Agenda and minutes

To elect a Chair for the remainder of the Municipal Year. 

64.1          It was proposed, seconded and

RESOLVED           That Councillor G M Porter be elected as Chair for the remainder of the Municipal Year. 

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.   

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

65.2          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.

66.1          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. 

66.2          The following declarations were made:

66.3          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 February 2024.

67.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 20 February 2024, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

68.1          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 up to 30 residential dwellings, associated works (including demolition), open space, infrastructure and landscaping with vehicular access from the A46(T).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated permit.

68.2          This was an outline application for residential development of up to 30 residential dwellings, associated works (including demolition), open space, infrastructure and landscaping with vehicular access from the A46(T).

68.3          The Principal Planning Officer advised that this was an outline application for up to 30 dwellings on a site off Fiddington Lane but with vehicular access provided through the adjacent larger development site to the south which would then lead west and north to the access through the wider development and reach the A46 near Dobbies Garden Centre.  As well as the development site itself, the red line of the application included not only the access but an area to the east on the opposite side of Fiddington Lane for an attenuation pond and a strip of tree belt land to the north-east for a proposed pedestrian access towards the Cotswold Outlet development which was currently under construction.  The development site was currently used for horse grazing and was relatively flat and surrounded by hedgerows for the most part.  Immediately to the north was a small lane which led westwards to a Public Right of Way and some residential properties on the north side of the lane and further equestrian land which was also in the ownership of the applicant.  To the east over the lane was a development site recently allowed at appeal for up to 120 dwellings which would share the attenuation pond for its drainage requirements.  The applicant had provided an indicative plan which showed vehicular access to the south but also pedestrian/cycle access potential to the northern lane and a Local Area for Play (LAP).  There was an objection from Network Rail in respect of the potential for increased use by pedestrians of the Homedown Level Crossing but, given the distance from the crossing, the greater proximity of the alternative Natton Lane underpass and the detailed discussions at the recent appeal inquiry for the 120 dwelling site opposite, it was considered that an objection could not be sustained on those grounds.  Although the proposal was not policy compliant in terms of locational policies set out in the Joint Core Strategy and Tewkesbury Borough Plan, they received less weight in the planning balance given the lack of a five year housing land supply or any other material considerations which would, as a result of granting planning permission, cause adverse impacts and Officers considered the proposal was acceptable in principle, subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement – it was noted there had been positive discussions with the application regarding the majority, but not all, of the identified Section 106 obligations.  Therefore, as set out in the Committee report, it was recommended that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application, subject to the conditions as set out in the Committee report, and any additional or amended conditions, and completion of the Section 106 Agreement.  There was a proposed time limit for negotiations and if an agreement was not concluded within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68a

PROPOSAL: Erection of five detached dwellings with associated infrastructure including detached single storey garages, landscaping and construction of two new accesses from Shurdington Road.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

68.8          This application was for erection of five detached dwellings with associated infrastructure including detached single storey garages, landscaping and construction of two new accesses from Shurdington Road.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 15 March 2024.

68.9          The Senior Planning Officer advised that a further late representation, as set out at Appendix 1, had been received the previous night from County Highways recommending an additional three conditions to add to the planning permission.  The applicant’s agent had agreed to the conditions so these would be added to the planning permission should Members be minded to permit the application.  The application site was located off Shurdington Road and was currently an undeveloped plot between Woodbine Cottage to the northeast and Shurdington House Stables and 1 Malvern View to the southwest. The site contained unmaintained grassland enclosed by mature hedgerows and trees.  The site was located outside of the settlement boundary within the Cotswold National Landscape (formerly Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and within the Green Belt. The site formed a gap within the village of Shurdington with residential development either side in an otherwise built-up frontage. The Public Right of Way to the north-east of the site would be unaffected by the proposed development.  The site was located within Flood Zone 1 and there were no heritage or other planning designations affecting the site.  The five three and four bedroom dwellings were two storey with dual pitched roofs and single storey with green, flat roofed elements; solar panels were proposed for each dwelling.  Plots 2, 3 and 4 each had access to a garage and all plots had off-street parking for two vehicles and private rear gardens.  The existing field access would be closed off and two new vehicular accesses would be created - one to serve Plots 1 and 2 and the second to serve the remaining plots.  Despite the application site not being located within a defined settlement boundary, the proposal was considered to be infill within Shurdington as per part 4(ii) of Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy. The site had a clear physical and functional relationship to the Service Village and was well related to the existing built-up frontage along the A46 such that the proposal was considered acceptable in principle.  The proposal was considered to be limited infilling in a village and therefore complied with exception 154(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023.  The Cotswold National Landscape Board agreed with the applicant’s Landscape and Visual Appraisal and, although the development would encroach into the National Landscape, it would be viewed in the context of the adjacent built development and the significant local influence of the A46. The site was well contained and the addition of five dwellings and associated landscape mitigation would ensure it would not have a harmful impact on the Cotswold National Landscape.  There were no objections from statutory consultees, the proposal was considered to be in accordance with the development plan and there were no clear  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68b

PROPOSAL: Change of use of land to private Gypsy/Traveller site.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

68.15        This application was for change of use of land to a private Gypsy/Traveller site.

68.16        The Development Management Team Manager (Northwest) advised that the application was a rectangular parcel of land to the southeast of the B4634 adjoining a larger field traditionally used for grazing which adjoined the M5 motorway to the east.  The site was occupied by two large buildings associated with equestrian use and was located in the Green Belt and Flood Zone 1.  The application sought planning permission for change of use to create a pitch for a single family of Romany Gypsies in order to site a mobile home, a touring caravan and to construct a day room.  Whilst the application site was located within the open countryside and Green Belt, it was deemed to constitute appropriate development as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework in that it would entail the redevelopment of previously developed land and would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development as the extent of development on site would be reduced.  There was a significant shortfall of Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople sites and pitches within the borough and the personal circumstances of this family must also be taken into consideration in the planning balance.  Whilst there would be some landscape harm from the proposed development and associated domestication of the site, this would be localised and the harm would reduce over time as the proposed landscaping established.  Matters in respect of drainage, contamination and noise could be adequately addressed by condition.  Attention was drawn to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which set out that two additional further representations had been received since the publication of the Committee report and it was proposed that an additional condition be included in relation to land contamination and, in view of the absence of an ecological assessment at this time, the Officer recommendation had been amended to delegate authority to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application, subject to the receipt and consideration of an appropriate ecological assessment and any additional conditions arising.

68.17        The Chair invited a representative from Staverton Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative indicated that Members would have received an email setting out the concerns of the Parish Council regarding this application and he trusted they had read and digested its contents.  In summary, the Parish Council opposed this application on the grounds of inappropriate development in the Green Belt and questioned whether a Noise Impact Assessment been carried out as required by the Environmental Health consultant; whether the risk of contamination from old agricultural buildings had been assessed as suggested by the Environmental Health consultant; as this site was situated adjacent to the B4634 and 170 metres from the M5 Motorway, if tests had been carried out to test the air quality;  whether foul water and surface water drainage issues had been investigated and evidenced; and, if a wildlife assessment had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68c

PROPOSAL: First floor extension and single storey rear and side extension.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

68.21        This application was for a first floor extension and single storey rear and side extension. 

68.22        The Senior Planning Officer advised that this was a householder application seeking extensions and alterations to an existing dwelling.  The dwelling was constructed approximately six years ago and comprised a contemporary architectural form. The extensions would come in two main parts: firstly, a mono-pitched extension at ground floor level which would be finished in a buff coloured brick to match the Cotswold stone façade and, secondly, a first storey extension on top of the existing structure which would comprise an asymmetric contemporary design finished in timber cladding to the walls and metal sheeting to the roof to match the existing dwelling.  The application required a Committee determination due to an objection from Woodmancote Parish Council; however, this has been systematically addressed within the Committee report and, notwithstanding this objection, the development as proposed fully accorded with the policies of the development plan including those pertaining to design, highways, amenity, landscape and conservation.  As such, the recommendation was to permit the application subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report.

68.23        The Chair invited the representative from Woodmancote Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative indicated that the Parish Council greatly valued the work of the Council’s Planning team and was generally very happy with the in depth work Officers did in relation to applications in Woodmancote; however, in this instance, it could not support the evaluation set out in the Committee report and drew attention to two key issues.  With regard to design and visual amenity, Policy 9 of the Woodmancote Neighbourhood Development Plan required development to respect the local character. A detailed character assessment had been carried out as part of the Woodmancote Neighbourhood Development Plan and the design of the proposed development contained almost every negative feature and almost no positive features of that plan. Woodmancote Parish Council fundamentally disagreed with Page No. 127, Paragraph 8.5 of the Committee report and the fact that the first floor extension was in keeping with the existing dwelling was irrelevant in this particular set of circumstances because it was the surrounding development that represented the coherent character of the area. This proposal was not in keeping with any other property in Beverley Gardens and therefore conflicted with Policy RES10 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Policy SD4 of the Joint Core Strategy.  In relation to impact on the Cotswold National Landscape, this property already negatively impacted the setting of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the extension should be viewed alongside the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan Strategic Guidelines where it was accepted that this location impacted the setting. A suburban style with glazed balconies represented an extremely unwelcome suburban intrusion and created glint and light pollution in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. As such, it conflicted with Joint Core Strategy Policy SD7 and did not conserve or enhance the Area of Outstanding Natural  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68d

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

69.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 137-138.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issued.

69.2          A Member asked if there was any update regarding an action plan for Warren Fruit Farm given that the four appeals had been withdrawn and the Development Management Team Manager (East) undertook to obtain an update from the Enforcement Officer to circulate to Members following the meeting.

69.3          It was

RESOLVED           That the current appeals and appeal decisions be NOTED.