To receive apologies for absence

Apologies were received from Councillor Frankie Evans, (substituted by Councillor Brian Jones), and Councillor Gabriella Kirkpatick, (substituted by Councillor Dave East).

To confirm the non-exempt minutes of the meeting held on 13 March 2012.

The non-exempt minutes of the meeting held on 13 March 2012 were confirmed as an accurate record of that meeting.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business

Referring to the recent publication of the National Planning Policy Framework, Chairman of the Committee, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, advised members that the framework replaced the Planning Policy Guidance Notes and Planning Policy Statements that members were familiar with. The Chairman said that the framework had significant implications on some of the items for consideration at this meeting and invited Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, to outline a course of action for the committee to consider.

Referring to the late material that had been circulated before the start of the meeting, the Group Manager drew member’s attention to the following information; -

‘The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 27 March 2012. This document sets out national guidance and policy and replaces the previous Planning Policy Statements (PPS’s) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG’s). The reports included in the schedule of applications presented at this committee meeting were written prior to publication of the NPPF. Whilst the new document has significantly reduced the volume of guidance, the core principles that the planning system should seek to manage where development takes place; promote high quality design that is sustainable; and, have regard to issues including energy efficiency, flood risk, protection of heritage assets and safeguarding the open countryside, remain. Members should note that the NPPF reaffirms the position that decisions should be taken in accordance with the Development Plan. It specifically contains the principle of a “presumption in favour of sustainable development” where councils do not have up to date Local Plan coverage. In the Forest of Dean we have a Core Strategy, which was examined with regard to the draft NPPF and was adopted on 23 February 2012. On this basis, the Council has up to date Local Plan policy for the district in accordance with the NPPF. It is this Core Strategy Document that forms the primary basis for the assessment of site-specific development proposals alongside the Gloucestershire Structure Plan. Both of these documents comprise the Development Plan for the district. The late material for each individual case will update the policy context for each application, where appropriate. Planning conditions and reasons for approval or refusal will also have to be changed, replacing reference to PPS’s and PPG’s with the new NPPF’.

The Group Manager elaborated on the information included in the late material. Advising that there had been no transitional period for the change to the NPPF, and that the implications had become immediate from 27 March 2012, he said that the introduction of the NPPF had corresponded with the period between report preparation and consideration of the reports by the committee at this meeting, hence the references to PPG’s and PPS’s.

To assist with the smooth running of the meeting and to avoid repetition, he suggested that the committee consider delegating authority to himself, as Group Manager for Planning and Housing, to make any necessary amendments to conditions and to reasons for approval and refusal, in order to reflect the changes in circumstances following  ...  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

Non-committee member, Councillor Clive Elsmore, (speaking as ward member for the application considered under item 5.5 of the schedule of applications), declared a personal interest in application P2110/11/FUL Land Adjacent to Poolway Farm, Gloucester Road, Coleford.

Chairman of the Committee, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, declared a prejudicial interest in item 5.10 of the schedule of applications, P0059/12/FUL Tall Pines, The Tufts, Bream as the applicant for the application. Councillor Glastonbury said that he would leave the meeting for consideration of this item.

Seeking advice from the Solicitor to the Council, Marie Rosenthal, Councillor Gethyn Davies was advised that to declare an interest following an acquaintance with the applicant for an application should be based on the nature of the relationship with that person.

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 before 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 13 public speakers speaking at the meeting, speaking on items 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 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 any 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 outline of the background to the application. He said that the application had been considered at the planning committee meeting in January 2012, where it had been agreed to defer the application, pending clarification of the section 106 legal agreement and to address concerns raised by the parish council and resolve issues relating to the Klaregster foul water drainage system. The planning officer informed the committee that the section 106 legal agreement had been completed and agreed, but was awaiting final engrossment. He also said that there had been no recommendations from the County Archaeologist.

Referring members to the late material that had been circulated before the start of the meeting, and to amended conditions 4 and 6 on page 26 of the agenda, the planning officer said that the applicant had confirmed his agreement to a night time restriction on use of the rear yard area to between the hours of 21.00 and 07.00. If this proposal was not acceptable, the applicant had said that he would consider a night time restriction between the hours of 20.00 and 07.00. 

Public speaking

Speaking as the agent for the application, the speaker made the following statement:

‘The applicant is unable to attend the meeting today as he is in Holland as part of the Dutch Scheme to re-stock elvers from the Severn and Wye Smokery into the Dutch Canal and River System. Today they are taking their first catch. Following further discussions between the relevant parties, some amendments have been made, which we trust will allow consent to be granted. We implore that you make a decision today as it has been subject to extensive consultation and negotiation.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) came into effect in March. This overarching policy has made some changes to the planning thought process, for which I quote from the NPPF’s foreword, which says:

‘The purpose of development is to help achieve sustainable development.  Development means growth.  We must accommodate new ways by which we will earn our living in a competitive world.   Sustainable development is about positive growth, making economic, environmental and social progress for this and future generations. Development that is sustainable should go ahead, without delay - a presumption in favour of sustainable development that is the basis for every decision’.  

This application accords with the new development plan and the NPPF.  It is again recommended for consent and conditions can be imposed to protect the amenity of neighbours, most of whom  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

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 Hiller, drew members attention to the revised recommendation on page 40 of the agenda and to the late material, including details relating to the National Planning Policy Framework. 

Public speaking

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

‘Our latest response to this application continues to object to it for the following reasons: -

·      The hard-cored service tracks have not been removed from the proposed application.  The Parish Council is of the opinion that these are not necessary and industrialise the field.

·      The Parish Council is not convinced of the need or the merits of building lagoons as large as the proposed size.

The Parish Council’s objection to the tracks is self-explanatory.  The following is some of the reasoning behind our other objection. After treatment of wash water, the stated aim is to reuse it in fish processing.  To do this, it will need to be drinking water quality.  The longest operating UK Aero-Fac lagoons system is at Errol. In 2004, it was subject to 12 months study during which a biological oxygen demand (BOD) loading of 58.3kg/day was the norm contained in up to 500 cu.m/day of raw effluent.  The observed daily BOD loading was therefore similar to that said to be present in Smokery wash water arisings; but the latter are more concentrated, contained in 45 cu.m/day of arisings.

With an Aero-Fac system, the quality of treated effluent is proportional to its stay time in the lagoons, and treatment effectiveness.  The Errol treated effluent had a average BOD of 9 mg/l.  The proposed Smokery lagoons will have a slightly smaller holding volume than the Errol plant, but since the daily arisings volume is currently much lower, tentatively, treated effluent quality should be better.  However, water with any remaining BOD is not drinking quality water. To achieve that, further treatment involving appropriate filtration, and either chemical or physical sterilisation will be needed, and a match will have to be maintained between the quality of the effluent discharged from the lagoons and the capability of the further treatment facilities.

For instance, with the current daily rates of arisings and proposed size of lagoons, only a fairly simple further treatment facility may be needed.  Conversely, if a more capable further treatment plant were adopted, a reduced stay-time lagoons system would be adequate. The application provides little of these matters, but they are very relevant when considering permitting lagoons the size requested.

If a reasonably robust approach were taken to the provision of the further treatment facility, with reduced environmental impact, a lagoons scheme not more than half the proposed size should be more than adequate to meet both present and significantly increased rates of wash water arisings. In the current economic climate, it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

Erection of a replacement dwelling

Erection of a replacement dwelling

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

Development Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred to the recent visit to the site and said that the proposed replacement dwelling was of a somewhat unusual design, being an inside out house with the ground floor of the original dwelling being retained as an internal courtyard feature. Presenting the plans for the site, the Development Manager said that a key concern was the possible visual impact of the proposed development in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). He said that, whilst the design of the new property was different to the more traditional properties in the area, it was felt that the replacement dwelling would not adversely impact upon the landscape. The Development Manager reported the inclusion of an additional condition to be added to the permission, requiring details of any solar panels that might be installed at the property, to ensure this aspect did not compromise the appearance of the building.

Public speaking

The agent for the application made the following statement: -

‘This proposal is to replace a non-descript, dilapidated house, with a new highly sustainable, energy efficient, piece of quality architecture. It is an application to enable two local people to live and work at this location. The proposal has taken 3 years of intense work by the design team and client to evolve the solution being considered today. During this time, we have worked closely, and well, with the senior planning officer allocated to the case, continuing to refine the design in order to reach an agreed solution that would receive planning officer support and has successfully achieved the proposal for the inside outside house that is recommended to you for approval. My client and the design team, as well as your officers, appreciate that the proposal is not ‘typical’ of the normal replacement dwelling. Firstly, the concept is not based on a traditional, or ‘cottage style’. It is not, however, the architecture, the built form, which is the predominant characteristic within the Forest of Dean – it is the landscape that is the primary and vital element. In the solution proposed, we have taken the surrounding natural environment as our precedent and primary source of inspiration rather than the existing building stock. It is a response to the landscape and to the setting that has generated the aesthetic. Secondly, (and inextricably linked to the first point), if we are truly to embrace a sustainable design which necessitates a site specific contextual response, the architecture, as a consequence will inevitably look different to that which has gone before, when such issues were not under consideration. In summary, the proposed new building is to be wrapped by and embedded into the site, cut into the slope of the hillside and buried to create an earth shelter, which will be integrated into the landscape. It will replace the current expanse of concrete and tarmac forecourt with a turfed and planted roof,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

Change of use of agricultural land to accommodate touring caravans, campsite and wishbone lodge accommodation. Conversion and alterations of part of barn to provide site office, toilets, showers, washing facilities and recreation area.

Change of use of agricultural land to accommodate touring caravans, campsite and wishbone lodge accommodation. Conversion and alterations of part of barn to provide site office, toilets, showers, washing facilities and recreation area.

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, said that following re-assessment of this application in response to the recent publication of the National Planning Policy Framework, there were no changes to the recommendation.

Committee consideration

The planning officer confirmed that there had been no response to the application from the council’s tourism officer.

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 subject to the conditions as detailed in the schedule of applications.

For (15)

Councillors James Bevan, Gethyn Davies, Dave East, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Val Hobman, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thompson and Roger Yeates.

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Erection of a wind turbine and ancillary works. Construction of permanent access road and temporary access road. Erection of a monitoring mast for a temporary period.

Erection of a wind turbine and ancillary works. Construction of permanent access road and temporary access road. Erection of a monitoring mast for a temporary period.

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

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred members to the late material and said that there had been no alterations to the recommendation following publication of the National Planning Policy Framework. She informed the meeting that the committee had visited the site.

Public speaking

Speaking on behalf of local objectors, the first speaker made the following statement:

‘I am speaking for the Crosswinds Group, which has been set up by Coleford residents to campaign against the proposed wind turbine at Poolway Farm, and for the Forest Hills Alliance who have also submitted an informed report.  We must first make it clear that we are not against all wind turbines. We are specifically against the proposed location for this turbine. This is a strategic open space on the edge of Coleford, close to a hospice, a nursing home, public footpaths and a golf course; and surrounded on all sides by houses.  This cannot be a suitable place to put a structure taller than Gloucester Cathedral. We have searched in vain for comparisons with similar engineering structures in our area. Only the Severn Bridge would have a greater scale of visual impact. We are aware that the new National Planning Policy Framework published last week, requires planning to achieve sustainable development. We understand the document states that local planning authorities should design their policies to maximise renewable and low carbon energy while ensuring that adverse impacts are addressed satisfactorily including cumulative landscape and visual impacts. This application clearly fails to address those adverse impacts. The objections of local people have been expressed in their own words in the hundreds of letters that are available for viewing on the District Council’s website. The overwhelming impression that emerges from reading these comments is of a strong, unified community that shares a love of Coleford and the Forest of Dean; that cares deeply about its environment and its quality of life, and aims to protect these.  This proposal demonstrates that planning is as much an art as it is a science and on behalf of this community we respectfully ask our District Council to refuse the planning application for this wind turbine and its associated development’.

The applicant made the following statement: -

‘Mr Chairman and members of the planning committee - may I firstly thank you for allowing me this opportunity to respond to your officer’s recommendation. We are obviously very disappointed with it. From out first pre-application meeting with the council in September 2010, where we showed the siting of this turbine, we were led to believe that the Forest of Dean District Council was forward thinking with regards to renewable energy. At that meeting, we were informed that they would rather see one large, in preference to a number of smaller turbines totalling  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.5

Erection of agricultural workers dwelling

Erection of agricultural workers dwelling

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

Development Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred members to the late material and, in particular, to comments made by local member, Councillor Brian Edwards. (Unfortunately, Councillor Edwards was unable to attend this meeting due to a prior engagement).

The Development Manager said that the council’s planning policies, including the recently published National Planning Policy Framework and Core Strategy, continued to uphold the principle that any new dwellings constructed in the open countryside must be supported by an identified need. He said that the council, the applicant, and the council’s consultant, had each confirmed the need for a worker to live in close proximity to the farm relating to this application but that there was an area of disagreement as to whether an existing property at the site was able to serve this need. He said that the principle when dealing with an agricultural dwelling did not allow for each farming generation to have a further dwelling. In this particular case, the family home directly opposite the main farm buildings had been identified as capable of providing the onsite supervision deemed necessary. The Development Control Manager said that at a previous appeal the Planning Inspector had dismissed the need for a further dwelling at the site due to the family home opposite already fulfilling the need. He said that, whilst there was no doubt the business enterprise at the site had expanded, the fundamental principle of an existing property being able to accommodate the needs of the holding remained. As such, the recommendation was one of refusal.

Public speaking

Speaking on behalf of the Awre Parish Council, the speaker said that: -

‘the parish council supported the application and that the circumstances relating to the need for an additional workers dwelling at the site ticked all the boxes. He said that the family for the application had lived at the site for many years and that the business was a sustainable business. Referring to the loss of the post office and public house in the village, the speaker said that the village hall needed support and that the application would help revive the community. He said that the application was genuine and having attended the recent site visit with local member, Councillor Brian Edwards, he could see no reason for refusing the application ’.

Speaking on behalf of the applicant, the second speaker: -

‘gave a detailed account of the need for an additional farm workers dwelling at the site and said that, as a farmers daughter herself, she had a good understanding of why it was necessary to provide a home for an agricultural worker in the circumstances relating to this application. She said that the Land Agent at Gloucestershire County Council supported the application and had given a clear indication of why a farm of this size warranted the need for an experienced stockman to work at the farm. The speaker  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.6

Erection of a poultry building with ancillary works

Erection of a poultry building with ancillary works

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

Development Manager, Clive Reynolds, said that this application was one of two applications for adjoining poultry units located to the rear of existing farm buildings at the site. He said that the application, and the one considered under item 5.8 of the agenda, would be considered as separate items. The Development Manager said that, due to an outstanding response from the Environment Agency, the recommendation was one of delegated permission, pending no objections.

Public speaking

Speaking as the agent for the application, the speaker informed the committee that,

‘this was one of two proposals at the farm, seeking permission for the erection of an agricultural building for increased egg production. As a point of clarification, the speaker said that the increased capacity of birds at each site was 11,000 and not 14,000. He said that, although the combined increased total might appear quite high, this was not the case in poultry terms. Furthermore, there had been no reported complaints in over 40 years of production at the site, for which the applicant already had planning permission for a total capacity of up to 80,000 birds. The speaker referred to an Environmental Impact Assessment that had been carried out, concluding that under the Habitat Regulations 1994, the development did not detrimentally impact upon any surrounding protected areas. Furthermore, a separate odour modelling assessment had concluded that there were no odour related issues’.

Vote

Speaking in support of local egg production, Councillor James Bevan moved the recommendation and Councillor Jane Horne seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to delegate authority to the Group Manager for Planning and Housing to grant planning permission subject to there being no objections from the Environment Agency.

For (14)

Councillors James Bevan, Gethyn Davies, Dave East, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Val Hobman, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Arthur Thomas, David Thompson and Roger Yeates.

Councillor Lynn Sterry was absent from the meeting for part of the discussion on this item and did not vote on the application

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Erection of a poultry shed with ancillary works

Erection of a poultry shed with ancillary works

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

Development Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred members to the late material and said that this application was linked to the application that had been considered under item 5.7 of the agenda.

Vote

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

RESOLVED to delegate authority to the Group Manager for Planning and Housing to grant planning permission subject to there being no objections from the Environment Agency.

For (15)

Councillors James Bevan, Gethyn Davies, Dave East, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Val Hobman, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thompson and Roger Yeates.

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Change of use of land for the stationing of 13 Gypsy caravan pitches with provision of utility/day room buildings, propane gas tanks, hardstandings, access road, landscaping, fencing and drainage facilities all ancillary to that use

Change of use of land for the stationing of 13 Gypsy caravan pitches with provision of utility/day room buildings, propane gas tanks, hardstandings, access road, landscaping, fencing and drainage facilities all ancillary to that use.

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

Principal Planning Officer, Martin Hillier, gave a detailed update on the background to the application. The planning officer said that some late correspondence from RAID, (Residents Against Inappropriate Development), had been received but that it had been too late to include as late material. The contents of the letter would, however, be noted and published on the council website. The planning officer made a small correction to page 139 of the agenda and said that references to Human Rights Consideration should refer to Personal Circumstances. The planning officer said that the recommendation for refusal had been amended to seek delegated permission for the Group Manager for Planning and Housing to expand the reasons for refusal. He said that this had particular relevance to issues relating to the scale and intensity of use of the site on nearby properties. Further to this, additional information from the Sustainable Team would need to be considered.

Public speaking

Speaking on behalf of Newent RAID, (Residents Against Inappropriate Development), the speaker said he totally agreed with what the planning officer had said. He also made the following comments: -

‘This site was developed over the Whitsun Spring Bank Holiday weekend in May 2009, largely laid out as it is today in the form of 13 pitches. The development was undertaken in a manner that could be described as an intention to ‘steal a march on the planning system’, for which the government has since introduced new measures to counter such unauthorised development. The planning permission granted on appeal by the Planning Inspector in January 2010 expired on 31 January 2012 and the existing development is now unauthorised. A new enforcement notice was issued on 20 February 2012 and it is understood that an appeal against this notice has been lodged. The Planning Inspector determined that full planning permission would be wholly unacceptable, as it would be contrary to the Development Plan and result in harming the character of the landscape due to the extent of use in this open setting. He also viewed that the use would be adverse to the character of the surrounding area and amenities because of its scale and intensity in relation to nearby buildings. Inadequate information has been provided in respect of landscape and in relation to the effect on the heritage assets. The development will dominate the local settlement and have a detrimental impact on the local community. As a consequence, the development will not promote peaceful and integrated existence between the site and the local community’

Speaking as a local member, non-committee member, Councillor Len Lawton said that he agreed with the public speaker’s comments. He said that, on several previous occasions, he had been quite vocal about the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.9

Erection of a one and a half storey side extension

Erection of a one and a half storey side extension

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

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, confirmed that applicant, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, was a member of the planning committee. Having declared a prejudicial interest earlier in the meeting, Councillor Glastonbury left the meeting for consideration of this item and Vice-Chairman Councillor James Bevan took over the meeting.

Vote

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

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

For (14)

Councillors James Bevan, Gethyn Davies, Dave East, Julia Gooch, Val Hobman, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thompson and Roger Yeates.

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Application to extend the time limit to planning permission P0604/08/COU.  Conversion and extension to former public house (Railway Tavern) to create 10 apartments with associated works (revised scheme).

Application to extend the time limit to planning permission P0604/08/COU.  Conversion and extension to former public house (Railway Tavern) to create 10 apartments with associated works (revised scheme).

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

Planning Officer, Anna Welsh, referred to the late material relating to this application and informed members that the application was for an extension of time to a previous planning permission for the conversion and extension of former public house, (Railway Tavern), to create 10 apartments. (The original permission had been allowed at appeal). The planning officer said that, whilst the government was prepared to afford time limit extensions on existing planning permissions, a primary consideration for this application was whether there had been a change in either, the site circumstances or policy considerations.  She said that, in this instance, considerations included coal mining and ecology. Currently awaiting further ecology details and a consultation response from the Coal Authority, the planning officer said that the original application was subject to a unilateral agreement, for which the applicant was currently in the process of providing the necessary supplementary document. She advised members that the recommendation was one of delegated authority, subject to the Coal Authority accepting the details within the Coal Mining Risk Assessment, and with the proviso that the additional ecology survey was satisfactory. Planning permission was also subject to the satisfactory completion of the supplementary document to the unilateral undertaking.

Public speaking

Speaking as the agent for the application, the speaker said that,

‘whilst agreeing with officers about the satisfactory completion of the unilateral undertaking and noting the requirement for completion of an additional ecology survey before the target date of 24 May 2012, he said he would also appreciate a little more flexibility with this requirement to allow the applicant to work with the relevant stake-holders.

Committee consideration

Local member, Councillor Lynn Sterry, expressed concern about the condition of the property and the length of time it had been allowed to stand before falling into its current state of disrepair. Councillor Sterry asked if there was anything the council could do to return the building to its former use, bearing in mind the regeneration process that was about to commence in this area of the town. Several other members also agreed with this perspective. Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, advised that, at this stage in the application process, for the committee to consider such options could delay the development process even further.

Councillor Gethyn Davies referred to the unique structure of the building and said how sad it would be for the building to be demolished. Councillor Davies also suggested investigating the possibility of a council tax refund on the property as a redundant, empty building.

Despite concerns about the impact allowing a further extension of time to complete the ecology information and unilateral undertaking might have on the council’s performance targets, some members believed there could be benefits in allowing the applicant more time  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.11

a)     To confirm that the next sites’ inspection panel will be held on Tuesday 17 April 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 April 2012, and that the following sites will be added to the itinerary for that day: -  

To consider report PH.115 and modification of a tree preservation order at Land at Angel Field, Coleford.

Sustainability Team Leader, Alastair Chapman, presented report PH.115 and asked members to consider modification of a tree preservation order at Land at Angel Field, Coleford.

The team leader said that a provisional tree preservation order had been served on 26 January 2012 and that the order must be confirmed within six months of this date for it to remain in force. He said that the council had become aware that works to an oak tree was being considered and following a provisional assessment, it had been confirmed that the oak tree and a nearby mature cedar were of significant amenity value to the area. The Group Manager for Planning and Housing had concluded that unsympathetic management of the trees would be detrimental to the amenity of the area and a provisional tree preservation order was made covering the two trees. Three other trees to the north of the site were covered by a tree preservation order made in 1987.

The team leader said that the trees in question formed a network of trees, were highly visible and located in quite a high position overlooking the town. A number of objections had been raised about the trees, including concerns about their potential impact on neighbouring properties. The recommendation was to modify the tree preservation order to cover one oak tree in a revised location, as shown at Annex A to the report.

Despite several reservations about having to remove the tree, the general consensus was that the potential for the tree to cause damage to neighbouring properties could be quite high. Councillor Norman Stephens considered this aspect and enquired whether the council would be liable for any damages if it did not agree to the order? He was informed that the owner of the tree would be responsible for any damages and, in this instance, different parties owned the tree in question.

Vote

A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to modify Tree Preservation Order DF TPO 189, Land at Angel Field, Coleford, to cover one oak tree (T1), in a revised location as shown in Annex A to report PH .115

For (12)

Councillors James Bevan, Gethyn Davies, Terry Glastonbury, Val Hobman, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thompson and Roger Yeates.

Against (2)

Councillors Julia Gooch and Norman Stephens

Abstentions (1)

Councillor Dave East

A report from the Principal Planning Officer regarding the performance of the planning team in determining planning applications.

Members considered report PH.116 and the performance of the Planning Applications Team in determining planning applications and assessing the trends and achievements of this authority in relation to national and local targets. The committee agreed the information and,

RESOLVED to note the report

8 May 2012

8 May 2012