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.   

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

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

48.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillors M Dimond-Brown, M L Jordan, G M Porter and R J G Smith.  Councillor H J 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.

49.1          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. 

49.2          The following declarations were made:

49.3          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

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

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

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

PROPOSAL: Erection of 10 dwellings, garages, construction of internal estate road, formation of parking areas and gardens/amenity space.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated permit.

51.2          This application was for erection of 10 dwellings, garages, construction of internal estate road, formation of parking areas and gardens/amenity space.

51.3          The Principal Planning Officer advised that this was a full application for a development of 10 dwellings at Aston Cross.  The site was located close to the A46 and immediately adjacent to a similarly designed, and now developed, residential scheme and would take its access through this site; a benefit of the proposal was that it would remove the existing private domestic access from the A46.  The site was outside of the Tewkesbury Town area development boundary but close to it and consisted of the side and rear curtilage of Lunn Cottage which was partly laid to garden and partly open land including an orchard area adjacent to the Tirle Brook.  The proposed layout consisted of two sets of semi-detached dwellings on the northern part of the site facing the main road and six link detached dwellings on the remainder which sat behind the previously developed Queen’s Head public house site.  Members may recall that the proposal was refused by Planning Committee earlier this year on the main ground of its location being outside the settlement boundary, and therefore in conflict with the housing policies set out in the Tewkesbury Borough Plan; it should be noted that the applicant had appealed that decision.  The current application had been submitted on the basis that the Local Planning Authority no longer could identify a five year housing land supply. The Council had agreed this position and, on that basis, taking into account that the site was located immediately adjacent to a residential development and in close proximity to the Tewkesbury Town area, there was no longer an in principle objection to the proposed development.  There were no clear refusal reasons arising from National Planning Policy Framework policies for the protection of areas, or assets of particular importance in this case, and matters of design, ecology, highways and drainage had been resolved subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report.  Therefore, subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement to secure the affordable housing mix on-site and off-site community infrastructure as explained in the Committee report, the Officer recommendation was for a delegated permit.

51.4          The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application, subject to the conditions set out in the report and satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the affordable housing and community infrastructure with authority to amend the terms/wording of the conditions/Section 106 Agreement if appropriate to secure the necessary mitigation relevant to the development, and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member raised concern based on the location of the flood zone that water could go up to the edge of the properties and, as she could not see an attenuation pond in the plans, she asked how run-off  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51a

PROPOSAL: Demolition of 10 existing garages and erection of three residential dwellings including details of access with all other matters (layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) to be reserved for future consideration.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

51.11        This was an outline application for demolition of 10 existing garages and erection of three residential dwellings including details of access with all other matters (layout, scale, appearance and landscaping) to be reserved for future consideration.

51.12        The Development Management Manager (South) advised that the application site related to a parcel of land which comprised ten ‘lock-up’ garages and hardstanding to the rear of properties at Yew Tree Way and Hawthorn Drive in Churchdown.  The application sought outline planning permission for three dwellings with all matters reserved except access. The indicative site layout plan submitted in support of the application showed how the site could be laid out with a terrace of three properties facing to the south-west, providing private gardens to the rear and a hard surface area to the front with two parking spaces for each property.  The application site was within the built-up area of Churchdown and comprised previously developed land.  The principle of development in this location was in accordance with relevant policies and considered acceptable.  Concerns had been raised in respect of loss of parking, displacement of vehicles, loss of access to gardens and impact on amenity.  It was noted that the application had been supported by a parking survey which demonstrated sufficient on-street spaces available to accommodate any displaced parking and the illustrative layout showed that sufficient separation from existing dwellings could be achieved so as not to impact living conditions of these occupiers.  In terms of rights of access to the rear of existing properties, this was ultimately a civil matter; however, the applicant had demonstrated on the submitted plans that a pedestrian access could be accommodated within the site as part of this development to serve the adjacent houses.  The proposal was therefore considered to be acceptable and it was recommended that the application be permitted subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report.

51.13        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.  In response to a Member query regarding parking, the Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that the garage and parking court were in private ownership; whilst residents of Yew Tree Way parked there currently, use of the area could be restricted at any time by the landowner and there was no legal right for them to park there.  A Member asked whether the parking area and garage were part of the original proposal when it was built and the Development Management Team Manager (South) confirmed that it would have been part of the development at the time.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member expressed the view that the level of parking around Yew Tree Way was concerning with parallel parking on the main trunk road; although it was a wide road, there was an unwritten rule that cars would park next to one another  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51b

PROPOSAL: Erection of between one and six dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

51.15        This was a permission in principle application for the erection of between one and six dwellings.

51.16        The Planning Officer advised that the site was located just outside of the defined housing development boundary, within a Special Landscape Area and a gap of local importance.  As explained within the Committee report, the Council could not demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land and therefore the most important policies for determining the application were deemed out of date.  On that basis, the decision must be determined in accordance with paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework.  There would be some harm arising from the development through conflict with development plan policies and the spatial strategy relating to housing and landscape harm; however, the site was considered to be broadly sustainable and there would also be economic and social benefits as a result of the development.  It was considered that the identified harms would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, as such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

51.17        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 sought clarification as to the scope of a permission in principle application and was reminded it was limited to location, land use and amount.  In response to a query as to whether the existing barns would be taken down, the Planning Officer advised as far as she was aware the corrugated metal structure would be removed as part of the development.  A Member noted that this application required a Committee determination due to an objection from the Parish Council on the grounds of the dwellings being too tall compared to existing properties and not being in keeping with the character and appearance of the street; however, his understanding was that these matters could not be considered at this stage of the process.  In response, the Development Management Team Manager (East) advised that these were not the exact comments made by the Parish Council in their entirety.  As detailed in the Committee report, the application had originally been for a greater number of units and this had been reduced through negotiation following which the Parish Council had been reconsulted.  It was possible to consider some elements of landscaping as part of the layout which was why it had been deemed appropriate to bring the application to Committee for determination.  A Member noted that the site was allocated as a gap of local importance within the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan; she was concerned that applications such as this were eating away at the gap between Gotherington and Bishops Cleeve and asked if that was a reasonable consideration in relation to this permission in principle application.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) confirmed that the policy formed part of the development plan and had been taken into consideration in the planning judgement in relation to this application; in this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51c

PROPOSAL: Demolition of three existing barns and construction of three new buildings for use as holiday lets and the conversion of an existing barn into a holiday let.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

51.19        This application was for demolition of three existing barns and construction of three new buildings for use as holiday lets and conversion of an existing barn into a holiday let. 

51.20        The Senior Planning Officer advised that this application related to Bushcombe House Farm; the land within the applicant’s ownership was extensive including two operational holiday let businesses within its bounds: Bushcombe House Farm and Bushcombe House Lodge.  The application had been brought to the Planning Committee for determination due to concerns raised by the Parish Council relating to principle, highways matters, impact on the Cotswold National Landscape and drainage.  In terms of principle, this was the expansion of an existing rural business through the appropriate conversion of an existing stone building and the erection of three well-designed new buildings in the place of structures which were in poor condition and of no architectural merit.  Although it was beyond the settlement boundary, the location was considered to be sustainable for the purposes of tourism policy which was supported by the County Highways Officer.  As such, the principle of development was acceptable.  Turning to the remaining highway matters, the existing safe and suitable access was sufficient to serve the site and the parking would be accessible and proportionate, with capacity to accommodate the anticipated trip generation without resulting in highway safety issues. The County Highways Officer had visited the site and raised no objections.  In terms of the impact on the National Landscape, the policy test required the development to conserve its scenic beauty and special qualities and it was considered that the development would achieve that. Planning conditions had been included to limit the impact of the development upon the surrounding landscape including restriction of materials, finished floor levels, external lighting, the removal of permitted development rights and the submission of a full landscaping scheme including boundary treatments.  The comments made by a local Ward Councillor in his role as Flood Warden, as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, were noted but did not change the recommendation. Officers wished to emphasise that the site was located within flood zone 1, as defined by the Environment Agency, indicating the lowest probability of risk for surface water flooding.  A drainage condition had been suggested requiring the developer to submit detailed drainage information prior to the commencement of any development which the developer had agreed to. The Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer had reviewed the proposals along with the condition and was satisfied the development would result in an acceptable impact on drainage and flooding subject to that condition.  Given that the application was in accordance with all relevant policies and comprised sustainable development, the Officer recommendation was to permit.

51.21        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that the National Planning Policy Framework, the Joint Core Strategy and Tewkesbury Borough Plan all contain policies that were heavily weighted towards supporting a vibrant rural economy and a strong rural tourism  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51d

PROPOSAL: Agricultural access onto Chargrove Lane – revision to application ref: 22/01375/FUL.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

51.24        This application was for agricultural access onto Chargrove Lane – revision to application ref: 22/01375/FUL.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site in relation to the previous application in June 2023.

51.25        The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which referenced representations from a member of the public, the local Ward Councillor for the area and the applicant’s agent - the latter pointed out an error in the report in that the applicant accepted the visibility splay would be 60 metres in total but there was not currently 60 metres of hedge within the visibility splay due to extensive gaps, as such, reinstatement, albeit in a different position, would result in a net gain of hedgerow.  Furthermore, the Additional Representations Sheet set out that an additional condition had been proposed by County Highways which would be added to the decision notice should Members be minded to permit the application.  The Senior Planning Officer indicated that Members would recall a previous version of this scheme was refused by the Planning Committee in June of this year.  That application included a more substantial access suitable for articulated cattle trucks and a hard surfaced turning circle inside the field.  The turning circle was no longer proposed and the access was to be used by tractor and trailer only, hence a smaller and less conspicuous field opening.  That said, there remained significant opposition, largely due to the creation of a 60 metre visibility; Chargrove Lane was also a popular walking route in an attractive landscape setting.  Officers acknowledged the recommendation to permit the application was perhaps finely balanced, though adequate mitigation in favour included realignment of the hedge and more targeted strengthening of the existing hedge outside of the visibility splay.  Furthermore, the historic estate railings on the edge of Chargrove Lane were to be retained.  Overall, Officers considered landscape harm was adequately reduced and mitigation was appropriate, to the extent that principal reasons for refusal of the last scheme had been overcome.

51.26        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that Members may recall the previous application for an access in this location as confirmed by the Senior Planning Officer and advised that the previous access design was to provide entry and egress for an articulated cattle truck to allow the farmer entrance to the field for loading and off-loading; that application was refused due principally to landscape concerns.  The application before Members was a revised scheme for a new agricultural access reduced and scaled back for tractor and trailer access only.  As before, this would allow for safe entry and egress on to the lane by farm vehicles and machinery.  The location of the access had been chosen for functional and safety reasons. The vehicles and machinery using the access would be for grass cutting in summer months, off-loading of cattle feed, animals, and transportation of portable cattle handling pens. As such, there was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51e

PROPOSAL: Incorporation of buffer land into residential garden of Pear Tree Cottage, Tumper View, Brockworth (retrospective application).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

51.29        This application was for incorporation of buffer land into residential garden of Pear Tree Cottage, Tumper View, Brockworth (retrospective application).

51.30        The Planning Assistant advised that the application required a Committee determination due to an objection from Brockworth Parish Council based on harm to the Cotswold National Landscape.  The site was a triangular piece of land, located south of the existing garden of Pear Tree Cottage and north of Green Street which passed the southern boundary of the site, with the Cotswold National Landscape falling south of Green Steet. The land would be used as garden space for Pear Tree Cottage, resulting in no harm to neighbouring residential amenity and no adverse impact to the highway network. The site itself was of very limited landscape value, being surrounded by, and therefore well related to, existing residential development, preventing any unacceptable encroachment into the wider landscape with views being dominated by the backdrop of the Brockworth settlement when viewed from Coopers Hill.  As the proposal would be an appropriate use, respecting the form, character and setting of the settlement and with no adverse impacts upon residential amenity or highway safety, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

51.31        The Chair invited a local Ward Councillor for the area to address the Committee.  The local Ward Councillor indicated that the land was directly adjacent to the Green Belt and Cotswold National Landscape and was previously part of two fields that were also designated but had been removed with the new line moved towards Watermead Lane.  A buffer strip had been created as a mitigation between high density housing and beautiful countryside as part of an application for a development of 80 dwellings to ensure there was appropriate green infrastructure due to future loss of green space brought about by the development.  Other green space, including two strips of land behind houses The Lodge and Castle Park down to Kennel Lane, approximately 20 metres by 100 metres, had also been taken into account as part of local green infrastructure when permission was given for the development.  That green infrastructure had also been subject to a planning application for an additional 13 or so houses, as such, a great proportion of that had also been lost.  Although he could see no reference to it in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, he believed that loss of green space was relevant to this application in terms of the protection given by the buffer.  Housing density directly next to this site had not changed since planning permission was granted for development and designation of this small field as a buffer zone -  Hillsdown Cottage, Watermead House, Pear Tree Cottage and Arlingham Cottage, and surrounding houses, were still as per the plan with their associated gardens, as such, he questioned why there was now a change in view regarding the importance and designation of this land.  Changing the site’s designation set a precedent and he asked what would be stopping him from buying  ...  view the full minutes text for item 51f

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

52.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 134-136.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issued.

52.2          A Member noted that the appeal in relation to 9B Beckford Road, Alderton had been dismissed by the Planning Inspector who had agreed with the Planning Committee’s decision to refuse the application.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) pointed out that, although it had been dismissed, the Inspector had raised the point there was not enough clarity in the refusal reason put forward by Members so whilst it was a positive result there were lessons to be learnt.

52.3          It was

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