To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor James Bevan. As committee substitute member, Councillor Dr Richard Long, represented Councillor Bevan at the meeting.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 12 October 2010 (attached)

The minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting on 12 October 2010 were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting.

Referring to the resolution on page 9 of the agenda, (item 5.5 of the minutes, P1383/10/FUL Land at Council Villas, Milestone Walk, Sling), the committee questioned why this application would not be considered at the meeting that day. Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, advised the committee that, in response to the decision made at the previous meeting, (to defer consideration of the application to allow officers to enter discussions with the applicant regarding the detail and design of the proposed scheme), the developer had chosen to consult with local residents before submitting a revised scheme. The planning officer confirmed that a revised scheme had been submitted earlier that day and that it was the intention to revisit the application at the meeting on 14 December 2010. Councillor David Thomson reflected on the discussion at the previous meeting and the decision to defer the application for one month. Councillor Thomson recalled questioning this decision and said that he believed the deferral until this meeting had not achieved anything.

Councillor Jane Horne referred to the same application, (P1383/10/FUL Land at Council Villas, Milestone Walk, Sling), and informed the meeting that she had received several complaints about some of the comments she had made on this item. Councillor Horne said that, on likening the proposed development to ‘barrack houses’, she had not intended to denigrate the description and apologised for any offence this might have caused. Acknowledging the value in providing this form of accommodation, Councillor Horne said that, she herself, had begun married life living in army barracks. The committee noted that, on page 9 of the minutes, Councillor Horne had been recorded as ‘stressing the value in providing good homes for local residents, including reasonably sized gardens’.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business.

There was no urgent business on this occasion.

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.

As members on the Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) for the Wye Valley Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Councillors Terry Glastonbury, (Chairman), Terry Hale and David Thomson each declared a personal interest in item 5.1 of the agenda, P1626/10/FUL Former Railway between Tidenham, Tintern and Brockweir.

Councillor Grace Bensted declared a personal interest in item 5.6 of the agenda, P1758/10/OUT Land at Taberna, Forest Road, Bream.

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, and invited members to take a short recess to consider the late material that had been circulated on the pink coloured paper at the start of the meeting. (This information had been submitted following publication of the agenda). The Chairman announced that there would be 6 public speakers at the meeting, speaking on items 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 of the schedule of applications and that each speaker would be allowed 3 minutes to make their representations.

For continuity, it was agreed that agenda item 6, (the council’s response to the Monmouthshire County Council consultation on the Sustran Planning Application), would be considered immediately following item 5.1, (Planning Application P1626/10/FUL Former railway between Tidenham, Tintern and Brockweir).   

Creation of a shared surface path for walkers and cyclists.

Creation of a shared surface path for walkers and cyclists.

Please refer to the late material circulated at the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, referred to the extensive detail included in the late material and gave a comprehensive report on the background to the application. During his report, the planning officer made the following points: -

• The proposal would be affected by a SSSI, (Site of Special Scientific Interest), the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and 2 Special Areas of Conservation including the Wye Valley Bat SAC.  As a result of, and because the application was a major application, the planning authority was obliged to screen the proposal under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations.  This had been done and the impacts were not considered significant enough to require a statement. The screening had been published and placed on the register, as required.

• In addition, under the European Habitat Directive, the council as the competent authority, was required to undertake an appropriate assessment in relation to the protected species.  This had been carried out by the sustainability team and a draft of the assessment sent to Natural England for their consideration and response.  Natural England had confirmed their tentative agreement subject to conditions.

• With regard to the Habitat Regulations, the Council should have regard to the derogation tests.  In essence, these are that there should be no satisfactory alternative; should be in the interests of public health or safety; and that the favourable conservation status of species is maintained

• Referring to the issues that had been raised following a High Court decision in November 2007, the planning officer informed members that the ruling from this decision had been based on Monmouthshire County Council not considering the route to be part of the National Cycle Network. Based on this perception, the judge had considered the application process to be flawed and had therefore quashed the decision. The decision was not based on objections from the Wye Valley Area of Natural Outstanding Beauty Joint Advisory Committee (JAC).

The Planning Officer confirmed that the recommendation remained one of permission, subject to the conditions outlined in the schedule of applications and to the additional conditions included in the late material. The committee noted that the council had received a further 6 letters of representation earlier that day. The letters contained no new information.

Public speaking

Speaking on behalf of Brockweir Cycleway Concern, an objector to the application expressed concerns about the lack of parking provision at the site and what she considered to be contradictory and inaccurate information that had been submitted by the applicant on the anticipated use of the cycleway. The speaker questioned why the planning authority had accepted this information and why officers had apparently ignored local objections about the volume of visitors to the nearby Peregrine Path. The speaker also expressed concerns about anti-social behaviour and the failure to provide a reliable transport plan. Referring to the anticipated cost of maintaining the proposed cycleway, the speaker believed such costs would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Alterations and extensions to derelict cottage to create dwelling and change of use of land to residential curtilage.

Alterations and extensions to derelict cottage to create dwelling and change of use of land to residential curtilage.

Please refer to the late material circulated at the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, referred members to the late material and gave a brief update on the background to the application.

Public speaking

The speaker informed the committee that he would be speaking on items 5.2 and 5.3 of the agenda and that he lived opposite the proposed development. The speaker raised the following points of objections.  

The speaker said that the design of the single story extension had a large number of floor to ceiling windows and doors, which he believed, would have a negative impact upon existing properties in the vicinity. He said that large areas of glass would create privacy issues not only for those who would be overlooked but also for those living within the property. The speaker expressed concern about the proposed large floor to ceiling windows overlooking Somerville Cottages, the floor to wall window overlooking Little Place and the floor to wall doors overlooking Cherry Tree Cottage and said that any proposed deciduous screening would take some years to grow and be of little use during winter nights when the lights are on. The speaker also expressed concern about the large areas of glass emitting a huge amount of light at night and the inappropriate character of some of the proposals.

The speaker believed that, as a listed building, the planning authority had a duty to ensure that Hazels Cottage was preserved and questioned why an additional property should be separate from Cherry Tree Cottage and not created as an annexe to the main house. The speaker suggested that the cost of this proposal could be offset by the increased value of Cherry Tree Cottage and would not deviate from the council’s District Plan.

The speaker referred to the objection from Gloucestershire County Highways regarding the use of the existing entrance and informed members that the entrance was on a very narrow and steep sunken lane with several blind bends. The speaker said that there was not enough room for a car, let alone other vehicles to pass a pedestrian on the lane and that small lorries could hardly pass at all, making a poor situation even worse for the residents of Pool Hill. The speaker questioned why the applicant had not considered using the existing main entrance and parking area at Cherry Tree Cottage as the entrance to the site, which he believed had plenty of space for vehicles and was off a different and wider lane. The speaker believed there were far better alternatives than those presented at the meeting, which he referred to as invasive and obtrusive.

Vote

Conscious of the level of concern that the application had received, Councillor Philip Burford suggested items 5.2 and 5.3 of the schedule be deferred to allow members to visit the site and assess the proposals for themselves. Councillor Norman Stephens seconded the proposal and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

Alterations and Extension to Derelict Cottage.

Alterations and Extension to Derelict Cottage.

Please refer to the late material circulated at the meeting.

Public speaking

Please refer to the statement that had been made by the public speaker speaking on item 5.2, P1593/10/FUL Cherry Tree Cottage (Hazels Cottage) Pool Hill Newent of the schedule of applications.

Vote

Conscious of the comments that had been made during consideration of the previous item and aware of the level of concern the application had received, Councillor Philip Burford suggested that items 5.2 and 5.3 of the schedule be deferred to allow members to visit the site and assess the proposals for themselves. Councillor Norman Stephens seconded the proposal and members,

RESOLVED that applications P1593/10/FUL and P1594/10/LBC, Cherry Tree Cottage (Hazels Cottage) Pool Hill Newent be deferred to allow members to visit the site.

Alterations and erection of a two storey extension, erection of a porch.  Erection of a double garage and change of use of land from agricultural to residential curtilage. (Demolition of existing porch and conservatory).

Alterations and erection of a two storey extension, erection of a porch.  Erection of a double garage and change of use of land from agricultural to residential curtilage. (Demolition of existing porch and conservatory).

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, confirmed that there was no late material relating to this item. Responding to a query that had arisen at the recent site visit, regarding a piece of land at the site that had been used as a garden, the planning officer referred members to page 70 of the agenda for clarification.

Vote

Ward member, Councillor Jane Horne, informed the committee that there had been a considerable amount of local concern about this application but had found the recent site visit useful and had been reassured about the proposals. Councillor Horne moved and Councillor Alastair Fraser seconded the recommendation. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant the application planning permission subject to the conditions included in the schedule of applications.

For: (14) Councillors Carole Allaway Martin, Philip Burford, Heather Dalziel, Frankie Evans, Alastair Fraser, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Jane Horne, Dr Richard Long, Arthur Thomas, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, David Thomson and Roger Yeates.

Alterations and extension to dwelling and erection of a shed. Landscaping works to the rear garden.  (Part Retrospective).

Alterations and extension to dwelling and erection of a shed. Landscaping works to the rear garden.  (Part Retrospective).

Please refer to the late material circulated at the meeting

The Chairman invited Councillor Marrilyn Smart OBE to speak on this application. Councillor Smart clarified a small technical point that the site was not actually in the Christchurch and English Bicknor Ward but in Councillor David Easton’s adjacent Berry Hill Ward. (Councillor Smart confirmed that Councillor Easton was happy for her to speak on the application). Councillor Smart informed the committee that the rear garden of the site had been raised to a much higher level than the adjoining properties and that, in her opinion, the combined affect and height of a large extension and the height of the conservatory would seriously impact on the privacy, light and visual amenity of surrounding neighbours.  Councillor Smart noted the objection that had been made by West Dean Parish Council. Councillor Smart also noted that the proposed extension had been considered in accordance with the advice given in the council’s Residential Design Guide for Alterations and Extensions and that the glazed windows on the north elevation of the conservatory and the rear velux roof lights of the west side elevation would be permanently maintained of fixed and obscure glazing and that no further window openings would be formed on the north elevation of the extensions without the written permission of the Local Planning Authority. Notwithstanding this information, Councillor Smart believed the proposed extension was too large for the site and that a single or smaller extension would be more acceptable.

Vote

Councillor Alastair Fraser believed the proposed extension would improve the site and moved the recommendation to grant planning permission. Councillor Roger Yeates seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant the application planning permission subject to the conditions referred to in the schedule of applications.

For: (12) Councillors Carole Allaway Martin, Philip Burford, Heather Dalziel, Frankie Evans, Alastair Fraser, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Lynn Sterry, Norman Stephens, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates.

Abstentions: (1) Councillor Dr Richard Long

Against: (1) Councillor Jane Horne

Outline application for the erection of a detached bungalow, garage and turning area.

Outline application for the erection of a detached bungalow, garage and turning area.

Please refer to the late material circulated at the meeting

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, clarified some of the information that had been submitted by the applicant and informed members that the land should be regarded as ‘garden’, as had been confirmed by the Planning Inspector when dismissing an earlier appeal to build a dwelling on the site.  The Development Control Manager further clarified that, revised Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 3, opposed “garden grabbing” and removed the definition of garden land as “brownfield”. He said that the recommendation to refuse the application not only supported the previous appeal decision but also reflected the status of the land as being within a designated policy area, seeking to preserve the character and settlement pattern of the fringe area of the village of Bream. The Development Control Manager assured members that the Development Plan Policy was up to date and, together with the appeal decision, represented the key material considerations in determining the application.

Public speaking

Speaking as the agent to the application, the speaker questioned some of the council’s policies and reflected on a previous application, which he believed had been granted planning permission based on the same policies. The Chairman reminded the speaker that the application should be considered on its own merit and advised him to refrain from making irrelevant comparisons. The speaker accepted this advice and went on to note the lack of objections from Gloucestershire County Council Highways and Severn Trent Water. The speaker believed the proposals would be sympathetic to the local landscape and should be considered in relation to the increased demand for residential development in the area.

Committee consideration

Committee members expressed mixed feelings about how the application related to planning policy. Councillor Alastair Fraser said he did not understand why the application should not be allowed, whilst Councillor Philip Burford reflected on an earlier appeal decision where the Planning Inspector had refused the appeal on the basis that, ‘the proposal would harm the distinctive open qualities of land behind Forest Road and Montpellier Road and failed to compliment the character of this outlying part of Bream’. Councillor Burford said that he believed the Inspector’s decision was the right decision.

In response to member questions, Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, confirmed that the proposed development was in the same position as the previous application, (albeit the exact site boundaries were fractionally different), and that there was no evidence to support a suggestion from Councillor Alastair Fraser that the application was no different to an application for a nearby property.

Vote

Councillor Philip Burford moved that the application be refused for the reasons suggested in the schedule of applications and Councillor Jane Horne seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to refuse the application as detailed in the schedule of applications and subject to the information included in the late material that had been circulated at the meeting.

For:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.6

Conversion of redundant barn (Unit 1) to create live work unit. Construction of new vehicular access.

Conversion of redundant barn (Unit 1) to create live work unit. Construction of new vehicular access.

Please refer to the late material circulated at the meeting

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds referred to the additional condition that had been included in the late material. He said that the council had received a revised ecology appraisal and that the council’s Sustainability Officer had confirmed that this would be acceptable, subject to the inclusion of a condition to ensure that the recommendations of the appraisal were implemented.

Public speaking

The applicant informed the meeting that the farm was a family run business and that the barn was located to the front of another barn, which already had planning permission for conversion to a live-work unit. The applicant believed the proposals made best use of the building and did not increase the footprint nor make changes to the original lines of the existing barn.

Committee consideration

Local member, Councillor Patrick Molyneux, said that he concurred with the applicant’s statement and believed that the proposals constituted a sensible and straightforward application.

Vote

Councillor Alastair Fraser was pleased to see the barn being given a new lease on life and moved the recommendation to approve the application. Councillor Grace Bensted seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant the application planning permission as detailed in the schedule of applications and subject to the information and additional condition included in the late material.

For: (15) Councillors Carole Allaway Martin, Grace Bensted, Philip Burford, Heather Dalziel, Frankie Evans, Alastair Fraser, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Jane Horne, Dr Richard Long, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates.

Abstentions: (0)

Against: (0)

Alterations and extension to create annexe accommodation and double private garage.  (Resubmission).

Alterations and extension to create annexe accommodation and double private garage.  (Resubmission).

Please refer to the late material circulated at the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, informed the committee that the outstanding consultation responses that had been received following publication of the agenda had not altered the recommendation to refuse the application for the reason detailed on page 106 of the agenda.

Committee consideration

Ward member, Councillor Norman Stephens, noted the lack of objection from Westbury on Severn Parish Council and proposed that the application be granted planning permission. Councillor Stephens referred to the images presented at the meeting and said that he considered the visual impact of the proposals no less detrimental than a neighbouring property that was lower in height. Councillor Stephens stressed the need to provide more elderly accommodation and Councillor Horne said that she did not understand the objections to the application. Some members were critical of the proposed design, whilst other members were apprehensive that to refuse the application could incur costs if unable to defend at appeal.

Vote

Councillor Stephens suggested that the application be granted permission to provide more accommodation for the elderly and because he believed there would be no adverse impact on the surrounding area. Councillor Jane Horne seconded this proposal. Councillor Stephens suggested planning officers recommend appropriate conditions. A recorded vote was taken and members,

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

For: (7) Councillors Frankie Evans, Alastair Fraser, Jane Horne, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas and Roger Yeates.

Abstentions: (1) Councillor Dr Richard Long

Against: (6) Councillors Carole Allaway Martin, Philip Burford, Heather Dalziel, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, and David Thomson.

To consider the outcome of a consultation undertaken by Monmouthshire County Council regarding a joint planning application with the Forest of Dean District Council for the creation of a shared surface route from Tintern to Chepstow. Please refer to report PH.44.

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, presented report PH.44, regarding the council’s response to a consultation by Monmouthshire County Council on the application for the creation of a shared surface route from Tintern to Chepstow. (This item was considered in conjunction with item 5.1 of the schedule of applications, P1626/10/FUL Former Railway between Tidenham, Tintern and Brockweir). The planning officer reminded the committee that the recommendation was to raise no objection to the principle of the proposal. However, mindful of concerns by local residents and Gloucestershire County Council Highways, Monmouthshire County Council should be satisfied that the issues regarding the level of parking provision and impacts on highway safety and the amenities of the residents of the Brockweir area had been fully considered.

Ward member, Councillor Patrick Molyneux, referred to the uniqueness of the twin applications and suggested that the impact of the proposals on residents living in Brockweir might not necessarily relate to the impact on residents living in Monmouthshire. (Councillor Molyneux believed the detachment from the Wye Valley location of the proposals removed any adverse affect on residents living in Monmouthshire). The majority of members agreed with this perspective and Councillor Heather Dalziel suggested that the recommendation on page 107 of the agenda be amended to reflect the specific relevance of the proposals on residents living in Brockweir. With the intention of sending a much clearer message to Monmouthshire County Council, Councillor Dalziel amended the wording of the council’s suggested response and members voted on the revised recommendation. Councillor Frankie Evans seconded this proposal. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED that the Forest of Dean District Council raise no objection to the principle of the proposal. However, being mindful of the concerns raised by local residents and Gloucestershire County Council Highways, Monmouthshire County Council should be made aware that Forest of Dean District Councillors are concerned about the lack of parking provision in Brockweir Village and the impact upon highway safety and ensure that the amenities of residents of Brockweir Village have been fully addressed'.

For: (14) Councillors Carole Allaway Martin, Grace Bensted, Philip Burford, Heather Dalziel, Frankie Evans, Alastair Fraser, Terry Glastonbury, Terry Hale, Jane Horne, Dr Richard Long, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, David Thomson and Roger Yeates.

Against: (1) Councillor Arthur Thomas 

a)     To confirm that the next sites’ inspection panel will be held on Tuesday 16 November 2010

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 sites inspection panel be held on Tuesday 16 November 2010 and that the following sites be added to the itinerary for that day: -  

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds informed the committee that Neil Troughton from Gloucestershire County Highways had been invited to present information on changes to county council planning policies at 9.15am on Tuesday 16 November 2010.

To consider authorising the Group Manager for Planning and Housing permission to make minor changes to reports, conditions and reasons for refusal. Please refer to report PH.42. This item was deferred from the meeting on 12 October 2010.

Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, presented report PH.42, seeking committee approval to authorise officers to make minor changes to reports, conditions and reasons for refusal. (This item was deferred at the meeting on 12 October 2010). The Group Manager advised the meeting that the proposed changes related to minor changes only and did not include formal changes to recommendations or conditions.

It was later suggested that members might consider arriving at the council offices to read the late material before the start of the meeting. Following a full and comprehensive discussion, Councillor Norman Stephens proposed that any late material should be made available from 1.30pm for the committee and members of the public to read before the meeting. He also proposed that the chairman not adjourn the meeting to allow members to read the late material during the meeting and to make it the responsibility of each committee member to read the information before consideration of each item. Councillor Jane Horne seconded the proposal. (This proposal replaced the recommendation detailed in report PH.42). A vote was taken and the committee,

RESOLVED to present any late material received following publication of the agenda to the committee and members of the public at 1.30pm on the day of each Development Control Committee meeting. The committee also resolved not to adjourn the meeting to allow members to read the late material at the meeting and to make it the responsibility of each individual committee member to read the information before consideration of each item.

A report from the Principal Planning Officer regarding the performance of the planning team in relation to planning appeals.

Principal Planning Officer, Martin Hillier, presented a report on the performance of the planning team in relation to planning appeals. The planning officer said that, although there was no change in terms of the percentage split in planning application decisions, (as compared to last year), there had been an improvement in performance in relation to all decisions, with 35 per cent less appeals allowed. Mr Hillier assured the committee that the planning team would endeavour to improve the council’s performance and bring it into line with the service plan target of trying to achieve 70 per cent success in all appeals dismissed. Reflecting on the council’s recent success in winning nearly all appeal decisions, the planning officer informed the committee that he was hopeful this improvement was possible. During the debate, Councillor Philip Burford expressed concern about appellants being allowed to introduce changes to their planning applications during the appeal process. Councillor Burford was assured that the Planning Inspectorate intended to tighten up on this aspect of the appeal process. The report was noted and Vice Chairman, Councillor Norman Stephens, commended the planning team for its hard work and performance in successful appeal decisions.

14 December 2010

14 December 2010

Council procedure B1 (b) was suspended at 5.30 pm to allow the meeting to continue for up to 30 minutes beyond the normal time limit of three hours. A 30-minute adjournment of the meeting had been allowed.