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

25.1           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.

16/01425/OUT – Land to the East of Evesham Road, Greet

25.2           This was an outline application for the erection of up to four dwellings and associated development with all matters reserved for future consideration except for access.  It was noted that there had been no Committee Site Visit in respect of this application; however, the site had been visited in relation to the next item in the Schedule.

25.3           The Development Manager indicated that Members would have seen some of the appeal decisions received recently, the majority of which were reported in the Current Appeals and Appeal Decisions Update which appeared later on the Agenda.  He explained that there had been some inconsistency in the way Inspectors had dealt with Policy HOU4 in particular, but also Policy LND2, which related to Special Landscape Areas and was applicable in this case.  This was important because it affected whether the presumption in favour of sustainable development “tilted balance” applied.  If relevant policies were considered out of date, the presumption in favour of sustainable development “tilted balance” did apply, irrespective of whether a five year deliverable supply of housing sites could be demonstrated.  Whilst different Inspectors had dealt with the policies differently, this had not changed the way Officers dealt with Policy HOU4 – it remained their view that Policy HOU4 was not out of date and should be given considerable weight in planning decisions, as agreed by the Inspector who had dealt with the Mill Lane, Prestbury appeal.  This was because Policy HOU4 was consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework in that it sought to protect the countryside and encourage sustainable patterns of development.  This approach appeared to be supported by the Secretary of State in the appeal decisions he had made recently. 

25.4           In terms of this application specifically, Members would note from Paragraph 5.29 of the Officer report that there was an outstanding issue in respect of drainage.  This matter had been discussed with the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Legal Adviser and it was considered that, as the applicant owned the land to the rear of the site, drainage issues could be addressed by a Grampian condition which may ultimately require easements to be provided by way of legal agreement.  This proposal clearly conflicted with Policy HOU4 and would result in landscape harm as set out in the report; furthermore, it conflicted with the adopted Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) which was now part of the development plan.  Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act required applications to be dealt with in accordance with the development plan unless material planning considerations indicated otherwise.  Given the conflict with Policies HOU4 and LND2, and Policy 3.1 of the newly adopted NDP, the presumption was that planning permission should be refused unless there were material considerations that suggested otherwise; any such considerations must be powerful due to the precedence given to the development plan by law.  There was strong objection from the Town Council and further objections from consultees including the Landscape Officer and Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE), as well as 41 local residents and the local MP.  Whilst there would be some minor benefits arising from the proposal in terms of the provision of housing and the associated economic benefits, this did not justify a departure from policy given the small scale nature of the scheme.

25.5           The Chair invited a local resident to address the Committee.  She indicated that her comments also applied to the next item in the Schedule.  The points she wished to raise had already been set out in the 41 objections from the residents of Greet.  In terms of location, there had been significant new housing developments on the borders of Greet and 14 houses were currently being built in the village; residents felt that another development on this valued green space, outside of the recognised settlement boundary, would tip the balance from rural village to urban sprawl.  The green areas, such as the development site, were important assets for both Winchcombe and Greet as they attracted tourists and walkers, as well as contributing to the wellbeing of residents.  In the recommendations, the Planning Officers recognised the intrinsic value of the proposed development site and she wholeheartedly endorsed their view and conclusion on design and visual impact.  With regard to highways and accessibility, the road was unsafe with an inadequate footpath, poor visibility and speeding traffic.  In 2016, a Highways Officer had expressed serious concern about public safety after an inspection of the route between Winchcombe School and Greet.  Whilst there may not have been any serious accidents recorded, a number of walkers had been hit by wing mirrors from speeding cars.  This portion of the road had been closed the previous week, with traffic directed down Market Lane, giving her an opportunity to see the volume of traffic and high speed of many of the drivers first-hand.  On the Evesham Road, some motorists had removed cones and proceeded despite the road closed signs.  In respect of flood risk, many properties on Market Lane experienced ground water remaining at surface level for prolonged periods of time and many houses needed to use sandbags to prevent flooding.  During periods of rain, water ran off the proposed site into the adjoining property on Evesham Road and the back garden was waterlogged.  This would be exacerbated by the proposed development and there was no clear explanation of how drainage and run-off would be dealt with.  The impact of the development was deemed to be negligible by ecological appraisal; that was the view which had been taken for each of the recent developments in Greet and she questioned whether the cumulative effect was being taken into account; this was one of the last open spaces in the village so if it was developed wildlife would surely be rare.  Numerous species of animals and birds such as badgers, weasels, hedgehogs, bats, frogs, owls, kestrels and sparrow hawks had been seen in the fields, including the proposed site, and adjoining gardens.  She expressed the view that, if this side of Winchcombe continued to be developed, the area would no longer be an attractive place to live or visit.

25.6           The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  As with the last speaker, he indicated that his comments would also apply to the next item in the Schedule.  He recognised that the application was difficult for Officers and agreed with the Development Manager’s comments regarding the inconsistency of recent appeal decisions.  During the course of the application, the position in respect of being able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites had changed and the local NDP had been adopted.  These changes had significantly altered the pre-application advice which his clients had received; this was disappointing as they had only decided to proceed with the application with the Officer’s support, in principle.  Whilst pre-application comments were not binding, they were material considerations and his clients had invested so much based on the Officer’s advice.  Furthermore, there was an alternative assessment of planning policy to that set out within the Officer report which could allow Members to support the application; the government had advised that NDPs which did not allocate housing should be considered out of date and the five year housing supply should not be considered as a target - even if the Council could demonstrate that supply, Inspectors had recently stated that this was not relevant as the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan was out of date.  The Council had advised in January 2017 that it could demonstrate a five year housing land supply but his clients had only been informed in June 2017 that this would change the pre-application advice in relation to this application and application ref: 16/01426/OUT which was on the same site.  During this time they had provided a significant amount of requested information, particularly in relation to archaeology and drainage.  He would not be asking Members to overrule the Officer’s assessment if his clients had not acted faithfully on the original pre-application advice or provided so much additional information after the change in policy position.  He noted from the Officer report that the Landscape Officer agreed a small residential scheme could be appropriate in this location and that the Urban Design Officer would prefer road frontage dwellings; given it was an outline application, this could be accommodated at the reserved matters stage, or the application could be amended.  Without over-simplifying the pre-application advice, Officers had supported the site due to its proximity to Winchcombe and, whilst policy may have changed in the intervening period, the site location had not – it remained close to all of the facilities in Winchcombe and as close to the development site immediately opposite as it had when his clients had first approached Officers.  For all of these reasons, he hoped Members could support the pre-application advice and permit the application.

25.7           The Development Manager agreed it was a difficult situation, and it was unfortunate that pre-application advice had been superseded by the approval of the Joint Core Strategy Main Modifications by Council in January, but this could happen when moving from one development plan or policy to another and, in this case, the pre-application advice was clearly out of date and could not be a material consideration in determining the application.  The decision had to be made in the policy context as it was now, as set out in the report.  A Member understood that the housing land supply requirement for an adopted NDP was three years, as opposed to five years.  In response, the Development Manager indicated that this was only relevant when an NDP allocated land for housing; in the case of the Winchcombe and Sudeley NDP, all allocations had been removed before adoption.  Notwithstanding this, the Legal Adviser also clarified the question over the application of policy given a three year supply was only relevant if  the Council was unable to demonstrate a five year supply, which was not the case.  A local Member indicated that, at a meeting held with residents during the formulation of the NDP, it had been suggested that any housing allocated to Winchcombe would have to be within Winchcombe Town.  He questioned whether the fact that Greet had never been considered as a possible location for housing could leave the NDP open to challenge.  The Development Manager advised that the Winchcombe and Sudeley NDP had been through examination and was adopted; there would have been many discussions leading up to that and, whilst all policies could be challenged, the plan should be given full weight in making a decision on this application. 

25.8           The Chair indicated 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 and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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

16/01426/OUT – Land to the East of Evesham Road, Greet

25.9           This was an outline application for the erection of up to 10 dwellings and associated development with all matters reserved for future consideration except for access.  The Committee had visited the application site on Tuesday 29 August 2017.

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

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

17/00424/FUL – Land at Consell Green, Tewkesbury Road, Toddington

25.11         It was noted that this application for the erection of five dwellings with garages, parking, improved vehicle access, access roads/footpath and landscape had been withdrawn.

17/00452/OUT – Land to the North of Shuthonger Garage, A38 Pages Lane to Church End Lane, Shuthonger

25.12         This was an outline application for four self-build dwellings with all matters reserved for future consideration except for vehicular access.  The application had been deferred at the last Planning Committee meeting to allow Officers to properly digest the information received from the applicant’s agent and to consider ways in which planning permission could be conditioned to restrict the houses to self-build dwellings only.

25.13         The Development Manager indicated that this was an unusual application and an issue which the Council had not particularly had to deal with before.  Members would recall that the application had been deferred to give Officers the opportunity to consider an appeal decision relating to a site in Warminster which had been circulated on the evening before the last Planning Committee meeting, as well as to look at the possible restrictions that could be put in place.  Officers agreed with the applicant that self-build could be given significant weight in decisions as it had by the Secretary of State in the Warminster appeal; however, having had chance to consider the Warminster decision fully, it was clear that the circumstances were significantly different in relation to this application.  In the case of the appeal decision, the site was very close to the edge of Warminster itself and the Secretary of State had determined that it was an acceptable location for housing; that was not the case here given the clear conflict with Policy HOU4 and the identified landscape harm set out in the Officer report.  Whilst the government’s self-build policy and the legal requirements in relation to the self-build register, identifying need in the area, was recognised, this was not in itself a reason to grant planning permission in areas were applications would normally be refused.  There was ample opportunity to meet the need demonstrated in the self-build register through sites that already had outline planning permission, or had been identified in the Borough Plan through emerging NDPs.  Self-build plots could even be negotiated within larger development sites within the Joint Core Strategy.  All of these options would ensure that new development was properly managed in appropriate locations.  The applicant’s comments in relation to accessibility were noted; however, it was clear that most residents would be highly reliant on the private car and this weighed against the proposal.  The Warminster appeal also included 30% affordable housing and the scale of development – 35 houses – meant that the social and economic benefits were far greater in that case.  The applicant’s agent had suggested that there was no substantive objection to the scheme; however, Twyning Parish Council had objected to the application, particularly in terms of the conflict with the adopted NDP.  Whilst it was not comparable to this case, the Warminster decision did show that development in suitable locations could be acceptable even with an up-to-date development plan and a five year supply of deliverable housing sites.  Notwithstanding this, Officers did not consider that the sole additional benefit of self-build housing would make what would normally be considered an unacceptable development, acceptable.  In terms of a Section 106 Agreement, it was agreed that this could be used to restrict the development to self-build but it would still need to pass the strict Community Infrastructure Levy test so it would need to be relevant to the development proposed and necessary – in making something otherwise unacceptable, acceptable.  It was his view that it was not the case here that self-build would make the development acceptable.  If planning permission was granted, the Development Manager felt that a future application for market housing would be difficult to resist as it would appear that this location had already been accepted as appropriate for residential development.

25.14         The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  He indicated that, at the last Planning Committee meeting, the local Member had proposed a motion, which had been duly seconded, to permit this application.  The applicant had supplied a very recent self-build appeal precedent which had been upheld by the Secretary of State.  After further debate it had been resolved that the application be deferred in order to allow Officers to properly digest the information received from the applicant’s agent and to consider ways in which permission could be conditioned to restrict the houses to self-build dwellings only.  He considered that this proposal could easily be restricted to self-build, as with the Warminster appeal and numerous other cases.  Under the suggested terms, the applicant would have two years to sell the plots as self-build; if unsold after that time they would be offered to registered social landlords as affordable housing plots.  He confirmed that the applicant was open to discussion on the specifics of the agreements but no contact had been made by Officers in this regard.  The Officer report stated that the application was contrary to Policy HOU4, but, of the four appeals determined in the Tewkesbury Borough area since the last Committee meeting, three Inspectors had given it little or no weight.  In his view, Policy HOU4 was clearly out of date with regard to its ability to meet the duty to provide self-build homes and he pointed out that there were three applications on the Agenda today which were contrary to Policy HOU4 but recommended for permission.  One of those applications was for open market dwellings at Stratford Bridge Garage, Ripple which was recommended for permission despite Officers describing the bus service as ‘relatively frequent’; this site was not only closer to Tewkesbury and Twyning, and with many more services, but was on exactly the same bus route as that application and yet the service was described as ‘infrequent’ in this report.  In summary, he indicated that this was an owner-led application for self-build only; there was a duty to permit self-builds; the proposal was sympathetic to existing developments nearby; no objections had been made by the neighbours, County Highways or Severn Trent Water; and the site was accessible and serviced by buses and footpaths.  On that basis, he asked Members to permit the application, subject to a Section 106 Agreement limiting the dwellings to self-build.

25.15         A Member sought clarification as to whether permitting the development would set a precedent for market housing, or other development which would be contrary to Policy HOU4, even with a condition to restrict this application to self-build only.  The Legal Adviser explained that it was more nuanced than that but, in this case, it appeared that there were no material considerations to justify permitting the application against policy other than the dwellings being self-build, which Officers felt to be very thin; if an application came forward for market housing the argument would be that this site had already been recognised as a suitable location for housing.  The Development Manager clarified that it was not suggested that the bus service was infrequent in respect of this application and he pointed out that, even in the Stratford Bridge Garage application the locational disadvantage weighed against the proposal; however, in that case there were other material considerations which meant that it had been recommended favourably.  He did not feel there had been inconsistency in approach and advised that Officers had weighed up the planning balance and did not feel that material planning considerations existed that would outweigh the conflict with the development plan.

25.16         A Member noted the comment made by the applicant’s representative that the plots would be offered to registered social landlords for affordable housing if they could not be sold as self-build within two years and she sought clarification as to whether this was feasible.  The Development Manager explained that this had been mentioned in one of the emails set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.  It was not something which had been considered in detail but it would be necessary to look at whether there was a particular need and if this was an acceptable location for affordable housing.  The Legal Adviser indicated that the application had been put forward on the basis of being self-build and not as an affordable housing site.  If they could not be sold as self-build plots, the rationale for the proposal being granted due to it being self-build was no longer plausible.  Self-build was not speculative and if there was nobody who wished to take up the option to self-build it would be inappropriate for the plots to be offered as non self-build affordable housing.  She had looked at the Section 106 Agreement in respect of the Warminster appeal and there had been no such cascade.

25.17         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application 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, subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure the dwellings as self-build, and appropriate planning conditions.  The proposer of the motion indicated that he had seconded the motion to permit the application at last month’s Committee largely on the basis of the need to provide self-build dwellings in the borough.  The appeal decision in relation to Warminster had been an interesting read and he agreed that it was very different from this modest proposal for four dwellings which would sit on the end of the existing ribbon development.  He understood that the applicant had owned the land since the 1960s so the site had not been purchased in a speculative way.  In terms of the second recommended refusal reason he did not agree that the development would result in an unwarranted intrusion into the rural landscape, given its small scale, nor would it have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the locality.  He reiterated that the scheme would fulfil some of the borough’s self-build requirements and its modest nature meant that any harm would be limited.  He did not dispute that the proposal was in conflict with HOU4 but, as with most applications, it was a question of balance and he felt that the application should be permitted.

25.18         A Member raised concern that permitting this application would have a knock on effect given that it would be contrary to the Council’s own policies.  Another Member pointed out that all applications should be considered on their own merits so the decision in respect of this proposal should not necessarily have an impact on any future applications.  In terms of recommended refusal reason 4, which stated that residents of the proposed development would be heavily reliant on the use of the private motor car, the Member indicated that there were already houses in that location and, as set out in the agent’s letter included in the Additional Representations Sheet, they were well served by local facilities including a café; shop; public house; takeaway; hotel complex with gym, swimming pool and golf course; car repair garage; church; and a bus for Tewkesbury School.  In addition, a Member had noted on the Committee Site Visit the previous month the blue sign which denoted that the site was on a cycle route.  The Development Manager acknowledged that there were facilities in the area, as there were in all rural areas, but this did not overcome the fact that future residents would be likely to be highly reliant on the private car to meet their day to day needs.  In terms of cycling, Members would recall that it had been referenced in consideration of the Mythe application that walking and cycling was not an attractive proposition because of the topography of the route between Tewkesbury Town and the application site and safety concerns in the winter months.  With regard to the knock-on effects of permitting this application, he reiterated that each application should be determined on its own merits but it should be borne in mind that, if an application was received for residential development in an adjoining field, one of the merits of that proposal would be the fact that planning permission had been granted for housing in the field next door.  If Members were minded to grant delegated permission, he suggested that conditions would need to be included in respect of landscaping, design, levels, drainage, parking and manoeuvring and access.  In addition, it would be necessary to ensure that the size of the development was below the threshold for affordable housing i.e. not exceeding 1,000sqm, either by condition or through the Section 106 Agreement.

25.19         A Member expressed the view that this proposal went against the Council’s policies and he did not feel that Members should pick and choose when they applied in order to suit particular proposals.  The proposer of the motion pointed out that the Committee was entitled to take an alternative view to that put forward by Officers and this had happened the previous month when an application for housing in Minsterworth had been permitted despite being recommended for refusal.  He went on to indicate that he would not be seeking permission had the application been for a greater number of houses on the opposite side of the road, however, the proposal was modest and would fit in well with the existing ribbon development.  The Development Manager clarified that the justification for permitting the application referenced by the proposer of the motion was largely due to the fact that Minsterworth was a service village in the Joint Core Strategy and had been identified as capable of some residential development. 

25.20         Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure the dwellings as self-build, and appropriate planning conditions.

16/01152/FUL – Stratford Bridge Garage, Stratford Bridge, Ripple

25.21         This application was for demolition of existing automotive repair premises and bungalow and erection of three detached residential dwellings; change of use of site from part commercial/part residential to wholly residential.

25.22         The Planning Officer advised that, as set out at Page No. 233, Paragraphs 5.1-5.4 of the Officer report, the site lay outside of a recognised settlement boundary and was subject to Policy HOU4 which set out that new residential development would only be permitted where such dwellings were essential to the efficient operation of agriculture or forestry or the provision of affordable housing.  Consequently, the application was in conflict with Policy HOU4 and planning permission should be refused unless material circumstances indicated otherwise.  The Council was able to demonstrate a five year supply of housing land and therefore the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out in Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework, did not apply.  In this specific case, it was felt that removal of the existing intensive and unneighbourly car repair business on the site and replacement with small-scale residential development would, on balance, outweigh the conflict with the development plan and it was recommended that planning permission be granted on that basis.

25.23         A Member queried whether the closure of the existing car repair business had been taken into account and was advised that this was a matter for the individual applicant who had decided they wished to remove the business from this plot; the closure in itself was not a concern in this case.  A Member indicated that there had been situations in the past when sites had been left in disrepair to improve the chances of obtaining planning permission and he questioned whether this was a factor in this case.  The Development Manager clarified that the condition of the site was not the issue here; rather it was the nature of the use of the site which would inevitably have an impact on the appearance of the area.  On balance, it was felt that the proposed use would be an improvement to the local area, although this was a matter of judgement.  A Member questioned whether the Conservation Officer had any comments on the current scheme having raised objection to the original scheme.  The Planning Officer clarified that there was a listed building to the rear of the site and the Conservation Officer had no objections to the impact on this heritage asset.  Notwithstanding this, they had raised concerns in respect of the design, although they did feel that the proposal before Members was an improvement on the original. 

25.24         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.  A Member raised concern that the Conservation Officer had seemed to suggest that the design of the scheme could be further improved.  In response, the Development Manager advised that, whilst it was not considered to be exemplar, a lot of work had been done to improve the proposal and both the Conservation Officer and Planning Officer felt that it was an acceptable scheme for the site.  In his view, any further improvement would mean a reduction in the number of units on the site which had been suggested to the applicant throughout the process but was not something they wished to do.  It was a matter of judgement for Members as to whether the material planning considerations outweighed the conflict with Policy HOU4.  A Member indicated that she was not happy to support the motion at this stage when it seemed so finely balanced on comparing what was currently there against a scheme that was thought could be better and she proposed that the application be deferred for a Committee Site Visit to assess the impact of the existing building on the character and appearance of the area.  This proposal was seconded and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED for a Committee Site Visit by the Sites Inspection Panel to assess the impact of the existing building on the character and appearance of the area.

17/00718/CLP – 58 Courtney Close, Tewkesbury

25.25         This application was for a certificate of lawful proposed development for construction of a single storey side extension.

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

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

17/00201/FUL – Green Lea, Green Street, Brockworth

25.27         This application was for the erection of a tool shed and garden room and siting of air source heat pump for the main house heating; design and finish matching the main house.

25.28         The Chair invited a local resident to address the Committee.  She explained that the application was the third in a series of applications designed to secure a large house on the site.  Planning permission for a new dwelling had been granted in August 2016 after it had been made smaller and moved away from her property, and yet a subsequent application to increase its height and length, and to rotate the dwelling so that the sitting room would be next to the proposed garden room, had been granted in March 2017.  In her view, it was clearly intended that it would form part of a larger house in the future, as such, it was important that Members considered the impact of the development as a whole on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Green Street and her property.  She went on to indicate that there would be no visual separation from her property as the gap between her house and the new dwelling would be considerably reduced.  She objected to the fact that the garden room was proposed to be so close to her garage in order for the wall and floor levels to line up with the previously approved dwelling; she was in no doubt that the applicant intended to submit another application to join-up the room in the future.  She went on to explain that, in order to reduce visibility, the proposal would be built at a lower level which would involve digging down to three metres; she was extremely concerned about the impact on the stability of her dwelling, which was very old and had no foundations, as many old houses in the area had slipped.  The proposal would be half hidden behind her garage which would have a detrimental impact on its appearance and would be out of keeping with the area.  She understood that it would be necessary to divert the footpath which ran through the site and she felt that this could threaten security.  The existing trees which currently had a screening effect would be destroyed with no space to replace them and of particular concern was the cast iron water main beneath the site which was still in use.

25.29         In response to a Member query, the Development Manager clarified that the photograph displayed to the Committee showed the existing site.  The new dwelling had not yet been built and this proposal was for a garden room to go alongside that, as well as a small amendment to the new dwelling to accommodate an air source heat pump. 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 deferred for a Committee Site Visit in order to assess the impact of the proposals on the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the residential amenity of the neighbouring property.  A Member indicated that if the motion failed he would be suggesting that the application be refused as the new building had not yet been built and the application should be submitted once it had been.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED for a Committee Site Visit to assess the impact of the proposals on the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the residential amenity of the neighbouring property.

17/00448/OUT – Deepfurrow House, Main Road, Minsterworth

25.30         This was an outline application for the erection of a four bedroom, two-storey dwelling adjacent to Deepfurrow House.

25.31         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.

17/00550/FUL – 11 Kaybourne Crescent, Churchdown

25.32         This application was for the construction of a two bedroom bungalow.

25.33         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.

17/00104/OUT – Land Adjacent to Rosedale House, Main Road, Minsterworth

25.34         This was an outline application for the erection of five dwellings with access and layout for approval.

25.35         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  He explained that the proposal was a product of very positive consultation and he was grateful to Officers for their time and effort.  The Officer report provided a comprehensive assessment of the scheme against relevant policies and guidance, concluding that the proposals represented sustainable development and recommending delegated permission be granted, subject to the resolution of highway matters.  It was important to note that County Highways had raised no objection to the proposals.  This response followed extensive discussions regarding access into the site and the submission of an access design that included a right turn lane into both the application site and the site across the road which had recently been approved for six dwellings.  The Officer report confirmed that the proposed access arrangement was safe and suitable and it was understood that the only highways matter outstanding related to the application across the road, which Officers were working to resolve.  There had been no objections from statutory consultees and the application was supported by Minsterworth Parish Council.  Only two objections had been received from members of the public, one of which raised concern regarding the position of two visitor parking bays that had since been removed from the proposals, whilst the other raised design concerns that were effectively dealt with in the Officer report.  Officers had concluded that the density of the proposal, at 12.5 dwellings per hectare, was appropriate and that the layout had been positively designed with regard to locating dwellings in line with Rosedale House and the Rookery.  In terms of the principle of the proposed development, Minsterworth was identified as a service village in the Joint Core Strategy i.e. it could accommodate development proportional to its size and function and reflecting its proximity to either Cheltenham or Gloucester.  The relatively small scale of the proposals clearly reflected the size and function of Minsterworth as a service village; furthermore, the site was located just three miles west of Gloucester, 20 metres from a bus stop with services to the city every 30 minutes, and just 5-10 minutes’ walk from Minsterworth Primary School and Village Hall.  It was clear that the site was sustainably located with respect to the facilities on offer in the village and that the design of the proposals was appropriate for the site and its surroundings.  The site represented a suitable and sustainable source of housing in an identified service village and he respectfully requested that the Committee permit the application.

25.36         A Member noted that Minsterworth was a service village and she questioned what percentage of housing had already been committed over and above the existing housing in the village.  Another Member questioned whether Officers were happy with the proposed layout given that a linear style was often favoured for new developments where the existing development was linear.  The Development Manager advised that he did not have the information to hand in respect of the amount of development that had been permitted in the area.  He drew attention to the plan at Page No. 268/B of the Officer report and explained that, whilst the new dwellings would be in front of the existing linear development, because of the particular site layout, with the Eame Hill farmstead behind and the staggered siting of both Rosedale House and The Rookery, adding depth was something which could be achieved without harm to the local area in this particular case.  A Member sought clarification as to whether an affordable housing contribution was required and was advised that the threshold for affordable housing was 11 dwellings or above, or a total floorspace not exceeding 1,000sqm; whilst this development was for five dwellings, it was unclear at this stage what the total floorspace would be but assurance was provided that the development could be controlled by condition to ensure it stayed within the threshold.

25.37         A Member sought confirmation that no objection had been raised by County Highways, given that this was the fastest section of the A48 in both directions.  The Development Manager reiterated that County Highways raised no objection to the proposal in principle; however, this was dependent on the outcome of the ongoing discussions in relation to the access for the site opposite. Officers were in discussion with the developers of that site in order to understand where the access would be located and resolve the matter.  If Members were minded to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit this application and the issues could not be resolved to the satisfaction of County Highways, it would be brought back to the Committee.  It was unfortunate that these circumstances were out of the applicant’s control but, nevertheless, it was an issue which needed to be resolved.  The Member reiterated that he had real concerns about the speed of vehicles travelling along the road and visibility splays and safe access would be crucial. 

25.38         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the resolution of the highway matters, and he invited 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.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the resolution of the highway matters.