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.   

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

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

3.1            The Vice-Chair took the chair for the meeting and the evacuation procedure, as noted on the Agenda, was advised to those present.

3.2            A brief outline of the procedure for Planning Committee meetings, including public speaking, was provided.

4.1            Apologies for absence were received from Councillor J K Smith.  Councillor K Berliner would be a substitute 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 19 April and 17 May 2022.

6.1            The Minutes of the meetings held on 19 April and 17 May 2022, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Vice-Chair in 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.

7.2            A Member sought clarification on the position with the Tewkesbury Borough Plan as she noted that, despite it having been adopted on 8 June 2022, the Council still could not currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply.  She understood that a count would be taking place and she asked when that could be expected and why it could not be done now.  The Corporate Director indicated that this question had been raised at the Council meeting when the Tewkesbury Borough Plan had been adopted and she explained that sites had to be deliverable, therefore, it was necessary to update figures relating to planning permissions, lapses and starts and build rates to establish what was likely to come forward.  This would involve discussion with developers and information from other parties rather than simply totting up the number of planning permissions granted.  The Planning and Enforcement Team Leader (South) advised that the Interim Planning Policy Manager had provided a briefing for Members to explain the position, but it was his understanding that the counting team was out now with a view to having a figure by August/September.  

PROPOSAL: Residential development of up to 160 dwellings, associated works, including demolition, infrastructure, open space and landscaping with vehicular access from the A38.  All matters are reserved.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit

7.3             This was an outline application for residential development of up to 160 dwellings, associated works, including demolition, infrastructure, open space and landscaping with vehicular access from the A38.  All matters were reserved.  The Planning Committee had been to visit the application site in relation to duplicate application 21/00976/OUT on Friday 14 January 2022.

7.4             The Planning Officer explained that the application site was located off Brook Lane in Down Hatherley and extended to approximately 7.82 hectares.  The site on which the residential development was proposed comprised 4.89 hectares and fell within the Parish of Down Hatherley. The remaining area, as defined by the red line on the submitted site location plan, comprised land consented and currently part-built known as ‘Land at Twigworth’ and was required for access, service and surface water drainage.  This additional land was located within Down Hatherley Parish, Twigworth Parish and Innsworth Parish.  To the immediate north of the site was Norton Garden Centre and several properties along Brook Lane were located immediately to the west.  To the east were the properties on Ash Lane; an intervening parcel of agricultural land separated the site from some of those properties.  To the south of the site, beyond a parcel of agricultural land comprised the ‘Land at Twigworth’ development.  The application site formed part of the strategic allocation Innsworth and Twigworth in the Joint Core Strategy and was shown to be housing and related infrastructure in the Joint Core Strategy Indicative Site Layout Proposals Map.  This application was made in outline for residential development of up to 160 dwellings and associated works including demolition, infrastructure, open space and landscaping.  All matters were reserved for subsequent approval; however, whilst access was reserved for future consideration, an application for outline planning permission must also indicate the area(s) where access points to the development would be situated.  Based on the plans submitted, it was proposed that access to the site from the public highway would be provided from the new roundabout off the A38.  Although all matters were reserved, the application documents included an illustrative masterplan and parameters plan which indicated how the quantum of development could be delivered.  This application sought permission for the same development proposal and would occupy the same site area as another application which Members would be aware of (Reference: 21/00976/OUT); in essence, the application before the Committee today was a duplicate application.  The applicant had submitted an appeal to the Secretary of State against non-determination of application 21/00976/OUT and, at the Planning Committee meeting on 19 April 2022, Members had resolved that, had the Council been the determining authority, it would have refused the application for three reasons: the proposed development would not adequately provide for education facilities; would not secure a mixed or balanced community or satisfactorily meet the needs of the local area; and, in the absence of a completed planning obligation, there were no arrangements for the direct implementation or financial contribution towards education and library provision, affordable housing, recycling, a Travel  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7a

PROPOSAL: Outline planning permission for the erection of up to 95 dwellings and up to three hectares of commercial space associated with the expansion of Highnam Business Centre as well as associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except for access.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit

7.16          This was an outline application for the erection of 95 dwellings and up to three hectares of commercial space associated with the expansion of Highnam Business Centre as well as associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except for access.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 17 June 2022.

7.17          The Planning Officer advised that the application site related to two parcels of agricultural land to the west of Highnam.  The northern parcel was separated from the southern parcel by the B4215 Newent Road.  The parcel of land to the north was rectangular in shape and comprised part of a large arable field extending to approximately 4.4 hectares.  The land fell gently in a north westerly direction and was bounded to the east by the recently constructed residential development along Lassington Lane and open countryside to the north and west.  The southern boundary was defined by the B4215.  The parcel of land to the south of the B4215 was irregular in shape and occupied the north-west corner of a much larger arable field that extended away to the south-east.  The site extended to approximately 3.06 hectares and, topographically, the land fell in a south westerly direction.  That part of the site was bounded by open countryside to the southern and eastern boundary with Two Mile Lane to the west and the existing Highnam Business Centre to the north-west.  The B4215 Newent Road ran along the northern boundary.  Neither parcel of land was subject to any land designations; however, the parcel of land to the south was crossed by two Public Rights of Way and a further Public Right of Way ran along the northern parcel of land.  There were also several designated heritage assets within a one kilometre radius from the site.  This application was made in outline with all matters reserved for subsequent approval except access; however, the application documented a series of parameter plans which indicated how the quantum of development could be delivered and a Design and Access Statement which set out the rationale for the development.  An Illustrative Masterplan showing the indicative layout for the proposed residential development was also included in the Design and Access Statement.  The proposed development sought to provide up to 95 dwellings on the northern parcel of land and up to three hectares of commercial space (Class E, B2 and B8) as well as associated infrastructure works on the southern parcel of land.  A new vehicular access was proposed to be created from the B4215 to serve the residential development and the existing vehicular access to the Highnam Business Centre would be utilised to serve the proposed commercial development.  The proposed commercial development would be located within an area allocated as an extension to the Highnam Business Centre under Policy EMP2 of the adopted Tewkesbury Borough Plan and within the Highnam Neighbourhood Development Plan; however, the area outlined for development on that parcel of land exceeded the area of land allocated for expansion, although the amount  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7b

PROPOSAL: Residential development comprising up to 50 dwellings (50% affordable housing, 10% self/custom build) and associated engineering works.  All matters are reserved except for vehicular access.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

7.26          This was an outline application for residential development comprising up to 50 dwellings (50% affordable housing, 10% self/custom build) and associated engineering works.  All matters were reserved except for vehicular access.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 17 June 2022.

7.27          It was noted that this application had been WITHDRAWN. 

PROPOSAL: Erection of 144 dwellings, associated landscaping and infrastructure on Parcel 6.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Approve

7.28          This was a reserved matters application for the erection of 144 dwellings, associated landscaping and infrastructure on Parcel 6.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 17 June 2022

7.29          The Planning Officer advised that Members had resolved to approve the reserved matters application for phase 5 of this development at the Committee meeting in April.  The principle of residential development at this site had been established through the grant of outline planning permission and its subsequent allocation for housing in the Joint Core Strategy as part of the wider Innsworth and Twigworth strategic allocation.  The key principles guiding reserved matters applications had also been approved by the Planning Authority and included a Site Wide Masterplan Document and a Site Wide Attenuation and Drainage Strategy.  This application sought approval of reserved matters pursuant to the outline planning permission and the issues to be considered were access, appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and compliance with the approved documents.  As set out in the Committee report, Officers considered that the scale, layout, landscaping and appearance were acceptable, accorded with the Site Wide Masterplan Document aspirations and were of an appropriate design.  It was also considered that the access, internal road layout and car parking provision were acceptable and accorded with the Site Wide Masterplan Document, Policy INF1 of the Joint Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.  In addition, by virtue of the design approach, it was considered that the proposed development would result in acceptable levels of amenity for future residents.  The scheme also accorded with the Section 106 Agreement and subsequent Deed of Variation in terms of the deliverability of 35% affordable housing on site.  In terms of flood risk and drainage, the site-wide flood risk attenuation works engineers operations to create attenuation ponds had been considered and subsequently approved as part of a previous reserved matters application Reference: 18/01284/APP.  The Site Wide Attenuation and Drainage Strategy for this part of the scheme had been prepared in alignment with the detailed surface water drainage strategy approved under condition 26 of the outline permission.  The Lead Local Flood Authority had been consulted in respect of the current scheme and was satisfied with the details.  As such, the proposed drainage arrangements were considered acceptable and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and the Site Wide Attenuation and Drainage Strategy.  Taking all of this into consideration, Officers felt that the proposed development was acceptable in terms of access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping; the scheme advanced would be in accordance with the outline consent and the Site Wide Masterplan Document approved under that consent and was therefore recommended for approval.  The Planning Officer clarified that comments had been received from Severn Trent Water that morning confirming it raised no objection to the proposal.

7.30          The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  The applicant’s representative indicated that the application for consideration today was for 144 new homes within Tewkesbury Borough and represented the next phase  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7d

PROPOSAL: Proposed residential development comprising 100 dwellings (including 50 affordable dwellings), new vehicular access off Delavale Road (following the demolition of 26 Delavale Road), public open space and associated landscaping and engineering works.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

7.33          This application was for proposed residential development comprising 100 dwellings (including 50 affordable dwellings), new vehicular access off Delavale Road (following the demolition of 26 Delavale Road), public open space and associated landscaping and engineering works.

7.34          The Planning Officer advised that the proposal had been amended during the course of the application with the proposed number of dwellings being reduced from 110 to 100.  The application site comprised two parcels of land which extended to 6.9 hectares located to the west of Winchcombe within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The majority of the site was included as an allocation in the recently adopted Tewkesbury Borough Plan and was covered by Policies WIN1 and RES1 which identified approximate capacity for 80 dwellings; however, the application site itself extended slightly beyond the allocation boundaries to the west in the northern field parcel and to the north-west in southern field parcel.  A 0.29 hectare area of built form was located outside of the allocation boundary and a total of circa 1.4 hectare of built form/informal open space was outside the allocation boundary.  The Committee report identified that the proposed development broadly accorded with the site specific criteria in Policy WIN1; however, in this instance, when taking account of the advice of the Council’s Ecological Adviser and the wider ecological benefits which included hedgerows and streams, overall, the ecological impact of the proposal was considered acceptable.  It was therefore considered that the application was in general accordance with Policy WIN1.  With regard to the part of the application outside of the WIN1 boundary, it was located outside of the defined settlement boundary and comprised unallocated land in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which conflicted with Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy and spatial strategy for the development.  Notwithstanding this, in considering the conflict, it was important to have regard to the overall layout and design of the entire application proposals and whether the inclusion of this parcel of land contributed to the development responding positively to, and respecting the character of the site and its surroundings, and whether the inclusion of this land would fail to conserve, and give rise to additional harm to the landscape and scenic beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Officers had carefully considered this and, further to the revisions received by the applicant it was not considered that the inclusion of that land caused any additional harm, it would help create a logical form of development and would utilise an allocated site efficiently.  Officers had also raised concerns with the applicant about the clustering of the affordable housing which was very close together and not dispersed across the development so as to be tenure blind; however, the characteristics of the application site and the fact the design approach was for the larger dwellings to be located further up the hill and more spaced out in order to aid the transition between the urban environment and open countryside was an important consideration.  Officers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7e

PROPOSAL: Approval of reserved matters application for up to 95 dwellings, associated infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space, landscaping and construction of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Approve

7.41          This was an approval of reserved matters application for up to 95 dwellings, associated infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space, landscaping and construction of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses. 

7.42          The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised land at the corner of the A38/A4019 and was included as an allocation for housing in the recently adopted Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Policy RES1 stated that the site had an indicative capacity for 95 dwellings.  Policy COO1 of the Tewkesbury Local Plan, which formed part of Policy RES1, identified that the development of the site presented a place-making opportunity and provided site specific policies to give further detailed guidance on the development of the site to achieve this objective.  Outline planning permission had been allowed on the site at appeal in June 2021 for up to 95 dwellings which established the principle of development and set out a number of parameters including the extent of the built form, building heights and access points which future reserved matters applications must comply with.  Pursuant to the outline permission, the current application sought approval for reserved matters for the erection of 95 dwellings on the whole of the site in respect of layout, scale, appearance, landscaping and access.  Officers had liaised with the applicant and, further to amendments secured during the determination process, as set out in the Committee report, it was considered that the proposal and the design approach reflected and built upon the principle and parameters set out in the approved parameter plans and accorded with Policy COO1 and the development plan as a whole.  In particular, the application was a landscape-led scheme providing 2.4 hectares of open space to the south and east which provided recreational space for use by existing and future residents; had regard to the rural location of the application site and the density, character and use of materials of the dwellings transitioned between the A38 and the open space; provided an active frontage along the A38; addressed the relationship between the petrol filling station and the application site both visually and in terms of residential amenity; and demonstrated a biodiversity net gain of at least 10%.  As set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, County Highways had now advised it had no objection to the application.  The Officer recommendation was therefore to approve, subject to slightly amended conditions which reflected amendments to the plans that had been received further to the preparation of the Committee report.

7.43          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that the land was allocated for development by Policy COO1 of the recently adopted Local Plan and was subject to an outline planning permission for 95 homes that was granted in July 2021.  The reserved matters application before the Committee sought approval of the detailed design of the scheme.  The applicant’s agent pointed out that the location and detailed design of the access from the A38 was approved as part of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7f

PROPOSAL: Proposed side extension over existing garage.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

7.46          This application was for a proposed side extension over the existing garage.

7.47          The Planning Officer advised that a Committee determination was required as the applicant was a Councillor.  The proposal was considered to be of a suitable size and design and would be in-keeping with the area.  There would be no harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit.

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

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

PROPOSAL: Outline planning application for the erection of up to 29 dwellings and associated works with all matters except for access reserved for future consideration.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit

7.49          This was an outline planning application for the erection of up to 29 dwellings and associated works with all matters, except for access reserved for future consideration. 

7.50          The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised an agricultural field set to the south of The Pheasant public house in Toddington and was an allocated site in the adopted Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  The application was submitted in outline with all matters except access reserved for future consideration and the scheme proposed a development of up to 29 dwellings, of which, 12 would be affordable.  An indicative site layout had been submitted which demonstrated how the frontage properties would be accessed directly from the B4632 with a further estate road to serve the remainder of the site.  The eastern part of the site would provide public open space which would extend up to the boundary with the Heritage Railway.  It was considered that the proposal would comply with the requirements of site specific Policy TOD1 and other relevant policies in the plan.  Since publication of the Committee report, the Council’s Ecology Adviser had confirmed the proposals would achieve a biodiversity net gain of just over 10% and they had no objections, subject to conditions to secure ecological enhancements and protections.  Similarly the Lead Local Flood Authority had confirmed that the surface drainage proposals were acceptable.  A further representation from a member of the public had been received which reiterated objections set out in the Committee report.  The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure 40% affordable housing, home to school travel contribution, libraries, on-site public open space and maintenance and waste, recycling and dog waste bins.  It was noted that the education contribution referenced at Page No. 325, Paragraph 8.11 of the Committee report was not required.

7.51           The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent congratulated Members on the adoption of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan which meant that the site was now allocated for residential development, was within the settlement boundary for Toddington and the proposal fully accorded with the new plan which suggested an indicative 25 dwellings – this proposal was for 29 dwellings which would be an effective and sensitive use of the land.  The report set out how the technical aspects of the application would be addressed such as highways, landscape, drainage, ecology, housing mix and affordable housing.  The Committee report identified there was some landscape harm and that was inevitable to an extent, just as it was with 90% of the allocations within the plan also being on greenfield sites.  This site was not in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that, supported by a landscape-led design approach, meant that the benefits of the proposal certainly outweighed any harm.  Whilst it was noted that an objection had been raised by the Parish Council and five representations had been received objecting to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7h

PROPOSAL: Erection of a rear dormer extension and change roof from hip to gable and regularisation of single storey rear extension approved through planning permission reference: 19/00005/FUL.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

7.56          This application was for erection of a rear dormer extension and change roof from hip to gable and regularisation of single storey rear extension approved through planning reference: 19/00005/FUL.

7.57          The Planning Officer advised that the application required a Committee determination due to a Parish Council objection.  The proposal included a roof dormer on the rear roof slope facing to the rear of the application site and hip to gable roof alteration to allow for additional living space.  The changes to the single storey rear extension involved alterations to the height and width of the extension and the installation of an additional sky lantern and bi-fold doors.  As set out in the Committee report, it was considered that the proposed dormer would appear dominant from the rear, increasing the overall bulk and mass of the dwelling; however, as also stated in the report, as the property retained its permitted development rights for roof alterations, a hip to gable roof and rear dormer could be implemented without the need for planning permission, providing the overall volume did not exceed 50m3 – the proposed roof alterations for this application totalled 45m3.  The proposed rear extension was not considered to be unduly harmful to the appearance of the existing dwelling or result in an unacceptable loss of residential amenity to neighbouring dwellings.  Due to the realistic fallback of the potential for a larger roof dormer to be implemented under permitted development, which would result in a greater impact on the appearance of the existing dwelling, it was recommended that the application be permitted, subject to conditions outlined within the report.

7.58          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 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 Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions.

8.1            Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 342-345.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issues.

8.2            Accordingly, it was

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