Agenda, decisions and minutes

When the continuous alarm sounds you must evacuate the building by the nearest available fire exit. Members and visitors should proceed to the visitors’ car park at the front of the building and await further instructions (during office hours staff should proceed to their usual assembly point; outside of office hours proceed to the visitors’ car park). Please do not re-enter the building unless instructed to do so.

In the event of a fire any person with a disability should be assisted in leaving the building.  

3.1             The evacuation procedure, as noted on the Agenda, was advised to those present.

3.2             The Chair gave a brief outline of the procedure for Planning Committee meetings, including public speaking.

4.1             Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J K Smith and P N Workman.  There were no substitutions for the meeting. 

5.1             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.

5.2             The following declarations were made:

5.3             There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meetings held on 20 April and 4 May 2021.

6.1             The Minutes of the meetings held on 20 April and 4 May 2021, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as correct records and signed by the Chair.

7.1             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: The erection of 47 dwellings and associated vehicular access, public open space, landscaping and other associated infrastructure.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

7.2             This application was for the erection of 47 dwellings and associated vehicular access, public open space, landscaping and other associated infrastructure.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 16 February 2021 for an independent view on the highway issues.

7.3             The Planning Officer advised that, since the Planning Committee meeting in February, the Transportation Consultancy had been appointed by the Council to undertake a review of the traffic and transportation submission document; this review had subsequently been carried out with the highway and transport review report being published at the end of May.  Based on the conclusions of the review, Officers maintained the view that the development would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety or have a severe impact on congestion, therefore, there were no justifiable grounds on which an objection could be maintained.  Given that the review did not raise any matters which altered the initial Officer assessment on the impact of the development in terms of highway safety, the assessment of the material considerations of the proposed development remained the same, as set out in the Conclusions and Recommendations section of the original Committee report – when taking account of all the material considerations and the weight to be attributed to each one, the identified harm would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the overall planning balance, therefore, it was considered that the proposed development would constitute sustainable development in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole. 

7.4             The independent consultant explained that The Transportation Consultancy had been appointed by the Council to carry out an independent transport and highway review of the proposal and the assessment had been carried out by a specialist infrastructure planning consultancy.  This had been done with specific regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and the review had concluded that the impact of the development would not be severe and was in line with, and supportive of, the National Planning Policy Framework.  It should be noted that the application was recommended for approval by both Gloucestershire County Council and Highways England.  The review had made two recommendations: a footway connection linking the site with the Mill Lane junction – the consultants had since advised that, in response to the review, the applicant had confirmed that delivery of the footway would be acceptable if planning permission was granted; and, further modelling of the proposed site access junction which the consultants had indicated could be addressed at the Section 278 stage.  Given that the assessment had confirmed there were no existing highway safety issues and the proposals, including the footway, would improve pedestrian connectivity, it was concluded that there were no highway or transport grounds for refusal.

7.5             The Chair invited the representative from Brockworth Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative explained that Brockworth Parish Council worked hard to ensure that Brockworth was a safe and sustainable community and a pleasant place to live and its  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7a

PROPOSAL: Construction of replacement dwelling and associated works, following demolition of existing dwelling. Change of use of additional areas of land to residential garden.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

7.19          This application was for construction of a replacement dwelling and associated works following demolition of existing building and change of use of additional areas of land to residential garden.

7.20          The Development Management Team Leader (North) advised that this application related to Starvealls Cottage, a detached stone dwelling located to the north of Corndean Lane.  The building had originally been built as two farm labourers’ cottages but had since been converted to a single dwelling.  The dwelling occupied an isolated but prominent position on the hillside and was located within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Whilst the building was not listed and was not within a Conservation Area, the Conservation Officer considered it to be a non-designated heritage asset as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework.  The application sought planning permission for the demolition of the existing residential building and its replacement with a two storey dwelling which would be constructed from natural materials such as stone and slate.  The proposal also sought change of use and conversion of an existing outbuilding to an ancillary pool house with construction of an associated natural swimming pool and terrace as well as change of use of several areas of agricultural land to residential curtilage with the creation of two attenuation ponds to serve the dwelling.  Members were informed there was substantial planning history associated with the site; the site had previously been granted a Lawful Development Certificate at appeal which determined that works to the building had lawfully started to extend the existing property under permitted development rights.  It was noted that the extant permitted development scheme would be much larger than the existing building.  Officers had concluded that, whilst the proposed new dwelling was larger than the detached dwelling it sought to replace, the principle of the proposal was consistent with the thrust of the National Planning Policy Framework.  The impact of the loss of a non-designated heritage asset had been carefully considered and, although the applicant had demonstrated there was a permitted development scheme that would retain some of the fabric of the building, it would eradicate important features creating a large, ill-planned building in a prominent setting in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  It was therefore concluded that, on balance, the public benefit of establishing a large, high quality designed building in this sensitive location would outweigh the loss of the non-designated heritage asset in this instance.  The impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty would not result in a clear reason for refusal given the permitted development scheme that could be achieved.  It was noted that additional bat survey work had been required, the results of which had only been received the previous day and, given that the Council’s Ecological Adviser had not yet had the opportunity to fully assess the details of the survey, the Officer recommendation had been changed to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application subject to comments from the Council’s Ecological Adviser.

7.21          The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7b

PROPOSAL: Change of use of land for the siting of two holiday yurts on decking and provision of an ancillary amenity building.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

7.24           This application was for change of use of land for the siting of two holiday yurts on decking and provision of an ancillary amenity building.

7.25          The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised part of the residential garden and paddock area afforded to The Croft, a detached, non-designated heritage asset located on Blacksmith Lane from which access to the site was gained.  There was no defined settlement boundary for The Leigh and the site was deemed as being within open countryside and located within the Landscape Protection Zone and Flood Zone 1.  The proposal sought change of use for the siting of two holiday yurts, which would be sited on timber decking, and the provision of an ancillary amenity building to house a small kitchen area and toilet/shower facilities.  The application required Committee determination as there was an objection from the Parish Council which had raised concerns in respect of additional traffic using Blacksmith Lane and the impact on neighbouring properties.  The Parish Council had commented that the proposal was not in accordance with the emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan; however, that was still in the early stages of plan preparation process and could be afforded no weight at present.  For the reasons detailed in the Committee report, the proposal was deemed to comply with saved local plan policies TOR1 and TOR5 which were supportive of tourism-related development.  Whilst it was recognised that camping sites could be visually intrusive, the scale of the proposal – providing two pitches in total which would be removed when not in use – would not result in any undue harm to the landscape.  The scheme would be implemented in accordance with a detailed landscaping plan which would provide natural screening in addition to existing hedgerows and trees which surrounded the site.  No objections had been received from consultees in respect of residential amenity, biodiversity, heritage impact or access and highway safety, subject to recommended conditions.  Therefore, the application was recommended for permission, subject to conditions.

7.26          The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant thanked the Planning Officer for a comprehensive and well-balanced report which addressed all the relevant policies and guidance and he fully endorsed the positive recommendation.  As the COVID-19 pandemic altered the way in which people chose to holiday, this site would help to provide a quiet but natural rural setting in which visitors could explore the surrounding borough.  Both the local plan and National Planning Policy Framework placed a strong emphasis on supporting the rural economy and local tourism and, although it was accepted in planning policy that rural areas were less accessible than urban locations, that should not be used as a reason to prevent this type of development coming forward.  The principle of this small-scale holiday scheme was therefore supported at both local and national level. He explained that this was a very modest scheme for two temporary holiday yurts with an ancillary amenity building; the yurts were to be placed on decking  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7c

PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of site containing B1/B8 buildings to provide 1 no. single storey self-build dwelling and associated works (including provision of parking, installation of means of enclosure etc).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

7.29          This application was for the redevelopment of a site containing B1/B8 buildings to provide one single storey self-build dwelling and associated works, including provision of parking, installation of means of enclosure etc. 

7.30          The Planning Officer advised that the application related to the redevelopment of a site located off Wood Lane in Down Hatherley which was currently occupied by two former poultry buildings which had been used for light industrial/storage purposes giving the site previously developed land status.  The site was located within the Green Belt in the open countryside, although there was a residential property to the west of the site; the site was not subject to any other designations.  The application was for demolition of the buildings and replacement with a single storey detached residential dwelling and it required Committee determination as there was an objection from Down Hatherley Parish Council on the grounds that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  The Planning Officer explained that the site was taken to constitute previously developed land and one of the exceptions for Green Belt development in the National Planning Policy Framework was “the redevelopment of land which would not have a greater impact on openness of the Green Belt than the existing development”.  The proposed dwelling would be smaller in volumetric terms when compared to existing buildings and, whilst the use of the land for residential purposes had potential to harm the openness of the Green Belt, it was considered that the design and orientation of the proposed dwelling would contain much of that use to limit its impact when viewed from outside the site.  The proposal was therefore deemed to amount to appropriate development in the Green Belt in compliance with Policy SD5 of the Joint Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.  The proposal did not comply with Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy; however, that policy was deemed out of date given the Council’s five year housing land supply position and the tilted balance was therefore engaged.  The proposal would have an acceptable impact on highway safety, residential amenity and biodiversity, subject to conditions, and the limited harm to landscape character would be mitigated through appropriate design and landscaping.  When applying the tilted balance, it was considered that the low level of harm arising from the proposal would not significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole, as such, the application was recommended for permission, subject to conditions.

7.31          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent noted that the Committee report was extremely comprehensive and covered the relevant material considerations; however, she wished to explain the Green Belt policy justification a little more.  The only objection to the proposal was from the Parish Council which was correct in saying that no very special circumstances case had been put forward to allow change of use in the Green Belt; this was because national and local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7d

PROPOSAL: Erection of 2 no. dwellings and provision of associated vehicular driveway, parking and turning areas and landscaping.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

7.34          This application was for the erection of two dwellings and provision of associated vehicular driveway, parking and turning areas and landscaping.

7.35          The Development Management Team Leader (North) advised that the application site comprised an open parcel of land immediately to the south of the dwelling known as the Butts, Gotherington, as well as the existing private street serving the dwellings known as The Butts and Mayflower, from Shutter Lane to the north.  Permission in Principle was granted on 2 April 2020 for the erection of two dwellings on the application site; that was the first stage of the process and solely established that the site was suitable in principle for the erection of two dwellings.  The current application was submitted as a full application rather than an application for technical details consent because of changes to the red line on the site location plan relating to a slight enlargement to accommodate an adjustment to the driveway to deal with the root protection area of a tree.  The proposal was for two detached, five bed dwellings on this parcel of land as well as provision of an associated vehicular driveway, parking and turning areas.  Each proposed dwelling would be two storey, designed with reconstituted facing Cotswold stonework and reconstituted diminishing course stone Cotswold tiles.  Each one would also include a timber-clad one and a half storey element projecting from the front elevation, comprising a double garage at ground floor level and an office above at first floor level.  The application site was located within the Gotherington settlement boundary, as defined within the Gotherington Neighbourhood Plan, and Policy GNDP01 of the plan specified that, within the settlement boundary of Gotherington village, small infill housing development would be supported within built-up frontages when it was consistent with the scale and proportion of existing houses and gardens in the adjacent area.  The site was also located within the Gotherington settlement boundary as defined within the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan proposals map.  Members were advised that the application required a Committee determination due to an objection from Gotherington Parish Council which had raised concern regarding the vary narrow access road and sharp corner for the manoeuvre of construction traffic, and the removal of a footpath.  The Highways Authority had been consulted on the application and concluded there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe impact on congestion so there were no justifiable grounds on which an objection could be maintained.  In terms of the public right of way, the submitted site layout plans were annotated to show room was provided for its retention.  The Planning Statement also confirmed that provision had been made to ensure the public rights of way bordering the site remained unaffected by the proposed development.  The applicant’s agent had confirmed in writing that the existing outbuilding within the application site, currently sited on the public right of way, would be removed and a revised site layout plan had been submitted to show the building  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7e

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.

7.37          It was NOTED that this item had been withdrawn from the Agenda. 

PROPOSAL: Erection of a side car port/ garage (retrospective).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

7.38          This application was for the erection of a side car port/garage (retrospective).

7.39          The Planning Officer advised that the proposal was for the retention of a side car port/garage and the application required a Committee determination as the Parish Council had objected on the basis of the impact on the adjacent building and inappropriate materials.  Whilst these concerns had been noted, the car port had been built with oak beams and reclaimed tiles so would be more in keeping with the character of this old-style property.  In terms of residential amenity, the closest building to the south was a public house and the closest window at first floor level was obscure glazed and was understood to serve a kitchen area.  It was noted that the garage roof did not come any higher than the bottom of this window.  As such, loss of light and outlook was not considered to be harmful.  Overall, the proposal was considered to be of a suitable size and design and was in keeping with the area.  The impact on the residential amenity of the nearest neighbours was also considered to be acceptable, therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

7.40          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 brief debate ensued as to the age of the property and the construction of the car port/garage which was pointed out in a series of photographs.  A Member questioned whether it was possible to stipulate that the garage must only be used for that purpose as she was aware of situations where they had subsequently been used as annexes and student accommodation.  The Legal Adviser explained this was something which had been done in the past, for example, on larger developments where parking was an issue; whilst it was possible, there was a need to consider whether it was appropriate here in planning terms.  The Development Manager agreed that it was absolutely possible but it was a question of whether it was justified given the amount of parking space at the front.  If the planning application was for an extension as opposed to a car port/garage, it was likely that the recommendation would be the same based on the parking/manoeuvring space; this was a matter of judgement for Members but, in his view, it would not be justified on that basis.

7.41          Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension (re-submission).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

7.42          This application was for erection of a single storey rear extension (re-submission).  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 18 June 2021.

7.43          The Planning Officer advised that Chestnut Barn was a detached property that had been converted for residential use and the site fell within the Green Belt.  The local Ward Member had requested that the application be determined by the Committee in order to assess whether or not the proposal amounted to a proportionate addition in the Green Belt.  In terms of the Green Belt, when added to the previous extensions, the proposed rear extension would result in a 54% increase over and above the floor area of the original dwelling.  The volumetric increase when combined with the previous extensions would be even greater at 70%.  It should be noted that the property did not benefit from permitted development rights so there was no fallback position.  Overall, it was considered that the proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, resulting in disproportionate additions to the original dwelling, and there were no very special circumstances that outweighed the harm that would be caused.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application.

7.44          The Chair invited the representative from Boddington Parish Council to address the Committee.  The representative from the Parish Council explained that neither he, nor his fellow Parish Councillors, could understand the logic and reasoning for having to debate this application. In contrast to this proposal, approval had been granted a couple of years ago for some 500 homes to be built within Boddington Parish at Hayden as part of the West Cheltenham development within the Joint Core Strategy.  The Parish Council had wholeheartedly supported that application despite the fact it would treble the number of houses in the Parish – this, combined with the recently confirmed changes to Junction 10 of the M5, and the supporting infrastructure, would cut swathes through the Parish.  As for this comparatively small scale application, it was the Parish Council’s view that the extension would not be a harmful or disproportionate addition to the Green Belt, particularly when considering the size of other extensions that had been permitted.  The Parish Council representative went on to make reference to the personal circumstances of the applicants.  The Parish Council representative then indicated that the application site was in a fairly isolated position on the Barrow “loop” where only the side of the proposed development could be seen from a very short stretch of the road which was some 50 metres distant.  In terms of the increase in overall footprint, that would be insignificant compared with the development he had referenced earlier which was huge.  The Parish Council fully supported the application and he hoped the Committee could do the same.

7.45          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent explained that the Planning Officer had visited the application site last year and advised the landowner that he could further extend  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7h

PROPOSAL: General purpose agricultural building.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Prior Approval Granted.

7.49           This application was for a general purpose agricultural building.

7.50           The Development Management Team Leader (South) advised that the application site was located on the lower slopes of Chosen Hill in the Green Belt and Special Landscape Area.  The proposed building itself would be modest with an area of 53.29 square metres and a height of three metres.  In terms of background, the application was for an agricultural determination where prior approval was required.  Class A of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) set out that certain types of agriculture could be permitted development but allowed the Council to intervene on the basis of siting, design and external appearance of the building; the Council had opted to do this in this instance given the location in the Special Landscape Area allowing for further assessment of the site and additional information to be provided.  Officers accepted that the proposed building was genuinely required for agricultural use and the National Planning Policy Framework set out that such buildings were not inappropriate in the Green Belt.  As previously mentioned, the site was located on the lower slopes of Chosen Hill and would be visible from Chosen Hill, the adjacent road and the public footpath to the southern boundary; however, the site benefited from existing hedgerow to the boundary which was proposed to be retained, therefore the view would be limited.  Furthermore, there were much larger agricultural buildings on the adjacent site so, in this context, it was not considered that the proposed building would be visually prominent in the wider landscape.  It was noted that the existing access would be utilised meaning there would be no highway issues, as such, the Officer recommendation was that prior approval be granted.

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

RESOLVED          That PRIOR APPROVAL be GRANTED.

PROPOSAL: Change of use of part of an existing grazing paddock to provide a fenced manège measuring 41m x 21m for private use.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

7.52           This application was for change of use of part of an existing grazing paddock to provide a fenced manège measuring 41 metres by 21 metres for private use.

7.53           The Development Management Team Leader (South) advised that the application sought planning permission for change of use of land currently used for grazing and the construction of a private use manège measuring 41 metres by 21 metres surrounded by a 1.5 metre post and rail fence.  The site was in the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and was part of agricultural land to the south west of an existing agricultural and equestrian building on a Stump Lane which had an existing access to the highway.  There was a mature hedgerow to the south and eastern boundary and post and rail fences to the west and north.  In terms of policy, the local planning authority allowed new horse riding facilities in the countryside provided that they were well-related to existing buildings and the existing bridle network, had adequate measures to control noise, dust, smell and other nuisance, did not have an adverse impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Special Landscape Area and did not create traffic problems.  This part of the Special Landscape Area was relatively flat and the site would not be highly visible from public vantage points to the east or long ranging views from the west.  The site would be visible from the adjacent public footpath to the north and from long range views of the northern, more sloping, fields; however, in these wider views, the existing development to the south would provide a backdrop to the proposal and the materials used would be controlled by condition to match the existing and ensure that it was not prominent in the landscape.  It was not considered that the siting of the manège would have a negative impact on the rural character or open fields of the escarpment of Chosen Hill.  Under Paragraph 145 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the provision of appropriate facilities for sport and outdoor recreation was an exception to inappropriate development provided that facilities preserved the openness of the Green Belt.  The site for the manège was in close proximity to the existing development, in a field adjacent to the existing post and rail boundaries, and a mature hedgerow.  It was considered to be of an appropriate size and design and would have an acceptable impact upon the openness of the Green Belt, as such, it was recommended that the application be permitted, subject to the inclusion of conditions to control the colour and type of materials used and to prevent any commercial use.

7.54           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 questioned whether a condition could be included to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7j

PROPOSAL: Change of use to single dwelling of existing vacant/redundant outbuildings with link extensions; associated landscaping including green roofs and parking (revised scheme).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

7.55           This application was for change of use to a single dwelling of existing vacant/redundant outbuildings with link extensions; associated landscaping, including green roofs, and car parking (revised scheme).  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 18 June 2021.

7.56           The Development Management Team Leader (South) advised that the application site was located within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Green Belt and the proposal would convert the existing buildings into a single five bedroomed dwelling.  The three existing buildings would be joined by two timber framed glazed pergola link extensions situated around a central courtyard garden.  In terms of background, planning permission had been granted in December 2020 for change of use of the buildings to a dwelling.  The approval was subject to revisions which limited the number of extensions to the existing building to a minimum in order to make the proposal compliant with the Council’s rural buildings conversion policies as well as Green Belt policies.  As the principle of change of use to residential had therefore been established, the main considerations relevant to this application were whether the current proposal remained compliant with the Council’s rural buildings conversion policies and whether it was acceptable in terms of Green Belt policy.  Rural housing policies in the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan required buildings to be of a permanent and substantial construction and for the essential scale, form and character of the original building - and as much as possible of the original structure and essential features - to be retained.  Members were informed that the previously approved scheme limited extensions to a very small link between the two buildings proposed to be used as main living accommodation; however, the current application was for a much larger extension linking all three buildings which would be used for primary accommodation.  This would require substantial changes to the design in order for the converted buildings to function as a single dwelling which included changes to the external elevations, windows and roof; as such, the proposal conflicted with the rural buildings conversion policies.  The National Planning Policy Framework set out that inappropriate development was, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.  Paragraph 146 stated that the re-use of buildings – provided that they were of permanent and substantial construction – would not be inappropriate development, subject to the provision that the development should preserve the openness of the Green Belt and not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.  The two large link extensions would have a significant impact in visual and spatial terms which conflicted with Green Belt policy, therefore, the proposal constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt and very special circumstances were required to justify the development.  It was noted that the development was considered acceptable in terms of neighbour amenity, drainage, highway safety and biodiversity subject to recommended mitigation measures which could be dealt with by condition.  Notwithstanding this, on balance,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7k

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 (drawing schedule) of the planning application ref number 19/00082/FUL to allow for a revised outbuilding design.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

7.61          This was an application for variation of condition 2 (drawing schedule) of planning application 19/00082/FUL to allow for a revised outbuilding design.

7.62          The Development Management Team Leader (South) advised that planning permission had been granted in April 2019 for a detached contemporary-style dwelling on the slopes of Bushcombe Lane in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  In addition to the dwelling, the development also proposed a large five bay car port, with open bays at the front, to be set back into the sloping ground.  The current proposal was to substitute this with a larger building comprising three open bay car spaces, a workshop and store.  The building would have double the footprint of the approved car port and a ridge height of four metres, approximately 800 centimetres taller than the approved building.  Whilst the proposed building would clearly be larger than the previously approved building, it would be set back into the slopes in the same way and its impact on the landscape would be modest, therefore, Officers did not consider it to be unacceptable.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

7.63          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 deferred for a Planning Committee Site Visit in order to assess the proposal in context.  A Member noted that the Parish Council objected unanimously to the further extension of the site and had pointed out that the original planning permission had been granted on appeal when the Inspector had made it clear in planning conditions 4,5 and 6 that no enlargement of the property should be permitted.  The Development Management Team Leader (South) clarified that the Inspector had removed permitted development rights meaning that planning permission was required for any further extensions which gave control to the local planning authority.  The Parish Council had also objected to the original scheme and, whilst Officers did sympathise with concerns regarding planning creep, the proposed building – albeit larger – would sit within the area that had been excavated with the roof extending slightly above.  From an Officer point of view, it would be very difficult to justify a refusal on the grounds of landscape harm.

7.64           The proposal to defer the application for a Planning Committee Site Visit did not receive a seconder.  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.

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

8.1             Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 279-282.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government appeal decisions issued.

8.2             Accordingly, it was

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