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

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

32.1           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 Members prior to decisions being made on those applications.

                  17/00195/FUL – Vine Tree Farm, Teddington, Tewkesbury

32.2           This was an application for the redevelopment of a farmyard to create four no. new dwellings in place of existing farm buildings.

32.3           The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. He advised that the application before the Committee was for the redevelopment of the farmyard of Vine Tree Farm which was a Grade II Listed Building situated on the south edge of Teddington, 75 metres from the Grade I Listed St Nicholas Church. The farmyard comprised of a group of twentieth century buildings, steel framed Dutch barns both with open and closed sides and blockwork lean-to sheds with corrugated roofs. The proposal was to replace the existing redundant farm buildings with four dwellings forming a farmyard courtyard along the lines of that illustrated on historic ordnance survey maps of 1884. The buildings would be of a courtyard scale and, by virtue of their design, materials and composition, would help to create a fitting setting for the Grade II Listed farmhouse. St Nicholas Church, although some 75 metres from the proposed development, would have to be taken into account and, in order to enhance and secure the setting of both buildings for the future, it was proposed that the orchards and ponds be reinstated as illustrated on the 1884 ordnance survey plan. The reinstatement of the ponds was seen as a benefit in a number of practical ways; firstly, they would help to drain the land which was currently waterlogged at the bottom of the hill and difficult to use and, secondly, the ponds, in conjunction with the orchard, would help hold back rainwater run-off from the hill and slow down its passage thus helping to reduce the impact of flooding further downstream. They would also be integral to the rainwater system of the proposal so as not to overload the existing system in the village. The ponds would also be of benefit to wildlife and enhance the rural and historic setting of the corner of the village. It was suggested that the proposal would enhance the settings of the two Listed Buildings and, although other options were available under the current legislation for development of redundant farm buildings, it must be considered that the proposed scheme had many other benefits not only for the visual amenity of the site but also the wider environment and the drainage management of the area. Such aspirations to create a better environment could be found within the National Planning Policy Framework as well as existing planning policy and the emerging Joint Core Strategy. Although the applicant accepted the proposal did not fit neatly into the planning policy, all parties agreed that there were wide-ranging environmental, visual and economic benefits to the scheme as well as securing the amenity for the surrounding dwellings and those that used the public rights of way on the site. It was also noted that, over the years, similar schemes had been undertaken around the village where old farm buildings had been removed and housing put in their place. None, however, had done much for the wider environment unlike the current proposal which was an outstanding opportunity to make a positive difference.

32.4           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.

                  17/00585/FUL – Lawn Road, Ashleworth

32.5           This was an application for the construction and use of four dwellings (two semi-detached and two detached) and associated development including garages and improvements to internal access road.

32.6           The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee. He explained that this was an application for four properties to be built by his company which was a small local roofing business that had been operating in the area for over 15 years. He had, for a number of years, sought to branch into housing development in order to strengthen his business and to ensure its stability; recent health issues had accelerated that process. The opportunity had arisen to purchase and develop the site at Ashleworth and it appeared a logical proposition at this time. It was important to note that planning permission had been granted on appeal for a reasonable sized development immediately to the east. In doing so the Inspector had found that the village was a sustainable location for new development, suggesting that new residents would help to support the existing services and that there was relatively easy and sustainable access to employment opportunities in nearby urban locations. In reading the Officer report, it was clear that Officers were not supportive of the proposal. Reference was made to the conflict with Policy HOU4 as the site was outside of the village’s settlement boundary. As a layman it was difficult to see how a site located next to one so recently considered suitable for housing could now be considered unsuitable and unsustainable. The good attributes of the village identified by the Inspector were surely still present and this was the context in which the application should be considered. The Committee report raised issue with the design of the scheme; however, he felt it was important to acknowledge that the development related well to the consented scheme next door in both layout and architectural design terms. The field nestled well with the western boundary of the adjacent site, as such the houses would be screened by existing mature hedges and should not be considered an intrusion in landscape terms. The mix of housing, including three bedroom units, was right for the local area. Whilst the report raised matters relating to the suitability of the access, it should be remembered that Lawn Lane was not a heavily trafficked road. Recent traffic surveys for the adjacent site showed that vehicle speeds were 30mph and there was no history of serious accidents in the area. The information circulated on the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, showed there was sufficient land, either within his control or that of the Highway Authority, to secure the appropriate visibility splay to the east. He therefore believed a safe access could be achieved. In summing up, he advised that the houses would be built by a small local business, helping to strengthen its activities and status; diversifying the house building sector was a key Government aspiration; an Inspector had recently found that Ashleworth was a sustainable location for new development; the proposal nestled well with the future development on the adjacent site and would not generate landscape harm; and no objections had been received from Highways and there was sufficient highways land available to secure the visibility splay to the east and thus a safe access. The applicant felt this was the perfect location for this development and he urged Members to support the scheme. Should the Committee feel there were still matters outstanding, he asked that the application be deferred to allow those to be addressed before a decision was taken, particularly given that the access matters had been raised very late in the process.

32.7           In response to Member queries, the Senior Planning Officer explained that, when the appeal referenced by the applicant had been allowed, the Council had not been able to demonstrate a five year housing supply and, as such, the balance was tilted in favour of sustainable development. However, now the Council had a five year supply, the presumption was to refuse unless there were benefits demonstrated that would outweigh the conflict with policy. In this case, Ashleworth was not a service village as identified by the Joint Core Strategy and Officers did not consider there were benefits that would outweigh that conflict. In terms of County Highways, the Planning Officer explained the advice was standard for applications such as this and no evidence had been submitted by the applicant to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access could be implemented. The particular issue was whether visibility existed for a vehicle exiting the site to see vehicles approaching from the right of it.

32.8           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.

                  16/01152/FUL – Stratford Bridge Garage, Stratford Bridge, Ripple

32.9           This was an application for the demolition of an existing automotive repair premises and bungalow; erection of three detached residential dwellings; and change of use of the site from part commercial/part residential to wholly residential. It was noted that the application had been deferred at the last meeting of the Committee for a site visit to assess the impact of the existing building on the character and appearance of the area. The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 22 September 2017.

32.10         The local Member expressed his surprise that the application had been deferred at the previous meeting as the proposal would, in his view, sit ideally in the location with a bus stop just outside of the site. In response, the Chair advised that Members had had some concerns about the design of the site and he felt the site visit had been beneficial as it had shown Members the context of the site which had then made the application make more sense. Another Member asked for clarification on why, in this case, it was considered appropriate to permit contrary to Planning Policy HOU4 and, in response, the Senior Planning Officer had explained that if an application was outside of the residential development boundary it would conflict with HOU4 but if there were material considerations that outweighed the policy concerns, it may be appropriate for an application to be permitted. In this case the redevelopment of a brownfield site was encouraged. In addition, the existing business already generated a lot of traffic movements which would likely reduce. Furthermore, it was likely that dwellings would have a more acceptable impact on neighbours than the existing business use and the amenity of neighbours would be improved.

32.11         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. 

                  17/00438/FUL – 78 Gretton Road, Winchcombe

32.12         This was an application for the sub-division of a garden for the creation of a new dwelling. The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 22 September 2017.

32.13         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. A local Member thanked Officers for their hard work in getting the size of the building reduced. 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.

                  17/00478/FUL – Vine Tree Farm, The Wharf, Coombe Hill

32.14         This was an application for the proposed erection of a replacement three-storey dwelling with attached orangery, additional basement level and basement level garaging; associated re-grading and hard and soft landscaping and new access/driveway. This was a revised scheme further to allowed appeal ref: 15/01007/FUL and withdrawn application ref: 16/00410/FUL.

32.15         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. He advised that the site had a long and chequered history. The primary outcome of the application was for it to provide planning permission for the shape and form of development that was currently being pursued. In the applicant’s journey to develop the house his ideas as to what he wanted out of his living space had evolved. Originally, he had submitted piecemeal planning applications to address these issues and the picture had become confused for which he apologised. The application before Members sought to regularise the position and to pull all of the ideas together and ensure they benefited from planning permission. Having worked closely with Officers, the applicant felt that should be the case. The new additions did not go beyond the original planning permission only seeking slight modifications such as new parking, the orangery and dormer windows; the actual scale and massing of the building remained the same. Overall, he felt the application was a vast improvement on the original application and he hoped Members could support it.

32.16         A Member felt the application was confusing as the Parish Council clearly believed the property size was to be increased by 50%. In response, the Planning Officer explained that there were two additional floors proposed, a basement and an attic, which would be a 50% increase in floorspace; however, the height of the building would remain the same. The orangery was the only footprint over and above that which had already been allowed on appeal. She also confirmed that the building would be moved entirely out of Flood Zone 3 which would alleviate Officer concerns in relation to the proposed garden store building being in the floodplain. There would be a bat roost located on the site of the existing farmhouse but this was because it was the most appropriate place for it, ecologically speaking; this was the only element proposed to be in the flood zone. In response to a query regarding the reason for the appeal, Members were advised that it had been a non-determination appeal. There had been a very confusing period during which a number of different applications had been submitted for the same site and this was the reason for the non-determination. A Member noted the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which set out the Parish Council’s concerns about the raising of ground levels in the flood plain and those regarding flood displacement to neighbouring properties which he felt should have been addressed. In response, the Planning Officer explained that the Enforcement Team and the Environment Agency had been following up the concerns expressed by the Parish Council and part of the recommendations sought to reduce the levels to alleviate those concerns.

32.17         A Member felt that the design of the proposal was not acceptable and now appeared to be greater in height. Another Member expressed disappointment over the appeal decision and that it had been a non-determination appeal. She thought it was wholly inappropriate for the area, but the appeal decision put Members in a difficult position. The Senior Planning Officer explained that the original application had been for a replacement dwelling was larger than the dwelling it replaced and was of quite a substantial size and scale. In allowing the appeal for the revised proposal, the Inspector had referred back to the previous permission permitted at Committee as a ‘fall-back’ position and concluded that the proposed changes would not be significantly more harmful in landscape terms and therefore the appeal had been allowed. Officers considered that the size and scale of the building currently under consideration was similar to that allowed on appeal so, in finding a reason for refusal, Members would need to look at the differences i.e. the orangery and the dormer windows which altered the apparent size and bulk of the building, or its detailed design.  The Chair indicated that, in considering this, it was useful to look at Page No. 310/E of the Officer report, which showed the proposal allowed on appeal, and Page No. 310/C which showed the current proposal.

32.18         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a recommendation from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused due to concerns about the design and the introduction of dormer windows and the orangery which would result in a perceived increase in height and visual intrusion which would cause discernible harm to the rural character of the Landscape Protection Zone. Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          That the application be REFUSED as the proposed                                             development by reason of its design and the introduction of                                     dormer windows and orangery would result in a perceived                                                 increase in height and visual intrusion which would cause                                             discernible harm to the rural character of the Landscape                                                 Protection Zone.

                  17/00678/FUL – Land off Banady Lane, Stoke Orchard, Cheltenham

32.19         This was an application for the erection of five dwellings and associated landscaping.

32.20         The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee. He advised that the site in question had been in his family for sixty years plus and they had watched housing spring up around it over the last few years such that their land was now surrounded on three of its four sides with dwellings and other forms of development. The applicant had sought pre-application advice from Officers in the summer of 2016 and, following that positive advice, a planning application had been submitted. He had worked with Officers through the more detailed planning application stage to ensure the design and layout was acceptable. The recently constructed housing development to the east of the application site had extended Banady Lane towards his land in the 2016 planning permission and it was proposed that the current proposed development link into that small extension to the highway. The applicant felt he had taken a high degree of care in forming the application through the advice of specialist tree, highway and ecology consultants and it fitted in well with the surrounding developments. He also felt the landscaping illustrated would allow the rounding off of that part of the village in an attractive manner. The main modifications version of the Joint Core Strategy identified Stoke Orchard as a service village capable of supporting growth so a decision to approve would be in accordance with that most up to date plan and he asked Members to permit his application.

32.21         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 taken to the vote, it was

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

                  17/00785/FUL – 82 Gretton Road, Winchcombe

32.22         This was an application for the variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) and Condition 13 (levels) and removal of Condition 1 (commencement period), Condition 3 (materials), Condition 8 (site operative parking), Condition 9 (drainage), Condition 10 (landscaping) and Condition 12 (boundary treatments) of planning permission no. 15/00295/FUL in order to regularise the development as implemented on the site. The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 22 September 2017.

32.23         The Chair invited a local resident to address the Committee. He explained that the application had been a problem since its inception and had continued to be so due to the Council’s apparent failure to adequately monitor and act appropriately throughout the development process. Correspondence from the Council appeared to confirm that development was not in accordance with approved plans as long ago as December 2016 yet it had not acted to address the issues. Failure to undertake enforcement action or a stop notice had resulted in the creation of an overbearing development which, without doubt in his mind, drastically interfered with the quiet enjoyment of his own property as it had previously existed. He believed that the increased height of the dwelling was approximately one metre higher, rather than the lesser measure of 550cm as stated in the Officer’s report, and this meant he was now less able to screen the overbearing nature of the dwelling from his own property. In addition, he was very concerned that all hard standings now sloped towards his property and, at times of severe storms, his garden would receive significant rain water runoff; the newly laid surface water drainage which had been installed adjacent to his boundary was clearly, in his view, inadequate and it was obvious that, to prevent such run off, the camber of the hardstanding would need to be altered. He had been left feeling utterly disillusioned by the process and the Council’s lack of enforcement action had destroyed his confidence in the planning process.

32.24         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. He indicated that, as Members would be aware from the very comprehensive Officer report, this was an application for the approval of works and variations to an existing approval for his client’s new home. He apologised for the building being built higher than originally permitted which was directly as a result of an error rather than being a deliberate act. This had resulted in the building base being slightly higher; however, it was relevant to note that the building was on the same footprint as the original permission with the same external areas, garden and landscaping. Aside from the height, the main changes were the simplified material pallet of stone and render and the reduction in window sizes. There would be additional screening between the balcony and the property to the north east corner of the site and close boarded fencing on the boundary of 80 Gretton Road; unfortunately, the boundary had become more sensitive and stark due to the recent removal of the two metre hedge - this was not within the applicant’s control. The appearance of the building was very similar to that previously approved and, due to its orientation and distance from adjacent properties, did not significantly increase any overlooking, cause loss of amenity or give rise to an overbearing impact. In examining the merits of the application, he asked that Members look at the ‘approved and as built’ elevation which clearly demonstrated that the differences were not drastically different from the approved application and that any additional impact had been addressed with additional screening. In terms of drainage, he felt this had largely been dealt with by harvesting the rainwater and discharging the surplus to the mains sewerage system as agreed with Severn Trent Water. The tarmac area was permeable and eco drains had been installed to prevent any run-off onto neighbouring properties. 

32.25         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member indicated that he would be moving refusal but before he did so he would refer to the Winchcombe Town Council letter he had received.  He advised that the Town Council had originally recommended refusal of the application on the grounds that it was out of line with the Town Council’s properly adopted Town Design Statement which was a material planning consideration. In going against that advice, the Borough Council had emphasised that the modern, apparently roofless design, was lower than an extant permission and would therefore have a reduced impact on neighbours. Whilst not agreeing with that line, the Town Council recognised that the question of design principle was ‘water under the bridge’; however, the revised planning application was for a building which seemed to be about one metre higher at its roofline than previously permitted. This meant that the degree of overlooking was much more significant than in the earlier approved consent which had relied on design to minimise neighbour impact. Had the building not been effectively completed at that point, the Town Council would have pressed strongly for a refusal on the grounds of increased overlooking. Certainly the Town Council believed that all permitted development rights should be withdrawn so that the impact of every variation going forward could be properly addressed. It was also suggested that there was a wider issue to consider which was how the development had gone ahead without the necessary conditions being complied with from the start.

32.26         The Chair stated that he understood that the applicant had carried on at his own risk when notified that the levels were wrong.  A Member felt that the building was not appropriate in the area it was located.  The Chair stated that Members had to be mindful of the permission that had already been granted and any refusal would need to state exactly what they felt the differences were. Members felt that the fact that the levels were wrong made a significant difference to the proportions of the building and the impact it now had on the area and the amenity of neighbours; and that fencing would not be able to address this. It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused because the dwelling, as constructed, had resulted in a significant increase in both ground floor and finished floor levels and overall height. Those changes to the approved details adversely impacted the quality of the design, including the effect upon the proportion and relationship between the ground floor and first floor parts which resulted in a dwelling that failed to integrate into the sensitive back-land location and adversely impacted the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining properties.

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

                  RESOLVED          That the application be REFUSED because the dwelling, as                               constructed, has resulted in a significant increase in both                                         ground floor and finished floor levels and overall height. These                              changes to the approved details adversely impact the quality                                 of the design, including the effect upon the proportion and                                                 relationship between the ground floor and first floor parts, which                         results in a dwelling that fails to integrate into the sensitive                                        back-land location and adversely impacts the amenities of the                                occupiers of adjoining properties.

                  17/00921/FUL – 34 Ashchurch Road, Tewkesbury

32.28         This application was for the removal of raised kerb/highway verge to allow wider vehicular access to the property.

32.29         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.

                  15/01229/FUL – Reddings Farm, Badgeworth Road, Badgeworth

32.30         This application was for change of use from agricultural to general purpose storage in three farm buildings, demolition of two farm buildings and retention of the infilling of a slurry pit to create caravan/motorhome storage yard. The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 22 September 2017.

32.31         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. He advised that Reddings Farm was a modest family run farm of about 150 acres and the same family had run the farm for three generations. Each generation had had to adapt to maintain viability. The farm currently had a beef rearing enterprise and some arable cropping but that mixed farming system was now financially marginal and, in 2014, planning permission had been sought and obtained for caravan storage on land adjacent to the farmyard which was the subject of the application. The application was referred to as ‘development’ and, whilst this was technically correct, it gave the impression of construction whereas, in fact, the application was entirely for the re-use of existing facilities and it did not involve any building or construction activity. The existing caravan storage facility was full and had a waiting list. In addition, many of the recently constructed local dwellings had restrictions on keeping caravans on the drive and security was a growing problem for caravan owners. Similarly, most new local dwellings did not have storage space for bulky items and the applicant was besieged with enquiries from local people wanting to store their possessions in the three redundant barns; demand from local residents for the proposed facilities undoubtedly existed. The Committee report appeared to accept that there was no adverse impact on highway safety or residential amenity and that the proposal represented agricultural diversification which should be supported. The storage facilities were proposed within existing buildings and the caravan storage within an existing concreted yard and hardstanding which was screened to the south and west by existing farm buildings and to the north by the existing caravan storage area; that area was screened by a railway embankment and to the east by a road embankment and well grown, thick, mature hedge. The site was not visible from any public vantage point with the possible exception of someone peering through the hedge adjacent to the elevated section of the Badgeworth Road. The existing use of the site would permit the parking of an unlimited number of tractors and agricultural vehicles and implements. He asked the Committee to recognise the special circumstances of the application and give permission for the diversification which had no discernible adverse impact on the Green Belt and would assist a small family farm to continue to employ a farm worker and continue for a fourth generation.

32.32         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was for a split decision and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in its entirety. It was considered that the farm ran a very small operation and it was the case that most local and new housing in the area only allowed a six week period for residents to keep a caravan on their property and it was understood that there was indeed a waiting list. It was also understood that, in many cases, farmers needed to diversify in order to be able to keep their land. The Senior Planning Officer explained that the proposal constituted inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in harm to its openness. Officers felt there was insufficient evidence provided to demonstrate the very special circumstances required to allow the development – a genuine assessment of need was certainly required. In terms of the change of use of the buildings to storage, the issue was that Officers did not know what items would be being stored - or whether or not it was proposed to be related to caravan use only - which made it difficult to tie down a planning condition. An unfettered B8 storage use could involve lorry movements of a very different type to that potentially being envisaged. A Member indicated that he thought the storage would relate to domestic storage.

32.33         The Chair suggested that, if Members were minded to permit the application, it should be delegated to Officers to agree what could be stored and for appropriate conditions to be added. If these could not be agreed between Officers and the applicant then the application would come back to Committee. Members agreed with this view and the original proposer and seconder agreed to amend the motion so that it was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application to enable Officers to agree what items could be stored at the site and to include the appropriate conditions on the permission. It was considered that very special circumstances had been demonstrated by way of the local need for caravan storage, the provision of a safe and secure means of storage, the economic benefits associated with caravanning and the lack of other suitable sites. This outweighed any harm caused to the Green Belt and meant the application should be permitted. 

32.34         Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application for Officers to agree what items could be stored at the site and to include the appropriate conditions on the permission. It was considered that very special circumstances had been demonstrated by way of the local need for caravan storage, the provision of a safe and secure means of storage, the economic benefits associated with caravanning and the lack of other suitable sites. This outweighed any harm caused to the Green Belt.

                  17/00201/FUL – Green Lea, Green Street, Brockworth

32.35         This was an application for a tool shed and garden room as well as the siting of an air source heat pump for the main house heating, design and finish to match the main house. It was noted that the application had been deferred at the last meeting of the Committee for a site visit to assess the impact of the proposals on the character and appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the residential amenity of the neighbouring property. The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 22 September 2017.

32.36         The Chair invited a local resident to address the Committee. She advised that, together with the two previous permissions, the application would make a large house with an almost identical footprint to the original application. This would conflict with Policy HOU8 and would damage the character of Green Street and the surrounding Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty because it would be such a large building which was out of scale with its surroundings. The development would be squeezed into a small plot behind her garage without enough green space around it and too close to her house. In order to exactly line up with the main house, and eventually join on to it, the proposal was to site it very close to and below her garage. That position was, in her view, dangerous and damaging to her property and the footpath. Unfortunately, the ground locally was very unstable, with a history of landslips, and Green Lea had been affected by subsidence. She was extremely worried that building so close would destabilise her garage and, because of that, the 400 year old cottage and also that it would interfere with her right to peaceful enjoyment of her property. She suggested that the applicant had omitted key facts that were barriers to the permission being granted which included: the need to change the right of way footpath – she objected to it being moved against her fence and to the loss of screening that would be caused; the 18 inch water pipe under the site was not in the plans although it was shown on Severn Trent Water maps and Severn Trent had confirmed that it was still in use which would make it impossible to build within 6 metres of the pipe; the Hermit Cottage sewer had been omitted; and both the new house and the proposed garden room were within the specified distance where building work could undermine the foundations of her property. Section 6 of the Party Wall Act 1996 required that the applicant notify of any intention to build since the last permission was granted. In terms of the heat pump, she and other neighbours were very worried about the noise that would be created and no information had been provided about how long it would operate for, the noise levels, the sound intensity, or the provision of acoustic screening to absorb the sound. She believed the pump would create a noise nuisance and, with the relevant facts, she felt the Committee should not approve the application for the heat pump. She was of the view that the application should be refused because it would damage her property and amenity and increase the adverse impact of the new house on the local area of Green Street and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

32.37         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 refused due to the effect on the residential amenity of neighbouring properties.

32.38         A Member questioned why there had been no noise impact assessment undertaken and why Environmental Health had made no comment on the application except to say that noise would have an undue impact. In addition, the objector had referenced a Severn Trent water pipe but the application did not include that information and the Member questioned whether this was relevant. With regard to the heat pump, the Chair explained that the unit located outside of the house did not make a noise but inside the house it did. It would not be able to be screened as it worked using the circulation of air around it. In terms of the pipe, he suspected this was not a planning issue. The Planning Officer agreed that the application was for a very small scale domestic air source heat pump and the addition of a garden room. The pipe may mean that, dependent on the requirements of the statutory undertaker, the permission may not be able to be implemented, but that would be for the applicant. The room itself would not impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, even cumulatively with the dwelling which had already been permitted. In response to a Member’s query regarding a possible refusal on the grounds that the application contravened the Countryside and Wildlife Act due to the hedgerow being removed, the Planning Officer explained that there were regulations governing protected species and habitats but she was not aware they had been contravened. There was minor removal of vegetation as part of the application but this was covered by planning conditions, e.g. working outside of the bird breeding season. Other Members felt that, having visited the site, they did not have any major concerns over the application.

32.39         Upon being taken to the vote the motion to refuse was lost and accordingly, having been proposed and seconded, it was

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

17/00789/FUL – 11 Vilverie Mead, Bishop’s Cleeve, Cheltenham

32.40         This application was for the erection of a single storey front and rear extension as well as conversion of an existing garage.

32.41         The Senior Planning Officer apologised that the plans attached to the Planning Schedule were incorrect and advised that the actual plans were attached to the Additional Representations Sheet and displayed at the meeting.

32.42         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.

                  17/00804/OUT – 48 Brookfield Road, Churchdown

32.43         This was an outline application for the erection of one detached bungalow with access from the drive serving the rear of No. 42.

32.44         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.

                  17/00538/APP – Land Rear of Rectory Farm, Maisemore

32.45         This was an application for the erection of 28 dwellings, parking, landscaping and associated works (Reserved Matters details relating to appearance and landscaping pursuant to outline planning permission reference: 15/00131/OUT) – amended plans received.

32.46         The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee. He explained that he was a residential designer for a local business based in Gloucester. He was pleased that the application for 28 homes at the former livery at Rectory Farms site off the A417 was before the Committee with a recommendation to approve and he noted that the positive recommendation came as a result of extensive discussions and correspondence with both the Planning Officers and local residents. As the Planning Officer had noted in his report, the majority of the Parish Council objections related to the outline planning consent and were therefore not applicable to this application. The few items which had been raised by both the Parish Council and residents that were applicable to this application had been addressed and no further comments had been made. The site had been granted permission in June 2016 to a different developer and had since been acquired by his company. Proposals for the site closely followed the previously approved outline scheme; however, the layout had benefited from subtle improvements and, following an analysis of the local area, the houses proposed had been designed to reflect the character of the local vernacular. His company was conscientious and dedicated to providing high quality homes and felt it necessary to engage with the Parish Council and local community on its plans and to answer questions raised in relation to the site; the aim was then to create an open dialogue with the village residents and ease any concerns they may have. A further private meeting had been held with residents of The Ridings and had allowed any outstanding concerns to be addressed along with discussion about the design details and construction timings; as a result subtle amendments to the betterment of both the design and residents had been resubmitted. The scheme would use high quality sustainably sourced materials and utilise skilled local trades, an approach which the developer applied to all of its sites as it prided itself on understanding the locations in which it built and on developing sites into areas which people would want to live and enjoy. He asked that Members agree the proposals which offered high quality homes and significant landscaping enhancements to the vacant land and would be enjoyed by future and existing residents.

32.47         In response to Members questions, the Planning Officer explained that all of the Parish Council’s objections had been addressed. The issue with the levels of the access road and wall had been an oversight on the application when it had been submitted and it had now been confirmed that they would be in line with the outline application. In terms of drainage, the Senior Planning Officer explained that, when the outline application had been submitted there had been a lot of local concern in respect of both surface and foul water drainage so a fairly comprehensive condition had been imposed to address this. There was still a need for a condition discharge application on drainage details and this would be thoroughly scrutinised by the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer. That would have to be in place before any development commenced.  

32.48         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to approve the application and he sought a motion from the floor. A Member drew attention to Paragraph 3.3 of the Officer report and questioned why the plans were not on display for the Committee as indicated. The Planning Officer apologised for the oversight and confirmed that the detailed designs were to be considered as part of the application. The Member felt that it would be impossible to properly consider the application without that information being available. It was therefore proposed and seconded that the application be deferred because the detailed plans had not been provided to Members as part of the schedule or displayed at Committee. Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED to enable Members to be                            provided with the detailed plans before making a decision on                                   the application.