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.   

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

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

29.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillor M J Williams.  There were no substitutions for the meeting. 

30.1          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.

30.2          The following declarations were made:

30.3          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 September 2021.

31.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 September 2021, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

32.1           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: Erection of a single storey rear extension, first floor extension and dormer windows.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

32.2          This application was for erection of a single storey rear extension, first floor extension and dormer windows.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 21 September 2021 for a Planning Committee site visit to assess the proposal in the context of the streetscene and neighbouring properties.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 15 October 2021.

32.3          The Planning Officer advised that the application required a Committee determination as Winchcombe Town Council had objected to the proposal on the basis of the scale of the extensions and the lack of conformity with the requirements of Policy 3.3 of the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Development Plan relating to bungalow development.  Three letters of representation had been received objecting to the proposal on amenity grounds, one of which related specifically to the revised scheme.  Concerns raised included potential overlooking, overbearing impact and loss of light to the adjacent dwelling to the east.  An additional objection had been received prior to the Planning Committee meeting on 21 September 2021 which was set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1 to the report.  Whilst these concerns had been taken into account, it was not considered that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.  In terms of the Parish Council’s concerns, it was recognised that the proposal would not fulfil the requirements of the bungalow development policy; however, it was the view of Officers that the proposal would be reasonable in the context, considering the scale and location of the development and the orientation of the dwellings in the locale.  In addition, permission had been granted on the site for a one and a half storey replacement dwelling and detached garage in 2020 and the property benefitted from permitted development rights, allowing for extension into the roof space without the need for planning permission – these represented realistic fallback positions.  It was therefore considered that the proposed extensions would be acceptable in the context and would not have an adverse impact on residential amenity, as such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

32.4          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that the application had been deferred at the last meeting for a Planning Committee site visit and he hoped Members would have seen how the extensions would provide a more appropriate living space for the family without adversely impacting on neighbouring amenity or the streetscene.  The application had come to the Committee for determination purely on the basis of the objection from the Town Council that the proposal conflicted with Policy 3.3 of the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Development Plan in relation to the retention of bungalows.  As the Committee report explained, planning permission had been granted in 2020 for a replacement dwelling at the site and that scheme was for a new property, similar in scale to the one before Members today, which resulted in the loss of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32a

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side extension, front porch, demolition of existing garage and rebuild and alterations to existing dwelling.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

32.7          This application was for the erection of a two storey side extension, front porch, demolition of existing garage and rebuild and alterations to existing dwelling.

32.8          The Planning Officer advised that the proposal was to extend and alter the existing dwelling by adding a two storey side extension and front porch extension as well as demolishing and rebuilding the existing garage.  The proposal also sought to add skylights to the property.  A Committee determination was required as Woodmancote Parish Council had objected to the scheme on the basis of its concerns around highway safety resulting from the proposal and the possible impact on surface water flooding further down Stockwell Lane in Woodmancote, and potentially elsewhere in the borough.  No representations had been received in relation to the initial scheme or the revised scheme.  The comments received from Woodmancote Parish Council in relation to the revised scheme were set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1 to the report.  Whilst the Parish Council’s concerns had been considered, it was Officers’ view that the revised proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on flooding in the area.  County Highways had been consulted on the scheme and raised no objection to the proposal on the basis that it would have no greater impact on highway safety than the existing situation.  The site was considered large enough to accommodate the proposed extensions and there would not be any resulting adverse impacts on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.  Therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

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

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

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side extension.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

32.10        This application was for the erection of a two storey side extension.

32.11        The Planning Officer advised that the proposal was to add a two storey side extension to the property following the chalet bungalow style of the existing dwelling.  A Committee determination was required as Churchdown Parish Council had objected to the application on the basis that the proposed extension would be out of proportion with the existing dwellings in the area, representing overdevelopment of the site.  One letter of representation had been received, neither objecting to, nor supporting, the application - comments related to the potential impact of the proposal on surface water drainage at times of heavy rainfall.  Whilst the Parish Council’s concerns had been considered, it was the Officers’ view that the proposal, as revised, would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area.  The site was considered large enough to accommodate the extension and there would be no resulting impacts on the residential amenity of the neighbouring dwellings or users of the adjacent footpath.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

32.12        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for the item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member noted that a 2.4 metre acoustic fence would be provided at the boundary and he questioned whether the existing hedgerow, as shown on the plans, would be removed as a result.  He expressed the view that it would be a shame to lose the hedgerow.  In response, the Planning Officer indicated that she assumed the fence was required by the applicant due to the proximity to the main road.  A local Ward Member for the area clarified that the hedge bordered an alleyway which bounded the A40 which she assumed was the reason for the applicant requesting an acoustic fence.  The Development Manager confirmed that the acoustic fence was part of the proposal, it was not a requirement that was being imposed by Officers.  As the local Ward Member had suggested, it was presumably required to safeguard the amenity in terms of the location of the A40.  Whilst it was unclear whether the hedgerow would be removed or retained, there would still be substantial greenery on the bund to the A40. 

32.13        Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey side extension (resubmission).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

32.14        This application was for the erection of a single storey side extension (resubmission).

32.15        The Planning Officer advised that a Committee determination was required as the Parish Council had objected on the grounds that the proposed extension would be overdevelopment and there would be a negative impact on the Green Belt.  Whilst the Parish Council’s concerns had been noted, the ‘studio outbuilding’ as granted under the 2020 certificate of lawfulness application (CLP) would be in the same location as the proposed extension and only marginally smaller.  Therefore, there was a reasonable prospect that the CLP proposal would be implemented if the current application was refused.  Although the proposed extension would be a disproportionate addition of 65% when added to the previous 2019 extension, the realistic fallback position was considered to amount to very special circumstances.  With regard to overdevelopment, this would be a relatively modest single storey side extension and there would still be adequate garden space remaining at the front and rear of the plot.  Overall, the proposal was considered to be of an acceptable size and design and would not be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt, therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

32.16        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that he wished to fully endorse the Officer recommendation.  There was little to add to the Officer report which, along with the plans and the presentation, clearly explained the situation and why planning permission should be granted.  Although a similar application was previously refused, it had been shown that an almost identical structure to that proposed could be built without planning permission.  The Officer presentation demonstrated how an even larger outbuilding could also be constructed in the rear garden under permitted development rights.  In the context of that fallback position, Officers rightly considered that any harm caused by the small extension would be less significant than that which would occur anyway and so the application was acceptable.  That was the correct interpretation of case law and appeal precedent around this subject and provided the very special circumstances which may be needed to approve this proposal.  The extension was sensitively designed to reflect the main house and was a small single storey addition which did not affect neighbouring amenity.  No objections had been received from neighbouring residents and, although the Parish Council had objected on the basis of this being overdevelopment of the plot, the plot was large and could comfortably accommodate this small extension.  The applicant’s agent hoped Members would agree that the application was completely acceptable as proposed and grant planning permission in line with the Officer recommendation.

32.17        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32d

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey rear extension and garage conversion.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

32.18        This application was for the erection of a two storey rear extension and garage conversion.

32.19        The Planning Officer advised that a Committee determination was required as the Parish Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds of overdevelopment and loss of privacy to neighbouring dwellings.  The Parish Council’s concerns had been noted; however, in terms of loss of privacy, the ‘window to window’ distance from the two storey rear extension to the neighbour’s nearest windows at the rear would be about 20 metres so the overlooking was not considered to be harmful.  In terms of overdevelopment, the original front extension had been omitted from the proposal, there had been no previous extensions at the site and there would be adequate garden area free from extensions/additions.  Overall, the proposal was considered to be of a suitable size and design and there would be no harmful impact on the neighbour’s residential amenity.  Therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

32.20        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member noted that the plans included in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, showed an existing soil drain and she asked whether that could still be accessed, should that be necessary once the extension was built.  In response, the Development Manager confirmed that would be a matter for building regulations and was not something which Planning Officers would consider.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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

PROPOSAL: New attached two bedroom dwelling to the side of 15 Swallow Crescent.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

32.21        This application was for a new attached two bedroom dwelling to the side of 15 Swallow Crescent. 

32.22        The Planning Officer advised that the application sought permission for a new dwelling attached to a pair of semi-detached dwellings so that the development would appear as a row of three terraced properties.  The new dwelling in this location would comply with the strategic housing policies in the development plan and, as the Council could not demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, the presumption in favour of sustainable development was engaged in this case.  As mentioned, the proposal would add a dwelling to the existing pair of semi-detached properties, introducing a terraced form into the streetscene and; although the built form was predominantly semi-detached dwellings, there were small sections of terraced properties on Swallow Crescent and in the wider area.  In terms of design, the proposal would be broadly consistent with neighbouring two storey semi-detached properties with a hipped roof design.  No. 15 Swallow Crescent had been granted permission to be clad in red facing brick and the materials of the proposed new dwelling would be in materials to match.  The application had been amended to reduce the size of the property to two bedrooms to comply with national space standards.  There were many other examples of similar terraced properties within the area and, given the mix of building materials and house types in the area, the proposal was considered to respect the streetscene and character of the area.  In terms of overlooking, the adjacent dwellings were semi-detached and it was considered it would not be significantly different from that already experienced.  In respect of parking provision, the existing dwelling would be provided with one on-site parking space and one on the road and the proposed dwelling would benefit from two parking spaces at the front of the property; County Highways considered the parking arrangements to be acceptable subject to conditions.  Therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

32.23        With regard to the five year housing land supply, the Development Manager stated that, as Members were aware, the Council had received the High Court judgement in respect of the challenge to the appeal decision which granted planning permission for up to 50 dwellings at Land off Ashmead Drive, Gotherington.  Whilst the Council did not succeed in getting the appeal decision quashed, the Judge had confirmed that, in most cases, the question of oversupply would need to be considered in assessing housing needs and requirements.  For the reasons set out in the Committee report for this application, and the reports for the other items on the Agenda, it remained Officers’ view that past oversupply should be taken into account when calculating the five year supply and that the published five year supply statement was robust in light of the High Court judgement.  Nevertheless, the Council could not currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32f

PROPOSAL: Change of use of land for the temporary siting of mobile home (farm worker accommodation).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

32.28        This application was for the change of use of land for the temporary siting of a mobile home (farm worker accommodation).  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 17 August 2021 to allow further information to be provided and for the application concerning the proposed calf building to have been determined.

32.29        The Planning Officer advised that planning permission for a calf-rearing building had been granted on 27 September 2021.  Additional information had also been submitted with regard to the need for someone to be on the site for the calf-rearing business and to state that No. 1 and No. 2 Church Cottages were not on modern assured shorthold tenancies which allowed landlords to serve a notice to gain possession; there were extremely limited grounds for possession, therefore, neither property was available for the applicant.  In addition, the applicant had considered housing available in Staverton and maintained there was nothing within easy accessibility of the farm.  The applicant had also put forward personal circumstances for living within close proximity to the farm.  The information had been submitted to the Council’s Agricultural Consultant who considered that, on balance, there was an essential need for a temporary dwelling on the site.  The proposal was located within the Green Belt so was inappropriate development; however, on the basis of the additional information provided, this constituted the very special circumstances required and the essential need for an agricultural worker’s mobile home in this location had been accepted.  Condition 3 stated that the mobile home should be removed and the site restored to agricultural land within five years of occupation and the Planning Officer advised this needed to be changed to three years to ensure compliance with saved local plan policy AGR2.  Therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application, subject to the amendment of condition 3.

32.30        The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  The applicant’s representative began by outlining both his, and his wife’s, background and experience in agriculture.  He understood that the Planning Committee considered many applications and to Members this was just another; however, for himself and his wife there was a lot riding on the decision.  He explained they were a young a enthusiastic farming couple who relished the opportunity to live, work and bring their ideas to Brock Farm.  Setting up a calf-rearing business would enable them to maximise their skill set and continuing to live within sight and sound of the calves would be essential to maintain a high health status.  He went on to give details of his personal circumstances which he felt contributed to the need to reside in close proximity to the farm.  He pointed out that his neighbours and the other residents of Staverton village were fed up with fly-tipping and unwanted visitors and so would benefit from increased security which their presence would undoubtedly bring.  It was their intention to farm in an inclusive manner, inviting the community onto the farm to enjoy the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32g

PROPOSAL: Erection of two single storey dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

32.32        This application was for the erection of two single storey dwellings.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 15 October 2021.

32.33        The Planning Officer explained that the application required a Committee determination as the Parish Council had objected to the proposal, as set out in the Committee report.  The application related to a parcel of land associated with a property known as The Bungalow which was located in a set-back position off Down Hatherley Lane.  The Bungalow was accessed via a private driveway from Down Hatherley Lane, although there was a secondary access off Ash Lane.  The application site was not subject to any formal landscape designation but was located within an area of safeguarded land.  The application had been submitted in full and sought permission for the construction of a pair of semi-detached bungalows; vehicular access to the development would be via the existing access off Ash Lane.  Each property would benefit from at least two off-road parking spaces.  In addition, one of the proposed dwellings would have an integral garage whilst the other would benefit from a detached garage.  The proposed dwellings would be of traditional design with a simple shape and form.  As clarified in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, permission in principle had been granted on the site in May 2020 for the erection of a single dwelling which had established that the location and size of the site was suitable in principle for a single dwelling.  An assessment of the material considerations, including an assessment of the impact of the development upon the safeguarded land, was set out at Pages No. 120-135 of the Committee report.  As stated in the report, Officers considered that, when taking account of the material considerations, including the identified harm which came from the conflict with Policy SD5 of the Joint Core Strategy, the harm would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the overall planning balance.  It was therefore considered that the proposed development would constitute sustainable development in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole.  Page No. 132, Paragraph 7.30 of the Committee report, set out that an update would be provided at the Committee as to whether Severn Trent Water had considered the drainage details shown on the plan to be acceptable; however, a response had not yet been provided, therefore, the Officer recommendation had been changed to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to establishing the wording of a condition in respect of drainage details with Severn Trent Water and adding such a condition, should it be necessary.

32.34        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to establishing the wording of a condition in respect of drainage details with Severn Trent Water and adding such a condition should it be necessary, and he sought a motion from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32h

PROPOSAL: Change of use from granny annex to separate dwelling.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

32.39        This application was for change of use from granny annexe to separate dwelling.

32.40        The Development Manager advised that the application required a Committee determination as the Parish Council had objected on the grounds that this could be a precedent for further dwellings in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Nevertheless, as Members were aware, planning applications should be determined on their merits having regard to the development plan.  In these circumstances, the proposal was supported by the Council’s planning policies, as set out in the Committee report, and no additional harms had been identified.  On that basis, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

32.41        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that the application had been brought to the Committee for determination following an objection from Brockworth Parish Council on the grounds that the development set a precedent for developing additional properties in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  She directed Members to Pages No. 147-150, Paragraphs 7.2-7.17 of the Committee report, which comprehensively set out the planning policy position in relation to the principle of development and any impact it would have on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The report concluded that, given the proposal involved the subdivision of an existing dwelling creating an independent residential unit in a sustainable location, through the conversion of an existing residential annexe with established amenities – privacy, garden land, parking and vehicular access – and without any external alterations, the principle and detailed matters of the proposed development complied with relevant development plan policies.  Furthermore, County Highways raised no objections and the proposal would also make a small contribution towards the five year housing land supply which was currently in deficit.  The applicant’s agent explained that the existing annexe had been occupied since 2009 as ancillary residential accommodation and she went on to refer to the applicant’s personal circumstances.  In light of the findings of the Committee report, which were fully supported by the applicant, the proposal was a sustainable form of development in accordance with relevant development plan policies and should be approved as recommended by Officers.

32.42        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

PROPOSAL: Use of land for the stationing of two shepherd huts for holiday let purposes and provision of associated vehicular parking area.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

32.43        This application was for use of land for the stationing of two shepherd huts for holiday let purposes and provision of an associated vehicular parking area. 

32.44        The Development Manager advised that the application required a Committee determination due to an objection from the Parish Council.  The Parish Council’s main concerns related to the precedent for commercial development of the area and highway safety.  Given the relationship of the site with the settlement, the proposal was in accordance with the Council’s policies in respect of holiday accommodation.  Furhermore, against the backdrop of the village, and given the scale and form of development, there would be no undue impact on the landscape, including the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  In terms of drainage, the Land Drainage Officer had assessed the submitted details and had no objection.  Therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

32.45        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that national and local planning policy was highly supportive of rural tourism, particularly in tourist hotspots such as the Cotswolds.  Policy supported tourism both through the conversion of existing buildings and the provision of well-designed new facilities.  As set out in the Committee report, the Council’s Economic Development and Tourism Strategy also encouraged the provision of visitor accommodation in the borough.  As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and the restrictions on international travel, the desirability of holidaying in the UK – “ staycations” – had rapidly increased and that trend was likely to continue.  As such, now more than ever, there was a need for a broad choice and variety of visitor accommodation, including lower cost facilities.  In particular, there had been a big shift toward glamping and “back to nature” holiday experiences.  With its many tourist attractions, towns and walking routes, the Cotswolds had a high demand for such facilities.  This application proposed the stationing of two shepherd huts for short-stay holiday purposes within the village of Toddington, a designated service village on the basis of its relative sustainability and access to services.  The huts would be stationed on land previously used for the storage of agriculture and equestrian machinery.  The applicant’s agent noted that the Parish Council had raised some concerns, referring to Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty location and the use as a commercial activity; however, as set out by Officers, the Council’s policies were supportive of rural tourism and enterprise and he indicated that agriculture equated to commercial activity.  Officers had recommended a condition tying the use to holiday accommodation only and he confirmed the applicant was more than happy to accept that.  The location of the site within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was not a barrier to development and the government’s policies on minor developments within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty were permissive.  The proposals were low-key and inoffensive and landscape softening would be undertaken in any event.  The huts would be sited close to an existing stable block and well-related to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32j

PROPOSAL: Outline application for the erection of one dwelling with all matters reserved for future consideration except for access.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

32.48        This was an outline application for the erection of one dwelling with all matters reserved for future consideration except for access.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 15 October 2021.

32.49        The Development Manager advised that the application related to a parcel of land on the western side of School Road in Apperley, immediately north of the detached dwelling known as The Newtons.  To the north was an agricultural track and beyond were the rear boundaries of No. 1 and No. 2 Westview.  An amended indicative plan had been received in response to concerns relating to layout; however, he clarified that the plan was illustrative only and was not proposed to be approved as all matters were reserved except for access – the plan was merely to show what could be achieved.  The site had some relevant planning history and he advised that permission in principle for the erection of one dwelling had been refused and the subsequent appeal dismissed for a site to the rear of The Newtons which included part of the application site.  More recently, outline planning permission had been granted for the erection of one dwelling with all matters reserved.  The main concerns submitted by the Parish Council and local residents related to the extension of the site previously approved into part of the site where permission in principle had been refused and use of the agricultural access and its impact on neighbours.  In terms of the larger application site, there was not considered to be significant additional landscape harm arising from the proposal – Members would see the rear boundary line of The Newtons was proposed to continue along the rear of the proposed site before it met the properties in Westview.  County Highways had considered the proposed intensification of the new access and had raised no objections.  The intensification would result in more traffic using the access but, given the agricultural use, it would not, in Officers’ view, cause undue impact on the neighbouring residents.  It was also noted that the Environmental Health Officer raised no objections to the proposal.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

32.50        The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that she was speaking on behalf of the villagers who would be impacted by the proposal, none of whom objected to the building of the property on the site but who did have concerns that two other contentious planning issues had been bundled into this application which, in their opinion, did not allow proper scrutiny and examination.  The two issues were: the widening of the farm track to a six metre road and the incorporation of pastureland into the curtilage of the residential property.  In terms of the track, the Parish Council strongly objected to the width increase due to the close proximity of a school safety zone, bus stops and sub-station, and questioned why a smaller  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32k

To consider current planning and enforcement appeals and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions.

33.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 203-205.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issued.

33.2          A Member noted that the report stated there had been no appeal decisions but she was aware of decisions in relation to appeals at Alderton and Highfield Business Park amongst others.  The Development Manager apologised and indicated that there had been some timing issues in terms of producing the report; however, he provided assurance that those decisions would be included next month.

33.3          It was

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