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.   

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

56.2          The Vice-Chair in the chair gave a brief outline of the procedure for Planning Committee meetings, including public speaking.

57.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J H Evetts (Chair) and M A Gore.  There were no substitutions for the meeting. 

58.1          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.

58.2          The following declarations were made:

58.3          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2022.

59.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2022, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Vice-Chair in the chair. 

60.1          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: Residential development (up to 160 dwellings) associated works including demolition, infrastructure, open space and landscaping with vehicular access from the A38; all matters reserved.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

60.2          This application was for residential development of up to 160 dwellings and associated works including demolition, infrastructure, open space and landscaping with vehicular access from the A38; all matters reserved.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 14 January 2022.

60.3          The Planning Officer advised that, at its meeting on 18 January 2022, the Planning Committee had resolved to defer this application to allow discussions to continue and a conclusion to be reached in respect of the financial contributions towards education provision and the proposed tenure mix of the affordable housing.  The application site was located off Brook Lane in Down Hatherley and extended to approximately 7.82 hectares.  The site on which the residential development was proposed comprised 4.89 hectares and lay within the Parish of Down Hatherley.  The remaining area, as defined by the red line on the submitted site location plan, comprised land consented and currently part-built known as ‘Land at Twigworth’ approved under the outline consent in 2016 and was required for access, service and surface water drainage – this additional land was located within Down Hatherley Parish, Twigworth Parish and a small section in Innsworth Parish.  To the immediate north of the site was Norton Garden Centre and several properties lay along Brook Lane located immediately to the west.  To the east were properties along Ash Lane with an intervening parcel of agricultural land separating some from the site.  The ‘Land at Twigworth’ development was situated to the south of the site, beyond a parcel of agricultural land.  Members were advised that the site formed part of the Innsworth and Twigworth strategic allocation in the Joint Core Strategy and was shown to be ‘housing and related infrastructure’ in the Joint Core Strategy indicative site layout proposals map.  This application was made in outline for residential development of up to 160 dwellings and associated works with all matters reserved for subsequent approval.  Whilst access was reserved for future consideration, an application for outline planning permission must indicate the area, or areas, where access points to the development would be situated.  Based on the plans submitted, it was proposed that the access to the site from the public highway would be provided from the new roundabout off the A38 which had been approved as part of the ‘Land at Twigworth’ development.  Although all matters were reserved, the application documents included an illustrative masterplan and parameters plan which indicated how the quantum of development could be delivered. 

60.4          The Planning Officer explained that, since the publication of the January Committee report, several matters which had been reported as outstanding had since been resolved and therefore the Committee report in the Agenda for the current meeting had been updated accordingly to reflect that.  She confirmed that the two outstanding matters which were the reasons for the deferral at the last Planning Committee meeting had now also been resolved following continued discussions and negotiations.  In terms of the contribution towards education provision, the applicant  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60a

PROPOSAL: Outline application for residential development of 24 apartments and associated operations (access reserved for future consideration). 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

60.17        This was an outline application for residential development of 24 apartments and associated operations (access reserved for future consideration).

60.18        The Planning Officer advised that this application related to a parcel of land to the north of Longford Lane and to the east of Horsbere Drive which was located within the new residential development at Longford but within Innsworth Parish.  The site itself was rectangular in shape and consisted of an area of rough grassland covering approximately 0.31 hectares, excluding the access road.  The land had open boundaries onto footpaths to the north and west with the south-eastern boundary enclosed by close boarded fencing which formed the boundary to the gardens of dwellings on Whitefield Crescent Road.  Residential properties bordered the site to the south-east; to the north-east was the new primary school – Longford Park Primary Academy; and to the north-west across Horsbere Drive were recently constructed retail units.  The application as originally submitted had been made in outline with all matters reserved for subsequent approval; however, in accordance with Part 3, Article 5(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, Officers considered that, due to the circumstances of the case, the application should not be considered separately from all of the reserved matters and therefore requested details of the scale, layout, appearance and landscaping.  In this case, the circumstances related to whether the development as proposed would be acceptable given that planning permission was refused at the site in July 2020 for the construction of two apartment blocks comprising 33 dwellings and associated parking and landscaping.  That planning permission was refused because the Council considered that, based on the context of the site and its surroundings, the development by virtue of the overall scale and the resulting bulk and massing would not be of an appropriate scale, type and density and therefore would fail to respond positively to, or respect the character, appearance and visual amenity of the site and the surrounding area.  It had also been refused due to the absence of an appropriate planning obligation.  As such, one of the key matters for consideration as part of this application was whether the proposal overcame the refusal reasons for the previously refused scheme.  This application differed from the previously refused scheme in that the number of apartments proposed had been reduced to 24, the number of parking spaces had increased, changes had been incorporated into the proposed landscaping and two storey elements had been introduced into the build reducing the overall maximum building height.  An assessment of the material considerations was included at Pages No. 78-91 of the Committee report.  As set out in the Committee report and the Additional Representations Sheet, Officers considered that, whilst the benefits of the proposed development were not underestimated, when taking account of the material considerations the identified harms would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the overall planning balance.  It was therefore considered that the proposed development would not constitute sustainable development in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60b

PROPOSAL: Permission in principle for the erection of up to four dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit 

60.22        This was a permission in principle application for the erection of up to four dwellings.

60.23        The Planning Officer advised that the application related to a parcel of land to the east of Ash Lane.  The site was generally level, covering 0.33 hectares and laid to grass; it was not subject to any formal landscape designation but was in an area of safeguarded land.  This application was for permission in principle, as provided for in the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017.  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 four dwellings.  The site layout, design, access, landscaping, drainage and any other technical matters would be considered at the technical details stage.  An indicative layout plan accompanied the application which demonstrated how the quantum of development could be delivered on the site.  Based on the plan, two dwellings could be provided fronting Ash Lane and two could be located to the rear of the site; a new access road could be provided running along the northern boundary to serve the two properties to the rear.  It should be noted that planning permission had been granted in April 2021 for the erection of two detached dwellings on the front part of the site and a further planning permission had been granted the previous week for two single storey dwellings on land immediately to the north of the eastern half of the site.  An assessment of the material considerations could be found at Pages No. 113-119 of the Committee report.  As set out in the Committee report, Officers considered that, when taking account of all the material considerations, the harm which would arise from the conflict with Policy SD5 of the Joint Core Strategy would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the overall planning balance when considering whether the location was suitable for housing, therefore, it was recommended that permission in principle should be granted.

60.24        The Vice-Chair in the chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that permission in principle was being sought for four dwellings; however, as set out in the Committee report and by the Planning Officer in their introduction, full planning permission already existed for two of those dwellings at the front of the site fronting Ash Lane.  As such, this application was really only for two additional dwellings to the rear of the site.  It was also material to note that, in October 2021, the Planning Committee had granted full permission for two dwellings directly next to where the proposed dwellings were to be sited.  This application had been put forward on the same basis as that neighbouring approval and under an identical policy context.  Members would recall that several other applications had been permitted for additional housing along Ash Lane in recent years and the site was in very close proximity to the Twigworth  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60c

PROPOSAL: Erection of eight dwellings to include new access, landscaping and associated works.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit  

60.28        This application was for the erection of eight dwellings to include new access, landscaping and associated works.

60.29        The Development Manager advised that the proposal included a range of detached and semi-detached house types including two three-bed, three four-bed and three five-bed properties.  A new site access was proposed directly off New Road and a landscaping scheme had been put forward which proposed the retention of a number of trees and the inclusion of replanting. The site was located within Flood Zone 1, and therefore was at low risk of flooding, and was not within a critical drainage area or an area of special designated control.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

60.30        The Vice-Chair in the chair invited the representative from Woodmancote Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative indicated that the Parish Council had supported the development in principle from the outset but objected to the two and a half storey plot design which was out of keeping with the character of the village and contrary to the draft Neighbourhood Development Plan that was at regulation 16 stage.  Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy required the Planning Committee to decide if the proposal would be compatible with the character of the local environment and Planning Officers had recommended the application for permission on the basis that it was not detrimental to the character of the local environment – the Parish Council did not believe that was the same thing and he asked that the Vice-Chair in the chair seek a formal opinion from the expert team on this technical point.   Woodmancote Parish Council would like the Committee to refuse the application on the basis that it would be incompatible with the character of Woodmancote; however, if the applicant was to resubmit the application with the two and a half storey element removed then the Parish Council would support it.  The Parish Council representative had noted that the applicant had been permitted to lawfully destroy the biodiversity habitat that existed in the disused orchard of Poplar Farm and then carry out a survey of the baseline biodiversity, post-clearance.  Therefore, it was hardly surprising that the requirements to enhance biodiversity on the site, via proposed conditions 4, 7 and 9, were minimal and the Parish Council asked for this matter to be revisited.  With regard to condition 6, which required drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, the Parish Council representative pointed out that the proposed drainage strategy was apparently based on an agreement between the applicant and Severn Trent Water which had been approved by the flood engineering team at Gloucestershire County Council; however, neither Severn Trent Water or the County Council had been in possession of the correct facts at the time, in particular, the County Council did not realise that the combined sewer was only 300mm diameter and Severn Trent Water had used fluvial  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60d

PROPOSAL: Proposed extensions and alterations to Poplar Farm (Grade II Listed) including demolition of existing twentieth century additions.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

60.36        This application was for proposed extensions and alterations to Poplar Farm (Grade II Listed) including demolition of existing twentieth century additions.

60.37        The Vice-Chair in the chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item as public speaking had been covered in Agenda Item 5d.  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 extensions and alterations to Poplar Farm (Grade II Listed) including demolition of existing twentieth century additions.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Consent

60.38        This was a listed building consent application for proposed extensions and alterations to Poplar Farm (Grade II Listed) including demolition of existing twentieth century additions.

60.39        The Vice-Chair in the chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item as public speaking had been covered in Agenda Item 5d.  The Officer recommendation was to grant consent for the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that consent be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be GRANTED CONSENT in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

PROPOSAL: Outline application for the erection of up to 16 dwellings (all matters reserved except for access).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

60.40        This was an outline application for the erection of up to 16 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access.

60.41        The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised an agricultural field located to the east of Minsterworth Village Hall and to the north and east of a recent housing development at Ellis Bank Lane to the northern side of the A48.  This application sought outline planning permission for a development of up to 16 residential dwellings, including six affordable houses and associated infrastructure, with all matters reserved for future consideration save for access which would be from the A48 via Ellis Bank Lane.  The indicative layout plan showed how a development could be laid out as a continuation of Ellis Bank Lane.  In terms of the principle of development, the proposal lay within a Service Village but outside of a defined settlement boundary.  It should be noted that the site would fall within the Main Modifications Version Tewkesbury Borough Plan but the application currently conflicted with Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy.  In accordance with Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and given the Council’s current land supply position, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework as a whole.  It was considered that, whilst the proposal would result in some harm to the landscape by reason of encroachment into the agricultural land, this harm would be clearly and demonstrably outweighed by the social and economic benefits associated with the delivery of up to 16 dwellings within a Service Village location.  On balance, the proposal was considered to be acceptable.  In addition to the comments in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, a further condition was recommended to secure biodiversity net gain.  The Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to any additional/amended planning conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

60.42        The Vice-Chair in 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 any additional/amended planning conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement, 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 Officer recommendation.  A Member raised concern regarding the drainage and asked that a condition be included so that adequate provision was made for the new properties.  There had been issues with the drainage in Ellis Bank Lane during the previous week and there was a need to ensure that the new properties did not drain onto farmland as was the case in other areas of Minsterworth.  The Planning Officer advised that condition 18 required details of the proposed drainage works to be submitted to, and approved in writing  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60g

PROPOSAL: To allow for extended hours of delivery 0500-2300 hours Monday-Saturday and 0700-2200 hours on Sundays; variation of condition 5 of planning permission ref: 01/0041/0125/FUL (as modified by permission ref: 08/01358/FUL and 14/00552/FUL); and variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref: 14/00552/FUL to amend report of noise mitigation measures.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

60.46        This application was to allow for extended hours of delivery 0500-2300 hours Monday-Saturday and 0800-2200 hours on Sundays; variation of condition 5 of planning permission ref: 01/0041/0125/FUL (as modified by permission ref: 08/01358/FUL and 14/00552/FUL); and variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref: 14/00552/FUL to amend report of noise mitigation measures. 

60.47        The Planning Officer advised that the application had been deferred by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 16 June 2020 in order to obtain the Environmental Health Officer’s views in relation to the impact of the proposal on the residents of the flats above Mill Parade and the additional noise and disturbance that could potentially arise from vehicles coming and going.  A further noise assessment had been undertaken in November 2021 and the report had been submitted the previous week.  A summary of its findings, and the comments of the Environmental Health Officer in response to the report, were included in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.  The Environmental Health Officer considered that the noise from delivery lorries arriving and departing, and from the unloading of lorries in the delivery yard, was above the World Health Organisation’s Community Noise Guidelines and, if commenced at 0500 hours, this would have a potentially significant adverse impact.  As such, it was recommended that the application be refused in order to safeguard the amenity of nearby residents from noise and disturbance.

60.48        The Vice-Chair in the chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member asked whether the applicant had given a reason for wanting to change the hours and was informed this was to allow more deliveries to take place; the Planning Officer explained there had been a lifting of delivery time restrictions during the pandemic.  A Member expressed the view that the proposal would impact those people living close to the site and also the wider village as articulated lorries had to travel through the village to deliver to the Tesco store due to its location.  There were already problems with noise from deliveries to another supermarket on route to Tesco and he felt that the application must be refused. 

60.49        Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: To confirm the TPO without modification. 

60.50        This was in respect of the confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).  The Planning Committee had visited the site on Friday 11 February 2022.

60.51        The Tree Officer advised that the order related to TPO 410 which was made in October 2021 with the purpose of protecting a young woodland.  The TPO had been made in response to a planning application being received for residential development and confirming the TPO would help to ensure that the trees remained protected as a material consideration throughout the planning process.  The woodland trees had public amenity, landscape and wildlife value which would only increase as they matured.  It was therefore recommended that the TPO be confirmed without modification.

60.52        The Vice-Chair in the chair invited the landowner’s representative, speaking in objection, to address the Committee.  The landowner’s representative indicated that the purpose of the TPO regime was to ensure that trees of substantial age and of the greatest quality of specimen were protected.  The effective and proper use of TPOs had served the borough well in the past and many of its finest trees – ones that genuinely contributed to the environment – had been duly safeguarded; however, TPOs were not intended to be used superficially.  As set out within the Committee report, the specimens in question were young, juvenile species that had been planted within the last five years or so.  They had been planted by a private landowner but had not since been managed and there was no mechanism for their long-term management.  Members would be aware that Twyning was under development pressure and the site was subject to a development proposal.  The Committee report essentially confirmed that the TPO had been made for that reason and that most of the trees lacked any individual merit; however, the decision to confirm a TPO was completely separate from any planning application and, ultimately, if the impact of the development on local amenity value was so great, it was within the Council’s gift to refuse permission, or impose measures for protection, at that point regardless of whether a TPO was in place or not.  The question that should be asked was whether each of the trees were really worthy of a TPO.  The landowner’s appointed arborist, who was a chartered arboriculturist and a professional member of the Arboricultural Association, had provided a detailed assessment and concluded that the majority of trees were simply not good enough for TPO status; many of the trees were Ash which were unlikely to have a long-term existence in any event due to Ash dieback.  The landowner’s representative asked Members to consider whether a TPO was really necessary – a felling licence would be required from the Forestry Commission for any significant amount of removal or clearance in any event; whether it would be reasonable for the Council to refuse a future TPO application to fell some of these low quality specimens and if that could be justified to the Planning Inspectorate; and whether consideration had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60i

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: To confirm the TPO without modification. 

60.56        This was in respect of the confirmation of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

60.57        The Tree Officer advised that the order related to TPO 411 which had been made to protect a copse of trees situated in a prominent location in the village of Alstone.  The trees were within an area designated as important open space in the existing and proposed Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  The TPO had been served due to the land being advertised for sale as an investment opportunity for potential development.  The trees were clearly visible to the public and had high amenity value that contributed to the village setting.  It was therefore recommended that the TPO be confirmed without modification.

60.58        The Vice-Chair in the chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to confirm the TPO without modification and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the TPO be confirmed without modification in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member indicated that she was pleased to see two TPOs included on the Agenda for today’s meeting; trees were important community assets and these orders represented good use of the TPO system in her opinion.

60.59        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the TPO be CONFIRMED WITHOUT MODIFICATION in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

PROPOSAL: TPO 298 – Silver Birch T1 – prune off street light; Hornbeam T35, T36, T37 and T38 – Trim back crown spread but retain low growth of upper crown (G1) as per submitted report.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Consent 

60.60        This was a Tree Preservation Order application in relation to TPO 298 which sought consent for the following works: Silver Birch T1 – prune off street light; Hornbeam T35, T36, T37 and T38 – trim back crown spread but retain low growth of upper crown (G1) as per submitted report.

60.61        The Tree Officer advised that the proposal related to an application to carry out works to protected trees within Tewkesbury Borough Council’s ownership, therefore, the application was before the Planning Committee for those works to be undertaken.  The trees had been professionally assessed and the recommended works were based on the findings of the report.  The proposed works were to reduce the overhang of the Hornbeams to the gardens of No. 10 and No. 11 Hunters Road and to prune the Silver Birch away from the streetlight. 

60.62        The Vice-Chair in the chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to grant consent and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that consent be granted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be GRANTED CONSENT in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

PROPOSAL: Variation of conditions 2 (approved plans), 3 (materials), 4 (levels), 5 (boundary treatments), 11 (Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation Strategy), 12 (external lighting scheme), 14 (blocking up of existing access), 18 (written Scheme of Investigation and Building Record) and 19 (surface water drainage) of planning permission ref: 20/00956/FUL. 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

60.63        This application was for variation of conditions 2 (approved plans), 3 (materials), 4 (levels), 5 (boundary treatments), 11 (Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation Strategy), 12 (external lighting scheme), 14 (blocking up of existing access), 18 (written Scheme of Investigation and Building Record) and 19 (surface water drainage) of planning permission ref: 20/00956/FUL.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 11 February 2022.

60.64        The Planning Officer advised that planning permission had already been granted on the application site for demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of five dwellings in October 2021 following the resolution of the Planning Committee in September.  The Committee had resolved to permit the extant scheme, subject to changes to the colour palette of each dwelling to buff and red brick - in accordance with design options put forward by the applicant - and to remove a condition for the provision of cycle storage.  The current application was made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act for a minor material amendment to the extant planning permission which sought to amend the approved plans to vary the proposed external materials of the dwellings.  The amendments would see a change in the materials with both red brick and buff brick dwellings.  The current application also provided additional information on levels, boundary treatment, ecological enhancement and mitigation, external lighting, access arrangements, historic building recording and surface water drainage to negate the requirement for these conditions to be reimposed.  In terms of boundary treatments, numerous objections had been received from residents due to safety and ecological concerns regarding the estate railings fence along the footpath between Dunstan Glen and Paynes Pitch when taking account of the change in levels.  The applicant had submitted revised plans in response to the comments from residents removing the estate railings from the front of the proposal and the north of the footpath in favour of retaining the existing close board fence adjacent to the footpath.  Officers had raised some concerns that the boundary treatment layout would create an unmanaged area of land adjacent to the footpath, whereas in the permitted scheme this was to be an open landscaped area where fruit trees would be planted.  It was therefore recommended that a condition be included on the planning permission to enable to Council to control the maintenance of the enclosed area in future.  In terms of other matters, due to the known presence of hedgehogs and birds within the area, and as the proposal would impact on habitats on the site, condition 11 of the extant planning permission required the submission of an Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Scheme to secure suitable mitigation and compensation measures prior to commencement of the development.  The current application included an Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Scheme setting out measures to protect species; this had been considered by the Council’s Ecological Adviser, who had also been made aware of the concerns raised by residents, particularly regarding the potential impact on hedgehogs.  The Ecological Adviser  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60l

PROPOSAL: Variation of conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission ref: 16/01285/FUL to allow for the permanent use of site as a residential gypsy site for seven mobile homes and five touring caravans.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

60.72        This application was for variation of conditions 1 and 2 of planning permission ref: 16/01285/FUL to allow for the permanent use of the site as a residential gypsy site for seven mobile homes and five touring caravans.

60.73        The Planning Officer advised that the application site currently benefitted from temporary permission as a residential gypsy site for seven pitches for named members of a single extended family.  That scheme had been allowed on appeal in November 2018 but was restricted by the Inspector to a temporary period of four years only.  The current Section 73 proposal sought to make use of the site permanent but to restrict occupation to the same extended family and their dependents.  The site had been identified within the Preferred Options Borough Plan as a site allocation for the provision of Gypsy and Traveller accommodation within emerging Policy GTTS1; however, that allocation had not been carried forward within the Pre-Submission version of the plan.  During the Borough Plan’s Examination in Public in February/March 2021, the Inspector had noted there was a requirement for eight pitches over the plan period to 2031 which represented a ‘challenging figure’.  The Inspector found the Council’s reasons for excluding the Brookside Stables site to be unconvincing and subsequently recommended the re-inclusion of the site for seven pitches as one of the main modifications in order to make the plan sound.  As the site lay within the Green Belt, there remained a requirement to demonstrate very special circumstances and, in this case, the site’s allocation within the emerging Borough Plan, together with the specific needs of the family and best interests of the children living within the site, were considered to demonstrate that very special circumstances did exist which would outweigh the Green Belt harm by reason of inappropriateness in accordance with Paragraph 148 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  In light of this, it was recommended that the application be permitted.

60.74        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent suggested that today was a potentially historic moment for two reasons.  The site had gone through the local plan process and the Council now had site allocations for Gypsies and Travellers that were almost adopted – this was a historic moment for the Council as national planning policy had required local authorities to allocate land for this process since 1994 and, even after 28 years, many had not been able to achieve this.  There was much for Tewkesbury Borough Council to celebrate as today it had entered a class of local authorities which had actually made allocations for Gypsies and Travellers.  Secondly, today could be a historic moment for the applicant following two decades of uncertainty and the applicant’s agent made reference to the applicant’s personal circumstances.  He pointed out that the application did not seek to remove the condition restricting occupation to the applicant and their extended family.  Another historic day had occurred two years earlier when the Planning Committee had granted permission for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60m

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

61.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 316-322.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issued.

61.2          Accordingly, it was

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