Agenda, decisions and minutes

68.1          The Chair advised that the meeting was being held under the emergency provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and, specifically, The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.  The meeting was being broadcast live via the internet, it was not being recorded by the Council but, under the usual transparency rules, it may be being recorded by others.

68.2          The Chair outlined the procedure for the meeting, including public speaking.

69.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillor G F Blackwell and L A Gerrard. There were no substitutions for the meeting.

70.1          The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Tewkesbury Borough Council Code of Conduct which was adopted by the Council on 26 June 2012 and took effect from 1 July 2012.

70.2          The following declarations were made:

70.3          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2021.

71.1           The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 March 2021, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record.  

72.1           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.

PROPOSAL: Approval of Reserved Matters (Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout & Scale) comprising Phase 2 of Outline Planning Permission ref: 15/01149/OUT for the erection of 147 no. dwellings and associated works.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Approve.

72.2          This was an application for approval of Reserved Matters (Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout & Scale) comprising Phase 2 of Outline Planning Permission ref: 15/01149/OUT for the erection of 147 no. dwellings and associated works.

72.3          The Planning Officer explained that the application related to Phase 2, which was located to the north of the Twigworth Strategic Allocation. Phase 2 abutted the recently approved local centre and the residential park home site to the north. The phase also partially abutted the previously approved village green. The principle of residential development at the site had already been established through the grant of outline consent and its subsequent allocation for housing in the Joint Core Strategy (JCS). This application therefore related solely to the approval of the access, layout, appearance, landscaping and scale of Phase 2. Condition 7 of the outline permission required all reserved matters applications to accord with the approved Site Wide Masterplan Document (see 2D extract). The reserved matters presented had therefore been assessed primarily in the context of the document. Consideration had also been given to whether the proposed development accorded with the outline consent and the associated S106 Agreements. In terms of the layout, the road positions and block sizes were generally in accordance with what was shown in the Site Wide Masterplan Document. In terms of the character areas defined in the Masterplan Document, Phase 2 fell partly within the ‘Gateway Character Area’ to the north west of the Strategic Allocation, which was centred around the main access road off the A38. The remainder of Phase 2 fell within the ‘Core Neighbourhoods Character Area’. As set out in the report, it was considered that the proposal, as amended, was in accordance with the relevant character areas and the scale and appearance of the proposed dwellings was acceptable. In terms of amenity, a number of objections had been received from residents of the adjacent park home site citing a loss of light, outlook and privacy. The scheme, as submitted, was considered to be unacceptable in this regard. Following extensive negotiations with the applicant, the scheme was revised so that there was a minimum back-to-back distance in excess of 20 metres between the rear of the affected park homes and the rear elevations of the proposed dwellings. Where the proposed dwellings presented their flank elevations to the park homes, the distance was now in excess of 12 metres. Whilst there were currently vacant plots on the adjacent park home site, the slabs that had been laid indicated where park homes would be situated in the future. Based on this, the proposed development would achieve the same stand-off distances set out above. On that basis, it was considered the revised layout would have an acceptable impact on the adjacent park homes. The proposed planting was consistent with what was approved on Phase 1 and was acceptable. The general landscaping and green infrastructure was also in accordance with the Masterplan Document. Details of the street trees could also be secured by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72a

PROPOSAL: Hybrid planning application seeking; 1. Full planning permission for the erection of a B2 unit (general industrial) with associated landscaping, access and parking. 2. Outline planning permission (all matters reserved except access) for a mix of B1, B2 and B8 use classes (employment).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

72.7          This was a hybrid planning application which sought: 1. Full planning permission for the erection of a B2 unit (general industrial) with associated landscaping, access and parking. 2. Outline planning permission (all matters reserved except access) for a mix of B1, B2 and B8 use classes (employment). 

72.8          The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised of a parcel of land which was currently classified as agricultural. The site was roughly rectangular in shape and bound to the west, south and east by hedgerows and interspersed trees and wooden fencing. Cursey Lane was located to the south of the site, beyond which were a pair of semi-detached residential properties and a business enterprise known as Charles Russell Transport. To the north of the site was Highfield Business Park. The application site was proposed to be allocated as a Rural Business Centre in the Emerging Local Plan. The application was submitted as a hybrid application and sought full permission for the erection of a B2 unit (general industrial) with associated landscaping, access, and parking and outline permission with all matters reserved, besides access, for a mix of B1, B2 and B8 use classes (employment). The full application comprised a B2 unit, with ancillary office space. The main B2 building itself would have a total footprint of 1,882 square metres and a ridge height of approximately 11.8 metres. In addition to the B2 building, a new access was proposed off Cursey Lane. It was proposed that a new pedestrian and cycle lane would be included within the site that joined the existing path along the A38. The new building was intended for the end user,  to replace their existing factory premises in Cheltenham. The outline application sought permission on the remaining 1.15 hectares of land for a mixed-use development comprising of Class B1, B2 and B8 employment uses. The application sought to determine access as part of the outline element of the application; however, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale were reserved for future consideration. Further to the Officer’s recommendation, and Committee report, a revised Landscaping Strategy Plan had been submitted following comments from the Council’s landscape consultant. The consultant considered that the revised strategy now indicated sufficient planting for the proposed development subject to the final planting detail being provided by way of conditions. On the whole, Officers considered that the proposal would conflict with JCS Policy SD1 and saved Policy EMP3 in that the main B2 unit associated with the full application was larger than expected on a rural business centre. However, there were economic and job creation benefits arising from the proposal. It was also considered that the proposed development would have an acceptable impact on flood risk and drainage, contaminated land, ecology, archaeology and residential amenity subject to imposition of appropriate conditions. The site would allow for the expansion of existing businesses that had outgrown their current premises. As such it was considered that, on balance, the benefits and limited harm, which could be further mitigated by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72b

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing garages and erection of 11 dwellings, car parking, access road and landscaping.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

72.14        This was an application for the demolition of existing garages and erection of 11 dwellings, car parking, access road and landscaping. 

72.15        The Planning Officer advised that the proposal was for 11 dwellings comprised of seven houses and a block of four apartments. The houses, comprised of three pairs of semi-detached units and a single detached unit, would be located to the western part of the site, and would face out towards the school playing field with parking opposite. The block of four apartments would be located to the eastern part of the site close to the site access with parking to the front and individual private gardens to the rear. All of the properties would be served off a single access road and the development would incorporate 20 unallocated parking spaces and two motorbike spaces. Policy SD10 of the JCS supported housing development on previously developed land in the existing built-up areas of Tewkesbury’s rural service centres and therefore the principle of the development was acceptable. The proposal adopted a contemporary architectural approach, which was utilised throughout the scheme. This would provide for a cohesive development. The units would be faced in either red or grey brick to provide a degree of variation. The roof would be finished with a zinc standing seam metal roof, which would be complimented by grey windows, doors, and guttering. It was considered that the proposal was of an acceptable size, scale and design and would have a satisfactory impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would also have an acceptable impact on existing properties in terms of light, outlook, and privacy. All of the dwellings would be affordable, which would be secured through a S106 agreement. This represented a considerable benefit of the scheme. In terms of the access, the highways authority confirm that there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe impact on congestion. Given that the remaining occupied garages were used for storage purposes only, their removal would not displace parking onto the surrounding highway network. With regard to drainage, the applicant proposed to discharge surface water into a surface water sewer located in Bishops Drive. However, the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) advised that this was a private sewer and therefore the applicant would require approval from the owner to carry out any work on it. The LLFA advised that this must be provided to demonstrate it was a suitable strategy. At this stage, the applicant had not fully established the ownership of the private sewer or whether approval would be granted for connection. Given the uncertainty as to whether an appropriate drainage strategy could be achieved, it was considered that it would not be appropriate to condition drainage details in this instance. In light of this, it was recommended that permission be delegated to Officers in order to secure suitable drainage details, the amendment of planning conditions as appropriate and to allow for the completion of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72c

PROPOSAL:  Change of use of land to play area and the installation of retractable stop ball netting with 8m high posts to the existing Rugby pitch.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

72.18        This was an application for a change of use of land to play area and the installation of retractable stop ball netting with eight metre high posts to the existing rugby pitch.

72.19        The Planning Officer advised that the site was within the village of Norton and lay to the south-west of Wainlode Lane and to the north/north-west of the village hall. It comprised of the existing playing field and rugby pitch and a children’s play area installed on an undeveloped part of the neighbouring residential development.   The application was submitted by the Parish Council for the change of use of land to children’s play area and for the erection of retractable netting to part of the boundary of rugby pitch. The netting would be two sections of 60 metres to the north west and north east boundaries.  The supporting steel posts would be eight metres high with the black mesh measuring 6.36 metres.  The play area land was secured via a Section 106 agreement attached to the residential development.  The Parish had entered into a joint use agreement with the County Council for the land such that the play area/equipment would be available at all times to the school. In turn, the Parish Council had land within the boundary of the village hall available for the school. Saved Local Plan policy RCN2 was for the provision of sports facilities. The proposal for stop ball netting would be ancillary to the existing sporting facilities on the site and enable the site to be safely used for rugby matches and coaching by preventing balls entering adjoining gardens. The play area was supported by RCN2 and one of the community objectives of the Down Hatherley, Norton and Twigworth Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) which was to encourage new and/or additional services and facilities which helped to meet identified needs of local people and improve their wellbeing. The proposal was supported in principle. The stop ball netting and posts would be visible in part from distant views but would be read in the context of the existing built form and recreation use. The netting would only be extended when required. The play area was located within the settlement boundary between existing residential development, and screened in part by boundary fences and hedges. It would therefore, have less than substantial harm in terms of landscape character. Objections had been received from the occupiers in the neighbouring development of Bramble Close with regard to the noise and disturbance from the play area. The play area bordered the front access drive and front amenity was separated by a boundary fence. There was already background noise from the school and the use of the playing field and rugby pitch. Given the land was identified in the Section 106 agreement to be used in connection with the school it was always likely there would be some noise disturbance from it.In terms of overlooking, the play area was to the front of the dwelling which was open to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72d

PROPOSAL: Retrospective application for outside storage and security fencing.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

72.22        This was a retrospective application for outside storage and security fencing.

72.23        The Development Management Team Leader (North) advised that the application related to Unit 4 of Redwood House, located towards the south-eastern corner of the Orchard Trading Estate in Toddington. There was a public right of way to the north-east of the application site and another public right of way to the south of the adjacent B4077. The site was within the Special Landscape Area and its eastern side boundary lay immediately adjacent to the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) as well as the Toddington Manor Registered Park and Garden which was Grade II Listed. The application site also included trees which were protected by Tree Preservation Order 272 and this area served as structural landscaping that assisted in screening the industrial estate. The Orchard Trading Estate was designated as a major employment site within the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan, and as an existing rural business centre within the Pre-Submission version of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan. Unit 4 was currently occupied by a company which specialised in sourcing and importing artwork, sculptures, furniture and ornaments from Africa, Asia and Indonesia.  The application advised that the main building was used to store the most valuable and rare stock, but that this was currently full. The application therefore sought retrospective planning permission for the retention of the following structures:40ft and 20ft shipping containers to the south of Unit 4 – four of these shipping containers had been stacked two upon two, and the overall height of this did not exceed the eaves height of Unit 4. A white temporary storage structure had also been constructed towards the south-eastern corner of the site. This was proposed to beused as a marquee showroom for visiting clientsbut, due to the reduced trading throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, this structure was currently being used for storage purposes. The application did not clearly specify whether the marquee showroom would incorporate any retail element, nor had the sequential test been applied. Two green temporary storage structures had also been constructed towards the south-western corner of the site.  The application advised that the lower value items were stored within the shipping containers, with the lowest value items stored within the temporary storage structures and compound.The application also sought retrospective planning permission for the retention of a 2.4 metre high galvanised palisade fencing, which had been constructed parallel with but set back from the northern, eastern and southern boundaries to form a secure compound, and two no. palisade access gates at the location of previous kerbs and access points to the south.  The application for the erection of a light industrial unit, as approved in 1988, was subject to restrictive conditions pertaining to the erection or construction on this site of any extensions, gates, fences, walls, other means of enclosure, or structures of any kind; and any outside storage whatsoever on this site. These conditions were required in order to ensure that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72e

PROPOSAL: Pitched roof extension over existing garage, erection of a side and rear extension, rear dormer extension and replacement doors and windows.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

72.28        This was an application for a pitched roof extension over existing garage, erection of a side and rear extension, rear dormer extension and replacement doors and windows. 

72.29        The Planning Officer explained that this was a householder application for Farringdon, a detached property, on Stockwell Lane in Woodmancote. The proposal was to replace doors and windows on the dwelling and increase the living space at ground and first floor level by extending over the existing garage, erecting side and rear extensions and rear dormer extensions.This was a revised application that was deferred at the Committee meeting in March, on the basis that the balcony on the south west side of the rear elevation would have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents. The applicant had removed both proposed balconies from the scheme, fully addressing the concerns of the Committee, and a local resident who had previously raised an objection on amenity grounds.A Committee determination was originally required as Woodmancote Parish Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds of concerns that the extension would take the dwelling too close to the boundary, which would be detrimental to the open character of the area. Those concerns had been noted, and it was the view that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the open character of the area. As such, it was recommended that the application be permitted. 

72.30        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee. He had noted the comments made at the previous Committee meeting regarding the application and amendments had been made to remove the small balcony to the west along with the glass screen, balustrade and bifold doors; removal of the balcony to the east along with the glass screen, balustrade and bifold doors which had been removed even though there was no objection to that feature.He hoped these amendments would satisfy the Committee and it would see fit to approve the revised plans.

72.31        A proposal to permit the application was made and in seconding the Member drew attention to the condition that the flat roofed areas would need specific further planning consent if they were to be used as a balcony in the future. Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

PROPOSAL: Conversion of existing agricultural buildings into 1 no. dwelling and associated internal and external alterations, and provision of associated private residential garden area and vehicular driveway, parking and turning areas.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

72.32        This was an application for the conversion of existing agricultural buildings into one no. dwelling and associated internal and external alterations, and provision of associated private residential garden area and vehicular driveway, parking and turning areas. 

72.33        Prior to commencing her presentation, the Development Management Team Leader (North) explained that there were two applications in relation to this property, the full application now being considered and a second related application relating to listed building consent  and it was her intention to cover both together in this presentation.

72.34        The Development Management Team Leader (North) explained that Manor Farmhouse was a Grade II listed building of 17th century origins located centrally within Wormington. There were a number of agricultural buildings located to the south of this which formed the perimeter of the original yard and a compact historic farmstead.  This included a Grade II listed Granary towards the eastern side of the yard, as well as an extensive range of traditional agricultural buildings, including the application building towards the western side of the yard, which were considered to be curtilage listed. Farm operations had been relocated away from the original farmyard leaving a number of buildings redundant, including the existing agricultural building subject to this application. To the south of the complex was a collection of large modern agricultural buildings which served the current farming enterprise. The application site was located within the Cotswolds AONB. The planning and listed building consent applications proposed the conversion of one of the existing curtilage listed agricultural buildings within the western range into a two storey dwelling and associated internal and external alterations. This was a red brick building with a natural blue slate roof covering. All existing openings on this building were located on the eastern elevation, facing onto the central yard area. The application included the submission of a structural report which confirmed that the principle structure was in good condition throughout and would not require any major structural alteration to convert to a dwelling house. The other buildings towards the south and east of the yard would remain unconverted and in agricultural use. The Conservation Officer raised no objection in principle to the conversion of the buildings to residential use and considered that, overall, the details of the conversion of the buildings were sympathetic to their character.  Part of the adjacent historic shed would also be utilised as garaging and a lobby in a manner that would preserve its character. Therefore  the application for listed building consent related solely to the physical works to the listed building which were considered to be acceptable, and it was recommended that listed building consent was granted consent subject to conditions.The associated full planning application, which also appeared on the schedule, further proposed the provision of a private residential garden within the central yard area for future occupiers of the proposed residential unit, which was proposed to be bounded by a 1.8 metre high hedge. It also proposed the provision of a vehicular  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72g

PROPOSAL: Conversion of existing agricultural buildings into 1 no. dwelling and associated internal and external alterations and provision of parking.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Consent.

72.37        This was an application for the conversion of existing agricultural buildings into one no. dwelling and associated internal and external alterations and provision of parking. 

72.38        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item and the Officer recommendation was for consent. 

72.39        It was proposed and seconded and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That Listed Building Consent be GRANTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 (drawing schedule) attached to planning permission 14/00965/FUL (residential development comprising of 15 dwellings) to allow for minor alterations to plots 6, 7, 12, 13 & 14 and revised drainage arrangements.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

72.40        This was an application for the variation of condition 2 (drawing schedule) attached to planning permission 14/00965/FUL (residential development comprising of 15 dwellings) to allow for minor alterations to plots 6, 7, 12, 13 & 14 and revised drainage arrangements.

72.41        The Planning Officer advised that planning permission had originally been granted in 2015 for the demolition of curtilage listed outbuildings and the erection of 15 dwellings. Those works had commenced on site and were now well advanced.  The current application sought to vary condition 2 of that permission to allow for minor alterations to a number of plots. Those changes were summarised as removal of the garages from plot 13 & 14 and replacement with tandem parking spaces; minor amendments to the internal layout and external elevations of plots 13 and 14; amendment to the garage design for plot 12; repositioning of plots 6 and 7 closer to plots 8 and 9 due to the levels adjacent to the boundary with the neighbouring properties. As set out in the Committee report, those changes were minor in the context of the previously permitted scheme and were considered acceptable. The application also sought to amend the drainage details that were approved under the previous application. The most significant change was that the foul drainage was now shown connecting directly into the existing sewer network. The Parish Council had raised strong objections to the revised drainage details due to the historical problems with the drainage network in the village. The Parish also pointed out that a condition attached to the original permission stated that foul sewage disposal should be via a package treatment plant only. The approved drainage details reflected that requirement. The applicant stated that the previously approved drainage scheme was flawed as a sewage treatment plant located under the road would preclude most types of treatment plant. The location of the sewage treatment plant would also not comply with Building Regulations and there was no other suitable location within the site. Whilst the Parish Council’s concerns were noted, Severn Trent Water had already approved a connection into the existing system. The Lead Local Flood Authority also raised no objections to the revised drainage details. In light of this, it was considered that it would be very difficult to reasonably sustain an objection on this basis. As set out in the late papers, the Committee report stated that the application was recommenced for delegated permit subject to the completion of a Deed of Variation to ensure that the provisions of the original S106 Agreement were carried forward. That Deed of Variation had now been completed and therefore the recommendation had been changed to permit.

72.42        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item and the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

72.43        It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted. A Member indicated that the subject of drainage seemed to be a recurring problem where existing drainage facilities could not cope with additional  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72i

PROPOSAL: Application for Permission in Principle for the Construction of 1 Dwelling.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Approve.

72.44        This was an application for Permission in Principle for the construction of one dwelling. 

72.45        The Planning Officer advised that the application site was located to the north side of Stockwell Lane, in Woodmancote. The site comprised part of the garden of the farmhouse of Box Farm, which lay to the east. There were residential properties to the west of the site and the Mill and Liberty Farm were located to the south side of Stockwell Lane.A public right of way ran from Stockwell Lane to the west of the farm to approximately 90 metres to the north of the site. The site was located within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.The permission in principle consent route was an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development which separated the consideration of matters of principle for proposed development from the technical detail of the development. The permission in principle consent route had two stages: the first stage established whether a site was suitable in-principle and the second, ‘technical details consent’, stage was when the detailed development proposals were assessed.The scope of the first stage was limited to  location,  land use and amount.  Regarding location, Woodmancote was a ‘Service Village’ as defined by Policy SP2 of the JCS. The site did not fall within an allocated area in the village.  Woodmancote did not have a defined development boundary, so a degree of judgment was necessary regarding whether the site was within the village. The site was part of the garden of Box Farmhouse and was within the residential curtilage. Recent appeal decisions had considered this area as a ribbon of development formed by a collection of detached dwellings set within spacious plots that extended along the lane away from the main body of the village. Given that the view of Inspectors in recent appeal decisions regarding development radiating from Woodmancote and that there was existing development to the east, west and south of the site, the development would be viewed within the context of existing built form and would not appear divorced from the settlement. Therefore the proposed development site was considered to be within the built-up area of the village.The Council did not have a five year housing supply therefore paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework was engaged.  The framework clarified that planning polices for housing would be judged out of date where, inter alia, the local planning authority could not demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Footnote 6 to paragraph 11 also clarified which policies in the framework provided a clear reason for refusing. As the site was within the Cotswold AONB, a judgment must be made as to whether the proposal would protect the AONB, and whether any impacts provided a clear justification for refusing permission.The NPPF made clear that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in AONBs, which had the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72j

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 2No detached dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

72.49        This was an application for demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two no. detached dwellings. 

72.50        The Development Management Team Leader (North) explained that the existing dwelling, known as Ashgrove, was located in the New Town area of Toddington, on the northern side of the highway, and was an attractive and historic cottage in Cotswold stone. Ashgrove was not listed, but was considered to be a non-designated heritage asset. The application site was located within the Cotswolds AONB. The site was bounded by the detached dwelling known as Harrington House on its western side and the dwelling known as The Willows on its eastern side, with generous spacing between each of those dwellings. Planning permission had been granted for the erection of six dwellings on the parcel of land immediately to the rear of the application site, which remained extant. The application proposed the demolition of the existing dwelling known as Ashgrove and the erection of two detached 4-bed dwellings. The submitted application set out that the design of the proposed dwellings followed that of the two dwellings previously approved in 2020 on the site directly opposite, on land adjacent to Beech House; the approved elevations of which were included within the Officer’s report. However, unlike this previously approved development, the current application proposed that each dwelling would include an attached single garage on its side elevation.  A new vehicular access would also be created from a single point. The proposed dwellings would generally follow the building line of adjacent built development to the east and west, although each would be located slightly further southwards in closer proximity to the adjacent highway. This application was submitted further to an application in 2017 for the proposed erection of a detached dwelling to the side of the existing dwelling at Ashgrove, and an outline application in 2020 for the proposed demolition of the existing dwelling at Ashgrove and the construction of two dwellings, both of which were refused. Further to the refusal of those applications, an application was submitted to determine if prior approval would be required for the proposed demolition of Ashgrove. It was determined in November 2020 that prior approval was not required for the method of demolition of the dwelling known as Ashgrove nor any proposed restoration of the site. The current application referred to this as a “fallback position”. The applicant had demonstrated that they did not require any further permissions to carry out the demolition of the existing dwelling, and the Conservation Officer advised that there were therefore no further heritage issues to comment on in the case of the current application. Toddington was identified as a Service Village within the JCS and the site was located within the Toddington Settlement Boundary on the Pre-Submission Borough Plan Proposals Map.  As the site formed previously developed land and was bordered by residential properties on either side, the development was considered to represent infill. As such, the principle of new housing in this location was considered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72k

PROPOSAL: Change of use of dwelling and adjacent detached dwelling from C3 (dwelling house) to C2 (Childrens care home). Erection of a replacement single storey rear extension and erection of front and rear dormer extensions.

front and rear dormer windows.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

72.53        This was an application for a change of use of dwelling and adjacent detached dwelling from C3 (dwelling house) to C2 (Childrens care home). Erection of a replacement single storey rear extension and erection of front and rear dormer extensions.

72.54        The Planning Officer explained that this was a change of use of dwelling and adjacent detached dwelling from C3 (dwelling house) to C2 (Children's care home) and erection of a replacement single storey rear extension (amended dormers removed). The site lay on the east side of Main Road, Minsterworth and comprised of the semi-detached property Charlton and the recently constructed adjacent detached Christie. The application was presented to Planning Committee on 16 June 2020 where Members resolved to defer the application for clarification as to the number of children and staff who would be resident and their relationship to the bedrooms shown on the plan; for further information in respect of traffic movements and a larger scale site plan to be provided to indicate the sharp bend of the road and the site in the wider context; and to receive further information regarding the drainage proposal, including a view from the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer. A revised site plan was submitted to show the location of the property with regard to the sharp bend on the A38 to the south of the site. The Local Highways Authority had assessed the proposal and considered that the parking policy, together with the number of parking spaces provided, were suitable to accommodate the demand on the site The plans had also been amended to remove the dormer extension and the loft conversion for the semi-detached property Charlton; the single storey rear extension was still proposed. Charlton remained a three bedroomed property and Christie had four bedrooms. The amended plans identified the bedrooms for staff and children for both properties with two children bedrooms for both properties. The care home would provide care for children 12 to 16 years with staff present on site as the children were not capable of living unsupervised. The Environmental Health Officer considered the number of people on site would not be disproportionate to that of residential properties and the children would be supervised on site which would limit any sporadic disturbance. A site inspection of adjacent land was undertaken with Officers on 31 July 2020 and in March 2021, the Building Control Officer had visited the detached dwelling Christie. Objections had been received regarding the existing onsite drainage provisions being inadequate and the foul drainage from the properties in the vicinity adversely impacting farmland to the rear. Additional information was provided and a revised drainage plan was submitted on 23 March 2021 which proposed a package treatment plant (PTP) in the rear garden of Christie.  This was originally intended to serve both properties.  However, in order to avoid the need to discharge the outfall to third party land, the PTP now only served the detached dwelling Christie and the field drain  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72l

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

72.56        This was an application for the erection of a single storey rear extension. 

72.57        The Planning Officer explained that this proposal was to add a single storey rear extension to the property which had been extended previously - the proposed extension would attach to extended elements of the dwelling. A Committee determination was required as Woodmancote Parish Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds that the proposed extension would be too close to the boundary and would harm the open character of the area, representing overdevelopment of the site.  A site notice was displayed for 21 days and one letter of representation was received from a neighbour, raising issues over amenity. The scheme was revised, and a revised site notice displayed for an additional 14 days. The same objection was maintained.The Parish Council’s concerns had been considered, however it was the view of Officers that the proposal, as revised, would be located an acceptable distance from the boundary with a neighboring property and would not have a harmful impact on the wider area. The site was considered large enough to accommodate the extension and whilst there would be an impact of overshadowing, affecting the adjacent neighbour’s garden, this would not be considered adversely harmful considering the existing situation. As such, it was recommended that the application be permitted.

72.58        The Chair invited the objector to address the Committee. He referred to an impact analysis which had been undertaken to demonstrate the harmful impact and counter effects of allowing the planning application proposal 20/01182/FUL and the impact it would have on both himself and his family members who resided at the neighbouring property. He indicated that this was actually the fourth extension to this property; there had been large 2 storey extensions to the front and back of the property as well as an extension to the side.The extension now proposed by the owner of 4 Cranford Close would, in his view, have a large impact on his residential amenities by causing naturallight deprivation to his patio and garden area caused by overshadowing and would in turn create an oppressive andoverbearing environment. On reviewing the proposed new extension, the top of the roof  facing the side wall would be over 1.17 to 1.32 metres higher than the 6ft fence that was currently there, using the Idox measuring tool from the planning portal, which he felt  would be overbearing and cause shadowing of the patio area and would diminish the light in the garden area by a quarter. Again, using the measurements from the Idox system he had superimposed what the proposed extension would look like using a photograph he had taken to understand how it would sit so close to the boundary as he felt the 3D Computer Aided Design Modelling document submitted bythe applicant did not really demonstrate the impact and aesthetics nor how the new building would sit in the natural environment.Taking into consideration the sun track through the different  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72m

To consider current planning and enforcement appeals and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) appeal decisions.

73.1           Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No.292-301. Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government appeal decisions issued.

73.2           Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          That the current appeals and appeal decisions update be                                   NOTED.

The meeting closed at