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

Click Here To View

7.1             The Development Manager submitted a Schedule comprising planning applications and proposals with recommendations thereon.  Copies of this had been circulated to Members as Appendix A to the Agenda for the meeting.  The objections to, support for, and observations upon the various applications as referred to in Appendix 1 attached to these Minutes were presented to the Committee and duly taken into consideration by them prior to decisions being made on those applications.

16/00008/FUL – Units 1 and 2, The Emporium, High Street

7.2             This application was for additional uses class A3 and A4 keeping the existing class A1 rental shop.

7.3             The Chair invited the Planning Officer to provide a brief presentation on the application. Members were advised that Winchcombe Town Council had objected to the application in terms of it being used for hot food takeaway use; the Planning Officer clarified that this was an A5 use and was not the change of use class which was being sought by the applicant.

7.4             The Chair invited Zainah Salam, speaking on behalf of the applicant, to address the Committee. Mrs Salam explained that the applicant had been mindful of the objections, firstly to the drinks licence that had been granted in December 2015, and then to the current application, and had endeavoured to allay the concerns and objections expressed. The biggest concern seemed to relate to noise and the impact on neighbouring residential properties. Mrs Salam advised that the applicant had taken this very seriously and had managed to source a sound attenuation scheme known as QuietRock; a video demonstration of the noise reduction capabilities of QuietRock had been viewed by both the Planning Officer and Conservation Officer and their findings were contained within the Committee report. Another concern raised had been about anti-social behaviour by the patrons of the café bar and Mrs Salam indicated that the applicant was an experienced licence holder who would ensure that all staff had a personal licence and that training was provided on an ongoing basis. The ‘Challenge 25’ Scheme would also be strictly adhered to. In addition, there were conditions imposed on the drinks licence which forbade the taking of drinks outside of the premises and the use of the alleyway at the side as well as compelling the applicant to erect a sign reminding patrons of this and asking them to leave the premises quietly. Mrs Salam also felt it prudent to remind Members that Winchcombe was a small country town and that the ambience of a café bar would not attract the type of person that would be prone to disruptive and anti-social behaviour. In addition, there would be a zero tolerance policy on any such behaviour should it occur. The applicant had ensured that there would be a small smoking area with a barrier which would keep smokers away from the pavement.

7.5             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 permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation. The proposer of the motion indicated that, whilst he understood how people felt, it needed to be borne in mind that the application was on the High Street and as such was in the commercial centre of the town. The objections received seemed to have been conditioned against as well as they could be which he felt should offer some comfort. In seconding the motion, a Member advised that the town had recently lost two public houses with a third being closed in the nearby Hamlet of Greet. In an area that had seen 250 homes nearing completion he felt that this type of establishment was very much needed. In addition, Winchcombe was very much a tourist town and, in order to survive and flourish, it needed to be able to encourage tourists to stay and enjoy the area.

7.6             Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

                  16/00104/FUL – Part Parcel 3976, Teddington, Tewkesbury

7.7             This application was for the erection of an agricultural barn.

7.8             The Chair invited the applicant, Mr Chris Burton, to address the Committee. Mr Burton explained that he had started the planning process many months ago when he had discussed the location of the barn with Planning Officers. At that time there had been three possible locations but the one proposed had been suggested by Officers as the best given that it was at the lowest area of the field and sufficiently away from any dwellings. At the same time he had been advised to fully clad the barn in Yorkshire boards to help ensure it blended into its surroundings. He had further been advised that juniper green roof sheets would be better than his original choice which he had been happy to do. He felt that, at every opportunity, he had sought the advice of others to ensure the appearance was correct. Mr Burton advised that, in order to achieve his goals as a smallholder, he required safe and secure storage for his machinery; suitable pens for livestock during lambing periods and severe weather; and for the storage of feeds and bedding that, when kept inside, provided improved nutrition for his animals.

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

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

                  16/00207/FUL – Outbuildings, The Old Vicarage, Stanley Pontlarge

7.10           This application was for alterations and conversion of outbuildings to a self-contained dwelling.

7.11           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.

                  16/00208/LBC – Outbuildings, The Old Vicarage, Stanley Pontlarge

7.12           This application was for alterations and conversion of outbuildings to a self-contained dwelling.

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

                  RESOLVED          That the application be given CONSENT in accordance with                                   the Officer recommendation.

                  16/00377/FUL – 17 Second Crossing Road, Walton Cardiff, Tewkesbury

7.14           This application was for a two storey rear extension and loft conversion incorporating dormer windows to front elevation.

7.15           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.

                  14/00343/OUT – Land East of Railway, Ashchurch Road, Ashchurch

7.16           This was an outline application for the erection of up to 45 dwellings to include open space and new vehicular access (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale to be reserved for future consideration).

7.17           The Chair invited Mr David Street, speaking against the application, to address the Committee. Mr Street indicated that should the scheme go ahead, Ashchurch village would expand to 56 houses and the 11 houses of the 21 residents who presently accessed their homes, and the A46, at that point would increase by over 400%. At a conservative estimate of two persons per new-build, the local population would increase five-fold from 21 to 111 and such a large development would dwarf the existing village and overpower its identity. He explained that, under former and future planning policies, such greenfield development would not be permitted. Ashchurch was not a designated service village but, to date, current schemes would produce: apartments at the former Queens Head public house, together with 11 houses bordering the floodplain at Aston Cross; 150 houses, with perhaps another 100 to come, under development by Linden Homes at Pamington; a proposal to build 100-150 houses behind the flats at Fitzhammon Park and Pamington Fields; the likely approval of the retail and garden centre running from Fiddington Lane to the M5; and 550 homes adjacent to Northway at the rear of MoD Ashchurch. Residents were told that each scheme was considered individually in terms of environmental impact but he felt the wider impact that this unprecedented level of development would have on the local countryside could not be ignored. If the scheme under discussion was permitted, the entire shoulders of the Tirle Brook floodplain located within Ashchurch would be developed from Aston Cross in the east to the M5 motorway in the west and, effectively, to Tewkesbury. However, Mr Street believed that, if the development should be permitted, the Council would be in danger of contravening its own planning policy. The residential development boundary for Ashchurch was saved through the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan HOU4 – adopted 2006. Mr Street explained that the proposed site lay adjacent to the residential development boundary and constituted a departure from the Local Plan; HOU4 restricted development to dwellings that were essential to the efficient operation of agriculture or forestry, the acceptable conversion of an existing building or the provision of affordable housing. He felt that those criteria were not met in this case. Ashchurch was well served with affordable housing at Fitzhammon Park and the former MoD site; with a further 30 to 40 houses being released at the closure of the camp. In conclusion he indicated that, rather than being a greenfield site that was ready for development, the land had poor access and was subject to flooding. Development would destroy the natural ability of the land to cope with weather and climate whilst, ironically, the developers would seek to mitigate the dangers to the new-build and the surrounding area by building defences to the problems that would be created by the development. He felt the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer and County Highways had recognised this by imposing the most stringent of conditions upon the developers in terms of drainage and access. It may be financially viable for some but Mr Street felt the scheme was not reasonable or appropriate under any circumstances and he urged the Committee to comply with the former Borough Planning Policy and refuse the application.

7.18           The Chair invited Mr Roger Turnbull, the agent acting on behalf of the applicant, to address the Committee. Mr Turnbull explained that theproposal was an outline application for 45 new family homes, with all matters reserved excluding access. The proposal, located next to the primary school in Ashchurch, was close to the railway station and the A46 / M5. He explained that Pye Homes had undertaken a full public consultation, including meeting with neighbouring residents, in 2014 using newsletters, websites and attending meetings with the Parish Council. Ashchurch had been identified in a recent Inspector’s report as an area suitable to take further housing development, located outside of the Green Belt and close to areas of employment. 11 comments had been received, including three in support of the proposals. There were six objection letters logged against the planning application which had raised a number of issues including: construction traffic and highways impact to which Pye Homes had agreed to work with the Council and the school to minimise deliveries at peak times - Highways England was satisfied that the estimated 30 trips in the peak hour would not have a significant effect on traffic. In addition, the train station, bus stops, and combined footpath/cycleway encouraged other modes of travel rather than a car; the railway line and associated noise had been addressed in the draft layout and acoustic materials, double glazing and ventilation would be used to address it. A planning condition to secure those measures had been accepted by the Council’s Environmental Health Officer. A survey of noise from the railway works yard would take place as part of reserved matters when the applicant was told the yard would next be used.  No complaints about rail-related noise at this location had been received by the Environmental Health Officer from 2005 through to 2014; flood risk and ecology had been raised as issues but housing was proposed on the top of the site outside of flood risk areas. Rainwater would be managed by a sustainable drainage system incorporating a 50 metre long attenuation pond. Pye Homes also proposed four acres of open space to increase biodiversity adjoining the Tythe Brook, for dog walking and recreation with a financial contribution towards maintenance. Mr Turnbull advised that the applicant believed that the social and economic benefits of the proposals to meet additional housing needs at Tewkesbury/Ashchurch, as identified by the Joint Core Strategy Inspector in her recent report, were not significantly outweighed by the limited impact. It was hoped the development would create a pleasant environment for new homes in a discrete location and it was believed that issues raised by Officers regarding the layout could be addressed by working with them and neighbours as part of a reserved matters consultation. It was hoped that Members could support the recommendation to approve the outline application which was consistent with advice in the National Planning Policy Framework.

7.19           The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was for authority to be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to conditions, 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.

7.20           The Development Manager indicated that Mr Street had mentioned flood risk and access as issues. Following the late representations he had re-consulted with the Highway Officer and the Flood Risk Management Engineer both of whom had been happy with the issues as addressed within the report. Further to Mr Turnbull’s comments he clarified that there had been no complaints about the railway yard since 2014 and the Environmental Health Officer was happy that the proposed dwellings would be safe from undue noise. A Member expressed concern about the application and the congestion that was already experienced on the A46. He questioned why this did not seem to be recognised when it was such a problem and he felt that, before any further development was permitted, highway improvements to make the traffic flow more easily should be introduced. In response, the Chair suggested that it would be difficult to claim that an extra 45 properties would make the current situation worse and therefore it would be difficult to impose highway conditions on the current application. The Member questioned when the ‘tipping’ point would be as the number of developments that were permitted increased. The Development Manager understood the point and reassured Members that there was wider work ongoing in the area which the Chief Executive was leading on. In addition, Officers across different agencies were working in different forums to find the best way to deal with the problems on the A46.

7.21           Upon being taken to the vote, it was

                  RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager                                to PERMIT the application, subject to conditions, in accordance                            with the Officer recommendation.

                  15/00948/FUL – Part Parcel 7166, Main Road, Minsterworth

7.22           This application was for material change of use of land from agriculture to use as a residential caravan site for six gypsy families, including the laying of hardstanding and construction of a new access.

7.23           The Chair invited Mr Roger Blowey, representing Minsterworth Parish Council, to address the Committee. Mr Blowey advised that the Parish Council was concerned that previous applications for development in the lane had been rejected on the basis that the exit onto the A48 highway was unsafe; that two members of the public had reported increased flooding in the lane in association with the developments that had already been permitted on the adjacent land and that further developments would increase that risk; that flooding would also increase in Watery Lane which was immediately across the A48 and which already had problems with surface water and flooding; and that the current sites were rarely fully occupied which suggested that there was possibly no need for additional pitches in  the area. Mr Blowey also indicated that there had recently been two other planning applications for adjacent areas of land. The state of the access lane had already deteriorated with increased traffic from the current sites and he had been informed that the local school minibus would no longer travel up the lane which meant that the school children were now dropped off on the other side of the road and had to cross the busy A48; just yesterday there had been an accident on the road and, less than a year ago, a local resident had been killed crossing it. In conclusion, he advised that, according to a letter from the Council’s Chief Executive to Mark Harper MP, Minsterworth was already home to 43% of the sites and 39% of the pitches within Tewkesbury Borough. In addition, the proposed site was immediately adjacent to Redlands House which was the birth place of the World War I poet, F W Harvey which it was hoped may become a significant tourist attraction for the area.

7.24           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 taken to the vote, it was

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

                  16/00236/FUL – Home Farm, Brockhampton Lane, Brockhampton

7.25           This application was for the variation of Condition 2 of planning permission 14/01128/FUL to allow the existing external parking area for indoor riding building to be used for storage of vehicles such as caravans, motor homes. The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 3 June 2016.

7.26           The Chair invited the application, Mr Gary Rickards, to address the Committee. Mr Rickards advised that, in 2006, he had been granted planning permission, with full Committee support, for his equestrian centre which was supported by a lorry and trailer park. He had subsequently obtained permission to extend the lorry and trailer park into the adjoining field and the consent notice clearly stated that the impact on the rural landscape from the extension would not adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt. He had more recently also obtained planning permission for the storage of caravans and motorhomes within the equestrian centre as a dual-use building. Following refusal of the first application, made last year, permission was now sought for limited use of the lorry and trailer park for the temporary storage of 30 caravans and motorhomes located neatly along two short sides of the perimeter edge – this would limit any visual impact that may be caused; although they were also greatly obscured by the equestrian centre building and the existing hedge and fence lines. All of the clients privately owned their caravans and motorhomes and there was no residential use, overnight sleeping or business trading activities conducted on the premises. Many of the people that enquired about the service simply did not have space at their own properties or were not permitted to store their vehicles on their own land due to legal constraints. Mr Rickards assured Members that the lorry and trailer park could not be viewed from any local residential properties, public footpaths, bridleways or highways and the application had received support from the Parish Council as well as no objections being received from County Highways. Within the trailer park, night and security lighting was provided as well as CCTV surveillance; it was also paved, drained and had perimeter fencing which was ideal for storage. The Caravan Storage Site Owners Association had recognised what was offered to clients on the site and had awarded its ‘gold’ standard for security and administration; the site was one of only two in Gloucestershire, and 303 in the country, that held that certification. Members were advised that, within the detailed supporting information submitted with the planning application, a clear lack of secure storage within the local radius of the premises had been identified and this was borne out by the fact that the centre was full within six weeks of opening as a storage business and it had waiting lists for both inside and outside storage. The importance of maintaining the openness of the Green Belt was understood but it was felt that the Committee should also acknowledge the quality of the landscape to the north and west of the site which had been severely diminished over the years due to the large landfill site managed by Grundon and Cory Environmental and, more recently, the construction of an anaerobic digestion plant and consequential huge landscape mound generated from its construction; all of which was within the Green Belt.

7.27           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 Committee permit the application as it was not felt that it would be detrimental to the surrounding landscape. Another Member agreed and felt that, in this instance, the application being considered could help to improve the look of a village by reducing the amount of caravans and motorhomes that were parked on driveways which could often be an eyesore. The Chair invited Members to identify the very special circumstances that they felt were demonstrated to allow permission in this instance and Members indicated that, along with the fact that it would not be detrimental to the surrounding landscape or openness of the Green Belt which had already been degraded due to nearby developments including those at Wingmoor Farm, the removal of caravans from other places would actually improve the landscape as well as security in those areas as caravan and motorhome theft would be lessened.

7.28           Accordingly, upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED as it would not be detrimental to the surrounding landscape or openness of the Green Belt which had already been degraded due to nearby developments including those at Wingmoor Farm, but could improve the landscape and security when caravans and motorhomes were not parked on private driveways.

                  16/00274/FUL - Fortitude, Birdlip Hill, Witcombe

7.29           This application was for the erection of three detached dwellings and associated works.

7.30           The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item. The Officer recommendation was to refuse the application.

7.31           A Member believed that three detached houses on the site would be a huge improvement on the existing permission for 10 units; particularly because problems with vehicles would be far less with three units than with 10. Another Member indicated that the choice seemed to be between 10 holiday log cabin units or three market houses and he was of the view that three market houses would offer the area more than itinerant people that would come and go if the units were holiday let. Other Members suggested that they saw no reason to go against the Officer recommendation which made the reasons for refusal absolutely clear. The Chair questioned whether, if three houses were permitted now, the building of further properties could be conditioned against at this stage. In response, the Legal Adviser explained that it would be difficult to attach such conditions and a legal agreement under a Section 106 would be of limited value as the applicant could apply for a variation of the legal agreement at a future date. The Development Manager explained that this type of development would not normally be permitted in this area. An application for three dwellings had been refused in 2011 for similar reasons; that it was a remote location, there would be landscape harm and 10 low key log cabins would not be as noticeable in the landscape as three large detached dwellings plus associated paraphernalia. It was not possible to equate the traffic between three houses and 10 log cabins as holiday homes would result in less traffic movements than residential dwellings and traffic patterns would be very different. In addition, the economic benefits of holiday homes would be longer term than residential dwellings. There was also strong opposition from the local community and the two Parish Councils. In response to a query from a Member, the Development Manager explained that the development already had permission for a sports facility to serve the log cabins including external pitches and associated building. This was initially for the use of people on the site but the condition had been varied to allow its use by the general public. The facility was, however, very low key and would not generate any significant extra traffic movements.

7.32           Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

                  16/00233/FUL – 6 Breaches Close, Woodmancote

7.33           This application was for single storey side and rear extensions and part conversion of existing garage.

7.34           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.