48.1           Members were reminded that, at its meeting on 17 May 2016, the Council had confirmed the Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committee as a permanent arrangement.  The Chair gave a brief outline of the scheme and the procedure for Planning Committee meetings. 

49.1           Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D T Foyle and P D Surman.  Councillors Mrs R M Hatton and H A E Turbyfield would be acting as substitutes for the meeting. 

50.1           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.

50.2           The following declarations were made:

50.3           It was noted by the Chair that all Members of the Committee would have received correspondence in relation to various applications on the Planning Schedule but they did not need to declare an interest where they had not expressed an opinion.

50.4           There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 2016.

51.1           The Minutes of the meeting held on 25 October 2016, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

52.1           The Development Manager submitted a Schedule comprising planning applications and proposals with recommendations thereon.  Copies of this had been circulated to Members as Appendix A to the Agenda for the meeting.  The objections to, support for, and observations upon the various applications as referred to in Appendix 1 attached to these Minutes were presented to the Committee and duly taken into consideration by Members prior to decisions being made on those applications.

16/00601/FUL – Teddington Hands Service Station, Evesham Road, Teddington

52.2           This application was for the retention of a transport café and temporary showers for truck stop use; retention of temporary containers and structures connected with the haulage business and proposed additional vehicle parking; and retention of fuel and Ad Blue tank.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 18 November 2016.

52.3           The Chair invited the applicant, William Gilder, to address the Committee.  Mr Gilder indicated that he had relocated his business to Teddington in 2013 and, since that time, it had grown substantially increasing from 40 employees to over 140.  The premises needed to expand in order to secure the future of the business.  The growth had already benefited local people and suppliers; currently 35 employees were from within a six mile radius and some of them were mothers with children who were able to fit their work around family life.  He also pointed out that £5.4M had been spent with local suppliers during the previous year.  The community had been enhanced in other ways including the provision of a shop supplying local produce; provision of a café; facilities for driver training to help produce the next batch of Heavy Good Vehicle (HGV) drivers; and through working with Tewkesbury and Winchcombe Schools, encouraging school leavers to take apprenticeships in transport.  This demonstrated that the business was highly sustainable.  The overnight parking facility for outside hauliers had also expanded and over 400 vehicles had been parked during the last month.  The site was safe and secure with decent showers, toilets and restaurant facilities.  Lack of overnight parking was a real problem for hauliers; lay-bys and industrial estates filled up with trucks each night which were then targeted by thieves for their loads and fuel.  He had engaged with three different Landscape Officers within the Council, each of whom had different opinions which had made addressing landscaping issues very challenging; however, he believed that the extensive sympathetic scheme being proposed mitigated any landscape harm and provided a barrier between the site and the surrounding area.  According to the current Landscape Officer, the site could be seen from a public footpath on top of Teddington Hill; from that same footpath it was also possible to see a travellers’ site; Ashchurch Army Camp, Junction 9 of the M5 and the Teddington Hands roundabout which was used by almost 18,000 vehicles per day, 1,400 of which were his company’s HGVs.  It was intended to ensure that the site was sympathetic to the area and blended into the countryside.  As  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52a

To note the following decision of Gloucestershire County Council:

53.1           The following decision of Gloucestershire County Council was NOTED:

To consider the proposed amendments to the Protocol for Councillors and Officers Involved in the Planning Process and to put forward any comments for consideration by the Standards Committee at its meeting on 22 November 2016 prior to the revised Protocol being taken to the Council meeting on 6 December 2016.

54.1           Attention was drawn to the report of the Borough Solicitor, circulated at Pages No.30-113, which set out the outcomes of a review of the Protocol for Councillors and Officers Involved in the Planning Process.  The Planning Committee was asked to consider the proposed amendments to the Protocol and to put forward any comments for consideration by the Standards Committee at its meeting later that afternoon prior to being taken to the Council meeting on 6 December 2016.

54.2           The Borough Solicitor reminded Members that a new Protocol had been adopted by Council in April 2015. This had coincided with the introduction of the Scheme for Public Participation at Planning Committee which the Council had since resolved to continue on a permanent basis.  After being operational for 12 months, the  Protocol had been reviewed by a Joint Working Group of Members from the Planning and Standards Committees and, as well as grammatical and typographical errors, two minor amendments had been identified.  The first related to the practice of allowing Parish Council representatives to attend Site Visits to point out any factual information they felt was necessary.  Unfortunately, this had not tended to be the general experience and there had been occasions when the representatives had attempted to give their views on the application which had resulted in a perception that the process was not open or transparent given that no other statutory consultees were permitted to attend.  It was noted that Parish Councils now had an opportunity to express their views through the Scheme for Public Participation at Planning Committee and, on that basis, the Working Group had considered that Parish Council representatives should no longer be invited to attend Committee Site Visits.  The second amendment related to the Advance Site Visits briefing which was included as a item on the Planning Committee Agenda each month and intended to set out those applications which would be subject to a Committee Site Visit at the appropriate time.  The Borough Solicitor understood that this had not worked particularly well in practice and the document had not been populated for some time.  The Working Group considered it to be unnecessary given the arrangements within the Scheme for Public Participation and the new Protocol and it was recommended that this no longer be included on the Agenda.  The Standards Committee was due to meet later that afternoon to consider the same report and to take on board any comments which Members may have.

54.3           A Member indicated that having Parish Council representatives on site could be useful in terms of local knowledge and, whilst she understood that it was not acceptable for them to express a view, she questioned whether Parish Councils would still be informed when Committee Site Visits were taking place to give them an opportunity to submit any factual information which they felt should be taken into account by Members.  The Borough Solicitor advised that, if the revised Protocol was approved by Council on 6 December, it would be necessary to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54.

55.1           Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 114-119.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department of Communities and Local Government appeal decisions issued in September and October 2016.

55.2           A Member indicated that he was amazed with the decision to allow the proposal for 23 dwellings in Gretton; this would be substantial development for a village of its size.  Furthermore, Gretton had not been identified as a service village in the Joint Core Strategy and he questioned whether a different approach should be taken when developing the Borough Plan i.e. considering all villages and hamlets for development.  The Development Manager indicated that Officers were disappointed with the overall decision as the Council’s case had been well put across but, unfortunately, on this occasion the Inspector had preferred the evidence put forward by the appellant.

55.3           It was

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

To note those applications which have been identified as being subject to a Committee Site Visit on the Friday prior to the Planning Committee meeting at which they will be considered. 

56.1           Attention was drawn to the Advanced Site Visits Briefing, circulated at Page No. 120, which set out those applications that had been identified as ones which would be subject to a Committee Site Visit on the Friday prior to the Planning Committee meeting at which they would be considered.  Members were asked to note the applications contained within the briefing.

56.2           It was

RESOLVED          That the Advanced Site Visits Briefing be NOTED.