To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Alastair Fraser. The Chairman informed the committee that Councillor Roger Yeates would substitute for Councillor Fraser at this meeting.

The Chairman welcomed Councillor Di Martin to the meeting. He announced that, following a change in the political balance of the council, Councillor Di Martin would be replacing Councillor Roger Yeates on the committee.

To confirm the non-exempt minutes of the meeting held on 8 February 2011.

The non-exempt minutes of the meeting held on 8 February 2011 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.

Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, informed the meeting that the council had received formal notice of a challenge to the decision on planning application, P1626/10/FUL Former Railway between Tidenham, Tintern and Brockweir, (considered at the planning committee meeting on 9 November 2010). He reminded members that, at that meeting, the committee had resolved to grant the application planning permission, subject to the conditions and notes detailed in the schedule of applications and to the information and additional conditions referred to in the late material that had been circulated at the meeting.

The Group Manager said that the challenge involved a two-stage process, requiring the applicant to seek leave of the court for the application to be heard in the High Court. He said that the challenge involved several objections, including claims that information relating to the application had been misleading and that the committee had not fully taken into consideration the impact of the proposals on the conservation area surrounding Brockweir Village. Furthermore, it had been suggested that the decision to grant planning permission was based on the potential costs the council might have incurred, had the committee chosen to refuse the application. The Group Manager advised the committee that, after seeking counsel advice and having received a detailed response indicating strong grounds on which to resist the claims, the council was confident the challenge could be overcome.

Responding to a question from Councillor David Thomson, the Group Manager confirmed that the planning permission had been subject to a condition, stipulating that no work was allowed to commence on the development until Monmouthshire County Council had considered planning permission for the section of the proposed cycle-route within Monmouthshire. The Group Manager clarified that the application had not, as yet, been considered by Monmouthshire County Council, and was therefore, unable to proceed until any unresolved issues had been addressed. The information was noted.

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 8 March 2011: -

Councillor Grace Bensted declared a prejudicial interest in item 5.6 of the agenda, P2378/10/FUL Great Dunkilns Farm, Bream Road, St Briavels and said that she would leave the meeting for consideration of this item.

Councillor Terry Hale declared a personal interest in item 5.10 of the agenda, P2436/10/FUL Rose Cottage, Holly Lane, Ellwood, Coleford, due to lobbying by local residents on issues relating to this application.

Councillor Arthur Thomas declared a personal interest in item 5.11 of the agenda, P0003/11/FUL, Smallbrook Farm, Spout Hill, Alvington, Lydney, due to district council connections with the applicant. Seeking clarification from Assistant Solicitor, Dawn Evans, on the council’s definition of a declaration of interest, Councillors Philip Burford, Terry Hale and Gabriella Kirkpatrick each declared a personal interest in item 5.11 of the agenda, P0003/11/FUL, Smallbrook Farm, Spout Hill, Alvington, Lydney, for the same reason. Councillor Kirkpatrick is also a ward member for the same ward as the applicant.

Councillor Terry Glastonbury declared a prejudicial interest in the item 5.11, P0003/11/FUL, Smallbrook Farm, Spout Hill, Alvington, Lydney, due to business associations with the applicant.

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

Chairman, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, referred to the schedule of applications, as prepared by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and to the late material that had been circulated on the pink coloured paper immediately prior to the meeting. (Late material is information submitted to the council following publication of the agenda). The Chairman announced that, item 5 of the schedule of applications, P2225/10/COU Former Packing Station, Strawberry Hill, Newent, had been withdrawn from the meeting by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing. There were 16 public speakers at the meeting, speaking on items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11 and 13 of the schedule. Each speaker was allowed 3 minutes to make their representations.

The decisions are recorded in order of the schedule.

Removal of condition of planning permission P1229/07/FUL, allowed on appeal, (14) foul water retention tank

Removal of condition of planning permission P1229/07/FUL, allowed on appeal, (14) foul water retention tank

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, informed the committee that consideration of condition 14 of planning application P1229/07/FUL was no longer required due to the submission of an alternative drainage scheme for the site. She said that, condition 13 of the approved scheme, however, setting out the revised detail for foul and surface water drainage, would be considered under the following item, (planning application P0167/10/DISCON). The planning officer advised members that it was, however, necessary to remove condition 14 of planning permission P1227/07/FUL before the committee could consider the discharge of condition 13 relating to the revised scheme.

Public speaking

Speaking on behalf of the Angel Farm Action Committee, the speaker, referred to comments from the Planning Inspector following an appeal against the committee decision to refuse the application. The speaker said that the Planning Inspector had expressed concern about the capacity of the waste water treatment works during heavy rainfall and had suggested two remedies, including the proposal to install a foul water holding tank. The speaker said that she objected to the removal of condition 14 on the basis that she believed there was insufficient data on which the committee could make an informed decision. Stressing the need for a flood risk assessment, the speaker said that the committee would be going against council policy if allowed to make a decision without the necessary information. Furthermore, until such time that an assessment was made, it would be more sensible to retain the foul water retention tank and avoid unnecessary environmental risk.

Councillor Clive Elsmore reiterated the concerns of Coleford Town Council. He said that, despite talks with the developer, the town council remained apprehensive about drainage proposals and urged the committee to consider a condition preventing commencement of works at the site until concerns relating to foul water drainage had been addressed to the satisfaction of both the town council and Welsh Water.

Steve MacPherson of Bloor Homes informed members that the proposal to remove condition 14 had followed a series of meetings with technical experts, (who had endorsed the proposals), and with Welsh Water, who had agreed to enter into a legal agreement, that would not just benefit the residents at the site but the whole of Coleford. He said that, whilst acknowledging the sensitivity of the situation, he also believed removal of condition 14 and replacement with an alternative scheme offered a far more comprehensive solution. Mr MacPherson confirmed that Bloor Homes had met with Coleford Town Council but had not been taken up on an offer to meet with the Angel Farm Action Committee. (A member of the public seated in the public gallery refuted this comment). Throughout his statement, Mr MacPherson reiterated the developer’s firm commitment to providing the best possible scheme.

Committee consideration

Ward member, Councillor Grace Bensted, referred to the proposed timing of the works to be undertaken in relation to condition 13 of the approved scheme,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Discharge of conditions of planning permission P1229/07/FUL, allowed on appeal; (13) foul and surface water drainage, (17) site investigation, (18) site investigation, (22) temporary car parking, (24) phasing programme of highway works, (27) vehicle wheel cleaning/washing facilities, (28) upgrade existing traffic signals, (30) right turning holding lane, (31) traffic calming scheme and (34) renewable energy source

Discharge of conditions of planning permission P1229/07/FUL, allowed on appeal; (13) foul and surface water drainage, (17) site investigation, (contamination), (18) site investigation, (stability), (22) temporary car parking, (24) phasing programme of highway works, (27) vehicle wheel cleaning/washing facilities, (28) upgrade existing traffic signals, (30) right turning holding lane, (31) traffic calming scheme and (34) renewable energy source

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred to the late material that had been circulated prior to the start of the meeting and to the additional representations and consultations that had been received.

Public speaking

Speaking on behalf of objectors from the Angel Farm Action Committee, the speaker reiterated the concerns that had been raised earlier in the meeting and stressed the need for a flood risk assessment. The speaker also highlighted concerns about the risk of land contamination and highway issues.

Councillor Clive Elsmore from Coleford Town Council said that the town council was very concerned about the traffic calming scheme and the introduction of speed humps.

Speaking on behalf of the applicant, the speaker said that the proposals that had been submitted to Coleford Town Council the previous week had been submitted following consultation with a wide range of technical experts. Sympathising with local residents about their concerns for the site, the speaker spoke of the developer’s depth of experience and level of expertise in delivering multi million pound investment sites. Referring to the ten-year warranty that would be awarded to each property, the speaker confirmed the developer’s commitment to the scheme and said that the proposals would not have been considered without the safeguard of good conditions.

Local member, Councillor Maria Edey, expressed concerns about the stability of the site and the risk of contamination.

Committee consideration

Local member, Councillor Grace Bensted, believed more information was required before the committee could make an informed decision on the proposals and suggested deferring consideration of conditions 17, 18 and 30, (site investigation and right turning holding lane), to undertake further investigations.

Despite several reservations from other members of the committee, Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, said that the planning authority was satisfied with the submissions it had received and with the information on which the recommendations were based. Responding to concerns from Councillor Terry Hale, regarding the management of drainage issues during the period prior to adoption by Welsh Water, the Group Manager informed members that maintenance details had been submitted. He said that, with regard to contamination on the site, whilst the developer was obliged to identify any issues that might be harmful to the site, the council also exercised an element of control under Building Regulations. In this particular case, building control of the site would be carried out by the council’s service, bringing with it, considerable local knowledge and expertise. Questioning the merits of the planning inspector’s decision to grant planning permission at appeal in July 2008, Councillor Norman Stephens said that he believed the council had done all it could in providing the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

Alterations and conversion of existing dwelling to create 3 self contained flats, including the provision of a pitched roof. (Resubmission)

Alterations and conversion of existing dwelling to create 3 self contained flats, including the provision of a pitched roof. (Resubmission)

Please refer to the late material circulated prior to the meeting

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred members to the late material and to the additional comments that had been received from the applicant and from a local objector. He said that the views of the Environment Agency had not changed but that the agency had included a condition regarding flood resilience measures, (condition 9 on page 62 of the agenda), should members choose to approve the application. The Development Control Manager presented a video recording from an objector to the application, showing the impact of flooding at the site. He advised members that, should the application be approved, it might be useful to consider the suggested conditions on pages 61 to 63 of the agenda.

Public speaking

Speaking on behalf of local residents, the speaker agreed with comments from the Environment Agency about the risks to safety, the failure to satisfy the necessary sequential test and the contravention of planning policy document PPS25. Elaborating on some of the risks involved, should the scheme be allowed, the speaker said that the number of occupants in each dwelling was immaterial and that the risk of flooding was too great. The speaker outlined the poor access arrangements at the site and questioned the liability of the Lydney Recreation Trust, owners of part of the site. He also questioned the difficulties in obtaining household insurance and said how vulnerable residents would be, especially given the flooding history of the site. The speaker reiterated the concerns of both officers and of the Environment Agency and said that he hoped common sense would prevail in refusing the application and avoiding what he believed could be traumatic circumstances.

The agent for the application recalled that at the planning committee meeting in January, members had considered granting planning permission based on the perceived lack of harm in converting the property into three flats, when taken on balance with that of the already approved extension and use of Lakeside as a dwelling, comprising accommodation of up to five bedrooms. He said that, in response to the committee’s decision at that meeting, the Environment Agency had reaffirmed their initial recommendations but had also suggested four conditions, should the application be approved. The speaker said that he agreed with the first three conditions and confirmed that a flood resilience scheme would be submitted as part of the proposal, that the ground floor of the building would not be used for bedrooms and that the proposed units would be maintained as one-bedroom flats only. Furthermore, a condition prohibiting any re-arrangement of the accommodation would deal with securing of one-bedroom units only. The speaker said that he could also accept a condition relating to escape routes positioned above perceived flood levels and confirmed that the proposed route would be via the adjacent footpath and could be accessed by both residents and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

Erection of an agricultural works dwelling (Retention of existing mobile home for temporary period)

Erection of an agricultural works dwelling (Retention of existing mobile home for temporary period)

Please refer to the late material circulated prior to the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, referred to the late material and information from the applicant’s solicitor. He said that this information had been reviewed by the council’s solicitor who had confirmed that the information did not alter the recommendation of refusal.

Public Speaking

The applicant stressed the need for an agricultural workers dwelling at the site and said how important it was to ensure that their employees had a comfortable home to live in. Furthermore, tenants living at the site would deter the risk of trespassers, theft or malicious actions. The applicant said that she would not evict the present occupants of two dwellings located near to the site, due to the long employment service on the farm of one of the tenants and the length of time as a tenant of the other. She informed members that, having sought the advice of an independent solicitor, it was unlikely that she would be able to remove the existing tenants from their homes.

Local member, Councillor Dr Richard Long, said that he supported the proposals and suggested that the committee decision in 2007 had identified an established need for agricultural workers to live at the site. Furthermore, he

objected to the eviction of occupants from existing properties near to the site. Councillor Long disputed the suggested reasons for refusal of the application and noted that there had been no objections from local residents.

Committee consideration

Several members said they believed it was appropriate to have an agricultural workers dwelling at the site and essential for the rearing and welfare of livestock at the farm. Councillor Di Martin said that, although she accepted the need for an agricultural worker living at the site, she disputed the need for existing tenants to be made homeless and pointed out that there were several ways of assisting tenants to seek alternative accommodation. Responding to questions about whether the two cottages at the site were tied to the farm, Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, said that this was not necessarily a test for the application under PPS7 and therefore not a relevant consideration.

Vote

Stressing the importance of supporting British Agriculture and local food production, Councillor Jane Horne proposed that the application be granted planning permission. Councillor Grace Bensted seconded the proposal. The reason for this proposal was the functional need for an agricultural workers dwelling. Suggested conditions included standard conditions and an agricultural tie of both the new dwelling and any other properties at the site. (This was suggested to prevent the possible sale of any other properties at the site should they become vacant in the future). It was also suggested that use of the mobile home at the site be restricted until such time that the new property was either completed or fixed for a period of three years, whichever was the sooner. The committee agreed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.4

Extend existing mixed-use site to include Office B1 (a), Light Industrial B1 (c), Storage or Distribution B8

Extend existing mixed-use site to include Office B1 (a), Light Industrial B1 (c), Storage or Distribution B8

This item was withdrawn from the meeting by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing. Members were advised that the consultation responses to the amended scheme had not been received in time for the meeting.

Erection of a community scale wind turbine and change of use of grassland to access track and wind energy generator. Erection of a monitoring mast for a temporary period

Erection of a community scale wind turbine and change of use of grassland to access track and wind energy generator. Erection of a monitoring mast for a temporary period

Please refer to the late material circulated prior to the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred to the recent site visit in January 2011 and to revised condition 7, as detailed in the late material. It was noted that the address referred to in the late material should read St Briavels and not Newent.

Public Speaking

The applicant said that, if successful, this application would be one of the first of its type in England. He said that the business model under which the project would be taken was highly innovative and aimed to retain local ownership with as much value as possible retained within the local economy. Additionally, the project would hopefully reduce the impact of climate change through the provision of renewable energy into the local grid; increase the future resilience of the on farm local businesses with the replacement of a major proportion of imported energy; increase the energy security of the local area; make a large positive contribution to improving the local economy through the retention of money spent on local energy and a contribution to local communities through the contribution of a sizeable proportion of revenues to a local Community Trust Fund. Furthermore, the applicant said that the project would create an example for locally owned renewable energy and provided educational benefit in terms of increased awareness of renewable energy and the need for alternative forms of energy from sustainable sources. On this basis, the applicant requested that the council support the application.

Committee consideration

Local member, Councillor Arthur Thomas, said that he welcomed the project and that there had been a good response from the local community. The committee also expressed support for the proposals, particularly in the proposed location for the turbine.

Vote

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

RESOLVED to grant the application planning permission subject to the conditions in the schedule of application and to the revised condition in the late material.

For: (14)

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

Against: (0)

Abstentions:(0)

Listed Building Consent for demolition of four buildings within the curtilage of Crump Farm

Listed Building Consent for demolition of four buildings within the curtilage of Crump Farm

Having been deferred at the adjourned meeting on 8 March 2011, this item was considered at a reconvened meeting on 15 March 2011.

Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling with ancillary works (Demolition of existing workshop)

Outline application for the erection of a detached dwelling with ancillary works (Demolition of existing workshop)

Having been deferred at the adjourned meeting on 8 March 2011, this item was considered at a reconvened meeting on 15 March 2011.

Removal of condition (b) of planning permission P0792/02/FUL to remove the limits of the occupation of the dwelling and variation of condition (c) to allow office space to be used in relation to residential accommodation

Removal of condition (b) of planning permission P0792/02/FUL to remove the limits of the occupation of the dwelling and variation of condition (c) to allow office space to be used in relation to residential accommodation

Having been deferred at the adjourned meeting on 8 March 2011, this item was considered at a reconvened meeting on 15 March 2011.

Erection of two dwellings, construction of new vehicular access (demolition of Rose Cottage). (Resubmission)

Erection of two dwellings, construction of new vehicular access, (demolition of Rose Cottage). (Resubmission)

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred member’s attention to the late material, and in particular, to the correction to condition 3 on page 137 of the agenda, detailing additional representations of objection to the development. The Development Control Manager recalled the visit to the site on 15 February 2011 and noted member’s concerns regarding garden boundaries. He said that, since the site inspection panel visit, the applicant had subsequently submitted a revised block plan indicating the full extent of the gardens with the inclusion of a gate into the adjoining paddock area. Members were advised that the recommendation remained one of planning permission.

Public speaking

Speaking on behalf of local residents, an objector to the application said that he and his wife had lived in Ellwood for 25 years, and his wife’s family, for over 100 years.  Endorsing the views of West Dean Parish Council, the speaker based his objections on the “creeping erosion of the scattered nature of the village.” Referring to the perceived over-development of the site, he said that, as there was no application for change of use of plot 1, that the committee should only consider the proposal for plot 2. The speaker said that the report did not take into account the use of Holly Lane by horses, sheep, dog walkers, cyclists and ramblers and that the details were factually inaccurate. He noted that the report stated that, “the site was not within a Locally Distinctive Area, and therefore the development was not restricted.” Disagreeing with this statement, the speaker referred to chapter 19.9 of the Local Plan 2005, which stated that there were many additional unique areas “too numerous and too small to be shown but which also make a significant contribution to the character of the area and the need to be individually assessed ”. The speaker said that Holly Lane was a characteristic quiet lane, bordered by examples of original forest dry-stone walling and that Rose Cottage had a wall worthy of protection. The speaker said that the suggestion that the nearby, designated ‘Important Open Area’ would not be encroached upon, or adversely affected in any way, was ironic, particularly when the area had been used as an overspill car park at the committee site visit.  Questioning why the two garages should be adjoined, the speaker believed the footprint at the two plots were not the same and that the proposed developments were not as in scale as the report suggested. The speaker also believed the proposed street scene in the report was misleading, particularly when portraying the height of the existing properties. He said that, whilst willing to accept one house at the site for one family, the majority of concerned residents only wanted what was best for Ellwood and urged the committee to use common sense by taking advantage of local knowledge. On this basis, he suggested that the current application be deferred until the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.10

Erection of a timber chalet dwelling associated with an established rural enterprise

Erection of a timber chalet dwelling associated with an established rural enterprise

Having declared a prejudicial interest for this item, Councillor Terry Glastonbury left the meeting for consideration of this application. Vice Chairman, Norman Stephens replaced Councillor Glastonbury as Chairman.

Please refer to the late material circulated prior to the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope referred to the late material that had been circulated prior to the start of the meeting and to a statement that had been submitted by the applicant’s agent earlier that day. The Planning Officer said that the agent had provided information on the use of full time labour at the site and had confirmed that, by the applicant’s calculations, this equated to 3,200 hours per year, (excluding the hours worked by the applicant’s wife). He said that the calculation constituted 180 days per year at 7.5 hours per day for the winter, 90 days per year at 12 hours per day for the spring and early summer and 90 days per year at 9 hours per day for the late summer and autumn. The Planning Officer said that the information had since been forwarded to Gloucestershire County Council, who in response had said that the details had not altered their opinion and that there was still no evidence of a functional need for the dwelling.

Public Speaking

An objector to the application spoke on behalf of local residents. In outlining the concerns of the residents, the speaker referred to issues relating to access arrangements at the site, the impact of the proposals on the local area, the existence of buildings at the site without planning permission and contradictions as to whether the alleged established business was relevant, given that there was no public access to the site. The speaker said that there was no evidence of the enterprise being a viable business and that he was not aware of any employees at the site. Furthermore, he believed livestock at the farm did not constitute a rural enterprise but a private concern.

The agent for the application disagreed with the previous speaker’s statement and said that the proposals would not impact on the surrounding area nor create any significant harm. He said that the proposed dwelling was in an essentially rural location and that activities at the site would assist in raising the profile of the area and contributing to the local economy. Refuting local objections and the reasons that had been put forward to refuse the application, the agent said that the need for the dwelling had increased over time due to the expansion of the business. He also emphasised the need for the applicant to be present at the site for the welfare of the animals.

Committee consideration

The committee expressed mixed feelings about the proposals with several members reinforcing the need for someone to be present at the site at all times and the contributions of the venture towards tourism and the local economy. Some members emphasised the implications involved in raising  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.11

Alterations and erection of a first floor extension to create a two-storey dwelling. (Resubmission)

Alterations and erection of a first floor extension to create a two-storey dwelling. (Resubmission)

Having been deferred at the adjourned meeting on 8 March 2011, this item was considered at a reconvened meeting on 15 March 2011.

Erection of rear single storey extension and amendments to existing garage. Erection of separate double garage to the rear with creation of a new access

Erection of rear single storey extension and amendments to existing garage. Erection of separate double garage to the rear with creation of a new access.

Having been deferred at the adjourned meeting on 8 March 2011, this item was considered at a reconvened meeting on 15 March 2011.

a)     To confirm that the next sites’ inspection panel will be held on Tuesday 15 March 2011

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.

The committee resolved that the following sites would be included on the schedule of visits for the sites inspection panel on Tuesday 15 March 2011,

To reconsider report PH.55, detailing information to the council’s revised Validation Checklist. The checklist was considered at Development Control Committee meeting on 8 February 2011.

Having been deferred at the adjourned meeting on 8 March 2011, this item was considered at a reconvened meeting on 15 March 2011.

To consider confirmation of Tree Preservation Order DF TPO 179, Land at Corse Grange, Corse, Gloucestershire.

Having been deferred at the adjourned meeting on 8 March 2011, this item was considered at a reconvened meeting on 15 March 2011.

To consider the performance of the planning team in relation to appeals and applications. Please refer to the following performance management reports: -

Having been deferred at the adjourned meeting on 8 March 2011, the following items were considered at a reconvened meeting on 15 March 2011.

A report from the Principal Planning Officer regarding the performance of the planning team in relation to appeal notices and decisions. (This item was deferred at the Development Control Committee meeting held on 8 February 2011).

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

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

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

To confirm the exempt minutes of the meeting held on 8 February 2011.

Having been deferred at the adjourned meeting on 8 March 2011, this item was considered at a reconvened meeting on 15 March 2011.

To consider the schedule of enforcement, as prepared by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing. (This item was deferred at the Development Control Committee meeting on 8 February 2011).

Having been deferred at the adjourned meeting on 8 March 2011, this item was considered at a reconvened meeting on 15 March 2011.

12 April 2011

Council procedure D.18 of Part IV of the constitution was suspended at 5.20 pm to allow the meeting to continue for up to thirty minutes beyond the normal time limit of three hours. A twenty minute break had been taken at 4.10pm.

At 5.50 pm, the Chairman adjourned the full meeting and announced that any outstanding items of business would be considered at a second meeting, at 2pm on Tuesday 15 March 2011, following the Sites Panel Inspection Schedule of Visits.

Subsequent to the adjournment of the meeting, it is noted that confirmation of the minutes of this meeting, (8 March 2011), would be considered at the next Development Control Committee meeting, (12 April 2011), in conjunction with the minutes of the reconvened meeting, to be held on 15 March 2011.