To receive apologies for absence.

There were no apologies at this meeting.

To confirm the non-exempt minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2010.

The non-exempt minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting held on 14 December 2010 were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business.

No items of urgent business were considered at this meeting.

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.

No declarations of interest were made at this meeting.

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

Chairman, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, referred to the schedule of applications, as prepared by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and to the late material that had been circulated on the pink coloured paper immediately prior to start of the meeting. (This information was submitted to the council after publication of the agenda). The Chairman announced that there would be 10 public speakers at the meeting, speaking on items 1, 2, 3 and 5 of the schedule of applications and that each speaker would be allowed 3 minutes to make their representations.

The decisions are recorded in order of the schedule.

The Chairman announced that items 5.7 and 5.8 of the agenda, relating to applications P1314/10/FUL and P1311/10/COU, (Forest Oak Farm, The Purlieu, Lydney), had been withdrawn by the applicant.

Refurbishment of existing farmhouse. Conversion of barn to create a dwelling. Erection of 20 dwellings with associated parking/garaging facilities. Construction of new vehicular access. (Revised scheme).

Refurbishment of existing farmhouse. Conversion of barn to create a dwelling. Erection of 20 dwellings with associated parking/garaging facilities. Construction of new vehicular access. (Revised scheme).

Please refer to the late material circulated at the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, informed the committee that the application was in exactly the same form as that presented to the committee in April 2007. The planning officer explained that the application had been presented to the committee at this meeting to consider issues relating to the section 106 agreement that had been assigned to the delegated planning permission granted in 2007.  (It was noted that, at that meeting, the committee had not authorised officers to refuse the application should the applicant fail to complete the section 106 legal agreement). The planning officer advised the committee that the council had reinstated the application in October 2010 but that the applicant had made no formal offer in response to the section 106 agreement since that time. She confirmed that the legal agreement was far from complete, and on that basis, it was not considered unreasonable for officers to recommend that the committee refuse the application. Committee Chairman, Councillor Terry Glastonbury, referred to the recommendation on page 26 of the agenda and advised the committee that the recommendation should have read ‘refusal’ of the application and not ‘delegated permission’. 

Public Speaking

Speaking as an objector to the application, the speaker said that, in granting permission for the now amended building development, the council had been placed in a compromising position, having gone against national and regional planning policies, the Local Plan Strategy and the Outline District Plan. Referring to the initial outline planning permission for 12 dwellings, the speaker recalled that the permission had required some of the properties to be built as affordable housing and for the properties to be built in a style that was in keeping and sympathetic to the village environment. The speaker proceeded to outline several breaches in planning policy. Outlining each breach in detail, the speaker said that; Policy (R) FH.6 only permitted new dwellings outside defined settlement boundary for essential and efficient operation of agricultural and forestry purposes; Policy (R)FNE.1 imposed specific requirements in respect of visual intrusion and the landscape;Structure Plan Policy S1 directed new development to larger towns and Policy S6 safeguarded the quality of the landscape and afforded protection against further development that might detract particular quality and character of the special landscape areas by means of Policy NHE.5. Taking into account the fact that three previous applications had been refused in 1975, 2001 and 2004, the speaker believed the proposals would intrude on the landscape, create an invasion of privacy and contradict the District Local Plan. Expressing concerns about existing traffic conditions, the speaker believed the development would only aggravate the problem. She also expressed concern about the lack of public surface water sewers for the site. Conscious that the forest should be considered a designated area of outstanding natural beauty, the speaker  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Change of use of agricultural land to equestrian use. Erection of a stable block, associated yard area and creation of a manege.

Change of use of agricultural land to equestrian use. Erection of a stable block, associated yard area and creation of a manege.

Please refer to the late material circulated at the meeting

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred members to the late material and confirmed that the application was for a change of use of the site from agricultural to equestrian, with the erection of stables and construction of a manege. The Development Control Manager said that the proposal had been the subject of extensive negotiations to address the concerns that had been raised by residents and by Gloucestershire County Highways and that the recommendation remained one of planning permission, as detailed in the schedule of applications.

Public speaking

Speaking as an objector to the application, the speaker suggested that the committee consider visiting the site to obtain a more comprehensive perspective about the position and size of the site. The speaker referred to planning policy PPS7 and said that, as a leisure development, he believed the proposal would not create income for the rural economy and did not constitute a form of farm diversification. He said that the field was a stand-alone field and should not be regarded as a commercial enterprise. Referring to Local Plan (R) FNE 1 (3), the speaker expressed concern about the visual impact of the stable block and associated buildings, which he considered to be, too large a scheme. At just under 9 acres, and therefore a relatively small piece of land, the speaker said that he was concerned a precedent might be set if the field became sub-divided into smaller plots, thus creating a patchwork effect on the landscape. As the resident of a neighbouring property, the speaker informed the committee that the equestrian centre would be less than 50 metres from his back door and that he was particularly concerned about the noise, smell and possible rodent infestation that might be created by the proposed manure store. Quoting from the case officer report that, ‘on balance, the sub-standard visibility of the site was not sufficient to warrant refusing the application’ and that, ‘it was felt that the highways authority should take a more realistic approach to the application’, the speaker referred to (R) FNE.1 (5) and (R) FTRL (2) and said that Gloucestershire County Highways had said on more than one occasion that there was insufficient visibility for large slow moving vehicles, such as horse boxes, and an unacceptable increase in traffic at the junction of Greenway and George Lane. Expressing concern about highway safety, the speaker requested that the application be refused or scaled down in size, and moved adjacent to the gateway entering George Lane, which would be away from neighbouring properties.

Parish Councillor, Keith Wallis, reiterated the concerns of Littledean Parish Council, relating to the scale of the proposed development, the proximity to neighbouring properties, highway safety and the impact on a public right of way. Councillor Wallis said that the parish council objected to the development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.2

Substitution in respect of existing approval P1229/07/FUL allowed on appeal for revised design and location of 90 residential dwellings and associated infrastructure.

Substitution in respect of existing approval P1229/07/FUL allowed on appeal for revised design and location of 90 residential dwellings and associated infrastructure.

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

Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, referred members to the late material that had been circulated before the meeting and to the comments from the Environmental Health Officer, confirming that he had no objections to the scheme, subject to the provision of sufficient foul water drainage, secured either by condition, (as agreed by the Planning Inspector), as a variation to the condition or by a section 106 legal agreement. The Principal Planning Officer advised the meeting that, following approval of application P1229/07/FUL, the developer for the site had changed and had submitted a substitution application to reflect changes to specific elements of the agreed scheme. Conscious of the concerns that had surrounded the initial scheme, she confirmed that the council still retained control over the conditions relating to drainage. Members’ attention was drawn to the revised and additional conditions on page 6 of the late material.

Public Speaking

Speaking on behalf of the Angel Farm Action Committee, the speaker informed the committee that the action group wished to raise 3 issues in response to the substitute application. She said that the first issue related to the security of the conditions for the existing planning permission, which had been granted on appeal by the Planning Inspector in 2008. The speaker said that the action group believed the changes to the boundary lines for the scheme were dangerous and questioned why the planning authority had not challenged this. The second issue related to the removal of conditions that had been attached to planning application P1229/07/FUL, including condition 14, relating to foul water drainage. The speaker said that, without this condition, the scheme was considered unsafe and would only be accepted if any revisions to the proposals offered an improvement to the scheme or additional benefits. The third issue related to condition 29 of the original planning permission and the footpath link to Cinder Hill. The speaker recalled that the condition had been introduced in response to safety concerns about the footpath and questioned whether the condition, (including references to paragraphs 68 and 69 of the Planning Inspector’s appeal report), would be covered by the replacement application. She said that, if this was not the case, there was a serious risk to safety due to there being no safety barrier at Cinder Hill. The speaker stressed the importance of linking the current application to the terms of the existing appeal decision and highlighted the significance of the safeguards it had provided.

Town Councillor, Clive Elsmore, highlighted the concerns of Coleford Town Council and the strength of objection it had raised in response to the proposed scheme. Councillor Elsmore said that the town council had been dismayed that many of the conditions that had been attached to the original planning permission were not incorporated into the current application, in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.3

Erection of viewing platform (resubmission)

Erection of viewing platform (resubmission)

Please refer to the late material circulated at the meeting

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, confirmed that an application for a viewing platform at the site had been considered and refused at the planning committee meeting in December 2009. He said that the current application sought to preserve the footpath surrounding the Offa’s Dyke ancient monument site and had been adapted to accommodate the objections that had been raised in response to the previous application. The planning officer recalled the site inspection panel visit that had taken place in November 2009 and the extensive debate at the subsequent meeting. He said that the applicant had responded positively to the concerns that had been raised at that meeting and had submitted the current application to address the concerns.

Committee consideration

Ward member, Councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick, said that she was pleased with the revised scheme. Unopposed to the principle of the development, Councillor Kirkpatrick, said that she had objected to the viewing platform but supported the current application, which she believed, was more sympathetic to the surrounding area. The committee shared these sentiments and welcomed the proposals. Speaking as the council representative for the Wye Valley AONB, (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty), Joint Advisory Committee, Councillor David Thomson said that the committee was pleased with the revised scheme and supported the application.

Vote

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

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

For: (15)

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

Against: (0)

Abstentions: (0)

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

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

Please refer to the late material circulated at the meeting

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, informed members that the application was a resubmission of a scheme to extend and convert an existing dwelling into three flats. (The previous scheme had been refused following a site visit panel inspection). The Development Control Manager said that the proposed design for the scheme was effectively the same, and that the site had a known history of flooding and that there were concerns about flood risk. He said that, despite renewed information from the applicant, the level of detail that had been provided did not constitute a satisfactory Flood Risk Assessment and that the Environment Agency had restated their objections. The recommendation therefore remained one of refusal.

Public speaking

Speaking as an objector to the application, the speaker said that the proposed development had been a contentious matter for a number of years. As the resident from a neighbouring property, the speaker said that, from a personal point of view, he did not want to be overlooked by people accessing the flats from an open stairway. The speaker informed the committee that the building already had planning permission for a single dwelling, with no outside access to any of the rooms. He said that the current permission would be more aesthetically pleasing than the new proposal and could not understand why the application was being considered at all, particularly with the risk of flooding at the site. The speaker highlighted his concerns about flooding and informed members that when the site became flooded, the fire engine was often unable to access the depth of water from the lake. Furthermore, when the footpath to Beaufort Drive became flooded, the only safe way out was to access the speakers’ property, which he said he was not prepared to consider. The objector questioned the feasibility of the proposed evacuation plan and said that he fully supported the officer recommendation to refuse the application, which he feared, could become another Boscastle situation.

The agent for the application confirmed that the applicant wished to seek planning permission for change of use of the property to convert the five-bedroom house into three one-bedroom flats. In identifying that the volume of people living in three one-bedroom flats could be potentially lower than the number of occupants living in a five-bedroom house, the speaker said that he did not accept the reasons for refusal and questioned what harm there would be with fewer residents living at the property. The speaker suggested that any concerns that existed could be controlled by condition.

Committee consideration

Ward member, Councillor James Bevan, said he believed the concerns that had been raised during consideration of application P1465/09/FUL were now covered by the revised scheme. Referring members to the first three bullet points on page of 82 of the agenda, Councillor Bevan discounted the statement from the Environment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.5

Alterations and erection of a single storey rear extension. Provision of external stairs to loft area over existing double garage. Alterations to vehicular access and provision of gates. Erection of a greenhouse. (Minor material amendment to previously approved planning permission P0047/06/FUL).

Alterations and erection of a single storey rear extension. Provision of external stairs to loft area over existing double garage. Alterations to vehicular access and provision of gates. Erection of a greenhouse. (Minor material amendment to previously approved planning permission P0047/06/FUL).

Please refer to the late material circulated at the meeting

Development Control Manager, Clive Reynolds, referred to the late material and informed members that Tidenham Parish Council had raised no objections to the proposals.

Committee consideration

Ward member, Councillor Gabriella Kirkpatrick, supported the repositioning of the greenhouse and moved the recommendation. Fellow ward member, Councillor Alastair Fraser, agreed with this sentiment and seconded the motion.

Vote

A recorded vote was taken and members,

RESOLVED to grant the application planning permission as detailed in the schedule of applications and subject to the information referred to in the late material.

For: (14)

Councillors, Grace Bensted, James Bevan, Philip Burford, Heather Dalziel, Frankie Evans, Alastair Fraser, Terry Glastonbury (Chairman), Terry Hale, Jane Horne, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Norman Stephens (Vice chairman), Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas and Roger Yeates

Against: (0)

Abstentions: (0)

Erection of a building to accommodate dog training venue, sports and communal events, wedding/receptions and occasional dinners (demolition of existing buildings).

Erection of a building to accommodate dog training venue, sports and communal events, wedding/receptions and occasional dinners (demolition of existing buildings).

This item had been withdrawn from the meeting by the applicant.

Change of use of land for the stationing of caravans with associated access, track and erection of a toilet block. Conversion of existing workshop to create holiday lets.

Change of use of land for the stationing of caravans with associated access, track and erection of a toilet block. Conversion of existing workshop to create holiday lets.

This item had been withdrawn from the meeting by the applicant

a)     To confirm that the next sites’ inspection panel will be held on Tuesday 18 January 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.

RESOLVED that the sites inspection panel be held on Tuesday 18 January 2011, and that the following sites be added to the itinerary for that day: -  

A report from the Principal Planning Officer regarding the performance of the planning team in relation to planning enforcement.

Principal Planning Officer for Appeals and Enforcement, Martin Hiller, presented report PH.51, relating to the performance of the planning enforcement team for the period up to and including November 2010. The Planning Officer informed members that the council had received an increased number of complaints during 2010, which he believed, might have been due to some of the more controversial sites in the districts. The number of complaints continued to be monitored.

The planning officer said that the council had won all three enforcement cases at appeal and had published the enforcement protocol on the council’s website. Vice-chairman, Councillor Norman Stephens, thanked the enforcement team for their commendable 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 items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in schedule 12A of the said act.

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.

To confirm the exempt minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2010.

The exempt minutes of the meeting held on 14 December 2010 were confirmed as an accurate record of the meeting.

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

Principal Planning Officer for Planning and Enforcement, Martin Hillier, presented the schedule of enforcement. (The schedule had been circulated with the agenda as exempt information).

8 February 2011

8 February 2011

Council procedure B1 (b) was suspended at 5.15 pm to allow the meeting to

continue for up to 30 minutes beyond the normal time limit of three hours. A

15-minute adjournment of the meeting had been allowed.