Skip to main content

Agenda item

Schedule of Applications

Application No.

Description

Ward Councillor(s)

Case Officer/Page No.

21/03879/OUT

Erection of a four-bedroom dwlling at Cliffordine House Cheltenham Road Rendcomb

Cirencester Gloucestershire

Councillor Jenny Forde

Harrison Bowley

21/04800/FUL

Erection of an agricultural building at Land North Of Draycott Business Centre Draycott

Road Blockley Gloucestershire

Councillor Sue Jepson

Harrison Bowley

 

Minutes:

21/03879/OUT Erection of a four-bedroom dwelling at Cliffordine House, Cheltenham Road, Rendcomb, Cirencester, Gloucestershire GL7 7ER

 

The Major Developments and Appeals Manager, Mike Napper, started by stating that all references to ‘Rendcomb House’ throughout the report should read: ‘Rendcomb Manor’.  Also, the recommendation to REFUSE was putative, due to the submission of an appeal against non-determination.  Therefore the result of the resolution by Committee would be to forward a ‘minded to’ recommendation to the Planning Inspector to aid their consideration of the appeal.  There was also a small change to the 3rd refusal reason where “The siting of the dwelling in the location proposed will result in a significant change to the existing rural character of this piece of land which would fail to conserve the surviving character of this part of Rendcomb” should read, “The siting of the dwelling in the location proposed will result in a significant change to the existing rural character of this piece of land would fail to conserve the surviving character of this part of the setting of Rendcomb”

 

The Major Developments and Appeals Manager then presented the outline planning application for the Erection of a four-bedroom dwelling at Cliffordine House Cheltenham Road, Rendcomb, Cirencester, Gloucestershire GL7 7ER.  The proposed development was summarised, and site and location maps and photographs were presented to provide context for what was proposed.

 

The following people addressed the Committee:

Hugh Brass (written submission read out)  – Objector

Simon Collier – Applicant

 

The Committee noted that the application had failed the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) strategy as there was no exceptional justification for the construction in terms of (for example) exceptional design, high energy performance etc.

 

The Committee noted that should an application be received that was for an exceptional construction, that met the NPPF criteria, it would be considered on its own merits in respect of that justification approach.

 

The Committee noted that outline planning applications do not need to be submitted (to determine if development was possible in principle), before submitting a detailed planning application.

 

The Committee noted that, when arriving at planning application decisions (particularly recommendations to refuse), consideration is given to whether the decision would be upheld, should the applicant choose to take the application to appeal.

 

Councillor Webster proposed and Councillor Neill seconded that the application is REFUSED for the reasons provided by the Planning Case Officer

 

RESOLVED:  The Committee was minded to REFUSE the application for the reasons provided by the Planning Case Officer.

 

Voting Record – For 9, Against 1, Abstentions 0, Absent 1,

 

The Committee was minded to REFUSE the application in agreement with the recommendation of the Planning Case Officer

 

21/04800/FUL Erection of Agricultural Building at Land North of Draycott Business Centre, Draycott Road, Blockley, Gloucestershire

 

The Major Developments and Appeals Manager introduced the application for the erection of an Agricultural Building in an open agricultural field located north of Draycott Business Park.  A summary of the site and proposed construction was provided, and site and location maps were presented to provided context for what was proposed.  The site described was shown to be split into two separate sections, with a larger open field to the south and a narrower one to the north, to which the application related. There were existing and proposed access points to the field in the south-eastern corner of the plot, and a Public Right Of Way (PROW) ran east-west through the northern part of the field.  The proposed site was in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

 

The following people addressed the Committee:

The Rural Planning Practice (written submission read out) - Applicant

Elizabeth Davies (written submission read out)  – Objector

Councillor Keeling (substituting for Councillor Jepson) – Ward Member

 

The Committee enquired whether provender from the land could be sold commercially e.g. at farmers’ markets and, if this were permitted, whether conditions could be added to prevent it.  The Major Development and Appeals Officer stated that the existing use of the land was for agricultural use and therefore produce from the land could be sold commercially, and it would be unreasonable to add a condition to prevent this.  Any future proposed change to the current agricultural use would require a further planning application

 

The Committee noted that the Objector had referred to “… plot holders who have bought numerous smaller size parcels on this field…”, however this was not a material planning consideration and the application (and any other future planning applications near the site) should be considered on their own merits.

 

The Committee noted that construction materials required to build the proposed Agricultural Building were unlikely to be substantial, and it should be possible to take these on site using a pickup truck.

 

The Committee noted that the total size of the fields appeared to be able to sustain a small flock of sheep, and that changing the use of the land or building to build or convert a workers dwelling would require a further planning application.

 

The Committee noted that the design of the proposed building was not considered to be harmful to the AONB.

 

Councillor Harris proposed and Councillor Hirst seconded that the application is PERMITTED for the reasons provided by the Planning Case Officer

 

RESOLVED:  The Committee agreed to PERMIT the application for the reasons provided by the Planning Case Officer

 

Voting Record – For 8, Against 1, Abstentions 1, Absent 1,

 

The Committee agreed to PERMIT the application in agreement with the recommendation of the Planning Case Officer

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages