Agenda, decisions and minutes

When the continuous alarm sounds you must evacuate the building by the nearest available fire exit. Members and visitors should proceed to the visitors’ car park at the front of the building and await further instructions (during office hours staff should proceed to their usual assembly point; outside of office hours proceed to the visitors’ car park). Please do not re-enter the building unless instructed to do so.

In the event of a fire any person with a disability should be assisted in leaving the building.

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

76.2           Members were reminded that, at its meeting on 17 May 2016, the Council had confirmed the Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committee as a permanent arrangement.  The Chair gave a brief outline of the scheme and the procedure for Planning Committee meetings. 

77.1           Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P W Awford, T A Spencer and P D Surman.  Councillor R E Allen would be acting as a substitute for the meeting. 

78.1           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.

78.2           The following declarations were made:

78.3           No further declarations were made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 10 April 2018.

79.1           The Minutes of the meeting held on 10 April 2018, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

79.1           The Minutes of the meeting held on 10 April 2018, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

80.1           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.

18/00028/FUL – Land at 1 Consell Green, Tewkesbury Road, Toddington

80.2           This application was for the erection of five detached dwellings with garages and provision of associated parking, vehicular access and landscaping (alternative proposal to withdrawn application 17/00424/FUL).  The Committee had visited the application site on Tuesday 1 May 2018.

80.3           The Development Manager explained that, as set out in the Officer report, the application was contrary to Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy and, as a result, there was a presumption against the granting of planning permission in line with Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and the National Planning Policy Framework unless there were material considerations to indicate otherwise.  Attention was drawn to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which included a letter from the applicant referring to previous appeal decisions in the area and why the site should be considered as infill, which Officers did not agree to be the case.  Policy SD10 was very clear in that it allowed infilling in built-up areas of villages; however, Members had seen from the Committee Site Visit that this site could not be described that way.  There were more recent appeal decisions than the ones referenced by the applicant which supported the application of Policy SD10, for example, Chargrove Paddock, Two Mile Lane in Highnam and Ashmead Drive in Gotherington.  The Gotherington case had been similar to the current scheme in that it was next to, but outside of, the built-up area of the village and within the Special Landscape Area.  In that case, the Inspector had recognised the importance of Policy SD10 and the Council’s five year housing land supply position and, despite the fact that he considered there would be limited landscape harm, had dismissed the appeal primarily due to that policy conflict. 

80.4           In terms of other material considerations, there would be clear economic benefits arising from the proposal in terms of the construction period and the likely spend in the local economy by future occupiers but, as with any development of this scale, these benefits would be limited.  In terms of environmental considerations, the Special Landscape Area provided the foreground setting to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The applicant had suggested that the adjacent site had a greater impact than this proposal; however, permitting one site did not necessarily mean that it was appropriate to permit a new development next door.  In terms of that site, Members would recall that the original outline for 72 houses had been refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 80a

81.1           Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decision update, circulated at Pages No. 10-19.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Communities and Local Government appeal decisions issued.

81.2           A Member was very disappointed to see that the Inspector had allowed the appeal in respect of 17/00785/FUL 82 Gretton Road, Winchcombe.  The Planning Committee had felt that the proposed building was too large and too high and had refused the application only for the applicant to complete the building, move in, put the house up for sale and then submit an appeal.  He raised concern as to what sort of precedent this might set and expressed the view that local authorities needed more enforcement powers.  He also felt that there was a need for better working between the Planning department and Building Control.  With regard to the appeal decision in relation to 17/00303/FUL Sunset, Sunset Lane, Southam, the Member was pleased to see that traditional housing was being supported and felt that this was particularly important in terms of protecting the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The Development Manager understood the Member’s disappointment with the Gretton Road appeal decision; however, he reminded the Committee that each case was considered on its own facts and, on this occasion, the Inspector had looked at what had already been permitted compared with what had been built and did not feel this was enough of a departure to withhold planning permission.  In terms of enforcement generally, a significant amount of progress had been made since the introduction of the Senior Planning and Enforcement Officer post.  Although this post was currently vacant, the previous Officer had been instrumental in the production of the Planning Enforcement Plan which was currently subject to public consultation.  This additional resource had meant that the Planning department had been much more effective in terms of planning control and enforcement and would be looking to build on that going forward.  Applications for the post had recently closed and interviews would be conducted within the next week. 

81.3           The Member understood that it was normal practice for an Inspector to notify the Planning department when they were visiting a site and they would usually be accompanied by a Planning Officer; this had not happened in terms of the Gretton Road site.  The Development Manager advised that site visits could be accompanied or unaccompanied depending on what the Inspector felt they could see – with regard to Gretton Road, the dwelling had already been built and therefore there was no need for an accompanied visit.  He clarified that, if the Inspector was accompanied, this was not an opportunity for representations to be made, it was simply to point out factual characteristics of the site.  Another Member indicated that he was also disappointed with the outcome of this appeal and pointed out that the situation had arisen from an admitted mistake with the measurements in the early stages of construction; had this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 81.