To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Frankie Evans. Councillor Carole Allaway Martin represented Councillor Evans at the meeting.

The Chairman welcomed Councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick to the meeting as committee representative of the Non Political Alliance.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 9 November 2010 (attached)

The minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting held on 9 November 2010 were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business

No items of urgent business were considered at this meeting.

The Chairman referred to an email that had been sent earlier that day, detailing information relating to the council’s validation checklist. Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, advised members that it had been necessary to review the checklist requirements, (approved by the committee two years ago), to incorporate changes to government policy and to reflect on how the checklist will be used in practice. He said that a new version of the checklist was available on the council’s website and that there would be an 8-week consultation period before considering the matter at the February committee meeting. Members were invited to refer any comments to the Development Control Manager before the meeting.

To receive any declarations of interest in any matter to be discussed at the meeting.  Members and officers are requested to identify the nature of the interest and indicate whether it is personal or prejudicial.

The following declarations of interest were made at the meeting: -

Councillor James Bevan declared a personal interest in item 5.13 of the agenda, P2047/10/PLANOB The Old Coach Depot, Sutton Road, Soudley, Cinderford. As the former owner of the site, Councillor Bevan said that he would leave the meeting for consideration of this item.

Councillor Grace Bensted declared a personal interest in item 5.15 of the agenda, P2104/10/FUL, Pool Cottage, Cold Harbour, St Briavels Common, St Briavels. Councillor Bensted, confirmed that she was the owner of the site and would leave the meeting for consideration of the item.

Councillor Alastair Fraser declared a prejudicial interest in item 5.4 of the agenda, P1718/10/FUL Woodlands Caravan Site, Bracelands Drive, Christchurch. Due to business connections with the site, Councillor Fraser Bevan said that he would leave the meeting for consideration of this item.

Councillor Lynn Sterry declared a prejudicial interest in item 5.10 of the agenda, P2019/10/FUL Land at Hollydean, Cinderford. Councillor Sterry confirmed that her daughter was a tenant at the site and that she would leave the meeting for consideration of this item.

Councillor Carole Allaway Martin declared a prejudicial interest in item 5.6 of the agenda, P1881/10/FUL Hartpury College and agreed to leave the meeting for consideration of this item.

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 to the late material that had been circulated on the pink coloured paper prior to the start of the meeting. (This information had been submitted following publication of the agenda). The Chairman announced that there would be 9 public speakers at the meeting, speaking on items 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9 and 10 of the schedule of applications and that each speaker would be allowed 3 minutes to make their representations.

Demolition of 14 existing dwellings and the erection of 18 new dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping.

Demolition of 14 existing dwellings and the erection of 18 new dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping.

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred members to the late material that had been circulated before the meeting and confirmed that the foul water discharge at this site flowed to the Lydney Sewage Treatment works.

Public Speaking

Anghared James, Development and Regeneration Manager for the Two Rivers Housing Association, said that the applicants had addressed the concerns raised at the planning committee meeting in October 2010, regarding design, means of enclosure and density. The speaker said that the applicant had consulted with local residents throughout the entire design process, (most notably those currently living on the site), and had undertaken a three-stage consultation exercise inviting residents to voice their opinions on how they felt the site should be laid out, the style of the properties and the materials they believed should be used. Furthermore, the applicant had requested that the application be delayed in coming back to the committee in order to re-consult with residents in response to the comments made at the meeting in October. Taking on board the committee’s comments about the recessed porches and layout at the site, the speaker said that the applicant had now introduced a canopy style porch and had redesigned the fenestration to introduce a more traditional look. The applicant had also agreed to undertake further planting along the front of the properties in an attempt to soften the street scene. With regard to the size of gardens and density, the speaker confirmed that the density for the proposed site was 43 units per hectare, which she believed was an appropriate level to that indicated in the Council’s Residential Design Guide. The speaker said to reduce the number of units at the site would render the scheme financially unviable and noted that the proposals only intended to replace 14 units, (13 of which would be used by residents returning to the site), and create an extra 4. Referring to concerns about the size of gardens, the speaker said that by swapping some of the plots around would increase the size of the garden of one of the 2 bed-roomed properties. Referring specifically to concerns about foul water drainage, the speaker informed members that drainage at the site was under the jurisdiction of Severn Trent Water, (who had raised no objections to the development), with drainage flowing into the Lydney Sewerage Treatment Works and not into the Newland Sewerage Works and under the jurisdiction of Welsh Water. The speaker said that the applicant had given a great deal of consideration to providing the maximum amount of affordable housing at the site without incurring any detrimental impact to the existing residents in the area.

Committee consideration

Members welcomed the revised proposals, which they believed, were an improvement on the previous scheme. Local member, Councillor Terry Hale, said that the decision not to accept the earlier proposals was an important message to send to the developer.

Vote

Councillor  ...  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.

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, recalled that the application had been considered at the previous meeting and deferred to allow members to visit the site.

Public Speaker

Speaking as the resident of a neighbouring property to Cherry Tree Cottage, the speaker said she believed the proposals contradicted existing planning policy and would be out of keeping with the proposed listed-building status of the property. The speaker expressed concern about the existing substandard road network at the site, which she said was inadequate and incapable of coping with current traffic movements, let alone any increased traffic. The speaker elaborated on her concerns about traffic movements and said that Gloucestershire County Highways, in the interests of road safety, had originally recommended that vehicular access be moved closer to the junction where visibility would be much better. The speaker also expressed concern about the curtilage at the site, which she described as large and unkempt. Disappointed by the minimal amount of landscaping that the scheme proposed, the speaker believed that, as the setting for a listed building, the site warranted proper landscaping. As an amenity to Cherry Tree Cottage for over 50 years, the speaker believed Hazel Cottage would be unsuitable for occupation without considerable alteration, thus negating the argument for its retention. Furthermore, satisfactory conversion to a dwelling would be impossible without unsightly and disproportionate alterations, which she felt would be quite out of keeping with the original character of the cottage. The speaker informed the committee that to grant planning permission would create a plot of land detached from both properties, had no access and was the subject of a withdrawn planning application for two substantial dwellings. On this basis, the speaker urged the committee to refuse the application.

Committee consideration

The committee believed the decision to defer consideration of the application at the last meeting for a site visit had been a useful exercise. Several members shared the concerns of the public speaker and questioned the status and use of the land between the cottage and the proposed site. Councillor Philip Burford said that the network of narrow lanes at the site was clearly inadequate and expressed concern that the layout of the scheme appeared to have doubled in size when compared to that of the original property. Several members opposed the larch cladding that had been proposed, while others questioned the consequences of what might happen should the potentially unstable structure of the property collapse during development. Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, said that the larch cladding had been suggested in an attempt to retain the rural, rustic and vulgar appearance of the building. In response to concerns about what would happen should the building fall down during construction works, members were advised that a new planning application would be necessary before the council could review the case. The planning officer confirmed that the applicant was willing to substitute the larch  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

Alterations and Extension to Derelict Cottage.

Alterations and Extension to Derelict Cottage.

Members were reminded that this application had also been deferred at the previous meeting to allow members to visit the site.

Public speaker

The person who had spoken against the previous application was the person speaking against this item. The speaker said that the planning application was contradictory and that a fundamental reason for the preservation of Hazel Cottage was quoted as, “a now rare example of a small cottage that has not been compromised by later enlargement or alteration”. The speaker believed the proposals compromised Hazel Cottage, by both enlargement and alteration. During her statement, the speaker expressed the following concerns; the size of the proposed extension to the east of the property, which she believed was as large as the original cottage; the disproportionate nature of the extension; the use of inappropriate materials; the provision of additional reception rooms when the number of bedrooms remained the same; the visual impact of the three floor to ceiling glazed areas; the loss of historic integrity with the removal of the original bread oven at Hazel Cottage; the lack of privacy created by the installation of a bathroom and toilet on an open landing and the diminished view of some of the features of the cottage, including the impressive chimney stack, which would be obscured by the proposed extension.

Committee consideration

Several members questioned why the application for listed building consent had not been considered before the application to alter and extend the property. Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, confirmed that the order of the schedule of applications was normally considered in the sequence of order from the date of when the application was received at the council offices. Councillor David Thomson said that the application for listed building status only strengthened why he believed the application constituted an inappropriate development.

Vote

Councillor Norman Stephens moved the recommendation, subject to the inclusion of the same conditions that had been imposed on the previous application, and Councillor Alastair Fraser seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED that the application be granted planning permission, subject to the conditions referred to in the schedule of applications, and to the additional conditions suggested at the meeting

For: 10

Councillors Grace Bensted, James Bevan, Heather Dalziel, Alastair Fraser, Terry Glastonbury (Chairman), Terry Hale, Norman Stephens (Vice chairman), Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas and Roger Yeates

Against: 4

Councillors Philip Burford, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Jane Horne and David Thomson

Abstention: 1 Councillor Carole Allaway Martin

Temporary siting of managers accommodation with associated parking facilities.

Temporary siting of managers accommodation with associated parking facilities.

Having declared a prejudicial interest earlier in the meeting, Councillor Alastair Fraser left the meeting for consideration of this item.

Committee consideration

Councillor Carole Allaway Martin, (a local member), said that the town council had been concerned about the longevity of the proposals but was satisfied that the 5-year restriction addressed such concerns. Councillor Grace Bensted, (a local member), supported the proposals and moved the recommendation. Councillor Jane Horne seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

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

For: 14

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

Against: 0

Abstentions:0

Erection of two replacement aircraft hangars.

Erection of two replacement aircraft hangars.

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred to the late material that had been circulated before the meeting and informed members that, whilst conscious of the objections that had been raised, it was important for them to note that use of the site as an airstrip was not a matter for consideration as part of this application.The Development Control Manager clarified that the proposal was for the replacement of existing buildings that had been used as hangers, with larger buildings for the same use. With this is mind, members were advised to focus on the visual/amenity impact of the buildings rather than the use of the airstrip.

Public speaking

Speaking as an objector to the application, the speaker suggested the committee consider a series of questions before making their decision. The speaker questioned why such a large number of objections had not been reflected in the recommendations; why the planning authority had recommended doubling the size of the existing buildings with no apparent justification, particularly when a statutory declaration clearly confirmed that the existing facilities could adequately support the number of aircraft lawfully permitted at the site; why the conditions included in the previous planning permission had not been mentioned in the officer’s report and why the comments from a planning barrister had been ignored. The speaker quoted the barrister as saying, “This proposal conflicts with all other national policy in respect of development in the countryside, and in particular, PPS7”. The speaker also referred to local plan policy R FTRL 2 and said that he thought that the policy had been misconceived. Highlighting various levels and strains of concern, including those of the local MP and English Nature, the speaker questioned why the impact of the proposals had not been considered. Disputing the applicant’s suggestion that none of the complaints could be upheld, the speaker said that it was the considered view of many of the objectors that this major development was likely to cause huge and lasting damage to the community.

Speaking on behalf of the applicant, the speaker referred to the age and condition of the hangers and the need to replace them. The speaker said that, apart from being visually unattractive, the hangers lacked security, making the aircraft and other equipment quite vulnerable. Noting the comments that had been made earlier in the meeting, the speaker said that he felt a great deal of what had been said had been misrepresented. He also referred to what the Development Control Manager had said about the use of the airstrip being irrelevant to the application. The speaker said that some of the pilots flying at the airstrip had been associated with the airfield for a number of years, including three that had been tenantsat the time that the airfield had been purchased, thus refuting the suggestion that there had been a change in the use of the site. The speaker believed the application adhered to the guidance offered by the planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.5

Erection of a building for office and research uses.  (Renewal of consent for planning permission P0984/07/FUL).

Erection of a building for office and research uses.  (Renewal of consent for planning permission P0984/07/FUL).

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred to the late material and to revised condition 9.

Vote

Ward member, Councillor Philip Burford, raised no objections to the application and moved the recommendation. Councillor Jane Horne seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant the application planning permission, subject to the conditions detailed in the schedule of applications and to revised condition 9, as detailed in the late material.

For: 14

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

Against: 0

Abstentions:0

Erection of a swimming pool building and decking area

Erection of a swimming pool building and decking area

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred to the late material that had been circulated at the start of the meeting and to revised condition 6. The Planning Officer informed members that the proposed swimming pool was not fully visible from the road and therefore considered un-harmful to the visual amenity of neighbouring properties. Responding to questions about whether the owners intended to make the pool as environmentally friendly as possible, the planning officer confirmed that the owner intended to put in solar panels to heat the pool area.

Vote

Councillor James Bevan 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 detailed in the late material and to the revised condition in the late material.

For: 14

Councillors, Carole Allaway Martin, Grace Bensted, James Bevan, Heather Dalziel, Alastair Fraser, Terry Glastonbury (Chairman), Terry Hale, Jane Horne, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Norman Stephens (Vice chairman), Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against: 0

Abstentions:0

Erection of a detached dwelling and associated parking

Erection of a detached dwelling and associated parking

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred to the late material that had been circulated at the start of the meeting and informed members that, following the site inspection panel visit on 16 November 2010, the council had received additional information seeking to clarify the impact of the development on the adjoining property. The Development Control Manager confirmed that a series of appropriate tests had been applied, (including tests to consider the potential loss of light to the adjoining property). The evaluation had concluded that there would be no unacceptable impact. The recommendation therefore remained as per the schedule.

Public speaker

Speaking as an objector to the application, the speaker expressed concern that the proposed dwelling might overshadow and seriously affect the light currently enjoyed by his property. The speaker said that he had been disappointed that the residential amenity section of the officer’s report, (page 106 of the agenda), had only mentioned one additional window facing the plot, when a skylight window, serving the extension to his property, was critical to the light issue. The speaker informed the committee that the view from the new extension at his property would be seriously affected by the proposed dwelling and that he would be subject to looking at 100 per cent solid wall. He said that he was also concerned about the loss of sunlight to the rear lawn and vegetable plot of his property. The speaker also referred to the height of the proposed dwelling and disputed the suggestion that the property would be built in keeping with the rest of the properties on the estate. Referring to the significant number of objections that had been received from other residents in the area, the speaker said that one of the key objections was the impact of the property on the density of the Sheens Meadow Estate and on the adjoining new development. The speaker believed the proposed dwelling would be totally out of character with other properties and urged the committee to take into account such concerns when making its decision.

Local member, Councillor Diana Edwards, echoed the comments of the public speaker and sympathised with local residents. Councillor Edwards said that she feared the proposed dwelling might have a negative impact on the value of neighbouring properties. She also shared the concerns of the parish council, in that the proposed dwelling appeared squashed in and could have a detrimental impact on light. Chairman of the Committee, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, advised the committee that the de-valuation of other properties could not be taken into account when making its decision.

Committee consideration

Taking into account the significant level of objection from neighbouring residents and expressing concern about the impact of the proposals in relation to the density of the site, several members questioned the recommendation and spoke against the proposals. Councillor Philip Burford said that he had been shocked that the adjoining properties would be so close to the site, but admitted that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.8

Creation of new access to serve field

Creation of new access to serve field

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, informed members that the application was a retrospective application to upgrade an existing agricultural access into a field at the end of a small housing development. He said that, whilst particular concerns had been raised regarding the possible future use of the site, the scheme was for an agricultural access only and any future development proposals would be considered on their own merits with separate planning applications. Referring to the works that had been already been undertaken, (as shown on the visual display), the Development Control Manager said that such works had been considered minor alterations and would not cause any material visual harm

Public speaking

The applicant confirmed that the application was to create an access to a field and allow animals to be let in and out safely. The applicant informed members that there had always been a gateway to the field, which was an unrestricted right of way. She confirmed that a hard surface had been created inside the field to allow vehicles to turn and had been enclosed with a wooden gate and fence. The applicant said that she had notified neighbours of her intensions and had only become aware of the need to obtain planning permission after works had commenced.

Committee consideration

Committee members spoke in support of the application and questioned the need to obtain planning permission. Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, said that, although there was no question of there being an existing access at the site, this was not sufficient enough reason to warrant undertaking alterations or improvements. He advised members that the impact of the retrospective alterations had to be assessed in relation to planning policy and other material planning considerations and the advice was noted.

Vote

Councillor David Thomson 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 referred to in the schedule of applications.

For: 15

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

Against: 0

Abstentions:0

Erection of 15 dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping.  (Demolition of 10 existing dwellings).  (Resubmission)

Erection of 15 dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping.  (Demolition of 10 existing dwellings).  (Resubmission)

Councillor Lynn Sterry left the meeting for consideration of this item

Public speaking

Speaking against the application, the speaker said that she voiced the concerns of local residents. She said that, whilst the majority of residents were unopposed to re-development of the site, there were too many concerns about the proposed junction leading onto the main road of the estate. As an access route for large vehicles, including 40 ft lorries and local buses, the speaker believed the new access would seriously limit parking and make parked cars extremely vulnerable to traffic using the junction. The speaker also expressed concern about the risks to resident’s cars during adverse weather conditions and noted that her car had already been hit twice this year whilst parked outside her own home. Refuting comments from Gloucestershire County Highways, (on page 122 of the agenda), the speaker discounted the suggestion that the access route “would have a minimal impact upon highway safety and could not be resisted on this basis”. The speaker also discounted the statement from the applicant suggesting that, “access onto the site had been located to maximise vehicular and pedestrian safety” Speaking as a parent of young children herself, the speaker highlighted the potential threat to their safety, particularly when taking them in and out of parked cars. The speaker questioned why the developer had not considered creating driveways to the properties, which she believed could have avoided disruption to residents and service vehicles, less likelihood of littering and vandalism, and far safer for residents to unload shopping, especially those with children. Expressing concerns about the potential overdevelopment of the site, replacing six houses with thirteen, the speaker also questioned visitor parking and the problem of congestion. The speaker said that the proposed junction would seriously impact on the lives of local residents and highlighted the number of objections that had been received. Reinforcing her concerns, the speaker said that, whilst good on paper, in reality, the proposals were far from ideal.

Speaking on behalf of the applicant, the speaker confirmed that the application was to seek permission to re-develop 10 Cornish style pre-cast concrete homes, in addition to providing 5 additional homes for local people.  She also confirmed that the units would be constructed to Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. In response to pre-application discussions with the planning authority and after listening to concerns about the Sling development, the speaker said that the applicant had withdrawn the application in order to address such concerns and to improve the layout and design of the scheme. The speaker outlined the revisions to the scheme, including amendments to the general design of the properties, highway safety and car parking and to the provision of open space and amenities.  The speaker said that the applicant had taken on board the comments about recessed porches and had included a canopy style porch for the development.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.10

Modification to Section 106 agreement dated 03/11/09. Attached to planning consent P1319/09/FUL is sought to reduce the number of affordable housing units from 13 to 8 units

Modification to Section 106 agreement dated 03/11/09. Attached to planning consent P1319/09/FUL is sought to reduce the number of affordable housing units from 13 to 8 units

In presenting this item, Peter Williams, Group Manager for Planning and Housing, informed the committee that the application sought to vary the Section 106 Agreement attached to planning permission P1319/09/FUL for the erection of fourteen dwellings with associated garaging and parking facilities. The Group Manager referred members to the late material that had been circulated before the meeting, including details of the final calculations for the section 106 contributions, and explained that, although the applicant had been confident of securing funding towards delivering the required amount of affordable housing, this had changed when the offer of grant funding had been withdrawn. In seeking to assist the developer in delivering the scheme, members were requested to consider a variation of the Section 106 agreement for planning application P1319/09/FUL.

Councillor Norman Stephens congratulated officers for negotiating with the developer on what he considered to be a sensible outcome, particularly given the current economic circumstances. Relieved to avoid the risk of the site becoming mothballed, Councillor Stephens moved the recommendation and Councillor Jane Horne seconded the motion. Members were reassured that the current policy on affordable housing was still in place and,

RESOLVED that the variation to the Section 106 Agreement be accepted and that delegated authority be given to the Group Manager for Planning and Housing and the Group Manager for Legal and Democratic Services to secure an appropriate deed of variation to the Section 106 Agreements by the end of January 2011.

For: 15

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

Against: 0

Abstentions:0

Modification to Section 106 agreement dated 15/08/08. Attached to planning consent P0667/08/FUL is sought to reduce the number of affordable housing units from ten to seven

Modification to Section 106 agreement dated 15/08/08. Attached to planning consent P0667/08/FUL is sought to reduce the number of affordable housing units from ten to seven

Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, confirmed that this application sought to modify a Section 106 Agreement under the same circumstances as that considered under the previous item. The Group Manager referred members to the late material that had been circulated at the beginning of the meeting and to the final calculations for the payment of an adult/youth recreation contribution. The committee supported the proposal to modify the section 106 legal agreement attached to planning permission P0667/08/FUL and reduce the number of affordable units from ten to seven.

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

RESOLVED that the variation to the Section 106 Agreement be accepted and that delegated authority be given to the Group Manager for Planning and Housing and the Group Manager for Legal and Democratic Services to secure an appropriate deed of variation to the Section 106 Agreements by the end of January 2011.

For: 15

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

Against: 0

Abstentions:0

Modification to Section 106 agreement dated 07/09/09. Attached to planning consent P0954/09/FUL is sought to reduce the number of affordable housing units from 5 to 3 units

Modification to Section 106 agreement dated 07/09/09. Attached to planning consent P0954/09/FUL is sought to reduce the number of affordable housing units from 5 to 3 units

Councillor James Bevan left the meeting for consideration of this item.

Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, informed members that this application sought to reduce the number of affordable housing units from 5 to 3 units. Responding to member’s questions, the Group Manager said that, despite the request to modify the legal agreement, the planning permission approved in September 2009 remained unaltered in all other aspects. Furthermore, an uplift clause would be attached to the modified legal agreement to confirm that any additional sales revenue would be spilt evenly between the developer and the Council. The Group Manager confirmed that any clause monies to the Council would be ring-fenced for the delivery of affordable housing.

Vote

Local member, Councillor Heather Dalziel, expressed her disappointment at not being able to secure the full amount of affordable housing for the site but agreed to move the recommendation. Councillor Norman Stephens seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED that the variation to the Section 106 Agreement be accepted and that delegated authority be given to the Group Manager for Planning and Housing and the Group Manager for Legal and Democratic Services to secure an appropriate deed of variation to the Section 106 Agreements by the end of January 2011.

For: 14

Councillors Carole Allaway Martin, Grace Bensted, Philip Burford, Heather Dalziel, Alastair Fraser, Terry Glastonbury (Chairman), Terry Hale, Jane Horne, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Norman Stephens (Vice chairman), Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against: 0

Abstentions:0

The developer for the applications considered under items 11, 12 and 13 of the schedule, expressed his appreciation that the committee had considered his request to modify the section 106 legal agreements for each of the applications.

Re-cladding of glasshouse with profile steel sheeting to match existing workshop

Re-cladding of glasshouse with profile steel sheeting to match existing workshop

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, informed members that the application was part retrospective, seeking to clad the walls of the glasshouse with green coloured metal sheeting. Referring to the photographs on display at the meeting, it was noted that the glasshouse was already painted green and therefore the visual impact of the proposals limited. Furthermore, the glasshouse was situated between other buildings of permanent construction and therefore the steel sheeting would not be out of keeping. The Development Control Manager said that the use of the building was not a matter for consideration but remained for purposes ancillary to the house and the adjoining commercial business by virtue of conditions imposed on the change of use application DF151/F.

Committee consideration

Councillor Jane Horne said how frustrated she had been that no enforcement action had been against what she considered to be a breach of the original planning permission. In response to the frustrations, Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, advised Councillor Horne that any enforcement issues relating to this application should be considered on its own merits and not at this meeting.

Sharing Councillor Horne’s concerns, Councillor Norman Stephens said that he feared the application could set a precedent for the future and suggested all future applications for the site be considered by the committee and not delegated to officers. After seeking clarification on the planning process for change of use of the site, Councillor Philip Burford said that he believed the Planning Inspector had set the precedent and that it would be important when considering similar applications to be able to suggest good reasons to defend refusal of the application at appeal.

Vote

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

RESOLVED that the application be granted planning permission subject to the condition detailed in the schedule of applications.

For: 13

Councillors Carole Allaway Martin, Grace Bensted, James Bevan, Philip Burford, Heather Dalziel, Alastair Fraser, Terry Glastonbury (Chairman), Terry Hale, Jane Horne, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against: 1

Councillor Norman Stephens (Vice chairman),

Abstentions: 1

Councillor Lynn Sterry

Alterations and erection of two single storey rear extensions to provide WC and utility room and erection of a conservatory

Alterations and erection of two single storey rear extensions to provide WC and utility room and erection of a conservatory

As the applicant for this item, Councillor Grace Bensted left the meeting for consideration of this application.

Committee consideration

Members were informed that only the side extension to the property required planning permission.

Vote

Councillor Arthur Thomas 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 information detailed in the late material and to the conditions detailed in the schedule of applications.

For: 13

Councillors Carole Allaway Martin, James Bevan, Philip Burford, Heather Dalziel, Alastair Fraser, Terry Glastonbury (Chairman), Terry Hale, Jane Horne, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Norman Stephens (Vice chairman), Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against: 0

Abstentions:0

a)     To confirm that the next sites’ inspection panel will be held on Tuesday 21 December 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 21 December 2010 (weather permitting) and that the following sites be added to the itinerary for that day: -  

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

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, presented report PH.49, detailing the performance of the planning team in relation to the determination of planning applications. The report was noted and members commended the performance of the team.

Councillor Philip Burford reflected on the council’s recent budget proposals and the intention to make savings by reducing staffing levels at the council, including two full-time posts from the planning team, (this was later corrected to confirm one full time post from the planning team due to the second post representing a post from the building control team) in the first year of budgetary changes. Councillor Burford urged the committee to oppose a reduction in the staffing levels of the planning team and avoid impacting on the current performance of the team. Councillor Norman Stephens supported this statement and said that it was disappointing that a representative from cabinet did not attend meetings to observe the good performance of the team and the work of the committee.

TO CONSIDER, AND IF SO AGREE, TO RESOLVE that, under section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in schedule 12A of the said act.

RESOLVED that, under section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in schedule 12A of the said act.

To consider the schedule of enforcement action, as prepared by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing.

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, presented the schedule of enforcement action, as prepared by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing.

To consider enforcement report 9.1

The committee considered enforcement report 9.1

To consider enforcement report 9.2

This item was withdrawn at the meeting by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing.

11 January 2011

11 January 2011

Council procedure B1 (b) was suspended at 5.15 pm to allow the meeting to

continue for up to 30 minutes beyond the normal time limit of three hours. A

15-minute adjournment of the meeting had been allowed.