Skip to main content

Agenda item

21/03698/FUL - Tunnel House Inn

Description

Single storey extension to both Inn and barn, and use of land for the siting of six

accommodation units and associated works at Tunnel House Inn Coates Cirencester

Gloucestershire GL7 6PW

 

Ward Member

Councillor Tony Berry

 

Recommendation

Permit

 

Minutes:

The application was for a single storey extension to both Inn and barn, and use of land for the siting of six accommodation units and associated works at Tunnel House Inn Coates Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 6PW.

 

The recommendation was to permit the application.

 

The Major Developments Manager, as the Case Officer on the application, introduced the item and highlighted the materials that had been distributed in the additional pages update document.

 

As some members had not had time to read the additional documents, they were given time to read them before considering the item in the meeting.

 

Public Speakers

 

Councillor Mark Grimes, representing Rodmarton Parish Council, addressed the Committee to object to the application. Councillor Grimes made specific reference to the self-contained accommodation units, and potential damage to the surrounding countryside, as potential disruption to neighbouring residents from the hot tubs.

 

Ms Margaret Hopkins addressed the Committee to object to the application. Ms Hopkins objected to the proximity of the application to the canal bank, due to damage of the scenery, dark skies and the wild life.

 

Andrew Miles, who was the agent, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He highlighted that the purpose of the application was to keep the historic pub operational, and thereby preserve it. He highlighted that the design had been modified in consultation with the conservation officer, and that the ecologist and archaeologist who were all consulted with raised no objections. 

 

Members’ questions

 

Members asked whether there were any photographs of the approach. The Case Officer advised that none were available. Members therefore proposed to carry out a site visit, but asked further questions from the Case Officer, as it was advised that since the Case Officer was retiring, they would not have opportunity to do so after the site inspection briefing.

 

Members asked whether there would be no permitted development rights, and the Case Officer confirmed that this would be the case.

 

Members also asked about the hot tubs, and whether the use of these could be restricted in regard to time. The Case Officer advised that the Committee could condition to place restriction on these, or remove them altogether, but that there the disturbance of these would be minimal due to the existing disturbance from the pub.

 

Members asked whether, in the case of a potential refusal, the viability of the heritage asset would be threatened. The Case Officer advised that this would be the case, and that this is something members should take into account when deciding on the application.

 

Members noted the timescales associated with the application and mentioned the risk of non-determination. The Case Officer clarified that this was to do with the Beechwoods SSAC.

 

Members raised concerns over biodiversity, to which the Case Officer highlighted the landscaping plans, which are intended to enhance biodiversity, in addition to the conditioned ecological management plan for the woodland, which would be a new addition.

 

Members asked about the spread of domestic paraphernalia, and although they recognised that the conditions had already restricted the spread of this, they were concerned that guests could move furniture out onto the bank. The Case Officer advised that this would be possible to restrict through a condition.  

 

RESOLVED – To defer the item in order to carry out a full committee site inspection briefing in order to evaluate access impact.

 

Voting Record-  For 9, Against 2, Abstain 1

 

Proposer Councillor Mark Harris, Seconder Councillor Sue Jepson

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages