Present: Mr D Purnell (Chairman). Mr K Brown; Mrs J Burton; Mr S Hale; Mr K Larkin; Mr D Palmer; & Mr L Smitherman. .

District Councillors: Mrs J Cordwell; Mrs L Reeves; & Mr K Tucker.

County Councillor: Dr J Cordwell.

The Clerk: Mr R Symons.

There were no members of the public present.

The Chairman opened the Parish Council Meeting.

  1. The Chairman invited apologies. There were no apologies.

  2. Declaration of Interests. The Chairman invited members to declare any Interests relating to this Meeting. The Chairman, Mr D Purnell, declared an interest in Item 7- (Planning application for Brookside Cottage).

  3. The Council approved and signed the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 6 September 2015, as a true record. The Minutes of the September Ordinary Meeting of the Council had previously been distributed to all members and displayed on the public notice boards and the website. All members agreed the Minutes should be signed, as a true and accurate record. The Minutes were duly signed by the Chairman.

  1. The Council noted matters arising from the Minutes, not covered by agenda items. The Clerk referred to his Update Note, which had been issued prior to the Meeting. He advised that:

  1. The Chairman closed the Meeting for Public Discussion and Questions.

There being no members of the public present the Chairman re-opened the Meeting.

  1. The Clerk provided a short note (see aside) requesting the Council to approve his actions of the Clerk; and recommending the Council make appropriate amendments to the August minutes (5(b)/8/2015 bullet point 3) in response to a solicitor’s letter.

The Clerk outlined the issue and provided the Council with details of the advice he had received from GAPTC in respect of a solicitor’s letter received following comments made by the Council during discussion at the August Meeting of a Planning Application (S.15/1746/OUT. The Old Brewery, Pitt Court, North Nibley, Dursley. Outline application for a dwelling within the curtilage of Cotswold House.)

Following a brief discussion the Council agreed to endorse the Clerk’s actions; and to amend the Minutes of the August Meeting. The Chairman signed off an amended set of Minutes of that Meeting. The Clerk was asked to contact the solicitors and advise them of these actions.

  1. The Council received and discussed the following planning applications. But before doing so the Chairman (Mr D Purnell) declared an interest on the first application for discussion and he left the Meeting. Mr Brown (Vice-Chairman) took over the Chair for this item.

Following discussion the Council agreed to “Object” on the following grounds:

  1. The proposal fails to meet both criteria of Stroud Local Plan Policy HN17. There is no evidence that the annexe is for a dependant. Furthermore, the proposed " annexe fails to meet both criteria of the policy in that it is not linked to the main dwelling by an internal door or doors; and is not readily convertible into accommodation for use as an extension to the main dwelling. It should therefore be treated in policy terms as a separate dwelling (para. 5.17.4 of Local Plan).

  1. The proposal is outside the defined settlement boundary of North Nibley and does not meet the requirements of Stroud Local Plan Policy HN10, as it is not for “the efficient operation of agriculture or forestry”.

  2. The proposal is outside the defined settlement boundary and is substantially larger than the mobile home currently in situ. Therefore it does not meet criterion two of Stroud Local Plan Policy HN14. The current mobile home has a Certificate of Lawful Use for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of Brookside Cottage (i.e. ancillary to the main house and not for separate residential use). The proposal is therefore also contrary to criterion four of Policy HN14.

  3. In the opinion of the Parish Council the proposal does not meet the definition of Stroud Local Plan Policy NE8. This property lies within the Cotswold AONB. The Council do not consider this proposal would enhance the natural beauty of the landscape and would be visually prominent in the adjoining open countryside.

  4. The proposal would give rise to overlooking of and would adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring property, Mill House.

The Chairman returned to the Meeting and retook the Chair.

After considering the proposal the Council agreed that the retention of the trees, in line with the submitted plans, was important and advised Stroud Planning the trees should be retained.

The Council were unable to fully understand the application, because of the absence on line of the existing plans. The Council requested that the Clerk should contact Planning and request the documents and an extension to enable the Council to discuss and comment at their November Meeting.

Following discussion the Council agreed to make the following comments. That should Permission be granted, the Section 106 agreement for the previous Planning Application should be re-agreed with the new owners. This is to ensure that the building can only be used for holiday let purposes.

Following discussion the Council agreed the following:

The Council wish to point out that the land in question is less than 5 hectares, making this "Class B" land under Permitted Development Rights for Agriculture and Forestry. It believes that restricted agricultural permitted development rights apply in all such cases. (Annex E: Permitted Development Rights For Agriculture And Forestry. Taken from: The Countryside-Environmental Quality and Economic and Social Development (PPG 7)).

The Council suggest that such rights will not apply to 3 poly tunnels as there have never previously been poly tunnels on this field. The current application contains no dimensions of the proposed 3 poly tunnels, their use, nor how they would be situated within the field, a requirement under the application procedure.

The Council also wish to point out that the previous Planning Permissions S.11/1125/FUL (dated 13 September 2011) and S.11/0227/FUL (dated 6 April 2011) have now expired. Any temporary buildings erected under S.11/1125/FUL still in situ should have been removed.

The Council note that an earlier planning application for 3 poly tunnels (S.14/0336/FUL) was withdrawn. To the Council's knowledge there have never been poly tunnels on this piece of land, which is in the Cotswold AONB.

Finally the field was subject of a Planning Inspector's Decision on S.11/2449/FUL. The Council draw the Planning Authority's attention to that Decision when making its decision on granting a Certificate.

  1. The Council noted that the following application has been withdrawn:

The Council noted that Approval has been given for:

  1. The Council received and discussed District Councillor Mrs Lesley Reeves’ Report. (See Report aside). In response to a question Cllr. Reeves informed the Meeting that she has followed up the Council’s letter to Minister of State about broadband and is still awaiting a response. The Chairman thanked Councillor Reeves for her report.

  1. The Council received a written Report from County Councillor Dr J Cordwell. (See Report aside). Councillors advised Cllr. Cordwell of some problems with potholes in Waterley Bottom area. There were no questions for Councillor Cordwell. The Chairman thanked Councillor Cordwell for his report.

  1. The Chairman invited Parish Councillors and the Clerk to report back on Committees and Meetings they had attended.

  1. Finances.

  1. The Council approved the four Invoices and drew up cheques for items on the enclosed Schedule of Payments;

  2. The Council noted that the second half of the Precept and LCTS Grant for 2015/16 has been paid by Stroud DC (£7,620).

  1. The Clerk provided details of the Local Council Award Scheme and recommended that the Council should apply for Foundation status. Following discussion of the scheme and its benefits and costs the Council agreed to the proposal. The Clerk was asked to take the process forward.

  1. The Council received and approved a written Report on checks made on the trees and headstones in the Cemetery. (See report aside).

  1. The Council received a report on St Martin’s Churchyard. Following discussion the Council agreed to the ivy being treated in order to kill it. But that further action to remove ivy from the wall should not take place until a further inspection had been undertaken. Concerns were expressed that such action could cause costly damage to the wall and require a lot of expensive repair work. Finally the Council were very concerned that this problem had evidently been brought to the Parochial Church Council’s attention prior to the Parish Council taking over responsibility. Therefore it was apparent that the churchyard had not been handed over in “good order”.

  1. The Council received for information details of Correspondence received. See report attached.

There being no further business the Chairman declared the meeting closed at 9.15 pm.

The next Meeting of the Parish Council will be held in the Village Hall on Monday 2 November 2015 at 7.30 pm.