Agenda and minutes

Councillor Chatterton declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 6, Victoria Basin by virtue of his position as Museum Director at the Soldiers of Gloucestershire Museum.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 3 November, 2015

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 November 2015 were confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.

Please note that any late material relating to the applications detailed below will be published on the Council’s website as a supplement in the late afternoon of the day of the meeting.

Members’ attention was drawn to the late material in respect of agenda items 1 and 8 which had been published on the internet as a supplement to the agenda.

Application for determination.

Contact: Development Control – tel: (01452) 396783

Councillor Chatterton, having declared a prejudicial interest in this application, retired to the public gallery and took no part in the debate.

The Principal Planning Officer presented his report which detailed an application for the stationing of a replica pirate galleon with masts at the dockside and use as a café, erection of a bin store, and ramp to pontoon, works to dock side barrier at Victoria Basin, The Docks. 

He advised that the vessel comprised a steel hull with a steel skeleton superstructure clad in timber. It would also have pirate themed accessories added to it including replica cannon, treasure chests, beer barrels and pirate models.

It would be used as a café and for children’s parties, and would seat a maximum of 80 adults and children. A number of staff would be required to run the business.

David Howard, the applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Mr Howard hoped to address two controversial aspects. He advised that the location had been selected by former British Waterways managers and was bounded on three sides by commercial properties and by a public car park on the fourth. There were no legally permitted residential berths in the basin. Access was good with safety barriers on the dockside.

The vessel had a steel hull with modern fittings, disabled access and fire precautions. The colours were warm and not intimidating to children and would maintain the fantasy.

It was expected to attract thousands of visitors from outside Gloucester. Educational facilities would be provided for school visits including books and artefacts at no charge to schools or pupils.

Jobs would be created for local people with a living wage.

Mr Howard thanked the Principal Planning Officer who had suggested conditions and restrictions. He confirmed he was happy with any restrictions imposed by the Council and he confirmed that the vessel was not to be used as an adult events venue. He noted that the masts would be 8 metres above water level and flags would be 9 metres above water level.

Greg Moger addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

Mr Moger advised that he was representing boat owners.

He had visited the boatyard and described the vessel as a shed on a dumb barge. It would dominate the preserved Victorian port in a cathedral city. He believed that it would open the doors to tack and he advised that boat owners already tolerated events of short duration. even a temporary permission would set a precedent.

He stated that the proposal would add to parking problems and anti-social behaviour in the area and would destroy the peaceful setting of the Docks.

He noted that the Gloucester Docks Estate Company objected to the proposal and believed that Victoria Basin should remain non-commercial. The Docks had won awards and all the boats using the basin, old or modern, were authentic. He asked Members to reflect before reaching their decision.

Councillor Hilton stated that pirate galleons had never sailed from Gloucester which was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

Application for determination.

Contact: Development Control – tel: (01452) 396783

The Development Control Manager presented the report which detailed an application for the erection of a new manufacturing and distribution facility (Use Classes B2/B8) and ancillary office with associated car parking, landscaping and access arrangements on land to the south of Waterwells Drive.

He advised that the intended occupier was FLI who currently occupied other premises at Waterwells and Madleaze Road. These sites would be relocated with an anticipated increase of 30 jobs.

He drew Members’ attention to paragraph 6.7 of the report6 which detailed the applicant’s proposal for quiet working between 23.00 and 07.00 hours.

He noted that the Environmental Protection team were satisfied with the proposed noise conditions. There was a policy requirement for 8 metre easements along the watercourse and there were pinch points where the building was closer to the watercourse for a limited area which was considered to be acceptable.

Bill Hayley, director of the Hayley Group addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Mr Hayley advised that FLI had been bought from receivership and opened the current factory in Waterwells in 1996. The workforce had grown from 54 to 77 and the main activity was the manufacture of telecommunications masts. The market for masts had disappeared and a new market developed with the manufacture of railway electrification equipment.

He thanked Officers for their assistance and confirmed his acceptance of all proposed conditions but requested that conditions 19, 20 and 21 have the words “for B2 use” added.

He explained that this was requested to provide an alternative if the business environment required a change to a B8 Class distribution use. He advised that a high quality building was specified and the anticipated cost was £3 million more than originally expected.

The Development Control Manager advised Members that the impact of a 24 hour B8 use had not been fully assessed and if that use was to become dominant the applicant could apply to vary the conditions. He emphasised that the Committee did not have the necessary information on the impact of a 24 hour storage/distribution use to make that decision.

Councillor Hobbs welcomed the application for a very attractive building for a local company that was doing well but he acknowledged that there was insufficient information to consider varying the conditions.

Councillor Hanman questioned the need for any restriction on the business.

Councillor Williams noted that there was a distribution business nearer to residential properties than the application site.

The Development Control Manager reiterated that the application before the Committee had been assessed and considered acceptable for 24 hour employment use. Whilst he could not say whether 24 hour operation for a solely B8 use would not be acceptable, there was no evidence available to prove that it would be.

The Chair suggested delegating authority to approve the change subject to a satisfactory noise impact assessment.

Councillor Hilton believed that the application be approved in accordance with the recommendation as the local community had not been consulted on the change requested by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.

Site A - Former St Gobain & Wellman Graham factories, Bristol Road/Tuffley Crescent.

Site B – Former Contract Chemicals, Bristol Road

Applications for determination.

Contact: Development Control – tel: (01452) 396783

The Senior Planning Officer presented his report which detailed two applications for sites that were formerly in separate ownerships:-

Site A – 15/00286/REM - Reserved matters scheme for 172 residential dwellings with associated open space and landscaping at the former St Gobain & Wellman Graham factories, Bristol Road/Tuffley Crescent.

Site B – 15/00287/REM - Reserved matters scheme of 86 residential dwellings with associated open space and landscaping at the former Contract Chemicals site, Bristol Road.

He drew Members’ attention to the late material which contained confirmation that Gloucestershire County Council Highways raised no objection and were drafting conditions; additional representations; a letter from PS Development Solutions Ltd and a revised Officer recommendation.

Councillor Dee was advised that there would be no vehicular through route between Bristol Road and Tuffley Crescent.

Councillor Hanman expressed concern that a previous occupier had produced soda and cyanide on the site. He was advised that considerable remediation had been undertaken pursuant to a remediation condition on the outline planning consent.

Councillor McLellan referred to the letter from PS Development Solutions Ltd and was advised that the current applications were for reserved matters only and noise had been addressed by condition at the outline application. He was advised that the new dwellings would need to meet the required noise standards as set out in the conditions on the outline planning consent and the applicant may have to amend the layout if the condition could not be discharged.

Councillor Lewis was reassured that it was the applicant’s responsibility to achieve acceptable noise levels in accordance with this condition.

Councillor Hobbs welcomed the application and requested that officers write to the Highways section requesting that LED lighting was specified.

Councillor Hilton suggested that the parking spaces identified for visitors be restricted to such use by condition. He was advised that the application made generous provision for parking and such a condition would be difficult to enforce.

Councillor Lewis requested that the Committee be informed about who would maintain the visitor parking spaces.

RESOLVED that the Development Control Manager be authorised to approve the reserved matters applications subject to the conditions in the report, any additional relevant conditions as recommended by the Highway Authority and any associated revisions to the approved drawings under Condition 2.

To consider the report of the Development Control Manager.

The Development Control Manager presented his report which detailed a consultation by Tewkesbury Borough Council in respect of an application being determined by that Council for a mixed use development on land north of Innsworth Lane comprising demolition of existing buildings up to 1300 dwellings and 8.31 hectares of land for employment generating uses comprising a neighbourhood centre of 4.23 ha (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1, D2, B1), office park of 1.31 ha (B1) and business park of 2.77ha (B1 and B8 uses), primary school, open space, landscaping, parking and supporting infrastructure and facilities, and the creation of new vehicular accesses from the A40 Gloucester Northern Bypass, Innsworth Lane and Frogfurlong Lane.

Councillor Porter, a ward Member for Longlevens, was invited to address the Committee.

Councillor Porter stated that Longlevens residents were concerned at the impact of this application which was in addition to 700 spaces at Twigworth proposed in the Joint Core Strategy (JCS). There was provision for 800 primary school places but no provision for secondary education places. The area was served by two surgeries which were already operating at capacity.

He stated that the existing infrastructure was totally inadequate for this application. He believed that it should be mentioned that parts of the site were underwater in 2007 and the land was currently in the Green Belt and there was no submission to the secretary of State to remove that protection.

He noted the importance of ensuring that the proposed access to the A40 was completed before development commenced.

He stated that the area had the largest infants and junior schools in the City but these were already full as were the two surgeries. The Universities were expanding and he questioned where the student population would obtain health care.

In conclusion, he requested that the points which he had mentioned be raised with Tewkesbury Borough Council.

Councillor Williams believed that the land should not be in the Joint Core Strategy because of flooding concerns. She noted that Tewkesbury Road flooded regularly; the traffic situation would be made worse; there was no provision for medical care and Gloucester Royal Hospital was full; there was no medical practice proposed and no schools for senior pupils.

Councillor Hilton believed that the application was premature. He stated that the JCS Inspector would want to consider the proposed allocations holistically. He noted that flooding issues could be addressed by linear parks but this could not be achieved through applications considered on a piecemeal basis. He believed that traffic would cause problems and he called for reassurance on drainage issues.

The Chair stated that the site was one which the Council had indicated that it would wish to see developed in the JCS.

Councillor Chatterton expressed concerns regarding medical issues and education provision. He noted that Hunts Grove was a development of similar size in total and had overwhelmed facilities in that locality.

He asked that the following issues be raised in addition to the recommendation:-

·         medical provision

·         primary school places  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Application for determination.

Contact: Development Control – tel: (01452) 396783

The Principal Planning Officer presented his report which detailed an application for the discharge of Condition 29 (Public Art) of planning permission 15/00362/FUL at the former Gloscat site, Brunswick Road. He confirmed that it had been brought back to the Planning Committee because this had been requested when members considered the original planning application for the site.

Councillor Chatterton considered that the cloister remains were more important than proposals for planting trees in the square. In terms of the Roman wall proposal, he noted that the illustrated proposals included Roman military diplomas and he asked if something more specifically relevant to the history of the City could be used instead, either the history of Gloucester generally or preferably to Gloucester’s Roman period.

The Principal Planning Officer undertook to convey that suggestion to the applicant and would advise Members of the outcome.

Councillor Toleman asked that the plaques be firmly fixed to prevent theft.

RESOLVED that the Development Control Manager be authorised to partially discharge Condition 29 subject to the applicant providing the items listed in the report and satisfactory outcome of discussions regarding the proposed plaques.

To consider a schedule of applications determined under delegated powers during the month of October 2015.

Consideration was given to a schedule of applications determined under delegated powers in the month of October 2015.

RESOLVED that the schedule be noted.

Please note that there will be an additional meeting on Tuesday 15^th December 2015 at 6.00pm.

The next regular meeting will be held on Tuesday, 12 January 2016 at 6.00pm.

Tuesday, 15 December 2015 at 6.00pm

Tuesday, 12 January 2016 at 6.00pm