Retirements apartments plan for village rejected

Contentious plans to build a block of retirement apartments in a Monmouthshire village have been rejected by councillors.

The proposals included an active living centre with 18 apartments to accommodate people aged over 60 off Merthyr Road in Llanfoist, along with facilities such as a courtyard, swimming pool and gym.

Despite 55 objections, council planners had recommended approval, but councillors went against their advice to refuse the scheme at a Monmouthshire planning committee meeting on Tuesday.

Cllr Giles Howard, who represents the ward, said the “massive building” was being proposed in “possibly the most prominent part of Llanfoist”.

Cllr Howard said artist’s impressions showed the block of flats “almost in a mist of trees”, suggesting it had to be ‘hidden.’

“We have the planning equivalent of trying to hide an elephant behind a napkin,” he said.

The meeting heard a statement from Llanfoist Community Council which said the building would be a similar height to a Premier Inn or Waitrose in the area.

“This development would not enhance its surroundings and is clearly of an inappropriate scale for the location,” it said.

But Peter Sulley, representing the applicant, said the scale of the building had been reduced in response to concerns from the community.

Mr Sulley said the scheme promised “high quality, sustainable residential accommodation”, with its environmental credentials helping to address the climate emergency declared by the council.

Several councillors raised concerns over car parking proposals, with 21 spaces proposed, but only six allocated to residents.

Cllr Sheila Woodhouse said the number “simply would not be sufficient”, adding that many people aged around 60 still drive a car.

Cllr Mat Feakins said there were “good points to the scheme”, such as the green roof designed to soften the appearance of the development against the backdrop of The Blorenge mountain.

While having concerns over the scale of the building proposed, he suggested the plans could be deferred to revise the application.

But Cllr Howard, who moved refusal, said the plans had already been “tweaked, twiddled and fiddled with”.

“It does in a sense represent betterment, but to me because the scale is so massive it’s almost like asking somebody if they would rather be shot or stabbed,” he said.

The committee voted for refusal by 10 votes to two, with three councillors unable to vote due to technical issues.