Agenda and minutes

The Chair declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 5 - Land at Winnycroft Farm (14/01470/OUT).  He took no part during the discussion of the item.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on the 2^nd March 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on the 2^nd March 2021 were confirmed by the Chair as a correct record.

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 - Land at Winnycroft Farm (14/01470/OUT), item 6 – Kings Quarter (20/01286/FUL) and item 7 – 15 Ballinska Mews (21/00187/FUL).

Application for Determination: - Outline application for the construction of up to 217 dwellings (including up to 12 sheltered housing flats), open space (including public open space, allotments, incidental open space, amenity space associated with the conversion of the listed farm complex, a green buffer to the listed farm complex and enhanced orchards), two vehicular access points (from Corncroft Lane and Winnycroft Lane) , pedestrian and cycle connections and associated infrastructure.

The Chair took no part in the discussion of the item as he had declared a prejudicial interest in it. Therefore, the Vice-Chair chaired the item.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report detailing an outline application for the construction of up to 217 dwellings (including up to 12 sheltered housing flats), open space (including public open space, allotments, incidental open space, amenity space associated with the conversion of the listed farm complex, a green buffer to the listed farm complex and enhanced orchards), two vehicular access points (from Corncroft Lane and Winnycroft Lane), pedestrian and cycle connections and associated infrastructure.

An agent of LRM Planning addressed the committee in favour of the application on behalf of the applicant.

The Highways Development Manager responded to members questions concerning a junction on the site as follows:

-        The large and smaller schemes combined in totality were proposing junction improvements.

-        The proposed junction improvements would be beneficial.

The Principal Planning Officer responded to members questions concerning air quality monitoring on the site as follows:

-        An Air Quality Assessment had been submitted. It stated that there should not be any dwellings built within eight meters of the motorway.

-        The nearest façade would be thirty-five meters away from the motorway. 

Members Debate

-        The Vice-Chair stated that he believed that it was a ‘good development’ when taken as a whole.

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

RESOLVED that: - That authority is delegated to the City Growth and Delivery Manager to GRANT outline planning permission with necessary conditions (in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair), subject to a Section 106 agreement to secure the following: 

-        25% affordable housing scheme 

-        An agreed pathway to secure funding for an additional 10% affordable housing;

-        Agreed housing mix; 

-        Open space provision including a leap and a lap; 

-        Allotment provision;

-        Management of open space; 

-        Off site sport provision contribution of £205,156;

-        Education contributions of £1,002,500; 

-        Library contributions of £42,532; 

-        £41,632 towards Highway improvements; 

-        £60,247 towards Travel Plan provision

Application for Determination:

Full planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and structures (Grosvenor House) and the creation of mixed use development comprising two blocks; one with commercial, business and service floorspace (E Class), hotel (C1 Class) and multi-storey car park (sui generis), and the other comprising commercial, business and service floorspace (E Class); both with associated access, parking, cycle and bin storage, utilities infrastructure, highways works, public realm and landscaping works on land fronting Market Parade, Station Road and Bruton Way (forming plot 2, plot 4 and associated public realm and highways works of previous consent 18/01454/FUL for the redevelopment of Kings Quarter).

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report detailing an application for full planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and structures (Grosvenor House) and the creation of mixed use development comprising two blocks; one with commercial, business and service floorspace (E Class), hotel (C1 Class) and multi-storey car park (sui generis), and the other comprising commercial, business and service floorspace (E Class); both with associated access, parking, cycle and bin storage, utilities infrastructure, highways works, public realm and landscaping works on land fronting Market Parade, Station Road and Bruton Way (forming plot 2, plot 4 and associated public realm and highways works of previous consent 18/01454/FUL for the redevelopment of Kings Quarter).

The Principal Planning Officer responded to members questions concerning the proposed additional height of the Plot 4 building and the loss of trees on the site as follows:

-        The applicant had indicated that the increase in height and office space in comparison to the previously approved scheme was required to make the scheme viable.

-        The loss of certain trees had been objected to by the tree officer.

-        The large tree in front of the taxi rank would be retained.

-        The applicant stated that they would plant new trees at a substantial size, which would be beneficial to the area early on in the scheme.

Members Debate

The Chair stated that he had some concerns with the proposed height of the Plot 4 building in the updated scheme but that he was broadly happy with the application on balance.

The Vice-Chair stated that he also had some concerns about the increased height of the Plot 4 building, but that he believed that the application could end up being an asset to the City of Gloucester. He also expressed his satisfaction at the proposed green planting at the sides of the carpark.

A member stated that she was concerned about the additional height of the Plot 4 building when compared to the original proposal and believed that it would be too domineering.

A member stated that he had concerns about aspects of the design and the proposed increase in height of the Plot 4 building.

A member stated that she believed that the proposed increase in height of the buildings for office space may be less relevant as the Coronavirus pandemic had changed the nature of office work.

The Vice-Chair stated that the reasonings for the height increase had been explained by the officer and that he understood it. He added that he would be voting in line with the officer’s recommendation.

A member stated that he wished to express his concern about the proposed increase of height of the Plot 4 building.

The Chair stated that he also had slight reservations about the increased height of the Plot 4 building but that he believed that the application would be beneficial for the City.

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

RESOLVED that: - authority is  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Application for Determination: -

Proposed two storey side extension.

The Planning Assistant presented the report detailing an application for a proposed two storey side extension.

A local resident addressed the committee in opposition to the application.

An agent of SF Planning addressed the committee in favour of the application on behalf of the applicant.

The Planning Assistant responded to members questions as follows: 

-        The extension would be approximately 80cm away from the neighbouring property should the application receive planning permission.

Members Debate

The Vice-Chair stated that he had sympathy with the occupant and their reasoning as to why they wanted an extension. However, he added that the extension would shade the patio next door for a good part of the morning and that it would be very close to the boundary. He added that he would therefore vote in line with the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

A member stated that the officer had provided a sufficient explanation as to the reasons why the application should not be granted and that somebody’s individual circumstances did not come before legislation.

The Chair moved, and the Vice-Chair seconded the officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED that: - planning permission be refused.

To consider a schedule of applications determined under delegated powers during the month of February 2021.

The schedule of applications determined under delegated powers during the month of February 2021 was noted.

RESOLVED that: - The schedule be noted.

Tuesday 8^th June, 2021.

Tuesday 8^th June, 2021.