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.   

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

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

23.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillor R J G Smith.  Councillor C Softley would be acting as a substitute for the meeting.   

24.1           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.

24.2           The following declarations were made:

24.3           There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 August 2021.

25.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 17 August 2021, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

26.1           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 two storey office development (Class E use).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

26.2           This application was for the erection of a two-storey office development (Class E use).  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 17 August 2021 for a Planning Committee Site Visit in order to assess the proposal in the context of the objections raised by local residents.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 17 September 2021.

26.3           The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised an undeveloped parcel of land adjacent to Rudgeway Lane and to the east of the Bloor Homes development at Tewkesbury Meadows.  To the north of the site was a recreation ground with housing at Nightingale Way and open fields to the south and east.  The application sought planning permission for a two-storey office building to provide a new regional office for Bloor Homes.  The building would be set to the western part of the site and would flank towards Bluebell Road.  The proposal included 66 car parking spaces to the southern and eastern part of the site along with additional landscaping to the site boundaries.  Policy SD1 of the Joint Core Strategy set out that employment-related development would be supported within the principal urban area of Tewkesbury town and in the wider countryside when it was located within, or adjacent to, a settlement - as in this instance – and when the development was of an appropriate scale and character.  This proposal accorded with the policy and therefore was considered acceptable in principle.  Members were advised that the proposed two-storey building would have a simple linear form and a low pitched roof which had been designed to be reflective of an agricultural barn.  The proposed materials palette of red brick, metal cladding and roof slates would secure a satisfactory appearance and would reflect materials used in the adjoining housing development.  Whilst the building would be substantial in terms of its width, it would be set away from nearby dwellings and would not adversely impact the living conditions of those occupiers, or the character and appearance of the wider area.  It was noted that the proposed development would result in some landscape harm; however, it was considered this would be limited given the relationship of the site with adjoining built development.  A considerable number of objections had been received with the main concern relating to highway safety.  The Planning Officer advised that the proposal would result in an increase in vehicles using Bluebell Road and the scheme had been accompanied by a transport assessment.  The details had been reviewed by the County Highways Officer who had concluded that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe impact on congestion in terms of the wider road network.  The Council’s Ecologist was satisfied that the development would not adversely impact newts and reasonable avoidance measures had been secured.  He clarified that the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, included amended conditions to replace conditions 4, 6, 7 and 11 as set out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26a

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey front extension.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

26.10         This application was for erection of a single storey front extension.

26.11         The Development Manager advised that a Committee determination was required as the Parish Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds that the extension would have an unacceptable impact on the streetscene and would create a precedent.  Whilst those concerns were noted, there were other examples of this type of development in the local area in close proximity to the site.  Overall, the proposal was considered to be of a suitable size and design and would be in-keeping with the area with no undue impact on neighbouring residents, therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit.

26.12         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: Proposed alterations to include the provision of external condenser units, additional louvres and CCTV cameras to the external elevations of the building.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

26.13         This application was for proposed alterations to include the provision of external condenser units, additional louvres and CCTV cameras to the external elevations of the building.

26.14         The Development Manager advised that the wrong plans had been included with the Committee report for this item and he apologised for this error; the correct plans were included within the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.  He explained that a Committee determination was required as Brockworth Parish Council had objected to the proposal due to concerns in relation to noise, air pollutants and odours coming from business premises in the area and the impact on local residents; although the site was within Hucclecote, Brockworth Parish Council was concerned about the potential environmental impacts.  Whilst those concerns were noted, the nearest residential dwellings were over 100 metres from the site.  The submitted noise report concluded there would be no adverse impact on the nearest residents and the Council’s Environmental Health Officer had raised no objections in terms of noise nuisance or air quality.  Overall, the proposal would be of an appropriate size and design and the external appearance would be in keeping with the character and appearance of existing businesses on the business park.  Therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

26.15         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.  The proposer of the motion expressed the view that more of these type of applications should be expected as technology moved forward and she suspected it would become less noisy as it advanced; nevertheless, in this instance a noise assessment had been undertaken and had shown there would be no adverse impact.  The seconder of the motion felt that, on the basis of the Environmental Health Officer’s report, he did not think there was any option other than to permit.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

PROPOSAL: Proposed alterations to include the provision of external air handling units and condenser units and additional louvres to the external elevations of the building.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

26.16         This application was for proposed alterations to include the provision of external air handling units and condenser units and additional louvres to the external elevations of the building.

26.17         The Development Manager indicated that there was very little to add that had not been said under the previous Agenda item.  This building was actually further away from residential properties to the north and was screened behind the building which was the subject of the previous Agenda item.

26.18         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 single residential dwelling (C3) and associated operational development (Plot 1).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Minded to Permit. 

26.19        This application was for the erection of a single residential dwelling (C3) and associated operational development (Plot 1).

26.20        The Development Manager advised that the application site was between the dwellings known as Laurel Cottage to the west and Manor Cottage to the east.  Two separate applications – this application and application ref: 21/00412/FUL which was Agenda Item 5f – had been submitted for this site which had been granted permission in principle last year for two dwellings; therefore, the principle of development was acceptable.  The site was bounded by established trees/hedgerows and was located within the Landscape Development Zone.  There was an existing Public Right of Way passing through the site which was proposed to be diverted, subject to a current footpath diversion order which would need to be resolved before any works could take place.  There was an existing agricultural access along the southern (front) boundary of the site which would be improved to serve the proposed dwelling.  County Highways had considered the proposals and raised no objections, subject to conditions.  Members were informed that the maximum height of the proposed dwelling would be approximately 7.8 metres with eaves catsliding down the front elevation to reduce the apparent bulk of the building.  The design incorporated a number of traditional features such as eaves detailing, a timber canopy and chimneys.  The proposal also comprised a two-bay detached garage sited to the west of the house.  The scale and design of the proposed development overall was considered acceptable and, in the Officers’ opinion, there would be an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area.  The dwellings would have a permeable driveway discharging stormwater directly to ground, as per the existing greenfield site, and the stormwater drainage system would flow to the north-east of the proposed dwelling boundary to a new crate soakaway.  Soakaway testing and infiltration rates had been provided and the Lead Local Flood Authority was satisfied with the information.  Whilst some trees and hedgerows were proposed to be removed, these had been assessed by the Tree Officer who was satisfied that those to be lost were unremarkable specimens so this was acceptable, subject to a high-quality landscaping scheme being secured by condition.  The Development Manager drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which set out that condition 7 in relation to ecological enhancements had been reworded at the request of the agent.  Further to that, the agent had suggested alternative wording for condition 10 to make it more specific and less onerous – this seemed reasonable on first reading; however, it was necessary to consult the Council’s Ecological Adviser to ensure they were satisfied.  On that basis, the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the amendment of condition 10 provided that the Ecological Adviser was satisfied with the proposed rewording.

26.21         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that, as set out in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26e

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single residential dwelling (C3) and associated operational development (Plot 2).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Minded to Permit.

26.24        This application was for the erection of a single residential dwelling (C3) and associated operational development (Plot 2).

26.25        The Development Manager explained that this was the second of two full applications on the site which had permission in principle.  This was slightly different in that the proposed access snaked around the back of Manor Cottage and served both Manor Cottage and the building at the back as well as the proposed application site.  As with the previous application, the principle of development had already been established.  In this case, a single garage accompanied the dwelling and the County Highways Officer had considered the proposal and raised no objection subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report.  A number of traditional features had been incorporated into the design and both the scale and design would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area.  The drainage would be dealt with in a similar way to the previous application and the Lead Local Flood Authority was happy with that proposal.  As set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, condition 7 in relation to ecological enhancements had been reworded at the request of the applicant’s agent.  Further to that, the applicant’s agent had suggested alternative wording for condition 8, as per condition 10 of the previous application and, whilst Officers were happy with the suggestion, it was necessary to consult the Council’s Ecological Adviser to ensure they were satisfied. 

26.26         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that, given the similarities between this and the previous application, he did not intend to repeat himself in detail.  As Members were aware, permission in principle existed for residential development on this land and the proposal before the Committee reflected the scale, character, design and proportions of the development at Plot 1 and entirely met with the design expectations of the development plan.  The development would be served by an existing point of access which both met the prescribed visibility standards and enabled adequate space for turning and manoeuvring within the site.  The siting, scale and design of the dwelling would complement that at Plot 1 and other existing neighbouring properties in the area, particularly considering its spacious setting.  As per Plot 1, mature boundary treatments would be retained and all appropriate development management standards would be met through the application.  The applicant’s agent hoped that Members would permit the application in light of its clear compliance with the development management policies and the boost it would provide to housing supply.

26.27         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the amendment of condition 8 provided that the Ecological Adviser was satisfied with the proposed rewording, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application in accordance with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26f

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey side and rear extension; retention of a 1.8 metre fence along the north-west boundary.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

26.29        This application was for the erection of single storey side and rear extension and retention of a 1.8 metre fence along the north-west boundary.

26.30        The Planning Officer advised that the application related to a detached property located on an estate in Tewkesbury.  The proposal was to add a single storey side and rear extension onto the dwelling and to retain a 1.8 metre close boarded timber fence along the north-west boundary.  A Committee determination was required as Tewkesbury Town Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds that the fence was out of character with the surrounding boundary treatments; whilst these concerns had been noted, the Officers’ view was that the proposal was in keeping with the surrounding development as outlined in the Committee report.

26.31        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 that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The proposer of the motion indicated there were many examples of such fences in the vicinity which was the only reason for the Town Council’s objection. A Member noted there was no condition requiring the hedge removal to take place outside of bird nesting season and the Development Manager confirmed the hedge had already been removed.  The Member subsequently seconded the proposal 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, first floor extension and dormer windows.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

26.32        This application was for the erection of a single storey rear extension, first floor extension and dormer windows.

26.33        The Planning Officer advised that the proposal was to erect a single storey rear and first floor extension including a raise in the ridge height and the addition of dormer windows in the front and back of the dwelling known as Tresco located on Langley Road, Winchcombe.  A Committee determination was required as Winchcombe Town Council had objected to the proposal based on the scale of the extensions and the proposal’s lack of conformity with the requirements of Policy 3.3 of the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Development Plan relating to bungalow development.  Three letters of objection had been received in relation to the application on amenity grounds - one of which related specifically to the revised scheme - and concerns raised included potential overlooking, overbearing impact and loss of light to the adjacent dwelling to the east.  These concerns had been taken into account in determining the application but it was not considered that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties.  The Town Council’s concerns had been considered and it was recognised that the proposal would not fulfil the requirements of the bungalow development policy; however, it was Officers’ view that the proposal would be reasonable in the context, considering the scale and location of the development and the orientation of the dwellings in the locale.  In addition, planning permission had been granted on the site for a one and half storey replacement dwelling and detached garage in 2020 and the property benefited from permitted development rights, allowing for extension into the roof space without the need for planning permission – these represented realistic fallback positions.  It was therefore considered that the proposed extensions would be acceptable in the context and would not have an adverse impact on residential amenity, as such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

26.34        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent explained that planning permission was being sought for extensions to the existing bungalow to provide more appropriate living space.  The application had come to the Committee for determination purely on the basis of the objection from the Town Council that the proposal conflicted with Policy 3.3 of the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Development Plan in relation to the retention of bungalows.  As the Committee report thoroughly explained, planning permission had been granted in 2020 for a replacement dwelling at the site and that scheme was for a new property similar in scale to the one before Members today which resulted in the loss of all ground floor bedrooms.  The Town Council had raised no objection to the replacement dwelling, nor had it objected to the recent application at Giles Piece, also on Langley Road, which proposed enlarging the roof space to relocate all bedrooms to first floor level and had been granted planning permission in April 2021.  Policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26h

PROPOSAL: Removal/variation of conditions 2 (plans as set out), 4 (landscaping compliance) and 11 (noise assessment) of planning application reference 17/01131/FUL.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

26.36        This application was for the removal/variation of conditions 2 (plans as set out), 4 (landscaping compliance) and 11 (noise assessment) of planning application reference: 17/01131/FUL.

26.37        The Planning Officer advised that the application site related to the commercial centre of the Homelands development and planning permission was being sought to regularise the landscape work that had been undertaken and to discharge a condition requiring the submission of an additional noise impact assessment.  It was noted that the hedge adjacent to Gotherington Lane had not been removed but had been cut back and was slightly shorter in length to facilitate the cycle path and streetlighting in the area.  Whilst the concerns of the Parish Council were noted, it was considered that the character of the area had become less rural with the permission for the residential development and commercial centre.  The existing hedge and areas of grass provided a soft landscaping buffer to the commercial centre and the proposal was considered acceptable in terms of landscape character.  The noise impact assessment had previously been discharged in part of building A (the Co-op) and a noise impact assessment was required for the two other buildings before the installation of extraction ventilation equipment.  The noise assessment had stated that noise levels would be limited to a rating no higher than existing background levels and hours of operation would be restricted to between 0700 and 2100 hours.  The Environmental Health Officer considered the noise assessment to be acceptable and that there would be no undue impact to neighbouring properties, subject to the noise level and hours of operation being controlled by condition.  The Planning Officer explained there were some minor discrepancies in terms of the plans submitted - the plans in question showed the location of the cycle storage area and some of the landscaping which did not correspond - Officers had sought these revisions prior to the Committee but, as they had not yet been received, the Officer recommendation had been changed to delegated permit. 

26.38        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to conditions and revised plans to address the minor discrepancies relating to the location of the cycle storage area and landscaping, and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member indicated that she knew the area well as she drove past the site several times each day, it was used a lot by local residents and she had some safety concerns in relation to that.  She explained that the site was at the front of the fish and chip shop at the bottom of the building fronting onto Gotherington Lane and children sat on the grassy bank outside where there was no kerb.  As there was no speed limit on the road, cars came quickly around the roundabout and she had grave concerns that one would plough across the bank where people were sitting, especially as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26i

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of five dwellings and associated access.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

26.40         This application was for demolition of an existing dwelling and erection of five dwellings and associated access.  The application was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 17 August 2021 in order to allow further conversations to take place in relation to access and design and to allow Officers to establish the proximity of Flood Zone 2 to the site.

26.41         The Development Manager explained that a number of additional objections had been received, as set out in the updated Committee report and the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.  It was noted that the matters raised within the objections were addressed in the report.  There had been concerns about the construction access; however, as advised last month, recommended condition 18 required that work must be carried out in accordance with the submitted Demolition and Construction Method Statement.  With any development there would be a degree of noise and disturbance but controls could be put in place to mitigate against that and it was the Officer view that, in this case, that would not warrant refusal.  In respect of design, the agent had suggested three options with an alternative materials palette for the proposed dwellings and these and the location of Flood Zone 2 were shown on the presentation for Members’ information.  Officers agreed with the agent’s view that the materials originally proposed were acceptable given the contemporary design of the dwellings and the variety of design in the area, therefore, the recommendation was to permit the application.

26.42         The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that he was speaking on behalf of the residents of Dunstan Glen and the wider village community and he pointed out there had been 151 letters of objection to the proposal.  In terms of construction site access, this was the second choice and should be refused on the grounds of multiple safety issues.  A freedom of information request had confirmed that County Highways had not undertaken a pedestrian survey, or any other form of site survey, and strategies such as “banksmen” and site notices would not mitigate the risks or meet the duty of care required by the stakeholders to protect the public to acceptable levels.  An independent pedestrian survey had concluded that 18,078 persons would pass the entrance over the build period, yet there were no footpaths in Dunstan Glen so pedestrians could not be segregated and protected from site traffic, raising a high risk of personal injury.  He pointed out that gardens were open plan and children played both in the gardens and on the roads.  Both roads would have densely parked vehicles 24 hours per day, seven days per week and the local school also used the roads which included a sharp, blind bend that made it entirely unsuitable for Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs).  This was all contrary to Paragraph 7.19 of the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan, construction logistics and community safety standards and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26j

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

27.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 199-203.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government appeal decisions issued.

27.2          Accordingly, it was

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