To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Gethyn Davies, (substituted by Councillor Brian Edwards), and Councillor Frankie Evans, (substituted by Councillor Brian Jones). 

To confirm the non-exempt minutes of the meeting held on 14 February 2012 (document attached)

The non-exempt minutes of the meeting held on 14 February 2012 were confirmed as an accurate record of that meeting.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business

No items of urgent business were considered at this 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 5.2 of the agenda, P1075/11/FUL Land adjacent to Lords Hill/Pyart Court, Coleford due to an association with the owner of the site as a member of the Rotary Club.

Councillor Graham Morgan also declared a personal interest in item 5.2 of the agenda, P1075/11/FUL Land adjacent to Lords Hill/Pyart Court, Coleford.

Councillor Julia Gooch declared a personal interest in item 8 of the agenda, Tree Preservation Order 186, 16 Cinderhill Way, Ruardean. As a relative of the owner of the site, Councillor Gooch said that she would leave the meeting for consideration of this item.

To consider the schedule of applications as prepared by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing. The committee to refer to report PH.111

Chairman, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, referred to the schedule of planning 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 prior to the start of the meeting. (Late material refers to information received by the council following publication of the agenda).

The Chairman announced that there would be 7 public speakers speaking at the meeting, speaking on items 2, 5, 6 and 8 of the schedule of applications. He also announced that item 1 of the schedule, (P0418/11/OUT Land at Homeleigh and Pleasant View, Joys Green Road, Lydbrook), had been withdrawn from the agenda by the applicant and item 4, (P1910/11/FUL Greenacres, Hilgay Road, Brockweir), by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams.

The applications are recorded in the order of the agenda.

The Chairman reminded the committee to keep their comments relevant to the debate and to avoid repeating previous observations.

Outline application for the construction of a 45-bedroom care home and associated accommodation, parking and access. (Demolition of existing dwelling) (Revised Description)

Outline application for the construction of a 45-bedroom care home and associated accommodation, parking and access. (Demolition of existing dwelling) (Revised Description)

This application was withdrawn from the meeting by the applicant.

Erection of a Class A1 convenience retail store and 5 retail units, and associated works (demolition of existing retail units 1, 25, 26 and 27)

Erection of a Class A1 convenience retail store and 5 retail units, and associated works (demolition of existing retail units 1, 25, 26 and 27)

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

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, reminded members that this application had been considered at the planning committee meeting on 11 October 2011, where it had been agreed to defer the application for the applicant to reconsider the proposed design and layout of the building. He said that, since the meeting in October, the applicant had held several public meetings and had given a presentation to all members, outlining the details for the revised scheme and responding to any questions. Referring members to the late material that had been circulated at the start of the meeting, the planning officer said that the council had received an additional two representations, the first from Coleford Town Council, expressing their support for the application and the other from the Crime Prevention Officer, reaffirming their original comments. 

Public speaking

Representing local objectors, the first speaker made the following statement:

‘My name is Andrew Taylor and I represent those who object to this proposal.  Last October, you used words like, ‘a shed’ and ‘a blot on the landscape’, to describe what you saw. Now the applicant has returned with a revised application. Clearly their intention to, where possible, use locally sourced materials and labour is to be applauded. So too is the intention to provide new jobs, though the net increase is by no means clear.

However, short-term gain must be weighed against long-term damage. The Coop stands as a terrible warning of what happens when the wrong choices are made about a prominent town centre site. Unfortunately, the new design for Tesco seems virtually identical to the old one, apart from a little cladding, some oyster-grey paint, a few more windows and a curious little tower. This certainly isn’t the major new design you were hoping for. Last October, we pointed out the shortage of accurate visual material to show how the building would look in context. It’s sad that we now need to make the same point all over again. We have sent you photomontages showing day and night views of the store, which, we believe, give a more realistic idea of the impact it will make.

Two new developments have further undermined the case for a third supermarket in the centre of Coleford. First, it seems likely that Cinderford will have a new supermarket nearly three times the size of this one. This will attract many convenience shoppers from Coleford. Secondly, the advent of parking charges means that a ‘free’ Tesco car park will draw even more extra traffic to Lower Lords Hill and Old Station Way. We need a fresh traffic assessment to reflect these radically changed conditions.

Finally, we feel that the report to the committee significantly underestimates the threat to residential amenity, especially in terms of noise, air pollution, light pollution  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

Application to extend the time limit of planning permission DF13018 for the erection of 47 dwellings with associated garaging.  Provision of public open space and play area.  Construction of new vehicular access and estate road (Revised Scheme).  Alternative access proposals (Revised Scheme without traffic lights)

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, reminded members that this application had been deferred at the last meeting to seek clarification on why the Highway Authority had not sought the same level of contributions as had been sought on the previous application. He informed the committee that the Highways Authority had based its decision using the following rationale; having taken into consideration the implications of the new Community Infrastructure Levy and having calculated that the development would only generate a one per cent increase in vehicle movements along Newerne Street, the Highways Authority had been unable to justify the additional contributions that had been proposed by the first application. The Development Control Manager referred members to pages 67 and 68 of the agenda for details of the Highway Authority’s full response and to note the impact of the recently adopted Core Strategy document on the application.

Committee consideration

Local member, Councillor James Bevan expressed concern that to refuse the application could be difficult to substantiate at appeal. He said that he was unhappy with the response from the Highway Authority and would prefer a better quality development with fewer houses. Chairman of the Committee, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, said that he too was unhappy with the response from the Highway Authority and would be reluctantly voting in support of the application.

Vote

Councillor Terry Glastonbury moved the officer recommendation for delegated permission and Councillor Brian Edwards seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED that delegated authority be given to the Group Manager – Planning and Housing and the Group Manager – Legal and Democratic, to grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory completion of S106 Legal Agreement(s) to secure the provision of 8 affordable housing units (4 rented units and 4 shared ownership), a clause stating that if sufficient grant funding is provided that Registered Providers will be able to convert the shared ownership housing to Affordable Rented housing, and a deferred contribution clause to secure any uplift in sales value to be split equally between the Council and the developer and capped to ensure that any monies and affordable housing does not exceed 40%. The agreement will also include the provision of financial contributions for off-site recreation £79,000, level crossing £5755, off site footway £17,265, pedestrian crossing £11,510, secondary education £173,358 and libraries £9,212. If the S106 Legal Agreement(s) is not secured on or before 31 May 2012, then delegated authority be given to the Group Manager – Planning and Housing to refuse the application.

For (11)

Councillors Brian Edwards, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thompson and Roger Yeates.

Against (4)

Councillors James Bevan, Val Hobman, Jane Horne and Paul McMahon

Abstentions (0)

Erection of a replacement dwelling

Erection of a replacement dwelling

This item was withdrawn form the meeting by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams.

Erection of 13 dwellings and provision of public open space, with associated landscaping, parking and access

Erection of 13 dwellings and provision of public open space, with associated landscaping, parking and access

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 informed them that the recommendation was now one of delegated permission. She said that the recommendation had been revised following ongoing negotiations with the applicant and a revised offer received after publication of the committee report. The planning officer said that the revised offer had secured a revised contribution of £20,000 towards affordable housing and for a deferred clause within the section 106 agreement to share any increases in profit based on a 50/50 split. The planning officer said that this was a realistic offer, particularly in view of the current economic climate, and on this basis, recommended delegated permission.

Public speaking

An objector to the application made the following statement: -

‘We the residents of Rectory Meadow and the surrounding areas, including School Lane, would like you, the planning committee, to take into consideration the following objections when you make your decision on the application for 13 dwellings in Longhope, on land adjacent to Rectory Meadow and School Lane. No objection was made about the conversion of the school into two properties. We still, and always will, state that Longhope needs upgrading before any major development can take place. Lots of houses have already been built and are still being built to date. The school is already full and needs extending. The drainage in the village needs upgrading, as was recommended a few years ago; (this includes the sewerage system, which, if overloaded, could be a problem). We still get power cuts every time we get adverse weather and these are taking longer to repair. There are hardly any facilities in the village, with only one shop and one post office. Having to travel to bigger towns means using public transport from either the top or the bottom end of the village – there is nothing in between. These services do not run very often due to cutbacks, which prevents people without any other type of transport getting out to seek employment or visit other places. Farmers with their tractors still struggle to negotiate the road down to the village and more houses will only make this worse. The proposed site is still not very good because the houses in the field and school do not have access. The one In Rectory Meadow is far too narrow for more traffic. Two ambulances responding to emergency calls found it very difficult to access; this is the same for fire engines, dustcarts and delivery vans, who also find it very difficult. This road in Rectory Meadow narrows at the top, which means that there will be no footpath at this point, which is dangerous. At the other end, onto Church Road, it is really bad and the visibility poor due to parked vehicles, where we have had a few near  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.5

Erection of two dwellings (Demolition of existing buildings)

Erection of two dwellings (Demolition of existing buildings)

Public speaking

Mr John Kelly made the following statement: -

‘In my statement to the committee on 14 February 2012, I mentioned that the Horse Chestnut Trees on Tree Preservation Order TPO 52G8, as mentioned in the case officers report, no longer exist, having been felled in 2000. In the revised case officers report on page 109, under update – tree preservation orders, it states, …’the two horse chestnut trees on the northern boundary of the site no longer exist’. However, on page 120 of the revised report, it still states, ….‘there is a tree preservation order on two horse chestnuts which sit within the northern boundary of the site….’ This is not correct. The two horse chestnut trees, (before they were felled), did not sit within the northern boundary of the site, which is shown edged in red on Drawing No 767.10A, which was supplied with this planning application. Only one of the Horse Chestnut Trees was located within the North boundary of the site owned by the applicants, this being T1. The other Horse Chestnut Tree – T2 was located on the other side of Scarr Road on the south bank of No 2 Scarr Cottage, the residence of Mr Bernard Shaw, the LSA Estate Foreman. This tree was located in front of an ancient red sandstone wall, which fully enclosed Mr Shaw’s garden on this part of his property. As a child, I spent some time knocking conkers out of this tree from the raised track of No 9 Scarr Road, much to the annoyance of Mr George Lincoln, the LSA propagation worker who lived at this address. The photo listed as item 5 in my letter of comment, shows the location of this tree. However, there are other photos, plans and legal documents, which support the location of Tree T2. The east boundary is not accurately shown on Drawing No T767.10A, as submitted with this planning application. The east boundary does not meet with the Scarr Road, as is shown quite clearly on items 1- 2 - 4 and 6, which I submitted with my letter of comment on this application. In conclusion, I believe that the applicants have a moral and social duty to fully embrace the Planning Policy Guidelines in respect of ‘Access to the Countryside’ and the directions made ‘Green Lanes’ and ‘Footpaths’ must be maximised for the use of walkers and cyclists. As the applicants have part of the original footpath running over their property. I hope they will give their support to the potential modification order application.

Speaking as the agent for the application, Mr Ben Pearce made the following statement: -

‘This application has been brought before the planning committee to enable full consideration to be made of the other material considerations that empower the council to grant planning permissions that depart from planning policy. No doubt, this is a site where residential development would not normally be granted. However, in this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.6

Demolition of existing building and the erection of a live/work unit

Demolition of existing building and the erection of a live/work unit

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

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, recalled that this application had been deferred at the planning committee meeting in February for members to visit the site. Referring to the late material and to the reasons for refusal on page 125 of the agenda, the planning officer said that the principle of development was clearly unacceptable and that the application had failed to comply with local and national planning policy, and with the recently adopted Core Strategy. 

Ward member, Councillor Dave East, believed access to the site was not an issue because there was already access to the site. Furthermore, there was no record of any accidents or incidents. Taking into consideration the reliance on the motor-car to access the site, Councillor East said that, as a live/work unit, the site was likely to create less vehicle journeys than that created from the existing use.

Committee consideration

Responding to questions about access and highway issues, Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, reminded members that the application was for the erection of a brand new live-work unit and had been recommended for refusal because it represented an inappropriate development of the open countryside. He said that one of the reasons for refusal was due to the increased residential use of the site, including associated increase in vehicle movements. The Group Manager said that access to the site was not a matter for consideration and that there had been no objections from the Highway Authority in relation to this issue. Some members disagreed with this perspective, whilst others said that they were unable to support the application because it could set precedence in going against planning policy.

Vote

Councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick moved the recommendation and Councillor Lynn Sterry seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to refuse the application for the reasons referred to in the schedule of applications

For (9)

Councillors James Bevan, Brian Edwards, Terry Glastonbury, Val Hobman, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Lynn Sterry and David Thomson.

Against (5)

Councillors Julia Gooch, Brian Jones, Norman Stephens, Arthur Thomas and Roger Yeates

Abstentions (1)

Councillor Jane Horne

Alterations and extension to dwelling. (Part Retrospective)

Alterations and extension to dwelling. (Part Retrospective)

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, gave a brief outline of the officer’s report and said that the proposal had been submitted retrospectively following enforcement investigations. He informed members that the Planning Inspector had dismissed an appeal against a similar application for the site in 2006.

Public speaking

Speaking as the agent for the application, the speaker said that the officer’s report on the top of page 141 of the agenda was incorrect and that the appeal to raise the roof height of the building had been allowed, not dismissed, as had been suggested in the report. The speaker said that this was an important point to consider when demonstrating that the height of the roof had not been a key issue to the planning inspector. The speaker said that the impact of the proposals on the surrounding landscape was acceptable and that the extension not so very different to similar extensions on other properties in the area.

Ward member, Councillor Martin Quaile, referred to the chequered history of the site and said that there had been no objections to the proposal from the parish council. Councillor Quaile said that he was pleased the committee had been given an opportunity to consider the application and the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area. Illustrating how the height of the building at 3.9 metres was not significantly higher than the 3 metres allowed on a previous permission, he said that, on balance, the application was perfectly acceptable.

Committee consideration

Councillor Norman Stephens said that he could not see a problem with the proposed extension. Referring to the impact of the development on the surrounding area, he said that the extension would not necessarily enlarge the footprint of the property, just increase the height. Several other members agreed with this perspective and Councillor David Thomson said that it was somewhat unfair for such a small development to feel the full force of the planning authority.

Vote

On this basis, Councillor Norman Stephens proposed that the application be granted planning permission and Councillor James Bevan seconded the proposal. The reason suggested for approving the application was that the proposal would not be detrimental to the character of the property, nor to the surrounding area. It was requested that officers suggest appropriate conditions. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions

For (13)

Councillors James Bevan, Brian Edwards, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, David Thomson, Norman Stephens, Arthur Thomas and Roger Yeates

Against (2)

Councillors Val Hobman and Lynn Sterry

Abstentions (0)

a)     To confirm that the next sites’ inspection panel will be held on Tuesday 20 March 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 20 March 2012, and that the following sites will be added to the itinerary for that day: -  

Councillor Jane Horne also suggested two other sites, the first at Withydale, for a replacement dwelling, and the second at Ryelands, for works to a Listed Building.

To consider report PH.112, detailing the performance of the planning team in responding to appeals made against planning decisions in 2011, including a comparison with the previous two years.

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, presented report PH.112 and gave an update on the number of appeals lodged and the decisions received during 2011, in comparison to the number of appeals lodged during the previous two years. He also gave an overview on the number of appeals lodged during 2012.

The Development Control Manager said that for the period 1 January 2011 until 31 December 2011 there had been a total of 34 new appeals lodged. He said that the council’s performance in 2011 was based on 20 appeals being dismissed and 11 allowed, resulting in an overall performance rate of 35 per cent allowed, as compared to a target of 30 per cent. He said performance was just below target but due to the low number of appeal decisions, each decision was statistically significant, whereby a single decision could result in a 3 per cent shift in performance in either direction.

Councillor Norman Stephens said that the report had been very useful and that the high standard of performance could be due to the effectiveness of the planning committee and the good standard of decision-making at the Forest of Dean District Council. Having considered report PH.112, members,

RESOLVED to note the information

Sustainability Team Leader, Alastair Chapman, to present report PH.113, requesting confirmation of Tree Preservation Order (TPO 186), on a tree located on land at 16 Cinderhill Way, Ruardean. This item was deferred at the committee meeting on 14 February 2012 to allow members to visit the site before making their decision

Having declared a personal interest in this item, Councillor Julia Gooch left the meeting for consideration of this report.

Sustainability Team Leader, Alastair Chapman, presented report PH.113, requesting confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO 186) for a tree located on land at 16 Cinderhill Way, Ruardean. (This item was deferred at the planning committee meeting on 14 February 2012 to allow members to visit the site before making their decision). The Sustainability Team Leader reported a correction on page 151 of the agenda and said that the recommendation was to ‘confirm tree preservation order DF TPO 186, 16 Cinderhill Way, Ruardean’.

Councillor David Thomson reflected on the size of the garden and on the number of large trees at the site and said that it was unfortunate that the owner of a property located in a conservation area to later discover a tree preservation order had been placed on one of the trees at the site. Expanding on why, in these circumstances, he felt it was not essential to protect the tree, Councillor Thomson said that this species of cherry tree only flowered lightly and for a very brief period of time. Having considered the benefits that might be anticipated from safeguarding the tree, Councillor Thomson proposed that the tree be removed because of its detrimental effect on the property at the site. In response to the comments, several other members spoke in support of Councillor Thomson’s proposal and said that they would reconsider the recommendation to confirm the tree preservation order. Councillor Lynn Sterry said that she rarely voted against an officer recommendation, but on this occasion, was persuaded by Councillor Thomson’s advice.

In response to a statement from Sustainability Team Leader, Alastair Chapman, who said that the tree preservation order would not prevent the owner from undertaking work in managing the tree, Councillor Norman Stephens said that to consider tree surgery on this tree might look odd. He also questioned whether the tree might stunt the growth of other trees at the site. Speaking in support of the proposal, Councillor Stephens requested that, if removed, that the tree should be taken down in the autumn to avoid any harm to birds during the bird-nesting season.

Councillor David Thomson proposed not to confirm the tree preservation order and Councillor Lynn Sterry seconded the proposal. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED not to confirm tree preservation order, DF TPO 186, 16 Cinderhill Way, Ruardean

For (12)

Councillors James Bevan, Brian Edwards, Terry Glastonbury, Val Hobman, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Paul McMahon, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, David Thompson and Roger Yeates.

Against (1)

Councillor Arthur Thomas

Abstentions (0)

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, and that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

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

To confirm the exempt minutes of the meeting held on 14 February 2012  (document attached)

The non-exempt minutes of the meeting held on 14 February 2012 were confirmed as an accurate record of that meeting.

10 April 2012

10 April 2012

The Chairman informed the committee that a planning training session on the recently approved Core Strategy would take place on Wednesday 14 March 2012.