Issue - items at meetings - Schedule
Issue - meetings
Schedule
Meeting: 13/03/2018 - Planning (Item 68)
PDF 8 MBTo consider the accompanying Schedule of Planning Applications and proposals, marked Appendix “A”.
Decision:
|
Parish and Reference |
Address |
Decision |
Item/page number
|
|
|||
|
Alderton |
|
|
|
||||
|
17/01344/FUL |
27 Willow Bank Road Alderton Tewkesbury Gloucestershire |
Permit |
7 / 689 |
||||
|
Alderton |
|
|
|
|
17/01364/FUL |
Part Parcel 8900 Dibden Lane Alderton Tewkesbury |
Permit |
8 / 695 |
|
Ashchurch Rural |
|
|
|
|
17/01245/FUL |
Claydon Farm Claydon Tewkesbury Gloucestershire |
Permit |
5 / 677 |
|
Bishops Cleeve |
|
|
|
|
18/00041/FUL |
Land to the rear of The Brambles Brockhampton Lane Brockhampton Cheltenham |
Permit |
12 / 723 |
|
Buckland |
|
|
|
|
17/00968/FUL |
Woodbine Cottage The Lane Buckland Broadway |
Permit |
2 / 662 |
|
Churchdown |
|
|
|
|
17/01262/FUL |
Ashville Business Park Commerce Road Churchdown Gloucester |
Permit |
13 / 729 |
|
Churchdown |
|
|
|
|
17/01263/FUL |
Ashville Business Park Commerce Road Churchdown Gloucester |
Permit |
14 / 738 |
|
Gotherington |
|
|
|
|
17/01162/APP |
Parcel 7561 Malleson Road Gotherington Cheltenham |
Delegated Approve |
10 / 708 |
|
Gretton |
|
|
|
|
17/01279/FUL |
Gardeners Cottage Gretton Cheltenham Gloucestershire |
Permit |
6 / 682 |
|
Sandhurst |
|
|
|
|
17/01114/FUL |
Margarets Cottage Sandhurst Lane Sandhurst Gloucester |
Refuse |
11 / 718 |
|
Stoke Orchard And Tredington |
|
|
|
|
17/01046/FUL |
Land at Banady Lane Stoke Orchard Cheltenham |
Refuse |
9 / 701 |
|
Tewkesbury |
|
|
|
|
17/01139/FUL |
Tewkesbury Borough Council Offices Gloucester Road Tewkesbury Gloucestershire |
Permit |
4 / 673 |
|
Winchcombe |
|
|
|
|
17/00935/FUL |
Owl Cottage Corndean Lane Winchcombe Cheltenham |
Permit |
1 / 652 |
|
Winchcombe |
|
|
|
|
17/01112/FUL |
24 Gloucester Street Winchcombe Cheltenham Gloucestershire |
Permit |
3 / 667 |
Minutes:
68.1 The Development Manager submitted a Schedule comprising planning applications and proposals with recommendations thereon. Copies of this had been circulated to Members as Appendix A to the Agenda for the meeting. The objections to, support for, and observations upon the various applications as referred to in Appendix 1 attached to these Minutes were presented to the Committee and duly taken into consideration by Members prior to decisions being made on those applications.
17/00935/FUL – Owl Cottage, Corndean Lane, Winchcombe
68.2 This application was for construction of one dwelling, following demolition of existing garage, and associated works. The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 9 March 2018.
68.3 The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee. The applicant explained that he was proposing to build a modest and sympathetic house in Winchcombe to replace the existing run down garage. As Members would have seen on the Planning Committee Site Visit, the old garage was dilapidated, ugly and ultimately not fit for purpose. His father had wanted to replace the garage but the applicant was convinced that a new industrial garage would be as much of an eyesore as the existing garage. He had therefore persuaded his father to sell him a section of their garden in order for him to apply for planning permission to build a cottage for the applicant to live in. He had submitted a pre-application enquiry and had fully taken on board the advice he had been given. He had brought in a new architect who shared his way of thinking and together they had come up with a new design that fitted nicely into the site and the surrounding area with minimal change to the landscape. The Council’s Conservation Officer was happy with the new design and all other consultees – including Winchcombe Town Council, County Highways, Natural England and the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer – had no objections. Furthermore, he pointed out that there had been no negative comments from members of the public and the neighbours were in favour of the proposal and felt it would improve the area. The applicant recognised that much of the site was within Flood Zone 2, with the river corridor in Flood Zone 3; whilst the corridor did flood on rare occasions, the garage itself had never flooded. He made reference to the national hydrological appraisal on the summer 2007 floods by Marsh and Hannaford which set out that a nearby rain gauge in Langley, less than 2km from the site and within the Isbourne catchment, recorded the 130mm of rain in a 24 hour period. The annual probability assigned to these rainfall extremes was one in 500 years. Long-term rainfall and river flow records confirmed the exceptional rarity of the hydrological conditions experienced in 2007 and he reiterated that the garage had never flooded. As the site sat within Flood Zone 2, a sequential test was strictly required and this was the only reason for the Officer recommendation to refuse the application. ... view the full minutes text for item 68