78.1           The evacuation procedure, as noted on the Agenda, was advised to those present.

78.2           Members were reminded that the Council had resolved to introduce a Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committee for a 12 month period, starting with the new term of the Council in May 2015, which had therefore commenced with the meeting on 9 June 2015.  The Chairman gave a brief outline of the scheme and the procedure for Planning Committee meetings. 

79.1           Apologies for absence were received from Councillor T A Spencer.  Councillor R Furolo would be acting as a substitute for the meeting. 

80.1           The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Tewkesbury Borough Council Code of Conduct which was adopted by the Council on 26 June 2012 and took effect from 1 July 2012.

80.2           The following declarations were made:

80.3          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 March 2016.

 81.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 March 2016, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

82.1           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 them prior to decisions being made on those applications.

16/00317/ADV – Tewkesbury Borough Council, Gloucester Road, Tewkesbury

82.2           This application was for proposed signage to advertise Tewkesbury Leisure Centre.

82.3           The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to grant consent for the application, subject to no objections being received in relation to the proposed development following the expiry of the public consultation period, and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to grant consent for the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to GRANT CONSENT for the application, subject to no objections being received in relation to the proposed development following the expiry of the public consultation period.

15/01293/OUT – Parcel 0630, Mythe Road, Tewkesbury

82.4           It was noted that this application for residential development of up to 250 dwellings, public open space, vehicular and pedestrian access and associated infrastructure, plus detailed approval for access arrangements for Mythe Road, with all other matters to be reserved, had been withdrawn.

15/00963/FUL – Gardener’s Arms, Beckford Road, Alderton

82.5           This application was for alterations to the existing car parking layout and provision of an overspill car park area, external seating area, external lighting and fencing and alterations to existing fenestration to include the replacement of existing UPVC framed windows with timber framed windows.  This application had been deferred for a Committee Site Visit at the last meeting and the Committee had visited the application site on Friday 8 April 2016.  It was noted that the description had been amended to reflect the fact that some work had already been carried out.

82.6           The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this application.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member suggested that the fact that a car park may potentially be granted planning permission was further evidence of the fact that Alderton was unsustainable as a service village given the reliance on private motor vehicles.  She appreciated that it was a thriving village, with the public house being a major part of the community, and the Committee Site Visit had shown that the car park did need to be extended; however, she was concerned about lighting and the potential use of marquees on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82a

To consider the recommended conditions and Section 106 obligations following the ‘minded to permit’ decision taken at the last Planning Committee meeting.

82.55         Attention was drawn to the report of the Senior Planning Officer, circulated at Pages No.34-88 which set out the progress that had been made since the last meeting where Members had resolved that they would be minded to permit an application for a proposed garden centre, retail outlet centre and ancillary facilities, together with associated infrastructure works including access, car parking and landscaping, subject to referral to the Secretary of State, and on the basis that the application be brought back to the next meeting of the Committee with recommended conditions and negotiations with the applicant in respect of Section 106 obligations.  Members were asked to consider the report.

82.56         The Planning Officer indicated that a list of suggested conditions was attached at Appendix 1 to the report.  The applicant had confirmed agreement with those conditions subject to the addition of “staff rooms and storage areas” to the list of exclusions set out under the definition of “net sales area” which was considered to be acceptable. In terms of the Section 106 Agreement, the position in terms of contributions for transport related work had been agreed in accordance with the recommendations of County Highways.  It was noted that a separate unilateral undertaking for the safeguarding of land may be necessary for improvements to the A46 and Junction 9 of the M5 motorway.  Other elements included measures to mitigate the impact of the development on the health of Tewkesbury Town Centre and a total of £1.2M contributions had been agreed, which accorded with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations; the mitigation measures were not limited to, but included a number of the measures, set out at Appendix 3 to the report e.g. physical improvement to the town centre relating to town centre regeneration schemes and marketing and tourism initiatives.  It was important to have flexibility and the agreement reflected that; some of the payments would be required upon the grant of the planning permission with others coming forward once the various phases were brought into use.

82.57         A Member noted that the report set out that the total contributions for the Tewkesbury Town centre mitigation measures amounted to £1.79m, however, the Planning Officer had stated that this would be £1.2M.  The Planning Officer advised that discussions had been ongoing since the last Planning Committee meeting and it had been agreed that £1.2M was an appropriate figure in recognition of the benefits that would arise from the proposals.  The Member sought further information regarding the contribution towards the public art trail and was advised that this was a Tewkesbury town centre regeneration project and it was principally a walking/cycling route along the old railway line which was intended to make the link between the two more interesting. The Member went on to query why the shuttle bus between the development and Tewkesbury town centre was no longer included in the list of mitigation measures.  The Planning Officer explained that the developer had been intending to operate a shuttle bus, however, County  ...  view the full minutes text for item 82b

To consider the recommended conditions and negotiations in respect of the height of the buildings following the ‘minded to permit’ decision taken at the last Planning Committee meeting.  

82.61         Attention was drawn to the report of the Development Manager, circulated at Pages No. 89-106 which set out the progress that had been made since the last meeting where Members had resolved that they would be minded to permit an application for the change of use to a horticultural/landscaping business including the redevelopment of existing building and creation of new buildings for use of the business and conversion of coach house to one dwelling including the erection of a detached garage/store and associated vehicular access and parking (including demolition of derelict buildings), subject to referral to the Secretary of State, negotiations with the applicant to reduce the height of the buildings and the formulation of conditions.  Members were asked to consider the report.

82.62         Following the Planning Committee meeting on 15 March 2016, the applicant had submitted amended plans which had changed the overall building height, with building two being reduced by 0.5m and both buildings now proposed to be set 0.5m into the existing ground levels.  A list of suggested conditions was attached at Appendix 1 to the report and the applicant was broadly happy with what was proposed, however, the applicant had requested opening times of 0630 – 1830 hours Monday to Friday.  The Environmental Health Officer had been consulted and advised that this would have an unacceptable impact on residential amenity in terms of noise and how night time and day time measurements were undertaken in the British Standard and World Health Organisation where day time ran from 0700 – 2300 hours.  Whilst the applicant’s operational requirements were understood, proper regard must be had to the living conditions of neighbouring residential properties and, as such, it was recommended that suggested conditions 15 and 16 restrict the hours of operation from 0700 – 1830 Monday to Saturday.  It was recommended that the application be permitted in line with the amendments reducing the height of the buildings and the conditions set out at Appendix 1 to the report.

82.63         A Member welcomed the applicant’s request to amend the opening times as he considered 0630 hours to be a reasonable start time for this type of operation and he did not feel that this would have an onerous impact on the local residents.  The Development Manager confirmed that this recommendation was very much in line with recommendations for similar applications around the Borough and it was only fair that the residents were treated in the same way as recommended by the Environmental Health Officer.

82.64         It was proposed, seconded and

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED, subject to the proposed amendments reducing the height of the buildings and conditions set out at Appendix 1 to the report.

To agree the Members of the Planning Committee to serve on the re-established Joint Standards and Planning Working Group to review the Protocol for Councillors and Officers Involved in the Planning Process, as set out at Paragraph 2 of the report, following its operation for 12 months to assess how it has worked and whether any further amendment is necessary. 

83.1           The report of the Democratic Services Group Manager, circulated at Pages No. 107-109, sought nominations to serve on a joint Standards and Planning Committee Working Group to review the Protocol for Councillors and Officers Involved in the Planning Process in accordance with the Council decision made on 14 April 2015 and the decision of the Standards Committee on 21 March 2016.

83.2           Members were informed that, at its meeting on 14 April 2015, the Council had considered the revised Protocol for Councillors and Officers Involved in the Planning Process and resolved that the Protocol be adopted with a review after 12 months.  The initial review had been undertaken by a joint Working Group made up of four Members of the Planning Committee and four Members of the Standards Committee; this mechanism had worked extremely well and it was therefore suggested that a similar arrangement be put in place to examine how the new Protocol had worked after being operational for 12 months and whether any further amendments were required. 

83.3           At its meeting on 21 March 2016, the Standards Committee had nominated Tewkesbury Borough Councillors Mike Dean and Philip Surman; Parish representative, Jeremy Horsfall; and Independent Person, Martin Jauch to serve on the Working Group.  Previously the representatives from the Planning Committee had been Councillors Derek Davies, John Evetts, Jim Mason and Mrs Jude Perez and, it was suggested, for consistency, that those Members remaining on the Planning Committee may wish to put themselves forward to serve on the Working Group.  In respect of Jude Perez, as she was no longer a Member of the Council, there was one vacancy to fill. 

83.4           It was proposed, seconded and

RESOLVED          That the Planning Committee Members to serve on the re-established Joint Standards and Planning Working Group to review the Protocol for Councillors and Officers Involved in the Planning Process be as follows:

Councillors D M M Davies, R D East, J H Evetts and                                J R Mason.

84.1           Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 110-116.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Communities and Local Government (CLG) appeal decisions issued.

84.2           It was

RESOLVED          That the current appeals and appeal decisions update be NOTED.

To note those applications which have been identified as being subject to a Committee Site Visit on the Friday prior to the Planning Committee meeting at which they will be considered. 

85.1           Attention was drawn to the Advanced Site Visits Briefing, circulated at Page No. 117, which set out those applications that had been identified as ones which would be subject to a Committee Site Visit on the Friday prior to the Planning Committee meeting at which they would be considered.  Members were asked to note the applications in the briefing.

85.2           It was

RESOLVED          That the Advanced Site Visits Briefing be NOTED.