Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

24.1          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.

19/00424/FUL – 1 Brook Close, Winchcombe

24.2          This application was for the erection of a single storey annexe with patio area.

24.3          The Planning Officer advised that the application related to 1 Brook Close which was a detached bungalow located within a cul-de-sac towards the south western side of Winchcombe within the settlement boundary as defined on the Neighbourhood Development Plan.  The site was located within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Members were informed that the land levels within the application site rose from the front boundary to the rear boundary, resulting in the front elevation of the existing house being located at a higher level than the adjacent highway.  The application proposed the erection of a single storey flat roofed building within the rear garden area of the application site to comprise an annexe, to be constructed for an elderly relative of the owner of the property.  As detailed within the Committee report, revised plans had been submitted throughout the consideration of the application.  Both the originally submitted - and now superseded – plans and the revised plans were included within the Officer report.  The revised plans showed the omission of the originally proposed single storey rear extension and a canopy link between the existing house and the proposed annexe; reduction in the height of the proposed annexe building; and the use of stone on the north western elevation in place of the originally proposed larch cladding.  The application proposed to lower land levels in this part of the garden to accommodate the proposed annexe building, and the submitted plans showed that the finished floor levels of the existing dwelling and the proposed annexe would be the same.  The submitted plans showed the height of the proposed annexe building relative to the height of the existing house and fencing.  The Planning Officer explained that the application required a Committee determination due to an objection from Winchcombe Town Council on overdevelopment grounds.  For the reasons explained within the Officer report, it was considered that the design of the proposed annexe building would be sympathetic to the original dwelling in scale and form - and would appear ancillary to it - and it would not unreasonably detract from the open space within the rear garden area of 1 Brook Close.  It was therefore recommended that the application be permitted, subject to conditions which would include restricting occupation of the annexe to purposes ancillary to the main house, and preventing it from being occupied as an independent dwelling, and restricting the formation of any windows or openings in the south eastern elevation of the annexe.

24.4          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 expressed the view that it was important that the proposed annexe was subservient to the main building and he made reference to another property in Winchcombe which had been built 1.5 metres higher than set out in the planning permission.  In response, the Planning Officer explained that it would be subject to a standard planning condition requiring the development to the carried out in accordance with the approved plans.  The Member raised concern that this would have been the case with the previous application and he sought assurance that the condition would be strictly enforced.  Another Member suggested a note could be attached to the planning permission to ask Building Control to keep a close eye on the building works.  The Planning and Enforcement Team Leader (South) indicated that this would be reliant upon the Council’s Building Control Team being appointed to carry out the building regulations.  It was quite clear from the plans how far the building would extend above the fence and, if it became apparent that it was being built beyond that height, he was sure this would be reported by the neighbours and could then be investigated by the Enforcement team.

24.5           Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

19/00535/FUL – 42 Hillview Lane, Twyning

24.6          This application was for a loft conversion with rear box dormer style extension.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 13 September 2019.

24.7          The Planning and Enforcement Team Leader (North) indicated that, as Members would have seen from the Committee Site Visit, the site was in an existing residential area in Twyning.  The proposal was for a large dormer roof extension to the rear of the property and she explained that the plans had been amended through the planning process to reduce the size of the extension - which had originally extended over the existing single storey extension to the rear - to within the width of the roofplane.  As a result of the reduction, the proposal was now very close to being within - but was just over - the limits of permitted development rights.  Members were advised that objections had been received from local residents and the Parish Council and details of a further objection were set out on the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.  For the reasons set out in the Officer report, the proposal was considered to be acceptable given the reduction in size of the dormer and the impact on the immediate area, therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

24.8           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 that the application be refused on the basis that it was incongruous and would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the area in terms of the design and on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.  He agreed with the Parish Council that the full height windows were out of keeping with the other dormers in the area and would set an unhelpful precedent.  In response to a query as to whether the windows were a valid reason for refusal, the Planning and Enforcement Team Leader (North) clarified that the proposed dormer differed from other existing dormers in the area due to the full height windows; however, it was noted that they were top opening, as opposed to doors which opened, and viewing when inside the room would normally be through the top section of the window.  As such, Officers considered there would be no additional impact on the character and appearance of the area, given the existing dormers in the area.  Furthermore, as the views to the gardens of the properties on either side of the application site would be oblique, there would be no direct overlooking, therefore there would be no significant detrimental impact on neighbouring properties by reason of loss of privacy by overlooking.  On that basis, it was considered that it would be inappropriate to require the windows to be changed under the current planning policies.  A Member questioned whether it would be possible to require the bottom panes to be obscured; her view was that the application should be permitted as proposed but she would be supportive of a condition to obscure windows if this was more palatable to the Committee.  Another Member indicated that he could see no planning policy reason to refuse the application.  Whilst he had sympathy with the neighbours, the Committee had to make a decision based on the planning policies and guidance and he did not believe a condition to obscure the glazing could be required here.  With the proposal to refuse the application not being seconded, he proposed that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  This proposal was duly seconded and it was

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

19/00615/FUL – 6 Arundel Road, Mitton, Tewkesbury

24.9          This application was for the erection of a single storey front and rear and a two storey side and rear extension and to replace tile hung wall areas with render.

24.10        The Planning and Enforcement Team Leader (North) explained that the application required a Committee determination because the applicant was an employee of the Council and she apologised for this omission in the Officer report.  She went on to advise that the existing dwelling was a detached, brick-built property in a residential area and the application sought planning permission for the erection of a two storey dual-pitched side and rear extension as well as a single storey mono-pitched extension to the front and a single storey flat roof extension to the rear.  It was noted that the front elevation would be similar to the property on the left which had been extended.  No objections had been received in relation to the proposal and there were no issues over and above those set out within the Officer report. 

24.11        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.

19/00627/APP – Land Adjacent to the John Moore Primary School, Columbine Road, Walton Cardiff

24.12        This was a reserved matters application for up to 30 dwellings with affordable housing.

24.13        The Planning and Enforcement Team Leader (South) advised that the application site was adjacent to the John Moore Primary School, within Flood Zone 1, and was unaffected by landscape designations or constraints.  Outline planning permission had been granted by the Committee in May 2019, therefore, principle and permission for up to 30 dwellings had been established for the site.  The Section 106 Agreement which had formed part of the outline planning permission required 40% of the properties to be affordable housing and secured management of the open space to the southern area of the site.  All matters other than access had been reserved in the outline application and this application was seeking approval of the layout, scale, external appearance and landscaping.  Whilst layout was a reserved matter at the outline stage, an indicative illustrative layout had been submitted as part of that application and was considered to represent good design.  The original site plan submitted with the current application had been amended to broadly reflect the illustrative plan and was deemed to be acceptable.  The application submitted was for 30 dwellings which would be a mixture of affordable and market houses.  The proposed mix was six four-bed dwellings; 14 three-bed dwellings; six two-bed dwellings; and four one-bed dwellings – this reflected the requirements of the most recent Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) which was a requirement of the outline application.  It was noted that 12 units would be affordable housing which equated to 40% as set out in the Section 106 Agreement.  In terms of design, a number of different house types were proposed, many of which were similar to the neighbouring Wheatpieces development - the materials used would also be similar to those properties to ensure continuity.  The site provided 56 car parking spaces and 14 additional garages plus six visitor car parking spaces - all of the houses with more than one bedroom would have a minimum of two off-street parking spaces.  The Case Officer had worked with the applicant to ensure there was sufficient landscaping which included retention of the mature hedgerow around the northern, eastern and southern boundaries, tree planting throughout the site and additional hedgerows along the front boundaries of properties facing onto the estate road.  As set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, the applicant’s agent had submitted a plan highlighting the proposed noise mitigation measures which included 1.8 metre acoustic fencing along the eastern and western boundaries and double glazing with trickle vents.  Officers considered that the application was acceptable and it was recommended for approval, as opposed to permission as incorrectly stated in the Officer report.

24.14        The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  The applicant’s representative reiterated that the application was seeking reserved matters approval for 30 dwellings at Land Adjacent to the John Moore Primary School following the grant of outline planning permission by the Planning Committee earlier that year.  He did not wish to repeat the matters covered within the Officer report, which provided an excellent summary, but intended to emphasise a few key aspects of the application.  He explained that the layout presented to the Committee was a direct result of a number of constructive meetings with the Planning Officer, Urban Design Officer, County Highways Officer and Wheatpieces Parish Council.  Through their constructive input, the layout now ensured an acceptable balance between achieving good quality design with a technically acceptable highways arrangement.  The layout now received no objections from any of the statutory consultees and also complied with current policies which set out the design requirements for new developments as outlined within the Officer report.  The combined housing tenure mix was split between 18 open market and 12 affordable homes which provided 40% affordable housing.  The overall housing mix was confirmed as acceptable by the Housing Enabling Officer and complied with the Council’s housing mix policy.  As Members would be aware, the site directly adjoined and was served by the Tewkesbury Meadows development which was currently under construction for 261 new dwellings; this continued to be a popular and successful development.  To benefit the existing community, it was planned that the construction of the site would coincide with the ongoing construction works to minimise the impact of construction traffic.  This would also ensure that additional much needed housing was delivered in the short term.  To provide seamless connectivity between these developments and the wider Wheatpieces estate there would be three pedestrian access links within the site – one north, one east and one south.  The applicant’s representative thanked Officers for their constructive advice and support throughout the application process which had resulted in the recommendation to approve the scheme and he very much hoped Members would be able to support that.

24.15         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to approve the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member questioned what efforts had been made to make the properties environmentally efficient in terms of energy saving and carbon emissions.  In response, the Planning and Enforcement Team Leader (South) advised that this would have been dealt with at the outline stage and it was his understanding that a condition was included in that planning permission requiring the developer to install electrical vehicle charging points, or at least to facilitate that throughout the development, and that there was also a condition in respect of boiler emissions.  He relayed that building regulations were gradually becoming more stringent to reflect the government’s commitment to carbon neutrality.  The Member went on to query whether there was any potential for solar power at the properties.  The Planning and Enforcement Team Leader (North) confirmed that this had been introduced on other estates; however, government policy was that it was not appropriate to insist upon additional measures over and above the requirements of the building regulations and, in any event, such measures must be secured at the outline planning stage.  The Member stated that there was a climate change emergency and sources other than the burning of fuel should be required.  The Planning and Enforcement Team Leader (North) stated that this was something which the Council had tried to address through the Joint Core Strategy but this principle been removed by the Inspector at the examination in public.  It may be possible to establish such principles through the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and that was a matter for the Planning Policy team.   He recognised that this was disappointing for Members but, as things stood, additional requirements could not be justified at this stage.  He pointed out that there was nothing preventing developers from offering improvements themselves.  Several Members expressed their concerns and felt that the Council should be taking more action against climate change.  The Chair sympathised with Members but reiterated that it was difficult to insist upon such measures with no backing from government policy.

24.16         Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

19/00688/FUL – 35 Church Road, Bishop’s Cleeve

24.17        This application was for proposed alteration of existing windows to create four display windows of the same height, lowering the bottom of three windows to main front section of the building by 300mm and raising of the sill to one window by 275mm to remove ATM slot; new windows and doors to side and rear.

24.18        The Planning Officer advised that the site was the former bank on Church Road, Bishop’s Cleeve.  The building had been constructed in the 1960s and was considered a landmark building which occupied a prominent corner plot.  The site was adjacent to the Conservation Area and in close proximity to listed buildings within the retail centre of Bishop’s Cleeve.  The existing building had A2 use for financial and professional services such as banks and building societies and professional services (other than health and medical services) including estate agents and employment agencies.  The proposed alterations to create display windows would enable a permitted change of use to A1 – retail use such as shops, hairdressers, travel and ticket agencies, post offices, pet shops, sandwich bars, showrooms, domestic hire shops, dry cleaner, funeral directors and internet cafes – under the terms of part three of the General Permitted Development Order 2015.  The proposal was considered appropriate to the retail centre in terms of design and the formal character of the landmark building would be retained.  The degree of harm to heritage assets was considered less than substantial and the public benefit of the increased provision of commercial premises, and securing the future of the vacant building, outweighed any harm that would be caused.  As such, the application was recommended for permission subject to conditions requiring full details of the windows and doors, sills and heads.

24.19        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 expressed the view that would allow the redundant bank to be put to a very good use.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

18/00825/FUL – Woodfold Court, Down Hatherley Lane, Down Hatherley

24.20        This application was for change of use of existing self-contained living accommodation and garage and store room as annexe to Woodfold Court to detached dwelling.

24.21        The Planning Officer advised that the application related to a parcel of land and detached outbuilding which currently formed part of the residential curtilage of Woodfold Court, Down Hatherley.  The site comprised a single storey pitched roof L-shaped former stable building with a single storey corrugated tin sheeting store and canopy on the rear elevation.  Planning permission had been granted in 1995 for the conversion of the stable building to annexe accommodation to be used ancillary to the main dwelling and this application sought permission for the renovation and conversion of the existing building to provide a detached dwelling.  The overall footprint and volume of the building, other than the two stores on the rear elevation which would be removed, would remain the same as existing.  The Officer report provided an assessment of the material considerations which included impact on the Green Belt, design and visual impact, impact on residential amenity and impact on highway safety.  Since the publication of the Officer report, County Highways had commented on the proposal and raised no objection, subject to conditions.  As such, the highways matter had been resolved and there was no longer a need for the granting of planning permission to be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager, as such, the recommendation had been changed to permit as set out on the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.  Two additional conditions had been recommended by County Highways the first of which required amendment to take account of the fact that vehicular access had already been approved via an earlier planning permission.  It was therefore proposed that the first condition set out on the Additional Representations Sheet be amended to read: The vehicular access hereby permitted shall not be brought into use The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied as an independent unit until the existing roadside frontage boundaries have been set back to provide visibility splays, as demonstrated on drawing no.18.46.05A, extending from a point 2.4m back along the centre of the access measured from the public road carriageway edge (the X point) to a point on the nearer carriageway edge of the public road 54m distant in both directions (the Y points).  The area between those splays and the carriageway shall be reduced in level and thereafter maintained so as to provide clear visibility between 1.05m and 2.0m at the X point and between 0.26m and 2.0m at the Y point above the adjacent carriageway level.

24.22        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 queried whether the site was within safeguarded land and clarification was provided that it was not within safeguarded land but was within the Green Belt.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

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