted. Other than the above comments the Council has no objections providing the Built Heritage Officer is satisfied.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. The Council notes that the application states it is not a new build although it is. It would like to draw your attention to the mature oak tree sited on the opposite side of the land but whose roots may reach across onto the site. Care should be taken to not damage the root system. Otherwise no objections.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application but with the comment that the Council feels that the development should comply with the most recent regulations regarding surface water drainage/SUDS.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections but County Council to be reminded of the proximity of the site to the stream.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be made.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the September meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections to the application but the Council would not like to see it become a separate dwelling in the future.

Considered at the September meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections in principle to a garden studio but concerns regarding the proposed size and therefore the Council requests that it be restricted for use as an ancillary building tied to the main property thus ensuring it could not become a separate dwelling.

Considered at the September meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the September meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the September meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections to the application providing the containers are sited on the existing concrete hardstanding and that this is not disturbed and no groundworks are carried out given that the land is contaminated. It was noted that the site is in a residential area and so opening hours should be properly considered.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections to the application.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application.

Considered at the June meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application.

Considered at the June meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application.

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the March meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the March meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to make the following comments - a need for more details and information to be provided by the applicant on the visibility splay and access;
agreement with the comments made by Highways generally; to stress the need for the upstairs windows, and particularly the balcony, are of sufficient distance away from neighbouring properties to protect their privacy. No further comments.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections to this application providing a condition is included that the building remains ancillary to the main property.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved that no decision be made until the necessary surveys regarding possible contaminated land and japanese knotweed are done and the information can be considered.

Further considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to object to the application until the concerns of Natural Resources Wales and the County Council Ecology Officer have been fully addressed and resolved.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be made.

Considered at the September meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to make the following comments - passing bay requested as part of an earlier planning permission still not in place; no information on protected species. Otherwise no objections.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised providing the Built Heritage Officer is satisfied with the proposals.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised providing the Built Heritage Officer is satisfied with the proposals.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no comment be made.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no comment be made.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be made.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be made.

Considered at the June meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections providing the proposed building does not impinge on the parking requirements for the property.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the February 23rd meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections providing that consideration is given to the proximity of the property to a listed building and the Built Heritage Officer has no objections.

Considered at the February 23rd meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to object to the application this would set a precedent for similar holiday accommodation being changed to permanent residential properties. The potential for this issue was raised in the Council's comments on the initial planning application when it stressed that if planning permission was granted there should be no possibility of permanent occupation. Given the current climate in which the 'staycation' is so popular Members felt that holiday accommodation was very much needed and so the holiday letting of this property should be a viable business.

Considered at the February 23rd meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to request that that any external lighting be dark sky compliant in order to facilitate the Council's application for Dark Sky status which is due to be submitted in the Spring.

Considered at the February 23rd meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no comment be made.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections to be raised providing the Built Heritage Officer has no concerns.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the February Meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

To be considered at the February meeting of the Town Council.

Considered at the 19th January meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the 19th January meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the 19th January meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections but the following comments be made in addition - hours of operation/opening are not stated and this should be established to avoid noise or other nuisance, suggestion that solar panels be installed on the roof and that boxes for swifts be added.

Considered at the 12th January meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application subject to the approval of the Built Heritage Officer but to acknowledge within the letter of support the comments of the neighbour regarding overlooking and suggest that this might be addressed as a condition within any planning permission issued.

Considered at the 12th January meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the 12th January meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the 12th January meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the December Town Council Meeting. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections subject to the Built Heritage Officer being satisfied.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections subject to the Built Heritage Officer being satisfied.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised subject to the approval of the Built Heritage Officer.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised subject to the approval of the Built Heritage Officer.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections subject to subject to the following - a suitable condition be placed on the dwelling to ensure it remains permanently as a holiday unit only; the chalet is no larger in size than the one already on site and given there will now be four chalets in close proximity that the Planning Department feels this is an acceptable density.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be made.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved as follows - to express concerns about - the location of the proposed garage, being too close to the adjacent property; the location of proposed sewage treatment works, again close the boundary with the adjacent property; the location of the sewage treatment plant given the proximity of the River Lugg. Subject to the satisfactory resolution of the above the Council has no other objections.

Considered at the September meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections provided the neighbours have no concerns.

Considered at the September meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the September meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no comment be made.

Considered at the September meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections to the application providing there is no impact on the neighbouring properties (due to being overlooked) and the neighbours have been consulted and have no objections.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the June meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the June meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the June meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the June meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the June meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the June meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the June meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the June meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the March meeting of the Town Council and agreed to support the application. Comments confirmed May 2021.

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised providing the Built Heritage Officer has no concerns.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised providing the Built Heritage Officer has no concerns.

Considered at the March meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application.

Considered at the March meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application.

Considered at the March meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to make no objections however Members asked that consideration be given to the street signs by the planned entrance and these being re-located as necessary. No other comments providing the Highways Department is in agreement with the proposed layout.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved that the following comments be made - Members pleased to see that the visibility splay at School Lane was being improved but need clarification on whether the stone wall will be replaced or if it was just a replacement hedge?; Noted that only two parking spaces were being provided for a three bedroom property and felt that three would have be the standard; Access to the property is via steps and thus it is not accessible to those with disabilities; The parking spaces are positioned to be difficult to access and it states that they would have to be reversed into - are Highways in agreement with this; Built Heritage Officer to be consulted; Archaeological investigations to take place.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Application withdrawn prior to Meeting.

Considered at the January meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to object to the height of the fence at 3m high and suggest 2.4m. Also to question the designation being given as agricultural as in appearance it seemed industrial.

Considered at the January Meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the January meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised but that Welsh Water be asked to keep the temporary closure of the footpath as short as possible.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to make the following comment - the Council wishes to object to the application due to concerns over the cumulative loss of screening at the site due to the siting of ever larger units, resulting in requests to remove trees previously planted to provide screening. This is leading to the site being increasingly visible and it was felt that the effect on the site should be considered overall in order to prevent the situation deteriorating further. It was also felt that the proposed reduction was excessive.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objection to the application providing the Built Heritage Officer is satisfied.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objection be raised providing the Built Heritage Officer was satisfied.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to make the following comment - the Council wishes to object to the application due to concerns over the cumulative loss of screening at the site due to the siting of ever larger units, resulting in requests to remove trees previously planted to provide screening. This is leading to the site being increasingly visible and it was felt that the effect on the site should be considered overall in order to prevent the situation deteriorating further.

Considered at the September meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised but that the County Council be asked to check the conditions placed on the previous planning application.

Considered at the September meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the September meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved that the Council had no objections in principle but would like to raise the following concerns -
parking provision, noise problems if late night opening occurs which is very possible given the opening times stated and litter issues. The Town Council would like these matters to be borne in mind and addressed when considering the application.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the June Meeting of the Town Council. Resolved that the Town Council has no objections providing the neighbours are happy with all aspects of the proposals.

Considered at the June Meeting of the Town Council. Resolved that the Town Council has no objections providing the neighbours are happy with all aspects of the proposals.

Considered at the June Meeting of the Town Council. Resolved that the Town Council has no objections to this application providing as long as any work fits in with the conservation area requirements.

Considered at the meeting of the Town Council held on 20th May (via video conferencing). Resolved no objections be made.

Considered at the virtual (video conferencing) Council meeting to be held on 20th May 2020. Resolved to object to the application as no reasons given for the removal of the trees.

Considered at the virtual (video conferencing) Council meeting to be held on 20th May 2020. Resolved to make the following comments - Members were concerned at the proposed change of use without more detail and supporting information being provided. Members also asked for clarification on the proposed operating hours which are currently stated as 0.00 to 0.00, 24 hour working and include weekdays and weekends. There was no assessment of the potential environmental impact.

Considered by Council under delegated powers on or after 28th April due to the current corona virus crisis. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered by Council under delegated powers on or after 21st April due to the current corona virus crisis. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered by Council in April under delegated powers due to the current corona virus crisis. Resolved that no objections be raised but the Council requests that the development be carried out to the highest possible environmental standards.

Considered by Council in April under delegated powers due to the current corona virus crisis. Resolved that no objections be raised but the Council requests that the development be carried out to the highest possible environmental standards.

Considered by Council on 6th April via delegated powers/email due to the current corona virus crisis. Resolved that no objections be made to the application providing the neighbours have been consulted and that any highways requirements are met.

Considered at the March meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application.

Considered at the March meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved that the following comments be submitted - Outline permission was granted in 2018 and the forthcoming application is for reserved matters relating to 36 new dwellings of various sizes from two to four bedrooms. Thirty percent of these would be affordable (70% of those for sale and the remaining 30% as rent to buy etc). The Town Council's own housing need survey identified a need for affordable properties in the area and it is pleased to see provision is being made within the development.
The Town Council understands that developer discussions with Welsh Water have indicated that connection to the mains sewers would be permitted although work was required to widen the pipes along the B4362 road. The capacity of the sewage system prior to the intended Welsh Water upgrade was discussed with us and Mr. Hughes of Hughes Architects confirmed that he had been told that this would be possible. Members received a full presentation from the Architects in December 2019 as part of the pre planning process and at the time made a number of comments. These are incorporated together with the comments made at the meeting and they are -

The need for adequate provision for parking.
Comprehensive alleviation of flood risk.
hedge retention on the site boundary and if at all possible some hedging within the development.
Connection to the mains sewage system.
The highest possible environmental standard for the homes, incorporating energy efficiency measures such as orientation of properties, solar panels and high BREEAM standards. The Town Council wishes to encourage sustainable development and the building of homes to be as energy efficient as possible. It was also noted that the intention was to use ground source heat pumps but that there would not be any underfloor heating. It was felt that without underfloor heating the heat pumps could prove to be expensive to run and that underfloor heating be re-considered. It also asks that the inclusion of solar panels to assist with running costs be considered as a way of reducing future running costs for occupants. The Town Council was happy that access would be from the B4362 and that the entrance be staggered from the existing Kings Court junction. Members asked that as part of the development a Section 106 agreement be made to provide a pedestrian crossing to give access to the recently completed active travel route and also that some play equipment be required, including, if possible, a fenced toddler area. It was noted that a length of the internal roadway (alongside properties 19-24) only had a pavement shown on one side - the Town Council would like to be assured that this would not be a bar to future adoption of the roadway by the County Council as it believes previous standards required a pavement on both sides.

The Town Council would like to request that the street lighting is suitable and in line with the town's intention to apply for Dark Sky status.

Finally the Town Council has had one letter from a resident outlining concerns. The resident has been advised to submit those comments direct to the planning department but they are included below for your information -

1. Flooding, we are concerned that increased housing and hard standing/tarmac areas could increase the risk of flooding in this area, we have seen such examples recently as in Canon Pyon.
2. Orientation, this would affect us in that we have our master bedroom and kitchen/dining room with windows towards this development. Our back garden could also potentially be visible therefore orientation is a concern due to privacy.
3. The road. If this development were to go ahead we feel that the road should be changed from a 40mph speed limit to a 30mph speed limit due to the increased number of people/families using the pavements etc.
4. Water, can it be confirmed that the sewerage and water supply from Welsh Water is capable of handling this size of development and if work needs to be done is it financially viable?
5. Phosphate levels, I am unfamiliar with this issue and I have not been able to find anything on the Powys CC website. I have read the below information from Herefordshire and given that the development will be close to Clatterbrook which feeds into the Lugg, I wondered if this issue had been taken into consideration. Welsh Water are involved in the matter in the Arrow Ward and so I presume they could be contacted for information relating to this area of Powys. It does state that it can affect developments.

Considered at the February Meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections but that the following comments be made - any development should follow sustainable principles given the current climate emergency and the existence of a public footpath to the rear of the property should be checked.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved that the following comments be made - Further to the comments made to the pre-planning consultation the Town Council would like to stress the need for -
a section 106 agreement to provide a crossing and a full connection to the existing active travel route in the town;
the 30mph limit to be extended beyond the development (presently a 40mph limit);
properties to be built to the highest possible BREEAM standards in particular with regard to heating/insulation - orienting properties to achieve the maximum solar gain and using pv technology not fossil fuels to provide for energy needs.
For easy reference the comments made by the Town Council to the pre planning consultation are reproduced below -

No issues with access on to the B4355 providing County Highways have no concerns.
Concern at the large number of properties proposed on the site which seemed a high density for this area.
The Council was pleased to see the number of affordable dwellings included in the proposal and felt it would be useful to try to incorporate the need for particular size properties illustrated in the Town Council's last housing survey. A copy is attached.
The Town Council believes the proposed access is outside the 30mph limit and suggests therefore that as part of the development the footway on that side of the road be widened and a crossing provided - adding to the current active travel route along the by pass, and that via the County Council an extension of the 30 mph, beyond the new site access be made.

The Town Council appreciates that this number of dwellings will increase the pressure on the town facilities and would ask that the consideration of some form of planning gain such as the provision of green space on the site, a financial contribution towards the town play areas or Went's Meadow park for example. Dwellings to be constructed to at least BREEAM 4 standard.

The Town Council would like to request that the street lighting is suitable and in line with the town's intention to apply for Dark Sky status.

Subject to the comments above the Town Council has no objections to the application.

Considered at the 22nd January meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the 22nd January meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the 22nd January meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised providing the emissions are closely monitored.

Considered at the 15th January meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised subject to the approval of CADW and the Built Heritage Officer and the agreement of Welsh Water to connect to the mains sewer.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the November meeting of the Community Council. Resolved no objections be raised subject to the approval of the Built Heritage Officer.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no comment be made.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised subject to the approval of the Built Heritage Officer.

Considered at the October meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the September meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections but Council agreed with the recommendation of CPAT that an archaeologist be on site during excavations to record any archaeological features revealed.

Considered at the August meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections to the application subject to any conditions felt necessary by the Built Heritage Officer.

Considered at the July Meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised subject to the relevant authorities having been notified.

COMMITTEE DATE 3RD OCTOBER 2019: SEE PCC WEBSITE FOR MORE INFORMATION.

Considered at the July Meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to object to the application. See full letter here. Amended Information considered at the September meeting and following comments submitted -

None of the issues raised in July have been addressed and in particular rotating the angle of the property (and so becoming closer to the fence line) has not changed the fundamental issues with the proposal. Noted that the plans still show footway/pavement along the sides of the access road and these do not exist. Pedestrians therefore have to walk in the road. Members also asked for a reply on the question of criminal damage raised in my July letter and again raised concerns about the removal of trees - feeling it could not be justified. Finally the Council asks why it was not formally consulted on the amended information. Had this not been raised by a resident it would not have been aware of any changes.

Considered at the July Meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the July meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application.

Considered at the June meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the June Meeting of the Town Council. Resolved that the following comments be made -

Whilst having no objection in principle, Members felt that the site selected was not suitable and that the unit, (if a rural enterprise dwelling is justified), should be sited immediately adjacent to the farm buildings (to facilitate access to the livestock concerned) not adjacent to the existing residential properties.

To repeat that the site is presently situated behind a padlocked gate (blocking a long standing footpath currently subject to a DMMO application).

The locked gate is of additional concern because of the lack of easy/urgent access for emergency services to this proposed residential unit sited beyond that gate and this needs to be addressed.

Considered at the June meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the May meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections to this application.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resovled to support this application.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections to this application.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support this application.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support this application.

Considered at the April Meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections to this application.

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved that the folllowing comments be made -

Noted that the applicant had tried to address the issues raised on the earlier application but felt that the visual impact has not been reduced sufficiently to satisfy its concerns. On the issue of access the Council noted that this had been moved and that the safety of this will be assessed by the Highways Section prior to approval. Agreed to repeat the comments made on the previous application - these are below -
This application was discussed at the meeting of the Town Council held last night. Members noted that the applicant had tried to address the issues identified with the earlier application however they asked that I repeat their earlier concerns which were -

The Town Council has strong concerns about this application and would like to make the following comments -

Appropriateness of size/scale of the proposed cabins which seem too large for their setting and in comparison with nearby buildings.
Concern at the access onto a dangerous stretch of road, where the Town Council has for some time been pressing for the introduction of a lower speed limit (50mph). If the application is granted then the introduction of such a speed limit should be considered essential.
Linked to the access concerns, the Town Council also believes that the vehicle movement figures seem low and have been underestimated.
Further development in this area will lead to the creation of a new settlement 'village' outside the town boundary.
If permission is given then use as permanent residential accommodation should not at any point be granted.

The Town Council would also like to point out that the DAS refers to residential accommodation adjacent -and would like to clarify that this is not permanent accommodation but holiday accommodation

Considered at the April meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support this application.

Considered at the March meeting of the Town Council. Resolved that the following comments be made - insufficient information to consider the application, with particular concerns over the lack of clear height measurements and generally not enough detail on the plans provided. To request updated plans containing the necessary detail. Concerns over the appropriateness of the design, materials and appearance given the location of the development but more detail is needed. Would also like to see the comments of the Built Heritage Officer on the proposals. To ask for more detail be provided on the effect of the development on both neighbours Trincomallee and 37 High Street.

Considered at the February meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised providing the Highways Section has no issues with the height of the proposed walls and is satisfied with the resulting visibility splay.

Considered at the 16th January meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application.

Considered at the 16th January meeting of the Town Council. Resolved that the following comments be made - The Town Council has considered this application. The tree in question is the subject of a TPO and the Council is concerned that such a drastic reduction may have an adverse affect on the tree in the longer term. In addition it was felt that inadequate justification was given for the works stated.

Considered at the December meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be raised.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application providing the Built Heritage Officer had no concerns.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application providing the Built Heritage Officer had no concerns.

Considered at the November meeting of the Community Council.

Resolved that the Council had strong concerns about the application and to make the following comments -

Inappropriateness of size/scale of the proposed cabins which seem too large for their setting and in comparison with nearby buildings.
Concern at the access onto a dangerous stretch of road, where the Town Council has for some time been pressing for the introduction of a lower speed limit (50mph). If the application is granted then the introduction of such a speed limit should be considered essential.
Linked to the access concerns, that the vehicle movement figures seem low and have been underestimated.
Further development in this area would lead to the creation of a new settlement 'village' outside the town boundary.
If holiday use is permitted then use as permanent residential accommodation should not at any point be granted.
To point out that the DAS refers to residential accommodation adjacent and to clarify that this is not permanent accommodation but holiday accommodation.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved to support the application.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved that no comment be made.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council.

Resolved that no objections be raised but that the following comments be submitted

Access: Residents had raised concerns about the width of the access along Mynd Road given that many park on the side of the road, particularly at evenings and weekends.
Private Water Supply to Norton Manor Park: The applicant appears to have addressed the concerns raised by both the Town Council and residents about contamination of the water supply. Nevertheless the Town Council wishes to stress the need for this supply to be protected and the revised manure management plan adhered to.

Considered at the November meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be made.

Considered at the October Meeting of the Town Council. Resolved no objections be made.

Considered at the September Town Council Meeting. Resolved no objections be raised.