Agenda and draft minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor Mark Ryder.

To receive Declarations of Interest in relation to planning matters.

Councillor John Jones stated that as he called the item in, he had sought advice from the Monitoring Officer regarding his ability to take part in the item. It was agreed that he would not speak in the slot for Ward Member and instead would participate with the debate.

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

RESOLVED    That the Minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 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 4.1 Land Known as Verney Fields, Bramble Lane, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire S.23/2113/NEWTPO had been circulated to Committee prior to the meeting and were also made available during the meeting. It was noted that 2 of the pages were missing from this pack which were provided to Councillors at the meeting. The meeting was adjourned for a short period of time to allow Councillors to read the information.

New TPO/0586 - Land Known as Verney Fields, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire.

The Tree Consultant introduced the application and explained that the recommendation was to confirm the application for a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) subject to modification. The modification was to remove the area highlighted in red, on page 1 of the late pages, from the TPO. The tree consultant provided a brief overview of the TPO process and the history of the application which began in December 2021. He explained the tree evaluation method for preservation orders (TEMPO) could be found on pages 30-34 of the document pack. He informed the Committee that there had been considerable public support received as well as some objections which had been responded to on pages 19-21 of the reports pack. The proposed TPO included:

·        W1 & W2 – Which were 2 areas of identified young woodlands.

·        T1, T2 & T3 – Each represented an oak tree.

·        G1 & G2 – Represented 2 groups of sycamore trees. 

Councillor Housden, Ward Councillor for the area, highlighted the following points to the Committee:

·        He was disappointed at the length of time it had taken to process the TPO, given the expedient nature.

·        He empathised that it was an uncomfortable position to tell landowners how to manage their land however, in this circumstance, the landowner had made some inaccurate comments regarding the ownership of the land and the work that was due to be carried out.

·        He raised concerns that the site may have already breached the Town and Country Planning Act due to the excavation works already completed around one of the Oak trees.

·        The TPO would still allow for the landowner to complete a lot of the work they had mentioned and would not prevent them from carrying out maintenance on the trees.

·        He had received a large number of emails from residents regarding this matter which showed the emotive feelings of the community towards protecting this area. This area was well used by residents and it was important to take that into account.

Councillor Ross, Ward Councillor for Stonehouse, asked the Committee to approve the application for the following reasons:

·        The site could be seen from many points within Stonehouse.

·        As a frequent visitor to the site, she could see how valued it was to the Town and its residents.

·        The trees within the site made the Town feel connected to the countryside.

·        The Landowner had caused some upset within the community by closing off footpaths without thinking of the impact on the local community.

·        The trees were a part of the amenity of the site therefore it was vital to approve the TPO to keep them safe and properly maintained.

Councillor Callinan, a Town Councillor, spoke on behalf of Stonehouse Town Council. He asked the Committee to approve the application for the following reasons:

·        The site Verney Fields was often referred to as Doverow. The site had changed hands recently which caused the need for the expediency TPO.

·        They initially thought that the oak trees were already covered by a TPO and upon learning that they were  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.036

Erection of a garage with home office and driveway extension. Resubmission of S.22/0321/HHOLD.

The Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that it was a re-submission of S.22/0321/HHOLD for a 2-storey outbuilding, with a garage on the ground floor and an office above, and an extension to the driveway. He then highlighted the following considerations:

·        The site accommodated a 2-storey property and shared establish access to the highway with neighbouring property.

·        It was in close proximity to a public right of way (PROW) and was within 50 meters to a listed property.

·        The proposed building would replace an existing outbuilding with a new footprint of 80m². The existing host property had a footprint of 100m².

·        The previous application was refused due to the scale and design appearing competitive and harmful to the host property. The current design was in the same location and of a similar size as the previous design.

·        The application was recommended refusal due to the size and scale would be a competitive addition to the property and the wider setting.

Councillor Davies spoke as a Ward Member for the area, he raised the following considerations for the Committee and asked that they support the application. The applicants had engaged with the council in a pre-application meeting prior to the submission of S.22/0321/HHOLD and felt that they had fulfilled all of the requirements recommended by Officers. They were therefore disappointed by the initial outcome and have since made further modifications to the design. This application would help to reduce offsite parking which would be beneficial to the village. There were buildings of a similar height and design in close proximity to the site which were also visible from the PROW. There were no objections received from the PROW Team or from the Conservation team.

Mr Dauncey, the applicant, asked the committee to support the application for the following reasons:

·        They needed a secure location to park vehicles including a motorhome and a comfortable place to work from home.

·        The proposal would ease congestion on the highway, reduce the number of commuters and therefore reduce the carbon footprint. 

·        It would also allow for the addition of solar panels without negatively impacting on the appearance of the period host property.

·        The substantial plot was within the settlement boundary and surrounded by similar sized 2 storey buildings.

·        The proposed building was fundamental for the viability of their family home and the pre-application, which had been sought prior to purchasing the property, had been advised as ‘acceptable in principle’.

·        After purchasing the property, they submitted an application with a significantly reduced footprint and other alterations as recommended during the pre-application phase. This was then subsequently declined despite having no objections and limited advice offered, we were directed to the pre-application service. 

·        After the appeal was upheld, we once again sought guidance from the case officer who advised the building looked too commercial and directed us once again to the pre-application service.

·        With no additional clarity we altered the design, impacting its functionality and increasing the cost of the build in  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.037