Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Gray, Patrick and Ryder.

To receive Declarations of Interest in relation to planning matters.

Councillor Jones declared a non-pecuniary sensitive interest in Items 4.5, S.22/2098/VAR and 4.6, S.22/1157/FUL, he left the meeting after Item 4.4 had been determined.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 2023.

RESOLVED    That the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 March 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to Scheduled Item 4.2 had been circulated to Committee prior to the meeting which confirmed that the Item had been withdrawn from the Agenda.

Erection of double garage to side of main house. Following the resolution of this committee at their meeting on 7 March 2023 to defer a decision on this planning application until a further site inspection had taken place, this report will reintroduce the planning application and summarise the decision-making options for the committee.

The Development Team Manager introduced the report and explained that the application was deferred from the last meeting due to the need for an additional site visit. He re-introduced the proposal, showed Members the plans for the site and highlighted the key points which included:

·         The site was within the defined settlement limits of Hardwicke.

·         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.

·         HC8 was the principal policy used to determine the application and ES3 had also been considered.

·         Concerns had been raised on the impact of the garage on the outlook from nearby properties however the shortest distance would be approximately 12 metres which exceeded the guidance provided in the Residential Design Guide.

Councillor Schoemaker proposed the Officer recommendation to permit and the Chair, Councillor Baxendale seconded.

Councillor Schoemaker debated that the proposal met the design guides, and the views would be mitigated by the conifer trees on site.

Councillor Brown debated that there were no material planning considerations that would allow refusal as the proposal exceeded the distance required.

Councillor Cornell stated that the site visit was very informative to see the surrounding garages in the area and stated she would support the proposal.

The Chair, Councillor Baxendale, echoed Councillor Cornell’s comments regarding the site visit.

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

RESOLVED To permit the application.

Mixed use development which includes up to 300 dwellings (C3), industrial and distribution development (B1c,B2,B8) on 6.6 hectares of land 2 no. marinas, up to 1250m2 of ancillary retail / food and drink uses (A1,A2,A3 and A4) up to 7,000m2 of commercial floor space (B1 office/light industrial of which no more than 4300m2 to be B1 office), up to 100 holiday lodges/camping pitches, hotel, public open space, landscaping, visitor parking, new access road and associated infrastructure.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda as detailed in the late pages.

Outline application for 13 houses of which 9 are custom build houses and 4 affordable together with associated access, parking & amenity spaces with all matters reserved except access (amended description).

The Senior Planning Officer (Majors) introduced the report and explained that the application was an outline application for 13 dwellings, 9 of which would be custom build and the remaining 4 would be affordable housing. He highlighted the following information:

·         Access to the site was proposed at the top of Dozule Close.

·         The site was identified as a draft allocation (sites PS42 & PS16) of the Draft Local Plan.

·         It was adjacent to an established settlement.

·         The site would bring benefits by the way of social housing, and it was felt that outweighed any harm.

·         There would be approximately 30m distance between the nearest proposed dwelling and the existing dwellings on Dozule Close.

·         Access to the rear gardens would remain accessible for drain maintenance.

·         There were no objections raised from Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) Highways or from Biodiversity Officers however, they had included some recommended conditions.

Councillor Studdert-Kennedy, Ward Councillor, asked the committee to refuse the application for the following reasons. The Parish Council and the local residents directly affected were not in favour of the application being approved. It was felt that sufficient development within the village had already taken place. The buildings proposed would be higher than the existing dwellings which caused concern. Further concerns were raised over the drainage of the land. Page 85 stated that full weight was given to the 2015 Local Plan however the report mentioned weight given to the draft allocations within the new draft Local Plan. The examiners had stated that the draft Local Plan would not be approved without amendments which questioned the weight attributed to it. After the development at Mankley Field was approved, the Inspector gave assurances that the application site should not be built on.

Ms Summers, a local resident, spoke against the application and asked the Committee to reject the application for the following reasons:

·         There was a local consultation hearing scheduled for the 18 May to discuss the site being included in the draft local plan as a development allocation.

·         The Parish Councillors objected to the development and the Parish Council had requested for Leonard Stanley to be re-classified as tier 4 settlement due to its lack of employment opportunities, services and facilities.

·         The planning permission for this application shouldn’t be granted ahead of the consultation and approval of the draft Local Plan.

·         The entrance to the site was near an entrance to the local primary school which children also utilised to walk to the Church.

·         The roads were not suitable for the construction traffic. If permission was granted, she asked Councillors to consider a shorter access.

·         Consideration should be given to the mental health and wellbeing of residents who had already experienced 3 years of noise pollution from the Mankley Field development and were assured at that time that this land would not be built on.

·         The construction of two storey dwellings next to single storey bungalows would be overbearing.

·         The proposed drainage system was not sustainable and would require regular maintenance to avoid flooding.  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.115

Variation of Condition 25 (Construction Delivery times) of planning permission S.22/0918/FUL (as amended by S.22/2197/VAR).

The Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that it was originally brought to committee in September 2022 and Members had requested an additional condition to restrict construction traffic. The proposal was a variation of that restriction to allow greater flexibility with delivery times but still avoiding the peak school drop off and pick up times. It would also decrease the restrictions when the school was closed.

Councillor Jockel, Ward Councillor, spoke against the variation and asked the committee to refuse. He explained that his reasons for refusal centred around Local Plan Policies CP14 and ES3 and were as follows. That there was no offer to mitigate the increased risk that the variation would create which highlighted the lack of concern for the community. The school’s long-term relationship with the community was at risk of further damage from this variation. The current construction management plan was confusing and gave little confidence that the conditions would be met. The variation solely focused on the occupants of the school and didn’t factor in work related traffic or the poor infrastructure of the area. There was no offer of offsite road safety measures, only onsite. There was little communication to the community regarding the restrictions and any variation proposed. He informed the committee of incidents already occurring with large vehicles parking for several hours on the road leading to the site.

Mr Cook, spoke on behalf of the applicant, in favour of the proposal and asked the Committee to permit the application for the following reasons:

·         This was a department for education project.

·         The current restrictions only allowed for deliveries between 9am – 3pm which was very limiting. The new proposal sought to expand delivery times whilst still avoiding peak hours of school drop off and pick up times and to eliminate restrictions during non-term time where volume of school traffic was limited.

·         The construction time would take approximately 113 weeks during which time a lot of materials would be entering and leaving the site. Some materials have a much longer loading/unloading time therefore it would be more efficient to get the deliveries onsite prior to the peak school movements and then begin the loading/unloading process while the restrictions were in place.

·         The current restrictions had a detrimental impact to the development and risked extending the construction period further.

In response to Councillor Brown, the Planning Officer confirmed that there would be no restrictions on construction deliveries before 8am and after 4pm with the new variation. However, there was a further condition (Condition 5) which would restrict construction hours for the whole site.

Councillor Schoemaker questioned whether there had been any traffic modelling completed around the road. The Planning Officer confirmed the key details would have been submitted for the original application and this was just a variation.

Councillor Jones questioned whether Condition 5 would include dropping off materials. The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that it would not include deliveries to and from the site however it would include the loading and unloading  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.116

Section 73 Variation of Condition 2 (Approved Plans) of Permission S.21/0465/FUL (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). Variation to consist of two point-of-contact masts required to connect solar farm to electricity grid, reconfiguration of solar arrays and addition of spare containers.

The Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that it was a variation from the original S.21/0465/FUL application for a solar farm. The variation was for 2 masts to be erected in order to connect the solar farm to the grid. The original plan to utilise an underground cable had been found to be unviable. The key issues to consider were:

·         Whether the variation would result in any significant adverse effects other than those previously mitigated by the original proposal.

·         The masts would be sited next to an original pylon.

·         The site was situated in proximity to the Industrial Heritage Conservation Area and a grade II* listed building (St Andrews Church). 

·         During the application process the masts were re-positioned in order to address Historic England’s concerns.

·         The applicant had advised that the noise would be no greater than that of the electricity line and pylon.

·         There were no Biodiversity objections received, the proposal would remove existing planting at the location of the compound and this would be offset with additional planting to the west.

·         Condition 5 would be amended to include the additional spare containers.

Councillor John Jones, Ward Member, spoke against the application and asked the Committee to reject the proposal for the following reasons. The application was not showing on the planning portal for Whitminster despite the masts being located within the Parish, it was only showing on the Moreton Valance portal. The applicants should have been aware of these issues at the time of the original application, and this should have been considered all together. The proposal was more than a variation, it was the erection or two significant masts along with the additional containers and redeployment of the solar panels, it should warrant its own separate application. The addition of the masts would create extra lorry movements through the narrow village roads and would cause a greater disruption during the construction period. At the very least he asked the committee to defer the application for further investigation to be completed.

Mr Paynter, Parish Councillor, spoke on behalf of Whitminster Parish Council against the application. He echoed the concerns raised by Councillor John Jones and asked the Committee to reject the application for the following reasons:

·         The original application was approved despite the objections raised by the Parish and its residents.

·         The proposed masts would be located in close proximity to listed buildings, farms and the newly renovated Whitminster Lock.

·         It was not a minor variation but a significant, visually impacting element and should it have been included in the original application the decision to approve may not have been made.

·         English Heritage had been consulted and responded with their objection.

·         The site was situated next to a 14^th century church.

·         The addition of the masts would further diminish the landscape, character and heritage of the village and impact the views from the church and the canal. 

·         The Parish Council was happy to support a more sustainable site closer to the M5.

Ms Younger, a local  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.117

Installation and operation of a 36MW battery storage facility.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and explained that it was for a 36MW battery storage facility for a period of 40 years. She then highlighted the following key considerations:

·         The proposed location was an agricultural field.

·         It was in close proximity to a national cycle route and the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust (WWT).

·         The site would be connected to an existing substation via an underground cable.

·         The battery cells would use lithium-Ion battery technology and would be able to store energy when it was in excess and release it back onto the grid when there was demand. This technology would help prevent power outages and surges.

·         The site was in the open countryside

·         Locational factors such as provision of access to the national grid and point of connection, availability of suitable land and proximity of point of access to the highway network. This site met the criteria.

·         The majority of the site was in flood zone 1.

·         There were a number of concerns raised regarding loss of agricultural land, impact on landscape, noise pollution and impact on highways network, all statutory consultees had been consulted and no objections were raised.

·         There would be Biodiversity enhancements secured through planting.

·         The proposal was over 290m away from the nearest listed building and it was not considered to have an impact on the setting of the listed building.

·         Key concern raised regarding the fire risk and the following risk of toxic fumes from the batteries. Further concerns were raised regarding evacuation from the nearby WWT. Further details of the fire safety precautions had been received from the applicant and condition 14 requests for a battery safety management plan to be received prior to any power switch on.

Mr Stayte, Parish Councillor for Slimbridge Parish Council, spoke against the proposal and asked the Committee to reject the application for the following reasons. They believed that the facility was not suitable for the area due to its size, the cables required, and the tracks required for access and would be better suited to a brownfield site. The facility would harm the visual amenity of the area. Stroud District Council promoted the use of brownfields sites and development to be sited away from the Severn in their strategic objectives. In addition, the site was prone to flooding and the noise pollution from the facility and from construction would have an effect on local residents. The access route would have a high volume of tourist traffic for the WWT site, Tudor Arms, caravan park and the Canal. To add construction traffic into this mix would impact on road safety. The road also formed part of the national cycle route and was used by pedestrians and horse riders. Concerns had been raised over fire safety and evacuation from the tourist places as they all utilise the same access road. 

Ms Brown, a local resident, spoke against the application and asked the Committee to reject the proposal for the following reasons:

·         There were more suitable locations for this  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.118