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.   

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

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

45.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A S Reece and R J E Vines.  There were no substitutions for the meeting.

46.1          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.

46.2          The following declarations were made:

46.3          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 November 2021 and the special meeting held on 30 November 2021.

47.1          The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 16 November 2021, and the special Planning Committee held on 30 November 2021, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as correct records and signed by the Chair. 

48.1           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 two detached dwellings including associated car parking.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

48.2          This application was for the erection of two detached dwellings including associated car parking.

48.3          The Planning Officer explained that Condition 6, set out at Page No. 49 of the Committee report, had been amended slightly to read: “The electric vehicle charging point shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted plans and shall comply with BS EN 62196 Mode 3 or 4 charging and BS EN 61851 and Manual for Gloucestershire Streets.  The electric vehicle charging points shall be retained for the lifetime of the development thereafter unless they need to be replaced in which case the replacement charging point shall be of the same specification or a higher specification in terms of charging performance.”  She also pointed out an error at Page No. 39, Paragraph 1.2 which should state that the application site measured approximately 0.6 hectares and was triangular in shape.  The Planning Officer went on to advise that the site was within the strategic allocation for residential development and outside of the Green Belt.  The site had been subdivided and a new dwelling erected within the curtilage of Caerleon.  The proposal would further subdivide the site into two plots; plot 2 would be a two storey, three bedroom dwelling of a similar design to the recently constructed dwelling and plot 3 would be a three bedroom dormer bungalow.  Plot 3 would be sited further towards the front boundary and, although almost all properties in the immediate vicinity were set back from the road, this form of development was evident in the wider area.  The subdivision of the plot would result in two smaller plots; however, there were other plots in Down Hatherley and Twigworth of similar size.  The use of similar design features and materials would ensure the development would integrate with the local character.  The plots would be subject to noise from the main road but the agent had agreed to noise mitigation measures for triple glazed windows and doors to be conditioned.  The boundary hedge indicated on the plans had been removed and replaced with a boundary fence which was unauthorised and contrary to the semi-rural character of the area.  A condition was recommended for a hedge to be planted on the front boundary to soften the development with a boundary fence behind as a noise mitigation measure.  The existing access would serve the development and two parking spaces were provided for each dwelling.  County Highways had raised no objection with regard to highway safety or impact on the highway network although, as already referenced, a condition was recommended for the provision of electric vehicle charging points.  The Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer had no objection to the proposal subject to a condition for surface water drainage.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

48.4          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that, as set out in the Committee report, the application sought permission for two additional dwellings on an existing residential plot  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48a

PROPOSAL: Permission in principle for between one and six new dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

48.7          This was a permission in principle application for between one and six dwellings.

48.8          The Planning Officer advised that the application site was located to the western edge of Gretton, on the southern side of Gretton Road, and measured approximately 0.46 hectares.  The site was enclosed by a hedge to its frontage and the embankment to the heritage railway to the rear and was located within the Special Landscape Area and Flood Zone 1.  Since the publication of the Committee report, four further representations had been received in relation to the application which reiterated the observations set out at Page No. 60, Paragraph 5.2 of the Committee report.  He explained that the application was for permission in principle which had two stages: the first stage established whether a site was suitable in principle and the second ‘technical details consent’ stage was when the detailed 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 six dwellings.  The scope of the first stage was limited to location, land use and amount.  It was considered that the development would conflict with the strategic housing policies of the Joint Core Strategy; however, given the Council’s five year housing land supply position, those policies could not be considered up-to-date, therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applied.  In this case, the limited harm of the development on the landscape character 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, it was recommended that permission in principle be granted.

48.9          The Chair invited the representative from the Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative thanked the developers for their willingness to share the plans for the site and to give assurances about taking steps to mitigate the risk of flooding; the housing mix which would include smaller and more affordable housing; and the bespoke, high quality design.  Notwithstanding this, permission in principle was basically a blank cheque and the Parish Council felt bound to express the concerns widely felt by residents in the village.  The Parish Council representative explained that, in terms of location, there were three grounds for objection: the site was outside of the village development boundary; the site was extremely prone to flooding and had flooded during Christmas 2020; and Gretton was not a service village and lacked the infrastructure to sustain development, therefore it was unsustainable.  Paragraph 3.3 of the developers’ proposal acknowledged some of these constraints, as did Paragraphs 7.3 and 7.5 of the Committee report which noted that development in Gretton already exceeded the 5% proposed in the local development plan.  As such, it was with some regret that the Planning Officer’s conclusion was that, although the proposal conflicted with planning policy, because of the lack of a five year housing land supply, a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48b

PROPOSAL: Outline application for the erection of one dwelling and detached garage with all matters reserved.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

48.14        This was an outline application for the erection of one dwelling and detached garage with all matters reserved.

48.15        The Planning Officer advised that the application site related to a parcel of land approximately 0.1 hectares comprised of a paddock and was located to the south of the applicant’s dwelling, Glebe Cottage, and to the east of Main Street.  The site was relatively flat and benefited from natural screening on the boundaries in the form of mature hedgerow and a high red brick wall.  A timber-framed stable block was located in the south-west corner of the site adjacent to a gated vehicular access.  Outline planning permission was sought for the erection of one dwelling and a detached garage with all matters reserved and an indicative plan had been submitted to show the location of the dwelling and creation of a new access.  The application had been called-in for a Committee decision by a Borough Councillor in order to assess the impact of the proposal on the landscape and nearby properties.  The application site was outside of any defined settlement boundary and was not allocated for housing development.  The proposal was not for affordable housing on a rural exception site and it did not represent infilling within the existing built-up area of the village; it had not been brought forward for development through a Community Right to Build Order and there were no policies in the existing development plan which allowed for the type of development proposed.  The proposal would introduce development into an open parcel of land and, consequently, there would be some extent of visual impact; however, the development would be viewed in the context of existing built-up development on either side of the application site and ‘infill’ of the developable plot in the context of the surrounding built form.  Whilst the proposed development would be fairly prominent from the adjacent public highway and would change the character of the site, the site itself sat in close proximity to existing residential development and the illustrative site plan showed that the proposed dwelling would be set back within the site with parking to the front.  Any subsequent reserved matters application would need to demonstrate that the proposed development would not result in an overly prominent form of development within the surrounding landscape and the proposed site layout would respect the location and orientation of existing built development.  In addition, the reserved matters application would need to show that the scale, form and external materials of the proposed dwelling and its architectural appearance would be in-keeping with the local vernacular and would be sympathetic in design to existing adjacent dwellings.  On the basis that the Council could not at this time demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land, the policies for the supply of housing were out of date.  The presumption in favour of sustainable development indicated that permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of permitting the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48c

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single dwelling.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

48.18        This was a permission in principle application for erection of a single dwelling.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 17 December 2021.

48.19        The Planning Officer advised that the application site was located on land between Blenheim Way and Phoenix Meadow, formally known as New Haven, to the west side of School Lane in Shurdington within an area surrounded by residential properties.  The proposal sought permission in principle for one dwelling.  Following queries raised on the Planning Committee Site Visit, the applicant’s agent had confirmed that the applicant did in fact own Blenheim Way.  There was no indicative site layout plan and it was noted there was a pending application at the site for full planning permission for one dwelling under planning application reference 21/00868/FUL.  The whole site was within the Green Belt, as identified in the proposals map within the Joint Core Strategy, and the southern aspect had been included in the defined settlement boundary for Shurdington.  Members were advised that it was not within the scope of the application to determine the details of access to the site and the impact on the residential amenity of existing and future occupiers, both of the adjacent sites and this development, was for consideration at the technical matters stage.  For the reasons set out in the Committee report, it was recommended that permission in principle be granted.

48.20        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent stressed this was a permission in principle application, therefore Members were considering the principle of development only and not the technical matters to which the third party concerns related.  As Members would know, Shurdington was a Service Village; it was a highly sustainable location where housing was to be expected.  Whilst the site was within the Green Belt, both national and local planning policy allowed for limited infilling in villages in the Green Belt and although there was no definition of what constituted infilling, various appeal Inspectors had defined it as “infilling an existing gap in an otherwise built-up frontage”.  Contrary to what the Parish Council had suggested, land was not designated for infilling, it was a matter of planning judgement.  The site was flanked on either side, and on the opposite side of School Lane, by existing residential development.  A single dwelling on the site would infill an existing gap in an otherwise built-up frontage which would sit comfortably in the streetscene and would be seen in the context of existing residential development when viewed from the west.  As such, it was clear that the proposed dwelling would be well-related to the existing built form and represented infilling in the context of Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy and in Green Belt terms.  In respect of the concerns that had been raised, they related mainly to access matters, residential amenity and drainage; as set out within the Committee report, it was not within the scope of this application to determine those matters.  Notwithstanding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48d

PROPOSAL: Retention of a stable with tack room.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

48.24        This application was for retention of a stable with tack room.

48.25        A Member indicated that she wished to propose that the application be deferred for a Planning Committee Site Visit to consider the impact of the proposal on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  She apologised that she had not called this in for a visit prior to today’s meeting but felt it was important to look at the building on site due to the sensitive location.  A field shelter in a similar location had been refused due to its adverse impact and, whilst she was not objecting to the fact that the stable needed to be built, she felt it was prudent to assess the location.  This proposal was duly seconded and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be DEFERRED for a Planning Committee Site Visit in order to assess the impact of the proposal on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

PROPOSAL: Erection of a carport and gym.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

48.26        This application was for the erection of a carport and gym.

48.27        The Planning Officer advised that this application was for a detached carport and gym outbuilding at Rockaway Ridge in Cleeve Hill; revised plans had been submitted on 30 September 2021 omitting the proposed store.  A Committee determination was required as the Parish Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds that it would lead to overdevelopment of the site within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Whilst the Parish Council’s concerns had been noted, this was a good-sized plot and the proposed outbuilding, as revised, would be approximately 30 metres away from the main dwelling and there would be a lot of garden area left free from extensions/additions.  Local residents had commented that there was already a gym at the site and the future use of the proposed building had been questioned; however, the Planning Officer clarified that, when the replacement dwelling had originally been designed, the lower ground floor had been labelled as a gym but was actually used as a second sitting room so there was not currently a gym at the site. The proposed gym and carport would be used for ancillary purposes only and a suitable condition would be attached to ensure that.  Overall, the proposal was considered to be an acceptable size and design and there would be no adverse impact on the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

48.28        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: Change of use from residential to dual use (residential/childminding business).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

48.29        This application was for change of use from residential to dual use (residential/childminding business).  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 17 December 2021.

48.30        The Head of Development Services advised that the applicant currently ran a childminding service at the dwelling for up to six children aged eight and under and the application had been submitted as the applicant wished to expand the service to allow a maximum of 12 children aged eight and under to be cared for at the property.  The application had originally been submitted for use between 0730 hours and 1730 hours Monday-Friday; however, since the publication of the Committee report, the applicant had confirmed they would like to open the childminding service on some Bank Holidays.  The application required a Committee determination due to an objection from Shurdington Parish Council on the grounds that it would be detrimental to existing local residents as Greenway Close was a small cul-de-sac which was already used as a vehicle drop-off area for Shurdington Primary School and due to the noise generated by the additional children as well as the children being exposed to pollution due to the proximity to the A46.  It was noted that no objections had been raised by County Highways or the Council’s Environmental Health Officer.  When balancing the needs of the users of the childminding service and the neighbouring residential amenity, it was considered a logical approach would be to allow the business to open on Bank Holidays but to restrict both the opening hours and the number of children at the premises on those days.  Officers considered that a reasonable number of children would be six, given that in most cases a childminding service could care for a maximum of six children aged eight and under without the need for planning permission.  Conditions 3 and 4 had been amended to reflect this as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, and the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

48.31        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  A Member asked whether Ofsted needed to be consulted in relation to the increase in the amount of children being cared for and raised concern about the suitability of the site for a children’s play area as it was more like a hardstanding with associated paraphernalia.  In response, the Head of Development Services advised that there was no obligation to consult Ofsted as part of the planning permission; however, Ofsted was responsible for assessing the property to ensure it was a suitable environment for children from a safety perspective.  The Development Management Team Leader (North) explained that Ofsted had a requirement to visit settings which cared for children aged five and under when the childminding business was initially set-up; further visits were undertaken thereafter but they could be several years apart unless any issues were raised in terms of the service being provided.  Childminders were required to have risk assessments etc. in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48g

PROPOSAL: Extension to existing pavilion.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

48.34        This application was for extension to the existing pavilion.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 17 December 2021.

48.35        The Development Management Team Leader (North) advised that this was a full planning application for Tewkesbury Cricket Club located on Gander Lane.  The proposal was to add a single storey extension - which was a slightly elevated front extension - onto the existing pavilion.  It was the view of Officers that the proposal did not represent a high quality design solution, resulting in a bulky addition to the existing pavilion that would not respect its character and appearance.  By reason of its design, it was considered that it would also adversely affect the character and appearance of the locally important open space in which it was situated.  It was therefore recommended that the application be refused.

48.36        The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  The applicant’s representative indicated that the Cricket Club was a voluntary organisation providing competitive and social cricket for all ages, from four year old All Stars through to West of England League.  The pavilion was a social centre for more than 100 members, their parents, families and guests – truly a community asset.  Two years ago, the Club had launched a project to upgrade the changing facilities and increase the social space by 50%.  They had met with the Conservation Officer and a Planning Officer and had been advised not to change the view of the building as seen from the adjacent Abbey, nor to increase the roof height but to extend forward to achieve the required additional space and, as far as possible, retain the frontal appearance of the structure.  The plans produced in line with that advice had fallen foul of Sport England on issues related to accessibility and gender.  Extensive negotiations with Sport England and the England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) had resulted in the current plans which fully met their requirements, providing more internal space achieved by the forward extension.  The application had been submitted on 6 August 2021 with the required documentation and all statutory consultees had shown support with no objections raised.  On 18 November 2021, the applicants had been informed that the application would be refused because the proposed design, specifically the flat roof, did not meet the high standard of design set out in the policies of the adopted development plan or national planning guidance.  As a layperson, the applicant’s representative could not understand why the flat roof was such an issue – it could not be due to the area because, if the design had followed the Planning Officers’ suggestion of bringing the pitched roof forward and having a flat, but inaccessible, roof in the middle that would be much the same area.  This design was thought to be less intrusive in the local landscape than the alternative, as shown by the computer generated images included in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.  The applicant’s agent asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48h

PROPOSAL: Replacement of existing timber window units with UPVC double glazed units throughout the building.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

48.40        This application was for replacement of existing timber window units with UPVC double glazed units throughout the building.

48.41        The Development Management Team Leader (North) advised that this was a full planning application for The Maltings, a residential building for people aged 55 and over which comprised apartments located on Station Street in Tewkesbury.  The building was a modern design on the site of an earlier building known as the Dowty Engineering Works and was situated outside of the Conservation Area.  The proposal was to replace the current modern, timber-framed windows with UPVC double-glazed windows and to replace the front door with an aluminium automated communal door.  The colour of the frames would match the existing windows which were finished in black.  A Committee determination was required as Tewkesbury Town Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds that the change from curved headed windows to rectangular windows in some of the openings would have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area and would dilute the design of the original building.  Whilst those concerns had been considered, it was the Officer view that the proposal did not harm the Conservation Area and the windows were of an appropriate design, as outlined in the Committee report, therefore, it was recommended that the application be permitted.

48.42        The Chair invited the representative from the Town Council to address the Committee.  The Town Council representative advised that, in 1986, an engraved trowel was presented to the Town Mayor to celebrate the topping out of The Maltings; that marked a significant milestone in the 1980’s regeneration of Tewkesbury; the earlier Bishop’s Walk development demonstrated that you imposed modern architecture on the streetscape of Tewkesbury at your peril.  Postmodernism allowed for the creation of new buildings that made clear reference to the heritage context in which they were sited, just like The Maltings.  Occupying the footprint of the former Dowty Engineering works, it echoed its predecessor in its massing, use of traditional building materials and deployment of design elements that were common to Victorian industrial buildings; it was a building of its time and contributed to, rather than detracted from, its environment.  Currently, as the Spring Gardens site next door remained undeveloped, The Maltings occupied a very visible, dominant position just outside the boundary of the Conservation Area.  Unlike many postmodern buildings, it was relatively restrained in its use of historical details.  Tewkesbury Town Council’s Planning Committee considered that, without its intermittent groups of arched windows it would still be a dominant building but its contribution to the townscape would be so much less positive.  Spring Gardens was identified as a key site in the Tewkesbury Town Regeneration Supplementary Planning Document which talked about modern architecture designed to respect a historic setting – The Maltings did exactly that.  The Supplementary Planning Document encouraged maximising Tewkesbury’s unique assets, building on the quality of the town and delivering regeneration options to make it a better place to live, work and visit so the Town Council  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48i

To consider current planning and enforcement appeals and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions.

49.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 156-158.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issued.

49.2          Accordingly, it was

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