Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Pearcy.

To receive Declarations of Interest in relation to planning matters.

Councillor Haydn Jones declared a non-pecuniary interest in Scheduled Item 4.2, S.21/1210/FUL and left the meeting after the first Item had been determined.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 13 June 2023.

Councillor John Jones raised an issue with the Membership on the minutes which had listed the Ward Councillors in the incorrect place.

RESOLVED    That the Minutes of the meeting held on 13 June 2023 were approved as a correct record subject to the amendment listed above.

(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 Land Parcel West of Worlds End Farm, Worldsend Lane, Clapton, Berkeley S.21/1210/FUL had been circulated to Committee prior to the meeting and were also made available during the meeting.

Outline application for the erection of up to 26 dwellings (all matters reserved except access) & associated infrastructure.

The Senior Planning Officer (Majors) introduced the application and explained that it was an outline application with the exception of the access area. She then showed the proposed plans for the site and highlighted the following points:

·         The proposal was for 26 dwellings.

·         All internal layouts were indicative, which meant that they could be changed at a later date when the reserved matters application came forward.

·         The proposal sought to remove a small portion of the retaining wall to the Northeast of the site in order to make room to widen the access. The Conservation Officer had requested further information due to the wall being classed as curtilage listed, further information had not been provided.

·         The application had been assessed against Local Plan Policy HC4 and was found non-compliant with HC4.1, HC4.3 and HC4.4.

·         Refusal reason 1 had been amended to include the following paragraph ‘The supporting information submitted by the applicant fails to evidence local need for the number and type of dwellings proposed and has also failed to demonstrate that local need cannot be met elsewhere in the locality. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to address the environmental issues presented by the presence of protected species and Japanese Knotweed. The applicant has failed to submit a draft Section 106 agreement which secures the dwellings as affordable.’

Councillor Evans spoke as a Ward Member for the area and asked the Councillors to refuse the application as per the Officers recommendation. He further stated that there were over 100 objections on the Stroud District Council (SDC) Planning Portal including objections from Cam Parish Council. He then highlighted the main objections from residents which included:

·         Concerns regarding the access to the site due to its proximity to the Nursery and a popular footpath. Lines of sight for the access would be limited due to the narrow twisting roads, made worse during drop off and pick up time at the Nursery.

·         Concerns regarding the location of the site due to it being outside of the settlement boundary as defined in the Cam Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).

·         There were other more suitable sites available in Cam for this type of development and Brownfield sites should be prioritised.

·         The development of the proposed site could lead to flooding issues for existing residential properties due to run off surface water.

·         The site was a valued green space and provided screening from the M5.

·         The current biodiversity of the site would be lost if developed and this would also have a visual impact on the landscape.

·         Concerns regarding the sustainability of the affordable housing.

·         There was a lack of suitable infrastructure in the village and local facilities such as doctors and dentists were already at capacity.

·         There were not enough employment opportunities in Cam to support more residents.

Councillor Andrewartha from Cam Parish Council spoke against the application and highlighted the following concerns:

·         Calling the application an exception site did not make it one.

·         The Cam NDP laid out the areas for development making exception sites  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.015

Erection of a 49.99 MW Solar PV Array, comprising ground mounted solar PV panels, vehicular access from Worlds End Lane with internal access tracks, landscaping and associated infrastructure including security fencing, CCTV cameras, and grid connection infrastructure including transformers and substation compound buildings.

The Majors & Environment Team Manager introduced the application for a solar farm and explained that it covered 64.62 hectares of land and would be a temporary development for 45 years. He showed the Committee the plan for the site including a viewpoint impact assessment and explained that there would be a high-powered underground cable connection to the grid. He highlighted that a similar proposal had just been approved by South Gloucestershire which would border the application site. The existence of the application on neighbouring land had been considered when weighing up the balance in the report and in the late papers. 

Councillor Green spoke as the Ward Member for the area and asked the committee to refuse the application for the following reasons:

·         Berkley Ward produced large amounts of renewable power from both solar and wind sources and were already net exporters of renewable energy.

·         The application would have a detrimental effect on Biodiversity, Flooding, Landscape and Heritage.

·         The loss of agricultural land would lead to increased food imports during an uncertain period of food security.

·         Accessing the remote location would bring additional pressure to local infrastructure and communities.

·         The characteristic of the development must be considered with regard to any cumulative impact. There was another solar development which bordered the application site that had recently been granted planning permission and therefore would cause a larger cumulative impact. This site was given limited weight in the Officer report due to its pending application however since this had now been approved the weight given needed to be revaluated.

·         Due to the cumulative impact, the application contradicted Policy ES2 of the Stroud District Council Local Plan and Paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

·         Original objections had been raised by Historic England and Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) Highways due to nearby historical assets.

·         The Officer report highlighted a ‘major adverse’ impact on the landscape character and surrounding areas (page 80) which was in contradiction to Local Plan Policy ES7.

·         The Officer report stated that the decision was finely balanced in favour of granting permission however since the approval of the adjoining scheme in South Gloucestershire, would this now weigh in favour of refusal.

Mr Greetham, the agent, asked the Committee to approve the application for the following reasons:

·         They were a British company based in the Southwest with a mission to create an abundance of renewable and accessible energy.

·         The proposed Development would produce a significant amount of renewable energy which would support both Local and National Planning Policy.

·         Land Options for this development had been surveyed and this site was concluded to be the only available site able to accommodate the proposed development.

·         It was a temporary installation and following decommissioning of the site, the land would be restored to its original state resulting in no permanent loss.

·         The agricultural land was grade 4 and therefore due to its grade and temporary status there would be no conflict with Policy ES2 of the Local Plan.

·         There were significant community  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.016