Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Hall, Brown and Bullingham.

To receive Declarations of Interest in relation to planning matters.

There were none.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 2 September 2021.

Councillor Patrick requested that the minutes in DCC.016 correctly reflect her question raised regarding barn 1 previously being suitable to house cattle. She requested that the minutes be amended to reflect that she asked to see the plans for the barn before asking whether the barn was suitable for livestock due to the hatched area marked for cattle shown on the plans.

RESOLVED    That the Minutes of the meeting held on 2 September 2021 were approved with the amendments laid out above.

(Note: For access to information purposes, the background papers for the applications listed in the above schedule are the application itself and subsequent papers as listed in the relevant file.)

Representations were received and taken into account by the Committee in respect of Applications:

Late Pages relating to Scheduled Item 4.1 had been circulated to Committee prior to the meeting and were also made available during the meeting.

The Chair also proposed to move Item 4.2 The Old Granary, Wanswell, Berkeley to the end of the meeting so it would be taken after item 5.

Erection of 52 dwellings with associated access, parking & landscaping, together with a new sports pavilion with associated facilities.

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report and showed the committee aerial shots of the site, the outline of the site and the development plans for the site.

He then talked through the characteristics of the site, areas for consideration and explained that the Officer recommendation was to approve the application subject to conditions and a S106 agreement. The Principal Planning Officer also drew the Members attention to the changes outlined in the Late Pages submitted.

He explained in detail the key issues for the Committee to consider which included:

·       Provision of 100% affordable housing stock and the weight applied to this benefit.

·       Provision of sports pitches and open space.

·       Impact of the development on the character of the area.

·       Ecological impact on the nature reserve containing the great crested newt population.

·       Impact on residential amenity in particular to properties along the Bristol Road.

·       General environmental impacts such as flood risk and impact on surface water drainage.

·       Highways safety, impact with access onto Bristol Road.

Councillor Housden spoke as a Ward Member for Stonehouse, he asked the committee to reject the application and laid out his reasons which included:

·       Application conflicts with Local Plan Policy CP3.

·       The Council had already approved 1,350 homes in 2016 which were still currently under development in Great Oldbury, Stonehouse.

·       Application contradicts the Stonehouse Neighbourhood Development Plan (SNDP) which was adopted by Stroud District Council (SDC) in February 2018.

·       During the development for the SNDP, which was completed in 2017, a call for suitable sites was requested and Wycliffe College were consulted. No suitable sites were put forward by Wycliffe College at that time.

·       Contradicts the Local Plan Policy ES13 – the whole or partial loss of open space within settlements.

·       The promise of community use of its future facilities was questionable as several local organisations had already been denied use of the current facilities.

·       Application falls below standards laid out in Policy H2 of the SNDP for providing off street parking.

·       Access to the development would cross over the existing cycle lane.

·       SNDP page 47 – Play spaces should be provided or in lieu, financial contributions made. ES15 also states similar requirements.

·       SNDP page 55 - 5.3 Protect and enhance green spaces & 5.4 Protect and enhance the heritage and wildlife assets.

·       The development does not meet requirements of Local Plan Policies ES6, ES13, SA2 and of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) policies 171 and 174.

·       SNDP Policy ENV6 regarding views and vistas.

·       Highways concerns over the access and increased use of the road.

Councillor Ross also spoke as a Ward Member for Stonehouse, she described the first application made by Wycliffe in 1994 and explained it was refused due to the strength of feeling in the community and the overwhelming support for the field and the views. She informed the Committee during the development of the SNDP, Wycliffe’s Operations Manager was consulted and provided assurance that there were no plans to release any of the field for development. Less than 10 years later they  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.021

Subdivision of the rear garden and erection of a new dwelling. Creation of new offstreet parking within the front garden. (Revised drawings received 04/08/21 and 25/08/21).

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report and informed the Committee of the main concerns with the application which included:

·       Design and layout

·       Residential amenities

·       Highways.

Andrew Heath, a local resident, spoke in opposition of the application as a nearby resident and raised the following concerns:

·       Major impact on their house and use of their garden, the proposed building comes up to the boundary wall and had windows overlooking their property.

·       The construction of the building would destroy the roots of an old pear tree.

·       The wall was under joint ownership, if the building is built up against it how would this affect the maintenance of that wall.

·       The building is oversized for the plot; it could be reduced in size.

·       The proposed parking is a hazard.

·       Construction vehicle access to the site would be very difficult.

Andrew Davy, the Architect for the application explained the thought behind the location and the design of the building to integrate into the current character of the area. He explained the design was in line with the height of other dwellings along the road and the parking was within the guidelines. He reassured the Committee that the foundations would be designed around the roots of the tree and there was no intention of removing any trees. He explained it was a small construction led by local contractors and built in an urban area as opposed to on green fields. He concluded by explaining that the current climate had created a short fall in housing stock and his client was trying to build a new home for his son, close to family and within his local area.

Councillor Ryder expressed his concerns over the tree protection and asked whether this could be overseen by the planning authority. He also questioned whether condition 8 would determine where construction traffic and building materials would be situated with the lack of available road space in the area. The Senior Planning Officer explained that the development site was not in any conservation area therefore the trees were not currently protected. He also explained that under condition 8, the applicant would need to have submitted and have approved the construction management plan/method statement before commencement of development, including plans as regards construction vehicle parking. 

The Head of Development Management confirmed it would be possible for Members to add in a condition to require the method of tree protection to be submitted to ensure the tree was protected if they wished.

Councillor Schoemaker raised concerns over the treatment and colour of the wood cladding. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed under condition 4 any treatment of the cladding would need to be approved by Officers.

The Officer’s recommendation to permit, with an additional condition in respect of tree protection methods, was proposed by Councillor Schoemaker and seconded by Councillor Smith.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED To PERMIT application S.21/1381/FUL with an additional condition of tree protection methods.

(a) Application & Enforcement Performance Statistics Overview

The Head of Development Management introduced the report and explained the performance figure report would come to the Committee every 6 months.

Councillor Smith questioned whether they could ask questions regarding the report, outside the meeting. The Head of Development Management confirmed that was acceptable.

Councillor Jones asked whether they would be able to see the figures for appeals success rate. To which the Head of Development Control confirmed that was possible and she would add those figures into the next report brought to the Committee.

RESOLVED To NOTE the report.

External alterations to residential dwelling approved under prior approval S19/1198/P3Q.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 2000 – EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

The Appendices for this item contain exempt information by virtue of Paragraphs 1 & 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12a of the Local Government Act 1972 and a resolution may be passed to exclude the public during consideration of this item.

The Chair reminded members that if they wished to discuss the detail of the exempt information that he would propose going into exempt session and that unless and until this was done the contents of the appendix were not to be discussed in open session.  

The Planning Officer introduced the report, and showed the Committee two videos of the front and back of the site. He then went on to show the designs for the previous barns on the site compared to what had been built, the land owned by the applicant and the plans for the surrounding garden areas. Design concerns had been raised with regards the rear windows which were sporadically placed and can be seen from a nearby footpath. He informed the Committee that the site was in the open countryside and that the building was larger than the original barn and therefore the development contradicted Local Plan Policy CP15. The Planning Officer informed the Committee that the applicant had highlighted the children’s welfare with regards to the Human Rights Act and Article 3 of the UN Convention on the rights of the child. He informed the committee that these rights should be a primary consideration although they should be balanced against the Local Plan aims and policies.

The Head of Development Management explained that the barn had been erected and had been occupied however the Committee was only being asked to consider the planning merits of the proposal as it stands. The Committee were not to consider enforcement action or any actions following this. It was confirmed that any enforcement action would be decided upon at a later date should the outcome warrant it and would come back to Committee to be addressed.

Councillor Craig spoke as a Ward Member in support of the application. He informed the Committee that he had attended the site and it had been well built and created a positive influence on the area. He explained that he had sat in on a meeting of the Hamfallow Parish Council who expressed similar opinions regarding the dwelling. Councillor Craig expressed an awareness of the compliance issues surrounding the build and stated there were lessons to be learned from it.

Councillor Green spoke as a Ward Member in support of the application. She agreed it was a well-built property with no privacy issues and it was well hidden from the road. She commended the property on its beauty and standard of build and expressed large concerns over the impact on the family should this application be refused.

Steph Warren, the applicant, spoke in support of the application. She explained they had purchased the barn with the planning approval already in place. She informed the Committee that they had hired a chartered surveyor to measure the site and create the drawings. The new build had the original steels from the previous barn however mistakenly, the inner steels were not built to. She informed the committee that there was no restrictive head height shown anywhere  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.024