Agenda, decisions and minutes

30.1           The Chair advised that the meeting was being held under the emergency provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and, specifically, The Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.  The meeting was being broadcast live via the internet, it was not being recorded by the Council but, under the usual transparency rules, it may be being recorded by others.

30.2           The Chair outlined the procedure for the meeting, including public speaking.

30.3           The Chair reported that, as Item 5(i) on the Agenda – 18/00173FUL – Land Adjacent to The Swan, Tewkesbury Road, Coombe Hill (Update Report) considered the same matters as Item 5(k) – 18/01239/FUL – Land Adjacent to Hucclecote Road and Golf Club Lane, Brockworth (Update Report) in relation to S106 contributions to the County Council, the Agenda would be reordered so that Item 5(i) would be determined after Item 5(k).

31.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillor A Hollaway. There were no substitutions. 

32.1          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.

32.2          The following declarations were made:

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 September 2020.

33.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 September 2020, copies of which had been circulated were approved as a correct record, subject to the figure in Minute No 28.33 (first sentence, fourth line) being amended from 450mm to 150mm. 

34.1           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: Application for the approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale) pursuant to outline planning permission reference 17/00852/OUT for the erection of up to 74 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Approve.

34.2          This application was for the approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) pursuant to outline planning permission reference 17/00852/OUT for the erection of up to 74 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS). The application had been deferred at the last meeting to allow for further consultation with interested parties; particularly in respect of plot 53 to the south west corner of the site. Prior to the last meeting the applicant had indicated an intention to remove plot 53 following concerns regarding residential amenity. The applicant now wished to retain plot 53 with amendments to address those concerns. Further consultation had been undertaken based on the revised plans now before the Committee.

34.3          The Planning Officer advised that this application followed the outline permission for up to 74 dwellings which was permitted in late 2018, the site formed part of the Innsworth and Twigworth Strategic Allocation and the principle of this development had already been established through the outline permission and therefore this application related solely to the approval of the layout, appearance, scale and landscaping. Access was not reserved for future consideration and had been approved as part of the outline permission. The permitted access was a simple priority junction directly off the A38. This had been incorporated in the layout before the Committee together with access within the site for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians which had not previously been approved. The Highways Officer was satisfied that the proposed arrangements were acceptable from a highway’s perspective. In terms of the layout, condition 5 attached to the outline permission required all applications for the approval of the reserved matters to be generally in accordance with the principles and parameters described in the approved Design and Access Statement and the Illustrative Masterplan; this had therefore determined the detailed design of the scheme to a large degree. As set out in the Officer’s report it was considered that the road layout, block sizes and location of the public open space generally were in accordance with that shown on the Illustrative Masterplan. In terms of appearance and scale, the scheme adopted a more traditional architectural approach. The proposed dwellings varied in size and comprised 1,2,3,4, and 5 bedroom detached, semi-detached and terraced properties. The dwellings were predominantly 2 storey with a number of 2.5 storey units at key focal points. The scheme also incorporated a pair of bungalows fronting onto the public open space. With regard to the Park Homes that had been sited close to the south west boundary of the site, revised plans had been submitted that showed plot 53 moved further to the east. The window-to-window distance between the rear of plot 53 and the façade of the Park Home directly to the rear was now in excess of 20 metres, which was considered acceptable. In addition, the plans showed further screen planting to the rear garden area of plot 53 which would provide a degree of privacy to any future occupants. This  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34a

PROPOSAL: Erection of double and single storey rear extension (retrospective) (Re-submission of application 20/00316/FUL).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

34.10        The application was for the erection of double and single storey rear extension (retrospective) (Re-submission of application 20/00316/FUL).

34.11        The Planning Officer stated that Tump Court was a detached traditional timber framed cottage located in Barrow. The cottage was considered to be a non-designated heritage asset. The site fell within the Green Belt and Landscape Protection Zone. A Member had requested a Committee decision in order to assess the impact on the Green Belt. The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the form of the extensions was contemporary in style with the old and new aspects separated by a glazed link. The juxtaposition of the old and new was dramatic, appeared discordant and overwhelmingly unsympathetic to the historic character of the dwelling. It was considered that the extensions were over-dominant and harmful to the character and appearance of the original cottage. The painted white render created a very stark contrast to the host building and the glazed balcony appeared alien to the character of the thatched cottage. In relation to the Green Belt, it was not considered that the extensions had resulted in disproportionate additions. Overall, it was considered that the extension by virtue of its size, bulk, design and materials failed to respect the character, scale and design of the existing cottage which was a non-designated heritage asset and therefore the application was recommended for refusal.

34.12        The Chair of Boddington Parish Council was invited to address the Committee. He indicated that it was difficult to know where to start as it was the first time the Parish Council had been in this position, however chronologically seemed the obvious route to follow. Boddington Parish Council had originally been advised that the property owners had been told they did not need planning permission for the proposed development and on that basis they had proceeded. Within the last few months, they had been served with an Enforcement Notice and a retrospective planning application was submitted. As part of that process, the Parish Council was contacted and gave its strong support for the application. For some reason that application had been withdrawn and re-submitted but the Parish Council’s strong support had not been carried forward to the re-submission and it appeared that the Parish Council’s strong support for the initial application had been removed. Nevertheless, Boddington Parish Council wished to make it known that it offered the strongest possible support for approval of this planning application. The Chair of the Parish Council confirmed that no-one in the hamlet of Barrow had expressed any objections to the application. He maintained that the reasons for this unanimity was that Tump Court was the last property at the end of a cul-de-sac and there were only three other properties in Barrow Hill Farm Lane. No-one, including the next-door neighbour, unless he was in his garden, could see the development other than the occasional walker who may get a brief glimpse. The next-door neighbour was fully supportive of the application. The redevelopment had been completed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34b

PROPOSAL: Change of use of existing retail unit (use class A1) at ground floor level to residential (use class C3) to form an extension of existing residential unit at upper floor levels.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

34.15        This application was for the change of use of existing retail unit (use class A1) at ground floor level to residential (use class C3) to form an extension of existing residential unit at upper floor levels.

34.16        The Planning Officer advised that No. 2 Hailes Street was located within the Winchcombe Town Centre and the built up area as defined in the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Plan and had most recently comprised a retail unit at ground floor level and a 2-bed residential unit within the upper floors. The property was unlisted but was considered to be a non-designated heritage asset of local importance. The property was also within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), the Winchcombe Conservation Area as well as the Article 4 Direction boundary. It was originally a Town House and aesthetically the building had a bay window frontage as opposed to a commercial shop window and planning permission was granted in 1990 to change the use of the building from residential to retail. Since that time, together with the ground floor of the adjoining property at No. 4 Hailes Street, a clothing retailer had traded from the property, but this had gone out of business in 2018 and the ground floor had since remained vacant. The property at No. 4 Hailes Street had been sold independently from No. 2 Hailes Street reducing the commercial floor space of No. 2 Hailes Street to approximately 46 square metres. Planning permission was granted earlier this year for the change of use of the ground floor shop at No. 4 Hailes Street to residential to form an extension of the existing residential unit above thereby providing a three-storey dwelling. The same change of use was now proposed for No. 2 Hailes Street from retail to residential at ground floor level which would be a reversal of the change of use permitted in 1990. This would form an extension of the existing residential unit at upper floor levels, but the property would remain a 2 bed dwelling; no changes were proposed to the exterior of the building. An objection to the proposal had been made by Winchcombe Town Council. In terms of the proposed loss of the existing retail use, Policy 2.4 of the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Plan was the most recently adopted policy and took precedence over relevant policies within the adopted Local Plan and the emerging Borough Plan. Policy 2.4 of the Neighbourhood Plan stated that development which would result in the loss of any retail or business premises in the designated Town Centre area must demonstrate that the existing use is no longer commercially viable further to an active marketing period of at least 12 months. Additional marketing information had been submitted throughout the consideration of this application as detailed within the Officer report and the applicant’s agent had advised that business rates had been paid on the empty property since February 2018. The Officer’s report also set out the reasons why it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34c

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side extension.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

34.20        This application was for a two storey side extension at The Lodge, Dryhill Farm, Crickley Hill.

34.21        Prior to introducing her report the Planning Officer advised Members of a minor error at Paragraph 7.5 – the National Policy Framework was 2019 and not 2018 and it was the Tewkesbury Local Plan Pre-Submission Version October 2019 not the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan (Preferred Options Consultation) 2011-2031.  In introducing this application, she advised that the site fell within the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The application had been called in by a Member of the Committee in order to enable Members to assess the suitability of the proposal in the Green Belt and AONB. The Planning Officer stated that due to the isolated location, together with the topography and tree cover at the site, it was considered that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the surrounding AONB. In terms of the Green Belt, previous extensions in 2014 resulted in an additional 240sqm (a 236% increase). Paragraphs 7.11 and 7.12 of the Officer’s report set out the very special circumstances that had led to this position. The proposal now before Members would create an additional 91.5sqm which, when combined with previous extensions, would be a 325% increase in floor space. The cumulative increase in size would be disproportionate and would by definition be harmful to the Green Belt; there had been no very special circumstances case submitted. In summary it was considered that the proposal would clearly result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling and therefore represented inappropriate development in the Green Belt. For this reason, the Planning Officer was recommending refusal of the application.

34.22        The Chair invited the Planning Consultant to address the Committee who stated that, unlike the earlier application in relation to Tump Court, the Officer’s only concern here was in connection with the Green Belt. The site itself could not be seen from anywhere; it was accessed by a half a mile long winding private drive from Greenway Lane; it was surrounded by very well established trees and was set against a steeply rising wooded bank. The proposal was for a modest extension to the rear of the dwelling tucked against the rising wooded bank behind and visible only from within the garden immediately to the east of the house; elsewhere within the site the extension was completely screened by the house itself. As the Officer’s report confirmed there was no harm at all to the AONB or the neighbouring amenity; the design was correct for the context and there was no conflict with any other technical matters. The single area of concern related to the alleged “disproportionate” additions over and above the original dwelling and that this was therefore inappropriate in principle regardless of the lack of adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The Planning Consultant stated that in his view the Officer’s report was incorrect in how it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34d

PROPOSAL: Change of use of land from paddock to garden within the residential curtilage of Hillview House, to include a small patio area.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

34.24        This application was for the change of use of land from paddock to garden within the residential curtilage of Hillview House, to include a small patio area. The application was before the Committee because the Parish Council had raised an objection.

34.25        In presenting this application, the Planning Officer explained that the site, which was within the Green Belt, formed a small parcel of land within which the ground levels had been raised and it was located to the rear of the garage adjacent to the existing residential curtilage of Hillview House, Brockworth Road, Churchdown. The proposal was retrospective as works had been undertaken to form a patio area and the application was for the retention of these works. The land formed part of a paddock to the north east of the residential curtilage which had been raised to form the patio area to the rear of the existing garage with views over the wider countryside. The land was not visually prominent and formed a distinct visual separation between garden and paddock due to the difference in ground level. The residential curtilage was in keeping with the character of the residential curtilage of properties within the vicinity of the site. There was no significant encroachment into the surrounding countryside and no adverse environmental or visual impact on the form or character of the settlement; the proposal complied with Policy HOU10 in this regard. The Planning Officer reiterated that the whole of the residential curtilage of Hillview House was within the Green Belt; the engineering operations to raise the land on this part of the site and formation of a patio area were located behind the existing garage and therefore were not visible from the public realm. The residential curtilage was located on a slightly higher ground level than the paddock and therefore the patio and engineering operations would be read more in conjunction with the residential use. To maintain openness of the Green Belt it was recommended that permitted development rights be removed from the application site. The proposal was not considered to be detrimental to the pattern of development in the vicinity of the site, the character of the paddock would be retained and in this regard the proposal accorded with Policy SD6.

34.26        The Chair stated that there were no speakers, and the Officer recommendation was to permit the application. Subsequently, it was proposed and seconded and upon being put to the vote

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

PROPOSAL: Erection of detached storage building.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

34.27        This application was for the erection of a detached storage building.

34.28        The Planning Officer indicated that the proposal was for a detached outbuilding in the rear garden of 12 Ermin Street, Brockworth; the existing garage had been demolished. A Committee determination was required as the Parish Council had objected on the grounds of the size of the proposal and overdevelopment of the site. In respect of the Parish Council’s concerns, the size of the building was not considered to be excessive in relation to the size of the existing rear garden. The building would only be single storey and a similar sized building could be erected under permitted development. A condition would be attached to the permission to ensure the building remained as ancillary to the main dwelling. In summary, the proposal was considered to be of an acceptable size and design and therefore was recommended for permit.

34.29        There were no speakers, and a proposal was put that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation. A further proposal was made that the application be refused on the grounds of size as the building would be bigger than the combined size of the house and previous garage structure. Several Members expressed concern about the future use of the building and clarification was sought on the meaning of “ancillary”. The Planning Officer explained that the “ancillary use” condition ensured the building was used in connection with the residential use of the main dwelling therefore, although it could be used as an additional living area, it could not be used as a business or separate dwelling without a further planning application being made. The Development Manager confirmed that, in terms of size, it was in accordance with storage buildings and he understood this was to be a storage unit for cars as opposed to a garage. A question was asked about access to the unit and it was confirmed that this would be to the side of the dwelling where the original garage had been demolished. It was also clarified that the only reason the unit required planning permission was because the site was proposed to be within 2 metres of the boundary; if it was moved slightly to a distance of more than 2 metres planning consent would not be needed as construction would be in accordance with permitted development rights.

34.30        Upon the initial motion to permit the application being seconded, the Chair indicated that he would take this to the vote first and if it fell he would seek a seconder for the motion to refuse the application and put that to the vote. The motion to permit the application was put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED           That the application be PERMITTED with an additional condition on ancillary use in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

PROPOSAL: Erection of 3 No. detached dwellings and the demolition of a Gymnasium building (Use class D2).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

34.31        This application was for the erection of 3 no. detached dwellings and the demolition of a gymnasium building (use class D2).

34.32        The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised a narrow strip of land located immediately adjacent to the recent housing development at Rectory Close, Ashleworth. The site was presently accessed from Lawn Road via an access track serving a building to the southern part of the site. The application sought permission for three detached dwellings, together with associated parking and landscaping, which would have a back-to-back relationship with Rectory Close. In terms of the principle of this development, the proposal lay outside of the settlement, did not comply with the Council’s housing policies due to its location, however, in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), due to the Council’s current land supply position, these policies were deemed to be out of date and the weight that could be afforded to them reduced. In this situation, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole, which was known as the tilted balance. As the Officer’s report indicated there would be some harms from the conflict with Policy, reliance on private transport for all but basic services, as well as a degree of harm to the local landscape, but this was considered to be localised and limited. While concerns had been raised from adjoining occupiers, it was considered that the proposal would have an acceptable relationship and layout and would not adversely affect the living conditions of these occupiers. In conclusion, the Planning Officer stated that on balance it was considered the harms identified would not outweigh the clear benefits of providing much needed housing in the Borough and therefore the application was recommended for permit subject to the conditions set out in the report.

34.33        The Chair invited a local resident to speak who indicated that there had been 15 detailed written responses from members of the public objecting to this application. The application was not significantly different to one that was refused 3 years ago and was also turned down on appeal. The proposed site was outside the village boundary and therefore represented a further encroachment of building on what was previously open countryside. This site was higher than the road and open and visible on the approach to the village. There would be no room on the site for large delivery vehicles during and after construction; the exit was one of limited visibility onto a road that was only wide enough for one vehicle. The submitted Tewkesbury Borough Plan did not include Ashleworth as a “service village” and the Parish had already had one development completed in the last few months which represented a 17% increase in the size of the village. The resident was of the opinion that to allow more development would be detrimental to community  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34g

PROPOSAL: Change of use of agricultural building to B8 use for storage (retrospective).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.  

34.36        The application was for change of use of agricultural building to B8 use for storage (retrospective). The Chair indicated that the applicant was a Member of the Council and therefore Committee consideration was required.

34.37        The Planning Officer explained that the site related to Kayte Farm which was located along Southam Lane and lay within the Green Belt. There were residential properties 50m to the south of the site and 300m to the east. The proposal was for change of use of an agricultural building to storage which had already commenced. Under the prior approval process this use would be permitted development under Class R of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO), but the prior notification process did not apply to retrospective applications. The building was adjacent to other agricultural buildings in the farmyard; it was of substantial construction and was capable of providing sufficient internal storage with a large internal area which would not result in any external changes to the building. As previously stated, the nearest residential properties were to the South and the proposed use was not known to be a noisy activity and would not have an adverse visual impact. The Highway Authority had no objection to the proposal subject to a condition restricting the use to solely B8 use (storage and distribution). The agricultural business continued at Kayte Farm via a farm tenancy arrangement; some of the buildings had diversified from their original agricultural to the storage of caravans but it was considered that the use of these buildings and the proposal would not prejudice the continued operation of the agricultural business undertaken at the farm. The re-use of buildings was not inappropriate development in the Green Belt provided that openness was preserved, there was no conflict with the purposes of including land within it and the buildings were of permanent and substantial construction. The proposal resulted in no new built form, as the facility was not the main operation base the additional traffic generated would be relatively limited and the change of use of an existing building to storage preserved the openness of the Green Belt. Accordingly, the Officer recommendation was to permit.

34.38        There were no speakers and in proposing that the application be permitted a Member expressed the view that this was a very good use of redundant agricultural buildings especially in this area as the buildings were substantial and it was a shame to leave them unused. The motion to permit was seconded and upon being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED           That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation with an additional condition restricting the use to solely B8 use.

PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of site to provide 1 no. single storey detached dwelling including detached home office, associated access and landscaping following demolition of existing garage building in ancillary residential use (Revision of application 18/00092/FUL).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

34.39        This application was for the redevelopment of a site to provide one no. single storey detached dwelling including detached home office, associated access and landscaping following demolition of existing garage building in ancillary residential use (revision of application 18/00092/FUL).

34.40        The Planning Officer explained that the application related to two single storey outbuildings located close to Brickhouse Farm, which was a Grade II listed farmhouse. The outbuildings were of modern construction and originally formed part of a larger farmstead prior to agricultural operations ceasing in the mid-1990s. The outbuildings had since been used for ancillary purposes in connection with Brickhouse Farm. The wider site was now mainly residential with a number of former agricultural buildings converted to dwellings. The site was located in the Green Belt with a public right of way running to the east connecting with Up Hatherley Way; it was located outside of a recognised settlement boundary and the proposal was therefore contrary to the Council’s housing policies, however the Council could not currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing. The site was also located close to Cheltenham with a wide range of facilities within 2km of the site which was an acceptable cycling distance. There had been various iterations of the proposal during the application process and, although there was a concern that the revisions to the proposal now before the Committee had not been advertised, the Council’s records showed that site notices had been displayed on four occasions and had been advertised in the press on two occasions. The latest revisions as now presented were considered to be acceptable from a design perspective and the Conservation Officer was satisfied that the proposal would not harm the setting of Brickhouse Farm. The proposal would have an acceptable impact in terms of residential amenity and the Highways Officer was satisfied that the access to the site was acceptable subject to a planning condition to secure appropriate visibility splays. In terms of the Green Belt, it was considered that the proposal would represent the redevelopment of previously developed land and would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt, for similar reasons the proposal would also have an acceptable impact on the surrounding landscape. The site was located in Flood Zone 1 and was therefore at low risk of flooding, in addition it was not identified to be at risk from surface water flooding according to the Environment Agency flood maps. In terms of drainage, it was proposed that surface water would be discharged into a detention basin which would be provided to the east of the site on land within the ownership of the applicant. In turn this would discharge at a controlled rate to an existing pond to the north of the site which again was in the ownership of the applicant. Foul discharge was proposed to be via a package treatment plant with treated effluent being pumped to the existing pond. In the light of this the Council’s drainage  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34i

PROPOSAL: Erection of 166 new homes including 40% affordable housing provision, 163 sq meters of flexible commercial/community uses (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1 and D1) public open space and associated infrastructure.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

34.44        This was an update report on the application for the erection of 166 new homes including 40% affordable housing provision, 163sq metres of flexible commercial/community uses (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1 and D1), public open space and associated infrastructure.

34.45        The Development Manager reminded Members that the Planning Committee had resolved to permit this application at its meeting on 18 April 2019, not 2018 as stated in the report, subject to various outstanding matters. As set out in the update report those matters in respect of noise mitigation, specifically in relation to the nearby Invista site, and ecology had been resolved subject to conditions and S106 obligations. In March of this year, the County Council provided an amended consultation response in respect of a S106 request for education and libraries. At the time of Committee in April 2019, the request was limited to a primary education contribution of just less than £0.5million. No request was made in respect of pre-school, secondary education or library contributions. The amended request included pre-school, primary and secondary education as well as a library contribution and the figures totalling close to £2.1 million were included at Paragraph 5.6 of the report. Following receipt of this amended request, the developer provided viability evidence to show that the scheme could not afford that level of request, which the Council has had independently assessed. The outcome of this assessment was that the development could afford £345,000 towards additional S106 contributions over and above the affordable housing agreed in 2019 and, as a result, the developer had submitted a draft unilateral undertaking for that sum which allowed for the contribution to be spent on education/library contributions. The developer’s position was that it would be difficult for them to change the agreed quantum of affordable housing (40%) on site, not least because it was felt there was a moral obligation and it had always been the intention to meet the policy requirements on this development. The developer was of the view that the agreed position delivered both policy compliance and much needed affordable housing together with additional financial contributions for local infrastructure which sought to mitigate impacts of the development. National and local planning policies allowed for viability assessments to be produced where developers were concerned about the viability of a scheme. Where such assessments, when independently tested, showed that there were viability issues and the development could not afford to pay for the whole S106 contributions requested, judgements must be made in respect of individual considerations in the context of the development as a whole. The Development Manager drew attention to the recommendation in the report that, in this case, the 40% affordable housing agreed with the developer be maintained, with a £345,000 contribution to education/library infrastructure together with the other contributions set out in the report. This was partly because whilst Local Education Authorities (LEAs) were advised by government to secure as much money via S106 funding as possible, there were other funding streams that could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34j

PROPOSAL: Residential development comprising 25 no. dwellings, with new vehicular/pedestrian access onto A38, relocation of bus stop, sustainable drainage and Foul Treatment Works and associated landscaping, access and parking.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

34.49        This was an update report on the application for residential development comprising 25 no. dwellings, with new vehicular/pedestrian access parking onto A38, relocation of bus stop, sustainable drainage and foul treatment works and associated landscaping, access and parking.

34.50        The Development Manager indicated that he was presenting this application as the issues were similar to the last application in respect of S106 contributions. He reminded Members that at the June 2019 Planning Committee, it was resolved to delegate permission to the Development Manager subject to a number of matters including the completion of a S106 legal agreement, the drafting of which was well advanced.  Since the previous resolution, the County Council’s S106 Officer had provided further evidence to justify the requested education and library contributions thus meeting the required tests set out in Paragraph 2.1 of the update report but again those contributions had increased. In respect of education the County Council had requested circa £360,000 and a contribution of £4,900 was also requested towards library infrastructure. The applicant had advised that the contributions towards education and libraries made the scheme unviable and had provided evidence in this respect. The scheme had been independently assessed and the Council’s consultant had advised that the development could only sustain the requested library contribution of £4,900 and a reduced education contribution of £70,000 for the scheme to remain viable which was in addition to the 40% affordable housing agreed at the time in accordance with policy; the applicant had accepted these conclusions and had agreed to the contributions. The Development Manager indicated that he would not repeat the information on national and local policy as this would be fresh in Members minds arising from the consideration of the last application. Again this was a matter for Members to determine and, as set out in the update report, the Officer recommendation in respect of this development was that the 40% affordable housing agreed with the developer be maintained, with a £70,000 contribution to education and £4,900 toward library infrastructure. Again, this was for the reasons mentioned earlier in terms of the alternative funding available to the County Council, which was not the case, at this time, for affordable housing. The County Council had updated its response to the application and had objected in the same terms as for the previous application at Whittle Square, in relation to the need for the full requested contributions as there were no other funding streams available. Again, this did not reflect the terms of the government guidance as highlighted by the previous application and also the County Council’s own comments that it may be possible to redivert funding or borrow. Once again, whilst there was sympathy with the position of the County Council, this position did not provide a robust reason to refuse planning permission. There had been no other material changes in circumstances since the previous recommendation and therefore the Officer recommendation was for a delegated permit as set out in the update report with any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34k

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

35.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 169-171. Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government appeal decisions issued.

35.2          It was

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