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

8.1             The Technical Planning 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.

18/00258/FUL – 77 Barton Street, Tewkesbury

8.2             This application was for the conversion of two rooms on the second floor from offices to create a self-contained studio flat. 

8.3             The Planning Officer drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, and explained that, since the report had been written, it had been established that a mistake had been made when calculating the floor space for the proposed living/bedroom area.  Page No. 4, Paragraph 5.19 of the Officer report, stated that the floor space for the living/bedroom area would be 16.9 square metres; however, this was incorrect and it would actually be 17.87 square metres which was above the minimum standard of 17.5 square metres for a lounge/bedroom.  She apologised for this error and indicated that this meant the premises would not be classed as overcrowded under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System brought in under the Housing Act 2004.   Notwithstanding this, the proposal would still be inconsistent with national technical standards for housing, as set out at Paragraph 5.18 of the report.  Taking account of this, and the other harm identified in the report, the recommendation to refuse the proposal remained unchanged.

8.4             A Member sought clarification as to whether the national technical housing standards related to all properties; whilst he could understand why it might be necessary to impose certain standards on a new build, this was an existing structure.  In response, the Planning Officer advised that the technical housing standards were set by the government and referred to all development; it did not differentiate between new builds and change of use.  The report did set out that Planning Practice Guidance stated that compliance with the technical housing standards could only be required where this had been referenced with a local planning authority’s local plan – there was no such reference within the Joint Core Strategy, although it may be included within the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  Nevertheless, as with the Housing Act 2004 guidance, they provided certain benchmarks; at the end of the day, a planning judgement had to be made as to whether the residential amenity was acceptable.  The Member felt there was considerable lack of clarity; the national technical standards were not set out in planning policy at a national or local level and yet they appeared to be critical to the recommendation in relation to this particular application.  There was a balance of probabilities to be taken into account when making an overall recommendation and it seemed to him there had been a significant change to the application in respect of the recalculation of the measurements.  The Technical Planning Manager reiterated that the proposed dwelling would no longer be considered overcrowded on a technical basis under the Housing Act 2004; however, there was still a judgement to be made as to whether this was suitable accommodation for someone to live in.  A Member drew attention to Page No. 5, Paragraph 5.23 of the Officer report, which made reference to the lack of outside amenity space and absence of integrated appropriate facilities e.g. storage of waste, drying area, bicycle storage etc. and he questioned whether this was still relevant given that there were existing properties in the street which also lacked these facilities.  In response, the Technical Planning Manager explained that the way properties had been developed historically meant that there were issues in this respect and people in the town were concerned about the storage of waste, particularly outside of the properties, so this was a factor to take into consideration.

8.5             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 permitted on the grounds that the recalculation of the proposed living/bedroom space meant that it would not be defined as overcrowded under the Housing Act 2004 and as such there was no clear policy reason for refusal.  The proposer of the motion felt that it would be difficult to defend an appeal should the application be refused.  A Member assumed that the existing neighbouring flat had its own bin storage and bicycle storage otherwise he could see no difference with this proposal.  The Technical Planning Manager clarified that, whilst it was not possible to control what had happened historically, these were factors which Officers considered would contribute to making the accommodation substandard and unsuitable for people to live in.  The Member expressed the view that there would be someone who required the type of accommodation that was being proposed - he was sure there were smaller dwellings around the borough.  Should Members be minded to permit the application, the Planning Officer indicated that standard conditions should be included in respect of the time implementation and approved drawing numbers.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED, subject to the inclusion of standard conditions, on the grounds that the recalculation of the proposed living/bedroom space meant that it would not be defined as overcrowded under the Housing Act 2004 and as such there was no clear policy reason for refusal.

18/00259/LBC – 77 Barton Street, Tewkesbury

8.6             This application was for listed building consent for the conversion of two rooms on the second floor from offices to create a self-contained studio flat. 

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

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

18/00357/FUL – 8 North Street, Winchcombe

8.8             This application was for the change of use of the existing first floor office unit to provide residential accommodation.

8.9             The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent pointed out that there were a number of parallels with application 18/00258/FUL 77 Barton Street, Tewkesbury - Item 1 on the Planning Schedule which had been granted planning permission by the Committee - the only difference being that it was incompatible with the Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services (LACORS) guidance and the government’s minimum space standards.  Pages No. 13-14, Paragraphs 5.17-21 of the Officer report, clearly set out how that advice should be taken and he reiterated that the technical standards were optional standards that could only be applied when there was a local plan policy based on evidenced local need and where viability was not compromised.  As the Tewkesbury Borough Plan process had not yet commenced in any substantive manner, these standards had not been adopted.  Page No. 14, Paragraph 5.21 of the Officer report, set out that ‘compliance or otherwise with the “technical housing standards – nationally described space standard” cannot be equated with compliance or otherwise with the development plan or national planning policy’.  Whilst he appreciated the concerns that had been raised by the Environmental Health Officer, the proposal would provide a source of accommodation for those who needed it.  He urged Members to disregard the Officer recommendation and permit the application.

8.10           The Technical Planning Manager explained that the Officers’ perspective on this application was significantly different to Item 1, particularly in respect of heights; in terms of this application the floorspace was below the standard expected under the Housing Act 2004.  There was an interesting relationship between this and the LACORS guidance on crowding and space and planning and he had asked representatives from Environmental Health to attend the meeting in order to respond to any technical questions.  The Environmental Health Manager advised that there was an obligation to provide decent homes under the Housing Act 2004 - this included a Housing Health and Safety Rating System in respect of which there was national guidance advising what to do and practice standards referred to in making assessments. Based on the dimensions of the proposed residential unit, and the fact that it would be difficult to increase its size further, the dwelling, once built, could potentially be deemed as overcrowded and classed as a Category 1 hazard.  This was the most serious form of hazard and meant that it could be subject to a Prohibition Order which would prevent occupation of the property.  A Member sought further clarification as to why this proposal had been deemed as a Category 1 hazard and the Environmental Health Officer explained that the floorspace was compared with the requirements set out in the guidance which, in this instance, fell short of the minimum level.  The structure of the building meant that the usable floor space would be compromised due to the sloping ceilings and low eaves.  When assessments were carried out, consideration was given to health implications; having less useable space meant there would be less space around appliances therefore there was more risk of accidents and there could be increased condensation and high humidity which could cause mould and damp.  The authority had a responsibility to take action against Category 1 hazards and the assessment was based on similar properties where Prohibition Orders had been issued.  This did have ramifications for the Council as, if a Prohibition Order was issued, this would effectively make the residents homeless and the authority had a duty to rehome them.  A Member sought clarification as to how the proposed residential use was different from the current office use in terms of the roof space and low beams etc.  The Environmental Health Officer advised that the property would be used differently as residential accommodation, for example, it might be necessary to push a bed up against a radiator due to space restrictions or there could be a lack of extraction when cooking etc.  A Member questioned the discounting of areas under sloping roof spaces as plenty of bedrooms had sloping rooves and if they were taken into account, the proposal had more space than the application that had just been determined.  The Environmental Health Officer explained that the previous application had a separate kitchen area and this proposal did not.  A Member questioned whether the Council would be responsible for what happened after planning permission had been granted – as she understood it, granting planning permission was not the same as telling people they had to do it.  The Technical Planning Manager confirmed that was the case; however, in this instance there was a contradiction between the Council granting planning permission and potentially taking action under alternative legislation.

8.11           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 permitted as, on balance, the benefits which would be derived from the development in terms of contributing towards housing provision and generating expenditure from future occupiers to sustain local services would outweigh the potential harm associated with its size and scale and the form of the associated amenity space.  The proposer of the motion felt it was not dissimilar to the scheme which had been permitted under Item 1 of the Planning Schedule and, in his view, refusing the application would be denying accommodation to people who badly needed a smaller living space such as this. 

8.12           A Member sought clarification as to what would happen if the Committee granted planning permission and the property was subsequently assessed to be a Category 1 hazard.  He was advised that the property could be occupied but, if it was assessed as a Category 1 hazard, a Prohibition Order would then be issued making the residents homeless and the Council would have a duty to rehome them.  A Member thanked the Environmental Health representatives for their input and urged Members to listen to the advice they had been given.  Another Member felt that there were potential dangers if the application was granted planning permission and he queried if these could be addressed by condition, for example, a requirement to install an extraction unit.  The Technical Planning Manager indicated that, whilst there could be measures to make the proposal more acceptable, there were a whole range of issues with the proposed accommodation as it stood which meant that it would still fall within the definition of a Category 1 hazard.  A Member expressed the view that this proposal was very different from that which had been permitted at Item 1, for example, the sloping eaves was a major difference.  Based on the proposed layout and the amount of useable space, she felt that permitting the application would only lead to problems and was inadvisable in these modern times.  In her opinion, the Committee had been given professional advice by the Environmental Health team and Members should take note of it. 

8.13           The Planning Officer advised that, if Members were minded to permit the application, standard conditions should be included in respect of time implementation and approved drawing numbers. Furthermore, she explained that the existing balustrade on the roof terrace was substandard and if the future occupier wished to use it they would need to put in place a more permanent structure which would require listed building consent.  As such, an informative note would be included on the planning permission to advise that separate consent would be required for any work to the building, including the balustrade.  Having being taken to the vote, the proposal to permit the application was lost.  It was subsequently 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.

17/00639/FUL – Vine Tree Farm, Teddington

8.14           This was a retrospective application for the division of Vine Tree Farmhouse into two dwellings.

8.15           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.                   

17/00640/LBC – Vine Tree Farm, Teddington

8.16           This was a retrospective application for listed building consent for the division of Vine Tree Farmhouse into two dwellings and associated internal alterations.

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

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

17/01258/FUL – Hillend Farm, Chaceley

8.18           This application was for the variation of condition 2 of approved planning application reference 15/01225/FUL to allow for the addition of plans to the approved plans to show the provision of vehicular passing places along the access track and the widening, ramping up and raising of the vehicular access, and removal of condition 6 of the approved planning application reference 15/01225/FUL to allow for the equestrian facilities, comprising up to 15 loose boxes, to be used for commercial purposes.

8.19           The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  The applicant’s representative explained that planning permission had originally been granted in 2016 to change the use of the property from agricultural to equestrian; this included the construction of a new purpose-built indoor training facility.  The physical works were almost complete and the applicant was keen to use these facilities as a specialist dressage training school.  At the time of the original planning application, the applicant was aware of concerns expressed by Gloucestershire Highways regarding access to the facilities and, following advice, they were happy to accept a condition restricting use of the facilities to non-commercial use.  The applicant had recognised that additional work would need to be carried out to address these concerns but, at the time, had been encouraged by the Officer’s report which had suggested that, provided the highway issues could be resolved, there might be an opportunity to use the school for limited commercial use in the future.  Since that time, the applicant had taken on board all of the concerns raised by Gloucestershire Highways and believed that the current application would provide a safe and convenient access to the property and would not result in a loss of amenity or cause any harm to local residents.  The applicant had worked with Officers at the Borough and County Councils to ensure that ecological impacts were also addressed, such as replacement tree planting where small numbers of trees would be removed.  The applicant was aware that a number of local residents, as well as the Parish Council, had objected to the proposals; however, the majority of concerns related to perceived highway/traffic impacts which had now been addressed and deemed to be satisfactory by Gloucestershire Highways.  The applicant was happy to comply with the recommended conditions set out within the Officer report and was keen to stress that they were not seeking to add buildings to the current facilities or introduce floodlights, or intrusive lighting, or a tannoy system.  The applicant hoped to develop a strong rural business and become a centre of regional excellence for the training of a small number of top level dressage horses and their riders.  The applicant’s representative stressed that the proposal was not for a large, commercial-type livery yard and it had been made clear in the application that the proposal was for small numbers of clients and their horses.  The applicant was keen to support other small businesses and already used some of these day-to-day.  Having worked positively with Officers, the applicant considered that all of the concerns in relation to highways, which had resulted in the current permission being limited to personal use, had been addressed.

8.20           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.  A Member indicated that he thought things may have gone in a different direction had the property not already been built and if Gloucestershire Highways had not removed its objection.  He went on to reference the letter from the Parish Council, included in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which made some salient points.  He felt there were lessons to be learnt about establishing the applicant’s intentions from the outset, should a similar application be received.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

18/00286/FUL – 10 Hailes Street, Winchcombe

8.21           This application was for a change of use from a shop/showroom to a one bedroom self-contained ground floor flat with associated alterations to the interior. 

8.22           The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that he wished to address the objection raised by the Town Council in relation to the rent being set too high.  He explained that the property had been in a poor state of repair prior to 2012; however, the new owner had spent a significant amount of money on improvements, such as lining the basement.  The property had been re-marketed as a commercial property from 1 June 2017 with a rental of £13,500 per annum – this was open to negotiation and included a rent-free period.  Two of the six viewings that had been set-up had gone ahead and the prospective tenants had stated that they had been attracted by the negotiable rent and the rent-free period; however, they had also raised concerns that the property was too far out of the “main pitch” of the Town and that Hailes Street had no draw - the Lady Jane Tea Rooms had recently closed; there was no passing trade; and, there was traffic calming outside so it was not possible to park or stop to look in the shop windows.  One of the six enquiries had been from a tenant interested in operating a fast food outlet from the property; however, it was not well-suited to that type of use given the restrictions associated with it being a listed building e.g. in terms of signage, parking, waste provisions etc. and there was a further difficulty with the private courtyard to the rear.  The applicant’s agent stressed that the listed building was an important part of the character and heritage of Winchcombe but it had simply come to the end of its current use and needed an alternative use; a residential use would ensure that the building was preserved for future generations.  If there was a demand in future, it may revert back to a shop at some point, however, this proposal would give it the best chance of being maintained and looked after to ensure it was still around in 200 or 300 years’ time.

8.23           The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member noted that there was no private outdoor amenity space which had been a reason for refusal in relation to an earlier item on the Schedule.  In response, the Technical Planning Manager advised that the floorspace was the key difference - this was significantly larger than in the earlier application and the proposal was considered to be appropriate for residential accommodation.  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.

18/00125/FUL – 1 Kayte Close, Bishop’s Cleeve

8.24           This application was for the erection of a two storey and first floor side extension.

8.25           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 about the potential loss of light to No. 3 Kayte Lane and, whilst this was addressed in the Officer report, he sought confirmation that an Officer had visited the application site.  In response, the Planning Officer confirmed that a site visit had been carried out and a technical assessment undertaken.  The Technical Planning Manager made reference to the site plan, at Page No. 46/B, and the elevation plan at Page No. 46/F of the Officer report, which demonstrated that there was quite a distance between the proposed two storey element and No. 3 so Officers were quite satisfied there would not be an unacceptable impact. 

8.26           Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

18/00236/FUL – The Coach House, Parton Court, Parton Road, Churchdown

8.27           This application was for the demolition of the existing conservatory and erection of a single storey rear extension.

8.28           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.