To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Jane Horne, (substituted by Councillor Brian Jones), and Councillor Paul McMahon, (substituted by Councillor Jackie Fraser). The Chairman welcomed Councillor Julia Gooch back to the committee.

To confirm the minutes of the following meetings: -

(a)    10 January 2012

(b)    17 January 2012

(c)    31 January 2012

Before considering the minutes of the three previous meetings, the committee noted the following information: -

Ø      Councillor Gethyn Davies had been present for, and had taken part in the voting on, the planning applications considered at the committee meeting on 31 January 2012.

Ø      At the committee meetings on 10 and 17 January 2012, Councillor Philip Burford had declared a personal interest in planning application P1277/11/FUL, Woolridge Farm, Hartpury, as a member of the Three Counties Agricultural Society, alongside the wife of one of the partners of the business for the application.

Having noted the information, the committee considered each set of minutes in turn and confirmed that the minutes were a true record of the meetings held on 10, 17 and 31 January 2012.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business.

There were no items of urgent business 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.

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, declared a personal interest in item 5.2 of the agenda, P1546/11/APP, Land off Onslow Road, Newent, as the wife of one of the consultants for the application. The planning officer said that she would leave the meeting for consideration of this item.

Councillor Julia Gooch declared a personal interest as a relative of the owner of the site in item 7 of the agenda, Tree Preservation Order 186, 16 Cinderhill Way, Ruardean.

Councillor Arthur Thomas declared a personal interest in item 8 of the agenda, Tree Preservation Order 187, due to an association with the owner of the land in question.

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 planning applications, as prepared by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and to the late material circulated prior to the start of the meeting. (Late material refers to information submitted to the council following publication of the agenda). It was noted that the address for item 5.3 of the agenda should have read Scarr Road, and not Scarr Lane, Newent.

The Chairman announced that 10 public speakers had registered to speak at the meeting, speaking on items 2 to 9 of the schedule of applications. (The applications are recorded in the order of the agenda). The Chairman reminded the committee to keep their comments relevant to the debate and to, where possible, avoid repeating previous observations.

The Chairman also announced that an audio-tape recording of the meeting would be taken and published on the council’s website. (The recording excludes any exempt items of discussion).

Application to extend the time limit of planning permission DF13018 for the erection of 47 dwellings with associated garaging.  Provision of public open space and play area.  Construction of new vehicular access and estate road (Revised Scheme).  Alternative access proposals (Revised Scheme without traffic lights)

Application to extend the time limit of planning permission DF13018 for the erection of 47 dwellings with associated garaging.  Provision of public open space and play area.  Construction of new vehicular access and estate road (Revised Scheme).  Alternative access proposals (Revised Scheme without traffic lights)

Please refer to the late material circulated before the start of the meeting

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, drew member’s attention to the late material and to the additional condition relating to the management of the play area and open space at the site. He also referred to the site inspection visit. Informing members that the application was for an extension of time limit on a previous application, (based on the presumption that there had been no material changes in circumstance), the Development Control Manager said that, whilst there had been some policy changes affecting the development, in principle, the polices and government guidance had remained effectively the same. He said that the only significant change was that the applicant had stated that the contributions secured with the previous permission were no longer deliverable due to changes in the economy. The Development Control Manager said that, following negotiations with the developer, the District Valuer had endorsed the applicant’s revised offer and that the recommendation was therefore one of delegated planning permission as per the schedule. The Development Control Manager later confirmed that the contributions that had been offered on the previous permission, (£515,717 plus 40 per cent affordable housing), had reduced to £296,100 contributions plus 17 per cent affordable housing.

Committee consideration

Local member, Councillor James Bevan, spoke of his disappointment of how this application had progressed and of his objections to the proposed changes to the scheme. He reminded members that this council had originally refused the application and that, following a quirk of fate, the planning inspector had overturned the decision. Although he opposed the revised scheme, Councillor Bevan said that, should the application be approved, he did not see a need for any more social housing in Lydney and that the site was too dense and over subscribed. Councillor Bevan proposed that the application be refused but this was unsuccessful as no one seconded the proposal.

Supported by several other members at the meeting, Councillor Terry Glastonbury said that he was both disappointed and angry about the stance of the Highway Authority. Such was his angst about the situation, Councillor Glastonbury said that he intended to write to the appropriate Cabinet Member at Gloucestershire County Council about his concerns.

Responding to concerns about the reduced level of contributions for the revised scheme, Development Control Manger, Clive Reynolds, said that the District Valuer had undertaken an independent examination on the viability of the scheme on behalf of the council, and that there had been little option other than to accept the offer. He said that the planning authority had challenged the proposals at every stage of the application and that the current proposal was the most robust offer.

With strong objections to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Approval of reserved matters for the erection of 8 dwellings with associated infrastructure, ancillary facilities and landscaping

Approval of reserved matters for the erection of 8 dwellings with associated infrastructure, ancillary facilities and landscaping

Please refer to the late material circulated before the start of the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, referred to the late material and to the additional condition stating that no development should take place until details of the additional hedging and removal of fencing had been approved. He said that the proposals represented an integrated design for this and the adjoining site and demonstrated how the two sites interrelated.

Public speaking

Speaking as the agent for the application, the speaker made the following statement: -

As your officer has already provided a comprehensive update, I will not take much of your time, just a reminder that the overall parameters for design, materials, landscaping and so forth were established through the approval of the reserved matters in January this year. My client’s design team has responded to the detailed and constructive criticism received from your officers, and are happy to accept the proposed pre-commencement condition. Since the application was first discussed in April 2011, my clients have also met with owners of the neighbouring properties to discuss their concerns and have responded with amendments. These include:

·        Retention of trees and hedgerows along the site boundary

·        Removal of windows on the gable end of the unit over looking neighbouring property to safeguard the privacy of existing occupiers

·        Amendments to the design of the dwellings to provide hipped roofs

·        Changes to landscaping and materials

The scheme has the full backing of statutory consultees and of officers, who recommend consent given the high standard of design contained in the application. There is also support from local businesses. As stated at the outset, the principle of development on this site is not in question and my client respectfully requests that you approve the reserved matters application before you.

Committee consideration

Local member, Councillor Julia Gooch, asked several in-depth questions relating to surface water drainage, ownership of the lane and trees at the site and whether or not an additional section 106 legal agreement would be imposed on the application. She was advised that no further updates had been received from Severn Trent Water, other than the information on page 84 of agenda, and that the section 106 legal agreement would have been secured at the outline application stage. With regard to the ownership of the lane, the planning officer confirmed that, whilst the highway authority did not actually own the land, the lane to the north-east of the site was a public highway and was therefore publicly maintained. He also confirmed that ownership of the recreation ground had not, as yet, been transferred to the district council and that trees at the site were in the ownership of the county council. Councillor Roger Yeates questioned issues relating to the section 106 legal agreement and advised that such issues were not a consideration for this meeting.

Vote

Conscious that the application related to the approval of reserved matters  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

Erection of two dwellings. (Demolition of existing buildings)

Erection of two dwellings. (Demolition of existing buildings)

Please refer to the late material circulated before the start of the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, referred members to the late material and the revised reason for refusal.

Public speaking

Speaking as an objector to the application, the speaker made the following points during his statement: -

The case officer report covers the fact that I am preparing a potential modification order application, and part of the footpath runs over the east boundary of the property, which is subject to this planning application. The route of the footpath has been clearly defined on the 7 items I submitted with my letter of comment on this planning application. I would like to point out that the east boundary is not accurately defined on drawing T767 10A, which has been submitted with this planning application. I would also like to point out that the 2 Horse Chestnut Trees mentioned on page 102 of the report were felled in 2000 and no longer exist. The trees formed part of Tree Preservation Order TPO 52 G8 and were replaced by the 2 Rowan Trees of Tree Preservation Order TPO 161. Contrary to the case officer’s report, the location of the 2 Horse Chestnut Trees before they were felled, (highlighted in photographs submitted by the speaker), were located within the Northern Boundary of the site. One tree was located on the property now owned by the applicants, the other on the opposite side of the road on a bank in front of an Ancient Red Sandstone Wall, on the property of another person. The tree-felling certificate for the 2 Horse Chestnut Trees was issued by the Forest of Dean District Council on 23 October 2000. What relevance do these two Horse Chestnut Trees, felled nearly 12 years ago, have on this planning application? In the Design and Access Statement, reference is made to Planning Policy Guideline PPG 13 and its later amendments, to justify the case for allowing more cars on the local roads to access the facilities in Newent and the school in Pool Hill. However, the same Planning Policy Guidelines also state under Access to the Countryside, that ‘Green Corridors’ and ‘Footpaths’ must be maximised for the use of walkers and cyclists. If the Potential Modification Order application is successful – then this forgotten footpath will once again form a vital link with the existing public footpath network. This will then allow walkers and cyclists, to access the facilities in Newent and the school in Pool Hill, without being forced onto the narrow and very dangerous local roads to do so.

Speaking in support of the application, Ben Pearce, a consultant from Land Development and Planning Consultants Ltd, made the following statement:

You have before you a comprehensive report prepared by your Planning Officer that sets out the planning history and policy framework, together with a recommendation that permission should be refused principally on policy grounds together with a protected species issue  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

Conversion of former agricultural buildings to form 2 annexes

Conversion of former agricultural buildings to form 2 annexes

Please refer to the late material circulated before the start of the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred to the late material and advised members that information in respect of Annexe A had been deleted and that the application now related to Annexe B only. In spite of the change, the recommendation remained one of refusal on the basis that the building had not been marketed for commercial use for an appropriate period of time, (a minimum of one year).

Public speaking

Speaking in support of the application, Ben Pearce, planning consultant from Land Development and Planning Consultants Ltd, made the following statement:

As members will be aware from the late observations, the proposals relating to Building A have been withdrawn from the scheme.  Members are asked to consider the application in its amended form, namely, the conversion of Building B to form a residential Annexe for occupation ancillary to the dwelling known as Longcroft. Members will know from their site visit that Building B lies within the curtilage of the main dwelling house.  Your officer’s report confirms that the structure of the building is capable of the proposed conversion and the scale of the scheme meets with the expectations of the Authority for ancillary residential accommodation. Furthermore I would confirm the applicant’s willingness to accept either a planning condition or legal agreement that would limit the use of the building as a residential Annexe and prevent sale of the Annexe separately from the main dwelling house. However, the authority has upheld the recommendation to refuse planning consent on grounds that the building has not been marketed for an alternative commercial use.  This would appear inconsistent with previously approved Annexe applications at Upleadon Court, Newent, Valley View, Longhope, Handlow House, Churcham and Cuckoo Patch, Mitcheldean. None of these conversions of buildings to form residential annexes required a marketing exercise for alternative commercial uses.   This position is not considered sustainable to the application now before members. The conversion of the building will enable the applicant’s mother to live close to the family where care and support can be provided in the future.  This is an entirely appropriate use of an outbuilding and I would respectfully ask that members support this application without the need for a marketing exercise.

Committee consideration

Councillor Norman Stephens said that, following the withdrawal of Annexe A, he could see no reason why Annexe B should not be granted permission. He said that he had never heard of the need to undertake a marketing exercise on annexed buildings and questioned why this requirement formed part of the application process. Other members also agreed with this perspective. Councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick, said that, provided the building was tied to the ownership of the farm, she felt that it would be perfectly acceptable to support the development.

Vote

Councillor Norman Stephens proposed that the revised application be approved and Councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick seconded the proposal. The reasons suggested for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.4

Erection of a dwelling and new access. (Revised Description)

Erection of a dwelling and new access. (Revised Description)

Please refer to the late material circulated before the start of the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred to the late material and drew member’s attention to the additional conditions relating to surface water drainage.

Public speaking

Speaking as an objector to the application, the speaker said that he would be making his objections in relation to i) Loss of Visual Amenity and Light, ii) the Agents Parking Survey and iii) Sewerage concerns…

He said that the site was too small for further development and that the proposal represented overdevelopment and a cramped structure. He said that the case officers comments that the development would have no effect on visual amenity ridiculous and that this was not the case. With a two storey building so close up to his own property, in particular the dining and bedroom windows, the speaker said that he would be looking directly at a brick wall, resulting in a loss of visual amenity and a loss of light. With regard to the SFP Planning Agent’s Parking Survey, the speaker said that the survey was totally unrealistic and that in every photograph there were no cars parked in the road other than the car of the person taking the photograph. The speaker said that the road was a very busy road with 2 bus routes and heavy traffic from local businesses resulting in continual traffic movements from 6am to very late at night. Furthermore, cars and motor cars regularly exceeded the speed limit on this road. 

The agent for the application, Simon Firkins from SF Planning Limited, made the following statement in support of the application: -

This application is a revised scheme following the withdrawal of an earlier proposal.  Significant amendments have been made to address previous officer concerns.  The dwelling has been reduced in size and the design amended to the satisfaction of officers to ensure it sits very comfortably in the street scene. In amending the design, we have ensured that no windows overlook adjoining properties and the position within the plot will not lead to any loss of light for neighbouring residents, with a generous separation distance between the two side facing gables. The parking arrangements have been amended to take account of officers previous concerns.  County Highways raise no objection, and they have in fact been happy with all of the suggested parking and turning options.  The parking survey shows that even if cars could not be accommodated on site, (which we feel they certainly can be), then there is ample space on street for visitors and such to park without any harm to highway safety.  The survey was carried out when identified and I have personally visited the site many times with never any problem parking safely on the road. This is a straightforward frontage infill site within the settlement boundary, where the principle of development is completely acceptable, and the more efficient use of land is encouraged by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.5

Erection of a replacement dwelling.  Demolition of existing dwelling

Erection of a replacement dwelling.  Demolition of existing dwelling

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred members to the late material that had been circulated before the meeting and drew their attention to the revised plans that had been received, reducing the footprint of the garage building to 8.5 metres x 6.3 metres. 

Please refer to the late material circulated before the start of the meeting

Public speaking

The following is a summary of the applicant’s statement: -

Park Farm has been in the ownership of the family since 1919 and was previously rented by the applicant’s grandfather. We hope to pass it on to future generations. However, the existing farmhouse is very depressing and sad. Because of the thick stonewalls, the rooms are very small and not suitable for the family’s needs. My husband moved out of the house in 1995. We feel that the house is at a stage where it would be difficult and uneconomic to try to bring it up to modern standards. For several years, my husband has wanted to move back to the farm. He realises the critical need to live nearer the farm buildings for security and contact reasons. He wants to incorporate a modern farm and home security system due to concerns about farm thefts in the area.

I have an elderly disabled mum who has osteoporosis and Parkinson’s Disease. She needs space to manoeurve her walker with another person next to her. She also needs a wheelchair. A downstairs bedroom with ensuite and living area, (possibly used by a carer) is crucial, with level floors everywhere. I also have osteoporosis and have my hips replaced therefore safety design is important. I also have a large family and I would like them to be able to stay together with us. Therefore the number of bedrooms is very important. The farmhouse and outbuildings are situated in the middle of the farm and are not overlooked by anybody. We would like to have our new home moved away from the farm buildings and built within the curtilage of the original walled garden. The plan for our new home has been well designed to suit our needs, and is in keeping with the other farm buildings. It is a traditional looking farmhouse. The plan is only modestly bigger than the existing house but with spaces which are far more sensibly organised. This home will be extremely well insulated, energy saving and complying with the Governments initiatives to build semi passive green homes. We hope to reuse many of the existing stones and use solar panels, a ground source pump and other forms of modern technology. We would be grateful if you would support out application.

The Chairman invited non-committee member, Councillor Marion Winship, to speak as a local member for the application. Councillor Winship informed members that the parish council had no concerns about the replacement dwelling and that the building was in a poor state of repair. She said that the building was unsuitable for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.6

Occupation of the new dwelling granted planning permission on 10 March 2011 (Ref: P2121/10/FUL) without complying with condition (07) (requiring agricultural occupancy of Yew Cottage and Hill View Cottage)

Occupation of the new dwelling granted planning permission on 10 March 2011 (Ref: P2121/10/FUL) without complying with condition (07) (requiring agricultural occupancy of Yew Cottage and Hill View Cottage)

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, referred to the late material and reminded members of the condition that had been imposed on the planning permission when considered as an agricultural workers dwelling in association to a poultry enterprise at the farm. 

Please refer to the late material circulated before the start of the meeting

Public speaking

The applicant informed members that the late material for this item did not include all of the information that had been submitted following publication of the agenda. (This information is available on the council’s website). The speaker then made the following statement: -

My husband and I are the applicants wishing to develop a new house without complying with the condition imposed on 2 other dwellings, the subject of this application and owned by my husband. These 2 dwellings have constantly been included by your officers in all the planning applications made in regard to the Free Range Egg Unit since 2007, even though they have never been part of the application site. In 2011, members decided to permit the application, but due to officers’ advice, were persuaded to impose the condition. Members were not informed then, that advice regarding the imposition of conditions is provided by Circular 11/95. This sets out that six tests need to be satisfied before imposing conditions; principally, that is it necessary and relevant to planning, and to the development, to be permitted and reasonable in all other respects. The minutes of the March 2011 meeting demonstrate that the reason for imposing was to “prevent the possible sale of any other properties at the site should they become available”. Having spent £800,000 on our Free Range Egg Unit, I trust members will agree this a considerable sum to risk. The imposition of the agricultural tied condition on 2 cottages which are not at the site has in our view reduced the value of these by at least £150,000, being a third of their original value. As they are currently occupied by retired workers from a separate farming business, the condition will in the future make it nearly impossible to rent them out, as persons able to satisfy the condition are not common, and, secondly, it is practically impossible to attain any form of borrowing on Agricultural Tied Buildings, so in practice, they are virtually impossible to sell. We are being severely financially penalised for wishing to provide our worker with a decent dwelling. Apart from the points made in our planning statement confirming the condition is not necessary nor reasonable - Section 36 of the Circular 11/95, sets out the avoidance of onerous requirements, and part of it states, “Any condition which would put a severe limitation on the freedom of owners to dispose of their property, or which would obviously make it difficult to finance the erection of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.7

Erection of a two storey front extension and a two storey rear extension to dwelling.  Erection of a detached single garage

Erection of a two storey front extension and a two storey rear extension to dwelling.  Erection of a detached single garage

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, reminded members of the visit to the site the month previously. He said that the application was for front and rear extensions to a traditional forest cottage. A similar scheme had been refused on an earlier application. He informed the committee that the key issue at this meeting was to reach a conclusion on whether the proposed changes were out of scale and character with the existing property.

Public speaking

Speaking as the applicant, the speaker made the following statement: -

We have worked hard and scraped together all of our savings to put a deposit on Myrtle Cottage with the intention of making it our family home. My partner Chris has always lived on Harrow Hill and would like to stay close to his family, who also reside there, to retain the sense of community we already have. We have been warmly welcomed by our neighbours on Eastwood Road and they fully support our plans and proposals for Myrtle Cottage. Chris was a regular visitor to the cottage as a child and has as tong relationship with his family. When the property came up for sale the previous owners wanted us to have it; knowing it would be well looked after and respected even if it meant them selling it a lower value. They didn’t want to sell it to anyone looking for a quick profit, not caring about its history. In this current economic climate its very difficult to get onto the property ladder. We were aware we wouldn’t have much money to spare after buying the house, but we were fully prepared to put in the time and effort required to make this our ideal home and started to put the plans together. Our original planning application in February was refused and then following a meeting in April with the planning officer, changes were made according to his suggestion but after submission, the recommended changes were regarded unsuitable. The planning officer re-proposed an extension to the east side but this was unsuitable and unworkable. The final suggestion from the planning department was to demolish the house and rebuild it. The existing building is sound and we simply just don’t have the funds to take on such a costly rebuilding task. All we would like is a family home to last in an area we want to live in, making the best of the funds we have available.

The Chairman invited non-committee member, Councillor Ian Whitburn, to speak as a local member. Councillor Whitburn said that the young applicant and his partner were just starting out in renovating their first home and wanted to retain this old forest cottage as a family home in a location where the applicant had lived all of his life. Councillor Whitburn said that the property was not a particularly attractive cottage and would benefit from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.8

Erection of an agriculturally tied bungalow and a temporary 18 month retention of the mobile home during construction of the bungalow

Erection of an agriculturally tied bungalow and a temporary 18 month retention of the mobile home during construction of the bungalow

The Development Control Manager informed members that this application was for an agricultural workers dwelling and retention of a mobile home for 18 months. Outlining some of the key issues to consider, he said that national and local planning policies controlled new dwellings in the open countryside and only permitted such properties where there was an identified need. He said that a number of issues had been raised following assessment of the scheme, including issues relating to a mobile home that had been given permission for a temporary period, (which had now lapsed), to establish whether a farming enterprise sufficient to support a farm worker could be established. The farm enterprise was developing in a different way to that envisaged when the permission for a mobile home had originally been granted and the applicant was now proposing to invest in different farming practices. The Development Control Manager said that, even if such practices were introduced, the Councils Independent Assessor had advised that the enterprise did not demonstrate a need for a worker to live on the site. Furthermore, owned land on the farm was only 14 acres of land and, from a financial perspective, the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the enterprise could support a farm worker.

Public speaking

The applicant raised the following points in response to the report from the Land Agent from Gloucestershire County Council: -

Functional Need – 3 (i)

There is a an existing need – Oakleigh Farm has been functioning since at least 1995. We have invested approximately £120,000 in barns and an egg-packing shed. Questioning the land agents’ concern about being reliant on rented acreage, the speaker said that they had a contingency plan in that they had just invested another £12,000 on a new barn, based on the idea that if ever the applicant found themselves without rented land, (which was highly unlikely), they would have to consider getting rid of the suckler herd and would now have sufficient barn space (TB quarantine unit included, which was now up and running), to derive sufficient income from rearing calves. We have at least 2 dairy farms from which we can source calves from TB restricted herds (at a much reduced cost). These calves are sometime 3 – 4 weeks old and require twice daily milk feeding. If the applicant didn’t feed them, they would be probably shot by the farmer as surplus to requirements. I have secured 3 more regular retail customers fro free range eggs, which will require more hens and another shed. I deliver these eggs to the outlets, which are all within a 6 mile radius of the farm. I do sell some eggs at the farm gate, but the traffic movements generated by this is far outweighed by that generated by the courier vans passing by to the commercial enterprise further up the lane.

Full time labour  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.9

Demolition of existing building and the erection of a live/work unit

Demolition of existing building and the erection of a live/work unit

Please refer to the late material circulated before the start of the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred members to the late material. She said that, in spite of the additional representations from the applicant, development in the open countryside was strictly controlled and only allowed in exceptional circumstances. The circumstances relating to this application was not one of them.

The Chairman invited non-committee member, Councillor Dave East, to speak as the local member for this application. Councillor East said that Blaisdon Parish Council had no objection to the application, in principle, but did have concerns about noise issues. With this in mind, the parish council had requested that a condition be considered for the work unit not to be used for anything that generated noise. Councillor East said that the first application for this site had been to regenerate the old building but could not be brought forward due to the need to safeguard the Walnut Tree. This application was to demolish the old building and build away from the tree, using some of the old materials. Councillor East said that the one bedroom property would not create a significant impact on access and traffic movements and discounted the highways objection relating to poor public transport and reliance on the motorcar. Councillor East said that this was a social failing in many villages on the area. 

Committee consideration

Councillor Norman Stephens said that, in spite of local support for the proposals, he believed the committee would benefit from visiting the site to consider the impact on the surrounding countryside. He said that the application was not a straightforward one and that the easiest option would be for members to visit the site to consider the proposals in more detail and make a more informed decision. Councillor Norman Stephens proposed that the decision be deferred for a site visit and Councillor Jane Horne seconded the proposal. Following a show of hands, members,

RESOLVED to defer consideration of the application for a site visit

a)     To confirm that the next sites’ inspection panel will be held on Tuesday 21 February 2012

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 to be held on Tuesday 21 February 2012, and that the following sites will be added to the itinerary for that day: -  

To consider confirmation of a tree preservation order at 16 Cinderhill Way, Ruardean

Alastair Chapman, Sustainability Team Leader, presented report PH.107 and informed members that, in accordance with Conservation Area Regulations, a notice had been served in October 2011 for the removal of trees in a conservation area at 16 Cinderhill Way, Ruardean (P1842/11//TCA). He said that, following an evaluation on 19 October 2011, Peter Williams, Group Manager for Planning and Housing, had concluded that the loss of the tree would be detrimental to the amenity of the area and a Tree Preservation Order was produced for a Cherry Tree, as shown at Annex A of the report. Following two objections to the order, if now fell to the committee to consider the matter and whether to confirm the order.

Councillor David Thomson believed the matter was not a straightforward decision and expressed concern about the detrimental impact of the trees on surrounding properties. For this reason, Councillor Thomson proposed that the decision be deferred to allow members to visit the site and Councillor Norman Stephens seconded the proposal. This was agreed and members,

RESOLVED to defer the decision for a site visit

To consider confirmation of a tree preservation order for Land South of St Anne’s Way, St Briavels

Alastair Chapman, the Sustainability Team Leader, presented report PH.108. He informed the committee that, as part of planning application P0807/11/FUL for the erection of 3 dwellings at Land off St. Annes Way, St. Briavels, the impact of the proposed development on a number of trees had been assessed and considered in relation to their amenity value.  He said that, on 2 November 2011, the Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams had concluded that the loss of trees would be detrimental to the amenity of the area and a Tree Preservation Order had been made covering three individual trees at Annex A of the report. An objection to the order had been received and the matter was now referred to the Development Control Committee to confirm the order.

The Sustainable Team Leader said that the trees were visible from a variety of viewpoints in the area and were of high amenity value and impact. He also said that they contributed to the setting of the wider area and to the adjacent Conservation Area. There was no evidence to suggest that the trees were dangerous or in ill health. Based on these reasons, a recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to confirm Tree Preservation Order 187, Land to South of St Annes Way, St Briavels

For (11)

Councillors James Bevan, Frankie Evans, Jackie Fraser, Terry Glastonbury, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Graham Morgan, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thompson and Roger Yeates. (Councillor Val Hobman was not present at the meeting for consideration of this item).

Against (3)

Councillors Gethyn Davies, Julia Gooch and Norman Stephens

Abstentions (0)

A report from the Principal Planning Officer on the performance of the planning team in relation to enforcement action. Please refer to report PH.104.

Principal Planning Officer, Martin Hillier, presented report PH.104, detailing the performance of the planning team in relation to enforcement issues. The planning officer informed members that the number of enforcement complaints had fallen during the last quarter of 2011, with the total number of complaints in 2011 comprising 497 complaints, as compared to 616 in 2010, (a decrease of 19 per cent). He said that a total of 368 cases had been closed up to the end of December 2011, as compared to 460 in 2010 and, of the investigations undertaken during this time, 74.6 per cent had been investigated within 25 days, and a course of action agreed, as compared to 72 per cent to the end of 2010.

Conscious that the enforcement team had undergone some structural changes during the past few months, Councillor Norman Stephens suggested that the new enforcement officer be invited to the next meeting and introduced to the committee. This was agreed and the report noted.

The committee to consider changes to the Development Management Charter. Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, to present report PH.105.

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, presented report PH.105, detailing changes to the Development Control Charter following a lean systems review of the planning service and changes to national legislation, policy and guidance. The Development Control Manager said that legislation required councils to change from being the ‘controllers of development’ to becoming more proactive in the management of the development process. He said that the revised charter had been adapted to comply with this ethos and embodied the work of the lean systems approach. It also embodied the aim of “approving quality development in the right place quickly”. The report was noted and members,

RESOLVED to,

a)     Adopt the new service name ‘Development Management’

b)     Adopt the revised Charter and associated service standards

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 item of business on the grounds that it involves 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 outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

Resolved that, under section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public to be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involved 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 outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

To consider report PH.106 and the schedule of enforcement action as prepared by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing.

The committee considered the expediency of issuing an Enforcement Notice in respect of an on-going breach of planning control, consisting of the erection of two dwellings and associated access and parking facilities.

13 March 2012

13 March 2012

The Chairman referred to a reserved matters planning application for a retail store in Coleford. He said that the application had been deferred in October 2011 to seek an alternative design for the store and that a presentation would be held at 2 pm on Tuesday 28 February 2012 to consider the revised proposals.