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.   

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

70.2           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.

71.1          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. 

71.2          The following declarations were made:

71.3          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 March 2024.

72.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 19 March 2024, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

73.1          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: Permission in Principle application for the erection of between one and seven dwellings, including 40% affordable housing on site.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

73.2          This was a Permission in Principle application for the erection of between one and seven dwellings, including 40% affordable housing on site. 

73.3          The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which set out that since writing the Committee report, an additional six documents had been submitted by the applicant showing their engagement with Historic England since the refusal of the previous Permission in Principle application.  He advised that the submitted documents did not provide any further new information for the Council to assess and document 6 was provided within Appendix 1 of the Planning Statement submitted with the application.  It was also noted that Page No. 24, Paragraph 2.1 of the Committee report contained a typographical error in relation to the site area which should read 0.6 hectares.  He also noted that it had been brought to his attention late last night that a letter from the applicant had been circulated to all Members of the Committee on Friday 19 April 2024.  He went on to advise that the application site was located off Bozard Lane to the north of Tredington village; Tredington did not have a defined settlement boundary and was considered to be a rural settlement. The site was adjacent to St John The Baptist Church which was a Grade I listed building - Grade I listed buildings were in the top 2% of listed buildings.  The application site was bounded by public footpaths and the site was located within Flood Zone 1.  In terms of planning history, a Permission in Principle application was refused in January 2023 for the erection of between one and nine dwellings on the site for two reasons: the development would conflict with Policies RES1, RES2, RES3 and RES4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan; and, the development would cause unacceptable and unjustified harm to the historic significance and setting of the Grade I listed church.  The current application sought to address the reasons for refusal by reducing the maximum number of units from nine to seven and now sought to provide 40% affordable housing.  The application was accompanied by a Historic Environment Appraisal.  The application site was located to the north of the linear built-up area of Tredington; however, it was separated from the core of the village by the church which provided a transition to the open countryside.  The proposed development would result in the creation of housing outside of the existing pattern, would not complement the form of the settlement and would not relate to existing buildings within that settlement, contrary to Policy RES4.  In relation to heritage, Historic England and the Council’s Conservation Officer had both objected to the proposal as it would lead to less than substantial harm to the Grade I listed building. The proposed benefits of the scheme, mainly the provision of up to seven units and 40% affordable housing, were not considered to outweigh the harm to the heritage asset in accordance with Paragraph 208 of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73a

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 Approve.

73.10        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 to 11 to planning permission reference 11/01155/FUL.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 20 February 2024 for a Planning Committee Site Visit to assess the size and scale of the proposal and the impact on residential amenity.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 19 April 2024.  Members were advised that, although the Committee report stated the application site was within Churchdown Brookfield with Hucclecote Ward, it was actually in Brockworth West Ward; previous applications had been within Churchdown Brookfield with Hucclecote Ward but there had been a boundary change at some point which meant that it was now within Brockworth West Ward.

73.11        The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that the application related to Plots 3 and 4 to the southern part of Gloucester Business Park.  The site benefited from outline planning permission for business and industrial uses and this application sought the approval of reserved matters and proposed three separate buildings.  Since the Planning Committee meeting in February, the applicant had reviewed the proposal and submitted revised drawings to reduce the height of some of the buildings: building 3.1 had been reduced in height by 2m to an overall height of 13.5m; building 4.1 had been reduced in height by 1m to an overall height of 14.5m; and building 4.2 had been reduced in height by 1m an overall height of 14.87m.  The amendments also proposed the relocation of the site access to building 4.2 further south from the signalised junction.  It was considered that the proposed buildings would have an acceptable appearance and layout and additional landscaping would provide enhancements to the site.  A number of concerns had been raised by nearby residents in respect of the impacts of the proposed development and use; however, it should be noted that the site benefited from planning permission and business and industrial uses were already established.  The impact of the buildings in terms of loss of light had been independently assessed and concluded that the scheme would not result in unacceptable harms.  It was considered that the relationship had further improved with the more recent amendments to the scheme to reduce the height of the buildings.  Attention was drawn to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which confirmed that County Highways was satisfied with the proposal subject to the conditions listed.  One additional letter of objection had been received since the Committee report was written and the observations maintained an objection to the revised scheme, advising that the existing trees did not provide 100% screening, especially when not in leaf, and raised concern regarding risks of flooding, drainage, traffic, parking and noise – this reflected the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73b

PROPOSAL: Reserved matters application in relation to Plot 5 for the erection of employment development of 6,773 sqm (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 Approve.

73.19        This was a reserved matters application in relation to Plot 5 for the erection of employment development of 6,773sqm (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.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 19 April 2024.  Confirmation was provided that, although the previous application at Agenda Item 5b was in Brockworth West Ward, this application was within Churchdown Brookfield with Hucclecote Ward as correctly stated in the Committee report.

73.20        The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that the application related to Plot 5 to the south western corner of Gloucester Business Park. The site benefited from outline planning permission for business and industrial uses and this application sought the approval of reserved matters in respect of scale, appearance, layout, access and landscaping.  Whilst concerns had been raised by nearby residents, as set out in the Committee report, it was considered that the relationship of the development to those properties was acceptable.  The County Highways Officer was satisfied with the proposal subject to conditions as set out in the Committee report; however, technical discussions in respect of drainage were ongoing therefore the Officer recommendation remained delegated approve as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.

73.21        The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that, as with the previous Agenda Item, this unit provided little transition from the residential area to Gloucester Business Park. It was sited on the main access area into Cooper’s Edge and so should complement residential style and better match the neighbouring units Javelin House and Benefact House which were comprised of higher quality traditional brick and mortar which was more sympathetic to a residential setting.  The footprint of this unit was significantly larger than both Javelin House and Benefact House and whilst there had been discussion around ways to mitigate the overbearing design, there had been little discussion about the potentially greater benefit of alternative uses.  If planning permission was to be granted, Members should consider conditions in relation to the building services placement including air conditioning units, generators and ventilation units in order to ensure they could not be placed facing the residential area and for the use of higher quality materials and a design to compliment a traditional and more residential style and enhance and add growth to the border with the neighbouring residential area.  The original intention was to have smaller units on the plot, similar to Javelin House and Benefact House, and this proposal would have a significant detrimental impact on neighbouring residential properties.

73.22        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that Plot 5 was the final employment application at Gloucester Business Park which was a successful employment destination in a high quality  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73c

PROPOSAL: Installation of ground mounted solar to export up to 16 MW (AC) electricity, comprising photovoltaic panels and associated infrastructure and works.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

73.25        This application was for the installation of ground mounted solar to export up to 16MW (AC) electricity, comprising photovoltaic panels and associated infrastructure and works.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 19 April 2024.

73.26        The Senior Planning Officer advised that the height above ground of each solar array would be a maximum of 4.3m in the western and central parts of fields 3 and 4 where flood water depth was likely to be at its highest and the majority of arrays in field 1 would be mounted up to 1.8m height above ground level where the depth of flood water would be lowest.  In terms of access, a new track would be laid toward the array with a temporary construction compound immediately outside of the main solar site; this would be the only vehicular access route into the application site.  A substation would be connected to the arrays by underground cable except where crossing the Broadboard Brook where the cable would be suspended above ground between two poles on either side of the brook.  The control room would be located in field 1 and there would be four inverters located throughout the site.  The Committee report explained that the site was almost entirely in Flood Zone 3 which meant that all equipment was to be sited above the maximum flood water level.  In practice, and as advised by the Environment Agency, this was half a metre above the height that floodwaters reached in 2007.  As required by the National Planning Policy Framework, the application was supported by a site selection sequential test, and the proposal met the exception test criteria for flood zone development, without objection from the Environment Agency and Lead Local Flood Authority.  There were no concerns about disrupting water flow, or displacing floodwater elsewhere.  It was accepted this meant that arrays and infrastructure would be higher off the ground and more visible, though in the generally flat landscape only the outside edges of the solar development would be visible.  The application was supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which had been reviewed by the Council’s own specialist adviser.  The development would bring significant change, though visual harm would be lower than moderate and would be further mitigated by landscape planting which the Council’s Tree Officer has contributed to in design.  The final landscape plan would be secured and delivered by one of a number of related ecological and landscape conditions.  It was noted that the trees would be significantly taller at the point of planting than average whips and a condition was proposed to secure a landscaping scheme for delivery.  Historic England and the Conservation Officer had reviewed impacts to heritage assets, most notably Wallsworth Hall which was a Grade II* Listed Building.  Although some concerns had been raised, harm was considered less than substantial and, in any event, would be mitigated by proposed screening and the overall need for renewable energy development to help reduce the effects of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73d

PROPOSAL: Construction and operation of an Energy Reserve comprising Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) together with associated infrastructure, access, landscaping and cabling, for a temporary period of 40 years (amended description).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

73.33        This application was for construction and operation of an Energy Reserve comprising Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) together with associated infrastructure, access, landscaping and cabling, for a temporary period of 40 years (amended description).  The Planning Committee visited the application site on Friday 19 April 2024.

73.34        The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which recommended amendments to conditions 8 and 16.  Members were advised there were two access points off Brockworth Road, the northern access was the construction route and, once complete, would be restricted for agricultural purposes leaving the southern access for maintenance vehicles to access the site and this would be secured by condition.  The batteries would be perpendicular with the A417 with 16 laid out side to side and eight inverters alongside them.  There would be a perimeter track with access to each container and around that would be a perimeter fence with a landscaping scheme beyond that.  The Committee report explained that the site was in the Green Belt where there would normally be a presumption against inappropriate development; however, the National Planning Policy Framework set out that very special circumstances could include the wider environmental benefits of renewable development.  In this case, the application was supported by a site selection report comprising the very special circumstances and Officers considered that other alternative sites had reasonably been investigated and discounted in the search for appropriate sites.  It should be acknowledged that every battery energy site was likely to come with some constraints and, in this case, Officers were satisfied that whilst development would lead to limited intrusion into the Green Belt, the benefits far outweighed the harm to its openness.  To an extent this was already disrupted by existing development in the immediate vicinity, for example, the trunk road of the M5 and the development south of the A417.  To further reduce the harm to the openness during the 40 year operational period, Officers had agreed a condition whereby the northern access track would be removed once construction was complete and the development would also be screened by significant hedge and tree planting.  Officers had not identified other significant harms in terms of landscape, amenity, highways or material considerations against development and recommended the application be permitted. 

73.35        The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  The applicant’s representative explained there was clear recognition at both a national and local level of the urgency to tackle climate change and reduce carbon emissions. The most recent version of the National Planning Policy Framework provided policy support recognising that battery storage was renewable energy infrastructure and the recently designated National Policy Statements on energy were material planning considerations and classified battery storage as critical national infrastructure.  There could be no doubt this application delivered on the principle of sustainable development which, along with wider environmental benefits, was noted as weighing significantly in favour of this type of development by Inspectors in allowing numerous appeals for battery  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73e

PROPOSAL: Technical Details Consent for the construction of one self-build dwelling following approval of Permission in Principle ref: 21/00144/PIP.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

73.39        This was a Technical Details Consent application for the construction of one self-build dwelling following approval of Permission in Principle ref: 21/00144/PIP.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 19 April 2024.

73.40         The Planning Officer advised that the application was for a new detached dwelling and garage at Box Farm in Woodmancote.  The site was located within the Cotswolds National Landscape and a Committee decision was required as the Parish Council had objected on several grounds including harm to the surrounding landscape, design and drainage.  With regards to the design, the proposed dwelling would have mainly traditional Cotswold architectural features and the external materials - natural Cotswold stone walls and stone tiled roof - would be appropriate to the character of the area. It would also be of a very similar size and design to the approved replacement dwelling next door at Beech Cottage as shown on the proposed streetscene elevation.  Several aspects of the proposal would comply with the positive design features as set out in Box 9 of the Woodmancote Neighbourhood Development Plan which included Cotswold Stone walling, a generous sized garden, off-street parking only, soft landscaping, two storey and a generous plot size.  With regard to landscape impact, the visual impact of the development from distant views would not be considered prominent due to its relationship with existing development and no objections had been raised by the Landscape Officer or Tree Officer.  In relation to drainage, a detailed drainage strategy had been submitted and surface water would be discharged into attenuation crates.  The attenuation had been designed to cater for all storms up to and including one in one hundred years, plus a 40% allowance for climate change.  Foul water would be discharged through a traditional below ground gravity system and would flow to the existing Severn Trent asset via a new manhole connection in Stockwell Lane; the Drainage Advisor has been consulted and raised no objections.  The drainage report discussed the use of water butts; however, exact details had not been provided so an additional condition was recommended, and had been agreed with the applicant’s agent, to secure this information prior to the occupation of the dwelling.  Overall, the proposed dwelling was considered to be of a suitable size and design and there would be no detrimental impact on the landscape or the residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

73.41        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that three years ago, almost to the day, he had spoken at this Committee to set out why this was an acceptable site for the construction of one dwelling.  The Committee had agreed and the application for Permission in Principle was approved unanimously; this application now sought Technical Details Consent for the dwelling.  All technical consultees were supportive of the development, including the Biodiversity Officer, Conservation Officer, Drainage Officer, Environmental Health Officer, Landscape Officer, Tree Officer and County  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73f

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

74.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 211-214.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issued.

74.2          It was

RESOLVED           That the current appeals and appeal decisions be NOTED.