Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

7.1             The Development Manager submitted a Schedule comprising planning applications and proposals with recommendations thereon. Copies of this had been circulated to Members as Appendix A to the Agenda for the meeting.  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 them prior to decisions being made on those applications.

14/00876/FUL – Ex Coach Station Car Park, Oldbury Road, Tewkesbury

7.2             This application was for the erection of retirement living housing for the elderly (category II type accommodation), including communal facilities, landscaping and car parking.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 5 June 2015.

7.3             Since the publication of the Schedule, the Planning Officer advised that an additional 230 letters had been received in objection to the revised plans.  Whilst they were largely based on similar grounds to those already raised, there was an additional objection relating to lack of affordable housing provision.  The Oldbury Partnership had submitted a further objection in relation to inadequate parking and overdevelopment of the site.  Members were advised that County Highways had originally requested additional information from the applicant to enable full highway consideration of the application but had now undertaken its own assessment.  On the basis of that assessment it was considered that the loss of parking spaces at the site would not have a severe cumulative impact on car parking capacity in the town.  It was also considered that the proposed access would be safe and suitable and, as such, it had been recommended that there be no highway objection, subject to conditions relating to access, parking facilities and the submission of a construction method statement.  The Economic and Community Development Manager had recommended a contribution towards improved facilities such as the Tewkesbury Riverside Walk.  Two letters had been received from a member of the public setting out their intention to judicially review the decision made on the application.  The Officer recommendation was to refuse the application for the reasons set out at Page No. 9 of the Schedule, subject to the removal of reason 4 in light of the comments received from County Highways.

7.4             The Chairman invited Councillor Simon Carter from Tewkesbury Town Council to address the Committee.  Councillor Carter indicated that the application had been considered at a full meeting of Tewkesbury Town Council where Members had voted unanimously to refuse the application.  The building would practically be in the back gardens of the residential properties adjoining the site in Gravel Walk and it was considered that the development would be overpowering in the streetscene.  Tewkesbury Town Council was known for being in direct contact with local people and he did not know of a single person in the town who felt that permitting the development would be a good idea.  The Oldbury Partnership had done a superb job of setting out a case for refusal and it was made clear that the development was not wanted by either the Town Council or the residents of the town.

7.5             The Chairman invited Kim Casswell, Chair of the Oldbury Partnership, speaking in objection to the application, to address the Committee.  Ms Casswell asked that the Committee refuse the application on the grounds of its appearance and poor design which was out of keeping with the adjacent Conservation Area.  The Oldbury Partnership considered that the developers were attempting to maximise profit within the smallest place possible and that the development would be better suited to the former MAFF site.  The size and scale of the proposed development was far too big, which was reinforced by the model which was displayed in the Council Chamber.  Furthermore it would be totally out of keeping with the surrounding area which included the former sheep market office, a Grade II listed building adjoining the site.  The buildings would be too tall and would block out sunlight to the residential properties in Gravel Walk and Station Street.  It would result in overlooking of the homes and gardens and would be a blot on the landscape which would blight the lives of residents, both now and in the future.  She was surprised that the developers had failed to supply sunlight and shadowing information requested by the Council, as well as additional highways information.  If permitted, the development would set an unpleasant precedent and she asked that the Committee refuse the application.

7.6             The Chairman invited the applicant’s agent, Lisa Matthewson, speaking in support of the application, to address the Committee.  She indicated that Oldbury Road car park had been identified for regeneration and County Highways had no objection to the proposal in principle.  Gloucestershire County Council had carried out its own study into car parking capacity and had now recommended that there be no highway objection, subject to conditions.  There had been a reduction in the height of the development, following consultation, and the number of apartments had also been reduced from 32 to 30, and she considered that the development would sit comfortably in the surrounding context.  She confirmed that shadow information had been provided.  The proposal would bring substantial benefits in terms of residents shopping locally, and would address a recognised housing need.  The redevelopment of a previously developed site would reduce the need to build on greenfield sites.  She urged Members to approve the application.

7.7             The Chairman invited a local Ward Member for Tewkesbury Town with Mitton, Councillor Mike Sztymiak, to address the Committee.  He indicated that he strongly supported the Officer recommendation to refuse the application and was not convinced of the arguments in favour of the use of the land, particularly when visitor survey results indicated a lack of parking in Tewkesbury.  The three and four storey buildings would have an overbearing impact on the environment and would have a harmful impact on the adjoining Conservation Area and Grade II listed building.  In addition it would have a negative impact on the quality of life of local residents with gardens which backed onto the site.  The buildings would be taller than the streetlights in the car park and would block out the sunlight; this would be worse during the winter months when the sun was lower in the sky and shadows were greater.  He raised concern that no light assessment had been provided with the application.  Oldbury Road had not benefited from good design in the past and the proposal would do nothing to improve the quality of the streetscene in the area.  The application was not supported by County Archaeology, Historic England or the Planning Officers, nor the hundreds of local residents who had objected to the proposal and he asked the Committee to refuse the application.

7.8             The Chairman indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The proposer of the motion indicated that the application had been around for some time and yet very little had changed.  Whilst there would be an adverse effect on the streetscene of Oldbury Road and Station Street, the impact on the residents of Gravel Walk would be immense.  The proposal showed no respect for the former sheep market office on Oldbury Road, which was a Grade II listed building, and the poor design had been observed by the Conservation Officer, Urban Design Officer and Historic England which had all raised considerable concerns regarding the height and scale of the proposed development.  The site comprised part of the Bishop’s Walk/Spring Gardens redevelopment site and there was a real opportunity to make that part of the town into something significant.  He felt that there were many other reasons for refusal including the lack of disabled parking, affordable housing and community infrastructure and the failure to supply an adequate daylight/sunlight assessment.  Officers had recommended the application for refusal and there was no support from Historic England or the Oldbury Partnership and over 239 letters of objection had been received from local residents, together with a 4,590 signature petition.  He urged Members to support the Officer recommendation.  In his view the proposal was too high, too overpowering and poorly designed and Tewkesbury needed, and deserved, something far better than that which was proposed.  The seconder of the motion indicated that the Committee Site Visit had been very beneficial and had given a clear indication of what the building would mean for that area.  He was in agreement with the Officers and was pleased to second the motion to refuse the application.

7.9             A Member advised that, in 1993, the site had previously been occupied by a coach station garage which had been falling to pieces and nothing had been done to enhance the area since that time.  The improvement of Tewkesbury Town Centre was one of his interests and he was strongly in favour of redeveloping the site so that it was worthy of the Town.  Officers were trying to ensure that a sensible and suitable building was secured on the site and that was not what would be achieved by the current application.  A Member went on to question whether there was a requirement to make a provision for affordable or social housing on the site.  In response, the Development Manager advised that there was a policy requirement for the provision of affordable housing, however, in this specific case it was accepted that an off-site contribution may be more appropriate.  A Member indicated that she thoroughly supported the motion to refuse the application.  There had been terrible mistakes in the past which had resulted in the total abomination of the centre of a beautiful market town and she felt that this proposal was a continuation of that.  The proposed building was generic and could be located anywhere in the country; no attempt had been made to relate to the market town or to enhance the further development of Spring Gardens.  This view was echoed by another Member who referred to the comments of Historic England which had recommended that the application required significant alteration in order to better reflect and enhance the character and setting of the Tewkesbury Conservation Area and the setting of the Grade II listed building.  On that basis he would be supporting the motion to refuse the application.

7.10           A Member was surprised to see that the application was recommended for refusal given that the principle of residential development on the site was acceptable.  Design was subjective and he considered that the proposal would fit nicely into the area without having an adverse impact on local residents.  County Highways had confirmed that there was no highway objection to the application and he did not feel that it was necessary for the developer to make a contribution towards affordable housing when the development in question was for retirement living accommodation.  Whilst there was no provision for community infrastructure, he noted that a contribution of £73,261 was recommended for appropriate facilities to enhance health and wellbeing which he felt was significant.  He felt that the applicant had gone above and beyond to facilitate the building of the retirement accommodation and he could not support the motion to refuse the application. 

7.11           A Member took issue with the representation from County Highways which set out that the loss of parking spaces at Oldbury Road car park would not have a severe cumulative impact on parking capacity in the town; when the market was in operation on a Wednesday and Saturday, parking was at a premium.  In response, another Member indicated that the argument about car parking provision was long standing and it had now been proven that there was adequate car parking capacity in Tewkesbury.  Notwithstanding that, he agreed that design was very much a matter of opinion so he did not feel it was fair to assess the proposal as being poorly designed. Furthermore, he did not consider that the provision of affordable housing was relevant in this case; a decision had been taken by the authority to sell and regenerate the land and he could not see that there was a clear planning reason for refusal.  He noted that the proposal was for a mix of three and four storey buildings and indicated that there were examples of other buildings of similar height in the vicinity; The Maltings was five storeys and Oldbury House was four storeys, with adjoining two storey properties at a similar distance to that proposed within this application. 

7.12           A Member indicated that, whilst there was no objection to the principle of retirement living accommodation on the site, he felt that the design needed to be improved in order to better reflect the context of the streetscene.  He would be supporting the motion on that basis.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

15/00249/FUL – Keepers Orchard, Littleworth, Winchcombe

7.13           This application was for demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling and garage building, reformed drive and parking area.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 5 June 2015.

7.14           The Chairman indicated that there were no public speakers for this application.  The Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he invited a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the development be permitted on the basis that it was appropriate in size and design and would have an acceptable impact on the Special Landscape Area.  A Member expressed the view that the existing bungalow was more obtrusive to the neighbouring properties than the proposed replacement dwelling and setting the house back from the road would be a general improvement to the lane.  A Member understood that an Officer had previously indicated that setting a replacement dwelling back on the site would be acceptable and the Planning Officer advised that, whilst this may have been the case, it was felt that a replacement in the location of the existing bungalow was more appropriate in terms of the character of development in the area.  A Member indicated that it had been very difficult to park when the Committee had visited the site and he felt that it would be sensible to move the building away from the road.  A local Member was saddened to see the Officer recommendation to refuse the application.  He felt that the existing building was of very poor design, was too close to the road and was an isolated addition in the streetscene.  He considered that any impact of replacing the bungalow with a house would be mitigated by moving it further away from the road.  In his view, the proposal was in keeping with the existing development, would enhance the area and would remove what he felt was an ugly building.  As such he would be supporting the motion to permit the application.

7.15           A Member reminded the Committee that each application should be determined on its own merits and it should be borne in mind that the proposal conflicted with the saved local plan policies HOU7 and LND2 which was the basis of the Officer recommendation to refuse the application.  A Member questioned whether the principle of a replacement dwelling was acceptable if another scheme were to be submitted with an improved design.  The Development Manager confirmed that the application had been considered in the context of the local plan policies which set out that a replacement dwelling should be of a similar size and scale as the existing building.  He drew attention to the existing site layout, set out at Page No. 12/D of the Schedule, which showed that the existing houses in the surrounding area were generally quite close to the road; the proposed dwelling would be set well back from the road which would not respect the existing pattern of development in the area or the character and appearance of the surrounding area.  In his opinion, the proposal did not comply with local plan policy, however, it was considered that there may be an acceptable two storey solution which was more suited to the characteristics of the area.

7.16           A Member supported the motion which had been proposed, he could see no real reason to refuse the application as he personally disagreed that the design was poor.  Another Member felt that the proposal did not comply with the replacement dwelling policy and she agreed with the views of the Town Council that it would represent overdevelopment.  The proposer of the motion explained that the existing bungalow would not be permitted in these modern times and he felt that the proposed replacement dwelling was acceptable, particularly as there were larger and more intrusive buildings in the area.  The new dwelling would be away from neighbours and from the busy narrow road.  The Planning Officer indicated that, if Members were minded to permit the application, it would be necessary to include conditions to ensure that the existing dwelling was demolished and to require details of finished floor levels and materials.  Furthermore, she recommended a condition to remove permitted development rights.  The proposer and seconder indicated that they were happy with these conditions and the motion was amended to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the inclusion of those conditions.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be delegated to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to conditions to ensure demolition of the existing dwelling; to secure finished floor level details; to agree materials; and to remove permitted development rights.

15/00295/FUL – 82 Gretton Road, Winchcombe

7.17           This application was for a proposed new dwelling on land to the rear of No. 82 Gretton Road. 

7.18           The Chairman indicated that there were no public speakers for this application.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred for a Committee Site Visit in order to assess the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED for a Committee Site Visit to assess the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

15/00307/FUL – 9 Station Street, Tewkesbury

7.19           This application was for replacement front windows. 

7.20           The Chairman indicated that there were no public speakers for this application.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member found it strange that Officers had recommended that an application for uPVC windows be permitted in the Conservation Area.  The Planning Officer explained that the existing windows were top hung casements dating from the twentieth century which had no historic interest and the sliding sash design of the replacement windows were considered to be more characteristic of the former railway cottage.  On balance, the replacement windows would be a more appropriate design when compared with the existing situation.  The proposer of the motion recognised that uPVC windows caused much anguish within the Conservation Area in Tewkesbury Town, however, he agreed that the proposed replacement windows would be an improvement.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

14/00614/OUT – Queens Head Inn, A46 Aston Cross, Aston Cross, Tewkesbury

7.21           This outline application was for the erection of 11 dwellings together with formation of new vehicular and pedestrian accesses, formation of parking areas and gardens/amenity space. 

7.22           The Chairman indicated that there were no public speakers for this application.  The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation. 

7.23           A Member noted that formal comments were still awaited from the Council’s Community and Economic Development Manager in respect of negotiation around contributions towards open space, outdoor recreation and sports facilities.  In response, the Planning Officer confirmed that the total contribution required towards off-site playing pitches and pitch provision was £14,227, as set out on the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.  Consideration had been given as to whether a contribution could be sought in relation to additional community facilities, however, this would not be appropriate given that the application was for 11 dwellings.

7.24           Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be delegated to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

15/00362/FUL – 77 Brookfield Lane, Churchdown

7.25           This application was for a single storey kitchen extension to the front of the dwelling house. 

7.26           The Chairman indicated that there were no public speakers for this application.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

15/00368/FUL – 47 Kayte Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve

7.27           This application was for the erection of a new single storey flat roof three bedroom dwelling in the rear garden of No. 47 using the existing access driveway and the creation of a new access driveway for the existing dwelling. 

7.28           The Chairman indicated that there were no public speakers for this application.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  Upon being put to the vote it was

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

14/01197/FUL – Land North of Gubberhill Farm, Brockeridge Common, Ripple

7.29           This application was for change of use to residential caravan site for four gypsy families, each with two caravans, and erection of two amenity buildings and laying of hardstanding.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 5 June 2015.

7.30           The Planning Officer advised that this was a retrospective application for eight pitches to serve four gypsy families currently occupying the site.  The lawful use of the land was agriculture and the existing site comprised an area of hardstanding, an existing access and areas of rough grassed land. The site was located outside of a settlement boundary in open countryside and was on the fringes of Flood Zones 2 and 3.  A Public Right of Way (PROW) crossed the site in a north easterly direction.  Gubberhill Farm, a Grade II listed building, was 60m away to the south west of the site; there were a number of other buildings between the Farm and the application site therefore it was considered that there would be no detrimental impact on the setting of the listed building.  In terms of the landscape impact of the proposal, the site was located within an open countryside setting and was visible from a number of public vantage points, including the public highway which ran along the southern site boundary and the PROW.  Whilst there was a bus stop within walking distance of Ripple, and some limited local facilities nearby, the isolated location would undoubtedly lead to substantial reliance on the use of the private car.  The County Highways Authority had requested a speed survey to establish that appropriate visibility could be provided from the existing access, which was off a narrow country lane.  Since the publication of the Officer report, the County Highways Authority had confirmed that there were no grounds for objection on that basis.  There were a number of residential properties adjacent to the site but it was not considered that the use of the site by up to four families would have a significantly detrimental impact on the amenities of the nearby properties.  The application site was directly adjacent to, and on land associated with, a known area of landfilled ground and a previous planning application had been refused, and an appeal dismissed, on the basis of contaminated land concerns.  The potential extent of contamination arising from the landfill site was unknown and a full understanding of the potential hazards was crucial if a permanent use was to be permitted.  Further information had been requested from the applicant but had not been forthcoming.  In addition, the applicant had been asked to provide additional information relating to flood risk but this had not been received following a number of requests.  In terms of consideration of a temporary permission, in this case it was considered that the adverse impacts of the proposal were so great that the lack of Gypsy and Traveller pitch supply and the personal circumstances of the applicant’s family would not warrant the granting of a temporary permission.  The application was therefore recommended for refusal on the grounds that the development would result in significant harm relating to landscape, sustainable travel, flood risk and contamination.

7.31           The Chairman invited Councillor Jeremy Horsfall from Twyning Parish Council to address the Committee.  Councillor Horsfall indicated that the majority of the Parish Council’s concerns had been dealt with in the Officer report.  One of the main issues was that no contaminated land assessment had been undertaken which could lead to potential problems for occupants of the site and those in the vicinity of the location.  The Parish Council agreed with the Officer recommendation to refuse the application and hoped that the Committee would share that view.

7.32           The Chairman indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The proposer of the motion indicated that there was a tremendous history to the site and this was a classic case of people moving onto a site against planning law.  He agreed that a ground survey would be very useful in order to establish exactly what was beneath the site.  He considered that the location was inappropriate for a number of reasons and he was pleased to support the Officer recommendation to refuse the application.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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