Agenda, decisions and minutes

To elect a Chair for the remainder of the Municipal Year. 

9.1            It was proposed and seconded that Councillor R D East be elected as Chair of the Planning Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That Councillor R D East be elected as Chair of the Planning Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year.

9.2            It was subsequently proposed and seconded that Councillor G F Blackwell be appointed as Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That Councillor G F Blackwell be appointed as Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee for the remainder of the Municipal Year.

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.   

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

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

11.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillor J P Mills.  Councillor C L J Carter would be a substitute for the meeting. 

12.1           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.

12.2           The following declarations were made:

12.3           There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2022.

13.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 June 2022, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

14.1          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: Reserved matters approval (access, appearance, layout, scale and landscaping) for 340 dwellings, public open space and infrastructure comprising phase 3 of outline planning permission 15/01149/OUT on Land at Twigworth. The outline planning application was an environment impact assessment application and an environmental statement was submitted to the planning authority at that time

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Approval.

14.2          This was a reserved matters application (access, appearance, layout, scale and landscaping) for 340 dwellings, public open space and infrastructure comprising phase 3 of outline planning permission 15/01149/OUT on Land at Twigworth.

14.3          The Planning Officer advised that, further to the preparation of the Committee report, the Environment Agency, County Highways and the Council’s Landscape Adviser had confirmed they had no objection to the application and the Officer recommendation had therefore been changed to approve, subject to the revised conditions set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.  Members were advised that this was a reserved matters application seeking approval for access, appearance, layout, scale and landscaping for 340 dwellings – 205 open market and 135 affordable – public open space and infrastructure pursuant to the outline application for up to 725 dwellings on the wider site.  The current reserved matters application represented the whole of the phase 3 residential area of the approved outline scheme as defined in the approved phasing plan.  Phases to the west were in the process of being built out.  The principle of residential development at this site had been established through the grant of outline planning permission and its subsequent allocation for housing in the Joint Core Strategy as part of the wider Innsworth and Twigworth Strategic Allocation (Policy A1).  The key principles guiding reserved matters applications had also been approved by the planning authority including a Site Wide Masterplan Document and a site wide attenuation and drainage strategy.  The current application sought approval of reserved matters pursuant to the outline planning permission and the approval of the guiding design principles and the issues to be considered in this application were access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale and compliance with the approved documents including the Site Wide Masterplan Document.  As set out in the Committee Report, Officers had carefully considered the application and felt that the reserved matters were acceptable, in accordance with the Site Wide Masterplan Document aspirations and of an appropriate design.  County Highways had confirmed the access, internal road layout and car parking provision was acceptable and in accordance with the Site Wide Masterplan Document.  Officers had also confirmed that the mix and clustering of affordable housing was in accordance with the requirements of the Section 106 Agreement attached to the outline panning permission, was tenure blind and high quality.  In terms of flood risk and drainage, a detailed surface water and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) strategy had also been approved by the Council.  The Lead Local Flood Authority had been consulted in respect of the current scheme and had advised that the drainage strategy was suitable and the Environment Agency had confirmed that all finished floor levels accorded with the approved drainage strategy.  As such, the proposed drainage arrangements were considered acceptable.  Taking all of this into consideration, Officers were of the view that the proposed development would be high quality and appropriate in terms of access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping and in accordance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14a

 PROPOSAL: Residential Development (up to 160 dwellings), associated works, including demolition, infrastructure, open space and landscaping. Vehicular access from the A38. All matters are reserved.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

14.8          Members noted that this application had been WITHDRAWN. 

PROPOSAL: The erection of up to 24 dwellings (Class C3), vehicular access from Clarendon Road and Whitmore Road, public open space and associated landscaping and engineering works (reduced quantum of dwellings from 35 to 24).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

14.9          This was an outline application for the erection of up to 24 dwellings (Class C3), vehicular access from Clarendon Road and Whitmore Road, public open space and associated landscaping and engineering works (reduced quantum of dwellings from 35 to 24).

14.10        The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised two field parcels located to the north-west edge of Winchcombe.  The site lay outside of, but adjacent to, the settlement boundary and to the north of the Local Plan housing allocation WIN1.  The application sought outline planning permission for the erection of 24 dwellings with access from Kyderminster Road, Clarendon Road and Whitmore Road.  The proposal was within a service centre but outside of a defined settlement boundary and therefore conflicted with Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy and the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Development Plan.  The site was also within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  In accordance with Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and given the Council’s current housing 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 taken as a whole.  Officers considered that, whilst the proposal would result in some harm to the landscape by reason of encroachment, that harm would be limited and outweighed by the social and economic benefits associated with the delivery of up to 24 dwellings, of which 40% would be affordable, within a service centre location.  On that basis, subject to compliance with conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, although there would be some harm to the landscape by reason of encroachment into the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it would not result in any other harms which would otherwise outweigh the benefits of delivering the dwellings at the site.  The Planning Officer drew attention to the corrections outlined in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, and advised that the Officer recommendation remained delegated permit subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

14.11        The Chair invited the representative from Winchcombe Town Council to address the Committee.  The Town Council representative indicated that the Town Council felt there were sufficient grounds to refuse the application as it was not included in the Tewkesbury Borough Plan nor the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Development Plan.  National policy was clear that development should be plan-led and need must not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; however, with 100 dwellings already permitted, if planning permission was granted for this application that would represent a total of 44 dwellings in excess of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan policy all of which would be in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  As there was no demonstrable need, the Town Council considered that the starting point for the Planning Committee should be to refuse the application without exceptionally important reasons.  Paragraph 7.5 of the Committee report set out how  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14c

PROPOSAL: Extension to existing holiday park to provide 29 leisure caravans including landscaping and access.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

14.20        This application was for an extension to the existing holiday park to provide 29 leisure caravans including landscaping and access.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 15 July 2022.

14.21        The Planning Officer advised that the application site was located on the south side of Downfield Lane and would result in an expansion of the existing site to the east which currently held 150 caravans.  The current site comprised a mixture of leisure and full-time residential caravans, with internal infrastructure such as roads and drainage.  The site was flat in nature and bounded by mature hedges and trees, it was not located in any designated landscape areas and access would be from the south-east corner via the existing site.  As set out in the Committee report, Officers considered that the proposal would accord with the Council’s tourism policies by providing economic and social benefits.  Some landscape harm had been identified by way of encroachment which had resulted in the applicant submitting a Visual Impact Assessment and amended landscape proposals; those details had been assessed by the Council’s Landscape Adviser who raised no objection, subject to mitigation being provided through the landscape scheme.  Officers concluded that, whilst the proposal would have some impact on the wider landscape, this would be outweighed in the planning balance by the benefits of the scheme and it was therefore recommended that permission be granted, subject to conditions.

14.22        The Chair invited the representative from Twyning Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative indicated that it was becoming increasingly obvious that Planning Officers were complying with the direction given by Inspectors at various appeals where refusal decisions had been overturned. In doing so, they were complicit with undermining policies in the Tewkesbury Borough Plan which had taken some 11 years to come forward and had only very recently been adopted.  Twyning Parish Council considered this application was contrary to Policy INF1 of the Joint Core Strategy and Policy TOR1 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan in respect of paragraphs 1, 3, 4 and 5 and all those in relation to there being no credible alternative modes of transport other than the private car.  The unequivocal comments from Stagecoach bus company in other applications illustrated the unsustainability of increasing the amount of private vehicles from isolated communities onto the road network.  One only had to look at Policy TOR1 to see in a number of sub-paragraphs why this application was not acceptable – it was also contrary to Policy TOR3 in relation to the damage to the landscape and character of the area.  The Parish Council had previously attempted to bring the Borough Council’s attention to the illogical nature of rampant development in this small, isolated village to no avail.  Policies in the new Tewkesbury Borough Plan indicated this was an inappropriate extension of an already significant country park and the adverse impact of the accumulated effects outweighed the benefit for tourism.  Twyning Parish had an exceptional number of park  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14d

PROPOSAL: Outline application for the erection of 5 dwellings with access from Green Acres, with all other matters reserved.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

14.27        This was an outline application for the erection of five dwellings with access from Greenacres with all other matters reserved.

14.28        The Planning Officer advised that, since the publication of the Committee report, a further four representations had been received, one of which had identified a badger sett on the site.  Therefore, it was recommended that the application be deferred until an inspection could be undertaken.  Further, the drainage details were also not yet resolved.

14.29        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to defer the application in order for appropriate action to be taken in respect of the claim that a badger sett was within the site and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member noted that this application had been deferred by the Planning Committee in April 2022 to receive further details on the proposed drainage system and he raised concern that an update simply provided at Committee itself in respect of the drainage, as set out in the current Committee report, was not acceptable and a full drainage report should be provided within the Committee report.  He felt that this should be included in the reasons for deferral.  The proposer and seconder of the motion confirmed they were happy with this addition and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be DEFERRED order for appropriate action to be taken in respect of the claim that a badger sett was within the site and to allow for a full drainage report to be provided.  

PROPOSAL: Erection of 2 No. additional poultry houses with air scrubbing units and associated infrastructure on established poultry farm (resubmission of 21/00870/FUL)

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

14.30        This application was for the erection of two additional poultry houses with air scrubbing units and associated infrastructure on established poultry farm (resubmission of 21/00870/FUL).  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 15 July 2022.

14.31        The Planning Officer advised that the application site was located to the east of the A417, approximately 700 metres north-west of the settlement boundary to Maisemore.  The site lay within Flood Zone 1 and comprised a broadly rectangular parcel of land within the northern part of a larger field parcel, sloping down to the south-east.  The site presently comprised two poultry units and this proposal sought to expand the existing number of units with the erection of a further two poultry sheds and associated infrastructure which would be located to the west of the existing units.  The proposal would be broadly compliant with Policy SD1 of the Joint Core Strategy and Policy AGR1 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan in respect of employment and agricultural development.  Whilst the proposal would result in some landscape harm through the introduction of built development, it was considered that the buildings would be of an appropriate design and siting in relation to the site boundaries and adjoining development.  The site presently operated under an Environmental Permit issued by the Environment Agency and a variation had been applied for to allow for the proposed development.  Concerns had been raised in respect of odour and pollution from the existing development; however, unlike the existing units, the proposed buildings would be fitted with air scrubbers and the Council’s Environmental Health Officer was satisfied those measures would be appropriate to contain odour and particles from the new development.  Should any unacceptable impacts arise in breach of the Environmental Permit, the Environment Agency would have the powers to enforce and seek appropriate remediation.  Whilst the proposal would double the capacity of the site, there would be no unacceptable impact upon drainage, highway safety, ecology or heritage matters.  It was therefore recommended that the application be permitted, subject to conditions.

14.32        The Chair invited the representative from Maisemore Parish Council to address the Committee. The Parish Council representative referenced the 55 page response which had been submitted by the Parish Council in relation to the application which he hoped Members would have read – this included 18 pages of analysis and around 30 objections submitted to the Council in respect of the very similar application in 2021 which was withdrawn and resubmitted.  The Parish Council representative did not intend to go through all of the points raised in the document and instead would focus on recent experiences of the present facility.  The Parish Council representative subsequently read out a series of comments from people living further away from the facility than the receptor properties cited in the application as follows: A resident at Woolridge posted on social media on 10 July “I most definitely have concerns about the poultry sheds.  I have written to Tewkesbury planning council and spoken to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14f

PROPOSAL: Erection of an open fronted car port, and retrospective outbuilding. (Resubmission of planning application 21/01446/FUL).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Split Decision.

14.40        This application was for erection of an open-fronted car port and retrospective outbuilding (resubmission of application 21/01446/FUL).

14.41        The Planning Officer advised that this was a householder application for Home Cottage, Lowdilow Lane which was a detached property on the outskirts of Elmstone Hardwicke and was situated within the Green Belt.  The dwelling did not benefit from permitted development rights.  The proposal sought to regularise the erected outbuilding to the rear of the dwelling and erect a detached car port to the south-west of the dwelling.  A Committee determination was required as the application had been called in by a Member to assess the impact on the Green Belt.  No objections had been received from the statutory consultees and the Planning Officer’s view was that the erected outbuilding would be in keeping with the surrounding development and would be a proportionate addition within the Green Belt, as outlined in the Committee report.  It was considered that the proposed car port would be an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt which would add to the built form of the site and would result in loss of openness to the Green Belt, as set out in the Committee report.  Therefore, a split decision was recommended with the retrospective outbuilding being permitted and the car port being refused.

14.42        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant confirmed this was a revised application following a previous withdrawal and the amendments made included changes to the roof of the car port to lower its impact – this had been achieved through a hipped roof as opposed to gable ends.  He did not intend to repeat the representations put forward by his agent in terms of the relevant planning considerations; however, it made no sense to him that Officers were suggesting the car port could not be considered under the domestic extensions exception in the Green Belt policy because it was six metres away from his house.  The applicant felt that the small car port and shed that formed part of the application were completely proportionate to the size of the original dwelling and he believed that the car port was in the best ‘tucked away’ position on the site.  If the building was sited within five metres of the house, it would be more prominent but still proportionate in Green Belt terms.  When he purchased the land it was very clear that it had been used inappropriately in the past with rubbish tipping and signs of continual fires.  He had also been informed that it was a source of frequent complaint including a stabbing on the land.  Everything he had done to the plot had improved it tenfold – this included taking out over 1,000 tonnes of rubbish, returning a third to agricultural land, new fencing, hedging and landscaping.  The application had the support of residents within the village and the Parish Council had raised no objection so the applicant indicated that he would be grateful if Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14g

PROPOSAL: Single storey side and rear extension.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

14.45        This application was for a single storey side and rear extension.

14.46        The Planning Officer advised that the application required a Committee determination as the applicant worked for Tewkesbury Borough Council.  The extensions were considered to be subservient additions to the host dwelling due to their scale and the proposed materials and the orientation of the plot meant that they would not result in undue harm to the residential amenity enjoyed by neighbouring occupants.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application, subject to the conditions set out within the Committee report.

14.47        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: Variation of Condition 4 (building use) of application 15/00556/FUL to allow for short-term holiday let.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

14.48        This application was for variation of condition 4 (building use) of application 15/00556/FUL to allow for short-term holiday let.

14.49        The Planning Officer advised that planning permission had been granted in 2015 for the demolition of an existing prefabricated building to be replaced by a new single storey studio/garden room which had since been converted to a short-term holiday let.  The current application proposed to vary the wording of condition 4 to include the wording “or as a short-term holiday let” and, if approved, an additional condition would be included to restrict the occupancy.  No objections had been received from the Council’s Conservation and Environmental Health Officers nor from County Highways.  As set out in the Committee report, three letters of objection had been received in relation to the proposal; notwithstanding this overall, it was considered that the inclusion of the holiday let use would not result in a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers.  Issues had been raised regarding use of the driveway by occupiers of the holiday let and a covenant that restricted the use of any Home Cottage buildings to that of a private dwelling house; however, that was not a planning matter and was a private issue to be resolved by the respective parties involved.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit.

14.50         The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident explained that, if the change of use was permitted, it would have a significant impact on his privacy and, therefore, his residential amenity.  The local resident drew attention to Page No. 243, Paragraph 7.9 of the Committee report which stated that any development must cause no harm to local amenity including that of neighbouring occupants.  In coming to their conclusion, Planning Officers had failed to take into account the significant impact on Home Farm residents due to the special arrangements between Home Farm and Home Farm Cottage which arose because Home Farm Cottage had no access to the street so users shared a drive with access via Home Farm Lane.  The local resident indicated that anyone walking or driving up the shared drive could see into his property and the land to the west of house; they could see into the west garden despite having erected slatted screening as they could see through both lattice gates.  The local resident also pointed out that they would walk right past his garage block which was used as a workshop, gym and for storage – as he liked to keep the doors open whilst in use, they would be able to see into the garage and could clearly see the land behind it which was used as an outside work area and for storage and parking that was not screened from the shared drive.  The local resident asked Members to imagine themselves in his position; currently there were only familiar people – one family and their occasional visitors – using that drive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14i

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

15.1           Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 257-259.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issued.

15.2           Accordingly, it was

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