Agenda, decisions and minutes

When the continuous alarm sounds you must evacuate the building by the nearest available fire exit. Members and visitors should proceed to the visitors’ car park at the front of the building and await further instructions (during office hours staff should proceed to their usual assembly point; outside of office hours proceed to the visitors’ car park). Please do not re-enter the building unless instructed to do so.

In the event of a fire any person with a disability should be assisted in leaving the building.   

9.1             The evacuation procedure, as noted on the Agenda, was advised to those present.

9.2             The Chair gave a brief outline of the procedure for Planning Committee meetings, including public speaking.

10.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R A Bird, L A Gerrard and P D Surman. 

11.1           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.

11.2           The following declarations were made:

11.3           There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2021.

12.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 22 June 2021, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

13.1           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: Construction of replacement dwelling and associated works following demolition of existing dwelling and change of use of additional areas of land to residential garden.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

13.2          This application was for the construction of a replacement dwelling and associated works following demolition of existing dwelling and change of use of additional areas of land to residential garden.  The application was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 22 June 2021 for a Planning Committee Site Visit to assess the impact of the proposal upon the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

13.3          The Development Manager explained that, due to logistical issues associated with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, it had not been possible to arrange a Planning Committee Site Visit in time for this meeting; however, he intended to run through a series of photographs which he hoped would give Members enough information about how the building sat within the landscape.  He reminded Members that the proposal was for a replacement dwelling and the site would be accessed by a new driveway that connected from Corndean Lane to the south; that access had been allowed at appeal a number of years ago and was an extant permission.  There was also a proposed change of use of agricultural land to allow additional landscaping, drainage works and a new pool/pool house. Of great significance was the fact that the existing dwelling benefited from a certificate of lawfulness for large extensions off the east elevation.  The Development Manager explained that the plans showed it was originally a pair of cottages, simple in terms of planning form, and he ran through a number of slides showing the site location, existing elevations/floorplans, proposed site plan, proposed elevations, proposed floor plans, proposed byre conversion, landscape plan, comparison plans and a number of photographs.  He explained that the existing building was considered to be a non-designated heritage asset and a public footpath ran across the south of the site from which glimpses of the existing building could be seen through the trees.  The building could be seen clearly from lots of vantages and, whilst the proposed building would be more obvious from some, the permitted development rights scheme would be more obvious from others.  Members were advised that, essentially, it was a choice between the proposals on Pages No. 50 and 51 of the Committee report and the fallback position on Page No. 56 of the Committee report.  The Courts had determined that, for a fallback position to be a real prospect, it did not have to be probable or likely, just a possibility.  As such, if planning permission was refused, it was possible the applicant would implement the fallback position and, on that basis, whilst there would be harm to the landscape arising from the proposals and it would result in the loss of a non-designated heritage asset, on balance it was considered that the application should be permitted.

13.4           The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent reiterated that the application had been deferred at the previous Planning Committee meeting to allow a Planning Committee Site Visit to take place and, as heard, the Committee had not visited  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13a

PROPOSAL: Permission in principle for up to six dwellings following demolition of redundant farm buildings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Approve.

13.8          This application was for permission in principle for up to six dwellings following demolition of redundant farm buildings.

13.9          The Planning Officer explained that the application site was located to the western side of Market Lane in Greet and measured approximately 0.37 hectares.  It currently comprised an undeveloped field and a number of modern agricultural buildings.  The site had a boundary of mature trees to the eastern edge facing onto Market Lane and led to open pastureland to the west.  The site was relatively flat and was located within a Special Landscape Area and Flood Zone 1.  This application was for permission in principle which had two stages: the first stage established whether the site was suitable in principle and the second ‘technical details consent’ stage was when the details of the development proposals were assessed.  The current application was the first stage of the process and sought solely to establish whether the site was suitable in principle for the erection of up to six dwellings.  The scope of the first stage was limited to location, land use and amount.  Officers considered that the development would conflict with the strategic housing policies of the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Development Plan; however, given the Council’s five year housing land supply position, these policies could not be considered up-to-date and presumption in favour of sustainable development applied.  In this case, the modest harm to the landscape character that would be caused by the development was not considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the overall planning balance when considering whether the location of the site was suitable for housing; therefore, the Officer recommendation was for permission in principle to be granted.

13.10         The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident explained that the community had strongly objected to the loss of green field space and, although their views had probably not been formally recorded, the same sentiment had been expressed by many walkers when the site notice had been displayed.  The local resident explained that Market Lane was a rural haven and its space and views were appreciated by local residents, walkers, cyclists, runners, elderly people with walkers, mothers with pushchairs and families with youngsters on their first bikes.  Since lockdown, the number of daily visitors to Market Lane had increased markedly with youngsters riding their bikes and playing, children chatting at the gates of the field and visitors and tourists using the Isbourne Way.  Greet did not have any amenities except for a small, tarmacked playground on Beckett’s Lane, so the green spaces and views were the amenities.  The gap and its views through accentuated the listed homestead Manor Farm, isolated it from other development and maintained a sense of historic rural charm to this part of Greet.  It had significant local ecological importance with its varied wildlife and mature Horse Chestnut trees at its perimeter which were a dominant feature along Market Lane – its value  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13b

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

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

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

13.18        The Planning Officer advised that a Committee determination was required as the applicant was an employee of Tewkesbury Borough Council.  The proposal would create an enlarged dining room/kitchen with extended utility at ground floor level and an additional bedroom plus ensuite at first floor level with materials to match the existing dwelling.  It was considered that the proposal would not be harmful to the appearance of the existing dwelling, nor the surrounding area, and it would not result in an unacceptable loss of amenity to neighbouring dwellings, therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application. 

13.19        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. It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

PROPOSAL: Hybrid planning application seeking full planning permission for the erection of a B2 unit (general industrial) with associated landscaping, access and parking; and outline planning permission (all matters reserved except access) for a mix of B1, B2 and B8 use classes (employment).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Minded to Permit. 

13.20        This was a hybrid planning application seeking full planning permission for the erection of a B2 unit (general industrial) with associated landscaping, access and parking; and outline planning permission (all matters reserved except access) for a mix of B1, B2 and B8 use classes (employment).  The application was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 20 April 2021 until the Inspector conducting the Borough Plan Examination in Public had published his findings in respect of the access of the application site.

13.21         The Development Manager explained that, since the meeting in April, the applicant had submitted a non-determination appeal which meant that the Council was no longer the determining authority for the proposals.  As such, the Committee must advise the Planning Inspectorate of its views.  As Members would be aware, the Borough Plan Inspector had now provided his Post Hearings Main Modifications Letter and he had not taken the view that the expansion at Highfield Farm would be unsound. On that basis, Officers considered that the allocation of this site under the emerging Policy EMP2 (Rural Business Centres) could be given substantial weight in determination of the proposals.  The Inspector had also listed a number of main modifications in respect of Policy EMP5 around employment including MM20 which included the Council’s suggested modification that “where there are opportunities to access sites proposed for employment development from major roads (as opposed to providing access from local roads and rural lanes), this should be the preferred option unless it is demonstrated not to be feasible or appropriate in planning and/or highways terms”.  Whilst it may be possible for an access to be provided through the existing business park of Highfield Farm, that was not proposed in this case and, as set out in the Committee report, County Highways was satisfied that the proposed access was acceptable subject to various conditions which had been discussed at the Committee meeting in April which would prevent vehicles from turning left onto Cursey Lane.  On that basis, it was considered that the findings of the Inspector’s Post Hearings Main Modifications Letter had not raised any matters which altered the Officer recommendation, particularly in terms of highway safety, and the considerations remained as set out in the Committee report.  It was therefore recommended that the Planning Inspectorate be advised that the Council would have permitted the application had the appeal not been submitted, subject to conditions and the preparation of a Legal Agreement to secure a financial contribution in connection with the monitoring of a travel plan.

13.22         The Chair invited an objector speaking against the application to address the Committee.  The objector indicated that he was grateful for the opportunity to reiterate his past objections and those of the Parish Council.  His main objection - which he had raised with both Officers and the Borough Plan Inspector who had remained silent on the issue following his site visit and had accepted that traffic light controlled access was acceptable - was on the access proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13d

PROPOSAL: Conversion of existing agricultural buildings into one dwelling and associated internal and external alterations; and provision of associated private residential garden area and vehicular driveway, parking and turning areas.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse. 

13.29        This application was for the conversion of existing agricultural buildings into one dwelling and associated internal and external alterations. The application was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 20 April 2021 to allow the applicant to consider whether the concerns in relation to amenity and impact on other buildings in the compound could be overcome.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 16 July 2021.

13.30        The Development Manager was pleased to advise that, following negotiations, these particular concerns had been overcome.  Officers had found that the most obvious way to achieve that was to simply remove the offending amenity space from the plans and he confirmed amended plans had been received to reflect that.  The Committee report also mentioned potential impacts on future occupiers with vehicles passing in front of the barn; however, it was understood that the intention was for the applicant’s grandson who worked on the farm to occupy the dwelling so there would be a degree of caveat emptor for further occupiers who wished to purchase the building.  On that basis, refusal reasons 1 and 2 set out in the Committee report had been removed from the recommendation leaving only the highways reason for refusal which Members on the Planning Committee Site Visit no doubt would have taken a view on.  The Officer perspective was set out in the report and the recommendation remained that permission be refused on highway grounds.  If Members were minded to permit the application, Officers would recommend various conditions to confirm the plans and to address contamination, materials/architectural details, ecological mitigation in line with the submitted report, restriction on new lighting and an electrical vehicle charging point.  The County Highways Officer had made a suggestion that a condition be included around vehicle storage but Planning Officers considered that was catered for in storage associated with the conversion.

13.31        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. The applicant’s agent explained that the project involved the sensitive conversion of a well-constructed brick built barn within original farmyard.  Due to the demands of modern farming and the need to innovate, the farm operations had moved away from the yard and, as a result, the barn was now redundant.  A scheme had been prepared to provide the building with a new lease of life to ensure the sustainability of the structure for the future whilst retaining its character.  Furthermore, as the conversion only involved works to existing buildings, the rich character of the surrounding area would not be affected.  The scheme had originally been visited in 2019 and a pre-application had been submitted at that time when the principle of conversion had been deemed acceptable from a planning and heritage perspective.  Suggestions made by Tewkesbury Borough Council within that feedback had been addressed prior to a planning application being submitted in 2020; this had involved further investment in the scheme including structural and ecological investigations.  During the initial application, issues had been raised regarding the impact of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13e

PROPOSAL: Erection of side, rear and front extensions.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

13.34        This application was for the erection of side, rear and front extensions.

13.35        The Development Manager advised that the application sought to remodel the existing property and add front and side rear extensions.  The original scheme was set out on the plan at Page No. 142 of the Committee report and Members were informed that, following concerns raised by Officers and the Parish Council, the scheme had undergone a number of iterations which had resulted in the proposal set out on the plan at Page No. 141 of the Committee report which Officers were able to support.  The plan at Page No. 140 showed the existing curtilage. The Development Manager explained that the original scheme had been remodelled with the two storey side and single storey side and rear extension being reduced to a single storey side extension and rear extension plus removal of the cantilever element.  The front elevation remained the same.  The main outstanding objection related to overlooking, especially in relation to the balcony element which was of concern to local residents and the Parish Council; however, the Development Manager explained there could be no overlooking of the neighbouring property to the east given its position next to the two storey extension and the view to the west was an agricultural field.  Therefore, the application was recommended for permission.

13.36        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.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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

PROPOSAL: Approval of reserved matters (scale, layout, appearance, landscaping) for the residential element pursuant to outline consent 18/00249/OUT for the erection of 215 dwellings, public open space, landscaping and a sustainable urban drainage scheme.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Approve. 

13.37         This was an approval of reserved matters application (scale, layout, appearance, landscaping) for the residential element pursuant to outline consent 18/00249/OUT for the erection of 215 dwellings, public open space, landscaping and a sustainable urban drainage scheme. 

13.38        The Planning Officer advised that the application site was located to the west of Bishop’s Cleeve and north of Stoke Road and covered an area of approximately 10.5 hectares.  The application site formed part of a wider site for which outline permission was granted at appeal in November 2019 for the erection of up to 215 dwellings, up to 2.24 hectares of commercial use (B1 and B8), up to 0.1 hectares of retail uses (A1) with public open space, landscaping and sustainable urban drainage systems and two vehicular access points from Stoke Road.  This application was the first phase of development; the commercial elements of the extant outline permission would be brought forward under separate cover.  It should be noted that the principle and quantum of residential development at the site had already been established through the grant of outline consent; this application related solely to the approval of the layout, appearance, landscaping and scale of the residential elements of the wider development site.  A range of house types and tenures were proposed including provision for 40% affordable housing.  Within those tenures, a wide mix of unit types would be delivered including one bedroom ground floor and first floor maisonettes, one bedroom bungalows, terraces, semi and detached dwellings ranging from two to five bedrooms.  Most properties would be two storeys in height, though the development would include a small number of bungalows and a similar number of 2.5 storey dwellings.  A single vehicular access point to serve the residential development would be created off Stoke Road; this was in accordance with the outline permission.  The landscape strategy for the site would provide 4.01 hectares of green infrastructure across this part of the wider site and included a large area of public open space incorporating a Locally Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) to the west of the site, green corridors, tree and street planting.  An assessment of the material considerations was set out at Pages No. 148-154 of the Committee report.  As set out in the report, Officers considered that, when taking account of all of the material considerations and subject to the resolution of the outstanding matters outlined in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, the proposed development would result in an acceptable layout, scale, appearance and landscaping.  The scheme advanced would be in accordance with the principles and parameters described and identified in the Illustrative Masterplan, the Development Framework Plan and the Design and Access Statement approved under the outline permission for the wider site.  The Planning Officer advised there were a number of updates set out in the Additional Representations Sheet and a number of outstanding matters detailed in the Committee report had now been resolved.  The Environment Agency had raised an objection to the proposed installation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13g

PROPOSAL: Erection of a temporary dwelling for an agricultural worker.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

13.45        This application was for the erection of a temporary dwelling for an agricultural worker.

13.46        The Planning Officer advised that the proposal was for a single storey log cabin style building which would be accessed from an existing farm track and would be located adjacent to existing agricultural buildings at the site.  The principle of agricultural workers’ accommodation in the countryside was broadly supported by the National Planning Policy Framework where there was an essential need for a rural worker to live at, or near, their place of work and that was carried through into Policies HOU3 and AGR3 of the submission version of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  The applicant had set out details of their existing and emerging livestock business at the site and that the nature of the livestock business required an onsite presence for the welfare of stock.  The applicant’s case for an agricultural dwelling at the site had been appraised by the Council’s Agricultural Adviser who confirmed that the applicant had significant livestock experience and the recently constructed agricultural buildings at the site demonstrated a firm intention to further develop their enterprise.  In terms of the functional need for a dwelling at the site, it was considered that the principal sheep business would not necessitate a need as nearby caravan accommodation could be used; however, the calf-rearing enterprise required high levels of management with short notice or ‘out of hours’ treatment likely which would necessitate a functional need for a stock person to be readily available at the site.  Furthermore, the suckler cow business may also entail some ‘out of hours’ attendance.  On balance, it was concluded there was a functional need for someone to be based on the site.  As that need was largely based on recent/emerging enterprise, it was considered appropriate that permission be for a temporary period of time in order that the ongoing viability and projected growth could be monitored in accordance with Policy AGR3 and that could be secured by condition.  The proposed building would be discretely sited and, as a result of the design and scale, it would not adversely impact the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or the setting of nearby listed buildings.  It was therefore recommended that the proposal be permitted for a temporary period and subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report.

13.47        The Vice-Chair in the chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that, over the last 25 years, he had built up the livestock business which included 1,200 breeding ewes, 2,400 lambs, 30 breeding rams and 31 cows.  In that time, he had come to realise what an incredibly difficult profession farming was and had faced many challenges, particularly in recent years.  Having seen other family farms go under, it was vital to diversify the offering and he had managed to secure a number of contracts for calf-rearing which had given some security for the long term future of the farm.  Whilst calf-rearing fitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13h

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side extension and front porch and retention of single storey rear extension as built.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

13.51         This application was for the erection of a two storey side extension and front porch and retention of a single storey rear extension as built.

13.52        The Planning Officer advised that a single storey rear extension was permitted at the end of March 2020; however, the existing proposal differed from the permitted plans in terms of materials and fenestration.  A Committee determination was required as the Parish Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds that the use of timber cladding on the rear extension would be out of keeping with the area and the side extension would close important gaps in the streetscene which would impact the open and green character of the area.  The Parish Council’s concerns had been considered but Officers were of the view that the use of timber would not have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the area due to the scale of the proposed extension and its location.  It was also considered that the side and front extensions would be of an appropriate scale and therefore acceptable.  It was noted that no letters of representations had been received in relation to the site notice that had been displayed for 21 days.  It was recommended that the application be permitted.

13.53        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.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation 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 rear dormer extension and installation of rooflights.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

13.54        This application was for the erection of a rear dormer extension and installation of rooflights.

13.55        The Planning Officer explained that the proposal was to install a rear box dormer and skylights on the front facing roof slope of the dwelling.  A Committee determination was required as the Parish Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds that the installation of a dormer in this location would be out of keeping with the area and would represent overdevelopment of the site.  No letters of representation had been received in response to the site notice which had been displayed for 21 days.  Members were informed that the Parish Council’s concerns had been considered and the scale of the dormer reduced as a result.  The Planning Officers’ view was that the revised proposal would not have an undue impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring residents over and above the existing situation and, by virtue of its location, the dormer would not have a harmful impact on the character of the wider area.  On that basis, it was recommended that the application be permitted.

13.56        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.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member was interested to read the further information provided by the applicant in support of the application, as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which talked about the need for separate space for home working; he suspected that might be something which more people required in the future.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

PROPOSAL: Application for approval of reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) following grant of outline planning application 17/00804/OUT.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Approve.

13.57        This application was for the approval of all reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) following grant of outline planning application 17/00804/OUT.

13.58        The Planning Officer advised that the proposal was a reserved matters application for a detached bungalow with an integral garage within the large rear garden of 48 Brookfield Road.  The application required Committee determination as the Parish Council had objected to the proposal.  Outline planning permission for a detached bungalow on the plot was originally approved in 2004 and the permission was renewed in 2007, 2010 and 2013.  After the last renewal expired a new outline application had been permitted in 2017; that application had reserved all matters for future consideration but Officers had requested an indicative layout to assess its suitability.  On the basis of the indicative layout, it was considered the plot could accommodate a bungalow and still provide adequate garden, off-road parking and turning space whilst not adversely impacting the amenity of the existing neighbouring properties.  The layout proposed in the current reserved maters application closely followed the indicative layout of the outline permission – with adequate garden, off-road parking and turning space comparable to those of neighbouring properties.  Due to its low eaves and ridge heights and the low sloping roof, the impact on adjoining neighbours would also be acceptable.  It was the Officers’ opinion that the proposal was acceptable; bungalows were relatively common in the local area and the design and use of red brick and slate tiles for materials were considered appropriate and acceptable.  The Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, set out that minor amendments had been made to the landscape scheme regarding the relocation of trees within the garden area and the Officer recommendation was now to approve the application.

13.59        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to approve the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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

PROPOSAL: Removal of condition 5 (electric vehicle charging spaces) of planning application 20/00826/FUL.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

13.60        This application was for removal of condition 5 (electric vehicle charging spaces) of planning application 20/00826/FUL.

13.61        The Planning Officer advised that planning permission had been granted on 4 December 2020 for new classrooms to replace existing non-compliant classrooms at Cleeve School.  Condition 5 of that planning permission required a minimum of four electric vehicle charging spaces to be provided prior to use of the development.  The Parish Council had objected to removal of the condition on the basis that it would be contrary to the climate change objectives of both the Parish Council and Tewkesbury Borough Council.  Whilst there was clearly guidance and development plan policy that encouraged sustainable development, there was currently no adopted policy that required electric vehicle charging points.  Policy TRAC9 of the pre-submission Tewkesbury Borough Plan in relation to parking provision had not yet been adopted and therefore could be attributed little weight and the Gloucestershire Manual for Streets July 2020 did not require electric vehicle charging points for education facilities.  The original proposal for the provision of new classrooms did not actually involve an increase in student or staff numbers, nor did it increase the amount of parking provision on the site, it simply rearranged the parking provision and the extension sought to reduce carbon emissions through design, energy efficient measures and equipment.  The new classrooms were funded through a grant from the Department of Education with no additional funds provided for electric vehicle charging points which would have to be financed from other sources.  Therefore, as the development accorded with the policies of the development plan and the new classrooms reduced carbon emissions through design and would not generate more vehicle trips, not installing electric vehicle charging points would only slightly impact carbon emissions from the site when the development was taken as a whole.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.  The Planning Officer drew attention to an error at Pages No. 214-215 of the Committee report as conditions 5 and 6 were duplicates of conditions 3 and 4 so would need to be removed from the decision notice, should Members be minded to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

13.62         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 indicated that he could not understand why this application was recommended for permission given the Council’s ambitions to ‘go greener’.  He had chosen not to get an electric vehicle due to the lack of infrastructure which was needed to achieve the zero carbon target by 2030.  In his view the electric vehicle charging points should still be required as per the application which had been permitted, therefore, he proposed that the application be refused.  The Development Manager explained that, whilst the authority was supportive of such measures, there was no policy justification for requiring the electric vehicle charging points to be provided and there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13l

PROPOSAL: Change of use of dwelling and adjacent detached dwelling from C3 (dwelling house) to C2 (children’s care home); erection of a replacement single storey rear extension and erection of front and rear dormer extensions and front and rear dormer windows. 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

13.65        This application was for change of use of a dwelling and adjacent detached dwelling from C3 (dwelling house) to C2 (children’s care home); erection of a replacement single storey rear extension and erection of front and rear dormer extensions and front and rear dormer windows.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 20 April 2021 due to submission of details for building regulation approval and ongoing discussion in relation to drainage issues.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 16 July 2021.

13.66        The Planning Officer advised that the application had been presented to the Planning Committee at its meetings on 16 June 2020 and 20 April 2021.  At the meeting in June, the Committee had deferred the application seeking clarification as to the number of children and staff who would be resident and their relationship to the bedrooms shown on the plan; further information in respect of traffic movement; provision of a larger scale site plan to indicate the sharp bend of the road and the site in the wider context; and to receive further information regarding the drainage proposal including a view from the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer.  At the Committee meeting in April, Members had deferred the application due to ongoing discussions with regard to the drainage arrangements on the site.  Since that time, the plans had been amended from the original submission to remove the dormer extension and the loft conversion for the semi-detached property Charlton with the single storey front extension still being proposed.  Charlton remained a three bedroom property and Christie, the detached property, had four bedrooms.  The amended plans submitted identified the bedrooms for staff and children for both properties with two bedrooms for children and two for staff within Christie and the potential for one bedroom for staff and one for children within Charlton.  The care home would provide care for children up to 16 years with staff present on the site as the children were not capable of living unsupervised.  The Environmental Health Officer considered the number of people on site would not be disproportionate to that of residential properties and children being supervised on site would limit any sporadic disturbance.  A revised location plan had been submitted which showed the location of the property with regard to the sharp bend in the A48 to the south of the site.  County Highways had assessed the proposal and considered that the parking policy together with the number of parking spaces proposed was suitable to accommodate the likely demand for the site.  A site inspection of adjacent land was carried out by Officers on 31 July 2020 and, in March 2021, building control had visited the detached dwelling Christie with regard to the drainage arrangements.  Objections had been received in relation to existing on-site drainage provisions being inadequate and foul drainage from the properties in the vicinity adversely impacting farmland to the rear.  Additional information was provided and a final revised drainage plan submitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13m

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey, gable-fronted extension to the front of the property and a single storey extension to the rear.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

13.77        This application was for the erection of a two storey, gable-fronted extension to the front of the property and a single storey extension to the rear.

13.78        The Planning Officer advised that the application sought permission for a two storey front gable extension, a new link to the garage, a single storey rear extension, alterations to the side bay window and new windows and doors.  The property was being updated with a more contemporary design and choice of materials proposed.  The site was located on Priory Lane in Bishop’s Cleeve which had a varied streetscene of properties in terms of character and design.  The application required a Committee determination due to an objection from the Parish Council on the basis of the poor design, particularly in terms of the windows in the front gable.  Members were informed that the extensions respected the scale and proportions of the host property and it was considered that the alterations and extensions would integrate well.  The proposed materials were an off-white render, dark zinc cladding, grey fenestration and slate roof which were considered appropriate in the location given the range of materials evident in the streetscene and they would not cause any harm to the visual quality of the area.  Whilst the Parish Council’s comments were noted, the off-set windows were not considered inappropriate to the design approach proposed and did not cause harm to the character of the dwelling or visual quality of the area.  It was noted that the materials would be controlled by condition.  The dwelling was set back from the road with a separation distance of over 24 metres from the windows of the property opposite.  There would be a high-level window in the side elevation facing the rear amenity area of No. 30 Priory Lane; that would be a secondary window to a bedroom and, as the existing bedrooms had windows on the side elevation, overlooking would not be considered substantially more harmful than the existing situation.  The bathroom window of the ensuite would be on the east side elevation, 3.8 metres from the boundary with No. 15 Longlands Road, so a condition would be required for the glazing to be obscure for privacy and to minimise perceived overlooking.  It was noted there had been no neighbour objections to the proposal.  The second access was proposed onto Priory Lane and parking would be provided for three vehicles.  County Highways had been consulted and raised no objection in terms of highway safety.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

13.79         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.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation 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.

14.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 245-252.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government appeal decisions issued.

14.2           A Member queried when the Gotherington hearing was taking place and whether it would be streamed on YouTube.  The Development Manager confirmed it was taking place on Wednesday and would possibly go into a second day.  The hearing was being held in London at the High Court and the Legal Adviser explained that, although there was also a remote Court platform, its use required registration with the Court.

14.2          Accordingly, it was

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