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 |
Permit |
3 |
|
Ashleworth |
|
|
|
|
15/00865/FUL
|
Land at Berrow Farm Wickridge Street Ashleworth |
Deferred for committee site visit |
6 |
|
Bishops Cleeve |
|
|
|
|
15/00166/OUT |
Land at Stoke Road Bishops Cleeve GL52 7DG |
Refuse |
15 |
|
Bishops Cleeve |
|
|
|
|
15/01177/FUL |
Adjacent 74 Evesham Road Bishops Cleeve |
Delegated Permit |
14 |
|
Boddington |
|
|
|
|
15/00982/FUL |
Hayden Hill Fruit Farm Old Gloucester Road Boddington |
Refuse |
7 |
|
Buckland |
|
|
|
|
16/00105/FUL |
Sycamore Cottage Buckland Broadway Worcestershire |
Permit |
4 |
|
Churchdown |
|
|
|
|
15/00817/FUL |
Part Parcel 2813 Chosen Hill Churchdown |
Permit |
9 |
|
Down Hatherley |
|
|
|
|
16/00138/FUL |
Land West of Ash Lane Down Hatherley |
Delegated Permit |
12 |
|
Hucclecote |
|
|
|
|
15/01274/APP |
Land to the West & South of Gloucester Business Park Brockworth |
Approve |
13 |
|
Longford |
|
|
|
|
16/00027/FUL |
Longmarsh House 97A Tewkesbury Road Longford |
Permit |
11 |
|
Oxenton |
|
|
|
|
15/01288/FUL |
Part Parcel 0022 Oxenton Cheltenham |
Withdrawn |
8 |
|
Tewkesbury |
|
|
|
|
15/01293/OUT |
Parcel 0630 Mythe Road Tewkesbury |
Withdrawn |
2 |
|
Tewkesbury |
|
|
|
|
16/00317/ADV |
Tewkesbury Borough Council Gloucester Road Tewkesbury |
Delegated Consent |
1 |
|
Toddington |
|
|
|
|
15/00394/OUT |
Land to the South of B4077 Toddington |
Delegated Permit |
5 |
|
Woodmancote |
|
|
|
|
15/00830/FUL |
The Hall Stockwell Lane Woodmancote |
Permit |
10 |
Minutes:
82.1 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.
16/00317/ADV – Tewkesbury Borough Council, Gloucester Road, Tewkesbury
82.2 This application was for proposed signage to advertise Tewkesbury Leisure Centre.
82.3 The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item. The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to grant consent for the application, subject to no objections being received in relation to the proposed development following the expiry of the public consultation period, and he invited a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to grant consent for the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation. Upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to GRANT CONSENT for the application, subject to no objections being received in relation to the proposed development following the expiry of the public consultation period.
15/01293/OUT – Parcel 0630, Mythe Road, Tewkesbury
82.4 It was noted that this application for residential development of up to 250 dwellings, public open space, vehicular and pedestrian access and associated infrastructure, plus detailed approval for access arrangements for Mythe Road, with all other matters to be reserved, had been withdrawn.
15/00963/FUL – Gardener’s Arms, Beckford Road, Alderton
82.5 This application was for alterations to the existing car parking layout and provision of an overspill car park area, external seating area, external lighting and fencing and alterations to existing fenestration to include the replacement of existing UPVC framed windows with timber framed windows. This application had been deferred for a Committee Site Visit at the last meeting and the Committee had visited the application site on Friday 8 April 2016. It was noted that the description had been amended to reflect the fact that some work had already been carried out.
82.6 The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this application. The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation. A Member suggested that the fact that a car park may potentially be granted planning permission was further evidence of the fact that Alderton was unsustainable as a service village given the reliance on private motor vehicles. She appreciated that it was a thriving village, with the public house being a major part of the community, and the Committee Site Visit had shown that the car park did need to be extended; however, she was concerned about lighting and the potential use of marquees on the site. A Member supported this view, and those of the Parish Council, particularly as part of the area had been designated as an important open space in the existing adopted Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan. If Members were minded to permit the application he would like to see conditions in relation to landscaping and lighting. Local residents were particularly concerned with the lighting and, whilst he understood that it was a necessary requirement, he felt that it needed to be controlled.
82.7 In response to the queries raised, the Development Manager clarified that low level lighting would be used and advised that the Officer recommendation included a condition to restrict the use of the lighting outside of the opening hours of the premises. It was noted that opening hours were controlled by other legislation but it was reasonable to tie lighting to that. A landscaping condition was also recommended so Officers would have control over the final approach in that respect. In terms of restricting the use of marquees, Members were advised that licensed premises had certain permitted development rights which allowed marquees to be erected a certain number of times per year. Whilst he understood where the supposition had come from, there was no indication from the application that the landowner intended to erect a marquee and it would be difficult to justify restricting rights that the landowner already enjoyed on the basis of what was proposed.
82.8 A Member sympathised with the Parish Council objections but felt that the public house should be supported and the inclusion of the suggested conditions would help to overcome any issues. Upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
16/00105/FUL – Sycamore Cottage, Buckland
82.9 This application was for a single storey rear extension with a first floor balcony. The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 8 April 2016.
82.10 The Chair invited the applicant, Mr Reen, to address the Committee. Mr Reen noted that there had been a number of objections to the inclusion of a balcony on the approved structure which had been submitted to the Planning department in late January/early February 2016. He wished to apologise to his neighbours for not keeping them fully informed of the change to the approved structure; this was a timing issue as, due to their holiday and his own emergency travel commitments, they had not been able to see them for the whole of January and much of February. He noted that a comment had been made that the majority of permanent residents in Buckland were opposed to the development and he wished to clarify that, from a total of 29 properties, objections had been received from only six properties.
82.11 The Chair advised that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
15/00394/OUT – Land to the South of B4077, Toddington
82.12 This was an outline planning application for the erection of up to 33 dwellings and associated works with all matters reserved for future consideration with the exception of access. The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 8 April 2016.
82.13 The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Ian Jewson, to address the Committee. Mr Jewson clarified that his client sought approval for the access arrangements and principle of development for up to 33 dwellings with all other matters reserved for future consideration. Whilst the layout was not for approval at this stage, the design had been the subject of very detailed scrutiny during discussion with the Planning and Urban Design Officers, as well as the Council’s Landscape Advisor. He stressed that the proposals were not an attempt to bypass the planning process, as had been suggested, but an opportunity to provide housing at a sensitive scale and density in an area which was identified for housing development. As could be seen from the report, the national planning policy context for the site was an important consideration and required local planning authorities to significantly boost the supply of housing and to work proactively with applicants to find solutions rather than problems. Development on the land had been the subject of discussions since 2014 and an earlier scheme had been refused by the Council with the subsequent appeal being dismissed. The Inspector’s decision letter did, however, provide an agenda by which they had been able to work through the outstanding concerns with Officers. In terms of the principle of development, Members would be aware that Toddington was identified as a service village in the emerging Joint Core Strategy where new housing was proposed. In addition, the site was identified as one of two options for housing development in the emerging Borough Plan. These proposals had been amended substantially in comparison to the earlier scheme for 72 dwellings and, as a result, there were no technical objections to the 33 dwelling scheme from statutory consultees. Importantly, when considering the early concerns of the Council and the appeal Inspector, there were no objections from the Council’s Landscape Advisor, Urban Design Officer or Highways Officer. Setting aside the earlier decisions on the site, it was hoped that Members were able to recognise the very significant efforts which had been made, by the applicant and Officers, to negotiate an appropriate solution for the site. He hoped they would agree that the low level of density and significant landscaping and open space provision on the site was an appropriate response which would provide significant benefits to the local area, both in terms of infrastructure provision and the delivery of much-needed market and affordable housing. His client had also agreed additional contributions through the Section 106 process and he asked the Committee to support the Officer recommendation.
82.14 The Chair advised that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the signing 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. With regard to the Section 106 Agreement, a Member sought clarification as to where the playing pitch provision, sports hall and astroturf would be located. The Planning Officer explained that the Parish Council had made a suggestion that some of the playing pitch provision could be facilitated next to the Village Hall; although the land was not within the Parish Council’s control, there was support for that proposal. He confirmed that the astroturf would be in Winchcombe and the swimming pool would be the new leisure centre on the Tewkesbury Borough Council Offices site. There were two potential options for the sports hall; Winchcombe, or opposite Toddington Village Hall. In response to a further query, the Planning Officer advised that the Sports England calculator was used to determine the funding required for the activity generated by the development and consideration was given to providing sporting facilities in the immediate area, although the only requirement was that it must service the development. Officers had been instructed that Toddington Village Hall would be the preferred location in this instance. The Development Manager clarified that it was often timings, and the projects which were coming forward, which determined the most suitable location to meet the needs of the development at the appropriate point in time. The Member indicated that infrastructure was very important for new development and he feared that communities could lose out on the benefits of Section 106 contributions. The Development Manager provided assurance that this was something which Officers were very aware of, particularly through the work being done on the Community Infrastructure Levy. The Council’s Community Development Officers had an important role to play in making sure that Parish Councils were aware of what money was available and working with them to bring forward projects in those communities.
82.15 The Chair drew attention to Page No. 931/D of the Officer’s report which he felt demonstrated how particular care had been taken with the scheme to reflect the housing on the opposite side of the road. He also felt that it was important to be firm regarding materials, and to ensure that there was appropriate screening, in order to protect the ribbon development of Toddington. Upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement.
15/00865/FUL – Land at Berrow Farm, Wickridge Street, Ashleworth
82.16 This application was for the installation of two biomass boilers on a concrete pad and the change of use of the grain store and mill house for use in association with commercial wood chip drying. The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 8 April 2016.
82.17 The Chair invited Shaun Pitt, speaking against the application, to address the Committee. Mr Pitt indicated that the National Planning Policy Framework was clear that it supported development where there was no harm or loss of amenity to local residents. The applicant had already started the operation so he had been able to sit in the garden of Orchardside whilst they had been loading lorries. The noise report stated that it took four scoops of 1.5 tonnes and 15 minutes to load the lorries which was incorrect; it actually took 40-45 scoops to load and around 45 minutes. During that period, the clanking of the telehandler bucket was at a level high above the side of the lorry being loaded which was very obtrusive. The lorry itself had sat idling and, unless a 4m high acoustic fence was constructed, as recommended by the Environmental Health Officer, it would cause a major impact on Orchardside. He questioned whether such a fence would be acceptable in this rural location; in his view allowing the extra door in the grain store even closer to Orchardside was madness. The operation proposed two lorries per day to be loaded, however, drying grain was a slower process and the amount of lorries involved was significantly less. It was seasonal, not 365 days per year, and there was no guarantee that dry grain would continue. He went on to explain that the telehandler used for the operation was a large wheeled loader that would not be used in the pig buildings. The pig buildings themselves were located further from Orchardside and did not face directly onto the property so any loading or scraping would have far less of an impact. In fact, the existing use as a pig farm could be reinstated even if planning permission was granted so this noise could be ‘as well as’, not just ‘instead of’. The noise report took no account of the considerable forward and backward shunting to get the trailers into the dryer, or the beeping generated by the reversing vehicles, and he noted that other Councils imposed bleeper restrictions on all vehicles. The grain store had been designed and located for tractor and trailer size loads, not the bulk walking floor lorries that delivered the woodchip; tractor and trailer was far quieter than the walking floor trailers that the woodchip arrived in. The lorries were already damaging the verges as they negotiated the bends and cutting up the verge outside the unit as the access was far tighter than the applicant had led people to believe. The Planning Officer assumed that the lorries came through Ashleworth, thus avoiding the verges of the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). There were no proposals to restrict how the site was accessed and Chamberlayne Farms had told him that a one-way system would be used to avoid lorries passing one another. The local horse riders had objected due to the noise that would be occurring next to the bridal path and the entrance where the loading would be taking place; they were also concerned about highway safety. The majority of residents in Wickridge Street had raised objections and there was no real local support for the application. The Council’s policies were clear and robust and he urged Members to send a message to the Planning Inspectorate that Tewkesbury Borough Council did not support inappropriate rural diversification that had a harmful impact upon existing residents.
82.18 The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Julie Branfield, to address the Committee. She advised that the grain store had been used by Chamberlayne Farms since the 1990s and was adequate for farm purposes, however, the drying was powered by a noisy, expensive to run, diesel engine. The replacement biomass boilers met the demands of the farm but, to ensure economic viability, they needed to be used beyond the agricultural grain drying window. The proposal was sustainable on both economic and environmental grounds and the installation had been encouraged at a national level to reduce the reliance on fossil fuel. She understood that Members had been concerned that the boilers had not been running at the time of the Committee Site Visit; however, she explained that the fans had been operating at approximately 98% of their capacity and, as could be seen from the noise assessment, the biomass boiler was quieter than the fans and significantly quieter than the Lister engine previously used. The proposed woodchip drying could take place without any changes to the internal arrangement of the building. As had been demonstrated on the Site Visit, the applicants had been testing the drying procedure in terms of timescales and volumes through the extended application period. It had become apparent that the drying time was more likely to take 60-72 hours per floor, rather than the previously estimated 48 hours, but it would vary in accordance with the specification of the customer and the quality of the woodchip. With regard to noise mitigation, the proposed measures were: white noise reversing bleepers on the equipment owned by the applicant; doors to the grain store being closed at night; full training of all yard staff – a family member had been doing the majority of loading work on site to date but, in the event that it was an employee loading or unloading lorries, they would be fully briefed on the procedures of the facility and would only be employed in the role if they had received adequate telescopic handler training; an acoustic fence on the roadside hedge to a height of 2.5m – this would be tongue and groove wooden fencing which was essentially a ‘reflective’ noise barrier, commonly used for residential or commercial applications where traffic noise was the main concern, and noise hitting the dense barrier was reflected back towards the source with only the diffracted noise being shadowed over the top; the lean-to that currently housed the fans would be clad along approximately two-thirds of the length on both sides with insulated box profile steel in Juniper green which would further deflect the sound whilst also keeping the airflow to allow the fans to function correctly. The facility would be managed in house and, as such, the applicant would have full control over the delivery and collection vehicles and opening hours.
82.19 The Chair advised that the Officer recommendation was that Members be minded to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the Committee be minded to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation. The seconder of the motion indicated that Members had not thought that the engine or fans had been working when they had visited the site and it was only when they had walked to within 1.5m of the building that they had heard the fans running. A Member indicated that, whilst the fans had been running, there had been no tractors in operation which would be likely to generate considerably more noise. He noted that the Officer report referred to a ‘small number of objectors’, however, he felt that 21 letters of objection was significant in a village the size of Ashleworth. The Planning Officer advised that one of the recommended conditions was for the submission of a noise mitigation plan which would seek to control the noise within the building and there would be a requirement to ensure that the doors were closed at all times of operation. Tractors were part and parcel of farm operations and it was not unusual to have that type of noise and activity in an agricultural context.
82.20 Whilst she recognised that farms needed to diversify, a Member expressed concern that she had not been able to hear the same level of noise which the neighbouring residents would be exposed to when the Committee had visited the site. She understood that, when the lorries loaded and unloaded they would be connected to a dumper truck which banged on the floor to scrape up the woodchip and this noise reverberated across the road. She proposed that the application be deferred for a further site visit in order for the Committee to see the facility when it was fully operational. This proposal was seconded. The Development Manager reminded Members that an appeal had been submitted in relation to the application and it would be difficult to defer the application for a site visit and still adhere to the appeal timetable. Furthermore, it would be quite unusual for any change of use application to be up and running when Members visited the site so it had been of some benefit that part of the facility had been in operation on the first site visit. In response to a Member query, clarification was provided that the appeal had been submitted on the basis of non-determination; from an Officer perspective there had been some impatience on the part of the applicant who had been working with Officers to address the various noise issues and it was unfortunate that decision now had to be made on a ‘minded to’ basis.
82.21 A Member indicated that he shared the concerns raised about the facility not being fully operational at the time of the Committee Site Visit and he felt that the objectors were being let down in terms of a full assessment of the noise which would be generated. He had been led to believe that the facility would be in constant operation which would lead to heavy traffic seven days per week and he was unsure as to how that could be mitigated. The Planning Officer advised that one of the recommended conditions would limit the number of heavy goods vehicles delivering and collecting woodchip to and from the site to two per day, i.e. four movements per day, and the hours of collection/delivery would be restricted to 1000-1500 hours Monday to Saturday with no collections/deliveries on Sundays or Bank Holidays. A further condition was recommended which would restrict operations or activities required in connection with commercial woodchip drying to between the hours of 0800 and 1700 Monday to Friday and 0900-1600 on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays. In response to a query, the Planning Officer clarified that the facility would be used for grain drying between May and September and outside of that time it would be used for woodchip drying.
82.22 Another Member continued to have concerns that the Committee had not got the full picture when it had visited the site; it had been clear that some part of the facility had been in operation but they had all struggled to understand why the residents were so concerned based on the noise which they had heard on that day. He was of the view that it would not be fair to make a decision without hearing what the residents were being subjected to. The Development Manager understood Members’ apprehensions but he reiterated that it would be unusual for them to see a fully operational facility on the Committee Site Visit. The application had not been determined within the normal timescales largely due to the amount of work which had been done by Officers and the applicant and their agent to make the proposal acceptable. The application had been fully assessed by professional Officers in terms of environmental health concerns and it was considered that the potential harm to the residential amenity of nearby properties could be sufficiently controlled by the recommended conditions.
82.23 The proposer and seconder of the motion to defer the application for a further Committee Site Visit indicated that they did not wish to withdraw the motion on the basis of the Planning Officer’s advice and, upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be DEFERRED for a further Committee Site Visit in order to assess the facility when it was fully operational.
15/00982/FUL – Hayden Hill Fruit Farm, Old Gloucester Road, Boddington
82.24 This application was for the erection of ground mounted solar panels with an electrical output of approximately 5MW along with associated infrastructure landscaping and ancillary structures. The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 22 December 2015 to negotiate a reduced scheme in an attempt to address landscape concerns.
82.25 The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item. 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 on the basis that the benefits of renewable energy would outweigh harm to the Green Belt and given that it was not a permanent structure with the land being restored after 25 years. The proposer of the motion recalled that the Committee had considered four applications for solar farms at the meeting on 22 December, three of which had been recommended for permission but had subsequently been refused by the Committee. In terms of this particular application, Members had felt that a reduced scheme, or re-siting of solar panels in accordance with the Parish Council’s suggestions, could be acceptable. Personally he would have been happy to permit the application when it had initially been considered and he continued to be of that view given the proposed amendments.
82.26 A Member indicated that a solar farm was currently being built within her Ward and Western Power had recently constructed a sizeable building on the site. She questioned whether this was likely to happen if Members were minded to permit this application as she could not see anything to indicate this on the plans. The Planning Officer explained that distributors, such as Western Power, would be involved in any solar farm application and the building referenced by the Member would have been constructed under permitted development rights. In terms of previous applications for solar farms, no additional conditions had been included to ensure screening of buildings constructed under permitted development rights and this was something which he felt would be beneficial going forward to ensure that the Council had some control over minimising the impact.
82.27 The proposer of the motion queried whether this application would need to be forwarded to the Secretary of State and the Development Manager clarified that, whilst there was a requirement for certain major developments over 0.5 hectares in size to be referred to the Secretary of State, he did not believe that this was necessary in this instance. He stressed that there were strict rules as to which applications needed to be referred; notwithstanding this, a decision could still be made subject to referral to the Secretary of State if necessary.
82.28 The Planning Officer indicated that Members may wish to consider delegating authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to conditions including the limitation of the proposal to 25 years; submission of a method statement prior to commencement of development; details of hard and soft landscaping including hedgerow retention; implementation of biodiversity enhancement measures; noise mitigation; highways; drainage and screening of electricity provider equipment. The proposer and seconder of the motion indicated that they were happy with this amendment. Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for a delegated permission was lost. It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer recommendation. It was noted that Members wished to receive a report in relation to the construction of electricity substations in association with solar farms.
15/01288/FUL – Part Parcel 0022, Oxenton
82.29 It was noted that this application for proposed change of use of an agricultural building to a dwelling house and associated building operations had been withdrawn.
15/00817/FUL – Part Parcel 2813, Chosen Hill, Churchdown
82.30 This application was for an upgrade to existing entrance track.
82.31 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, subject to the inclusion of an additional condition to ensure that the reclaimed railway sleepers be removed from the site and replaced with a re-profiled grass banking in accordance with the suggestions of the Parish Council. Upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to the inclusion of an additional condition to ensure that the reclaimed railway sleepers be removed from the site and replaced with a re-profiled grass banking in accordance with the suggestions of the Parish Council.
15/00830/FUL – The Hall, Stockwell Lane, Woodmancote
82.32 This was a retrospective application for retention of a dwelling as built including roof light, garden walls and picket fence; and erection of a single storey extension to provide a garden room.
82.33 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. Upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
16/00027/FUL – Longmarsh House, 97A Tewkesbury Road, Longford
82.34 This application was for change of use of a domestic double garage to an architectural reclamation showroom and office, including roof alterations.
82.35 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. Upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
16/00138/FUL – Land West of Ash Lane, Down Hatherley
82.36 This application was for the erection of a single infill dwelling and detached garage.
82.37 The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Oliver Rider, to address the Committee. Mr Rider indicated that a planning application for two infill dwellings, on the opposite side of Ash Lane, had been permitted by the Planning Committee in October 2015. He had advised the Committee on that day of a High Court decision in February 2015 which had provided clarity on the National Planning Policy Framework’s policy of supporting ‘limited infilling in villages’ in the Green Belt. The High Court decision set out the clear purpose of the policy which was to allow for the infilling of gaps in otherwise built up frontages. This was because the Government recognised the need to provide much needed housing in rural areas, whilst acknowledging that the infilling of such gaps did not create urban sprawl and did not conflict with the defined Green Belt purposes. This had been recognised by Members and it was established that Ash Lane was part of the village of Down Hatherley and was exactly what the Government had in mind in supporting infilling in villages. The current proposal was a very similar example to that approved by the Committee in October; this time the proposal was for a single infill dwelling but, again, the proposal was to infill a gap in an otherwise built-up frontage. Officers had correctly recognised that this was a classic case of village infilling and was supported by the National Planning Policy Framework. Furthermore, Officers acknowledged that the design of the dwelling would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area and that there would be no impact on the amenity of local residents. The development was also safe from a highways perspective and was accessible by local bus stops and other local services. He noted that the Parish Council had objected to the application, however, it appeared that was more to do with concerns over setting a precedent for a much larger form of residential development to come forward. Given that the policy only supported ‘limited infilling’ he suggested that the Parish Council did not need to be concerned in that regard. He encouraged Members to conclude that the development was small infill which did not prejudice the protection of the Green Belt. It would not give rise to urban sprawl and it would certainly not result in the coalescence of Cheltenham and Gloucester. He noted that late representations had been made by a local resident implying that there were protected species in the area although, eight weeks in to the application process, they had not been able to provide any conclusive evidence as such. Professional ecological surveys had been carried out on behalf of the applicant which had not uncovered any evidence of protected species on the site, nor was it deemed to be a suitable habitat for such species. Nevertheless, he was confident that this issue could be satisfactorily addressed in the near future under delegated powers if Members felt that they could only make a ‘delegated permit’ decision today.
82.38 The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation had been changed to delegated permit in order to resolve the ecological issues 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 the dwellings would be accessed via a private road and she questioned whether it would be appropriate to include a condition to ensure that the surface was restored if any damage was caused by large vehicles. The Development Manager clarified that this was a private matter between the developer and the owner(s) of the road and not something which the Committee should be concerned with. A Member went on to question what would happen if the road did become damaged and the Legal Adviser confirmed that the right of access would need to be acquired and a case could be made to cover potential damage within that agreement.
82.39 Upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the resolution of ecological issues.
15/01274/APP – Land to the West and South of Gloucester Business Park, Brockworth
82.40 This application was for proposed development of 214 residential dwellings with associated roads, footways, parking, drainage and landscaping comprising parcels 25a, 25b, 26a, 27a and 27b.
82.41 The Planning Officer explained that it had been recommended that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to approve the application, subject to the consideration of additional information regarding vehicle tracking to ensure that refuse and emergency vehicles could navigate adequately around the estate. County Highways had now indicated that it was happy with the scheme and the recommendation had therefore been changed to approve.
82.42 The Chair invited Rachel Capener, speaking on behalf of the applicant, to address the Committee. She explained that, as outlined in the Officer report, various amendments had been made to the original application in order to accord with the approve design code and with the various consultee responses. These included changes to road types and hierarchy; the addition of boundary treatments such as railings and hedge planting; increase in back to back distances; reduction of render; and increase and reconfiguration of parking to allow for soft landscaping. In terms of parking, all homes had at least two parking spaces with four bedroom homes generally having three spaces and five bedroom homes having four spaces. Additionally there were 35 visitor parking spaces. The proposed drainage scheme followed the existing strategy for the overall scheme and all finished floor levels were in accordance with the approved plans. The design of the houses and materials used were in line with the design code and sympathetic to the surrounding parcels. Overall it was felt that the applicant had worked well with Officers to produce an attractive and successful scheme.
82.43 The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to approve the application and he invited a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
15/01177/FUL – Adjacent 74 Evesham Road, Bishop’s Cleeve
82.44 This application was for the erection of 71 dwellings (access from Evesham Road) with public open space and other associated infrastructure. The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 8 April 2016.
82.45 The Planning Officer advised that there had been two matters outstanding at the time of writing the report in relation to highways and archaeology. The County Highways Authority had requested additional information in relation to vehicle tracking and safety. This had now been received and assessed and County Highways had no objection to the application, subject to the imposition of conditions. The County Archaeologist had received the results of an archaeological field evaluation which had confirmed that no evidence for any significant archaeological remains had been found and he was happy for the proposal to proceed to the determination stage. Additional comments had been made by the applicant in response to the Parish Council’s concerns regarding the capacity of existing utilities and the neighbours’ concerns in relation to the proximity of the pumping station. The applicant had provided a Utilities Statement which confirmed that relevant utilities provision could be made for the scheme and that the pumping station would be set back from the properties, would not be audible and would be built to the exacting standards of the water company. Members were advised that the recommendation was still for a delegated permission but this was now purely to allow for the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.
82.46 The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Andrew Ross, to address the Committee. Mr Ross indicated that Bishop’s Cleeve was a key location within Tewkesbury Borough, outside of both the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and one which was capable of accommodating sustainable development. The site was partly brownfield land and not sensitive in landscape terms, being close to and surrounded by other existing development and outside of any Special Landscape Areas. On that basis, it was a logical location for additional development at Bishop’s Cleeve. The detailed design of the dwellings and this scheme had evolved through a number of iterations and constructive dialogue with the Council’s Urban Design Officer and others. The scheme would secure high quality new housing for the area, providing further choice alongside other approved schemes, further helping to boost housing supply in the short term. Whilst it would make a significant positive contribution to housing supply, the scheme was modest in scale compared to other options and, as set out in the report, there would be no cumulative effects with other existing commitments that resulted in unacceptable impacts. The scheme would deliver 40% affordable housing, partly through on-site provision and partly via financial contributions that had been agreed with the Council’s Housing Officer. This had been highlighted in the comments of the Council’s Affordable Housing Officer as a significant benefit as the financial contribution secured would assist delivery of affordable housing in rural communities that were struggling to make necessary provision. This was an immediately deliverable scheme, with approval sought in full, being brought forward by an experienced housebuilder who had the skills and expertise to ensure that delivery would occur as anticipated; this was in contrast to other applications nearby which might represent longer term options. All technical issues relating to drainage, highways, ecology and other matters had been addressed to the satisfaction of the relevant internal and external consultees as set out in the report; this included the updates that had been provided in respect of both archaeology and highways in the Additional Representations Sheet. The scheme would also deliver overall improvements in terms of flood risk along the Evesham Road frontage through new on-site drainage infrastructure. He considered that the Officer’s report was thorough and agreed with the conclusion that the benefits of the scheme outweighed any harm, and that planning permission should therefore be granted, and he hoped that Members would support the proposals.
82.47 The Chair invited Councillor Mrs Sue Hillier-Richardson, one of the local Members for Bishop’s Cleeve, to address the Committee. Councillor Hillier-Richardson indicated that she supported the view of Bishop’s Cleeve and Gotherington Parish Councils which considered that the proposed development would be unsustainable and would represent urban sprawl. There would be a cumulative effect on the infrastructure of the village as Bishop’s Cleeve was already congested with traffic, not just at peak times, and schools were full to capacity. There were still upwards of 1,000 houses to be built or occupied in the area, the majority of which had been permitted against the wishes of the Committee. The development was not included in either the Joint Core Strategy or the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and she urged Members to refuse the application.
82.48 The Chair reiterated that 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 sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation. A Member noted that the boundary of the development was set right against No. 74 Evesham Road and he questioned if that had been considered in the negotiations with developers. The Planning Officer explained that the layout of the revised plans had been assessed along with the impact on neighbouring residential properties and was considered to be acceptable in terms of overbearing impact etc. He pointed out that there was another application on the east side of the breaker’s yard pending for further residential development for 26 dwellings and the impact of that scheme had also been assessed in relation to this one and found to be acceptable. In response to a query, the Planning Officer provided clarification that there would be a boundary fence and it was not thought that the relationship would be unacceptable in terms of impact on that particular resident. A Member drew attention to Pages No. 999/A and 999/B of the Officer report which appeared to show No. 74 Evesham Road in two different forms and he queried which was the correct one. The Development Manager explained that the plan at Page No. 999/A was from the Ordnance Survey which, unfortunately, had not always been found to be completely accurate. In terms of this application, No. 74 was opposite the application site which was shown on the block plan at Page No. 999/B; this was the more important of the two plans as it showed the relationship between the development and the existing buildings.
82.49 In terms of affordable housing, a Member queried where the off-site provision was likely to be and whether the tenure had been decided. The Development Manager explained that there were no details available at this stage, however, a new initiative was being used to look at the need for market and affordable housing across the Borough so there would be opportunity to look outside of Bishop’s Cleeve. A Member noted that Gotherington Parish Council had raised specific concern that the proposed layout showed the development close to the Parish boundary and, should the application be permitted, it would request a revision of the site layout to provide a greater area of green space to the north of the site. The Planning Officer explained that a revision had been made to step back the extent of the houses further off the boundary. The landscape impact had been assessed with specific reference to the Gotherington ‘gap’ and it was considered that the development would not be intrusive and would not cause significant harm in the planning balance. The Member went on to query why there was no contribution towards a GP surgery within the Section 106 Agreement. The Development Manager confirmed that NHS England had been consulted on the proposal and, if no feedback was provided, a contribution could not be legitimately sought, however, a new GP surgery was being provided through the Homelands/Cleevelands developments so there would be adequate provision within the area.
82.50 Upon being put to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement.
15/00166/OUT – Land at Stoke Road, Bishop’s Cleeve
82.51 This was an outline planning application for up to 265 dwellings and an A1 convenience retail store of up to 200sqm with associated open space and landscaping; with all matters reserved except for access (access defined as off Stoke Road to 15m in to the site). The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 8 April 2016.
82.52 The Development Manager advised that the Council was unable to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites and as such, the Council’s housing policies, including HOU5 must be considered out of date. Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework set out that all housing applications must be considered within the context of a presumption in favour of sustainable development. There were very clear benefits arising from the proposal which were set out in the Officer’s report. Whilst there would clearly be some landscape harm caused by introducing new urban development where there were currently green fields, the Council’s Landscape Consultant did not feel that it would be significant and demonstrable enough to outweigh the benefits of the scheme. In terms of accessibility, County Highways had been consulted and the cumulative impact of other planned development in the area had been taken into account; the County Highways Officer had no objection to the application. There were some concerns around the design as the development would have very limited connections and poor links to the existing village. Although footpath connections were shown on the draft development framework plan, they lay outside of the application site and outside of the developer’s control. There were significant concerns arising from the location of the site on the boundaries of Malvern View Business Park and opposite Wingmoor Farm Waste Management facility, particularly in respect of the lack of a robust assessment of air quality. Members were reminded that Wingmoor Farm was a safeguarded site in the Waste Core Strategy and concerns had been raised by both the operators of the site and Gloucestershire County Council, as Waste Planning Authority, that operations on the site could be put at risk. Overall it was considered that it had not been demonstrated that this was a suitable site for housing development and there were no very special circumstances to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harm which would be caused, therefore the application was recommended for refusal.
82.53 The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item. 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. A Member raised concern that there was a single access in and out of the site which was potentially dangerous if that road became impassable. A Member questioned whether the Council was any closer to being able to demonstrate a five year deliverable housing land supply, particularly given the Secretary of State’s decision to agree with the Planning Committee’s resolution to permit the application at Perrybrook for mixed use of up to 1,500 dwellings. The Development Manager explained that the Council was in a very difficult position as it was still not clear what the actual figure would be to achieve a five year supply. It could be assessed against the number in the Joint Core Strategy, however, there had been significant objection to those figures at the examination and it was important to be cautious of the weight that could be applied to Policies SP1 and SP2. In any event there was more work to do to reach the Joint Core Strategy figure and he reminded Members that there would be a long lead in time for very large sites such as Perrybrook so only a limited amount actually contributed to housing supply at this point in time. He noted the concern regarding the access, however, County Highways had assessed the proposal and was satisfied that it was safe and suitable.
82.54 A Member was of the view that the proposal was unsuitable for a variety of reasons and not least in terms of its location on the edge of Bishop’s Cleeve, well away from facilities. The main thrust of the Officer recommendation to refuse the application seemed to be health issues and the local community had a whole host of other reasons why it was inappropriate. He would be supporting the motion to refuse the application and felt that, if the land had to be developed, light commercial development would be more appropriate given that the Joint Core Strategy Inspector had stated that there was a need for that type of use and this would be a natural extension to what was already being done in the area. Upon being taken to the vote, it was
RESOLVED That the application be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.
Supporting documents:
PDF 9 MB