Venue: Civic Suite, North Warehouse, The Docks, Gloucester, GL1 2EP. View directions
Contact: Democratic and Electoral Services
Declarations of Interest
To receive from Members, declarations of the existence of any disclosable pecuniary, or non-pecuniary, interests and the nature of those interests in relation to any agenda item. Please see Agenda Notes.
Councillor Sawyer declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 5 - (31 Westmead Road - 23/00082/FUL). This was because she had made a representation in opposition to the application. She withdrew herself for the entire duration of the item and took no part in voting or the discussion on it.
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 4th April 2023.
RESOLVED – that the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 4th April 2023 were confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record subject to an amendment to mark Councillor Campbell as present.
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 before the meeting. Additional late material will be uploaded as a supplement on the Council’s website on the day of the meeting, should further relevant representations be received thereafter.
Late and Amended Late Material had been circulated in relation to agenda item 6 – Old Hempsted Fuel Depot, Hempsted Lane, Gloucester (22/01041/FUL) and agenda item 7 – 7 Denmark Road, Gloucester (22/01103/FUL).
Application for determination:
Change of use from C3 (dwelling house) to C2 (residential institution) for up to four children living together and receiving care and two permanent carers, all living together as a single household.
Councillor Sawyer withdrew herself from the room during the discussion and voting on the item, owing to having declared a prejudicial interest.
The Senior Planning Officer presented a report detailing an application for a change of use from C3 (dwelling house) to C2 (residential institution) for up to four children living together and receiving care and two permanent carers, all living together as a single household.
Councillor Castle addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.
She stated that the application should be rejected on the following grounds:
- Inappropriate location.
- The application was unsuitable for the intended occupiers. There was a small back garden which was overlooked by neighbouring properties. This was not suitable for vulnerable children.
- Contradicted policy SD14 of the Development Plan as the environmental quality was not suitable for the type of property proposed.
- Children from outside of Gloucester may be housed at the dwelling.
- The granting of the application would lead to excessive noise and disturbance to nearby residents.
- The language surrounding the issue of visitors was not robust enough. The report stated that visits would ‘normally’ be in the daytime. This meant that there could be night-time visits and additional noise disruption.
- The site visit that had been conducted was inadequate.
- Not enough information had been provided about the users of the home and the complexity of their needs, especially considering that the children housed would be at the property for 24 hours a day.
- Parking concerns.
- The Noise Assessment conducted was not adequate.
- The application was not a ‘tick box’ application. The granting of it would have a real detrimental impact on the lives of both the users of the site and neighbouring properties.
A local resident addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.
He stated that the application should be rejected on the following grounds:
- The requirement for properties such as the one proposed should not be at the expense of the wellbeing of neighbours.
- The application was not for a family home as paragraph 6.16 suggested. There would be 4 children and 10 staff on rotation. This was 14 people in total, not including visitors.
- Carers would have to sleep in an office downstairs, evidencing that it was not a standard family home as stated.
- There would be a significant increase in noise, which would have a detrimental impact of the amenity of neighbouring properties.
- The size of the garden was too small for the number of people who would occupy the dwelling.
- The back garden had not been accessed during the site visit, so the application had not been fully assessed.
- The noise assessment by the Housing Strategy Team was inadequate.
- Inadequate amenity space.
The owner of Platform Childcare spoke in favour of the application.
He stated that the application should be granted for the following reasons:
- Platform Childcare was a well-established provider.
- There was a national shortage of ... view the full minutes text for item 63.
Application for determination:
Demolition of all above and below ground structures on the site, remediation and associated earthworks to facilitate development for 70 residential dwellings with associated infrastructure and open space, vehicular access onto Hempsted Lane and pedestrian access onto Honeythorn Close, to include creation of development platforms, provision of flood compensation and structures for ecological mitigation (Revised Plans to application 21/00704/FUL).
The Principal Planning Officer presented the report detailing an application for the demolition of all above and below ground structures on a site, remediation and associated earthworks to facilitate development for 70 residential dwellings with associated infrastructure and open space, vehicular access onto Hempsted Lane and pedestrian access onto Honeythorn Close, to include creation of development platforms, provision of flood compensation and structures for ecological mitigation (Revised Plans to application 21/00704/FUL).
She recommended that an additional condition be included to require the submission and approval of full details of the proposed new substation to ensure that it would be protected in a flood event.
A local resident addressed the Committee in opposition to the application in its current format.
He stated that the application should not be granted in its current format on the following grounds.
- The current application was a backtrack on what was previously agreed between the Developer and the former Ward Councillor and would become a rat run for anti-social behaviour and burglary.
- The latest plans would give permanent access to pedestrians. This was highly dangerous.
- The area was used as a turning circle for vehicles. If pedestrian access was granted, then cars would be turning into an area with pedestrians. There was an 8ft fence, so views would be obscured.
- Larger vehicles such as delivery vans needed to use the turning circle. Otherwise, they would be reversing out into the main road.
- The granting of the application would lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour and crime.
- The footpath would give criminals a licence to access homes and vehicles.
- Hempsted School was already oversubscribed. The granting of the application would further add to this.
- Parking concerns.
- Flood risk.
The applicant addressed the Committee in favour of the application.
She stated that the application should be approved for the following reasons:
- The Applicant had worked closely with officers and had made amendments to the scheme when required.
- The scheme would create a large amount of green and open space
- Remediation works had already got underway.
- They had looked closely at the issue of drainage.
- 70% of the green space would be public open space.
- Ecological enhancements would result in a biodiversity net gain of 22%. This greatly exceeded the required amount.
- There would be a mix of housing and 20% of it would be affordable (14 units).
- The dwellings would be sustainable and would be gas free.
- A significant s106 contribution would be provided.
- It would provide much needed housing and change what was currently a brownfield site.
- The dwellings were of a high-quality design.
The Principal Planning Officer answered members’ questions concerning why pedestrian access into Honeythorn Close was being proposed if the original plan was for it to accessible by emergency vehicles only, clarification regarding the numbers, type and accessibility of bollards, whether they were proposing to create a blind alley, ... view the full minutes text for item 64.
Application for determination:
Garage conversion to office.
Appendices to follow.
The Planning Development Manager presented the report detailing an application for a Garage conversion to an office.
The Planning Development Manager responded to members’ questions concerning a wall on the site that was in poor condition and whether it was a care home or a private property as follows:
- Any rebuilding of a wall would be outside the scope of the application.
- It was a care home, not a private residence.
The Chair moved and the Vice-Chair seconded the Officer’s recommendation.
RESVOLED that: - planning permission is GRANTED subject to the conditions in the report.
To consider a schedule of applications determined under delegated powers during the month of March 2023.
The schedule of applications determined under delegated powers during the month of March 2023 was noted.
RESOLVED that: - the schedule be noted.
Date of next meeting
Tuesday 6th June 2023 at 6.30pm in Civic Suite, North Warehouse.
Tuesday 6th June 2023 at 6.00pm in Civic Suite, North Warehouse.