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.   

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

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

69.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R D East (Vice-Chair), M A Gore, M L Jordan and R J G Smith.  There were no substitutions for the meeting.

70.1          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.

70.2          The following declarations were made:

70.3          There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 15 March 2022.

71.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 March 2022, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

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

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Minded to Permit

72.2          This was an outline application for residential development (up to 160 dwellings) and associated works including demolition, infrastructure, open space and landscaping with vehicular access from the A38.  All matters are reserved.  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 15 February 2022 for additional information to be gathered in relation to the tenure mix for the social housing requirements; to allow an up-to-date traffic assessment to be carried out; for an independent assessment of the site to be undertaken to establish an appropriate sustainable drainage system (SuDS) for the proposal; and for a meeting to be arranged between the applicant, Planning Officers and residents in order for these issues to be discussed.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 14 January 2022.

72.3          The Planning Officer advised that, following the Planning Committee meeting in February, the applicant had submitted an appeal to the Secretary of State against non-determination of the application, as such, the Council was no longer the determining authority but must advise the Secretary of State of its views on the proposal.  As Members would recall, the application site was located off Brook Lane in Down Hatherley and extended to approximately 7.82 hectares, although the site on which the residential development was proposed comprised 4.89 hectares.  The application site 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 proposals map.  This application was made in outline for residential development of up to 160 dwellings and associated works.  Although all matters were reserved, the application documents included an illustrative masterplan and parameters plan which indicated how the quantum of development could be delivered. 

72.4          In terms of three reasons for which the application was deferred, these had been addressed in detail at Pages No. 45-49 of the Committee report; however, as mentioned previously, the applicant had submitted an appeal against non-determination of the application to the Secretary of State and, since publication of the Committee report, new information had come to light regarding the applicant’s position on the required contribution towards education provision and the proposed affordable housing tenure.  Given the context of the current appeal, the change in position on the education provision and affordable housing tenure must be taken into account.  Full details of the assessment could be found in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.  In terms of the contribution towards education provision, Paragraph 7.87 of the published Committee report stated that the applicant had agreed on a “without prejudice basis” to enter into an agreement with Gloucestershire County Council to secure the contributions requested by the Local Education Authority towards education provision; however, when the applicant confirmed their agreement to pay the education contributions, this was on a “without prejudice basis” and the applicant emphasised that, in an appeal scenario, they would be starting from the position that no contributions at all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72a

PROPOSAL: Outline application for up to 55 dwellings and detailed access from Hill End Road with all other matters reserved.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Minded to Permit

72.16        This was an outline application for up to 55 dwellings and detailed access from Hill End Road with all other matters reserved.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Thursday 14 April 2022.

72.17        The Planning Officer advised that Members would be aware that a non-determination appeal had been submitted in respect of this application, therefore, the Council must advise the Planning Inspectorate as to how it would have determined the application, had it remained the decision-maker.  The site was a 3.15 hectare parcel of land located to the north of Tywning and was situated to the east of Hill End Road and north of the urban edge of the village.  The land status was currently agricultural; however, a large volume of trees had been planted circa 10 years ago which gave the appearance of a developing woodland and a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) had been confirmed by the Planning Committee in February.  In addition, there were numerous public footpaths running through the site, connecting the residential area from the south with the wider countryside to the north.  The site itself was outside of the locally designated Landscape Protection Zone and the Twyning settlement boundary as defined in the emerging Borough Plan and the Twyning Neighbourhood Development Plan.  The application was supported by an indicative layout plan which showed access to be taken into the site from Hill End Road.  It was proposed that building heights would vary between two and 2.5 storeys around key nodes and gateways within the site.  The proposed dwellings would be a mix of open market and affordable tenures, with dwellings comprising a mixture of one, two, three and four bedrooms; the application site proposed an on-site contribution of 40% affordable housing.  An assessment of the main material considerations was set out in the Committee report with the key harms and benefits highlighted.  Members were advised that, with regard to the principle of development, the application site was located outside of the defined settlement boundary and was not allocated for housing development; however, it was not within an isolated rural location and future residents would have access to services in Twyning and Tewkesbury, although there would be some reliance on cars.  As Members would be aware, the Council could not currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land and planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole.  The development would contribute towards the supply of housing – both market and affordable – to help meet the objectively assessed need of the area and, overall, Officers afforded this significant weight.  There would also be social economic benefits from the construction process.  Nevertheless, there were identified harms arising from the conflict with the development plan policies as well as landscape harm by reason of encroachment into the open countryside and the loss of some TPO trees.  It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72b

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of seven dwellings, new access arrangements and associated works.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit

72.26        This application was for demolition of existing buildings and erection of seven dwellings, new access arrangements and associated works.

72.27        The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised a farmyard complex and included a number of large portal frame buildings to the central and eastern part of the site with an area of hardstanding to the western side which was used for the storage of vehicles and trailers.  The site lay at the western edge of the settlement and adjoined residential properties to its eastern boundary with the northern, southern and western boundaries adjoining the open countryside.  The application sought full planning permission for the redevelopment of the site with seven detached dwellings.  The site would be laid out with four dwellings in a tandem arrangement to the central and eastern part of the site and three dwellings orientated at 90 degrees to the road to the western part of the site.  In terms of the principle of the development, the proposal lay outside of a defined settlement boundary and conflicted with Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy; however, in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and given the Council’s current housing land supply position, 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.  It was considered that, whilst the proposal would result in some harm to the landscape by reason of encroachment, harms would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the social and economic benefits associated with the delivery of up to seven dwellings.  Draft amended plans had now been received which had addressed the main concerns raised and these were included in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.  The County Highways Officer had confirmed there were no technical or highway safety objections to the proposal and the Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to additional conditions which may be necessary.

72.28        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to additional conditions which may be necessary, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member expressed the view that the proposal would tidy up this part of the village although the type of houses being provided would likely be too expensive for the younger population which was a shame.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to additional conditions which may be necessary, in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

PROPOSAL: Outline application for the erection of five dwellings with access from Greenacres, with all other matters reserved.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit

72.29        This was an outline application for the erection of five dwellings with access from Greenacres, with all other matters reserved.

72.30        The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised a parcel of land to the south-west of Greenacres, a small, residential cul-de-sac dating from the early 1990’s. The application was set to the south-west of that development and comprised an undeveloped parcel of land which sloped down to the south and lay adjacent to the settlement boundary to Twyning.  In terms of the principle of the development, the proposal was within a Service Village but outside of a defined settlement boundary and conflicted with Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy; however, in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and given the Council’s current land supply position, 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 as a whole.  It was considered that, whilst the proposal would result in some harm to the landscape by reason of encroachment, the harms would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the social and economic benefits associated with the delivery of up to five dwellings within a Service Village location.  Significant concerns had been raised in respect of flood risk and drainage and the applicant had confirmed that flood modelling and drainage works had started and a scheme of works for the site was proposed which would seek to address the drainage impacts of the proposed development and also alleviate existing local surface water issues off-site; the principles had been submitted and technical assessment was awaited.  The specific details would be subject to further consideration once the assessment had been submitted.  Since publication of the Committee report, a further representation had been received from a member of the public which reiterated concerns already received.  The applicant had also submitted a further representation in respect of the application.  The Council’s Conservation Officer had confirmed that the proposal was unlikely to result in harm to the setting of the Grade II listed Freeman’s Court and would be acceptable on heritage grounds.  As such, the Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the results of the pending drainage assessment and those details being considered acceptable.

72.31        The Chair invited a representative from Twyning Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative explained that, under current conditions, this application would be expected to be permitted; however, the Parish Council was aghast at the suggestion that the site was fit for human habitation and that the Officer recommendation was delegated permit.  The history of the site was there for all to see and it was difficult to understand the Officer recommendation given the compelling flood risk evidence.  The Committee report referred to the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer having flood concerns and indicated those concerns were graded as ‘grave’ which mirrored his previous comments  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72d

PROPOSAL: Reserved matters for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for 179 new dwellings on Phase 5 of the residential development.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Approve

72.36        This was a reserved matters application for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for 179 new dwellings on phase 5 of the residential development. The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Thursday 14 April 2022.

72.37        The Planning Officer advised that the principle of residential development at this site had been established through the grant of outline planning permission and its subsequent allocation for housing in the Joint Core Strategy as part of the wider Innsworth and Twigworth strategic allocation.  The key principles guiding reserved matters applications had also been approved by the planning authority and included a Site Wide Masterplan Document and a site-wide attenuation and drainage strategy.  This application sought approval of reserved matters pursuant to the outline planning permission and the issues to be considered were access, appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and compliance with the approved documents.  As set out in the Committee report, Officers had carefully considered the application and felt that the scale, layout, landscaping and appearance were acceptable, accorded with the Site Wide Masterplan Document aspirations and were an appropriate design.  It was also considered that the access, internal road layout and car parking provision was acceptable and accorded with the Site Wide Masterplan Document, Policy INF1 of the Joint Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.  In addition, by virtue of the design approach, it was felt the proposed development would result in acceptable levels of amenity for future residents.  In terms of affordable housing, there was a cluster of 45 affordable units in the apartments next to the spine road which was contrary to the Section 106 Agreement which required groups of no more than 16 in this scenario; however, the Section 106 did allow for deviations subject to approval from the Council.  This phase of development was required to deliver a large proportion of one bedroom affordable units which were to be provided within blocks of apartments; this was in accordance with the principles of the Site Wide Masterplan Document which required medium to higher density residential development defined by key buildings within the spine road character area.  Officers had carefully considered this clustering against the design quality of the scheme and felt it would be detrimental to place-making to remove the apartment blocks and replace them with, for instance, maisonettes.  In addition, to locate the apartment blocks elsewhere in the development would conflict with the wider character areas and be detrimental to the sense of place.  Therefore, it was considered that the scheme provided an appropriate requirement for affordable housing having regard to the wider design aspirations of the scheme.  In terms of flood risk and drainage, the site-wide flood risk attenuation works engineering operations to create attenuation ponds were considered and subsequently approved as part of reserved matters application 18/01284/APP.  The sitewide attenuation and drainage strategy for this part of the scheme had been prepared in alignment with the detailed surface water drainage strategy approved under condition 26 of the outline.  The Lead Local Flood  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72e

PROPOSAL: Alterations and extension to existing buildings (demolition in part) to form a takeaway food shop and four one-bedroom apartments.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

72.41        This application was for alterations and extension to existing buildings (demolition in part) to form a takeaway food shop and four one-bedroomed apartments.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Thursday 14 April 2022.

72.42        The Planning Officer advised that the site lay within the retail area of Churchdown, an urban fringe settlement of Gloucester, and the principle of development would be acceptable.  The character of the area was not defined by any particular architectural style and there were a mixture of buildings of different type and scale, the predominant material being brick.  The amended design was considered to be appropriate with regard to scale and materials and would be in keeping with the character of the area.  The apartments would comply with National Space Standards.  The amended rear extension had been set back from shared boundaries and would be single storey towards the rear in order to safeguard the amenity of neighbouring residents.  The restaurant had an existing takeaway service and the Environmental Health Officer considered that to be acceptable with regard to noise/odour; ventilation, odour equipment and opening hours would be controlled by condition.  The site was in a sustainable location with a bus stop in close proximity therefore no onsite parking provision was required and onsite cycle storage had been provided.  On the Planning Committee Site Visit, Members had sought clarification on local housing need and the Planning Officer advised that the development was for open market housing which would contribute to the Council’s five year housing land supply but not to affordable housing.  Concerns had been raised regarding the impact on the proposal from the flue on the adjacent Public House and she explained that information had been provided for the flue for the takeaway but not from the Public House.  The Council’s Environmental Health Officer considered that information was required prior to determination, therefore, the Officer recommendation had been changed to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to that information being provided and there being a satisfactory impact on the proposal with regard to noise/odour from the Public House.

72.43        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for the item.  The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the provision of information regarding the flue on the adjacent Public House and there being a satisfactory impact on the proposal with regard to noise/odour from the Public House, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the provision of information regarding the flue on the adjacent Public House and there being a satisfactory impact on the proposal with regard to noise/odour from the Public House, in accordance with the Officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72f

PROPOSAL: Restoration of existing farmhouse and conversion of existing barns to provide three new dwellings and associated landscaping and infrastructure.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit

72.44        This application was for restoration of existing farmhouse and conversion of existing barns to provide three new dwellings and associated landscaping and infrastructure.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Thursday 14 April 2022.

72.45        The Planning Officer advised that further information had been submitted since the publication of the Committee report which had resolved outstanding issues as detailed in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, and the Officer recommendation had therefore been changed to permit.  The proposal would convert existing agricultural buildings to dwellings, add a replacement extension to the existing farmhouse and remove some redundant buildings.  The main considerations relevant to the application were whether the current proposal remained compliant with the Council’s re-use and adaptation of rural buildings policies and acceptable in terms of Green Belt policy.  Residential development of rural buildings outside of settlement boundaries was acceptable in principle where buildings were capable of conversion and structurally sound.  Concerns had been raised by objectors regarding the structural integrity of the buildings; however, structural surveys had been submitted by a qualified engineer and, although remediation works were required, the buildings were capable of conversion.  It was considered that the proposed works would enhance the immediate setting and respect the scale, form and character of the original buildings.  In terms of impact on the Green Belt, Paragraph 150 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that the reuse of buildings would not be inappropriate development provided that they were of permanent and substantial construction and that the development should preserve its openness and not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.  Some of the existing buildings on the site and large areas of hardstanding would be removed and, to reduce the impact on openness and safeguard the countryside from encroachment from residential use, the size of the residential curtilage had been reduced and permitted development rights would be removed by condition.  In addition, the proposed extension to the farmhouse would not be inappropriate development as it would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling.  The farmhouse and historic brick outbuildings were considered to be non-designated heritage assets but the conversion of the more modern buildings would not harm their special interest and the interventions and materials proposed would preserve the agricultural character of the farmstead.  Concerns had been raised with regard to the impact on Chargrove Lane; however, County Highways considered the proposal acceptable in terms of highways safety and impact on the road network.  The Council could not demonstrate a five year supply of housing and, in this case, the tilted balance was engaged.  This proposal would provide three additional houses and would reuse heritage assets, there would be limited harm to the  openness of the Green Belt from domestic paraphernalia and the proposal was neutral in terms of highway safety, congestion, drainage, impact on neighbour amenity and ecology.  It was considered that the identified harm would not significantly or demonstrably outweigh the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72g

PROPOSAL: Creation of new parking bays by excavating out existing grass open space between existing parking bays.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

72.50        This application was for creation of new parking bays by excavating existing grass open space between existing parking bays.

72.51        The Development Manager confirmed this was a planning compliant application which required a Committee determination as the applicant was Tewkesbury Borough Council.

72.52        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.

PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 3 (opening hours) of planning application 21/01254/FUL to extend existing opening hours.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

72.53        This application was for the variation of condition 3 (opening hours) of planning application 21/01254/FUL to extend existing opening hours.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Thursday 14 April 2022.

72.54        The Planning Officer advised that this was a Section 73 application to vary condition 3 (opening hours) for 7 St Mary’s Lane.  This was a business called ‘The Ice Cream Cottage’ which operated as a food takeaway under the Sui Generis use class.  The proposal was to increase the current opening hours from 1100-1730 hours to 1030-1830 hours with the exception of opening 1030-2000 hours on Friday and Saturday of the Queen’s Jubilee Weekend, the Medieval Festival and Fireworks at the Vineyards.  A Committee determination was required as a Member had called in the application to assess the impact upon the neighbouring amenity.  The concerns raised had been considered; however, it was the Officer opinion that the proposed additional opening hours would not cause undue harm to the amenity of the neighbouring dwellings, as outlined in the Committee report.  Therefore, it was recommended that the application be permitted.

72.55        The Chair indicated that the speaker on behalf of Tewkesbury Town Council had to leave for a Town Council engagement and that the speech on behalf of Tewkesbury Town Council would be read by an Officer.  The Town Council had indicated that the recent pandemic had changed people’s lives in myriad ways; for many people their homes had become their workplaces too and, for some, working practices had changed – this was clearly true for the applicant; however, the Town Council questioned how many business owners considered it appropriate to change their working practices to such an extent that the surrounding public realm, plus the walls and ledges of neighbours had become an integral part of them.  This particular business was Sui Generis and there was no other like this on St Mary’s Lane, as such, it impacted on the community and should be carefully observed in order to be properly understood; it was easy to make inaccurate assumptions, as the Town Council had when it first looked at it.  A business like this depended on lots of people, all with minds of their own and different priorities and it was not easy to manage people’s behaviour, particularly within an environment over which you had no control or ownership.  If the pavement was crowded, people would occupy the road; if there were no tables or chairs, they would make do with a convenient garden wall or window ledge without a thought for anything but solving the immediate problem they had of finding a level surface on which to put their purchase.  Over the weekend, a little boy in the queue was observed leaning against a neighbour’s wall, kicking at it repeatedly – that would not have been a pleasant situation for the householder nor much fun for the child to be stuck in a boring queue.  The Government’s Plain English guide to the planning system stated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72i

PROPOSAL: Provision of cricket pitch for ancillary use as part of Dumbleton Cricket Club.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

72.62        This application was for provision of a cricket pitch for ancillary use as part of Dumbleton Cricket Club. 

72.63        The Planning Officer advised that a Committee determination was required due to an objection from the Parish Council.  He explained that the proposal involved an area of mown grass to facilitate the cricket pitch and the erection of a temporary wire fence that would be maintained during the season (March-October) to keep sheep off the play area, as well as a portable scoreboard that would be removed and stored in the clubhouse between games. As set out at Paragraph 1.2 of the Committee report, the application site lay within the grounds of Dumbleton Hall, a Grade II* listed building.  There were a number of Grade I and II listed buildings surrounding the site which was located within the Dumbleton Conservation Area and the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Officers felt there were considerable benefits to the additional pitch in that it would promote a healthy lifestyle which was supported within the National Planning Policy Framework; there would be minimal landscape or visual harms as a result of the proposal and no detrimental impacts on residential amenity and parking.  The Conservation Officer considered there would be a low degree of harm to the setting of the listed building and Conservation Area but that would be outweighed by public benefit.  The Officer recommendation had been changed from permit to delegated permit pending comments on the ecological assessment to enable any conditions to be added as necessary, as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.

72.64        The Chair invited the representative from Dumbleton Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative explained that the Parish Council believed the application was incomplete; set a precedent for development in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Conservation Area; was unwanted by residents with 85% of consultation comments being objections; and failed to meet seven policy requirements – the Borough Council’s planning validation, Joint Core Strategy, Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan, National Planning Policy Framework, Dumbleton Conservation Area Character Statement, Natural England’s National Character Profile for the Cotswolds and the Cotswold Conservation Board Land Strategy and Guidelines.  The Parish Council considered these failings showed there were grounds for an application for a judicial review.  Under the policies, the Parish Council believed seven assessments should have been included: biodiversity survey – as the site was a red zone for the Great Crested Newt; tree survey – required by the Joint Core Strategy and Town and Country Planning Act as the site was within a Conservation Area bounded by mature trees; historic environment statement – as the site was in historic parkland over ancient ridge and furrow with identified archaeological features beneath and was within the grounds of a Grade II* listed building; landscape and visual assessment – this should have been carried out by a suitably qualified person as the site was within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Conservation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72j

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

73.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 266-274.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issues.

73.2          Accordingly, it was

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