To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Jane Horne, (substituted by Councillor Brian Jones), and Val Holman, (substituted by Councillor Jackie Fraser). Apologies were also received from Councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick, for which there was no substitution at this meeting.

To confirm the non-exempt minutes of the meeting held on 8 November 2011 (attached).

The non-exempt minutes of the meeting held on 8 November 2011 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 declaration of interest was made at this meeting: -

Councillor Lynn Sterry declared a pecuniary interest in item 5.5 of the agenda, P1835/11/FUL Millers Orchard, Bulley, Churcham. Councillor Sterry informed the Chairman that her husband was an employee of the company relating to this application and that she would leave the meeting for consideration of the item.

To consider the schedule of applications as prepared by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing. Please refer to report PH.95.

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

The Chairman announced that there would be four public speakers speaking at the meeting, speaking on items 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the schedule of applications. (The applications are recorded in the order of the agenda). The Chairman reminded the committee to keep their comments relevant to the debate and, where possible, to avoid repeating previous observations.

The Chairman also announced that an audio tape recording of the meeting would be published on the council’s website.

Outline application for the redevelopment to include a mix use of residential development and offices

Outline application for the redevelopment to include a mix use of residential development and offices

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

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred to the late material and said that, since the report for this item had been published, the applicant had provided the necessary information required to move the application forward. The Planning Officer said that both Gloucestershire County Council and the District Council were close to reaching an agreement with the applicant and that planning officers were now in a position to revise the recommendation and propose delegated permission.

Committee consideration

Local member, Councillor David Thomson, said that he was sorry so much work had been involved in processing this application but that he was pleased the process had almost reached a conclusion.

Vote

Councillor David Thomson moved the revised recommendation and Councillor Paul McMahon seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to authorise the Group Manager for Planning and Housing and the Group Manager for Legal and Democratic to seek completion of the Section 106 Legal Agreement on or before 22 December 2011. If the agreement is not concluded on or before this date, the Group Manager for Planning and Housing to refuse the application.

For (14)

Councillors James Bevan, Philip Burford, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Jackie Fraser, Terry Glastonbury, Brian Jones, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thompson and Roger Yeates.

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Outline application for the erection of 40 extra care independent living units with ancillary accommodation areas, parking and associated infrastructure, 4 live/work units and 8 business units (Use Class B1)

Outline application for the erection of 40 extra care independent living units with ancillary accommodation areas, parking and associated infrastructure, 4 live/work units and 8 business units (Use Class B1)

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

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, referred to the late material that had been circulated before the start of the meeting and reported a correction to the revised recommendation on page 2 of the document. He said that delegated authority to the Group Manager for Planning and Housing and to the Group Manager for Legal and Democratic should be corrected to require completion of a satisfactory legal agreement or unilateral undertaking to secure 40 per cent, (and not all), of the extra care properties as affordable. Furthermore, condition 13 on page 55 of the schedule of applications to read, a minimum of 40 per cent of the floor space of the units, and not 50 per cent.

The Planning Officer outlined the amended revised recommendation and additional condition (14), as detailed in the late material, before inviting the council’s Strategic Housing Manager, Malcom Vine to give an overview of what Extra Care Independent Living constituted.

The Strategic Housing Manager said that an extra care facility was different from a conventional sheltered housing scheme and residential or care home, in that it provided a supportive environment where older and vulnerable people could live independently for as long as they wished. He said that, as the need for care increased, residents have the option to have care services brought to them rather than move to a care or residential home. The Housing Manager said that other districts were rolling out extra care schemes on a large scale and that nationally the scheme appeared to be the way forward for housing particularly for older people. He said that the County Council and the Forest of Dean District Council had a shared vision of enabling as good a quality of housing provision in the district as available elsewhere. It was hoped this would reduce the dependency on residential care, (currently quite high in Gloucestershire), and provide a better option for local people. He went on to say that it was the council’s intention to provide extra care in each of the four towns in the district and that the Cleeve Mill scheme constituted the extra care provision for Newent and surrounding villages. He said that the scheme would give another option for under occupied family housing, whether rented or owned, and free up housing for local families. Furthermore, the scheme would enhance current services for older people and not replace or compete with existing provisions.

Public speaking

Speaking as the agent for the application, a representative for the Two Rivers Housing Association made the following statement: -

The application before you seeks planning permission for the erection of 40 extra care living units, 4 live/work units and 8 business units. In planning terms, the principle of development has been established, as the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

Application to extend the time limit of P0962/06/OUT - Outline application for the erection of dwellings and construction of vehicular access.  (Renewal of consent)

Application to extend the time limit of P0962/06/OUT - Outline application for the erection of dwellings and construction of vehicular access.  (Renewal of consent)

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, reminded members that this application had been deferred at the committee meeting on 8 November 2011 to await the views of the Coal Authority. He said that the Coal Authority had since addressed the reasons for deferral and had withdrawn their previous objections to the scheme, subject to an additional condition requesting a site investigation prior to development. The Development Control Manager informed the committee that the application related to an extension of time for an existing permission at the site. He said that, other than the reason for deferral and improvements to the Coleford Drainage System, there were no material planning considerations to warrant a different decision to the one that had been granted permission in 2009. The recommendation therefore remained to grant permission, as detailed on page 59 and 60 of the agenda.

Public speaking

Speaking as an objector, (and having objected to the proposals at the previous meeting), the speaker said that he hoped the committee would continue to support him in his concerns about the safety of site. He said that the matter was now in the hands of the committee and he hoped members would keep tight control of the situation.

Referring to the use of an experimental soakaway system at the site, the speaker said that there was no evidence to indicate that such a system was viable. Expressing reservations about the way in which the decision to grant permission in 2009 had been processed, the speaker suggested that there had been a lack of due diligence from officers in not advising the applicant or the committee that the Coal Authority had an interest in the matter.

Noting the lack of objection from the Coal Authority and anticipating that the committee would grant permission, the speaker said he hoped the site would be monitored carefully. He also hoped that any decision would be subject to inspections from the council’s building control team to oversee control of any conditions imposed to prevent the hydraulic overload of the existing drainage system.

Committee consideration

Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, advised the committee that there was no foundation to the comments that had been made by the public speaker. He said that the circumstances in 2009 were different to current circumstances and that the Coal Authority had not raised any objections at that time. Since then, the Coal Authority had updated their records and had changed their response accordingly. The Group Manager said that, following a full reassessment of the situation, the Coal Authority had withdrawn its objections, (as detailed in the update report on page 59 of the agenda), subject to an additional condition to undertake a site investigation to safeguard the site. The Group Manager reminded the committee that this decision only related to an extension of time for the outline application for the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

Erection of a two storey rear extension

Erection of a two-storey rear extension

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, reminded members that this application had been deferred at the meeting on 8 November 2011 to allow members to visit the site. She said that there was no additional information to consider and that the recommendation was to grant permission.

Committee consideration

The majority of members felt that the visit to the site had been very useful. Several members praised the proposed scheme, whilst others believed the extension was out of context with the property and the other buildings in the village.

Vote

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

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

For (8)

Councillors James Bevan, Terry Glastonbury, Brian Jones, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Arthur Thomas and Roger Yeates.

Against (6)

Councillors Philip Burford, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Jackie Fraser, Lynn Sterry and David Thomson

Abstentions (0)

Change of use of dwelling into three, one bedroom flats.  Retention of conservatory and decking to rear elevation

Change of use of dwelling into three, one bedroom flats.  Retention of conservatory and decking to rear elevation

Having declared a pecuniary interest earlier in the meeting, Councillor Lynn Sterry left the council chamber for consideration of this item.

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

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred members to the late material and reminded them of the visit to the site in November. He confirmed that an internal inspection of the building had been undertaken and that, following the outcome of the inspection and subject to additional representations, (including revised application forms and floor plan), the recommendation remained one of refusal. The Development Control Manager said that the revised proposals did not alter the fact that the proposals did not comply with planning policy and were therefore considered unacceptable.

Public speaking

Reflecting on the disappointment from several local residents that the application had been brought back to the committee, an objector to the application made the following statement:

Local residents are very disappointed that the council did not take decisive enforcement action two years ago when the previous application was rejected. Let’s not forget that, since 2009 this property has continued to be used as an unregistered care home. My concern remains that this application is a sprat to catch a mackerel, attempting to disguise the ultimate intention of converting a residential property into a business. The process of repeated retrospective applications is designed to erode opposition and make the previously unacceptable acceptable; for example the perimeter fence, built without planning permission, is now presented as mitigation against residents’ concerns that inmates may misbehave or stray.

To convert a four bed bungalow into three flats is totally contrary to the character of the neighbourhood. Who would live there? In our letters of objection we have pointed to a number of basic errors in the application and we have also challenged the adverse impact that the development will have on our amenities, such as access and communications. While the developers have attempted to correct a number of the more basic errors by recent correspondence they have still chosen to remain silent on non-residential floor space, employment and opening hours.

Residents’ experience is that this is a 24/7 business, a view endorsed by the agent who indicated that there is one carer working overnight. Is rural Bulley the correct environment in which to introduce vulnerable members of an alien community, those in need of 24 hour care and supervision? My opinion is that it is not and I was pleased to see this view supported by one of the Council’s own Community Engagement Officers.

Of course one thing that has changed since 2009, is public awareness of the inadequacies of the UK care industry and those empowered to regulate it and keep it safe. Safety of tenants and residents has to be number one priority for us all. The safety of tenants will only be ensured by appropriate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.5

Erection of a detached dwelling, car port and garage. (Demolition of existing dwelling).  (Re-submission)

Erection of a detached dwelling, car port and garage. (Demolition of existing dwelling).  (Re-submission)

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

Public speaking

The applicant made the following statement:

As you will have seen from the officer’s report, we have provided adequate evidence that the building is appropriate for development. The report also notes that the new property is moderate in size, of suitable external appearance and doesn’t over develop the land. The only remaining issue stated by the report is in relation to the potential overlooking of the rear of the adjoining property, Hown Hall Cottage. The residents of Hown Hall Cottage, Mr and Mrs Brown, are keen to support the plans and during telephone calls with the Planning Officer, verbally indicated they were in support.  They also submitted a letter of support, which was received by the Planning Department. This was received within the deadline advised by the Planning Officer to ensure inclusion in the report, but was not included. I emailed the letter of support from Mr and Mrs Brown to the Development Control Committee on Saturday morning. I hope you all received it. The Planning Officers report also details 5 first floor windows, which could be overlooked.  These are located on the rear side of Hown Hall Cottage (the North Side).  We want to note that three of these windows are non-habitable rooms and have obscured glazing and a further window cannot be overlooked as the view is blocked by Hown Hall Cottages chimney-breast. The recent suggestion from the Planning Officer that we could have put roof windows in at a 1.7M height is not feasible for this development. This is due to the protected species requirements for the roof space. It would also compromise ventilation and means of escape. It was a shock last week when we read the report and it’s proposed refusal. Had there ever been any indication at any point from our Planning Officer that support from our neighbours would not be adequate, then of course, we could have looked at re-positioning to accommodate concerns and avoid last minute changes to plans. We made multiple requests for feedback from the Planning Officer prior to the report being published, on all key issues, but nothing was forthcoming. Since reading the report we have taken the opportunity to rotate the house further away from Hown Hall Cottage and also move it 1 metre closer to Moat Lane (as referenced in the report). This was also emailed to the Development Control Committee, Drawing number T84507B. Since doing this there has been communication from the Planning Officer, who now feels the move 1M closer to Moat Lane isn’t required. To conclude, Mr and Mrs Brown from Hown Hall Cottage are also in possession of the revised drawing.  Mr Brown has written again to the Planning Officer to indicate full support for the plans. We have already got to know our neighbours quite well through this process and are looking forward  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.6

a)     To confirm that the next sites’ inspection panel will be held on Tuesday 20 December 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.

Development Control Committee Manager, Clive Reynolds, informed members that there were no site inspection panel visits scheduled for Tuesday 20 December 2011. He said that members had already had an opportunity to visit the visits for the January meeting and that the next sites inspection panel visit would take place on Tuesday 17 January 2012.

Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, to give an oral update on advice from Gloucestershire County Council Highways.

At the request of the Chairman, the Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, gave an update on the attendance from Gloucestershire County Council Highways at planning committee meetings and site inspection panel visits. The Group Manager said that, following a major reorganisation at Gloucestershire County Council and a significant reduction in the resources of the highways team, there would be no further attendance at committee meetings and site inspection visits. He informed members that, although this was a statutory function, the highways team believed it was important to prioritise their work and had resolved that the actual time spent at committee meetings and on site inspection visits was not a good use of time and would be disproportionate to other requirements.

To assist the planning committee in making informed decisions, the highways authority would, however, consider advance questions and provide written responses before each planning committee meeting. In addition, the county council would send a representative to attend those meetings where complex highway issues were considered.

Despite reservations about the technical aspects required to consider highway issues and the vulnerability of the council at appeal in processing planning decisions refused on highway concerns, the committee reluctantly accepted the advice.

The Group Manager for Planning and Housing informed members that the decision would be monitored closely, followed by a review of the situation in six months time. He also confirmed that a representative would be available at the committee meeting scheduled in the New Year for consideration of the two major planning applications for Cinderford.

To consider report PH.97, regarding the performance of the planning team in relation to appeal decisions and notices for the period January to October 2011.

Development Control Committee Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred to report PH.97 and gave an update on the performance of the planning team in relation to the number of appeals lodged and decisions made during 2011. He informed members that there had been a 23 per cent decrease in the number of appeals lodged, as compared to the same period in 2010. The success rate on appeal decisions, however, was very good and only slightly below target. The report was noted.

Vice Chairman, Councillor James Bevan, pointed out that no costs had been awarded for or to the council and congratulated the committee and officers on their work.

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

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

To consider the schedule of enforcement action as prepared by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing. Please refer to report PH.98.

Briefly summarising the information referred to in report PH.98, the Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, gave an update on the proposal to take enforcement action at a location in the Forest of Dean District.

10 January 2012

10 January 2012

At this point in the meeting, Chairman of the Committee, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, announced that an additional committee meeting would be held at 2 pm on Tuesday 31 January 2012, to consider two major planning applications for Cinderford.