To receive apologies for absence.

There were no apologies at this meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on: -

1. 8 March 2011 (page 1)

2. 15 March 2011 (page 21)

1. The minutes of the meeting held on 8 March 2011 were confirmed as an accurate record of that meeting.

2. The minutes of the meeting held on 15 March 2011 were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting, subject to the following amendment and corrections.

i.                    Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, was not present at the meeting on 15 March 2011. Furthermore, during consideration of the enforcement report at item 12 of the agenda, Councillor Norman Stephens referred to an email from Councillor Dr Richard Long but did not précis the information, as had been stated in the minutes.

ii.                  Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, gave an update on planning application P0142/11/FUL Carinya, Hang Hill Road, Bream, (referred to on page 27 of the minutes of the meeting on 15 March 2011). He said that, although the minutes were correct in recording that the committee had deferred the application at that meeting, the applicant had subsequently withdrawn the application and, with only minor changes, it was his intention to construct the extension, garage and access as permitted development.

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.  Members and officers are requested to identify the nature of the interest and indicate whether it is personal or prejudicial.

Councillor Philip Burford declared a prejudicial interest in item 5.7 of the agenda, P0140/11/FUL, The Orchard, Chapel Farm, Chapel Lane, Redmarley. Councillor Burford said that, due to a trading relationship with the applicant’s brother, he intended to leave the meeting during consideration of the application.

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 that had been circulated on the pink coloured paper immediately prior to the meeting. (Late material refers to information submitted to the council following publication of the agenda).

Seven public speakers had registered to speak at this meeting, speaking on items 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the schedule. Each speaker was allowed 3 minutes to make their representations. The decisions are recorded in order of the schedule

The Chairman said that he was conscious of several disturbances and interruptions that had occurred at recent meetings and stressed to the members of public seated in the public gallery how important it was for the committee to consider all of the information presented at planning meetings before making any decisions. The Chairman urged members of the public not to interrupt the meeting by shouting aloud and said that he would stop the proceedings should there be a repetition of events from previous meetings.

Discharge of condition of planning permission P1229/07/FUL, allowed on appeal (29), provision of cycle/pedestrian link.

Discharge of condition of planning permission P1229/07/FUL, allowed on appeal (29), provision of cycle/pedestrian link

Please refer to the late material circulated prior to the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred to the late material and clarified that the application related to the discharge of condition 29 of the original planning permission, (P1229/07/FUL), which had been granted at appeal in 2008.

Public Speaking

Speaking as an objector to the application, the speaker questioned the proposal to turn a long established farm track into a cycle and footpath. The speaker expressed several concerns about safety and the poor visibility for cyclists and pedestrians exiting the sudden and abrupt downhill outlet on to the adjoining road. The speaker confirmed that both he and the residents from a neighbouring property had established rights of way along the path and that vehicular access was currently permitted for personal use and emergency access to the two properties. Highlighting the potential risks experienced by cyclists and pedestrians involved in road traffic accidents, the speaker implored the committee to consider the proposals carefully.

Cabinet member for the Community, Councillor Denis Riley, questioned whether there had been an opportunity for the committee to consider the safety audit plans that had been submitted by the applicant and referred to in the late material where several references to the audit had been made. Having noted that Gloucestershire County Highways had not accepted the information detailed in the road safety audit, Councillor Riley outlined some of the safety issues, he believed, local residents were most concerned with, including the gradient of the slope from the path to the road, the stability of the walls lining the path and the safety and welfare of children, animals, pedestrians and cyclists using the path.

Committee Consideration

Local member, Councillor Grace Bensted, referred to the Planning Inspector’s report and to safety issues relating to the cycle/footpath link from the proposed development to the road, including “the potential conflict between vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists”.  Councillor Bensted noted that the Planning Inspector had suggested that, “the need for vehicular access along the track had precluded the installation of a physical barrier at the bottom of the track, (to be installed to prevent pedestrians and cyclists entering traffic on Cinder Hill)”. Furthermore, the Planning Inspector had expressed concern about the risks involved from local residents having vehicular rights of way to the track and had suggested that safety issues could potentially outweigh the benefits of providing a pedestrian/cycle path at this location. Councillor Bensted also expressed concern about entering Cinder Hill from such a narrow and steep gradient and of the risks to highway safety from the increased number of vehicles created by the development. Councillor Bensted suggested waiving the discharge of condition 29 and only allowing access to the two properties on the lane. Following the advice of the Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, that to waive the condition was not necessarily a reflection of the Planning Inspector’s judgment, Councillor Bensted proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Extend existing mixed uses on site to include office B1(a), light industrial B1(c), storage or distribution, B8.

Extend existing mixed uses on site to include office B1 (a), light industrial B1(c), storage or distribution, B8.

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred to the recent visit to the site and informed members that negotiations had taken place to address concerns regarding the impact of the site on local residents and highways issues. Subsequently, the application had been amended to remove B2 and A2 uses but was still seeking B1 and B8 uses, together with the uses approved in 2005 and on appeal in 2009. The Development Control Manager said that the difficulty with the B1 and B8 uses was that they could generate increased employment and vehicle movements to the site and that B8 uses could give rise to noise and disturbance. It was noted that the part of the site nearest to the neighbouring dwelling already had restrictions on loading and unloading but that the current application would have no operating hours restriction on loading. The Development Control Manager said that the site had a history of complaints relating to the impact of the business on the amenities of nearby residents and that the recommendation was one of refusal.

Committee Consideration

Local member, Councillor Roger Yeates, questioned the recommendation to refuse the application and noted a number of similar sites within the local area currently operating without the restrictions suggested for this site. Councillor Yeates emphasised the importance of maintaining the sustainability of the area and the need to encourage local employment. Several members concurred with Councillor Yeates and believed it was unfair to refuse the application, particularly when located in such close proximity to a nearby business park. Responding to the expressions of support, Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, believed the committee should endeavour to be consistent with the previous planning permission and safeguard the amenities to nearby properties.

Councillor Philip Burford enquired why no transport statement had been submitted with the application. Chris Rose, from Gloucestershire County Highways, said that a statement had not been requested and that the Highways Authority had considered the planning permission granted in 2005 before estimating that the total daily trip from the revised proposal would be 139 movements and therefore substantially greater than the 64 movements calculated for existing use.

Vote

Councillor Roger Yeates proposed that the application be granted permission and Councillor Jane Horne seconded the proposal. The reasons put forward for approving the application included, upholding the sustainability of the area, maintaining local employment and the better use of the redundant part of the building. Several members stressed the need to consider the impact of the application on nearby properties and expressed caution. In response to such concerns, Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, suggested conditions to restrict the levels of outside storage at the site and to limit loading operations as per the previous permission and these were accepted. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant the application planning permission, subject to appropriate conditions.

For: (12)

Councillors Grace Bensted, James Bevan, Philip Burford,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

Discharge of conditions of planning permission DF11142/B, (b) play area details and (c) open space management.

Discharge of conditions of planning permission DF11142/B, (b) play area details and (c) open space management.

Please refer to the late material circulated prior to the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, referred to the late material and reminded members that the application sought to agree the type of play equipment for the site and the management of the area, not the appropriateness of the site as a play area.

Public Speaking

Speaking against the application, the speaker referred to objections from Cinderford Town Council and to concerns from local residents. The speaker said that the majority of people living in the area were older residents and not young families. He also expressed concern about the possible threat of anti-social behaviour at the site and the distinct lack of children in the area aged 5 years and below. He noted that there was already one amenity in the area and highlighted the potential safety risks that might arise from the play area being located so near to the adjacent road. On this basis, the speaker hoped the developer might consider investing the allocation of money towards a safer resource for the town centre.

Committee Consideration

Local member, Councillor Lynn Sterry, said that the size of the allocated play space was little more than a grass verge. She believed the location would be unsafe as a play area for young children due to the potential dangers associated with fast moving vehicles travelling along the adjacent road. Councillor Sterry also expressed concern about the possible risk of anti-social behaviour at the site and remarked on the contradiction that had emerged from current signage at the site stipulating ‘no ball games’. She also referred to the derelict and redundant play area nearby. Several other members expressed concern about the appropriateness of the site as a play area and readily admitted that the committee might have got it wrong when making a decision on this element of the planning permission, granted in 2004.

Vote

Whilst conscious that the application only referred to the type of play equipment to be used and not to the appropriateness of the site, members nevertheless remained concerned about safety issues at the site. On this basis, Councillor Norman Stephens proposed that the application be deferred and that the planning authority undertake negotiations with the developer, with a view to him investing the sum already allocated to maintenance of the play area to a similar project in Cinderford. Councillor Grace Bensted seconded the proposal (Councillor Stephens stressed that, in making this proposal, he would not want the developer to incur any additional costs). Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, suggested that, if the application was deferred, that a note be added to the decision expressing the committee’s viewpoint and concerns. He pointed out that there was a cost involved in maintaining the site and that it would be for the developer to consider how best to reallocate the contribution. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

Refurbishment of existing farmhouse. Conversion of barn to create a dwelling. Erection of 20 dwellings with associated parking/garaging facilities. Construction of new vehicular access. (Revised scheme).

Refurbishment of existing farmhouse. Conversion of barn to create a dwelling. Erection of 20 dwellings with associated parking/garaging facilities. Construction of new vehicular access. (Revised scheme)

Please refer to the late material circulated prior to the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred members to the late material and to the change of date for the completion of the section 106 legal agreement to 30 June 2011.

Public Speaking

Speaking as an objector to the application, the speaker said that, in her opinion, the site was not a brownfield site. She said that, although she accepted the need for low cost housing in the village, she felt other sites, including Swainfields and the new development at the lower end of Severn View Road addressed such need. She said that 20 new houses, plus the barn conversion and the refurbishment of the farmhouse, would mean a total of 21 new dwellings at the site, equating to 40 plus vehicles entering and leaving the village via the only junction to the A48. The speaker expressed concern that of the 40 vehicles using this access route, there would be journeys to and from work, journeys to go shopping, to the doctors and for leisure activities, not to mention the increased number of deliveries that was evident since the plans had been submitted. The speaker believed the access arrangements to the development were completely unsatisfactory, with very poor visibility. She said this was particularly relevant at school times when the route would be blocked with vehicles collecting or dropping off children. She said that since 2007, there had been many changes in Woolaston, including a large number of new houses. She said that, in addition to no local employment, the cost of fuel and taxi fares had increased significantly and that public transport was practically non-existent. Furthermore, there were several other issues she felt ought to be considered, including sewage issues, wildlife (bats and newts), financial contributions to local amenities, and the inconvenience to local residents during building works. On this basis, the speaker urged the council to consider the application carefully.

The agent to the application informed members that there were no ecological constraints at the site and that issues relating to foul water drainage had all been considered satisfactory. He said that the proposed development was an important component in maintaining the applicants business and in supporting local employment. Furthermore, the heads of terms for the application had now been agreed and were being supported by officers and endorsed by the District Valuer. Noting the contributions towards affordable housing, the speaker hoped the committee was able to support the application.

Committee Consideration

In response to highway safety concerns from Councillor James Bevan, Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, confirmed that Gloucestershire Highways Authority had been satisfied with the proposals and had raised no objections. This was also reinforced by Chris Rose from Gloucestershire Highways, who said that no parking problems were anticipated but that should this be the case, the situation could be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.4

Erection of a new village hall with associated car park and children's playground. Construction of new vehicular access.

Erection of a new village hall with associated car park and children's playground. Construction of new vehicular access

Please refer to the late material circulated prior to the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, referred to the late material and to the revised recommendation for delegated authority to be given to the Group Manager for Planning and Housing to grant planning permission subject to the receipt of satisfactory information regarding impact on wildlife habitat. 

Public Speaking

Objecting to the application, the speaker said that local residents supported the idea of a new village hall but were opposed to the development of the site at Yorkley Bottom. The speaker expressed concern about the impact on wildlife and said that there were 8 or more springs at the site that created a unique wetland environment and was home to a large community of endangered species, including bats, slow worms, grass snakes, newts, butterflies and moths. He said that, apart from the ecological importance of the site, Yorkley Bottom was located within a conservation area, was outside the strategic development area and was a unique piece of forest waste. Considering the proposals to be out of character with the local area and contrary to planning policy and guidelines, the speaker said that there was a lack of information relating to the sustainability of the area, as specified in the council’s local plan. He also expressed concern about the risk of flooding at the site. The speaker said that, whilst supporting the need for a new village hall, the proposal should ideally include more sporting and outdoor recreational facilities, which would not be feasible at Yorkley Bottom. He also expressed concern about the financial burden on the local community and believed that partnerships with other communities and sporting groups would be a better way forward. 

The applicant informed members that the current village hall was over 200 years old and in a bad state of repair, with no central heating or double glazing, thus making it very cold and uncomfortable during the winter.  He also said that parking at the hall was extremely restrictive and drop-off arrangements potentially dangerous. The speaker said that at the first of two public meetings that had been held, the applicant had been instructed to find a suitable site for the new hall. Furthermore the plans had been given a mandate from a large majority of residents to progress the application. He believed the proposed design of the hall reflected the character of the area, had minimum impact on neighbouring properties and was in keeping with the local policy.

Local member, Councillor Keith Aburrow, said that the applicant had collaborated with both officers and local residents about the proposals and that, despite comments about a lack of consultation, would be supporting the application. He said that he intended to speak to the local police about speeding issues and that concerns about fencing at the site and poor visibility could be easily rectified. In relation to concerns about wildlife,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.5

Continued use of the land for agricultural purposes (grazing) and installation of a solar farm with a power capacity of up to 5MWp, comprising the installation of arrays of photovoltaic panels, associated boundary fencing, security and television cameras, landscape planting, site access and associated electrical infrastructure, including 4 inverter units and a transformer compound.

Continued use of the land for agricultural purposes (grazing) and installation of a solar farm with a power capacity of up to 5MWp, comprising the installation of arrays of photovoltaic panels, associated boundary fencing, security and television cameras, landscape planting, site access and associated electrical infrastructure, including 4 inverter units and a transformer compound.

Please refer to the late material circulated prior to the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, reminded members of the visit to the site and said that the proposals were considered acceptable, subject to revised condition (4), as detailed in the late material.

Committee Consideration

Local member, Councillor Norman Stephens, said that there had been no objections from the parish council and that he would be supporting the application. He referred to the proposal as cutting edge technology and the first major solar energy application to be considered in the Forest of Dean. He commended the work of the planning officer and said that, with the support of the local community and a carefully chosen site, there should be no new issues. Councillor David Thomson reflected on the amount of funding the initiative relied on and Councillor Heather Dalziel questioned possible noise nuisance and run-off arrangements at the site.

Vote

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

RESOLVED to grant the application planning permission, subject to the details and conditions in the schedule of applications and the information in the late material, including revised condition 4.

For: (14)

Councillors Grace Bensted, James Bevan, Philip Burford, Heather Dalziel, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury (Chairman), Terry Hale, Jane Horne, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Di Martin, Norman Stephens (Vice chairman), Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas and Roger Yeates

Against: (1) Councillor David Thomson

Abstentions:(0)

Erection of a replacement dwelling and a detached garage/store

Erection of a replacement dwelling and a detached garage/store

Councillor Philip Burford left the meeting for consideration of this application

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, said that the application was seeking to erect a replacement dwelling for a prefabricated building, which had lawful use as a dwelling by virtue of a lawful development certificate issued in 2009. Outlining the planning history to the application, (on page 106 of the agenda), the Development Control Manager informed members of active enforcement notices being placed on the land around the site, regarding access, an additional prefabricated dwelling located above the application site, the storage of caravans and extended residential curtilage. He said that, all of these enforcement matters had been dismissed at appeal and that the key issue regarding the current application related to the visual impact of the development. The Development Control Manager said that, in offering pre-application advice, officers had advised the applicant that any replacement should be kept at a single storey level in view of the low height of the existing flat roof structure. He informed members that the replacement dwelling was for a two-storey building and that the garage at the site was comparable, in footprint terms, to the existing dwelling and over a metre higher than the existing structure. He said that, whilst planning policy sought to allow development in the context of its current surroundings, in these circumstances, (located in open countryside and visible from the adjoining lane), the recommendation remained one of refusal.

Public Speaking

The applicant informed members that he was not a property developer but a self-builder wanting to build a family home. He said that he had been in close contact with planning officers throughout the pre-application submission process, where the only issue had been concerns about the size of the glass gable. In response to such concerns, the application said he believed the scaling down in size of the gable and details of anti-glare glass had addressed the issue. The applicant said that he had tried to make the property as sustainable as possible and that he had been led to believe that the application was considered favourable by planning officers. He had therefore been surprised by the recommendation to refuse the application, as detailed in the officer’s report. The applicant disputed comments about the intended size of the property and said that the total floor area was 189.5 m2 and not 226m2 as had been suggested in the report. He said that he had done everything possible to reduce the perceived visual impact of the building, including sinking the property into the ground and reducing the scale of the building. Furthermore, he had been told not to worry about the size of the building but to concentrate on the impact on the local area, which he believed he had done by introducing a sympathetic architectural design. The applicant noted the lack of objection to the proposals and questioned the recommendation of refusal.

Local member, Councillor Peter Ede, said that he  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.7

Siting of a mobile home for carers and family. (Retrospective)

Siting of a mobile home for carers and family. (Retrospective)

Please refer to the late material circulated prior to the meeting

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred to the late material and to the additional letter of support for the application. He said that the application sought to retain a mobile home and associated extensions at the site, currently occupied by a family who were caring for their parents living in a two-bedroom property on the same site. He said that, whilst planning policies would not normally support the introduction of a separate dwelling unit in this location, the personal circumstances of the applicant, and the temporary nature of the application, were material considerations. On this basis, and subject to appropriate planning conditions, the Development Control Manager said that a temporary planning permission was considered acceptable for the application and did not prejudice planning policies.

Ward member, Councillor Dr Richard Long, spoke in support of the application and said that he was pleased with the officer’s recommendation and that use of the mobile home had been restricted to a three-year limit.

Vote

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

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

For: (14)

Councillors Grace Bensted, James Bevan, Philip Burford, Heather Dalziel, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury (Chairman), Terry Hale, Jane Horne, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Di Martin, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against: (0)

Abstentions:(0)

Erection of a terrace of four dwellings with ancillary works

Erection of a terrace of four dwellings with ancillary works

Please refer to the late material circulated prior to the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred to the additional representations detailed in the late material and said that the comments had been acknowledged. Informing members that parking was an issue for the planning authority to consider, she confirmed that the recommendation remained one of refusal.

Local member Councillor Dave East, endorsed the views of the parish council and spoke in support of the application. He believed the site would benefit from the much-needed development and enhance the centre of the village, which he described as an eyesore. Councillor East noted that there had been no objections from county highways and no noise issues identified by neighbouring properties. With regard to the risk of flooding, Councillor East said that he was not aware of any heavy flooding at the site, and that in 2007, the flooding had only related to road surface water. Furthermore, since that time, a significant amount of preventative work had been undertaken to address any concerns. 

Committee Consideration

Responding to a question from Councillor Lynn Sterry, the Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams confirmed that to grant planning permission, where there was an objection from the Environment Agency on flood risk grounds, would require the decision being referred back to the Environment Agency. (No objections had been raised in the correspondence received up to the time of the meeting). Despite some concerns about the proposed design of the properties, members spoke in support of the application and Councillor Norman Stephens suggested delegating authority to officers to address issues relating to floor levels at the site with the Environment Agency. Should the agency fundamentally disagree with the decision, the matter to be referred back to the Development Control Committee.

Vote

Councillor Norman Stephens proposed that the committee consider delegating authority to the Group Manager for Planning and Housing to grant planning permission and Councillor Jane Horne seconded the proposal. The reasons suggested for this proposal included, that the Environment Agency had not objected to the proposal, that the development would provide much needed local housing and improve this visually unattractive site. The planning permission to be subject to standard conditions, including confirmation of details relating to hard and soft landscaping at the site, floor levels, parking arrangements and drainage. It was also suggested that the proposed garaging was intended to act as an acoustic barrier and would therefore need to be installed prior to occupation of the dwellings to prevent noise from the nearby industrial site. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to authorise the Group Manager for Planning and Housing to grant planning permission, subject to appropriate conditions. Should the Environment Agency fundamentally oppose this decision, the application to be reconsidered by the Development Control Committee at a future meeting.

For: (14)

Councillors Grace Bensted, James Bevan, Heather Dalziel, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury (Chairman), Terry Hale, Jane Horne, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Di Martin,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.9

Change of use of existing single industrial unit into four smaller units

Change of use of existing single industrial unit into four smaller units

It was noted that this application had been referred to the Development Control Committee on account of it being a council owned site.

Committee Consideration

Local member, Councillor Di Martin, said that the town council had considered the application very carefully and was very supportive of the proposals.

Vote

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

RESOLVED to grant the application planning permission, subject to the details and conditions in the schedule of applications.

For: (15)

Councillors Grace Bensted, James Bevan, Philip Burford, Heather Dalziel, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury (Chairman), Terry Hale, Jane Horne, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Di Martin, Norman Stephens (Vice chairman), Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against: (0)

Abstentions:(0)

Change of use of premises from B1 office use to A1 retail premises use

Change of use of premises from B1 office use to A1 retail premises use

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, confirmed that this application was for change of use of council owned premises from B1 office use to A1 retail premises use

Committee Consideration

Following concerns from Councillor David Thomson about proposed change of use of the site to A1 retail premises, it was generally accepted that the proposal was a good retail opportunity that would be acceptable to the town centre.

Vote

Councillor Grace Bensted moved the recommendation and said that she hoped the proposal would bring new life into Coleford Town Centre. Councillor Jane Horne seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

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

For: (15)

Councillors Grace Bensted, James Bevan, Philip Burford, Heather Dalziel, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury (Chairman), Terry Hale, Jane Horne, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Di Martin, Norman Stephens (Vice chairman), Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against: (0)

Abstentions:(0)

Due to the forthcoming council elections on 5 May 2011, the Development Control Committee will not meet until 14 June 2011, following the appointment of the new committee at the annual council meeting on 26 May 2011. For this reason, it is considered inappropriate to schedule site visits for inspection on 19 April 2011, as would normally have been the case. Alternatively, it is suggested that the next round of inspections take place on Wednesday 8 June 2011, and that the Group Manager for Planning and Housing draw up the programme of appropriate sites for inspection that day. Members will be advised of the details for the sites inspection during week-commencing 30 May 2011.

Members noted the forthcoming council election on 5 May 2011 and that the Development Control Committee would not meet again until 14 June 2011, following the appointment of a new committee at the annual council meeting on 26 May 2011. With this in mind, it was accepted that it would be inappropriate to schedule site visits for inspection on 19 April 2011, as would have normally been the case and agreed that the next site inspections take place on Wednesday 8 June 2011. (It was also agreed that the Group Manager for Planning and Housing draw up the programme of appropriate sites for inspection that day). The new committee to be advised of the details for the sites inspection itinerary of visits during week-commencing 30 May 2011.

To consider report PH.66, regarding the performance of the planning team in relation to enforcement action.

Principal Planning Officer for Appeals and Enforcement, Martin Hillier, presented report PH.66, regarding performance in relation to enforcement action.  Mr Hillier said that the overall number of complaints had reduced in 2010, as compared with the number received in 2009, and that the council had achieved investigation of 72 per cent of cases within 25 days, (with a course of action agreed within this timescale), against a target of 65 per cent. He said that it was important to action the complaints within the first 25 days and that the main issue affecting performance was that the planning authority had a large volume of ongoing cases where enforcement action had commenced but had yet to be completed. Members noted the report and suggested planning officers consider contacting other authorities to look at how the council compared with enforcement teams throughout Gloucestershire.

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.

The committee resolvedthat under section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public would be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it 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 outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

To consider the schedule of enforcement action as prepared by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing. The Principal Planning Officer for Appeals and Enforcement to present report PH.67.

Copies of the schedule of enforcement to consider the expediency of issuing an enforcement notice against a breach of planning control had been circulated with the agenda. Martin Hillier, Principal Planning Officer for Appeals and Enforcement, presented report PH.67, recommending that enforcement action be taken.

14 June 2011

14 June 2011

Council procedure D.18 of Part IV of the constitution was suspended at 5.15 pm to allow the meeting to continue for up to thirty minutes beyond the normal time limit of three hours. A fifteen-minute break had been taken at 4.15pm.