To receive apologies for absence

Apologies were received from Cllr Frankie Evans (substituted by Cllr Judy Davis), Cllr Jane Horne (substituted by Cllr Brian Jones) and Cllr Val Hobman.

To confirm the minutes of the planning committee meeting held on 11 September 2012.

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 September 2012 were confirmed and signed as an accurate record.

The chairman to identify any items of urgent business

The chairman identified no items of urgent business.

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

No declarations of interest were made.

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

Cllr Glastonbury, chairman of the committee, referred to the schedule of planning applications, as prepared by the Group Manager for Planning and Housing under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and to the late material that had been circulated before the meeting.

The applications are recorded in the order of the agenda.

Erection of a replacement dwelling.

Erection of a replacement dwelling

Tony Pope, Principal Planning Officer, presented the item, commenting that councillors had visited the site recently and that there was no late material. The recommendation was as at the schedule.

Public speaking

Cllr Ede, the local ward councillor, fully supported the Staunton Parish Council's view, saying that he had visited the site, where the building was falling apart and should be replaced as soon as possible.

Committee consideration

Cllr Thomson said that any concern was not about the council's policy, but whether the replacement design was acceptable. He was unclear as to how much influence the council should have over the design of replacement dwellings, if the application was within policy. He believed that there would be no conflict at all in this case, if there were no other buildings in the vicinity. He recalled a similar application that had been successful and deemed to fit in with surrounding buildings.

Cllr Kirkpatrick agreed, but believed that the proposed dwelling was too big in relation to the main house and other buildings. She was unsure of what the council policy stated regarding height restrictions, but thought that the materials used for the replacement dwelling would be important, giving roof tiles as an example.

The Group Manager for Planning and Housing replied that the council did not oppose the principle of a replacement dwelling and did not seek to impose a particular style. However the setting for listed buildings was of national importance. The view of the sustainability team and the specialist conservation adviser was that the proposed design would harm the existing listed buildings. The other case referred to by Cllr Thomson had been different, and the council had also followed the advice of the specialist in that instance.

Cllr Stephens said that the proposed building was possibly overpowering and something more modest would be better, but agreed that it was a quandary, as at the site visit the top house appeared very big. He wondered what chance the council would have at appeal if the committee rejected the application.

The Group Manager for Planning and Housing replied that the issue was not about a replacement dwelling, but the detailed aspects of the proposal. The council could work with the applicant to agree a design that would fit into the site more readily.

The Principal Planning Officer added that since an initial visit to the site three years previously, the council had been in discussion with the applicant. The current proposal was greatly reduced in size from previous suggested schemes.

Cllr McMahon commented that at the site visit the current dwelling looked small, almost like a pavilion, and he could envisage a single storey building there, which was not as large as the proposal.

Cllr Sterry agreed that since the original building was low-level, then the replacement should bear some resemblance to that. She would welcome a revised proposal along those lines.

The Group Manager for Planning and Housing said that the applicant could resubmit an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.1

Demolition of existing dwelling, storage building and sheds to provide replacement dwelling and garage.  An enlargement of residential curtilage.

Demolition of existing dwelling, storage building and sheds to provide replacement dwelling and garage. An enlargement of residential curtelage.

Please refer to the late material circulated before the meeting.

Emma Norgate, Principal Planning Officer, presented the item, stating that since there was no council policy regarding replacement buildings, the committee needed to consider the visual impact and sustainability of the proposal. The proposed new building was larger than the current one, but because of its siting there would be no great visual impact. The revised recommendation was for permission with added conditions as at the late material.

Public speaking

None.

Committee consideration

Cllr Stephens said that he was pleased with the way the council had dealt with the application, showing great diligence and common sense.

Vote

Cllr Stephens Proposed and Cllr Yeates seconded the motion.

RESOLVED - to grant permission with revised conditions as detailed in the late material to the schedule.

Voting was as follows.

For (14) - Terry Glastonbury, Arthur Thomas, Norman Stephens, Julia Gooch, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Gethyn Davies, Roger Yeates, Brian Jones, Lynn Sterry, David Thomson, Graham Morgan, Paul McMahon, Judy Davis, James Bevan

Against (0)

Abstain (0)

Approval of Reserved Matters for the erection of a Class A1 retail store of up to 4,645 sq. m. including ancillary uses, recycling centre, associated accesses off Steam Mills Road, and estate roads, car parking and landscaping (Demolition of outbuildings).

Approval of Reserved Matters for the erection of a Class A1 retail store of up to 4,645 sq. m. including ancillary uses, recycling centre, associated accesses off Steam Mills Road, and estate roads, car parking and landscaping (Demolition of outbuildings).

Please refer to the late material circulated before the meeting.

Tony Pope, Principal Planning Officer, presented the item, explaining that the application followed outline permission being granted in March 2012. It was now for the committee to consider the layout, scale, appearance and landscaping of the proposal. The recommendation was now to grant delegated permission, as the council would need to wait until 18 October 12012 for the Coal Authority consultation response.

Public speaking

None

Committee consideration

Cllr Sterry said that she had received numerous phone calls about the progress of the application and it was good to see what the town could expect. She hoped that colleagues would agree.

Cllr Morgan said that the development was long overdue, to ensure retail competition in Cinderford. He agreed that for safety reasons it was important to wait for the Coal Authority's response.

Cllr Thomson commented that it was useful for the proposal to return to the committee, since the people who have written letters in local newspapers might realise that the committee had passed the application previously.

Cllr Bevan said that he had previously voted against the application, when it had been pitched against Sainsbury's, but would support the recommendation at this meeting. However he believed that the developers had not taken into consideration concerns expressed at a presentation regarding the lack of public transport stops at the site.

Vote

Cllr Sterry proposed and Cllr Morgan seconded the motion.

RESOLVED - to grant delegated permission as detailed in the late material to the schedule, to allow for receipt of the Coal Authority consultation response.

Voting was as follows.

For (14) - Terry Glastonbury, Arthur Thomas, Norman Stephens, Julia Gooch, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Gethyn Davies, Roger Yeates, Brian Jones, Lynn Sterry, David Thomson, Graham Morgan, Paul McMahon, Judy Davis, James Bevan

Against (0)

Abstain (0)

Subdivision of retail unit to retail unit and residential flat.

Subdivision of retail unit to retail unit and residential flat.

Please refer to the late material circulated before the meeting.

Tony Pope, Principal Planning Officer, presented the item, commenting that the councillors had visited the site several weeks previously.

Public speaking

None.

Committee consideration

Cllr Sterry stated that Cinderford Town Council was against the application, following its policy of opposing retail units being split into flats.

Cllr Bevan commented that this part of Cinderford had become a bottleneck as a result of unloading and did not need a development.

Cllr Thomson recalled that two years previously the council had taken enforcement action against the owner of a flat in a similar situation and believed that the proposal was totally unsuitable as a living space. Additionally shops needed a back office. He saw nothing to recommend the application.

Vote

Cllr Sterry proposed and Cllr Morgan seconded the motion.

RESOLVED - to refuse the application as detailed in the schedule of applications.

Voting was as follows.

For (14) - Terry Glastonbury, Arthur Thomas, Norman Stephens, Julia Gooch, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Gethyn Davies, Roger Yeates, Brian Jones, Lynn Sterry, David Thomson, Graham Morgan, Paul McMahon, Judy Davis, James Bevan

Against (0)

Abstain (0)

Erection of a detached bungalow and garage (Revised Scheme).

Erection of a detached bungalow and garage (Revised Scheme).

Please refer to the late material circulated before the meeting.

Emma Norgate, Principal Planning Officer, presented the item, reminding members that the committee had refused a previous application in March 2011 for a dormer bungalow. An appeal on the decision had been dismissed on grounds of scale and position, hence the revised application.

Public speaking

None.

Committee consideration

Cllr Thomson thought that the inspector's response had been well put, but believed that there was still an issue around access through Forest Waste. The applicant would need to come to an agreement with the Forestry Commission, which had resisted other applications. He believed that the proposal included an unacceptable encroachment on the forest.

The Group Manager for Planning and Housing replied that these were private land ownership rather than planning issues. Responding to a further query relating to an application in Joyford, he said that it was not in isolation and that the inspector had judged it acceptable.

Cllr Gooch asked whether the proposal included a turning area or not, since the schedule was unclear.

The Development Manager showed on the screens that one was highlighted in the submitted plan.

Cllr Bevan was of the opinion that the council had lost the Joyford case on appeal and would do the same with this one, should the committee refuse permission.

Cllr Stephens was surprised to see that the recommendation was to grant permission, although he understood the reasons officers had given.  He also understood other members' concerns and recognised the departure from the Core Strategy. Because the issue threw up many questions he believed that the committee should visit the site again.

Cllr Sterry said that she knew the site well and believed that the council had a principle not to allow anything that encroached on Forest Waste.

The Group Manager for Planning and Housing agreed that the Core Strategy contained such a principle, but that the inspector had not objected on those grounds, but on grounds of height and domination. It would not be reasonable for the council to make an argument regarding encroachment, should the matter go to appeal again.

Cllr Sterry recognised that it was not a good idea to go against the view of the inspector, but equally she could not defend encroachment on to Forest Waste to the people of the district.

Cllr Stephens concluded by reminding the committee that the late material included concerns from the parish council regarding access, so it was important that members visited the site.

Vote

Cllr Stephens proposed and Cllr Davies seconded the motion.

RESOLVED - to defer the application to allow a site visit on 16 October 2012.

Erection of a detached dwelling with associated management office and associated parking and landscaping.  (Revised Scheme).

Erection of a detached dwelling with associated management office and associated parking and landscaping.  (Revised Scheme).

Please refer to the late material circulated before the meeting.

The Development Manager presented the item, highlighting the additional comments from the applicant and the parish council. The objections raised by the council's sustainability team could be overcome by the submission of a mitigation strategy. However there was no proven need for the dwelling, which lay outside the settlement boundary and a building in this location would significantly harm the setting of very important listed buildings on this gateway site to the village.

Public speaking

A representative of Staunton Parish Council spoke to the representation already submitted to the council in writing.

Cllr Ede, the local ward councillor, fully agreed with the parish council in supporting the application, agreeing with the police's statement regarding security. He believed that the proposed dwelling would blend in well with other buildings and that its location would solve a problem for the site. Increased security would bring revenue and employment.

Committee consideration

Cllr Stephens emphasised that previously the committee had narrowly voted to refuse an application. However this was a new design, which the officer at the site visit had agreed was better, so was no longer a reason for refusal. English Heritage did not agree with the concerns of the council's sustainability team, as stated in the late material. He said that the council used to guide businesses to this site as the only industrial estate in the north of the district and it was an important gateway to the village. He also agreed with the police report concerning problems over a long period of time.

Cllr Kirkpatrick had concerns over the impact of the proposed dwelling for which no agricultural or forestry reason was given. While she understood the view of the local ward councillor, she also noted that the proposal was against policy and on a sensitive site. She saw no reason why an existing building could not be converted to serve the purpose of site security.

Cllr Thomson commented that if the proposal had not been for the function stated, there would be no question of granting permission. Without a security guard present, he questioned whether the dwelling would make the site more secure.

Cllr Sterry referred members to the officers' comments regarding policy on agenda pages 72 and 79, suggesting that the committee should be guided by that information.

Cllr Glastonbury said that he had listened to the parish councillor and the local ward councillor, but would not be supporting the application.

Cllr Stephens believed that the applicant had made a stronger case this time and for him the opinion of English Heritage was the most important. He did not think that the proposal would harm the surrounding area and that it would add security to the only industrial site in the north of the district.

The Group Manager for Planning and Housing suggested that Cllr Stephens' proposal be for delegated permission to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.6

Approval of reserved matters for the erection of 91 dwellings with associated infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping (Revised scheme of previously approved P0311/12/APP - appearance and Energy Strategy).

Approval of reserved matters for the erection of 91 dwellings with associated infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping (Revised scheme of previously approved P0311/12/APP - appearance and Energy Strategy).

Please refer to the late material circulated before the meeting.

Tony Pope, Principal Planning Officer, presented the item, emphasising that this approval of reserved matters application only sought to revise the appearance of the approved development by removing some of the solar panels originally proposed and incorporation of improvements to the fabric of some units. 

Public speaking

None.

Committee consideration

Cllr Glastonbury noted that it had been the third time that members had been required to consider reserved matters for the site. Following the original approval these submission related to minor matters and asked if the committee thought that the council's constitution should be amended to enable delegated powers to the Group Manager for Planning and Housing for such matters.

The Group Manager for Planning and Housing said that it was common for a scheme of this size to have minor variations in design. It was for the committee to decide if it needed to consider such matters.

Cllr Glastonbury suggested that the item be on the agenda for the committee's November meeting.

Cllr Stephens said that the idea seemed to make sense and he would probably agree, subject to a safeguard, such as the officers consulting with the local ward member on such matters.

The Group Manager for Planning and Housing replied that any change to the constitution would entail adding the item to a list that was in any case subject to call-in by members, so it should not be a problem.

Vote

Cllr Kirkpatrick proposed and Cllr Gooch seconded the motion.

RESOLVED - to grant delegated permission as detailed in the schedule of applications.

Voting was as follows.

 For (14) - Terry Glastonbury, Arthur Thomas, Norman Stephens, Julia Gooch, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Gethyn Davies, Roger Yeates, Brian Jones, Lynn Sterry, David Thomson, Graham Morgan, Paul McMahon, Judy Davis, James Bevan

Against (0)

Abstain (0)

Variation/Removal of conditions B and C attached to planning application DF11142/B, to facilitate the provision of play space off site and to maintain the present open space with a maintenance schedule.

Variation/Removal of conditions B and C attached to planning application DF11142/B, to facilitate the provision of play space off site and to maintain the present open space with a maintenance schedule.

The Development Manager presented the item, commenting that the variation sought to resolve an issue concerning an open space and play area. He reported that extensive negotiations had secured the outcome committee members had requested, resiting the play area away from the open space.

Public speaking

None.

Committee consideration

Cllr Sterry said that she would be glad to propose this permission, as the matter had caused some concern among residents. A site visit had clarified the scale of site.

Vote

Cllr Sterry proposed and Cllr Morgan seconded the motion.

RESOLVED - to grant permission as detailed in the schedule of applications

Voting was as follows.

For (14) - Terry Glastonbury, Arthur Thomas, Norman Stephens, Julia Gooch, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Gethyn Davies, Roger Yeates, Brian Jones, Lynn Sterry, David Thomson, Graham Morgan, Paul McMahon, Judy Davis, James Bevan

Against (0)

Abstain (0)

Erection of a detached two storey dwelling, with associated parking and landscaping. Construction of new vehicular access.

Erection of a detached two-storey dwelling, with associated parking and landscaping. Construction of new vehicular access.

The Development Manager presented the item, clarifying that it concerned a house on a triangular shaped piece of land bordering a B road and Bradfords Lane. The principle had already been established through the granting of outline planning permission. The key changes from the outline were the moving of the access from the B road to the lane adjoining the site, which the county highways supported, and an increase in the footprint of the building but not its height. The scheme had been designed to avoid windows that might over look adjoining properties

Public speaking

None.

Committee consideration

Cllr Yeates said that Newent Town Council had asked about any problems with height and access, which he believed had been addressed.

Vote

Cllr Yeates proposed and Cllr Gooch seconded the motion.

RESOLVED - to grant permission as detailed in the schedule of applications.

Voting was as follows.

For (14) - Terry Glastonbury, Arthur Thomas, Norman Stephens, Julia Gooch, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Gethyn Davies, Roger Yeates, Brian Jones, Lynn Sterry, David Thomson, Graham Morgan, Paul McMahon, Judy Davis, James Bevan

Against (0)

Abstain (0)

Change of use from public house (Class A4) to children's nursery (Class D1). Installation of fire escape and associated development.

Change of use from public house (Class A4) to children's nursery (Class D1). Installation of fire escape and associated development.

Please refer to the late material circulated before the meeting.

Emma Norgate, Principal Planning Officer, presented the item explaining that the council's policy did allow the loss of use for community facilities if there remained a suitable alternative nearby. The council was satisfied that there were other public houses and social clubs available.

Public speaking

None.

Committee consideration

Cllr Sterry said that Cinderford Town Council objected strongly to the application, because a public house could not be resurrected and it had concerns over children's safety while being dropped off on this busy road. However she did recognise the need for good childcare, so was unsure on her final opinion.

Cllr Morgan said that Cinderford Town Council also objected because public houses represented social centres for people to meet. He said that social clubs were for members and he did not think that there were any public houses near the proposed site.

Cllr Thomson agreed that the roads represented a possible danger. He asked if the loss of the community facility had to address viability issues.

The Principal Planning Officer replied that viability had been a background issue and that the case had been considered on the first principle in Policy CSP.8 of the Core Strategy regarding suitable alternative facilities.

The Group Manager for Planning and Housing added that the policy had two steps. Since the application satisfied the first criterion, there had been no need to consider the second.

Cllr Stephens agreed that it was sad to lose another public house, but that it was a fact of life. He believed that the landlord and landlady had tried as hard as they could to make the Royal Foresters Inn a success. He added that the application still provided a community facility.

Cllr Bevan believed that the application had tried to address the issue of car parking and traffic flow.

Cllr Kirkpatrick was concerned that the town council objected strongly and asked how close the nearest public house was.

The Principal Planning Officer said that she believed the nearest was the Mountpleasant about 600 yards away.

Cllr Yeates commented that Gloucestershire Highways had not objected.

Cllr Sterry asked if the council could add a condition to prevent parking outside the front door of the building.

The Group Manager for Planning and Housing replied that the council could not prevent people from parking on a public highway, even if the applicant agreed to such a condition. It might be best addressed via the town council.

Vote

Cllr Stephens proposed and Cllr Yeates seconded the motion.

RESOLVED - to grant permission as detailed in the schedule of applications.

Voting was as follows.

For (11) - Terry Glastonbury, Arthur Thomas, Norman Stephens, Julia Gooch, Gethyn Davies, Roger Yeates, Brian Jones, David Thomson, Paul McMahon, Judy Davis, James Bevan

Against (3) - Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Lynn Sterry, Graham Morgan

Abstain (0)

Change of use of agricultural to residential to provide altered access and conversion extension of outbuilding to residential use.

Change of use of agricultural to residential to provide altered access and conversion extension of outbuilding to residential use.

Please refer to the late material circulated before the meeting.

The Development Manager presented the item, explaining that the scheme sought to widen an access and use of land as residential curtilage and to construct a side extension using in part an existing detached building. Because the consultation period did not expire until 15 October 2012 the recommendation was one of delegated permission.

Public speaking

None.

Committee consideration

Cllr Thomson thought that the proposal represented and excellent example of a scheme to bring a small cottage to a more usable living space, while remaining very low in the site and not detracting from the main cottage.

Vote

Cllr Thomson proposed and Cllr Jones seconded the motion.

RESOLVED - to grant delegated permission as detailed in the late material to the schedule of applications.

Voting was as follows.

For (14) - Terry Glastonbury, Arthur Thomas, Norman Stephens, Julia Gooch, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Gethyn Davies, Roger Yeates, Brian Jones, Lynn Sterry, David Thomson, Graham Morgan, Paul McMahon, Judy Davis, James Bevan

Against (0)

Abstain (0)

a)     To confirm that the next sites inspection panel of visits will take place on 16 October 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.

The Development Manager explained that the first two sites were both concerned with proposed yurts in different parts of the district. The third site was for a major development allocated in the local plan and the fourth had been agreed at this meeting.

He suggested that the November sites inspection panel remain on 20 November, even though the committee meeting would follow it on 22 November and that for the sites inspection visits on 20 November 2012 officers put forward sites for the Planning Committee chairman to agree.

RESOLVED -

a) to hold the next sites inspection visit on 16 October 2012 to include the following sites:

P1149/12/FUL              Dursley Cross Farm nr May Hill

P1172/12/FUL            Blackthornes farm Hillersland

P1251/12/FUL          Owens farm Coleford

P1071/12/FUL            Astonberry, Brierley

b) that for the sites inspection visits on 20 November 2012 officers put forward sites for the Planning Committee chairman to agree.

The committee to consider report PH.139, detailing the performance of the planning team in dealing with appeal decisions.

Emma Norgate, Principal Planning Officer, presented report PH.139, commenting that the backlog of major applications had been cleared, but that there was a knock-on effect on the performance figures. It would be important for the remaining major applications to be determined within the target time, notwithstanding the upcoming festive season.

She reported an upward trend in the time taken to determine minor applications.

The Development Manager informed the committee that at a recent meeting with planning inspectors he had received information concerning central government's proposed 'planning guarantee' for all authorities to determine all applications within 26 weeks. Poorly performing authorities could lose the power to determine applications to the planning inspectorate. However central government had not yet defined 'poorly performing'. The council would need to consider the implications of this move and would keep members informed.

Cllr Stephens asked if the council could put pressure on applicants who held up applications through lack of information.

The Group Manager for Planning and Housing replied that the council already had a mechanism through delegation with a time limit for applicants. With regard to the government's proposal the council would need to achieve the right balance to make the right decision. He added that the completion of legal agreements could hold up applications for long periods of time.

Cllr Thomson wondered how councils who had lost the power would prove that they were in a good position to take it back.

Cllr Sterry asked how this council fared on past performance.

The Development Manager believed that the council sat comfortably in the middle for speed, but could be vulnerable in respect of major applications, so needed to work hard over the remainder of the year.

Cllr Bevan could not see where the government's principles of localism were in this proposed move.

Cllr Davies asked if the council could call an emergency planning committee meeting, if it were falling behind the target.

The Group Manager for Planning and Housing replied that the council did not receive many major applications, but that in the past special meetings had been called for large-scale developments.

22 November 2012

To Note: Due to the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections on 15 November 2012, the November Planning meeting will now take place on Thursday 22 November.  The meeting on Tuesday 13 November 2012 has been cancelled.

22 November 2012

To Note: Due to the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections on 15 November 2012, the November Planning meeting will now take place on Thursday 22 November.  The meeting on Tuesday 13 November 2012 has been cancelled.