Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Brown, Gray, Jones, Prenter and Ryder.

To receive Declarations of Interest in relation to planning matters.

There were none.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2023.

RESOLVED   That the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2023 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:

Late Pages relating to Scheduled Items S.22/2538/VAR and S.22/2480/LBC had been circulated to Committee prior to the meeting and were also made available during the meeting.

Variation of condition 2 (approved plans) of application S.17/1766/FUL - Revise the glazing system to the second floor extension (Revised drawings received 30.1.23).

The Development Team Manager introduced the item, it was agreed to discuss both applications S.22/2538/VAR and S.22/2480/LBC together but take separate votes on each item.

The Development Team Manager advised that Rodborough Court was a grade II listed building which sat in an elevated position in a residential area of Rodborough.  The site was within the settlement development limits of Stroud. The Development Team Manager gave a brief history of the planning permission granted on the site previously and advised that the applications being considered were for an amendment to the previously approved scheme.

The Development Team Manager confirmed that the amendments under consideration related to the appearance of the extension.  As originally approved, the glazed box was to be constructed using channelled glass, these were thin, vertical glass panels.  It was now proposed to use larger frames and panes of glass.  As this was materially different in appearance to the previous approval, and would be inconsistent with the conditioned plans, planning permission and listed building consent were required. The Development Team Manager highlighted using the plans and images of the site where the changes to the design would be made. It was confirmed that Officers had concluded that the proposed design amendments would not harm the special interest of Rodborough Court or impact on the setting of any other nearby listed building.

Public comments were received and reported in the late pages querying the consultation with Historic England.  A consultation with Historic England was generated due to the proximity of the application site to the grade II* listed church; Historic England responded deferring the matter to the authority’s own specialist advisors, the conservation officer had raised no objection to the proposal.

Having assessed the proposal, officers had concluded that the alteration would have no greater impact on amenities of nearby occupiers than the previous approval.  While the altered design enabled opening sections, there was sufficient separation from neighbouring properties to protect living conditions.  Furthermore, the existing permission did not require the channel glass to be obscured, so a benefit could be achieved by a new condition requiring obscure glazing.

Mr O’Driscoll, a neighbour, spoke on behalf of local residents in opposition of the applications for the following reasons:

·         The changes to design would impact their quality of life.

·         The changes had a negative impact on the design moving away from a single block form without openings.

·         The openings in the glass would cause noise pollution and would impact local residents.

·         The proposed glass would increase light pollution.

Mr O’Driscoll asked the committee to require the applicant to produce an independent report showing the impact the changes would have on light and acoustic pollution.

Mr Cabrini-Dale, the applicant, spoke in support of the applications and advised that the site was as an assembly plant where production was carried out by hand.

David Austin, the Agent, spoke in support of the applications and highlighted the flaws with the original design using Channel Glass. He advised that with Channel Glass to reach  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.105

The application was considered jointly with Item 4.1.

Councillor Baxendale proposed the Officers advice to approve the application S.22/2480/LBC and Councillor Schoemaker seconded.

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

RESOLVED To grant consent to the application.

Erection of double garage to side of main house (Revised plans received 13.01.2023).

The Development Team Manager introduced the application which sought permission for the erection of a double garage at an end of terraced property in Hardwicke. He confirmed that the site was within the defined settlement limits of Hardwicke and that it benefitted from off-street parking within a shared parking courtyard which had been extended by the inclusion of a further gravelled drive. The proposed garage would replace one of the original parking spaces and extend over the gravelled drive resulting in 2 parking spaces within the building and a further 2 parking spaces to the front.

The Development Team Manager drew the Committees attention towards the plans for the development and advised that policies HC8 and ES3 had been considered. He advised Members that concerns had been raised on the impact of the garage on the outlook from nearby properties and highlighted the separation distances in place between the proposed garage and its nearest buildings. The shortest distance would be to the east where the wall of the garage would be approximately 12 metres from the property at Number 34, this exceeded the guidance provided in the Residential Design Guide (SPD).

Cllr John Perkin a representative from Hardwicke Parish Council spoke in opposition of the application. He advised that properties on the Wharfdale development with garages had only been provided single garages with an additional parking space and that this would therefore be the only double garage within the development. He stated that the garage would have a detrimental effect on the parking space allocated to number 34 as the garage would need to be built close to the white line making it more difficult for the users of the adjacent space to get into and out of their vehicle. Cllr Perkin also referred the committee to restrictive covenants which were in place on the development which were not a planning matter. Cllr Perkins suggested that a single garage would be more appropriate as it would lessen any impact on the adjacent parking space, would increase the distances from the garage to the nearest property and would also be in the spirit of the development. He drew the Committees attention to the objections received from Number 34 which the Parish Council supported.

The Development Team Manager confirmed the following:

• Covenants were a civil matter and would not prevent planning permission from being granted.
• The Committee did not have the powers to amend the design but would have to determine whether to grant permission to the application in front of them.
• The highways section of the report advised that the original planning permission imposed a condition that parking was to be provided and Officers believed that the development would still meet the minimum parking requirements as laid out in the local plan.

In response to Councillor Fenton the Development Team Manager advised that planning permission did not rely on land ownership however the case officer had been advised that the applicant did own the parking space being discussed.

Councillor Cornell asked  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.107

To present the 2022/23 forecast outturn position against the revenue budgets that the Committee is responsible for, in order to give an expectation of possible variances against budget.

There were no questions.

On being put to the vote, the motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED To note the outturn forecast for the General Fund Revenue budget for this Committee.