Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Binns and Reed.

To receive Declarations of Interest in relation to planning matters.

There were none.

To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting held on 23 February 2021.

RESOLVED                That the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 February 2021 were approved as a correct record

(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:

Resubmission of S.19/2716/HHOLD - Revised application for creation of studio with associated landscaping & hard standings.

The Development Team Manager introduced the report which outlined an application seeking planning permission for the erection of an outbuilding to be used as a music studio and recording facility. He emphasised planning permission had previously been granted for an almost identical building in February 2020, and the resubmission sought to revise the location of the building on the site due to underground constraints associated with the original position. The revised location allows for the proposed building to sit behind an existing outbuilding to have a better physical relationship with the main house. The only change in physical appearance is the re-positioning of the double doors into the studio.

In response to concerns about the impact of the proposal on the special historic and architectural character of the listed building Moor Court, more information was provided which demonstrated that the proposed building would not be visible in long range views of Moor Court and therefore there would be no impact on the heritage asset. This position did not change following consideration of a Heritage Impact Assessment submitted by local residents.

Local residents also submitted a report on land stability. The Development Team Manager clarified that as the application did not propose any change of use of land from the existing residential use, it would not be appropriate to apply any conditions to manage any land stability issues.

The recommendation was therefore to grant planning permission subject to the conditions listed in the report.

Councillor Hurst, as Ward Councillor for Minchinhampton, responded to the application following discussion with local residents who had raised a number of concerns. Whilst in principle supporting the recommendation, he sought clarification on a number of conditions:

1. He proposed that a Site Datum be established so that the height of the proposed building cannot be more than 150mm higher than the adjoining track;

2. In relation to noise he suggested that some acoustic control be registered at the boundary between the proposed building and Moor Court which should not exceed 50-55 decibels;

3. In relation to light spillage, he indicated the applicant was prepared to introduce light control blinds on the building’s roof lights so it would be appropriate to include this as a condition.

The Development Team Manager indicated that any issues relating to light spillage should be covered by condition 7, which requires a strategy for any external lighting, so any condition relating to blinds would have to meet the test of a condition. In relation to noise, as the Environmental Health Officer had been consulted on the application, and had not raised objections, members would need to justify any condition in this regard.

Councillor Jones asked how a condition on noise could be justified. The Development Team Manager explained that the application relates to operational development, and members would have to evaluate whether the proposed element of residential use is particularly different to how other parts of the residential area are being used. In addition, enforcement of acceptable noise levels is controlled  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.37

Outline Planning Permission, with all matters reserved except means of access, for; up to 42 residential dwellings; open space and landscaping; roads, parking and new access off Box Road; SuDS; and associated ancillary and infrastructure works.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the proposal which she confirmed was an outline application with all matters reserved except for access. The application was seeking in principle approval for up to 42 dwellings, including 30% affordable housing, and the provision of a car park for users of Cam and Dursley Railway Station. It is the last undeveloped site along Box Road which does not benefit from allocation in the Local Plan or implementable permission for development. It is therefore outside the residential settlement boundary and contrary to the Local Plan. However, given the quantum of recent applications for residential and mixed-use developments around the site and their outcomes, the LPA has concluded that the location of this site is acceptable and sustainable for residential development.

The Senior Planning Officer noted that there had been significant public concerns raised about traffic, car parking and flooding relating to this application. She explained that the LPA relies on the technical knowledge of the Highways Authority to form an assessment on traffic issues and is content that the Box Road could take the additional traffic generated as a result of this development. The LPA has negotiated with the developers to secure a railway overspill car park on the site providing 19 vehicle spaces to help alleviate on street parking issues. The Gloucestershire LLFA had rejected the original drainage scheme of infiltration for the site but considered the resubmitted pump scheme to be a viable strategy.

The Senior Planning Officer requested that three standard biodiversity conditions be added to the permission should it be approved. These are:

1. Standard CEMP condition

2. Ecological design strategy to be submitted at REM stage

3. Lighting Strategy to be submitted.

Councillor Tomblin, as Ward Councillor for Cam West, joined the meeting and raised the following issues:

1. More information on the scheme to address flooding on the site would be important

2. As raised by the Parish Council, it is likely that 1.5 parking spaces per household on this site will be insufficient and it is therefore likely that residents would use the 19 additional spaces provided for railway users. She suggested that consideration be given to providing exclusive access to the overflow car park from the station car park.

3. Further consideration needs to be given to suggested widening works on the Box Road junction and to the general deterioration of the surface of the road.

4. Concerns about the safety of pedestrians on Box Road given the configuration of footpaths.

5. If the outline application is approved, a request for the LPA to consult with the Parish Council on the design and layout of the development prior to agreement.

Stewart Angell joined the meeting to speak on behalf of Cam Parish Council and raised the following points:

1. Access to the additional parking spaces, by road and by foot, should be from the station car park only to ensure they are used by train station users.

2. Concern that two parking spaces per home had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.38

Erection of 160 dwellings comprised of 53 two-bed, 83 three-bed, 6 four-bed, 6 five-bed houses & 12 Flats, with all matters reserved except for access

The Majors & Environment Team Manager introduced the proposal which he confirmed was an outline application with all matters reserved except for access. It was for the erection of 160 dwellings on land which formed part of the former RAC Quedgeley, and which is a protected employment site in the current Local Plan. The applicant’s viability argument was that the site is not viable as employment use and the district valuer had confirmed this position. As the site is unlikely to come forward as employment use, an alternative use for the site is sought despite this deviating from the Local Plan. Indicative layouts in the proposal suggest that a noise bund and landscaping around the perimeter of this site will provide noise attenuation between the residential buildings and the commercial buildings. Recent discussions with Gloucestershire Highways had resulted in an amendment to Condition 9 so that one cycle space would now be provided per bedroom rather than per dwelling. An electric vehicle charging condition would be added. It was noted that the proposal would now be within the boundaries of the new Parish of Hunts Grove.

Councillor Mossman, Ward Councillor for Hardwicke, joined the meeting to speak on behalf of the ward community and Hunts Grove Parish Council. He highlighted the following points:

1. The site is clearly identified in all plans for employment use only and is protected against change of use for any other purpose. There is a surplus of outstanding permissions for housing in the area and residents will need employment. It is unacceptable to allow the last piece of industrial land to change to residential use. There is a need to keep the carbon footprint of people travelling away to work to a minimum so employment land is very important. The proposal goes against SDC Policy CP11, CP5, EL1, EK13, SO2, NPPF Paragraph 12, and the Hardwicke NDP.

2. Environmental Health has set noise levels to be achieved, but given the experience of residents in other areas of Hunts Grove, it is very unlikely that noise levels could be reduced sufficiently to achieve the required levels for this application to be successful. This is particularly because of the industrial activity which surrounds the site on three sides.

3. The Hardwicke Neighbourhood Development Plan took four years of hard work to achieve and it was approved by SDC in 2017. It is now as important to consider as SDC policies and MPPF codes.

4. GCC’s consideration of the proposal concluded that it would generate additional requirements for school places. It is unacceptable that the applicant has indicated he is unable to afford the contribution for education requested by GCC.

Councillor Mark Ryder joined the meeting to speak on behalf of Hardwicke Parish Council and highlighted the following points:

1. If the application was to be approved it would go against the SDC Local Plan, the Hardwicke Neighbourhood Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. Noise levels have been compromised in other parts of the Hunts  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.39