Agenda item - Schedule
Agenda item
Schedule
To consider the accompanying Schedule of Planning Applications and proposals, marked Appendix “A”.
Decision:
|
Alderton |
|
|
|
|
15/00963/FUL |
Gardeners Arms Beckford Road Alderton Tewkesbury |
Deferred for committee site visit |
7 |
|
Ashchurch Rural |
|
|
|
|
13/01003/OUT |
Land South of the A46 & North of Tirle Brook Ashchurch Tewkesbury |
Minded to permit |
1 |
|
Ashchurch Rural |
|
|
|
|
15/01002/APP |
Land off the A46 Pamington Lane Pamington Tewkesbury |
Delegated Approve |
11 |
|
Gretton |
|
|
|
|
15/00457/FUL |
Orchard Lodge Gretton Road Gretton Cheltenham |
Permit |
6 |
|
Hucclecote |
|
|
|
|
15/01124/FUL |
Noake Farm Churchdown Lane Churchdown GL3 2LS |
Minded to permit |
12 |
|
Hucclecote |
|
|
|
|
15/01125/LBC |
Noake Farm Churchdown Lane Churchdown GL3 2LS |
Consent |
13 |
|
Leigh |
|
|
|
|
15/00750/FUL |
Part Parcel 6295 Blacksmith Lane The Leigh Gloucester |
Permit |
2 |
|
Leigh |
|
|
|
|
15/01007/FUL |
Vine Tree Farm The Wharf Coombe Hill Gloucester |
Minded to refuse |
4 |
|
Leigh |
|
|
|
|
15/01345/FUL |
Vine Tree Farm The Wharf Coombe Hill Gloucester |
Refuse |
3 |
|
Leigh |
|
|
|
|
15/01373/FUL |
Vine Tree Farm The Wharf Coombe Hill Gloucester |
Refuse |
5 |
|
Tewkesbury |
|
|
|
|
15/01277/FUL |
Site of Former Caretakers Bungalow 2 York Road Tewkesbury Gloucestershire |
Permit |
8 |
|
Tewkesbury |
|
|
|
|
15/01326/FUL |
Cotteswold Dairy Estate Northway Lane Newtown Tewkesbury |
Delegated permit |
9 |
|
Tewkesbury |
|
|
|
|
16/00195/ADV |
Various Locations Within Tewkesbury Gloucestershire |
Delegated consent |
10 |
Minutes:
75.1 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.
13/01003/OUT – Land South of the A46 and North of Tirle Brook, Ashchurch
75.2 This was an outline application, with all matters reserved except for access, for a proposed garden centre and retail outlet centre and ancillary facilities together with associated infrastructure works including access, car parking and landscaping.
75.3 The Planning Officer advised that there had been some late representations which were included on the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1. These included a letter from Gloucester City Council raising concern about the potential impact on the regeneration scheme relating to King’s Quarter and further comments from the Borough Council’s retail consultant who considered that there was insufficient evidence to justify that there would be a significant adverse impact on planned investment in Gloucester city centre. The Council’s Environmental Health Officer had confirmed that, whilst there were no adverse comments on air quality, conditions were recommended in relation to noise and extraction methods in terms of the possible A4/A5 types of usage.
75.4 The Planning Officer reiterated that this was an outline application for a new garden centre and retail outlet with all matters reserved aside from access. Given the scale of the development, the key consideration was the cumulative impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres. The National Planning Policy Framework advised that, where an application was likely to have a significant adverse impact on existing, committed and planned investment in a centre, or centres, and/or on town centre vitality or viability, then it should be refused. Similarly, Local Plan Policy RET6 sought to protect the vitality and viability of existing retail centres. A retail impact assessment had been submitted with the application which concluded that the proposal would not have a significant adverse impact on investment in any of the established centres, nor would it have a significant adverse impact on the vitality and viability of those centres having regard to the levels of trade diversification forecast in the assessment and the relative health of those centres. The spin-off benefits and new retail offer were also emphasised including its complementary nature to the existing retail offer in Tewkesbury and other centres. The Council had commissioned its own retail impact assessment which concluded that the proposal was likely to have a significant adverse impact on the health of Tewkesbury town centre and Gloucester city centre, and on existing investment in Tewkesbury due to the scale and type of retail floor space proposed and its proximity to the town centre. The applicant had offered a mitigation package for Tewkesbury town centre but none for Gloucester city centre. It was not considered that those measures would address the significant adverse impact on those centres and, as advised by the National Planning Policy Framework, the application should be refused planning permission. The applicant had also submitted draft Section 106 Legal Agreements but they had arrived late the previous day and Officers had not yet had chance to assess the submissions, which may also need to be made available on the Council’s website for public inspection. Other issues were fully addressed within the report and included concerns related to poor design and the loss of best and most valuable agricultural land. In terms of design, whilst this application was in outline form, the Urban Design Officer had raised fundamental concerns about the proposal given its nature, scale and form and stated parameters. Whilst some changes had been proposed to the deck parking area, the fundamental concerns raised by the Urban Design Officer relating to its poor design remained. It was noted that the proposal would result in the loss of 8.31ha of best and most versatile agricultural land. In conclusion, the economic benefits of the proposal were recognised and given significant weight, as were the social benefits. Nevertheless, the proposal was likely to have a significant adverse impact on the health of both Tewkesbury town and Gloucester city centres and on existing investment in Tewkesbury town centre. The proposal also failed to demonstrate good design which would deliver a strong sense of place and would result in the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land. Those identified harms would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal and the application was recommended for refusal.
75.5 It was noted that the applicant had submitted a critique of the GVA retail assessment and Matthew Morris from GVA was present to respond accordingly. Mr Morris advised that GVA had been asked by the Council to offer advice on a number of retail planning policy issues. This advice was just one part of the application and there were many other factors to take into account during the debate. He explained that the application site was not in the town centre and was not included in the Council’s development plan. There were two matters to take into account; the sequential test and the impact on the existing town centre which would include impact on existing and planned investment in the centre. The Planning Officer had outlined the advice which had been provided by GVA and he highlighted that, whilst the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient flexibility in terms of the sequential test, there was no sequentially preferable site in nearby town centres to accommodate the development. GVA had used the Joint Core Strategy evidence base to assess the impact of the proposal on the health of Tewkesbury town centre and had concluded that, based on the applicant’s suggested trade diversion there would be an impact of 6% on the non-food sector whereas their own assessment put that at 13%; the impact on Gloucester city would be 5%. In terms of the overall impact, it was considered that there would be significant trading overlap with goods sold in Tewkesbury town centre and significant adverse harm to the town centre.
75.6 The Chair invited Simon Tothill, speaking on behalf of the applicant, to address the Committee. Mr Tothill explained that he was Property and Development Director of Robert Hitchins Ltd, the developers promoting the application. He was hugely disappointed that the application was recommended for refusal as the scheme offered Tewkesbury so many benefits. It would deliver an investment of £60M into the Borough; up to 1,000 jobs; and more than £1M in Section 106 contributions towards Tewkesbury town centre and improvements to the A46. Furthermore, it would bring people in from miles around and would be linked to both the town centre and Ashchurch railway station by a subsidised bus service which would increase footfall in Tewkesbury town centre. He indicated that the scheme accorded with the Local Enterprise Partnership’s Strategic Economic Plan and, as part of the proposals, frontage land would be reserved for future improvements to the A46 which would help in the delivery of other key strategic sites such as the Ministry of Defence site at Ashchurch. He pointed out that hundreds of people had attended public consultation events and over 70% had been in favour of the proposal. The concerns raised over highways and flooding had been addressed and confirmation had been received from Highways England and Gloucestershire County Council that they had no objection, subject to conditions. Likewise, the Environment Agency had confirmed that the scheme had suitable flood prevention measures. With all of the benefits, he questioned why Officers wanted Members to reject the scheme. It was suggested that the scheme would harm Tewkesbury town centre and Gloucester city centre and have a negative impact on investment in Tewkesbury but that could not be correct; the factory outlet centre and garden centre would be a leisure destination and would attract people from an hour away who would not normally shop in Gloucester or Tewkesbury. With regard to Gloucester, the proposed scheme would not impact upon the King’s Quarter proposals and the City Council had recently dropped the idea of a shopping centre for a mixed use scheme including the covered market. The owners of Gloucester Quays, an out of centre factory outlet centre, were bound to object as they had a vested interest. With reference to the points raised in the Officer presentation, he explained that design would be dealt with at the reserved matters stage and, with regard to agricultural land quality, he pointed out that the site was already designated for development in the Joint Core Strategy. He questioned why Tewkesbury should be a poor cousin to Gloucester and urged Members to do the right thing. Saying no today would be an opportunity missed and another blow to Tewkesbury town, and the wider borough, which seemed to always draw the short straw. He felt that Members should vote to permit the application, create 1,000 new jobs and give the borough the economic investment it deserved.
75.7 The Development Manager informed the Committee that an email had been received the previous day from Councillor Mrs H C McLain, a Borough Councillor for the area, which she had asked to be read out to the Committee. She had reviewed the documents on the proposal and felt that the assessment by Bilfinger GVA seemed to challenge a number of the assumptions on future retail demand. She asked the Committee to consider whether there would be a negative impact as suggested. She felt that there was a reasonable challenge that there would actually be a benefit to regeneration, as well as offering a wider range of local retail choice and employment. In her opinion, the proposed development delivered a number of opportunities to the area. As a Borough Councillor, her priority was her local Ward. Gloucester city had benefited from considerable investment and regeneration and she found it hard to believe that an investment in Tewkesbury such as the one proposed should be discarded as it offered no real threat to what was a well-established, vibrant offer in Gloucester and Cheltenham. Given the detailed information presented by GVA, she felt that the Planning Committee would be justified in concentrating on what was best for Tewkesbury as the impact on surrounding retail provision appeared to be minimal and, it could be argued, enhanced the range. She was not a specialist traffic analyst or highway engineer, however, as a complete layman, she argued that it was naïve to consider traffic impact in isolation, particularly as there could be significant implications from the proposed developments in that area.
75.8 The Development Manager clarified that the Officer recommendation was based on an independent assessment and it was considered that the proposal would result in a significant adverse impact on both Tewkesbury town and Gloucester city centres and existing investment in Tewkesbury town centre. On the other hand, the applicant had invited the Committee to permit the application on the basis that there would not be undue harm to Gloucester city centre and the impact on Tewkesbury could be mitigated. It was noted that the Section 106 offer was significantly below what would be expected and was not necessarily in accordance with the discussions that had taken place throughout the application process.
75.9 The Chair advised that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation and the proposer of the motion indicated that he was particularly concerned about the potential impact on the exciting plans for the redevelopment of the Spring Gardens site. There was no seconder for this proposal and the Chair sought an alternative motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the Committee be minded to permit the application on the basis that it would have to be referred to the Secretary of State and for it to be brought back to the next meeting of the Committee with recommended conditions and negotiations with the applicant in respect of Section 106 obligations. The proposer of the motion felt that the Section 106 contributions offered by the applicant seemed to be below what might be expected for a development of this size. A Member indicated that, as a former retailer, he had studied the application in some detail and he did not think that the Tewkesbury high street would be adversely affected. Consumers were looking for something more when they were shopping and he was of the view that the development would bring more people to Tewkesbury. Upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the Committee be MINDED TO PERMIT the application, subject to referral to the Secretary of State, and that the application be brought back to the next meeting of the Committee with recommended conditions and negotiations with the applicant in respect of Section 106 obligations.
15/00750/FUL – Part Parcel 6295, Blacksmith Lane, The Leigh
75.10 This application was for the construction of a new bungalow and detached garage building for a disabled person and the construction of a new access. The Committee had visited the application site on Monday 14 March 2016.
75.11 The Chairman invited Councillor Colin Withers from Leigh Parish Council to address the Committee. Councillor Withers indicated that the Leigh Parish Council and its Chair, had made their feelings well known with regard to future development in the Parish, both to the Planning Committee and directly to the Planning department. With assistance from Tewkesbury Borough Officers, the Leigh Parish Council was completing its own Neighbourhood Development Plan, which would include a service village at Coombe Hill, and it was intended to ensure that there was controlled infill development throughout the Parish. This application was a perfect example of that and it was hoped that the Committee would support those local aims. The Parish Council had been surprised and disappointed that the Officer report recommended refusal on two grounds. The first reason being that the proposed development formed a visually intrusive and discordant feature, however, the plot was more than adequate for the development and, being a bungalow, it would scarcely be noticed by speeding motorists on the A38. The growth of the hedge on the front boundary was far more rural than the extensive brick wall in front of Leigh House and the coach house on the opposite side of the road. The lantern created an architectural feature that was lower than any of the roof lines opposite but could be reduced if requested as a condition. The second reason for refusal related to the site being a remote location in the open countryside, outside of any recognised settlement boundary. The Parish Council did not believe that the Parish, or this site in particular, was isolated. Whilst the surroundings may be rural, the Parish and the site itself were ideally located close to Tewkesbury, Gloucester and Cheltenham with direct connections to the M5 motorway only two miles away. The application site was less than 30m from bus stops which was closer than most houses on new estates. It was closer to shops, a petrol station and a public house at Coombe Hill than any of the sites recently granted permission in Norton and Twigworth, sites which were also on the A38 with adjacent fields. With 10 houses in the immediate vicinity, the site could not be regarded as remote or being outside of a recognised settlement. The applicant had been born in the village and had tragically become paraplegic in 1997 meaning that he required a house of a specific design to cope with his disability. He wished to remain in the community close to the support of family and friends. Councillor Withers reiterated that the application was supported fully by the Parish Council and the local community with absolutely no objections. Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that planning permission should be granted unless doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. With no objections from consultees or local residents, and given that it would clearly be of massive personal and social benefit to the applicant and his future life, the Parish Council asked the Committee to permit the application.
75.12 The Chair advised 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 permitted. The proposer of the motion suggested that it may be necessary to make some minor amendments to the design of the building but he felt that the proposal was largely acceptable and the Council had a responsibility to assist people with disabilities. A Member expressed the view that the atrium at the top was rather large and suggested that it be dropped in line with the chimney stacks to make it more agreeable. Another Member noted that one of the objections in the Officer report was that the side elevation of the proposed bungalow would present a continuous length of walling facing the main A38 highway. However, it was apparent on the Committee Site Visit that the structure on the opposite side of the road, and a house on the same side of the road, presented windowless elevations and, as such, the proposed bungalow would fit perfectly well with its surroundings. Furthermore, he did not consider the location to be unsustainable given that there was a bus stop on the main road which was used every day. He had liked what he had seen on site and felt that there were very good reasons for the application to be supported. A Member indicated that he disagreed with the second recommended refusal reason which cited the lack of pedestrian and cycle links as he regularly encountered cyclists when driving up and down the A38.
75.13 The Development Manager reminded Members that development needed to be controlled and the Joint Core Strategy and Borough Plan were being produced for that purpose. National and local planning policy sought to restrict new development in the open countryside which was not well-served by facilities and, whilst it was recognised that there were bus stops in the vicinity of the site, the occupants of the property would be likely to be highly reliant on the private car. A Member pointed out that personal circumstances were largely irrelevant in the consideration of planning applications as permission was granted to a building as opposed to a person. In response to a Member query, the Planning Officer advised that it would be unreasonable to include a condition to tie the occupancy of the property to the applicant. If Members were minded to permit the application, she recommended the inclusion of conditions relating to materials, access arrangements and the removal of permitted developments rights. She indicated that it would be difficult to address issues with the design by condition as it was likely that the layout would need to be revised and a delegated permit would therefore be necessary in those circumstances. A Member expressed the view that the overall design was acceptable but he had concerns about the lantern on the top of the building which could be a source of light pollution. Another Member indicated that she liked the lantern and felt that any light pollution it might cause would be minimal. She did not consider that the site was isolated and felt that the applicant would be very much part of a community if the bungalow was permitted. A Member expressed the view that the lantern was integral to the design of the building and helped to make it unique and individual. The proposer and seconder of the motion indicated that they would be happy to permit the application without amendment, subject to conditions relating to materials, access arrangements and the removal of permitted developments rights and, upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be PERMITTED subject to conditions relating to materials, access arrangements and the removal of permitted developments rights.
15/01345/FUL – Vine Tree Farm, The Wharf, Coombe Hill
75.14 This application was for the removal of condition 14 attached to planning permission 14/01224/FUL (permitted development rights).
75.15 The Chair invited Councillor Colin Withers from Leigh Parish Council to address the Committee. Councillor Withers indicated that the Parish Council had met several times and received many objections regarding this application site. The original application was for a large three storey mansion which was out of keeping with the location and disproportionate with the building it was replacing. The plans approved and supported in the August 2015 application were more appropriate to the site and included several important conditions including condition 14, aimed at preventing uncontrolled development in this visually important location. Since that time, the Parish Council had seen several new applications, all aimed at increasing the size of the new dwellings and garages. Removal of condition 14 could allow the applicant to run riot with additional permitted development buildings at this sensitive location. The Parish Council Planning Committee had explained to the applicant that it was always willing to consider additional requirements but that any further development must remain controlled in both volume and design. The Parish Council therefore agreed with the Officer’s recommendation to reject the application and retain the condition 14 control.
75.16 The Chair invited Stephen Hawksworth, speaking in objection to the application, to address the Committee. Mr Hawksworth indicated that he was speaking on behalf of the objectors to the application who felt that there was no justification for the removal of condition 14 attached to the application 14/01224/FUL. Given the history of the property over the past four years, the close proximity of the Grade II listed building known as Evington House, and its rural location within the landscape protection zone, there was a need to ensure that the local planning authority was allowed to strictly monitor all further works on site. This would help to ensure that the development integrated harmoniously within its surroundings and was in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework guidelines and Tewkesbury Borough Council’s own local policies HOU7 and HOU10.
75.17 The Chair invited the applicant, John McCreadie, to address the Committee. Mr McCreadie explained that he was the owner of Vine Tree Farm and was speaking in favour of the application to remove permitted development rights. Government planning policy was focused on reducing red tape for the most simple and basic of planning applications. Homeowners up and down the country who wanted a shed, a conservatory or minor alterations to the rear of their homes, had long been allowed to do so under their permitted development rights and parliament had recently further extended those householder rights to free up local councils from unnecessary red tape. Tewkesbury Borough Council was understaffed, had very tight budget constraints and really needed to utilise its precious and scarce resources, deciding the most significant applications and undertaking its 10 year housing supply requirements in the interests of the wider community. The Council received no application fees for dealing with applications which would fall under homeowners permitted development rights and the Planning department was being bogged down with numerous non-fee paying applications. Appeal Inspectors found it impossible to refuse an application which fell under permitted development rights as they had a directive from central government. Permitted development rights did not extend to the front of the property where they would be visible to neighbours or spoil the streetscene and were only applicable to private rear gardens where neighbours could not be overlooked. His home faced onto the open landscape on the west elevation and he was not permitted to do anything to the front of his house which would impact upon the landscape or neighbours. It was nonsense to say that removing his permitted development rights was in the interest of protecting the landscape as the front elevation was already excluded from permitted development rights and, due to the established hedgerows, the rear could not be seen beyond the boundaries of the property. He did not think that anyone could argue with the reasoning behind householder permitted development rights and he questioned why they were routinely removed by Planning Officers. He reiterated that this was clogging up the Planning department which was ruining the Council and undermined its reputation in the eyes of honest, hardworking families who had to wait for months on end and spend considerable amounts of money on drawings just to have a garden shed at the rear of their home. He urged Members to give local residents their most basic rights as householders to make very minor, very controlled changes to their home, without delays. He hoped that Members would permit the application and free the Council’s Planning department to deal with much more important, fee-paying, applications.
75.18 The Development Manager understood the comments which had been made and accepted that, in the past, the Planning department may have been too quick to remove blanket permitted development rights; it was intended to look into reinstating those rights, particularly in terms of the larger housing estates. Notwithstanding this, the scenario before Members was very different as the replacement dwelling was much larger than the previous dwelling on the site. Members had given careful consideration to the application before granting planning permission and, being mindful of the significant increase, had taken the view that any further extension should be controlled.
75.19 The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
15/01007/FUL – Vine Tree Farm, The Wharf, Coombe Hill
75.20 This application was for a proposed replacement dwelling with an attached garage building; hard and soft landscaping; and provision of new access and driveway (revised scheme following planning permission ref: 14/01224/FUL).
75.21 The Chair invited Councillor Colin Withers from Leigh Parish Council to address the Committee. Councillor Withers indicated that the Parish Council had received several complaints, as well as some support, from members of the public relating to this new application which considerably increased the size of both the dwelling and garage. Objections had also been made as to the need for such a large separate building for bats. The Parish Council agreed with the Conservation Officer that the revised design was a cheaper and less desirable version of the original design. The Parish Council Planning Committee was sympathetic and could agree to the applicant squaring-off the original design which would provide the desired increased residential space, however, it was opposed to increasing the height of either the house or the garage above ground level and to the size of the proposed bat refuge. It was also understood that the revised access arrangements had very recently been presented to County Highways and, as such, the Parish Council had been unable to comment, although it was understood that the arrangements were opposed by existing landowners. The Parish Council’s conclusion, therefore, was that the application as presented should be refused in accordance with the Officer’s recommendation. If the Committee decided to support the application, it was requested that all conditions, including the vital condition 14 imposed on the original approved plans, be imposed on this application and that the finished floor level be reduced so as not to increase the overall ridge height.
75.22 The Chair invited Stephen Hawskworth, speaking in objection to the application, to address the Committee. Mr Hawksworth advised that he was speaking on behalf of the objectors to the application and indicated that there were four main areas of opposition. The floor area of the proposed house had increased from 304sqm to 443sqm, an increase of 46%, and the garage had increased from 30sqm to 66sqm, an increase of 120%. The size and scale were contrary to Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy LND3 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan. It was noted that a smaller dwelling had been granted planning permission in August 2015 despite being recommended for refusal by the Planning Officer. In terms of the rise in ridge height, a typical new house had an unobstructed ridge height of 7.5m and did not have a chimney whereas the proposed house had a total height of 11.2m with a prominent chimney. The dwelling was positioned on a raised plateau 1.5m above the surrounding ground, giving a total height of 12.7m and this was visually intrusive to the rural landscape. The Land Assessment report from November 2014 commissioned by Tewkesbury Borough Council made direct reference to this specific parcel of land and its surroundings in respect of visual context and prominence. With regard to character, changing the ‘L’ shape to a rectangle with the addition of a balcony did not accord with existing properties in the area and the proposed house would overshadow the nearby Grade II listed building. The front elevation of the house, lobby and garage was now an unbroken 31m and the proposed development failed to respect the character and settlement pattern of the locality which was contrary to Policy HOU7. The fourth issue related to the A38 access and he indicated that the drawings referenced in the letter from County Highways dated 14 March 2016 were not in the public domain. In addition it was felt that accurate dimensions and valid reasons should be supplied for requisite visibility splays. Whilst the applicant had cut back hedges to improve the visibility, he did not own the hedges and had no authority to undertake the works. Furthermore, the existing access had a width of 4m which was insufficient to accommodate a two lane carriageway.
75.23 The Chair invited the applicant, John McCreadie, to address the Committee. Mr McCreadie felt that the application should be straightforward as planning permission for a very similar building had already been approved in August 2015. Many compromises had been made to the roof design and accommodation during the drawing of the detailed construction plans and local architects had re-designed the rear to change the ‘L’ shaped building into a rectangle with an attached garage. He explained that he was a local businessman and employer and often worked from home so the extra space to the rear would create space for an office, as well as providing more space for his family. The overall height and position of the house was unchanged and the side elevation to the south, which could only be seen from the private shared driveway with Evington House and Evington Lodge, was unchanged from the approved scheme. The front elevation to the west which faced the landscape/public footpath was also unchanged. The simple squaring-off of the approved house only changed the easterly elevation which faced into the slope of the hill and could not be seen by any neighbours or across the landscape. In other words, the impact on the landscape would be no different to that of the approved scheme and there would be no adverse effect on neighbours or the setting. He reiterated that the replacement dwelling did not impact upon neighbours’ privacy or amenity and the proposed house was still cut into the slope by over 3m at the rear to reduce its height and anchor it into the landscape. The award winning architects Coombes Everitt had done a fantastic job in designing a home for his family which fitted with the existing larger properties accessed from the shared private drive. He sincerely believed that the replacement home would be an excellent contribution to the built environment and it had significant local support, particularly from the immediate neighbours of Evington Lodge who had written a letter of support, and he hoped that the Committee would grant permission.
75.24 The Chair advised that the Officer recommendation was minded to refuse on the basis that a non-determination appeal had been submitted, and the Committee was therefore required to advise the Secretary of State of its views on the application had the decision remained with the local planning authority, and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the Committee be minded to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the Committee be MINDED TO REFUSE the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
15/01373/FUL – Vine Tree Farm, The Wharf, Coombe Hill
75.25 This application was for a proposed replacement dwelling with attached garage building; hard and soft landscaping; and provision of new access and driveway (revised scheme following planning permission ref: 14/01224/FUL – alternative scheme to application 15/01007/FUL with stone/render proposed in place of brick).
75.26 The Chair invited Councillor Colin Withers from Leigh Parish Council to address the Committee. Councillor Withers indicated that, once again the Parish Council had been disappointed with this attempt to further increase the size of the original approved dwelling and garage and to add a spacious new bat dwelling. The Parish Council agreed with the Conservation Officer that the application was a less desirable and more confused version of the original design; it now included two aspects in stone and two elevations rendered, used aluminium windows out of character with the style of house and included a balcony not shown on any previous plans. The Parish Council had explained its concerns to the applicant over the numerous changes with the various applications. It was recognised that the location deserved redevelopment, and the Parish Council would be delighted when a final proposal was acceptable to all parties, however, there were many conflicting aspects within the various plans presented in the proposal which did not all match up. He reiterated that revised access arrangements had only recently been presented to County Highways and, as such, the Parish Council had not had the opportunity to comment, however, it was understood that they were opposed by existing landowners. The Parish Council had concluded that the application should be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation. If the Committee decided to support the application, it was requested that all conditions, including the vital condition 14 imposed on the original approved plans, be imposed on this application and that the finished floor level be reduced so as not to increase the overall ridge height.
75.27 The Chair invited Stephen Hawksworth, speaking in objection to the application, to address the Committee. Mr Hawskworth indicated that his objections to this scheme were the same as those he had raised in respect of the last two items i.e. the property was too large, too high, would be out of character within the its surroundings and would have inadequate access. In addition, the visibility splays were unknown and the applicant did not own the land to achieve them.
75.28 The Chair invited the applicant, John McCreadie, to address the Committee. Mr McCreadie indicated that he did not intend to go through the same points he had raised under the previous application but he understood that County Highways had confirmed that the visibility splays were satisfactory. The proposal would have no detrimental impact on the quality of the landscape and he felt that it was a perfectly reasonable application.
75.29 The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
15/00457/FUL – Orchard Lodge, Gretton Road, Gretton
75.30 This application was for the erection of extensions to provide additional living accommodation and garaging (revised scheme further to planning permission ref: 05/1808/1542/FUL); and erection of detached machinery store/workshop and hay loft/livestock shelter in connection with adjoining agricultural land. The Committee had visited the application site on Monday 14 March 2016.
75.31 The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item. The Officer recommendation was for a split decision, with the proposed extension being recommended for permission and the proposed garage/store being recommended for refusal, and he invited a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted as a whole. After visiting the application site, the proposer of the motion felt that the development was acceptable and it was a carefully considered scheme for a beautiful house. There was an enormous amount of space around the house and it would be well screened by trees so there would be no adverse impact on the neighbours or the listed building. Upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be PERMITTED subject to standard conditions.
15/00963/FUL – Gardeners Arms, Beckford Road, Alderton
75.32 This application was for alterations to the existing car parking layout and provision of an overspill car park area; provision of an external seating area; external lighting and fencing; and alterations to the existing fenestration to include the replacement of existing UPVC framed windows with timber framed windows.
75.33 The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item. 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 indicated that she did have some concerns about the proposals, not least that the land surrounding the Gardeners Arms was allocated as an ‘”attractive open space important to village character” within the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan. The Parish Council was working hard on a Neighbourhood Development Plan for the area and she understood that this particular space was to be included. She drew attention to Page No. 839, Paragraph 4.3, of the Officer’s report which referred to Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework “conserving and enhancing the historic environment” and set out that local planning authorities should recognise heritage assets as an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in an appropriate manner. The proposal would create six additional parking spaces within the car park, however, the amount of space taken up by the access and turning was greater than the parking spaces themselves so the net effect would be very little. A Member sought clarification regarding the designation of the land and the Development Manager advised that the Neighbourhood Development Plan was emerging and therefore could only be given limited weight, however, part of the area was designated as important open space in the existing adopted Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan. Officers had taken a view that the car park would largely retain the sense of openness, although it would be disrupted to a degree when in use. A Member supported the view which had been expressed in relation to the need to protect important open space. He indicated that Alderton was a very unique village with a compact community which was appreciative of its locality and sought to ensure that it was developed appropriately in the future. On that basis he proposed that the application be deferred for a Committee Site Visit. This proposal was seconded and, upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be DEFERRED for a Committee Site Visit.
15/01277/FUL – Site of Former Caretaker’s Bungalow, 2 York Road, Tewkesbury
75.34 This application was for the erection of four flats with associated access and amenity space. The Committee had visited the application site on Monday 14 March 2016.
75.35 The Planning Officer advised that an additional condition was recommended for inclusion in the planning permission in respect of the approval of a construction traffic management plan. 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. The proposer of the motion noted that there was already a current application for a two storey dwelling on the site. She welcomed the reduction in the number of flats from six to four, and that parking was provided, and she felt that the site was large enough to accommodate four flats of a two storey design. Upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
15/01326/FUL – Cotteswold Dairy Estate, Northway Lane, Newtown
75.36 This was a hybrid planning application for the phased redevelopment of Cotteswold Dairy including: a full application for the demolition of existing buildings and provision of new buildings comprising 6,223sqm of floor space to provide cold stores, offices, visitor reception, plant room and staff welfare facilities, additional milk silos, vehicle loading areas and other associated infrastructure (phases 1-2); and, an outline application for the demolition of existing buildings and the phased provision of additional cold storage, processing hall, effluent treatment plant, energy centre, additional car and lorry parking areas, internal roadways and other associated infrastructure totalling up to 8,000sqm of floor space on the remaining 2.065ha of land (all matters reserved for future consideration).
75.37 The Planning Officer explained that late information had been received from the applicant’s agent in relation to the recommended planning conditions set out in the report. A number of issues had been identified with the wording of the conditions from a practical perspective and revisions had been requested by the applicant. Furthermore, revised plans had been submitted showing some minor changes to the front of the site. Officers were satisfied that the revised wording would not change the objectives of the conditions but more time was required to consider and agree precise wording. On that basis, the Officer recommendation had been changed from permit to delegated permit, subject to agreeing appropriate conditions and the consideration of minor amendments to the submitted plans.
75.38 The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item. He clarified that the Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to agreeing appropriate conditions and consideration of minor amendments to the submitted plans, and 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. A Member recalled that there had previously been a number of complaints regarding noise from the refrigeration units within the lorries parked on the site and he sought assurance that this would be addressed. The Planning Officer explained that lorries were presently being parked along the southern boundary of the site which was in close proximity to residential properties, however, the proposal would relocate the lorry park to a less sensitive location and would benefit from the mitigation of an acoustic fence. The Environmental Health Officer had raised no objection to the application on noise grounds, subject to compliance with appropriately worded planning conditions.
75.39 Upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to agreeing appropriate conditions and consideration of minor amendments to the submitted plans.
16/00195/ADV – Various Locations within Tewkesbury
75.40 This application was for the erection of four ‘town gateway’ signs on highway verges at A38 Mythe Road, A38 Gloucester Road, A438 Ashchurch Road and B4080 Bredon Road.
75.41 The Planning Officer explained that the Local Highway Authority had requested that additional information/plan(s) be provided by the applicant to ensure that the signage was safe to be located on the highway. As such, it was now recommended that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to grant consent. The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item. He clarified that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to grant consent, subject to the receipt of suitable information and/or plans from the applicant as requested by the Local Highway Authority and no subsequent objection being raised, and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to grant consent in accordance with the Officer recommendation. The proposer of the motion considered that the signs were beautifully designed and would be of great benefit to Tewkesbury town. She welcomed the fact that the signs would be in keeping with the wooden horses at the roundabout on the A38 Gloucester Road. Another Member agreed with this view and felt that the signage would make a statement as people entered the town. A Member queried who would be responsible for maintaining the planters and was advised that, whilst this was not a material planning consideration, steps would be taken to ensure that Tewkesbury Borough Council fulfilled any responsibilities it might have as the applicant.
75.42 Upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to grant CONSENT for the application, subject to the receipt of suitable information and/or plans from the applicant as requested by the Local Highway Authority and no subsequent objection being raised.
15/01002/APP – Land off the A46, Pamington Lane, Pamington
75.43 This was a reserved matters application in relation to outline planning permission 14/00972/OUT relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the proposed development of 150 homes at the site. Access had been approved under the outline planning permission.
75.44 The Chair invited Dennis Barry, speaking in support of the application, to address the Committee. Mr Barry indicated that he was a planning advisor to the joint applicants, Linden Homes and Bloor Homes. The reserved matters application followed the decision to approve an outline planning application for 150 new homes and associated infrastructure this time last year when matters such as access, affordable housing and Section 106 contributions were approved. This application sought approval for the outstanding reserved matters; layout, scale, landscaping and appearance. Whilst the application had been submitted in September 2015, it had been subject to many revisions in order to incorporate the comments and suggestions received from Officers. As a result, and as concluded by Officers, the proposal comprised a high quality scheme that reflected national and local planning policy, accorded with the parameters established through the outline consent, and provided a high quality reference point for the proposed redevelopment of the Ministry of Defence site to the north of the A46. The scheme provided a strong built frontage onto the A46 with the density reducing as one moved southward through the scheme, reflecting the more open/rural landscape to the south. A landscape buffer along the south of the site incorporated flood mitigation measures, four children’s play areas, parkland and new planting which provided a suitable buffer between the built area and open farm land and Pamington village to the south. Meanwhile, the western part of the site affected by potential archaeological factors remained free of development and species rich meadow grassland was proposed. As set out in the Officer report, County Highways was generally happy with the proposed internal layout but had queried the swept path analysis for refuse vehicles and the ability for cars to pass. The County’s comments had now been addressed and updated drawings submitted to the Council within the last week which had slightly widened the affected internal road layouts in response to the updated swept path analysis. Subject to the Committee’s agreement to grant delegated authority to approve the revised swept-path analysis, and the developers making submissions to discharge the pre-commencement planning conditions and Section 106 requirements, the scheme would deliver 150 new homes within the next three years that would include 40% affordable homes in accordance with the Section 106 Agreement. The proposals included a mix of housing with garages, on-plot parking and additional visitor parking within the development. Linden Homes and Bloor Homes trusted that the Committee would find the proposals prepared in consultation with the Officers to be acceptable and would grant delegated approval for the scheme.
75.45 The Chair advised that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to approve the application, subject to the receipt of satisfactory comments from County Highways in relation to the internal road layout and other conditional requirements, and he invited a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to approve the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation. A Member queried whether the design had taken account of the need for refuse vehicles to get around the site, particularly if cars were parked on the road. The Planning Officer explained that a revised site layout had just been received which demonstrated refuse vehicle and car tracking. County Highways and the Council’s Waste team would be consulted on the plan to ensure that they were satisfied with the layout. Upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to APPROVE the application subject to the receipt of satisfactory comments from the County Highways in relation to the internal road layout and other conditional requirements.
15/01124/FUL – Noake Farm, Churchdown Lane, Churchdown
75.46 This application was for a change of use to horticultural/landscaping business, including the redevelopment of existing building and creation of new buildings for use of the business, and conversion of coach house to one dwelling including the erection of a detached garage/store and associated vehicular access and parking (including demolition of derelict buildings). The Committee had visited the application site on Monday 14 March.
75.47 The Chair invited Ted Stevens, speaking against the application, to address the Committee. Mr Stevens indicated that he was one of the residents that lived nearby who had formally objected to the development. He wanted Members to get a feel for the scale of the two enormous industrial buildings that were proposed; both were 40m long, 15m wide and more than 8m high with a net volume of nearly 10,000 cubic metres. One way of visualising the volume was that the buildings could accommodate 70 double decker buses and they were almost as high as two double decker buses stacked on top of one another. He agreed with the Planning Officers that the buildings would overwhelm the site; they would be visible for miles and would have a massively detrimental impact on the landscape. There were sound reasons to reject this development, the first being that the land was designated as one of the best bits of Gloucestershire’s Green Belt. The applicant’s planning consultants would argue that it was a landscaping business and would therefore fit in; however, he believed that was nonsense as it was a very large industrial and logistics depot which would generate scores of lorry and car movements every day via a narrow single-track lane. There were no special circumstances to justify this colossal blot on the landscape being built in the Green Belt. If that was not enough, the site was also in the Special Landscape Area and the Council’s policies stated that any development that impacted on the quality of the natural and built environment should be rejected; this development would certainly have a huge impact on both counts. Whilst the applicant might argue that the ramshackle state of the existing farm complex meant that the development would be a visual improvement, he felt that it would be an even bigger blot on the landscape. Hucclecote Parish Council had also raised concern over the limited amount of staff parking proposed, the number of lorry movements that would be generated and traffic safety issues at the junction of Stump Lane and Churchdown Lane where there was a nasty blind spot. The applicant’s planning consultants would plead that they could not find another site to accommodate the business, and jobs were at risk, but he urged Members not to fall for that sob story; as the Planning Officer had pointed out in the report, the applicant had provided no real evidence of a thorough search for sites until a few days earlier when a hastily assembled token document had been conjured up. He suggested that the jobs were not really at risk as the company had another big depot near Evesham that could be used in the short to medium term until it found the right site. The right location for an industrial/logistics complex was a business park, not a priceless part of the county’s Green Belt. In his view, the application was a cynical attempt to get permission for some enormous industrial buildings on cheap agricultural land. Gloucestershire’s Green Belt was more important than that and he urged Members to follow the Officer’s recommendation and reject the application.
75.48 The Chair invited the applicant, Tom Rimell, to address the Committee. He explained that he was the director of Town Farm Nurseries (TFN) Limited, a business that had been established for over 30 years and was based at Longford. The business related to the horticultural, agricultural and forestry sectors and needed to be located on agricultural sites in order to grow plants and trees. The business needed to relocate by February 2017 due to Planning permission for 570 homes being granted on the existing site in Longford. His agents had looked for sites for over five years but commercial units were unsuitable as they did not have the adjoining agricultural land which was needed. The only suitable location was Noake Farm which had operated as a commercial hay and straw dealing business for over 20 years and also had permission for a scaffolders business. The yard had become dilapidated, with burnt down buildings, and neighbours described the site as an eyesore and mentioned the number of illegal activities taking place such as fly-tipping. At the pre-application stage, a generally favourable view had been given for relocation with Officers describing the site as ‘Brownfield’ and the landscaping scheme had subsequently been revisited to try to appease the concerns of local residents. The application included ample storage to ensure that the site would be clean and tidy rather than having unsightly material and equipment all over the yard. The buildings were a similar size footprint to those which had previously been on the site. He pointed out that the coach house already had planning permission, which included demolition of a number of the existing buildings; additional bat surveys had been completed for the application but he would be happy to extend if required; and, none of the immediate neighbours had raised any objection to the application. Over 60 staff were employed at Gloucester, and almost 100 overall. It had taken over 20 years to build up the employee base and many had joined the business as young men without any formal qualifications. Staff came from Gloucester and Tewkesbury, the majority of which had GL1, GL2 or GL3 postcodes and would be unwilling to travel more than 10 miles to work. He believed that there were unique and special circumstances that warranted planning permission being granted and, if unsuccessful, the business would have to wind up which would leave 60 Gloucester families out of work; the cost to the local economy would be in excess of £1.75M in wages alone. He was committed to TFN and he asked Members to support the application to allow him to reinvest in Gloucester, maintain a successful local business and secure jobs.
75.49 The Development Manager explained that the application site was within the Green Belt and Special Landscape Area and it was very clear that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. National planning policy set out that planning permission should be refused unless there were very special circumstances which would outweigh the harm that would be caused to the Green Belt. In this instance, the openness of the Green Belt would also be compromised as the proposals would introduce a significant level of development to a largely undeveloped rural area in a sensitive site within the valued Special Landscape Area associated with Chosen Hill. Whilst it was accepted that the site was untidy and in need of redevelopment, this should never be used as justification for development and there were enforcement powers available to address such matters. If redevelopment was the way forward, it was necessary to have regard to the sensitivity of the site in terms of the Green Belt and the Special Landscape Area, and based on the scale and massing of the buildings and other associated development, it was not considered that this proposal did that. He had sympathy with the needs of the applicant and the business, and the economic benefits of the proposal were clear, however, Officers did not feel that very special circumstances were in existence to clearly outweigh the harm which would be caused to the Green Belt, and the other harms identified, particularly in terms of the impact on Chosen Hill and the surrounding landscape. Furthermore the applicant had failed to undertake a robust assessment of alternative sites; the document referenced by the public speaker simply listed a number of Gloucestershire villages and anecdotal evidence that no sites were available.
75.50 The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation. Another Member felt that the proposal was acceptable and considered that the site was a suitable location for this type of unique development. It would not make sense to relocate an agricultural business to an industrial estate and he did not feel that the proposal would cause significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Although the buildings were large, this was due to the nature of the machinery, and they would be no more incongruous than the Walls factory site which could be clearly seen across the fields from the proposed site. The proposer of the motion to permit the application recognised that the site was in a poor state but he reiterated that this should not be taken into account in determining the application as an enforcement order could be put in place to ensure that it was cleared up. The fact was that the site was located within the Green Belt and was overlooked by Chosen Hill so constructing a huge building would give the site a very different aspect. A Member indicated that she was concerned about the amount of additional vehicle movements which would be generated by the proposal as the road was already very dangerous and she would be supporting the motion to refuse the application.
75.51 A Member noted that the site had a slope at one end and he questioned whether it might be possible to reduce the height of the buildings by sinking them lower into the ground. The Development Manager indicated that this was something which could be looked at if Members were so minded, but he did not consider that this would be likely to address the harm which had been identified. A Member reiterated that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt as a matter of fact. The Walls development was not in the Green Belt so it should not be used as a comparison with this application. The Officer recommendation was absolutely correct in his view and he would be supporting the motion to refuse the application. Another Member went on to explain that the machinery used within the agriculture and horticulture industry was getting bigger and he could understand the need for the business to be located on a large piece of land which could accommodate the buildings associated with this work. In his view this was the right location for the proposal and he was supportive of the application. A Member echoed these views and pointed out that other buildings could be seen from the site in the surrounding landscape. The proposer of the motion stressed that the site was located within the Green Belt and, if land was to be removed from the Green Belt this needed to be done through the plan-led process and not through individual planning applications.
75.52 A Member noted that the existing use of the site was a hay and straw business and he queried whether it could be considered as a Brownfield site. The Development Manager confirmed that the issue of the status of the land was set out in the Officer report and he advised that there was no permission with any lawful use other than the scaffolding business which was limited to a very small area. It was a matter of fact, with regard to the National Planning Policy Framework, that the development would be inappropriate within the Green Belt and the question was whether very special circumstances existed which clearly outweighed the harm which had been identified.
75.53 Upon being put to the vote, the motion to refuse the application was lost. The Development Manager advised that a comprehensive list of conditions would be recommended if Members were minded to permit the application including materials for the buildings; surfacing materials; highway conditions relating to access and turning/manoeuvring areas; drainage; landscaping; environmental issues around noise and working hours; levels; lighting; and the potential for the removal of permitted development rights. Given the number of unresolved issues around the conditions, and bearing in mind that the application would need to be referred to the Secretary of State, the Chair indicated that his preference would be for a ‘minded to permit’ decision with the conditions coming back to the Committee for consideration once formulated, rather than being delegated to Officers. A Member agreed with this suggestion and felt that this would also provide an opportunity to work with the applicant to reduce the height of the buildings. It was proposed, and seconded, that the Committee be minded to permit the application, subject to referral to the Secretary of State; negotiations with the applicant to reduce the height of the building; and the formulation of conditions. Upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the Committee be MINDED TO PERMIT the application, subject to referral to the Secretary of State; negotiations with the applicant to reduce the height of the buildings; and formulation of conditions.
15/01125/LBC – Noake Farm, Churchdown Lane, Churchdown
75.54 This application was for listed building consent for demolition of existing buildings and conversion of coach house to one dwelling, erection of detached garage/store and associated vehicular access and parking, together with other facilitating works relating to planning application 15/01124/FUL.
75.55 The Planning Officer clarified that planning permission and listed building consent had already been granted in 2013 for the conversion of the coach house to a dwelling, demolition of the collapsed stone barn, and the erection of a detached garage/store and associated vehicular access; there would be no conflict with the resolution for the previous application if Members decided to grant consent for this work. The Chair invited the applicant, Tom Rimell, to address the Committee, however, Mr Rimell confirmed that he had nothing to add to what the Development Manager had said in respect of this particular application. The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to grant consent and he invited a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be granted consent in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That CONSENT be GRANTED for the demolition of existing buildings and conversion of coach house to one dwelling, erection of detached garage/store and associated vehicular access and parking, together with other facilitating works relating to planning application 15/01124/FUL.
Supporting documents:
PDF 7 MB