Agenda item

Schedule of Applications

Meeting of Planning and Licensing Committee, Wednesday, 11th August, 2021 2.00 pm (Item 24.)

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

Application No	Description	Ward Councillor(s)	Case Officer / Page No:
20/03726/FUL	Redevelopment of existing barn and surrounding yard to create 3 no. dwellings within the current envelope, with associated parking structures and landscaping at Church Farm Buildings Nether Westcote Chipping Norton Gloucestershire OX7 6SD	Councillor David Cunningham	Amy Hill Page xx
21/01844/FUL	Variation of Condition 2 (approved plans) of permission 18/00190/FUL (Installation of dormer windows, increase in size of existing windows to rear, and alterations to existing balcony) at Rowan Gate Maugersbury Cheltenham Gloucestershire	Councillor Dilys Neill	Ed Leeson Page xx
21/01309/FUL	Installation of 30m communications mast, antennas and associated development for the emergency services at Telecommunications Mast Salperton Hazleton Gloucestershire	Councillor Robin Hughes	David Ditchett Page xx

Minutes:

21/03726/FUL

Church Farm Buildings, Nether Westcote, Chipping Norton, Gloucestershire

The Case Officer introduced the report for the redevelopment of the existing barn and surrounding yard to create three dwellings within the current envelope, with associated parking structures and landscaping.

The Case Officer outlined her report which contained a recommendation of approval, subject to conditions and informatives. She also signposted members to the information contained in the Additional Pages which included a technical note on sustainability from the agent and two additional letters of objection.

The following people addressed the meeting:

Dinah Nicholson, on behalf of the Westcote Parish meeting;

Ian du Pre, objecting

Nigel Bennett, agent on behalf of the applicant.

The Ward Member, Councillor David Cunningham, who did not serve on the Committee, was then invited to address the Committee.

In response to various questions officers clarified; the details relating to the previous permission; explained that the principle of development had been established and the highways formula used to determine trip generation. Members raised concerns about the impact of the development on the ‘dark skies’ area and were disappointed that there was no reference to Paragraph 14 of the NPPF relating to Climate Change. Officers reiterated that the Planning Policy was being worked on. Policy DS3 was discussed in detail and clarity was given on the conditions relating to the landscape plan, external lighting and permitted development rights.

A Proposition, that the application be approved with an additional condition relating to sustainability / energy measures, was duly Seconded.

The Ward Member was invited to address the Committee again and confirmed that he was satisfied with an additional condition relating to sustainability design features.

Approved, as recommended.

Record of Voting - for 6, against 4, abstention 1, absent 0.

21/01844/FUL

Rowan Gate, Maugersbury, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire

The Case Officer introduced the report for the variation of Condition 2 of permission 18/00190/FUL, installation of dormer windows, increase in size of existing windows to rear and alterations to the existing balcony.

The Case Officer outlined his report which contained a recommendation of approval, subject to conditions and an informative.

The following people addressed the meeting:

Mark Lutman, on behalf of Maugersbury Parish Council, objecting;

Ross Boyens, objecting.

The Ward Member, Councillor Neill, was then invited to address the Committee and expressed a strenuous objection on the grounds that the alterations did not accord with the Cotswold Design code, were out of keeping with the area and felt the size of the dormers was unacceptable.

In response to various questions officers clarified; the difference in size from the plans approved appeared to be as a result of miscommunication between the applicant and the architect; officers felt this was an on balance decision; the increase in size was over 59% greater and there was an enforcement case with this application seeking to regularise the permission.

Members raised concerns that the dormers were overpowering, had a subservient impact on the house and were out of keeping with the character of the existing dwelling.

A Proposition, that the application be refused on the grounds that the development was not in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling or its wider context, and failed to accord with the Cotswold Design Code and Local Plan Policy EN2, was duly Seconded. It was also proposed that enforcement action be progressed, the timescales of which would be delegated to officers but would be in the region of 3 to 6 months.

Refused.

Record of Voting - for 11, against 0, abstention 0, absent 0.

21/01309/FUL

Telecommunications Mast, Salperton, Hazleton, Gloucestershire

Following his declaration of interest at the start of the meeting, the Chair Councillor Brassington left the room prior to consideration. Councillor Judd took the chair for this item.

The Case Officer introduced the report for the installation of a 30 metre communications mast, antennas and associated development for the emergency services.

The Case Officer outlined his report which contained a recommendation of approval and advised that this was the third application of this kind to come in front of the Committee. Approval was subject to conditions as outlined in the report

In response to various questions, officers clarified that all application sites were visited by officers, it was usual practice for the masts to be fenced off for security purposes and the conditions covered the height and materials to be used. With regard to the location of this mast, officers explained that a coverage plan had been submitted and this was the most suitable site to address the poor communications coverage in central Salperton and would be of most benefit to the emergency services.

A Proposition, that the application be approved, was duly Seconded.

Approved, as recommended.

Record of Voting - for 11, against 0, abstention 0, absent 0.

Supporting documents:

Agenda item

Schedule of Applications

Related Pages