Agenda, decisions and minutes

6.1             The Chair advised that the meeting was being held under the emergency provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 and, specifically, the Local Authorities and Police and Crime Panels (Coronavirus) (Flexibility of Local Authority and Police and Crime Panel Meetings) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.  The meeting was being broadcast live via the internet, it was not being recorded by the Council but, under the usual transparency rules, it may be being recorded by others.

6.2             The Chair outlined the procedure for the meeting, including public speaking.

7.1             Apologies for absence were received from Councillor A Hollaway.  There were no substitutions for the meeting. 

8.1             The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Tewkesbury Borough Council Code of Conduct which was adopted by the Council on 26 June 2012 and took effect from 1 July 2012.

8.2             The following declarations were made:

8.3             The Chair noted that all Members of the Committee had received correspondence in relation to Agenda Item 5b – 19/01071/OUT – Land off Ashmead Drive, Cobblers Close, Gotherington and the Technical Planning Manager confirmed that Officers had seen copies of that correspondence.

8.4             There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 May 2020.

9.1             The Minutes of the meeting held on 19 May 2020, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record. 

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

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: Change of use from landscaped area/public open space to residential garden area including erection of a new boundary fence.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

10.1          This application was for a change of use from landscaped area/public open space to residential garden area including erection of a new boundary fence. 

10.2          The Planning Officer advised that the application related to a residential dwelling located on the Wheatpieces estate in Tewkesbury.  The dwelling was bordered to the south by a strip of grassland which was the subject of the application.  It was proposed to remove the existing southern boundary fencing and re-erect it two metres further south, encapsulating a strip of the grassland totalling 21 square metres.  Whilst the land was currently within the ownership of Tewkesbury Borough Council, it had been indicated by the Property Services team that it would be amenable to sell if planning permission was granted.  Although an objection had been received from the Parish Council, it was the Officer opinion that the concerns raised were insufficient to warrant a refusal, as such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

10.3          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.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member noted that the land was owned by Tewkesbury Borough Council and questioned whether it was maintained by a management company.  In response, the Planning Officer clarified that the land was currently maintained by the Council’s Property Services team.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

PROPOSAL: Outline planning application with means of access from Ashmead Drive to be determined (all other matters reserved for subsequent approval) for the erection of up to 50 dwellings (Class C3); earthworks; drainage works; structural landscaping; formal and informal open space; car parking; site remediation; and all other ancillary and enabling works.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Consent.

10.4          This was an outline planning application with means of access from Ashmead Drive to be determined (all other matters reserved for subsequent approval) for the erection of up to 50 dwellings (Class C3); earthworks; drainage works; structural landscaping; formal and informal open space; car parking; site remediation; and all other ancillary and enabling works.

10.5          The Planning Officer advised that the application related to an agricultural field located adjacent to the southern edge of Gotherington; it had a gentle slope and was contained by mature hedgerow and tree planting along its boundaries.  The site was located within a Special Landscape Area with the land to the north and east of Gotherington forming part of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The site was outside of, but adjacent to, the settlement boundary as defined in the Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan.  The application was in outline and proposed up to 50 dwellings with all matters reserved for future consideration with the exception of the means of access off Ashmead Drive.  Whilst the application was in outline form, it was supported with an illustrative site layout plan which showed how the site could be developed.  Some Members may recall a previous application on the site which was refused by the Council in 2017 on the basis that it was outside of any defined settlement boundary and would have a harmful impact on the landscape, as well as on the grounds of social cohesion and a number of technical matters relating to the lack of a signed Section 106 Agreement.  The application was subsequently dismissed at appeal, although the Inspector did not find any overriding harm in terms of impact on the landscape.  The findings of the Inspector were material to the current application which was essentially the same as that which was dismissed on appeal.  Notwithstanding this, there had been a material change in circumstances since the appeal decision in 2018; at the time of the appeal, the Council had been able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, as such, the housing policies contained within the Joint Core Strategy and Neighbourhood Development Plan attracted full weight in decision-taking.  In contrast, the Council could not currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, therefore, the housing policies in the Joint Core Strategy were deemed to be out of date; unfortunately, this also applied to policies contained within the Neighbourhood Development Plan.  Furthermore, given the time that had elapsed since the Neighbourhood Development Plan was made in September 2017, it no longer benefitted from the protection afforded by Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework which stated that, in situations where the presumption applied to applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicted with the Neighbourhood Development Plan was likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  This was subject to certain criteria, one of which specified that the Neighbourhood Development Plan must have become part of the development plan  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10b

PROPOSAL: To allow for extended hours of delivery 0500-2300 hours Monday-Saturday and 0700-2200 hours on Sundays; variation of condition 5 of planning permission ref: 01/0041/0125/FUL (as modified by planning permission ref: 08/01358/FUL and 14/00552/FUL); and variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref: 14/00552/FUL to amend report of noise mitigation measures.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

10.15        This application was to allow for extended hours of delivery from 0500-2300 hours on Monday to Saturday and 0800-2200 hours on Sundays; variation of condition 5 of planning permission ref: 01/0041/0125/FUL (as modified by permission ref: 08/01358/FUL and 14/00552/FUL); and variation of condition 2 of planning permission ref: 14/00552/FUL to amend report of noise mitigation measures.  It was noted that the description of development had been amended from that within the Officer report as there was no proposal to change the hours of delivery on Sundays which would remain as 0800-2200.

10.16        The Planning Officer explained that the proposal was for an extension to the delivery hours for the Tesco supermarket in Bishop’s Cleeve to enable fresh goods to be delivered and processed in the warehouse with shelves stocked before the store opened.  The hours were to be brought forward by one hour from the previous consent from 0500-2300 Monday to Friday; she confirmed there was no change to the delivery hours on Sunday which were 0800-2200 hours.  Members were informed that a noise assessment had been submitted with the application.  The primary consideration was whether the extended operational hours would have a detrimental impact upon the amenities of nearby residents.  The Council’s Environmental Health Officer had considered the report and recommended additional noise mitigation measures including erection of an acoustic fence between the King’s Head Public House and the access road as well as the control of reversing warning beeps from vehicles; the applicant had agreed to these measures.  Whilst no public representations had been received, the Parish Council had objected to the proposal and asked for a temporary permission for a 12 month period.  From the assessment of the technical evidence provided, and the mitigation measures proposed, Officers had concluded that the proposed hours of delivery would be acceptable, therefore the recommendation was to permit the application, subject to the recommended conditions.

10.17        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.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused.  The proposer of the motion indicated that he lived some distance from the Tesco supermarket but could still hear the beepers of lorries on some mornings so the impact on the residents living in the flats above Mill Lane would be significantly worse, as such he did not feel it was acceptable to extend the hours and allow deliveries to begin an hour earlier at 0500 hours.  He recognised that the store had experienced difficulties in recent months due to COVID-19 but the situation seemed to be improving and the supermarket did not seem as busy as it had been.  The seconder of the motion felt that, as well as disturbance from reversing vehicles, there was already an issue with lorries travelling to and from the supermarket and numerous complaints had been made by residents living along the route into the village so introducing an earlier  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10c

PROPOSAL: Erection of first floor extension to 35 Church Road to provide three residential apartments.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

10.20        This application was for the erection of a first floor extension to 35 Church Road to provide three residential apartments. 

10.21        The Planning Officer advised that the building was the former bank in Church Road, Bishop’s Cleeve located on the corner of Church Road and Church Approach which led to Grade I listed St Michael and All Angels Church.  The site was located opposite the Grade II listed Royal Oak Public House and adjacent to the Conservation Area within the designated retail area of Bishop’s Cleeve.  Planning permission had been granted under application 19/00688/FUL for external alterations to the ground floor to enable retail use.  The principle of the sensitive, adaptive use of vacant or redundant buildings was supported by Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy and saved local plan Policy RET3 supported retail uses at ground floor with residential use at upper floor levels.  The principle of the proposed mixed use was supported, subject to other policy considerations such as design and layout, heritage assets, housing mix, residential amenity, access and highway safety.  Members were advised that the building was situated in a retail area where buildings varied in age, type and design.  The proposed design had incorporated the recommendations of the Council’s Conservation Adviser in terms of retaining a focal corner with the set back of the first floor, pitched roof and use of render with cladding and a lower flat roof toward the side.  This approach complemented the design and materials of the existing building and the proposal was considered appropriate to the character of the area with the materials controlled by condition.  The Conservation Adviser considered that the proposal would generate a less than substantial harm to heritage assets and their setting and the public benefit of increased provision of commercial premises, low cost residential accommodation and securing the future of a vacant building outweighed any harm.  It was noted that there was an identified need for one and two bedroom accommodation and this proposal would provide low cost accommodation that met required space standards in a sustainable location.  Objections had been received from residents and the Parish Council regarding impact on the amenity of the properties on Church Approach; however, confirmation was provided that, whilst their front amenity space would be overlooked, that space was already overlooked by the first floor of adjacent properties and, as there was no direct overlooking of windows, the impact was not considered to be substantially harmful.  The Planning Officer went on to explain that the proposed development had an existing access onto Church Approach and no on-site parking had been provided as part of the proposal; however, the site was in a sustainable location served by public transport, parking was available within walking distance and on-site cycle storage would also be provided.  Therefore, it was considered that the proposal could be accommodated without compromising highway safety and the Officer recommendation was to permit the application, subject to conditions.

10.22        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10d

PROPOSAL: Change of use of dwelling and adjacent detached dwelling from C3 (dwelling house) to C2 (children’s care home).  Erection of a replacement single storey rear extension and erection of front and rear dormer extensions; front and rear dormer windows. 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

10.29        This application was for the change of use of a dwelling and adjacent detached dwelling from C3 (dwelling house) to C2 (children’s care home); erection of a replacement single storey rear extension and erection of front and rear dormer extensions; front and rear dormer windows.

10.30        The Planning Officer advised that the site was situated in the service village of Minsterworth at the end of a linear form of development with an existing access onto the A48.  The proposal was for the change of use of the property known as Charlton, a semi-detached dwelling, and the adjacent new detached dwelling to a care home for children.  Extension and alterations to Charlton were proposed in the form of a single storey rear extension, a small front dormer and a larger rear dormer extension to accommodate a loft conversion.  The development would provide accommodation for children under the age of 16 to be run by an established organisation which provided supported accommodation for young people.  The people in the properties would not be living together as a single household as the children would be looked after by staff on a rota basis; there would be a maximum of two children and two members of staff per dwelling with a changeover of staff between 1430 hours and 1530 hours; and children would attend schools and clubs in a similar way to a household.  The application had been called-in for a Committee decision by the local Ward Councillor and objections had been received from the Parish Council and neighbouring residents in terms of design, the proposal not being in keeping with the surrounding area, noise, nuisance, fire risk, anti-social behaviour, impact on neighbouring amenity, parking, access onto the A48 and drainage.  Given the extensions and alterations that could be made to a residential dwelling under permitted development rights, the Planning Officer explained that the proposed extensions and alterations to Charlton were not considered to be disproportionate additions.  There was no uniformity in the character of the streetscene and the front dormer was small in scale and was not considered to harm the visual qualities of the area.  In terms of fire risk, it was noted that the proposal would be required to conform with building regulations and would be assessed as part of that process.  Due to the separation distance between properties, there was no impact in terms of overlooking from the front dormer of the extension, there was already overlooking of the adjacent properties from the first floor windows of Charlton and views from the box dormer would be directed toward the rear of the site.  Therefore, it was considered there would be less than substantial harm in terms of overlooking.  With regard to children, they would be supervised by staff on a one-to-one ratio.  The level of accommodation was not dissimilar to residential use and the Council’s Environmental Health Officer had no objection in terms of noise.  Whilst there would be peaks in movements in the early afternoon due to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10e

PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey side and rear extension (revised scheme).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

10.36        This application was for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension – revised scheme.

10.37         The Planning Officer advised that the proposal was for a single storey side and rear extension at 1 Juniper Close, Innsworth.  This was a revised application to the 2019 permission with the difference being that the rear extension would now have a lean-to roof as opposed to a flat roof.  A Committee determination was required as the Parish Council had objected on the grounds that the extension would be overdevelopment.  Whilst these concerns had been noted, it was not considered that the proposal would result in overdevelopment given that the dwelling had not been previously extended and there would be a sufficient amount of garden space left.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the floor area of the proposal would be the same as the 2019 permission.  Overall, it was considered to be of an acceptable size and design and would be in-keeping with the character of the area, as such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

10.38        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.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused on the basis that the proposal would have a harmful impact on the surrounding area and an unacceptable loss of residential amenity to the neighbouring dwellings.  The Technical Planning Manager understood the concerns raised but drew attention to the plans at Pages No. 91 and 92 of the Officer report which enabled Members to make a comparison of what had been permitted and what was being proposed.  The only difference was the pitched roof along the rear elevation and Members were asked to consider whether that would have a significant harmful impact over and above what had already been permitted.  The Chair expressed the view that replacing the flat roof would result in uncomfortable junctions between the apex of the roof and the three windows on the rear elevation and he queried whether Officers were satisfied this would comply with any design principles in the area.  In response, the Technical Planning Manager confirmed that, whilst it was slightly awkward, it was not considered to be so unacceptable as to warrant a refusal.  A Member raised concern that Members were making a decision based on the design plans alone and he was of the opinion that it would be beneficial to have a virtual Planning Committee site visit to properly assess the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.  He felt it was important to see the site and appreciate the physical context and he welcomed views from others in this regard.  The Chair felt that the plans provided within the Officer report were sufficient to understand what was being proposed and the arguments being made by the Technical Planning Manager.  Members needed to be able to make a judgement as to whether the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10f

PROPOSAL: Erection of a conservatory, decking area and installation of solar panels.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit 

10.39        This application was for the erection of a conservatory, decking area and installation of solar panels.

10.40        The Planning Officer advised that a Committee determination was required as the Parish Council had objected on grounds of the harm that would be caused to the Green Belt and surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Whilst these concerns had been noted, it was not considered that the proposal would result in any harm to the openness of the Green Belt as the conservatory would be a proportionate addition and of a suitable size and design.  Overall, the proposal was considered to be in keeping with the character of the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Green Belt and there would be no adverse impact on the residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

10.41        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.  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.

To consider current planning and enforcement appeals and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) appeal decisions.

11.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 108-119.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government appeal decisions issued.

11.2          A Member indicated that, when refusing applications, there was often much concern and debate among the Committee regarding the risk of costs being awarded against the Council; as such, he was pleased to note there were examples in this report which showed that was not always the case with costs being dismissed even when appeals were allowed. 

11.3          It was

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