PLANNERS have rejected plans for a two-bedroom bungalow as they said anyone living there would likely be reliant on driving for “day-to-day needs”.
Applicant Rob Henderson had wanted permission to build the bungalow on land between his home, Fordell House, and another modern detached property, Stirling House, at Stoney Road in Garndiffaith, Pontypool.
Planners previously rejected an application in 2020 to build two new detached homes in front of Fordell House which was built in 2010.
The latest application was for the bungalow at the eastern side of Stoney Road but concerns were raised about access by the council’s highways department while the planning department said the site couldn’t be considered suitable for additional residential development.
In a report planning officer Caroline Pulley said the council’s supplementary planning guidance states new homes should ideally be located within an 800-metre walking distance of “a range of day-to-day facilities and services” to provide “realistic opportunities” to travel other than by private car or motor vehicle.
Information submitted with the application showed the nearest bus stop, with services to Pontypool, is around 250 metres away but that would require walking along Stoney Road where there is no pavement.
The report also noted there are no facilities such as convenience stores, schools, healthcare facilities or other key day-to-day services within 800 metres of the site.
“Having regard to the limited accessibility of services and facilities, together with the absence of suitable pedestrian infrastructure, it is considered that future occupiers would be heavily reliant on the private motor vehicle to meet their day-to-day needs,” said Ms Pulley.
She acknowledged the statement submitted with the application had identified the bus stop but said: ” Insufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that public transport connections to Blaenavon and Pontypool would provide a realistic and attractive alternative to private car travel for future residents.
“Consequently, the site cannot be regarded as a sustainable location for additional residential development.”
Her report listed four reasons for refusal which also included a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, as it was stated the home would appear “cramped” on the site, and a “harmful and overbearing” impact on a third existing property.
The highways department had also objected and said a lack of information had been provided while the refusal stated the site access, from the lane, has inadequate visibility and the lane is too narrow.