Agenda and minutes

No declarations were made on this occasion.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 7^th February 2017.

The minutes of the meeting held on 7^th February 2017 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 6 and 7.

Application for determination:

Application to remove a protected perry pear tree at 37, Kestrel Gardens, Quedgeley.

The Tree Officer presented his report which detailed an application to fell a protected perry pear tree at 37, Kestrel Gardens, Quedgeley.

Tracy Pitcher, a resident of Kestrel Gardens, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

Ms Pitcher stated that she had lived in Kestrel Gardens since 1997 when her house had been built. One of the factors in choosing to live there was the location and outlook of the property and the tree was an important factor in that choice.

She noted that the tree was in place before the development had started and before the applicants had purchased their property. She had not seen any substantial growth to the tree in that time and believed the tree to be in good health. She had only seen one fallen branch and there was no evidence that the tree was causing damage.

She stated that there was a lot of wildlife in the area including foxes, squirrels, hedgehogs, bats and woodpeckers and Emperor Moth caterpillars had been recorded. She believed that the loss of the tree would have a devastating impact on local wildlife and there was no reason to fell the tree other than the applicants considered it to be a nuisance.

Councillor Toleman was advised that it would be possible to pollard the tree although there was scope for a limited amount of pruning.

Councillor Lugg suggested that local perry makers could possibly use the fruit from the tree.

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

Application for determination:

Part demolition of existing building;  erection of a three storey building; single storey front extension; and new first floor link way, in connection with the existing use of the site at Gillman’s Electrical, St Oswalds Road.

The Principal Planning Officer presented his report which detailed an application for the part demolition of existing building, erection of a three storey building, single storey front extension and new first floor linkway in connection with the existing use of the site at Gillman’s Electrical, St Oswalds Road.

He referred Members to paragraph 5.2 of his report and explained that the application taken as a whole was considered to be ‘sui generis’ and there would be no need for a sequential test and it was considered that there would no significant adverse impact on the primary shopping area or any of the designated district or local centres.

He also referred to the late material which contained several minor amendments to the recommended conditions.

Nathan McLoughlin, Director of McLoughlin Planning, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Mr McLoughlin endorsed the Officer’s report and stated that the application was for the modernisation of a long established, award winning City business with a unique retail offer.

He stated that customers wanted to see, buy and obtain service on one site and major brands also expected that their goods would be displayed in a particular way.

He noted that the existing buildings were dilapidated and the application would enable better use to be made of the space. There would be a small increase in retail floor space and greatly improved facilities for storage. He noted that there had been no technical objections to the proposals.

The Chair believed that the application represented a welcome improvement of the site.

Councillor Dee was advised that two disabled parking bays would be provided close to the showroom doors.

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

Amendment to condition 2 - Plan Numbers 3A, 12 and 18A replaced with plan numbers 03B, 12A and 18B received on 7^th March 2017   that clearly identify the car parking spaces.

Amendment to condition 15 – drawing no 06 Rev H replaced by drawing no.12A received on 7th March 2017

Condition no. 19 deleted as it duplicates the use class restriction of Condition 18 .

Additional informative: The applicant is reminded that advertisement consent is required for any new signage on the building   

Application for determination:

Change of use from existing residential dwelling to Planning Class C2. Internal alterations and revised fenestration to south east elevation at 26, Tuffley Lane.

The Planning Officer presented his report which detailed an application for the change of use from existing residential dwelling to planning class C2. Internal alterations and revised fenestration to south east elevation at 26, Tuffley Lane.

Hugh Goodwin, a planning consultant, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application on behalf of local residents.

Mr Goodwin stated that the application was intended to accommodate four seriously troubled children who had been abandoned by the parents and could be drawn into crime or abuse. He noted that it was intended to employ up to five full time staff to manage four children.

He believed that there would be constant visits by the police and social services. He noted that there had been incidents of intimidating behaviour at another similar establishment in Tuffley Lane.

He expressed concern at the impact of the proposal upon the day nursery next door where toddlers were at play in the grounds. He believed that concerned parents could remove their children from the day nursery which could result in the closure of the business and the loss of seven jobs.

He noted that the Environmental Health Officer had requested a noise management plan and he questioned how such noise could be managed.

He believed that the proposals would have an unreasonable impact on the amenity of neighbours and were therefore contrary to policy BE.21 (Safeguarding of Amenity).

Kate Orchard, Director of Flourish Child services, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Ms Orchard advised that the application was intended to provide high quality children’s services and would help to address the acute shortage of accommodation.  She noted that there had been 627 children in the care of the local authority in 2016 and due to a critical shortage of accommodation some of them had to be placed outside the County on a temporary basis.

This placed pressure on other areas of the care system and she noted that those children housed under temporary arrangements had significantly poorer outcomes.

The proposal was to house a maximum of four children with their own bedrooms and encourage them to integrate into the local community. They would be living in a controlled environment subject to oversight by OFSTED and the Gloucestershire County Council commissioning team.

There would a minimum of two staff members sleeping on the premises and she noted that there had been no technical objections. She considered that the application complied with policy H.18a and would be sympathetic to the area.

Councillor Finnegan, as the Council’s Health Champion, noted that the staffing levels proposed would suggest that the children would have severe needs. She had experience of living near children’s homes and stated that they did have an impact on a locality.

She stated that the proposals had the potential of damaging the day nursery next door and she believed that the Council had a duty of care to the day nursery.

The Chair expressed concerns regarding the amenity of the nearest neighbours.

Councillor Hanman believed that it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 107.

Draft Local Development Order for Consideration:

A residential led Draft Local Development Order that when adopted would grant planning permission for a predominantly residential-led mixed use including student accommodation, plus potentially retail, office space, a gym, cafés and a nursery in the Quayside and Blackfriars Area.

The Principal Planning Officer presented his report which detailed a residential-led Draft Local Development Order which when adopted would grant planning permission for predominantly residential uses with other supporting uses and car parking, and that includes an Environmental Statement, in the Quayside and Blackfriars area. He introduced Mary Crew of Peter Brett Associates (PBA), the consultants engaged to progress this development.

Ms Crew explained that PBA had been working with the City and County Councils and other key stakeholders. She outlined the Local Development Order process as detailed in Section 4 of the report and the Design Guide which gives key background and contextual information about the site and sets out principles with regard to the design of development within the site.

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the constraints of the site including the heritage assets, archaeology, access and transport and the impact of flood zones.

He noted that the Environment Agency had expressed concerns regarding possible contamination and further work would be undertaken following the removal of redundant buildings.

He noted that the development would meet housing need, promote sustainability and bring a long vacant brown field site back into use and would provide social, economic and environmental regeneration of the site.

He referred to the late material which contained a number of additional conditions recommended by consultees.

Councillor Lugg noted that planning permission had been granted for part of the site at the previous meeting and she asked how the LDO would make matters simpler.

The Principal Planning Officer explained that the LDO would set parameters and would define what would be acceptable. He noted that de-risking was running in parallel to the LDO process and had made the student accommodation application easier.

Ms Crew stated that the LDO compares with a Supplementary Planning Document or Masterplan.  It had been recognised that this sort of site would benefit from an LDO as achieved a level of buy-in from key stakeholders. She stated that no other mechanism would be able to achieve this and she was confident that there would be a deliverable scheme for the site.

Councillor Toleman referred to the previous application for student accommodation and the Chair noted that although the preliminary work for the LDO had helped that application it had been determined on its own merits.

Councillor David Brown was assured that the building occupied by Gloucester Academy of Music would be retained and, although not listed, was considered to be a building of importance.

Councillor Dee believed that Officers had done a brilliant job in preparing the draft LDO and he asked how much would be achievable in the given timescale.

The Principal Planning Officer stated that there was five year review for the LDO. De-risking would happen and would ensure that the site was as attractive as possible to potential developers.

RESOLVED that the Local Development Order, Statement of Reasons Document and the Design Guide be adopted subject to the conditions in the report with the following amendments:-

Condition 4 - A  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

To receive the report of the Senior Planning Compliance Officer detailing the level and nature of enforcement activity undertaken by the Planning Enforcement team between July and December 2016 together with an update on formal action being taken against more serious planning breaches.

The Senior Planning Compliance Officer presented his report which detailed the level and nature of enforcement activity undertaken by the Planning Enforcement Team between July and December 2016 together with an update on formal action being taken against more serious planning breaches.

He provided illustrations of recent work including:-

Badger run, Aldridge Way

First Choice Off Licence

Encroachment

Untidy Garden, Hucclecote

Unauthorised residential unit

Obscured glazing replacement

Rebuilding wall, Painswick Road (no breach)

Councillor David Brown was informed that the owners of Picturedrome had been instructed to restore the building or submit an acceptable scheme and they had engaged conservation architects.

The Chair thanked the Senior Planning Compliance Officer for his report.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

To consider a schedule of applications determined under delegated powers during the month of January 2017.

Consideration was given to a schedule of applications which had been determined under delegated powers during the month of January 2017.

RESOLVED that the schedule be noted.

Tuesday, 4^th April 2017 at 6.00pm.

Tuesday, 4^th April 2017 at 6.00pm.