Ashchurch Rural
16/01280/FUL	Orchard Cottage Aston Carrant Road Aston-On-Carrant Tewkesbury	Permit	4

Click Here To View

 

 

Badgeworth
15/00751/OUT	Bentham Country Club Bentham Lane Bentham	Deferred	9

Click Here To View

 

 

Badgeworth
16/01211/FUL	Rowan Cottage Dog Lane Witcombe	Permit	15

Click Here To View

 

 

Bishops Cleeve
16/01335/FUL	44 Meadoway Bishops Cleeve	Permit	17

Click Here To View

 

 

Gotherington
16/00901/OUT	Parcel 1441 Cobblers Close Gotherington	Refuse	3

Click Here To View

 

 

Gotherington
16/01075/FUL	Red Roofs Shutter Lane Gotherington	Permit	2

Click Here To View

 

 

Highnam
16/00486/OUT	Land South of Oakridge   Highnam	Deferred	11

Click Here To View

 

Highnam
16/01232/FUL	36 Farthing Croft Highnam	Permit	10

Click Here To View

 

 

Norton
16/01348/FUL	Brookelands Tewkesbury Road Norton	Permit	18

Click Here To View

 

 

Prescott
16/01457/FUL	The Old Vicarage Stanley Pontlarge	Deferred for committee site visit	1

Click Here To View

 

 

Sandhurst
15/00941/FUL	Part Parcel 7200 Sandhurst Lane Sandhurst	Refuse	12

Click Here To View

 

Sandhurst
16/00012/FUL	6 Alcotts Green Sandhurst	Permit	13

Click Here To View

 

 

Stoke Orchard & Tredington
16/00995/FUL	The Range The Park Bishops Cleeve Cheltenham	Permit	14

Click Here To View

 

 

Tewkesbury
16/00324/FUL	1 Swilgate Road Tewkesbury	Delegated Permit	8

Click Here To View

 

 

Tewkesbury
16/01256/FUL	24 Elmbury Drive Newtown Tewkesbury	Permit	6

Click Here To View

 

 

Tewkesbury
16/01306/FUL	30 Bramley Road Mitton Tewkesbury	Permit	7

Click Here To View

 

 

Wheatpieces
16/00771/FUL	2 Cherry Gardens Walton Cardiff	Permit	5

Click Here To View

 

 

Woodmancote
16/01271/FUL	11 Bushcombe Close Woodmancote	Permit	16

Click Here To View

 

 

 

 

73.1           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.

16/01457/FUL – The Old Vicarage, Stanley Pontlarge, Winchcombe

73.2           This application was for a proposed garage/store and increased parking and turning area.

73.3           The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  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 deferred for a Committee Site Visit to assess the impact on the character of the area and the adjacent listed buildings.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED to assess the impact of the proposal on the character of the area and the adjacent listed buildings.

16/01075/FUL – Red Roofs, Shutter Lane, Gotherington

73.4           This application was for the construction of two four-bed dwellings.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 10 February 2017.

73.5           The Development Manager explained that Officers now considered that the Council could demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, the detail of which was set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.  This had a significant impact on the way that planning applications for housing outside of residential development boundaries were considered.  Since the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework, it was clear that the Council had been unable to demonstrate a five year housing supply and, as such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development had applied to all applications for housing.  The test for dealing with applications for housing had therefore been whether any adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or where specific policies - e.g. Green Belt or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty policies - indicated that development should be restricted.  With a five year supply the presumption in favour of sustainable development did not apply.  Policy HOU4 of the Local Plan, which had been saved by direction from the Secretary of State, provided that residential development outside of those boundaries would only be permitted in limited circumstances i.e. where it was essential for agriculture/forestry; if it involved acceptable conversions; or if it was for affordable housing exception sites.  None of these exceptions applied in this case.  As the Council could now demonstrate a five year supply, this policy was no longer considered to be out of date and should be given substantial weight.  On that basis, the presumption was that applications for housing outside residential development boundaries should be refused unless material planning circumstances indicated otherwise.  Having a five year supply also meant that the emerging Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan could be given more weight than had been suggested in the Officer report.  Notwithstanding that the presumption in favour of sustainable development no longer applied, the other material planning considerations set out in the Officer report still applied with equal force.  The National Planning Policy Framework expected local planning authorities to significantly boost the supply of housing and, by their very nature, housing developments provided social and economic benefits which were discussed in the Officer report.  A key consideration was that the five year supply was a rolling calculation, therefore, it was important not to become complacent; simply refusing all applications outside of residential development boundaries would be likely to result in a five year supply shortfall once again.  In this case, whilst the property itself lay within the residential development boundary, the majority of the garden - where the houses were proposed – was not.  Gotherington was identified as a service village in the Joint Core Strategy and, as such, was considered to be a sustainable location for some limited development.  The proposal would not give rise to significant environmental harms and was therefore considered to represent sustainable development.  Furthermore, it was not considered that there would be a conflict with the policies in the Neighbourhood Development Plan.  The application had been reassessed in light of the change in circumstances and, despite the conflict with HOU4, it was felt that this did not change the Officer recommendation to permit the application.

73.6           The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  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 and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

16/00901/OUT – Parcel 1441, Cobblers Close, Gotherington

73.7           This was an outline planning application, with means of access from Ashmead Drive (all other matters reserved) for the erection of up to 50 dwellings (Class C3); earthworks; drainage works; structural landscaping; formal and informal open space; car parking; site remediation; and all other ancillary and enabling works.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 10 February 2017.

73.8           The Development Manager explained that this case was unlike the previous application as it proposed a different scale of development.  As with that application, the presumption was against the grant of permission due to the conflict with the development plan, unless there were material planning considerations which indicated otherwise.  Those material considerations were essentially the same in terms of the need to boost the supply of housing and to maintain a deliverable supply of housing which could not be achieved by refusing all applications outside of residential development boundaries.  The benefits of the scheme were set out in the Officer report - and Members were familiar with them in any case – however, the scheme also safeguarded the local green space to the south of Lawrence’s Meadow, albeit not in the way that the Neighbourhood Development Plan had anticipated.  The proposal would make this a more usable open space as opposed to a private field with public right of way access as it was currently.  He acknowledged that this was a finely balanced application.  The site was in the Special Landscape Area but, as highlighted by the Landscape Consultant and set out in the Officer report, it did not play a significant part in protecting the setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  In addition, it was not considered that there would be undue impact on social cohesion and, given the benefits set out in the report and the limited harms identified, on balance the application was recommended for a delegated permission.

73.9           The Chair invited Councillor Sylvia Stokes, representing Gotherington Parish Council, to address the Committee.  Councillor Stokes indicated that Gotherington currently had planning permission for 10 houses to the east and 50 to the west, plus 17 houses that were under construction; there was no room for a further 50 houses to the south without losing its identity.  There were over 1,000 houses under construction in Bishop’s Cleeve, which was now the largest village in the UK, and Gotherington did not wish to become part of it.  There was no urgent need for more houses in this part of the borough and the edge of Homelands would only be two fields south of the proposed development.  The landowner of the site also owned a large field to the south and a smaller one to the west, both of which were prime agricultural land in a designated Special Landscape Area and were accessed by farming machinery.  Should the field be developed, the Parish Council could foresee further applications for residential development in the other fields as they would become difficult to farm.  This would result in creeping coalescence with Bishop’s Cleeve, an urban sprawl visible from local Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a permanent loss of village identity and character.  The site was extensively used by residents for walking and appreciation of the distant Cotswold Hills and that visual amenity would be destroyed if the footpaths were hemmed in by houses.  The strength of feeling in the community to preserve this open countryside as a buffer between Gotherington and Bishop’s Cleeve could be seen by the large number of objections lodged.  It was felt that Tewkesbury Borough Council was failing in its duty to protect valued landscapes and the character of villages as stated in the National Planning Policy Framework.  She pointed out that the site was not identified for acceptable development in the emerging Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan.  The government had encouraged localism and the National Planning Policy Framework stated that decision-takers may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans.  The Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan was nearing adoption, with the referendum stage expected in May this year, and should be given due consideration.  The National Planning Policy Statement also set out that the planning system had an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities.  This proposal was essentially a housing estate with a single access point close to a dangerous bend, introducing a scale and form of development that would be at odds with the structure and character of Gotherington.  It would not have any real presence within the streetscene of the village and would become an isolated enclave, having an adverse impact on the social cohesion and community spirit much valued by residents.  Gotherington Parish Council saw no benefits from this proposed development whatsoever; it would have a detrimental impact on the village in terms of environment, visual amenity, social cohesion and poor design, overloading the local road network and facilities and it should be refused.

73.10         The Chair invited David Crofts, a representative for the objectors, to address the Committee.  Mr Crofts advised that he was an independent planning consultant based in Gloucester.  In September 2016, he had been invited to address a public meeting in Gotherington Village Hall which had been attended by approximately 100 people and he had subsequently drafted a letter of objection on their behalf.  He pointed out that 100 people represented far more than the number of properties adjoining the site which gave a very clear indication of the value placed on the space by the local community.  The community had gone to great efforts to draw up a Neighbourhood Development Plan; only the third in the borough to get to the examination stage.  The plan made significant provision for housing and it was considered that it should be given more weight in the planning balance.  The Ministerial Foreword in the National Planning Policy Framework concluded “we are allowing people and communities back into planning” and that principle should be upheld.  He pointed out that Members would have seen from the site visit on Friday how close the Homelands development was to the village and, if this development went ahead, the gap would be reduced to no more than 350m.  In addition, it would significantly increase the levels of private car use for travel to work and other purposes.  The proposal would do little to alleviate the difficulties in terms of finding enough sites for housing to meet the requirements of the Joint Core Strategy.  Members had heard that the Council could now demonstrate a five year supply of housing land in the borough and, as such, the presumption in favour of sustainable development did not apply.  The National Planning Policy Framework required a balancing exercise to be undertaken and, in his view, the adverse effects of the development outweighed the benefits.  On that basis, he respectfully asked the Committee to refuse the application on behalf of the local residents.

73.11         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Alastair Bird, to address the Committee.  He pointed out that, as confirmed within the Officer report, there were no objections to the development from statutory consultees and the scheme also provided a number of key benefits, such as the provision of market and affordable housing; economic benefits during the construction phase and through the lifetime of the development; and on site public space which could be used by new and existing residents.  The only harm identified by the Planning Officer was in respect of the landscape impact and the social cohesion of Gotherington.  With regards to the landscape impact, he was in agreement with the Planning Officer’s view that the harm was minor and limited to the immediate area.  In respect of social cohesion, the applicant had sought to take into consideration the advice of Officers and significantly reduced the proposal from 90 to 50 dwellings.  This not only ensured the delivery of a well-designed and integrated development, but maintained a level of growth commensurate to the size of Gotherington.  As expressed within the Planning Officer’s report, the proposed cumulative growth of Gotherington would be less than had previously been permitted in other service villages such as Maisemore or Norton – both of which were identified as less sustainable locations than Gotherington.  As a result, the Planning Officer had concluded that, even though a five year supply of housing could be demonstrated, the social and economic benefits of the scheme outweighed the limited landscape and social harm identified.  Although the Council’s five year supply position had not been subject to independent examination, he agreed with the Planning Officer’s conclusion that the benefits of the scheme outweighed the limited harm.  As Members would be aware, the site had not been formally allocated for development within the emerging Gotherington Neighbourhood Plan; however, draft policy GNDP2 provided the opportunity for additional development to come forward to meet the wider strategic housing requirements of the borough and set out criteria for which additional sites would be assessed.  The Council would be aware that there were wider strategic housing needs to be met but, based on the criteria within Policy GNDP2, it was considered that the proposed development accorded with each of the requirements: the site was adjoined along three boundaries by the existing built form of Gotherington; the scheme would maintain the village’s linear form; as confirmed by the Council’s independent landscape officer, the scheme would not extend inappropriately into the surrounding countryside, nor would it unduly affect the setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; a strong landscaped edge would be provided along the southern boundary, maintaining the separation distance with Bishop’s Cleeve; and, the development was not in conflict with any other policy within the Neighbourhood Plan – the scheme would deliver an area of public open space along the northern boundary which was significantly in excess of local standards, a key part of the Neighbourhood Plan.  Therefore, whilst the Neighbourhood Plan was in a draft stage, the proposed development was generally in accordance with the guidance of Policy GNDP2.  There was a pressing need for suitable and sustainable sites to come forward to maintain a robust five year supply of housing; this was a rolling requirement and approval of this application would only strengthen the Council’s position moving forward.  He therefore respectfully requested that planning permission be granted, as recommended by the Planning Officer, subject to the suggested conditions.

73.12         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused on the basis that it would have a detrimental impact on the sensitive landscape - the site was located outside of the village boundary and within the Special Landscape Area and a highly visible backdrop to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - and would result in urban sprawl and the coalescence of Gotherington and Bishop’s Cleeve.  A cumulative increase of 28% was disproportionate to the size of the existing village and this development would have a negative effect on its infrastructure and social cohesion.  The proposer of the motion pointed out that the Committee would have seen from the site visit on Friday that the proposed site was located on the outside of the residential development boundary of Gotherington in a rural field which was criss-crossed by public footpaths.  It was located within the Special Landscape Area and surrounded by a beautiful backdrop of Nottingham Hill, Dixton Hill and Woolstone Hill, all of which were within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the site would be highly visible from this higher ground.  In the Planning Officer’s report, it had been identified that the building of these 50 proposed homes would have an urbanising effect and would cause erosion of the rural landscape.  Members would also have seen how close the development at Homelands, Bishop’s Cleeve was to the boundaries of Gotherington village.  In her view, it was vitally important to prevent the coalescence of Bishop’s Cleeve and Gotherington and to maintain the gap between the two communities.  Members had been informed that having a five year land supply meant that Policy HOU4 was now relevant and, as detailed in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, the application was in conflict with saved Policy HOU4, to which substantial weight should be applied.  She believed that the detrimental impact this development would have on the sensitive landscape within the Special Landscape Area, and close to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, was significant.  Views down to the site from the surrounding hills would be impacted; the site would look like urban sprawl and would be out of keeping with the rural character of Gotherington and its surrounding countryside.  The impact on social cohesion and infrastructure was also significant; there were already 78 new homes approved for Gotherington, as well as the two which had been permitted in the previous application, and 50 more would represent a cumulative increase of 28% which would be unsustainable.  It would have a negative impact on community cohesion and would be of a scale disproportionate to the existing settlement and weighing against this development. There were no material planning circumstances that indicated that the application should be approved; in her opinion there were significant and substantial reasons for the application to be refused which were not outweighed by the need for housing. 

73.13         The seconder of the motion felt that it was a finely balanced judgement.  With a five year demonstrable supply of housing the focus was now on other planning issues, the most significant and fundamental of which, in his view, was landscape harm.  He noted that advice had been sought from an independent landscape consultant who had indicated that there would be little harm; however, Members had clearly seen the potential landscape harm when they had visited the application site.  When Bishop’s Cleeve was eventually built out and the boundary became clear, the gap with Gotherington would be significantly diminished and, should this application be permitted, there would be coalescence of the two communities.  The local planning authority should not be in the business of allowing urban sprawl to develop and submerge villages like Gotherington.  The site was in the Special Landscape Area, which should be protected, and outside of the residential development boundary and there were no substantive benefits which outweighed these factors – he was particularly sceptical about the economic benefits which would be provided during the construction phase.  He reiterated that landscape harm was the most significant issue and the application should be refused on that basis.

73.14         A Member echoed the views of the proposer and seconder of the motion and indicated that Gotherington was trying very hard to maintain a linear pattern of development which would be ruined by this application.  It was a finely balanced decision for Officers but he felt that the negatives outweighed the positives.  Another Member supported the motion to refuse the application.  He felt that the development would be a blot on the landscape, particularly when viewed from higher ground, and Bishop’s Cleeve could already be seen creeping towards Gotherington.  Urban sprawl was not acceptable and he could not support it.

73.15         The Development Manager reminded Members that the five year housing supply was a minimum.  Furthermore, the economic benefits of house building were well-established and would always be referenced by an Inspector.  If Members were minded to refuse the application, he pointed out that it would be necessary to include technical refusal reasons relating to the Section 106 obligations.  He sought further explanation from the proposer of the motion as to what harm would be caused in terms of social cohesion and, in response, the proposer of the motion stated that the scale of the proposed development would be disproportionate to the existing settlement and would be disconnected from it due to its location on the edge of the settlement.  The additional housing would impact on the services offered by the village, such as schools and clubs, as well as roads and transport.  The Development Manager clarified that there was no objection to the proposal from the County Council in terms of education or highways and it would therefore be difficult to produce the necessary evidence to defend refusal reasons on those grounds.  The proposer of the motion recognised that the statutory consultees were required to provide their professional views, however, local knowledge could be invaluable and the roads in Gotherington were grinding to a halt.  The seconder of the motion felt that it was important to include as many refusal reasons as possible to formulate a defence at appeal and it was for the Inspector to decide upon their relevance.   He agreed that people on the ground often had a different view to the statutory consultees and he made particular reference to the impact on the children who would be living in the houses who may be forced to go to another school in a different village.  The Development Manager fully understood that Members may have a different view from Officers and statutory consultees and he was simply reminding the Committee of the potential danger of the Council being liable to pay costs at appeal, particularly on the grounds of highway safety given that the County Highways Authority had not recommended refusal on that basis and as the Committee had permitted other applications for housing in Gotherington, including the previous application on the schedule.  A Member pointed out that the County Highways Authority had confirmed that it was not possible for a refuse vehicle and a private motorcar to pass one another at the site access and, whilst it was stated that there was sufficient visibility for approaching vehicles to give way, 50 houses were likely to generate a lot of contact at the site entrance not only in terms of refuse collections but home deliveries as well.  Another Member noted that a condition had been recommended by Officers in relation to the submission of a highway improvement scheme for Gotherington Cross junction and she felt that a report should have been provided as part of the application as it suggested that highway safety was an issue.  In addition, she supported the seconder of the motion in terms of his comment about the overcapacity of local schools.  Whilst he recognised that Members may disagree with statutory advice on the basis that they knew differently what happened “on the ground,” a Member pointed out that it should be borne in mind that an Inspector would take the professional advice as evidential. 

73.16         Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be REFUSED on the basis that it would be contrary to Policy HOU4 of the adopted local plan; would represent a significant encroachment into the surrounding rural landscape which would have an urbanising effect and result in erosion of the rural landscape, contributing towards further coalescence of Gotherington and Bishop’s Cleeve causing harm to the character and appearance of the landscape within a Special Landscape Area which served to protect the foreground setting of the adjacent Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; in addition to those already permitted in the village, it would result in cumulative development of the village which would be of a scale disproportionate to the existing settlement.  As such, the proposed development would fail to maintain or enhance the vitality of Gotherington and would have a harmful impact on the social wellbeing of the local community, risking the erosion of community cohesion; and no signed planning obligations were in place to deliver the necessary affordable housing and social infrastructure.

16/01280/FUL – Orchard Cottage, Aston Carrant Road, Aston-On-Carrant

73.17         This application was for the demolition of an existing detached garage and outbuildings; erection of a two storey detached dwelling; and alterations to, and extension of, the existing driveway and parking area to include provision of vehicular access to the adjacent paddock.  It was noted that the application had been deferred at the last meeting of the Planning Committee in order to allow time for soakaway test results and an appropriate Drainage Strategy to be submitted and assessed.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 10 February 2017.

73.18         The Development Manager advised that the flood risk objection had been overcome and it was accepted that drainage could be resolved via condition.  Notwithstanding this, the Officer recommendation was affected, not only by the change in circumstances around the five year supply, but also by the removal of the Ministry of Defence, Ashchurch strategic allocation in the Joint Core Strategy.  Unlike the applications at Gotherington, Aston-On-Carrant did not have a residential development boundary and was not designated as a service village.  Historically, applications had been refused on the basis of being located outside of a recognised settlement boundary; some limited development had taken place, however, that had generally been on brownfield land or, more recently, for an agricultural workers’ dwelling at Wheelers Farm.  It was noted that a recent application at The Laurels had been permitted on balance, largely due to the existence of the strategic allocation at the Ministry of Defence site; however, that justification had now disappeared and Policy HOU4 was no longer out of date so should be given substantial weight.  An additional representation had been submitted by the applicant’s agent, as detailed in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1; however, it was not considered that a single dwelling and its associated benefits would outweigh the conflict with the development plan.  This was recommended as one of two additional refusal reasons, the second of which related to accessibility and lack of access to amenities.  It was noted that design continued to be a concern and this remained a reason for refusal.

73.19         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Wendy Hopkins, to address the Committee.  She indicated that, by attending Planning Committee meetings on a regular basis, she knew that Members supported small-scale growth in villages in certain circumstances to avoid them stagnating.  The proposal before the Committee was exactly that – an application for a single dwelling for a local family that represented those particular circumstances where development was acceptable.  This application was considered favourably by Planning Officers in respect of issues such as landscape, residential amenity, highways and flood risk; however, concerns were expressed in respect of the impact the proposal would have on the character of the area – not in terms of design but in terms of the position on site in relation to the surrounding urban grain – and the fact that Tewkesbury Borough now considered that it was able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, a matter that had only been raised yesterday.  Given these reasons, and taking into account the benefits, she did not agree that the proposal would constitute a level of harm that would warrant refusal.  The site lay wholly within the built-up form of the settlement and would be located significantly closer to the road than the adjacent cul-de-sac.  As evident on site, the new dwelling would be detectable from within the streetscene and, whilst the settlement was predominantly single plot depth, there were a number of existing dwellings set back behind those that addressed the road frontage.  The site was not within a Conservation Area and there were no listed buildings in close proximity, although she agreed that Orchard Cottage was an undesignated heritage asset and the new dwelling had been designed to respect that.  The new dwelling was a storey and a half in height and set back within the site so as not to compete or detract.  Orchard Cottage would remain the dominant feature when viewed from the road and, as such, would maintain the immediate and wider character of the area.  In respect of the five year housing land supply, whilst this was welcome news to residents of the borough, she reiterated that the figure was a minimum requirement, not a ceiling figure, and the contribution of a single dwelling would not prejudice or distort the planned delivery of housing as set out in the Joint Core Strategy.  In her view the development should be seen positively as assisting toward a robust, and ultimately defendable, supply position.  In summing up she pointed out that the application was not about constructing a dwelling to sell on, it was about providing a home to a local family to enable their elderly mother to remain living in her home with the benefit of her close family effectively living on site.  This was exactly the type of development that would keep small villages and communities alive.

73.20         In response to a Member query regarding Policy HOU4, the Development Manager explained that it applied to any areas which were outside of a residential development boundary, where there was a residential development boundary in place in that area e.g. Gotherington and those where there was no recognised settlement boundary.  There was a general presumption against granting planning permission outside of a residential development boundary and it was necessary for the applicant to demonstrate the particular circumstances which outweighed the harm in those instances.  Another Member drew attention to the Additional Representation Sheet which referenced additional information that had been submitted by the applicant following the update at Paragraph 7 of the Officer’s report and she sought clarification as to what that information had set out.  The Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer confirmed that further detail had been submitted via a consultant who had addressed the concerns in respect of run-off rates, storage facilities and discharge points within the surface water system.  Although the information had not been provided to Members, he had seen the report and the plans and considered that sustainable development with regard to flood risk was attainable for the site.  The Development Manager apologised that the information had not been included in full but he stressed that the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer was satisfied and he would be concerned about a refusal on that basis.

73.21         The Chair confirmed that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member expressed the view that the proposal was comparable to that at Red Roofs, Gotherington, which had been permitted earlier in the meeting, in that it was backfilling.  It would match the existing development line and she did not believe that it would have a negative impact on the streetscene.  Given that Officers were satisfied that the drainage concerns had been addressed, and on the basis that the site was not located within a Special Landscape Area or Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and there would be no significant landscape harm, she felt that it should be permitted.  The Development Manager explained that the key difference between this proposal and Red Roofs was the application of Policy HOU4.  In that case, there was a presumption that housing development should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances i.e. where essential to the efficient operation of agriculture or forestry or for the provision of affordable housing exception sites.  Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 required that proposals be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise.  As set out in the Gotherington reports, there were also emerging policies for housing there, whereas there was no such emerging policy here.  The benefits of this proposal were limited by virtue of it being a single dwelling and he reminded Members of the decisions that had been made on previous applications where that position had been taken. 

73.22         During the debate which ensued, a Member pointed out that Aston-On-Carrant was not a service village and there was nothing in the area except for houses and farmland with the nearest facilities located in Ashchurch.  Another Member highlighted the fact that this proposal would provide a house for a local resident and he was in favour of a situation where people could take action to keep their families and communities together.  He could not see how Policy HOU4, which had been designed for a completely different purpose, could be used to prevent what, in his view, was a very sensible development.  The Development Manager explained that, whilst he acknowledged the personal circumstances surrounding the application and the current intentions, once planning permission had been granted there was no way of controlling who occupied the dwelling in the future and a potential precedent would be set.  Permitting an application in a settlement where there was no residential development boundary was against policy and could cause problems going forward.  Policy HOU4 intended to direct development towards settlements that had been identified as places which should be expanded.  He had previously discussed the fact that there were some small settlements which should be given the chance to grow and there was an opportunity to do this through Neighbourhood Development Plans and the Borough Plan.  He stressed the importance of exercising control as this was the fundamental purpose of the planning system.

73.23         A Member indicated that he had never been in favour of leaving small villages to stagnate and he felt that an individual house would be of benefit to the community.  Another Member pointed out that the fundamental objection in relation to flooding and drainage had been resolved and he did not feel that not being able to control the future occupation of a dwelling was a reason to prevent planning permission from being granted. In response, a Member pointed out that this was an issue which had been raised many times at Planning Committee and each time it had been made very clear that future occupation was not something which could be controlled.  Members had to follow the guidelines and she would be supporting the motion to refuse the application.

73.24         Upon being taken to the vote, the motion to refuse the application was lost.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be permitted on the grounds that there would be no adverse impact on the streetscene or significant landscape harm, the proposal would reflect the character of the area and the drainage concerns could be adequately addressed.  This motion was put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED on the grounds that there would be no adverse impact on the streetscene or significant landscape harm; the proposal would reflect the character of the area; and the drainage concerns could be adequately addressed, subject to a condition requiring the submission of detailed drainage arrangements and standard conditions in relation to materials, levels, highways, access and parking.

16/00771/FUL – 2 Cherry Gardens, Walton Cardiff, Tewkesbury

73.25         This application was to brick up a garage door and install a window for room to be a habitable space. 

73.26         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  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 and, upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

16/01256/FUL – 24 Elmbury Drive, Newtown

73.27         This application was for a new dwelling.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 17 January 2017 for a Committee Site Visit to assess the impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and the Committee had visited the application site on Friday 10 February 2017.

73.28         The Chair invited Claire Miers, a neighbour speaking against the proposal, to address the Committee.  She indicated that when the first application had been made to build in the garden of 24 Elmbury Drive she had believed that the planning system would prevent a property being built so close to her home that it would compromise her ability to have a good night’s sleep in her own bedroom due to the noise of another households’ television, radio or conversation.  Sadly, despite the potential impact of noise transference being mentioned in planning policy, this did not appear to be of concern to Planning Officers.  She was disappointed that Tewkesbury Town Council’s objection that this type of garden-grabbing was detrimental had been completely disregarded.  She had been brought up to believe that you should not inflict on anybody else something which you were not prepared to tolerate yourself and, as the applicant was clearly not prepared to have the new dwelling built so close to his own property, she questioned why he was allowed to inflict it upon her.  Members were about to vote on a decision which could have a significant impact, not only on her life, but on the lives of the other residents of Walton House.  Before they voted, she asked the Committee to consider whether they shared the Planning Officer’s confidence that she would not be troubled by noise from the proposed new dwelling’s kitchen/living room window that was situated only 10.5m from her bedroom window.  She also asked them whether a tiny bungalow, no bigger than the average park home - with the average living space in the property for the kitchen, dining room and living room measuring 7.5m by 5.5m - was the type of property which should be granted planning permission.  She wondered whether the Members shared the confidence of the Planning and Landscape Officers that the roots of the Sycamore tree did not pose a threat to the foundations of the new build on the basis of a report compiled by a garden designer that was not a qualified member of the Arboricultural Society.  She had been advised by a number of builders and surveyors that to build within 80cm of a boundary line fence would be extremely difficult and she questioned whether Members believed that the bungalow could be built without the fence belonging to Walton House being damaged or knocked down.  If Members could not answer these questions positively then she urged them to refuse the application.

73.29         The Chair indicated that 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.  The proposer of the motion explained that the Committee had visited the application site and had looked at the property in question and the neighbour’s property at the back of the garden.  Given that the proposed dwelling was a single storey bungalow she did not feel that it would have an overbearing impact or result in a loss of privacy or any significant increase in noise and disturbance that would justify a refusal.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation. 

16/01306/FUL – 30 Bramley Road, Mitton

73.30         This application was for a two storey side extension and single storey rear extension alterations.

73.31         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  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 and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

      16/00324/FUL – 1 Swilgate Road, Tewkesbury

73.32         This application was for the redevelopment of an existing dwelling and car park to provide nine apartments. 

73.33         The Development Manager indicated that this was a long running saga on a difficult site and, as set out the Officer report, there were continuing flood risk concerns.  The most recent application had been refused on flood risk grounds mainly relating to safe and dry access during times of flood; this was not possible to the front due to the depth and velocity of water, and it was therefore proposed that access be through the rear of the site onto Church Street.  The Flood Risk Assessment set out that in times of extreme flooding there would be water at the end of that access route onto Church Street.  The water at that point was likely to be between 0.22m and 0.5m deep but it had a very low velocity and reduced in depth over a short distance.  The Flood Risk Assessment also pointed out that the existing dwelling itself was at risk of flooding, and that had been noted by the Planning Inspector at the appeal for the application for 12 dwellings on the site that had been dismissed in 2013.  It was noted that there would be betterment in terms of flood storage capacity as a result of the proposed development.  On balance, the Flood Risk Management Engineer was satisfied that safe access could be created onto Church Street, although it would not necessarily be dry during times of extreme flood.  Proposed conditions were set out in the Officer report which would require occupiers to subscribe to the Environment Agency’s flood warning advice and be provided with a copy of a flood management plan, including details of evacuation procedures.  The key difference between this and the application which had been refused by the Committee in February 2016 was the design.  Officers felt that there was a marked improvement from the uninspiring pastiche, which would be of no benefit the area, to a more contemporary approach which respected and took cues from the surrounding burgage plots to the rear.  The Council’s Conservation Officer, Heritage England and the Civic Society all welcomed the new approach.  The objections in respect of flood risk still existed; whilst there was also some concern about the overbearing impact of the new proposal on the neighbouring property, on balance, Officers felt that the benefits arising from the proposal, particularly the enhancement of the Conservation Area, justified permission.  It was noted that the Officer recommendation was for a delegated permission pending the receipt of comments from the County Highways Authority; it was anticipated that there would be no objection, subject to conditions.

73.34         The Chair confirmed that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the receipt of comments from the County Highways Authority and additional/amended conditions as appropriate, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The proposer of the motion recognised that this site had been an issue for some time and the application was now at a point where the majority of people involved were reasonably happy.  In his view the proposals would significantly improve the site and he would be pleased for the matter to be brought to a conclusion.

73.35         A Member indicated that she could not support this application.  The only thing that had changed since the Committee had refused the application in early 2016 was the design; she pointed out that the sequential test had still not been passed.  The Swilgate flooded every year and, given the previous flood events in Tewkesbury, she found it incredible that Officers would recommend an application for permission which included conditions requiring the occupiers to subscribe to a flood warning service and to be provided with a Flood Management Plan.  The report set out that residents would be unable to gain access and egress via the Swilagate Road during times of flood and she could not imagine that anyone would want to live in a property with this level of risk.  Another Member shared these concerns and was also surprised that the proposals had been considered favourably by Officers.  She drew attention to Page No. 668, Paragraph 4.21 of the Officer’s report, which set out that the previous appeal Inspector had concluded that anyone requiring emergency medical help and associated evacuation by ambulance during a flood event would be placed at considerable risk.  The Council had a duty of care to residents and it would be wrong to increase the number of residents who were potentially at risk by permitting an application for nine additional apartments. 

73.36         In response to these concerns, the Development Manager advised that the obligations in terms of flood risk were set out within the report.  Officers had recommended that planning permission be granted because of the benefits in terms of the enhancement to the Conservation Area; he appreciated that it was a difficult decision to make given the circumstances affecting the town in times of flood but Members would need to take a balanced judgement.  The proposer of the motion indicated that he was a local Ward Member and he was very conscious of the flooding aspects which he did not underestimate at any time.  The existing house had not flooded in 2007 and the replacement properties would be slightly higher up.  It was widely recognised that the Swilgate flooded but safe access and egress could be provided via Church Street.  Of course there was still a risk but that had to be balanced against the benefits of the proposal; the site was in need of improvement and the design was far better than in the previous scheme.  This view was supported by another Member who pointed out that there had been no objection from the Town Council.  Local residents were well aware that Tewkesbury flooded and they reacted accordingly; he had heard the benefits of the proposal and would be supporting the motion.  A Member accepted that the existing site was not particularly attractive but she did not feel that should be a reason to permit this application.  She felt that it would be irresponsible to permit an application with so many caveats and she was stunned that Officers were recommending it for permission.  This view was shared by another Member who questioned why the Committee would want to allow more properties to be built in an area where there was a known significant risk of flooding and conditions were needed to ensure that people could exit the properties in such events.  He appreciated that it was a balanced decision, and he recognised the positive aspects of the proposal, however, it was a risk which could not be calculated and it would be foolish to permit it in his view.

73.37         Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the receipt of comments from the County Highways Authority and additional/amended conditions as appropriate.

15/00751/OUT – Bentham Country Club, Bentham Lane, Bentham

73.38         This was an outline application for the redevelopment of Bentham Country Club to include the erection of 39 dwellings, associated parking, public open space, landscaping and associated works. 

73.39         The Planning Officer drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which set out that the applicant had requested that the application be deferred in order to resolve outstanding issues.  Although the Council was now able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, this did not alter the Officer recommendation to refuse the application; Bentham had not been identified as a service village in the Joint Core Strategy, the site was located within the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and was in a relatively remote location which was not well served by local facilities.  An additional refusal reason was recommended to address the conflict with Policy HOU4.

73.40         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Giles Brockbank, to address the Committee.  He confirmed that the application site was across the road from the Bentham Works site where an application for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment to provide 49 dwellings had been permitted in 2014.  One key issue with the current proposal was the loss of existing sports facilities; however, the application had been in for over a year and the applicant had been working with the Community Development team and representatives from the netball community to overcome these concerns.  Alternative facilities were now proposed to the satisfaction of Sports England.  He went on to explain that the application site was within close proximity to two poultry buildings and the Council’s Environmental Health Officer had raised concern about the strong potential for complaints from odour and had objected to the proposal on those grounds.  The applicant therefore respectfully requested that the application be deferred to allow odour modelling work to be undertaken.  The Planning Officer had also stated that the proposal did not demonstrate that any subsequent reserved matters application would achieve the high level of design required in this sensitive location and, should Members resolve to defer the application, it was intended to bring back additional information in respect of design and how the proposal could be assimilated satisfactorily into the surroundings.  The benefits associated with the scheme should be a strong material consideration and he reiterated that the five year housing land supply was a minimum.  Given the length of time since the application had been submitted, and the willingness of the applicant to seek to address the issues relating to the application, he felt that the request for additional time to resolve the outstanding concerns was reasonable.

73.41         The Chair confirmed that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred in order for further odour modelling work to be undertaken.  A Member indicated that she did not agree that this was the most appropriate way forward and she proposed that the application be refused, in accordance with the Officer recommendation, on the basis that the site was located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Green Belt where residential development was restricted.  This motion was also seconded.  In response to a query regarding the alternative site for sports facilities, the Planning Officer clarified that the existing sports facilities must be replaced in another location and they must be equal to, or an improvement upon, existing facilities and serve all existing users.  Lengthy discussions had taken place with Sports England with the principal issue being the replacement of the netball facilities.  An agreement had now been reached that satisfactory replacement facilities could be provided at the Millbrook Academy in Brockworth; whilst the replacement facilities could potentially be provided, planning permission would be needed and therefore this could currently be given very little weight in the overall planning balance.  He pointed out that a planning application for the replacement facilities could have been submitted for determination in parallel with the current application and Sports England had made a similar comment in terms of the fact that there must be a legal mechanism in place to secure the delivery of the replacement facilities before it would withdraw its objection.

73.42         A Member expressed the view that it would be beneficial to visit the application site to assess the impact of the proposal upon the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - particularly if Members were minded to defer the application for the odour modelling work to be undertaken - and he also suggested visiting the Millbrook Academy site where it was proposed that the replacement sports facilities would be situated.  The Development Manager did not feel that it would be appropriate to visit the site at Millbrook Academy in terms of this particular application; if an application was submitted for the replacement facilities, that would be the right time for a site visit.  The proposer and seconder of the motion to refuse the application felt that the impact of 39 houses within the Green Belt was quite clear and they did not consider that a site visit was necessary.  The seconder of that motion drew attention to the comments of the Cotswold Conservation Board which noted the previously developed nature of the site but considered that the proposal would essentially result in a new housing estate of 39 dwellings in the nationally protected Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Green Belt, in an unsustainable location unrelated to any existing settlement and would result in a negative urbanising change of character.

73.43         The Legal Adviser confirmed that the motion for a deferral would be taken first and the proposer and seconder of that motion indicated that they would be happy to amend the motion to include a Committee Site Visit.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED for a Committee Site Visit to consider the impact of the proposal on the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and to allow further odour modelling work to be undertaken.

16/01232/FUL – 36 Farthing Croft, Highnam

73.44         This application was for a rear single storey extension to enlarge the kitchen and provide a garden room; and a front two storey extension to provide a porch and dining room and enlarged bedroom.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 10 February 2017.

73.45         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  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 and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

16/00486/OUT – Land South of Oakridge, Highnam

73.46         This was an outline application for the erection of 40 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 10 February 2017.

73.47         The Development Manager reiterated that, given the Council’s ability to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, the starting point was that there was now a presumption against granting permission as the proposal was contrary to Policy HOU4.  The issues were very much the same as for the previous applications; it was a question of whether there were any material planning considerations which justified a departure from the development plan – in this instance that included the Highnam Development Plan.  The considerations in favour of granting planning permission were the need to significantly boost the supply of deliverable housing sites; the benefits of the proposal in terms of the delivery of affordable and market housing, and the economic benefits associated with this; the fact that Highnam was identified as a service village in the Joint Core Strategy for some limited development; and its relative proximity to Gloucester.  The National Planning Policy Framework was considered in the Officer report and no particular conflict had been identified.  There was local concern about breaching the boundary of Highnam, set by Oakridge, however, in landscape terms, whilst there would inevitably be harm arising from the agricultural fields being replaced with a development of 40 houses, it was considered that the development could be accommodated on the site without undue harm.  The development would not be setting any form of precedent – there may be other sites outside of the boundary of Oakridge where there would be harm – and, in the overall planning balance, Officers considered that the benefits arising from the scheme justified a departure from Policy HOU4 in this case and it had subsequently been recommended for a delegated permission.

73.48         The Chair invited Councillor Michael Welch, representing Highnam Parish Council, to address the Committee.  Councillor Welch indicated that Highnam Parish Council had only become aware that the application would be considered by the Planning Committee at this meeting by chance on Thursday which had given insufficient time to analyse the Planning Officer’s report in detail.  As such, the Parish Council requested that the application be deferred until the following month to provide a chance for all relevant parties to discuss how best the community could evolve and develop over the coming years.  The Highnam Neighbourhood Development Plan had been approved by the Borough Council just three weeks earlier and now formed an integral part of its development plan.  It was regrettable, therefore, that there had not been an opportunity for the Parish Council to work constructively with Officers to ensure that development was sustainable and integrated.  He pointed out that the Joint Core Strategy service village housing provision would be exceeded by this development, providing no scope for future development over the plan period.  For the very first time the long established boundary of the village, as defined by Oakridge Road, would be breached thereby creating a quite separate unsustainable intrusion into open countryside, out of keeping with the existing village.  Taken together with the recently approved Lassington Lane development in the village, this would significantly increase the already heavy traffic flow onto the surrounding road infrastructure, especially at peak times.  This proposal had generated considerable opposition and concern throughout the village and he urged the Committee to defer it for a short period to enable the proposal to be considered more fully by relevant parties.

73.49         The Chair invited Nicolas Cook, speaking on behalf of the interests of the Fenton estate and opposition parties, to address the Committee.  Mr Cook explained there had been considerable opposition to the development and, of the 202 representations, 156 were from individual objectors.  These individuals, and the community at large, had an expectation that their democratic representatives and appointed Officers would look after their interests.  They were understandably concerned when contentious development received approval only because there was inadequate planning policy to prevent it.  If the current development was approved, the village of Highnam alone would have been subjected to 128 dwellings through various planning permissions under a regime where there had been no effective planning policy in place.  There was a widespread perception that the community had been let down.  In these circumstances, where vulnerable communities were being subjected to opportunistic development, the local planning authority surely had an increased responsibility to protect them; notwithstanding this, the various consultations undertaken appeared cursory with an over-reliance on the applicant’s own expert submissions and findings.  The highway proposals and recommendations were causing real concern locally and the landscape findings were hard to credit for a development which extended beyond the established Oakridge settlement.  The site’s north eastern boundary was on the brow of a high point in the landscape and, despite being set back from the perimeter, the dwellings would silhouette 6-8m above the profile of the land which was visually intrusive.  The overall landscape quality in the area had been detrimentally altered through recent planning approvals.  In addition to the development of 88 dwellings on Lassington Lane, two solar farms had been approved in the Highnam area - the Over Farm solar development of 25.7 hectares was just one field away to the east of the site.  The accumulated negative impact on the landscape character was significant.  There were also indications that the developer and landowner may have ambitions for a larger scheme in the same field to the south east of the site and this development could form a precedent for further unplanned encroachment into the countryside.  For these reasons, and all of the other objections raised, the application represented inappropriate development and he asked the Planning Committee to refuse it accordingly.

74.50         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, David Jones, to address the Committee.  Mr Jones advised that Highnam was defined as a local service village in the emerging Joint Core Strategy and, as such, was capable of supporting, and being supported by, new housing development.  This was considered to be a sustainable location for the proposed development as the site was a logical physical extension to the built up area and offered efficient, safe and convenient access to the highway network.  Furthermore, the land was not subject to any restrictive land designation i.e. it was not designated Green Belt, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or a Special Landscape Area.  The recently adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan did not contain any policies which restricted development of this type and, in accordance with Policy H1 of the Neighbourhood Plan, the applicant had agreed to provide an element of self-build plots and affordable bungalows according to identified local need.  The applicant endorsed the findings of the Officer report in which it was confirmed that no objections had been made by any of the statutory or technical consultees in respect of such matters as highway impact and safety, drainage and flooding, landscape, ecology or heritage.  The development would provide for 40% affordable housing, together with over £230,000 of contributions towards local services.  The Planning Officer’s report confirmed that the Council could allegedly deliver a five year supply of housing sites; whilst he found this conclusion highly doubtful, notwithstanding the five year housing land supply figure, there remained an obligation to significantly boost housing supply.  He had submitted to Officers two recent appeal decisions in which Inspectors had considered the same issue; in both cases it was concluded that a five year housing supply was a minimum provision, not simply a target to be met.  Furthermore, there remained an acute need for affordable housing which would be provided by this development.  Whilst it was noted that the application had generated significant local opposition, Members would be well aware that local opposition in itself was not a satisfactory reason for withholding consent.  Officers had carefully analysed the relevant planning considerations and rightly recommended the proposal for permission.  The application had been validated in May 2016 so he believed that there had been more than sufficient time for the Parish Council and local residents to consider and respond to the proposal.  He therefore urged the Committee to support the Officer recommendation and permit the application.

73.51         The Chair invited Councillor Philip Awford, a Ward Member for the area, to address the Committee.  Councillor Awford shared the concerns that had been expressed in relation to the application and the disappointment at the lack of engagement that was promised to the Parish Council.  The report made no mention of the recent decision for growth in Highnam; growth which was needed but not at the risk of the village being desecrated.  This opportunistic proposal would be detrimental to the village setting and set a precedent for a more urban appearance on the approach to Highnam and potentially a more unwelcome urban style of development.  156 letters of objection had been submitted and had made clear the many planning issues associated with this application.  He respectfully asked the Committee to consider a deferral in order for the Parish Council’s concerns to be considered more fully in a more balanced report.  He reiterated that the Council was now able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites and he pointed out that nothing in the proposal accorded with the recent Council resolution to include Highnam Neighbourhood Plan as part of the development plan for Tewkesbury Borough.  This application was outside of the residential development boundary and permitting it would undermine that very significant process that had taken hundreds of hours of work.  He warned Members against repeating the errors of permitting developments that took away from the unique characteristics of Highnam as a village; a bolt on development that was urban in design would spoil the boundaries of this attractive village.  He asked Members to give the Parish Council and residents support by deferring the application for better engagement around the Neighbourhood Development Plan.

73.52         The Chair confirmed that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to consideration as to how visibility could be secured at the access to the site and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred to enable the proposal to be considered more fully by relevant parties, in accordance with the request made by the Parish Council.  A Member questioned why the Officer report did not make any reference to social cohesion, bearing in mind the similarities between this application and the one at Cobbler’s Close, Gotherington which had been refused earlier in the meeting and had contained a large section on social cohesion as a material planning consideration.  The Development Manager explained that it was not always possible to discuss every material planning consideration within the Officer report and no specific objections had been made in respect of social cohesion in this case.  If Members were minded to defer the application then Officers could take a view on that aspect of the proposal in the report which would be brought back to the Committee.  The Member indicated that she was of the view that the local community had worked hard to get the Highnam Neighbourhood Development Plan approved and it was only right to ensure that they were fully involved in the process in terms of where properties should be built, therefore she would support the motion for a deferral.

73.53         Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED to enable the proposal to be considered more fully by relevant parties, in accordance with the request made by the Parish Council.

15/00941/FUL – Part Parcel 7200, Sandhurst Lane, Sandhurst

73.54         This application was for the erection of 16 dwellings (eight affordable and eight open market sale) with landscaping, access and associated works.

73.55         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Oliver Rider, to address the Committee.   He explained that, as set out in the Officer report, this was a finely balanced case where there were substantial benefits to the delivery of affordable housing which clearly needed to be weighed against any alleged harms.  In his view the benefits were so substantial that they far outweighed any negatives and he explained why with reference to six basic facts.  Firstly, a Parish Housing Needs Survey carried out by Gloucestershire Rural Community Council (GRCC), and other evidence gathered by the Council’s Strategic Housing and Enabling Officer, indicated that there were eight families in Sandhurst Parish in affordable housing need.  A financial appraisal, independently verified by the District Valuer, confirmed that a total of 16 dwellings were needed to deliver these eight affordable houses and the National Planning Policy Framework recognised cross-subsidy as a means of delivering affordable housing.  The sequential test assessment confirmed that this site was the most sequentially preferable in the village to meet this need.  No other site had been found to be available that would deliver all, or even part, of the need.  All other sites identified were covered by larger extents of floodplain than this one.  National policy permitted housing in Flood Zone 2 where it passed the sequential test and the Officer’s report confirmed that the sequential test had been passed in this case, as such, there was no fundamental conflict with policy.  Siting a small amount of development in Flood Zone 2 – less than 10% in this case – was necessary to deliver the affordable housing needs of the village.  A reduction in the number of dwellings would not only fail to deliver the full need but it would render the whole scheme financially unviable.  A reduction in plots would prevent the housing association from recouping enough income to repay their loans, Members therefore needed to be aware that a refusal of this scheme would potentially be a decision to close the door on affordable housing in Sandhurst for the foreseeable future.  Finally, he drew attention to the Tewkesbury Borough Council Plan 2016-20 which set out the Council’s key priorities, one of which was to deliver affordable homes to meet local need.  This was a priority due to the desperate need for affordable homes in Tewkesbury and the historic issues in terms of their delivery; he had read a number of Tewkesbury Borough Council Plans over the years and every version he recalled listed this as a key priority which demonstrated that affordable housing was a long term issue and an ongoing problem in the borough.  For these reasons, it was his view that the affordable housing needs of the borough were so great that this outweighed any other subjective harm in the overall balance and affordable housing should be built now while the offer was on the table.

73.56         The Chair invited Councillor Williams, a Ward Member for the area, to address the Committee.  Councillor Williams indicated that Sandhurst had twice become an island due to flooding in 2007 and 2014.  He pointed out that three quarters of the site flooded and one corner, where the affordable houses would be located, was particularly wet.  When the village flooded it was impossible for emergency services to gain access and he had serious concerns regarding the proposed drainage.  For these reasons, he felt that the application should be refused.

73.57         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

16/00012/FUL – 6 Alcotts Green, Sandhurst

73.58         This application was for the retention of a 1.8m boundary fence to the property. 

73.59         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  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 and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

16/00995/FUL – The Range, The Park, Bishop’s Cleeve

73.60         This application was for the proposed raising of an existing bund to a gun club. 

73.61         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this application.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

16/01211/FUL – Rowan Cottage, Dog Lane, Witcombe

73.62         This application was for the erection of a replacement dwelling, garage and associated works.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 10 February 2017.

73.63         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  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.  The proposer of the motion explained that some concern had been expressed on the Committee Site Visit regarding the public right of way being blocked and he queried whether a condition could be included to ensure that it was not affected.  The Development Manager advised that Officers were satisfied that the actual built form would not result in the public right of way being blocked; however, an advisory note could be included in the planning permission to make it clear that no works were to be carried out which would prevent the public right of way being accessed.  A Member drew attention to Page No. 733/C of the Officer report and noted that the plan showed the elevations for the extensions and alterations submitted in 2014 and not the proposed elevations to be built in relation to this application.  The Development Manager apologised for this oversight and indicated that the application elevations were on display in the Chamber.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to the inclusion of an advisory note to ensure that the public right of way did not become blocked.

16/01271/FUL – 11 Bushcombe Close, Woodmancote

73.64         This application was for proposed front and rear extensions; a loft conversion incorporating dormers to the front elevation; proposed vehicle access/drive; and a caravan port to the rear.

73.65         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

16/01335/FUL – 44 Meadoway, Bishop’s Cleeve

73.66         This application was for a single storey extension to provide a garden room, larger bedroom, garage and utility room. 

73.67         The Chair advised that there were no public speakers for this item.  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.  The seconder of the motion pointed out that this application was only being determined by the Planning Committee due to the objection from the Parish Council and, in response, the Development Manager advised that this was in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation which Members may wish to review at the appropriate time.

73.68         Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

16/01348/FUL – Brookelands, Tewkesbury Road, Norton

73.69         This application was for the erection of a detached dwelling.

73.70         The Development Manager advised that this was another application to which Policy HOU4 applied and, given the position with the five year housing supply, was not “out of date”.  Again, the starting point was the presumption against development and the weight to be applied to the benefits associated with the provision of a single dwelling was considered to be limited.  Nevertheless, Officers felt that this was a reasonably sustainable location; whilst it was not within what would be described as the village of Norton, its accessibility credentials were set out at Page No. 740, Paragraph 5.4 of the Officer report.  There was considered to be little discernible harm in terms of landscape impact given that the proposal continued a row of existing dwellings and, on balance, it was felt that there should be no change to the Officer recommendation to permit the application.

73.71         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.