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.   

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

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

4.1            Apologies for absence were received from Councillors S Hands (Vice-Chair), G C Madle and R J E Vines.  Councillor M J Williams 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.

5.1            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. 

5.2            The following declarations were made:

5.3            There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

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

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

6.2            The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 May 2024, copies of which had been circulated separately, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

7.1            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: Retrospective application for the erection of a boundary fence.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

7.2             This was a retrospective application for the erection of a boundary fence.

7.3             The Planning Officer advised that this retrospective planning application sought to regularise the erection of a two metre, close boarded, timber fence fronting the corner of Maidenhall and Oakridge in Highnam.  The fence enclosed a triangular parcel of land approximately 0.07 hectares in size, within which three trees were sited which were subject to a Tree Preservation Order. Approximately just over half of the site was designated as a Locally Important Open Space.  The application had been brought before the Planning Committee due to the objection that had been received from the Parish Council.  At the time of writing the Committee report, 99 letters of representation had been received from members of the public, 98 of which objected to the application. Since that time, a further comment had been received objecting to the application as set out in the Additional Representation Sheet, attached at Appendix 1. It was the opinion of Officers that the proposal would have a significant adverse effect on the open character and appearance of the designated Locally Important Open Space and would also harm the visual amenity of the site and the character and appearance of the wider residential area. Therefore, it was recommended that the application should be refused in line with the Officer recommendation.

7.4             The Chair invited a representative from Highnam Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative indicated that, in eight years as a Parish Councillor, he had never encountered an issue which had aroused such concern, anger and opposition to the extent that a petition of 1,041 signatures – over half the adult population of the village – had been raised and 98 letters of objection formally submitted to Tewkesbury Borough Council.  The fence was erected last November and six months later it was still there; he was most concerned at the lack of enforcement action taken by the Council despite the Planning Enforcement Officer acknowledging in his email of 30 November 2023 that a planning breach had occurred.   For over 40 years the triangle of land now enclosed by the fence was mown and maintained by Tewkesbury Borough Council under the purported ownership of Gloucestershire County Council; indeed, in 2019, the Borough Council formally approved an application from the Parish Council to plant a pollinator patch on this site.  This land formed an important green open space, one of a network of such spaces which characterised the beautiful and much cherished community. Such was the prospect of its loss that the Parish Council had applied to the County Council to formally designate the land as a Village Green and progress with that application continued.  The reasons given by the applicant for the erection of the fence were entirely spurious – he claimed it would protect the land from dog fouling but there was a dog waste bin immediately adjacent to the site; he claimed it would prevent fly tipping but there were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7a

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing workshop building and store, erection of a detached single storey dwelling and garage.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

7.8             This application was for demolition of an existing workshop building and store, erection of a detached single storey dwelling and garage.

7.9             The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that the application sought full planning permission for a detached bungalow and garage following the demolition of a workshop building and store at the site. The dwelling would be accessed via an existing track from Wainlode Lane which served the existing buildings and a paddock area.  The application site was set to the rear of Willow House, one of four dwellings permitted in 2015, and the site lay partially within and partially outside of the settlement boundary to Norton.  Whilst the main body of the site was outside of the settlement boundary, it was considered the site was well-related to the settlement and existing built development.  The re-siting of the dwelling during the application process had provided an improved design with a frontage towards the street which would allow the development to integrate better into Wainlode Lane and provide a visible and active elevation towards the street.  The development was considered to be of an appropriate design and scale which would have no adverse impacts on the wider landscape or the living conditions of nearby occupiers, highway safety or ecology.  Concerns had been raised in respect of drainage and flood risk but Severn Trent Water and the Council’s Drainage Engineer had assessed the proposal and raised no objections, subject to conditions which would give controls to ensure that the proposal did not increase the risk of flooding within the site or elsewhere.   As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit, subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report.

7.10          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that, as set out in the Committee report, this application sought permission for a two bed bungalow and garage on a plot of land which currently contained a workshop building and cowshed both of which had fallen into disrepair and were in a dilapidated condition.  The application was the culmination of almost two years of close working with Planning Officers which began with a pre-application enquiry, following which, Officers confirmed they were able to support the principle of a new dwelling on this site.  This close working had continued once the current application was submitted in June of last year and, following comments from Officers and consultees, a number of changes were made to address any concerns they had - the siting of the bungalow had been changed so it would be more visible from Wainlode Lane and would now continue the frontage development and be better related to the character and settlement pattern of the village.  As set out in the Committee report, a number of additional reports had also been provided to address technical matters, including additional ecological reports and further information on surface water drainage.  As a result, there were no objections to the proposal from any statutory or non-statutory consultees.  The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7b

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two-storey rear extension.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

7.14           This application was for erection of a two storey rear extension.  It was noted that Councillor P N Workman had left the room for the consideration of this item in accordance with Minute No. PL.5.2.

7.15           The Planning Officer advised that both this Agenda Item and Agenda Item 5d related to a two-storey rear extension on a curtilage listed property known as ‘The Coach House’ at Woodend Farm in Shuthonger.  The main farmhouse, Woodend Farm, was a Grade II listed building adjacent to the application property.  The Coach House was part of a complex of buildings historically known as Woodend Farm and was situated between the A38 and the River Avon, accessed via Woodend Lane, a no through road to the east of the A38.  The two-storey rear extension was located in the same position as an existing single storey element and would create a larger kitchen/dining and living area on the ground floor and a master bedroom with ensuite and additional bathroom on the first floor.  Revised plans had been submitted during the course of the application to show a change to a narrower pitched roof design which had been set in from the side elevation by 1.8m - 1m more than the original - and reduced in width by around 1m to 5.6m wide with the rear projection having been increased to 10m. The scheme now proposed brick instead of timber cladding, with matching rooftiles and black powder coated aluminium windows.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application, subject to the conditions included in the Committee report.

7.16           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 regarding Page No. 65, Paragraph 5.2 of the report, which stated that one objection comment had been received on the previous application.  In response, the Planning Officer explained that the original application had been revised due to issues regarding the impact on the listed building and the comments set out at Paragraph 5.2 had been raised in respect of the first scheme.  The Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, set out that a further objection had been received in relation to the revised plans with the main points being the same as those expressed previously. In response to a query, the Planning Officer confirmed that no comment had been made by the Parish Council in relation to the application.

7.17           It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two-storey rear extension.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Consent.

7.18          This was a listed building consent application for erection of a two storey rear extension.  It was noted that Councillor P N Workman had left the room for the consideration of this item in accordance with Minute No. PL.5.2.

7.19          The Planning Officer indicated that she had no additional points to make over and above those raised in respect of the previous Agenda Item 5c.

7.20          The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to grant consent and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be granted consent in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be GRANTED CONSENT in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

PROPOSAL: To confirm TPO 421.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: To confirm without modification.

7.21          This was a Tree Preservation Order application (TPO 421).

7.22          The Development Management Team Manager (Northwest) advised that TPO 421 was being brought to Planning Committee with the recommendation that it be ‘confirmed without modification’ following receipt of an objection to the order from the landowner.  She explained that local planning authorities could make a TPO if it appeared to them to be ‘expedient in the interests of amenity to make provision for the preservation of trees or woodlands in their area’.  By not taking the recommended action, the Council risked the permanent loss of various significant trees and their wildlife habitat, therefore failing to deliver its commitment to the preservation of trees and biodiversity.  The TPO was made to protect and safeguard trees identified at risk of development pressure following the submission of a planning application for a proposed development for 165 dwellings at the Mythe, which had recently been the subject of a Public Inquiry with a decision pending from the Planning Inspectorate.  The TPO sought to protect two areas of woodland (W1 and W2), two individual trees (T1 and T2) and an area of trees (A1) adjacent to the classified A38 which was one of the main routes into Tewkesbury and the Town Conservation Area.  A section of ‘Area A1’ was earmarked for removal in the vicinity of a proposed new entrance to serve the proposed residential development.  The woodland, area and individual trees had been assessed using the Tree Evaluation Method for Tree Preservation Orders (TEMPO) and were considered worthy of a TPO by virtue of their present and future public amenity and habitat value.  One objection had been received and was summarised in the Committee report together with the Tree Officer’s response.  The objection did not relate to the whole Order but was against the part of area A1 that ran adjacent to the highway in the vicinity of the proposed new site access.  It was the Officer recommendation that the Order be confirmed without modification.  In the event the planning application were to be successful if the appeal was allowed, the permission would override the TPO; however, the local authority could vary the Order to omit the trees that would be removed so the remaining trees would still be afforded the protection of the TPO.

7.23          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to confirm the TPO without modification and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member asked why a Committee determination was required and was advised that, historically, such applications had been determined by a Tree Panel but it had been decided some time ago that, for transparency reasons, where there was an objection to a TPO it would be brought to the Planning Committee.  It was proposed and seconded that the TPO be confirmed without modification in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That TPO 421 be CONFIRMED WITHOUT MODIFICATION in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

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

8.1             Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No.105-108.  Members were asked to consider the appeal decisions issued.

8.2             A Member noted there had been a recent appeal decision in relation to Kayte Lane and she asked if the Planning Committee could be provided with the reasons why it had been allowed.

8.3             It was

RESOLVED          That the current appeals and appeal decisions be NOTED.