Skip to main content

Agenda item

Schedule of Applications

Appplication No.

Description

Ward Councillor(s)

Case Officer/Page No.

22/02218/PLP

Permission in Principle for the erection of a detached dwelling with associated

works at Land Adjacent To The Malt House Perrotts Brook Bagendon

Gloucestershire GL7 7DT

Councillor Jenny Forde

Martin Perks/

Page 13

21/03309/FUL

Change of use of ground floor from Tea Room to unrestricted C3 residential use

at Badgers Hall High Street Chipping Campden Gloucestershire GL55 6HB

Councillor Gina Blomefield and Councillor Tom Stowe

Harrison Bowley/

Page 31

 

Minutes:

22/02218/PLP - Permission in Principle for the erection of a detached dwelling with associated works at Land Adjacent To The Malt House,  Perrotts Brook, Bagendon Gloucestershire GL7 7DT

 

The Principle Planning Case Officer introduced the application for permission in principle for the erection of a single dwelling (18/02935/FUL).  The area, site and planning history of the site were described and presented. The proposed location is in an Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB) and close to listed buildings. 

 

The following people addressed the Committee:

Simon Le-Galloudec (written submission read out) – Objector

 

The Committee noted the location maps of the application, plans and photographs of the site.

 

The Committee noted that Permission in Principle applications only required submission of a site location plan, form and fee and further details could not be requested from the applicant before making a decision.

 

The Committee noted the application site was the subject of a previous application that was refused at appeal.

 

The Committee asked what had changed between the previous and current applications that would warrant a new application.  The Principal Planning Case Officer explained that the current details indicated a dwelling in the southern part of the site in this instance. The Principal Planning Case Officer also stated that the applicant was a close relative of a Ward Member and referral to the Planning and Licensing Committee was therefore required under the Scheme of Delegation, irrespective of any changes.

 

The Committee noted that applications for Permission in Principle could be used to see if permission may be possible, without the costs of plans and reports required for an Outline application or Full application. 

 

The Committee noted that the previous Refusal decision had been taken into consideration in reaching the current recommendation to refuse, and this would also be taken into consideration by the Planning Inspectorate in the event of any future Appeal.

 

The Committee noted that there had been no change in policy, nor circumstances to warrant a different decision on the principle.

 

Councillor Layton proposed and Councillor Judd seconded that the application was REFUSED for the reasons provided by the Planning Officer

 

Voting Record – For 9, Against 0, Abstentions 0, Absent 2,

 

The Committee agreed to REFUSE the application in agreement with the recommendations of the Planning Case Officer

 

21/03309/FUL Change of use of ground floor from Tea Room to unrestricted C3 residential use at Badgers Hall, High Street Chipping

Campden, Gloucestershire GL55 6HB

 

The Senior Planning Case Officer introduced the application to change the use of Badgers Tea Room, an established business based on the High Street in Chipping Campden Town Centre, to C3 unrestricted residential use. The Tea Room was one of the "main town centre uses" as defined in the NPPF. Chipping Campden was allocated as a Key Centre in the Cotswold Local Plan.  The commercial unit was located in the heart of the Town Centre in a prime retail position on Chipping Campden's famous High Street, which was very popular with tourists.

 

The following people addressed the Committee:

Councillor Patrick Spink (written statement read out) – Town/Parish Council

Chris Wilkinson (SF Planning) – Applicant’s Agent

Elizabeth Devas (Campden Society) (written submission read out)  – Objector

Councillor Stowe (substituting for Councillor Blomefield) – Ward Member

 

The Committee noted that the property appeared to have been “…continually actively and effectively marketed for a period of at least 12 months..” as this had resulted in 14 property viewings and three offers to buy.  These, however, did not reach the valuation required by the sellers and their (two) estate agents.

 

The Committee noted that within the Chipping Campden’s High Street, three other ex-commercial properties had been permitted C3 unrestricted residential change of use, and one had been refused. Each case had been evaluated on its own merits.

 

The Committee noted that a direct comparison with the loss/conversion of rural public houses, as the impact of the loss of these in town centres was considered contextually less that in rural areas, where they could be considered community assets.

 

The Committee noted that  the Badger Tea Room would not be considered a unique facility as there were four other tea and coffee houses along the High Street and 15-20 café/restaurants offering various similar services.

 

The Committee noted that Local Plan Policy EC8 considered properties within the town centre boundary equally, irrespective of how close they were located to the geographic centre of the town.

 

The Committee noted that conversion of town centre commercial properties to unrestricted residential use has sometimes had a detrimental effect in other Cotswold towns. Conversely when retail/commercial properties were retained and marketed effectively, new commercial owners could be found.

 

Councillor Joe Harris proposed and Councillor Hirst seconded that the application was PERMITTED for the reasons provided by the Senior Planning Case Officer.

 

Councillor Jepson proposed and Councillor Judd seconded that the application was REFUSED for the reasons provided by both Ward Members.

 

*As the vote was a tie, the Chair exercised the casting vote TO PERMIT THE APPLICATION.

 

Voting Record – *For 5, *Against 5, Abstentions 0, Absent 1,

 

The Committee agreed to PERMIT the application in agreement with the recommendations of the Senior Planning Case Officer.

 

As the first vote had been carried, the proposal to refuse was not voted upon.

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages