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.   

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

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

17.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillors E M Dimond-Brown and R J E Vines.  Councillors H J Bowman and M J Williams would be 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.

18.1          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. 

18.2          The following declarations were made:

18.3          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 June 2023.

19.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 20 June 2023, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

20.1           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: Reconfiguration and extension of existing dwelling.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

20.2          This application was for the reconfiguration and extension of the existing dwelling.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 14 July 2023.

20.3          The Planning Officer advised that the application related to Appledore, a large detached replacement dwelling located along Corndean Lane in Winchcombe.  The site fell within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and near to the Cotswold Way which ran along Corndean Lane to the east.  Revised plans had been submitted in February reducing the overall size and bulk of the extensions, particularly on the north and south elevations, and omitting the proposed basement.  It was noted there would be an overall increase in volume of 32% which was much less than the original scheme submitted.  A Committee determination was required as the Town Council had objected to the revised plans due to concerns regarding the scale and design of the proposal and as it was considered that, once extended, the dwelling would stand out when viewed from the Cotswold Way.  Whilst the proposal as revised would still substantially increase the size of the dwelling, it would result in improvements to the design and appearance of the building.  In relation to the impact on the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Cotswold Way, the Landscape Officer considered that the revised proposal would have a minimal additional impact on the existing setting.  The main public views of the building would be from the Public Right of Way to the south and would mostly be distant and seen as part of a much wider landscape, glimpsed for only a short distance within the setting of the other dwellings.  With regard to the impact on neighbouring dwellings a full assessment had been made and, given the size of the plot and the distance between the immediate dwellings, there would not be any harmful overlooking or loss of light.  The Drainage Officer had confirmed he was happy with the proposed drainage condition and that it would suitably cover the drainage requirements.  Overall, it was considered that the proposal as revised would not be unduly harmful to the appearance of the existing dwelling, nor the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and it would not result in an unacceptable loss of residential amenity to neighbouring dwellings, therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit.

20.4          The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the proposal to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that the Council’s invitation to comment suggested two particular criteria: unsympathetic design affecting the appearance of the building and/or the character of the street; and environmental matters such as impact on landscape and character of an area.  The Council declared a planning policy that aimed to prevent new development that was of unsympathetic design or which had a disruptive impact on the landscape and local character – local residents were asking only that the application be decided in accordance with these policy criteria.  In terms of scale, the house already dwarfed its neighbours,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20a

PROPOSAL: Construction of two dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

20.8          This application was for construction of two dwellings.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 14 July 2023.

20.9          The Planning Officer advised that a Committee determination was required as the application had been called-in by Councillor Gore.  With regard to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, he indicated that four additional letters of objection had been received from members of the public and the Parish Council.  The objections related to the change of Plot 1 from a flat roof bungalow to a two storey dwelling along with other points that had already been raised by objectors.  The Planning Officer had spoken to three of the objectors to clarify that the dwelling at Plot 1 would be 1.5 storey not two storey.  Four of the six original objection letters raised concern with the flat roof bungalow at Plot 1 as originally submitted, as such, a revised scheme had been requested for a pitched roof; however, when the amended plans had been received they had shown a two storey dwelling with a pitched roof.  This was not acceptable on the basis that it would be out of keeping with the area and would have an overbearing impact, therefore, further revised plans had been submitted for a 1.5 storey dwelling which was now provided for Plot 1.  Whilst there was no requirement for the Council to re-consult on the revised plans, the four nearest neighbours and the Parish Council had commented on the amended plans.  The Planning Officer went on to advise that the application site was located within the settlement boundary of New Town, Toddington within the Special Landscape Area but not within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Planning permission was sought for the erection of two new dwellings with associated garages and the existing garage and greenhouse would be demolished to allow for access to the new dwellings.  Plot 1 would consist of a 1.5 storey detached dwelling with rooms in the roof space alongside two garages for use by the new dwelling and the occupants of No. 3 Consell Green; Plot 2 would consist of a two storey detached dwelling with a detached single garage.  Both properties would have front and rear gardens and would be accessed via a gravel surfaced private drive.  As the application was located within the settlement boundary of Toddington, the principle of residential development at the site was considered to be acceptable subject to other policy considerations.  The plot size was larger than those to the east but Officers considered that the width and depth would allow two dwellings to be accommodated without causing overdevelopment.  The dwellings would be in keeping with the design and appearance of the new properties in Consell Green Lane.  The proposal was contained within an existing residential plot and would not encroach into the countryside and, following consultation with the Landscape Officer, there was a 1.2m high timber post and rail fence with native hedging to the southern, eastern and western boundaries  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20b

PROPOSAL: Change of use of land to glamping and the erection of four timber glamping pods with associated parking, pathways and groundworks. Erection of a reception cabin and communal sauna building. Re-surfacing of existing site access.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

20.13        This application was for change of use of land to glamping and erection of four timber glamping pods with associated parking, pathways and groundwork; erection of a reception cabin and communal sauna building; and resurfacing of existing site access.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 14 July 2023. 

20.14        The Planning Officer advised that the application sought planning permission for change of use of land to glamping and the erection of four timber glamping pods.  The application required a Committee determination due to an objection from the Parish Council.  The Planning Officer drew attention to the Additional Representation Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which set out that an updated site location map had been provided as the map at Page No. 75 of the Committee report had been included in error.  The application site was located adjacent to the rural settlement of Shuthonger which was two miles north of Tewkesbury.  The site was located to the rear of the properties which fronted onto the A38 and Shuthonger House, a Grade II listed building, was located to the east of the site.  Since submission of the original scheme, amended plans had been provided to show relocation of the pods to address amenity concerns; increased planting and landscaping; and, inclusion of a water treatment plant to service the pods.  Access to the site would be off the A38 through the archway and, alongside the pods, the proposal included a permeable parking/turning area, recycling/waste, a reception hut and a communal sauna.  One parking bay per pod was proposed with an existing entrance track/road to be improved.  Each guest pod would have an area of private decking and a hot tub.  The pods would be constructed from timber and would have a maximum height of 2.55m; the proposed reception hut would have a total height of 2.5m and the sauna would have a roof height of 2.3m.  In relation to the principle of development, the proposal was in accordance with Policy TOR1 and Policy TOR3 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan in that it was adjacent to a rural settlement, had potential for economic and tourism related benefits to the wider community and would be capable of accommodating additional traffic.  In terms of landscape, the proposal would provide significant new landscaping features when compared to the existing site and the Conservation Officer had no concerns in relation to the impact on Shuthonger House.  In respect of residential amenity, the pods had been repositioned further away following discussions with the Environmental Health Officer; Pod 4 was the closest pod to any residential property and now had a separation distance of approximately 25m to Haulfryn; Pod 4 would have a separation distance of 60m to Shuthonger House; and Pod 1 would have a separation distance of 50m to Shuthonger Manor.  A Noise Management Plan had been submitted and the details within the plan would be secured via a condition.  A lighting plan had also been provided which showed lights at 40cm high,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20c

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear extension.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

20.23        This application was for erection of a single storey rear extension. 

20.24        The Planning Officer advised that this item related to a single storey rear extension to a mid-terrace property known as Wisteria Cottage.  The property was a Grade II listed building and located in the Winchcombe Conservation Area, within the setting of numerous other listed buildings, and in the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The extension was an infill to the side of the existing single storey extension and would be level with the rear of the existing single storey extension.  The single storey extension would not project any further into the garden than the existing extension and would have a 5.2m projection to the rear to match the existing; however, the extension would increase by approximately 1m to the side to infill the space between the boundary and the existing extension.  The rear wall of the existing extension would also be rebuilt to the same height of 2.8m.  A condition was recommended to ensure the proposed brick was acceptable.  A timber window and French doors were also proposed to match the host property.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application, subject to the conditions in the Committee report.

20.25        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: Erection of two detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

20.26        This application was for erection of two detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 14 July 2023.

20.27        The Planning Officer advised that the application sought planning permission for the erection of two detached bungalows.  The site originally formed part of the residential curtilage of Mill Croft Cottage, a large, detached property on the north-eastern outskirts of Brockworth.  The site contained a number of trees and was surrounded on three sides by new residential development with a large care home to the rear of the site.  It was important to note that the site had a covenant attached to ensure that any structures were single storey.  The bungalows would have a pitched, tiled roof and would be constructed from red brick.  Clarification was provided that the site had been visited by the Council’s Ecologist on 18 January 2023 and a survey had been carried out in April and May 2023.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application, subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report.

20.28        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that the principle of residential development on the site had already been confirmed in the 2018 planning permission.  The design of the scheme was informed by, and responded positively to, its setting as required under policies in the Joint Core Strategy and the Tewkesbury Borough Plan – set back distances, heights, building lines, roof pitches and materials had all been derived from context.  The layout had also been informed by the passage of the sun in order to benefit from solar gains in the winter with shading to avoid summer overheating.  The houses would have large well-proportioned south-facing gardens and exceeded minimum space standards.  They would have high levels of insulation, air source heat pumps and areas of green roofs and so would provide very high quality living accommodation.  The site had been inspected by a qualified ecologist who had confirmed there were no buildings or trees present on the site which could support a bat roost.  Some objections mention the presence of bats and, as per the ecological assessment, that was to be expected on a site of this nature and measures were proposed which would benefit them by providing new roosting opportunities.  The existing trees on site were out of scale with the setting and, in many cases, had a limited lifespan, or had outgrown, their position.  One objection stated they were causing a huge nuisance, damaging paths and blocking sunlight.  The proposals would almost double the amount of green verge along the street frontage and would provide a large number of more appropriate trees and plants to this area, facing the public realm, as well as to the rear, and the applicant was more than happy for details to be agreed under condition.  The proposed new parking crossovers had safe visibility distances and a swept path analysis had confirmed that access was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20e

PROPOSAL: Application for Permission in Principle for the construction of two dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

20.37        This was a permission in principle application for the construction of two dwellings.

20.38        The Development Management Team Manager (East) advised that this application was the first stage of the process and sought solely to establish whether the site was suitable in principle for the erection of up to two dwellings.  The application site was an undeveloped parcel of land located on the northern side of Hawling directly adjacent to the east of No. 37 Hawling, opposite Lilac Cottage. The site was 0.15ha in area and located within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The government’s guidance set out that the scope of the first stage of permission in principle was limited to the location, land use and amount of development. The site layout, design, access, landscaping, drainage and any other relevant technical matters would be considered at the ‘technical details’ stage if the permission in principle stage was successful.  The application site was a large plot located centrally within the village on the northern side of the lane and formed part of a larger parcel of agricultural land that bled out to the edge of the village to the east. The application site was positioned alongside an existing pair of modest traditional semi-detached dwellings and sited opposite dwellings on the southern side of the road.  In terms of location, Officers considered that the form of the settlement of Hawling was characterised by a loose pattern of development interspersed by open agricultural fields bounded by traditional stone boundary walls, forming open vistas to the surrounding countryside.  The agricultural land, of which the application site formed part, did not have the character of an under-developed ‘infill’ plot within the village but was an important green gap that formed part of the intrinsic character of the settlement. It was therefore considered that the siting of two dwellings in this location would not complement the form and character of the settlement, despite being located adjacent to existing dwellings within the village.  Housing-led development was an accepted land use for the permission in principle application process and the proposed amount of two dwellings could be capableof being accommodated on the site; however, the proposal conflicted with policies set out in the Joint Core Strategy and the Tewkesbury Borough Plan in respect of location which was one of the three fundamental strands of the permission in principle process. The benefits of delivering two dwellings would be limited and would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harms to the character and appearance of the area, therefore, the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application.

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

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

PROPOSAL: Approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscape, layout and scale) for Phase 7 comprising development of new homes, landscape, open space and associated works.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegate Approve.

20.40        This was an approval of reserved matters application (appearance, landscape, layout and scale) for Phase 7 comprising development of new homes, landscape, open space and associated works. 

20.41        The Development Management Team Manager (East) explained that this was a reserved matters application seeking approval for approximately 272 dwellings as well as securing public open space and infrastructure pursuant to the outline application for up to 1,500 dwellings on the wider site.  The principle of residential development at the site had been established through the grant of outline planning permission in 2016.  The key principles guiding the reserved matters applications had been approved by the planning authority through the outline consent which included approval of a Site Wide Concept Masterplan Document.  The current application related to Phase 7 of the outline application which originally sought to deliver approximately 290 dwellings, B1 (now Class E – office and light industrial) and B8 (storage and distribution) employment uses and surface water attenuation.  The application before Members related solely to residential and surface water attenuation elements of this phase with the employment use to be brought forward as a separate reserved matters application at a later date.  The key issues to be considered in this application were access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale and compliance with the approved documents including the Site Wide Concept Masterplan Document.  A number of matters the subject of other outline conditions were also considered within the current application including affordable housing, housing mix and surface water and foul drainage.  The scheme sought to deliver 272 dwellings including one bedroom maisonettes, one and two bedroom bungalows and two, three and four bedroom houses.  A mix of affordable tenured and outright sale homes would be provided with an average density of 44 units per hectare.  In addition to the Section 106 affordable housing provision, the applicant intended to deliver a further “over-provision” of affordable housing on the site, referred to as an additionality.  This additionality would sit outside of the Section 106 Agreement and would provide a range of affordable housing tenures as well as open market dwellings.  As set out in the Committee report, Officers had carefully considered the application and were of the view that the reserved matters were in accordance with the Site Wide Concept Masterplan Document and the Design and Access Statement aspirations and were of an appropriate design.  County Highways had confirmed the access, internal road layout and car parking provision were acceptable and in accordance with the Site Wide Concept Masterplan Document.  Officers were satisfied that the mix and clustering of affordable housing was in accordance with the requirements of the Section 106 Agreement attached to the outline permission, including being tenure blind and of high quality.  In terms of flood risk and drainage, the outline permission included a drainage strategy for the site and the reserved matters must include detailed drainage details for each phase of development to accord with that strategy.  Several conditions on the outline permission also required the development to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20g

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

21.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Page No. 213.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issued.

21.2          A Member queried whether the appeal decision in relation to Land East of St Margaret’s Drive, Alderton would be challenged and the Development Management Manager advised that the decision was being reviewed, as was the case with all appeal decisions.  The Council had defended its decision robustly and, whereas it had been successful on other occasions, unfortunately in this instance the outcome was not favourable.

21.3          It was

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