To receive apologies for absence

Apologies were received from Councillor James Bevan, (substituted by Councillor Judy Davis), and Councillor Jane Horne, (substituted by Councillor Brian Jones).

To confirm the minutes of the planning committee meeting held on 10 April 2012 (minutes attached)

The minutes of the meeting on 10 April 2012 were confirmed as an accurate record of that meeting.

Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, referred to item 5.1 of the minutes, (planning application P2414/10/FUL Severn and Wye Smokery, Chaxhill, Westbury on Severn), and reminded members that, at that meeting the committee had resolved to delegate authority to approve planning permission, subject to the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement to secure the provision of related drainage proposals. He said that, further to the committees’ subsequent decision, to refuse a second application at the site, (P1303/11/FUL Creation of a Wash Water Treatment Plant and Store), the planning authority had been unable to activate the decision on the first application. The group manager said that the impact of the decision to refuse the second application had meant that it would be necessary to re-consult with the Environment Agency on the changes in circumstance relating to drainage proposals at the site. Responding to a question from Councillor Norman Stephens, the group manager said that the wash water treatment plant no longer formed part of the proposal and that it would be necessary to seek clarity from the Environment Agency on this aspect of the development before proceeding without the legal agreement. He said that he anticipated that the outcome of the discussions with the Environment Agency would be presented at the planning committee meeting in June. The committee noted and accepted the information.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business

There were no items of urgent business for consideration 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 items 5.6, (P0181/12/OUT Land Off Foley Road, Newent), and 5.7, (P0311/12/APP Land South of Onslow Road, Newent), due to her husband working as a consultant on the applications.

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 that has been submitted to the council following publication of the agenda).

The Chairman announced that 7 public speakers would be speaking at the meeting, on items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 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, to avoid repeating previous observations.

Erection of 13 dwellings and provision of public open space, with associated landscaping, parking and access

Erection of 13 dwellings and provision of public open space, with associated landscaping, parking and access

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

Referring to the updated officer’s report on page 31 of the agenda and to the information that had been included in the late material, Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, informed members that, although the legal agreement for the planning permission required for this application had been received, it was after the date that had been specified by members in their resolution at the meeting in March 2012. Accordingly, it had been necessary to re-present the application at this meeting to confirm that the planning permission could be issued. Furthermore, one of the signatures on the agreement had not been witnessed. The planning officer explained that a 14-day period was being requested for the legal agreement to be completed.

Public speaking

Speaking as an objector on behalf of local residents, the first speaker made the following statement: -

‘We would like you to take into consideration our objections when you make your decision on this development of 13 houses to be built on the land adjacent to Rectory Meadow. We have no objection to the old school being developed into two dwellings. The sewerage and draining need to be upgraded – this was recommended several years ago, following the development at Sunnybank and the Old Rectory. Rectory Meadow is now suffering flooding from all the surface water coming down. In Rectory Meadow, there are 23 cars belonging to residents and visitors, which have to park on the roadside. The road is far too narrow for large vehicles to use. The junction at Rectory Meadow on to Church Road is extremely dangerous as we have cars parked at the junction and the road. Visibility is virtually non-existent. We have had a few minor accidents here recently and it will only be matter of time before something serious happens. We have also had an ambulance not being able to get to patients due to the road being so narrow with parked cars. The same applies to School Lane. The Church has a lot of activities there and there is no car park. Hence all the cars, even coaches, park along that stretch of road, making it really dangerous to pull out from. Also the Church have run out of burial ground so why don’t they use this land for that purpose. I hope you will take into consideration our serious concerns regarding this application.’

Speaking on behalf of the parish council, Chairman of Longhope Parish Council, Councillor Stan Stephens, noted that the decision relating to this application was made at the March committee meeting and apologised if he was wasting time by making the following statement: -

‘The village is concerned with the impact of a further thirteen houses being built in a constructed area of a village. As the parish council, we are particularly worried about the impact of people using the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51.

Restoration of the Hereford to Gloucester Canal, village car park, children's play area and enabling residential development comprising of 15 affordable homes and 5 open market homes

Restoration of the Hereford to Gloucester Canal, village car park, children's play area and enabling residential development comprising of 15 affordable homes and 5 open market homes

This application was withdrawn by the applicant at the meeting

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)

Development Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred members to the late material, and in particular, to the views of the Sustainability Team, who had confirmed no objection to the scheme. He also referred to the support from Newland Parish Council for the objections that had been raised by Coleford Town Council. The Development Manager reminded members that the application had been subject to a visit by the Site Inspection Panel and sought to erect a block of five flats on land to the rear of 45 Gloucester Road. He said that the intention was to use existing access arrangements at the site and to re-plan and expand the current parking provision. Referring to a second application for the site, (considered under item 5.4 of the schedule), the Development Manager said that the second application was for the re-planning of the existing car park in conjunction with the proposal for the five flats considered under this application. He informed the committee that, after the recent site visit, officers had gone back to the Highway Authority, seeking further clarification on the access arrangements for the site, for which there were no objections to the scheme. The recommendation therefore was to grant planning permission as per the schedule of applications.

Public speaking

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

‘I am speaking on behalf of the neighbours who have submitted objections. Whilst the proposed conditions set out in the planning report, (on land contamination, coal mining legacy, condition of the culvert, ‘home zone’ entrance, etc), would be vital for any building on this land, (if properly supervised and carried out), we remain opposed to this application.

First, the proposed building area was an integral part of the 2003 application for the conversion of 45 Gloucester Road into 5 flats. It was referred to as ‘rear garden’ and/or ‘amenity area’ in various documents. Unfortunately, the revised site plan, (which the then agent can confirm was shown as ‘existing garden to lawn’), is missing from the file. Subsequently, no proper amenity area was provided for residents and eventually it was fenced off. We believe the current application is an ‘inappropriate development of residential gardens’ or amenity area.

Secondly, the proposal would increase the number of flats on the site by 100 per cent, (from 5 to 10), and the number of two bed flats by 200 per cent, (from 2 to 6), without any more in-site car parking. The existing parking spaces will simply be spread across both buildings. One space per unit is not ‘more than adequate’, (page 83 of the planning report), it is less than ‘adequate’. Most of the current spaces are already used. Given particularly the increase in two-bed flats, where are any extra cars supposed to park – in a public car park, (and have to pay), or on Gloucester Road or other nearby roads? This is not sustainable.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

          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

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

Committee consideration

Due to links with the previous decision, the committee agreed to defer consideration of this application, pending the outcome of the decision relating to planning application, P2389/11/FUL Land at Rear of 45 Gloucester Road, Coleford. 

Vote

Councillor Norman Stephens proposed that the application be deferred and Councillor Philip Burford seconded the proposal. With a show of hands, the committee,

RESOLVED to defer the application, pending the outcome of the decision relating to planning application, P2389/11/FUL Land at Rear of 45 Gloucester Road, Coleford

Demolition of existing dwelling, storage building and sheds to provide replacement dwelling, garage and ancillary accommodation.  An enlargement of residential cartilage.

Demolition of existing dwelling, storage building and sheds to provide replacement dwelling, garage and ancillary accommodation.  An enlargement of residential curtilage.

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

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, gave a brief outline on the additional consultee responses that had been received, as detailed in the late material, and to the revised recommendation. 

Committee consideration

Ward member, Councillor Norman Stephens said that the proposal offered better modern living arrangements and moved the recommendation. Councillor Paul McMahon seconded the motion. Other members shared this perspective and commended the use of conditions. 

Vote

A recorded vote was taken and the committee,

RESOLVED to authorise the Group Manager for Planning and Housing to grant planning permission, subject to receipt of a satisfactory Protected Species Survey from the applicant and to no new substantive objections being received prior to the expiry of the press notice on 17 May 2012

For (15)

Councillors Philip Burford, Gethyn Davies, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Val Hobman, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thompson and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Outline application for residential development, (up to 120 dwellings), including infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping.  Construction of new vehicular access from Foley Road.  Connection to proposed vehicular access through adjacent residential development.

Outline application for residential development, (up to 120 dwellings), including infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping.  Construction of new vehicular access from Foley Road.  Connection to proposed vehicular access through adjacent residential development.

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

Having declared an interest in this item, Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, left the meeting for consideration of this application.

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, referred to the additional consultee responses and representations that had been received, as reported in the late material, and said that the recommendation remained one of refusal, subject to the withdrawal of refusal reason (5), relating to the impact of the proposal on European Protected Species.

Public speaking

Speaking on behalf of the applicant, the public speaker made the following statement: -

‘I am aware that the council’s officers, in their committee report, recommend refusal for this site based on 5 proposed reasons. The first two reasons are essentially based on the fact that the site is not specifically identified for development in the recently approved Core Strategy, and consequently falls to be determined as open countryside, within which built development should not be permitted. It is also suggested that as the Core Strategy only proposes 350 dwellings at Newent, in the period to 2026, then this would exceed the quantum of development, by at least 70 dwellings. The third reason for refusal refers to the lack of a section 106 agreement. The fourth reason for refusal specifically refers to the development, only proposing 35 per cent affordable dwellings. The fifth reason for refusal relates to the lack of information on ecology. Of these proposed reasons for refusal, I can report that, so far as I am aware, the information regarding ecology has now been accepted by the councillor’s officers.

The information collected over the last 8 years demonstrates that the site is not capable of supporting protected amphibians (i.e. newts). The lack of a section 106 agreement tying down the financial contributions can easily be remedied and again is accepted by the officers. So far as affordable housing is concerned, the council’s Core Strategy Policy CSP 5 indicates that this would be ‘sought’, but paragraph 6.38 indicates that, ‘in practice this figure is not likely to be achieved because past experience is that, whilst the 40 per cent is a sensible target, it is unachievable in some cases’. Recent experience by the applicants and by the authority demonstrate conclusively that a requirement for 40 per cent affordable housing, plus substantial contributions towards other section 106 targets, gives rise to viability problems, hence the reason why many of the larger allocations from the old Local Plan had not proceeded. The 35 per cent offer represents a realistic viable solution on a medium size site within the district. This leaves the first two reasons for refusal and whether there is any justification for intruding on to allocated land so soon after the Core Strategy has been approved. The answer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

Approval of reserved matters for the erection of 91 dwellings with associated infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping

Approval of reserved matters for the erection of 91 dwellings with associated infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping

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

Having declared an interest in this item, Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, left the meeting for consideration of this application.

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, summarised the consultee responses and additional comments that had been included in the late material and drew member’s attention to revised condition (1) relating to lighting. 

Public speaking

Speaking on behalf of the applicant, the speaker raised the following points during his statement: -

‘The applicant wishes to make representations to members further to the letter that was issued the previous week. The purpose of the representations was to clarify the context of the confusion toward the application demonstrated in some neighbouring representations received by the Council.

The applicant clarified that there have been no fundamental changes to the scheme further to that already approved by the committee in January of this year. The changes to the application were relatively minor and arose as the scheme was progressed to the building out stage and opportunities to provide improvements were highlighted. The main changes comprised some alterations to slab levels to better reflect the form of the site, some changes to parking layouts and some changes to surface and elevation finishes. The changes have been considered by officers as acceptable and compatible with the councils newly adopted Core Strategy and have not drawn any objection from the council’s statutory consultees; nor has the Town Council raised any objections.

Whilst some objections have been received from neighbouring properties, those objections raise matters of principle and maintain objections to a scheme that, fundamentally, has already been approved. The applicant has noted some concerns by neighbours in relation to maintenance of trees and boundary treatments at the site. Nevertheless, the revised application does not propose any amendments to the approved scheme in terms of boundary treatments and tree maintenance. Notwithstanding that these matters fall outside the scope of the current application, the applicant is meeting with residents to establish their preferences at the site and is seeking to accommodate their concerns’.  

Committee consideration

From a safety perspective, Councillor Roger Yeates, highlighted the importance of installing fire hydrants

Vote

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

RESOLVED that the application be granted planning permission subject to the conditions detailed in the schedule of applications and to the information recorded in the late material. 

For (15)

Councillors Philip Burford, Gethyn Davies, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Val Hobman, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thompson and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Outline application for the erection of two detached dwellings

Outline application for the erection of two detached dwellings

This application was withdrawn by the applicant before the start of the meeting

Alterations and extensions to provide granny annexe to side of existing dwelling, and conservatory to rear

Alterations and extensions to provide granny annexe to side of existing dwelling, and conservatory to rear.

Committee consideration

The committee was required to consider this proposal because applicant, Councillor Jane Horne, is a member of the district council. Councillor Horne did not sit on the committee and left the meeting for consideration of this item.

Vote

Councillor Lynn Sterry moved the recommendation and Councillor Roger Yeates seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions detailed in the schedule of applications

For (15)

Councillors Philip Burford, Gethyn Davies, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Val Hobman, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thompson and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

a)     To confirm that the next sites’ inspection panel will be held on Tuesday 15 May 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 will be held on Tuesday 15 May 2012, and that the following sites will be added to the itinerary for that day: -  

The committee to consider report PH.118 and the performance of the planning enforcement team from January to March 2012.

Before presenting report PH.118, Development Manger, Clive Reynolds introduced Senior Planning Enforcement Officer, Nick Bainton, to the committee.

The Development Manager said that the performance of the enforcement team had dipped slightly during the first two months of the year, which could have been due to the recent changes in the enforcement team. He said that the performance of the team would be monitored during the lean system review of the enforcement process. Members welcomed the review and,

RESOLVED to note the report 

12 June 2012

12 June 2012