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.   

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

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

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

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

To appoint a Vice-Chair for the remainder of the Municipal Year.   

23.1          It was proposed, seconded and

RESOLVED           That Councillor S Hands be appointed as Vice-Chair for the remainder of the Municipal Year. 

24.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M Dimond-Brown and G C Madle.  Councillor Bowman would be a substitute 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.

25.1          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. 

25.2          The following declarations were made:

25.3          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2023.

26.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2023, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.  

27.1          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: Residential development of 37 dwellings (Class C3); vehicular and pedestrian access; landscaping; drainage attenuation; and other associated works.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated permit.

27.2          This application was for residential development of 37 dwellings (Class C3); vehicular and pedestrian access; landscaping; drainage attenuation; and other associated works.

27.3          The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which referenced an objection from a member of the public on the basis that the roadside plots were still too close to the main road, where noise would be an issue, and that too many dwellings would cause traffic issues; and a letter from an Associate Trustee from the Harvey Centre, which had been circulated separately in full along with a copy of the response from the applicant’s agent.  The crux of the representation was that the Harvey Centre was a community centre which operated on the aDjoining site and, in the mind of the Trustees, the narrow access between the building and the boundary of the application site would preclude the expansion of the Centre, which planned to develop a nursery – with the lease agreement due to be signed later this week – and a community shop, and their view was that the development would prevent widening the access.  The representation put forward three possible options for Members to consider in their determination of the application: including a stipulation in any planning decision issued for an improved access point to the Harvey Centre to be agreed with the Centre and the developer; to defer the application in order to explore options to safeguard future use of the Centre and to incorporate improved access for the Centre; and to consider any provision for lowering the speed limit on the A48.  The response from the applicant’s agent indicated that they supported the expansion of the Centre and the general principle of the development of a nursery and community shop and had advised that a meeting had taken place at a late stage when the first set of plans had been produced so there had not been time to incorporate the requests from the Harvey Centre.  The application site would not necessarily preclude the widening of the access, as Members would be able to see from the presentation slides, as it was public open space and not built development or a private garden.  The applicant’s agent had also mentioned there had been no objections from County Highways regarding the current speed limits.

27.4          Members were advised that the application site was bounded by existing development to the west and enclosed within the settlement boundary of Minsterworth to the east with the A48 to the north and Church Lane to the south.  There were a number of Grade II listed buildings close to the site including Snowdrop Cottage and Street End Cottage to the southwest and Lower Moorcroft Farmhouse to the east.  The left half of the site was grassland with the working part of the farm to the right containing a number of farm buildings.  There were two accesses from the A48, one currently serving Elms Farmhouse and the other serving the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27a

PROPOSAL: Development of an energy reserve facility and ancillary infrastructure.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

27.11        This application was for development of an energy reserve facility and ancillary infrastructure.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 11 August 2023.

27.12        The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which related to a question raised by a Member on the Planning Committee Site Visit.  The Environmental Health Officer had provided a late representation giving an update to clarify the position regarding noise.  This stated that the submitted noise assessment was robust and represented the worst-case scenario so the actual noise impact should be less than the predictions.  In addition, a condition was recommended to require a post-completion test to ensure noise levels were in line with predictions so that additional noise mitigation measures could be employed if necessary.  Modelling predictions concluded that sound levels would not exceed the measured background sound level in the area, both during the day and night, and background noise from road traffic along the A48 would still be the dominant sound climate in the area.  The application was for a Battery Energy Storage Site (BESS) of 99.99MW and Members had asked what that would look like in reality so he had included a slide within the presentation to show a 50MW site for illustrative purposes.  He advised that 100MW was roughly equivalent to supplying energy to 300,000 houses for approximately two hours.  Data from government research showed that 11 applications for sites of 90-99.9MW had been approved in England with a further nine to be determined.  This was a large scheme but was by no means unique and there were larger ones.  The BESS would connect to the Port Ham substation 1.5km to the east and the connection would be facilitated by the District Network Operator, which was the National Grid in this case, and that was separate from this scheme.  There were six dwellings at Linton Court Farm which were on assured shorthold tenancies as well as residential properties at Crosshands and Popes Pool Cottages.  With regard to site selection, the area was well-known for flooding and the existing field to the east of the application site was in Flood Zones 2 and 3; it had been very difficult to find a position for the site outside of a flood zone but the batteries themselves would be outside of the flood zone.  The site was Grade 1 agricultural land and Natural England had been consulted on the application and raised no objection to its loss.  Primary access would be at the far end of the track, adjoining the A40, with a railway line running to the south of the site.  There was a risk of a small section of the track flooding, therefore, a second and third access had been negotiated – even without that, there was no technical objection to using the primary access.  Linton Court Farm itself was at risk of flooding and could potentially restrict emergency vehicles accessing the site but the risk of all accesses being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27b

PROPOSAL:  Permission in principle for residential development of two dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

27.23        This was a permission in principle application for residential development of two dwellings. 

27.24        The Senior Planning Officer advised that, as set out in the Committee report, consideration of applications seeking ‘permission in principle’ were limited to matters of location, amount, and use.  In terms of location and use, Officers gave very significant weight to the site being within the boundary of Joint Core Strategy strategic allocation where there was a requirement of over 2,000 homes.  Members would see from the presentation slide that nearly 1,000 homes had been approved within the area of the strategic allocation and immediately north and south of the application site.  No objections had been received from County Highways in terms of access.  With regard to amount, Officers considered there was potential for two dwellings, as illustrated, though it would be for the applicant to demonstrate at the technical matters stage that two dwellings could be successfully accommodated in accordance with policy and site constraints – in principle, residential use of the site was considered to be acceptable.  Officers acknowledged there were considerable local concerns regarding drainage and foul water disposal arrangements in the area and discussion had taken place with drainage and flooding consultees, including Severn Trent Water, which had led to a suggestion that development could be approved subject to a condition that it would not be able to take place until such time as the public sewer had been upgraded; however, permission in principle approvals could not be conditioned.  In any event, drainage details would be a technical matter left for later consideration.  Whilst it was noted there were concerns in respect of surface water drainage and possible associated flood risk, such matters were not a detail for consideration at this time and fell within the scope of any subsequent technical details consent application.  In the event a technical details consent application was submitted, the Council would have the ability to refuse planning permission if a satisfactory solution to drainage and other matters could not be secured.  Further controls could be imposed at the technical details consent stage by way of conditions; other technical matters to be addressed at that stage would include - though were not limited to - design, highway safety, amenity and ecology and appropriate assessments and mitigation would be required at that stage. Given the application was limited in scope at this stage, Officers considered it complied with planning policies as set out in the Committee report and recommended permission in principle be granted.

27.25        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent reiterated that the application sought permission in principle for two dwellings. Members would be aware that these types of applications dealt with the principle of development from a locational and land use perspective only, and technical details were reserved for later applications.  Whilst the site may currently appear to be within open surroundings, the site formed part of the Joint Core Strategy strategic allocation for Twigworth. The main development  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27c

PROPOSAL: Permission in principle for residential development of up to six dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

27.28        This was a permission in principle application for residential development of up to six dwellings.

27.29        The Senior Planning Officer advised that the application related to a parcel of land in Ash Lane which was an unadopted private road but had the feel of an adopted road and was lined on both sides by existing housing. The application was for a permission in principle, as provided for in the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 and followed a recent successful application for permission in principle for up to four dwellings as part of the current application site and a previous full planning permission for two dwellings granted in April 2021 for the western part of the site.  Since the extant permission in principle for up to four dwellings had been granted there had been several changes which supported the current proposal for up to six dwellings on the site: the site area had been increased with additional land along the length of its northern boundary, facilitating an increase in the amount of development that could be accommodated on the site; and the immediate site context had changed with new housing developments to the north of the site, located to the rear of frontage housing on Ash Lane, being granted permission. The construction of two of these dwellings abutting the northern boundary of the application site had been completed which changed the relationship of the site with the existing built form of the area.  In terms of the principle of development, the site had been removed from the designated Green Belt as part of the boundary review during the adoption of the Joint Core Strategy and now formed part of the wider ‘safeguarded land’ to be retained for strategic purposes. Criterion 7 (iv) of Policy SD5 of the Joint Core Strategy set out that safeguarded areas were not allocated for development at the present time and planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land, except for uses that would not be deemed inappropriate within the Green Belt, would only be granted if a future review of the Joint Core Strategy deemed the release of the land necessary and appropriate and proposed development - that review was currently underway.  The National Planning Policy Framework allowed for limited infilling within the Green Belt and the planning history of the site indicated that the principle of development was already established on the site. The Neighbourhood Development Plan did not define a development boundary in Down Hatherley and that plan indicated there would be no allocations for housing in the Parish.  Having regard to the planning history of the site and the nature of the proposal as essentially ‘infilling’ in an already built-up frontage to the unadopted Ash Lane, the principle of a residential development at this site was considered acceptable and already established in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework and development policy, in particular, Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy Criteria 4ii. The Tewkesbury Borough Plan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27d

PROPOSAL: Permission in principle application for the erection of up to six infill dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

27.33        This was a permission in principle application for the erection of up to six dwellings. 

27.34        The Senior Planning Officer advised that this was similar to the previous application and was for up to six dwellings on ‘backland’ development between two existing dwellings on Ash Lane.  Access to the site was shown on the illustrative layout between the two existing dwellings and he confirmed there were no highway concerns and the site was a sufficient size to accommodate up to six dwellings.  A smaller part of the site had been granted permission in principle for two infill dwellings in 2021 and technical details consent had been granted in 2022.  The policy position was the same as the previous Agenda Item and the issues regarding drainage and flood risk which had been raised applied again in this case.  Third party concerns had been raised relating to the illustrative layout of the site; however, along with detailed drainage matters these would have to be addressed at the technical details consent stage.  He drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which indicated that Page No.113, Paragraph 5.2 of the Committee report needed to be updated to reflect that 10 letters of support for the application had been received.  It also set out that the applicant’s agent had indicated that the comment by Severn Trent regarding a pumping station being close to the site was erroneous and the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that, whilst it was not as near as Severn Trent had thought, it was in the vicinity of Ash Lane and the advice from Severn Trent regarding proximity to the pumping station was still applicable.

27.35        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that, as had been heard from Officers, Down Hatherley was a sustainable location for new housing in principle and had seen new small scale development in recent years.  This site already had full planning permission, granted in 2022, to build two larger properties and the scheme before Members today would make a more efficient use of the land.  Drawings had been provided to demonstrate six dwellings, which are envisaged to be bungalows, could easily be accommodated on the plot.  Tewkesbury Borough Plan Policy RES4 set out that, to support the vitality of rural communities and the continued availability of services and facilities in the rural areas, very small-scale residential development such as this would be acceptable in principle.  The proposed dwellings would be in character with the wider village which included development along Ash Lane set back from the main frontage. As such, the development was in accordance with the development plan and there was no policy conflict.  Neighbouring residents and the Parish Council had commented on drainage due to occasional issues with the sewers in the vicinity when stormwater had entered the system; this issue was being dealt with on a wider basis by Severn Trent which had raised no objection to this application.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27e

PROPOSAL: Outline application for residential development (up to 120 dwellings), associated works including infrastructure, open space and landscaping; vehicular access from Fiddington Lane.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Minded to approve.

27.38        This was an outline application for residential development of up to 120 dwellings, associated works including infrastructure, open space and landscaping; vehicular access from Fiddington Lane.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 11 August 2023.

27.39        The Senior Planning Officer advised that an email had been received that morning from Network Rail reiterating concerns regarding the proposal.  As Members were aware, this application was being brought to the Planning Committee further to the appeal against non-determination of the application to the Secretary of State. The Council must therefore advise the Secretary of State of its views on the proposal, which was the purpose of this Agenda item.  The application had been submitted in duplicate and that application would be brought to the Planning Committee next month.  The appeal site was situated to the east of Fiddington Lane and comprised an area of some 6.96 hectares, comprising approximately 6.02 ha of land situated to the east of Fiddington Lane with a small inverted ‘L’ shape to the west which was the proposed site for a sewage pumping station.  The remaining parts of the site area were proposed for a new cycleway to the north and pedestrian footway running to the immediate west of Fiddington Lane from the new roundabout to the junction with the main part of the site.  Access was the sole non-reserved matter and was proposed from Fiddington Lane, just to the south of the existing crossroads.  An illustrative master plan showing a potential disposition of the proposed dwellings together with a parameter plan had been submitted to demonstrate how the site could be developed and the application was accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment.  The application site lay to the east of the Land at Fiddington, Ashchurch site, which had already been allowed at appeal, where a residential development of up to 850 dwellings was being constructed, along with a primary school, local centre, supporting infrastructure, utilities, ancillary facilities, open space, landscaping, play areas and recreational facilities.  To the north of this was the consented retail outlet centre and garden centre, also part implemented.  Approximately 600m to the west of the site was a further approval at appeal site for residential development of up to 460 dwellings which had been granted planning consent in March 2022 and was also under construction.  The application site comprised agricultural land and was broadly rectangular in shape, with associated boundary hedgerows, scattered scrub and seasonally wet ditches. Adjacent to the eastern boundary was the Bristol to Birmingham main railway line running parallel with the length of the eastern boundary.  The southern boundary was adjacent to an unnamed lane with Homedowns Business Park abutting the lane on its southern side - that site had recently been granted consent for significant redevelopment for employment use.  At the south-east corner, the site abutted the unnamed lane and an unmanned level crossing of the railway line which provided access to pedestrians, cyclists and some landowners.  The western boundary was defined by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27f

PROPOSAL: Resubmission of planning application 22/00269/FUL for the construction of a single dwelling and associated infrastructure.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse. 

27.49        This was a resubmission of planning application 22/00269/FUL for the construction of a single dwelling and associated infrastructure.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 11 August 2023.

27.50        The Planning Officer advised this was a full application forthe erection of a single storey four to five bed dwelling.  The application site comprised a grassed area located to the east of a residential bungalow. The site contained a number of derelict and overgrown timber structures on its north-east and south-east boundary. There was established vegetation on the boundaries of the application site and trees which were protected by a Tree Preservation Order on the north, west and east boundaries.  The site was bounded by Shurdington Road to the southeast and there was an existing access from the northeast corner of the site onto the A46. The site did not fall within a recognised settlement boundary as defined in the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and was within designated Green Belt land.  The new dwelling was single storey and positioned to face Shurdington Road, which was similar to the arrangement of the existing properties. The dwelling would be constructed from timber cladding, natural stone and render with a flat roof.  The Officer recommendation was to refuse the application for the reasons as stated within the Committee report.

27.51        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that the original planning application was submitted in February 2022, but it was not validated until July 2022. That application was withdrawn to ensure all other matters such as design, Green Belt, drainage, ecology and energy efficiency were addressed.  She advised that they had carefully considered the plans over a long time, particularly because the site was located in Green Belt and, whilst they were disappointed that the application was before the Committee today with a recommendation for refusal, Members would note that the reasons for refusal related to perceived impacts on the Green Belt and the perceived non-compliance with spatial plan polices - there were no technical reasons for refusal. Members would have seen from the site visit that the site lay amongst a collection of houses within Chargrove and was visually screened by those buildings and the mature trees along the garden boundary. The site did not protrude into the countryside and was wholly contained. Their brief to the architect had been to purposefully design a single storey, low profile building to ensure that it was visually unobtrusive.  They had sought planning advice and a barrister’s opinion on the relevant Green Belt matters and had been advised that the proposal may be considered acceptable because it was located on previously developed land, included the removal of existing buildings and had a low visual impact, and, due to the contained nature of the site, it did not have a negative impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The applicant’s agent had circulated the legal advice they had received prior to the Committee so Members would have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27g

PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey side/rear extension.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

27.55        This application was for the erection of a single storey side/rear extension.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 11 August 2023.

27.56        The Planning Assistant advised that the application required a Committee determination at the request of Councillor Porter to assess the impact upon the Green Belt. The proposal was single storey, allowing for enlarged living space which would maintain the character and appearance of the existing dwelling given the proposed dimensions and finished external materials. Due to the positioning of the host dwelling and its relationship with neighbouring properties, limited harm to neighbouring residential amenity would arise as a result of the proposal.  The application site was located within the Green Belt, therefore greater restrictions applied and Paragraph 147 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that inappropriate development was, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.  Paragraph 149 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt unless the development consisted of the extension or alteration of a building if it did not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.  The existing dwelling was not original, having previously been extended with a front roof dormer and a single storey rear extension, both with planning consent. The internal floor area had already been increased by at least 50%, any further additions would therefore be considered as disproportionate which would represent inappropriate development within the Green Belt which was harmful to the Green Belt by definition; however, the applicant had forwarded two indicative drawings which could be achieved via permitted development through the submission of a larger home extension application as set out within the General Permitted Development Order 2015. The larger home extension scheme was not a planning application, but an assessment of the criteria listed within the General Permitted Development Order where Green Belt was not a consideration. The two indicative drawings represented extensions which had a greater footprint than the current proposal and a real prospect of being carried out, representing fallback positions which amounted to very special circumstances. As such, whilst it was noted that the current proposal was inappropriate development in Green Belt terms, the very special circumstances advanced by the applicant were sufficient to justify the development within the Green Belt, therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application as set out in the Committee report.

27.57        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that the proposal was for householder extensions to a dwelling known as Plemont in the village of Shurdington, consisting of a single storey side/rear extension.  As Members would have acknowledged on the site visit last week, the property has only benefitted from a modest single storey rear extension since it was originally constructed.  The proposed extension would be entirely located to the side of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 27h

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey front extension, single storey front extension, single storey side extension, single storey rear extension and loft conversion with rear-facing dormer roof.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.  

27.59        This application was for erection of a two storey front extension, single storey front extension, single storey side extension, single storey rear extension and loft conversion with rear facing dormer roof. 

27.60        The Planning Assistant advised that the application required a Committee determination due to an objection from the Parish Council on the grounds of overdevelopment and the proposal being out of character with the area.   The proposal related to a two-storey semi-detached dwelling, located on a corner plot. The two-storey extension would infill the front section of the dwelling, having little harm upon its character. The single storey front extension would extend across most of the width of the front elevation, featuring a lean-to roof design. Both front extensions would feature facing brickwork to match the existing and parking provision for at least two cars would remain to the front of the property.  The side extension would wrap around to the rear extension, joining to a pitched roof and the extensions would be finished with white coloured render and set back from the front elevation. The side extension would be set away from the boundary shared with No. 48 and feature low eaves and a lean-to roof sloping away from the boundary.  Attention was drawn to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which referred to a revised site plan which reduced the length of the garage slightly.  The rear roof dormer would be level with the ridge but set back considerably from the eaves. The dormer could be viewed from Goodmoor Crescent, but those views would be limited to the southern cheek of the dormer and other private residential views would be provided from properties on Martindale Road to the rear. The dormer would provide elevated views to the rear of properties on Martindale Road; however, first floor views were already provided, and a larger rear roof dormer could be achieved without the need of planning consent through permitted development rights, where potentially increased design and amenity harm could arise. The site was large enough to accommodate the proposal whilst allowing for off road parking provision and acceptable levels of amenity space for the occupiers of the site. Furthermore, the proposal would be of an appropriate size and design in keeping with the character and appearance of the property whilst representing limited harm to the residential amenity enjoyed by neighbouring occupants. As such, the proposal would not amount to overdevelopment and it was therefore recommended that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

27.61        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.

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

28.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Page No. 220.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issued.

28.2          A Member asked whether the appeal in relation to 22/01230/OUT – Parcel 5558, Road from Natton to Homedowns, Ashchurch, would be held at the Council Offices or online and requested an invitation to attend.  In response, the Development Management Team Manager advised that it was currently due to take place in person but if there was a request to stream from the Inspector that would normally be accommodated. 

28.3          It was

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