Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on June 7th , 2022.

RESOLVED that: - the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 7 June 2022 were approved and signed as a correct record by the Chair.

Councillor Melvin declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 6 (Land at Hill Farm - 20/00315/OUT) owing to having expressed outright opposition to the application prior to the committee meeting. She took no part in members’ discussion on the item nor did she vote on it.

Councillors Morgan and Toleman declared a non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 6 (Land at Hill Farm - 20/00315/OUT) owing to being residents of Hempsted.

Please note that any late material in respect of the applications detailed below will be published as a supplement on the Council’s website in the late afternoon of the day of the meeting.

Late material had been circulated in respect of agenda Item 5 (Former Interbrew Site - 22/00014/FUL) and agenda item 6 (Land at Hill Farm - 20/00315/OUT).

Application for determination:

Development of site to create fourteen industrial units having Planning Use Class E(g) (iii), B2 & B8 uses with ancillary offices, plus trade counter uses for Units 9 to 14, carparking, service areas and soft landscaping along with highways works to Chancel Close.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report detailing an application for

development of a site to create fourteen industrial units having Planning Use Class E(g) (iii), B2 & B8 uses with ancillary offices, plus trade counter uses for Units 9 to 14, carparking, service areas and soft landscaping along with highways works to Chancel Close.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions concerning the number of electric vehicle charging points there would be, solar panel installation, the height of the buildings and which operators would use the site as follows:

- The developer proposed to meet a 10% renewables contribution from solar

panels. He had proposed a condition to require further detail on the

appearance of any solar panels on the roofs.

- There was a commitment by the applicant to include a substantial number of

electric vehicle charging points.

- The applicant was not required to divulge which operators would use the site

and the Officer was unaware of any at the time.

- The largest building at the back of the site would be around 17 metres tall,       which would not be detrimental to the character of the area. The buildings at

the front of the site would be significantly smaller. Comparisons to the height

of other large buildings in the area were provided.

The Highways Officer responded to Members’ questions concerning parking

provisions and whether there was a consideration to create a slip road into the site as follows:

- 197 parking spaces would be provided. Of these, 28% would have electric

vehicle charging points.

- A slip road would not be created. The current arrangement significantly

reduced the speed of vehicles entering the site, helping to protect pedestrian

and cycle safety.

Members’ Debate

Councillor Tracey noted that the application may slow traffic but that overall, she saw no planning reasons for refusal.

Councillor Melvin stated that she was pleased with the application. She said that its central location meant that jobs would be provided within walking distance of local properties and that she supported the recommendation of the officer.

Councillor J. Brown stated that she was pleased to see that there was a condition imposed that required there to be seagull mitigation measures put in place before any development.

 The Chair said that he believed that it was a sensible application.

 The Chair moved, and the Vice-Chair seconded the officer’s recommendation as amended in the late material:

RESOLVED that: - planning permission is granted subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution for Travel Plan monitoring as at paragraph 6.73 of the report and the conditions outlined in the report and amended in the late material.

Application for determination:

Outline planning application for the erection of up to 245 dwellings with public open space, structural planting and landscaping, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation and vehicular access point from Hempsted Lane. All matters reserved except for means of vehicular access.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report detailing an outline planning application for the erection of up to 215 dwellings (amended from 245) with public open space, structural planting and landscaping, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation and vehicular access point from Hempsted Lane. All matters reserved except for means of vehicular access.

The Principal Planning Officer outlined the various matters including those that were acceptable, those that would require further consideration at the reserved matters stage and the reasons why the application was recommended for refusal as set out in the report.

The Principal Planning Officer further summarised the content of the late material, which stated that there was a potential for contamination. She stated, however, that she was content that the issue of contamination could be dealt with via conditions and therefore her original recommendation for refusal for the reasons set out in the report remained unchanged.

The Planning Lead Appeals planning representative for the Hempsted Residents Association addressed the committee in opposition of the application.

He objected to the application on the following grounds:

- The Hempsted Residents Association wanted to protect the village identity and their boundaries.

- The Planning Officer listed 8 detailed reasons for refusal within the Council report.

- At the original outline application stage, over 100 objections were submitted. There were zero representations in favour.

- Hempsted already struggled with overdevelopment, a further 215 dwellings would greatly add to this.

- The single access point was not appropriate. It was far too narrow.

- Gloucestershire Highways had originally stated that the application was inappropriate and would have a significantly negative impact.

- The volume of traffic, particularly during school run hours would place children at risk.

 - Many residents would turn into the village to avoid school traffic in peak times. - The granting of the application and the drastic increase in vehicle movements and the unsuitable access point would put disabled and elderly persons at risk. - The applicant was proposing to develop in a Cordon Sanitaire, something that contradicted Council Policy and would mean that any residents who occupied the dwelling would suffer with odour pollution.

- There had been 45 complaints about odour in the area within the past 2 months.

- The proposed open space was allocated within a flooding area. A potential extra 215 dwellings would worsen this.

- The current sewage system within Hempsted had a limit and already had issues, including foul sewage overflowing into gardens.

- There were a variety of protected species on the site.

- The principle of residential development would go against a number of national policies as well as the Council’s Local City Plan. Development of a Cordon Sanitaire would also go against policy.

Councillor Melvin addressed the committee in opposition to the application.

She objected to the application on the following grounds:

- The City Council had not designated the site as an area of development as part of the Joint Core Strategy.

- The site sat in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

To consider a schedule of applications determined under delegated powers during the month of May 2022.

The schedule of applications determined under delegated powers during the month of May 2022 was noted.

RESOLVED that: - the schedule be noted

August 2 nd, 2022 at Civic Suite, North Warehouse.

Tuesday 2 August 2022.