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.   

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

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

59.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillors G F Blackwell (Vice-Chair) and J P Mills. There were no substitutes for the meeting.  

Pursuant to the adoption by the Council on 24 January 2023 of the Tewkesbury Borough Council Code of Conduct, effective from 1 February 2023, as set out in Minute No. CL.72, Members are invited to declare any interest they may have in the business set out on the Agenda to which the approved Code applies.

60.1           The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Tewkesbury Borough Code of Conduct which was adopted by the Council on 24 January 2023 and took effect on 1 February 2023. 

60.2           The following declaration was made:

60.3           There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 March 2023.

61.1           The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 March 2023, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.  

62.1           The objections to, support for, and observations upon the various applications as referred to in Appendix 1 attached to these Minutes were presented to the Committee and duly taken into consideration by Members prior to decisions being made on those applications.

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey self-build dwelling and associated works.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

62.2           This was an application for the erection of a single storey self-build dwelling and associated works.

62.3           The Planning Officer advised that the application was for a self-build detached bungalow on an area of land opposite the Village Hall in Tirley which also included the formation/alteration of an access onto the main B4213. The application had been called in for a Committee decision by a Member in order to fully assess the impact of the proposal on the area, the impact on the main road and the overall design. She explained that the area itself was an existing paddock bound by mature vegetation / trees along the front boundary and was an undeveloped parcel of land which contributed to the semi-rural character of Tirley. The site was located outside of any defined settlement boundary and the built up area of Tirley with the core of the built up part of the village lying to the northern side of the B4213; the application site was located on the south side where development was sparse. It was considered that the proposal would not constitute infill development as the nearest dwelling on that side of the road was over 70 metres to the north-east and therefore would fail to comply with the relevant policies. Referring to the design of the bungalow, the Planning Officer explained that it would be utilitarian and would lack character and design quality – the appearance and fenestration on the front elevation in particular would be poor with an elongated design and no real focal point. As set out in the report, there were no concerns with regards to residential amenity and the County Highways Officer had indicated that a ‘grampian style’ condition would address his concerns in terms of visibility. Further drainage details had been submitted and the Flood Risk Management Engineer was now generally happy with the proposals. It was considered the development of the site would result in an unacceptable encroachment into the rural landscape which would harm the character of the area by virtue of the urbanising effects of a new dwelling, enlarged access, driveway and hardstanding. Overall, it was considered that the application site was not an appropriate location for new residential development and would conflict with the relevant policies, therefore, the application was recommended for refusal.

62.4           The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. The agent explained that the applicants were long term residents of Tirley, one of whom had lived in the village since her birth in 1957. They resided at a property to the south west of the application site and currently cared for an elderly relative who jointly owned the property. The current property was in Flood Zone 2 and therefore was vulnerable to flooding with the risk having become much more apparent in recent years due to the number of flood events which caused extreme worry and mental strain because of the number of times water had entered the house. The application had been submitted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62a

PROPOSAL: Creation of new access to paddock (to allow field access whilst Severn Trent re-lay the existing sewage pipe and associated works using existing access).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

62.10         This was an application for the creation of new access to paddock (to allow field access whilst Severn Trent re-laid the existing sewage pipe and associated works using existing access).

62.11         The Planning Officer advised that the application related to a field which was currently used as a paddock to the southeast of Willow Bank Farm and adjacent to Willow Bank Road in Alderton. The existing access would be stopped up and a hedgerow replanted across the existing access points with the new access constructed from tarmac and stone chippings. A Committee determination was required as Alderton Parish Council had objected on the grounds that the proposed access required significant engineering works to land levels and would be harmful to the landscape. She advised that whilst the Parish Council’s concerns were appreciated, the applicant had confirmed there would be no change in levels. Whilst the loss of the part of the hedgerow was regrettable, the ecology report had shown that it was of poor quality and did not qualify as an ‘important hedgerow’; however, in order to compensate for the loss of the hedgerow, the retained sections would be enhanced and new hedgerow planted behind the line of the visibility splay. The Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, provided an update in terms of drainage and explained that the Flood Risk Management Engineer had no objections to the proposal. Overall, there had been no objections received from consultees and it was the view of the Planning Officer that the proposal would not result in any undue harm, therefore it was recommended for permit.

62.12         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. The applicant’s agent explained that the purpose of the new field gate was two-fold as it allowed the applicant safe access to the site whilst Severn Trent re-laid the sewage pipe and reinstated the land as well as stopping up the existing sub-standard access to provide a new agricultural access. Three points had been raised by objectors in relation to highway safety; flood risk; and ecology and biodiversity net gain. In terms of highways, she noted there had been no objection to the scheme from County Highways and, in fact, the closing of the existing sub-standard access represented betterment. Severn Trent was now well advanced with the works and the new pipe had been re-laid some 10 metres closer to Willow Bank Road which would make it difficult to manoeuvre onto the site between the pipe and the trees on site especially with larger tractors and agricultural machinery. Severn Trent was reinstating the land and the applicant was working with them to provide some tree planting along the brook as well as meadowfield sowing – whilst that was being established the applicant would not be able to cross the replanted area – hence the need for a new access. Referring to flood risk, the applicant’s agent advised that the existing access lay within Flood Zone 3 and the Council’s own policies stated that proposals  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62b

PROPOSAL: Erection of a general-purpose agricultural storage building.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

 62.14        This was an application for the erection of a general purpose agricultural storage building.

62.15         The Development Management Team Leader South advised that the application site comprised an existing poultry unit approximately 700 metres to the north of Maisemore and sought permission for a general purpose agricultural storage building which would be sited adjacent to an existing biomass building and would be of a similar design and scale. The building would be finished in green profiled sheeting to match the existing buildings at the site. The proposal would accord with the requirements of Policy ARG1 and ARG2 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan in respect of agricultural development and would have an acceptable impact on the landscape, highway safety and drainage and would not result in any identified harms. It was therefore recommended that the application be permitted.

62.16         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a Motion from the floor. A Member suggested that, being the third application on the site, this was creeping development and proposed that it be refused - the proposal did not gain a seconder. Another Member noted that there had been no objections from statutory consultees and no other objections and proposed that the application be permitted in line with the Officer recommendation - the proposal was seconded. In response to a Member question, the Legal Adviser confirmed that if the agricultural storage building was to be used for any other purpose in the future that would be a material change of use that would require planning permission or would be an enforcement matter.

62.17         Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

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

63.1           Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 68-69.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issued.

63.2           A Member noted that the Hillend appeal had been dismissed and he felt this was heartening for the Committee. He offered his congratulations to Officers for their work on it – he felt the Council had a good team of Officers who were committed to fighting for the borough and he was grateful for that.

63.3           It was

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