Skip to main content

Agenda item

Schedule of Applications

To consider and determine the applications contained within the enclosed schedule:

 

Application No

Description

Ward Councillor(s)

Case Officer / Page No:

20/04147/FUL

Conversion of existing Grade II Listed Coln House into 7no residential units (C3), demolition of modern teaching blocks and outbuildings, erection of 17 no new residential units within former school grounds, soft and hard landscaping and drainage works at Coln House School, Horcott Road, Fairford

Councillors Steve Trotter and Stephen Andrews

Martin Perks

 

Page 13

20/04148/LBC

Conversion of existing Grade II Listed Coln House into 7no residential units (C3) and associated works at Coln House School, Horcott Road, Fairford

 

Councillors Steve Trotter and Stephen Andrews

Martin Perks

 

Page 57

21/01379/FUL

Erection of a 22 metre high monopole supporting 6 no. antennas and a transmission dish at the top of the pole, an equipment cabinet at ground level and development ancillary thereto at New Farm, Daylesford, Adlestrop, Moreton-In-Marsh

 

Councillor David Cunningham

Andrew Moody

 

Page 73

21/02121/FUL

Variation of Conditions 2 (approved plans) and 3 (roofing materials) re permission 19/01619/FUL - Conversion of Former Poultry Barn to Two Holiday Accommodation Units with Internal Connectivity at Little Paddocks, Kilham Lane, Shipton Oliffe, Cheltenham

Councillor Robin Hughes

Andrew Moody

 

Page 91

 

Minutes:

20/04147/FUL- Conversion of existing Grade II Listed Coln House into 7 no residential units (C3), demolition of modern teaching blocks and outbuildings, erection of 17 no new residential units within former school grounds, soft and hard landscaping and drainage works at Coln House School, Horcott Road, Fairford

 

There were two members of the public speaking in relation to this application (one was present and one would have their comments read to the Committee).

 

Councillor Hirst declared an interest as he was a Member of Gloucestershire County Council. He was advised by the Interim Head of Legal that this would not preclude him for taking part in the debate.

 

The Senior Planning Officer gave his presentation advising the Committee that there were no further updates to be provided at this time.

 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer which outlined the location of the proposed development, the location of the conservation area and the location of the existing buildings.

 

The Committee noted that the majority of the proposed development was located outside of the conservation area.

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed the Committee that Coln House would appear as it did currently should the development proceed.

 

Mr Richard Harrison (Fairford Town Council), speaking against the proposal on behalf of Fairford Town Council, addressed the Committee who noted the points raised around loss of community infrastructure, design, impact on heritage, the lack of need for the additional housing and the proposed buildings being non-vernacular.

 

Objection comments from Simon & Fran Embleton-Smith, which had been submitted in advance of the meeting, were read out to the Committee.

 

The applicant’s agent then addressed the Committee on behalf of the client, Gloucestershire County Council, outlining the reasons why the application met the statutory planning requirements.

 

The Ward Member, Councillor Andrews addressed the Committee and provided an update in relation to the importance of considering the issue of parking requirements alongside the potential future benefits of the development.

 

The Committee noted that the issue in relation to some neighbouring residents not being able to access the rear of their properties in order to provide electric charging points was not related to the developer’s application and so the planning process could not be utilised to resolve this matter.

 

In response to various Member questions, it was reported that Fairford Town Council and Gloucester County Council remained in discussions in relation to the recreation ground.

 

It was noted by the Committee that there was no existing policy to make net zero carbon housing a mandatory requirement. This application therefore met the current design code requirements (there were elements of the scheme which worked towards net zero carbon).

 

The Committee noted the existing policy vacuum in relation to potential challenges associated with new housing developments (if they could were not carbon neutral). The Committee noted that instances of the Secretary of State calling in planning applications were minimal.

 

In relation to the design of the development, the Committee noted that the applicant had consulted with officers who had then provided advice on design changes and a reduction in the scale and size of a number of dwellings. Officers informed the Committee that the application did comply with the current design code.

 

The Committee noted that if permission was granted for the project, traffic movements in the immediate vicinity would be lower than that generated by the established use of the site.

 

With regards to the energy performance of the listed building, the Committee noted that internal works did not require planning permission. Works to improve energy efficiency would be assessed through the listed building consent process in terms of they would impact on the special interest of the listed building.

 

The Committee noted that in relation to the development of brownfield land, it was only a requirement that 30% of any development had to be affordable housing.

 

Officers informed the Committee that there was no conflict of policies in relation to the use of the land as a housing site as opposed to an employment site. The site had been vacant since 2017 and so a residential development was permissible in principle at the current time having regard to Policy INF2.

 

The Committee noted that the location of the proposed development in relation to the location of the town centre (relatively close proximity) resulted in the development being categorised as sustainable in terms of green transport links.

 

The Committee noted that the term ‘local vernacular’ with regards to proposed developments was not town specific, rather it was a term which covered the entirety of the Cotswolds. The buildings erected under this proposed development would be constructed using natural stone.

 

Following a Member question, officers advised that a condition removing permitted development rights for dormer windows could be added.

 

Officers advised the Committee that rejecting the application on the grounds of prematurity would be seldom justified (as per current NPPF guidance).

 

It was agreed that the Chair of the Planning and Licensing Committee would write to the relevant County Councillor on behalf of the Committee to advise them of the comments made at the meeting.

 

Officers advised Members that a decision on the application could be taken at the meeting as it complied with the relevant planning policies without the requirement for further work/comments. 

 

Councillor Harris proposed that the application be deferred pending the receiving of information from Gloucestershire County Council about the alternatives around community engagement, climate change considerations and potential alternative uses being explored further. This was seconded by Councillor Jepson.

 

RESOLVED: The application was deferred to seek additional information regarding community engagement, climate change considerations and potential alternative uses.

 

Record of Voting - for: 7, against 1, abstention: 3, absent 0.

 

 

20/04148/LBC - Conversion of existing Grade II Listed Coln House into 7no residential units (C3) and associated works at Coln House School, Horcott Road, Fairford

 

The Senior Planning Officer advised the Committee that due to the decision taken in respect of the previous item, the decision related to this application should also be deferred pending the receiving of further information related to internal works.

 

The Ward Member declined to speak.

 

Councillor Judd proposed that this application be deferred due to the decision to defer the previous item. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Coleman.

 

Record of Voting - for: 10, against 0, abstention: 1, absent 0.

 

RESOLVED: The application was deferred to seek additional information regarding energy performance considerations.

 

21/01379/FUL - Erection of a 22 metre high monopole supporting 6 no. antennas and a transmission dish at the top of the pole, an equipment cabinet at ground level and development ancillary thereto at New Farm, Daylesford, Adlestrop, Moreton-In-Marsh

 

The Chair left the meeting due to the previously declared pecuniary interest in this item. Councillor Judd (Vice-Chair) took the Chair for this item.

 

The Senior Planning Officer gave his presentation advising the Committee that there was no further update to be provided at this time.

 

The Committee viewed the Senior Officer’s presentation, noting there were no public objections to the application.

 

It was further noted by the Committee that a report would be presented at a future Full Council meeting in relation to an update to the Scheme of Delegation to determine how similar planning applications might be dealt with in the future.

 

RESOLVED: The application was permitted as recommended

 

Record of Voting - for: 10, against 0, abstention: 1, absent 0.

 

 

21/02121/FUL - Variation of Conditions 2 (approved plans) and 3 (roofing materials) re permission 19/01619/FUL - Conversion of Former Poultry Barn to Two Holiday Accommodation Units with Internal Connectivity at Little Paddocks, Kilham Lane, Shipton Oliffe, Cheltenham

 

The Committee noted that no decision in relation to this application could be taken at the meeting due to a consultation period in relation to a proposed change to the roof not ending until Friday 9 July 2021.

 

RESOLVED: The application was given delegated permission subject to the expiry of the consultation period and no new material considerations being raised.

 

Record of Voting - for: 10, against 0, abstention: 1, absent 0.

 

 

Supporting documents: