Link to homepage

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Tewkesbury Borough Council Offices, Severn Room

Contact: Democratic Services, Tel: (01684) 272021 Fax: (01684) 272040  Email:  democraticservices@tewkesbury.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

56.

Announcements

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.

Minutes:

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

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

57.

Apologies for Absence and Substitutions

To receive apologies for absence and advise of any substitutions. 

Minutes:

57.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R J G Smith, P D Surman and M J Williams.  There were no substitutions for the meeting. 

58.

Declarations of Interest

Pursuant to the adoption by the Council on 26 June 2012 of the Tewkesbury Borough Council Code of Conduct, effective from 1 July 2012, as set out in Minute No. CL.34, Members are invited to declare any interest they may have in the business set out on the Agenda to which the approved Code applies.

Minutes:

58.1           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.

58.2           The following declarations were made:

 Councillor

Application No./Agenda Item

Nature of Interest (where disclosed)

Declared Action in respect of Disclosure

R D East

General declaration.

Had received correspondence in relation to various applications but had not expressed an opinion.

Would speak and vote.

J H Evetts

Agenda Item 5b – 20/00042/FUL – Dixton Manor, Dixton, Gotherington.

Agenda Item 5c – 20/00043/LBC – Dixton Manor, Dixton, Gotherington.

Had attended a meeting with the applicant, who had explained the proposals, but had not expressed an opinion.

Would speak and vote.

J H Evetts

Agenda Item 5d – 19/00722/FUL – Land at Berry Wormington, Stanway Road, Stanton.

Agenda Item 5e – 19/00723/FUL – Land at Berry Wormington, Stanway Road, Stanton.

Agenda Item 5f – 19/00724/FUL – Land at Berry Wormington, Stanway Road, Stanton.

The Officer reports in relation to these applications made considerable reference to the property where he lives.

Would not speak or vote and would leave the room for consideration of these items.

A Hollaway

General declaration.

Had received correspondence in relation to various applications but had not expressed an opinion.

Would speak and vote.

J R Mason

Agenda Item 5b – 20/00042/FUL – Dixton Manor, Dixton, Gotherington.

Agenda Item 5c – 20/00043/LBC – Dixton Manor, Dixton, Gotherington.

Had attended a meeting with the applicant, who had explained the proposals, but had not expressed an opinion.

Would speak and vote.

P W Ockelton

General declaration.

Had received correspondence in relation to various applications but had not expressed an opinion.

Would speak and vote.

58.3          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

59.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 989 KB

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2020.

Minutes:

59.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 February 2020, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

60.

Development Control - Applications to the Borough Council

Decision:

Parish and Reference

Address

Decisions

Item

 

 

Ashchurch Rural

 

 

 

18/01251/FUL

Starveall Farm Pamington Road Pamington Tewkesbury

Permit

a

Click Here To View

 

Alderton

 

 

 

20/00042/FUL

Dixton Manor Dixton Gotherington Cheltenham

Permit

b

Click Here To View

 

Alderton

 

 

 

20/00043/LBC

Dixton Manor Dixton Gotherington Cheltenham

Consent

c

Click Here To View

 

Stanton

 

 

 

19/00722/FUL

Land At Berry Wormington Stanway Road Stanton Broadway

Permit

d

Click Here To View

 

Stanton

 

 

 

19/00723/FUL

Land At Berry Wormington Stanway Road Stanton Broadway

Permit

e

Click Here To View

 

Stanton

 

 

 

19/00724/FUL

Land At Berry Wormington Stanway Road Stanton Broadway

Permit

f

Click Here To View

 

Alderton

 

 

 

19/00781/OUT

Land On The South Side Of Dibden Lane Alderton Tewkesbury

Withdrawn

g

Click Here To View

 

Alderton

 

 

 

19/00772/FUL

Land Parcel 0088 Willow Bank Road Alderton Tewkesbury

Refuse

h

Click Here To View

 

Tewkesbury

 

 

 

19/01205/FUL

53 Wynyards Close Tewkesbury Gloucestershire GL20 5QZ

Permit

i

Click Here To View

 

Staverton

 

 

 

19/01194/FUL

Land East Of Old Gloucester Road Staverton  Gloucestershire GL51 0TG

Permit

j

Click Here To View

 

Bishops Cleeve

 

 

 

19/00758/OUT

Land At Homelands Farm Gotherington Lane Bishops Cleeve Cheltenham

Delegated Permit

k

Click Here To View

 

Minsterworth

 

 

 

20/00081/PIP

Land To The West Of The A48 Minsterworth Village Minsterworth Gloucestershire

Permit

l

Click Here To View

 

Maisemore

 

 

 

19/01083/FUL

1 Severn Close Maisemore Gloucester Gloucestershire

Permit

m

Click Here To View

 

 

Minutes:

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.

60a

18/01251/FUL - Starveall Farm, Pamington Road, Pamington pdf icon PDF 325 KB

PROPOSAL: Hybrid planning application; full planning application for the proposed erection of a new poultry site for up to 360,000 birds with solar panels, biomass boilers and associated buildings and development; outline planning application for one agricultural worker’s dwelling with all matters reserved apart from access.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

60.1          This was a hybrid planning application – a full planning application for the proposed erection of a new poultry site for up to 360,000 birds with solar panels, biomass boilers and associated buildings and development and an outline planning application for one agricultural worker’s dwelling with all matters reserved except for access.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 18 February 2020 in order to allow the appropriate consultation to take place to accord with the Environmental Impact Assessment regulations.

60.2          The Planning Officer advised that the application related to land at Starveall Farm which was located approximately one mile south of Pamington.  There were four existing broiler rearing units on Starveall Farm which had planning permission for up to 200,000 birds.  The current application related to a parcel of land to the south of the existing units and comprised a full application for the erection of six broiler rearing units with capacity for 360,000 birds as well as biomass boiler buildings, 18 feed bins and other ancillary structures; the application also included outline proposals for the erection of one agricultural worker’s dwelling.  The six poultry units would sit parallel to one other and each unit would measure 92 metres by 28 metres with a ridge height of 5.3 metres.  The supporting information with the application set out the need for a poultry enterprise and, although the proposal would not directly employ a large number of people, it would undoubtedly provide economic benefits to the area and the UK economy as a whole.  The National Planning Policy Framework was supportive of development which promoted a strong rural economy and encouraged policies which supported sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, and which promoted the diversification of agricultural enterprises.  There would be harm arising from the development due to landscape impact but this was primarily restricted to nearby viewpoints from the public right of way to the south.  Although the site was visible from other viewpoints, including a public right of way on Oxenton Hill which was located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the development would be viewed in the context of the existing poultry units to the north and the visual impact would be partially mitigated by landscaping and the colour of the proposed buildings.  There was potential for loss of amenity – both existing and future - as a result of on and off site operations primarily related to the emerging Garden Town.  This was a matter which weighed against the proposal; however, it was considered that it could be mitigated to an acceptable impact through the Environmental Permitting Regime and the imposition of planning conditions.  In addition, the Garden Town proposals could only be afforded, at best, very limited weight in the determination of the application.  There would also be some impact on peace, tranquillity and amenity due to proximity but that could also be mitigated to an acceptable degree through the Environmental Permitting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60a

60b

20/00042/FUL - Dixton Manor, Dixton, Gotherington pdf icon PDF 329 KB

PROPOSAL: Proposed demolition of existing stable block and replacement with new stable block and associated outbuildings; felling of six trees following previous consents 17/00048/FUL and 17/00049/LBC. Resubmission of application reference 19/00500/FUL and 19/00501/LBC.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

Additional documents:

Minutes:

60.5          This application was for the proposed demolition of an existing stable block and replacement with a new stable block and associated outbuildings and felling of six trees following previous consents 17/00048/FUL and 17/00049/LBC; resubmission of applications 19/00500/FUL and 19/00501/LBC.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Monday 16 March 2020.

60.6          The Planning Officer advised that this was one of two applications in respect of Dixton Manor and sought permission to demolish a curtilage listed building and replace it with a modern range.  The main matter to be addressed was the impact on the historic environment which, in this instance, comprised two key designated heritage assets – the curtilage stable block which was proposed to be demolished and the Manor itself.  The loss of the curtilage listed stable block would result in substantial harm to that asset, and less than substantial harm to the setting of the Manor, as such, its loss required clear and convincing justification.  The only perceived justification put forward related to the economic benefit to the applicant who suggested it would be more cost effective for them to demolish the stable rather than refurbish it; this had been assessed and was considered to be an inadequate justification for the harm.  The Council’s Conservation Officer and Historic England maintained strong objections to the scheme and it was therefore recommended for refusal.

60.7          The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that he had purchased the Manor five years ago when it had been in a very poor state of repair having already had extensive and inappropriate alterations carried out.  He had been keen to restore the Manor to its former glory in keeping with its history and completion of the courtyard was the next piece of the jigsaw.  The application sought to remove the existing stable block, which had been altered to a point where very little heritage remained and was structurally unsound, as evidenced by the structural survey, so, despite his best intentions, could not be repaired and retained.  The application was also accompanied by a detailed heritage assessment which fully supported the proposal.  The applicant explained that he genuinely loved the house and had put a huge amount of work into its restoration.  He had explored other options but the proposal put forward was the correct solution under the circumstances and he hoped the Committee would take this into consideration in making its decision.

60.8          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted on the basis that the primary point of the listing was in respect of the Manor itself and the proposal was part of bringing it back to its former grandeur rather than detracting from it and was justified in that context.  The proposer of the motion felt that it had been clear from the Planning Committee Site Visit that the existing structure was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60b

60c

20/00043/LBC - Dixton Manor, Dixton, Gotherington pdf icon PDF 324 KB

PROPOSAL: Proposed demolition of existing stable block and replacement with new stable block and associated outbuildings; felling of six trees following previous consents 17/00048/FUL & 17/00049/LBC. Resubmission of application reference 19/00500/FUL and 19/00501/LBC.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse Consent

Additional documents:

Minutes:

60.13        This was a listed building consent application for the proposed demolition of an existing stable block and replacement with a new stable block and associated outbuildings and felling of six trees following previous consents 17/00048/FUL and 17/00049/LBC; resubmission of applications 19/00500/FUL and 19/00501/LBC.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Monday 16 March 2020.

60.14        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to refuse consent and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that consent be granted in accordance with the decision on the previous application and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be GRANTED CONSENT in accordance with the decision in relation to the previous application ref: 20/00042/FUL.

60d

19/00722/FUL - Land at Berry Wormington, Stanway Road, Stanton pdf icon PDF 312 KB

PROPOSAL: New livestock/general purpose store building and formation of new access track and yard.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

60.15        This application was for a new livestock/general purpose store building and formation of a new access track and yard. 

60.16        The Planning Officer advised that the proposal would be served by a new access and track from the B4632 and, in combination with Agenda Items 5e and 5f, would form a new farmstead on a presently undeveloped field parcel.  Whilst agricultural enterprises were broadly supported by the National Planning Policy Framework and local plan policy, the proposal would have landscape and heritage implications given its location within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its proximity to a number of listed buildings. The agricultural need for the building had been demonstrated and the scale and design of the building was considered appropriate for the proposed use.  Although there would be some landscape harm by virtue of the development being within the open countryside, it was considered that the limited harm could be mitigated by conditions relating to landscaping, materials and external lighting.  The setting to Wormington Grange - a Grade II* listed building - would be preserved subject to compliance with the conditions set out in the Officer report.  The Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, set out further information with regards to landscaping, external lighting, pollution control and the apron to the development which had all helped to address concerns, and the Officer recommendation was to grant permission, subject to conditions set out in the Officer report as amended by the late material set out on the Additional Representations Sheet.

60.17        The Vice-Chair in the chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant indicated that he intended to speak to this application and the subsequent applications at Agenda Items 5e and 5f.  He explained that he had built up his livestock business - which included 1,200 breeding ewes, 2,400 lambs, 30 breeding rams and a number of cows and calves – over the last 25 years.  As any farmers would appreciate, machinery and buildings were essential for the continued successful running of a business that was reliant on good animal welfare; buildings allowed secure locations to undertake activities such as lambing and calving and for storage of hay/straw and equipment/machinery.  He had previously rented large barns to undertake such activities; however, in 2018, his lease had not been renewed leaving him without secure premises.  This had been a very anxious time with a real threat of losing the business.  The land at Berry Wormington had become available which had opened up the opportunity for him to continue farming.  Although he rented land in various parts of the borough, this was the only land he owned and its purchase had represented a huge gamble; whilst the proposal was also a big investment, the opportunity to lessen the risk and increase the farm offering was invaluable.  From his experience with a previous application, he had come to appreciate the landscape sensitivities of the site and had worked hard with Officers and external organisations over the past years  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60d

60e

19/00723/FUL - Land at Berry Wormington, Stanway Road, Stanton pdf icon PDF 315 KB

PROPOSAL: New livestock housing/calf rearing building and formation of new access track and yard.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

60.19        This application was for a new livestock housing/calf rearing building and formation of a new access track and yard. 

60.20        The Planning Officer explained that the Officer recommendation was permit rather than refuse as stated at Page No. 96 of the Officer report.  The application was for an agricultural building for the keeping of livestock/calf rearing and associated access drive and the size and design of the building was considered appropriate for the proposed use and, subject to compliance with conditions, would not adversely impact the landscape or heritage assets.  Notwithstanding this, there were concerns that the development may give rise to future demand for a caravan or dwelling at the site to provide supervision of livestock.  The applicant’s attention has been drawn to the observations from the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Board, the Council’s Landscape Adviser and Conservation Officer in that any further development at the site was likely to have adverse landscape and heritage impacts; however, the development as proposed was considered acceptable and the Officer recommendation was to grant planning permission, subject to conditions set out in the Officer report as amended by the late material set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.

60.21        The Vice-Chair in the chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item as the applicant had made a statement under the previous Agenda Item which related to Agenda Items 5d, 5e and 5f.  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.

60f

19/00724/FUL - Land at Berry Wormington, Stanway Road, Stanton pdf icon PDF 311 KB

PROPOSAL: New agricultural workshop/storage building and formation of new access track and yard.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

60.22        This application was for a new agricultural workshop/storage building and formation of a new access track and yard.

60.23        The Planning Officer advised that, since the publication of the Committee papers, the design of the building has been revised to omit 10 roof lights which would reduce light spill from the building and minimise the impact upon the dark skies of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  He confirmed that the building was considered to be appropriate for the proposed use and would have an acceptable impact on landscape and heritage assets, subject to compliance with conditions.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to grant planning permission, subject to conditions set out in the Officer report as amended by the late material set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.

60.24        The Vice-Chair in the chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item as the applicant had made a statement under the previous Agenda Item which related to Agenda Items 5d, 5e and 5f.  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.

60g

19/00781/OUT - Land on the South Side of Dibden Lane, Alderton pdf icon PDF 612 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of up to 41 new residential dwellings, including 20 affordable houses, associated access and landscaping.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

60.25        It was noted that this outline application for the erection of up to 41 new residential dwellings, including 20 affordable houses, associated access and landscaping had been withdrawn.

60h

19/00772/FUL - Land Parcel 0088, Willow Bank Road, Alderton pdf icon PDF 501 KB

PROPOSAL: Residential development of up to 28 units, including means of access and landscaping. 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

Additional documents:

Minutes:

60.26        This application was for residential development up to 28 units, including means of access and landscaping.

60.27        The Planning Officer advised that the site was located outside, but adjacent to, the settlement boundary of Alderton as shown in the Neighbourhood Development Plan and was within a Special Landscape Area with the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty located to the north of Beckford Road.  The site was predominantly within Flood Zone 1, although the southern areas of the site close to the watercourse were within Flood Zones 2 and 3.  The application was made in full for the erection of 28 dwellings, 11 of which would be affordable, and the proposal was for a mixture of one, two, three and four bedroom properties including detached, semi-detached and terraced properties.  Access would be provided directly off Willow Bank Road.  As set out in the Officer report, the proposal was contrary to the development plan; however, as the Council could not currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing, the tilted balance was engaged and there was a presumption in favour of granting permission unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  Officers were of the view that, on balance, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in this case and the application was recommended for refusal for a number of reasons, primarily as the site was contrary to the development plan in respect of its location but also as the proposal would risk the erosion of social cohesion due to the cumulative increase in dwellings within Alderton in a relatively short period of time; it would have a harmful impact on the landscape within the Special Landscape Area; it would not provide an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes that reflected the local housing evidence base; it would fail to ensure that future residents could access sustainable means of transport; and the access was unsafe.  There were also a number of technical reasons for refusal due to lack of a signed Section 106 Agreement which was needed to secure the required affordable housing, education facilities, off-site play facilities, recycling facilities and library facilities.  In terms of ecology, as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet attached at Appendix 1, the proposal was now considered to be acceptable from an ecology perspective and therefore that recommended refusal reason had been removed.

60.28        The Chair invited the representative from Alderton Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative explained that the Parish Council’s reasons for objecting to the proposed development were well summarised in the report from the Planning Officer and the problems with the scheme were numerous.  He pointed out that this matter was being taken seriously by the village with over 100 letters of objection received.  The Parish had a Neighbourhood Development Plan in place and this application was an important test of that Plan which did not provide for this development; furthermore, the site was outside of the settlement boundary and it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60h

60i

19/01205/FUL - 53 Wynyards Close, Tewkesbury pdf icon PDF 229 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of two storey rear extension. 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

60.33        This application was for the erection of a two storey rear extension.

60.34        The Planning Officer explained that the proposal sought the erection of a two storey rear extension which would protrude into the garden by 1.6 metres.  Whilst there was some perceived harm to neighbouring amenity by way of a reduction in morning light to a ground floor window, as highlighted by the Town Council and adjoining neighbour, this was not considered to be sufficient to warrant a refusal, as such, the application was recommended for permission.

60.35        The Chair indicated that a local resident had been due to speak in objection to the application; however, due to the exceptional circumstances associated with the coronavirus and the government advice in relation to that, the representative was not able to attend in person and it had been agreed that, on this occasion, the statement would be read out by the Planning Officer.  The statement set out that the local resident lived in a neighbouring property and felt that the proposed extension would have a detrimental impact on their quality of life.  The Planning Officer had decided that the loss of early morning light and the overshadowing to their property from the proposed extension was not a concern as the late afternoon and evening light would compensate; however, along with the Town Council, he would argue that the house would be further deprived of natural light during all times of the day.  The house was north facing and already suffered from low light within the kitchen/dining area during long winter months so any further overshadowing would have a huge impact.  As No. 53 Wynyards Close was the end house in a terraced row it had the option to extend to the side of the property where there was plenty of space; this would not overlook or encroach on any other property and meant that No. 53 could still be in extended in a way that would not impact on their quality of light and life with only some slight changes to the plans.  Finally, he felt the proposed extension would enclose their already small garden which was 5.5. metres wide – the rear window of their house already faced an apex garage 5.2 metres away – so they could not afford to lose any more valuable natural light from an already dark garden.  Before a final decision was made, he would appreciate a Planning Committee Site Visit to their property and garden.

60.36        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 deferred for a Planning Committee Site visit to assess the impact of the proposal upon neighbouring residential amenity.  The proposer of the motion felt that this was only fair in view of the statement that had been read out on behalf of the local resident.  The Chair felt it should be borne in mind that it was unclear  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60i

60j

19/01194/FUL - Land East of Old Gloucester Road, Staverton pdf icon PDF 437 KB

PROPOSAL: Change of use of land to provide nine travelling showperson’s plots and associated works including hardstanding. 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

60.38        This application was for change of use of land to provide nine travelling showperson’s plots and associated works including hardstanding.

60.39        The Planning Officer explained that this application was identical to an earlier application which was currently the subject of a non-determination appeal scheduled to be held on 16 April 2020 with the Statement of Case due on 24 March 2020.  At the Planning Committee meeting in January 2020, Members had resolved that they would have refused the application had they gone on to determine it; whilst they had been happy that very special circumstances existed to outweigh harm to the Green Belt, concerns had been raised in respect of the proposed site access and the ability to achieve suitable visibility splays.  Essentially, it was unclear whether the visibility splay to the north east could be provided on land entirely within the control of the Highway Authority.  In response to this, further information had been provided by the applicant which sought to provide some clarity on ownership of the land in question.  The Highways Officer had reviewed the additional information and was satisfied that the visibility splays could be provided over land within the control of the Highway Authority or the applicant; on that basis, a planning condition could be imposed to secure the visibility splays.  The additional information had been subject to further consultation, including writing directly to the adjacent landowner, and no further matters had arisen from that.  Given that the very special circumstances case remained the same and the outstanding highway matters had been addressed, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

60.40        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant indicated that he wished to thank Officers for their hard work in bringing the application to the Committee so quickly.

60.41         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.  The proposer of the motion indicated that he was happy to support the proposal on the basis of the very special circumstances that had been put forward which he felt would outweigh any harm to the Green Belt.  With regard to the site access arrangements, a Member pointed out that Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) entered and exited the site on a daily basis but there were no plans showing them turning right and she sought clarification that vehicles could turn both ways.  In response the County Highways representative confirmed that the access was acceptable both in terms of the speed and visibility.  A lot of work had been carried out with the applicant who had been very agreeable to County Highways’ position in terms of securing appropriate conditions.  It was not uncommon for HGVs to want to use A or B roads so the design must be necessary for them to enter and exit the site; that would be possible, albeit at a slower  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60j

60k

19/00758/OUT - Land at Homelands Farm, Gotherington Lane, Bishop's Cleeve pdf icon PDF 543 KB

PROPOSAL: Hybrid planning application seeking full planning permission for 65 residential units (to include affordable housing, public open space, associated highways and drainage infrastructure) and outline planning permission, with all matters reserved except for access, for up to 2,000sqm (GIA) small scale employment use (B1 use class) and associated demolition, parking and open space.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

Additional documents:

Minutes:

60.43        This was a hybrid application – a full planning application for 65 residential units (to include affordable housing, public open space, associated highways and drainage infrastructure) and an outline planning application, with all matters reserved except access, for up to 200sqm (GIA) small scale employment use (B1 class) and associated demolition, parking and open space.  The application was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 18 February 2020 to allow Officers to address the issues raised in respect of education matters.

60.44        The Planning Officer advised that, following the deferral of the application at Planning Committee in February, Officers had held discussions with Gloucestershire County Council and had reviewed the additional information submitted by the applicant’s agent in respect of the outstanding education matter.  In considering this information, the County Council had now withdrawn its objection to the proposal, subject to financial contributions being secured for education – pre-school, primary and secondary – via a Section 106 Agreement.  As set out in the original report, the County Council’s objection on the grounds of there being insufficient primary school spaces to meet the needs of the development formed the main reason for refusal.  As that objection had now been withdrawn, the Officer recommendation had been amended to a delegated permit, subject to the drafting of planning conditions in line with consultee recommendations and as set out on the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, and the resolution and completion of necessary planning obligations.  The applicant had previously confirmed they would be happy to enter into the required Section 106 Agreement for education, although Officers were still in the process of reviewing whether the County’s request met the relevant tests and would be justified in the context of the Community Infrastructure Levy regulations.

60.45        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent explained that the proposal was for a mixed use development of housing and employment with the latter in outline to give maximum flexibility to respond to occupiers’ needs.  He pointed out that the proposal had been developed over the last two and half years to establish what the need in the area might be.  At the last Committee meeting, they had provided a Counsel opinion on the way the issue of education had been dealt with and that information was set out in the Additional Representations Sheet with Paragraph 35 outlining the benefits and possible adverse effects of the scheme and how they weighed in the planning balance.  As Gloucestershire County Council had withdrawn its objection, there were now no technical objections to the proposed development and the applicant had been working with Officers to consider draft conditions and an appropriate Section 106 Agreement.

60.46        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Technical Planning Manger to permit the application, subject to the drafting of planning conditions in line with consultee recommendations and as set out on the Additional Representations Sheet, and the resolution and completion of necessary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60k

60l

20/00081/PIP - Land to the West of the A48, Minsterworth pdf icon PDF 281 KB

PROPOSAL: Residential development for between four to eight dwellings.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

60.50         This application was for residential development of between four and eight dwellings. 

60.51         The Planning Officer advised that the application was for permission in principle for residential development of between four and eight dwellings on land to the west of the A38 in Minsterworth.  The application had been brought to the Committee following an objection from the Parish Council.  Members were reminded that, as with all planning in principle applications, the matters for consideration were limited to location, amount and land use.  The proposal was located outside of the emerging settlement boundary for Minsterworth and conflicted with Joint Core Strategy Policy SD10; however, Officers considered the proposal to be well-located in respect of neighbouring development and that it would not extend westward into the countryside to any greater extent than the adjoining development.  Officers were satisfied that up to eight dwellings could be accommodated on site in a linear form and both the land use and amount of development was therefore accepted.  Taking account of the Council’s five year housing land supply position, it was concluded that the adverse impacts of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and it was recommended that permission in principle be granted.  Members would recall considering permission in principle applications for the neighbouring parcel of land, immediately to the north of the current application site, in August and October 2019; on both occasions permission was refused on the grounds that it would conflict with the development plan and would cause landscape harm.  An appeal had been lodged against the refusal which had subsequently been allowed and an overview of the Inspector’s decision was included in the Current Appeals and Appeal Decisions Update at Agenda Item 6.

60.52         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 indicated that he had huge reservations regarding the application due to the dangerous road but he recognised that was not an appropriate reason to refuse a permission in principle application.  The Chair sought clarification as to whether a full application would need to be submitted if a permission in principle application was granted and whether the proposal could be refused at that point should the access be considered dangerous or unsuitable.  The Technical Planning Manager explained that it was a two part process; permission in principle was somewhere between pre-application advice and an outline planning application and the second stage was a technical details application which looked at the technical issues.  If it could be demonstrated that the development was unsuitable for a variety of reasons – including highway reasons – then it could be refused on that basis at the technical details stage.  If there was no prospect whatsoever that development would be acceptable on the site then permission in principle could be refused but, in terms of the application before Members, permission in principle had already been granted on appeal for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60l

60m

19/01083/FUL - 1 Severn Close, Maisemore pdf icon PDF 233 KB

PROPOSAL: Installation of a new access and dropped kerb.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

60.55        This application was for the installation of a new access and dropped kerb. 

60.56         The Planning Officer advised that the proposal was for a new access and dropped kerb off the main A417 in Maisemore.  A Committee determination was required as the Parish Council had objected on the grounds that there was already adequate access and it may cause congestion on the bend.  The Parish Council’s concerns had been noted; however, the County Highways Officer had raised no objections in terms of highway impact or safety.  The new access was required as delivery vehicles struggled to access Severn Close due to the tight bend on the entrance.  Overall, the proposal was considered to be acceptable from a highway safety perspective and in terms of visual amenity, therefore the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

60.57         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.

61.

Current Appeals and Appeal Decisions Update pdf icon PDF 415 KB

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

Minutes:

61.1           Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 293-299.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government appeal decisions issued.

61.2          A Member noted that 19/00192/FUL Land on the East Side of Broadway Road, Stanway had been dismissed on appeal.  She pointed out that there was a current application for the same site which made some changes to the proposal and she questioned whether this would require a Committee determination based on its sensitivity and the fact that the Committee had dealt with the majority of the application phases.  The Technical Planning Manager noted these comments and undertook to update local Members following the meeting.  In response to a further query in relation to the appeal, assurance was provided that this was being considered from an enforcement point of view and as regards the revised application. 

61.3           A Member asked for an update on the appeal that had been received in respect of 19/00246/FUL Parcel 5762, Land Adjacent Rudgeley House, Cold Pool Lane, Badgeworth and was informed that there was no update as yet but Members would be advised as soon as any information was available.

61.4          It was

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