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 Gloucestershire GL7 4DNB

Councillors Steve Trotter and Stephen Andrews

Martin Perks

Page xx

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 Gloucestershire GL7 4DB

Councillors Steve Trotter and Stephen Andrews

Martin Perks

Page xx

 

 

 

Minutes:

20/04147/FUL

 

Coln House School, Horcott Road, Fairford, Gloucestershire, GL7 4DB

 

The Principle Planning Officer, Martin Perks introduced the application:

 

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 Gloucestershire GL7 4DNB

 

The Committee noted the Update Report, which included a letter from Fairford Town Council along with associated e-mails which had been circulated and read by the Committee in advance of the meeting.

 

The Update Report also covered the location of the site, which buildings were to be demolished and retained as part of the proposed development and views of the existing site. Members further noted the locations of the protected trees which would be retained as part of the proposed development.

 

The Committee noted the proposed design of the development, acknowledging that the proposed design of the main building would ensure the exterior remained as close as possible to its existing look.

 

The Committee further noted that the Conservation Officers were content with the understated design of the proposed development.

 

The following people addressed the Committee:

 

Councillor Richard Harrison (Fairford Town Council)

 

Councillor Stephen Andrews (Ward Member)

 

Following a Member question, the Committee noted that were no objections to the proposed development in relation to archaeological concerns around the development of on-site playing fields. If any artificial surfaces were to be added then this would require planning permission to be sought and subsequently granted.

 

The Committee noted that the maintenance of the playing fields would remain the responsibility of the Town Council.

 

The Committee further noted that the developer was aware of the Council’s climate change toolkit. The developer had set out what measures they would be incorporating into the scheme which covered energy efficiency of the properties, water conservation. The Committee noted that the measures outlined by the developer were deemed reasonable by Officers in terms of climate change mitigations.

 

In response to a Member query around the mixing of traditional and new/innovative housing on a single, small development, Members were shown pictures outlining the differences in building design. The Committee noted that the inclusion of new/innovative homes were deemed as appropriate given the location of these on the proposed development.

 

The Committee acknowledged the work undertaken by Gloucestershire County Council and Fairford Town Council which had resulted in the progression of the proposed development.

 

The Committee noted the existing conditions attributed to the development which covered extensions and building modifications –

 

The Committee noted that the issue of commuted sums was a matter for negotiation between the County Council and the developer. This related to land outside of the proposed development. This was part of the handing over process to Fairford Town Council and the monies associated with the upkeep and maintenance of the community areas.

 

Following a Member question, the Committee noted that the inclusion of the sustainability statement related to both aspects of this application (items 1 and 2).

 

The Committee noted that sustainability statements were shared with the Head of Climate Action as a matter of routine procedure.

 

The Committee noted that no conditions had been stipulated around the inclusion of solar panels on the roofs of properties on the proposed development.

 

Members noted that the Committee could condition energy performance measures on proposed developments if they deemed it appropriate to do so. The Committee noted that the cost to developers would vary in terms of the type of energy performance measures included on developments (size of the development and type of energy performance measures included for example).

 

The Committee noted that the proposed community building would not encroach onto the existing playing fields.

 

Agreeing the energy performance measures possible on the site in consultation with the Council’s Head of Climate Action and the applicant.

 

The Committee noted that applicants and developers could only submit their applications adhering to current legislation. Whilst changes to building regulations were likely to change in the future, the Committee and the Council could only judge the merits of current applications based on existing regulations and not what changes may be mandated in the future.

 

Councillor Patrick Coleman proposed that the existing conditions be extended to cover dormer windows and openings, and that an additional condition was added agreeing the energy performance measures possible on the site in consultation with the Council’s Head of Climate Action and the applicant. This was seconded by Councillor Juliet Layton.

 

As a Member of the County Council, Councillor Hirst was advised by the Interim Head of Legal Services to not vote on this item.  

 

Record of Voting in relation to the proposed amendment - for: 7, against: 0, abstention: 1, absent: 3.

 

Record of Voting in relation to the revised Officer recommendation incorporating the above amendment - for: 7, against: 0, abstention: 1, absent: 3.

 

 

20/04148/LBC

 

Coln House School, Horcott Road, Fairford, Gloucestershire, GL7 4DB

 

The Principle Planning Officer, Martin Perks introduced the application:

 

Conversion of existing Grade II Listed Coln House into 7no residential units (C3) and associated works at Coln House School Horcott Road Fairford Gloucestershire GL7 4DB

 

The Committee noted that this application was related directly to the listed building.

 

The Committee noted the importance of ensuring the applicant gave due consideration to the energy performance measures.

 

The Committee further noted that although current legislation sought to retain the physical features of listed buildings primarily, energy performance measures could still be taken to improve the building’s energy performance (secondary glazing for example).

 

The Committee noted that if solar panels were to be placed on the roof of a listed building then both planning permission and listed building consent would be required.

 

The Committee agreed that a training exercise for Members around the retrofitting of listed buildings would be beneficial.

 

Councillor Steve Trotter proposed the addition of a condition to strengthen the energy performance measures in relation to the conversion of the listed building. This was seconded by Councillor Sue Jepson. Councillor Jepson requested that the amendment also included the Ward Members being consulted by Officers as discussions around the energy performance measures progressed.

 

Members noted that if this proposal was agreed, then the applicant would come back to the Committee to outline the proposed steps they would take to improve the energy efficiency of the listed building.

 

As a Member of the County Council, Councillor Hirst was advised by the Interim Head of Legal Services to not vote on this item.  

 

Record of Voting in relation to the proposed amendment - for: 7, against: 0, abstention: 1, absent: 3.

 

Councillor Julia Judd proposed that the Officer recommendation be approved subject to the above amendment. This was seconded by Councillor Patrick Coleman.

 

Record of Voting in relation to the revised Officer recommendation incorporating the above amendment - for: 7, against: 0, abstention: 1, absent: 3.

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages