To receive apologies for absence

Apologies were received from Councillors Frankie Evans, (substituted by Councillor Judy Davis), Val Hobman, (for which there was no substitution), Graham Morgan and Councillor Lynn Sterry, (substituted by Councillor Di Martin). 

To confirm the minutes of the planning committee meeting held on 12 June 2012 (minutes attached)

The non-exempt minutes of the meeting on 12 June 2012 were confirmed as an accurate record of that meeting.

Seeking clarification on the reasons that had been suggested for refusing planning application P0086/12/FUL, 45 Gloucester Road, Coleford, (on page 8 of the minutes), Development Manager, Clive Reynolds, advised Councillor David Thomson that the item had been linked to the previous item considered at the meeting, (P2389/11/FUL Land at Rear of Gloucester Road, Coleford), and had included all the reasons for refusal requested by members. He said that the second application only related to amending the layout of a parking area and, as such, had only one reason for refusal.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business

There were no items of urgent business considered at this meeting.

Group Manager for Legal and Democratic, Marie Rosenthal, gave an update on circumstances relating to a major planning application in Cinderford and informed members that legal proceedings had been issued in relation to planning application P1132/11/OUT Land at Steam Mills Road, Cinderford. The Group Manager said that the council would be defending the claim but that the process could take up to nine months to resolve.

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

Group Manager for Legal and Democratic, Marie Rosenthal, informed members that further to the introduction of new legislation on 1 July 2012, relating to the declaration of members interests, committee members were now required to declare Disclosable Pecuniary Interests in accordance with the information that had been circulated before the start of the meeting, (document attached), and at the all member seminar the previous evening.

Having noted the information, the following members disclosed pecuniary interests in accordance with the new regulations: -

1. As a former chairman of Coleford Bowling and Social Club, Victoria Road, Coleford, Councillor Paul McMahon disclosed a pecuniary interest in item 5.2 of the agenda P0432/12/FUL and indicated he wished to speak on this item and then leave the meeting before the debate and vote.

2. Councillor Philip Burford disclosed a pecuniary interest in item 5.1 of the agenda, (P2444/11/FUL, Land adjoining Corse Grange, Gloucester Road, Corse). Councillor Burford informed the committee that he was not a member of the planning sub group for this application and, although a member of Corse Parish Council and a consultee for the application, had taken no part in the consultation process for the proposals.

3. Councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick declared a pecuniary interest in item 9 of the agenda, Tree Preservation Order Review, as a member of Tidenham Parish Council.

To consider the schedule of applications as prepared by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing. Please refer to report PH.127

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 that had been circulated prior to the start of the meeting.

The Chairman said that 4 public speakers would be speaking at the meeting, on items 2 and 5 of the schedule of applications. (The applications are recorded in the order of the agenda).

Variation of condition (01) of planning permission DF4477/V to allow visibility splays of 95m. distant to the north and 85m. distant to the south. (Revised Description)

Variation of condition (01) of planning permission DF4477/V to allow visibility splays of 95m. distant to the north and 85m. distant to the south. (Revised Description)

Please refer to the late material that was circulated at the start of the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, reminded the committee that this application had been deferred at the previous meeting for members to visit the site. She referred to the extensive amount of late material that had been submitted and to the questions raised by a member of the committee in relation to concerns about highway safety.

Non-committee member and local member for Staunton, Councillor Peter Ede, said he believed the speed limit for this location should be reduced from 40 to 30 mph. He also enquired whether any section 106 contributions had been received as a result of conditions imposed on an earlier planning application. Councillor Ede was informed that a road traffic order to reduce the speed limit had been proposed as part of an earlier application but had not been approved following objections by the police due to their concerns about how the speed limit would be enforced. It was later confirmed that the County Council would be responsible for collecting and administering the section 106 contributions.

Committee consideration

Local member, Councillor Philip Burford, raised concerns about the variations he had found in the road traffic survey relating to this application. He informed the committee that he had studied a significant amount of data from two road traffic surveys and had identified several discrepancies. He said that the timing of the two surveys had overlapped and that there was no correlation between the two sets of information. Outlining some of the discrepancies, Councillor Burford said that the uncertainties posed a serious risk to highway safety, and for this reason, was minded to propose refusal.

Later in the meeting, Councillor Burford presented details of percentages, (as taken from the council’s website), which he believed contradicted the council’s use of data. Development Manager, Clive Reynolds, said that the 85 per cent percentile speed of 49.3 per cent for the police survey Councillor Burford referred to was incorrect, and that the County Council had published evidence to explain why the police had incorrectly calculated the 85 per cent percentile speed. He also said that the use of the quoted 49.3 mph speed could result in a risk of costs to the council if used to justify refusal of the application. Councillor Burford said that he was mindful of the risk of losing an appeal from refusing the application, but nevertheless remained extremely concerned about the risks to highway safety. He said that in his opinion there were huge gaps in the statistics from the road traffic survey and that it was his responsibility to protect local residents from potential danger.

Members had a full and comprehensive debate on road safety issues, including several comments on the speed limit for this location  and received clarification from Emma Norgate, Principal Planning Officer, that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Change of use of pavilion and erection of a raised deck area to facilitate its use as a cafe/refreshment area, and office and the erection of a wildlife hut

Change of use of pavilion and erection of a raised deck area to facilitate its use as a cafe/refreshment area, and office and the erection of a wildlife hut

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

Development Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred to the recent site visit and to the information included in the late material. He informed the committee that the application was not seeking removal of the bowling green, nor the main building at the site, and that the civil dispute relating to the proposals should not influence the committee’s decision. Before advising members to base their decision purely on the planning merit of the application, the Development Manager said that the recommendation had been amended to one of delegated authority because the date of expiry of the notice on the bowls club, (Certificate B), did not expire until 27 July 2012.

Public Speaking

Speaking as an objector to the application and as Trustee of Coleford Bowling Club, the first speaker made the following representations on behalf of the bowling club: -

‘The club has been in the Buchanan grounds since 1923 and has been built up overt he years by the hard work and dedication of a large number of local residents. The club is applying to court for a new tenancy, which if granted will include and allow the club to continue to use all of the club’s premises including the bowling green, pavilion, car park and the club house, which was built by the club. In the early years, the members had the use of an old wooden hut to change and shelter in but in 1966, Mr Leonard Craze, a local schoolmaster, donated a sum of money and the pavilion was built specifically as changing rooms, toilets and clubhouse for the Bowling and Tennis Clubs. It has remained as such to this day. The building was provided with water, gas, and electricity by the bowling club at no cost to the Buchanan Trust and it houses the irrigation system for the bowling green. We have also maintained the fabric of the property, installed modern double glazed windows and carpeted the floors, again at no cost to the trust. Should this change of use be given, we will cease to exist as a club for we will have neither our changing facilities nor our utilities. We question how many people are likely to be able to ever want to access the proposed café and refreshment facility during the times put forward by the applicant or who would want to use the café when there is already ample provision for food and refreshments in the main town? This needs to be weighed up against the loss of the clubhouse and the bowling green facilities enjoyed over many years by a group of people who do not have other suitable recreation facilities to accommodate their needs. The bowling clubs facilities are also used by a number of social groups, including those who  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

Creation of a public car park on the former library site to form 46 additional car parking spaces for a three-year period

Creation of a public car park on the former library site to form 46 additional car parking spaces for a three-year period

Please refer to the late material that was circulated prior to the start of the meeting

Development Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred members to the late material and said that the issue of charging for car parking in the district was not a material consideration for this application, which was specifically concerned with use of the land as a temporary car park. The Development Manager said that no changes had been proposed for the site.

Speaking as a local member for Coleford Central, Councillor Clive Elsmore said that he had no objection to the car park at this site but that it was important for the site, which had been previously designated for residential use, should be developed as such as soon as possible. He said that he was pleased with the conditions that had been proposed but would also suggest that part of the new car park be used as a coach park as there was no designated coach park in the centre of Coleford. Councillor Elsmore said that this would relieve the pressure on Cupola Close and attract tourist coaches to the town, which was essential for the sustainability of the town.

Committee consideration

Councillor Paul McMahon expressed concern about the suitability of the site as a car park and questioned why the application had been presented to the committee, particularly when the site was already being used as a fee-paying car park. Several other members agreed with the suggestion that the car park be used as a coach park whilst Councillor Di Martin emphasised the need to use the site for other purposes by exploring other options. Development Manager, Clive Reynolds said that it was a matter for the applicant to decide what was the best use of the site and that, if permitted, the owner could if he wished, chose to create coach parking.  However, mindful of the desire to find a redevelopment proposal for the site, the Development Manager said, if coach parking was made a requirement of the permission, this could introduce a constraint to possible redevelopment if it was deemed such a scheme should include coach parking.  He advised the committee that it was the view of officers that to introduce a condition would be counterproductive.

Vote

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

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions included in the schedule of applications

For (12)

Councillors James Bevan, Philip Burford, Gethyn Davies, Judy Davis, Terry Glastonbury, Jane Horne, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Di Martin, Norman Stephens, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against (1)

Councillor Paul McMahon

Abstentions (0)

Conversion of barn to form student accommodation, additional parking and sewage treatment plant (revised scheme)

Conversion of barn to form student accommodation, additional parking and sewage treatment plant (revised scheme)

Please refer to the late material circulated prior to the meeting

Development Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred members to the late material and said that the applicant was willing to accept the conditions that had been suggested to address any concerns. He said the recommendation had been amended to one of delegated permission whilst awaiting the outstanding required information.

Committee consideration

Responding to a series of questions from local member, Councillor Philip Burford, Development Manager Clive Reynolds said that it was not unreasonable to include a condition for a building to be stabilised during the conversion stage of the development and that the bat mitigation measures had been in response to ecology enhancement requirements. Several members said that they were disappointed that a condition had been imposed to restrict the accommodation to only students from Hartpury College and said that the condition was onerous. The Development Manager advised members that if the committee wished to change the condition to include other users, it would be necessary to consider detailed options on how this would be managed when taking into regard the highway safety and sustainability issues of introducing an uncontrolled occupancy.

Vote

Earlier in the meeting Councillor Philip Burford moved the recommendation and Councillor Di Martin had seconded the motion. Councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick suggested extending planning permission to include anyone using the college, but not restricted to students from Hartpury College. As proposer and seconder of the motion, Councillors Burford and Martin accepted the suggestion and amended condition 6 to state that, ‘the student accommodation hereby approved should be limited to 10 students in total, in association with activities at Hartpury College’. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to authorise the Group Manager for Planning and Housing to grant permission as set out in the schedule of applications and subject to an amendment to condition 6 that, ‘student accommodation should be limited to 10 students in total, in association with activities at Hartpury College’.

For (13)

Councillors James Bevan, Philip Burford, Gethyn Davies, Judy Davis, Terry Glastonbury, Jane Horne, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Paul McMahon, Di Martin, Norman Stephens, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Outline application for the erection of two detached dwellings and garages. Construction of new vehicular access

Outline application for the erection of two detached dwellings and garages. Construction of new vehicular access

Please refer to the late material that had been circulated prior to the meeting

Members recalled the recent site visit and noted the information that had been included in the late material. Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, advised the committee that although the applicant had provided revised elevations and street scene drawings, the council’s concerns that the site was too small to accommodate the development without creating an adverse impact on visual or residential amenity remained. The recommendation was therefore one of refusal as per the schedule.

Public speaking

Speaking as an objector to the proposals, the first speaker questioned why this development had not been part of the original proposal, which had been refused the previous year. Expressing concerns about the visual impact of the development, the impact on highway safety, access and parking arrangements, the speaker said that with approximately 25 children living on the estate there were problems about where children would play. She said that the developer had promised that the site would be used as a car park and that she was concerned about the loss of parking. She also questioned whether the properties would be in keeping with the other houses in the area and suggested that the site would be better used as a play area.

The agent for the development said that in a letter dated 17 May 2011, there had been a positive response to the application from the local planning authority indicating that some form of development at the site was acceptable. Referring to some of the concerns that had been raised, the agent said that issues relating to parking, design specification and distance between other properties had all been achieved. Referring to the application that had been refused in August 2011, the agent said that the planning consultants’ advice had been to re-submit the application, but with more detail, hence the current application. Outlining the scheme in detail, the agent said that the application complied with the pre-application letter and had received no objections from the parish council, county highways or Severn Trent Water. He said that the development was a sustainable construction and did not intrude into the open countryside. Furthermore, the amenity space was 40 per cent more than that required by the council.

Committee consideration

The majority of members supported the recommendation of refusal. Councillor Di Martin said that the development would detract from the existing layout of the site and that the proposed dwellings would be inappropriately placed in a location already well furnished with housing. Offering a different viewpoint, Councillor Norman Stephens said that, whilst he respected the concerns of local residents, and regardless of whether or not the application was refused at this meeting, the site was an allocated site located in a settlement boundary and therefore likely to be developed on in the future.

Vote

Councillor Di Martin moved and Councillor David Thomson seconded the motion.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.4

a)     To confirm that the next sites inspection panel of visits will take place on 17 July 2012

b)     To consider any new applications put forward by elected members, or by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing. These sites are in addition to any that may be identified during the meeting.

RESOLVED that the next sites inspection panel will be held on Tuesday 17 July 2012, and that the following sites will be added to the itinerary for that day: -  

The committee to consider report PH.128, detailing information on the performance of the planning team in relation to planning applications.

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate referred members to report PH.128 before presenting information on the performance of the planning team in relation to planning applications. The planning officer said that the information related to the period April 2011 to March 2012 and that, despite current circumstances, overall performance had improved. She said that the planning authority would have preferred to achieve a higher performance but due to limited resources and only one senior planning officer in post, this had not been possible. Having considered the information members,

RESOLVED to note the report

To consider report PH.129, seeking confirmation of Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 188

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

Sustainability Team Leader, Alastair Chapman, presented report PH.129, seeking confirmation of Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 188. He informed the committee that, as part of planning application P1975/11/FUL and the erection of 13 dwellings at Land at the Old Rectory, School Lane, Longhope, a number of trees at the site had been assessed and considered for their amenity value. On 17 January 2012, the Group Manager for Planning and Housing concluded that the loss of trees would be detrimental to the amenity of the area and a provisional Tree Preservation Order had been made covering eight individual trees (Annex A). The Order was re-served (unaltered) on 12 March 2012 following observations that the order date was incorrect. The Sustainability Team Leader advised members that all comments from the original order should be taken into account during consideration of the re-served Order. Referring members to the late material, he informed the committee that an objection to the Order had been received and that the Order was being presented at this meeting to consider confirmation of the Order.

Members were advised that the number of trees in the original order had been 8 trees but that this number had reduced to 5. The Sustainability Team Leader clarified that after renewed consideration it had been decided that T1 (Oak Tree), T4 (Sweet Chestnut) and T7 (Yew Tree) did not merit protection within this tree preservation order. Despite some concerns about the loss of the Yew Tree, members noted the report and,

RESOLVED that Tree Preservation Order DFTPO188 Land at the Old Rectory, School Lane, Longhope be confirmed with modifications (Annex B)

To consider report PH.130, detailing proposals to revoke several existing orders following the recent tree preservation order review.

Sustainability Team Leader, Alastair Chapman presented report PH.130, detailing proposals to revoke several existing orders following a recent tree preservation order review. He informed members that an action arising from the Planning and Housing Service Plan 2012-2013 had been to periodically review some of its Tree Preservation Orders and that this report outlined the results of a Pilot Tree Preservation Order Review. Having considered the report in detail and following advice from the Group Manager for Legal and Democratic on revisions to the scheme of delegation, (as detailed in the council’s constitution), members.

RESOLVED TO:

a.      Revoke Tree Preservation Orders DFTPO 94 Land at Perrygrove Wood & DFTPO 61 Caragh Flats, and

b.      Subject to asking Full Council to ratify this decision as a change to the Scheme of Delegation in the Council’s Constitution, resolved that, in future review cases where a new Tree Preservation Order is confirmed with no objections, delegated authority be given to the Group Manager for Planning and Housing to revoke the existing Tree Preservation Order and replace by the new Order.

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 outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information

RESOLVED 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 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 exempt minutes of the planning committee meeting held on 12 June 2010 (minutes attached)

The exempt minutes of the planning committee meeting held on 12 June 2012 were confirmed as an accurate record of that meeting.

14 August 2012

The Development Manager invited members to attend a presentation from Sainsburys Supermarket at the council offices at 6 pm on 26 July 2012.

The next committee meeting to be held on 14 August 2012