Link to homepage

Agenda, decisions and minutes

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

Link: Click here to watch live broadcast

Items
No. Item

60.

Announcements

Minutes:

60.1          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.

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

61.

Apologies for Absence and Substitutions

To receive apologies for absence and advise of any substitutions. 

Minutes:

61.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillors G F Blackwell and M A Gore. Councillors J W Murphy and J K Smith were in attendance as substitutes for the meeting.  

62.

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:

62.1           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.

62.2           The following declarations were made:

Councillor

Application No./Agenda Item

Nature of Interest (where disclosed)

Declared Action in respect of Disclosure

 

R A Bird

Agenda Item 5(a) – 20/00896/FUL – Land to the North East of Hardwick Bank Road, Northway.

Is a member of the Tewkesbury Garden Town Member Reference Panel but has not, either individually or as a member of the Panel, been directly or closely involved in the detail of the planning application neither had the application been discussed at the Panel.

Would speak and vote.

J H Evetts

Agenda Item 5(a) – 20/00896/FUL – Land to the North East of Hardwick Bank Road, Northway.

Is a member of the Tewkesbury Garden Town Member Reference Panel but has not, either individually or as a member of the Panel, been directly or closely involved in the detail of the planning application and neither had the application been discussed at the Panel.

Would speak and vote.

 

Agenda Item 5(g) – 20/00312/FUL – Manor Farm Yard, Stoke Road, Stoke Orchard.

Had been contacted by the applicant but had not expressed any opinion on the application.

Would speak and vote.

L A Gerrard

Agenda Item 5(e) – 20/00955/APP -   18 Westfield Road, Brockworth.

Is a member of Brockworth Parish Council but takes no part in planning matters.

Would speak and vote.

D J Harwood

 

Agenda Item 5(e) – 20/00955/APP -     18 Westfield Road, Brockworth.

Is a member of Brockworth Parish Council but takes no part in planning matters.

Would speak and vote.

 

M L Jordan

Agenda Item 5(c) – 20/01265/FUL -       8 Sandfield Road, Churchdown.

Is a member of Churchdown Parish Council but takes no part in planning matters.

Would speak and vote.

 

E J MacTiernan

Agenda Item 5(a) – 20/00896/FUL – Land to the North East of Hardwick Bank Road, Northway.

Is a member of the Tewkesbury Garden Town Member Reference Panel but has not, either individually or as a member of the Panel, been directly or closely involved in the detail of the planning application neither had the application been discussed at the Panel.

Would speak and vote.

 

 

Is a member of Northway Parish Council but takes no part in planning matters.

Would speak and vote.

J R Mason

Agenda Item 5(a) 20/00896/FUL – Land to the North East of Hardwick Bank Road, Northway.

Is a member of the Tewkesbury Garden Town Member Reference Panel but has not, either individually or as a member of the panel, been directly or closely involved in the detail of the planning application and neither had the application been discussed at the Panel.

Would speak and vote.

 

Agenda Item 5(h) – 20/00612/FUL – Whites Hill Cottage, Old Brockhampton Road, Winchcombe.

Is a member of Winchcombe Town Council but takes no part in planning matters.

Would speak and vote.

J W Murphy                           

Agenda Item  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

63.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 572 KB

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 February 2021.

Minutes:

63.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 16 February 2021, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record.  

64.

Development Control - Applications to the Borough Council pdf icon PDF 449 KB

Decision:

Item number

Planning number

Site address

Officer recommendation

Committee outcome

5a

20/00896/FUL

Land To The North East Of Hardwick Bank Road, Northway, Tewkesbury

Permit

Permit

5b

19/00771/OUT

Land To The South Of Down Hatherley Lane, Down Hatherley Lane, Down Hatherley

Delegated Consent

Delegated Permit

5c

20/01265/FUL

8 Sandfield Road, Churchdown

Permit

Permit

5d

17/01268/FUL

Greenacres, Main Road, Minsterworth

Refuse

Refuse

5e

20/00955/APP

18 Westfield Road, Brockworth

Delegated Approve

Approve  

5f

20/01233/FUL

Beech House, Toddington

Permit

Permit

5g

20/00213/FUL

Manor Farm Yard, Stoke Road, Stoke Orchard

Permit

Permit

5h

20/00612/FUL

Whites Hill Cottage, Old Brockhampton Road, Winchcombe

Permit

Permit

5i

20/01252/FUL

Farringdon, Stockwell Lane, Woodmancote

Permit

Deferred

5j

20/00950/FUL

Yew Tree Farm, Little Shurdington

Permit

Permit

5k

20/01142/CLE

The Coach House, Woodend Farm, Woodend Lane, Shuthonger

Grant Certificate

Grant Certificate

 

Minutes:

64.1          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.

64a

20/00896/FUL - Land To The North East Of Hardwick Bank Road, Northway pdf icon PDF 336 KB

PROPOSAL: Development of a road bridge over the Bristol to Birmingham mainline railway North of Ashchurch, Tewkesbury (Ashchurch Bridge over Rail - ABoR), including temporary haul roads for construction vehicles, site compounds, security fencing, surface water drainage channels and attenuation ponds.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

64.2           This was an application for the development of a road bridge over the Bristol to Birmingham mainline railway north of Ashchurch, Tewkesbury (Ashchurch Bridge over Rail - ABoR), including temporary haul roads for construction vehicles, site compounds, security fencing, surface water drainage channels and attenuation ponds.

64.3           The Development Manager apologised for the formatting of the original report and confirmed that the words in the amended report were exactly the same only the formatting had changed with additional paragraph numbers etc.  He also confirmed that the site fell within two Parishes; Northway and Ashchurch Rural. He explained that the application site extended to approximately 18 hectares and was located to the north and east of Northway, either side of, and over, the Birmingham to Bristol railway line about 1km north of Ashchurch railway station. Other than the railway, the site comprised agricultural land. The proposals included the construction of a bridge over the railway line, embankments, temporary haul roads, temporary construction site compounds, attenuation ponds and drainage channels, and security fencing. The bridge deck would not receive a final running surface and would not be formally connected to the highway network at this stage. Protective security fencing was proposed to secure the bridge structure until such time as it was brought into use and, following completion, the haul roads and compounds would be removed and the land reinstated. The Development Manager showed the Committee detailed plans relating to the location and development proposals including layout and explained these in detail to Members. He indicated that the need for the bridge arose from the Tewkesbury Garden Town which was awarded Garden Town status by the government in March 2019; it was fair to say this was an unusual scenario with the bridge proposal coming in advance of the rest of the Garden Town proposals. The bridge was being progressed as the first phase of the proposals as set out in the Tewkesbury Area Draft Concept Masterplan (TADCM). The government had awarded the Council £8.1million of funding through the Housing Infrastructure Fund to deliver a bridge as part of the Northern Access Link Road shown in the draft Masterplan to unlock the delivery of new housing and it was necessary for the funding to be spent by the end of 2022. The delivery of the Garden Town was one of the priorities and objectives set out in the Council Plan – one of the specific objectives was to deliver the first phase of the ‘bridge project’, in line with the funding requirements. Members were being asked to consider the bridge structure itself and the impacts of the construction of it. Whilst clearly the bridge was intended to serve a particular function in the future, at this stage it was not certain what level of development it would serve, although Phase 1 of the masterplan would deliver over 3,000 homes and 46 hectares of employment land to help meet requirements in the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) in the period to 2031  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64a

64b

19/00771/OUT - Land To The South Of Down Hatherley Lane, Down Hatherley pdf icon PDF 236 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of up to 32 new homes (including affordable housing), access, drainage and other associated works on land to the south of Down Hatherley Lane, Twigworth. All matters are reserved for future consideration except access.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

64.14         This was an application for the erection of up to 32 new homes (including affordable housing), access, drainage and other associated works on land to the south of Down Hatherley Lane, Twigworth. All matters were reserved for future consideration except access.

64.15         The Planning Officer explained that the application related to a parcel of arable land covering approximately 1.17 hectares which was located to the south of Down Hatherley Lane at its junction with the A38.The site was predominantly level and bordered existing residential properties to the east and south-western boundary. Norton Garden Centre, which included a small area of scrubland, bordered the southern boundary. Down Hatherley Lane ran along the northern boundary and the A38 along the western site boundary. The site was not subject to any landscape designations, however, it contained a large, mature oak tree which was subject to a Tree Preservation Order. The application site formed part of the Strategic Allocation A1 ‘Innsworth and Twigworth’ as allocated in the Joint Core Strategy and was shown to be ‘Housing and related infrastructure’ in the Indicative Site Layout Proposal Map.The application was made in outline with all matters reserved for subsequent approval, with the exception of access. The proposed development sought to provide up to 32 dwellings, a vehicular access route off Down Hatherley Lane, green infrastructure including public open space, a Local Area of Play, landscaping and an attenuation basin.The application documents included an illustrative site layout plan which indicated how the quantum of development could be delivered.A single point vehicular access to the site would be accessed by a simple priority created from Down Hatherley Lane. An assessment of the principle of the development and other material considerations could be found on Pages No. 101-112 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 would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the overall planning balance and therefore it was considered the proposed development would constitute sustainable development in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole. The Planning Officer clarified that in relation to Condition 6 on the update sheet which referred to cycle parking this should read “no dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the cycle parking…” rather than “not be occupied”. In addition, the Highways Authority had confirmed that condition 7 on the update sheet was no longer required and therefore should be deleted. Taking account of these minor amendments it was recommended that permission be delegated to the Development Manager, subject to the addition/amendment of planning conditions as appropriate and the completion of an agreement to secure on-site affordable housing and other developer contributions directly related to the development and considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

64.16         The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee. He explained that the proposal was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64b

64c

20/01265/FUL - 8 Sandfield Road, Churchdown pdf icon PDF 101 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side and rear extension and single storey rear extension.             

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

64.19        This was an application for the erection of a two-storey side and rear extension and single storey rear extension.  

64.20        The Planning Officer explained that a Committee decision was required as the Parish Council had objected on the grounds of overdevelopment.The Parish Council's concerns had been noted, however, the proposed two-storey side extension would be set well back from the front building line and it would also have a lower ridge line so it would read as subservient. There would also be an acceptable amount of garden space left free from extensions / additions. It should also be noted that this property had not been previously extended. There were also other similar sized two-storey side extensions along this road, for example, at no’s 22 and 26 Sandfield Road. Overall, the proposal was considered to be of a suitable size and design and would be in-keeping with the existing street scene so, as per the Officer’s report, the recommendation was to permit.

64.21        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers and following a proposal to permit the application which was seconded, it was

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

64d

17/01268/FUL - Greenacres, Main Road, Minsterworth pdf icon PDF 97 KB

PROPOSAL: Removal of existing barn and stables, change of use from ancillary equestrian to residential use and erection of 7 new dwellings.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

64.22         This was an application for the removal of existing barn and stables, change of use from ancillary equestrian to residential use and erection of seven new dwellings.

64.23         The Planning Officer indicated that before starting her presentation it was necessary to amend the description of the application to take out the wording “the removal of existing barn and stables” as this was no longer included as part of the application which was now for change of use from ancillary equestrian to residential use and erection of seven new dwellings.

64.24         The Planning Officer explained that the application related to a parcel of land to the west of Greenacres which was located along the southern side of the A48 in Minsterworth. The site comprised a paddock and a manege which was used in association with a private equestrian use for the occupiers of Greenacres.  A stable, barn and yard lay immediately to the south-east corner of the site although that did not form part of the application site. The land immediately to the south was in the same ownership of the applicant. Beyond that lay a row of terraced properties and greenhouses. Residential properties bordered the east of the site and the former Apple Tree Inn could be found to the west on the opposite side of Watery Lane. To the north of the site was the A48.This application was submitted in full and sought permission for the construction of seven dwellings. The proposed layout would comprise a linear form of properties fronting the A48. The new dwellings were designed as one and a half storey cottage style properties utilising a traditional palette of materials.A new access was proposed onto Watery Lane and a shared internal road would run along the width of the site with a turning head provided at the end point. This application had first appeared at Planning Committee on 20 November 2018 and, at that meeting, the Committee was advised that Gloucestershire County Council, as Local Highways Authority, considered the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the impacts of the development could be effectively mitigated and the development would therefore have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The concerns were based on the visibility issues at the Watery Lane/A48 junction. Given that situation, the Planning Committee had resolved “that authority be delegated to the (then) Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to completion of a legal agreement to secure on-site affordable housing and suitable information being received from the applicant to overcome the concerns raised by County Highways.” Since that Committee, additional information had been submitted and reviewed by the Local Highways Authority and it had maintained the concerns expressed at the previous Committee.In light of the continued objection from the Local Highway Authority, as set out in the update report, Officers considered the harm to highway safety would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the overall planning balance and therefore it was recommended that the application should be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64d

64e

20/00955/APP - 18 Westfield Road, Brockworth pdf icon PDF 116 KB

PROPOSAL: Proposed 4 no. dwellings and associated amenity space, vehicle access and parking. 19/00678/OUT.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Approval.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

64.28        This was an application for proposed four no. dwellings and associated amenity space, vehicle access and parking. 19/00678/OUT.

64.29        The Planning Officer advised that, in accordance with information contained within the additional representations sheet, the recommendation had now been revised to approve following the submission of further plans regarding site layout which the Local Highways Authority had been consulted on and had raised no objection.  She explained that the site was part of the rear gardens of 16 and 18 Westfield Road. Outline planning permission for a residential development for four dwellings had been granted on 17 December 2019 and access and scale was approved as part of the outline permission with layout, appearance and landscaping reserved. Details to be submitted and considered as part of the reserved matters included ground and finished floor levels, external facing materials, boundary treatments, hard surfaces, parking, turning facilities and maintenance and surface water drainage. The ridge height had been set at outline stage to not exceed seven metres. The dwellings had limited front amenity space and the area provided parking, turning and bin storage. The rear amenity space was considered sufficient for each dwelling and was comparable with other residential development in the vicinity. The design would be for hipped roofed dwellings with projecting front and rear gables and the materials had been amended to be more in keeping with the character of the existing dwellings and the wider area. The room sizes complied with national space standards. The dwellings were set back 10 metres from the rear boundary. Given the design of the dwellings, ground levels on the site and distance to the nearest bungalow the relationship would not be considered to have an unacceptable overbearing or light impact. Obscure glazing would be provided to non-habitable rooms at ground and first floor side windows of plots 1 and 2 and covered by condition. The impact on neighbour amenity had been carefully assessed and it was considered there would not be an undue impact upon their amenity. The proposed landscaping and boundary treatments were considered appropriate and a revised site plan with landscaping was submitted on 12 March 2021 which was considered acceptable to the Local Highways Authority. A Drainage and Maintenance Strategy was submitted with the application and no objection was raised by the Council’s Land Drainage Advisor.

64.30        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. He advised that this was a reserved matters application following the grant of outline planning permission for proposed four dwellings on this site in 2019. That application considered the principle of development, number of dwellings, their overall scale and access matters. Those aspects were deemed acceptable by Members and permission was granted. The current application simply considered external appearance, drainage, landscaping and layout. Whilst the Parish Council’s comments in respect of overdevelopment and overbearing building heights were acknowledged, those matters had been considered thoroughly by Members previously and the quantum and scale of development was considered acceptable. The principle and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64e

64f

20/01233/FUL - Beech House, Toddington pdf icon PDF 176 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of 2 No. carports in association with approved application 19/00595/APP (erection of 2 No. dwellings and associated access).

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

64.33        This was an application for the erection of 2 No. carports in association with approved application 19/00595/APP (erection of 2 No. dwellings and associated access).

64.34        The Planning Officer explained that the application site was located on the southern side of the highway to the east of the roundabout junction within Toddington, and was located within the Special Landscape Area. Land on the northern side of the highway was located within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Outline planning permission was granted in 2018 for the erection of two dwellings in this location and the reserved matters were later approved in March 2020, as shown on the approved Site Plan. The approved plans included an area of hardstanding towards the front of the site, for vehicular parking and turning. The current application related to the northern part of the outline and reserved matters sites only, adjacent to the public highway, and proposed the construction of two car ports in association with the two approved dwellings. The application included the submission of section drawings which showed that the land levels within the application site, at the location where the proposed car ports would be constructed, were some 1.4 to 1.7 metres lower than the adjacent public highway. Each proposed car port would be oak framed, and designed with a sedum flat roof measuring 2.2 metres in height. The application was presented to the Planning Committee as Toddington Parish Council had objected to the application on the grounds that the proposed car ports would be forward of the properties and would not be in keeping with other properties in the vicinity. There was an existing detached double garage to the front of the adjacent dwelling to the east and the proposed car ports would in part be constructed in line with this, although would project further northwards to be in closer proximity to the adjacent highway, as shown on the proposed site plan. The parking area within the application site was set down below the main road and was partly screened by trees and hedge planting as well as a dry stone wall along the front boundary. It was considered that the open nature of the proposed car ports, along with the topography of the site and screening from planting, and in the context of the existing detached garage on the adjacent site to the east, would mean that the proposed development would not appear overly prominent within the street scene, and that the visual amenity of the Special Landscape Area and the setting of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty would be protected. The Urban Design Officer considered that the proposed materials would be of a good quality and in keeping with the new dwellings and that the green sedum roof would be a positive addition that would assist the structure in blending in with its surroundings, especially from the road. In addition, the Tree Officer raised no objection subject to conditions to safeguard trees during the construction  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64f

64g

20/00213/FUL - Manor Farm Yard, Stoke Road, Stoke Orchard pdf icon PDF 281 KB

PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of the site including demolition of existing buildings and erection of 3 No. (B1 and B8) units and associated works.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

64.37         This was an application for the redevelopment of the site including demolition of existing buildings and erection of 3 No. (B1 and B8) units and associated works.

64.38         The Planning Officer explained that the application site was located to the west of Stoke Orchard, and was accessed via a single point of access on Stoke Road.  The site formed part of the former farmyard of Manor Farm, which was a Grade II Listed building located to the rear. The application confirmed that the listed farmhouse was in separate ownership. The application site was located outside of the Green Belt and was not subject to any landscape designations. The application confirmed that the site currently comprised a number of outbuildings of varying states of condition and quality.  The Conservation Officer confirmed that none of the existing buildings dated back further than the 1940s and held no substantive historic merit, and the proposed removal of the buildings was considered to be acceptable. The applicant‘s agent had confirmed in writing that their client had owned the site for over 20 years and advised that Google Earth imagery demonstrated that it had been used continuously for a mix of light industrial, storage and car repair type uses (B1 and B8) over that time.The Council had no evidence to counter this claim and, on the balance of probability, it was considered that the site had been used continuously for these purposes for over ten years. The application sought planning permission for the demolition of all existing buildings and the redevelopment of the site for employment purposes through the erection of three new units in use classes B1 (office and light industry) and B8 (storage and distribution). The proposal would result in a net loss of 379 square metres of floor space but with an additional five employees. Unit 1 would be constructed adjacent to the front site boundary, to the north of the vehicular access. Units 2 and 3 would be attached to one another and would be constructed adjacent to the rear boundary in a u-shaped arrangement, providing a courtyard style of development and a reconfigured parking and manoeuvring area. The existing vehicular access via Stoke Road would be retained. Further to the receipt of consultee comments from the Conservation Officer, raising concerns regarding the originally proposed walling materials of the proposed buildings - new brick and profiled metal cladding - revised elevations were submitted, alternatively proposing extensive cladding of the proposed buildings with horizontal timber weatherboarding and a Northcott brick. The roofs would be covered in dark green sheet cladding. The Conservation Officer had raised no objection to the revised proposals subject to conditions requiring a sample or details of these walling and roofing materials to be agreed prior to their installation. The site comprised previously developed land and was physically well related to existing adjacent built development immediately to the north and west, as well as the vehicular access leading to Manor Farm to the south of the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64g

64h

20/00612/FUL - Whites Hill Cottage, Old Brockhampton Road, Winchcombe pdf icon PDF 135 KB

PROPOSAL: Proposed contemporary replacement dwelling and refurbishment of existing pump house building for use as ancillary accommodation (alternative scheme to lawfully implemented development granted under TBC refs: 10/01284/FUL & 14/00192/CLE).

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

64.43        The application was for a proposed contemporary replacement dwelling and refurbishment of existing pump house building for use as ancillary accommodation (alternative scheme to lawfully implemented development granted under TBC refs: 10/01284/FUL & 14/00192/CLE).

64.44        The Planning Officer explained that the application sought planning permission for a replacement dwelling. The site lay to the south east of Winchcombe, in open countryside and within with the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and presently comprised the remains of a cottage with associated structures. The site benefited from planning permission for a replacement dwelling with a traditional ‘cottage’ style appearance. The current application sought permission for a dwelling with a contemporary appearance which would be set behind the existing ruins which would be retained. While the application site lay outside of the built-up area to Winchcombe, saved Local Plan Policy HOU7 allowed for the construction of new replacement dwellings subject to a number of requirements set out in the Committee report and this supporting principle was also taken forward in Policy RES9 of the emerging Submission Version Plan. On this basis, and as set out in the report, the principle of the development was considered acceptable. While the proposed dwelling would be larger than that previously approved it was nevertheless considered that the proposal would have an acceptable design and layout which would respond to the rural setting and would conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Since the report was written, details of a replacement bat roost had been received and this had been deemed acceptable by the Council’s Ecology Adviser. Similarly, the Council’s Tree Officer and County Archaeologist had raised no objections to the proposal. The development was considered to be acceptable, and the recommendation was to permit subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report and additional conditions set out in the late representations sheet.

64.45        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. He advised that the application site related to the ruins of what was once a large and vibrant detached cottage that formed part of the Sudeley estate on the edge of Winchcombe. The site benefited from an extant planning permission to reinstate a dwelling on a similar footprint and design, which established the principle of a replacement dwelling. However, the applicant was taking the opportunity to develop an alternative contemporary replacement dwelling on the site, which incorporated the existing ruin in acknowledgement of the site’s history. It was believed that a high-quality contemporary concept was a more suitable solution, rather than sticking with the previously approved traditional pastiche approach, which would be highly unlikely to replicate the character of the original. A contemporary approach was more reflective of the 21st Century and would help raise the design standards of the area. The building materials would be traditional and recessive, which would allow the development to sit more comfortably into its landscape setting. The scheme had been formulated with a modern interpretation of a Roman  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64h

64i

20/01252/FUL - Farringdon, Stockwell Lane, Woodmancote pdf icon PDF 142 KB

PROPOSAL: Pitched roof extension over existing garage, erection of a side and rear extension, rear dormer extension and replacement doors and windows.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

64.47        This was an application for a pitched roof extension over existing garage, erection of a side and rear extension, rear dormer extension and replacement doors and windows.

64.48        The Planning Officer explained that this proposal was to replace doors and windows on the dwelling and increase the living space at ground and first floor level by extending over the existing garage, erecting side and rear extensions and rear dormer extensions, including the addition of two balconies.A Committee determination was required as Woodmancote Parish Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds of concerns that the extension would take the dwelling too close to the boundary, which would be detrimental to the open character of the area. A site notice had been displayed for a period of 21 days and one letter of representation was received with an additional letter being received after this period, following the submission of amended plans. Both representations raised objections to the proposal based on the potential harm to residential amenity caused by the proposed balconies.The Parish Council’s concerns had been considered, however it was the view of Officers that the development would not be too close to the boundary with the neighbouring property, nor would it harm the open character of the area as side access would be maintained to the west. In addition, it was the view of Officers that appropriate measures had been taken to limit the impact of overlooking on the neighbouring properties, to an acceptable level, as shown in the revised scheme, and as such, it was recommended that the application be permitted. 

64.49        The Chair invited the representative of the objector to address the Committee. He advised that he represented the occupiers of the neighbouring property who objected to the application in the strongest possible terms. He stressed that his clients did not object to Farringdon being altered in principle, indeed, they had also applied for permission to extend their property. It was the nature of the proposal that was of concern which, if allowed, would cause a highly detrimental impact on their living conditions by virtue of overlooking and overbearing impacts from the proposed first floor balconies and bi-fold doors. Those features were proposed to be sited directly adjacent to their boundary and on higher ground. The original overlooking issue was acknowledged by Officers and the plans had been amended toinclude obscure glazed screens on the balcony and with set-back railings. Whilst the attempt was noted, those features unfortunately did not address the problem and there would still be direct overlooking from what was still a very large balcony area at 8.4 sqm. There could be no real control over the level of obscurity and, in any event, there would be at least a perception of overlooking. He expressed concern at the Officer’s assertion at paragraph 7.16 that the proposal would have “no adverse impact on the private amenity space” of the neighbour. To say it would have an acceptable impact  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64i

64j

20/00950/FUL - Yew Tree Farm, Little Shurdington pdf icon PDF 177 KB

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing building and erection of a single dwelling.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

64.51         This was an application for the demolition of an existing building and erection of a single dwelling.

64.52         The Planning Officer advised that the application site was located at Yew Tree Farm within the settlement of Little Shurdington also situated within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Green Belt. Yew Tree Farm was a complex which comprised a mix of equestrian, storage and residential uses set around a concrete apron. The application site itself comprised of a building in the south west of the concrete apron and a yard to the south which was enclosed by a fence. The application was submitted in full and proposed to demolish the existing building and erect a two storey four bedroom dwelling with a curved roof.  The dwelling would be served by a garden to the south in the location of the existing yard as well as an external amenity area to the west.  Vehicular access and egress to the dwelling would be via the existing access off Whitelands Lane. The Planning Officer asked Members to note the information on the late representation sheet in relation to the applicant’s agreement to use Cotswold stone in place of the originally proposed painted block work on the ground floor elevations. The application site was located within the settlement of Little Shurdington which was a small rural settlement with no service infrastructure and was not defined in the settlement hierarchy in the Joint Core Strategy. The application site was not allocated and did not meet any of the policy exceptions for the distribution for residential development afforded by policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy. The application was therefore contrary to policies SP2 and SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy. However, the application site was located approximately 750 metres to the south of the defined Residential Development Boundary of Shurdington which was defined as a Service Village in the Joint Core Strategy.  In addition, policy RES4 of the Emerging Local Plan stated that very small scale residential development within, and adjacent to, the built up area of other rural settlements would be acceptable in principle providing the proposal met a number of exceptions.  As set out in the Committee report, it was considered that the application accorded with emerging policy RES4 insofar as the application was for one dwelling within the built up area of Little Shurdington which replaced an existing building on previously developed land. Therefore, whilst the application was contrary to adopted policies SP2 and SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy, it was in accordance with emerging policy RES4 of the Emerging Local Plan. Officers also considered that the application site was not in an isolated location in the countryside, that the proposal was appropriate development in the Green Belt and that it accorded with Green Belt policy in the National Planning Policy Framework and the Joint Core Strategy. Subject to the imposition of conditions it was also considered the application accorded with landscape and Area of Outstanding Natural  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64j

64k

20/01142/CLE - The Coach House, Woodend Farm, Woodend Lane, Shuthonger pdf icon PDF 116 KB

PROPOSAL: Use of the Coach House as a separate residential dwelling, garden and ancillary parking.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Grant Certificate.  

Additional documents:

Minutes:

64.55         This was an application for the use of the Coach House as a separate residential dwelling, garden and ancillary parking.  

64.56         The Planning Officer explained that the application sought a lawful development certificate in order to demonstrate that the Coach House and its curtilage had been used as a separate and independent dwelling to Woodend Farm for a continuous and uninterrupted period of 10 years. The applicant had provided evidence including a statutory declaration, tenancy agreement, various letters from people with a knowledge of the property itself as well as the applicant’s occupation of it; and correspondence between the applicant and Tewkesbury Borough Council. The relevant legal test of the provided evidence was ‘on the balance of probability’. The Council had no evidence of its own or from others to contradict or make less probable the applicant’s claims and as such there was no reason to refuse the application.

64.57         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item and the Officer recommendation was to grant the lawful development certificate.

64.58         Following a proposal to grant the lawful development certificate which was seconded, it was

RESOLVED          That the certificate of lawfulness be GRANTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

65.

Annual Review of Planning Committee Decision-Making 2019/20 pdf icon PDF 416 KB

To consider the contents of the report.  

Additional documents:

Minutes:

65.1           The report of the Development Manager, circulated at Pages No. 268-277, 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.

65.2           The Development Manager highlighted a few points within the report drawing Members’ attention to the fact that there were the same number of cases reported to Committee as in the previous year but that there were a lower number of applications where the Committee took a different view; of the eight cases three were refused where Officers had recommended permit, and two of those were in fact in relation to the same site, and five were permitted where Officers had recommended refusal and one of those was a listed building consent allied to a full application. There was only one appeal that related to one of the applications that had been refused by Members where a different view had been taken in terms of landscape harm and that appeal had been allowed; the appellant had made an application for costs but this was not successful. Overall, the Development Manager did not think there were any particular issues that needed to be drawn to Members attention arising from the report and the analysis contained within the appendices.

65.3           A Member questioned whether this report was also going to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Development Manager clarified that, although this matter had originally arisen from Overview and Scrutiny and that Committee had agreed the format of the report and appendices that were required, the content was now only a matter for the Planning Committee to reflect upon. Another Member indicated that the report was quite interesting and highlighted that quite often the recommendations of the Planning Officers and the decisions of the Committee were right and only in very few cases did Members, when undertaking their very important role, take a different view from the recommendations of Officers. He maintained that most of the overturns made by the Committee had little impact as they were not always for additional build or only for one or two additional dwellings; what was of real interest to him was the number of houses that had received permission from the Planning Inspectorate over the last 10 years which he believed would run into thousands. He asked that a report be prepared for the Planning Committee listing the permissions granted by the Planning Inspectorate over the last 10 years. The Development Manager wished to clarify that recommendations and different decisions were not necessarily a case of being right or wrong it was a matter of judgement which came down to planning balance with different weights being placed on different considerations. In  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

66.

Current Appeals and Appeal Decisions Update pdf icon PDF 382 KB

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

Minutes:

66.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No.278-291. Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government appeal decisions issued. A Member stated that this month’s report was very interesting and it was very heartening to see that the Council did not lose every appeal and the Planning Inspectorate had actually supported the Council’s decision in the vast majority of cases; where this had not been the case and applications for costs had been made  those applications had been refused. Another Member referred to correspondence he had received in relation to the Council’s decision on Ashmead Drive, Gotherington and asked that the Development Manager ensure that an appropriate response was sent.

66.2          Accordingly, it was

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

67.

Timing of Planning Committee

Minutes:

67.1          It was proposed and seconded that whilst the meetings of the Planning Committee continued on zoom the start time be changed from 10am to 9am. It was recalled that the start time had previously been changed from 9am to 10am to avoid traffic but that was not relevant whilst the meetings were taking place on zoom. One Member objected to the proposed change and felt the meetings should remain at 10am for the purposes of consistency but, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That whilst the meetings of the Planning Committee continued to take place on zoom they should commence at 9am.