Agenda and minutes

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.


Councillor Conder declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda item 6 (52 Curtis Hayward Drive) as she had inadvertently met the applicant whilst canvassing but she had not pre-judged the application.




Minutes pdf icon PDF 210 KB

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday, 5th March 2024, as a correct record.


RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on Tuesday, 5th March 2024 were confirmed and signed by the Chair as a correct record.


Late Material pdf icon PDF 692 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.

Additional documents:


Late material had been circulated in relation to Agenda Item 5 (Former Sainsbury Store) and Item 6 (52 Curtis Hayward Drive). Additional late material was also circulated concerning Agenda Item 6.


52 Curtis Hayward Drive, Gloucester - 20/00993/FUL pdf icon PDF 327 KB

Application for determination:


Retrospective conversion of integral garage into habitable room.


Officer Report


The Planning Officer presented the report which detailed a retrospective application for a conversion of an internal garage into a habitable room.


The Officer clarified that the application was before Committee as it had been called in by a local ward Member (Cllr Lewis).


Public Speeches


Councillor Lewis addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.


He said that the application should be refused on the following grounds:


·       The building was not being used as a small habitable room, it was being used as an office with 27 staff.

·       1 employee was at the property at all times and was full time.

·       It was a busy office.

·       Vehicles were visiting and leaving the site throughout the day.

·       The business was causing vehicles to park on the narrow road.

·       The busy office did not fit in with the character of the cul-de-sac.

·       The door on the front of the site was not in character of the street scene, was unsightly and was of an industrial nature. This was unsuitable for the cul-de-sac it was placed in.

·       Overall, the frontage of the property had a highly inappropriate look, which did not fit in with the local street scene and was being run as a business, not a habitable room. Further, it was in the wrong location.


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


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


·       She was speaking on behalf of local residents who objected to the application.

·       The inclusion of the locking front door was akin to a small industrial unit . It did not fit in with the street scene. 

·       The initial consultation took place in October 2020, not November 2020 as was stated in the Committee Report. The plans being considered at that stage erroneously showed a window on the front elevation, rather thanthe PVC door frontage that had actually been installed.

·       The frontage was not in keeping with the street scene. It was a quiet residential area.

·       The application did not comply with the Joint Core Strategy (JCS – Policy SD4).

·       Whilst other properties in the locality had converted garages into habitable rooms, none had used the type of door and windows that had been used for the site.

·       The conversion was being used as an office for a business, not a general habitable room. The business was registered as the property.

·       It had not been changed to a standard home office, as had been claimed.

·       The business manager attended the site every working day.

·       The area had a narrow street. There were frequent visits in and out of the area and persons parking on the road.


Members’ Questions


The Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions concerning whether there had been other disruption caused to residents, apart from the parking issues from the site, whether the policy contradicted policy A4 of the Joint Core Strategy (JCS), whether it would be reasonable to place a condition that the existing grass area was replaced  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.



Application for Determination:


Demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide residential led mixed use scheme.


This application was deferred at the previous Planning Committee meeting.

Additional documents:


Officer Report


The Principal Planning Officer presented the report which detailed an application for the demolition of existing buildings and redevelopment of site to provide residential led mixed use scheme. The application had been deferred at the previous committee meeting.


Public Speeches


A representative for Clarehouse Developments Ltd addressed the Committee in favour of the application.


·       In regard to the concerns raised about the Hare Lane colour scheme, the applicant had provided 3 potential options, which was included in the late material. The visualisations showed that the design and colour scheme would not be similar to the existing building, and the proposed build demonstrated a beneficial effect in the quality and character.

·       Regarding concerns raised about highway safety on Pitt Street, particularly for schoolchildren who went to Kings School. The applicant sympathised with the children of King’s School. However, the proposed change of use would lead to a reduction of movements.

·       Regarding concerns raised by some members in relation to Car Parking. The applicant believed that owing to the highly sustainable location of the site and its strong links to public transport, the applicant had not proposed to provide additional parking. It would also affect scheme viability.

·       In regard to the concern raised about whether there was a gap between the building site and the Raven Centre Site. This matter was covered by the Party Wall Act and the Planning Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas act. It was understood that the two buildings were not connected.

·       The applicant did not propose to have the build tied in or connected to the Raven Centre.

·       There were significant public benefits to the scheme, including 11 affordable homes on a currently underutilised premises that did not make a positive contribution to the City. There would also be green landscaping introduced.

·      The proposal would have numerous economic benefits including a CIL payment of over £200,000 and a total provision of over £500,000.

·       There would be significant job creation during the construction phase of the development.




Members’ Questions



The Principal Planning Officer responded to Members’ questions concerning whether the material at the frontage was made of brick and the colour of it, questions concerning the colour of the railings at the top of the build, the design of top storey, whether the design was similar to a different scheme in Southgate Street, whether children would occupy the dwellings, whether the adjacent car park belonged to the City Council and if the developer would purchase car parking spaces from the Council, washing, whether a stipulation could be included that would exclude large construction vehicles going down Pitt Street during the construction phase of development, the speed limit down Pitt Street whether the Police had made any further comments on the application, what was the allowance for cycle storage, and what influence the Planning Committee could have on the colour as follows:


·       The material on the front of the site was brick.

·       The visual indicated that the brick would be of a silvery-grey colour. There was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.


Delegated Decisions pdf icon PDF 123 KB

To consider a schedule of applications determined under delegated powers during the month of February 2024.


RESOLVED that the delegated decisions of February 2024 were noted.



Date of next meeting

Tuesday, 4th June 2024.


Tuesday 4th June 2024.


At the end of the meeting, Members applauded Councillor Taylor for his chairmanship of the Committee, as he had announced that he would not be standing for re-election at the local elections scheduled for May 2024.</AI7>