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

36.

Announcements

Minutes:

36.1          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.

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

36.3          The Chair advised Members that Item 5i – 19/01084/OUT Land to the North Fleet Lane, Twyning had been withdrawn from the Agenda.

37.

Apologies for Absence and Substitutions

To receive apologies for absence and advise of any substitutions. 

Minutes:

37.1          Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors L A Gerrard and A Hollaway. Councillor G J Bocking was substituting for Councillor A Hollaway.

38.

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:

38.1          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.

38.2          The following declarations were made:

Councillor

Application No./Agenda Item

Nature of Interest (where disclosed)

Declared Action in respect of Disclosure

D J Harwood

Agenda Item 5(f)

20/00620/FUL –34A Astor Close, Brockworth

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

Would speak and vote.

J R Mason      

Agenda Item 5(d)

19/00404/FUL – Land Rear of Grove View, Market Lane, Greet   

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

Would speak and vote.

R J E Vines

Agenda item 5(f)

20/00620/FUL – 34A Astor Close, Brockworth

Is a Gloucestershire County Councillor for the area.

Would speak and vote.

 

38.3          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

39.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 3 MB

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 October 2020.

Minutes:

39.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 20 October 2020, copies of which had been circulated were approved as a correct record. 

40.

Development Control - Applications to the Borough Council pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Decision:

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.

Item number

Planning number

Site address

Officer recommendation

Committee outcome

5a

20/00088/CONDIS

Yew Tree Farm

Tewkesbury Road

Twigworth

Discharge

Discharge

5b

20/00140/OUT

Land Off A38

Coombe Hill

Gloucester

Mind to Refuse

Mind to Refuse

5c

20/00636/OUT

Parcel 4967 Opposite

Cherry Orchard Lane

Twyning

Refuse

Refuse

5d

19/00404/FUL

Land rear of Grove View

Market Lane

Greet

Permit

Delegated Permit

5e

20/00381/FUL

Part Parcel 3359

Bushcombe Lane

Woodmancote

Permit

Permit

5f

20/00620/FUL

34A Astor Close

Brockworth

Permit

Permit

5g

20/00847/FUL

1 Wood Stanway Drive

Bishops Cleeve

Permit

Permit

5h

20/00375/FUL

4 Bushcombe Close

Woodmancote

Permit

Permit

 

 

Minutes:

40.1          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.

40a

20/00088/CONDIS - Yew Tree Farm, Tewkesbury Road, Twigworth pdf icon PDF 32 KB

PROPOSAL: Application for approval of details subject to conditions 29 (surface water drainage) and 31 (foul drainage) of planning permission 17/00852/OUT.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Discharge.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

40.2          This application was for the approval of details subject to conditions 29 (surface water drainage) and 31 (foul drainage) of planning permission reference 17/00852/OUT. The Chair indicated that a representative from the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) was present to answer any technical questions in respect of drainage and flood risk.

40.3          In presenting this application the Planning Officer stated that in approving the reserved matters application for 74 dwellings on this site at the October Planning Committee Members had requested that the drainage details, which are reserved by condition, attached to the outline permission, come before the Committee for determination. Accordingly, approval was sought for conditions 29 (surface water drainage) and 31 (foul drainage) attached to the outline permission. Following consultation with the LLFA it was advised that the submitted information showed a suitable modelled surface water drainage scheme and included a report on the state of the culvert in the A38 that would be the receiving water body for the discharge of the surface water from the site. Additionally, the maintenance plan showed that critical infrastructure was to be adopted by Severn Trent to ensure maintenance would be carried out for the lifetime of the development. The LLFA was therefore satisfied that the submitted details were acceptable and had recommended that conditions 29 and 31 could be discharged.

40.4          The agent for the application addressed the Committee informing Members that the accepted Drainage Strategy Plan under the Flood Risk Assessment, which accompanied the outline planning permission for the Yew Tree Farm development, presented a surface water connection to the existing adopted foul water drainage. He indicated that this approach had been accepted by the Local Planning Authority and Severn Trent Water under the outline approval. Following the submission of the reserved matters application, the applicant had been asked by the LLFA and Severn Trent Water to investigate alternative discharge points due to capacity matters within the existing foul water network. The Agent indicated that, in consideration of local concerns, his client, who despite acquiring the site based on an approved outline drainage strategy, agreed to explore other points of discharge. A pumped discharge to Brook Lane to the east of the site was considered, however following conversations with Severn Trent Water this approach was discarded due to issues with third party land and legal difficulties with the coordination of a sewer requisition agreement. Nevertheless, a connection to Brook Lane would increase the risk of flooding downstream and would exacerbate any issues related to blockages of the existing ditch; this site naturally fell to the north-west and surface water runoff from the greenfield catchment terminated in the A38 via existing road gullies. Therefore, for these reasons, this option was deemed unviable. Following a request from the LLFA a connection to the existing culvert under the A38 was then investigated. The Agent stressed that, at considerable cost to his client, CCTV survey works were undertaken to establish the condition of this culvert and it was proven that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40a

40b

20/00140/OUT - Land off A38, Coombe Hill, Gloucester pdf icon PDF 112 KB

PROPOSAL: Outline application for up to 150 dwellings, associated infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping. Construction of a new vehicular and pedestrian access from the A38 and pedestrian access to the A4019.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Minded to Refuse.

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

40.14        This was an outline application for up to 150 dwellings, associated infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping. Construction of a new vehicular and pedestrian access from the A38 and pedestrian access from the A38 and pedestrian access to the A4019.

40.15        The Development Manager reminded Members that outline planning permission had been granted for up to 40 dwellings on this site at the Planning Committee in June 2019. That application remained undetermined as the S106 Agreement had not been concluded. This was an alternative scheme which was now the subject of a non-determination appeal upon which the Council needed to advise the Planning Inspectorate of its views in order to inform the Council’s approach to the appeal. The current proposal saw a significant increase in numbers but the site was the subject of a draft allocation in the emerging Borough Plan with an indicative capacity of 50 dwellings. On that basis, and on the basis that Members had previously resolved to grant permission for housing on this site, the principle of housing led development remained acceptable. The benefits of the provision of 150 dwellings, 40% of which would be affordable, would be substantial and should not be underestimated. There would also be economic benefits arising from the scheme both during and post-construction with contributions made to the local economy. On the other hand the application had a number of shortcomings; firstly there was an unresolved objection from Natural England in respect of the potential ecological impacts of the proposal particularly on the Severn Estuary Special Protection Area which had functional links to the Coombe Hill Canal SSSI and Coombe Hill nature reserve which were close to the application site. Whilst mitigation was proposed, the mitigation resulted from discussions relating to the numbers set out in the allocation, rather than the 150 dwellings now proposed. Although the Council could not currently demonstrate a five year land supply of deliverable housing sites, Special Protection Areas and SSSIs were among those habitat sites referred to in footnote 6 of the NPPF which meant that, given the potential impacts on these sites provided a clear reason for refusing the development proposed, the tilted balance was not engaged in this case. There were also serious concerns with the quantum of development proposed; the draft local plan was arrived at following a robust assessment of the site having regard not only to its sustainable location with good public transport links to Cheltenham, Tewkesbury and Gloucester but also to the rural nature and scale of the existing settlement. Notwithstanding the conflict with the emerging policy, which must of course be afforded reduced weight, Officers were far from convinced that the site could accommodate 150 dwellings in an environmentally satisfactory manner.  The emerging policy sought a landscape led approach to the development of the site which was not apparent in these proposals. The numbers proposed in this application meant there would be less scope to provide appropriate levels of landscaping to help assimilate the development into  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40b

40c

20/00636/OUT - Parcel 4967 Opposite Cherry Orchard Lane, Twyning pdf icon PDF 123 KB

PROPOSAL: Outline application including access, with all other matters reserved for up to 36 (maximum) residential dwellings for over 55's.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION:  Refuse.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

40.18        This was an outline application, including access, with all other matters reserved for up to 36 (maximum) residential dwellings for over 55’s.

40.19        The Planning Officer advised that outline application for up to 50 dwellings on the site had been refused at the December 2019 Planning Committee for a number of reasons including its location, landscape impact, design and layout, impact on the road network and ecology as well as a number of technical reasons relating to the lack of a signed Section 106 Agreement. The current application was a resubmission of the previously refused scheme with a couple of notable differences; firstly, the number of units had been reduced to 36 and, secondly, the scheme was now proposed as an over 55’s development. The agent had advised that the open market units would be age restricted, although spouses or dependents who were not over 55 years old could still live in the properties – it was also noted that the proposed affordable housing would not be age restricted. It was evident that there was a need for accommodation for older people within the Borough and the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) set out that, in 2011, older people accounted for 13% of the population of the JCS area which could increase by 20% by 2031. However, other than a general need, nothing had been provided by the applicant to demonstrate that the proposal would meet a specific housing need in Twyning. Whilst the proposal was for specialist accommodation, it was still subject to the Council’s housing policies. As acknowledged in the Committee report, the Council could not currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites and therefore its policies for the supply of housing were out of date which meant the weight that could be afforded to the policies was reduced and the presumption in favour of granting permission was triggered as per paragraph 11 of the framework. There would be considerable benefits arising from the development, including the delivery of specialist housing for older members of the population, affordable housing delivery and economic benefits. However, there would also be harm to the landscape and the gap between Church End and Twyning and the scheme would not represent good design. Also, insufficient information had been provided to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on Great Crested Newts which were a protected species. Officers were therefore of the view that the harms identified clearly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits and the application was recommended for refusal.

40.20        The Chair invited the representative from Twyning Parish Council to address the Committee. The representative advised that the Parish Council fundamentally objected to the planning application. He explained that the application site was agricultural land outside the Twyning Parish development boundary and was regularly used for rural activities. He also reminded Members that outline planning permission for 50 dwellings on the site had been refused by the Planning Committee less than 12 months ago. The only  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40c

40d

19/00404/FUL - Land Rear of Grove View, Market Lane, Greet pdf icon PDF 134 KB

PROPOSAL: Conversion of existing builders storage building to 1 bed dwelling and change of use of land to residential.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION:  Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

40.26        This application was for the conversion of existing builders storage building to one bed dwelling and change of use of land to residential. The Chair indicated that in presenting the application, the Planning Officer would explain why the recommendation had changed from permit to delegated permit.

40.27        The Planning Officer advised that the application related to a parcel of land situated to the rear of Grove View off Market Lane in Greet. The application had been deferred at the August meeting of the Committee in order to allow Officers time to investigate additional engineering works on land immediately adjacent to the site and building. This was now taking place and, as a result, additional contaminated land testing had occurred and the additional land to the rear of the building had now been included within the application before the Committee today. Due to the change in the site area a re-consultation had been undertaken issued on 29 October 2020 by way of revised site notices and neighbour notifications. The Council’s website indicated that the response date would be 3 December 2020 and, on that basis, the application was now recommended for delegated permit subject to there being no new substantive issues being raised before the end of the re-consultation period. During the re-consultation period an objector had written to all Members copying in Officers. The Planning Officer indicated that due regard had been given to this additional representation and it was considered that the points raised had been addressed within the Officer report. The site was located within a sylvan setting which was largely surrounded by maturing trees. Historically, the site formed part of a brickworks and landfill site however, this use had long ceased, and the land had since been assimilated into its natural surroundings. Notwithstanding this, the site had been identified as potentially contaminated land by the Council’s Environmental Health Department. The site was accessed by a track off Market Lane which currently served land and buildings used as a builders store which was obtained through a Certificate of Lawful Use. The site was also located in a Special Landscape Area (SLA). This application sought planning permission for the conversion of an existing building into a one bed dwelling and change of use of the surrounding land for residential purposes. If the permission were to be granted, the existing builders storage yard would cease. The existing building was single story with a shallow pitch roof and clad in waney edge timber boarding. There are three openings on the front elevation each secured with double doors. In terms of the principle of this development, it was judged that the proposal complied with the Council’s residential conversion polices. As outlined in the Officer’s report, the Council could not currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites, and in this situation, 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40d

40e

20/00381/FUL - Part Parcel 3359, Bushcombe Lane, Woodmancote pdf icon PDF 80 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single detached dwelling (revised design).

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION:  Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

40.32        The application was for the erection of a single detached dwelling (revised design).

40.33        The Planning Officer advised that the site related to a parcel of land at Yew Tree Farm which was located along Bushcombe Lane, Woodmancote. There were dwellings to the east of the site and Yew Tree Farm was to the south west. The site was a paddock but it now had the appearance of mowed grass with substantial planting around it. In addition, the site lay within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and within 50 metres of listed buildings; Yew Tree Barn and Stable and Brook Cottage. Sites along Bushcombe Lane had been considered by Planning Inspectors to be within the built up area of the village and, given there was existing and permitted development around it, the site was considered as infilling within the built up area of the village. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) clarified that planning policies for housing would be judged out of date where the local planning authority could not demonstrate a five-year supply of housing and NPPF Paragraph 11 stated that, where policies were out of date, permission should be granted unless policies within the framework that protected assets of particular importance provided a clear reason for refusing the development and 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. As the site lay within the Cotswold AONB a judgement must be made as to whether the proposal would protect the AONB and whether any impacts provided a clear justification for refusing permission. The site was screened from development on three sides and there were public footpaths to the north and east. Whilst the site would be visible in part from those public rights of way and Butts Lane the proposal would be viewed against the background of existing development. Members were shown a site visit video which showed views from those vantage points. The views to the Cotswold escarpment to the north were no longer visible from Bushcombe Lane due to substantial planting and an unauthorised high boundary fence. The view from Butts Lane was of open fields to the north and a ribbon form of development along Bushcombe Lane. The properties in Bushcombe Lane were set in mature gardens with occasional glimpses of the open countryside beyond. The visual impact of the development from distant views would not be considered prominent or substantial due to its relationship with existing and approved development. The existing boundary treatment on Bushcombe Lane was not considered appropriate to the character of the area and a landscaping condition was recommended for appropriate landscaping and boundary treatment to be agreed. The design of the dwelling was considered acceptable in terms of size, scale, design and character of the area. The Conservation Officer considered the amended design was more in keeping with the Cotswold vernacular and had no objection in terms of design subject to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40e

40f

20/00620/FUL - 34A Astor Close, Brockworth pdf icon PDF 45 KB

PROPOSAL: Proposed detached bungalow with ancillary works.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

40.37        The application was for a proposed detached bungalow with ancillary works.  

40.38        The Planning Officer explained that the application was for a new single storey bungalow on a parcel of land along Astor Close in Brockworth. The site sat between a terraced row of dormer style bungalows to the north and a two-storey maisonette block to the south. The overall principle of a new dwelling in this location was acceptable, however, a Committee decision was required as the Parish Council had objected on the grounds of it being out of character with the street scene, overdevelopment and overlooking to the neighbours. The Parish Council’s concerns were noted; however, the surrounding area contained a variety of dwellings of different sizes and architectural styles and there was no predominant vernacular. The proposed bungalow would have a simple, low key, design with a pitched roof and simple fenestration. It was not considered the impact on the street scene would be detrimental given that the bungalow would be set well into the plot and would not be on a prominent corner. With regards to the overlooking to the neighbours to the north, there would only be windows at ground floor level in this single storey bungalow, so there would not be any harmful overlooking. Overall, the proposal was considered to be of an appropriate size and design that would respond to the local characteristics and would protect the amenity of existing and future occupants. The proposal was therefore in line for permission.

40.39        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item and the Officer recommendation was to permit the application. The Officer recommendation was proposed and seconded. However, one of the local Members indicated that she could not support this application as the parking in this area was absolutely appalling and she could not understand how the Highways Authority were not objecting to this application. The situation was so bad that it was necessary to reverse out of the road as there was simply nowhere to turn around. The Chair indicated that he had some sympathy with this view, but a view had to be taken in light of the Highways Authority having raised no highway objections. Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

40g

20/00847/FUL - 1 Wood Stanway Drive, Bishops Cleeve pdf icon PDF 59 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey rear and side extensions.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

40.40        The application was for the erection of single storey rear and side extensions.

40.41        The Planning Officer advised that this was a householder application for 1 Wood Stanway Drive. It was a detached property located on an estate in Bishops Cleeve. The proposal was to add a single storey rear extension and single storey potting shed structure on the side of the property, to connect the house and garage. A Committee determination was required as Bishops Cleeve Parish Council had objected to the proposal on the grounds of the choice of materials being out of keeping with the area. The Parish Council’s concerns had been considered, however it was the view of Officers that, whilst the materials proposed would be unusual in the context of the property on an estate road, the harm this would cause would be outweighed by the fact that the extensions would lie in the rear garden and would therefore not have an impact on the appearance or character of the street. It was considered that the proposal would not be harmful to the existing dwelling and would not result in an unacceptable impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring dwellings or the character of the area, due to its size and position. It was therefore recommended that the application be permitted. Members would note, from the additional representations sheet, that the recommendation had changed from ‘permit’ to a ‘delegated permit’. This was because it was felt necessary to put up another site notice on the road to the rear of the application site. As the site notice was put up at a relatively late stage, the date for responses did not expire until 26 November 2020 which was after the date of Planning Committee. The recommendation for a delegated permit allowed for that additional time.

40.42        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item and that the Officer recommendation was for a delegated permit. A Member sought clarification in respect of the delegated permit recommendation that had arisen from the need to display a Notice in Green Meadow Bank which was to the rear of the property; he questioned what would happen if the residents put in an objection resulting in the need for a Committee decision how could the recommendation then change. The Development Manager indicated that in the situation that an additional representation was made which fundamentally affected the Member decision and was a substantive planning issue that required further consideration, it would be brought back to the next available Committee. The delegation would only be exercised where there were no additional substantive planning reasons for an objection and that would be for the Development Manager to make a judgement on and, if necessary, the application would be brought back to Committee. The Officer recommendation of delegated permit was proposed and seconded. A Member questioned whether it was black wood that was being used on this extension and expressed the view that if it was she was in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40g

40h

20/00375/FUL - 4 Bushcombe Close, Woodmancote pdf icon PDF 43 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side extension, front / rear dormers and a garage.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

40.44        The application was for erection of a two-storey side extension, front / rear dormers and a garage. 

40.45        The Planning Officer advised that the proposal was for a two-storey side extension, front and rear dormers and a garage at 4 Bushcombe Close, Woodmancote. The Planning Officer clarified that the latest plans for this application were those shown on Page 180 of the schedule and superseded the original plans shown on Page 179.  A Committee decision was required as the Parish Council had objected on the grounds of the size of the extension being too large for the plot and out of keeping with the street scene. The Parish Council's concerns had been considered, however, there were several other properties in the close that had been extended. For example, a similar proposal was permitted at no 11 Bushcombe Close in 2016. There were a variety of different styles of dwelling in the close many of which had gables at the front. The proposal would result in a four-bedroom dormer style bungalow and there were several bungalows in the close that now had 4 bedrooms. The proposal was not therefore considered to be overdevelopment. Overall, the proposal was considered to be of a suitable size and design and would be in-keeping with this area. There would also not be a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of neighbours. 

40.46        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item and that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application. A proposal in support of the Officer recommendation was made and this was seconded. The proposer noted that there were dormer windows on other properties further along the road and did not feel the proposal would make any difference to the street scene. A Member referred to the condition in relation to the first floor rear window serving the master bedroom which stated that it should be glazed in obscure glass and fixed permanently shut; she questioned whether this was actually practical and how it would be enforced. The Planning Officer indicated that the master bedroom would actually have an additional window at the front which would be clear glass and allow sufficient lighting and ventilation for the room which made this a practical proposition. In terms of enforcement, the Development Manager indicated that he was sure residents in the locality would undertake the policing role and the enforcement team would be notified of any non-compliance issues. The motion was put to the vote and it was

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

40i

19/01084/OUT - Land To The North Fleet Lane, Twyning - PLEASE NOTE THIS ITEM HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE AGENDA

PROPOSAL: - Outline application for residential development for up to 52 units and associated works with all matters reserved for future consideration except for access.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

Minutes:

40.47        A Member sought information as to why this application had been withdrawn from the agenda and the Development Manager indicated that the inclusion on the Agenda was probably a little ambitious in terms of the timing of putting the Agenda together which had changed to accommodate the way the Committee took place currently. In addition, the applicant had requested more time to submit further information and in the circumstances it was considered fair and reasonable to accept that request. The Development Manager anticipated that the application would now come before the December Committee.

41.

Current Appeals and Appeal Decisions Update pdf icon PDF 212 KB

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

Minutes:

41.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 181-183. Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government appeal decisions issued.

41.2          It was

RESOLVED           That the current appeals and appeal decisions update be NOTED

41.3          A Member asked to be notified of any appeals taking place on line and to receive a link to observe the proceedings.