Agenda, decisions and minutes

54.1          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.

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

55.1          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.

55.2          The following declarations were made:

55.3          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2021.

56.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 19 January 2021, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record.

57.1          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: Hybrid planning application for a new business park development, including: 1. Full permission for the provision of a new site access off the B4063, internal estate roads and associated infrastructure; and 2. Outline permission for a mixed use development comprising of Class B1, B2 and B8 employment use on 5.9 hectares of land.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Minded to Permit.

57.2          This was a hybrid planning application for a new business park development, including 1) full permission for the provision of a new site access off the B4063, internal estate roads and associated infrastructure; and 2) outline permission for a mixed use development comprising of Class B1, B2 and B8 employment use on 5.9 hectares of land.

57.3          The Planning Officer explained that the application site comprised of a 5.9 hectare parcel of land which fell within Gloucestershire airport and currently formed part of the northern side of the airfield. The application site was located predominantly in the Green Belt and within the ‘essential operational area’ of the airport. 3.8 hectares of the application site was proposed to be allocated as a major employment site in the emerging local plan and the Borough Council had sought to work positively with the applicant to explore the inclusion of the remaining western 2.1 hectares of land as a major employment site through the examination process and the local plan inspector would be asked to consider the western parcel of land as part of the examination. The application had been revised during the planning application process and the size of the application site had been reduced from 8.5 hectares to 5.9 hectares further to objections received from existing businesses operating at the airport. The amended application had been submitted as a hybrid application and sought full permission for the provision of a new site access, internal estate roads and associated infrastructure and outline permission with all matters reserved, besides access, for a mixed-use development comprising of employment uses. The design and access statement confirmed that the total gross internal floor area generated through the development would be up to 30,000sqm. Planning permission was being sought ahead of the adoption of the emerging local plan to release an initial £1.885 million of grant funding from the Local Enterprise Partnership for Gloucestershire through the Local Growth Deal 3, which would facilitate the essential infrastructure enabling works necessary to deliver the employment location. A number of objections had also been received to the application raising concerns about potential impacts on existing operators as a result of the development. The applicant had made amendments to the proposal by reducing the site area to alleviate some of those concerns which had resulted in the removal of objections from some tenants. However, objections did remain from some existing tenants at the airport that the proposal would impact on operations. Members were advised that air safety issues were a matter for the airport and it was not the role of the planning authority to regulate those matters, however, Officers considered that the revised site boundary, together with the revised operating procedures for helicopter flying, had alleviated some of those concerns. Further to the completion of the Committee report, a consultation response had been received from the County Highways Authority, advising that it had undertaken a full assessment of the planning application and had no objection subject to conditions and planning  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57a

PROPOSAL: Outline application for residential development for up to 52 units and associated works with all matters reserved for future consideration except for access.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

57.8          This was an outline application for residential development for up to 52 units and associated works with all matters reserved for future consideration except for access.

57.9          In introducing the report, the Development Manager explained that the application site lay to the eastern edge of the village, north of the recently completed development on Fleet Lane. To the west was the rear boundary of properties in Goodiers Lane. Downfield Lane was to the east with open fields beyond, whilst to the north was, again, open agricultural land. The application was made in outline and was supported by an illustrative layout which indicated how up to 52 units could be accommodated on site with a green buffer indicated along the southern and eastern boundaries and the proposed drainage feature in the south west corner would form part of this. The remainder of the boundary up to the “dogleg” did not have a buffer largely because of the long gardens on those particular properties. To the north west of the site the landscape buffer was shown on the illustrative plan as an orchard/allotment area which would be on the highest part of the site. The Development Manager showed a large selection of photographs to the Committee containing a variety of views across the site and its setting in the context of the village and surrounding area including Bredon Hill and other developments in the area. The applicant had also provided a number of “verified views” which in essence superimposed what the houses could look like on the site in response to concerns about the view from Twyning Green and the impact of the development on those views in particular looking out towards Bredon Hill. The Development Manager stated that, whilst the houses could be seen so could Bredon Hill and beyond, and with the proposed landscaping it was his view that there would be minimal impact on Bredon Hill and the wider views. The application site lay outside the development boundary as set out in the Neighbourhood Development Plan which was made in 2017. Consequently, the application was contrary to the development plan policies relating to the provision of housing. However, in line with Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, those policies were considered to be out of date as the Council was unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites at this time. Therefore, the tilted balance applied, and the presumption was that planning permission should be granted unless there were any adverse impacts of doing so which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Those benefits, as set out in the report, would be mainly related to the provision of housing, 40% of which would be affordable units in accordance with the Joint Core Strategy policy. Those benefits should not be underestimated, particularly in the context of the housing land supply shortfall. There would also be economic benefits both during and post construction. Concerns had been raised by the local community in respect  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57b

PROPOSAL: Erection of 3 no. dwelling houses.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

57.20        This application was for the erection of three no. dwelling houses.

57.21        The Planning Officer advised that the application related to part of an extensive garden to the rear of a property known as ‘Brookfield’ on the south side of the A46, which was characterised by commercial and residential development along its length. The proposed development would be set to the rear of existing residential development and to the north of a recently permitted housing scheme. The proposal was for three dwellings comprising of a pair of semi-detached properties and a single detached property. This had been reduced from four units following negotiations with the applicant. The properties would be two and a half storeys and their design would reflect those permitted on the adjacent scheme. In terms of the principle of this development, the proposal would represent infilling in the context of Policy SD10 and was acceptable. The site would be accessed through the recently permitted housing development and would effectively form a continuation of an estate road within that development. Eight off-street parking spaces would be provided as well as three additional garage spaces and the formation of a turning head. The proposed development would be a continuation of the existing residential development and the design and scale of the proposal would be in keeping with that scheme, which would result in an acceptable integration with that development. Concerns had been raised in respect of the relationship with existing properties to the north of the site and the overlooking of gardens, however, the reduction in the number of units had allowed for a more spacious layout, which had improved the relationship with the existing property. The dwellings would be sited at a lower level than the properties fronting onto the A46 due to the fall in levels towards the south. Plot 1 would also be set over 21 metres away from the rear elevations of ‘Brookfield’ and ‘Deerhurst’ meaning there would be no harmful impact in terms of loss of light or any overbearing effect. In terms of overlooking, the development would overlook neighbouring gardens to a degree, however, those gardens were extensive and any overlooking would be to the end of those gardens and so was considered to be acceptable. The proposal would result in the loss of leylandii and some ornamental trees although this would be mitigated by the provision of a new three metre beech or hornbeam screen to the eastern boundary as well as additional tree and shrub planting to the front gardens. Concerns had also been raised about the potential impact on future occupiers given the proximity to the village hall. To address this, a two metre acoustic fence was proposed to the eastern boundary of the site. The Environmental Health Officer had also raised no objections to the proposal on noise grounds. In light of this, the proposal was considered acceptable and was recommended for permit.

57.22        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee. On there being no response,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57c

PROPOSAL: Demolition of 2 no. existing cottages and erection of 2 no. replacement detached dwellings and associated garages. Change of use of agricultural land to associated residential use.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.  

57.24        This was an application for demolition of 2 no. existing cottages and erection of 2 no. replacement detached dwellings and associated garages. With change of use of agricultural land to associated residential use.

57.25        The Planning Officer advised that the application related to Nos. 1 and 2 Notcliffe Cottages which were located along the eastern side of an unnamed road in Deerhurst Walton. The application also related to a small area of land situated to the north of the residential curtilage associated with No.1 Notcliffe Cottages. This land currently formed part of a larger parcel of land that surrounded the application site and, in the absence of any planning history, it was assumed that the land was currently agricultural. The application site was bounded by established trees/hedgerows and was located within the Landscape Protection Zone. There was an existing access and parking area to the north, and an existing public right of way passing through the site. The application was submitted in full and sought the demolition of Nos. 1 and 2 Notcliffe Cottages and the erection of two dwellings with associated works, including access, parking and landscaping. The application also proposed the change of use of a small area of land from agricultural into residential use. This change would facilitate the parking and garage area for Plot 1. The site currently comprised a pair of semi-detached, two storey dwellings which were rendered with a pitched roof. The proposed units would comprise: Plot 1 - a two-storey three bedroom pitched roof dwelling with a recessed single storey to the side, located centrally in the garden of No.1 Notcliffe Cottages; and Plot 2 – a two-storey four bedroom pitched roof dwelling located centrally in the garden of No.2 Notcliffe Cottages. Both dwellings would be served by private external amenity areas and detached garages. In terms of the principle of this development, it was judged that the proposal complied with the Council’s residential conversion polices. As outlined in the Officer’s report, the proposed dwellings would be considerably larger than the existing cottages on site; however, it was recognised that the replacement builds had sought to respond to the site's topography and were of a traditional design which incorporated features that reflected the local character. Furthermore, the proposal was considered to be commensurate to the size of the spacious plots and would not appear out-of-character with neighbouring properties located along this part of Deerhurst Walton. Since the Officer’s report was written, the applicant had submitted a detailed schedule of materials to be used and had requested that proposed condition 3, which currently required materials to be signed off prior to works beyond DCP level, be changed so that works were undertaken in line with the submitted materials list. Officers considered this to be a proactive approach, however, little time had been made available to consider whether the suggested materials were acceptable. With this in mind it was recommended that the grant of planning permission be delegated to the Development Manager subject  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57d

PROPOSAL: Change of use from a dwellinghouse (C3) to a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO) for 10 persons (Sui Generis).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.  

57.29        This was an application for change of use from a dwellinghouse (C3) to a house of multiple occupancy (HMO) for 10 persons (Sui Generis). 

57.30        The Planning Officer explained that the application related to No. 68 Tewkesbury Road which was a large detached two storey red brick property located in Longford. The property occupied a corner plot on the junction of Victoria Road and Tewkesbury Road, with parking to the frontage and access to the rear which was also laid to hardstanding to provide additional parking. The property was currently occupied as a dwellinghouse after a grant of planning permission in 2015 for a change of use from bed and breakfast accommodation (C1) to a dwellinghouse (C3). The application was submitted in full and sought permission for the change of use of dwellinghouse to a house of multiple occupancy which was classified as a Sui Generis use in the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). A house of multiple occupancy was defined in law as a house or flat in which three or more unrelated persons, forming two or more households, shared an amenity such as a bathroom, toilet or cooking facilities. The property would accommodate up to ten people, who were not from a single household, with private bathroom facilities and shared kitchen facilities. No physical changes to the building were proposed. An assessment of the material considerations could be found on Pages No. 119-122 of the Agenda. As set out in the report, Officers considered the proposed change of use would not compromise highway safety and no other harm, in respect to design, visual impact, residential amenity and flooding, had been identified therefore it was recommended for permit.

57.31        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee. He explained that for at least 30 plus years the building had been a house of multiple occupancy as a 10 bedroom guest house and for the most recent five years it had been occupied by eight people - an unusually large family - who had used it as a residential dwelling. The planning application sought to reinstate an established capacity of the building to provide housing for up to 10 people. The objections raised represented unfounded concerns that car parking would be a problem or that local utilities capacity would be overloaded. The building, its utilities, and its immediate surroundings remained unchanged over the last five years, and hence the application simply sought to a return to multiple occupancy usage for which it had been eminently capable for the 25 years prior to that.

57.32        A motion to permit as per the Officer recommendation was proposed and seconded. A Member indicated that he had reservations with regard to car parking and flooding as this site flooded on a regular basis. He sought assurances from Officers in relation to road safety in respect of parking on what was a busy main road, the A38. He maintained that there was not sufficient parking in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57e

PROPOSAL: Installation of non-illuminated shop sign.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Consent.   

57.33        This application was for the installation of a non-illuminated shop sign.

57.34        The Planning Officer advised that the application related to 9 Church Street which was a retail unit within Tewkesbury Town Centre, and the proposal sought listed building consent for a replacement fascia advertisement on the Grade Two listed building. The application was before Members because the applicant was a relative of a Council employee. There were no concerns in terms of the impact to the listed building and no objections had been raised by consultees, as such, the Officer recommendation was to grant listed building consent. The Development Manager referred to Paragraph 4.2 of the Officer report which indicated that the Conservation Officer had raised no objection to the application but in fact that should be amended to indicate that no consultation comments had been received from the Conservation Officer as the applicant was related to that Officer. In addition, at Paragraph 4.3 it was stated that there were no comments from Historic England but they did respond just to indicate that this was not an application that they were interested in providing a comment on. Nevertheless, Officers felt that they had enough information to be able to make a robust judgement on the acceptability of the proposal.

57.35        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item and the Officer recommendation was to grant listed building consent. It was proposed and seconded and upon being put to the vote

                 RESOLVED           That CONSENT be granted for the application in accordance                                    with the Officer recommendation.

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing barn, byre and pig pens and replacement with single dwelling (revised application following withdrawal of 20/00540/FUL / following Approved 18/00568/FUL in terms of siting and design).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.    

57.36        This was an application for demolition of existing barn, byre and pig pens and replacement with single dwelling (revised application following withdrawal of 20/00540/FUL / following Approved 18/00568/FUL in terms of siting and design).

57.37        Prior to her presentation the Planning Officer confirmed that she had received a copy of a letter that had been sent to all Members but that the content did not change her recommendation to refuse this application.

57.38        The Planning Officer advised that the site related to a parcel of land at Oak Farm which was located along Dog Lane, Witcombe. The site was north west of the existing farmhouse on level ground excavated into the hillside, occupied by three agricultural buildings which were in a poor state of repair and would be demolished as part of the proposal. Access was via the existing farm track to Dog Lane. The site was in the open countryside on the steeply sloping west facing Cotswold Escarpment and it lay within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Green Belt. The application was for the demolition of the existing agricultural buildings and the erection of a two storey detached dwelling with carport and workshop building. The proposal included significant engineering operations to stabilize the site. The site had extant permission for a single storey detached dwelling with the retention of the cattle byre building. A two storey dwelling on the site was refused and dismissed at appeal in 2007. The main considerations were the revised siting and design of the dwelling with regard to the Green Belt, landscape setting and Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, design and character of the area, biodiversity and highway safety. The proposed dwelling did not form part of the exceptions to development under Paragraph 145 of the National Planning Policy Framework and was defined as inappropriate and therefore harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances would not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, was clearly outweighed by other considerations. The proposal included engineering operations to stabilize the site through excavation and the erection of a gabion wall to the east. Engineering operations were not considered inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserved the openness of the Green Belt and did not conflict with the purpose of including land within it. The gabion wall would introduce additional built form into the landscape and therefore would impact openness. The engineering operations did not justify the increase in scale of the dwelling and the proposed dwelling would result in a taller and more prominent building at 8.5 metres. The current application included widening the access drive and significant lengths of stone walls and fencing along the boundaries of the site. The introduction of formal hard boundary treatments, the additional width of the access track and increased scale of the dwelling would materially  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57g

PROPOSAL: The erection of 47 dwellings and associated vehicular access, public open space, landscaping and other associated infrastructure.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.    

57.43        This was an application for the erection of 47 dwellings and associated vehicular access, public open space, landscaping and other associated infrastructure.

57.44        The Planning Officer explained that this application related to a parcel of arable farmland, covering approximately 2.3 hectares, which was located along the A46 Shurdington Road. The site bordered Green Lane and an existing residential property to the west, beyond that lay the existing Perrybrook development. The A417 ran along the eastern and northern boundary and the A46 ran along the southern boundary. The site was not subject to any landscape designations although the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was situated on the opposite side of the A46. The application site formed part of the Strategic Allocation A3 ‘North Brockworth’ as allocated in the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy and was shown to be ‘Green Infrastructure and other supporting infrastructure’ in the Indicative Site Layout Proposals Map. An existing outline consent for 1,500 homes and subsequent reserved matters approval for some parcels of land had already been granted planning permission, known as the Perrybrook development. This consent did not cover the application site. The current application was submitted in full and sought permission for 47 dwellings and associated vehicular access, public open space, landscaping and other associated works. The proposed development would deliver a mix of open market and affordable tenures, overall 36% of the dwellings would be ‘affordable’. The dwellings would include a mix of sizes from one bedroom to four bedroom houses. The proposed dwellings would be two storey in height and of traditional proportions but with a contemporary architectural design. A palette of materials was proposed to include red brick, render and timber. A single point vehicular access to the development would be created off the A46 Shurdington Road. A pedestrian access point was proposed along the western boundary to Green Lane and along the south-western boundary through the proposed community orchard, again, this would open out onto Green Lane. The development would include areas of green space and additional landscaping across the site, with an attenuation pond and foul water pumping station to the east. A local area for play, as well as a community orchard was to be provided. An assessment of the principle of the development and other material considerations could be found on Pages No. 166-179 of the Agenda. As set out in the report, Officers considered that, when taking account of all the material considerations and the weight to be attributed to each one, the identified harm which would arise from the poor degree of connectivity with the adjoining development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal which would include supply of housing both market and affordable, the economic benefits that would arise from the proposal and the local highway infrastructure improvements. A number of updates had been reported in the additional representations sheet from which the Planning Officer highlighted the following, Brockworth Parish Council had submitted an electronic  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57h

To consider the contents of the report.  

58.1          The report of the Development Manager, circulated separately, provided a statistical analysis of all decisions taken by the Planning Committee in 2019/20; an analysis of the cases where the Officer recommendations were not accepted; and a summary of the outcomes of the appeals against decisions made by the Planning Committee in 2019/20. Members were asked to consider the contents of the report in accordance with the requirements of the Protocol for Councillors and Officers Involved in the Planning Process.

58.2          The Chair advised the Committee that this report would be considered at the next meeting.

58.3          Accordingly, it was

                 RESOLVED           That the report on the Annual Review of Planning Committee                                     Decision-Making in 2019/20 be DEFERRED for consideration                              at the next meeting of the Committee.

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

59.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No.204-208. Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government appeal decisions issued.

59.2          Accordingly, it was

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