Agenda, decisions and minutes

When the continuous alarm sounds you must evacuate the building by the nearest available fire exit. Members and visitors should proceed to the visitors’ car park at the front of the building and await further instructions (during office hours staff should proceed to their usual assembly point; outside of office hours proceed to the visitors’ car park). Please do not re-enter the building unless instructed to do so.

In the event of a fire any person with a disability should be assisted in leaving the building.   

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

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

51.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillor M L Jordan.  There were no substitutions for the meeting. 

52.1          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.

52.2          The following declarations were made:

52.3          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 December 2021.

53.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 December 2021, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as correct record and signed by the Chair. 

54.1           The objections to, support for, and observations upon the various applications as referred to in Appendix 1 attached to these Minutes were presented to the Committee and duly taken into consideration by Members prior to decisions being made on those applications.

PROPOSAL: Retention of a stable with tack room.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

54.2          This application was for retention of a stable with tack room.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 21 December 2021 for a Planning Committee Site Visit in order to assess the impact of the proposal on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 14 January 2022.

54.3          The Planning Officer advised that the application sought permission for the retention of the stable and tack room building which was connected to High Beeches on a triangular paddock that rose to the east.  The application site was within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Planning Committee had deferred the application at its last meeting in order to allow a site visit to take place to assess the impact of the proposal on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  An assessment of the material considerations was included at Pages No. 30-32 of the Committee report and, as set out in the report, Officers considered that the stable building would not be overtly prominent within the landscape, nor would it be of significant detrimental impact on the landscape and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to warrant a refusal.  As such, the proposal was recommended for permission, subject to conditions relating to additional planting and the painting of the stable block.

54.4          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor; however, he first asked for clarification as to what planting was proposed and the Planning Officer drew attention to condition 3 at Page No. 33 of the Committee report which required planting of a Beech hedgerow, as indicated on the plans.  A Member noted from the Planning Committee Site Visit that the building was close to a Cotswold drystone wall so she asked where the hedge would go and whether it would have an impact on the building given that Beech hedges could be quite large.  In addition, she asked whether it was necessary to have rooflights on the stable roof.  In response, the Planning Officer drew attention to the site plan, circulated at Page No. 35 of the Committee report, which showed the proposed Beech hedge behind the drystone wall; this was what had been put forward by the applicant but the Planning Officer indicated that it may be possible to request additional planting around the sides as an alternative if Members were not content with the proposal.  The Chair indicated that, in his view, it would be impossible for a Beech hedge to grow satisfactorily in the space between the wall and the back of the building.  He expressed the opinion that the hedge needed to be on the other side and felt it was a shame that the applicant had chosen to build the stable in the precise location – had it been located slightly further down the hill it would have been shielded by the existing hedge so he could appreciate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54a

PROPOSAL: Residential development (up to 160 dwellings), associated works, including demolition, infrastructure, open space and landscaping.  Vehicular access from the A38.  All matters are reserved.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.  

54.7          This application was for residential development (up to 160 dwellings) with associated works including demolition, infrastructure, open space and landscaping with vehicular access from the A38; all matters reserved.

54.8          The Development Manager explained that the applicant had questioned the financial contribution towards education provision and had requested more time to continue discussions with Gloucestershire County Council with regard to that.  Furthermore, Page No. 58, Paragraph 7.57 of the Committee report set out that the tenure of the affordable housing would be split between affordable rented and shared ownership; however, the Council’s Strategic Housing Enabling Officer had highlighted this was an error and the tenure should be split between social rented and shared ownership, as such, it was necessary to have further discussions with the applicant to establish whether an acceptable affordable housing tenure could be secured.  Due to the ongoing conversations in relation to these fundamental planning matters, the Officer recommendation was now to defer the application.

54.9          The Chair indicated that there were public speakers registered to speak in relation to the application; however, as the Officer recommendation was to defer the application to resolve the outstanding matters in respect of the financial contribution towards education provision and the proposed tenure of the affordable housing, he intended to firstly seek a motion for a deferral and, should that fall, the public speakers would be invited to address the Committee.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member indicated that he would be happy to support the deferral and requested that additional information be provided to clarify the data year which had been used by County Highways for its ‘robust assessment’ as referenced on the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, as he understood that 2015 figures were still being used; whether the proposed contribution towards off-site sports provision would go to Twigworth rather than GL1 as had happened before; and whether the £15,000 towards bus stop improvements on the eastern side of the A38 could also be used to ensure the pavement was wide enough for wheelchair users and people with pushchairs as it was currently very narrow and could be dangerous.  The Member indicated that there were further matters he would wish to raise in respect of the Minutes of Council on 20 October 2021.  The Chair indicated that, whilst he was grateful for these queries, it was necessary to focus on the motion to defer the application which had been proposed and seconded; should the motion fall, the Member would be able to ask these questions but if the deferral was approved then he should raise these requests directly with Officers outside of the meeting.

54.10        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be DEFERRED in order to resolve the outstanding matters in respect of the financial contribution towards education provision and the proposed tenure of the affordable housing.

PROPOSAL: Erection of one dwelling and associated detached garage to replace existing mobile home and provision of associated vehicular access, parking and turning areas.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

54.11        This application was for the erection of one dwelling and associated detached garage to replace existing mobile home and provision of associated vehicular access, parking and turning areas.

54.12        The Development Management Team Leader (South) advised that the site was located along Church End Lane in Twyning and was occupied by a static residential mobile home where the applicant currently resided.  The application proposed the replacement of the mobile home with a detached two storey, three bedroom dwelling, similar in size and scale to the two dwellings immediately to the west of the site that were allowed on appeal in 2020 but had not yet been constructed.  A new access was proposed off Church Lane with a parking and manoeuvring area contained within the site and a large double garage proposed towards the back of the site.  As set out in the Committee report, the application site lay outside of the Twyning settlement boundary, as defined in the Neighbourhood Development Plan, and Officers had concluded that, as the proposal was for the replacement of a mobile home with a dwelling, it was contrary to the relevant Borough Plan and Neighbourhood Development Plan policies and would also result in the loss of an existing traveller pitch.  Notwithstanding this, the proposal must be considered in light of the current lack of a five year housing supply and the relevant test was therefore whether the identified harms significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework policies as a whole.  In terms of the recent appeal, it was relevant that in allowing the replacement of a mobile home with two dwellings on the neighbouring site, the Inspector - whilst agreeing that the proposal was contrary to development plan policy – concluded that, in view of the tilted balance being engaged, the adverse impact of the proposal did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  Although each case must be considered on its merits, a similar conclusion had been reached in this instance.  As stated in the Committee report, there was a conflict with development plan housing policy which weighed against the proposal; however, whilst the proposal would result in the loss of a traveller pitch, the applicant currently lived in the mobile home and had chosen to move into bricks and mortar, subject to the application being permitted, therefore the overall need for traveller sites would be unaffected and the impact would be neutral.  There were no other harms identified in the Committee report and, in view of the tilted balance, it was concluded that the adverse impact of the proposal did not outweigh the benefits which included the economic benefits during construction, ecological benefits and potential improvements to surface water drainage which were required by condition.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

54.13        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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54c

PROPOSAL: Removal/variation of conditions 2 (plans as set out), 4 (landscaping compliance), and 11 (noise assessment) of planning application reference 17/01131/FUL.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

54.15        This application was for the removal/variation of conditions 2 (plans as set out), 4 (landscaping compliance) and 11 (noise assessment) of planning reference 17/01131/FUL.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 21 September 2021 in order to investigate installation of bollards or other measures to address highway safety concerns; to allow revised plans to be submitted to address the minor discrepancies in relation to the location of the cycle storage area and landscaping; and to enable the Environmental Health Officer to explain in more detail the response to the Parish Council’s concerns regarding the noise assessment being outdated.

54.16        The Planning Officer advised that the Environmental Health Officer had now provided a more detailed comment in relation to the noise assessment and the Parish Council had subsequently withdrawn its objection.  Discussions had taken place with the applicant in respect of the Committee’s concerns regarding public safety and the lack of a physical barrier between the road and grass verge and the possibility of installing bollards; however, the applicant’s proposal was to extend the existing hedgerow, which had been retained in part, with additional planting along the boundary to the southern edge of the site and revised landscape plans had been submitted to reflect that.  The Officer view was that the hedgerow would provide a barrier to the highway which would prevent children lying down on the verge and so would be an appropriate way forward in terms of the landscape character.  It was noted that the additional hedge would be a mix of native species.  On that basis, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application but with condition 9, as set out in the Committee report, omitted.

54.17        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member indicated that she had raised the road safety concern as she regularly drove past the site; the site was outside of the 30mph speed limit and she had seen cars increase their speed when driving around the roundabout.  She still had some concerns regarding the proposal to extend the hedgerow as it would take a long time for it to grow to the thickness necessary to provide the protection required.  She felt something needed to be done more urgently and asked if it was possible to put a temporary measure in place whilst the hedge was growing – a few twigs in the ground would not provide adequate separation between pedestrians and cars in her view.  In response, the Development Manager confirmed that it was possible to require a mature specimen which was fully grown when it was planted and would therefore be more of a deterrent.  The Member agreed that it would stop people from lying on that piece of ground so she was happy with the proposal provided it was a mature specimen.  Another Member asked whether ‘fully grown’ referred to thickness as well as height and assurance was provided that it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 54d

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

55.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 112-120.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issued.

55.2          Accordingly, it was

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