Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

80.1           The Development Manager submitted a Schedule comprising planning applications and proposals with recommendations thereon.  Copies of this had been circulated to Members as Appendix A to the Agenda for the meeting.  The objections to, support for, and observations upon the various applications as referred to in Appendix 1 attached to these Minutes were presented to the Committee and duly taken into consideration by Members prior to decisions being made on those applications.

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

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dwellings with garages and provision of associated parking, vehicular access and landscaping (alternative proposal to withdrawn application 17/00424/FUL).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

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

80.4           In terms of other material considerations, there would be clear economic benefits arising from the proposal in terms of the construction period and the likely spend in the local economy by future occupiers but, as with any development of this scale, these benefits would be limited.  In terms of environmental considerations, the Special Landscape Area provided the foreground setting to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The applicant had suggested that the adjacent site had a greater impact than this proposal; however, permitting one site did not necessarily mean that it was appropriate to permit a new development next door.  In terms of that site, Members would recall that the original outline for 72 houses had been refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal.  The revised scheme - initially for 33 dwellings but increased by a further six when it had recently been considered by the Planning Committee – had taken great care in terms of preventing the southward spread of that development.  The area immediately next to this site, to the west of the Newland Homes site, had specifically been retained as open space.  In contrast, the current proposal for five very large suburban houses did not fit well with the surroundings from either a landscape or a detailed design perspective.  The layout and siting would result in a “backland” development which would be poorly related to the rest of the village and at odds with the generally linear form of development in Toddington.  Whilst there was some depth to the Newland Homes site, significant negotiations had taken place to ensure that this reflected the frontage pattern of the existing dwellings on the north side of Toddington Road.  In terms of social considerations, whilst the proposal would deliver five additional houses, the proposed dwellings would not be the type identified by the Gloucestershire Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) which set out a clear need for two and three bedroom houses.  Furthermore, there was no affordable housing provision currently proposed; affordable housing was a key issue for the borough, particularly in high-value areas such as this.  The applicant had suggested in their letter that they would be willing to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to make a financial contribution, although this probably should have been included in the original proposal.  The Development Manager advised that, in situations like this, there was an expectation that affordable housing would be delivered on site and there were no exceptional reasons in this case why that could not be achieved.  Overall, the development conflicted with Policy SD10 and would harm the character and appearance of the Special Landscape Area.  The application did not provide a suitable mix of dwellings or affordable housing and it was not felt that there were any material considerations which outweighed the clear policy conflict.  On that basis, the Officer recommendation was that the application be refused.

80.5           The Chair invited the representative from Toddington Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative indicated that the Development Manager had outlined the majority of the Parish Council’s concerns, the main one being that this development did not align with the linear character of Toddington.  He reiterated that the site was located in a Special Landscape Area, adjacent to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and pointed out that local residents would be unable to afford large, luxury houses such as the ones proposed, therefore it was considered to be unsuitable for the location.  Furthermore, the proposal did not satisfy the National Planning Policy Framework in terms of the need to protect and enhance the built environment.  Whereas the Newland Homes development respected the character of the existing dwellings and fitted well with its surroundings, the Parish Council felt that this proposal would detract from the linear form of the village which it wished to retain as far as possible.

80.6           The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  The applicant’s representative indicated that, prior to this application being resubmitted, the applicant had been advised that it would be recommended for refusal and this had been taken on board as unambiguous pre-application advice.  The application submitted was in accordance with policy at the time; unfortunately, the adoption of the Joint Core Strategy meant that Policy HOU4 no longer applied.  In its place was the promotion of Service Villages; infilling was clearly defined by recent appeal decisions, as was the relationship with the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – it was no longer sufficient for an application to be refused on the grounds of its proximity to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, rather it was necessary to demonstrate that there would be actual harm which was difficult to see in this instance.  He questioned whether the pre-application advice would be different had it been given now.  He pointed out that the roof height had been lowered and the houses repositioned slightly in response to the comments on the previous application.  He felt the changes to the design and materials meant that this would be a quality development which would contribute towards the five year housing supply.  Six houses in Broadway Road, Toddington had been approved by the Council in February and it was difficult to see what benefits that had over this proposal.  The applicant’s representative made reference to the applicant’s personal circumstances as regards his relationship with Toddington and indicated that he wished to see the site developed in a positive manner.

80.7           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.  A Member pointed out that the Joint Core Strategy had recently been adopted and housing must be provided in accordance with the development plan.  Toddington was unique in that it comprised two main areas: the village and the New Town.  The application site was in the New Town, next to the nursery and village hall and within walking distance of the only shop and public house.  The site itself would be lower than the existing houses on the main road and in his view would have very little impact.  As such, he was unable to support the proposal to refuse the application; the Council had a duty to deliver housing and the applicant had offered a contribution towards the provision of affordable housing which he felt should not be turned down.  Another Member indicated that Toddington had seen quite a large amount of residential development over the last year; notwithstanding this, there was a lack of affordable housing in the area and, given that the average income in Tewkesbury Borough was approximately £27,000, the proposed dwellings would be unaffordable for the vast majority of people. She was of the opinion that a mix of housing options were needed and this proposal did not support what the Council was trying to achieve.

80.8           Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

17/01101/FUL – 15 Abbots Road, Tewkesbury

80.9           This application was for the erection of a single dwelling at the side of 15 Abbots Road and provision of associated vehicular access and parking.

80.10         The Chair indicated that there were no 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 felt this was a very good example of Officers and the applicant working together to come up with an acceptable proposal.  The Planning Officer made reference to Page No. 794 of the Officer report and explained that condition 7 required the first floor window on the north elevation, serving the bathroom, to be obscure glazed and fixed shut.  This was not considered to be very practicable and therefore, should Members be minded to permit the application, she recommended that this condition be amended to restrict the opening to 150mm.  The proposer and seconder of the motion indicated that they were happy with the amendment and, upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to an amendment to condition 7 to require that the first floor window to the north elevation, serving the bathroom, be obscure glazed and the opening restricted to 150mm.

18/00254/FUL – Tewkesbury Abbey Caravan and Motorhome Club Site, Gander Lane, Tewkesbury

80.11         This application was for proposed site improvements to Tewkesbury Abbey Caravan Club Site: demolition of both existing toilet blocks and construction of a new central toilet block; construction of 50 new all-weather pitches; construction of new tarmacadam roads; three service points to be relocated and rebuilt and a Motor Van Waste Point to be repositioned; provision of central calor gas compound with fencing; raised platform for water storage tanks in warden’s compound; and new landscaping.  (Revised application to planning permission 16/01041/FUL to include amended toilet block design).

80.12         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to no new material planning objections being received as a result of the statutory consultation, 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 and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to no new material planning objections being received as a result of the statutory consultation.

17/01027/FUL – 11 Hardy Road, Bishop’s Cleeve

80.13         This application was for the retention of a dormer extension as built. 

80.14         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 recognised that Officers had entered into a lot of discussion around the proposal and he felt that they had come to an acceptable conclusion.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

18/00151/FUL – 24 Woodman’s Way, Bishop’s Cleeve

80.15         This application was for the demolition of garage and outbuildings; erection of replacement garage and single storey side and rear extensions.

80.16         The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant indicated that the neighbour had expressed concern about the lantern light to the rear elevation and she wished to clarify that it would be a velux window, not a lantern light. 

80.17         The Development Manager confirmed that the plans did refer to a lantern light; this would be very quick and easy to resolve and he suggested that the Officer recommendation be changed to a delegated permit to facilitate the amendment of the plans.

80.18         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to amended plans to remove the reference to the lantern light 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 and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to amended plans to remove the reference to the lantern light.