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.   

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

52.2          The Committee observed a one minute silence to mark the death of Honorary Alderman Philip Awford.

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

53.1          Apologies for absence were received from Councillors E J MacTiernan, A S Reece and P D Surman.  There were no substitutes for the meeting. 

Pursuant to the adoption by the Council on 24 January 2023 of the Tewkesbury Borough Council Code of Conduct, effective from 1 February 2023, as set out in Minute No. CL.72, Members are invited to declare any interest they may have in the business set out on the Agenda to which the approved Code applies.

54.1           The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Tewkesbury Borough Code of Conduct which was adopted by the Council on 24 January 2023 and took effect on 1 February 2023. 

54.2           The following declarations were made:

54.3           There were no further declarations made on this occasion.

To approve the Minutes of the meeting held on 21 February 2023.

55.1          The Minutes of the meeting held on 21 February 2023, copies of which had been circulated, were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. 

56.1          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: Approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscape, layout and scale) for Phases 4 and 6 comprising development of new homes, landscaping, open space and associated works pursuant to outline permission 12/01256/OUT.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Approve

56.2          This was an approval of reserved matters application (appearance, landscape, layout, scale) for Phases 4 and 6 comprising development of new homes, landscaping, open space and associated works pursuant to outline permission 12/01256/OUT.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 13 February 2023.  The application had been deferred by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 21 February 2023 for concerns to be addressed in respect of construction traffic, design issues relating to neighbouring residential amenity to the east, the landscape buffer to the eastern boundary, the local play area/attenuation pond, the bridge over/redirection of the Public Right of Way, the Oak tree being removed for a parking space, the lack of connectivity to services/surrounding areas and the arrangements for cycling.

56.3          The Development Management Team Leader (East) drew attention to Page No. 35 of the Committee report in relation to construction traffic and explained that the report was correct in stating that this matter had been considered during the determination of the original outline permission resulting in the imposition of Condition 27 which required no development to take place until a construction environmental management plan was approved; however, he should also have included reference to Condition 14 of the outline permission which required a construction management statement to be provided.  He advised that the conditions were relevant to the whole site, rather than a phased approach, and confirmed they had been satisfied and discharged.  Since the last meeting, the applicant had redesigned the site layout to address the concerns raised by Members which included the gable of a building on Maple Drive which the applicant had now moved further to the west to provide a wider landscape buffer away from the boundary.  With regard to the south-east of the site, concerns had been raised in relation to the impact of a gable end backing onto a dwelling and the Development Management Team Leader (East) explained that was based on the plan originally submitted with the application which had subsequently changed following negotiations with the developer to ensure a back to back relationship with neighbouring dwellings, as could be seen from the plan displayed today.  In terms of the footpath redirection, the Development Management Team Leader (East) explained that the spine road had been agreed at outline stage and it was inevitable that it would need to cross the footpath which would run directly under the new bridge.  The applicant had advised that significant work would be required to raise the bridge to achieve head height clearance, therefore, the proposal was to redirect the footpath.

56.4           The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the proposal to address the Committee.  The local resident explained he had not been aware of the proposed revisions prior to today so his speech had been written on the basis of the plans on the Council’s website and, as of yesterday, no new documents had been posted in relation to this scheme.  He wished to seek assurance that work  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56a

PROPOSAL: Residential development to erect 22 units with associated car parking (100% affordable).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit

56.13        This application was for residential development to erect 22 units with associated car parking (100% affordable).  The Planning Committee visited the application site on Monday 20 March 2023.

56.14        The Planning Officer advised that the application required a Committee determination as it was for more than 10 residential units and as the Parish Council had objected to the proposal.  It was noted that an additional objection had been received from the Parish Council the previous night raising concerns relating to amenity, parking issues, community development and overdevelopment.  This application sought full planning permission for the erection of 22 affordable houses which would be secured through a Section 106 Agreement.  The site was currently open land with an area of approximately 0.5 hectares.  It was located within the settlement development limit of Bishop’s Cleeve and had previously been granted planning permission as part of the Cleevelands mixed use development scheme.  As part of the outline permission, the application had been approved for a High Street comprising four retail units.  The outline consent contained a condition which required reserved matters to be submitted but no application of that nature had been advanced on this parcel of land.  Planning permission had been granted on the site in 2020 for the erection of a Marston’s family pub but that had not been implemented and no conditions had been discharged.  Upon grant of consent, Marston’s had concluded there was insufficient demand in the location to acquire and develop the public house following which it had instructed the site to be advertised on the open market.  Marketing was subsequently carried out for a period of six months resulting in no bids.  Policy RET7 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan required the change of use of public houses to be marketed for a period of 18 months; however, in this case, the public house planning permission was neither implemented, nor operational, as per the retail units.  Therefore the marketing exercises carried out by the applicant were considered to be acceptable.  Although planning permission had been granted for community facilities, neither the retail or the pub schemes had been implemented for this site, therefore, in planning terms, the land effectively reverted back to its original use.  The principle of residential development on the site was acceptable in line with Policy RES2 as it was within a defined settlement boundary.  Turning to the site layout, the site would be accessed mainly via a side street off Sapphire Road to the north.  The proposed development would comprise a variety of dwellings with 10 apartments and 12 semi-detached houses.  The development offered a range of accommodation providing for single occupancy and family accommodation.  All properties were two storey, as shown on the elevation plans, which was in keeping with the size and scale of properties in the wider area.  A question had been raised by Members on the site visit in relation to the provision of affordable housing in the wider area and the Planning Officer advised that Phases 1-5 had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56b

PROPOSAL: Erection of 10 dwellings, garages, construction of internal estate road, formation of parking areas and gardens/amenity space.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

56.26        This application was for the erection of 10 dwellings, garages, construction of internal estate road, formation of parking areas and gardens/amenity space. 

56.27        The Senior Planning Officer advised that, in terms of the site location, access was located approximately 100 metres south of the junction between the B road north to Aston Cross and the A46 from Tewkesbury to the west.  Access to the proposal through Queen’s Head Close ran through the existing development which was approved in 2017 and the Tirle Brook was located at the south end of the site which was within Flood Zone 2//3 and would be public open space.  The application was supported by all of the required assessments including trees, ecology, highways, transport, drainage and flooding.  As set out in the Committee report, all of the technical concerns in the original submission had been resolved, so there were now no consultee objections outstanding including the Parish Council which had a neutral position as set out in the Committee report.  That said, there had been a number of public objections, principally in relation to highways and access provisions.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that the application included provision for four affordable units and whilst these had not been secured via Section 106 Agreement, he had been asked to emphasise the applicant’s willingness to enter into one should Members resolve to permit the application.  He went on to advise that the application was outside of the Tewkesbury Town settlement boundary which included Ashchurch.  Members would be aware that the borough currently had a housing land supply comfortably exceeding five years which enabled new housing development to be directed toward sustainable locations, for example, market towns, and sites within settlement boundaries of rural service centres and service villages.  In the overall balance of harms and benefits, the proposed development was considered by Officers to be inappropriate in principle, being outside of the development boundary, furthermore, permitting the application would risk undermining the authority’s ability to use the five year housing land supply as a means to directing housing to sustainable locations as part of a plan-led system.  With that in mind, the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application as set out in the Committee report.

56.28         The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee. The applicant’s representative indicated that the planning application before Members had been submitted on 9 August 2021 and the Council’s planning portal still confirmed the determination deadline as being 16 December 2021; at that time, the Council had less than four years supply of housing land.  The fact that it had taken another 15 months for the application to reach Committee was entirely due to the Planning Officers failing to deal with it in a timely manner and he assured Members he had made every effort to move the application forward as swiftly as possible.  Therefore, for this application to come to Committee once the Council had decided it had a five year housing land supply – which the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56c

PROPOSAL: Erection of a single dwelling and associated access.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit

56.31         This application was for erection of a single dwelling and associated access.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Monday 20 March 2023.  It was noted that the Officer recommendation was permit, rather than delegated permit as set out in the Committee report.

56.32         The Planning Officer indicated that an objection had been received the previous evening from the property at Phoenix Meadow, formerly New Haven, raising concerns in relation to amenity; however, the amended plans reducing the front garage element, making it single storey, were welcomed.  The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised a parcel of land to the western side of School Lane which lay between two dwellings – Blenheim Way to the south and Phoenix Meadow to the north.  The eastern part of the site lay within the settlement boundary to Shurdington, with the remainder of the site being within the Green Belt.  Planning permission was sought for the erection of a two storey detached dwelling and single storey front garage. The proposed dwelling would have a contemporary appearance and the proposed materials would comprise a mix of buff facing brick, zinc cladding, zinc roofing and grey aluminium windows.  As mentioned, amended plans had been submitted reducing the 1.5 storey garage to a single storey detached garage.  A permission in principle application had been refused by the local planning authority as it was then considered that the proposed development for one dwelling would not constitute limited infilling in the village; however, the applicant had submitted an appeal and the Inspector had commented that the proposed dwelling would be flanked on either side by existing dwellings and would also face houses on the opposite side of the road, as a result, it would relate well to the existing pattern of development along the road, assimilating effectively with the wider streetscene and, given this surrounding context, it was considered that the proposed development would constitute infill development, as envisaged by the National Planning Policy Framework.  Furthermore, in terms of design, the Inspector had noted that the dwelling would be set back from the road and had a ridge height appropriate for its setting as shown on the streetscene elevation.  In terms of amenity, any side facing windows would be obscurely glazed and the first floor rear balcony had a privacy screen.  The existing windows at Phoenix Meadow served non-habitable rooms such as a toilet, utility room and stairwell.  There were no objections from County Highways, the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer, the Environmental Health Officer or Severn Trent Water and the Planning Inspector considered a single dwelling would be appropriate in this location.

56.33         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that, as set out in the Committee report, permission in principle had already been granted for this development.  At appeal, the Inspector had agreed that the proposal would constitute infill in the Green Belt and would not be inappropriate, thus finding the site location to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56d

PROPOSAL: Construction of replacement dwelling and associated works following demolition of existing dwelling.  Change of use of additional areas of land to residential garden.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Minded to Permit

56.36         This application was for construction of a replacement dwelling and associated works following demolition of existing dwelling and change of use of additional areas of land to residential garden.

56.37         The Senior Planning Officer advised that this was a full application seeking the erection of a replacement dwelling in addition to the enlargement of the existing residential curtilage, the purpose of which was to allow the inclusion of a historic byre, parking area and drainage features within that land.  The Committee report explained the detailed planning history of the site which was particularly relevant to the application.  Firstly, it was noteworthy that the application was a revised iteration of a previous similar application which also sought the erection of a replacement dwelling.  The previous application had been considered by the Planning Committee in July 2021 when it had been recommended for permission; however, due to concerns raised by Members during the debate, the scheme was refused on landscape and heritage grounds.  In response, the current revised application was accompanied by additional information to address and overcome Members’ concerns.  This had included a landscape and visual appraisal and a biodiversity metric; the landscape and visual appraisal summarised that the new dwelling would result in no material change to the landscape due to surrounding topography and intervening mature trees and vegetation between the viewer and public viewpoints from footpaths and roads.  The additional landscaping measures would reduce the impact even further by introducing new trees, hedgerows and native planting within the site.  The Council’s Landscape Adviser concurred with the applicant that there would be an acceptable impact to the landscape.  In terms of the biodiversity enhancements, the proposal included a biodiversity net gain of 104% which would comprise the provision of enhanced habitats; specifically, this would involve the creation of improved wildflower grassland, ponds, hedgerows and trees.  The second important part of the planning history was a permitted development scheme; this fallback scheme demonstrated there was a reasonable possibility that substantial extensions and alterations could be carried out to the existing dwelling as permitted development.  The Council had no conditional control over these significant extensions which could be built out at any time.  The third and final important part of the planning history was the access track which was permitted in 2013 and provided the dwelling with an existing lawful access which had also been implemented.  Within the current application, Officers had identified a single harm i.e. the loss of a non-designated heritage asset; however, when weighed against the many benefits, the scheme as presented was considered to be, on balance, acceptable.  As set out in the Committee report, the benefits of the scheme included the significant biodiversity net gains, the retention and restoration of the historic byre, landscaping enhancements, economic and employment benefits and betterment and conditional security in contrast to the permitted development fallback scheme.  Although Officers were satisfied with the previous application and that the existing proposal met the relevant tests, it was considered the applicant had taken  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56e

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

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Minded to Refuse

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

56.43        The Development Management Team Leader (Northwest) advised that this was a full application seeking approval for a residential development of 45 dwellings which would comprise 18 affordable dwellings (40%) and 27 open market dwellings, including a mix of one and two storey and one to five bedroom dwellings.   The application was the subject of a non-determination appeal which would be heard at an informal hearing in June and the Council must advise the Secretary of State of its view on the proposals by 4 April 2023.  The site comprised two agricultural fields located at the eastern end of Gotherington on the southern side of Gretton Road and was adjoined to the west by existing residential development along Manor Lane, to the south by the Trumans Farm building complex and to the southeast by the Gloucestershire-Warwickshire Railway.  It was located within the Special Landscape Area designated within the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was located on the other side of the railway embankment.  The site was immediately adjacent to, but outside of, the residential development boundary of Gotherington, within the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan.  In terms of history, outline planning permission had previously been refused for 65 dwellings and dismissed at appeal in 2017 and a more recent application for 45 dwellings was refused in 2021.  The main difference between the current and the dismissed scheme was the removal of the eastern block of development which resulted in a larger area of green open space to the east, including enhanced landscaping and a reduction in the number of accesses through the hedgerow onto Gretton Road.  Members would be aware that the Council could currently demonstrate a housing land supply of 6.68 years so the tilted balance was not engaged in this case, therefore, the presumption was that the scheme should be delivered in accordance with the development plan.  The key material issues had been carefully assessed as set out in the Committee report and, in the context of the current appeal, Members were asked to consider a recommendation of minded to refuse which, along with the Committee report, would be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate to inform the appeal.  The putative reasons for refusal were that the proposed development did not meet the strategy for the distribution of development in Tewkesbury Borough; it would result in a cumulative development disproportionate in scale to the existing development that would fail to maintain or enhance the vitality of the village and would have a harmful impact on the social wellbeing of the local community, risking the erosion of community cohesion; the adverse impact of the development on the landscape of the Special Landscape Area and the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; and, the absence of planning obligations at the current time to secure affordable housing, community, outdoor recreation and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56f

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

57.1           Attention was drawn to the current appeals and appeal decisions update, circulated at Page No. 215.  Members were asked to consider the current planning and enforcement appeals received and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities appeal decisions issued.

57.2           Accordingly, it was

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