Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

90.1           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.

15/01344/FUL – 1 Cleeve Road, Gotherington

90.2           This application was for a new two bedroom chalet style bungalow in the rear garden of 1 Cleeve Road, Gotherington.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 6 May 2016.

90.3           The Chair invited the applicant, Robert Sharp, to address the Committee.  Mr Sharp explained that planning permission for the existing residential property  had been granted by the Planning Committee in 2011 having taken into account the comments of the County Highways Officers.  The key points had included the support of the Parish Council based on local knowledge of the access and the speed of vehicles at that point.  Access was deemed to be as good, or better, than many in the village and a caravan had safely used the established access for 30 years.  Overall, the conclusion in 2011 had been to permit the application as it was unlikely to result in a highway issue; as at 2016 that had been proved to be a valid opinion.  The access had been safely in use for five years covering the build phase and subsequent domestic use; all vehicles left the access in a forward gear, unlike many in the village which could be witnessed reversing onto the road on a daily basis; visibility was good, particularly to the right, and well in excess of the 54m required based on County Highways speed assumptions.  This enabled drivers to safely turn left and edge forward to see traffic from the other direction if turning right, again this was far superior to many existing driveways in the village.  The small two bedroom dwelling would create a minimal additional impact in terms of traffic volumes and the initial guidance had been that, as planning permission had been granted in 2011, access would not be an issue and he should focus on the actual building plans.  He had worked co-operatively with the Planning Officer and used a planning consultant to create an application which was acceptable in principle to Tewkesbury Borough Council.  A former Borough Councillor, who was a Member of the Planning Committee in 2011 when the original application had been approved, was a current Member of Gotherington Parish Council which supported the application, based on local knowledge and experience.  In conclusion, based on the fact that the access was currently safely in use; visibility was good, particularly to the right; cars would exit in a forward gear; and the application had the support of the Parish Council, he requested that the Planning Committee permit the application.

90.4           The Chair advised 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 permitted.  The proposer of the motion supported the applicant’s comments that the access had already been in use since 2011 and visibility out of the driveway was very good driving up the road to the right; there was a slight problem to the left but she believed that it was a safe access based on the fact that it had been used for the last five years.  Should Members be minded to permit the application, the Planning Officer recommended the inclusion of conditions requiring that the development begin before the expiry of three years; that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans; the submission of building samples for wall and roof materials; site levels; details for the disposal of foul sewage and surface water drainage; removal of permitted development rights; the first floor window in the west elevation to be obscure glazed; details of a landscaping scheme; and vehicle parking and turning facilities to be provided in accordance with the submitted plans.  The proposer and seconder of the motion indicated that they were happy with the suggested conditions and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED subject to the inclusion of conditions requiring that the development begin before the expiry of three years; that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans; the submission of building samples for wall and roof materials; site levels; details for the disposal of foul sewage and surface water drainage; removal of permitted development rights; the first floor window in the west elevation to be obscure glazed; details of a landscaping scheme; and vehicle parking and turning facilities to be provided in accordance with the submitted plans. 

16/00205/FUL – Bide A Wee, Gretton Fields, Gretton

90.5           This application was for the erection of two storey and single storey rear extensions.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 6 May 2016.

90.6           The Chair invited Simon Price, a planning consultant for the application, to address the Committee.  Mr Price explained that he was speaking on behalf of the Chaplin family who were seeking planning permission for the erection of two storey and single storey extensions to the rear of their property.  The whole thrust of the application, and their previous application, was based around a change in family circumstances; Mrs Chaplin had lost her husband earlier in the year and her son had decided that, in order to ensure that his mother was cared for and her property maintained, he would move with his wife and children to the Gretton Fields property.  They currently lived in Gretton and their children attended the local primary and secondary schools so the move would ensure that all family members maintained local ties with the community.  The relocation would require the property to be extended to accommodate the whole family and, at the same time, provision had been made for Mrs Chaplin’s other son, who was of poor health and required care, to live in the property as well.  As the Planning Officer’s report had concluded, the main issue regarding the application centred around the character of the original dwelling, the character of the area and residential amenity.  The current proposals took on board comments made by the Planning Officer relating to the previous scheme; the applicant had sought to reduce the extension sizes and pay more respect to the existing building with the roof lines being reduced in height to ensure that the original property was the dominant building and nearly 30% of the original scheme’s size being removed.  With regard to Page No. 1024, Paragraphs 5.5 and 5.6 of the Officer’s report, it was confirmed that both the gable and single storey extensions were acceptable.  There would be very little impact on the character of the area, with many properties along Gretton Fields having similar, and in some cases, larger, extensions than in the past.  There had also been recent infill residential new-builds along the road which was of diverse architectural make up.  In addition, the boundaries provided significant landscaping cover with existing hedges to each side between 3m and 4m in height.  This also assisted with residential amenity and the Planning Officer had confirmed that there was no significant loss of daylight, sunlight or overbearing impact arising from the extensions to any other property.  There were no safety issues relating to highways and any concerns with drainage could be addressed by way of condition, as noted by the Planning Officer at Page No. 1025, Paragraph 5.16 of the report.  This application represented a way for an enlarged family to co-habit at one location, reducing the impact on services now, and in the future.  The reasons for refusal centred around the rear extensions that, in part, the Planning Officer had conceded were acceptable and were a matter of opinion.  All other policy context matters had been satisfied, or were not applicable, and he respectfully asked that the Committee granted planning permission.

90.7           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 explained that the application site was the end plot on the plan and there was nothing beyond it to the north.  The extensions would be set back and would not intrude on neighbouring properties or the open countryside.  They would also be rendered rather than finished in brick as it currently was so there would be a separation of the two as opposed to a continuous slab of structure.  Whilst he recognised that the property had previously been extended, this had been some 30 years earlier.  The majority of properties along the road had been extended from time to time and he believed that this proposal should be allowed. 

90.8           Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED, subject to the inclusion of appropriate planning conditions.

15/01374/FUL – 10 Elmbury Drive, Newtown, Tewkesbury

90.9           This application was for a first floor side extension over existing extension.

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

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

16/00070/FUL – Oak Farm, Toddington

90.11         This application was for a first floor rear extension and associated alterations.

90.12         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.

16/00188/FUL – 1 Tobacco Close, Winchcombe

90.13         This application was to demolish the existing garage, link and front entrance porch and to construct a one and a half storey side and rear extension with a new porch.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 6 May 2016.

90.14         The Chair invited Judith Petchey, speaking against the application, to address the Committee.  Mrs Petchey clarified that, although she had spoken previously at Planning Committee meetings on behalf of Winchcombe Town Council, she was speaking on this application as a private individual on behalf of the residents of the adjacent property at No. 3 Tobacco Close.  The planning application had been received by Winchcombe Town Council a few days before it had been due to meet and was added as a late item in order to keep the planning process on track.  Based on the information to hand at that time, the Committee had determined that the design was acceptable and had raised no objection; however, it had come to light that the application had only been brought to the attention of the residents of No. 3 at the same time it had been received by the Town Council giving them little opportunity to bring any objections to the attention of the Planning Committee.  The impact of the proposed extension involving the demolition of the existing garage and the construction of a one and half storey extension would have a severe impact on No. 3 and bring about severe loss of light and privacy.  Whilst the applicant wished to install seven rooflights and one roof lantern in order to maximise their light, the proposal would cause severe loss of light at No. 3, particularly to the kitchen.  This assertion could be borne out by fact sheet 1 of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) leaflet relating to ‘right of light’.  In addition, the proposed structure would be overbearing and present an unacceptable outlook when viewed from the side window at No.3.  She indicated that there were several inaccuracies in the Planning Officer’s report, the main error being the statement that there were only three windows in the main bedroom leaving two with good light.  This was incorrect as there were only two windows in the room, the larger one at the side which provided the main light source and would be lost should the extension go ahead, and the smaller rear dormer which provided limited light.  The residents of No. 3 had no objection to their neighbours extending their property but wished to see a more considered design that would not have such a detrimental effect on their enjoyment of their home and garden.  They wished to suggest, as a compromise, that instead of extending towards the rear of the property, the proposed extension be brought forward and remain a sympathetically designed single storey incorporating a hipped roof design which would have a much less detrimental effect on No.3.

90.15         The Chair indicated that 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 refused on the basis that it would result in an unacceptable loss of light to habitable rooms in No. 3 which would unduly harm the living conditions of the residents of that property.  The seconder of the motion indicated that he felt that the proposal would have an overbearing impact on the house next door and he drew attention to the bedroom window at the top left corner of the plot which was enclosed at the sides and let in very little light.  This was not to say that no extensions should be permitted at the property and he indicated that a single storey extension with a hipped roof could be more acceptable.

90.16         A Member indicated that the Officers had taken into account the objections and the scheme as a whole and had made a recommendation to permit the application based on that assessment.  He could see no reason to go against the recommendation and would be supporting the application.  The proposer of the motion indicated that it had been very interesting to be invited into No.3 as he had been able to see first hand the impact that the extension would have on the property when viewed from the bedroom window.  Whilst he realised it would not have been practical for the whole Committee to do the same, he was disappointed that the Planning Officer had not taken up this opportunity.

90.17         Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be REFUSED as the proposed development, by virtue of its size and location close to the boundary with No. 3 Tobacco Close, would result in an unacceptable loss of light to habitable rooms in that property which would unduly harm the living conditions of the residents of that property.

16/00226/FUL – Land Off A46, Ashchurch

90.18         This application was for the installation of a 17.5m high mobile phone mast on a concrete base and three equipment cabinets enclosed by a 1.8m chainlink fence.

90.19         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.

15/00865/FUL – Land at Berrow Farm, Wickridge Street, Ashleworth

90.20         This application was for the installation of two biomass boilers on a concrete pad and change of use of the grain store and mill house for use in association with commercial woodchip drying.  The application had been deferred for a Committee Site Visit at the last Planning Committee meeting in order to assess the facility when it was fully operational.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 6 May 2016.

90.21         The Planning Officer advised that, further to the site visit, the applicant’s agent had provided additional information to clarify matters regarding the months in which grain drying and woodchip drying would take place; the hours of operation; and the number of traffic movements.  He explained that the existing grain store would continue to be used for grain drying from July to September or October depending on how dry it was at harvest.  The woodchip drying would take place from September/October to May.  With regard to the hours of operation, the biomass boilers and fans would be running continuously, 24 hours per day, during the woodchip drying season but less frequently for grain drying depending on what was needed to achieve the correct moisture content in the grain.  As set out in the Officer report, it was recommended that all operations and activities associated with woodchip drying were controlled by condition and such works carried out between the hours of 0800 and 1700 Monday to Friday and 0900 and 1600 on Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays.  However, given that the biomass boilers and fans would be running continuously during the woodchip drying season, it was recommended that condition 3 be reworded for greater clarity as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.  In terms of traffic movements, the applicant’s agent had confirmed that the traffic movements associated with the woodchip drying operations could be limited to no more than two heavy goods vehicles per day i.e. four movements in total.  The number of traffic movements associated with the grain drying operations would be greater than those associated with the woodchip drying operation and it should be made clear that the grain drying and woodchip drying operations would not be able to take place at the same time and, during the months from September to May, the number of heavy goods vehicles visiting the application site would be limited to no more than two heavy good vehicles per day.  The movements would be restricted to between the hours of 1000 and 1500 Monday-Saturday as per the recommended condition.

90.22         A Member understood that the boilers ran for 24 hours per day, seven days per week during the grain drying season and he sought confirmation that this was correct.  The Planning Officer advised that grain drying took place on a more ad-hoc basis as and when required.  Whilst the boilers could be used for up to 24 hours at one time, grain drying was not continuous as with woodchip drying.

90.23         The Chair invited Sean Pitt, speaking against the application, to address the Committee.  Mr Pitt thanked the Planning Committee for going into the garden of Orchardside when they had visited the application site.  He felt it was unfortunate that the applicant had failed to ensure that the majority of the causes of noise had been on site at that time as the noise which Members had heard was just the tip of the iceberg.  As well as the noise they had heard there would be noise from massive articulated delivery lorries, shunting backwards and forwards, reversing beepers on and off, trying to fit into the grain drier shed’s entrance.  Additional loud mechanical noise would be generated by the walking floor trailer off-loading which took anywhere from 45-60 minutes per load.  The building entrance acted as a funnel, directing noise at Orchardside, and that would be made worse by the proposed second doorway.  The suggestion by the Planning department that they drier shed doors be kept shut was not feasible because the lorry crawled slowly forward out of the door whilst off-loading wet woodchip.  The lorries taking the dry woodchip away, contrary to the applicant’s statement, were not the same lorries which delivered it wet which had increased the road movements stated in excess of that required for grain drying leading to additional traffic. Roll-on roll-off skip lorries collected the dry woodchip and generated mechanical noise as the lorry-size skips were loaded and unloaded.  Members had not heard the hugely obtrusive clanking noise of the telehandler bucket, high in the air in excess of the 2m high proposed acoustic fence, when it was loading woodchip into the skips, or the noise when the bucket banged down onto the floor and scraped on the concrete to load up woodchip.  The delivery trailers were so big some could not get into the drier shed at all.  This resulted in heaps of wet woodchip being pushed out onto the concrete outside the grain store.  The telehandler then pushed that into the shed before the lorry pushed off more woodchip; this cycle repeated for over an hour.  This would never happen with grain and the old pig farm had never generated that level of continuous noise.  He hoped that the Committee had noticed the normal peace and tranquillity of the area when the telehandler was not being operated and he urged them not to set a precedent that it was acceptable to destroy the peace and quiet of a small country residential area by allowing an industrial commercial process unrelated to agriculture.

90.24         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Julie Branfield, to address the Committee.  She indicated that Members had seen that the application site was a working farm yard and would continue to be used for that purpose as much as was required in the summer months when all the crops were dried and ready for collection.  This application sought to use the buildings and equipment already on the farm for drying woodchip only when the site was not being used for farming purposes.  She explained that the boilers would not be running constantly at full capacity 24 hours per day, 365 days per year; they would be used as required in the autumn to dry the harvested crops and then on a continual basis as needed in the winter months for the woodchip drying.  It was not commercially viable to over-dry woodchip so the levels that fans and boilers were operating at would vary depending on the product, end user and weather conditions.  The boilers and fans would not be used from May to July as there was no demand for woodchip and there were no harvested crops.  This was a diversification scheme designed to re-use existing buildings, labour and equipment to make the farm site more sustainable and economically viable and the equipment on site was all agricultural and currently in daily use on the land owned by the applicants.  The applicant sought to transition from diesel-fuelled boilers to biomass boilers which increased the efficiency of the farm and was a move supported by national policy.  The proposed noise mitigation had been designed in conjunction with a noise consultant and the Council’s Environmental Health Team to ensure that the measures were effective and would lessen the impact of the operation from that which was heard on the site visit.  The maximum number of vehicle movements in a day to the site would remain agricultural as the seasonality of grain harvest and sales meant that it had more significant peaks and troughs than woodchip.  It was noted that the lorries that collected grain were very similar to those that delivered and collected woodchip.  The existing access to the farm yard was essential in that location as it provided access to the rest of the farmland at the Berrow.  The trials that had taken place over the winter had been with a variety of suppliers and different types of delivery vehicle to assess the options and capacity. The proposal complied with national and local planning policy in that it re-used existing buildings and infrastructure to provide a prosperous economy.

90.25         The Chair indicated 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 and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That Members be MINDED TO PERMIT the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

16/00164/FUL – 1 Beverley Gardens, Woodmancote

90.26         This application was for a side extension and roof dormers.

90.27         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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

14/01233/FUL – Part Parcel 7346, Evesham Road, Bishop’s Cleeve

90.28         This application was for 26 dwellings (use class C3) together with associated landscaping, open space, access and infrastructure. 

90.29         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Colin Danks, to address the Committee.  Mr Danks indicated that the application had been with Officers for a while and they had worked hard to come up with a suitable proposal in terms of the layout, and to ensure that it worked with the adjacent Redrow scheme which Members had been minded to permit at the last Committee meeting.  The application was policy compliant in terms of affordable housing and there was a total number of 63 parking spaces, 26 of which were garages.  The houses would be accessed from the Homelands spine road which meant that, from a traffic point of view, vehicles would be using a road which was to an adopted standard.  He drew attention to Pages No. 1061-1062, Paragraph 10.2 of the Officer report, which referred to the application site as being adjacent to a vehicle breakers yard and he clarified that it had actually been used as a car dismantling yard some four years ago until it had gone bust and had its licence removed; since that time it had been used for caravan sales on a continuous basis for the majority of the period.

90.30         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was for authority to be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to any necessary amendments to the proposed planning conditions and to allow for the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and he sought 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.  The proposer of the motion commended the Officers and developers for the amount of car parking spaces within the application and he was pleased to see that improvements were starting to be made in terms of parking provision on new developments.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to any necessary amendments to the proposed planning conditions and to allow for the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.