Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Smith, Gray, Bullingham, Jones and Schoemaker.

To receive Declarations of Interest in relation to planning matters.

There were none.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 3 May 2022.

It was agreed to remove an error on page 3 of the reports pack where it listed the other members in attendance of which there were none.

RESOLVED    That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 May 2022 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:

Discharge of condition 46 on permitted application S.14/0810/OUT – Area Masterplan Document for Areas H13, H14 & H15.

The Majors and Environment Team Manager introduced the application and explained that it was for the discharge of a condition for part of the land west of Stonehouse. It included parcels H13, H14, H15 and also part of the public open space and sports pitches. He showed the Committee the plans for the site and highlighted the main spine road, the 3 residential areas and the secondary roads. He further explained that the proposed designs allowed for a green character throughout the parcels which became more abundant around the north edge of the development. The public open space proposal had changed to include only 1 changing facility building.

Councillor Brine proposed and Councillor Patrick seconded.

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

RESOLVED    To PERMIT the application.

Phase 4B Primary Infrastructure (Highway).

The Majors and Environment Team Manager introduced the application and explained that it was a reserved matters application for one of the areas discussed in Agenda item 4.1, the application was solely for the primary infrastructure. He showed the Committee the plans for the road and highlighted the cycle route and the where the nearest bus provisions would be.

In response to Councillor Browns question the Majors and Environment Team Manager explained that Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) Highways had commented that they were happy with the design with regards to safety. However, GCC were seeking more detail which should be part of the section 38 adoption process and thus, did not relate to the planning application. That was the reason why a deferral was not deemed necessary.

In response to a further question on the subject the Principal Planning Lawyer explained that the section 38 issues would be included in an agreement between GCC Highways and the developer. That agreement would specify what conditions and works GCC Highways would like to see completed as part of the highway construction and they would need to be completed by the developer prior to adoption of the highway by GCC.

Councillor Ryder proposed and Councillor Patrick seconded.

Councillor Ryder expressed his disappointment that the cycle path did not meet up with the bridleway as seen on the sites panel.

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

RESOLVED    To PERMIT the application

Variation of Condition 1 of S.17/0883/REM – Changes to detailed house designs of plots 1 & 8.

The Majors and Environment Team Manager introduced the application and explained that it was for 17 dwellings across 2 sites. The proposal was granted outline permission in 2015 and the details were further approved in 2017. This application was to vary some of the details approved previously. The Majors and Environment Team Manager showed the plans for the site against the original plans and summarised the differences which included:

Plot 1

·        Small increase to the height of the building

·        The way they had constructed the end wall had been changed

·        The Chimneys had been removed

·        Additional space provided on ground floor

Plot 8

·        Additional floor in the roof space which would make the building 2.5m taller that original plan

·        Slight change to the treatment of elevation

·        Internal alterations

Ms Norman, Parish Councillor, spoke on behalf of the Nailsworth Parish Council against the application. She asked the committee to refuse the application for the following reasons:

·        The application was opposed by over 1000 people and later won by appeal.

·        The development was given permission due to the design quality and cohesion which these proposed variations would degrade.

·        Increasing the height would make the development more inappropriate within the setting.

·        It was made apparent at a consultation for the revised local plan that the approval of the original application was regretted. Whilst this could not be changed, it was still possible to resist further changes that would further impact the site.

·        The Nailsworth Design Statement was a material consideration. Policy 59 stated that Newmarket Valley should be preserved in a natural state. The development would undermine that and the new proposed changes would make it more intrusive.

·        There was nothing in the Officers report to show that the changes would improve the design only make it worse such as “The loss of the chimney is a shame”.

·        Permission would not be given now for this site due to the new local plan so why allow a worse design to increase developer profits.

Mr Cobham, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. He asked the Committee to support the application for the following reasons:

·        Due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, work on site had been delayed. During that period, the designs were re-evaluated and the following improvements made.

·        The updates did not undermine the bespoke and high quality approach seen across the development, whilst maintaining the use of the natural stone, natural roofing materials and aluminium windows. 

·        The amendments to the design of block 1 had resulted in a design that was more in keeping with the surrounding housing and the removal of the chimney was guided by the sustainability approach in order to achieve greater air tightness. They had also removed any wood burners as they did not comply with their zero carbon commitment.

·        Following feedback from Officers the overall height of plot 8 was reduced.

·        The plot was positioned away from other dwellings but still situated within the collective which included buildings varying in scale  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.066

To consider the future determination of applications resulting from conditions attached to outline planning permission S.14/0810/OUT.

The Chair introduced the report and explained that this was an outcome of the first meeting of the Development Management Advisory Panel (D-MAP). He explained that all of the reserved matters applications which related to S.14/0810/OUT would automatically come to the Development Control Committee for approval. However, the majority of these were now minor issues and it was felt that it was no longer required to be approved by the whole Committee. He further explained that Officers would make the final decisions with the caveat that should an application arise that Officers and the Chair feel required the Committees approval, then they can decide to put it forward for the Committee.

Councillor Brine expressed his support for this proposal.

Councillor Brown expressed concerns with landscaping and biodiversity issues which surrounded the site but otherwise expressed support for the proposal.

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

RESOLVED    That all future applications related to outline planning permission S.14/0810/OUT be determined under the officer scheme of delegation unless called-into committee under the current application call in procedure as set out in the Constitution.