Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gray, Brine and Jones.

To receive Declarations of Interest in relation to planning matters.

Councillors Smith declared a personal interest in Item 4.5, S.21/0484/FUL. Later in the meeting he also declared an interest in Item 4.6, S.21/0465/FUL therefore, he left the meeting after Item 4.4 had concluded.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 15 February 2022.

(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:

Rebuild garage on existing base.

The Development Team Manager introduced the report and explained that the application was for the erection of a single storey, detached garage with a home office to the rear. He showed the plans for the site on the screen and then further informed the Committee of the things to consider:

• The site was within the settlement development limits of Painswick and not within the Painswick conservation area.
• The site fell within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
• The proximity of the site to the nearest listed buildings.

The Development Team Manager explained the principle policies of the local plan used to determine the application which were:

• HC8 – This allowed for extension, alteration and erection of ancillary buildings within existing residential properties.
• ES10 – Managed the impact of development on a heritage asset.

He further informed the Committee that there had previously been a garage on this site.

The Head of Development Management told members that there had been a third-party representation handed in prior the meeting by the parish council representative. She explained that current processes do not include reading out third party representations to committee and that she was aware that the author had already made representations on the application. 

Mr Lewis, Parish Councillor, spoke on behalf of the Painswick Parish Council against the application. He informed the Committee that he was the chair of Planning for Painswick Parish Council and shared their concerns:

• The detrimental impact of the application on Hambutts House (a Grade 2 listed building), the proposed garage would be visible from its rear windows and garden.
• A similar application (S.14/0799/HHOLD) in Painswick was originally refused due to the height of the proposed pitched garage roofs being higher than the boundary walls of the nearby listed buildings.
• There were ongoing issues surrounding land ownership and the removal of the previous garage.

Mr McLean, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He asked the committee to support the application for the following reasons:

• The existing garage had fallen into disrepair and was unsafe to use. This application replaced the existing garage and occupied the same hard standing.
• The design of the building had been changed to satisfy Planning Officers suggestions.
• The materials proposed were in keeping with the village of Painswick and the local area.
• Hambutts House was around 39 metres away with mature trees along the boundary.

The Development Team Manager gave the following responses to questions from Councillors:

• The height difference between the previous garage and the new proposed garage could not be identified however, plans were produced to show the extent of the garage roof in relation to the boundary wall.
• The Officer opinion was that there wouldn’t be an impact to loss of light.

Councillor Ryder proposed and Councillor Patrick seconded.

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

Demolition of agricultural barn and erection of passivhaus dwelling.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and explained that the application was for the demolition of an agricultural barn and the erection of a new dwelling to a passivhaus standard. She informed the Committee that the current barn had been granted prior approval for conversion to a residential dwelling under class Q of the general development order in 2020.

She informed the committee of the main points of the application which included:

• The site was located off Summer Street in Stroud and sat just outside of the settlement boundary.
• The site was in close proximity to a number of listed building (to the south) and to the AONB.
• The proposed building would have a reduction in size to the original footprint of the barn.

The Planning Officer further informed the Committee of the main issues to consider which included:

• The principle of development.
• The appearance and visual impact.
• The site sat outside the settlement limits which meant it was considered to be in the open countryside.
• The application did not meet any exceptions set out in policy CP15 of the local plan.
• The application conflicted with policies CP2 and CP3 of the local plan.
• There was a fallback position of the class Q development for the conversion, which was a material consideration.

The Planning Officer concluded by explaining:

• Due to the location of the site which was located on the edge of the Stroud settlement, and the fallback position, there would be limited harm in relation to the location.
• The scale and appearance would be similar to the existing building. 
• The domestic curtilage had been reduced.
• No objections were received following consultation which was ongoing.
• The dwelling was proposed to meet passivhaus standards.

Mr and Mrs Kingdom, the applicants, spoke in support of the application. They asked the committee to support the application for the following reasons:

• After researching the conversion, they realised the home would not achieve the levels of energy efficiency sought.
• They followed the existing roof shape and retained the timber cladding in order to retain the existing characteristics of the barn.
• 25% of the mass of the building was removed in order to create a courtyard.
• The proposed house would be 25 times more energy efficient during its lifetime and the passivhaus standards would mean it required almost no heating.
• The current barn was not required as they grazed with small numbers of hardy breeds.
• They would be working with other land owners and the wildlife trust to increase biodiversity and natural habitats including the creation of a wildlife corridor.
• They had begun work with Stroud District Council (SDC) to install natural flood defences along their stretch of the Slade Brooke.

The Planning Officer gave the following responses to Councillors questions:

• The change of use would only relate to the red line of the application site on the plans which would protect the new proposed curtilage.
• If there was a reason that the development would not be acceptable if it wasn’t a passivhaus, then a condition  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.048

Details of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale pursuant to the grant of outline planning consent under hybrid planning permission (S.17/1987/OUT dated 25th May 2018) for the retrofit of Building A (Redler), Building B and Building J, providing 30 apartments, historic archive, cafe and associated bin and bike stores.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the applications and explained that they were reserved matters applications which emanated from the hybrid application previously approved in 2017. The first application was for the conversion of the existing building into 30 units. He showed the Committee the plans for the proposed site and explained the considerations:

• The site was within the conservation area and in close proximity to the canal.
• Improvements had been made to the road design in response to Highways objections.
• Planting had been increased and the parking layout had been altered.

The Senior Planning Officer gave the following responses to questions from Councillors:

• Although there was not a segregated cycle route, allowances were made for cyclists including an indoor bike storage.
• Questions surrounding refuse vehicles access, play areas and cycle routes were deferred until the second application.

Councillor Ryder proposed and Councillor Schoemaker seconded.

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

Details of appearance, landscaping, layout & scale pursuant to the grant of outline planning consent under hybrid planning permission (S.17/1987/OUT dated 25th May 2018) for residential development comprising 94 no. dwellings.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that it was for the erection of 94 dwellings. This application was a second reserved matters application from the original hybrid outline application submitted in 2017. They showed the Committee the plans for the proposal and informed them of the changes made which included:

• Improvements to the road layout in order to reduce vehicle speed.
• Increased tree planting.
• Road surface changes to reduce speed.
• Visitor car parking spaces removed and replaced with tree planting to improve layout and design.
• Cycle storage provided.
• The open space on the site included benches and a central feature.

The Head of Development Management confirmed, in response to Councillor Brown, that the nearest play area was the Elizabeth Field to the west of the site. She further informed that it could be accessed directly via towpaths from the proposed development.

The Senior Planning Officer gave the following responses to questions from Councillors:

• The changes requested by Highways were highlighted in magenta on the proposed plans.
• Gloucester County Council (GCC) Highways had no concerns for the access of refuse vehicles along the spine road specifically around the knuckle bend.
• The boundary wall between the supermarket and the proposed development was an acoustic wall which provided noise mitigation from the loading and unloading of lorries.
• The proposal included a potential for electric charge points to be provided however, this was not currently conditioned.

Councillor Patrick proposed and Councillor Ryder seconded.

Councillor Patrick expressed her support for the application due to the shortage of 1 and 2 bedroom properties in the area and the use of an existing brownfield site for the development.

Councillor Schoemaker raised concerns regarding the lack of affordable housing on the site. Councillor Hall echoed these concerns.

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

Councillor Smith left the meeting at this point due to an interest in the following items.

Proposed Medical Centre and Dentist, associated access, car parking and landscaping.

The Principal Planning Officer (Majors) introduced the application and explained that it was for the erection of a primary care doctors surgery with a dentist. They informed the Committee of the main points of the applications:

·         The proposal was to build on agricultural land.

·         The application included offsite highways works which consisted of 2 additional bus stops, a revised buildout and corresponding speed limits built out.

·         Concerns were raised from residents with regards to views into properties from passengers waiting at the bus stop.

·         The site was outside the settlement limits of Minchinhampton and was within the AONB.

The Principal Planning Officer (Majors) explained to the committee the principles which had helped to make their recommendation, these included:

• Policy CP15 of the local plan which allowed for development outside of settlement limits subject to certain criteria.
• The site was located within the AONB. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) gave great weight to the preservation of the character of the AONB.
• This application was not considered to be a major development.

The Principal Planning Officer (Majors) summed up the wider considerations of the site which included:

• The water board had agreed to connect the sewer to the mains.
• The proposed design included the addition of swales to increase biodiversity.
• Planting of native tree and hedge species to provide a screening from headlights.
• Low level lighting scheme was proposed due to the potential of bats in the area.
• The mature trees along the boundary were protected by a TPO, a condition had been included to agree the method of construction near these trees in order to protect the roots.

Councillor Turner spoke as a Ward Member for the area. She stated that there was a need for the surgery in the area and recognised the sensitivity regarding the location of the site. She drew the Committees attention to the following points:

·         The applicant’s intention to secure an excellent BREEAM rating.

·         The conditioning of the low-level lighting.

·         She would have liked to have seen the landscaping conditioned to ensure little to no impact from headlights to neighbouring properties.

Mr Neate, a local resident, spoke against the application. He asked the committee to reject the application for the following reasons:

• Core Policy CP15 of the local plan stated that such essential development would only be permitted in the open countryside if it could not be accommodated within the identified settlement development limits.
• The application was in contravention to CP15 because the medical centre could redevelop their current building.
• If this application was permitted, it would set a precedent.
• The location of this application would mean residents from the other end of the village would need to drive to access it.
• A previous plot of land, closer than the proposed site, was dismissed for being too far to walk.
• 5 other sites for this application were also dismissed due to their development not being achievable within the NHS funding timeframe.
• The Proposed medical centre would be 3x the size of the current one  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.051

The construction, operation, maintenance and decommissioning for a renewable energy scheme of up to a 49.9 megawatt (MW) solar farm and up to a 49.9MW battery storage facility.

The Majors and Environment Team Manager introduced the application and explained that it was split into two main sites which would be connected by an underground cable. He explained the proposal was for a 49.9 megawatts solar development which included battery storage units.

The Majors and Environment Team Manager informed the Committee of the main points of the application which included:

• The solar panels would utilise a tilting mechanism to maximise the amount of power generated.
• The maximum height would be 3m.
• Battery storage units would be spread out across the site.
• NPPF was generally in support of renewable energy.

They further informed the Committee of the key issues to consider which were:

• The landscape impact – The Solar arrays were sited within the existing field patterns and the landscaping proposed provided buffers and an increase to hedge heights to lessen the impact.
• Cumulative impact – The application was divided into 2 parcels to lessen the impact. The closest solar farm to this location was further North from this site.
• Impact to local residents – A glimmer and glare assessment was carried out and found to have a limited impact on a limited number of dwellings for a limited time.
• Noise Impact – Acoustic fencing and planting were in place to mitigate the noise.
• Highways Impact – During the construction site there would be 12 deliveries a day with a proposed management system to minimise vehicle movements along Whitminster Lane.
• Ecology – The scheme proposed would provide enhancements to the current site.

The Majors and Environment Team Manager concluded by highlighting the late pages that were circulated ahead of the meeting.

Councillor John Jones spoke as a Ward Member against the application. He asked the committee to reject the application for the following reasons:

• It would cover 100’s of acres of good productive agricultural land.
• Loss of food production would need to be made elsewhere which would likely be abroad and then imported. This would not be good for carbon footprints or British Farmers.
• Solar Farms should be placed on rooftops or brownfield sites and not covering the vast countryside.
• There were 100’s of square metres of rooftops available in the vicinity which could accommodate this application.
• The size of this application would be a massive intrusion on the countryside.
• It would remove views of wildlife and the countryside from local villages.
• The Whitminster parcel had a number of footpaths crossing the land. These were proposed to be fenced off which would not be a pleasant experience to walk through.
• The development would be visible from the canal which was currently being restored by Stroud District Council.
• The tilting mechanism had not been tested in the UK yet and could provide more noise.
• The proposed construction would involve HGV’s passing through the main part of the village, along the front of the school and through the narrow village lanes.

Councillor John Jones asked the committee if they were to approve this application could they consider requesting the following:

• All construction  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.052