To receive apologies for absence

Apologies were received from Councillor Gethyn Davies, (substituted by Councillor Judy Davis), and Councillor Roger Yeates, (substituted by Councillor Brian Jones).

To confirm the minutes of the planning committee meeting held on 8 May 2012 (minutes attached)

The minutes of the meeting held on 8 May 2012 were confirmed as an accurate record of that meeting.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business

No items of urgent business were considered at this meeting.

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

The following declarations of interest were made at this meeting: -

Councillor Jane Horne declared a personal interest in items 5.4 (P0335/12/FUL Ryelands Farm, Taynton) and 5.5, (P0336/12/LBC Ryelands Farm, Taynton), of the agenda. Councillor Horne informed the committee that she was acquainted with the architect for both applications.

Councillor Philip Burford declared a personal interest in item 5.3 of the agenda, (P2444/11/FUL Land adjoining Corse Grange, Gloucester Road, Corse). Councillor Burford said that, although a member of Corse Parish Council and consultee for the application, he had taken no part in the consultation process.

Councillor Arthur Thomas declared a personal and a prejudicial interest in the enforcement report considered under item 9.1 of the agenda. Councillor Thomas informed the committee that he was acquainted with the person relating to this item and would leave the meeting for consideration of the report.

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 that had been circulated prior to the start of the meeting. (Late material refers to information submitted to the council following publication of the agenda).

The Chairman announced that 5 public speakers would be speaking at the meeting, on items 1, 2 and 6 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, where possible, avoid repeating previous observations.

Erection of a building comprising of 4 two bedroom apartments and 1 one bedroom apartment (Revised Scheme)

Erection of a building comprising of 4 two-bedroom apartments and 1 one- bedroom apartment (Revised Scheme)

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

Development Manager, Clive Reynolds, informed members that the application had been deferred at the previous meeting to invite Gloucestershire County Council (Highways) to the meeting to answer questions on highway safety. He said that the application was for the erection of a block of 5 flats utilising an existing access off Gloucester Road, Coleford and that, subsequent to the last meeting, the applicant had undertaken an additional survey at the site, indicating that a maximum of 6 cars had been observed using the existing car park. The Development Manager said that, further to the outcome of the survey, the reason for approving the application had been amended to include new planning policies. On this basis, the officer recommendation remained one of permission as per the schedule of applications.

Public Speaking

Speaking as an objector to the application, the public speaker made the following statement: -

‘I would just like to remind everyone why we are objecting to this development, despite the proposed conditions set out in the planning report. Firstly, the proposed building will be built on the area referred to variously as ‘rear garden’, and or/ ‘amenity area’, in the 2003 application for the conversion of 45 Gloucester Road into 5 flats. Unfortunately, no proper amenity area was provided for residents and eventually the grassed area to the rear was fenced off, If this building goes ahead on this area there will only be a tiny ‘amenity area’ at the rear of the building intended to cater for the 8 flats, (the existing flats plus the 3 new flats). Furthermore, there will be nowhere for any children to play. Secondly, the number of flats on the site would increase by 100 per cent (from 5 to 10) and the number of 2 bed flats by 200 per cent (from 2 to 6), with the existing parking spaces simply spread across both buildings. Coleford is not a city area where work, shopping and leisure activities are close to where people live or easily accessible by public transport. A high proportion of people in Coleford have to travel by car to other places in the Forest and outside to work, shop, attend hospitals or use other facilities etc. Having considered the late material circulated at the start of the meeting, I disagree with the officer’s comments that the proposed number of parking spaces is adequate for 5 flats and question the reliability of a survey which suggests 6 out of the 9 parking spaces were filled, when only based on the results of two occasions. We believe that one space per unit is not adequate, particularly with the increase in the number of 2 bedroom flats – these flats may well be occupied by couples or families with two cars. Gloucester Road and other nearby roads simply cannot sustain the additional cars  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Variation of Condition (07) of planning permission P0128/03/FUL (Layout of parking spaces)

Variation of Condition (07) of planning permission P0128/03/FUL (Layout of parking spaces)

Development Manager, Clive Reynolds, said that this item corresponded with the previous item in that it was seeking authorisation for an amended parking layout for the existing 5 flats to tie in with the revised parking layout needed to facilitate the new flats proposed for the rear of the site. He said that the evidence provided by the applicant indicated that the number of parking spaces for the site was above the number that was required and that the recommendation remained one of permission as per the schedule. It was noted that the number of approved spaces for the site was 10 parking spaces.

Public speaking

The speaker for the previous item said that, having refused the first application, he did not feel it was necessary to consider this second application. He said that the original application had been granted planning permission in 2003, subject to a planning condition for 10 car spaces at the site. Since that time, this number had reduced to 9. The speaker said that he did not consider it necessary to vary this condition and suggested that the proposed variation be rejected. 

Local member, Councillor Clive Elsmore reflected on the previous decision and said that, in his opinion, the need to make a decision on this application was superfluous.  

Committee consideration

Despite concerns about whether it was appropriate to consider this application, and having refused the previous item, Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, said that each application should be considered independently and that if the committee refused this application it would need to identify reasons why it was considered unacceptable.

Vote

Several members expressed concern about parking provision and suggested that the minimum number of parking spaces for the site should be at least 8. Councillor Philip Burford proposed that the application be refused due to the insufficient number of car parking spaces and Councillor James Bevan seconded the proposal. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to refuse planning permission due to the insufficient number of parking spaces for the development

For (14)

Councillors James Bevan, Philip Burford, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Val Hobman, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry and David Thompson

Against (1)

Councillor Arthur Thomas

Abstentions (0)

Variation of condition (01) of planning permission DF4477/V to allow visibility splays of 87m. distant to the north and 85m. distant to the south

Variation of condition (01) of planning permission DF4477/V to allow visibility splays of 87m. distant to the north and 85m. distant to the south

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred members to the late material that had been circulated at the start of the meeting and said that the additional representations had raised no new issues. Neil Troughton from Gloucestershire County Council (Highways) was in attendance at the meeting to answer any questions on technical highway issues relating to the application.

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

Committee consideration

Local member, Councillor Philip Burford asked Neil Troughton from Gloucestershire County Council (Highways) several questions before proposing that the application be deferred for a site visit. He asked; in what circumstances was the Department for Transport’s document ‘Manual for Streets’ used, and likewise, when was the Design Guide for Roads and Bridges used? He also enquired into the average speed limit for this location and whether or not it was good practice to have two access roads joining the main road, when located opposite one another.

Referring to a report that had been undertaken by a traffic management and safety consultancy company in preparation of the Manual of Streets Project, Councillor Burford drew members’ attention to the report and said that it appeared to question the suitability of the Manual for Streets in relation to this application. (A copy of the report is available on the council website).

Mr Troughton said that the Manual for Streets was applicable to all streets that were not trunk roads or motorways, irrespective of the speed limit for the area. However, on roads with a speed limit of 40 mph or above, which he confirmed this one was, local context was relevant. In relation to the access roads located opposite the site, Mr Troughton said that there were no plans to change the access arrangements and that the planning inspector had raised no concerns in relation to this issue. Several other members said that they had been confused by some of the information they had received prior to this meeting and questioned why the highway authority had changed their approach to such matters. Mr Troughton said that the policies had changed over time and that many of the old standards had been replaced. He said that, following the introduction of new national guidance, the evaluation process was a completely different process.

Following a detailed account of how the highway authority had reached their conclusions, Mr Troughton informed members that the application should be considered in light of the new National Planning Policy Framework where, ‘decisions should take account of whether safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people’ and, ‘development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development were severe’.

Vote

Councillor Philip Burford proposed that the application be deferred for members to visit the site, with a request for the distances relating to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

Alterations, extension and conversion of existing building to form holiday unit.  Alterations and conversion of building to form farm office with ancillary works

Alterations, extension and conversion of existing building to form holiday unit.  Alterations and conversion of building to form farm office with ancillary works

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

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, gave a brief outline on the application and referred members to the late material circulated prior to the meeting. The planning officer confirmed that the recommendation remained one of delegated permission, subject to the amended and additional conditions included in the late material.

Committee consideration

Local member, Councillor Jane Horne, said that she had no objection to the application but expressed concern about the proposal for a log burning heating system at the site and said that she would keep a close eye on this aspect.

Vote

Councillor Jane Horne moved the recommendation and Councillor Brian Jones seconded the motion.

A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant delegated planning permission as detailed in the schedule of applications and subject to appropriate conditions, including the amended and additional conditions referred to in the late material

For (15)

Councillors James Bevan, Philip Burford, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Val Hobman, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas and David Thompson

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Listed Building Consent for alterations, extension and conversion of existing building to form holiday unit.  Alterations and conversion of building to form farm office with ancillary works

Listed Building Consent for alterations, extension and conversion of existing building to form holiday unit.  Alterations and conversion of building to form farm office with ancillary works

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 said that this scheme was seeking consent for the detailed works relating to the previous application. The planning officer also referred to the additional conditions that had been included in the late material.

Vote

Councillor Jane Horne moved the recommendation and Councillor Brian Jones seconded the motion.

A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant delegated planning permission, as detailed in the schedule of applications and subject to appropriate conditions, including the amended and additional conditions referred to in the late material

For (15)

Councillors James Bevan, Philip Burford, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Val Hobman, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas and David Thompson

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Demolition of existing industrial buildings and redevelopment for 58 dwellings with associated access works and landscaping

Demolition of existing industrial buildings and redevelopment for 58 dwellings with associated access works and landscaping

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

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, outlined the background to the application and informed members that the site was within the development boundary of Whitecroft and, whilst not allocated for a specific use in the Core Strategy, the site was protected for employment use by Policy CSP.7. He referred to the late material and said that the recommendation remained one of refusal.

Public speaking

The first speaker raised several concerns in the following statement: -

‘I am a direct neighbour of the Vencel Resil site. Our property shares a substantial boundary along the northern edge. I have also actively sought the views of other neighbours, mostly those with homes on Wesley Road overlooking the site. My concerns about this development relate mainly to wildlife impacts, scale, density and design. The Ecological Assessment submitted by the developer was undertaken in midwinter and downplays the wildlife on site.  Dormice have been officially registered on the site. The north- eastern green field area includes a badger set, reptiles and bird and bat habitat. We specifically object to the plan to build on this north eastern ‘green field’, which as one resident commented, ‘flies in the face of the spirit of brownfield development’. We understand a more detailed dormice survey is underway as well as badger and reptile surveys. We think granting planning permission before these are completed would be premature. Although a ‘wildlife corridor’ is proposed along the northern boundary there are no plans to enhance or strengthen this habitat. Well-designed tree planting in gaps would both enhance the wildlife habitat and provide site screening. By contrast trees in the far north-western corner of the site are completely blocking neighbours light and need management or replanting. We, and most of the neighbours I have spoken to, do not object in principle to the concept of converting the Vencil Resil site for housing or a mixed used development. 

However, there is almost unanimous and overwhelming concern about the density of this proposal and its impact on our community. Squeezing 58 new homes onto the site with very small plot sizes is not an approach welcomed. People are worried about the noise, transport, drainage and other impacts that would be created by so many new homes and question whether there is sufficient local amenity to support development on this scale in Whitecroft. Furthermore, the house designs appear to take little if any account of local forest style are not in character with the heritage of our area. For these reasons I would agree with the planning officer’s recommendation to reject this proposal’.

Speaking on behalf of West Dean Parish Council, the second speaker made the following statement: -

‘West Dean Parish Council recognise the need for good quality housing in this part of the Forest of Dean, and see this development as an opportunity to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.6

Outline Application for the erection of a detached dwelling (Renewal of consent)

Outline Application for the erection of a detached dwelling (Renewal of consent)

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

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred members to the late material and said that this application had been considered on previous occasions and had been visited by the sites inspection panel.

Vote

Councillor Paul McMahon spoke in support of the application and moved the recommendation. Councillor Graham Morgan seconded the motion.

A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant planning permission, as detailed in the schedule of application, and subject to the information included in the late material

For (15)

Councillors James Bevan, Philip Burford, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Val Hobman, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas and David Thompson

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Erection of a detached dwelling.  Construction of new vehicular access.  Alterations and extensions. (Revision to planning permission P0970/08/FUL).  Change of use of agricultural land to additional residential curtliage.  Retention of Mutlow Cottage Grade II listed building as a holiday let

Erection of a detached dwelling.  Construction of new vehicular access.  Alterations and extensions. (Revision to planning permission P0970/08/FUL).  Change of use of agricultural land to additional residential curtliage.  Retention of Mutlow Cottage Grade II listed building as a holiday let

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

Development Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred members to the late material and reminded them that the original property at this site, Mutlow Cottage, had been given listed building status, and subsequently conditioned to be retained as a holiday let. He said that this was an unusual application in that a new dwelling had been constructed but with changes to the design and layout of the original scheme, notably to access. As such, a new planning application was required to regularise the situation. The Development Manager said, overall, the application was acceptable and that the recommendation was one of permission as per the schedule.

Local member, Councillor Dave East, said that following minor changes, he was happy with the application.

Vote

Councillor Jane Horne moved the recommendation and Councillor Norman Stephens seconded the motion.

A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant planning permission, as detailed in the schedule of applications and subject to the correction in the late material

For (15)

Councillors James Bevan, Philip Burford, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Val Hobman, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas and David Thompson

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

a)     To confirm that the next sites inspection panel of visits will take place on 19 June 2012

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

RESOLVED that the next sites inspection panel will be held on Tuesday 19 June 2012, and that the following sites will be added to the itinerary for that day: -  

.

The committee to receive an update on the performance of the appeals team for the period January to March 2012 and an overview of the 2011-2012 financial year.

Principal Planning Officer for Appeals and Enforcement, Martin Hillier updated members on the performance of the appeals team during the first quarter of 2012 and for the 2011-2012 financial year. He said that the team had done very well for the first part of the calendar year but that performance across the whole financial year was just below target with 21 appeals dismissed, 11 allowed and 1 dismissed. He said he anticipated a larger number of inquiries for the remainder of the year, including an inquiry on the site at Onslow Road, Newent. Members congratulated the team on their work and requested regular updates on the dates of inquiries. They were informed that the dates would be circulated with the two-week members diary. Having considered the information, members,

RESOLVED to note report PH.123

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 outweighed 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 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

The committee to consider the attached enforcement reports: -

The committee considered the following enforcement action : -

The committee considered enforcement report 9.1

The committee considered enforcement report 9.2

10 July 2012

10 July 2012