Accessibility settings

In order to remember your preferences as you navigate through the site, a cookie will be set.

Color preference

Text size

Agenda item

Schedule

To consider the accompanying Schedule of Planning Applications and proposals, marked Appendix “A”.

Decision:

Parish and Reference

Address

         Decision

Item/

page number

 

Ashchurch Rural

 

 

 

 

18/00911/FUL

Land South Of The A46 Pamington Lane Ashchurch Gloucestershire

Delegated Permit

4     /     543

 

Click Here To View

 

Bishops Cleeve

 

 

 

18/01215/TPO

Behind 11 Stoke Park Close Bishops Cleeve Cheltenham Gloucestershire

Consent

13    /     597

Click Here To View

 

Churchdown

 

 

 

18/00793/FUL

7 Moselle Drive Churchdown Gloucester Gloucestershire

  Permit

7     /     559

Click Here To View

 

Down Hatherley

 

 

 

18/00361/FUL

Land To The West Of Ash Lane Down Hatherley

  Delegated Permit

10    /     569

Click Here To View

 

Minsterworth

 

 

 

18/01023/FUL

Holborn House Main Road Minsterworth Gloucestershire

    Delegated Permit

8     /     562

Click Here To View

 

Sandhurst

 

 

 

18/00748/FUL

Land At Sandhurst Lane Sandhurst Lane Sandhurst Gloucester O/T

   Refuse

11    /     579

Click Here To View

 

Shurdington

 

 

 

18/01096/FUL

Shrublands Leckhampton Hill Leckhampton Cheltenham O/T

   Permit

6     /     555

Click Here To View

 

Staverton

 

 

 

18/01125/FUL

Land Adjacent To 4 St Clair Cottages Staverton Cheltenham

  Delegated Permit

12    /     588

Click Here To View

 

Tewkesbury

 

 

 

18/00557/FUL

149 High Street Tewkesbury Gloucestershire GL20 5JP

Permit

1     /     525

Click Here To View

 

Tewkesbury

 

 

 

18/01046/LBC

149 High Street Tewkesbury Gloucestershire GL20 5JP

Consent

2     /     532

Click Here To View

 

Tewkesbury

 

 

 

18/01060/FUL

Tewkesbury Nature Reserve Tewkesbury Bypass Tewkesbury Gloucestershire

Delegated Permit

5     /     552

Click Here To View

Winchcombe

 

 

 

18/00773/FUL

The Stables Postlip Winchcombe Cheltenham

Permit

3     /     535

Click Here To View

 

Woodmancote

 

 

 

18/01086/FUL

15 Apple Tree Close Woodmancote Cheltenham Gloucestershire

Permit

9     /     565

Click Here To View

 

Minutes:

59.1          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.

18/00557/FUL – 149 High Street, Tewkesbury

59.2          This application was for a change of use from retail (Class A1) to café (Class A3) at ground floor level only.

59.3          The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be 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.

18/01046/LBC – 149 High Street, Tewkesbury

59.4          This was a listed building consent application for installation of bathroom extract through rear elevation wall and internal alterations (including removal of existing partitions and provision of new stud partitions and joinery) in association with proposed change of use from retail (Class A1) to café (Class A3) at ground floor level only.

59.5          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 the application be granted consent 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.

18/00773/FUL – The Stables, Postlip, Winchcombe

59.6          This application was for amendments to the conversion of disused former stable building to form two holiday let units (resubmission of planning application reference: 16/01095/FUL).  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 18 January 2019.

59.7          The Planning Officer advised that there had been some very minor drafting changes to some of the proposed conditions; however, this did not alter their meaning.  The Chair invited a local resident speaking against the application to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that he was very concerned about the impact of this proposal upon his property and those of his neighbours whom he was also representing.  His main concerns related to the use of outside space immediately outside his property; lack of allocation of garden space resulting in people spilling into neighbouring gardens; noise arising from vehicles manoeuvring; people outside, particularly late on a summer’s evening; loss of light to adjacent cottages in the small, enclosed stable yard; allocated parking for this development restricting parking for existing vehicles; and, doubling of traffic through and under his property as the main access to the development went under his lounge and bedroom and alongside his hallway – he pointed out that there was an alternative access but it was not direct, was longer and required the opening of three gates therefore was not a realistic option.  His view was supported by various planning policies which were referenced in the Officer report and he wished to add balance to that interpretation.  When adapting the use of existing rural buildings for tourist accommodation, an application should not be permitted if the amenity of adjoining residents was affected; this was a key point which had been highlighted by Winchcombe Town Council in its objection.  Furthermore, the applicant failed to acknowledge the contained nature of the site; it was inconceivable that holiday makers would not try to make use of the space immediately outside, even though it had not been identified on any plan.  This meant that the full impact on amenity had not been addressed for existing residents or holiday makers.  He indicated that there were specific policies which made reference to EU and national objective standards when considering the unacceptable harm to neighbours with respect to noise and light but the Officer’s report only partially and subjectively assessed these potential nuisances.  His family and neighbours had already experienced holiday makers wandering on their properties as a result of the existing holiday lets and they had caused disturbance late at night with vehicles and conversations and, on one occasion, with a camera crew filming a shooting scene.  This application would compound this loss of amenity.  The development was very restricted in its offer of accommodation and provided no amenity for its visitors so it would appeal to a limited market in his view.  The Committee was asked to weigh economic development against the significant loss of residential amenity to both his family and their neighbours; therefore, he urged Members to refuse the application and asked them to consider if they would be happy with this degree of intensification of use through, under and around their properties.

59.8          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that she supported the recommendation made by the Planning Officers – the professional advisers - to permit the application.  The proposal was exactly the type of development supported in the new National Planning Policy Framework, Joint Core Strategy, emerging local plan, the Council’s Economic Development and Tourism Strategy and the Winchcombe Marketing Plan.  It was a sustainable development that would bring substantial benefits in terms of supporting the rural economy and would bring a disused building back into use.  She clarified that the yard referenced by the previous speaker was private and owned by the applicant who had taken on board the concerns of local residents; the claims that there would be an adverse impact on neighbouring amenity were unsupported – many of the adjoining buildings were of similar use and, notwithstanding this, holiday lets could co-exist alongside residential properties.  On that basis, she respectfully requested that the Committee support the application before them.

59.9          A Member advised that he was a Ward Councillor for the area and, along with the other local Members, had received various emails from residents living on the site regarding the way the application had been dealt with.  The Chair advised that this was not a material consideration in the determination of the application before Members and any concerns in that regard should be taken up outside of the meeting.  He indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The proposer of the motion confirmed that he had also received many emails in relation to the application but most of the matters raised were outside of the scope of planning law and, whilst they were relevant objections to those making them, they were not planning reasons for refusal.  In his opinion, the Officer report was comprehensive, well-researched and made an important point with regard to the future of the building which was likely to fall into disrepair if left alone.  He welcomed the opportunity to bring a redundant building back into use and felt that the proposal should be viewed in a positive light.

59.10        Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

18/00911/FUL – Land South of A46 Pamington Lane, Ashchurch

59.11        This application was for the substitution of 23 plots (13-15; 18-30; 37-43) as approved through outline consent ref: 14/00972/OUT (150 dwellings including access, landscaping, open space and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved other than access) and the subsequent reserved matters ref: 15/01002/APP.

59.12        The Planning Officer advised that, following the recent adoption of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), a development of 23 plots would now be subject to CIL and there were ongoing discussions about the implications for the contribution secured through the existing legal agreement covering the site.  Irrespective of the outcome, should Members resolve to permit the application, the applicant would need to enter into a deed of variation to amend the legal agreement with Tewkesbury Borough Council and Gloucestershire County Council to take account of the new permission. 

59.13        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to the resolution of the outstanding legal agreement issue, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Technical Planning Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the resolution of the outstanding legal agreement issue.

18/01060/FUL – Tewkesbury Nature Reserve, Tewkesbury Bypass, Tewkesbury

59.14        This application was for the excavation and removal of material to create a 12 space car park with high bar gates, kissing gate and perimeter boundary fence. 

59.15        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to agreement of details to improve the existing accesses and additional conditions as necessary, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Technical Planning 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 Technical Planning Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to agreement of details to improve the existing accesses and additional conditions as necessary.

18/01096/FUL – Shrublands, Leckhampton Hill, Leckhampton

59.16        This application was for replacement of the existing garage/store with garage gym/home office and store (revision of permitted application 17/01294/FUL).  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 18 January 2019.

59.17        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that planning permission had been granted for a replacement outbuilding in 2018 but, due to its location, they had wanted to provide something more visually interesting and suitable for a variety of uses.  They felt that the design met those aims with a modest floorspace increase compared to that which was approved last year and what was there now.  She referred to the letters of support which had been submitted by their neighbours and pointed out that there were no objections and the Parish Council was happy with the proposal.  They were keen to enhance the area and would not propose anything which would be damaging to the neighbourhood, the streetscene or the house itself.  As things stood, it was unsecure and in a state of disrepair – as well as being an eyesore, it had been broken into a number of times when the previous owners had lived there, therefore her family were reluctant to use it to store anything of value.  Due to the shape and layout of the building, the space was inefficient and not fit for purpose; if planning permission was granted today, the resulting development would be far more safe, secure and functional without any negative impacts on neighbours, members of the public or the landscape.  She indicated that the current building was very unattractive and the proposal would ensure it was replaced with a far more appealing building of the same height using reclaimed materials that were approved when planning permission was granted last year.  Although Officers had recommended the application for refusal, the reasons made no reference to the impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties and they had welcomed the proposed precautionary approach to construction in order to protect wildlife and the integrity of the building and landscape.  She recognised that the Council had a strong duty to protect the Green Belt for future generations and agreed that care should be taken with applications in the Green Belt, but this proposal would not be harmful and would really improve the site in visual terms.

59.18        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 the development would not be harmful to the Green Belt or the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The proposer of the motion pointed out that planning permission had already been granted for a replacement of the existing dilapidated building and he did not consider that the increased size proposed in this revised application would be harmful as the site was very well screened by trees and shrubs so there would be no adverse impact on the Green Belt.  It was not a big building in the context of the size of the house.  In terms of consistency, he indicated that planning permission had recently been granted for the rebuild of a house around 100 yards away and three or four years earlier planning permission had been granted for a very large, modern home to be built opposite the site.  Should Members be minded to permit the application, the Planning Officer recommended the inclusion of conditions to ensure that the development commenced within five years; that the materials used were reclaimed brick and reclaimed tiles for the roof; and that it be implemented in accordance with submitted plans.  The proposer and seconder of the motion confirmed they were happy with the suggested conditions and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED as the development would                        not be harmful to the Green Belt or the Area of Outstanding                                    Natural Beauty.

18/00793/FUL – 7 Moselle Drive, Churchdown

59.19        This application was for a single storey front and side extension and single storey side/rear extension. 

59.20        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.

18/01023/FUL – Holborn House, Main Road, Minsterworth

59.21        This was a retrospective application for the erection of a detached garage with storage over.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 18 December 2018 for a Committee Site Visit in order to assess the Parish Council’s concerns in relation to the garage being out of character with the streetscene and overpowering in relation to the adjoining two storey building.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 18 January 2019.

59.22         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 noted that the Parish Council had reiterated its concerns as set out on the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, and he had welcomed the opportunity for Members to visit the site.  Even though the proposal was for a garage, the applicant had described it as a workshop which had been quite obvious when looking at the main entrance.  The Parish Council was unhappy that the application had been submitted retrospectively, and that the loft space was now being used, and his concern related to consistency as it had been suggested at the last meeting that someone could live in the building provided that they were part of the household; in his view this was an extension which would provide accommodation and he could not support the proposal to permit the application.  The Technical Planning Manager understood the frustrations of the Member and the Parish Council in terms of how the application had come about; however, the Committee needed to consider the planning policy situation – if the garage was used as an annex, this did not make it unacceptable in policy terms.  The size of the building was very similar to the previous planning permission and the use of the upper floor did not create any additional issues in terms of the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.  Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that this could have been carried out under permitted development rights if the building had been completed in accordance with the original plan.

59.23        During the debate which ensued, a Member expressed the view that the way the application had come forward did seem unfair to the village but Officers had a difficult task as they were bound by planning policy; notwithstanding this, he had sympathy with the Parish Council and felt that training would be beneficial to foster improved relations with Planning Officers.  This was noted by the Technical Planning Manager.  A Member went on to indicate that the site visit had been very illuminating and, whilst she understood that the building could be used for ancillary purposes rather than as a garage, she took exception to the applicant’s comment, set out on the Additional Representations Sheet, which confirmed that the front part of the building was for the storage of his tools, the rear section was his workshop and the upstairs was for general storage, and questioned why this had not been applied for.  Applying for planning permission with no intention of actually using the building for that purpose was unacceptable in her view and she felt the true use of the building needed to be reflected.  Another Member supported this view and indicated that it had been clear from the site visit that the building was nothing like a garage and would be accessed as if it was an annex so he agreed that the description was misleading.  The Technical Planning Manager advised that, should Members be minded to permit the application, the description could be amended with the applicant to more accurately reflect what the building would be for; however, he stressed that there was nothing to justify a refusal in planning policy terms and he encouraged Members to focus on the proposal before them and what any potential harms might be.  A Member welcomed the suggestion that the description could be amended and explained that his greatest concern was the fact that the previous application had been refused but the applicant had gone ahead with the build regardless and then submitted a retrospective application.  In response, the Technical Planning Manager explained that the previously refused application was very different and what had been granted planning permission was similar to the building before Members with the exception of the first floor, fenestration and use.  In view of Members’ concerns, he suggested that a delegated permission might be more appropriate to allow the description to be amended to accurately reflect what was being applied for and to add a condition to ensure that the building remained ancillary to the main dwelling.  The proposer and seconder of the motion agreed that they were happy to change the proposal to a delegated permit and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Technical Planning Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the amendment of the description to accurately reflect what had been applied for and the inclusion of an additional condition to ensure that the building remained ancillary to the main dwelling.

18/01086/FUL – 15 Apple Tree Close, Woodmancote

59.24        This application was for the erection of a two storey rear extension.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 18 January 2019.

59.25        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant indicated that they had purchased the house in 2015 and, whilst they loved the location, they had now outgrown it so the proposed extension would allow them to build a family home for the future.  He agreed with the comments made in the Officer report which had dealt with the concerns raised by neighbours and the Parish Council but he wished to emphasis a few key points.  Whilst it may appear a large extension in terms of the area to be extended, he confirmed that the property was smaller than neighbouring properties on Apple Tree Close.  The extended property would be in keeping in terms of size, the rear garden was sufficiently large enough to accommodate the extension and the extended roofline would be lower than the existing roofline.  He valued his relationship with his neighbours and had consulted his immediate neighbours prior to making the application.  The impact of the extension would be minimised by high-level obscure windows on the side elevations; the windows to the rear were merely replacing existing windows so there was no significant change to the current position in respect of overlooking.  In any event, the properties on Byfield Close would still be approximately 24 metres from the proposed extension.  Finally, it was wrong to imply that all properties on the Pottersfield estate consisted of entirely Cotswold stone; a number of properties, including those on Byfield Close, were originally built with cladding on large parts of the walls and planning permission had previously been granted for a rear extension using render as a finish.  He did not believe that render de-valued a property, rather it provided an alternative to any mismatching with original stones.

59.26        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed that the application be refused on the basis of its size and overbearing impact and as the proposed materials were of an inferior quality and out of keeping with the streetscene.  There was no seconder for this proposal.  It was subsequently 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.

18/00361/FUL – Land to the West of Ash Lane, Down Hatherley

59.27        This application was for the construction of five detached single storey dwellings with associated garages and new vehicular access points. 

59.28         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation had been amended to delegate authority to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to the resolution of outstanding highway and ecology issues; additional/amended conditions as appropriate; and the completion of a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards affordable housing and a developer contribution towards education and library provision subject to confirmation or otherwise by Gloucestershire County Council, and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member noted from the Officer report that an update would be provided to the Committee as to whether any contributions were required for community, education and library provision and whether the applicant had agreed to enter into a legal agreement.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the application was subject to Community Infrastructure Levy at £35 per square metre as it was part of the wider strategic allocation in the Joint Core Strategy at Innsworth and Twigworth.  The Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, set out that a financial contribution towards community provision, open space, outdoor recreation and sports facility provision and highway improvements was not required in this case; however, no response had been received to date from Gloucestershire County Council in respect of the need for a financial contribution towards education and library provision.  Another Member noted that the description of development stated that there would be five single storey dwellings whereas the Officer report referred to three single and two 1.5 storey dwellings.  The Planning Officer advised that revised plans had been received during the course of the application and confirmed that the description should have been updated to reflect the change to three single and two 1.5 storey dwellings.

59.29        It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application subject to amendment of the description of development to reflect the change from five single storey dwellings to three single storey dwellings and two 1.5 storey dwellings; resolution of outstanding highway and ecology issues; additional/amended conditions as appropriate; and the completion of a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards affordable housing and a developer contribution towards education and library provision subject to confirmation or otherwise by Gloucestershire County Council, and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Technical Planning Manager to PERMIT the application subject to amendment of the description of development to reflect the change from five single storey dwellings to three single storey dwellings and two 1.5 storey dwellings; resolution of outstanding highway and ecology issues; additional/amended conditions as appropriate; and the completion of a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards affordable housing and a developer contribution towards education and library provision subject to confirmation or otherwise by Gloucestershire County Council.

18/00748/FUL – Land at Sandhurst Lane, Sandhurst

59.30        This application was for the erection of eight affordable dwellings, landscaping, access and associated works.  The application was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 18 December 2018 in order for Members to be provided with further information on flooding issues and for the Flood Risk Management Engineer to attend the next Committee to answer questions.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 18 January 2019.

59.31        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that Members would be aware of the photographs of flooding within Sandhurst that had been circulated prior to the meeting, attached at Appendix 1, and pointed out that only one of the photographs was dated but it was assumed they were all of the July 2007 floods.  The photographs showed extensive flooding in Sandhurst and it was inferred that the application site was unsuitable for development on flood risk grounds.  Whilst it was fully accepted that Sandhurst had suffered severe flooding in 2007, these highly emotive pictures were not particularly helpful to the determination of the application.  Importantly, none of the photographs showed the application site, rather, they showed various locations in and around Sandhurst where it was clear from the flood maps, and available records, that flooding occasionally occurred.  Four of the photographs were within Flood Zone 3 where there was a higher risk of flooding.  To assist Members, the location of the photographs had been plotted on a flood map, circulated separately and attached at Appendix 1.  The applicant’s agent went on to confirm that the application site was entirely within Flood Zone 1 and therefore was at low risk from flooding; this had been confirmed by the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer who also confirmed that there would be an acceptable drainage solution for the site.  There was also no objection from the Lead Local Flood Authority or Severn Trent Water.  In terms of planning policy, Policy INF2 of the Joint Core Strategy stated that development proposals must avoid areas at risk of flooding in accordance with a risk-based sequential approach and proposals must not increase the level of risk to the safety of occupiers of a site, the local community or wider environment on the site or elsewhere.  As the site was entirely within Flood Zone 1 it avoided areas at risk of flooding and therefore was fully in accordance with the policy.  There was no policy requirement to look at other sites within Sandhurst.  With regard to flooding from surface water, he explained that the Environment Agency’s flood maps demonstrated that flooding could occur along roads surrounding the site and this was confirmed by the photographs which showed surface water flooding outside Tarren’s Farm and St Lawrence’s Church; however, this should not present an overriding barrier to development as it should still be possible to access these locations given the relatively shallow depth of the water.  It should also be noted that the floor levels of the proposed properties were at least 0.5 metres above the level of the lane.  Whilst there was a risk of flooding on the roads surrounding Sandhurst, this should not automatically preclude development – if that approach was taken there would be no development at all within the village.  This application was for eight much-needed affordable houses to meet an identified need in Sandhurst that was accepted by the Council.  Preventing this development based on flooding to surrounding roads would mean that this identified need would never be met in Sandhurst – if the same logic was applied, there would arguably be no development in Tewkesbury Town either.  In the planning balance, delivery of much-needed affordable housing in Sandhurst should far outweigh the marginal risk of flooding on the surrounding roads, especially when the site itself was not at an unacceptable risk of flooding.  He urged Members to permit the application that basis.

59.32        The Chair invited a local Ward Member for the area to address the Committee.  The Member pointed out that the flood map referenced by the applicant’s agent was inaccurate and did not show the correct location of the site.  He went on to explain that, when the initial water from the 2007 floods had subsided, Sandhurst had been affected by significant further flooding a few days later when the river had overflowed its banks.  He did not have an issue with residential development in the village, particularly affordable housing; however, this was the wrong location in his view and he was concerned about who would be responsible if planning permission was granted and the houses subsequently flooded. 

59.33         The Chair indicated that he had exercised his discretion under the Constitution to allow a Member of the Committee who had disclosed an interest in the application to speak.  The Member wished to support the comments made by the local Ward Member and reiterated that surface water flooding was not the concern here, rather it was main river flooding akin to that which had occurred in 2007 and 2014.  He indicated that the whole area could be cut off during a flood, as such, there would be no safe and dry access to and from the site.  This was a particular concern given that the proposal was for affordable housing and could mean that vulnerable people were at risk of being isolated in their properties.  He was not opposed to affordable housing but it needed to be in the right place and he did not feel this location was suitable.

59.34        A Member noted that the local Member had indicated that the flood map provided by the applicant’s agent was incorrect and clarification was given as to the location of the site.  The Member went on to question whether there was a possible escape route if the site and surrounding roads were to flood and the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer confirmed that the site was located solely in Flood Zone 1 so it was more a question of where the residents would be escaping to – if the site was flooded, the surrounding area would also be flooded.  A Member noted that the photographs that had been provided were thought to relate to the 2007 floods and the Committee had been provided with visual evidence of the flooding in 2014; she queried how often the area flooded consistently and whether that had been taken into account.  The Flood Risk Management Engineer reminded Members that flood risk could not be completely eliminated, rather it had to be mitigated.  The Council’s Flood and Water Management Supplementary Planning Document required developments within Flood Zone 1 to provide for a 1 in 100 year event plus an allowance for climate change and he reminded Members that the 2007 and 2014 events were exceptional.  The Technical Planning Manager noted that the local Ward Member was not opposed to development in Sandhurst per se; however, any location within the village was likely to be subject to the same issues being discussed today.  With regard to the topography of Sandhurst, a Member was aware that the ground elsewhere was quite substantially higher than this particular site so he felt there would be better locations for residential development.  He questioned whether it would be right to allow planning permission for housing that would potentially be cut-off and leave people stranded in severe weather conditions and indicated that he would be concerned about emergency vehicles being able to access the site.  The Technical Planning Manager noted and understood the comments that had been made but he reiterated that there were no planning policy flood risk concerns with the application.  In times of extreme flooding it was accepted that access would be difficult, if not impossible, within the highway network and he recognised the importance of emergency vehicles being able to leave Sandhurst via a dry access in such conditions; however, he was also mindful of what the applicant’s agent had said regarding other areas of the borough being in a similar situation.  The application needed to be carefully considered in terms of whether there was any conflict with planning policy.  In response to a Member query regarding the water situation in 2007 and 2014 in relation to sites opposite, the Flood Risk Management Engineer confirmed that there were empirical records available but he did not have these to hand.

59.35         A Member indicated that the housing need survey conducted in 2010 had identified a need for seven affordable houses within the parish and she questioned whether this was still required as she understood there was social housing vacant in Sandhurst currently.  She was unhappy with the mix and tenure of housing proposed as four one bedroom maisonettes/flats seemed at odds with the rural location and shared ownership also caused her concern. The Planning Officer confirmed that the housing needs survey had been undertaken in 2010 but there was also an ongoing housing register for the borough which listed people in need of affordable housing.  The Council’s Housing Enabling Officer had been consulted on the application and had liaised with the applicant on proposed tenure and size prior to its submission.

59.36        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the dwellings as affordable units in perpetuity, and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The proposer of the motion indicated that he made the proposal with a heavy heart on the basis that the site was within Flood Zone 1 and other houses were established on either side of the site on the high side of the lane.  There were fears all over the borough regarding flooding of all kinds but this should not prevent development where appropriate.  He was reluctant to turn down a proposal for affordable dwellings and, given the safeguards set out in the Officer report and the comments made by the Flood Risk Management Engineer, he could see no policy reason to go against the Officer recommendation.  Upon being put to the vote, the proposal was lost.  It was subsequently proposed that the application be refused as the proposed development would create an incongruous and unsympathetic intrusion and would detract from the character and appearance of the area; as such, the proposed development failed to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functioned and was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Policy SD6 of the Joint Core Strategy and saved Policy LND3 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan.  This proposal was duly seconded and, upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be REFUSED as the proposed development would create an incongruous and unsympathetic intrusion and would detract from the character and appearance of the area; as such, the proposed development failed to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functioned and was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, Policy SD6 of the Joint Core Strategy and saved Policy LND3 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan.

18/01125/FUL – Land Adjacent to 4 St Clair Cottages, Staverton

59.37        This application was for the erection of seven affordable housing units and associated works. 

59.38        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the dwellings as affordable units in perpetuity, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member indicated that she had difficulty in understanding why there were differing views on applications in the Green Belt and why some applications were considered to be harmful whereas others were acceptable.  In response, the Technical Planning Manager reminded Members that each application must be considered on its own merits.  He stressed that the Officer recommendation was based purely on an assessment of planning policy.  The National Planning Policy Framework allowed affordable housing in the Green Belt subject to various criteria and the application before Members was acceptable in policy terms - and all material considerations were also considered to be acceptable - therefore it was recommended for a delegated permit.

59.39         Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Technical Planning Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the dwellings as affordable units in perpetuity.

18/01215/TPO – Behind 11 Stoke Park Close, Bishop’s Cleeve

59.40        This was a tree preservation order application (TPO298-G1) in relation to rows of trees behind Stoke Park Close on Tewkesbury Borough Council land which required works to raise the canopy and cut-off overhanging branches as part of the winter maintenance programme and raise the canopy to open light into property.

59.41        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers in relation to 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.

Supporting documents: