To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Vice Chairman Councillor James Bevan and from committee members, Councillor Lynn Sterry and Councillor Frank Beard.

Three substitutions were made at the meeting; Councillor Brian Jones substituted for Councillor Bevan, Councillor Graham Morgan substituted for Councillor Sterry and Councillor Di Martin substituted for Councillor Beard.

To confirm the non-exempt minutes of the meeting held on 12 July 2011

The non-exempt minutes of the meeting on 12 July 2011 were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting. The committee noted that the information recorded under item 9 of the non-exempt business had been considered in exempt session and should therefore be recorded as exempt business.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business

No urgent business was considered at this meeting.

To receive any declarations of interest in any matter to be discussed at the meeting.  Members and officers are requested to identify the nature of the interest and indicate whether it is personal or prejudicial.

No declarations of interest were made at this meeting.

To consider the schedule of applications as prepared by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing.

Chairman, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, referred to the schedule of applications, as prepared by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and to the late material circulated prior to the meeting. (Late material refers to information submitted to the council following publication of the agenda). The Chairman informed the committee that the applications relating to items 6, (P1016/11/FUL Park Road, Berry Hill, Coleford) and 8 of the schedule, (P1091/11/FUL Land Off Chartist Way, Staunton), had been withdrawn.

 4 public speakers had registered to speak at this meeting, speaking on items 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the schedule of applications.Please note that the decisions are recorded in order of the schedule. The Chairman reminded the committee to keep their comments relevant to the debate and, where possible, to avoid a repetition of previous observations.

Retention of existing barn/stables as a 4 bedroom dwelling

Retention of existing barn/stables as a 4 bedroom dwelling

Please refer to the late material circulated prior to the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, referred to the planning history of the site and approval of planning permission in 2003 to convert the property into a live-work unit. The planning officer said that, whilst a marketing exercise had been undertaken to sell the property, there had been no interest in the property as a live-work unit.

Public speaking

Speaking in support of the application, the speaker noted the lack of objection from the parish council. The speaker confirmed that the dwelling, a 4-bedroom barn conversion acquired as part of a divorce settlement in February 2004, was separate to the Hanley Farm complex and in sole ownership of the applicant. He said that the property had been granted planning permission to convert into two private dwellings in March 1995, (DF5702/C). Subsequent to this, planning permission had been granted in February 2003, to convert the property into a home-work unit, combining living accommodation with a meat processing plant, (DF5702/E), for which planning permission had been approved for a three-year period. The speaker said that no works had commenced on the conversion and no business rates had been paid. The speaker believed use of the dwelling as a meat processing plant was inappropriate, particularly when disposal of blood, waste and other associated fluids would be in close proximity to a public footpath at the site. He informed the committee that the application for the meat processing plant had been submitted by the applicant’s ex-husband and mother-in-law and not by the current owner. He also informed the committee that the building regulations, completion certificate for the property was for domestic and not live-work use. Referring to the proposed access route off Hanley Lane, the speaker said that the route was an unclassified road, for which planning permission was not required. Furthermore, the road was the only access route to the property and had been in use from 2002, (not for the past couple of years, as had been suggested in the officer’s report). The speaker believed the site was more suitable as a dwelling rather than as a meat-packing and processing plant, especially when considering the problems associated with such use.

Committee Consideration

Local members, Councillors Gabriella Kirkpatrick and Gethyn Davies, spoke in support of the application. Responding to questions, Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, informed Councillor Davies that the permission granted in 1995 had lapsed after five years and that the proposals for change of use in 2003 had included a work element that had not materialised. The Group Manager said that the property had been marketed as a 4-bedroom dwelling and not as a live-work unit. He said that, retention of the property as a dwelling on this basis was un-substantiated and that this was due to the applicant not being able to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that an alternative business use had been sought for the property  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Erection of detached dormer bungalow

Erection of detached dormer bungalow

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, informed members that the access track at the site and the drainage field for the proposed bungalow were outside the settlement boundary and in the ownership of the Forestry Commission. On this basis, the recommendation was one of refusal.

Public speaking

The agent for the application said that, whilst he did not disagree with the decision to restrict development in the open countryside, he did have issues with the planning authority’s opinion regarding the access track at the site.  He said that the access track had been in existence at the site since the 1950’s and was clearly evident on maps used by both the Forestry Commission and the District Council, including the map on display at today’s meeting. He said that, whilst he appreciated that the track was somewhat hidden at the moment, (due to works that had been undertaken by a mechanical digger at the site), it was not the applicant’s intention to replace the track but to restore it. Likewise, the speaker discounted drainage concerns at the site and said that the proposals would be completely undetectable. Noting the significant reduction in the size of the development, the speaker believed the proposals were in keeping with the character of the area and that they complied with the residential design guide.

Committee Consideration

Local member, Councillor David Thomson, believed the development would be an encroachment on forest waste-land and moved the recommendation to refuse the application. Councillor Di Martin seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to refuse the application as detailed in the schedule of applications

Vote

For (11)

Councillors Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Val Hobman, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Di Martin, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Arthur Thomas and David Thomson

Against (2) Councillors Jane Horne and Roger Yeates

Abstentions (2) Councillors Julia Gooch and Paul McMahon

Approval of reserved matters for the erection of a detached dwelling

Approval of reserved matters for the erection of a detached dwelling

Please refer to the late material circulated prior to the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, informed members that the principle of development for this site, (including the reserved matter relating to access), had been established during consideration of the outline planning application. As such, the committee would only be required to consider approval of the remaining reserved matters regarding the impact on residential and visual amenity and flood risk. The planning officer referred members to the late material and confirmed that the Environment Agency had upheld their objections and that the recommendation remained one of refusal.

Public speaking

Speaking as the joint owner of the site, the applicant said that, after seeking legal advice before purchasing the property in 2011, he had been informed that the permission on the site was not onerous and that the plans were considered acceptable. Furthermore, the high quality welsh-oak frame intended for the site had been well received. With this in mind, it had therefore been both a surprise and a disappointment that the recommendation was to refuse the application. The applicant informed the committee that the proposed design included several energy saving devices. He said that, whilst acknowledging the slight increase in the footprint of the development, he believed this was not disproportionate to the site and that the garden size provided was within a reasonable interpretation of the Residential Design Guide, where there had been no indication of the minimum and maximum requirements. Noting that there had been no objections from the parish council, the speaker believed the development would be a vast improvement to what currently existed at the site.

Committee Consideration

Chairman, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, informed members that local member, Councillor Diana Edwards, wanted to speak on this application but had been unable to do so. Local member, Councillor Norman Stephens, said that, like himself, Councillor Edwards intended to speak in support of the application, which in his opinion was a fairly modest development offering a vast improvement to the local area. He said that local residents believed the proposals were both tasteful and appropriate and that he did not foresee any problems relating to flood risk, particularly when noting the longevity of the site and the positioning of mobile homes. Several other members shared this perspective and spoke in support of the proposals. Councillor Julia Gooch said that she had lived in the area for over 30 years and that during this time there had been no experience of flooding at the site. 

Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, reminded members that that the application related to the detail and not to the principle of the development. He referred to the specific concerns of the Environment Agency regarding the risk of flooding, and said that, should the committee be minded to approve the development, the council would be required to inform the Environment Agency of the decision and allow it time to consider the council’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

Outline application for the erection of two detached dwellings with ancillary works. (Resubmission)

Outline application for the erection of two detached dwellings with ancillary works. (Resubmission)

Please refer to the late material circulated prior to the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, informed the committee that the application was an outline application for 2 dwellings and would be subject to approval of all reserved matters. The planning officer gave a brief history of the site and said that, following dismissal at appeal in October 2010, the Planning Inspector had suggested that, with more work to the marketing of the site, (to demonstrate little prospect of employment use), the application would comply with Planning Policy (R) FE 3. Subsequently, the applicant had submitted information detailing marketing particulars referring back to 2007. The planning officer said that, due to concerns about the layout and scale of the site, a condition had been suggested relating to boundary walls. Referring to the late material and the need to approve reserved matters, the planning officer drew member’s attention to the revised recommendation to delegate authority to the Group Manager for Planning and Housing. 

Public speaking

Speaking on behalf of a number of families affected by the proposals, an objector to the application, said that the residents of Brussic Cottage and Severn View were concerned that neither property had been included on the submitted plans and that insufficient account had been taken of the significant difference in ground levels between neighbouring properties and the Rubber Mill site, some of which were at a considerably higher level than the factory site. The speaker said that local residents were also concerned about the impact of the development on the privacy of their properties and suggested careful use of planning conditions to overcome such concerns, including the use of frosted glass in all windows overlooking adjacent properties. He said that, due to the height differentials between the properties, the southernmost wall of the main factory building was both a boundary wall and a retaining wall for the aforementioned cottages, as was the extending brick wall that formed the northern and eastern boundary of the Brussic Cottage. Furthermore, the existing walls formed an attractive boundary and privacy screen and any disturbance to them could create subsidence problems and potential structural damage to neighbouring properties. Again, the speaker urged the committee to consider imposing appropriate conditions to address such concerns. 

The speaker said that neighbouring properties were concerned that the proposed dwellings were grossly out of scale with surrounding cottages, the dimensions of which would be 50 per cent larger than the largest single detached house located in the hamlet. With this in mind, the speaker urged the committee to attach strict conditions to the application regarding the overall footprint to the development to ensure that the buildings were fully assimilated into their surroundings and in accordance with Planning Policy (R) FBE.1 of the District Local Plan. He also said that local residents were seeking clarification that the ‘ancillary works’ referred to by the applicant referred only to the garages shown on the outline  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.4

Renovation and re-cladding of existing general purpose building and erection of a new general purpose building at high level built over the top of existing store

Renovation and re-cladding of existing general purpose building and erection of a new general purpose building at high level built over the top of existing store

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred to the visit to the site in July and to concerns about the scale of the development and the visual impact on the surrounding area. The Development Control Manager confirmed that the revised plans that had been submitted to address such concerns and the reduced scale of the development was now considered acceptable. 

Vote

Councillor Norman Stephens moved the recommendation and Councillor Jane Horne seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant the application planning permission as detailed in the schedule of applications

For (15)

Councillors, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Val Hobman, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Di Martin. Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Erection of a dwelling

Erection of a dwelling

This item was withdrawn by the applicant

Demolition of existing scout hut and construction of a GP Surgery (Retrospective)

Demolition of existing scout hut and construction of a GP Surgery (Retrospective)

Please refer to the late material circulated prior to the meeting

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred to the late material circulated prior to the meeting and informed members that the recommendation remained one of permission, subject to re-consultation with the Environment Agency and to revised condition 4.

Committee Consideration

Councillor Norman Stephens said that this was an excellent proposal and fantastic news for the residents of Westbury on Severn.

Vote

Councillor Norman Stephens moved the recommendation and Councillor Terry Glastonbury seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions detailed in the schedule of planning applications and to the information and revised condition (4) in the late material circulated prior to the meeting, subject to the notification and subsequent approval by the Environment Agency

For (15)

Councillors Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Val Hobman, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Di Martin, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Erection of 15 affordable dwellings

Erection of 15 affordable dwellings

This item was withdrawn by the applicant

a)     To confirm that the next sites’ inspection panel will be held on Tuesday 16 August 2011.

b)     To consider any new applications put forward by members or by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing. These sites will be in addition to any which may be identified during the meeting.

RESOLVED that the next sites inspection panel be held on Tuesday 16 August 2011, and that the following sites be added to the itinerary for that day: -  

A report from the Principal Planning Officer regarding the performance of the planning enforcement team. Please refer to report PH.77

Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, presented report PH.77, detailing the performance of the planning enforcement team for the period January to June 2011. The Group Manager said that enforcement complaints had actually risen during the second quarter of 2011 compared to the first quarter. He said that the total number of complaints for the period ending June 2011 had reduced to 243, as compared to 320 for the same period last year. (This reduction represents the lowest first half figure in the number of complaints since 2005, which could be due to the current downturn in construction activity).

The Group Manager said that 221 enforcement cases had been closed up to the end of June 2011, as compared to 251 for the same period in 2010. He confirmed that, of the investigations undertaken up to the end of June 2011, 83 per cent had been investigated with a course of action agreed within 25 days, as compared to 67.5 per cent to the end of June 2010. (There are no national targets for the processing of complaints).

The Group Manager confirmed that up to the end of June 2011, the enforcement team had served three enforcement notices, three breaches of condition notices, four planning contravention notices and one temporary stop notice. He said that formal enforcement action would continue to be taken where it was expedient to do so and that the remaining complaints would be dealt with via negotiations and the submission of applications. He said that, despite reduced resources, the main priority would continue to be to maintain initial performance levels and to deal with complaints requiring swift action.

To consider, and if so agree, to resolve, that under section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in schedule 12A of the said act, and that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Resolved, that under section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in schedule 12A of the said act, and that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

To confirm the exempt minutes of the meeting held on 12 July 2011.

The exempt minutes of the meeting on 12 July 2011 were confirmed as an accurate record of that meeting, subject to several points of clarification from Councillor Julia Gooch.

13 September 2011

13 September 2011