Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Cornell and Jones.

To receive Declarations of Interest in relation to planning matters.

There were none.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 6 September 2022.

(Note: For access to information purposes, the background papers for the applications listed in the above schedule are the application itself and subsequent papers as listed in the relevant file.)

Representations were received and taken into account by the Committee in respect of Applications:

Reserved Matters in Respect of Erection of 216 no. Dwellings, Landscaping, Infrastructure & Associated Works Pursuant to Outline Planning Permission S.14/0810/OUT.

The Principal Planning Officer (Majors) introduced the application and explained that it was a reserved matters application for 216 houses on parcels H13 and H14 of the outline planning application S.14/0810/OUT. They further explained the key areas for consideration:

• Plans included 65 affordable houses.
• 38 houses would be situated within H14 and the remaining 178 in H13.
• Objections over the location of the flats were raised by the community and the Parish. After the applicant had engaged with the community the location of the flats were moved to a more central location and replaced by 4 landmark dwellings.
• Concerns were raised regarding parking and traffic, Highways had been consulted and were happy with the application provided the conditions were met.

The Principal Planning Officer (Majors) then proceeded to show the committee the plans for the application including the topography of the site.

Mr Combes, spoke as the agent on behalf of the applicant in support of the application. They asked the Committee to approve the application for the following reasons:

• There had been collaborative working between the applicant and the officers and wider community. They engaged with the Parish Council to hold a meeting which took place on the 21 September with members of the community to discuss their concerns.
• They created a revised layout to address concerns from residents and the Parish Council as well as addressing other concerns during the meeting on the 21 September.
• The revised layout was then circulated for wider consultation with the community, the Ward Members and the Parish Council and no further objections were received. 
• The Parish Council had since confirmed that they supported the changes to the layout.

In response to Councillors questions the Principal Planning Officer (Majors) gave the following responses:

• The outline stage was the place for conditioning the use of renewables and other requirements such as solar panels. These were beyond the remit of the reserved matters application.
• The materials used would be a mixture of brick and cement which was not uncommon and would use a prefabricated frame.

Councillor Schoemaker raised concerns with the number of self builds within the development and that none of them have come forward to date. They further requested information on self builds and the mechanisms used to occupy the sites. It was agreed that Officers circulate the figures for the self-build outside of the meeting.

In response to Councillor Gray, the Principal Planning Officer (Majors) advised that the mock slate would be made out of fibre cement or an alternative option would be for concrete tiles to also be used on the roofs.

Councillor Miles proposed and Councillor Patrick seconded.

Councillor Patrick commended the applicant’s engagement with the community.

Councillor Brown raised concerns with the lack of renewables, energy production and sustainable constructions techniques.

RESOLVED To permit the application

Erection of 4 dwellings.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that it was for the erection of 4 dwellings, and then proceeded to show the plans for the site and highlighted the following considerations:

• There was a mature area of land with dense hedge boundaries and a protected walnut tree in the centre.
• Access was via a steep, narrow lane to the A419.
• Site was within the Brimscombe settlement limits.
• Site was outside of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the conservation area.
• There was a Public Right of Way (PROW) running through the site from the East to the North.
• Site was within the catchment of Rodborough Common Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
• The application was called to Committee on the grounds of non-compliance with HC01 and ES7 of the Local Plan.
• The site was privately owned.
• It had previously been used as a play area in the 1970’s however the equipment was removed in the 1980’s. The site had never been designated as a play area within the Local Plan or any subsequent documents although it has been used by the public.

The Senior Planning Officer showed further plans for the site and ran through the proposed design, layout and materials that would be used. They explained that there had been no objections from the Tree Officer or from Gloucester County Council (GCC) Highways subject to relevant conditions and that the site would bring further enhancements to the access road. There would be a new tactile crossing and the current carriage way would be widened to 4.5m with a 1.5m footway on the East side of the road, without removing parking area from Queens Road.  

The Head of Development Management explained that there had been a written representation received from the applicant who was unable to attend the meeting, which had been circulated prior to the committee.

Councillor Watson spoke as a Ward Member for Chalford and stated that they were objecting to this application with the full support of the community and the Parish Council. There had been a previous planning application refused on the site already and numerous issues had been brought to their attention which included:

• The application went against the emerging Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) with regard to preserving open space and recreation and met none of the exception criteria.
• It contradicted the Stroud District 5-year plan to optimise public spaces for public wellbeing.
• The site did not meet any identified local housing needs for smaller, affordable homes.
• It was in breach of international conventions by removing vital public space for rest, recreation and leisure for local children and vulnerable residents.
• There was no traffic assessment completed after the flats had been refurbished and there were other large developments evolving within the Parish and the infrastructure would not be able to cope.
• There would be no community benefit to this development and there was an overwhelming display of objection from the community with 45 comments made in objection  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.085

Erection of bungalow with associated car parking, refuse/recycling provision, cycle and electric wheelchair storage and amenity space.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the application for the erection of a single bungalow and highlighted the following key considerations:

• The site was within the Stroud Uplands settlement limits and located on a dense housing estate predominately characterised by 2 storey properties.
• The proposed bungalow was approximately 7m forward from the building line.
• The site characteristics consisted of houses fronting the highway with long linear gardens to the rear. The application would breach Local Plan Policy HC1 due to not following the pattern of development.
• The site was very constrained and the proposed footprint was very large for the site.
• The proposal had minimal useable garden space of approximately 4m² contrasted Local Plan Policy HC1.
• The new two storey dwelling next to the site was within the proximity to be overlooking the amenity space which was again in contradiction to the Local Plan Policy HC1. 

Councillor Baker spoke as a Ward Member for Stroud Uplands and asked the Committee to approve the application for the following reasons:

• The development would improve the outlook for residents in the area.
• The site was partitioned of and sold by SDC with potential for development and there was community support for the land to be developed.
• There was a shortage of accommodation suitable for disabled people which this application would be perfect for due to the minimal amenity area.
• There were a cluster of bungalows nearby which meant that the bungalow would not be out of place.
• The building line was jagged at present and they did not feel that it would be incompatible with the wider site.
• The proposed development would have minimal impact on nearby homes as it was a single storey bungalow.

Councillor Patrick raised concerns with access an egress of the property to which the GCC Highways, Principal Highways Development Management Officer explained that was only a requirement on classified roads which this site was not on.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that there were four refusal reasons in total which could be found on page 65 of the reports pack.

The Head of Development Management advised the Committee to look at the application on its planning merits and not consider the state of the site. They further advised the Committee that if the application was approved, they would be looking to collect the payment for the Special Area of Conservation and a delegated approval would be advised should the Committee be minded to approve the application.

The Principal Planning Officer gave the following response to Councillors:

• There were no further letters of support or objection received.
• The Ward Councillor was in support of the application.
• Had the pre-application been submitted the applicant would have been advised that a residential dwelling would not be appropriate on the site. However, each application was dealt with on its own merits.
• The physical appearance of the bungalow was considered as a good design however it was felt that it did not fit the space and would be overlooked.

Councillor Schoemaker proposed to  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.086

To provide planning and enforcement Key Performance Indicator Statistics for information.

There were no comments on the report.

To bring forward an updated local enforcement plan for approval to set out the operational objectives of the council’s planning enforcement service.

The Development Team Manager introduced the report and explained that National Guidance had encouraged local planning authorities to publish a Local Enforcement Plan to proactively manage planning enforcement within the district. They had reviewed the current Planning Enforcement Policy and Procedure and established that it was out of date and would be replaced with a Planning Enforcement Operational Protocol. The Development Team Manager highlighted the relevant key points which included:

·       It would enable more regular and more meaningful communication with complainants and developers.

·       It provided detail on how officers would administer, evaluate, and progress planning enforcement complaints.

·       It had been through a rigorous 6-week public consultation period (June – July 2022) which included the development advisory Panel (D-MAP), Town and Parish Councils, District Councillors and then finally discussed again at D-MAP in October.

·       An outline of proposed processes could be found at appendix A on page 92 of the reports pack.

The Development Team Manager concluded and stated that the new Protocol would provide a framework to those who investigated plnanning for both decision making and communication.

The Development Team Manager gave the following answers in response to questions asked:

·       The first step for the planning team would be to implement the Operational Protocol which outlined what the team was aiming to achieve. The second step would be to implement the new IT system and the final step to utilise the new protocol and the IT system to identify whether there was a need for greater resource within the team.

·       Any complaints received from January 2023 would follow the new Operational Protocol and the team would continue to work through the backlog of complaints alongside the new protocol. They had assigned a dedicated person to handle some of the backlog and would be review this once completed. 

·       Officers are looking to integrate older cases into the new system.  Officers have already implemented a last touch date to sort dormant cases by date of last action. Officers are working with the Fit for the Future (FFF) team on new workload reporting tools to manage both new and historic cases.

Councillor Patrick proposed and Councillor Ryder seconded.

Councillors Green and Gray commended the report for being in plain English and easy to understand.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED a)  To approve the Planning Enforcement Operational Protocol, for implementation from 01 January 2023

b) To receive an annual update on the implementation of the plan

c) That the plan will be reviewed in 12 months