Parish and Reference

Address

Recommendation

Item/page number

 

Badgeworth
17/00618/FUL	Knapp Farm Hill Farm Birdlip Hill Witcombe	Refuse	6     /   395

Click Here To View

 

 

Bishops Cleeve
17/00337/FUL	19 Huxley Way Bishops Cleeve Cheltenham	Permit	10     /  417

Click Here To View

 

 

Bishops Cleeve
17/00858/FUL	Land off Evesham Road Evesham Road Bishops Cleeve	Delegated Permit	7     /   400

Click Here To View

 

 

Leigh
17/00670/FUL	Land at Blacksmith Lane The Leigh	Delegated Permit	3     /     379

Click Here To View

 

 

Maisemore
17/00538/APP	Land rear of Rectory Farm Maisemore	Approve	15     /   448

Click Here To View

 

 

Minsterworth
17/00104/OUT	Land adjacent to Rosedale House  Main Road  Minsterworth  GL2 8JH	Delegated Permit	12     /    426

Click Here To View

 

 

Minsterworth
17/00855/FUL	Part Parcel 1228 Main Road Minsterworth	Delegated Permit	11     /    420

Click Here To View

 

 

Minsterworth
17/00889/OUT	Land at Appithorne Main Road Minsterworth	Permit	14     /    442

Click Here To View

 

 

Norton
17/00679/FUL	Land at Barn Farm Tewkesbury Road Norton	Delegated Permit	13     /    437

Click Here To View

 

 

 

Shurdington
17/01023/FUL	Burley Fields Crippetts Lane Leckhampton GL51 4XT	Refuse	8     /    406

Click Here To View

 

 

Southam
17/00239/FUL	Newlands Park Southam Lane Southam	Permit	9     /    411

Click Here To View

 

 

Tewkesbury
16/01041/FUL	Tewkesbury Abbey Caravan Club Site Gander Lane Tewkesbury	Permit	4     /     385

Click Here To View

 

 

Winchcombe
16/01453/FUL	Almsbury Vineyard Street Winchcombe	Delegated Refuse	1     /     353

Click Here To View

 

 

Winchcombe
16/01454/LBC	Almsbury Vineyard Street Winchcombe	Refuse Consent	2     /     374

Click Here To View

 

 

Winchcombe
17/00903/FUL	5 Whitmore Road Winchcombe	Permit	5     /     392

Click Here To View

 

 

39.1           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.

16/01453/FUL – Almsbury, Vineyard Street, Winchcombe

39.2           This application was for the proposed construction of a 52 bed care home and 53 assisted living units (C2 use), including the conversion of Almsbury Barns, with associated hard and soft landscaping and parking.  The Committee visited the application site on Friday 20 October 2017.

39.3           The Planning Officer advised that the current site comprised a range of stone barns which were individually Grade II listed and the 3.2 hectare plot lay wholly within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and within the Winchcombe Conservation Area.  The open parkland landscape of the Sudeley Castle estate adjoined the site to the south.  The eastern portion of the site was located within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and the site was close to the River Isbourne and Beesmoor Brook.  The site lay outside of the residential development boundary and outside of the built up area boundary of the town as defined within the adopted Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Plan.  The current proposal sought to demolish the existing modern farm buildings and erect a two and a half storey, 52 bedroom care home to provide for elderly, frail and dementia patients.  The scheme also included the construction of 53 assisted living units comprising self-contained one and two bedroom apartments, bungalows and three bed dwellings/cottages.  Vehicular access was proposed via Vineyard Street. 

39.4           Weighing against the proposal was the fact that the site was beyond the current settlement boundary for Winchcombe and therefore did not comply with saved Local Plan Policy HOU4.  Furthermore, it was outside of the Winchcombe and Sudeley Neighbourhood Plan identified built-up area and therefore was contrary to Policy 3.1 of that plan.  It was also considered that there would be significant harm to the designated heritage assets including the Grade II listed Almsbury Farm buildings, Grade I listed Sudeley Castle and its Grade II star registered park and garden, and the Winchcombe Conservation Area, and the proposal would result in demonstrable harm to the special landscape character of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  It was also noted that there was no appropriate planning obligation in relation to affordable housing.  County Highways had recommended refusal of the application on the basis that it failed to demonstrate safe and suitable access and failed to create a safe and secure layout which minimised conflict between traffic, cyclists and pedestrians.  The Environment Agency had raised objection on flood risk grounds and considered that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment was not sufficiently detailed and further assessment of the risk to and from Beesmoor Brook was required.  The Environment Agency also considered that there would be encroachment into Flood Zone 3 and it was therefore recommended that the refusal be delegated to the Development Manager to incorporate additional reasons for refusal in relation to flood risk.  The Planning Officer highlighted the potential benefits that would arise from the development including the supply of a new care facility and range of new housing for older residents; job creation, both during construction and within the ongoing day-to-day running of the development itself; the additional expenditure from new residents which may help to sustain local services; and the re-use of disused historic assets.  Notwithstanding this, it was considered that the benefits arising from the development would not outweigh the significant and demonstrable harm that would arise as a result of the proposals and the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to refuse the application in order to add a reason for refusal in relation to the flood risk.

39.5           The Chair invited the representative from Winchcombe Town Council to address the Committee.  He indicated that the Town Council’s comments also applied to the next item in the Schedule.  The proposal had been the subject of considerable debate in Winchcombe, both during the preparation of its Neighbourhood Plan and during the period prior to the submission of the application.  The landowners had been constructively engaged in that process and presentations and exhibitions had been organised by the developer when views both supporting and opposing the proposal were expressed.  The applications had been considered by the full Town Council at an Extraordinary Meeting held on 17 February 2017.  After a lengthy debate on the attributes of the scheme, the Council had decided, on balance, to support the principle of the proposal for specialist housing for the elderly and the construction of a care home which secured the restoration of the historic barns, subject to a series of caveats that had been summarised in the Officer’s report.  Many of those caveats could have been easily addressed during the intervening period but this had not happened and the Town Council’s concerns remained unresolved.  Nevertheless, if Members felt that the scheme had merit in its current form, and were minded to approve the proposal, the appropriate course of action may be to defer a decision and ask Officers to engage in meaningful discussions with the applicant to see if the issues causing concern could be satisfactorily resolved.  The Town Council appreciated the difficulty in reaching balanced judgements and making decisions on sensitive cases such as this.  Nevertheless, it would welcome endorsement of its views and, in the event of a potential decision to approve the application, asked that amendments be sought to address its concerns and produce an acceptable scheme that delivered sympathetic restoration of the historic barns; provision of a wider range of housing opportunities in the area; and, creation of a well-conceived scheme appropriate to the sensitive setting.

39.6           The Chair invited the representative from Friends of Winchcombe to address the Committee.  He confirmed that Friends of Winchcombe was an association comprising 535 members and he was representing their collective view, which also applied to the next application on the Schedule.  Following the submission of the application, Friends of Winchcombe had held two public meetings.  More than 100 people had been present at each meeting and had overwhelmingly voted against any level of support for the application.  Of the 26 letters of support listed against the application, 16 were photocopied letters with handwritten names and addresses added and many were employees or tenants of Sudeley Castle.  Three minutes was insufficient for him to list the planning reasons as to why the application should be rejected so he instead wished to make reference to the list of objectors to the application including the Council’s Conservation Officer, Landscape Officer, Urban Design Officer, and Strategic Housing and Enabling Officer; Historic England; County Highways; Campaign for the Protection of Rural England; Winchcombe Medical Centre; Laurence Robertson MP; and Friends of Winchcombe.  He respectfully asked the Committee to review these objections and refuse the application.

39.7           The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to refuse the application in order to add a reason for refusal in relation to the flood risk impact, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member thanked the Officers for their full and detailed report and indicated that he supported the motion to refuse the application; however, he felt that something needed to be done to address the condition of the site, which he described as a mess, and asked that the local planning authority use any powers available to do so.  The Development Manager assured Members that this point had been noted.  The site contained buildings of great historic interest and there were various powers available to the local planning authority, including Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which meant it was possible to serve notice if there was justification that it was in the public interest to address an untidy site.  He gave a commitment that he would review the situation to identify if there was an issue which needed to be addressed and, if so, whether that could be properly achieved through planning legislation.

39.8           A Member noted from the representations made by the Town Council that there was an identified need for the type of housing proposed and he felt that a smaller scale scheme may be considered more favourably.  The Development Manager went on to advise that there was one outstanding matter in relation to the potential traffic impact and safety of Vineyard Street which had been raised as a concern on the Committee Site Visit.  The Officer report made clear that a final response had not yet been received from the County Highways Officer and, if Members were concerned about this particular issue, that matter could also be delegated in order for reasons for refusal to be added or varied based on the response.  The proposer and seconder of the motion confirmed that they were happy to amend the motion on that basis and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to REFUSE the application in order to add or vary reasons for refusal in relation to the flood risk and highway impact, subject to the consultation response from the County Highways Authority.

16/01454/LBC – Almsbury, Vineyard Street, Winchcombe

39.9           This was a listed building application for the proposed conversion of Almsbury Barns in connection with the construction of a 52 bed care home and 53 assisted living units - Grade II Listed Building Reference: 1304848.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 20 October 2017.

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

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

17/00670/FUL – Land at Blacksmith Lane, The Leigh

39.11         This application was for the erection of a dwelling.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 20 October 2017.

39.12         The Chair invited the representative from Leigh Parish Council to address the Committee.  He indicated that the proposed development fitted perfectly with the emerging Neighbourhood Plan in which parishioners had expressed a wish to see limited numbers of individual houses that fulfilled the needs of younger generations of villagers both in the Leigh and Coombe Hill, which was a service village.  It should also be noted that there were no objections from any residents of the Leigh; in fact, many actively supported the proposal.  The dwelling would be modest and would join six other houses within a 100 metre radius, and 11 more within 200 metre, so it would not be isolated.  He pointed out that the dwelling would be closer to a bus stop than the room where this meeting was currently being held, and would be within three quarters of a mile of the shop, public house and church – closer than many homes in service villages.  Furthermore, the site was outside of the floodplain, unlike some proposed developments.  The Parish Council considered that the proposal ticked many of the right boxes for village growth and survival of the community; it was sustainable, had access to services and employment, and would not increase traffic on village roads.

39.13         The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant pointed out that Tewkesbury Borough Council’s motto was “Tewkesbury Borough – a place where a good quality of life is open to all” and indicated that this was what he was seeking to achieve for his family.  He made reference to his own personal circumstances and advised that his proposal had received great support from villagers, neighbours and the Parish Council.  He had worked hard to accommodate Officers’ comments on design in order to alleviate concerns in this regard; however, he felt that existing urban features, such as neighbouring housing and the busy A38, heavily influenced the character of the site and, whilst there would be some change, this did not equate to unacceptable harm.  The refusal reasons cited conflict with Policy HOU4 because the site was located outside of a residential development boundary and the report suggested that this policy carried full weight because the Council could demonstrate a five year supply of housing.  He pointed out that the majority of recent appeal decisions did not support this position and, whilst there were conflicting views on whether HOU4 was a relevant policy for the supply of housing, this was irrelevant as the development plan was time-expired, based on outdated evidence and was not consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework.  Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework was concerned with rural areas and stated that, in order to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities.  The Planning Practice Guidance also stated that it was important to recognise the particular issues facing rural areas in terms of housing supply and affordability, and the role of housing in supporting the broader sustainability of villages and smaller developments.  The scale of house price increases of recent years, coupled with an acute shortage of housing, had led to a rapid deterioration in affordability across the country and such problems could be exacerbated in parts of rural England; this build was not for profit but rather was an exceptional opportunity for a local family and he urged Members to support the application.

39.14         In response to the comments made by the applicant regarding Policy HOU4, the Development Manager advised that there had been some appeal decisions where it was the Officers’ view that Inspectors had misapplied the law in terms of planning policy and the National Planning Policy Framework.  In the context of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policy HOU4 was not a relevant policy for the supply of housing – this was an accepted position following a recent Supreme Court decision.  The applicant had stated that the local plan was time-expired; however, Paragraph 211 of the National Planning Policy Framework set out that policy should not be considered out of date solely on the basis that it appeared in a plan that was prepared prior to the National Planning Policy Framework.  Furthermore, Policy HOU4 was consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework in that it sought to promote development in appropriate, sustainable locations and to protect the countryside.  Different Inspectors took different views and he cited the recent appeal decision in respect of Norton where the Inspector had accepted this very point, agreeing that Policy HOU4 was serving its purpose in terms of delivering an appropriate supply of housing.  Despite developers making statements to the contrary, Inspectors had accepted that the Council was able to demonstrate a five year deliverable supply of housing sites and, having taken legal advice, the Development Manager was confident in the Officers’ position on Policy HOU4 as set out in the report.

39.15         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 on the basis that the benefits of the scheme would outweigh the harm outlined in the report.  Having visited the application site, the proposer felt this was an acceptable location for a dwelling, particularly given the comments made by the Parish Council in respect of service villages.  He pointed out that planning permission had been granted for a bungalow in front of the site and he suggested that it might be possible to overcome an issue with a blind bend further along the road by moving the entrance slightly.  The Development Manager clarified that the Leigh itself was not a service village but it was located within the Ward of Coombe Hill which was a service village.  If Members were minded to permit the application he recommended the inclusion of conditions in relation to materials, levels, drainage, landscaping and parking, access and manoeuvring, which could be delegated to Officers if Members so wished.  He sought further clarification as to the concern regarding the entrance to the site and the proposer of the motion explained that there was a footpath to the west of the site and he felt that moving the entrance into the field slightly further would result in a better visibility splay.  Another Member recognised that the County Highways Authority had raised no objection and his only concern was the protection of the Public Right of Way, as there had been some vandalism to the way-marking posts; however, this was not relevant to the application.  The Development Manager suggested that the Parish Council could raise this matter with the County Highways Authority and the proposer of the motion indicated that he was happy with this approach. 

39.16         Based on the comments made by the Development Manager, the proposer and seconder of the motion confirmed that they wished to amend the motion to a delegated permit subject to the inclusion of conditions in relation to materials, levels, drainage, landscaping and parking, access and manoeuvring.  A Member raised concern that permitting the application would be strongly against policy and could have an impact on future applications.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to planning conditions relating to materials, levels, drainage, landscaping and parking, access and manoeuvring. 

16/01041/FUL – Tewkesbury Abbey Caravan Club Site, Gander Lane, Tewkesbury

39.17         This application was for proposed site improvements to the existing Tewkesbury Caravan Club site; demolition of both existing toilet blocks and construction of a new central toilet block; construction of 50 new all-weather pitches; construction of new tarmacadam roads; relocation and rebuilding of three service points and repositioning of a motor van waste point; provision of central calor gas compound with fencing; and new landscaping.

39.18         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.  The proposer of the motion felt that the proposals would enhance the site and he was happy to support the application.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

17/00903/FUL – 5 Whitmore Road, Winchcombe

39.19         This application was for a single storey rear extension.

39.20         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.

17/00618/FUL – Knapp Farm, Hill Farm, Birdlip Hill

39.21         This application was for the conversion of existing redundant buildings to a dwelling with the benefit of existing vehicular and pedestrian access.

39.22         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.  Having been put to the vote, it was

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

17/00858/FUL – Land Off Evesham Road, Evesham Road, Bishop’s Cleeve

39.23         This application was for the erection of five detached houses and construction of new vehicular access.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 20 October 2017.

39.24         The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  He indicated that he would not be commenting on the nuances of Policy HOU4 and would leave Members to arrive at their own conclusions in that regard; however, he wished to stress some fundamental facts in response to the very late comments raised by the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer.  He pointed out that the late report had failed to include a number of key items of evidence and was based on flood mapping information that was regrettably out of date, superseded and – worst of all – inaccurate.  The necessary pre-application discussions had taken place with the Environment Agency prior to the submission of the application and the Environment Agency advice had been simple - to undertake hydraulic modelling of the watercourse that passed through the site in exactly the same way as for the Cleevelands and Redrow developments.  He stressed that the modelling was based on a 1:1000 year flood event and included both 35% and 70% assessments, including climate change.  He drew attention to Paragraph 5.18 of the Officer report which set out that, whilst the constraints mapping showed the site in Flood Zone 2, the modelling demonstrated that the site was in Flood Zone 1, bar a small section, which was no different to the Cleevelands and Redrow schemes; that position had been accepted both by the Planning Officers and the Flood Risk Management Engineer.  The report contained a comment suggesting that the applicant had not taken on board designing the development to make allowance for uncertainties in modelling and flood levels and yet the Flood Risk Assessment clearly stated that the finished floor levels would be set at a minimum level of 600mm above the highest recorded flood level.  The Flood Risk Management Engineer had also raised concerns about surface water flooding along Evesham Road which the developer believed to be very misleading on the basis that he had failed to make reference to the realignment and remodelling of the upstream watercourse and attenuation basin that Redrow Homes had been required to complete as part of its development.  All of those works had been completed and had fully mitigated the historical surface water flooding problems along that part of the Evesham Road.

39.25         The Planning Officer advised that, unfortunately, the Flood Risk Management Engineer was unable to attend today’s meeting; however, this had been discussed and the Flood Risk Management Engineer considered that the information from the applicant was inaccurate and did not accord with the Council’s own strategic flood risk mapping which showed the site to be located in Flood Zone 2 and subject to fluvial and pluvial flooding.  The Environment Agency mapping on surface water showed the site to be in an area that was at high risk of deep, fast-flowing water which would be a problem for most people and the Flood Risk Management Engineer had also raised concern on that basis.

39.26         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 felt that the proposal would fit well with the Redrow development on the opposite side and would create an impressive entrance to Bishop’s Cleeve.  The seconder of the motion expressed the view that Policy HOU4 was out of date and he indicated that there was currently no defined settlement for Bishop’s Cleeve, which was close to becoming a rural service centre.  The site itself was derelict and did not add anything to the important green space.  He was very impressed with the development on the opposite side of the road and agreed with the proposer of the motion that, if this scheme was produced to the same high standard, it would be a very attractive gateway.  He pointed out that the site had not flooded in 2007 and a significant amount of money had been spent on an attenuation scheme upstream.

39.27         A Member questioned why Officers had not visited the application site with the knowledge that flood mitigation works were being carried out in relation to the Cleevelands and Redrow developments.  He noted that the applicant had carried out a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment using a specialist consultant and that there seemed to be some disagreement as to whether the development was located within Flood Zone 1 or Flood Zone 2; he sought an indication as to why the Officers felt that it was within Flood Zone 2.  He pointed out that the applicant had had regard to the Council’s aspirations within the Flood and Water Management Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in terms of a 20% assessment plus climate change allowance and he would be uncomfortable with refusing the application on flood risk grounds when those concerns did not appear to be valid.  The Planning Officer clarified that the Flood Risk Management Engineer had produced a map based on Environment Agency mapping which showed that the site was located in Flood Zone 2 and was subject to surface water flooding.  In response to a Member query, the Development Manager advised that the evidence from the Flood Risk Management Engineer was that the map was fully up to date and had been produced on Friday from the Environment Agency website.  Access to the site was from the south-west corner which was the most affected area.  The depth and velocity of the water was a serious concern and had been identified as being a potential risk to most people.  In addition, he reminded Members that the principle of new housing development in this location was contrary to Policy HOU4 and permission should be refused unless material planning considerations indicated otherwise; Officers felt that no such considerations had been identified.  It was unfortunate that the Flood Risk Management Engineer’s response had been received late, and that he was unable to attend the meeting; if Members were minded to permit the application, they may firstly wish to hear these comments directly from the Flood Risk Management Engineer.

39.28         During the debate which ensued, a Member indicated that she had serious reservations about the application, particularly as there were real concerns about flooding in the borough.  Another Member expressed a great deal of support for the proposal, having visited the site.  He did not feel it was of any special significance and he understood that the flood maps referenced by the Officers dated back as far as 2010 so he would be supporting the motion to permit the application.  Given the strength of feeling, a Member suggested that it would be more appropriate to defer the application so that Officers could meet with local Members to discuss the difference of opinion in relation to flood risk.  A Member stated that she could not recall the site flooding.  Another Member indicated that he knew the site well and the development would lend itself to the landscape; however, he shared the concerns about the conflicting reports around flood risk and proposed that the application be deferred in order to resolve those matters.  This proposal was duly seconded.  A Member expressed the view that, if the motion to defer the application was successful, in addition to the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer, the Lead Local Flood Authority should be invited to the next meeting.  The Development Manager explained that an invitation could be extended to the Lead Local Flood Authority but its practice was not to comment on any applications for developments of less than 10 dwellings.  Notwithstanding this, contact could be made via the Flood Risk Management Engineer and Officers could engage with the developer to try to find some common ground.

39.29         Upon being taken to the vote, the proposal to defer the application was lost.  The Development Manager indicated that, should Members be minded to permit the application, he would recommend the inclusion of conditions in relation to materials, levels, drainage, landscaping and parking, access and manoeuvring, and a Section 106 Agreement to secure a contribution of £298,000 towards affordable housing.  The proposer of the motion to permit the application indicated that he had concerns regarding the affordable housing contribution, particularly given that this was £100,000 more than the contribution being sought for the proposal for eight houses in Minsterworth which would be considered later in the meeting.  The Development Manager clarified that there was a method for calculating affordable housing contributions and house prices was one factor that was taken into consideration; this proposal was for large, executive style homes which could explain why the figure was higher in this instance.  A Member had been led to believe that a 20% affordable housing contribution would be required for this proposal, as opposed to a 40% contribution.  The Development Manager advised that it was his understanding that a 40% affordable housing contribution was applicable in this case, however, confirmation of this could be part of the delegation, should Members be minded to permit the application.  He explained that it would not be possible to justify a contribution that was above policy requirements i.e. 40% and, if Members were minded to grant a delegated permission, he would ensure that the affordable housing contribution being sought was in accordance with policy; in the event that it was not, it would be brought back to the Committee.  On that basis, the proposer and seconder of the motion to permit the application indicated that they would be happy to amend the motion to a delegated permit subject to conditions relating to materials, levels, drainage, landscaping and parking, access and manoeuvring, and a Section 106 obligation to secure a contribution of £298,000 towards affordable housing.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to planning conditions relating to materials, levels, drainage, landscaping and parking, access and manoeuvring, and a Section 106 obligation to secure a contribution of £298,000 towards affordable housing.

17/01023/FUL – Burley Fields, Crippetts Lane, Leckhampton

39.30         This application was for change of use of land to include use for weekend and bank holiday car boot sales as a farm diversification enterprise (resubmitted application).

39.31         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  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 put to the vote, it was

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

17/00239/FUL – Newlands Park, Southam Lane, Southam

39.32         This application was for the installation of a new artificial grass pitch to form a full-size playing enclosure for rugby union with new artificial grass pitch surface sized 122 x 80m with associated technical areas to accommodate 15 vs 15 rugby union pitch plus a variety of training areas for rugby union; installation of a pitch perimeter and associated gated entrances to form a playing enclosure around the field of play.  Installation of new hardstanding areas adjoining the artificial grass pitch perimeter complete with associated porous asphalt surfacing for pedestrian access, goals storage, spectator viewing space and maintenance and emergency access; installation of an artificial (flood) lighting system to adjacent grass rugby pitch; and extending the hours of operation to allow the use of the artificial pitch and the floodlighting to between the hours of 8:30am and 10:00pm Monday to Sunday.

39.33         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  He advised that the Rugby Football Union was committed to delivering 100 artificial grass pitches to improve grass roots rugby by 2020.  This would help to reverse the current trend across the country where natural turf rugby pitches were overused, limiting participation as a result of restricted access and a detrimental player experience.  Cheltenham Rugby Club had been identified as having high potential to grow rugby union and had been targeted by the Rugby Football Union for investment.  This project was phase two of a six phase initiative and, once operational, the Rugby Football Union believed that the facility would generate over 7,000 participants, playing at least once every two weeks, and thousands more would be introduced to the game on those surfaces each year.  Cheltenham Rugby Club and the Rugby Football Union would share use of the pitch and new visitors would be attracted from local schools and colleges, the local rugby partnership, the Rugby Football Union’s development programme and general community access.  This proposal offered an excellent opportunity for the Cheltenham area.  He confirmed that the Rugby Football Union would manage the pitch and develop rugby interest over a 30 year period.  He had worked positively with the Planning Officer during the application process to ensure the proposal accorded with material considerations and to make improvements in respect of a sustainable drainage strategy and sensitive development in the Green Belt.  County Highways had also been very helpful in terms of ensuring highway safety to and from the club’s driveway entrance.  He was grateful for the Officer recommendation and considered the proposed conditions to be reasonable and fair, particularly in relation to the proposed hours of pitch use; a request had been made for the curfew time to be extended by half an hour during the week and by four hours on Sunday – ending at 10:00pm each day – which was necessary to satisfy the projected demand for community access which was being experienced at phase one projects.  Financial sustainability was a key aspect for any sports pitch project and the extended times of use would contribute vital income for running and refurbishment costs over the 30 year term.

39.34         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 happy to support the application but he sought assurance that the floodlights would be pointed downwards at all times in order to reduce light spillage.  The Development Manager advised that, if Members were minded to delegate permission, he would check whether this was covered by recommended condition 4, which required floodlights to be installed in accordance with the plans and documents submitted with the application; if not, this could be discussed with the applicant and amended accordingly.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to additional/amended conditions to ensure that the floodlights would point down at all times to reduce light spillage.

39.35         A Member was mindful that a lot of games would be played on the pitch and she had concerns about floodlighting in that part of the Green Belt being used seven days a week until 10:00pm.  Another Member shared this view and questioned why the curfew of 9:30pm was being extended.  The Development Manager noted these comments and provided assurance that the Environmental Health Officer was satisfied with the proposal in the context of the site with commercial development to the west.  Given the proposal to delegate permission to ensure that light spillage was minimised by condition, there would be little additional impact over and above the current situation.  A Member echoed the concerns regarding floodlighting and felt that they would be intrusive - contrary to the Officer report - and the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the view from Cleeve Hill, would not be mitigated by the existing commercial development.

39.36         Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to additional/amended conditions to ensure that the floodlights would point down at all times to reduce light spillage.

17/00337/FUL – 19 Huxley Way, Bishop’s Cleeve

39.37         This application was for a single storey detached garden room/home workspace.

39.38         The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  She recognised that concern had been raised in relation to the design being incongruous with the locality; however, she explained that the proposal had been designed to accord with Policy HOU8 which set out that extension to existing dwellings must respect the character, scale and proportions of the existing dwelling and not have an unacceptable impact on adjacent property and residential amenity.  Notwithstanding this, in order to address the concerns raised, revised plans had been submitted reducing the size of the proposal and improving the design.  She indicated that the proposal would be more sympathetic than the old wooden fencing which required constant maintenance.  Furthermore, it would be impossible to see from the road and would be screened by shrubs and trees.  She also made reference to her personal circumstances and how the proposal would impact positively on her life.

39.39         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 and, upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

17/00855/FUL – Part Parcel 1228, Main Road, Minsterworth

39.40         This application was for the erection of eight dwellings with associated new vehicular access (revised scheme to approved development under application reference 16/00822/OUT).  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 20 October 2017.

39.41         The Planning Officer advised that, following the Committee Site Visit, Members had requested clarification on the access arrangements.  He explained that outline planning consent had previously been granted for two other residential developments – Ref: 16/00822/OUT for up to six dwellings on the current site and Ref: 16/00823/OUT for up to four dwellings on an adjacent site.  The County Highways Authority had raised concern about the proximity of the two accesses for the developments which had been granted consent and an amendment had been negotiated for outline planning permission 16/00822/OUT so that access would be from the west.  Unfortunately, when the decision notice for that planning permission had been sent out, it had incorrectly referred to both plans – one with access to the west and one with access in the centre of the site – which meant that either, or both, could be implemented.  The County Highways Authority had confirmed verbally that it would not be acceptable for both accesses to be implemented due to the adverse impact on highway safety; however, a formal response was still awaited.  In the meantime, the current application had been submitted seeking to increase the number of dwellings from six to eight and the plans included with the application showed the access in the preferred location to the west.  On that basis, it was proposed that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to receipt of acceptable house types, no objection from the County Highways Authority in respect of the revised access and no objection from the County Minerals and Waste Authority, and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure an affordable housing contribution of £189,000 and non-implementation of the extant planning permission reference 16/00822/OUT.

39.42         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  He stated that Members would be aware that the site already had planning permission for new housing development which had been granted last year, therefore the principle of residential development had already been established.  This proposal was largely a re-design which sought to make fuller use of the land available, in accordance with government policy.  The original pre-application proposal had been for nine dwellings on the site but this had been changed to eight with the size of the dwellings being significantly reduced, taking on board Officer comments by increasing the space between each unit, enhancing landscaping and reducing the footprint and volume of the units in order to ensure that it better respected the character of the area.  There were still some small-scale design changes which had been recommended by the Development Manager which they would be happy to address further under the delegated permission.  Members had visited the application site and were aware of the access issues.  He pointed out that County Highways had confirmed it was happy in principle with the access and that it met all of the relevant highway safety standards; further detailed design of the access arrangement would follow.  He also wished to stress the vulnerability of some local facilities and services in Minsterworth and the importance of delivering enough housing to sustain those going forward; the public house had already been lost; the recent decision had been taken to close Minsterworth Primary School; and the viability of the village hall had been called into question.  The best way to ensure the future viability of these services was to deliver enough family homes in Minsterworth which was unlike other designated service villages in the borough due to the genuine local desire for new housing. 

39.43         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to receipt of acceptable house types, no objection from the County Highways Authority in respect of the revised access and no objection from the County Minerals and Waste Authority, and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure an affordable housing contribution of £189,000 and non-implementation of the extant planning permission reference 16/00822/OUT, 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 considered the proposal to be well thought-out and believed that it would make an important contribution in delivering more houses which was a big problem for Minsterworth.  The seconder of the motion pointed out that a request had been made to retain the zig-zag lines outside the school when it closed at the end of the year as they helped to slow traffic on the A48 which was the gateway to the village.  He agreed that moving the access would remove some of the fears in terms of the close proximity to the adjacent site.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to receipt of acceptable house types, no objection from the County Highways Authority in respect of the revised access and no objection from the County Minerals and Waste Authority, and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure an affordable housing contribution of £189,000 and non-implementation of the extant planning permission reference 16/00822/OUT.

17/00104/OUT – Land Adjacent to Rosedale House, Main Road, Minsterworth

39.44         This was an outline application for the erection of five dwellings with associated access and layout.

39.45         The Planning Officer clarified that this application had been presented to the Planning Committee on 31 August 2017 where Members had resolved to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the resolution of highways matters in relation to planning application 16/00822/OUT, as discussed under the previous item on the Schedule.  It had subsequently come to light that a letter of objection had been received prior to the Planning Committee on 31 August that had not been included in the Officer report or the Additional Representations Sheet.  As the application had not yet been formally permitted, and the decision notice had not been issued, it was felt prudent to bring the objection to Members’ attention.

39.46         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the resolution of the highways matters, 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 and, upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the resolution of the highway matters.

17/00679/FUL – Land at Barn Farm, Tewkesbury Road, Norton

39.47         This application was for residential development consisting of one detached dwelling, associated parking and access from Tewkesbury Road. 

39.48         The Development Manager explained that the application had been recommended for delegated permission, subject to the resolution of design issues and highway safety concerns.  The design concerns had now been satisfactorily addressed and revised plans had been received and were included in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1; the design had been simplified and was now more appropriate and reflective of the surrounding development.  The County Highways Officer had raised no objection; however, after further consideration, Officers were concerned that the development fronted straight onto the A38 and questioned whether there would be adequate parking and turning areas for a four bedroom dwelling.  The applicant had subsequently submitted revised plans to address those concerns and the County Highways Officer had been re-consulted but a response was yet to be received.  As such, the Officer recommendation was still for a delegated permission but purely on the basis of the outstanding highway safety concerns.

39.49         The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant made reference to his personal circumstances and how they related to the proposal.  He explained that the application had been submitted in June and, prior to that, he had consulted with the Parish Council which had raised no concern other than the access onto the main A38.  This had been taken into account when he had instructed his architect and the proposal had been made with consideration to the Parish Council’s comments.  The Parish Council comments had been submitted in July, and the highways report in August; at that stage the Planning Officer had indicated that the proposal was being recommended for permission.  He had been told that the application would be considered at the Planning Committee meeting in September but had heard nothing until an email on 16 October – eight days prior to this meeting – which stated that there were additional concerns.  These concerns had been dealt with within 48 hours and submitted to the Development Manager; although he had not had confirmation of receipt.  In view of the delays that had been experienced already, he asked the Committee to look favourably upon the proposal and permit the application.

39.50         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to no objection being raised by the County Highways Officer, 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 and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to no objection being raised by the County Highways Officer.

17/00889/OUT – Land at Appithorne, Main Road, Minsterworth

39.51         This was an outline application for the erection of up to five dwellings and new vehicular access.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 20 October 2017.

39.52         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  He indicated that the majority of the comments he made in respect of application 17/00855/FUL Part Parcel 1228, Main Road, Minsterworth earlier in the meeting were also relevant here and he asked Members to take into account the importance of delivering enough housing in Minsterworth to ensure the viability of local services and facilities going forward.  The Parish Council had no objection to the proposal and the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.  A Committee Site Visit had been carried out to assess the site access and County Highways had raised no objections to the application.  This was because the visibility splays and access requirements had been formed following a robust automated speed survey which had been carried out over a seven day period.  The survey had shown that actual vehicle speeds were lower at this particular point than the speed limit would suggest and the visibility splays had been provided in line with the actual speeds of the road.  The splays had been provided in accordance with national and local highways visibility standards and were wholly acceptable in planning terms. 

39.53         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation had been changed from delegated permit to permit on the basis that County Highways had now confirmed that it had no objection to the proposal and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The proposer of the motion advised that he was happy to support the construction of five dwellings but reiterated that there were still some concerns locally regarding the visibility splays.  The Planning Officer provided assurance that revised plans had been received and had been subject to consultation with the County Highways Authority.  In view of the Parish Council’s concerns, additional work had been done to determine the traffic speed and the plans had been amended and updated to reflect that.  The proposer of the motion indicated that he would welcome a reduction in the speed limit along the entrance to Minsterworth - particularly given the accesses being created for the new developments in the area - and he hoped this would be considered by County Highways.  Upon being put 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

39.54         This application was for the erection of 28 dwellings with 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).  This application had been deferred at the last meeting of the Committee to enable Members to be provided with detailed plans before making a decision on the application.

39.55         The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  He was pleased that the application was before Members with a recommendation for approval; this positive recommendation followed extensive discussion and correspondence with Planning Officers and local residents.  As noted in the Officer report, the majority of Parish Council objections related to the outline planning consent and were not applicable to this application.  The few issues outstanding had been addressed and the conditions of the outline application were being complied with.  The layout and the proposed houses had been designed to reflect the character of the local vernacular.  The developer was 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 any questions raised in relation to the site, with the aim of creating an open dialogue with the village residents and ease any concerns they might have.  A further meeting with residents had allowed outstanding concerns to be addressed along with discussing design details and construction timings; as a result, subtle amendments had been made which had benefited both the design and the residents.  The scheme would use high quality, sustainably-sourced materials, and utilise skilled local trades.  He hoped that Members would approve the proposal and allow the development to be enjoyed by future and existing residents.

39.56         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to approve the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member noted that the applicant had stated that a further meeting had been held with residents but the latest information provided to Members made no reference to this and he sought clarification as to whether this had taken place.  He felt that there were some outstanding issues, and made particular reference to the road being 300mm higher than in the original plan.  The Planning Officer advised that the applicant had complied with the outline consent, including the conditions in respect of the level of the road and the adjoining boundary wall.  Consultation had taken place via site notice when the application had first been received and through subsequent notices following the receipt of amended plans.  He confirmed that all matters had been resolved to Officers’ satisfaction.  The Development Manager pointed out that Officers were not privy to discussions between the applicant and local residents so it was taken in good faith that a meeting had been held following the Planning Committee’s decision in September; what had been discussed at that meeting was not a material planning consideration and Members were reminded that they needed to make a decision as to whether the proposal was acceptable in planning terms based on the information provided.

39.57         Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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