To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Graham Morgan, (substituted by Councillor Jackie Fraser), and Councillor Roger Yeates, (due to the unexpected circumstances relating to this apology, no substitution was made for Councillor Yeates at this meeting).

Chairman of the Committee, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, welcomed Lisa Russell from Severn Trent Water to the meeting to respond to questions on item 5.6 of the agenda, P1544/11/APP Land South of Onslow Road, Newent. The Chairman informed members that this item would be considered as the first item on the agenda.

To confirm the non-exempt minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2011 (attached).

The non-exempt minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2011 were confirmed as an accurate record of that meeting.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business.

Chairman of the Committee, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, informed members that there would be one item of urgent business to consider at this meeting, relating to a decision made at the committee meeting on 13 December 2011 in respect of planning application P1034/11/OUT Land at Cleeve Mill Lane, Newent. Referring to the additional report that had been circulated to the committee at the start of the meeting, (circulated on yellow paper and attached to the minutes of this meeting), Councillor Glastonbury invited Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, to present the urgent item of business.

The Group Manager for Planning and Housing referred members to the report for the urgent item of business and gave an overview of the circumstances relating to this item. He said that, unfortunately, there had been an error in the recommendation considered at the previous meeting, in that the recommendation had linked the affordable housing element of the application specifically to Newent. Apologising for the error, he confirmed that the development site was not an exception site and that the need for the extra care units at the site would be allocated on a district wide basis. Accordingly, the local connections for the development should relate to the whole of the district and not just to the Newent area.

To correct the error, the Group Manager said that it would be necessary for the committee to consider and resolve the decision at this meeting, based on the amended recommendation as outlined in the urgent report. He said that, as no issues had been raised about introducing a local connection to Newent at the previous meeting, the matter could be dealt with as urgent business at this meeting. He also advised the committee that, to resolve the matter with an amendment to the minutes was not an option.

Councillor Philip Burford believed the decision made at the previous meeting had been the right decision and that to base the requirement on local need was paramount to the decision. Other members, whilst accepting the proposal, stressed the importance of offering the accommodation to residents of the Forest of Dean rather than to people from outside the district.

Vote

Councillor Lynn Sterry moved and Councillor Val Hobman seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

The committee considered the revised recommendation and,

RESOLVED that, 

Delegated authority be given to the Group Manager for Planning and Housing and to the Group Manager for Legal and Democratic to grant permission subject to; the completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking to secure 40 per cent extra care properties as affordable housing; those applicants for the affordable housing who demonstrate a local connection to Forest of Dean to be given first preference, and to the conditions referred to in the schedule of applications presented on 13 December 2011, (condition 13 – as amended), and to additional condition (14) as detailed in the late material presented on 13 December 2011. If an appropriate agreement or unilateral undertaking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

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.

The following declarations of interest were made at the meeting on 10 January 2012: -

Councillor James Bevan declared a personal interest in item 5.10 of the agenda, P2011/11/FUL Delkatina, Newnham Road, Blakeney due to a business association with the applicant.

Councillor Philip Burford declared a personal interest in item 5.4 of the agenda, P1277/11/FUL Woolridge Farm, Gloucester Road, Hartpury due to links with the applicant through Hartpury Parish Council and the Three Counties Showground

To consider the schedule of applications as prepared by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing.

Chairman, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, referred to the schedule of planning applications, as prepared by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and to the late material circulated prior to the start of the meeting. (Late material refers to information that has been submitted to the council following publication of the agenda).

The Chairman announced that there would be 24 public speakers speaking at the meeting, speaking on items 1 to 11 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.

Change of use and extensions of former agricultural buildings and land, provision of staff welfare facilities and siting of containers, yard office and generator, extensions to smokery and re-arrangement of car parking areas to separate staff and customers, provision of improved drainage facilities, underground fish store and water tanks together with associated landscaping, CCTV pole and extension to existing restaurant opening hours to 21:00 on Fridays (Retrospective).

Change of use and extensions of former agricultural buildings and land, provision of staff welfare facilities and siting of containers, yard office and generator, extensions to smokery and re-arrangement of car parking areas to separate staff and customers, provision of improved drainage facilities, underground fish store and water tanks together with associated landscaping, CCTV pole and extension to existing restaurant opening hours to 21:00 on Fridays (Retrospective).

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

Principal Planning Officer, Martin Hillier, gave a brief overview of the history to the planning application and informed members that this application and the applications to be considered as items 5.2 and 5.3 of the agenda were interlinked. He referred members to the letters of support that had been included in the late material and said that the application was essentially a retrospective application relating to work that had been undertaken on existing buildings at the site.

Public speaking

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

‘When we moved to Chaxhill in 1998 there was no smokery there - Severn & Wye were based at smaller premises at Walmore Hill but they soon started up

on the second site. At first everything was lovely - we had a nice shop and restaurant which made a welcome addition to the neighbourhood. But behind the scenes other things were happening too and we recently came to realise that we've got a sizeable fish processing plant on our doorstep. Furthermore we find that a lot of this development has taken place without planning permission.

The Cook family should be complimented for turning their small business into such a successful and prestigious company. However when it means that their neighbours have to pay the price for that success we need to think very carefully.

This first application appears at first sight to be purely retrospective for work already carried out, but look more closely and you will see it is a confusing mixture of past, present and future, so you need to be very careful what future work you are approving. For example, this application mentions changes to the drainage arrangements including decommissioning of the klargester, which makes sense if and only if the following proposal for the waste lagoon is approved.

We currently suffer frequent overpowering smells of smoking fish inside our house. At a distance of some 300 yards this does perhaps seem surprising but nevertheless it happens. I cannot explain why it happens and I dare say Mr Cook will also be unable to explain it. My point is that there is not a complete understanding of how air circulation works at a detailed local level and can we be certain that odours of rotting fish and sewage from the proposed lagoons won't join the smoky aroma?

More generally, the smokery has made so many alterations without planning permission that we fear they'll just continue in the same way and in a few years  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Proposed waste water treatment plant, provision of access track, underground piping and tanks, and associated landscaping.

Proposed waste water treatment plant, provision of access track, underground piping and tanks, and associated landscaping.

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

Principal Planning Officer, Martin Hillier, outlined the second application for the site and updated the committee on the additional consultation responses that had been received. The planning officer confirmed that the applicant had submitted revised plans for the proposed water treatment plant and that the scheme was considered acceptable, subject to appropriate conditions.

Public speaking

Speaking as an objector to the application, the first speaker said that: -

‘she had been both surprised and disappointed by the proposals. Objecting to the impact of the proposed lagoons on wildlife and the potential danger to children and animals, the speaker expressed concern about the proximity of the treatment plant to nearby footpaths and the potential noise and smells that might be generated from the site. The speaker believed the current system was more than adequate and that the new proposal would be intrusive and unwelcome. Before questioning why the applicant had felt it was necessary to replace the existing system, the speaker said that the development would be of no benefit to the community and had a negative impact on the hamlet of Chaxhill’. 

Speaking on behalf of Westbury on Severn Parish Council, Parish Councillor Colin Evers, made the following statement: -

This application came to Westbury-on-Severn Parish Council as an amendment to the applicant's original intentions for the treatment of wastewater arisings.  Its purpose is solely as an alternative to dealing with the 5cubic metres of human waste generated on site each day that are currently processed using a rather poorly maintained conventional treatment unit. The Parish Council objects to that alternative being the proposed large lagoon system because, in this instance, we cannot see justification for it compared with other readily available alternatives.

Our objection centres on the following factors

-        The current rate of human waste arisings is well within the capabilities of a relatively small modern package or reed bed style sewage treatment plant that would take up a fraction of the site compared with the large lagoon design proposed by the applicant.

-        We understand that it is the applicant's desire not to have to dispose of any excavated spoil off site.  A substantial reduction in spoil arisings could be achieved at a stroke by abandoning the idea of using a lagoon system of the size intended via this planning application.

-        An early AeroFac lagoon system is at Errol in Scotland, population 1200.  It deals with an average of 500 cubic metres of effluent per day.  Operated in continuous throughput mode it provides an effluent retention time of 50 days; and the treated effluent meets the Scottish Water performance guarantee. The proposed 4000 cubic metre Smokery waste water lagoon has a capacity so big that each 5 cubic metres added daily will take 800 days to pass through the lagoon; i.e. 16 times the stay time  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

Creation of wash water treatment plant and water store, new hedgerows, hardcored service tracks, underground piping and tanks.

Creation of wash water treatment plant and water store, new hedgerows, hardcored service tracks, underground piping and tanks.

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

Principal Planning Officer, Martin Hillier, referred to the late material and outlined some of the additional representations that had been received. He said that the parish council had raised no objections to the revised proposal and that the position of the Environment Agency remained unaffected. Furthermore, there was no objection from the Countryside Officer. With this in mind, he said that the proposal was acceptable in that it provided a long term and environmentally acceptable treatment facility and would be regulated by the legal agreement that had been introduced to secure the implementation of the scheme, including conditions relating to landscaping and hedging.

Public speaking

Speaking on behalf of a local objector, the speaker: - 

‘expressed serious concerns about the impact of the proposals in relation to increased noise and smell at the site affecting nearby properties. The speaker said that the applicant had given no consideration to local residents in that the proposed development would be an unnatural and unwelcome structure. Questioning the size and scale of the proposed treatment plant, the speaker likened the size of the lagoons to that of a football pitch and said that the development would be a permanent blot on the landscape. The speaker went on to suggest that the proposal could create unfriendly environmental problems, including increased seagull activity at the site. He also suggested that the applicant might have misled attendees at a local parish council meeting regarding the positive attributes of the treatment plant. Concerned that the development might result in the death of the community, the speaker said that local residents had opposed the application due to the negative impact on noise, smell and air pollution. They also objected to the further development of the site, the potential dangers it might create and to the negative visual impact on the surrounding countryside’.

Speaking on behalf of Westbury on Severn Parish Council, Parish Councillor Colin Evers, made the following statement: -

In August 2011, subject to satisfactory standard practice assessment, and the implementation of the following conditions, Westbury-on-Severn Parish Council informed the FoDDC that it had no objections to this planning application.  Those conditions were:

-        To ensuring that the public footpath remains unimpeded, and that once the treatment plant has been constructed, all hard surface tracks (used for construction or otherwise) shall be removed.

-        That the landscaping proposals shall be improved by the provision of more native trees and shrubs to provide better screening, particularly on the south and east of the site.

Revised plans were subsequently lodged by the applicant that appeared to partially fulfil the first of those requested conditions, i.e. in respect of the public footpath, and in December 2011 we replied to the FoDDC to the effect that the Parish Council had no objections to the revised plans provided the permanent  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

Change of use of building from B8 to B2 & B8 use, erection of additional B8 storage building and extension to existing building; conversion of existing stone byre to B1 (a) Office use.

Change of use of building from B8 to B2 & B8 use, erection of additional B8 storage building and extension to existing building; conversion of existing stone byre to B1 (a) Office use.

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

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred to the late material that had been circulated at the start of the meeting and gave an outline of some of the additional representations that had been received. He said that the application was seeking to expand an established commercial enterprise that had previously been allowed on appeal and located in a rural location. Strictly controlled by planning policy, the Development Control Manager said that the site had good highway links adjacent to the A417. Following the recent expansion of the business, the application was for change of use and alterations to existing buildings at the site, which would enable the applicant to continue trading whilst removing the need to create outside storage not permitted as part of the approved scheme. The Development Control Manager said that, despite concerns from local residents, the development was sufficiently distant from potentially affected properties and would be regulated by appropriate conditions, as had been suggested by the Environmental Health Officer.

Public speaking

Speaking from a personal perspective and on behalf of local residents, an objector to the application said that:

‘the applicant had taken a rather cavalier approach to the application. Expressing concerns about noise pollution and the impact of the proposals on the local area, the objector said that to approve the application could send out the wrong message to other applicants trying to expand their businesses. Objecting quite fervently to the inappropriateness of the application, (especially in meeting national guidelines and local planning policy), the speaker also criticised the blatant disregard to the council’s local plan. He said that the proposals undermined the council’s core strategy document and could set a precedent for encouraging industrial development in the open countryside, which, in his opinion, would be detrimental to the district’s greatest asset, its natural beauty’.

The applicant said that: -

‘following approval of planning permission in 2008, the business venture at the site had expanded quite considerably. He said that, in response to the demands placed on the business and changes in circumstance, the applicant had felt it was necessary to create additional storage for the machinery and materials at the site. The speaker believed the application complied with planning policy and had the full support of the council’s statutory consultees’.

Committee consideration

Drawing comparisons with the three business related applications considered earlier in the meeting, Councillor Philip Burford said that, on reflection, the expansion of this small agricultural based business was reasonable justification for the proposed development of the site. Noting the lack of objection from the parish council and acknowledging the concerns of the public speaker, Councillor Burford felt that, on balance, the proposals were acceptable. He suggested, however, that the site warranted a good tidy up and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.4

Removal of condition (01) of planning permission DF4833/J to allow use as permanent dwelling.

Removal of condition (01) of planning permission DF4833/J to allow use as permanent dwelling.

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

Principal Planning Officer, Martin Hillier, referred to the extensive planning history for the site, including the outcome of several appeals. He said that, owing to the non-viability of the holiday enterprise at the site, (and the subsequent financial losses that the applicant had reported), the current application sought to remove the planning condition that had been imposed on the original planning permission in 2008, limiting maximum occupancy of the holiday let to 4 weeks at any one time. The planning officer said that, following the council’s assessment of the business accounts for the property and the lack of objection from Gloucestershire County Highways in relation to road safety, the recommendation was one of approval. He also said that, despite objections to the loss of this important category of accommodation, the council’s Tourism (Commercial Services) Manager had recognised the feasibility of some of the viability issues that had been considered.

Public speaking

Speaking on behalf of residents from neighbouring properties, an objector to the application referred to: -

‘the systematic abuse of the planning permission that had been granted in 2008, resulting in a 92-signature petition, frequent referrals to the planning committee and subsequent action by the council’s enforcement team. The speaker said that, outstanding planning issues, including failure to comply with an enforcement notice in March 2008, was quite unacceptable, particularly when compared with the efficiency in which enforcement action had been taken at other locations. The speaker said that local residents had been amazed that the council would even consider such an application, especially when the applicant had failed to address outstanding material planning requirements. Expressing serious concerns about the validity of the applicant’s business accounts, the speaker said that the application was incomplete due to the un-audited accounts that had been referred to in the report not being included in the design and access statement and not being published on the council’s website. She said that it was easy to create a non-profitable business and that the claim of non-viability was unproven. Expressing concern that the application flouted the terms of the council’s tourism policy, the speaker said that to grant this application could set an extraordinary precedent by encouraging other businesses to claim non-viability and, as a consequence, result in a loss of high quality tourist accommodation. She also expressed concern about the potential for barn owners to seek residential permission for their properties using a back door approach. Questioning the need for another large property in the village, the speaker urged the committee to refuse the application and take appropriate action on any outstanding enforcement matters’.

Committee consideration

Local member, Councillor Arthur Thomas, said that he believed the local objector had covered the majority of points supporting refusal of the application.  He said that he had been amazed that the applicant had not worked more closely with the Welsh  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.5

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

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, said that the principal of developing this site for residential purposes had already been established by the granting of outline planning permission in May 2010. Furthermore, the site formed part of a larger housing allocation, as approved in the District Local Plan Review. The planning officer said that the key consideration for the committee at this meeting was the approval of reserved matters for the erection of 91 dwellings at the site. Other issues, including concerns about access arrangements, were not issues for consideration.

Giving a brief synopsis of the proposed drainage strategy, the planning officer said that the proposals were in line with the system that had been agreed by Severn Trent Water, whereby foul water drainage would be connected to the main sewerage system. He said that, as with phase 1 of the scheme, the drainage strategy for the current scheme proposed that all private areas drain to soakaways and that all other surfaces, including public highways, drain to adoptable highway sewers.   

Public speaking

Speaking on behalf of several objectors, an objector to the proposals outlined the following points as part of his statement:

·        The Planning Inspectorate, endorsed the FoDDC Local Plan for a maximum total of 170 dwellings covering both Phase 1 and Phase 2 developments off Onslow Road subject to compliance with certain criteria.

·        Phase 1 dwellings total 141 - this leave the remainder for Phase 2 of 29 dwellings - this is a strong defensible position, criteria being agreed by the Planning Inspectorate, FoDDC and Developers at the time - legal advice taken - subsequent changes do not over-rule this as principle and criterion for development of the sites were formally established and agreed.

·        The location and routing of Bury Bar Lane and that of Nelfields Lane has not been established by FoDDC/GCC - documentary evidence previously provided to the FoDDC establishes legal case in this respect.

·        The main access roadway from Phase 1 to the proposed Phase 2 site crosses Nelfields Lane NOT Bury Bar Lane - this strip of land (track identified as Lane to Nelfields Lane) remains in private ownership - evidence from GCC's legal & estates Depts, FoDDC, local Deeds and Land Registry prove this.

·        The FoDDC are aware of letters from Solicitors and local landowners that identify such issues, rights of access etc. relating to Nelfields Lane (the track).

·        The routing of Bury Bar Lane is not as stated by GCC; GCC, FoDDC, the developers and adjacent landowners are fully aware of this. Bury Bar Lane was "stopped up" in the 1970s during construction of the Hornchurch Estate and Foley Road - verified by the Secretary of State following a Public Enquiry.

·        The result - there is no defined access onto land identified as Phase 2 - previous landowner (Robert Hitchins/Glos Land Company) are  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.6

Erection of 15 affordable dwellings

Erection of 15 affordable dwellings

This item was withdrawn by officers at the reconvened meeting on Tuesday 17 January 2012

Erection of 15 affordable dwellings

This item was considered at the reconvened meeting on Tuesday 17 January 2012

Outline application for the erection of 15 affordable dwellings and extension to existing estate road

This item was withdrawn by officers at the reconvened meeting on Tuesday 17 January 2012

Application for the siting of 5 additional gypsy caravans for the Buckland family and continued use of land for the storage and dispatch of timber.  (Part Retrospective)

This item was considered at the reconvened meeting on Tuesday 17 January 2012

Change of use of land from forest waste to storage in association with existing sawmill. Erection of security fencing

This item was considered at the reconvened meeting on Tuesday 17 January 2012

Erection of a two-storey side extension

This item was considered at the reconvened meeting on Tuesday 17 January 2012

a)     To confirm that the next sites’ inspection panel will be held on Tuesday 17 January 2012

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

RESOLVED that the next sites inspection panel to be held on Tuesday 17 January 2012, and that the following sites will be added to the itinerary for that day: -  

To update the committee on the performance of the planning team in determining planning applications. Please refer to report PH.100

This item was considered at the reconvened meeting on Tuesday 17 January 2012.

To consider, and if so agree, to resolve, that under section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in schedule 12A of the said act, and that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

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

To confirm the exempt minutes of the meeting held on 13 December 2011

The non-exempt minutes of the meeting on 13 December 2011 were considered at the reconvened meeting on Tuesday 17 January 2012

An additional planning committee meeting will be held at 2.00pm on Tuesday 31 January 2012 to consider two major planning applications in Cinderford.

The next planned committee meeting will be held on 14 February 2012.

Due to the committee not being able to complete all the items of business at this meeting, the chairman adjourned the meeting and deferred any outstanding items until Tuesday 17 January 2012.

The Chairman also announced that an additional committee meeting would be held at 2.00pm on Tuesday 31 January 2012 to consider two major planning applications in Cinderford.

The next scheduled committee meeting to be held on Tuesday 14 February 2012