To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Vice Chairman Councillor James Bevan and from committee member Councillor Paul McMahon.

Two substitutions were made at this meeting; Councillor Brian Jones substituted for Councillor Bevan and Councillor Graham Morgan substituted for Councillor McMahon.

Committee members in attendance at the meeting on 12 April 2011, (the last committee meeting of the previous council), to confirm the minutes of that meeting.

The non-exempt minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2011 were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting by those members of the committee present at that meeting.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business.

There was no urgent business 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 Lynn Sterry declared a personal interest in items 5.9 and 5.10 of the agenda, P0606/11/FUL Sunnyside House, Main Road, Birdwood and P0619/11/FUL, The Bungalow, Coppice House, Birdwood. Councillor Sterry informed the committee that she would remain at the meeting for consideration of each of the items but would not enter into the debate or vote on the applications due to her husband’s work connections.

Councillor Graham Morgan declared a personal interest in item 5.15 of the agenda, P0892/11/FUL Ensors Limited, Forest Vale Road, Cinderford, due to his position as Chairman of the Cinderford Regeneration Board. Councillor Morgan was later advised that he would be able to enter into the debate and vote on this item.

Councillor Terry Glastonbury declared a personal interest in item 5.5 of the agenda, P0278/11/FUL as a member of the same charity organisation as 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 prior to the meeting. (Late material refers to information submitted to the council following publication of the agenda).

Eleven public speakers had registered to speak at this meeting, speaking on items 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 of the schedule of applications.The decisions are recorded in order of the schedule

Conscious of the number of applications due for consideration at this meeting, the Chairman reminded the committee to keep their comments relevant to the debate and to, where possible, to avoid a repetition of previous observations.

Creation of new earth walled slurry storage lagoon

Creation of new earth walled slurry storage lagoon

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

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, informed the committee that the creation of the lagoon was to assist in the storage of waste materials from an anaerobic digestion plant at the farm and thus enable the applicant to store fertilizer on his land during the months of year outside the period for customary spreading.

Public Speaker

Conscious that there had been some local opposition to the application, the applicant informed the committee that revised proposals had been submitted to take into account such concerns. He said that the waste materials stored in the lagoon would be 80 per cent less odorous than that generated by the existing compactor. Furthermore, given the proximity of the lagoon to the farmhouse at the site, any impact from the facility would be significantly greater to his own property than to neighbouring properties. The applicant confirmed that the lagoon would be restricted to the sole use of spent materials transferred from the anaerobic digestion plant and to no other waste materials.

Committee consideration

Responding to several concerns, planning officers informed the committee that any evidence of odours at the site was the responsibility of the Environment Agency. Similarly, any waste deposits that might be deposited on public highways during the transportation of waste materials was the responsibility of Gloucestershire County Highways, whom it was noted, had addressed this issue by suggesting several conditions to counter any possible repercussions.

Responding to concerns about the possibility of the lagoon overfilling during heavy rainfall, Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, said that the lagoon had been designed to cope with large capacities of waste material and that, similar to the concerns about possible odours at the site, would be controlled by the Environment Agency. Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, confirmed that fencing at the site would be addressed under condition 5 of the suggested conditions.

Vote

Councillor Norman Stephens moved the recommendation to grant planning permission and Councillor David Thomson seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions detailed in the schedule of applications and to the information included in the late material.

For (14)

Councillors Frank Beard, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Graham Morgan Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Creation of new earth walled slurry storage lagoon

Creation of new earth walled slurry storage lagoon

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

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred members to the late material and informed members that this application related to a second lagoon for the farm that had been considered under the previous application.

Public Speaker

The applicant referred to the concerns that had been raised during consideration of the previous application and informed the committee that the site was covered by a Certificate of Waste Management, which was regulated under the jurisdiction of the Environment Agency. He said that the site was classified as a low risk site and that efficient management of the anaerobic digester enabled him to burn off any odorous smells.

Addressing concerns about the possibility of mud on the road, the applicant said that the two lagoons would act as a satellite storage facility to the existing plant and that the transfer of waste materials would be undertaken by pumping the waste from the digester into the lagoons. He said that the subsequent spreading of fertilizer on to the land would be a completely separate operation.

Responding to concerns about the possible contamination of a nearby watercourse, the applicant said that the watercourse was approximately 100 metres away and that the Environment Agency would insist on the lagoons being built to the required British Standard, thus avoiding the risk of contamination.

Committee consideration

The committee noted the comments made by the applicant in response to their concerns and based their decision on the information considered during this and the previous application.

Vote

Chairman, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, moved the recommendation and Councillor Roger Yeates seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions detailed in the schedule of applications and to the information included in the late material.

For (14)

Councillors Frank Beard, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Graham Morgan Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Erection of a replacement farmhouse dwelling and inclusion of occasional bed and breakfast and shooting party accommodation

Erection of a replacement farmhouse dwelling and inclusion of occasional bed and breakfast and shooting party accommodation

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

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, referred members to the late material, with particular reference to the removal of condition 4 from the original recommendation and to two additional conditions.

Public Speaker

Speaking as the agent for the application, the speaker addressed some of the concerns that had been raised in relation to the scale and impact of the replacement dwelling. The speaker said that the scale of the dwelling would be less than that allowed under permitted development rights and that there were several other properties in the local area of a similar scale. Referring to the secluded position of the site, the speaker also refuted any concerns that the proposals would have a negative visual impact on the area. Describing the farmhouse as a family home and administrative centre for the farm, the speaker said that the applicant merely wished to upgrade the living accommodation at the site and that the occasional bed and breakfast and shooting accommodation would be ancillary to the farm operation. Referring to condition 6, as detailed in the late material, the speaker said that the applicant had no intention of increasing the gradient of the driveway to the existing carriageway.

Local member, Councillor Ian Whitburn, said that Mitcheldean Parish Council had raised no objections and that there were no known objections about overlooking at the site.

Ward member for Longhope, Councillor Dave East, agreed with this statement and informed members that both parish councils were happy with the proposals.

Committee consideration

Councillor Norman Stephens noted the exemplary detail of the Design and Access Statement for the application and expressed his support for the proposals. Several members also shared this perspective, whilst others expressed concern about the technicalities of the application in relation to permitted development rights. Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, and Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, informed members that significant changes regarding permitted development rights had made it possible for the council to allow significant extensions subject to their compliance with certain criteria, which in this instance, had been met. However, the scheme for which planning permission was being sought was not the same as could be achieved under permitted development rights and offered a more coordinated and comprehensively designed development.

Vote

Councillor Norman Stephens moved the recommendation to grant planning permission and Councillor Jane Horne seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions detailed in the schedule of applications, (excluding condition 4), and to the additional conditions and information referred to in the late material.

For (14)

Councillors Frank Beard, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Graham Morgan Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Alterations and single storey extension to dwelling; (Demolition of existing conservatory)

Alterations and single storey extension to dwelling; (Demolition of existing conservatory)

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

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, confirmed that the property had not been registered as a listed building. Referring to concerns about the validity of the 30/45 degree test, (applied to establish whether or not the development might have an adverse effect on the light in other properties), the Development Control Manager said that the test only related to habitable rooms. He said that the hallway at the adjacent property was not considered a habitable room and therefore no test had been applied to this area. Alternatively, the test had been applied to the nearest affected window. The Development Control Manager said that the extension was considered modest in size and significantly reduced from its original form. On this basis, members were recommended to grant planning permission.

Public Speaker

Speaking against the application, the speaker based her objections on the impact she believed overshadowing and the loss of light created by the extension would have on her apartment in the south wing of the property and to the hallway. The speaker questioned the validity of the 30/45 degree test and the failure to include non-habitable rooms, particularly the hallway, which was often used as an office area. The speaker referred to the widespread opposition the proposals had encountered, (including a petition involving 21 signatories), and informed members that initial objections and concerns had been somewhat subdued in attempts to not appear un-neighbourly. The speaker believed the proposals would have an adverse effect on the privacy of some of the residents living in apartments at the property and to the appearance of this landmark Georgian House. Noting the objections from Pauntley Parish Council, the speaker urged the committee to refuse the application.

Speaking in support of the applicant, the speaker informed the committee that the applicant was aware of local opposition to the proposals and had submitted revised plans to address some of the concerns from residents living in neighbouring properties. The speaker believed the revised plans were a considerable improvement to those proposed by the initial scheme and sympathetic in maintaining the symmetry of the front elevation to the property. Confirming that English Heritage did not consider the property appropriate for registering as a listed asset, the speaker said that the application offered a well-designed scheme and was supported by planning officers.

Chairman, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, informed the meeting that ward member, Councillor Peter Ede, had wanted to speak on the application but had been unable to do so because of unavoidable work commitments.

Committee consideration

Conscious of the number of objections the application had received, Councillor Jane Horne said that she had been surprised that English Heritage had not considered the property appropriate to list as a listed building and was, unfortunately, unable to support the application.

Several members expressed concern about the level of objection the application had received and the validity of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.4

Erection of a building to accommodate a dog centre of excellence, and associated engineering works involving levelling of land.  (Demolition of existing building).  (Revised Scheme)

Erection of a building to accommodate a dog centre of excellence, and associated engineering works involving levelling of land.  (Demolition of existing building).  (Revised Scheme)

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

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, informed members that the application represented a full application for a site that had been the subject of an extensive enforcement history. The planning officer referred members to the late material that had been circulated before the meeting and noted the correction to condition 5 of the conditions detailed in the schedule of applications.

Committee consideration

Councillor Julia Gooch questioned whether a noise impact assessment or an environmental health report had been produced in relation to the application. She said that, in view of the nature of the proposed business venture at the site, independent assessments should be considered. Responding to Councillor Gooch’s concerns, the planning officer informed the meeting that consultations had been undertaken but that, on this occasion, there had been no comments from Environmental Health. Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, further clarified this position and informed the committee that the council’s validation checklist was not a prerequisite for every application and that a noise assessment would not be required on every occasion, (particularly on this occasion, where the separation between the proposed use and nearest residential properties was quite significant), unless a specific problem had been identified.

Responding to a question from Councillor Frankie Evans, enquiring whether a contaminated land survey had been undertaken, the planning officer said that the Council’s Contaminated Land Officer had been satisfied that any scrap vehicles and waste materials at the site had been removed. On this basis, the majority of members supported the recommendation and believed it was a sensible use of the land.

Vote

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

RESOLVED to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions detailed in the schedule of applications and to the information referred to in the late material, including the correction to condition 5.

For (13)

Councillors Frank Beard, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Graham Morgan Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against (1) Councillor Julia Gooch

Abstentions (0)

Outline application erection of a food store

Outline application erection of a food store

This item had been withdrawn by the applicant

Extension and alteration to dwelling.  Erection of a greenhouse.  Creation of new vehicular access.  Demolition of existing outbuildings.

Extension and alteration to dwelling.  Erection of a greenhouse.  Creation of new vehicular access.  Demolition of existing outbuildings.

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

Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, referred to the late material and outlined three elements to the proposal. He informed the committee that the greenhouse at the site was a small construction, with no significant issues. He confirmed that, to address concerns about overlooking, the applicant had said that he would be willing to remove a first floor gable window at the property. Despite the willingness, the Group Manager said that amended plans on this aspect had not been requested due to fundamental concerns relating to the scale of the development. Furthermore, having reviewed existing access and parking arrangements at the site, (and in view of the fact that these would remain unchanged), the third reason for refusing the application, (relating to parking arrangements), had proved unsustainable and had been withdrawn. The Group Manager subsequently confirmed that the recommendation to refuse the application remained unchanged due to concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding conservation area.

Public Speaker

The applicant said that the officer’s report had focussed on three issues; he said that the first issue, regarding the gable window, (referred to in the statement made by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing), could be removed as part of the planning agreement. He said that the second issue, regarding access arrangements had been considered acceptable to Gloucestershire County Highways. In relation to the third issue, regarding the scale and impact of the proposals, the applicant refuted the suggestion that the extension could be seen from the grassland to the south of the property, and said that, from the main road the view was largely shielded, with the exception of a single viewpoint between two structures, which incurred minimal impact. Furthermore, he believed the visual impact of the proposals to the north of the site would also be generally unaffected. The applicant said that, although quite hidden, the property was oppressively overlooked by the adjacent property. On this basis, he hoped the extension would create an element of privacy, which it currently did not enjoy. Referring to the scale of the property, the applicant said that there would be a net increase of 38 per cent to the footprint of the property and that many similar properties in the area had been extended to this scale, some of which were located in significantly more prominent positions. Detailing some of the features the extension would provide, the applicant said that he had taken great care to ensure that the design of the scheme reflected the character of the building and that it complied with government policy. Noting the lack of objection from the parish council, the applicant said that the extension would support the needs of a growing family and hopefully improve the living standards of a defective building, whilst at the same  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.7

Alterations and extensions to dwelling and conversion of attached barn to form a holiday let. 

Alterations and extensions to dwelling and conversion of attached barn to form a holiday let

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

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, said that there were two elements to this application, the first, relating to the main house and the second, to the conversion of an adjacent barn to holiday let. The planning officer reported a correction to condition 5 on page 102 of the agenda and said that the statement should read, “splay lines, so defined”.

Committee consideration

Ward member, Councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick, said that at the time of referring the application to the planning committee, she believed the proposals to be rather more extensive than now submitted in the revised plan. Satisfied with the revised proposals, Councillor Kirkpatrick moved the recommendation to grant planning permission.

Vote

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

RESOLVED to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions detailed in the schedule of applications and to the information included in the late material.

For (13)

Councillors Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Graham Morgan Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Extension to existing annexe building to create an additional self-contained unit.

Extension to existing annexe building to create an additional self-contained unit

Please refer to the late material that had been circulated before the start of the meeting

Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, informed the committee that drainage issues at the site was the responsibility of the Environment Agency and Severn Trent Water. (It was later confirmed that issues relating to the private drainage system at the site was the responsibility of the owner and not Severn Trent Water). Conscious of the level of local concern, (highlighted following submission of the application), regarding drainage and foul water sewage, the Group Manager informed members that the planning authority intended to refer correspondence relating to such concerns to the relevant bodies, whom he believed might be unaware of the issues. The Group Manager said that the proposed single storey development was acceptable with no visual impact on the surrounding area.

Public speaking

An objector to the application gave a full and detailed account of the extent of some of the issues that had arisen from the accommodation arrangements at the care home and said that such issues were seriously affecting the lives of neighbours and local residents. The speaker said that, although she had not opposed the change of use of the dwelling to a care home and understood the merits of providing such accommodation, she had not envisaged the disruptive behavioural problems that were to become apparent from residents living at the property, including yelling, shouting, the use of obscene language and the hurling of obstacles into neighbouring properties. The speaker informed the committee that poor behavioural problems not only related to the residents of the property but also to the staff working at the care home, who frequently demonstrated elements of anti-social behaviour. The speaker also expressed concern about drainage and said that she feared current problems at the site, including seepage from the septic tank, would only be exacerbated should the proposed development go ahead. Whilst acknowledging the need to provide a good quality of life for the residents at the care home, the speaker objected to the very difficult circumstances that had emerged from trying to do so.

Speaking on behalf of Churcham Parish Council, Councillor Martin Baber, endorsed the comments that had been made by the local objector. Councillor Baber outlined the history of the care home and informed members that following change of use of the property in 1996, the arrangements had been tolerable and neighbours had been sympathetic to the circumstances of the then six residents. He said that, at that time, any issues were directed to the former owner, Mr Twigg, who would oversee any problems. Councillor Baber said that the problems arose when planning permission was granted to accommodate ten residents at the care home and that circumstances were now unbearable, especially during the summer months when screaming, shouting and unacceptable foul language continues well into the early hours of the morning. He said that the playing of loud music, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.9

Alterations and extensions to existing residential care home annexe building.

Alterations and extensions to existing residential care home annexe building

Please refer to the late material that had been circulated before the start of the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred to the late material and informed members that this application was very similar to the one that had been considered under item 5.9 of the agenda.

Public speaking

Speaking on behalf of Churcham Parish Council, Councillor Bob Newberry, referred to the four special care homes in the Churcham vicinity and questioned the need to extend or enlarge any of the properties, particularly when the care homes for consideration at today’s meeting had already been extended in previous years. Councillor Newberry expressed concern about drainage issues and said that expansion of the care homes would only exacerbate existing drainage problems, including overloaded septic tanks seeping effluence into nearby brooks and streams. Councillor Newberry said that the parish council accepted the policy of providing homes for disadvantaged people but also believed it was the duty of the council to ensure that there was no negative impact on the local community or the environment.

Committee consideration

Having declared a personal interest in this item, Councillor Lynn Sterry chose not to debate or vote on this application.

Ward member, Councillor Brian Jones, reiterated the concerns about foul water drainage and felt that this was a key issue in determining the application. Responding to the suggestion from the parish council that the care home should be connected to the main sewerage system before considering an increase in the number of residents at the home, the Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, said that work on the proposed extension could not commence until connected to the main sewer. 

Vote

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

RESOLVED to grant planning permission subject to the conditions as detailed in the schedule of applications and to the information included in the late material 

For (13)

Councillors Frank Beard, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Graham Morgan Norman Stephens, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Approval of reserved matters for amendments to plots 17-19, 27-73 and 80-148

Approval of reserved matters for amendments to plots 17-19, 27-73 and 80-148

Please refer to the late material that had been circulated before the start of the meeting

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, confirmed that Lydney Town Council had raised no objections to the approval of reserved matters for the amended scheme, (seeking to amend the design of 128 of the previously approved 200 dwellings). He said that, following negotiations with the developer, the proposed changes were relatively minor, and as such, not considered to be materially different from the approved scheme. The Development Control Manager said that, whilst acknowledging the committees initial concerns about the appropriateness of the design and layout of the site, the scheme that had been allowed on appeal and the subsequent scheme, were key material considerations. Furthermore, due to ongoing negotiations between the highway authority and the developer regarding planning conditions, the recommendation had been amended to delegated authority. Outlining some of the revisions to the scheme, the Development Control Manager said that one of the proposals included replacing the gabion baskets facing the access roundabout with natural stone walling.

Committee consideration

Responding to a question from Councillor Frankie Evans, the Development Control Manager confirmed that the revised scheme included some natural stonework.

Vote

Councillor Terry Glastonbury moved the revised recommendation and Councillor Roger Yeates seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED that the Group Manager for Planning and Housing be authorised to approve the development, subject to the satisfactory resolution of the outstanding issues regarding the technical details of the highway layout. The development also subject to the conditions detailed in the schedule of applications and to the information included in the late material.

For (14)

Councillors Frank Beard, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Graham Morgan Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Listed Building Consent for the retention of sunroom

Listed Building Consent for the retention of sunroom

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

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred to the late material and confirmed that Dymock Parish Council supported this retrospective application for listed building consent. Recalling the inspection panel’s visit to the site earlier in the year, the Development Control Manager reminded the committee that it had resolved to take enforcement action for removal of the conservatory. (It was noted that listed building consent to retain the structure had already been refused twice). The Development Control Manager said that the council’s Conservation Specialist believed the conservatory had an adverse impact upon the listed building by virtue of its scale and design. He said that there had been no material changes in circumstances since the previous refusals and that the latest guidance on how to deal with heritage assets (PPS 5) had existed at the time of the last refusal and during consideration of the enforcement action that had been agreed by the committee in March.

Public Speaking

Speaking as the agent for the application, the speaker questioned the relevance of referring to planning policy PPS 5 to support the officer recommendation of refusal, especially when it was evident that the application clearly satisfied the public benefit test of the policy. The speaker said that the conservatory did not harm the historic fabric of the cottage and that there was no justification for the council to adopt different criteria for the assessment of works other than that applied to earlier alterations and extensions at the site.  The speaker informed members that great care had been taken to ensure that the conservatory did not harm the fabric of the cottage. He said that he could not understand why the council was unable to explain the apparent nature of the harm and that, on this basis, it was unacceptable to refuse the application.

Committee consideration

Members of the previous committee recalled the extensive debate that had taken place before the committee had made their decision to take enforcement action in March.  Councillor Norman Stephens believed there was no harm in retaining the conservatory and proposed that listed building consent be approved. Councillor Jane Horne seconded this proposal. The majority of members supported the proposal on the basis that there was no substantial harm to the listed building or to the fabric of the cottage. Councillor Stephens noted that this was the first time the application had been considered by the committee and believed it made common sense to grant listed building consent.

Vote

Councillor Norman Stephens proposed that the application be granted listed building consent and Councillor Jane Horne seconded the proposal. The reason for approval was that the conservatory did no substantial harm to the listed building and did not impact on the original fabric of the property. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant the application listed building consent for the retention of a sunroom at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.12

Retention of the use of the property for the continued benefit of the land and buildings for equestrian purposes, including staff accommodation and access to the site via Lumbars Lane onto Elton Road

Retention of the use of the property for the continued benefit of the land and buildings for equestrian purposes, including staff accommodation and access to the site via Lumbars Lane onto Elton Road

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

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, reported a correction to page 145 and informed members that the fifth line of the second paragraph should read, “…a third party the local authority, in normal circumstances, would be able to impose…”. The planning officer explained that the application was a full application seeking retention of the use of the farm as an equestrian centre. Outlining the extensive planning history to the site, and noting that established use as an equestrian centre had evolved over time, the planning officer informed members that due to concerns about highway safety and objections from Gloucestershire County Highways it was unacceptable to approve retention of the use of the site as an equestrian centre due to the harm to highway safety

Public Speaker

Speaking as the agent for the application, the speaker thanked the case officer for his hard work and diligence in administering the application. The speaker informed members that the farm had been used as an equestrian centre for over two and a half years and considered a great asset, both locally and nationally. Refuting the suggestion that the centre would be detrimental to highway safety, the speaker believed comments from Gloucestershire County Highways were unfounded due to a lack of evidence, particularly when there had been no evidence of road traffic accidents or incidents on the approach roads to the site during such time that the farm had operated as an equestrian centre. The speaker believed traffic movements at the site would be no greater than currently in existence and that the transportation of horses along country lanes was a common activity. Reminding the committee of the contributions the centre made to local employment, the speaker urged the committee to support the application.

In response to the comments about road safety, Jamie Mattock from Gloucestershire County Highways, said that the concerns about highway safety had not been based on the number of accidents and incidents alone. She said that from a professional point of view, and based on past experience, access arrangements and substandard visibility on the approach roads to the centre were considered detrimental to highway safety. She also said that it would be unreasonable to expect vehicles to reverse along country lanes and at the junction with the A4151. Furthermore, there was a strong likelihood that the centre would create increased traffic movements.

Committee consideration

Refuting the reasons suggested for refusing the application and noting the contributions to local employment, the majority of members supported the application. Councillor Norman Stephens said he did not consider there to be a significant risk to highway safety and that most people were perhaps more careful when driving along narrow country lanes. Referring to the nature of the business  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.13

The addition of solar panelling on building 1 with an anticipated capacity of 1.5 mega watt

The addition of solar panelling on building 1 with an anticipated capacity of 1.5 mega watt

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

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, informed the committee that the roof pitch of the building was very shallow and that the solar panelling would not be visually prominent.

Committee consideration

Ward member, Councillor Ian Whitburn, said that there had been no objections from Mitcheldean Parish Council.

Vote

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

RESOLVED to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions detailed in the schedule of applications and to the information included in the late material.

For (14)

Councillors Frank Beard, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Graham Morgan Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

Erection of front and rear extension to building to facilitate its change of use into an abattoir.  (Alteration to a previously approved scheme - P0616/10/FUL)

Erection of front and rear extension to building to facilitate its change of use into an abattoir.  (Alteration to a previously approved scheme P0616/10/FUL)

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

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, informed the committee that the application was a revised scheme to facilitate the relocation of an existing abattoir business to the site and that the key changes to the scheme related to the layout and form of the rear extensions. He said that the changes were acceptable. He also advised members that, due to an outstanding issue relating to the level of details for the landscaping scheme, an additional condition, (condition 4), had been added to the proposals to secure the information.

Committee consideration

Local members expressed their support for the application and said that the people of Cinderford welcomed the proposals.

Vote

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

RESOLVED to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions detailed in the schedule of applications and to the additional condition and information included in the late material.

For (14)

Councillors Frank Beard, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Graham Morgan Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

a)     To confirm that the next sites’ inspection will be held on Tuesday 21 June 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 that may be identified during the meeting.

The committee resolved that the following sites would be included on the sites inspection panel schedule of visits on Tuesday 21 June 2011,

In addition to the above schedule of visits, the committee resolved to visit two sites for which enforcement action will be considered at the planning committee meeting on 12 July 2011.

A report from the Principal Planning Officer regarding the performance of the planning team in relation to appeal notices and decisions. Please refer to report PH.69

Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, presented report PH.69, detailing the number of appeals lodged and the council’s performance in managing appeal notices and decisions for the period from January to April 2011. The Group Manager gave an update on the background to the report and informed members that the council’s overall performance for this period had been relatively good, with a 67 per cent success rate of appeals dismissed against the service plan target of 70 per target.

Outlining some of the key appeal decisions during this period, the Group Manager said that there had been a 14 per cent increase in the number of appeals received during January to April, (compared to the same period in 2010), but that the increase was expected to balance out, particularly as there had been no appeals lodged in May.

Report PH.69 was noted with a reminder that it would be beneficial for the council if elected members supported the appeal process by attending some of the hearings.

To consider confirmation of Tree Preservation Order DF TPO 181, Land to South West of Bicknor House, English Bicknor. Please refer to report PH.72

Alastair Chapman, the council’s Sustainability Team Leader presented report PH.72, regarding confirmation of Tree Preservation Order DF TPO 181, Land to South West of Bicknor House, English Bicknor. The Sustainability Team Leader said that the trees helped sustain important hedgerow features and therefore formed a significant part of the character of the area. Despite the support of the parish council, some members did not object to the removal of the three ash trees, which they regarded as a menace rather than something to be protected. Other members disagreed with this perspective and suggested visiting the site to assess the visual impact and condition of the trees before making their decision. 

Councillor Norman Stephens proposed that members visit the site and Councillor Frankie Evans seconded the proposal. (Councillors Lynn Sterry and David Thomson subsequently withdrew their motion to confirm the tree preservation order). A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED that members visit the site

For (14)

Councillors Frank Beard, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Julia Gooch, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Graham Morgan Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)

To consider an amendment to the current planning application referral to committee form. Please refer to report PH.71

Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, presented report PH.71, detailing an amendment to the current planning application ‘referral to committee’ form. He said that, following an investigation of a complaint against a referral that had been submitted outside the current 28-day referral period, it had been necessary to consider updating the form to improve the transparency of the referral process. The Group Manager said that the revised process would require members to formally record the reasons why a request for a call-in had been made outside the normal 28-day period. It would also allow himself, as Group Manager for Planning and Housing, in association with either the Chairman or Vice-chairman of the committee to assess the reasons for any late referrals and whether or not the application could be considered by the planning committee. Responding to questions, members were assured that the process of seeking approval from the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the committee remained unchanged. A recorded vote was taken and members noted the report and,

RESOLVED to approve the revised form, (referred to in report PH.71), for use by members in referring planning applications to the Development Control Committee.

Seeking confirmation of an Article 4 Direction in relation to Land at English Bicknor. Please refer to report PH.70.

Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams, presented report PH.70, seeking confirmation of an ‘Article 4 Direction’ in relation to parcels of land designated as ‘important open areas’ in the Council’s District Local Plan Review. The group manager said that the council had received an application for change of use of land adjacent to a housing development in English Bicknor. He said that, in order to ensure that the open areas at the site were protected from further development, it had been necessary for the council to act quickly in serving an Article of Direction. Responding to member questions, the group manager confirmed that, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Committee, (and local ward member), the direction had been served and in force for 6 months, (due to expire on 23 August 2011). He said that there had been no objections to the making of the order and that the developer had received a copy direct. Councillor Terry Glastonbury moved the recommendation and Councillor Lynn Sterry seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED that the Article 4 Direction for Land off Redhouse Lane, Murrells Road and Smithy Close, English Bicknor, be confirmed.

 For (13)

Councillors Frank Beard, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Graham Morgan Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against (1) Councillor Julia Gooch

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 this case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

Chairman, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, moved that the committee consider items 12 and 13 of the agenda as exempt business and Councillor Lynn Sterry seconded the motion. A recorded vote was taken and members,

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

For (12)

Councillors Frank Beard, Gethyn Davies, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Jane Horne, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Graham Morgan, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thomson and Roger Yeates

Against (2) Councillors Julia Gooch and Norman Stephens

Abstentions (0

After the recorded vote had been taken, Councillor Norman Stephens asked if each of the alleged transgressors had been notified that the committee would be considering taking enforcement action against possible breaches of planning control on their land. Councillor Stephens was informed that the landowners had been notified that enforcement action was being considered at this meeting.

To confirm the exempt minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2011.

The exempt minutes of the meeting held on 12 April 2011 were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting by those members of the committee present at that meeting.

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

Copies of the schedule of enforcement, (to consider the expediency of issuing enforcement notices against five breaches of planning control), had been circulated with the agenda. Group Manager for Planning and Housing, Peter Williams presented the schedule of enforcement, recommending that enforcement action be taken on each of the five breaches.

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, presented enforcement report 13.1

Deferred for consideration at the Development Control Meeting on 12 July 2011

Deferred for consideration at the Development Control Meeting on 12 July 2011

Deferred for consideration at the Development Control Meeting on 12 July 2011.

Deferred for consideration at the Development Control Meeting on 12 July 2011

12 July 2011

12 July 2011

Council procedure D.18 of Part IV of the constitution was suspended at 5.15 pm to allow the meeting to continue for up to thirty minutes beyond the normal time limit of three hours. A fifteen-minute break had been taken at 4.15pm.