Driveway construction at 4 Heol Uchaf, Hengoed

What was proposed

The application sought to retain and complete a driveway and parking area at the front of a semi-detached house.

“Description and Location of Development: Retain and complete the construction of driveway - 4 Heol Uchaf Hengoed CF82 7NU”

“House type: The application site is a semi-detached, two-storey property set back and above Heol Uchaf.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The property is set back above the road, with a proposed 4.8-metre parking area and retaining walls up to 1.7 metres high.

“Dimensions: The proposed parking area will measure 4.8 metres in width and 4.8 metres in length. The retaining walls will measure 1.7 metres in height to the rear and will slope down towards the road. The height of the retaining wall adjacent to the highway were not provided as part of this application.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the excavation and loss of the raised front garden would harm the area’s distinctive character.

“The street scene along Heol Uchaf is characterised by houses set back from the road behind gently sloping gardens, incorporating a variety of hard and soft landscaping. The front gardens within the street are, with the sole exception of No. 12, enclosed by blockwork walls that follow the line of the pavement and are occasionally topped with either low-lying fencing or railing.”

“In contrast, the proposed development would result in the extensive excavation and loss of the raised front garden, amenity space and existing garden wall, which are typical features that predominate along Heol Uchaf.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The transport manager raised no objection subject to conditions, while the community council, ecologist and neighbours made no response.

“Gelligaer Community Council - No response received.”

“Transportation Engineering Manager - CCBC - No objection subject to conditions in the interests of highway safety and the submission of full engineering details and structural calculations for the proposed retaining wall.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant and the local ward member spoke in support of the application.

The committee vote

Members agreed the motion by majority, with 8 votes for, 4 against and 2 abstentions.

“Following consideration of the application it was moved and seconded that, subject to the reason contained in the Officer’s report, the recommendation be approved. By way of Microsoft Forms (and in noting there were 8 For, 4 Against and 2 Abstentions) this was agreed by the majority present.”

Minutes