Accessibility settings

In order to remember your preferences as you navigate through the site, a cookie will be set.

Color preference

Text size

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Tewkesbury Borough Council Offices, Severn Room

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

Items
No. Item

39.

Announcements

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.   

Minutes:

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

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

40.

Apologies for Absence and Substitutions

To receive apologies for absence and advise of any substitutions. 

Minutes:

40.1           Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J R Mason and J P Mills.  There were no substitutes for the meeting.

41.

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:

41.1           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.

41.2           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 5a – 22/00223/FUL – Field to the West of Hucclecote Lane, Churchdown.

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

Had received email correspondence in relation to the application but had not expressed an opinion.

Would speak and vote.

R D East

General Declaration.

Had received correspondence in relation to various applications but had not expressed an opinion.

Would speak and vote.

M A Gore

Agenda Item 5b – 22/00624/OUT – Land East of St Margaret’s Drive, Alderton.

Knows of the applicant but had not had any contact or discussion with them in relation to the application.

Would speak and vote.

M L Jordan

Agenda Item 5a – 22/00223/FUL – Field to the West of Hucclecote Lane, Churchdown.

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

Would speak and vote.

P E Smith

Agenda Item 5a – 22/00223/FUL – Field to the West of Hucclecote Lane, Churchdown.

Lives about a third of a mile from the application site but would not be any impact.

Had been contacted by a number of local residents in relation to the application but had not expressed an opinion.

Would speak and vote.

R J G Smith

Agenda Item 5a – 22/00223/FUL – Field to the West of Hucclecote Lane, Churchdown.

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

Would speak and vote.

P D Surman

Agenda Item 5c – 22/00686/FUL – Land North of Leckhampton Lane, Shurdington.

Agenda Item 5g – 22/00807/FUL –     54 Meadowsweet Road, Shurdington.

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

Would speak and vote.

R J E Vines

Agenda Item 5c - 22/00686/FUL – Land North of Leckhampton Lane, Shurdington.

Agenda Item 5d – 22/00245/FUL – Peak View Cottage, Green Lane, Witcombe.

Agenda Item 5g -  22/00807/FUL –                         54 Meadowsweet Road, Shurdington.

Agenda Item 5h – 22/00283/FUL – The Glass Houses, Whitelands Lane, Little Shurdington.

Is a Gloucestershire County Councillor for the area.

Would speak and vote.

41.3           There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

42.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 1 MB

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 December 2022.

Minutes:

42.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 20 December 2022, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

43.

Development Control - Applications to the Borough Council pdf icon PDF 939 KB

Decision:

Item number

Application number

Site address

Officer recommendation

Committee outcome

5a

22/00223/FUL

Field To The West Of Hucclecote Lane

Churchdown

Permit

Permit

5b

22/00624/OUT

Land East Of St Margarets Drive Alderton

Minded to Refuse

Minded to Refuse

5c

22/00686/FUL

Land North Of Leckhampton Lane

Shurdington

Delegated Permit

Delegated Permit

5d

22/00245/FUL

Peak View Cottage

Green Lane

Witcombe

Refuse

Permit

5e

22/01011/FUL

Ashstump House

Calcotts Green

Minsterworth

Refuse

Permit

5f

22/01079/FUL

Jasmine Cottage

Boddington Lane

Boddington

Refuse

Permit

5g

22/00807/FUL

54 Meadowsweet Road

Shurdington

Refuse

Permit

5h

22/00283/FUL

The Glass Houses

Whitelands Lane

Little Shurdington

Permit

Permit

 

 

Minutes:

43.1          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.

43a

22/00223/FUL - Field to the West of Hucclecote Lane, Churchdown pdf icon PDF 212 KB

PROPOSAL: Change of use of agricultural land to a secure dog walking/exercise area and associated works, including car parking area and improved access.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

43.2           This application was for change of use of agricultural land to a secure dog walking/exercise area and associated works, including car parking area and improved access.  The application had been deferred by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 20 December 2022 for a Planning Committee Site Visit to assess the gated area with regard to vehicular access to the site.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 13 January 2023.

43.3           The Planning Officer advised that this was a retrospective change of use application which included a 1.8 metre high security fence, car parking and improved access.  The field was situated on the west side of Hucclecote Lane and approximately 200 metres to the south of the settlement of Churchdown within designated Green Belt land.  The field had a road frontage to Hucclecote Lane of approximately 100 metres which included an existing access.  The field was formerly agricultural use and was securely fenced with wire mesh secured to timber posts at three metre intervals around the boundary.  To the north of the site was a dwelling house, Four Gables, to the east, and on the other side of Hucclecote Lane, was a small woodland and a Severn Trent Water pumping station with the grounds of Chosen Hill House lying to the south.  It was considered that the proposal would not result in any undue harm, as outlined in the Committee report, therefore, it was recommended that the application be permitted, subject to the conditions proposed.

43.4           The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the proposal to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that this retrospective application for change of use of this agricultural, species rich, permanent pasture to a commercial business use should be refused.  In his opinion, Neighbourhood Development Plan Policy CHIN13 should be upheld to preserve the views.  The local amenity would be adversely affected due to the noise and greatly increased activity that would take place which contravened Joint Core Strategy Policies SD4 and SD14; Policy SD14 stated that there should be no unacceptable harm to local amenities including the amenity of neighbouring occupants and he failed to see how the proposal could avoid causing exactly that.  The Environmental Health department did not seem to consider that an activity which would continue every single day of the year until 20:00 hours would be detrimental to the health and wellbeing of local residents – the opening times currently proposed were of little comfort and the nearest dwelling was only 10 metres from the field.  County Highways had given no consideration to the increased run-off of water from the site; however, following a visit last month, it had been acknowledged that water was now being discharged onto the highway.  The Council’s Tree Officer had stated that Oak trees, now subject to Tree Preservation Orders, had already been impacted which contravened Tewkesbury Local Plan Policy LAN1.  The local resident felt this was not the right place for this type of enterprise  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43a

43b

22/00624/OUT - Land East of St Margaret's Drive, Alderton pdf icon PDF 280 KB

PROPOSAL: Outline application for the demolition of 16 St Margarets Drive and the erection of up to 55 dwellings, associated infrastructure, landscape and biodiversity enhancements, all matters reserved except for access from St Margarets Drive.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Minded to Refuse

Additional documents:

Minutes:

43.10         This was an outline application for the demolition of 16 St Margaret’s Drive and the erection of up to 48 dwellings (a net increase of 47 dwellings), associated infrastructure, landscape and biodiversity enhancements with all matters reserved except for access from St Margaret’s Drive.  As set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, the description had been amended to reduce the number of dwellings from ‘up to 55 dwellings’ to ‘up to 48 dwellings (a net increase of 47 dwellings)’. 

43.11         The Senior Planning Officer advised that the report related to an application which was subject to a non-determination appeal and the Council was required to indicate what its decision would have been and this would form the basis of its Statement of Case going forward at appeal.  The site was located at the south-eastern edge of the village of Alderton and comprised approximately 3.97 hectares of agricultural land which fell outside of the defined settlement boundary and had not been allocated for development in local plan policy.  The site was part of the Special Landscape Area defined for areas of high quality countryside which coincided as the foreground setting to the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The Parish Council had objected to the scheme along with the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE).  The Council’s specialist landscape adviser and heritage specialist had both raised objections to the potential impact of the scheme.  The application site lay outside of the defined settlement boundary for Alderton and was not allocated for housing development.  The site did not represent infilling and should be refused on principle.  Harm would arise from the cumulative growth in Alderton in such a relatively short period of time which would have a negative impact on social cohesion and wellbeing and there would be a harmful impact on the landscape within the Special Landscape Area as well as harm to designated and undesignated heritage assets and biodiversity impacts.  The reasons for refusal were set out within the Committee report, and amended on the Additional Representations Sheet, and related to the principle of development, impact upon community cohesion, landscape character and potential harm to the setting of both designated and undesignated heritage assets.  The remaining reasons for refusal were technical reasons which sought to secure appropriate mitigation in the absence of a Section 106 Agreement, as such, those reasons could be satisfied prior to the appeal.  The Officer recommendation was therefore minded to refuse, subject to the amendments detailed on the Additional Representations Sheet.

43.12         The Chair invited the representative from Alderton Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative thanked Members for the opportunity to speak against this outline application for 48 houses on a greenfield site, outside of the settlement boundary of the rural village of Alderton.  The Parish Council had raised significant objections to the scheme alongside 150 letters of objection from residents of the village.  The Planning Officers were recommending minded to refuse and this was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43b

43c

22/00686/FUL - Land North of Leckhampton Lane, Shurdington pdf icon PDF 383 KB

PROPOSAL: Construction of 25 dwellings.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

43.16        This application was for the construction of 25 dwellings.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 13 January 2023.

43.17         The Senior Planning Officer advised that the application sought full planning permission for 25 dwellings along with access, drainage, landscaping, public open space and associated works.  The site was located to the north of Leckhampton Lane, within the village of Shurdington, to the south of Cheltenham.  It covered an area of 1.2 hectares and was presently a greenfield site.  The site was formerly located within the Cheltenham-Gloucester Green Belt but, on adoption of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, the land was de-designated and it was no longer located within the Green Belt.  The Green Belt boundary adjoined the site at its northern boundary along the Ham Brook and the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was located to the south of Leckhampton Lane.  The proposed development would provide a mix of detached and semi-detached open market and affordable dwellings; overall, 10 of the dwellings proposed would be affordable which equated to 40% provision across the site.  The proposed dwellings would be two storeys in height with a palette of materials including reconstituted ‘Cotswold’ stone, brick and render finishes along with a mix of roof tile and slate.  The site was formally allocated for housing under Policy SHU2 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and was identified as 1.2 hectares with an indicative capacity of 20 dwellings; it should be borne in mind that this figure was not an upper limit and the policy clarified that “all site capacities are approximate and detailed design proposals may indicate that greater or fewer dwellings can be accommodated on a site”.  Shurdington Parish Council had objected to the proposal.  The formal landscape comments were still awaited.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the principle of the development was acceptable as it was formally allocated and the scheme was in accordance with the wider parameters detailed within Policy SHU2.  The applicant proposed highway improvements to the triangular parcels of land fronting onto Leckhampton Lane including the provision of formalised parking for public use and improved pedestrian footpaths.  The scheme was acceptable in terms of its impact upon the neighbouring special landscape character, the proposal would be served by a safe and suitable access and the cumulative impact on the highway would not be severe.  Furthermore, it would have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would be acceptable in terms of residential amenity.  It was therefore considered that the proposed development would constitute sustainable development in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole and it was recommended that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the receipt of formal landscape comments and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

43.18         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent was pleased that the application was being presented to Members with a recommendation of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43c

43d

22/00245/FUL - Peak View Cottage, Green Lane, Witcombe pdf icon PDF 208 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of a detached dwelling with separate garage.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

Additional documents:

Minutes:

43.24        This application was for the erection of a detached dwelling with a separate garage.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 13 January 2023.

43.25        The Planning Officer advised that, as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, the applicant had submitted a supporting statement following the publication of the Committee report but that had not changed the Officer recommendation.  In addition, comments from County Highways had now been received and there was still an objection with regard to insufficient visibility at the proposed access.  Members were advised that the application related to land to the north-west side of Peak View Cottage with the built-up area of Witcombe to the north – the site was not considered to be within or adjacent to the built-up area.  The dwelling would have an oak frame with natural stone walls and a sloped roof. A Committee determination was required as the application had been called-in by a Member to assess the acceptability of the proposal given its location within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The Officer recommendation was to refuse the application, as set out in the Committee report.

43.26         The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant advised that they were looking to build their dream family home, a sustainable oak framed house.  The house would not be visible from outside of the immediate site and would have no adverse impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The site was an obvious infill plot being “an under-developed plot well-related to existing built development” and clearly complied with Policies RES3 and RES4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  Unfortunately, the Planning Officer disagreed and was recommending the application for refusal for three reasons.  The first reason was that the site was not within, or adjacent to, the built-up area of Witcombe; however, the applicant argued that the site was within the continuous built form of the village of Witcombe and, even if that was not the case, Policy RES3 stated that it would be considered acceptable where development was very small-scale at rural settlements in accordance with Policy RES4; RES4 did not require the site to be in a village, only that it was well-related to existing buildings within the settlement.  The second refusal reason was that backland development created a cluster which was considered inappropriate.  The applicant pointed out that two other houses further along Ermin Way were also set back from the road and there was a specific example of backland development further along Green Lane.  The area was made up of a diverse mix of residential dwellings in varying locations and plot sizes.  In terms of refusal reason three, it was suggested the proposal would result in overlooking of the garden of The Landers but the applicant explained that the proposed house would only overlook the front garden and driveway, not the private rear garden which included a swimming pool, patio and lawned area.  Planning guidance set out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43d

43e

22/01011/FUL - Ashstump House, Calcotts Green, Minsterworth pdf icon PDF 154 KB

PROPOSAL: Removal of agricultural occupancy condition h) of application reference TG4488/C.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

Additional documents:

Minutes:

43.31        This application was for removal of agricultural occupancy condition h) of application reference TG4488/C.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 13 January 2023.

43.32        The Planning Officer advised that Ashstump House was a two storey detached dwelling situated approximately 100 metres to the west of the defined settlement boundary of Minsterworth which was identified as a Service Village in the Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  The application was recommended for refusal as set out in the Committee report.

43.33        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent explained that the agricultural occupancy condition dated back some 35 years when the dwelling was originally consented for the applicant, who still lived there, at a time when they were employed by Elms Farm in Minsterworth.  Elms Farm was a short distance away from the property and had been in operation as an intensive commercial dairy farm but that use had ceased in 2007 and the applicant had last been employed by the farm in 2012.  The applicant’s agent indicated that, through their submissions, they had demonstrated there was no longer any need for an agriculturally tied dwelling to serve Elms Farm and that had been the case for at least 10 years.  Elms Farm would be unlikely to require a tied dwelling in future as it was no longer suitable, in terms of scale and range of facilities, to support any intensive modern farming practices.  Members would also be aware there was a live planning application for the residential development of Elms Farm in its entirety to provide 40 dwellings which further outlined the future intentions for the farm.  Several local farm owners around Minsterworth had written to support the application, outlining that they had no requirements for agriculturally tied dwellings in the locality and the proposals were supported by the Parish Council and Local Ward Members.  Notwithstanding this, the value of the property, even when marketed at an agricultural discount, would be well beyond the affordability of the average agricultural or forestry worker and there were hundreds more affordable and unrestricted properties of all sizes available and currently on the market locally and within close commuting distance.  In the 35 years since the dwelling had originally been approved, Minsterworth had expanded considerably and was now considered to be a sustainable Service Village where residential development should be directed in accordance with the development plan.  Ashstump House was far from being isolated from services and facilities and was centrally located within a sustainable village location.  The main concern raised by Officers related to the availability of marketing evidence for the property and it was the applicant’s position that the aforementioned reasoning would clearly outweigh the need to formally market the dwelling for the 18 months as requested.  Notwithstanding this, the applicant had recently placed the dwelling on the market to further highlight the lack of need for a tie on the property and the initial marketing report had been circulated to Officers and Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43e

43f

22/01079/FUL - Jasmine Cottage, Boddington Lane, Boddington pdf icon PDF 202 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two-storey side extension and single storey front porch.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

Additional documents:

Minutes:

43.38         This application was for the erection of a two storey side extension and single storey front porch.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 13 January 2023.

43.39         The Planning Assistant advised that this was a householder application for Jasmine Cottage, a semi-detached dwelling located in Boddington within the Green Belt.  There had been no objections from statutory consultees but it was the Officer opinion that the proposal would be inappropriate development which, by definition, was harmful to the Green Belt and should only be approved in very special circumstances.  The proposal would also have a harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt, as outlined in the Committee report.  Very special circumstances had been put forward in the form of the permitted development fallback position – three single storey extensions, a rear dormer and an outbuilding.  As set out at Page No. 128, Paragraph 8.21 of the Committee report, Officers considered that the outbuilding would not be able to be erected under permitted development rights.  The proposed fallback position was materially smaller than the proposal and would have a lesser impact on the openness of the Green Belt, therefore, Officers were of the opinion that this would not constitute very special circumstances.  As outlined in the Committee report, a previous application on the site was refused and later dismissed at appeal on the grounds that it was found to be a disproportionate addition which caused harm to the openness of the Green Belt.  Whilst the gross internal floor area of the current application had been reduced, Officers considered that this reduction would not address the harm upon the openness of the Green Belt as previously identified by the Inspector.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application.  The Planning Assistant advised that the Additional Representation Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, indicated that an email had been received from the applicant’s agent but this had not changed the Officer recommendation and he confirmed that no further representations had been received since the expiration of the site notice yesterday.

43.40         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent explained that, following a previously refused application for householder extensions to the property, the applicant had reviewed the scale and design of the proposals in line with comments made, and in order to better reflect the character of the area and the overall impact on the Green Belt.  Through the removal of a large two-storey rear gable extension with single storey elements, this had substantially reduced the proposed floorspace by 41% from the previous scheme.  As Members would have acknowledged on the Planning Committee Site Visit, and from the photographs displayed today, the revised proposals had reduced the scale of the extensions at the property to essentially match those at the attached neighbouring property, Laburnum Cottage, which would serve to balance the pair of semi-detached properties.  Although the extensions at Laburnum Cottage were permitted some 30 years earlier, the planning policies  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43f

43g

22/00807/FUL - 54 Meadowsweet Road, Shurdington pdf icon PDF 150 KB

PROPOSAL: Change of use from open space to residential garden land and erection of 1.8m high close boarded timber fence (retrospective).

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

Additional documents:

Minutes:

43.43        This application was for change of use from open space to residential garden land and erection of a 1.8 metre high close-boarded timber fence (retrospective).  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 13 January 2023.

43.44        The Planning Assistant advised that the application site was located in a prominent position within the estate as it adjoined part of the ‘green link’ which consisted of pedestrian footpath featuring open green space running west to east.  The ‘green link’ was designed as part of the original planning application for the estate which was granted in 2016 to help deliver open space which added to the overall quality of the area over the lifetime of the development, creating a better place in which to live.  The path was open with soft landscaping separating hard boundary treatments from the footpath, resulting in an open characteristic.  The National Planning Policy Framework stated that planning policies and decisions should ensure that developments would function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short-term but over the lifetime of the development and were visually attractive because of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping.  The implementation of the fencing had resulted in a hard barrier abutting the footpath which was visually intrusive and eroded the open characteristic of this section of the estate, the ‘green link’.  It was considered that the fencing resulted in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the streetscene and resulted in a loss of visually attractive open space which contributed to the level of amenity enjoyed by the public.  It was therefore recommended that the application be refused.

43.45         The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that they had purchased the house and garden, which included the area of land where the fence was located, from the developer in June 2019.  That area of land was within the title deeds of the property and not within public ownership.  When they had initially moved into the property, the north-eastern boundary was left open but the developer was still completing the outer edge of the front garden.  Within two weeks, the original fence alongside the front lawn had been erected by the developer and the hedge was planted beyond it.  As the year went by, their main concern was the number of dog waste bags dumped in the soil along with rubbish.  There was also a foul smell of urine which had been noticed both by them and their neighbours.  The applicant indicated that they felt the hedge was being used as a pet toilet for the estate and was causing a wider public health issue – their neighbour to the rear also had small children and would kindly help to clear the area each time.  When their back garden was being landscaped in June 2021, they had asked the landscapers if they could extend the existing fence as they thought it would benefit them and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43g

43h

22/00283/FUL - The Glass Houses, Whitelands Lane, Little Shurdington pdf icon PDF 192 KB

PROPOSAL: Construction of an agricultural building.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

Additional documents:

Minutes:

43.48        This application was for construction of an agricultural building.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 13 January 2023.

43.49        The Planning Assistant advised that the application site fell within the Green Belt and the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the application required a Committee determination following a substantive planning issue raised by Badgeworth Parish Council concerning the impact of the proposal on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The building was located in the north-western corner of the site and would be partially screened by the existing dense hedgerow which ran parallel with the northern boundary across Whitelands Lane.  The proposed building would be used for the existing horticultural business which existed on site and the applicant suggested that the building would enable the business to better plan its operations and enable more climate sensitive plants to be grown, thus widening the range of plants available for sale to customers and allowing for the diversification of operations.  It was considered that the proposal would comply with Policy AGR1 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, as set out within the Committee report, as it was reasonably necessary and designed for the purpose of agriculture.  The proposed height of the building had been reduced following Officer concerns and so, subject to compliance with conditions in respect of materials and external lighting, the building would not appear as an intrusive feature on the landscape and would integrate well with the existing built development.  Several representations had been received concerning potential harm to residential amenity and Environmental Health had recommended conditions to prevent undue harm to the residential amenity of nearby occupants, as set out in the Committee report.  County Highways had raised no objection to the proposal and, following a revised ecological assessment, the County Ecologist had raised no objections subject to a number of conditions to minimise the impact on local ecology.  It was therefore recommended that the application be permitted.

43.50         The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant advised that the application before Members would help a local employer and established business to consolidate its existing operations and provide a platform for future sustainable long-term growth and recruitment which would include apprentices.  The site had been purchased for the purpose of growing specialist plants for the wholesale market, targeting landscape companies as there was felt to be a specific need in the local area, along with opportunities for British grown plants provided by the more difficult importing conditions following Brexit.  The business had been successful to date and had utilised the existing greenhouse - which had been inherited in a dilapidated state - outdoor growing areas and yard space to good effect.  As the greenhouse was unsafe and unusable, and the wider site unkempt, it had required significant expenditure to bring it up to a workable standard.  The proposed new building would supplement the existing operations and was needed to provide the infrastructure to enable them to handle plants, equipment and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 43h

44.

Current Appeals and Appeal Decisions Update pdf icon PDF 84 KB

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

Minutes:

44.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 167-169.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issued.

44.2          Accordingly, it was

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