Agenda item

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

Click Here To View

30.1           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.

16/00683/FUL – Lorry Park, Northway Lane, Ashchurch

30.2           This application was for the sub-division of premises into four individual units and change of use of Units 1-3 to bulky goods retail (use Class A1) and new car park layout.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 26 August 2016.

30.3           The Planning Officer drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which included information from the applicant to address Officer concerns over the loss of allocated employment land and the conflict with retail planning policy.  He explained that the applicant had indicated that the retail use would be restricted to bulky goods with an established furniture retailer intending to relocate to Unit 1 from its current premises.  Accordingly a condition had been proposed by the applicant to restrict the sale of goods from Unit 1 to carpets, furniture, bedding, floor coverings, soft furnishings and textiles, bathroom suites – furniture and accessories, kitchen units – furniture and accessories, floor and wall tiles.  The applicant proposed to restrict the range of goods for Units 2 and 3 to sale of cycle and cycle goods.  Subject to these restrictions, Officers did not feel that the proposal would have a significant adverse impact on Tewkesbury town centre so as to warrant refusal.  Notwithstanding this, National Planning Policy Guidance set out that it was for the applicant to prove compliance with the sequential test and it was not considered that had been undertaken in the context of the current redevelopment aspirations for the Spring Gardens site.  As Spring Gardens could not currently be ruled out as a suitable and viable alternative location, it was not considered that the applicant had complied with the sequential test.  In terms of the loss of allocated employment land, Officers had taken into account the applicant’s further points but it was still considered that the marketing of the premises had not been comprehensive enough to demonstrate that there was no reasonable prospect of the site being used for its allocated employment purposes and the marketing was felt to be too narrow in focus.  It was considered that the site should be marketed for its potential for a variety of other B class employment uses before alternatives uses were considered.  It was important to note that, according to the Homes and Communities Agency Employment Density Guide, the existing B1 floor space could generate a total of 158 full-time equivalent employees whereas the potential employment generation from the proposed A1 retail use would be 63 full-time equivalent employees.  On that basis, the employment generation potential of the permitted B1/B8 use was likely to be significantly higher than that of the proposed A1 use.  Officers were therefore concerned that the proposal would result in the loss of viable employment land.

30.4           The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, David Jones, to address the Committee.  Mr Jones explained that negotiations had been ongoing with Officers since January 2015 when a similar application had been submitted for determination.  Officers had failed to determine that application and an appeal had subsequently been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate.  The revised application had then been submitted with additional supporting information.  In response, the Council’s retail consultant had confirmed that the development would not have an unacceptable impact upon Tewkesbury town centre, the Highway Authority raised no highway objection and there had been no other objections.  Following a generally positive meeting with Officers in July, the appeal against the earlier application had been withdrawn.  In his view there were two main issues on which the applicant and Officers did not agree; Officers considered that the Spring Gardens/Bishop’s Walk site could comprise a suitable location for retail uses and they criticised the marketing evidence submitted on the basis that the agent’s particulars described the units as ‘showroom units’.  In response to those two issues, he indicated that the Spring Gardens/Bishop’s Walk site was not on the market and no planning application had been submitted, it was therefore unrealistic to consider that as a viable alternative at this time.  The largest of the three units which were the subject of the application was under offer and, if the application was successful today, contracts might be exchanged allowing an established furniture retailer to relocate from premises it had outgrown in Broadway.  This alone would generate at least 30 new full-time jobs in the short term.  Secondly, with regard to marketing, those seeking new industrial or warehouse space predominantly searched via the internet and a search for available industrial or warehouse units flagged the units at Northway Lane as available.  In addition, the units had been widely advertised and had been subject to ‘mail drop’ to persons registered with the agent who had expressed an interest for industrial and warehouse premises in Tewkesbury.  The marketing campaign had been thorough, however, no commercial or industrial user had come forward despite 18 months of marketing across various different platforms.  It was important that Councils were consistent in decision-making and he wished to remind the Committee of its positive decisions in respect of the 18 hectare retail proposal upon the Hitchins site, opposite the application site, and the adjacent 3.8 hectare Sainsbury’s development site.  Both of those sites were allocated employment sites and both had been approved for retail use.  This application site extended to 0.6 hectares and was tiny in comparison to the 21.8 hectares of employment land already lost.  He urged the Committee to support the application which would bring into use vacant buildings and generate permanent employment opportunities in the short term.

30.5           The Development Manager provided clarification that the retail outlet referenced by the applicant’s agent was identified in the emerging Joint Core Strategy but not as an allocated housing site and, as such, it was a different situation from the current proposal.  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 permitted.  The proposer of the motion indicated that, whilst she understood that competition with Tewkesbury town centre was a consideration, a retail unit selling bulky goods would not be right for the Spring Gardens site given that large vehicles would be required to transport the goods and traffic was already a problem within the town centre.  The proposed units were up and running with one potential tenant identified and both the adjacent site and the site across the road had already obtained planning permission for retail use.  She had first-hand experience of having to refurnish her own house following the 2007 floods and she had been forced to travel to Cheltenham, Gloucester and further afield in order to do that as those goods were not sold within Tewkesbury, and that continued to be the case today.  She felt that this was an excellent site for the proposed use given the access from the M5 and she welcomed the application.  The seconder of the motion echoed these sentiments and indicated that she would like a condition to be included on the planning permission for a Unilateral Undertaking to revoke planning permission 14/00098/FUL, for a proposed new office/showroom/warehouse building and extension to existing distribution warehouse, in order to avoid potential parking issues. 

30.6           The Planning Officer clarified that, if Members were minded to permit the application, this should be a delegated permission subject to the submission of a suitable Unilateral Undertaking and conditions to restrict the range of goods being sold, as offered by the applicant.  He suggested that Members may also wish to include a condition restricting the sales floor area.  In addition, there were a suite of conditions included on the previous planning permission which would need to be carried over, mainly in respect of highways.  In response to a query regarding the restriction of the sales floor area, the Planning Officer explained that the premises had a mezzanine floor and it was suggested that retail use be restricted to the ground floor only for Units 2 and 3 to help to reduce the impact on Tewkesbury town centre.  The proposer of the motion did not feel that it would make sense to include such a restriction as it would work well if furniture was sold on the ground floor and soft furnishings on the upper level.  On that basis, the proposer and seconder of the motion confirmed that they would be happy to amend their proposal to a delegated permission, subject to the submission of a suitable Unilateral Undertaking to revoke the previous planning permission, conditions being carried over from the previous permission and an additional condition restricting the sale of goods to ‘bulky goods’ only.  They did not wish to include a condition to restrict the sales floor area.

30.7           A Member expressed the view that it was important to retain this site for industrial use as there would inevitably be a need for that type of development once the Joint Core Strategy had been adopted and he did not feel that it was necessary to go against policy and allow it to be changed to retail use simply because of timing.  In response, the proposer of the motion to permit the application indicated that nobody was taking up the industrial use and it was possible that the site could remain empty for the next five years or more.  It was important to create a vibrant area and there were businesses ready and able to use the premises for retail.  Furthermore, town centres had changed in recent years and people were shopping differently since the introduction of the internet and the rise of out of town retail parks.  She was in favour of realism as opposed to sticking rigidly to policies which could be out of date and impractical as in this instance.  The seconder of the motion pointed out that the site had been unsuccessfully marketed for industrial use for quite some time.  She reminded Members that each application should be considered on its own merits and this application was for a change of use for something which was needed in the area.  Empty sites were not a good way to promote the area, or to encourage development, and the current proposal would still provide employment; there were no employment opportunities if the building remained empty.

30.8           A Member appreciated the pragmatic approach taken by the proposer and seconder of the motion and agreed that a use needed to be found for the building, however, permitting the application would be against Officer advice and it should be borne in mind that the other retail developments which had been referenced during the debate had also been recommended for refusal by Officers.

30.9           Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application subject to the submission of a Unilateral Undertaking to revoke planning permission 14/00098/FUL; conditions being carried over from the previous permission; and an additional condition to restrict the sale of goods to ‘bulky goods’ only. 

16/00494/FUL – 21 Manor Park, Mitton, Tewkesbury

30.10         This application was for a two storey rear extension and porch.

30.11         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 put to the vote, it was

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

16/00576/FUL – 32 Cambrian Road, Walton Cardiff, Tewkesbury

30.12         This application was for continued use of an existing dwelling for residential and childminding purposes for up to nine children.

30.13         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 and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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

16/00733/FUL – Land Opposite to Fern Cottage, Lawn Road, Ashleworth

30.14         This application was for change of use from agricultural to light industrial (Use Class B1(c)) (retrospective).  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 26 August 2016.

30.15         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.  The Planning Officer explained that a range of conditions were recommended to try and limit the use and prevent further development which might be harmful to the area.  These included removal of permitted development rights to prevent alternative uses on the site; no sale or viewing of vehicles on site; no outdoor storage on site; preventing outdoor operation of plant, machinery or equipment on site; restriction of operating hours to between 0830 hours and 1700 hours Monday to Friday and at no times on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays; removal of permitted development rights for further operational development e.g. new outbuildings, hard surfaces; and no external lighting on site unless the details had first been agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

30.16         Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

16/00336/OUT – Land Adjoining 59 Gretton Road, Gotherington

30.17         This application was for up to 10 dwellings (Class C3).  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 26 August 2016.

30.18         Members were advised that an application had originally been received for 27 dwellings on the site but there had been concerns regarding the scale and layout of the development.  The Planning Officer explained that part of the village was linear in form and this dispersed as it emerged into open countryside, on that basis, 27 dwellings would have been contrary to that form and would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area.  The applicant had subsequently submitted a revised scheme reducing the number of dwellings to 10 and Officers were satisfied that number could be accommodated on the site whilst respecting its linear form.  It was noted that the revised indicative layout submitted by the applicant was not supported by the Council, however, clarification was provided that layout was a reserved matter and would not be taken into consideration at this outline stage, therefore, the application was recommended for permission.  Although it was recognised that the application did not meet the aspirations of the Gotherington Neighbourhood Plan which proposed 24 dwellings on the site, for reasons already expressed it was not considered that scale of development could be accommodated whilst respecting the character of the village.

30.19         The Chair invited the representative from Gotherington Parish Council, Councillor Beverley Osbourne, to address the Committee.  She explained that the Parish Council’s submission to the Committee centred on maximising potential and it was in an unusual position of asking for an increase in the number of units being proposed for the site.  The Parish Council wished to see an increase in the yield from the site, from the 10 dwellings proposed to closer to 20 units, on the basis that the unusually low figure of 10 was an inefficient use of available land stock.  As Members would have seen from the site visit, the village had very definite physical boundaries and simply could not expand when faced with a housing increase.  This meant that the small amount of land that was available was very precious and the Parish Council was keen to see it used effectively.  When the opportunity to make a Neighbourhood Development Plan was presented, the Parish Council had recognised it as a chance to shape its destiny and a working document had been produced which had taken many years, many thousands of pounds, much debate and soul-searching and many man hours to get to its current stage.  This had been done in the hope that it would help Planning Officers and Members in their decision-making process when asked to consider any housing development in the village.  She stressed that the Parish Council was under no illusions and realised that, at this relatively early stage, the Neighbourhood Development Plan carried very little weight officially, however, whilst it might not be legally binding, it still gave a very clear indication of both the position of units, and the number of units, which the community would be happy to see.  As part of the community consultation process, 59 Gretton Road had been highlighted as an acceptable site for development.  At no point during the consultation period had advice been offered from the Urban Design Officer on the maximum number of units which could comfortably be accommodated on this site but, as the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan had identified the site as capable of having 24-40 units, the Parish Council had felt that 24 dwellings was completely acceptable.  The current proposal of 10 units was a huge reduction from the original 27.  The Parish Council wished to draw attention to Page No. 186, Paragraph 15.2 of the Officer’s report, which stated “whilst the proposal is only for 10 dwellings it would produce clear social benefits insofar as it would provide much needed housing and help the Council meet the National Planning Policy Framework’s requirement to maintain a five year supply of housing land”.  If there was a case for much needed housing, the Parish Council hoped the Committee would agree that the parcel of land could comfortably support more than 10 dwellings so the maximum number should be sought.  In summary, the Parish Council felt that the developer should be asked to resubmit a further plan showing an increase of dwellings closer to 20 units, to run in a linear fashion along Gretton Road.  This could be comfortably achieved whilst producing a 100% increase on the available yield from the site.  The revised plan could then be brought back to the Committee for consideration.

30.20         The Chair invited Eddie McLarnon, speaking against the application, to address the Committee.  Mr McLarnon explained that he was not opposed to development on the site but felt that this was a bad proposal as 10 dwellings on 8 hectares was an inefficient use of the Special Landscape Area and it would result in an executive estate of expensive houses which would damage social sustainability.  He went on to state that Gotherington was constrained and land must be used efficiently.  The Parish Council and those working on the Gotherington Neighbourhood Plan were acutely aware of this problem.  The Planning Officer had stated that the Gotherington Neighbourhood Plan was at a relatively early stage of preparation which was incorrect.  It was prepared and formally submitted to Tewkesbury Borough Council for validation and consultation and it must be taken seriously if an acceptable and efficient design was to be produced.  The Planning Officer had failed to address social sustainability as the proposal was for an executive development of large, expensive three, four and five bedroom houses.  A much better mix of housing was required involving bungalows and two bedroom houses, otherwise it would be viewed as a place apart and resented for the inefficient use of the Special Landscape Area.  The proposal would not contribute to rural housing needs or affordable housing and its exclusive nature would be divisive of community spirit.  He did not understand why the application was recommended for a delegated permission in the absence of an acceptable design and he was of the view that the Planning Officer should be directed to work with the applicant, the Parish Council and the Gotherington Neighbourhood Plan group to provide a more efficient and socially acceptable design.  In the spirit of localism this was something which should have happened months ago.  If an acceptable plan could not be produced the site should be rejected.  He realised that the applicant would be keen for an early decision, and he did not wish to delay this, but it was important to ensure that the development was best for the village.  He recommended that the Planning Committee give priority to this site over those sites which were not included in both the Gotherington Neighbourhood Plan and the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan.  He also felt that the Planning Committee should direct Planning Services to give significant weight to the Joint Core Strategy Inspector’s comments in Paragraph 154 of her interim report that additional housing in service villages was unsustainable; Planning Services should not be allowed to ignore this important directive.   The delivery of 49 dwellings at a rate of 4.5 per year must be maintained; the ‘raspberry patch’ of 17 dwellings which was approved in April 2015 meant that no further approvals were required until 2019 and, if permission was granted for this site, building should be delayed until that time.  Furthermore, he considered that low cost housing of 40% was unrealistic for a service village; services and work were not within walking distance and transport connections were poor and expensive.  He considered that it was necessary for Planning Services to have a face-to-face discussion with the Parish Council to agree a more realistic level of low-cost housing.

30.21         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Mervyn Dobson, to address the Committee.  Mr Dobson indicated that, for all of the objections raised by the Parish Council and others, this was not an ‘in principle’ objection.  The reasons for this were two-fold; the site was identified in the January 2015 draft Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan Review as a site which could be suitable for residential development and, more importantly, the site had been selected by the Parish Council as a suitable residential site in the draft Neighbourhood Plan.  The site had been subject to three rounds of public consultation, consistently coming out on top of the sites suitable for residential development, and the Neighbourhood Plan was now going into its final stages.  Furthermore, there was no landscape objection from the Council’s Landscape Officer who stated that it was satisfactory for residential development; the only disagreement was in relation to numbers.  The original application was for 27 dwellings and had arisen following discussions with the Parish Council with whom the applicant had met twice, once prior to the submission of the application to gauge local response.  Following the second meeting, the applicant had become aware of the Urban Design Officer’s criticism of the layout and had set up a meeting to discuss this further.  At that meeting they had been advised that, if they persisted with an application for 27 units, it would be recommended for refusal on the basis that this would be uncharacteristic of the village as a whole.  He would have been pleased to continue negotiations but, with the threat of a refusal, he felt that there was little option but to amend the application to 10 units as recommended by Officers.  This had been done in good faith, and with the resulting delay and expense of producing revised documentation, so he hoped that Members would support the application.

30.22         A Member noted that the Parish Council representative and the objector had stated that the reduced number of houses being proposed would be a waste of land and she asked the Planning Officer whether options for a different number of dwellings, between 10 and 27, had been explored.  The Planning Officer confirmed that no other options had been discussed; 10 units was the agreed solution which had been moved forward to this stage.  The Member went on to indicate that the Gotherington Neighbourhood Plan was looking to take a balanced approach to the type of housing included on each development.  This proposal was for detached homes and she questioned whether there would be an opportunity to consider including some semi-detached properties.  She also queried whether the removal of permitted development rights could be considered given the sensitive nature of the site.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the scale and type of dwellings would be dealt with through a future reserved matters application so there was scope to influence that.  The removal of permitted development rights would be reasonable on the basis that the site was located within the Special Landscape Area.  A Member queried the maximum number of dwellings which could be achieved without compromising the linear design and the Planning Officer advised that more than 10 units would result in a development which was too densely packed.

30.23         The Development Manager reminded Members that each application should be considered on its own merits and this was an application for 10 dwellings which needed to be determined by Members today.  There was nothing to prevent the applicant from coming back to apply for a greater number of dwellings which was more in line with the aspirations of the Parish Council and the Neighbourhood Development Plan, however, that was not something which should be debated at this meeting.  He did not consider that there were any planning grounds to refuse the application, particularly as the policy in terms of minimum density had changed and it was now very much a case of considering what was appropriate for a particular area.  A Member drew attention to the indicative layout plan at Page No. 190/C of the Officer report and questioned whether Officers considered that to be an acceptable linear development.  The Development Manager reiterated that, although the plan did show 10 dwellings, it was not appropriate in terms of the form.  Officers did feel that it would be possible for 10 dwellings to be accommodated on the site in a way which reflected the existing linear form and, whilst that particular layout was not acceptable, it should not be an impediment to granting outline planning permission for 10 houses at this stage. 

30.24         The Chair confirmed that the Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and amendments and additional planning conditions as necessary, 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 suggested that the Urban Design Officer’s view on the maximum number of units which could be accommodated on the site should have been discussed with the Gotherington Neighbourhood Plan group at an earlier stage; however, she had concerns regarding additional traffic being generated and she felt that this would be greatly reduced by permitting 10 dwellings as opposed to the larger number which was originally proposed.  The seconder of the motion felt that the Officer recommendation was correct and the key arguments were summarised by the Urban Design Officer’s comments at Page No 182, Paragraph 7.3 of the report.

30.25         A Member expressed the view that, although there was no substantive planning reason to refuse the current application, Parishes had been encouraged to produce Neighbourhood Development Plans, which Gotherington was in the process of doing, and he raised concern that a decision to permit this application would over-ride the wishes of the local community.  He did not feel that this proposal made sense in planning policy terms and he could not support the motion to permit the application.  In response, the Development Manager clarified that there was no particular planning policy covering the site in force at this particular point in time.  In terms of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, and the draft version before it, a number of dwellings had been attributed to the site in order to obtain views during the consultation.  Having analysed the outline planning application supported by detail, Officers had taken a view as to the appropriate level of development for the area and advised the applicant accordingly; the applicant could have continued with the proposal for 27 dwellings but had opted to take on board the Officer advice and reduce the number of dwellings.  He agreed that it was unfortunate that the Urban Design Officer had not been engaged at an earlier stage in the process of developing the Gotherington Neighbourhood Plan, nevertheless, the plan could be given very little weight at this stage. 

30.26         A Member indicated that, should the application be refused, the applicant was highly likely to win on appeal and for that reason she would be supporting the motion for a delegated permission; however, she asked that Officers engage with the Parish Council and the community in terms of improving the Gotherington Neighbourhood Plan.  She suggested that an alternative layout may present opportunities to slightly increase the number of dwellings on the site and that was something which could be explored under a delegated permission.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and amendments and additional planning conditions as necessary, in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

16/00679/FUL – Parcel 2521, Banady Lane, Stoke Orchard

30.27         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement and a financial contribution of £140,000 towards affordable housing provision, 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 seconder of the motion noted that trees had been identified on the site and included on the plan at Page No. 198/G of the Officer report, however, a ‘swale’ was also shown on the plan and she asked for further information about this feature.  The Planning Officer explained that the plan had been attached to a Unilateral Undertaking; it was for indicative purposes only and did not carry any weight in terms of the final layout.  The swale was not actually a feature of the development.

30.28         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 and a financial contribution of £140,000 towards affordable housing provision, in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

16/00626/FUL – 21 Station Road, Bishop’s Cleeve

30.29         This application was for the erection of a double garage.

30.30         A Member queried why there was no highway information in relation to the application given that the junction of Sandown Road and Station Road was already very dangerous.  The Planning Officer explained that, due to the nature of the application, it was subject to standard highway advice and no specific comments had been received from the Highways Authority.  He confirmed that there was sufficient visibility and therefore no issues in highway terms.  Another Member went on to advise that one of the reasons the junction had such restricted visibility was because of a wall which belonged to the applicant; this was a longstanding problem which had generated a number of complaints.  On that basis, he questioned if there was any way the applicant could be asked to lower the wall to improve visibility.  The Planning Officer advised that the wall was not in the visibility splay area so it would be unreasonable to include this as a condition on the planning permission and was not something which could be insisted upon. 

30.31         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 deferred to seek to negotiate the lowering of the applicant’s boundary wall to improve visibility at the junction of Sandown Road and Station Road.  The Development Manager advised that he would be more than happy to write to the applicant to request that the wall be lowered as a gesture of goodwill but he did not feel that a satisfactory outcome would be achieved through a deferral given that there were no planning reasons to refuse the application.  Whilst he understood the Officer advice, a Member recognised that the wall had been a problem for some time and he felt that this was the only opportunity for it to be addressed.  Another Member agreed that it was important to put pressure on the applicant to rectify this dangerous situation and he felt that a deferral was the best way to achieve this given that the overall concept of the proposal was acceptable.  A Member queried whether a deferral was likely to result in a non-determination appeal being lodged and was informed that, whilst that could be the case, the risk was fairly low; if an appeal was submitted it was likely to be through written representations and it was not considered that the Council would be opening itself up to substantial costs by deferring the application.  A Member suggested that a deferral would also provide an opportunity to consult County Highways on the application and the Development Manager indicated that, whilst it would not be obliged to respond, County Highways could certainly be asked to provide a view. 

30.32         Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED to seek to negotiate the lowering of the applicant’s boundary wall to improve visibility at the junction of Sandown Road and Station Road and to consult with Gloucestershire County Highways.

16/00654/FUL – The Wooltons, Stockwell Lane, Woodmancote

30.33         This application was for the erection of a new detached single dwelling.

30.34         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Oliver Rider, to address the Committee. Mr Rider noted that the Parish Council, although not all of its Members, had objected to this application with concerns overs the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Although the site was located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and adjacent to the Conservation Area, this proposal would not cause harm.  The nearest listed building was 50m away and thus did not harm its setting.  The dwelling would be of similar design and materials to other properties in the area and therefore reflected the character of its surroundings; in fact, the design had been chosen to reflect that permitted at a site nearby last year.  In addition, Members may be aware that a dwelling had been allowed on appeal on a site directly opposite to the application site in 2015; the current proposal would be significantly smaller and less visually prominent than that scheme which the Planning Inspector adjudged as having no harmful impact on the area.  Given the service village status of Woodmancote, permitting the application would make a modest contribution towards housing supply.

30.35         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 in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being take to the vote, it was

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

16/00672/FUL – 36 Potters Field Road, Woodmancote

30.36         This application was for a front garage extension.

30.37         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 and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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

16/00722/FUL – 4 Haycroft Close, Bishop’s Cleeve

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

30.39         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.

16/00752/FUL – Land Between Ashmead and Woodpeckers, Ash Lane, Down Hatherley

30.40         This application was for the erection of a single infill dwelling including detached garage and new boundary treatment to site frontage (revised application to Ref: 16/00138/FUL).

30.41         The Chair invited Maureen Gembarski, speaking against the application, to address the Committee. She referenced Policy HOU8 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan which set out that a development should not have an unacceptable impact on adjacent properties in terms of bulk, massing, size and overlooking and she indicated that this would be exacerbated if these extensions were permitted.  The existing 188sqm would be increased by a quarter and would cause extra harm to the openness of the Green Belt.  With regard to the previous planning permission, it had stated that it was considered reasonable to remove permitted development rights given the scale of the proposed dwelling, the inclusion of a detached garage and its Green Belt location and she felt that this suggested that there was already extensive use of the Green Belt.

30.42         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Oliver Rider, to address the Committee.  Mr Rider noted that the Parish Council and local objections, summarised in the Officer’s report, largely related to concerns over the principle of a dwelling on this plot.  For the avoidance of doubt he clarified that the principle of a new dwelling had already been established through the granting of planning permission in June 2016 and he understood that works had commenced on the site with a view to providing this dwelling.  Therefore, the only material matter for fresh consideration within the current application was the impact of the size and design of the proposed dwelling in comparison to that previously approved.  In that regard, the new landowners were looking to add small first floor and single storey extensions to the rear plus a small garage, otherwise the scheme was very similar.  The overall impact of these additions on the Green Belt was very minimal and the dwelling was of similar size and scale to other dwellings along the lane.  The property would appear essentially the same as that previously approved when viewed from along the lane so the proposed dwelling would not have a significantly greater overall impact.  It was worthy of note that the additions amounted to approximately 20% over and above the size of the original scheme; Members would be aware that the Council operated a rule of thumb threshold of 50% additions when considering domestic householder extensions to properties in the Green Belt so this was well within that threshold and acceptable in any event.  Mr Rider advised that material samples had been submitted with the application and, if acceptable, the proposed condition would be discharged.

30.43         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  The Development Manager clarified that the applicant’s agent had referred to condition 5 of the recommended planning permission which set out that building operations should not be commenced until samples of the facing brick and roof tiles proposed to be used had been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority.  If Members were minded to permit the application he asked that this be delegated in order to allow the condition to be amended subject to the submitted samples being acceptable.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the possible amendment of condition 5 should the submitted material samples be acceptable.

30.44         With regard to the comments made by the Parish Council and the public speaker who had spoken against the application, the Development Manager clarified that the proposal would result in a larger house but it was not felt that there would be a substantial increase over and above the dwelling which had already been permitted.  Whilst he understood the frustrations and concerns of the neighbours, there would be no undue harm as a result of the larger scheme.  A Member queried whether it would be possible to ensure that the removal of asbestos was done safely.  In response, the Development Manager indicated that he believed that work had already started on implementing the previous scheme so he imagined that the asbestos had already been removed and there was very little that the Local Planning Authority could do in that respect.

30.45         Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the possible amendment of condition 5 should the submitted material samples be acceptable.