Four residential properties at The Old Quarry, West End, Undy

Summary of planning committee decision

Decided by Monmouthshire Planning Committee on 14 Apr 2026.

DM/2024/00441Approved

What was proposed

The application sought four two-storey detached homes on a shared driveway, replacing two existing buildings, with parking, cycle storage and bin stores.

“This application seeks full planning consent for the construction of four two-storey detached dwelling houses, accessed off a single private driveway. Three car parking spaces, bicycle storage and bin store would be provided for each property. The dwellings would be finished in render with riven slate on the roofs. The scale, design and position of the development is illustrated in full on the submitted drawings.”

“The Application is accompanied by the following documents:”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The former quarry had been used as a vehicle repair shop and was being used for car sales and storage, with two dilapidated buildings and an existing access.

“The application site is located on West End in Undy which is a no through road. The site, a former quarry, is set at a lower level than the surrounding residential properties. The site has previously been used as a vehicle repair shop but at the time of the site visit in May 2024 the site was being used for car sales and storage. There are two single-storey buildings on the site that are in a dilapidated condition. There is an existing vehicle access off West End.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier applications concerned a two-storey rear extension and related condition discharge, while this housing application was pending determination.

“DM/2018/01736 A two-storey rear extension, addition of a dormer window and minor internal alterations. Approved 15.03.2019 DM/2021/00533 Discharge of conditions 3 (external fittings) and 4 (historic environment mitigation) relating to application DM/2018/01736. Split Decision 14.05.2021 DM/2024/00441 Change of use from previous vehicle repair workshop to domestic. To develop 4 residential properties. Pending Determination…”

Officer report

Flooding and drainage

The proposed land raising was expected to keep ordinary extreme flooding within tolerable limits, while drainage would use the public foul sewer and infiltration.

“Study' inundation model in 2023, which was updated to align with current extreme sea level estimates, climate change guidance and model software versions.' Therefore the modelled data for the development site for the 0.5% annual probability event and 0.1% annual probability event, take into consideration climate change uplifts for the area.”

“The foul water will connect to a mains sewer. This complies with the advice from NRW that in a sewered area development must normally connect into a mains sewer. The foul flows are proposed to discharge into the public foul sewer where it eventually drains to Nash Wastewater Treatment Works. Welsh Water have confirmed that there is sufficient hydraulic capacity to accommodate the foul flows and foul flows only of the proposed development.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Welsh Water, ecology, highways, drainage and Network Rail raised no objections, while archaeological mitigation and construction-related conditions were required or supported.

“Welsh Water - No objection. The foul flows are proposed to discharge into the public foul sewer where it eventually drains to Nash Wastewater Treatment Works where there is sufficient hydraulic capacity to accommodate the foul flows and foul flows only of the proposed development. Highways: No objection.”

“MCC Ecology - No objection. MCC Highways – Advised acceptable. MCC Drainage/SuDS - No objection. Heneb (GGAT) - The proposal will require archaeological mitigation. This can be ensured by condition.”

Officer report

What residents said

Five addresses objected over business effects, access, parking, construction, privacy, design, flooding and other concerns, while two addresses supported local housing and brownfield development.

“Adverse impact on neighbouring business. Poor access The anticipated volume of construction traffic will severely affect the daily operations of existing business. Inadequate visitor parking. Noise, dust and restricted access during construction will deter customers from visiting our business and may cause delays in suppliers delivering stock. Lack of notification. Requests that construction hours are controlled.”

“Letters of support from two addresses: We need new houses to be built locally. Development of brownfield sites is a good thing. Residential use is more suitable than a commercial use.”

Officer report

The committee’s discussion

The committee considered the application and late correspondence, including whether contamination conditions should be amended or added following Environmental Health comments.

“We considered the report of the application and late correspondence which was recommended for approval subject to the conditions outlined in the report, including reviewing the contamination conditions in the officer report against the comments outlined in late correspondence by the Environmental Health Officer with a view to amending or adding to the condition as necessary, and subject to a Section 106 Agreement.”

“In noting the detail of the application and the views expressed, it was proposed by County Councillor John Crook and seconded by County Councillor Su McConnel that…”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted twelve for approval, none against and no abstentions, so the proposition was carried.

“Upon being put to the vote, the following votes were recorded:”

“For approval - 12 Against approval - 0 Abstentions - 0”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was approved subject to the report’s conditions, a review of contamination conditions and a Section 106 agreement.

“We resolved that application DM/2024/00441 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in the report, including reviewing the contamination conditions in the officer report against the comments outlined in late correspondence by the Environmental Health Officer with a view to amending or adding to the condition as necessary, and subject to a Section 106 Agreement.”

Minutes

The planning obligations

The recommended Section 106 agreement required a £29,696 affordable housing contribution, with delegated refusal powers if it was not signed within six months.

“Subject to a 106 Legal Agreement requiring the following: - A financial contribution of £29,696 in accordance with Policy S4 to go towards providing affordable housing in the local area.”

“- If the S106 Agreement is not signed within 6 months of the Planning Committee's resolution then delegated powers be granted to officers to refuse the application.”

Officer report

Sources

  • Monmouthshire Planning Committee minutes, 14 April 2026
  • Agenda and papers (council website)

Source: Plota analysis of Monmouthshire's committee minutes and officer report. Quotations are the council's own words; headings and summaries are Plota's.

Committee decisions and nationwide planning applications, in one API

The Plota API returns planning applications from every council we cover, each with its decision, whether a committee or officers decided it, and the committee date. Build it into your own tools.

See the API →

At the meeting

Date
Tuesday 14 April 2026
Recommendation
Officers recommended approval
Committee decided
Approved
Minutes
The council's minutes
Meeting
Agenda and papers (council website)
Application
The application (council website)

This committee's year

22 decisions in the 12 months to this meeting, 2 against officer advice.

Source: Plota analysis of the committee's minutes.

Every decision by this council's committees →