AN Abergavenny resident has blasted MCC’s surprise U-turn on a planning application that was previously refused and written to councillors asking them to “explain or justify” their reasons.

Tony Davies of Park Close Abergavenny told the Chronicle that he is “puzzled by “the behaviour of some of the councillors regarding the planning application to build a bungalow in the back garden of the house at 11 Park Close.

Mr. Davies, who lives next door to the proposed development explained that the initial application was recommended for refusal by the Highways Department two years ago.

They considered the driveway of the development to be “undesirable and dangerous” and not in accordance with Welsh Common Standards.

He explained, “The Highways objection alone, is normally sufficient for a rejection of any application, and this appeared to be the case.”

However, on January 8 of this year, it was noted that an application had resurfaced on the council website with a planning officer recommending approval for the development which, to the surprise of Mr. Davies, was set to go before the planning committee on January 14.

He explained, “No attempt was made to inform residents or the owners of No 10 who have a shared access arrangement with No 11. "Was it because if no one knew about it there would be no objections?”

Because it was too late to register objections at the planning meeting, a petition signed by 25 residents, restating the original objections of the size of the development, the danger it presented, and the loss of hedge and green area, was presented to the planning officer at a site visit on January 13.

On the meeting of January 14, the application was refused by seven votes to six on the grounds that “The proposed 3m wide access serving three properties, represents a significant departure from the Welsh Common Standards.”

The following day the applicant submitted amended plans which addressed concerns raised by Highways but did not fully resolve the issue.

Mr. Davies explained, “To ensure a valid reason was agreed upon in the event of an appeal, the planning officer deferred the decision to reject until the February 4 meeting where the majority of councillors voted against the reason for refusal.

Mr Davies added, “There was no logical reason to disagree with the reason for refusal and the January report clearly recommended refusal.

“However, in my opinion, certain members of the planning committee appeared confused and did not understand what they were voting for.

"I have since emailed the seven councillors who voted against, asking to explain or justify the reasons for their vote, but have received no reply."

A spokesperson for Monmouthshire County Council told the Chronicle, "The application was presented to the January Planning Committee, where members voted against the officer's recommendation to approve the development. The recorded vote was six in for and seven against.

“The application was then returned to the February Planning Committee with a reason for refusal; however, members voted not to agree on the reason, resulting in six for, seven against, and one abstention. The application remains undetermined and will return in March for further consideration."

The spokesperson added, “Abergavenny Town Council submitted a recommendation for refusal in late January. The members of the planning committee, who are the decision-makers, were made aware of this recommendation."