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

65.1           The Technical Planning 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.

18/01200/FUL – Wharf House, The Wharf, Coombe Hill

65.2          This application was for erection of a new dwelling, garage and access.

65.3          The Chair invited the applicant’s architect to address the Committee.  The applicant’s architect explained that a pre-application enquiry had been submitted in September 2017 and had received a very positive response stating that the principle of development was likely to be acceptable by virtue of the sustainable location of the site and that it was unlikely to be considered as an isolated site.  No policy issues had been identified.  A full planning application had subsequently been submitted in March 2018.  Whilst initially the Case Officer had indicated that the recommendation would be favourable, this position changed following discussions with the Technical Planning Manager and the Case Officer advised that permission would be refused on the basis that it was an isolated site, contrary to the pre-application advice.  The applicant’s agent indicated that he had difficulty contacting the Technical Planning Manager over an extensive period of time before the application was withdrawn.  The application had been re-submitted in November 2018 and was recommended for refusal on two counts, firstly, that the site was isolated and, secondly, that the development would harm the setting of the Landscape Protection Zone.  He indicated that the site was immediately adjacent to the cluster of houses at The Wharf, it was currently garden land as opposed to open countryside and the site had been developed over a long time such that the County Archaeologist wanted an investigation into the substantial buildings on the site in the 1870s; the site had also been used as a track route for the flood defence works more recently.  The landscape and visual impact assessment submitted with the application demonstrated that there would be minimal impact and the Council’s Landscape Officer had not commented on the application.  Furthermore, housing had been approved next to the Swan Inn which was on the skyline of the Landscape Protection Zone.  On that basis, the applicant’s architect urged Members to acknowledge the strong support, both from the Parish Council and neighbours, and permit the application.

65.4          The Technical Planning Manager explained it was unfortunate that both the pre-application and the original planning application had been submitted during a time of change in terms of the planning policy position; however, there was now a very clear policy position in terms of the adopted Joint Core Strategy and that was the basis upon which the application must be considered.  Whilst he did have sympathy with the applicant who had been caught in the midst of a changing planning policy situation, Officers were confident in the recommendation as the application did not comply with policy set out in the development plan and therefore should be refused.  In terms of the comment regarding the architect’s attempts to contact him, he could only apologise if that had been the case and he would be happy to speak to him outside of the meeting in relation to that.  A Member questioned whether the application might have been viewed more favourably had it not been subject to the delays described by the applicant’s architect.  In response, the Technical Planning Manager explained that a judgement had been taken at the time that the proposal was contrary to policy and it had subsequently been withdrawn, therefore the recommendation was unaffected by any delays.  The Head of Development Services reminded Members that the application must be assessed on its planning merits and reiterated that any issues in terms of service failure could be picked up outside of the meeting.

65.5          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member felt there had been a “moving of the goal posts” and that the application should be permitted as the site had previously been considered acceptable in policy terms for residential development.  The Technical Planning Manager advised that the Council was required to consider the application in light of the policy as it stood at this particular moment; the proposal was contrary to the policies that had been adopted by the Council and he warned against relying upon previous policies.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted on the basis that the site was in a settlement recommended as a service village and there was no local objection to the proposal.  Should Members be minded to permit the application, the Planning Officer recommended the inclusion of conditions in relation to the commencement of development; the development being carried out in accordance with approved drawings; the County Archaeologist’s request for archaeological work to be undertaken; tree protection during works; approval of material samples; provision of parking and turning facilities on site prior to occupation; provision of appropriate visibility splays prior to occupation; submission and approval of landscaping details; provision of bat boxes; restriction of external lighting to protect wildlife; and levels as set out in the submitted drawings.

65.6           Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED subject to conditions in relation to the commencement of development; the development being carried out in accordance with approved drawings; the County Archaeologist’s request for archaeological work to be undertaken; tree protection during works; approval of material samples; provision of parking and turning facilities on site prior to occupation; provision of appropriate visibility splays prior to occupation; submission and approval of landscaping details; provision of bat boxes; restriction of external lighting to protect wildlife; and levels as set out in the submitted drawings.

18/00940/FUL – 3 Saffron Road, Tewkesbury

65.7          This application was for erection of a two-storey side and rear extension (revised application ref: 13/00211/FUL).

65.8          The Chair invited the representative from Tewkesbury Town Council to address the Committee.  The Town Council representative explained that the Town Council believed that the application raised a “right to light” issue for the Tudor Room, a part of the Watson Hall complex situated behind 3 Saffron Road.  The Town Council held the title to the property and was the sole trustee of the George Watson Memorial Hall Trust.  She advised that the Tudor Room had three windows with a combined area of less than 20% of its floor area so the interior was already dark.  The only window with useful access to direct light faced 3 Saffron Road so the room had limited access to daylight and, if reduced, this would become darker, cooler and possibly damp, thus reducing its amenity.  The Town Council’s arguments against this application were described in detail within the report that the Town Clerk had sent to Members and Officers the previous day.  In essence, she explained that the maintenance strip, referenced in Paragraph 5.2 of the Officer report, was owned by the Town Council; the note at the end of the report stated that permission “does not imply any rights of entry to the adjoining property” but the applicant would not be able to build what he proposed without entering Town Council land.  The Town Council’s report had shown that the consented scheme for the site, dated 2013, breached the 45-degree rule with respect to overshadowing but the Town Council believed it would not deprive the room of sunshine during the summer months, being only one storey high at the back, and therefore it had supported that application.  Notwithstanding this, the Town Council had objected to an application for a two-storey building with north-facing gable on the same footprint in October 2018 but the applicant had begun to build on a larger footprint extending in front of the window.  The subsequent amendment, dated December 2018, did not project in front of the window but was larger than previous applications.  The Planning Officer had asked whether the amendments had addressed the Town Council’s objection on the grounds that the latest proposal was better than the previous one but the Town Council did not consider this to be the case.  The Town Council’s report showed that such a tall building, so close to the Tudor Room, would significantly deprive it of daylight during the afternoons, therefore, the Town Council disagreed with Paragraphs 5.13 and 6.1 of the Officer report.  Should this application be permitted, others might be encouraged to start building works for which no consent had been granted hoping that, despite making some concessions, they could build something that would not have been permitted had they followed the proper process – the Town Council believed that would be a bad precedent to set.  In conclusion, the Town Council objected strongly to the application because of its potential impact on the right to light of its property at the Watson Hall, and the consequent loss of amenity to the residents of Tewkesbury, and she urged Members to refuse the application.

65.9          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 deferred for a Committee Site Visit in order to assess the Town Council’s concerns and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED for a Committee Site Visit in order to assess the Town Council’s concerns.

18/01013/FUL – 71-73 Barton Street, Tewkesbury

65.10        This application was for change of use of ground floor from bank (A2) to offices (B1) and change of use of upper floors from bank (A2) to two apartments (C3) plus external alterations to the ground floor frontage.

65.11        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.

18/01104/OUT – Land Adjacent to the John Moore Primary School, Walton Cardiff, Tewkesbury

65.12        This was an outline planning application for up to 30 dwellings with affordable housing; all matters reserved except access.

65.13         The Planning Officer advised that, further to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, the County Council’s Education Section 106 Officer had advised that no Section 106 obligations were required towards education/library infrastructure.

65.14        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that the proposal was for 30 new homes, 40% of which were affordable.  There were no objections from any of the technical consultees, including County Highways which considered the access into the site off the new link road to the south to be acceptable.  The land lay adjacent to the John Moore Primary School and was owned by the County Council which had declared it surplus to requirements.  The existing school site had capacity to extend from the current one-form entry, i.e. 210 places, to its planned size of two-form entry, i.e. 420 places, to meet future demand.  A planning application for the first phase of the planned expansion was imminent and would expand capacity by 105 places.  In terms of future access to the school, there was a footpath link at the northern boundary of the application site which linked onto another footway running adjacent to the northern boundary of the site and school before joining the school’s main entrance; this was a short, convenient walk for children and their parents.  The proposal was supported by the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan which allocated the site for 30 dwellings and provided a logical residential site as it was largely surrounded by development.  He pointed out that much-needed open market and affordable housing was being provided in this location, as evidenced by the good sale rates of the Bloor Homes development at Tewkesbury Meadows, and he hoped that Members would support the Officer recommendation for a delegated permit.

65.15         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to completion of a Legal Agreement to secure affordable housing and a financial contribution towards other developer contributions directly related to the development and considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and the addition/amendment of conditions as necessary, and he sought a motion from the floor.  With regard to the school, a Member queried whether the comments included in the Additional Representations Sheet took account of the second allocation of land within the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, and whether future expansion of the school would be required should that be built out.  The Technical Planning Manager advised that there was no specific information to indicate whether this took account of other allocations in the Tewkesbury Borough Plan but there was sufficient room within the school site to expand without this parcel of land.  The Member subsequently proposed, and it was seconded, that authority be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

65.16         A Member pointed out that the Tewkesbury Borough Plan was still in its very early stages and had not yet been adopted and, having seen the primary school, she had real concerns about the future and whether there would be sufficient room for expansion to accommodate the increase she would expect given the amount of development proposed in the area, and in Tewkesbury in general.  The Technical Planning Manager confirmed that the Member was right in terms of the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan which could only be given limited weight at this stage; however, as set out in the Officer report, the proposal complied with Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy in terms of location and the fact that it was essentially infilling within a built-up area.  Whilst he understood concerns about the school and seemingly losing school land to create houses, Gloucestershire County Council had been consulted as the education authority and was confident that the plans in place, and the residual land on the school site, were sufficient to deal with capacity in the short term.  If any further developments came forward it was likely that consideration would need to be given to a new primary school.

65.17         Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Technical Planning Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to completion of a Legal Agreement to secure affordable housing and a financial contribution towards other developer contributions directly related to the development and considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and the addition/amendment of conditions as necessary.

15/01068/FUL – Cotteswold Cottages, Leckhampton Hill, Leckhampton

65.18        This application was for the erection of a replacement dwelling to meet the applicant’s disability needs; improvement to existing access, construction of a secondary access and associated works (demolition of No. 1 and 2 Cotteswold Cottages).

65.19         The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  The applicant’s representative explained that the proposal was for the replacement of two fire-damaged cottages with a single dwelling specifically to meet the needs of the applicant.  He pointed out that the existing cottages benefitted from extant planning permissions for extensions.  The applicant had sought pre-application advice and many discussions had taken place to ensure that all relevant issues had been addressed; this hard work had paid off as the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.  In this instance, the applicant’s personal circumstances were relevant and should be afforded some positive weight.  He went on to point out that there were no neighbour objections to the proposal, the site was well-related to surrounding development and the replacement dwelling would be within the curtilage of the cottages and classed as previously developed land.  This part of Leckhampton was characterised by large dwellings and plots and this proposal was modest in comparison with neighbouring properties.  With regard to the landscape setting, he reassured Members that arrangements were in in place to ensure trees were protected throughout construction and beyond.  This proposal was an example of good design encouraged by Officers and would provide a much-needed bespoke home to meet the applicant’s specific needs.

65.20         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 put to the vote, it was

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

18/01105/FUL – 1 Britannia Way, Woodmancote

65.21        This application was for the erection of two storey and single storey extensions; installation of a front porch and veranda to rear; demolition of existing garage to facilitate provision of a rear parking area.

65.22        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.  A Member noted that the Parish Council had several reservations about the veranda and he asked for an Officer explanation in relation to this.  The Technical Planning Manager apologised that elevation plans had been omitted from the Officer report and he pointed out the veranda on the plan which was displayed on the screen; he confirmed that it was very much a light-weight structure which in itself would not require planning permission and he could see no concerns in terms of the impact on the living conditions of the neighbours.  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.

18/00607/FUL – Greenacres, Brookfield Road, Churchdown

65.23         This application was for the removal of existing structures, retention of hardstanding and three agricultural buildings; erection of proposed polytunnel, additional hardstanding and extension to agricultural track. 

65.24        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation had been amended to ‘Minded to Permit’, as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, and he sought a motion from the floor.  In response to a query regarding the reason for the change in recommendation, the Technical Planning Manager advised that this was due to an inputting error which meant that the wrong recommendation had been put into the box which generated the Officer report.  He clarified that the appeal had only been formally accepted by the Planning Inspectorate the previous week and it was unfortunate that the applicant had chosen to appeal against non-determination as the Case Officer had done a lot of work with the applicant to resolve the matter and come up with a satisfactory scheme.  For the reasons set out within the report, Officers considered this to be an acceptable scheme for the site.  If Members agreed with the Officer recommendation, he would discuss with the applicant the possibility of submitting another application to avoid the need to proceed with the appeal.  It was proposed and seconded that Members be ‘Minded to Permit’ the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That Members be MINDED TO PERMIT the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.