Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

40.1           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.

17/00881/FUL – The Vine, High Street, Stanton

40.2          This was an application for the erection of a self-build family home.

40.3          The Chair invited the applicant’s architect to address the Committee.  The architect advised that the scheme had been submitted in August 2017 and, since that time, there had been numerous amendments and detailed discussions with Officers seeking to address all of the issues raised.  With the exception of the Parish Council, there had been no objections from consultees to the amended scheme before Members.  The site was well-related to existing built development - it was part of the curtilage of The Vine and classified as previously developed land – and the development was in accordance with Joint Core Strategy Policy SD10.  Through negotiation with Officers, the scale of the proposals had been significantly reduced and the design improved which accorded with Joint Core Strategy Policies SD4 and SD7.  Special attention had been given to the heritage issue and the advice of the Council’s Conservation Officer in ensuring that the proposal accorded with Joint Core Strategy Policy SD4 and local policy HEN2.  Although the reduced scale and design improvements were driven by heritage concerns, this had also resulted in improved relationships with adjoining dwellings.  With regard to tree protection, the architect advised that the applicant had recognised the importance of the trees on the site throughout the process.  The trees were valued by all and he provided assurance that measures were in place to ensure that they remained protected throughout the construction period, and beyond, and were controlled by appropriate and reasonable conditions as recommended.  In conclusion, this was an example of good design as endorsed by Officers and would provide a much needed new home which would add to the vibrancy and future of the village.

40.4          The Chair advised that an email had been received from the Clerk of the Parish Council the previous day which had not been included on the Additional Representations Sheet circulated at the meeting; a copy of the email had been circulated separately and he gave Members an opportunity to familiarise themselves with the Parish Council’s concerns.  He clarified that the Officer recommendation had been changed in order to delegate authority to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to no objection being raised by consultees to the additional information submitted to satisfy conditions 10, 15, 16 and 17 as set out in the Officer report.   It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation. 

40.5          In response to a query regarding the protection of the trees which had been raised as a concern by the Parish Council, the Planning Officer confirmed that, whilst the trees were covered by a Tree Protection Order, one of the recommended conditions required the submission of an Aboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan prior to development taking place.  As set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, the applicant had submitted additional information to satisfy the requirements of certain conditions - including condition 16 in respect of the submission of an Aboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan - and the Officer recommendation had been changed to a delegated permit to give time to assess the information and ensure there would be no detrimental impact on the trees or the root protection area.  The trees had been taken into account throughout the process which had subsequently resulted in the access and driveway position being altered to avoid the tree protection area.  A Member queried whether there would be a requirement for any trees that did become damaged to be replaced and the Technical Planning Manager provided assurance that Officers were satisfied that the recommended conditions would be sufficient and the applicant was well aware that any damage to a tree covered by a Tree Protection Order was an offence; any damage that did arise would be dealt with accordingly at the time.  Another Member noted that the architect had stated there had been no objections to the proposal and yet Page No. 274 of the Officer report referred to 35 letters of representation from local residents raising objection to the development and a further 10 following submission of the revised plans.  In response, the Technical Planning Manager clarified that the architect had been referring to the fact that there had been no objections from statutory consultees, aside from the Parish Council, and he confirmed that objections had been received from the local community, as set out in the report.

40.6          Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Technical Planning Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to no objection being raised by consultees to the additional information submitted to satisfy conditions 10, 15, 16 and 17 as set out in the Officer report.

18/00218/OUT – Stoneyhurst, Station Road, Churchdown

40.7          This was an outline application for the erection of three dwellings - together with a new access - with access, layout and scale for approval.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 19 October 2018.

40.8          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 indicated that she had requested a Committee Site Visit to assess the concerns raised by the Parish Council in respect of the access to and from Station Road which was a very busy road, close to a roundabout and opposite a bus stop with an infant and junior school further along.  In response to a query as to whether there was scope to change the access, the Technical Planning Manager clarified that, whilst this was an outline application, the access and layout were proposed to be determined at this stage and the new access was clearly shown on the plan at Page No. 291/B of the Officer report.  The Planning Officer explained that this application would usually be subject to County Highways standing advice; however, in light of the Parish Council’s concerns, she had gone back to request bespoke comments.  Page No. 287, Paragraph 5.16 of the Officer report set out that County Highways had raised no objection, subject to conditions, as it was satisfied that the emerging visibility splays could be achieved from the proposed access; it was not considered that the increase in traffic movement from the proposed development would significantly impact on the safe operation of the road; and the impact of such increase would not have a detrimental impact upon highway safety.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

18/00563/FUL – The Coach House, Post Office Lane, Cleeve Hill

40.9          This application was for the variation of condition 2 of planning permission 17/00338/FUL - change to approved drawings to move garage and relocation of the front wall to allow increased parking.

40.10        The Chair invited a local resident speaking against the application to address the Committee.  The local resident acknowledged the efforts of both Members and Officers and the pressures put upon them which were exacerbated by protracted and complex cases such as this.  He indicated that a previous planning application for a new dwelling on the site had been rejected in 2017 and there had been objections from 10 residents and the Parish Council on the grounds of design and the visual impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The subsequent appeal against the Council’s refusal had been allowed but with an unequivocal condition that there be no changes to the approved plans – the current application contained not only changes, but major changes involving a 40% increase in floor space on the lower floor and 20% on the upper floor which included an extra living room, extra bedroom, extra bathroom, enlarged sitting room, enlarged garage, extra windows and changes to materials.  He stressed that it had taken considerable time for local residents to deduce what the changes would be by comparing the original and proposed plans which he felt should not be necessary.  Further details had also come to light, such as the atrium window, and these changes were at complete variance with condition 2.  It appeared that there had been considerable subterfuge in the way this application had been completed and the substantial changes it proposed were a threat to the integrity of the planning system.

40.11        The Planning Officer explained that the Planning Inspector had imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and this type of condition intended to ensure there was certainty about which plans would be implemented when the development was built out; what the condition did not do was prevent an application from being resubmitted and Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 intended to provide flexibility in the planning process by allowing applications to vary or remove conditions associated with a planning application.  The appeal decision meant that the principle of residential development on the site was accepted and the question for Members was whether the approved plans had been changed so much that they would have resulted in the Inspector making a different decision.  Officers considered that the revisions - set out within the Officer report - were not material to invalidate the Inspector’s decision, therefore the proposed changes were acceptable.  A Member drew attention to Page No. 294, Paragraph 3.1 of the Officer report, which set out that the applicant had relocated the ground floor wall on the advice of a structural engineer and he had concerns that such an alteration was actually necessary to ensure the safe building of the approved dwelling.  In response, the Planning Officer drew attention to Page No. 297/C of the Officer report and pointed out that the top section drawing showed the first floor built over the existing level whereas the ground floor had been excavated three quarters of the way back into the slope.  The structural engineer had advised that it would be more sensible - from an engineering as opposed to a safety point of view – to build the first floor over the ground floor and Page No. 297/A showed that this was what had been done. 

40.12        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 Chair indicated that he did have some sympathy with the local residents as the Inspector had set out that the dwelling be built in accordance with certain plans which were then subsequently being changed but Officers had explained why this was the case.  A Member stressed that the Parish Council and local residents were very much against the proposal and another Member felt that a Planning Inspector may view the changes as major, and therefore unacceptable, should the Committee decide to refuse the application and an appeal subsequently be lodged.  The Technical Planning Manager explained that the condition being discussed was a standard condition which was included on every planning permission for the avoidance of doubt so that it was clear what was being granted permission.  In terms of this particular scheme, Members would need to be very clear about their concerns given that the principle of development had been established via the previous appeal decision, for example, the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  In Officers’ opinion, when comparing the proposal with the fallback position of the previous planning permission, there was no reason to withhold planning permission in terms of the impact on the landscape.  In response to a query regarding the chances of a successful appeal if the application was refused, the Technical Planning Manager reiterated that, in his view, the only issue that required consideration was the additional landscape impact and, as the changes over and above the original permission were considered to be reasonably limited, refusal on that basis would not be justified from an Officer perspective.  The Chair drew attention to Pages No. 297/B and 297/D of the Officer report and indicated that Members were effectively being asked to consider the differences between the two and whether the changes proposed would result in more significant landscape harm than the previous approval.  A brief debate ensued as to the difference between the elevation heights on the plans and the reasons for this. 

40.13         Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

18/00669/FUL – Hunt Court Farm, Sandy Pluck Lane, Bentham

40.14        This application was for conversion of an existing barn/workshop to holiday let and creation of a parking area.

40.15        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that national and local planning policy was highly supportive of bringing redundant rural buildings back into viable use; policy was particularly supportive where it related to a building of substantial construction and where the proposal was for tourism related use, such as holiday accommodation.  There had been a big shift in recent years toward extended families and groups wishing to holiday together in the United Kingdom, particularly in counties such as Gloucestershire where there was such a rich culture given the proximity to the Cotswolds, market towns such as Tewkesbury and Winchcombe, as well as Cheltenham and Gloucester – the current proposal would help to facilitate exactly that.  The building was of historic and architectural merit and was worthy of conversion and the accommodation would provide space large enough for extended families as well as contributing toward the local economy and tourism.  The applicant had worked positively with Officers to ensure a highly sympathetic conversion which would see the essential scale, character and materials of the building retained.  Following advice from the Conservation Officer, the scheme had been amended to provide a more suitable roof covering and one that better reflected the character of the building and wider farmstead.  He noted that the Parish Council had raised concern over the size of the accommodation and highway implications; whilst these views were appreciated, the County Highways Officer had raised no objection and the building already had a lawful use as a commercial workshop which was likely to generate more vehicle movements, therefore there would be a significant reduction from that of the consented use, plus the accommodation would make use of the space available and would add to the stock available for those holidaying in larger groups.  He provided assurance that the accommodation would be aimed at families rather than the other groups which had been suggested; with this in mind, it should be noted that the nearest property to the building was the applicant’s own house so it would not be in their interest to take bookings from rowdy groups.  This was a really good proposal which fitted squarely with everything that planning policy sought to achieve and he hoped that Members would feel able to follow Officers’ advice and permit the application.

40.16        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 and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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