Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

51.1           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.

51.2           The Development Manager advised that the Schedule had been published prior to the adoption of the Joint Core Strategy which now formed part of the development plan.  This meant that some of the policies referenced within the Officer reports had been superseded and no longer held any weight in the decision-making process.  This represented a significant change in circumstances.  The Officer reports had been written on the assumption that the Joint Core Strategy would be adopted – given that the Gloucester City Council and Tewkesbury Borough Council meetings had already taken place and the Cheltenham Borough Council meeting was due to take place on the afternoon of the day the Planning Committee papers were published – with very significant weight being given to the policies within the Joint Core Strategy and very limited weight being given to the saved local plan policies.  Therefore, the adoption of the Joint Core Strategy had no significant effect on any conclusions within the reports and did not affect any of the Officer recommendations.

17/00865/FUL – 75 Barton Street, Tewkesbury

51.3           This application was for change of use from A2 professional services to residential C3; creation of two dwelling units and associated refurbishment and repair. 

51.4           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.

17/00866/LBC – 75 Barton Street, Tewkesbury

51.5           This was a listed building consent application for the creation of two dwelling units and associated refurbishment and repair. 

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

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

17/00711/FUL – Brookelands, Tewkesbury Road, Norton

51.7           This application was for the erection of five detached dwellings.

51.8           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. 

51.9           A Member found it strange that no comment had been made by County Highways, given that the A38 was quite a fast and dangerous road, and he questioned whether anything had been submitted since the publication of the Officer report.  The Development Manager apologised that the consultations and representations section of the report did not coincide with Paragraph 5.25 which set out that the Highways Authority had been consulted and considered that the proposed five dwellings would not create a significant increase in traffic on the highway network.  The previously approved scheme for the site was a combination of two planning permissions totalling four dwellings which had already been permitted on the site; the proposed access for the current application was in a similar location to the access serving the previously permitted four dwellings and an additional single dwelling was not considered to give rise to any concerns over and above that.  The visibility splays were in accordance with what was required.  A Member pointed out that there was a 50mph speed limit on the road.

51.10         Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

17/00827/FUL – Gallagher Retail Park, Tewkesbury Road, Uckington

51.11         This application was for the erection of a class A1 retail unit comprising 929sqm at ground floor with full cover mezzanine (total floorspace 1,858sqm), car parking, realignment of service yard access, renewal/adjustment of service yard drainage, diversion of a class 5 highway and associated works to the west of Unit A Gallagher Retail Park.

51.12         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.  A Member - who indicated that the application site fell partly within his County Councillor area - noted with regard to flood risk and drainage, that the proposal included a 40% allowance for climate change; however, given that the development would take over a considerable amount of the car park, and taking into account the aspirations within the Council’s draft revised Flood and Water Management Supplementary Planning Document, along with the fact that the industry standard was now 30% instead of 20%, he felt there may be room for further improvement, particularly as there were concerns locally regarding drainage.  He noted that two-thirds of the site was in Cheltenham Borough and that Cheltenham Borough Council had already resolved to grant the application.  He asked that Officers work closely with their colleagues in Cheltenham Borough when the details on this issue were submitted.  The Planning Officer advised that a condition requiring the submission of drainage details was recommended so he could certainly pass these comments onto the applicant and hope that they may be taken into account in those details as and when they came forward.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

17/00960/FUL – Queenwood House, Queenwood Grove, Prestbury

51.13         This application was for the erection of a dwelling on land adjacent to Queenwood House.

51.14         The Development Manager advised that, since the publication of the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, a further letter had been received from a local resident in support of the proposal; this made reference to the community benefit of retaining an important neighbour and the fact that no harm would arise from the erection of a new dwelling on the site.  The Development Manager explained that the original application was for a replacement dwelling and there had been significant negotiations with the applicant and their agent in respect of its size and scale.  Those negotiations had been close to conclusion with Officers minded to permit the application under delegated powers; unfortunately, before that had happened, the applicant had demolished the pre-existing dwelling and a different policy context now applied.  The application was contrary to Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy; however, given the particular circumstances, Officers considered that, on balance, there were material planning considerations which justified planning permission being granted.

51.15         The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  She explained that the applicant was under considerable stress, having mistakenly knocked down the original dwelling before receiving planning permission.  This was a genuine mistake with the applicant believing that he had obtained planning permission under delegated powers; this was accepted by the Planning Officer in the report.  The applicant had stopped work – at considerable cost - the moment he had been made aware of the position.  She went on to make reference to the applicant’s personal circumstances and the impact of refusing planning permission.  She delivered heartfelt apologies on behalf of the applicant and hoped that the Committee would be able to grant planning permission today.

51.16         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.

17/01161/FUL – 9 Harvesters View, Bishop’s Cleeve

51.17         This application was for a rear dormer and front skylights.

51.18         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.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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