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.   

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

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

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.

60.1          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. 

60.2          The following declarations were made:

60.3          There were no further declarations made on this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2024.

61.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2024, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

62.1          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: Outline planning application for the erection of up to 11 dwellings and associated works, with all other matters reserved for future determination except access (amended description).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

62.3          This was an outline application for the erection of up to 11 dwellings and associated works, with all other matters reserved for future determination except access (amended description).

62.4          The Senior Planning Officer advised that the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, set out that Severn Trent Water had not confirmed its acceptance of a surface water connection to the drain on Sawyers Rise, therefore, the recommendation had been amended to seek delegated authority to impose any conditions pertinent to the connection.  He explained that Ashleworth was not designated as a Rural Service Centre or a designated Service Village in the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and was not within the development boundary; however, given the backdrop of the five year housing land supply position, the application was recommended for permission.  In terms of the site itself, the northern boundary was to the edge of Lawn Road with Grade II listed buildings of Lynchgate Cottage, St Michael’s and Nupend House on the north side immediately opposite and the Conservation Officer had objected to the proposal.  Land to the east of the site had been approved for four dwellings as set out in the Committee report and, beyond that to the east was a development of 35 dwellings which had been built-out.  Immediately to the south was land approved for development of 42 dwellings.  Due to the development surrounding the site, the existing services within the village and the proximity to settlements for additional services, it was considered by Officers to be a sustainable location for development.  It was an unusual application in terms of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) as grassland was classified as an urban meadow and was high value, requiring additional mitigation not all of which could be provided on site, therefore, the application included an off-site mitigation proposal in order to provide 10% BNG which would be secured via a Section 106 Agreement.  As set out within the Committee report, Severn Trent Water had not confirmed the development could connect to the surface water drain – the original proposal was for surface water to be disposed via the highway drain and then into the Severn Trent surface water drain on Sawyer’s Rise; however, the Lead Local Flood Authority had not been satisfied with that proposal and a revised proposal had been put forward to install a separate pipeline which bypassed the highways drain and formed a new connection to the same Severn Trent surface water drain - it was that new connection which Severn Trent had not yet agreed to.  Officers were requesting a delegated permission, subject to agreement being reached with Severn Trent to dispose of foul water.  The Senior Planning Officer went on to explain that, late the previous evening, it had transpired there was a footpath connection to Ashleworth which only extended as far as the top right of the application site and it was proposed to install a footpath directly into Ashleworth which would take up the highway verge but would not encroach on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62a

PROPOSAL: Hybrid planning application seeking:

A. Full permission for the use of land as public amenity space (Including community woodland, pedestrian access, play space and biodiversity enhancements).

B. Outline planning permission for seven affordable (discounted market) dwellings with all matters reserved for future consideration.

C. Outline planning permission for eight market dwellings with all matters reserved for future consideration.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

62.9           This was a hybrid planning application seeking full permission for the use of land as public amenity space (including community woodland, pedestrian access, play space and biodiversity enhancements); outline planning permission for seven affordable (discounted market) dwellings with all matters reserved for future consideration; and outline planning permission for eight market dwellings with all matters reserved for future consideration.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 16 February 2024.

62.10         The Principal Planner advised that the application site comprised 2.4 hectares of land retained by the applicants after the farm was developed into Brickhampton Golf Club, club house and driving range in 1990. In 1994, eight new houses were built on the original footprint of the farmhouse and buildings at Greenfields and Fairways Drive.  The site was not located within the settlement boundary of Churchdown and Innsworth but the settlement boundary ran along the southern boundary of the site, Highgrove Estate.  To the west, the site was bound by the Nato Allied Force Base and the majority of the site was bound to the north and east by Brickhampton Golf Club with the middle portion of the site bound by the residential development at Greenfields and Fairways Drive.  The application site was physically separated from Highrove Estate by a small watercourse and a strong line of trees and hedges which provided a high degree of physical separation between the site and the settlement boundary.  In relation to site designations, the site was located within the Green Belt and a Public Right of Way ran along the eastern boundary.  In terms of consultees, there were objections from Churchdown Parish Council due to Green Belt policy and highway safety, and from the Housing Strategy and Enabling Officer due to physical separation of the affordable units from the market sale units and the proposed tenure type not meeting the identified need for the borough.  Having assessed the scheme, Officers believed the application should be refused as it was not an appropriate location for new residential development; the proposal would result in harmful encroachment into open countryside and would appear as an unacceptable intrusion, diminishing the existing sense of transition between the settlement and the open countryside; it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would unacceptably reduce its openness and conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt; the applicant had failed to demonstrate how the affordable housing would be provided in a seamless and integrated manner and the proposed tenure type did not meet the identified need for the borough; the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the pedestrian connections shown on the illustrative masterplan could be achieved; and, in the absence of a completed planning obligation, the proposed development did not adequately provide for education and affordable housing contributions or refuse and recycling facilities.

62.11         The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident advised that he was speaking on behalf of residents who had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62b

PROPOSAL: Reserved matters application in relation to Plots 3 and 4 for the erection of employment development of 16,481sqm (GIA), access arrangements, servicing, parking including cycle provisions, electric vehicle charging and landscape provision comprising of Class B2 and B8 development with ancillary offices, alongside discharge of pre-commencement conditions 8 and 11 to planning permission reference 11/01155/FUL.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

62.18        This was a reserved matters application in relation to plots 3 and 4 for the erection of employment development of 16,481sqm (GIA), access arrangements, servicing, parking including cycle provisions, electric vehicle charging and landscape provision comprising of Class B2 and B8 development with ancillary offices, alongside discharge of pre-commencement conditions 8 and 11 to planning permission reference 11/01155/FUL.

62.19        The Principal Planner advised that outline consent had been granted for the business park in March 1992 and the permission had been renewed in 2001 to allow a further 10 years for the submission of the reserved matters.  In 2012, a further permission was granted for the reserved matters for the remainder of the plots to be submitted by 2026 and the current application was for the reserved matters for plots 3 and 4 on the outskirts of the business park adjacent to residential properties and required a Committee determination due to objections from the Parish Councils and local residents.  The original approval had no set parameters in terms of the size or height of the units with heights across the business park ranging from 16m to 24m; the elevations for this application had a proposed overall height of 15.5m.  The applicant had confirmed that the units would be BREEAM Excellent.  Comments were still awaited from the Land Drainage Officer in relation to drainage condition 8 and the Lead Local Flood Authority had no comment given that it had not been established when the original application was approved and County Highways had requested an additional condition.  It was therefore recommended that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning to approve the application, subject to no adverse observations from County Highways and the Land Drainage Officer and any additional or amended conditions.

62.20        The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident explained that the application had received over 30 objections from the public giving a wide range of valid points to consider.  The Statement of Community Involvement run by Gloucester Business Park sampled 75 responses with 50% answering no to “Does the scale of development feel appropriate for Plots 3 and 4?”; however, she and her partner had run a separate poll on Facebook via Cooper’s Edge Noticeboard Community Group, attracting 315 votes, with only 4% agreeing with the warehouse use. Remaining votes were for uses such as affordable housing, small retail or other non-imposing structures which could bring employment to the area and also enhance the business park as well as Cooper’s Edge.  Housing on plots 3 and 4 had previously been considered and the poll marked it as a more favoured solution by the community so she encouraged the Council to think of the benefits of more housing in the area during the current housing crisis.  Given the location of the plots so close to Cooper’s Edge, local residents had significant objection to the scale, aesthetic and location within the plot and the use of the proposed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62c

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

63.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 101-102.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issued.

63.2          A Member expressed the view that it was disappointing for both the Council and local residents to lose the appeal in relation to Land Off Ruby Land, Bishop’s Cleeve which suggested that the Inspector favoured residential development over much needed infrastructure.

63.3          It was

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