Agenda, decisions and minutes

42.1          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.

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

43.1          An apology for absence was received from Councillor L A Gerrard. There were no substitutions for the meeting.

43.2          The Chair took the opportunity to remember Anna Hollaway who had been a Member of the Planning Committee but had sadly passed away. He indicated that she and her family were very much in the thoughts of the Committee.

44.1          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.

44.2          The following declarations were made:

44.3          Councillor M J Williams noted that Agenda Item 5e – 1 Down Hatherley Lane, Down Hatherley was in his Ward (Severn Vale South). There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2020.

45.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 November 2020, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record.

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.

46.1          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: Formation of Biofertiliser Lagoon with fenced enclosure and formation of access road with turning area.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

46.2          This application was for the formation of a biofertiliser lagoon with fenced enclosure and formation of access road with turning area.

46.3          The Planning Officer explained that the application, which was submitted in full, sought the installation of a lined and covered biofertiliser storage lagoon, bunds, fencing, associated means of access and landscaping including the removal of existing hedgerows on approximately a 0.8 hectare parcel of agricultural land to the east of the B4079. The lagoon would be used for the storage of biofertiliser produced by anaerobic digestion, including from the applicant’s anaerobic digestion plant in Toddington. The application advised that the lagoon would be used by local agricultural enterprises to meet growing crops needs and during the open spreading season the fertiliser would be transferred to the adjoining land via an umbilical spreading system. The National Planning Policy Framework stated that planning policies and decisions should help create the conditions in which businesses could invest, expand and adapt and significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development. In respect of the rural economy, the National Planning Policy Framework also stated that planning decisions should enable the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses and this lent weight in favour of the economic dimensions of sustainability as defined in the Framework. There would be some harm to the landscape arising from the proposal which was explained in the Committee report and that was a factor that weighed against the proposal in the overall planning balance, but the landscape impact was tempered by the site context, design approach, landscape mitigation and by virtue that the application site was not identified as a ‘valued’ landscape in the development plan. Further to consultation with consultees, and subject to the imposition of suitable conditions, Officers considered there would be an acceptable impact relating to residential amenity, highway safety, flood risk and drainage, ecology and loss of hedgerows/vegetation. It was therefore concluded that the proposed development was generally supported in principle by the National Planning Policy Framework. Whilst there would be some impacts on the area, as identified, it was considered that the benefits of the proposal outweighed the harm and the application was therefore recommended for permission.                   

46.4          The Chair invited a representative of the applicant to address the Committee. He indicated that it was his role, as a senior manager in the business, to assist with the management of the company’s waste treatment sites and national biofertilizer management operations, the latter of which was particularly relevant to the application before the Committee today. The representative thanked all of the relevant departments, regulators and the local community who had both commented and taken an interest in the proposal and expressed his gratitude to everyone including his company who demonstrated an ongoing commitment to local and national sustainability projects like the one before the Committee today. Whilst he acknowledged that the process to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46a

PROPOSAL: Retrospective application for the erection of a cement storage silo.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

46.7          This was a retrospective application for the erection of a cement storage silo at Overton Farm in Maisemore.

46.8          The Planning Officer advised that the application was for the retention of a silo. The silo was a cream coloured vertical steel tank 10.6 metres in height and was located in the utilities depot. The supporting statement had set out that the silo was essential to the applicant’s trenching works to allow storage of cement at the site and to run a volumetric concrete lorry to supply concrete for the trenching works. A Committee decision was required as the Parish Council had objected on the grounds that there was an unacceptable visual intrusion into the landscape. Due to those concerns, a landscape assessment had been requested and submitted on 13 August. The landscape assessment stated that, although sited on a hill, the silo was located within an active established utilities depot and close to large scale agricultural buildings, where agricultural silos of similar scale and appearance were an accepted part of the farming landscape. The Council’s Landscape Officer had been consulted and had concluded that, whilst there were clearly some views of the silo from points in the surrounding countryside, the impact on landscape character was minimal and the visual effect was restricted to glimpsed, filtered or longer distance views and did not significantly detract from the largely rural setting of the site. In terms of residential amenity, the nearest property was Woodcroft Cottage but due to the topography of the site and screening it was not considered that this property would be unduly affected by the application. Environmental Health had been consulted and following a request for further information was satisfied that there would be no undue impact. Overall, it was considered that the benefits the silo would bring to the efficient operation of the utilities depot would outweigh the harm to the landscape in this case and the recommendation was to permit.

46.9          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. She advised that the application was for a small but important item of plant to assist with the operation of the utilities depot at Overton Farm. The applicant had been based at Overton for over a decade and in that time had grown considerably now being a significant employer with over 400 staff members. The company was very conscious, not just of its role as a significant local employer, but also being a good neighbour in the local community and was active in sponsoring and providing assistance to local groups. The applicant took pride in ensuring his site operated to the highest standards and had undertaken extensive landscaping and improved site drainage works around the site. The company continued to grow and develop the business remaining conscious of the need for resilience in what was an essential industry, hence the need for the cement silo. The silo would allow the company greater flexibility in undertaking its streetworks and meant it would be able to use  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46b

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension and retention of front porch.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

46.11        This application was for the erection of a single storey rear extension and retention of front porch.  

46.12        The Planning Officer explained that a Committee determination was required as the Parish Council had objected on the grounds that the porch was out of keeping with the dwelling itself and with neighbouring properties. The Parish Council’s concerns had been noted; however, there were other similar porches along the road and on the housing estate, and a slightly smaller porch would also fall within permitted development. In addition, the applicant could have rendered the dwelling without permission so, overall, the proposal was considered to be of an acceptable size and design with no harm to the existing street scene.

46.13        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item and the Officer recommendation was to permit the application. In proposing the Officer recommendation one of the local Member’s indicated that, whilst the Parish Council had objected, a similar porch had been constructed three doors down from this application site and also, around the corner in Hardy Road, alterations involving the windows being changed and a porch added had been undertaken under permitted development rights. The other local Member for the area seconded the motion and it was

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

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 (approved plan schedule) of application 19/00006/FUL for alterations to elevations and floor plans to allow for provision of a first floor and alterations to fenestration.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.  

46.14        This application was for a variation of condition 2 (approved plan schedule) of application 19/00006/FUL for alterations to elevations and floor plans to allow for provision of a first floor and alterations to fenestration.  

46.15        The Planning Officer explained that the application related to No. 1 Down Hatherley Lane which was located along the southern side of the lane in Down Hatherley. The site comprised a semi-detached two storey dwelling with a pitched roof and was bound by residential properties to the north, east and south. Currently to the west of the site lay agricultural land; however, this formed part of the strategic allocation A1 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 proposal map. Planning permission at the site had been granted at the Planning Committee in April 2019 for the erection of a detached dwelling and associated works – planning reference 19/00006/FUL – and whilst that permission had not been implemented it was still extant. The application proposed changes to the design and scale of the dwelling as approved and had been submitted under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to vary condition 2 of the original permission so as to amend the list of approved drawing numbers. The principal change from the approved scheme was the introduction of first floor accommodation to provide two bedrooms and a bathroom and, to facilitate the first floor accommodation, the ridge height of the eastern gable would increase by 0.9 metres with the depth increasing by 0.5 metres. In addition, two pitched dormer windows were proposed in replacement of two roof lights on the west facing roof slope. The overall length and eaves height of the dwelling would remain as approved. In terms of siting, the dwelling would not be located any closer to the boundaries. An assessment of the material considerations could be found at Pages No. 80-82 of the Officer’s report and, as set out in the report, the principle of the erection of a single dwelling at the site had already been established through the grant of full planning permission. Officers considered the changes to the design and scale of the dwelling as approved were acceptable, and accordingly it was recommended that the planning permission should be granted subject to the suggested conditions set out at Pages No. 83-85 of the Officer’s report.

46.16        The Chair invited an objector to address the Committee. The objector indicated that he was the owner of the neighbouring property most affected by the application. The Parish Council had also objected and the property was on land outside of the Council’s planning strategy; despite all of that the concerns appeared to be overridden in favour of the developer. The objector was of the view that this should be a full application rather than an amendment and it should not have been processed under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46d

PROPOSAL: Proposed erection of a single dwelling, associated parking and landscaping.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated permit.

46.20        This application was for the proposed erection of a single dwelling, associated parking and landscaping.

46.21        The Planning Officer explained that the application related to a parcel of land adjacent to the property known as Springbank which was located along the eastern side of Old Road in Southam. The site comprised of an area of sloping lawn which currently formed the side garden of the host dwelling. The site was bound by residential properties to the north and south and by Cleeve Hill Road to the east beyond the existing fence and hedge. The site was located within the Green Belt and the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The application had been submitted in full and sought permission for the construction of a detached dwelling and associated parking and landscaping. The proposed dwelling would be located centrally on the plot in alignment with the host dwelling. The dwelling would appear two storey in height from the front elevation, though, due to the sloped nature of the site, the accommodation would be arranged over three floors. Planning permission had been granted in April 2020 for the erection of a single storey front extension and the construction of new dormer windows and roof lights to the host dwelling, Springbank. Those works had not yet commenced but the applicant intended to construct the new dwelling and carry out the approved extensions/alterations to Springbank at the same time therefore the new dwelling had been designed so as to reflect and compliment the scale, appearance and character of the host dwelling through the extensions and alterations. An assessment of the material considerations could be found on Pages 94 - 101 of the Officer’s report. As set out in the report, Officers had identified no adverse impact of granting planning permission, therefore, in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the presumption in favour of sustainable development indicated that planning permission be granted. As detailed in the additional representations sheet, since writing the Committee report County Highways had reviewed the revised site layout plan which demonstrated the proposed visibility splays and had confirmed that they had no objections subject to conditions. On this basis the recommendation for delegated permit had been changed to permit with three additional conditions and informative notes as recommended by County Highways. The additional conditions and notes were listed in the additional representations sheet.  

46.22        The Chair invited an objector to address the Committee. He advised that the photographs in the presentation which accompanied the Officer’s report clearly showed the windows of Oaklands overlooking the site and demonstrated the loss of light that his family home would suffer from the proposed new dwelling. The proposal was to cram a new home into one end of the Springbank site, 10 metres from the windows serving Oaklands’ primary living spaces – which was only 5-6 metres from the boundary. The section plan which accompanied the application, showed a flat level section but this was in fact not the case.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46e

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: To confirm the Tree Preservation Order without modification.  

46.25        The Committee was asked to confirm Tree Preservation Order 404 without modification.  

46.26        The Tree Officer explained that the proposal related to an emergency Tree Preservation Order that was served to protect a row of trees between 25 Paynes Pitch and Dunstan Glen. The emergency Tree Preservation Order was served due to the felling of nearly all the mature trees within 25 Paynes Pitch and subsequent concerns that the row of trees in question may also be under threat of being removed. The trees were clearly visible to the public and had high amenity value that contributed to the street scene. A planning application had since been received which showed a proposed entrance going through the row of protected trees and confirmation of the Order would ensure that the trees were a material consideration throughout the planning application process. For these reasons it was recommended that the Tree Preservation Order 404 be confirmed without modification.

46.27        The Chair invited an objector to address the Committee. The objector, who was a Chartered Arboriculturist and a Professional Member of the Arboricultural Association, felt that the decision of whether to confirm the Tree Preservation Order was completely separate from any planning application issues relating to the adjacent land and the key issue at stake was whether each of the trees was really worthy of a Tree Preservation Order. He believed that the trees, in most cases, were not good enough and provided examples that there was an ash tree that had been severely lopped and topped in the past so that it was now misshapen and, in addition, it had been inspected earlier in the year and had shown symptoms of ash-dieback disease which was likely to prove fatal; there was a large leyland cypress tree which was quite clearly outgrowing its available space and was going to get a lot bigger relatively quickly; and there were young self-set sycamore and ash trees which had grown up close to one another and were relatively tall and thin which only had short-term viability. In his professional opinion, there was only one tree that just might merit a Tree Preservation Order and that was a medium sized sycamore that had previously been topped and whose three main limbs were stitched together by an old and taut system of supporting cables. The objector asked that Members be mindful of several considerations: whether a Tree Preservation Order was necessary at all, especially given that the trees were all outside of the curtilage of 25 Paynes Pitch so were not under any immediate threat, and, even though there was a planning application pending determination, the Council could achieve effective tree retention through the normal planning processes either via collaboration or conditions; also, whether it would be reasonable to refuse a future Tree Preservation Order application to fell some of those low quality trees and whether such a decision could be justified to the Planning Inspectorate. He asked Members to either not confirm the Tree Preservation Order or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46f

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

47.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No.109-119. Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government appeal decisions issued.

47.2          A Member reminded the Committee that he had previously asked to be notified of any appeals taking place online and to be provided with a link in order to observe the proceedings. To date this had not happened and he sought assurance that it would happen in the future. The Development Manager apologised that the request to notify Members of when appeals were taking place had not happened in respect of the recent Gotherington appeal. He assured Members that a process would be in place for the Coombe Hill Appeal due to take place on the 19 January 2021. In response to a further question the Development Manager stated that all of the documentation on the Gotherington appeal was available on the planning public access system.

47.3          After consideration of the appeals report, it was

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