Agenda item

Person to Contact:            Development Control Manager

                                                Tel: (01452) 396783

The Principal Planning Officer presented a retrospective application made by Mr Chris Witts of 15 Riversley Road, Gloucester for the erection of a weather monitoring station comprising a wind vane and anemometer mounted on a 7.4 high metre pole within the rear garden of 15 Riversley Road, Gloucester.  The Committee was informed that four letters of representation had been received from local residents.  The application had been brought before Members by virtue of Mr Witts being a City Councillor, necessitating its determination by Planning Committee in accordance with the Council’s Constitution and agreed scheme of delegation.  The recommendation of the Development Control Manager was to grant permission subject to conditions as set out in the report,

The Principal Planning Officer summarised the main points and issues which Members needed to be mindful of.  A short video taken by one of the objectors was also shown to Members.

The Principal Planning Officer drew the Committee’s attention to the late material which had been circulated.  The document comprised a further three letters of representation from residents and an additional representation from the applicant stating that he would not be able to paint the equipment on the top of the mast as it would affect the readings obtained from the weather station and invalidate his certificate.  The Principal Planning Officer advised the Committee that after further consideration it was proposed that condition 2 of the recommendation to grant planning permission be amended to remove the requirement to paint the weather vane.  There was a short adjournment whilst Members read the late material.

Mr Chris Witts addressed the Committee in support of the application

Mr Witts pointed out the value of his weather station to the community and referred to inaccuracies within the letters of representation.  He reiterated his intention to remove the three solar lights and his agreement to painting the pole as recommended by the Development Control Manager.  He advised the Committee that it was not possible to paint the anemometer as this would invalidate the readings he received.  He confirmed that the weather station had been erected professionally.  Mr Witts concluded his statement by reminding the Committee that only a small number of objections had been received to the proposal.

Mr Timothy Wilton addressed the Committee

Mr Wilton remarked that he had been told 24 hours ago that the applicant would not be painting the weather vane.  He described to Members the negative impact of the weather station on the enjoyment of his home and his concerns for epileptic friends who experienced the constant flashing and flickering of the equipment when visiting him.  Mr Wilton questioned the fact that the weather station had been erected by professionals and drew the Committee’s attention to what he perceived as inaccuracies in the planning application process and concerns that guidance on wind turbines had been ignored.  Mr Wilton added that he had attempted unsuccessfully to get further details via the Freedom of Information procedure and the process has lacked transparency.  He concluded that he could not see how the Committee could approve the application.

Mr Thomas Haswell addressed the Committee

Mr Haswell expressed the strength of his objection to the application and said that the weather station posed an unreasonable impact on his visual amenity.  He stated that the Planning Officer who came to inspect the pole had only attended his property for 5 minutes and had not viewed the weather station from any other nearby residences.

The Committee discussed the following matters:-

1.         The Chair queried the reference to Government guidelines relating to masts in one of the letters of representation.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that there were no policies specifically relating to a development of this type and that the guidance pertaining to wind turbines was not directly relevant.

2.         Councillor Lewis agreed that the flickering was a nuisance and sympathised with the objectors, but speculated as to whether this would be a good enough reason to refuse planning permission.  Councillor Smith concurred with this view and was pleased to see that the lights were being removed. The Locum Solicitor advised the Committee that there was insufficient evidence to sustain refusal and that whether or not the vane constituted a statutory nuisance would be a separate matter for Environmental Health to determine.

3.         Councillor Noakes agreed that the flashing would not be acceptable and queried whether the Committee had the full facts before them to enable them to reach a decision.

4.         Councillor Dee asked whether there was a health and safety requirement to have lights on the pole and referred to the proximity of the local airport.  The Principal Planning Officer responded that there was no requirement for lights for a pole of that height and that as they were solar lights which could not be switched off that it was necessary to remove them.

5.         Councillor Lewis asked if it was possible to purchase a vane which was darker or more matt in appearance and questioned whether this had been explored.

 6.        Councillors Hobbs and Chatterton believed that the availability of a black anodised weather vane should be investigated

7.         The Chair considered that the Committee could defer the application in order for the applicant to look into alternative weather vanes.  The Locum Solicitor advised Members that a deferral was the best option to avoid imposing a condition which might not be enforceable.

RESOLVED - That the application be deferred.