Agenda and draft minutes

To receive apologies for absence.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor John Jones.

To receive Declarations of Interest in relation to planning matters.

There were none.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2023.

RESOLVED    That the Minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 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 Sunnyside Nurseries, Cam, Dursley, Gloucestershire had been circulated to Committee prior to the meeting and were also made available during the meeting.

New TPO/0591 - Beech Tree at 118 Thrupp Lane, Thrupp

The Chair proposed a 5-minute break to ensure that all Councillors had a chance to read the late pages.

The Acting Head of Development Management introduced the report and explained that a temporary Tree Preservation Order (TPO) had been placed on a single mature beech tree. He showed the Committee pictures of the tree and its location and highlighted the following points. The beech tree was between 150 - 200 years old with potential for another 100+ years of life. It had been subject to previous works however, during inspection, no significant defects were found. The tree was situated on a slope making it highly visible across the valley.

Mr Harris, a Parish Councillor, spoke on behalf of Brimscombe and Thrupp Parish Council. He stated that they supported all TPO’s within the Parish due to their impact on biodiversity, wildlife protection and visual amenity. He recognised that the landowner had some legitimate concerns for the health of the tree and held a desire to keep it properly maintained, which a TPO would still allow.

Councillor Miles asked if they would allow an application for maintenance to manage the height of the tree, given its previous history. The Acting Head of Development Management confirmed that, subject to an application, works could be carried out on the tree provided that it wouldn’t cause any damage.

In response to Councillor Brown’s query as to whether there was an application fee for works to a tree subject to a TPO, the Acting Head of Development Management confirmed that application fees were set by central government however there were currently no fees to submit an application for works on a protected tree.

Councillor Brown proposed and Councillor Ryder seconded.

Councillors Ryder, Brown, Patrick and Schoemaker expressed support for the TPO. 

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried with 10 votes for and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED To Confirm the Tree Preservation Order without modification.

Redevelopment of the site for storage and distribution use (Use Class B8) and Dance Studio (Use Class E(d)) with ancillary office, cafe and showroom. associated works, infrastructure, and improvements to the existing access onto the A38. Revised proposal following the outline consent granted under S.21/1829/OUT.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the report and highlighted the following key considerations:

·        The site was a previous employment site located within the open countryside.

·        A previous application S.21/1829/OUT allowing the redevelopment of the site for industrial and storage use, retail use and offices remained extant.

·        The principal Local Plan policies identified for refusal reasons were CP15, EI4 and EI11.

The Senior Planning Officer gave a brief overview of the proposal including all of the buildings, their sizes and their proposed uses.

Councillor Craig, a Ward Member for the area, spoke in support of the application. He first read aloud a representation made by his fellow Ward Member, Councillor Green:

·        The site had been empty for many years and previous planning permission had already been granted.

·        Sally Prout was a nationally recognised dance teacher and would be occupying the proposed dance studio if permitted.

·        A letter had been received from the Royal Academy of Dance (RAD) in London indicating that the proposed studios would be suitable for high level dancers and could be used to hold exams.

·        If approved this would be an asset to the district.

·        The location was ideal and to cite it inside a Town would only add to existing traffic and parking constraints.

·        The exercise, health, wellbeing and development benefits that students would gain from the site should be promoted, the benefits outweigh any negatives.

·        The application was a private investment from the owners.

·        The proposal met many of the Councils Local Plan priorities including utilising a brownfield site, promoting exercise, health and wellbeing, improving biodiversity and supporting local businesses.

Councillor Craig continued with his own representations: Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) Highways had confirmed that they were now in support of the application, Slimbridge Parish Councill and two Ward Members were also in support of the application. The previous planning application had evidenced that there was support for mixed use development on the site. The only change was the location of the dance studio due to it being away from an area of high population. However, this was not just a dance studio and would serve the whole of the district therefore its central position was ideal.

Mr Rees, the applicant, asked the Committee to support the application for the following reasons:

·        The site had extant planning permission and had been derelict since 2018.

·        The proposed application was submitted to support their growing e-commerce business, selling sustainably produced home products.

·        Their business plan was environmentally conscious, they had previously used renewable energy sources which they would be looking to do again. The proposal included an attenuation pond and a biodiversity area.

·        A small portion of the site was proposed for Sally Prouts (the applicant) dance studio for which over 70 letters of support had been received. Sally would continue to teach her existing classes across the district.

·        The high performing dance studio would put Stroud District Council on the map for performing arts.

·        The dance studio would not be commercially viable without the support of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.043

New dwelling and parking including demolition of existing garage and associated works.

The Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that the proposal was for a double storey dwelling. He showed the committee the plans for the development and its proximity to neighbouring dwellings.

Mr Ruben, a Town Councillor, spoke on behalf of Dursley Town Council against the application. He stated that the application was not compliant with the Dursley Neighbourhood Plan (NDP) policies D1 & H1. The proposal further contradicted Local Plan (LP) policies HC1, CP5, CP14, ES1, ES7, ES10 and ES12. There were a considerable number of objections received by residents for the following reasons: scale, intrusion and dominating effect. The building was very tall and would have an impact on the setting as it could be viewed from many neighbouring properties. The houses along the east end of hunger hill were traditional cottages. The rear elevation full height windows were not in keeping with the neighbouring architecture and therefore its design would be detrimental to the area in contrast with LP policy CP14. The residential amenity would be impacted with overlooking windows, impact on the light availability and loss of vista. The highways comments had not taken into account the width of the lane and the increase to traffic caused by the new vehicles to the site and construction traffic, there was no where for vehicles to unload or to turn around when accessing the site.

Mr Meredith, a local resident, asked the committee to reject the application for the following reasons:

·         There were 27 objections to the proposal.

·         The site was located on a very narrow and steep hill which would cause safety concerns. Application along hunger hill had been rejected in the past due to the narrow road.

·         The report acknowledged that the development would limit light to neighbouring properties however the correct assessments had not been undertaken.

·         Neighbouring cottages were dependant on natural light from the north facing windows due to being built into the hill. 

·         Construction would likely have an adverse effect on neighbouring cottages, many of which were built in the 1900’s without proper foundations. There was a high risk that construction could cause  structural damage to the immediate neighbours.

Mr Iwaskiw, the agent, asked the committee to approve the application for the following reasons:

·         The aim was to create a sustainable, affordable dwelling which was sympathetic to its surroundings and met the needs of modern living.

·         The site was not within a conservation area, AONB or near a listed building and was within the Dursley settlement boundary.

·         The proposal would remove the existing garage to provide the space to build the new dwelling.

·         The proposed dwelling would be constructed using natural stone to match its surroundings.

·         The proposal complied with all the relevant planning policies.

·         Pre-application was sought through SDC and they had worked with the Officers to address any concerns such as parking.

·         Hunger Hill was only accessible via vehicle from one side.

·         The height, scale and form of the building was in keeping with the street scene.

·         There were issues regarding overlooking  ...  view the full minutes text for item DCC.044

To present to the committee the revised estimates for 2023/24 and original estimates for 2024/25.

A report was circulated as part of the document pack, there were no questions.

Councillor Luff proposed and Councillor Fenton seconded.

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

RECOMMENDED TO STRATEGY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE

That: a) The revised Development Control Committee revenue budget for 2023/24 and original 2024/25 revenue budget are approved. b) The Fees and Charges list as shown at Appendix A is approved.