Link to homepage

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Tewkesbury Borough Council Offices, Severn Room

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

Link: ATTENDING THE MEETING - if you would like to register to speak you MUST do so by telephoning Democratic Services on 01684 272021 NOT by clicking this link. However if you would like to attend and observe the meeting - please book a space using this link to observe an Agenda Item of interest

Items
No. Item

15.

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:

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

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

16.

Apologies for Absence and Substitutions

To receive apologies for absence and advise of any substitutions. 

Minutes:

16.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R A Bird, G F Blackwell, L A Gerrard, P D Surman, R J E Vines and P N Workman.  Councillors K Berliner and C L J Carter would be acting as substitutes for the meeting. 

17.

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:

17.1           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.

17.2           The following declarations were made:

Councillor

Application No./Agenda Item

Nature of Interest (where disclosed)

Declared Action in respect of Disclosure

C L J Carter

Agenda Item 5c – 21/00007/FUL – Henley Bank Kennels, Mill Lane, Brockworth.

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

Would speak and vote.

D J Harwood

Agenda Item 5c – 21/00007/FUL – Henley Bank Kennels, Mill Lane, Brockworth.

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

Would speak and vote.

M L Jordan

Agenda Item  5b – 20/00956/FUL –        25 Paynes Pitch, Churchdown.

Agenda Item 5k – 21/00515/FUL - Land at Ashville Business Park, Commerce Road, Churchdown.

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

Would speak and vote.

J R Mason

Agenda Item 5m – 21/00342/FUL – Back of Eldersfield Close, Winchcombe.

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

Would speak and vote.

J R Mason

Agenda Item 6a – 21/00807/CM – Wingmoor Farm, Stoke Orchard Road, Bishop’s Cleeve.

Is the Council’s Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment.

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

R J G Smith

Agenda Item  5b – 20/00956/FUL –      25 Paynes Pitch, Churchdown.

Agenda Item 5k – 21/00515/FUL - Land at Ashville Business Park, Commerce Road, Churchdown.

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

Would speak and vote.

M J Williams

Agenda Item 6a – 21/00807/CM – Wingmoor Farm, Stoke Orchard Road, Bishop’s Cleeve.

Is the Council’s Deputy Lead Member for Clean and Green Environment.

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

17.3           There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

18.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 262 KB

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2021.

Minutes:

18.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 20 July 2021, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

19.

Development Control - Applications to the Borough Council pdf icon PDF 10 MB

Decision:

Item number

Planning number

Site address

Officer recommendation

Committee outcome

5a

21/00019/FUL

Part Parcel 0250

Manor Lane

Gotherington

Refuse

Refuse

5b

20/00956/FUL

25 Paynes Pitch

Churchdown

Permit

Deferred

5c

21/00007/FUL

Henley Bank Kennels

Mill Lane

Brockworth

Delegated Permit

Delegated Permit

5d

20/00567/FUL

Bank Farm Barns

Main Street

Dumbleton

Permit

Permit

5e

21/00398/FUL

Land South Of Wheatpieces

Walton Cardiff

Tewkesbury

Permit

Deferred

5f

21/00282/FUL

Elm Gardens

Badgeworth Road

Badgeworth

Permit

Permit

5g

21/00534/FUL

Land To The Rear Of 34 Priory Lane

Bishops Cleeve

Permit

Permit

5h

21/00631/FUL

Greensleeves Shooting Club

The Range

The Park

Stoke Orchard

Permit

Permit

5i

21/00767/FUL

The Kneelings

Dog Lane

Witcombe

Refuse

Permit

5j

21/00736/FUL

10 Carrant Road

Mitton

Tewkesbury

Permit

Permit

5k

21/00515/FUL

Land At Ashville Business Park

Commerce Road

Churchdown

Permit

Permit

5l

21/00494/FUL

Brock Farm

Church Lane

Staverton

Refuse

Deferred

5m

21/00342/FUL

Back Of Eldersfield Close

Winchcombe

Permit

Permit

5n

20/01111/FUL

Hillend Farm

Hillend

Twyning

Tewkesbury

Permit

Permit

 

Minutes:

19.1           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.

19a

21/00019/FUL - Part Parcel 0250, Manor Lane, Gotherington pdf icon PDF 220 KB

PROPOSAL: Residential development comprising 45 dwellings, creation of new access, public open space and other associated ancillary works.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

19.2          This application was for residential development comprising 45 dwellings, creation of new access, public open space and other associated ancillary works.

19.3          The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised two agricultural fields at the eastern end of Gotherington. The site was located within the Special Landscape Area, as designated within the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, and the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was located to the east on the other side of the railway embankment.  The site was outside of, but immediately adjacent to, the residential development boundary of Gotherington.  The proposed dwellings would be in the western part of the site with informal open space and a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS) pond in the eastern portion which would also contain new native hedgerows and trees and informal mown paths. Two vehicular accesses and two pedestrian accesses would serve the site off Gretton Road to the north.  As the Council could not at this time demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land, in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, i.e. the tilted balance, applied.  Therefore, the presumption was that planning permission should be granted unless policies for protecting assets of particular importance provided a clear reason for refusing the development, or any adverse impacts of permitting the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  The Cotswolds National Landscape Conservation Board had provided a consultation response which stated that the adverse impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was a clear reason to refuse the application; however, Officers did not agree with the view that was a clear reason in itself, although there was harm to the setting and views of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty from Nottingham Hill.  The delivery of 45 market and affordable houses would provide a significant social benefit, especially in the context of a housing supply shortfall.  Economic and social benefits would also arise from the construction process and increased spend in the local economy during the occupation phase.  Notwithstanding this, as set out in the Committee report, Officers considered that the proposal conflicted with the spatial strategy and the development plan when taken as a whole and harm would arise from cumulative growth in Gotherington in such a relatively short period of time, taking account of the Ashmead Drive application as well.  In addition, the proposal would give rise to a harmful impact on the landscape including detrimental impact on views from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and its setting as well as harm to the Special Landscape Area and significant views identified by the community as important in the Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan, particularly those from Nottingham Hill.  At this stage the applicant had not entered into appropriate planning obligations to secure affordable housing, nor was there a signed Section 106 Agreement for financial contributions towards education, libraries, recreational or recycling facilities; however, those matters were capable of being resolved.  Whilst the tilted balance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19a

19b

20/00956/FUL - 25 Paynes Pitch, Churchdown pdf icon PDF 199 KB

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of five dwellings and associated access.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

19.9          This application was for demolition of existing dwelling and erection of five dwellings and associated access.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 13 August 2021.

19.10        The Planning Officer advised that the application site related to a large dwelling at 25 Paynes Pitch in Churchdown along with its garden and parking area.  The site was located within the settlement boundary of Churchdown where the principle of residential development was acceptable, subject to all other material considerations and policies in the development plan.  The existing dwelling was currently in a poor state of repair and, whilst it was considered historic, the Council’s Conservation Officer did not consider it to be a non-designated heritage asset and did not object to its demolition.  The residential garden area was bound by timber board fencing and vegetation and access was currently via a track to the west.  The application site also contained a strip of land to the south of the garden boundary which was not within the applicant’s ownership although they did have right of access over the land – the applicant had undertaken Land Registry and legal checks and had been in direct contact with the former developer but had been unable to establish the ownership.  Members were advised that, ultimately, the lawfulness of the implementation with regard to site ownership was not a matter for the Planning Committee.  The strip of land contained trees of a mixed species consisting of native and non-native trees.  The trees were clearly visible to the public and had high amenity value contributing to the streetscene.  As removal of the trees would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding area and would mean the loss of an important habitat, a group Tree Preservation Order (TPO) had been made on 17 June 2020.  Turning to the proposal itself, it was noted that the scheme had been reduced from six to five dwellings as a result of discussions between Planning Officers and the applicant during the course of the application with amendments to the design approach.  The revised application proposed the demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of five four-bedroom dwellings with vehicular access via Dunstan Glen through a single entry point across the area subject to the group TPO.  The existing access road to the west from Paynes Pitch would be closed and become an area of landscaping.  The dwellings themselves would be two storey and contemporary in style with a ‘split pitch’ roof and three of the dwellings would have side garages.  The material would comprise Cedral Click Boarding and black and buff grey bricks.  A number of objections had been made in terms of the design approach but, after careful consideration, Officers found the proposals to be acceptable in that regard. With respect to layout, it was felt that the building line would correspond with the dwellings to the east and would respect the existing street pattern in the locality.  The roof lines, separation distance and the recessed garages  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19b

19c

21/00007/FUL - Henley Bank Kennels, Mill Lane, Brockworth pdf icon PDF 200 KB

PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 16 affordable homes and associated infrastructure.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

19.18        This application was for demolition of existing buildings and erection of 16 affordable homes and associated infrastructure.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 13 August 2021.

19.19        The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised a broadly rectangular parcel of land located to the north of Mill Lane with a residential dwelling in the southern part and kennels in the northern part.  The rear of the site currently operated as a kennels and cattery.  The Council’s Conservation Officer considered the existing dwelling was a non-designated heritage asset and did not object to its loss.  The site was within the boundary of the Strategic Allocation A3 North Brockworth as allocated within the Joint Core Strategy and defined by the Joint Core Strategy Proposals Map and was part of a much wider site allocated for approximately 1,500 dwellings, employment land, community facilities and green infrastructure; the site itself was allocated for housing and related infrastructure on the Joint Core Strategy Proposals Map.  The principle of the application was therefore considered acceptable subject to all other material considerations.  Land to the east of the site – Phase 1 Perrybrook – was granted reserved matters permission in January 2020 for the erection of 135 dwellings and the approved scheme, which was currently being implemented, would provide a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS) basin.  To the west of the site was the access road serving community sports facilities including a Multi-Use Games Area and sports pitches which were granted approval in September 2018 – these community facilities were partially implemented.  To the south of the site beyond Mill Lane was Henley Bank High School.  The application proposed 16 affordable homes with a single point of access off Mill Lane.  It was noted that the application had been amended following concerns raised by Officers about the design approach.  The applicant had advised that the scheme would be managed by a registered housing provider and the proposed layout showed that 10 semi-detached properties would be located in the southern and northern part of the site with a three storey apartment block in the north-west corner which would provide six flats.  The development would clearly contribute towards the supply of affordable housing and help meet the objectively assessed need for housing in the borough in an area where the principle of housing was acceptable.  This was particularly relevant given that the Council could not currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply.  Following the revisions to the scheme, Officers considered the proposal was acceptable, subject to appropriate planning conditions and planning obligations, and would not give rise to unacceptable impacts in relation to archaeology, ecology, flood risk and drainage, highway safety or residential amenity.  Whilst the proposal would result in the loss of a non-designated heritage asset, that was considered a minor harm so the Conservation Officer had raised no objection.  Taking into account all of the material considerations and the weight to be attributed to each one, it was considered that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19c

19d

20/00567/FUL - Bank Farm Barns, Main Street, Dumbleton pdf icon PDF 95 KB

PROPOSAL: Conversion of existing building into two self-catering holiday let units with new log store and covered seating area.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

19.24        This application was for conversion of existing building into two self-catering holiday let units with new log store and covered seating area.

19.25        The Planning Officer advised that the application related to a Dutch barn at Bank Farm which was located to the north of Dumbleton village within the Conservation Area and Special Landscape Area.  The barn currently provided two storeys of storage and was clad on three sides with a mix of timber and corrugated sheeting.  The application sought permission to convert the barn into two holiday lets and would entail the cladding of the principal open side with corrugated sheeting and formation of window and door openings to allow the building to operate as tourist accommodation.  The application also proposed a new single storey timber-framed building to provide a log store and seating area.  Policy TOR2 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan related to the provision of serviced and self-catering accommodation and restricted such accommodation outside of residential development boundaries to the conversion and renovation of existing buildings.  The reasoned justification advised that, whilst new development would not normally be accepted in open countryside, some types of tourist accommodation were well-suited to conversions which could breathe life into old buildings.  Furthermore, Policy AGR6 supported the conversion of rural buildings to short stay holiday accommodation where buildings were permanent, capable of conversion and would not adversely affect the rural environment or residential amenity.  The building comprised a substantial Dutch barn with adjoining timber-framed lean-to and the proposed alterations were considered acceptable and would result in a well-designed structure which would balance the alterations necessary to allow it to be used for holiday let purposes, whilst retaining the utilitarian character of the agricultural building.  The site was well-screened by mature trees and shrubs and it was considered that the proposal would not result in adverse impact on the wider landscape, Conservation Area or the living conditions of adjoining occupiers.  It was therefore recommended that the application be permitted, subject to conditions set out in the Committee report.

19.26         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.  A Member drew attention to recommended condition 4 which required the holiday let units to only be occupied as holiday units and not occupied by any individual or family group for more than two months in any 12 month period.  He raised concern that the holiday lets could be turned into residential dwellings once the conversion had been carried out and, whilst he understood that would require planning permission for change of use, he asked whether anything further could be done at this stage to prevent that.  In response, the Development Manager clarified that the condition proposed was adequate in terms of that and there was nothing further that could be added.

19.27         Upon being put to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19d

19e

21/00398/FUL - Land South of Wheatpieces, Walton Cardiff, Tewkesbury pdf icon PDF 114 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey office development (Class E use).

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

19.28        This application was for erection of a two storey office development (Class E use).

19.29        The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised an undeveloped parcel of land adjacent to Rudgeway Lane and to the east of the Bloor Homes development at Tewkesbury Meadows.  To the north of the site was a recreation ground and housing at Nightingale Way with open fields to the south and east.  The application sought permission for a two storey office building to provide a new regional office for Bloor Homes.  The building would be set to the western part of the site and would flank Bluebell Road.  The proposal would include 66 car parking spaces to the southern and eastern part of the site along with additional landscaping within the site and to the boundaries.  Policy SD1 of the Joint Core Strategy set out that employment-related development would be supported within the principal urban areas of Tewkesbury Town and in the wider countryside where it was located within, or adjacent to, a settlement of an appropriate scale and character, as in this instance.  As such, this proposal accorded with the policy and was considered acceptable in principle.  The proposed two storey building would have a simple linear form which had been designed to be reflective of an agricultural barn.  The proposed materials palette of red brick, metal cladding and roof slates would secure a satisfactory appearance which would reflect materials used in the adjoining housing development.  Whilst the building would be of a substantial size, it would be set away from nearby dwellings and would not adversely impact the living conditions of those occupiers or the character and appearance of the wider area.  Although the proposal for a permanent development at the site would result in some landscape harm, that would be limited considering the relationship between the site and adjoining built development.  A considerable number of objections had been received raising concerns regarding highway safety in particular.  The proposal would result in an increase in vehicles using Bluebell Road and the scheme had been accompanied by a transport assessment.  The details had been reviewed by the County Highways Officer who had advised that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe impact on congestion on the wider road network.  Confirmation was provided that the Council’s Ecological Adviser was satisfied there would be no adverse impacts, particularly in relation to Great Crested Newts, subject to conditions.  On balance, the proposal was considered to be acceptable and it was recommended that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement to secure a travel plan bond and monitoring fee.  It was noted that the recommendation had been incorrectly stated as ‘Permit’ in the Committee report and should have read ‘Delegated Permit’.

19.30         The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  The applicant’s representative indicated that this was a detailed proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19e

19f

21/00282/FUL - Elm Gardens, Badgeworth Road, Badgeworth pdf icon PDF 124 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of a two storey side extension, first floor extension, front porch extension and remodelling of bungalow (amended).

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

19.33        This application was for erection of a two storey side extension, first floor extension, front porch extension and remodelling of bungalow (amended).

19.34        The Planning Officer advised that the site was located to the west of Badgeworth Road and to the north of the A40 within the Green Belt and a public footpath crossed the site from Badgeworth Road to the north-west.  The application proposed substantial extensions to the existing bungalow, resulting in a much larger two-storey dwelling.  The main issues for consideration were whether the resultant dwelling would comply with Green Belt policy; if the extensions would be of an acceptable design and appearance; and consideration of the permitted development fallback position.  The National Planning Policy Framework made clear that development in the Green Belt was inappropriate other than for a limited number of defined purposes; this included extensions and alterations to a dwelling which were not considered inappropriate development provided that it did not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.  Notwithstanding this, the application as proposed was considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy was to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and, by virtue of its increased size and height, the proposed two storey dwelling would have a materially greater impact on openness than the existing bungalow.  As the proposal would be inappropriate development and, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt, the proposal should not be permitted except in very special circumstances.  The applicant had sought to make a very special circumstances case relying on the permitted development fallback position.  Case law had established that permitted development rights could be taken into account as a fallback position where some alternative form of development is then proposed and there was a realistic prospect of those permitted rights being implemented if permission was refused for the alternative proposal.  In this case, prior approval had been granted for an additional upper extension and rear extension and a plan had been submitted to demonstrate how the property could be extended under permitted development rights.  It was considered that the permitted development scheme would result in a functional dwelling and there was a realistic prospect of that being implemented if this application was refused.  The fallback proposal would be 28% larger in floor area and 32% larger in volume than the proposal before Members and would result in a more sprawling form of development with the single storey extensions being more visually prominent.  The applicant’s fallback position had been accepted and given considerable weight in terms of the very special circumstances case.  The dwelling was situated in a large and isolated plot and, in that context, the proposed dwelling was considered to be a suitable scale relative to the plot.  The fallback position would result in a sprawling building of poor design whereas this proposal would have a relatively compact footprint and amended plans had reduced the mass of the roof and the size  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19f

19g

21/00534/FUL - Land to the Rear of 34 Priory Lane, Bishop's Cleeve pdf icon PDF 105 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of a detached dwelling, garage and new access.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

19.36         This application was for erection of a detached dwelling, garage and new access. 

19.37        The Planning Officer advised that the application sought permission for a detached one and a half storey, three-bedroom detached dwelling with an attached garage.  The site formed part of the rear amenity space of 34 Priory Lane in Bishop’s Cleeve and was located to the east of the lane towards the junction with Longlands Road.  There were existing dwellings to the east, west and south.  The proposal complied with Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy, therefore, the principle of housing in this location was acceptable and, given the Council’s inability to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework applied.  The proposal would form part of the rear garden of 34 Priory Lane and would be surrounded by development on all sides and not visible from the public highway.  The proposed design was contemporary in style and was considered appropriate to the character of the area - approval had recently been granted for alterations to 34 Priory Lane with a similar design approach and palette of materials.  To ensure high quality design, samples and details of the materials would be subject to condition.  The design had been amended in order to address the concerns of neighbouring residents siting it further from the western boundary and adding obscure glazing to the bathrooms for privacy.  The layout would be in accordance with national space standards.  The impact on neighbouring amenity had been carefully assessed and, although objections had been received from properties to the west, it was noted that the roof light to the west elevation would be directed to the less private part of the rear amenity space of 30a Priory Road and screened in part by a tall tree, the amended plans had increased the height for the rooflights to habitable rooms on the side elevations and the roof lights to the west roof elevation would be obscurely glazed with a condition applied to set the cil of the roof lights no lower than 1.7 metres above floor level.  It was considered that the development would be afforded acceptable levels of amenity in terms of outdoor space, outlook and privacy.  The submitted plans indicated that the proposed dwelling had a new drive to the west side of 34 Priory Lane and would benefit from two parking spaces.  It was noted that the access had been approved under a previous application.  County Highways had no objection to the proposal in highway safety terms and had recommended a condition for electric vehicle charging points.  Foul drainage was to be connected to the main sewer and surface water would discharge to soakaways; however, the proposal had been assessed by the Flood Risk Management Engineer who had commented that insufficient information had been provided with regard to the suitability of the ground to accommodate soakaways.  As such, it was recommended that a condition be included requiring drainage works to be approved  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19g

19h

21/00631/FUL - Greensleeves Shooting Club, The Range, The Park, Stoke Orchard pdf icon PDF 74 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of a cover over the existing firing point.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

19.39        This application was for erection of a cover over the existing firing point.

19.40        The Planning Officer advised that the application site was located to the west of Bishop’s Cleeve, south of Stoke Road and adjacent to the Wingmoor Farm Household Recycling Centre.  The site was currently used by Greensleeves Shooting Club.  This application sought full permission for the removal of three ‘sentry boxes’ from the existing firing points and the erection of a steel-framed single storey cover.  The shelter would measure 16.5 metres by 5.7 metres and would have a maximum height of 4 metres.  The frame would be constructed out of galvanised steel and the roof would consist of composite panels in Juniper Green colour.  The application required a Committee determination as Tewkesbury Borough Council was the landowner.  As assessment of the material considerations, including the impact of the development upon the Green Belt, was set out at Pages No. 191-193 of the Committee report.  Officers considered that the proposed development complied with the relevant planning policies, therefore, it was recommended that it be permitted.

19.41        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 taken to the vote, it was

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

19i

21/00767/FUL - The Kneelings, Dog Lane, Witcombe pdf icon PDF 97 KB

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

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

19.43        The Planning Officer advised that the application related to a detached two storey property known as The Kneelings, which was located on Dog Lane in Witcombe.  The application site was located in the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and within the designated Green Belt.  A Member had requested that the application be determined by the Committee given its location in the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  An assessment of the material considerations, including the impact of the development on the Green Belt, was set out at Pages No. 199-202 of the Committee report.  Officers considered that the proposed extension, when taken together with the extensions that had already been built at the property, would result in a disproportionate increase in size compared to the original building and would diminish the openness of the Green Belt.  As such, the proposed extension would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and harm would be caused to its openness.  In this case, Officers considered there were no other factors which outweighed the harm identified to the Green Belt, consequently no very special circumstances existed to justify the development and the application was recommended for refusal.  As set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, the application was supported by a planning statement which included, inter alia, the applicant’s case in terms of the impact of the proposed development on the Green Belt.  The applicant considered that the proposed extension would result in a proportionate addition over and above the size of the original building.  Officers noted the position advanced by the applicant; however, when taking account of the information derived from the historic maps dated from 1922 to 1974 and the earliest planning history of the site held by the Council, a different approach was taken to establish whether the proposed extension would result in a disproportionate extension over and above the size of the original building.

19.44        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that the Planning Officer had stated in the Committee report that, owing to the proposal’s simple, subservient shape and form, the development would cause no harm to residential amenity; respected the character of the existing dwelling; conserved the scenic beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; and was not a substantial extension in terms of the current dwelling.  Furthermore, no objections had been received to the proposal. The application was therefore entirely compliant with all relevant local and national planning policy.  Notwithstanding this, the property was located within the Green Belt where domestic extensions were acceptable provided they did not result in disproportionate additions over the size of the original dwelling, i.e. the dwelling as it existed on 1 July 1949.  He pointed out that a disproportionate addition was considered to be 50% of the original floorspace.  The applicant had provided conclusive, unequivocal evidence from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19i

19j

21/00736/FUL - 10 Carrant Road, Mitton, Tewkesbury pdf icon PDF 87 KB

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

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

19.49        The Development Manager advised that the application related to a semi-detached property in Mitton.  The existing car port was proposed to be retained as part of the scheme and the ground floor element would have an open front; however, it was unlikely it would be used for storing cars due to the lack of space when opening the door from the property and it was noted there was a hardstanding at the front of the property as well as on-street parking.  The existing garage to the rear could be seen on the ground floor plan and would be accessed via the walkway created by the ground floor extension. 

19.50        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.  A Member noted that part of the site was within Flood Zone 2 and 3, which he imagined would be right at the bottom of the very long garden, and he queried if that was relevant to the application.  In response, the Development Manager confirmed it was a site constraint as the application site related to the whole plot; however, it was not referenced in the main body of the report as it was some way from the house.  In response to a query from another Member as to why the Lead Local Flood Authority had not commented on the application, the Development Manager clarified it was because the proposed development did not affect the parts of the site located within Flood Zones 2 and 3.

19.51         It was

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

19k

21/00515/FUL - Land at Ashville Business Park, Commerce Road, Churchdown pdf icon PDF 115 KB

PROPOSAL: Erection of temporary automobile showroom and wash building with associated access, parking and landscaping for a two year period. 

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

19.52        This was an application for erection of temporary automobile showroom and wash building with associated access, parking and landscaping for a two year period.

19.53        The Planning Officer explained that the application site was located to the east of Ashville Business Park within the Green Belt and benefited from planning permission for the construction of a new Jaguar Land Rover car showroom and associated facilities.  The approved Spectrum Medical building was located immediately east of the application site.  This application sought planning permission for the erection of a temporary showroom and wash building, along with associated access, parking and landscaping for a two year period.  This was required purely to allow the car dealership to remain in use and continue its motor sales whilst the new permanent showroom was under construction.  The application required a Planning Committee determination as Churchdown Parish Council had raised an objection on the grounds that the proposal infringed on the Green Belt.  An assessment of the material considerations was set out at Pages No. 228-231 of the Committee report and Members were advised that the principle of development was established by virtue of the extant planning permission relating to the site.  Notwithstanding this, it was accepted that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt; however, a case had been made for very special circumstances which was founded upon the site’s planning history and the temporary nature of the proposed development.  It was considered that, on balance, the harms arising from the proposal by virtue of it constituting inappropriate development in the Green Belt were outweighed by other considerations; there was a clear economic benefit which weighed in favour of the proposal and the case for very special circumstances had been accepted.  On that basis, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

19.54        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.  A Member questioned whether the development would cause any issues in terms of flights from Gloucestershire Airport as the site was directly opposite the main runway.  In response, the Planning Officer confirmed that the proposed building was temporary and would be at a lower height than the existing building so there would be no problems regarding the flight path.  Another Member expressed the view that the whole area around the site was becoming a real blot on the landscape; whilst she accepted there were certain areas designated for employment she was concerned about the loss of Green Belt.  She noted that the proposal was for a temporary building and would like a condition to be included to ensure the site was returned to its natural state at the end of the two year period.  The Planning Officer explained that the site already had planning permission for the redevelopment of the site, construction of a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19k

19l

21/00494/FUL - Brock Farm, Church Lane, Staverton pdf icon PDF 124 KB

PROPOSAL: Change of use of land for the temporary siting of mobile home (farm worker accommodation).

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

19.56        This application was for change of use of land for the temporary siting of a mobile home (farm worker accommodation).

19.57        The Planning Officer advised that the application related to land associated with Brock Farm and was located immediately opposite the existing farm complex off Church Lane in Staverton within the Green Belt.  The proposal was for change of use of land to allow for the temporary siting of a mobile home as farm worker accommodation.  The local Ward Member had requested that the application be brought to the Planning Committee in order to assess the suitability of the proposal given its Green Belt location.  Members were advised that, since the Committee report had been published, additional information had come to light which had resulted in a change to the Officer recommendation.  This was set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, and related to the assessment as to whether there was an essential need for the proposed accommodation.  Contrary to the agricultural need assessment detailed at Pages No. 243-246 of the Committee report, the applicant had asserted that the alternative accommodation within their control was not readily available as both properties were on protected tenancies.  The Council’s Agricultural Consultant had requested additional information be provided to assess the security of tenure and the applicant was in the process of gathering that but had not been able to provide the relevant documentation in advance of the current meeting.  It was also materially relevant that the essential need for the temporary farm worker accommodation was heavily reliant on the proposed calf building (application reference: 21/00211/FUL) being permitted.  For those reasons, the Officer recommendation had been amended to defer the application to allow further information to be provided and for the application concerning the proposed calf building to have been determined. 

19.58         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to defer the application to allow further information to be provided and for the application concerning the proposed calf building to have been determined and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED to allow further information to be provided and for the application concerning the proposed calf building to have been determined. 

19m

21/00342/FUL - Back of Eldersfield Close, Winchcombe pdf icon PDF 102 KB

PROPOSAL: Removal of condition 4 (electric vehicle charging point) of planning application 20/01044/FUL.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

19.59        This application was for removal of condition 4 (electric vehicle charging point) of planning application 20/01044/FUL. 

19.60        The Planning Officer advised that the proposal was to remove a condition from an existing permission granted at the end of 2020 requiring the installation of an electric vehicle charging point to a new garage.  A Committee determination was required as Winchcombe Town Council had objected to the proposal on the basis of its strong support for Policy TRAC9 of the emerging Borough Plan, relating to plug-in or ultra-low emission vehicles.  No letters of representation had been received in relation to the proposal.  The Parish Council’s concerns had been considered; however, it was the view of Officers that the proposal would be reasonable in the context, considering the scale and location of the development and following a consultation response from County Highways which had raised no objection to the removal of the condition.  For the reasons outlined in the Committee report, Officers felt that the condition attached to the permission did not meet all of the required tests for a planning condition and its removal would have a negligible impact on carbon emissions in this instance.  As such, it was recommended that the application be permitted.

19.61        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 refused on the basis that the removal of the condition would fail to encourage sustainable travel and healthy communities.  The proposer of the motion expressed the view that the condition had clearly been considered necessary when the application had been determined and he questioned why it should be removed at this stage.  During the debate which ensued, a Member questioned whether there was any electricity in the garage currently and the Planning Officer advised there was no existing power to the block of garages.   A Member was of the opinion that one of the main considerations when determining the application and including the condition should have been whether there was an existing electricity supply.  He felt that the government was not doing enough to support local planning authorities in terms of the provision of electric vehicle charging points – this was one way people could try to circumvent the system and the Planning Officers had to assess the application based on the relevant planning policies and guidance which was the reason for the recommendation to permit the removal of the condition.  In response to a query, the Planning Officer explained that her understanding was that, at the time of the application, the applicant had lived behind the block of garages on the main road but had since moved to another property in Winchcombe.

19.62         A Member drew attention to Page No. 255, Paragraph 7.4 of the Committee report which stated that the proposed garage would not necessarily be used for the storage of a vehicle and was likely  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19m

19n

20/01111/FUL - Hillend Farm, Hillend, Twyning pdf icon PDF 201 KB

PROPOSAL: Demolition of three poultry sheds and erection of two dwellings and detached garage.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

19.64        This application was for demolition of three poultry sheds and erection of two dwellings and detached garage.

19.65        The Planning Officer advised that the existing site comprised the Grade II listed main farmhouse together with a grouping of brick ancillary rural buildings which benefitted from extant permission for reconstruction to create two holiday cottages, plus an annex to serve the main house.  The site also included three redundant former poultry sheds.  The current proposal sought to demolish the poultry sheds and replace them with a courtyard development of two new dwellings.  The proposal also included provision of a new detached brick garage and store to serve the main farmhouse.  With regard to the principle of development, the proposal did not comply with criterion 3 of Joint Core Strategy Policy SD10 as the buildings were last utilised for poultry farming and agriculture and forestry uses were excluded from the National Planning Policy Framework’s definition of previously developed land.  Nevertheless, the site was not isolated – being well-related to the existing properties of Hillend which was, itself, part of the wider settlement of Twyning and with existing built development to the east, west and south - therefore the proposal was considered to represent infilling in accordance with criterion 4 (ii) of Joint Core Strategy Policy SD10 and the principle was considered to be consistent with the spatial strategy of the development plan.  As had been mentioned, the main house was Grade II listed, as such, there was a requirement for the scheme to preserve the setting of Hillend Farmhouse in accordance with Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1990, the National Planning Policy Framework and Joint Core Strategy policy on heritage assets.  The Conservation Officer considered that the originally submitted scheme, which comprised a more contemporary palette of materials, would result in a neutral impact on the setting of the listed farmhouse.  A revised proposal had subsequently been put forward with a more traditional palette of red brick, larch timber cladding and plain clay roofing tiles and the Conservation Officer considered that to be more appropriate as the resulting scheme would meet the high bar of enhancement to the setting of the heritage asset in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework.  On the basis of the revised scheme, the application was recommended for permission.

19.66        The Chair invited the representative from Twyning Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative explained that the Parish Council objected to the application for six reasons: the proposal would create two new isolated houses in the open countryside outside of the residential development boundary; the development was contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework, Joint Core Strategy and emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan and did not meet the exceptions in Policy EDP1 of the Twyning Neighbourhood Development Plan; the development would set a precedent for wider local development which would adversely affect the local community and residential amenity; the height, scale and massing of the building would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19n

20.

Development Control - Applications to the County Council

20a

21/00807/CM - Wingmoor Farm, Stoke Orchard Road, Bishop's Cleeve pdf icon PDF 163 KB

To consider the application for variation of condition 7 (buildings, plant and machinery) and condition 19 (hours of operation) relating to planning consent 17/0066/TWMAJW dated 19 October 2017 in order to provide a view to Gloucestershire County Council. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

20.1          Attention was drawn to the report of the Development Manager, circulated at Pages No. 290-305, in relation to an application at Wingmoor Farm East which had been submitted to Gloucestershire County Council.  Tewkesbury Borough Council had been consulted on the proposal and it was recommended that Members resolve to raise no objection to the application.

20.2          The Planning Officer confirmed this was a county matter on which Tewkesbury Borough Council had been consulted.  The application related to activities taking place at the existing Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) at Wingmoor Farm East located to the west of Bishop’s Cleeve.  The site was located within the Green Belt and land to the north of the site, on the opposite side of Stoke Road, benefitted from the grant of outline planning permission for up to 215 dwellings and 2.24 hectares of commercial uses.  The proposal sought to vary the wording of two conditions attached to an earlier planning consent in order to allow for the bulking and onward transfer of residual household waste - arising from households within the boroughs of Tewkesbury and Cheltenham – to the Energy from Waste facility at Javelin Park, Gloucester.  As explained within the Committee report, those operations had already commenced and the application was therefore made in retrospect.  No objections had been received from technical consultees; however, there were considerable objections from the Parish Councils and local residents in respect of the impact of operations on air quality, particularly odour, and noise disturbance; concerns had also been raised in respect of additional vehicular movements.  An assessment of the material considerations was set out at Pages No. 299-302 of the Committee report and additional information could be found in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which included supporting information from the applicants, submitted to Gloucestershire County Council, in response to the comments made by consultees and members of the public.  Letters of representation in support of the application had been received from Tewkesbury Borough Council’s Head of Community Services and Cheltenham Borough Council’s Environmental Partnerships Manager.  An identical letter of support had been received by Councillor Dobie at Cheltenham Borough Council.  A summary of the points raised had been included in the Additional Representations Sheet and full copies of the representations were appended for completeness; however, it should be made clear that the ‘other considerations’ detailed within the supporting letters were not material planning considerations and could not be afforded any weight when assessing this proposal.  For the reasons set out in the Committee report, and taking account of the fact that technical consultees had raised no objection to the proposal, it was recommended that Members resolve to raise no objection to the application, subject to the planning conditions - as amended by this application - being attached to the original planning permission.

20.3          The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident explained that the MRF at Wingmoor Farm was given planning consent based  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20a

21.

Current Appeals and Appeal Decisions Update pdf icon PDF 93 KB

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

Minutes:

21.1          Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Pages No. 306-309.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government appeal decisions issued.

21.2          Accordingly, it was

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