Agenda item

Contact:                          Development Control    Tel: (01452) 396783

Councillors Hilton, McLellan and Mozol having declared personal prejudicial interests left the meeting during the consideration of this application.

The Chair had declared a non-prejudicial personal interest and remained in the meeting.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report which detailed a retrospective application for a weather monitoring station comprising a wind vane and an anemometer mounted on a 7.4 metre high pole within the rear garden of 15 Riversley Road.

She advised Members that the application had been presented to Committee as the applicant was a Member of Gloucester City Council. She drew Members’ attention to the late material which contained two further representations, one from the applicant and one from Mr Ravenhill and further information relating to anemometers provided by Mr Wilton. She also advised committee of the works that had been undertaken to the pole and equipment since the previous meeting.

Chris Witts, the applicant, addressed the Committee in support of his application.

Councillor Witts advised that he removed the lights and halyard from the pole and painted the pole and wind-vane with anti-reflective paint. He advised Members that the pole was designed to be lowered to lie along the length of his garden. He noted that the installation had never, and would never, include a web-cam. He stated that it was not a wind turbine and reminded the Committee that it was a slim pole that was not illuminated and caused no noise.. He had received a considerable amount of support around the world including enthusiasts from America and New Zealand and he noted that if he had not been a Member of the City Council the application would have been determined by Officers under delegated powers.

He commented that the information provided in respect of anemometers related to the hand-held devices used by yachtsmen and were not suitable for his requirements .Information provided by his weather station had been requested by Environmental Health and had proved valuable during the flooding of 2007.

Tom Haswell of 16 Merevale Road, also representing 14 and 18 Merevale Road, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

MrHaswell reiterated his strong objection to the application which he believed should be considered to be a wind turbine as the anemometer generated electricity and therefore be situated its own length plus ten per cent from the site boundary.

He believed that the application would create a precedent and there were safety issues as the top was only secured by a scaffolding clamp. He questioned the issue of public liability and any potential liability falling upon the local planning authority should consent be granted.

He believed that the pole was overbearing, dominating, was not sympathetic and ruined the views from neighbouring properties. He suggested that the pole be moved back from the boundary as a compromise.

Timothy Wiltonaddressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

Mr Wilton reiterated that the installation was a wind turbine so should be positioned accordingly.

The Chair questioned the relevance of insurance and the Solicitor advised that the Committee should focus on planning considerations and insurance issues were not to be taken into account.

Councillor Smith noted that the applicant had done all he could to mitigate the impact of the pole and permission should be granted. Councillor Lewis concurred and regretted that relations between the neighbours had broken down.

Councillor Noakes stated that she had visited the area and if it was possible would have liked the pole to have been moved back away from the boundary further into the applicant’s garden. . She questioned the safety of the installation and was advised that this was the responsibility of the applicant.

Councillor Hobbs thanked the applicant for addressing concerns expressed by Members at the previous meeting. He noted that many gardens had poles to support washing lines and he would rather have a pole in a garden than a Leylandii tree of the same height. He did not consider it to be overbearing.

Councillor Toleman stated that as he had not been present at the November Committee he would not be taking part in the discussion and abstained from the vote.

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