Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Tuesday, 6th February 2024 6.00 pm

Venue: North Warehouse, The Docks, Gloucester, GL1 2EP

Contact: Democratic and Electoral Services 

Link: Watch meeting

No. Item


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.


There were no declarations of interest.


Minutes pdf icon PDF 164 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, 5th December 2023.



Councillor Gravells noted that, in respect of an application considered at the December 2023 Committee (Great Western Road Yard/Sidings - 22/00770/FUL), he had contacted the Hospital. He had been informed that the letter sent to the hospital was addressed to the 'owner/occupier'. He requested that for future consultations involving Gloucestershire Hospital, the hospital's leadership should be contacted directly to allow for a more robust consultation.



RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on Tuesday, 5th December 2023 were confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.




Late Material pdf icon PDF 351 KB

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 Material was circulated in respect of agenda item 5 (26 Heathville Road - 23/00520/FUL), item 6 (2 Hillview Road - 23/00656/FUL) and 8 (36 Denmark Road - 23/00121/FUL).



26 Heathville Road - 23/00520/FUL pdf icon PDF 236 KB

Application for determination:



Proposed internal alterations and change of use from C3 to Sui Generis.

Additional documents:


The Planning Officer presented the report detailing an application for proposed internal alterations and a change of use from C3 to Sui Generis.


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


He stated that the application should be rejected on the following grounds:


  • The area already had a large number of HMOs and other non-family homes, such as specialist supported living and care properties.
  • There were numerous student properties in the local area. While many did not meet the large HMO classification, which took the number slightly over 10%, it still impacted the local community.
  • While it was a positive step that Gloucester would house more students, too many student properties, large HMOs, and specialist supported housing were being placed in one area.
  • Out of 33 buildings on Heathville Road, only 13 were family dwellings. This represented over-intensification. The granting of the application would further add to this issue.
  • Gloucester would be unable to compete with Stroud and Cheltenham without more family dwellings.


Members’ Questions


The Planning Officer responded to members’ questions concerning clarification over the percentage of HMOs there would be should the application receive consent, how many double bedrooms there would be, who would be responsible for caring for the garden space, whether the instillation of a kitchen fell under planning law, and if it was conditioned, whether the conservation officer and other statutory consultees raised an objection, how many car parking spaces were proposed and what would the consequences be if the bin storage was not used a follows:


  • There would be two double bedrooms.
  • The residents of the dwelling would be expected to care for the back garden.
  • The application outlined in the late material for 82 Henry Road received consent after an appeal. It was originally rejected by the Planning Committee as it represented 10.2% of large HMOs within a 100-meter radius. The application currently before the Committee would represent 10.4% in a 100-meter radius. The planning inspector had considered the 0.2% increase to not be substantial enough to uphold the reasons for appeal by the Planning Committee for the application at 82 Henry Road. Her assessment was that an increase of 0.4% over the 10% threshold within a 100-meter radius could also not be considered substantial enough to recommend refusal.
  • The Conservation Officer had originally made an objection. She now raised no objections, subject to the conditions outlined in the report.
  • The Civic Trust and Gloucestershire Highways had no objections.
  • The proposed permission was for an HMO. Care Homes fell under the C2 category; therefore, even if the application received consent, if the applicant then wished to operate it as a care home, they would need to submit a new planning application. The application before the Committee was based on the principle of building a large HMO.
  • Regarding bin storage, the Planning Officer could not force residents to use it correctly. However, if they did not, local residents could lodge a complaint with Environmental Health.
  • The assessment regarding the number of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.


2 Hillview Road - 23/00656/FUL pdf icon PDF 340 KB

Application for determination:


Change of use from a Hair Salon to take away Kebab Shop

Additional documents:



The Planning Officer presented the report detailing an application for a change of use from a Hair Salon to take away Kebab Shop.


The applicant addressed the Committee in favour of the application.


She stated that the application should be granted on the following grounds:


  • The Case Officer conducted a thorough review of the application and recommended its approval.
  • There were no objections from statutory consultees, subject to certain conditions.
  • Objections raised by neighbours have been seriously considered, and proactive measures will be implemented in response.
  • The aim is to cultivate a constructive relationship with the local community.
  • The business would make a significant positive contribution to the City



Members’ Questions


The Planning Officer responded to members’ questions concerning waste removal, the size of the proposed extraction flue (check), concerns about the Police not being consulted on the application, questions surrounding whether the opening hours of the proposed hot food takeaway were the same as others in the locality, what was the difference in law between the original refusal of an application for a Papa Johns close by and the one in front of the Committee and whether there was a specific piece of legislation that stipulated that extraction flues needed to be placed away from domestic dwellings as follows:



·       Waste collection facilities would be located within the customer and staff areas. There were four public litter bins in close proximity to the site, including one situated directly outside.

·       Engaging with police authorities was not a standard practice in the consultation process for planning applications related to hot food takeaways.

·       The majority of the extraction flue would be concealed behind the parapet wall and was approximately 6 meters in height.

·       The opening hours of Papa Johns were consistent with those proposed for the new hot food takeaway. It was understood that the Royal Oak also closed at 11 pm.

·       The primary legal distinction now lay in the adherence to the C4 Policy of the adopted Gloucester City Plan.

·       To the best of her knowledge, there was no specific legislation dictating that extraction flues from takeaways must be positioned away from domestic dwellings. The Council's external consultee was consulted on this application and raised no objections, subject to conditions.

·       Extensive discussions with the external consultant have been conducted. He expressed satisfaction with the latest revisions, believing that the conditions would adequately address any concerns regarding the flue. She did not deem it necessary to delay the decision-making process, as the conditions in place were considered sufficient.

·       It was not a routine procedure for the Council to verify compliance with the terms of an application post-approval. Applicants were legally obligated to adhere to the imposed conditions. Should any breaches occur, an enforcement investigation will be initiated.        


Officers from Gloucestershire Highways responded to members’ questions concerning what information was submitted which led to the conclusion that there would not be an unacceptable impact on Highway Safety or a severe impact on congestion, whether barriers that were no longer at the site would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.


55 Derby Road - 23/00895/LAW pdf icon PDF 201 KB

Application for determination:


Proposed conversion of residential dwelling to 6 bed HMO.

Additional documents:


The Planning Officer presented the report detailing an application for a proposed conversion of a residential dwelling to a 6 bed House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO).



Members’ Questions


The Planning Officer responded to members' questions regarding why the application had come before the Committee if it represented lawful development, and why the Ward Councillor who called in the application was not named in the Committee report, as follows:


  • The application had been requested to come before the Committee prior to changes being made to the constitution.
  • It was common practice to refer to the ward member by their ward.
  • Councillor Zaman was the member who had called in the application. 


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


RESOLVED that the proposal had been assessed against relevant criteria and fell within the limits of 'permitted development' by virtue of Schedule 2, Part 3 Class L of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. The proposal therefore constitutes Lawful Development and as such a Certificate of Lawful Development can be issued.



36 Denmark Road - 23/00121/FUL pdf icon PDF 205 KB

Application for Determination:


Erection of fence to front and side of property frontage, and bin store (altered design to existing front fencing)

Additional documents:


As outlined in the late material, the applicant withdrew this application.


Delegated Decisions pdf icon PDF 266 KB

To consider a schedule of applications determined under delegated powers during the month of December 2023.


RESOLVED that the delegated decisions of December 2023 were noted.


Date of next meeting

Tuesday, 5th March 2024.


Tuesday, 5th of March 2024.