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.   

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

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

30.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillor E M Dimond-Brown.  Councillor H J Bowman would be acting as 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.

31.1          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. 

31.2          The following declarations were made:

31.3          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 August 2023.

32.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 August 2023, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

33.1          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.

33.2          This application was for residential development of 37 dwellings (Class C3); vehicular and pedestrian access; landscaping; drainage attenuation; and other associated works.  The application was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 15 August 2023 in order to obtain full information in relation to the drainage strategy for the site and for a Planning Committee Site Visit.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 15 September 2023.

33.3          The Senior Planning Officer noted that a question had been raised by Members regarding the community contributions figure of just under £17,000 and explained this came from a standard formula applied by the Council’s Community team through consultation and was not earmarked for any particular spending, therefore, it could feasibly be spent on the Harvey Centre or other community needs.  Since the last meeting, the applicant’s agent had submitted a thorough explanation as to how the drainage system would work in terms of foul and surface water disposal, as set out in the Committee report along with an explanation from the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer who had looked at the scheme in detail and raised no objections.  With regard to the Harvey Centre, the applicant had engaged with the trustees following the last meeting and had volunteered to safeguard a small section of land which would appear in the approved plans and be supported by an additional condition.  The applicant’s agent had also spoken to the Harvey Centre about highway improvements and County Highways raised no objection in principle regarding removal of the central reservation, shown hatched on the plan, from the A48 outside the Community Centre which would allow eastbound traffic to turn directly into the access, although that would be subject to formal agreement with County Highways.

33.4          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that the Committee would be aware of the current challenges in the borough regarding the amount of housing needed and the necessary pace of delivery required. During the consultation stages of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan preparation, his clients had worked proactively with Minsterworth Parish Council and the Borough Council’s Officer team to demonstrate how this site was an appropriate development location in the village. This had culminated in the site being included within the defined settlement boundary, to pave the way for this planning application following adoption of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan. As such, this proposal was plan-led and the principle of development was established in accordance with the Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  The scheme would deliver 37 quality new homes, including 15 affordable homes, which complied with policy at 40%.  The houses were designed to a very high specification, incorporating solar panels and air-source heat pumps, and the scheme represented a vast improvement over and above building regulation requirements. The submitted energy assessment showed the scheme’s energy demand would be 89% less than the national benchmark with carbon emissions reduced by 94%.  The scheme was framed by  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33a

PROPOSAL: Construction of two dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated permit.

33.6          This application was for construction of two dwellings.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 18 July 2023 to obtain additional information regarding highway safety and for the County Highways representative to attend a site visit with local Ward Councillors.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 14 July 2023 and the site had been visited by the County Highways Officer, Planning Officer and local Ward Member on 8 August 2023.

33.7          The Development Management Team Manager (East) advised that the Officer recommendation had been changed from delegated permit, as set out in the Committee report, to defer to allow Officers to assess further information in respect of highways; he explained that new information had come to light around third party land and ownership that required clarification and discussion with the applicant’s agent, the landowners and County Highways. 

33.8          The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that, with regard to highway safety, County Highways had stated on 30 August 2023 that a site visit had been carried out and that the Highways Authority had undertaken a robust assessment of the planning application.  She pointed out that the Planning Committee had requested additional information regarding highway safety, including accident records and speed measurements, and Members could not be expected to make an informed decision if that had not been presented.  She wanted to see the robust assessment of the planning application that had taken place in August and felt it should be available for others to view and comment upon.  She wished to revisit the calculations in the access statement dated 11 July 2023 which set out that the speed survey had been undertaken using a handheld speedometer on Wednesday 25 May 2022 between 1400 hours and 1510 hours, and on Thursday 26 May 2022 between 1040 hours and 1200 hours, with the average speed calculated to be 36mph.  As per the highways report and data collected, the stopping sight distance was reported as 81m – the absolute minimum – and 103m – desired – and the maximum stopping sight distance shown on the drawing representing the site was 83.4m.  She explained that, not only was the data taken during the quietest time of the day but a handheld speedometer was a very poor way to take accurate data as it was well known that motorists would slow down when noticing it.  More accurate data from the speed sign recording unit for two hours every morning from 1 December to 5 December 2022 between 0600 and 0800 hours showed 228 cars with an average speed of 40.9mph resulting in an absolute minimum stopping distance of 102m.  She reiterated there was only 83.6m available so almost 20m was required to meet the absolute minimum stopping distance and she questioned how that could be deemed by County Highways to be safe - observations from the site visit would have shown how poor  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33b

PROPOSAL: Erection of up to 85 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS); all matters reserved except for means of vehicular and pedestrian access from Sandhurst Lane and a pedestrian access onto the A38.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Minded to refuse.

33.10        This application was for erection of up to 85 dwellings with public open space; landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS); all matters reserved except for means of vehicular and pedestrian access from Sandhurst Lane and a pedestrian access onto the A38.

33.11        The Senior Planning Officer advised that this application was brought to the Planning Committee further to the applicant’s 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.  The application site comprised a field of approximately 5.3 hectares, located on the northern side of the A38, Tewkesbury Road, Twigworth.  Existing residential properties on Tewkesbury Road lined the site and the site backed onto them.  Sandhurst Lane bounded the site to the east and the site was bounded by the tree-lined, private access lane to the west which led to the ‘Nature in Art’ Gallery and Museum; open fields/farmland lay to the northern boundary. The supporting Design and Access Statement noted that the site was currently in use as agricultural land for arable crop production use.  It did not fall within any national or local landscape designation and the south-western corner of the site, and the adjoining land beyond to the west and the north, were within Flood Zone 2 with the adjoining fields to the north and west within Flood Zone 3. The village settlement boundary, as defined by the adopted Down Hatherley, Norton and Twigworth Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP), ran along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site. As such, the site itself, with the exception of a small portion which lay between existing built development fronting the A38, fell outside of the identified settlement boundary.  A Public Right of Way ran parallel and just beyond the northern boundary of the site, continuing across Sandhurst Lane in an easterly/south-easterly direction until it reached the A38. The Twigworth Strategic Allocation site, which had been granted outline planning permission for 725 dwellings, was on the opposite side of the A38.

33.12        A number of heritage assets lay in relatively close proximity to the site including Twigworth Court, which lay to the western side of the Nature in Art access, and The Manor House, located towards the entrance to Sandhurst Lane on its eastern side.  Furthermore, a number of existing utilities either crossed the site or were located in close proximity to it.  A public sewer ran along the eastern site edge at the rear of the existing housing and a water main and low voltage cable ran along the southern boundary to the ‘Nature in Art’ access/lane. In addition, existing electricity and BT services run along the Sandhurst Lane frontage.  The current application sought outline planning permission for the erection of up to 85 dwellings and an indicative masterplan had been submitted to accompany the application which proposed a single point of vehicular access off Sandhurst Lane. The accompanying Design and Access Statement noted the presence of a remnant orchard within  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33c

PROPOSAL: Permission in principle application for development of the site to provide between one and five dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

33.15        This was a permission in principle application for development of the site to provide between one and five dwellings. The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 15 September 2023.

33.16        The Principal Planner advised that the application site was located on the north side of Malleson Road in Gotherington, partly within, but mostly outside of, the settlement boundary and partly within the Special Landscape Area.  The site consisted of a previous farmyard and part agricultural field with the former used as a builder’s yard and for storage. The site was generally level, although dipped slightly into the adjacent field to the actual trodden path of the defined Public Right of Way.  The applicant had provided a number of illustrative plans for potential different layouts - although these were not for consideration at this point - most of which retained the non-designated heritage assets of the traditional agricultural buildings on the site.  It was not within the scope of this application to determine the details of site layout, design, access, landscaping or drainage.  As explained in the Committee report, the application for permission in principle was limited to consideration of location, use and amount and, on that basis, it was considered that the proposal complied with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy and, whilst there were tensions with Policy RES3 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and the Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan, the proposal was considered by Officers to be acceptable.

33.17        The Chair invited the representative from Gotherington Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative noted that 37 letters of objection had been received, as well as 17 letters of support, and he confirmed that the Parish Council had objected to the application so he did not intend to repeat the objections highlighted in the written submission.  He explained that the Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan was created on the basis of an indicative requirement of 86 dwellings over the plan period 2011 to 2031. To date, 98 dwellings had been built and occupied; a further 95 dwellings on the Meadow and Trumans Farm had been consented; and, including this application, a total of 20 dwellings had been validated but not decided. This amounted to approximately 213 dwellings against an indicative requirement of 86.  The Inspector’s report on the Trumans’ Farm appeal was published on 11 September 2023 and the Parish Council disagreed strongly with the decision but his comments were relevant to this application, specifically in paragraph 65 where he stated: “65. There is evidence before me indicating that various local clubs or associations are stretched to, or beyond, capacity (including the local football, cricket and history clubs).Inexplicably, the Inspector had not taken a precautionary approach and had allowed the appeal, adding a further 45 dwellings to the already consented 50 dwellings on the Meadow.  Anyone with a passing knowledge of Gotherington would know that it was not a suitable location for unconstrained development,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33d

PROPOSAL: Raised ridge height and installation of rear roof dormer and front rooflights.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

33.22        This application was for raised ridge height and installation of rear roof dormer and front rooflights. 

33.23        The Planning Assistant advised that a Committee determination was required due to an objection from Bishops Cleeve Parish Council on design and amenity grounds. The proposal would see an increase in the ridge height to facilitate the installation of a rear box roof dormer which would allow for a bathroom and two additional bedrooms within the loft space.  The dormer would extend across much of the rear roof slope but would be set back from the eaves and finished with hanging roof tiles to match the existing, softening its appearance and limiting harm to the appearance of the dwelling.  The proposal would see elevated rear facing windows installed facing toward the frontages of the dwellings on Newdawn Close to the rear. The proposed windows would be approximately 20m from the front of those properties to the rear.  Due to the relationship and orientation of these plots, the main outdoor amenity space of rear properties would not be impacted given the dwellings would block views to the rear.  As a result of the separation distances between the properties, it was not considered that undue harm would arise from the residential amenity enjoyed by the neighbouring occupants.  As such, the proposal would not result in undue harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling, or the residential amenity of neighbouring occupants, and it was therefore recommended that Members permit the application in line with the Officer’s recommendation.

33.24        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.  In response to a query regarding permitted development rights, the Planning Assistant advised that a rear dormer could be carried out under permitted development rights in principle but planning permission was necessary in order to achieve the required headspace so it may not be achievable in practice.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

PROPOSAL: Rebuild of barn and subsequent use in C3 residential along with associated infrastructure – resubmission of application 21/01263/FUL.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

33.25        This application was for rebuild of a barn and subsequent use in C3 residential along with associated infrastructure – resubmission of application 21/01263/FUL.

33.26        The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that this application sought full planning permission for the erection of a three bedroom dwelling.  The site was located outside of a designated settlement boundary, within the open countryside and in the Green Belt.  The site was previously occupied by a barn which was granted planning permission for conversion to a dwelling; however, the existing structure had been completely dismantled and the site cleared.  As a result, the previous permission for the conversion could no longer be implemented and the application stood to be considered on the basis of a new dwelling in the countryside.  The site lay outside of any defined settlement and would not accord with any exception for dwellings in rural areas. Furthermore, the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and no very special circumstances existed which would outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness.  The site was presently clear of development and the construction of a new dwelling would, by its presence, impact openness and the purposes of the Green Belt.  Whilst it was noted that the Council could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply, as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, it was considered that the harms of the development in terms of its location, impact on Green Belt, unsustainable location and potential impact on highway safety would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development.  It was therefore recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in the report and the additional reason set out in the Additional Representations Sheet.

33.27        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant advised that he had purchased The Old Barn on Cold Pool Lane in April 2021 and it had come with planning permission to build his dream family home; however, this was during a time of lockdown due to the pandemic and he had been unable to find a builder that could start the build within the required timeframe to keep the planning permission alive, so he had decided to at least start the build himself. After reading up on building regulations, he had concluded that poured concrete foundations were required.  He had not been able to find any foundations in place beneath the existing barn and, whilst looking for the foundations, part of the roof had collapsed when he had opened one of the large barn doors.  He had decided that the only way to safely install the foundations was to carefully take down the barn, dig the footings, pour the concrete and then rebuild the barn into a solid, structurally sound and well insulated dwelling, using as much of the original building materials as possible. He had carefully disassembled the barn, storing all the timber, tiles and stones blocks on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33f

PROPOSAL: Erection of a 1.5 storey, one bedroom, oak-framed dwelling.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

33.35        This application was for the erection of a 1.5 storey, one bedroom, oak-framed dwelling. 

33.36        The Development Management Team Manager (East) advised that the application site related to a parcel of land to the south of Blacksmith Lane, The Leigh. The site had an existing access from Blacksmith Lane, to the northeast of the site, and featured many established trees and boundary hedgerow, as identified within the submitted tree survey. To the west lay Cyder Press Farmhouse, which was a Grade II listed building. The land was separated from the main building by Mary’s Cottage, a detached annex building within the curtilage of the listed building. The dwelling would have a bedroom and bathroom in the loft and would be constructed with an oak frame, painted black, with brick and weatherboard walls, slate roof tiles and oak-framed windows and doors. The building was in the form of a traditional timber weatherboarded building but with a flat roof extension down one side.  The application was recommended for refusal for the reasons stated within the Committee report.  As set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, since the publication of the Committee report the Council could not currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply and the application of Paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework had been assessed and considered in the planning balance in terms of this proposal.  Whilst a single new dwelling would contribute to the shortfall, it would be negligible and the harms identified were considered to outweigh the benefits of the scheme.  The site was considered to be in an unsustainable location and there would be harm to the setting of the listed building, as well as landscape harm.  Furthermore, there were highways issues in terms of substandard access and questions over whether adequate visibility splays could be achieved. Updated ecology and tree assessments were required in order to fully assess the proposals.

33.37        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that she had withdrawn her previous application in January, based on the Conservation Officer’s comments, and had incorporated all of the recommendations, reducing both bulk and height - with a smaller footprint on the same site and the same access, the previous surveys and tree reports remained relevant.  According to The Leigh Neighbourhood Development Plan, priority was given to existing residents; it asked that houses were aesthetically in-keeping and provided infill between existing houses and she believed this application ticked all of the boxes.  The site was a small strip of land that was bought by the previous owners of Cyder Press Farm in the 1980’s to extend their garden, with a wood store, chicken run and large concrete pig sty. In the 1990’s it had become a substantial vegetable garden with two greenhouses and two sheds.  In 2017, she had removed most of the vegetable garden and two greenhouses as they were too much to manage and it had been laid to lawn with smaller  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33g

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

34.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Page No. 234.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issued.

34.2          A Member wished to record her thanks to Enforcement Officers for their exceptional work in relation to the enforcement appeal at Plot 19, Warren Fruit Farm; residents had felt that they had been listened to and that the matter was being dealt with. 

34.3          It was

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