Agenda item

Schedule of Applications

Meeting of Planning and Licensing Committee, Wednesday, 8th September, 2021 10.00 am (Item 34.)

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

Application No	Description	Ward Councillor(s)	Case Officer / Page No:
20/04343/REM	Reserved Matters (Phase 1A) pursuant to Outline permission 16/00054/OUT (mixed use development comprising demolition of existing buildings (as detailed on the submitted demolition plan) and the erection of up to 2,350 residential dwellings (including up to 100 units of student accommodation and 60 homes for the elderly), 9.1 hectares of employment land (B1, B2 and B8 uses), a primary school, a neighbourhood centre including A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses as well as community facilities (including a health care facility D1), public open space, allotments, playing fields, pedestrian and cycle links (access points onto Tetbury Road, Somerford Road and Cranhams Lane) landscaping and associated supporting infrastructure to include vehicle Development Phase 1A Chesterton Wilkinson Road Cirencester Gloucestershire	Councillors Gary Selwyn, Roly Hughes and Ray Brassington	Anthony Keown Page xx
21/00950/FUL	Full application for conversion of garage to 5 no. dwellings, with associated parking and landscaping at Ivor Webb And Sons Garage, Cherry Tree Lane, Cirencester, Gloucestershire, GL7 5DT	Councillor Mike Evemy	Andrew Moody Page xx

21/00736/FUL	Single storey ancillary accommodation within garden at Haydons Bank Station Road Chipping Campden Gloucestershire GL55 6HY	Councillors Mark Annett and Gina Blomefield	Rachel Gaskell Page xx

Minutes:

20/04343/REM

The Steadings Development Phase 1A, Chesterton, Wilkinson Road, Cirencester, Gloucestershire

The Planning Officer, Anthony Keown introduced the application:

Reserved Matters (Phase 1A) pursuant to Outline permission 16/00054/OUT

(mixed use development comprising demolition of existing buildings (as detailed

on the submitted demolition plan) and the erection of up to 2,350 residential

dwellings (including up to 100 units of student accommodation and 60 homes for

the elderly), 9.1 hectares of employment land (B1, B2 and B8 uses), a primary

school, a neighbourhood centre including A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses as well as

community facilities (including a health care facility D1), public open space,

allotments, playing fields, pedestrian and cycle links (access points onto Tetbury

Road, Somerford Road and Cranhams Lane) landscaping and associated

supporting infrastructure to include vehicle access points from Tetbury Road,

Spratsgate Lane, Wilkinson Road and Somerford Road) for scale, layout,

appearance and landscaping for the erection of 68 dwellings with associated open

space and landscaping at The Steadings Development Phase 1A Chesterton

Wilkinson Road Cirencester Gloucestershire.

Information contained in the follow on report / Update Report advised that the scope of the application included outline permission for the phased development of the site.

The Committee noted the update provided in relation to the local plan framework for the development.

Members noted that the draft planning conditions contained within the report which required further discussions with the applicant’s team and which were to be checked for their technical accuracy. At the request of the Chair, the draft condition related to noise would be further checked.

The Committee noted the further representation made by Cirencester Town Council.

Comments from the highways authority had not yet been received in relation to the revised proposals.

The following people addressed the committee:

Mr Peter Clegg (Agent), supporting

Councillor Gary Selwyn (Ward Member)

The Committee noted the importance of Members being briefed around the recent amendments to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This would be delivered by Officers at a future date.

Following a Member question in relation to the tree-lined streets aspect of the development, specifically how the developer would avoid any newly planted trees impacting pavements via their roots, the Committee noted that the precise location of any tree avenues or tree-lined streets would have to be carefully considered to minimise the impact on pavements and surrounding areas in future years.

The Committee noted that via the tree-lining of streets, the spirit of the NPPF would be reflected in this development. The developer confirmed that they understood that bio-diversity net gain was a requirement as per NPPF guidance.

The Committee noted the importance of ensuring that the blend of trees were also aesthetically pleasing (whilst also noting the importance of the environmental benefits of appropriate hedgerow and tree planting). Members noted that the tree and hedgerow planting for each street within the development was yet to be finalised.

In response to a question around combining clusters of trees and some tree-lining – the Committee noted that a mix of tree planting would be undertaken to avoid complete uniformity and to retain character.

The Committee noted that a change in policy may impact the design of the development. It would be up to the developers to ensure that the preferred solution met NPPF requirements even if policies were changed as the development progressed.

The Committee noted that ecology surveys had been completed which had resulted in the proposed development being cognisant of what the ecological habitats for wildlife needed to be. One possibility was the creation of a tree-top link from the centre of the development which would radiate outwards.

In relation to building performance, the Committee noted that the properties would be fitted with gas-fuelled boilers. However, air-heat pumps were also being considered as options. The Committee noted the importance of ensuring that any new properties built were as energy efficient as possible to reduce the need to continuously heat the space. As the development progressed, the developers would remain aligned to the Government objective of moving away from gas powered boilers and the associated requirement of moving towards low-carbon options (such as air-heat pumps).

The Committee noted that there was currently no definitive phasing plan which would specify the order in which properties would be built (low-cost housing first, larger properties later, etc).

It was noted by the Committee that there was no current policy requirement for properties to be fitted with water efficiency and associated recycling technology. It was anticipated that as time progressed, there would be an increasing shift to ensure the climate change crisis was addressed partly, by Government guidance in relation to planning and the associated standards of energy efficiency requirements related to new housing developments.

In relation to ‘environmental performance’, the Committee noted that this encompassed all aspects from biodiversity net-gain through to building performance (energy efficiency).

The Committee noted that a number of mandated policy requirements would be met (and in some cases exceeded) via the proposals set out by the developer. These included designated cycle parking and the inclusion of garages and outbuildings for homes on the development. There was only a limited number of minimum standards which the Council could endorse as per national guidance and policy.

Due to the revised NPPF having only been released recently, all local authorities were in a certain state of flux as they sought to implement the new aspects of the policy.

The Committee noted that in relation to green infrastructure, the current phase of the development process indicated that the Steadings would deliver much in this area (as outlined in the benefits section of the report).

The Committee noted that Officers worked with developers in referring to the energy efficiency toolkit, encouraging them to not only meet the minimum standards, but to better them if possible (in the interests of future-proofing new developments).

An update would be provided to the Committee in relation to when the annual report of the Council’s five year housing land supply was likely to be published.

The Committee noted that further discussions would take place with the developers in relation to building roof heights, building frontage designs and the design of garages and outbuildings.

Although a new housing development, current design proposals had produced a ‘restrained’ design in terms of its simplicity and overall look which the Committee noted was in keeping with the Cotswold vernacular. Members were informed that this was a discreet parcel of land which resulted in a traditional approach to the architecture being required.

The Committee acknowledged the progress which had been made by the development which was testament to the work carried out by the developers and Officers.

The Planning Officer then summarised the recommendations contained within the report. He advised that the report recommended a resolution to approve subject to revisions. Approve recommendations A,B,C and D and select item F in relation to higher performance standards.

Councillor Clive Webster proposed that the application be granted as per Officers recommendations.

This was seconded by Councillor Dilys Neill.

The Officer recommendation of approval was then put to the vote and was carried.

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

21/00950/FUL

Ivor Webb And Sons Garage, Cherry Tree Lane, Cirencester, Gloucestershire, GL7 5DT

The Planning Officer, Andrew Moody introduced the application:

Full application for conversion of garage to 5 no. dwellings, with associated

parking and landscaping at Ivor Webb And Sons Garage Cherry Tree Lane

Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 5DT.

The Planning Officer then presented his report.

The following people addressed the committee:

Mr Simon Firkins (Agent), supporting

Councillor Mike Evemy (Ward Member) could not attend the meeting but had submitted a statement which a Member of Democratic Services read out on his behalf.

The Planning Officer provided the Committee with an example of where permission had been granted previously under similar circumstances (inclusion of a pathway and cycleway link being conditioned) on a previous development (where the Committee had attached a condition to the application).

The Committee noted that the highways authority had not yet provided an explanation as to how a suitable footpath could be provided without the additional acquisition of third-party land.

The Committee noted the comments made in relation to concerns around the speed at which vehicles travelled on the road – specifically that even if a footway/cycleway was available, the speed at which vehicles sometimes travelled could put members of the public at risk.

Councillor Gary Selwyn proposed that the application be granted as per Officers recommendations.

This was seconded by Councillor Sue Jepson.

The Officer recommendation of approval was then put to the vote and was carried.

Record of Voting - for: 8, against 1, abstention: 1, absent 1.

21/00736/FUL

Haydons Bank, Station Road, Chipping Campden, Gloucestershire, GL55 6HY

The Planning Officer, Andrew Moody introduced the application:

Single storey ancillary accommodation within garden at Haydons Bank Station Road

Chipping Campden Gloucestershire GL55 6HY.

The Planning Officer then presented his report.

Information contained within the update report advised that there had been no objections received from the highways authority. Officers had recommended an additional condition, namely that full details of the proposed PV roof tiles were provided.

The following people addressed the committee:

Councillor Patrick Spink, Chipping Campden Parish Council, objecting.

Mr Paul Leighton, objecting (written submission read out by Democratic Services).

Councillor Gina Blomefield (Ward Member),

The Committee noted that the application had to be considered as was stated in the report – that the proposal was to construct an annexe to the main dwelling house. It could only be speculated as to what the annexe may be used primarily as (a holiday let for example), but the Committee could only take a decision on the report and associated recommendation before them.

It was further noted by the Committee that in terms of the future maintenance of the structure, this was a matter for the property owner to manage if permission was granted and the building constructed.

The Committee noted that the supplied drawings were to scale and that the applicant could be held to account in relation to the drawings which had been submitted as part of the application.

The Committee noted the view that the views and opinions in terms of the Council’s already agreed and validated Planning policies should not be included in any submissions objecting to a particular application(s).

Councillor Sue Jepson proposed that a full Committee site visit be undertaken so as to better understand the proposed site, elevations and position of the annexe on the land.

This was seconded by Councillor Steve Trotter.

The recommendation of a full Committee site visit was then put to the vote and was carried.

Record of Voting - for: 4, against 4, abstention: 2, absent 1.

The Chair used his casting vote to confirm that a full Committee site visit would be undertaken.

Supporting documents:

Agenda item

Schedule of Applications

Related Pages