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

Items
No. Item

3.

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:

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

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

4.

Apologies for Absence and Substitutions

To receive apologies for absence and advise of any substitutions. 

Minutes:

4.1            Apologies for absence were received from Councillors T J Budge, M L Jordan and R J E Vines.  Councillors G M Porter, J K Smith and G I Yates would be substitutes for the meeting. 

5.

Declarations of Interest

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.

Minutes:

5.1            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

5.2            The following declarations were made:

Councillor

Application No./Agenda Item

Nature of Interest (where disclosed)

Declared Action in respect of Disclosure

M A Gore

Agenda Item 5d – 22/00834/OUT – Land to the South-East of Bluebell Road and East of Rudgeway Lane, Wheatpieces, Tewkesbury.

Agenda Item 5g – 22/00740/FUL – Green Cottage, Snowhill.

Had been party to discussions and had received emails in relation to the applications but had not expressed an opinion.

Would speak and vote.

D J Harwood

Agenda Item 5h – 22/00916/FUL –                   2 Moorfield Road, Brockworth.

Is the Chair of Brockworth Parish Council and had listened to the debate when this application had been considered by the Parish Council Planning & Highways Committee but had not taken part.

Would speak and vote.

P W Ockelton

General declaration.

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

Would speak and vote.

P N Workman

General declaration.

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

Would speak and vote.

5.3            There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

6.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 110 KB

To approve the Minutes of the meetings held on 18 April and 17 May 2023.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

6.1            The Minutes of the meetings held on 18 April and 17 May 2023, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as correct records and signed by the Chair. 

7.

Development Control - Applications to the Borough Council pdf icon PDF 529 KB

Decision:

Agenda Item

Planning Reference

Site Address

Officer Recommendation

Committee Outcome

5a

23/00205/FUL

Land North Of

Sandy Pluck Lane

Bentham

Refuse

Delegated Permit

5b

22/01306/FUL

Elm Gardens

Badgeworth Road

Badgeworth

Permit

Deferred for site visit

5c

22/01375/FUL

Part Parcel 8019

Chargrove Lane

Up Hatherley

Refuse

Deferred for further negotiations

5d

22/00834/OUT

Land To The South-east Of Bluebell Road And East Of Rudgeway Lane, Wheatpieces, Tewkesbury

Delegated Permit

Delegated Permit

5e

22/00083/FUL

Oak House

Malleson Road

Gotherington

Permit

Permit

5f

23/00240/FUL

9B Beckford Road

Alderton

Permit

Deferred for site visit

5g

22/00740/FUL

Green Cottage

Snowshill

Permit

Permit

5h

22/00916/FUL

2 Moorfield Road

Brockworth

Permit

Deferred for site visit

5i

TPO 419

Ingleside

Dog Lane

Witcombe

Confirmed without modification

Confirmed without modification

 

 

Minutes:

7.1            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.

7a

23/00205/FUL - Land North of Sandy Pluck Lane, Bentham pdf icon PDF 258 KB

PROPOSAL: One self-build single storey detached dwelling including re-use of existing access from Sandy Pluck Lane, landscaping and parking, following demolition of redundant former agricultural barns and removal of concrete hardstanding.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

Additional documents:

Minutes:

7.2            This application was for one self-build single storey detached dwelling including re-use of existing access from Sandy Pluck Lane, landscaping and parking, following demolition of redundant former agricultural barns and removal of concrete hardstanding.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Wednesday 24 May 2023.

7.3            The Development Management Team Manager (Northwest) advised that the application site was land between two dwellings – Brook House and Brook Cottage – forming part of a small cluster of dwellings outside of any settlement and in the open countryside.  The site was in agricultural use, comprising a single storey brick barn to the site frontage and a larger concrete framed portal barn to the rear.  An area of concrete hardstanding lay between the two barns.  The site was within the designated Green Belt.  On the opposite side of Sandy Pluck Lane and to the rear of the site were open agricultural fields.  Badgeworth Parish Council was in favour of the application and a number of other representations had been received in support of the proposal.  As outlined in the Committee report, the Planning Officer view was that the site was not an appropriate location for new residential development as it lay outside of any defined settlement boundary and was not considered to fall within a settlement or village, rather, it was a cluster of dwellings remote from the nearest settlement, notwithstanding the more dispersed character of Bentham village.  In relation to the locational policies of the adopted development plan, the development was not considered to constitute infilling within the existing built-up areas of a village, contrary to Joint Core Strategy Policy SD10, neither was it considered very small scale development within or adjacent to the built-up area of settlement not featured in the Joint Core Strategy settlement hierarchy, contrary to Tewkesbury Borough Plan Policies RES3 and RES4.  In terms of Green Belt policy, the development was not considered to satisfy any of the exemptions for the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt as set out at Paragraph 149 of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular limited infilling in villages.  The proposal was therefore considered inappropriate development by definition and would have an unacceptable impact on the openness of this part of the Green Belt and no very special circumstances had been advanced that would outweigh the identified harm.  The design of the scheme was also not considered to be in keeping with the more traditional character and appearance of nearby development by reason of its size, scale and appearance and would have an adverse impact on the appearance of the area and the landscape character.  Finally, the site was not in a sustainable location, offering no realistic transport choices other than the private vehicle to gain access to the site and facilities.  It was therefore recommended that the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the Committee report.

7.4            The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that this was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7a

7b

22/01306/FUL - Elm Gardens, Badgeworth Road, Badgeworth pdf icon PDF 229 KB

PROPOSAL: Proposed single storey detached residential annex and garden storage used ancillary to the host dwelling (Elm Gardens) following demolition of existing residential outbuilding.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

7.8            This application was for a proposed single storey detached residential annex and garden storage used ancillary to the host dwelling (Elm Gardens) following demolition of existing residential outbuilding.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Wednesday 24 May 2023.

7.9            The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that the application site comprised a detached dwelling with a large outbuilding to the rear and was located to the western side of Badgeworth Road within the Green Belt.  The application proposed to replace the existing outbuilding with an annex to provide a disabled accessible single storey one bedroom unit with an attached garden store.  The proposed building would have a simple linear pitched roof design which would be finished in render and slate.  It would be smaller than the building it replaced, would have a lesser impact upon the openness of the Green Belt and would be of an acceptable design and appearance.  Given the substantial curtilage and separation from any nearby properties, there would be no adverse impact to any other occupiers.  He drew attention to a typographical error at Page No. 49, Paragraph 10.1 of the Committee report and clarified that the Council’s Land Drainage Engineer had raised no objections to the proposal, as correctly set out at Page No. 48, Paragraph 8.30 of the Committee report.  Members were advised that the proposal would accord with Policies RES10 and GRB4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Policy SD5 of the Joint Core Strategy and it was therefore recommended that planning permission be granted subject to the condition set out in the Committee report.

7.10          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that he was disappointed not to have been notified of the Planning Committee Site Visit which had taken place yesterday which was why the site was not accessible.  He indicated that there was currently a mobile home on the site which was occupied by the family whilst their house was being renovated; his understanding was this was temporary and would be removed by the end of the year when the work was completed.  He advised that the proposed annex building was required by the property owners for a disabled family member who used a wheelchair and required suitable level access accommodation over a single storey. In order to cater for their needs, the annex building was situated in close proximity to, and had a functions link with, the host dwelling.  The Tewkesbury Borough Plan was supportive of the provision of such annexes to support households and it was acknowledged that the Planning Officer agreed that the principle of development was acceptable.  The new building was formed following the removal of a pair of ancillary residential outbuildings within the established curtilage of Elm Gardens which had become redundant for use.  It was recognised that the site was located within the Green Belt; however, replacement residential buildings were allowed in the Green Belt where the new residential building was not materially  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7b

7c

22/01375/FUL - Part Parcel 8019, Chargrove Lane, Up Hatherley pdf icon PDF 156 KB

PROPOSAL: Agricultural access and hardstanding (amended description).

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

7.13          This application was for agricultural access and hardstanding (amended description).  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Wednesday 24 May 2023.

7.14          The Senior Planning Officer advised that, on the Planning Committee Site Visit, Members had been shown the position and extent of the access and turning circle which lay between Up Hatherley Way and former South Park Farm.  As set out in the Committee report, the principle of agricultural development in the countryside was well established but, in all cases, development had to be balanced correctly to limit any harm.  In this case, there was no identified ecological harm, nor any objections from County Highways; however, as set out in the Committee report and as Members would have seen, Chargrove Lane had considerable character and the new entrance would create significant change to the character of the countryside, concerns which were reflected in the number of objections that had been received. For that reason, and because the development would appear conspicuously detached from the existing development, there was conflict with Policies AGR1 and LAN2 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  Officers had carried out a balancing exercise, taking into account the economic benefits of the development in terms of the existing rural economy and employment as well as site mitigation measures; however, it was not considered that those benefits would outweigh the harm that would be caused to the open countryside and landscape.  Therefore, the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application as set out in the Committee report.

7.15          The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that his family had farmed here for over 15 years and the field was used for both hay production and livestock grazing for 30-40 cattle.  The access was needed to ensue that livestock and machinery could be safely taken on and off the site.  Access had previously been through South Park Farm to the south; however, planning permission had been granted to convert the buildings there so that route was no longer an option.  That access had been problematic due to the size of vehicles/machinery and walkers obstructed the entrance by parking vehicles; it was also very close to residential properties.  Having a safe and secure access was essential for the care of animals and the field needed to be regularly attended for TB testing, cattle loading and hay production, none of which could be done safely on the road, particularly with a 13 tonne cattle truck.  Furthermore, when producing hay, it was necessary to be able to process and load directly onto the truck using machinery and vehicles within the field.  The applicant pointed out that the application had been amended to remove the much-needed cattle-handling fencing at the request of Officers due to concerns it would harm the rural landscape.  The amended scheme before Members was now solely for an agricultural access, hardstanding for vehicle turning and an agricultural gate.  He felt the proposal was sensitive to the landscape, a view which was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7c

7d

22/00834/OUT - Land to the South-East of Bluebell Road and East of Rudgeway Lane, Wheatpieces, Tewkesbury pdf icon PDF 460 KB

PROPOSAL: Outline planning application for the erection of up to 250 dwellings, community sports pavilion and outdoor sports pitches as well as associated highway, drainage and green infrastructure including trim trail, outdoor play and community orchard.  All matters reserved except for access.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

7.18          This was an outline application for the erection of up to 250 dwellings, community sports pavilion and outdoor sports pitches, as well as associated highway, drainage and green infrastructure including trim trail, outdoor play and community orchard with all matters reserved except for access.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Wednesday 24 May 2023.

7.19          The Senior Planning Officer advised that the application site extended to approximately 15.1 hectares and was located to the south of Wheatpices on the edge of Tewkesbury.  The site was in open countryside and outside of the defined settlement boundary of Tewkesbury which was along the north edge of the site; however, the site was in close proximity to local services at Wheatpieces, which had a primary school, community centre and convenience store, and within walking and cycling distance of the wider area of Tewkesbury.  The proposed dwellings would comprise a mixture of house types and tenures including one, two, three, four and five bedroom homes.  Of the 250 houses, 100 would be affordable with 60% social rented and 40% shared ownership and, due to the size of the site, it had been possible to negotiate a range of housing including five bedroom social rented units which were uncommon on smaller sites.  In terms of the application site itself, new outdoor sports pitches were proposed along with a new community sports pavilion.  The parameters plan showed the sports pavilion was of sufficient size to include four changing rooms – this was beneficial for women/girls football and allowed separate changing rooms for home and away teams - two official changing rooms for the referee, community area and kitchen facility.  The exact details of the sports pavilion would be agreed at the reserved matters stage; the Section 106 Agreement was currently being progressed and would result in the transfer of the sports pitches and pavilion to Tewkesbury Colts Football Club with the proviso that there was a fallback position within the agreement that the area would come to Tewkesbury Borough Council if Tewkesbury Colts ceased to exist.  It was envisaged that the sports pitches would also be used by the wider community whilst being managed by Tewkesbury Colts.  It was noted that visual impact of the development would be relatively modest due to the flat nature of the landscape and the intervening hedgerow which meant there was limited visibility from Rudgeway Lane which allowed accessibility into the site.  He also clarified that the flood zone was to the east of the site rather than the south as he had stated on the Planning Committee site visit.

7.20          He advised Members that the application site was not allocated for housing development and did not meet any of the exceptions of Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy or Policy RES3 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, as such, the application conflicted with Policy SP2 and SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy and Policy RES3 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and the conflict with these adopted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7d

7e

22/00083/FUL - Oak House, Malleson Road, Gotherington pdf icon PDF 133 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side extension, a single storey rear extension and a side extension to the detached garage.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

7.29          This application was for erection of a two storey side extension, a single storey rear extension and a side extension to the detached garage.

7.30          The Planning Assistant advised that this was a householder application for a detached dwelling located in the village of Gotherington and part of the site was in a locally designated area of important open space.  A Committee determination was required as Gotherington Parish Council had objected to the application on the grounds that the proposal would remove the open aspect of the view south from Malleson Road towards Whites Farm and that the proposal would be disproportionate in this area.  No objections had been received from the statutory consultees or following neighbour consultations. It was the Officer view that the proposal was in keeping with surrounding development and would not result in any undue harm to the occupants of the neighbouring dwellings, or to the locally important open space, as outlined in the Committee report.  Therefore, it was recommended that the application be permitted.

7.31          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 what could be built under permitted development rights and whether it would be equivalent to what was being proposed in terms of size.  In response, the Development Management Team Manager (East) advised that the permitted development rights had been removed when the two dwellings were originally granted planning permission on the basis that the site was within an area of important open space.  The Planning Assistant explained that a two storey extension could not be erected under permitted development rights, although it was possible that a single storey rear extension could have been built under permitted development rights, if the property benefitted from them.  Another Member asked whether the development contravened any policies in the Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan and was advised that Policy GNDP10 related to locally significant views but this was not regarded as one. 

7.32          Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

7f

23/00240/FUL - 9B Beckford Road, Alderton pdf icon PDF 143 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of first floor rear extension and installation of a rear roof dormer.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

7.33          This application was for erection of a first floor rear extension and installation of a rear roof dormer.

7.34          The Planning Assistant advised that this was a householder application in respect of a detached dwelling located in the village of Alderton.  A Committee determination was required as Alderton Parish Council had objected to the application on the grounds that the proposal would be of an inappropriate and poor design, out of character with the village vernacular, overbearing on the neighbouring dwellings and would result in insufficient parking.  No objections had been received from the statutory consultees but there had been eight letters of representation following neighbour consultation, all objecting to the application.  It was the Officer view that the proposal would not result in any undue harm to the streetscene or the occupants of the neighbouring dwellings, therefore, it was recommended that the application be permitted.

7.35          The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident explained that this was one of many building plans that had been submitted for the site since 2019 and, after much consultation, the developer had agreed to a single storey at the rear to preserve the neighbour’s amenity.  With regard to overshadowing, the original plans did not show how close the property was to No. 9A Beckford Road, nor did it show the conservatory at No. 11 Beckford Road; although a site visit had been requested to assess the impact of the second and third storey extension on the conservatory, that was yet to take place.  The Committee report stated that the proposal consisted of a two storey extension that would be constructed over the existing single storey rear area of the dwelling.  The proposed extension would have a part catslide roof which would accommodate the box dormer extension.  The second floor extension would be constructed from coursed stone to match the existing building and the box dormer would be clad in standing seam metal cladding.  The design of the extension was utilitarian in appearance and, due to the limited space on the existing roof slope, would create an awkward relationship between the box dormer and the roof of the proposed second floor extension.  Whilst this relationship was not ideal in design terms, the extension would be viewed from a limited number of public vantage points, the majority of which being within private residential gardens and dwellings.  The local resident indicated that the surrounding neighbours would have to look at it every day so it would affect them all.  She pointed out that the Conservation Officer’s report stated that the design would create a dominant and unsympathetic addition to the property and surrounding area.  In conclusion, the local resident asked the Planning Committee to visit the site and assess the overbearing and overshadowing impact on the surrounding properties prior to making a decision.

7.36          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that the application related to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7f

7g

22/00740/FUL - Green Cottage, Snowshill pdf icon PDF 192 KB

PROPOSAL: Alterations to the front of the property to provide a porch; erection of a veranda to rear elevation and garden room in rear garden.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

7.39          This application was for alterations to the front of the property to provide a porch; erection of a veranda to the rear elevation and garden room in rear garden.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Wednesday 24 May 2023.

7.40          The Planning Officer advised that the application site fell within the Snowshill Conservation Area and Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  A Committee decision was required as the Parish Council continued to object to the proposed garden room as they considered it would be oversized and, even with the reduction to the eaves height and ridge height, considered that the roof would be highly visible from many locations such as the village green and the Church.  In order to address the concerns raised by the Parish Council and local residents, the ridge height of the garden room had been reduced to 3.4 metres with the eaves height being reduced to two metres.  A timber mock-up had been erected on the site to fully assess the impact on the immediate neighbours and the character of the Conservation Area.  The site had been throughly assessed and a site visit carried out by the Planning Officer and the Conservation Officer who raised no objections to the revised plans. It was considered there would be no adverse loss of light or loss of privacy to the immediate neighbours and the impact on the character and appearance of the area would be acceptable, therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

7.41          The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant advised that the property had been empty for over 40 years and in a state of severe disrepair before he and his wife had bought it in 2019.  They had sympathetically renovated using their own funds and a local family builder during 2020/21. He made reference to their involvement in the community which they were committed to contributing to and being part of.  The purpose of the application was to create some much-needed space for their own daily use that was in keeping with village architecture.  There was previously a dilapidated stone building in the back garden which had collapsed and that was in the location where they now hoped to have the garden room – he pointed out that old photographs had been displayed at the meeting.  A shower room had been included as they were not able to have one in the cottage itself due to the low height and angle of the ceiling and a stove was included as there was no gas or oil at the property.  With regard to the concerns about it being used as an Airbnb or separate dwelling, the applicant gave assurance that they were a private family and would not want strangers in the garden; they would prefer to see fewer tourists rather than more and had proactively suggested a clause to state that use of the garden room was ancillary to the cottage.  He advised there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7g

7h

22/00916/FUL - 2 Moorfield Road, Brockworth pdf icon PDF 177 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of dwelling and new access drive.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

7.44          This application was for erection of a dwelling and new access drive.

7.45          The Development Management Team Manager (East) advised that the application sought full planning permission for the erection of a detached two storey, four bedroom dwelling on the corner of Moorfield Road and Ermin Street.  The site currently formed part of the residential curtilage of No. 2 Moorfield Road, a detached property on a corner plot in a built-up residential area of Brockworth.  The site was within the designated development boundary of Brockworth, as defined within the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, and the principle of developing the plot was deemed acceptable on that basis, subject to the application of all other relevant policies within the plan.  The proposed new dwelling was designed with a hipped roof comprising grey roof tiles, the walls would be faced with render on a brick plinth to match the immediate area.  Concerns had initially been raised by the Parish Council and Officers as to the scale of the building within the sub-divided plot resulting in the applicants revising the proposal to reduce the scale and massing.  The building was now considered to be appropriately sized in relation to the plot and the surrounding dwellings in the area.  Concerns had been raised by the Parish Council with regard to the access into the site which would be via an existing access for No. 2 Moorfield Road which would be widened to accommodate both dwellings.  Additional information had been provided by the applicant to demonstrate that cars could safely manoeuvre within both sites and exit the site in a forward gear.  The County Highways Officer had assessed the details and advised that the access was acceptable and safe, subject to planning conditions.  The Committee report set out the material planning considerations which had been assessed in accordance with policies in the development plan and it was considered the proposal would not result in any undue harm, therefore, the application was recommended for permission, subject to conditions.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) advised that condition 6 required the provision of sheltered, secure and accessible bicycle storage and the applicant had provided those details as part of the application.  This condition could be removed or amended depending on Members’ views, should they be minded to look favourably on the application.   It was noted that a late request had been made for a Planning Committee Site Visit which was after the deadline and, as it had not been possible to visit the site, multiple photographs of the access had been taken to assist Members in their determination of the application.

7.46          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.  A Member asked whether the access would be retained in perpetuity and confirmation was provided that County Highways had recommended a condition to ensure it was maintained.  Another Member raised concern about the distance of the access from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7h

7i

TPO 419 - Ingleside, Dog Lane, Witcombe pdf icon PDF 112 KB

PROPOSAL: To confirm TPO 419.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Confirm without modification.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

7.49          This report was in respect of the confirmation of Tree Preservation Order 419.

7.50          The Tree Officer advised that the purpose of the Tree Preservation Order was to protect a mature Wellingtonia Tree.  The Council had received a request from a local resident for a Tree Preservation Order assessment to be carried out as the property had recently been sold and they were concerned that the tree may be felled as the intention of the new owner was unknown.  A Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders was carried out and the outcome concluded that the tree qualified for a Tree Preservation Order.  It was therefore recommended that the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed without modification.

7.51          The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to confirm the Tree Preservation Order without modification and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member drew attention to the photographs at Page No. 179 of the Committee report, which she assumed had been taken by the person objecting to the Tree Preservation Order, and showed ground movement and cracking to steps etc.  She queried if the Tree Officer had been aware of any structural issues being created by the tree when they had visited the site.  In response, the Tree Officer explained that she assessed the tree on its amenity value; if the objector felt there were structural issues they should submit a report with those findings.  It was proposed and seconded that the Tree Preservation Order be confirmed without modification and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the Tree Preservation Order be CONFIRMED WITHOUT MODIFICATION.

8.

Current Appeals and Appeal Decisions Update pdf icon PDF 122 KB

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

Minutes:

8.1            Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 188-189. Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issued.

8.2            Accordingly, it was

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