Accessibility settings

In order to remember your preferences as you navigate through the site, a cookie will be set.

Color preference

Text size

Agenda, decisions and minutes

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

Link: Click here to watch live broadcast

Items
No. Item

1.

Announcements

Minutes:

1.1             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.

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

2.

Apologies for Absence and Substitutions

To receive apologies for absence and advise of any substitutions. 

Minutes:

2.1             Apologies for absence were received from Councillors G F Blackwell and A Hollaway.  There were no substitutions for the meeting. 

3.

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:

3.1             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.

3.2             The following declarations were made:

Councillor

Application No./Agenda Item

Nature of Interest (where disclosed)

Declared Action in respect of Disclosure

J R Mason

Agenda Item 5b – 20/00175/FUL – Tretower, 28 Langley Road, Winchcombe.

Is a Member of Winchcombe Town Council but does not participate in planning matters.

Had been requested by a neighbour to view the application site from their garden and listen to their concerns but had not expressed an opinion.

Would speak and vote.

P E Smith

Agenda Item 5c - 20/00233/PIP – Land at the Bungalow, Down Hatherley Lane, Down Hatherley

The applicant is a relation of his partner.

Would not speak or vote and would leave the meeting for consideration of this item.

R J G Smith

Agenda Item 5a – 19/01225/FUL – The Traffic Group Limited, White Lion House, Gloucester Road.

Believes his neighbours are directors of the company applying for planning permission but he had not entered into any discussions regarding the proposal.

Would speak and vote.

3.3             There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

4.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 13 MB

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

Minutes:

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

5.

Development Control - Applications to the Borough Council pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Decision:

Parish and Reference

Address

Decision

Item/page number

 

 

Staverton

 

 

 

19/01225/FUL

The Traffic Group Limited White Lion House Gloucester Road Cheltenham

Permit

               5a        

Click Here To View

 

 

Winchcombe

 

 

 

20/00175/FUL

Tretower 28 Langley Road Winchcombe Cheltenham

         Permit

   5b

Click Here To View

 

 

Down Hatherley

 

 

 

20/00233/PIP

Land At The Bungalow Down Hatherley Lane Down Hatherley Gloucester

       Permit

   5c

Click Here To View

Minutes:

The objections to, support for, and observations upon the various applications as referred to in Appendix 1 attached to these Minutes were presented to the Committee and duly taken into consideration by Members prior to decisions being made on those applications.

5a

19/01225/FUL - The Traffic Group Limited, White Lion House, Gloucester Road pdf icon PDF 274 KB

PROPOSAL: Two storey extension to existing production building (use class B1 (c)) and reconfiguration to, and extension of, existing car park.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

5.1             This application was for a two storey extension to existing production building (use class B1 (c)) and reconfiguration to, and extension of, existing car park.

5.2             The Technical Planning Manager explained that the proposal sought to extend the existing light industrial premises to provide a larger production area and increase the level of car parking on the site.  The premises was located on an existing major employment site, as allocated in the adopted local plan and the principle of development was therefore acceptable.  The main issues arising from the application were the impact on the local highway network and the potential impact on nearby residential properties.  In terms of highways, the proposal would result in a relatively low increase in vehicular movements; the County Highways Officer had been consulted and raised no objection, subject to the inclusion of planning conditions as set out in the Officer report.  As the site backed onto the rear of commercial units, it was the potential impact on the houses and mobile home site on the opposite side of the B4063 that had raised most concern from those making representations.  The use was classified as B1 which meant it could be carried out in a residential area without harm to amenity, particularly in terms of noise, vibration, dust and smell; however, the concerns were focused mainly on potential overlooking from the new building to the properties opposite.  As could be seen on the proposed site location plan, the two properties to the immediate west of the mobile home park entrance were already directly opposite the proposed building and had a substantial evergreen hedge which would avoid any overlooking from the proposed extension.  A relatively new property, known as Bay Tree House, had been constructed in the former garden of Brookside and the extension would inevitably bring the building closer to that property; however, views from the front and gable end windows would be oblique and at a distance that would not give rise to undue overlooking.  The distance from the proposed windows to the nearest boundary of the closest residential properties was approximately 20 metres with the dwellings themselves set back at least 30 metres.  The proposed fire escape was set a further three metres back.  The building would be clearly visible from the neighbouring properties and the outlook from Bay Tree House in particular would change, but not to such a harmful extent as to warrant refusal.  For these reasons, Officers felt there would be an acceptable relationship between the existing dwellings and the proposed extension.  The Technical Planning Manager advised that there had been some concern about the accuracy of the plans; however, the applicant’s agent had confirmed that the site and block plans were based on a professional survey of the site which must be preferred over the Ordnance Survey mapping.  In terms of design, the extension would be a continuation of the existing building in terms of form and style and would have an acceptable impact on the character and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5a

5b

20/00175/FUL - Tretower, 28 Langley Road, Winchcombe pdf icon PDF 304 KB

PROPOSAL:  Erection of a first floor rear extension. 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

5.6             This application was for the erection of a first floor rear extension.

5.7             The Planning Officer advised that the application related to Tretower, a semi-detached dwelling located in a semi-rural residential area on the outskirts of Winchcombe.  The proposal sought the erection of a first storey extension to the side and rear of the dwelling which would be constructed on top of a single storey flat-roofed extension which had been permitted in 2015.  The main issue to be considered was the impact that the extension would have upon neighbouring amenity, specifically loss of light and overbearing impact on the adjacent property, Winds Point, and the adjoining semi-detached property, Lynwood.  The Officer report set out that permission had recently been granted for a range of extensions at Winds Point to be constructed on the boundary with the application site; whilst these had not yet been constructed, it was a material consideration, therefore, two assessments had been made based on the impact of the proposal as the sites were currently and the impact should the neighbouring extensions be constructed.  The Planning Officer confirmed that both assessments concluded there would be no unacceptable impacts to that property. Likewise, the adjoining semi-detached property Lynwood would not suffer any discernible impacts because the extension would be located on the western part of the host dwelling leaving a large gap between the properties.  This gap would mean there would be no overshadowing, loss of light, or overbearing impact to that property.  The scheme complied with planning policy and the Officer recommendation was therefore to permit.  The Planning Officer proceeded to show two videos provided by the applicant showing the site from the front and rear.

5.8             The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that the type of extension they were hoping to add was very common on 1930’s semi-detached properties with the surrounding area being made up of similar properties, a number of which had two storey side extensions that had been given planning permission by the local planning authority.  The design for the proposed extension was based on the already approved design for Green Hyde, a left-hand side semi-detached property which was identical to theirs and located two houses down.  The applicant’s architect had tried to stay true to the character and features of the existing house with regard to materials, finishing and roof pitch/design, and had spent a long time looking at the roof height to reduce the eaves as much as possible in order to ensure the extension was subservient to the existing house and surrounding buildings.  The proposed extension would be constructed over an existing single storey part of the building and would not require an increase in footprint with the additional floor area only equating to 13.7 square metres.  The principal elevation of the extension would be set back over 6.7 metres from the principal elevation of the existing house in order to remain sympathetic to the streetscene.  The applicant went on to explain that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5b

5c

20/00233/PIP - Land at the Bungalow, Down Hatherley Lane, Down Hatherley pdf icon PDF 251 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of one infill dwelling.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Approve

Additional documents:

Minutes:

5.12          This was a permission in principle application for the erection of one infill dwelling.

5.13          The Planning Officer explained that the application was for permission in principle which was a form of planning consent which established that a site was suitable for a specified amount of housing-led development in principle.  If permission in principle was granted, the site must then have the technical details approved before development could proceed.  The current application was the first stage of the process and sought solely to establish whether the site was suitable in principle for a new dwelling.  The government’s guidance set out that the scope of the first stage of permission in principle was limited to location, land use and the amount of development; any other technical matters would be considered at the technical details stage.  He went on to advise that the site itself was currently associated with a property known as The Bungalow which was located on the east side of Ash Lane.  The site was currently accessed from a main driveway off Down Hatherley Lane with a secondary access off Ash Lane, which was a private road - it was proposed that this access would serve the new property.  The site was not located within any recognised settlement boundary and was not subject to any site allocation or formal landscape designation but it was located within an area of safeguarded land.  Given the context of the site, Officers considered that, whilst the site did not front onto Ash Lane, any dwelling on the site would still relate reasonably well to existing built form in this location and would therefore represent infilling in the context of Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy.  It was also considered that there would be an acceptable impact on the landscape and it was feasible that an appropriate access could be provided.  In terms of the safeguarded land, the proposal would not strictly accord with Policy SD5 of the Joint Core Strategy; however, given the scale of the development proposed, the proximity of the site to existing properties and the intervening land to the east – which was in multiple ownership – it was considered that the proposal would not prejudice the purpose of the safeguarded land.  In light of the Council’s housing land supply position, it was not felt there would be any adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme, subject to securing appropriate details at the technical details stage, as such, the application was recommended for approval.  The Planning Officer proceeded to show two videos showing the approach to the application site from Ash Lane along Down Hatherley Lane and panning around the site.

5.14          The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member questioned whether it was correct that the safeguarded land could not be approved without specific support of a Joint Core  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5c