48.1          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.

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

49.1          There were no apologies for absence.  

50.1          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.

50.2          As there had been a tendency at recent meetings for Members to declare that they were the Ward Member for a particular application the Chair reminded Members that ward membership was not in itself an interest that needed to be declared. It was only interests that arose under the Code of Members’ Conduct or the Protocol for Councillors and Officers Involved in the Planning Process, that should be declared.

50.3          The following declarations were made:

50.4          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

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

51.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 December 2020, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record.  

52.1          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: Erection of a single storey side and rear extensions

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

52.2          This application was for the erection of a single storey side and rear extensions.

52.3          In presenting the application the Planning Officer explained that a Committee decision was required as the Parish Council had objected on the grounds of overdevelopment and the detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the area and existing neighbours. The Planning Officer had noted the Parish Council’s concerns however, in terms of overdevelopment, it was explained that there would be adequate garden area which was free from extensions and additions and there had been no previous extensions other than a rear conservatory which had been constructed under permitted development. With regards to visual amenity, the proposed extensions would be of a suitable size and design and constructed from matching materials. In addition, there were other similar sized extensions on the estate. In relation to the impact on immediate neighbours, given that the rear extensions would be single storey with a flat roof, it was not considered there would be an adverse impact. Overall, the proposal was considered to be of a suitable size and design and would be in keeping with the area and, as such, the recommendation was to permit.

52.4          The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item and the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

52.5          It was proposed and seconded and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side extension

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

52.6          This application was for the erection of a two-storey side extension.

52.7          The Planning Officer explained that this was a householder application to add a two storey side extension to the property where there was currently a single attached garage. The current property, which was semi-detached, was located on a cul-de-sac where there were dwellings of a similar style and a Committee decision was required as the Parish Council had objected on the grounds that the development would be large in size and out of keeping with the area. The Planning Officer had noted the Parish Council’s concerns however, it was her view that the development would be of an appropriate scale and would not appear out of keeping with the area, particularly as many of the dwellings in the vicinity had similar extensions, including the adjoining property. In addition, the site was large enough to accommodate the extension, it would not cause any amenity issues and it was therefore recommended that the application be permitted.

52.8          The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item and the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

52.9          It was proposed and seconded and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey side / rear extensions and front / rear dormer extensions

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

52.10        This application was for the erection of single storey side/rear extensions and front/rear dormer extensions.

52.11        The Planning Officer explained that a Committee decision was required on this application as the Parish Council had objected on the grounds that the proposed extensions would significantly increase the property’s footprint and, with the dormers, would represent overdevelopment of the site. The Planning Officer had noted the Parish Council’s concerns however, she felt the proposed side extension would be modest in size and would be set well back from the frontage with a lower roof height. The proposed dormer windows would be set back from the eaves and the windows on the proposed front dormer would sit over the ground floor windows meaning they would appear well balanced and proportionate in scale. The proposed rear extension would be flat roofed and not visible from the road and there would be an acceptable amount of garden space left which was free from extensions/additions; it was also noted that the property had not previously been extended. The Planning Officer showed the Committee a number of photographs highlighting other similar extensions along this road one of which was two doors away. Overall, she was of the view that, the proposal was of a suitable size and design and would be in-keeping with the area and, as such, her recommendation was to permit.

52.12        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item and the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

52.13        In proposing the Officer recommendation, one of the local Member’s expressed his support for the application as it was a similar size to other properties and gardens. The proposal was seconded and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

52.14        This application was for the erection of a single storey rear extension.

52.15        The Planning Officer explained that this was a householder application in respect of a semi-detached property located on an estate in Newtown, Tewkesbury. The application was for the demolition of an existing conservatory and the addition of a single storey, brick built, rear extension in its place. The proposed extension would cover the same floor area as the existing conservatory and extend further into the garden. A Committee decision was required as the Town Council had objected on the grounds that the adjoining property would lose useful morning sunlight. The Planning Officer had noted the Town Council’s concerns however, it was her view that any loss of morning sunlight over and above the existing situation would be less than harmful considering the orientation of the properties, both having south facing gardens, and the presence of an existing extension on the adjoining property. It was therefore her recommendation that the application be permitted.

52.16        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item and the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

52.17        It was proposed and seconded and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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

PROPOSAL: Demolition of an existing agricultural workers dwelling, the erection of an open market replacement dwelling of exceptional quality design and the erection of a barn incorporating a bat roost.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit 

52.18        This was an application for the demolition of an existing agricultural workers dwelling, the erection of an open market replacement dwelling of exceptional quality design and the erection of a barn incorporating a bat roost.

52.19        The Planning Officer advised that due to the visual nature of this proposal, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) context and the fact that it was not possible at the current time to conduct site visits, her presentation would be longer and more detailed to provide Members with a full appreciation of the site and the proposed development. The application related to an isolated farmstead in the open countryside of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it was located outside the village of Buckland and was accessed via a long driveway. The site was at the head of a localised valley and benefited from a good degree of visual containment due to local topography and vegetation. The dwelling dated from the 1970s and was subject to an agricultural tie. The Cotswold Way passed to the north and east of the site and the Winchcombe way to the south. The site and immediate residential curtilage comprised a farmhouse, converted ancillary accommodation, a swimming pool and a tennis court. Outside the residential curtilage, the landholding encompassed extensive formal and informal landscaped areas and fields beyond and included two large agricultural buildings. The application sought the demolition of the tied farmhouse and ancillary buildings and the erection of an open market replacement dwelling of exceptional quality and design; the existing agricultural barns would be retained and a new barn constructed adjacent which would incorporate a replacement bat roost. Integral to the scheme was an extensive landscape master plan which proposed landscape and biodiversity enhancements to integrate the site within the AONB setting. The applicant was proposing the new dwelling on the grounds that special circumstances existed to warrant the granting of planning permission under Paragraph 79(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which allowed for the development of isolated homes in the countryside. That policy required homes to be of exceptional quality in that they were truly outstanding or innovative, reflecting the highest standards of architecture and would help raise the standards of design more generally in rural areas and would significantly enhance the immediate setting and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the area. The key material issues for consideration were the principle of the development, including the removal of the agricultural tie and erection of a replacement dwelling of exceptional quality and truly outstanding or innovative design, and the impact on the landscape of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The Planning Officer indicated that, in formulating a recommendation, the opinions of the Gloucestershire Design Review Panel and the Cotswolds Conservation Board had been sought and, on balance, Officers considered the proposed development was of exceptional quality and complied with the tests set out in Paragraph 79(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework in that it was truly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52e

PROPOSAL: Section 73 application for the variation of conditions 3,4,5,7 and 8  of planning permission 12/01190/FUL to allow changes to the boundary treatments and to the design and footprint of plot 1

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit  

52.25        This was a Section 73 application for the variation of conditions 3,4,5,7 and 8 of planning permission 12/01190/FUL to allow changes to the boundary treatments and to the design and footprint of plot 1.

52.26        The Planning Officer explained that the site was on the corner of Bushcombe Lane and Aesop’s Orchard in Woodmancote and currently had planning permission for two dwellings, one of which had already been constructed; plot 2. The current application was for the variation of approved plans for amendments to the design of plot 1 – not yet commenced – and amendments to the approved boundary treatments for the site. The design alteration to plot 1 was for a slight increase to the footprint of the dwelling and proposed an additional gable to the rear elevation, nearest to the boundary with plot 2, which would add a further bedroom and result in a five bedroomed dwelling. Alterations to the approved boundary treatment were retrospective in part as the approved Cotswold Stone wall with a boundary fence was difficult to implement due to the difference in ground levels so, to provide privacy and security for plot 2, Portuguese Laurels had been planted between the Cotswold Stone wall and the footpath of Aesop’s Orchard. The stone wall was more visible on the corner of Aesop’s Orchard and Bushcombe Lane. A solid brick wall was proposed between plots 1 and 2 instead of a wooden fence and the brick wall had been implemented in part. The rear boundary between plot 1 and the property at the rear was a post and rail fence and Portuguese Laurels had been planted. A block and section plan had been submitted to clarify the exact location of the proposed and implemented boundary treatment. It was considered that the amended design and boundary treatment would not result in substantial or demonstrable harm to the streetscene and character and appearance of the wider area. The proposal provided adequate access and parking arrangement which would not unduly affect the residential amenity of neighbouring properties or the setting of nearby listed buildings and on this basis the recommendation was to permit subject to conditions.

52.27        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item and the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

52.28        In proposing that the application be permitted, a Member indicated that thanks to the Planning Officer the concerns of the Parish Council in relation to the wall and Portuguese Laurel hedge had been overcome. The motion to permit was seconded and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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

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

53.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No.95-99. Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government appeal decisions issued.

53.2          A Member referred to the enforcement case at Severnside Farm, Walham, shown at the top of Page 99, and asked that his thanks be recorded to the Case Officer who had, in his view, gone above and beyond in dealing with this matter.

53.3          After consideration it was

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