Agenda and minutes

To confirm the appointments made at the Annual Meeting of Council of Councillor Taylor as Chair and Councillor Lewis as Vice-Chair of the Committee.

Councillor Taylor and Lewis were confirmed as Chair and Vice-Chair of the committee.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on the 6^th of April, 2021.

The minutes of the meeting held on the 6^th April 2021 were confirmed and signed 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 6 – Land North of Rudloe Drive (20/00368/OUT) and item 7 – 7 Kimberley Close (21/00247/FUL).

Application for determination: -

Residential development (up to 150 dwellings), associated infrastructure,  ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping. Outline application with all matters reserved.

The Chair drew attention to the late material that stated that the item was being deferred from the Committee.  The Planning Development Manager advised subsequent to the report being published that additional representations had been made by Gloucestershire County Council that they would no longer be seeking financial contributions towards education in respect of this application and the deferral would allow for full consideration of the implications.

The Chair sought confirmation that Members would be in agreement with this deferral and there being no dissent it was:

RESOLVED that: - the item is deferred to allow for full consideration of the additional representations made by Gloucestershire County Council regarding the requirement for provision to be made to educational facilities.

Application for determination: -

Demolition of existing garage and erection of a two storey detached dwelling.

The Senior Planner presented the report detailing an application for the demolition of an existing garage and the erection of a two storey detached dwelling.

Councillor Hyman, the ward member for Elmbridge, addressed the Committee in opposition to the application.

He objected to the application on the following grounds:

-        Overlooking of neighbouring properties;

-        Unreasonable overshadowing;

-        The closeness to neighbouring properties;

-        Unnecessary development;

-        The application was more intrusive than other developments within the locality;

-        The design was out of character with neighbouring properties;

-        Invasion of privacy.

He stated that he believed that the application should be rejected unless there was a site visit by members, in which case it should be deferred until one had taken place.

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

The resident objected to the application on the following grounds:

-        The shape of the dwelling was out of character with other properties;

-        The site visit undertaken by the officer was too short;

-        Invasion of privacy;

-        Potential flood risk;

-        The site would be close to the boundary fences of neighbouring properties;

-        The proposed dwelling would overlook a habitable room;

-        The proposed dwelling would overlook neighbouring gardens.

The Senior Planner responded to members’ questions regarding concerns about the effect on the street scene, accessibility on the site, shadowing of neighbouring gardens, the privacy of neighbouring properties, the distance between properties, parking, the potential of flooding in the area and garden amenity space on the site as follows:

-        The Senior Planner had conducted a site visit and had carried out measurements himself.

-        The measurements laid out in the report were accurate. 

-        The rear elevations of neighbouring properties on Cheltenham Road would be 36 metres away from the proposed dwelling. The minimum distance required being 21 metres.

-        There were existing drop kerbs on the site.

-        There would be some overlooking of neighbouring garden amenities of the host property and some neighbouring properties.

-        The level of overlooking caused by the dwelling would not warrant planning refusal.

-        The new development and host dwelling would have two dedicated parking spaces set to the front.

-        Gloucestershire Highways had raised no objections subject to the conditions outlined in the report.

-        The bathroom window would have obscured glazing as a condition to avoid harmful overlooking to the side elevation.

-        The area had a very low risk of flooding. Condition 5 of the report stated that no ground works would occur until details of how surface water would be disposed of had been provided.

-        A condition restricting new upper floor side facing widows without prior written approval from the local authority had been added.

-        Shared access was uncommon for the area, but the design of the proposed dwelling was not.

-        There was no policy in place requiring minimum outdoor garden amenity space.

Members’ Debate

The Vice-Chair stated that it was ‘not easy’ and that he sympathised with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Application for determination: -

Erection of a detached dwelling.

The Senior Planner presented the report detailing an application for the erection of a detached dwelling.

Councillor Williams, the ward member for Longlevens, addressed the committee in opposition to the application.

She objected to the application on the following grounds:

-        PPS3 had been introduced to remove the classification of previously developed lands, which granted Council’s power to reject applications;

-        The plot was far smaller than laid out in the report;

-        Traffic concerns;

-        Overdevelopment;

-        Granting the application would mean that there would be no space for safe deliveries;

-        The Planning officer had indicated that the application would be refused previously.

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

The local resident objected to the application on the following grounds:

-        The proposal would not integrate with the street scene;

-        Overdevelopment; 

-        Did not meet the design requirements outlined in paragraph 6.10 of the report;

-        Highway Concerns (increase in traffic, road safety issues)

-        Potential for noise pollution;

-        Potential for overshadowing the only south-facing window of a neighbouring property;

-        There were six objectors, not the three outlined in the report. 

A planning consultant of PJS Development Solutions Ltd addressed the committee in support of the application on behalf of the applicant.

The Planning Consultant stated that the application should be granted on the following grounds:

-        National policies and the joint core strategy encouraged building dwellings such as the one proposed;

-        Neighbours had been properly informed of the application;

-        Highways had concluded that there were no justifiable grounds in which to object to the application;

-        There would be no light or overbearing impact on the area or neighbouring properties;

-        The design of the dwelling would protect the privacy of neighbours;

-        The scheme complied with the planning framework;

-        The proposal would deliver a modest quality home for a small household.

The Senior Planner responded to members’ questions regarding traffic in the area, the size of the dwelling, and the effect on the street scene in the area as follows

-        PPS3 is no longer applicable.

-        An informal comment had been made about potentially rejecting the application very early on during the process but subject to conditions outlined in the report, the recommendation was for granting the application.

-        Gloucestershire Highways had raised no objections subject to planning conditions being met.

-        The new proposed dwelling would be a two bedroomed property and would measure 4.9 metres to the eaves and 7.2 metres at its highest point. This isn’t considered overdevelopment of the site.

Members’ Debate

Councillor Walford stated that he was not against the principle of building the dwelling. However, he stated that he had concerns with the fact that Highways had not raised a comment when congestion in the area was a substantial issue. He stated that he believed that Highways had not looked at the application in enough depth.

The Vice-Chair stated that he agreed with the member that the area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To consider a schedule of applications determined under delegated powers during the months of March and April 2021.

The schedule of applications determined under delegated powers during the month of March and April 2021 was noted.

RESOLVED that: - the schedule be noted.

Tuesday, 6^th July 2021 at 6pm in Civic Suite, North Warehouse.

Tuesday, 6^th July 2021 at 6pm.