Agenda and minutes

Councillor Cook declared a non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 7 as a non-executive director of Gloucester Docks Estate Company.

Councillor Hansdot declared a non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 13.

Councillor Brown declared a non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 5 as a Member of Gloucestershire County Council.

To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 2 August 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 August 2016 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 5,6,7,8,9 and 10.

 Application for determination:-

Change of use of ground floor from Class A3 restaurant to Cass A5 hot food takeaway at 88, Westgate Street.

The Principal Planning Officer presented his report which detailed an application for change of use of ground floor premises from Class A3 restaurant to Class A5 hot food takeaway at 88 Westgate Street.

He reported that the Environmental Health Officer was satisfied with the proposed opening hours and existing extraction equipment.

He advised Members that should this application be refused the premises would still have the benefit of a Class A3 restaurant use. The existing lawful use of the premises was an important fall-back position.

Miss Queenie Vien, the applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Miss Vien thanked Members for the opportunity to address the Committee. She advised that the restaurant had closed some twenty months previously due to lack of footfall at that end of Westgate Street.

She had much experience of the catering trade and intended to create a business which would provide six full time jobs together with training positions.

She stated that the proposal would not result in an increase in noise and would be no more pungent than Indian cuisine.

She believed that her business would contribute to the economy and viability of the City centre.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions in the report.

Application for determination:-

Outline application (with all matters reserved other than means of access) for redevelopment of part of the former Bishop’s College site for residential use creating up to 90 new homes and provision of open space.

Councillor David Brown had declared a non-prejudicial interest in this application as a Member of Gloucestershire County Council.

The Principal Planning Officer presented his report which detailed an outline application, with all matters reserved other than means of access, for redevelopment of part of the former Bishop’s College site for residential use creating up to 90 new homes and provision of open space.

He drew Members’ attention to the additional representation and amended recommendation contained within the second tranche of late material.

Councillor Williams, as a Member for Longlevens ward, addressed the Committee.

Councillor Williams expressed concerns regarding the access to the development and traffic impact. She agreed with the late representation and expressed particular concerns regarding construction access to the site and where contractors would park. She noted that it would be impossible for two large vehicles to pass and queried where the construction workers would park. She suggested that the application be deferred for further consideration of highways issues.

John Bond, on behalf of Estcourt Close residents, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

Mr Bond believed that the site should be retained for educational purposes as there was a high demand for high school places which would be increased by developments at Longford and Innsworth.

He believed that the development would have a significant impact upon the residents of Estcourt Close.

He stated that at the exhibition for the University development the County Council had given the assurance that the use of the close would be no greater than when the school was open.

He believed that the assurance had been based on flawed data as all able bodied students had used the pedestrian access rather than the Close. In addition the residential access would be year round rather than just school hours within term time.

He noted that Estcourt Close had been designed to serve 24 homes and it was not sustainable to add another 90 homes with potentially another 180 vehicles.

Alan Divall, on behalf of the applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Mr Divall stated that the site was no longer required for educational purposes and Schedule 1 consent had been obtained for disposal as addressed in paragraphs 6.80 to 6.84 of the Officer’s report.

He stated that the application would contribute to the City’s housing requirement and five year housing supply. He stated that an appropriate housing mix would be delivered by the development. It was a highly sustainable proposal with a density of 28 dwellings per hectare on a previously developed site and was closely linked to the University's growth plans. It would also contribute to the local economy with construction jobs and subsequent Council Tax.

He noted that the Highway Authority and Sport England had no objections and he confirmed that the sports facilities would be well maintained with increased usage. The retention of the playing field would be addressed by the Section 106 agreement. It would improve connectivity with the wider area.

He also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49.

Application for determination:-

Construction of new public square, associated engineering works and hard landscaping (including relocation of heritage features) (proposed as an interim scheme pending implementation of previously approved scheme of works ref. 14/00415/FUL) on land at the Docks (former British Waterways car park).

Councillor Cook had declared a non-prejudicial interest in this application as a non-executive director of Gloucester Docks Estate Company.

The Principal Planning Officer presented his report which detailed an application for the construction of a new public square, associated engineering works and hard landscaping, including relocation of heritage features, proposed as an interim measure pending implementation of previously approved scheme of works (14/00415/FUL) on land at The Docks (former British Waterways car park).

He referred Members to the late material which confirmed that the applicant intended to use resin bonded gravel instead of coloured asphalt.

Ian Woodward, a resident of the Docks, addressed the Committee in respect of his concerns regarding the application.

Mr Woodward stated that he had lived in the Barge Arm for twelve months and, in the main, had enjoyed the events held in the Docks. He stated that although the proposal was acceptable, he asked Members to consider the following areas of concern:-

·         Seating should not be directly in front of residences

·         Lighting should not be on all night

·         Trees would be welcome to limit noise and the provision of exterior power points to reduce reliance on noisy generators.

Members were advised that the surrounding public houses, restaurants and cafes were not part of this application and already in place in terms of generating customers to the area, and were advised to limit their considerations to the content of this application. They were also advised that a permission had already been granted for the public square including seating provision.

The Chair moved to grant permission but requested that he and the Vice Chair be consulted regarding discharge of Condition 4 in respect of seating and lighting.

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to the conditions in the report with the following amendments:-

Amended Condition 2

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan referenced M 5392-100 Rev. D08 - Interim Landscape Proposal received by the Local Planning Authority on 2^nd September 2016 except where otherwise required by conditions of this permission.

Reason

To ensure that the works are undertaken in accordance with the approved plans.

Amended Condition 5

The railway tracks across the site shall be retained in full in situ as an exposed surface feature and only localised repairs shall be undertaken to the tracks or the retained brick setts between and alongside the tracks, unless an alternative methodology for their treatment is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority under which circumstances works shall be undertaken to the railway tracks and brick setts between and alongside only in accordance with the approved methodology.

Reason

In the interests of good design and protecting the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of listed buildings, in accordance with Policies SD5 and SD9 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy Submission Version November 2014, Paragraphs 17, 58 and 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies BE.5, BE.17, BE.23  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

Application for determination:-

Variation of conditions 9 and 25 of outline planning permission reference 14/00685/OUT to change t5he timing of the proposed widening of the footway on Sudmeadow Road and provision of cycle storage facilities. Removal of condition 12 1(v) requiring a contract to beet for the replacement stadium prior to commencement of development (including the raising of ground levels) at Gloucester City Football Club.

The Development Control Manager presented the report which detailed an application for the variation of conditions 9 and 25 of outline planning permission 14/00685/OUT to change the timing of the proposed widening of the footway on Sunmeadow Road and provision of cycle storage facilities. Removal of condition 12 1(v) requiring a contract to be let for the replacement stadium prior to commencement of development, including the raising of ground levels at Gloucester City Football Club.

He drew Members attention to the additional representation and amended recommendation in the late material.

RESOLVED that

a)    The Development Control Manager be authorised to grant a revised outline planning permission, subject to:

1.    The satisfactory completion of a Deed of Variation from the applicant to secure a financial contribution of £75,000 towards local flood improvement works; and

2.     The expiration of 21 days from when Notice is served on owners of land within the application site and no new material planning issues being raised from these owners; and

3.    The conditions set out in Section 8.0 of the Planning Committee Report.

b)    The Development Control Manager be authorised to amend the wording of the approved conditions if any conditions are discharged prior to issuing the decision.

Application for determination:-

Hybrid application seeking planning permission for the regeneration/redevelopment of the Peel Centre comprising:

·         Full application for the conversion of former cinema to class A1 including mezzanine;

·         Outline application for demolition of existing units and erection of extensions to the former cinema building, to provide four new Class A1 units in total

At the Peel Centre, St Ann Way.

The Principal Planning Officer presented his report which detailed a hybrid application seeking planning permission for the regeneration/ redevelopment of the Peel Centre comprising:-

a)    Full application for the conversion of former cinema to Class A1 including mezzanine;

b)    Outline application for demolition of existing units and erection of extensions to the former cinema building, to provide four new Class A1 units in total.

He referred Members to the late material which contained new representations, an update on the Kings Quarter development and further advice on non-poaching conditions.

He introduced Dr Steve Norris of Carter Jonas who summarised the specialist retail advice commissioned from that company by the Council.

Councillor Pullen as a Member for Moreland Ward addressed the Committee.

Councillor Pullen stated that he was also representing the other Members for Moreland ward, Councillors Hampson and Stephens.

He noted that the site had operated successfully since 1989 but since the closure of the cinema it had become tired and run down. It was attracting anti-social behaviour and graffiti which did not present a very good first impression for visitors to the City.

The proposals for a quality development would regenerate the area for the people of Gloucester and visitors.

It would provide 100 jobs and should the application be refused the site would decline further.

He believed that the Peel and Next surveys demonstrated the public support for the proposals and the Council should be considering how the Gate Streets and Peel could complement each other.

He stated that people already left the City to shop at places such as Cheltenham and Cribbs Causeway without considering any future drain to the planned development at Ashchurch.

He noted that Kings Quarter was no longer retail-led and it would be important to examine the linkages between Peel, the Quays and the City Centre.

He believed that an exciting opportunity would be lost should the application be refused.

Matthew Williams of Savills and Martin Penn, licensee of the Dick Whittington public house addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

Mr Williams stated that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the City Centre and he cited the Officer’s report and Dr Steve Norris, one of the country’s most respected retail advisors.

He trusted the Carter Jonas report and stated that jobs created on this site would be jobs lost from the City Centre and Quedgeley. He believed that Gloucester needed to adopt a joined-up approach to the regeneration of the City Centre and he believed it would be wrong to approve this application before the Kings Quarter consultation had been completed.

Mr Penn stated that he was also representing 15 independent traders. He stated that the City Centre was struggling due to loss of trade to the Quays and the independent traders in the city Centre would bear the brunt of the significant adverse impact of this application.

Gareth Finch of The Peel Group and Steven Ardron, South West Region Estates Manager, Next PLC addressed the Committee in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52.

Application for determination:-

Variation of condition 1 of permission 09/013408/FUL to alter the range of goods that can be sold to allow a full range of non-bulky comparison goods to be sold from 1,263 sq m net within new sub-divided unit 1B and 1,015 sq m net from Unit 3A at the Peel Centre, St Ann Way.

PLEASE NOTE THE ATTACHED REPORT ALSO COVERS THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM

The Principal Planning Officer presented these applications for variation of Condition 1 of permissions 09/013408/FUL and permission 13/005599/FUL to alter the range of goods that can be sold to allow a full range of non-bulky comparison goods to be sold from 1,263 sq m net within new sub-divided unit 1B and 1,015 sq m net   from unit 3A at the Peel centre, St Ann Way.

He noted that the two identical prioposals were covered in the one report but would require separate decisions.

Dr Steve Norris of Carter Jonas confirmed that he was not convinced that the applications had passed the sequential test.

Matthew Williams of Savills and Ivan Taylor addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

Mr Williams expressed his disappointment at the previous decision and stated that it was even more important to refuse these applications. He believed that the former British Home Stores site was sequentially preferential to the proposals.

He believed that granting these applications would give a clear message that the Council had given up on the City Centre.

He referred Members to the Officer’s comments regarding no poaching conditions and noted that a number of City Centre stores were approaching the end of their leases or break clauses.

He believed that these applications would cause irreversible damage and undermine the regeneration of the City Centre.

Mr Taylor stated that he was 76 years of age and had been working in the city centre for 60 years. He believed the previous decision had represented another coffin nail in the future of the City as these applications would result in direct competition with the City Centre. He had spent £30,000 of his own money to ensure that the City Centre moved forward, which was proving to be an uphill struggle.

Roger Wheeldon of the Peel Group addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Mr Wheeldon stated that units concerned were much larger than most units in the City Centre. They were not in competition with City Centre businesses and the applicants were not seeking totally unrestricted Class A1 use.

These applications would help to finance the previous scheme and no poaching conditions would be acceptable. Home Bargains would be open for Christmas and these applications would enable the rest of the terrace of existing units to be brought up to this standard.

The Vice-Chair believed that the applications were a step too far.

1)    Application 16/00007/FUL

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the reasons in the report.

2)     Application 16/00008/FUL

RESOLVED that the application be refused for the reasons in the report.

Application for determination:-

Application to install replacement 20m high monopole mast containing six antennae and four transmission dishes, also six equipment cabinets, all to be located within a 10.7 x 2.8 metre compound bordered by a 1.8 metre high Expamet fence at Gloucester City Football Club.

The Development Control Manager presented the report which detailed an application to install a replacement 20m high monopole mast containing six antennae and four transmission dishes, also six equipment  cabinets all to be contained within a 10.7 x 2.8 m compound bordered by a 1.8 m high Expamet fence at Gloucester City Football Club.

RESOLVED that permission be granted subject to the conditions in the report.

Application for determination:-

Construction of minaret and alterations to eastern elevation to provide alteration to mehrab at 44-45, Ryecroft Street.

Councillor Hansdot had declared a non-prejudicial interest in this application.

The Development Control Manager presented the report which detailed an application for the construction of a minaret and alterations to the eastern elevation to provide alteration to the Mehrab at Masjid-E-Noor, 44, Ryecroft Street. He outlined a further representation that had been received.

RESOLVED that permission be granted subject to the conditions in the report.

To consider the report of the Corporate Director, Partnerships which proposes changes to the Council’s Constitution to cater for Local Development Orders and the scheme of delegation relating to planning applications.

The Development Control Manager presented the report of the Corporate Director which invited the Committee to consider proposed changes to the Council’s Constitution to enable the Council to make Local Development Orders and minor alterations to those proposals which currently had to be determined by the Committee.

He reported that the suggested changes also included changes to improve clarity in wording, updates in relation to changes in legislation and to enable some smaller developments to be dealt with by officers under delegated powers to improve the efficiency of the service.

Members noted the report and supported the suggested changes. They indicated a preference for Option A  with regard to applications for a change of use to a pay-day loan shop or betting office where the Officer recommendation is for approval.

The Development Control Manager requested that the Committee make a recommendation to the Constitution Working Group and the report would then be presented to the General Purposes Committee before being presented to Council for decision.

RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND to the Constitution Working Group that the suggested changes to the Constitution set out in Paragraphs 3.17 and 3.21 of the report, together  with a preference for Option A  with regard to applications for a change of use to a pay-day loan shop or betting office where the Officer recommendation is for approval.

To consider a schedule of applications determined under delegated powers during the month of July 2016.

Consideration was given to a schedule of applications determined under delegated powers during the month of July 2016.

RESOLVED that the schedule be noted.

Tuesday, 4 October 2016 at 6.00 pm.

Tuesday, 4 October 2016 at 6.00 pm.