Link to homepage

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Contact: Democratic Services, Tel: (01684) 272021 Fax: (01684) 272040  Email:  democraticservices@tewkesbury.gov.uk

Link: Click here to watch live broadcast

Items
No. Item

18.

Announcements

Minutes:

18.1           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.

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

19.

Apologies for Absence and Substitutions

To receive apologies for absence and advise of any substitutions. 

Minutes:

19.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillor R A Bird.  Councillor J W Murphy would be acting as a substitute for the meeting. 

20.

Declarations of Interest

Pursuant to the adoption by the Council on 26 June 2012 of the Tewkesbury Borough Council Code of Conduct, effective from 1 July 2012, as set out in Minute No. CL.34, Members are invited to declare any interest they may have in the business set out on the Agenda to which the approved Code applies.

Minutes:

20.1          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.

20.2           The following declarations were made:

Councillor

Application No./Agenda Item

Nature of Interest (where disclosed)

Declared Action in respect of Disclosure

G F Blackwell

Agenda Item 5h - 20/00362/FUL –                 St Petroc, Pirton Lane, Churchdown.

Agenda Item 5i – 20/00445/FUL –       49 Yew Tree Way, Churchdown.

Is a Member of Churchdown Parish Council but does not participate in planning matters.

Would speak and vote.

A Hollaway

Agenda Item 5e – 20/00387/FUL –      14 Jennings Orchard, Woodmancote.

Agenda Item 5g – 20/00376/FUL – Land at the Coach House, Post Office Lane, Cleeve Hill.

Is a Borough Councillor for the area.

Would speak and vote.

M L Jordan

Agenda Item 5h – 20/00362/FUL –                 St Petroc, Pirton Lane, Churchdown.

Is a Member of Churchdown Parish Council but does not participate in planning matters.

Would speak and vote.

M L Jordan

Agenda Item 5i – 20/00445/FUL – Yew Tree Way, Churchdown.

Is a Borough Councillor for the area.

Is a Member of Churchdown Parish Council but does not participate in planning matters.

Would speak and vote.

E J MacTiernan

Agenda Item 5f – 20/00545/FUL -              30 The Park, Northway.

Is a Member of Northway Parish Council but does not participate in planning matters.

Would speak and vote.

J R Mason

Agenda Item 5a - 19/00404/FUL – Land Rear of Grove View, Market Lane, Greet.

Agenda Item 5c – 19/01041/FUL – Dryfield Farm, Cheltenham Road, Winchcombe.

Is a Member of Winchcombe Town Council but does not participate in planning matters.

Would speak and vote.

J W Murphy

Agenda Item 5a -19/00404/FUL – Land Rear of Grove View, Market Lane, Greet.

Agenda Item 5c – 19/01041/FUL – Dryfield Farm, Cheltenham Road, Winchcombe.

Is a Member of Winchcombe Town Council but does not participate in planning matters.

Would speak and vote.

R J G Smith

Agenda Item 5h – 20/00362/FUL –               St Petroc, Pirton Lane, Churchdown.

Agenda Item 5i – 20/00445/FUL –       49 Yew Tree Way, Churchdown.

Is a Member of Churchdown Parish Council but does not participate in planning matters.

Would speak and vote.

P D Surman

Agenda Item 5j – 20/00317/OUT –                  9 Cowlsmead, Shurdington.

Is a Member of Shurdington Parish Council but does not participate in planning matters.

Is a Borough Councillor for the area.

Would speak and vote.

R J E Vines

Agenda Item 5j – 20/00317/OUT -                9 Cowlsmead, Shurdington.

Is a Gloucestershire County Councillor for the area.

Would speak and vote.

M J Williams

Agenda Item 5k – 20/00533/FUL -Elizabeth’s Orchard, Sandhurst Lane, Sandhurst.

Is the applicant.

Would not speak or vote and would leave the meeting for consideration of this item.

M J Williams

Agenda Item 5l -19/00925/FUL – Land off Ash Lane, Down Hatherley.

Had spoken to the applicant and an objector in relation to the application.

Would not speak or vote  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

21.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 6 MB

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2020.

Minutes:

21.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 July 2020, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record. 

22.

Development Control - Applications to the Borough Council pdf icon PDF 17 MB

Decision:

Agenda item number

Planning reference

Site address

Officer recommendation

Committee outcome

5a

19/00404/FUL

Land rear of Grove View, Market Lane, Greet

Permit

Deferred to consider additional information

5b

20/00504/FUL

51 Cotswold Gardens, Tewkesbury

Permit

Deferred for Planning Committee Site Visit

5c

19/01041/FUL

Dryfield Farm, Cheltenham Road, Winchcombe

Refuse

Delegated Permit

5d

20/00410/FUL

5 Doughmeadow Cottages, Laverton

Permit

Deferred for Planning Committee Site Visit

5e

20/00387/FUL

14 Jennings Orchard, Woodmancote

Permit

Permit

5f

20/00545/FUL

30 The Park, Northway

Permit

Permit

 

5g

20/00376/FUL

Land at The Coach House, Post Office Lane, Cleeve Hill

Permit

Permit

5h

20/00362/FUL

St Petroc, Pirton Lane, Churchdown

Permit

Permit

5i

20/00445/FUL

49 Yew Tree Way, Churchdown

Permit

Permit

5j

20/00317/OUT

9 Cowlsmead, Shurdington

Permit

Permit

 

5k

20/00533/FUL

Elizabeth’s Orchard Sandhurst Lane, Sandhurst

Permit

Permit

5l

19/00925/FUL

Land Off Ash Lane, Down Hatherley

Delegated Permit

Delegated Permit

5m

 

19/01227/OUT

Land Off Rectory Close, Ashleworth

Delegated Permit

Delegated Permit

 

Minutes:

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.

22a

19/00404/FUL - Land Rear of Grove View, Market Lane, Greet pdf icon PDF 321 KB

PROPOSAL: Conversion of existing builder’s storage building to one bed dwelling and change of use of builder’s yard to residential.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

22.1          This application was for conversion of an existing builder’s storage building to a one bed dwelling and change of use of builder’s yard to residential.

22.2          The Chair advised that, since the publication of the Agenda, further information had been received concerning the recent unauthorised engineering works on land immediately adjacent to the site and building.  Unfortunately, Officers had not had time to properly consider this in detail therefore the Officer recommendation had been changed from permit to defer in order to allow the issues raised to be fully investigated.  Confirmation was provided that the applicant and their agent had agreed to a deferral.  On that basis, it was proposed, seconded and

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED in order to allow the issues raised in the information submitted following the publication of the Agenda to be fully investigated.

22b

20/00504/FUL - 51 Cotswold Gardens, Tewkesbury pdf icon PDF 224 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey annexe and single storey storage building.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

22.3          This application was for the erection of a two storey annexe and single storey storage building. 

22.4          The Planning Officer advised that the application related to a three storey dwelling located in Tewkesbury and sought the erection of a two storey annexe which was proposed for ancillary accommodation, incidental to the enjoyment of the main house.  The application required a Committee determination due to objections received from the Town Council which had raised concern in relation to overdevelopment, size of internal spaces and potential impact upon the highway.  The design section of the Officer report assessed the concern relating to overdevelopment and it was the Officer view that there was no conflict with policy in that regard.  The matters of internal space and highway safety had been considered by Environmental Health and County Highways respectively and neither of these expert consultees had raised an objection to the proposal.  The proposed scheme complied with planning policy, therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit.

22.5          The Chair invited a local resident speaking against the proposal to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that he had lived in a neighbouring property with his family since 2011 and was concerned about the negative impact of the proposal on his property on terms of feeling squashed in, out of place and the site being overdeveloped.  He was not allowed to extend any part of his property, as his deeds stated this would cause overdevelopment, and he questioned why this proposal was any different.  The building would project past the build line of his property, and other neighbouring properties, and his house had been moved forward prior to being built so he questioned whether the property was able to be built in the proposed location.  In his view, the proposed two storey annexe would reduce the amount of natural light to his kitchen and garden and would overshadow the house due to its height and positioning past the rear of the property and along the boundary fence.  He had already installed bifold doors to increase light as windows could not be installed along the kitchen wall facing No. 51 and he requested that a daylight and sunlight assessment be carried out.  He went on to indicate that the proposal would overload an already struggling drainage system that had been problematic in the past and pointed out that residents had been forced to unblock drains only last week after drain water entered properties in Cotswold Gardens causing damage.  His concern was that the proposal would only increase the repeated issues experienced with drainage - he and his neighbours had already written to the Council to complain about this issue – and an extra dwelling would cause further problems, should the road flood again, and would prevent water draining away effectively leading to the same devastation experienced in 2007.  Furthermore, the proposal would generate an increase in traffic and cause highway safety concerns as well as compromising the adequacy of parking, loading and turning.  He advised  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22b

22c

19/01041/FUL - Dryfield Farm, Cheltenham Road, Winchcombe pdf icon PDF 366 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of an agricultural worker’s dwelling.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION:  Refuse

Additional documents:

Minutes:

22.9          This application was for the erection of an agricultural worker’s dwelling.

22.10        The Planning Officer explained that the proposal was for the erection of a detached dwelling to provide accommodation for an agricultural worker and their family.  The site currently contained an agriculturally-tied dwelling which was lived in by the applicant and his wife; however, the applicant intended to retire, handing control of the business over to his son.  The site was situated approximately two miles west of Winchcombe and just to the north of Cleeve Hill.  The current farmstead comprised several utility buildings including a grain store, an adjoining Dutch barn and a mono-pitch barn occupying 208 acres, 100 acres of which was owned with the remaining 108 acres being rented.  The site was within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The location of the proposed agricultural worker’s dwelling was on currently undeveloped agricultural land within the holding of Dryfield Farm to the south west of the existing farmhouse and adjacent to a cluster of agricultural and residential buildings.  The proposed dwelling would be a two storey detached house with an integral office and garage and would benefit from off-road parking for three cars, residential garden space and an additional detached garage building.  As summarised in the Officer report, the proposal would not comply with the Council’s housing policies as it was considered there was no functional need for the worker to be located at Dryfield Farm on a full-time, year-round basis; however, as the Council could not demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, the development plan policies were considered to be out of date in relation to Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  In this situation, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole.  Notwithstanding this, as set out in the Officer report, it was considered there would be significant and demonstrable environmental harms arising from both landscape impact and harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the poor quality of the proposed dwelling, in conflict with the development plan and the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Development Plan.  For this reason, applying the National Planning Policy Framework policies for conserving and enhancing protected landscapes, there was a clear reason for refusing the proposed development; consequently, this meant the tilted balance was not engaged and the ordinary planning balance was applicable in this case.  Overall, it was concluded that the significant and demonstrable harms identified within the Officer report outweighed the very limited benefits that would accrue from the proposal; therefore, it was recommended that planning permission be refused.  The report mentioned that no comments had been received from the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer in respect of drainage – whilst that was still the case, it was thought that a drainage scheme could be provided on site which could be dealt with via an appropriately worded condition,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22c

22d

20/00410/FUL - 5 Doughmeadow Cottages, Laverton pdf icon PDF 222 KB

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 (approved plan) of planning application 17/00599/FUL) to allow for the retention of changes to design and size of the extension.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

22.16         This application was for variation of condition 2 (approved plan) of planning application 17/00599/FUL to allow for the retention of changes to design and size of the extension.

22.17         The Planning Officer advised that the application related to a mid-terraced dwelling located within the village of Laverton.  The application sought to vary a condition in order to regularise changes undertaken to the size and design of the extension, namely, the increase of 0.5 metres in ridge height, taking the extension to 3.5 metres in total height; the installation of a rubber roof as opposed to the originally permitted sedum roof; the overhang that had been created to the roof; alterations to the arrangement of the roof light windows; and changes to fenestration.  Whilst the letters of objection received from the Parish Council and local residents had been duly considered, they were not felt to present sufficient cause to warrant a refusal and the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

22.18         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent explained that the major works had been approved in 2017 after considerable discussion with the Case Officer at the time and the Council’s Conservation Officer.  A minor amendment to the scheme had subsequently been submitted which had approved the parapet and the replacement of the sedum roof with a GRP roof covering, as such, there was no planning breach in respect of those elements.  The rooflights had also been approved as part of the original scheme in 2017.  Whilst the rear single storey extension was slightly taller than the original 2017 approval, a decision had been made on site to bring this in line with the flat roof which had been installed at the rear of the property.  This was a similar style to the parapet which had been approved and there were no issues regarding the impact on light to the property.  It was noted that, although the Parish Council had objected to the application, it had raised no objection to the proposal that had been approved in 2017.  He hoped that Members would feel able to support the Officer recommendation and permit the application before them.

22.19         A Member sought clarification as to exactly what the Committee was being asked to permit, in particular, whether the applicant’s agent’s assertion that the rubber roof had been approved in the non-material minor amendment on 20 November 2017 was correct.  In response, the Planning Officer confirmed that both the arrangement of the rooflights and the rubber roof had been permitted in the minor amendment and she apologised for her mistake.  She clarified that Members were now being asked to determine the overhang and the changes to fenestration.

22.20         The Chair indicated that 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 deferred for a Planning Committee Site Visit in order to fully understand and assess the changes being proposed and,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22d

22e

20/00387/FUL - 14 Jennings Orchard, Woodmancote pdf icon PDF 226 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side and rear extension.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

22.21        This application was for the erection of a two storey side and rear extension.

22.22        The Planning Officer advised that a Committee determination was required as the Parish Council had objected on the grounds of the size and scale of the proposal.  Whilst these concerns had been noted, it was not considered that the size of the extensions would be excessive.  The first floor extension would have a lower ridge line than the main dwelling so would read as subservient and, although the single storey rear extension would be larger than the existing conservatory, it would not be out of keeping with the size of the plot and there would be sufficient garden space left free from additions.  The neighbouring dwelling at No. 12 Jennings Orchard had a similar side extension so the proposal would be in keeping with the existing streetscene.  Overall, the proposal was considered to be a suitable size and design and would not be out of keeping with the local area, as such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.  The Planning Officer proceeded to show a video of the application site serving as a virtual site visit for the Committee.

22.23        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.  The proposer of the motion indicated that he knew the area well and most people who wanted to continue living in their properties needed to extend.  The seconder of the motion felt that the issues raised by the Parish Council had been addressed at Page No. 112, Paragraph 8.1 of the Officer report. 

22.24        Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

22.25         The meeting was adjourned at 11:20am for a comfort break.

22.26        The meeting reconvened at 11:30am with the same membership present.       

22f

20/00545/FUL - 30 The Park, Northway pdf icon PDF 221 KB

PROPOSAL: Change of use of a strip of land from public open space to residential garden; erection of a two storey side extension.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

22.27        This application was for change of use of a strip of land from public open space to residential garden and erection of a two storey side extension.

22.28        The Planning Officer advised that the application related to a residential dwelling in Northway bordered to the south by an area of grassland.  It was proposed to remove the existing southern boundary wall and to re-erect it three metres further south, encapsulating a 57 metre squared strip of the grassland in order to facilitate a two storey side extension.  Whilst the land was currently within the ownership of Tewkesbury Borough Council, the Property team had indicated it would be amenable to sell if planning permission was granted.  There were no concerns over the proposal, as such, the Officer recommendation was to permit.

22.29        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant indicated that she did not believe the proposal would adversely impact on the character of the area as it would be similar to other properties in the street in terms of size and style and would have the same building lines.  The materials planned to be used would be identical to the existing property to be in keeping with the local aesthetic.  Although the intention was to purchase a strip of the overgrown land from the Council in order to achieve this, there would still be a significant amount of green space left to ensure the local environment was not negatively affected.  The applicant explained that she had lived in the property for 10 years and was hoping to extend in order to raise a family. Everything had been designed to minimise the impact on the area and, as her house was on the end, the proposal would have no impact on neighbours with the houses in Willis Walk facing the side of her property seeing little difference.  As it was only intended to extend by three metres, the gardens and views from No. 1 Willis Walk would not be overshadowed and she already had a driveway so there would be no highway impact.  With regard to concerns that had been raised in relation to flooding, she advised that she had not experienced any issues in the time she had lived there, including the most recent event in February 2020.  There had been no problems with the alleyway running behind her property which led to another nine houses and nothing had ever been mentioned in conversations with her neighbours regarding the 2007 floods.  The Officer report suggested that the proposal was unlikely to have an impact in terms of drainage; however, she had still taken this into consideration and explained that a replacement hedge would be planted to mark the new boundary and help absorb rainwater; the extension to the driveway would be block paving due to its porous nature; there would be no additional paving to increase surface run-off in the new space that would be gained in the back garden; and a significant amount of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22f

22g

20/00376/FUL - Land at The Coach House, Post Office Lane, Cleeve Hill pdf icon PDF 224 KB

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 2 (drawing schedule) of planning permission 18/00563/FUL to allow for alterations to fenestration, building footprint and garden store (retention of works already carried out).

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

22.32        This application was for the variation of condition 2 (drawing schedule) of planning permission 18/00563/FUL to allow for alterations to fenestration, building footprint and garden store (retention of works already carried out).

22.33        The Planning Officer advised that the application site was a sloping parcel of land to the west of the Coach House on Post Office Lane within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The principle of development on the site was established with the Inspector’s appeal decision and the extant permission 18/00563/FUL.  Construction of the building had already commenced and the works undertaken were not in accordance with the approved plans – there was variation to the footprint of the building which had been reoriented from south to north; the front elevation faced more towards north north west; alterations to the fenestration included a small window to the front elevation for the study, two small windows to replace three larger sectioned windows on the ground and first floor, and a study window on the side elevation being reduced in size; and a garden store with an external door to the side elevation had been created to the void under the drive.  The main issues for consideration were whether the design was acceptable, and the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.  The Planning Officer explained that the orientation of the building had made the west side elevation slightly more visually prominent from views from neighbouring dwellings; however, the character and form of the building remained largely unchanged.  The alterations to the fenestration were on the south elevation and were in keeping with the overall design and the garden store was located under the driveway so was not visually prominent – given the acknowledged limited views of the dwelling, it was not considered that these changes would make the proposal unacceptable in design terms.  The Planning Inspector had considered the site’s enclosed nature, sloping gradient and that it was partially encompassed by more dominant existing residential development, and felt that any visibility of the development from open public areas would be against a backdrop of existing built forms and there would be no significant perceptible change caused to the wider landscape.  The scale of the development had been established by application 18/00563/FUL.  The building was set back in the hillside and, when viewed from the public realm, the slight reorientation and proposed alterations were not perceptually more harmful to the landscape and scenic beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Should Members be minded to permit the application, the Parish Council had requested a landscape condition to help screen the development but, given the conclusion that there would be minimal additional impact arising from the amended scheme, it was not considered that such a condition would be reasonable or necessary in planning terms.  Whilst the application was to amend the approved drawings, it remained the case that the proposal was for a new dwelling.  On the basis that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22g

22h

20/00362/FUL - St Petroc, Pirton Lane, Churchdown pdf icon PDF 112 KB

PROPOSAL: Part change of use of existing dwelling to a physiotherapy clinic and retention of shed in front garden.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

22.41        This application was for part change of use of existing dwelling to a physiotherapy clinic and retention of shed in front garden.

22.42        The Planning Officer advised that the property in question was a large detached dwelling on Pirton Lane.  The site was located in a wholly residential area and was surrounded on all sides by existing residential development.  The application proposed to change part of the property to be used as a physiotherapy clinic and the plans showed this would be confined to a small area on the ground floor that was currently used as a family room and garden store; these rooms would be converted to a single consulting room with a separate lobby/waiting area and the remainder of the property would be retained as a dwelling.  Externally, the proposal would require the replacement of the garage doors with a set of doors with glazing on either side.  The clinic would be operated exclusively by the applicant who currently resided at the property and no other employees would be working from the premises.  It was stated that the business would normally operate between the hours of 0900 and 1445 Monday to Friday and it was anticipated there would be approximately 35-40 half an hour appointments per week which equated to seven or eight visits per day.  It was noted that the application also proposed the retention of the shed in the front garden.  The principle of the business use was established by the Joint Core Strategy which supported employment-related development where it would encourage and support the development of small and medium sized enterprises.  Given the scale of the business use, it was considered that the proposed change of use was acceptable and the County Highways Officer was satisfied from a highway safety perspective.  In terms of the shed, this was to be used for domestic purposes and was considered to be of an acceptable size, scale and design with an acceptable impact on the streetscene and neighbouring property.  Therefore, the application was recommended for permission.

22.43        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.

22i

20/00445/FUL - 49 Yew Tree Way, Churchdown pdf icon PDF 218 KB

PROPOSAL: Change of use from an existing annexe to a self-contained dwelling.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

22.44        This application was for change of use from an existing annexe to a self-contained dwelling. 

22.45        The Planning Officer advised that the site lay within a residential estate in Churchdown and No. 49 was the last dwelling in a row of terraced properties; it had front and rear amenity space but no on-site parking.  The dwelling had been extended and the extension converted to an annexe on appeal in 1990.  This proposal was within the existing residential curtilage and the site was on previously developed land, therefore, the principle of housing in this location was acceptable.  The principle of conversion or subdivision of existing dwellings was considered by saved local plan Policy HOU9, and Policy RES8 of the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan was relevant in terms of space standards for internal accommodation.  With regard to design, there were no external alterations to the building, although the amenity space would require subdivision.  The conversion of the annexe to a dwelling would reduce the private amenity area for both properties; however, there was access to public open space to the rear and would be adequate room for bin and cycle storage and private amenity.  The proposed accommodation would consist of one bedroom, one bathroom, a lounge and kitchen and internal alterations would close off the internal doorway to No. 49.  On balance, considering the existing use as an annexe and that it could be occupied by two people, the constraint of the existing layout and the available external space, it was deemed appropriate for independent residential use.  The site was in a residential development of mostly terraced properties which had no on-site parking provision, although some amenity spaces had been converted for parking in the area and there were separate garage blocks on the estate as well as roadside parking bays.  The Parish Council had raised concern that the proposal would add to parking and traffic difficulties in the area; however, County Highways had assessed the proposal and had no objection in terms of parking provision or highway safety but recommended a condition in respect of cycle storage.  On that basis, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application, subject to conditions.

22.46        A Member understood that, for terraced housing, there was a requirement for a nine inch wall between the properties which went into the roof space and he questioned whether that had already been achieved.  In response, the Planning and Enforcement Team Leader (South) advised that this was a building regulations matter dealt with under separate legislation and not something which the Committee needed to consider. 

22.47        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 explained that she was not against the application in principle, however, she was disappointed that Churchdown had been referenced as being on the urban fringes of Gloucester as this was not how local residents would describe it at all.  In terms of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22i

22j

20/00317/OUT - 9 Cowlsmead, Shurdington pdf icon PDF 240 KB

PROPOSAL: Outline application for the erection of a single dwelling with access off Marsh Terrace (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to be reserved for future consideration).

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

22.49        This was an outline application for the erection of a single dwelling with access off Marsh Terrace (appearance, landscape, layout and scale to be reserved for future consideration).

22.50        The Planning Officer advised that the application related to a plot of land which currently formed part of the rear garden of No. 9 Cowlsmead in Shurdington.  The application was in outline form with all matters reserved for future consideration except for access which was proposed to be off Marsh Terrace to the rear of the site.  The principle of development was supported by Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy which supported housing where it represented infilling within the existing built-up areas of the borough’s villages and Shurdington itself was a designated service village.  Whilst matters relating to layout, appearance and scale were proposed to be reserved for future consideration, the application was supported by illustrative plans that showed how a dwelling could be accommodated on the site.  Although it was a relatively constrained site in terms of its size, the plans illustrated that a single dwelling could be accommodated on the site in an acceptable manner with the detailed design dealt with at the reserved maters stage.  In terms of access, the Highways Officer was satisfied that the proposal was acceptable, therefore, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

22.51        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 indicated that the Parish Council had very strong objections with regard to parking which was at a premium in the area.  He drew attention to the plan at Page No. 164 of the Officer report and pointed out that cars parked along the entire length of Marsh Terrace so it would be very difficult to gain access to the plot and cars would have to reverse out of the site back along Marsh Terrace and out onto Church Lane.  He could not see any other reason to refuse the application but was not happy to permit the proposal and would like to see it deferred for a Planning Committee Site Visit.  In response to a Members’ comment that it was difficult to understand how the access would relate to the site given the size of the site location plan, the Planning Officer provided a Google street map view to better show the access.  The representative from County Highways explained that the internal parking arrangement was a reserved matter and there was adequate capacity to reverse into the adjoining turning head so this would not warrant a refusal on the highway safety grounds.  It was not usual to expect a turning bay to be provided in an unclassified road but this would be considered at the approval of reserved matters stage, if Members were minded to permit the outline application.  In response to a query as to whether the turning head could be restricted to stop it being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22j

22k

20/00533/FUL - Elizabeth's Orchard, Sandhurst Lane, Sandhurst pdf icon PDF 211 KB

PROPOSAL: Removal of existing conservatory and erection of a garden room.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

22.53        This application was for removal of an existing conservatory and erection of a garden room.

22.54        The Planning Officer clarified that the proposal was for a new garden room extension to replace the existing conservatory on the side elevation.  The proposal was considered to be of a suitable size and design and there would be no harm to the neighbouring dwellings as a result, as such, the Officer recommendation was to permit.  The Planning Officer proceeded to show a video of the application site serving as a virtual site visit for the Committee.

22.55        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item 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.

22l

19/00925/FUL - Land off Ash Lane, Down Hatherley pdf icon PDF 166 KB

PROPOSAL: Construction of six detached single storey dwellings with associated garages and new vehicular access off Ash Lane.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

22.56        This application was for the construction of six detached single storey dwellings with associated garages and new vehicular access off Ash Lane.

22.57        The Planning Officer indicated that the application related to a parcel of land located along the western side of Ash Lane in Down Hatherley.  The site covered approximately 0.59 hectares and formed part of the strategic allocation A1 Innsworth and Twigworth in the Joint Core Strategy and was shown to be ‘housing and related infrastructure’ in the Joint Core Strategy indicative site layout proposal map.  The southern boundary of the site was in the ownership of the applicant and comprised a recently constructed housing development of five dwellings, granted under planning permission 18/00361/FUL, and a row of detached properties lay beyond this.  There was a small parcel of land to the northern boundary with existing residential properties behind, residential properties also bordered the east of the site and the land to the west was agricultural and also formed part of the strategic allocation.  This proposal sought full planning permission for the construction of six detached four bedroom bungalows with vehicular access to the development via an existing field off Ash Lane.  Each property would benefit from off-road parking spaces, in addition, three of the properties would have a detached garage and the other three would have an integral garage.  As part of the proposal, a pedestrian and cycle link to the wider strategic allocation would allow for social interaction and provide a movement network for residents of the properties to the facilities within the wider allocated site.  As part of the development, the applicant had indicated a willingness to enter into a legal agreement to secure an off-site contribution towards affordable housing and a financial contribution towards education and library provision and refuse and recycling facilities.  An assessment of the material considerations was included at Pages No. 170-182 of the Officer report.  As set out in the report, Officers had identified no adverse impact of granting planning permission, therefore, in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the presumption in favour of sustainable development indicated that planning permission should be granted.  As detailed in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, due to receipt of comments from County Highways and the Council’s Ecology Adviser, the Officer recommendation had been revised to delegate authority to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to the addition/amendment of planning conditions as appropriate and the completion of a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards affordable housing and a developer contribution towards education and library provision and refuse and recycling.  Since the Additional Representations Sheet had been published the previous evening, two emails had been received from local residents requesting that the application be deferred in order to allow objectors the opportunity to speak and for Members to visit the site; Planning Committee Members had been copied in to both emails.  One of the emails raised a number of issues which the local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22l

22m

19/01227/OUT - Land off Rectory Close, Ashleworth pdf icon PDF 138 KB

PROPOSAL: Outline application for up to 42 dwellings including access and associated works (all matters reserved for future consideration).

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

22.61        This was an outline application for up to 42 dwellings including access and associated works (all matters reserved for future consideration).  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 21 July 2020 for a Planning Committee site visit to assess the proposal and its effects.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 14 August 2020.

22.62        The Planning Officer reminded Members that the application was in outline form and proposed up to 42 dwellings including 40% affordable housing.  Whilst all matters were reserved for future consideration, the application was supported with a Design and Access Statement and illustrative site layout and Officers were satisfied this demonstrated that the proposed development could be accommodated on the site in an acceptable manner.  In terms of the principle of the development, the proposal did not comply with the Council’s housing policies due to its location; however, as per Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, due to the Council’s current land supply position, these were deemed to be out of date and the weight they could be afforded was reduced.  In this situation, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole – this was known as the tilted balance.  As set out in the Officer report, the development would be highly reliant on the use of the private car to access services and facilities and this was a refusal reason for the adjacent development; however, at appeal the Inspector had noted that, whilst Ashleworth was not categorised as a service village, it was a settlement of reasonable size with some primary and secondary service provisions including a post office, village hall, village shop, primary school, public house, sports pitches, a children’s play area and a place of worship which were generally within walking distance of the site.  The Inspector had also noted the close proximity of Tewkesbury Town and Gloucester City which had higher order facilities and employment opportunities.  Given the Inspector’s findings, it would be difficult to sustain a refusal on that basis and Members should also note that mitigation was proposed in the form of a financial contribution towards public transport provision, as per the adjacent development.  There would also be a degree of harm to the landscape but this was considered to be very localised and limited.  In this case, Officers were of the view that the harms identified would not outweigh the clear social benefits of providing much needed housing in the borough and the application was therefore recommended for delegated permission, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the affordable housing and contributions towards education, libraries, public transport and play facilities.

22.63        The Chair invited the representative speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The speaker indicated that he was surprised there was no reference to the latest updated highways guidance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22m

23.

Current Appeals and Appeal Decisions Update pdf icon PDF 352 KB

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

Minutes:

23.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 190-194.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government appeal decisions issued.

23.2          It was

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