Accessibility settings

In order to remember your preferences as you navigate through the site, a cookie will be set.

Color preference

Text size

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Tewkesbury Borough Council Offices, Severn Room

Contact: Democratic Services, Tel: (01684) 272021  Email:  democraticservices@tewkesbury.gov.uk

Link: ATTENDING THE MEETING - if you would like to register to speak you MUST do so by telephoning Democratic Services on 01684 272021 NOT by clicking this link. However if you would like to attend and observe the meeting - please book a space using this link to observe an Agenda Item of interest

Items
No. Item

62.

Announcements

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.   

Minutes:

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

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

63.

Apologies for Absence and Substitutions

To receive apologies for absence and advise of any substitutions. 

Minutes:

63.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J R Mason, J K Smith, P D Surman and R J E Vines.  There were no substitutions for the meeting. 

64.

Declarations of Interest

Pursuant to the adoption by the Council on 26 June 2012 of the Tewkesbury Borough Council Code of Conduct, effective from 1 July 2012, as set out in Minute No. CL.34, Members are invited to declare any interest they may have in the business set out on the Agenda to which the approved Code applies.

Minutes:

64.1          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.

64.2          The following declarations were made:

Councillor

Application No./Agenda Item

Nature of Interest (where disclosed)

Declared Action in respect of Disclosure

P W Ockelton

Agenda Item 5b – 21/01000/FUL – Wind in the Willows, Sandy Pluck Lane, Bentham.

Agenda Item 5c – 21/01486/FUL – Cherry Trees, Station Lane, Tewkesbury.

Had received correspondence in relation to the applications but had not expressed an opinion.

Would speak and vote.

64.3          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

65.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 4 MB

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 2022.

Minutes:

65.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 2022, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

66.

Development Control - Applications to the Borough Council pdf icon PDF 827 KB

Decision:

Agenda Item Number

Planning Reference

Site Address

Officer Recommendation

Committee Outcome

5a

19/00676/OUT

Part Parcel 9851

Maisemore

Delegated Permit

Delegated Permit

5b

21/01000/FUL

Wind In The Willows

Sandy Pluck Lane

Bentham

Refuse

Permit

5c

21/01486/FUL

Cherry Trees

Station Lane

Tewkesbury

Permit

Permit

5d

21/01138/FUL

3 Cotswold Gardens

Tewkesbury

Permit

Permit

5e

22/00044/FUL

Council Offices

Gloucester Road

Tewkesbury

Permit

Permit

5f

21/01436/FUL

Land At Lawn Road

Ashleworth

Permit

Permit

 

Minutes:

66.1          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.

66a

19/00676/OUT - Part Parcel 9851, Maisemore pdf icon PDF 247 KB

PROPOSAL: Outline application for the erection of up to 33 residential units (50% affordable provision) with associated infrastructure and landscaping (all matters reserved for future consideration).

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

66.2          This was an outline application for the erection of up to 33 residential units (50% affordable provision) with associated infrastructure and landscaping (all matters reserved for future consideration). 

66.3          The Planning Officer advised that the application site extended to approximately 1.68 hectares and comprised the eastern part of a large field located to the west of the built up areas of Maisemore village.  The site was outside of, but immediately to the west of, the proposed extended boundary settlement for Maisemore in the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  The site comprised grassland/formerly agricultural use and was not subject to any landscape designations.  The A417 bounded the site to the south and a row of established Poplar trees lined the boundary of the site with the A417.  Whilst all matters were reserved for future consideration, the applicant had provided an illustrative masterplan which indicated the likely characteristics of the development; the plan showed the dwellings located centrally within the site with the existing Poplar trees retained and pollarded and an area of landscaping created to the west of the dwellings.  There was an opportunity to create a new footpath linking the application site to Old Road to the north.  Although a reserved matter, the illustrative masterplan showed that access was proposed via the existing access off the A417 serving the Bell House Farm development.  With regard to the principle of development, the application site was located in open countryside, outside of the defined settlement boundary and was not allocated for housing development.  As such, the proposal conflicted with Policies SP2 and SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy; however, the application site was not within an isolated rural location and future residents would have access to services in Maisemore as well as Gloucester, although there would be some reliance on cars.  As Members would be aware, the Council could not currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land and planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole.  The development would contribute towards the supply of housing - both market and affordable – to help meet the objectively assessed need of the area and, overall, Officers had afforded this significant weight.  It was noted there would also be social and economic benefits from the development, if permitted, including during the construction process.  Nevertheless, there were harms arising from the conflict with development plan policies as well as landscape harm by reason of encroachment into the open countryside; however, Officers considered this to be moderate and there was potential to further minimise landscape harm through an appropriate landscaping scheme at the reserved matters stage.  Overall, taking into account all of the material considerations and the weight to be attributed to each one, it was considered that identified harms would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal and it was therefore recommended that authority be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66a

66b

21/01000/FUL - Wind in the Willows, Sandy Pluck Lane, Bentham pdf icon PDF 163 KB

PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of the site to include the demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings, erection of a replacement dwelling and change of use of land to residential.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

Additional documents:

Minutes:

66.9          This application was for redevelopment of the site to include demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings, erection of a replacement dwelling and change of use of land to residential.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 11 March 2022.

66.10        The Planning Officer advised that the main considerations relevant to the application were whether the current proposal remained compliant with the Council’s replacement dwelling policies and if it was acceptable in Green Belt terms.  The National Planning Policy Framework considered that the replacement of buildings in the Green Belt was appropriate provided that the new building was the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaced.  Saved Local Plan Policy HOU7 stated that the replacement dwelling must be of a similar size and scale to the existing dwelling, respect the scale and character of existing property in the area and have no impact on the landscape; Policy RES9 of the Pre-submission Tewkesbury Borough Plan stated that the replacement dwelling must respect the size of the plot and the scale and character of existing characteristic property in the area; however, the proposed size increases in relation to replacement dwellings in the Green Belt would not be permitted where the proposed dwelling would be disproportionately larger than the original dwelling, taking into account the impact of any previous extensions.  Therefore, the proposed dwelling did not comply with Policies HOU7 or RES9.  A case had been put forward by the applicants that the proposal would be an exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt on the basis that it was redevelopment of previously developed land and, whilst Officers agreed with that, the proposed development should not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development.  The proposal would be a large, two-storey consolidated form in a more visually prominent position on the site and would be six metres greater in height than the existing barns and stables.  The proposal had significant areas of hard landscaping and the residential curtilage to the south west would be increased, therefore, the residential development would encroach further into the open countryside.  It was proposed to relocate the public footpath as part of the scheme and to provide additional landscaping to reduce the visual impact of the development; however, the proposed landscaping would enclose the site from surrounding fields which in turn impacted openness.  It was considered that the proposal would form a substantial enclosed plot not well-related to the existing settlement pattern and would encroach into the open countryside.  If Members were minded that the proposal represented inappropriate development in the Green Belt, Very Special Circumstances could be used to justify the development. The Very Special Circumstances put forward by the applicants included the removal of the existing barn and replacement with a high quality dwelling, landscaping and relocation of the public footpath; however, Officers did not consider that the Very Special Circumstances would outweigh the harm to the openness of the Green  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66b

66c

21/01486/FUL - Cherry Trees, Station Lane, Tewkesbury pdf icon PDF 98 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of a front porch and rear conservatory.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

66.14        This application was for erection of a front porch and rear conservatory.

66.15        The Planning Officer advised that this was a householder application for Cherry Trees, a detached property located on an estate in Tewkesbury.  The proposal was to remove the existing front porch and erect a larger front porch and a rear conservatory.  A Committee determination was required as the applicant was a Councillor.  No objections had been received from the statutory consultees and the Planning Officer’s view was that the proposal was in keeping with the surrounding development, as outlined in the Committee report.  Therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

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

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

66d

21/01138/FUL - 3 Cotswold Gardens, Tewkesbury pdf icon PDF 96 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of a first floor side extension.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

66.17        This application was for erection of a first floor side extension.

66.18        The Planning Officer advised that this was a householder application for 3 Cotswold Gardens, a semi-detached property located on an estate in Tewkesbury.  A Committee determination was required as the applicant was a Tewkesbury Borough Council employee.  No objections had been received from the statutory consultees and it was the Planning Officer’s view that the proposal was in keeping with the surrounding development, as outlined in the Committee report.  Therefore, it was recommended that the application be permitted.

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

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

66e

22/00044/FUL - Council Offices, Gloucester Road, Tewkesbury pdf icon PDF 140 KB

PROPOSAL: Construction of new solar carport over existing parking bays.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

66.20        This application was for construction of a new solar carport over existing parking bays.

66.21        The Planning Officer advised that the application required a Committee determination as the applicant was Tewkesbury Borough Council.  Planning permission was being sought for construction of a new solar carport over existing parking bays with associated development which included two Sustainable Urban Drainage (SuDS) planters.  The site was located within Tewkesbury Town and formed part of the historic Tewkesbury Battlefield.  It was adjacent to the Tewkesbury Conservation Area and within Flood Zone 1, although the northern boundary of the site was located within Flood Zone 2.  The proposal was of utilitarian design and would be sited within the Public Service Centre car park.  The array was anticipated to provide a 2221.2 kilowatt system with energy intending to serve the Council Offices and Tewkesbury Leisure Centre with any surplus being returned to the grid.  No objections had been received in relation to the proposal.  As set out in the Committee report, Officers considered there was clear public benefit that would outweigh any potential visual harm.  The proposal would not be overtly prominent within the landscape and would be within a visually enclosed location.  On that basis, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application, subject to the conditions outlined within the report.

66.22        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member questioned whether there were plans to increase the number of electric vehicle charging points at the Council Offices that were available to the public as there were only two currently with no disabled access.  In response, the Development Manager confirmed this was subject to another planning application and he undertook to speak to the Asset Manager to find out if that could be progressed.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

66f

21/01436/FUL - Land at Lawn Road, Ashleworth pdf icon PDF 120 KB

PROPOSAL: Removal or variation of condition 8 (visibility splay requirements) of planning application reference: 20/00487/FUL.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

66.23        This application was for removal or variation of condition 8 (visibility splay requirements) of planning application reference 20/00487/FUL.

66.24        The Planning Officer advised that the application site benefited from planning permission for three dwellings.  The permission contained several conditions including condition 8 which related to the provision of visibility splays; this application sought to remove that condition.  The justification for the condition to be removed related to an established fallback which would allow for an existing building at the site to be used as a gym – this benefited from prior approval for the change of use but had not been implemented.  The applicant had set out that the proposed development of three dwellings would generate less vehicular movements than a gym and, as a result, a specific condition to secure visibility splays would not be required.  The application had been assessed by County Highways and the Development Coordination Officer had raised no objections to the proposal advising that, because of the lesser highway impact, it would be unreasonable to require the condition securing visibility splays on the permission for three dwellings.  In view of that advice, and despite the conflict with Joint Core Strategy Policy INF1, to provide safe and accessible connections to the transport network, the condition was no longer considered necessary or reasonable and would therefore not meet the tests set out in planning guidance.  Since the Committee report was published, a further representation was received from a local Ward Councillor who acknowledged that County Highways had not raised any objections or concerns but asked that careful consideration be made in relation to the safety elements of the application.  The local Ward Member had pointed out that Members who knew the road would be aware there was limited visibility, and no speed restrictions, and the changes risked exacerbating an already difficult stretch of the road.  Notwithstanding these further comments, the Officer recommendation remained to permit the application, subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report.

66.25        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that the application related to an already consented development of three dwellings and the proposal before Members was simply to remove a condition that was not required.  The development was permitted by the Planning Committee in October 2020, in accordance with the Officer recommendation, and it was intended that it would soon be carried out.  The applicant’s agent had not noticed at the time, and seemingly neither had Officers, that the recommendation included a condition from County Highways which did not meet the strict tests of government policy for the imposition of conditions.  The condition sought to impose a visibility splay requirement that was not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, which was the relevant test, and this was later acknowledged to have been included in error.  This application was attempting to rectify that error.  As set out in great detail in the Committee report, there were very strict tests for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66f

67.

Current Appeals and Appeal Decisions Update pdf icon PDF 180 KB

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

Minutes:

67.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 157-164.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issued.

67.2          A Member was pleased to note that the appeals in relation to the two plots at Warren Fruit Farm, Greet had been dismissed.  The site had a long history and it was unfortunate it had come back to the fore; however, the Development Manager had personally undertaken to deal with this matter.  The Development Manager confirmed that was the case and indicated that, although the two appeals had been dismissed, there was still a current appeal in respect of an outstanding planning application and he was minded to write to the appellant to see if they wished to continue bearing in mind the outcome of the enforcement appeals.

67.3          It was

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