Skip to main content

Agenda item

21/03698/FUL- Tunnel House Inn, Coates

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 Mike McKeown

 

Case Officer

Hannah Rose

 

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 Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

 

The Senior Case Officer introduced the report. The Senior Case Officer referred to a letter from the applicant as distributed in the additional pages, which confirmed the intention to remove the hot tubs from the application, any reference from kitchenettes, as well as confirming the fact that the units could not be placed to the rear of the inn due to the ancient woodland.

 

It was highlighted the extension to the inn first, with garden room style extension, to the left side of the inn into the pub garden. The Case Officer stated that the landscaping scheme was very strong and that the design of the ‘pods’ was of an organic form and low profile and considered to be of high quality and integrated into the woodland. The Tunnel house Inn itself was a non-designated heritage asset.

 

Councillor Mark Grimes, representing Rodmarton Parish Council addressed the committee to object to the proposal, due to the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, trees and wild life.

 

Jacqueline Brown addressed the committee to object to the application. Ms Brown stated that the noise mitigation plan was insufficient, and that there would be disruption to local residents and wildlife.

 

Kirsty Peploe, who represented the applicant addressed the committee and discussed the business case and stated mitigations would be made to reduce disruption by the application.

 

Councillor McKeown, as the Ward Member sent his apologies for the meeting, his statement was read by the Democratic Services Officer. Councillor McKeown referenced the removal of trees in the area, with reference made to the fact that more trees might be removed than initially anticipated and the resultant impact on the environment. 

 

The Chair invited members to reflect on the Sites Inspection Briefing. Members commented on the following;

  • Members thanked the Case Officer for conducting the sites inspection briefing, and stated that they had a very clear view of the prospective development
  • The substantial 200 year old woodland
  • The visibility of the site, which was masked by the woodland and members hoped would be made even less visible by the planting scheme
  • The site was more set back than anticipated
  • The impact on the canal would be minimal
  • The site had accessibility issues
  • The design of the pods and extension was considered sympathetic, with reference made to the sedum roof

 

 

Members Questions 

 

Members asked why the development was considered to have limited impact. Officers responded that the landscaping plan mitigated the impact. There was an Arboriculture condition that minimised the prevented trees from being removed. Officers explained that as the site was in a conservation area, there was a restriction on the amount of work that can be done to trees, the planning permission would allow that works be carried out to trees in contravention to this, but that this would be minimised as much as possible.

 

Members asked whether there was any accommodation in the main building. Officers confirmed that there wasn’t.

 

Members asked how it was that the biodiversity could be improved on what was already on the existing site. Officers stated that there were various metrics which would be improved upon through the ecology plan

 

Members asked whether the existence of bats and other species had been assessed. Officers stated that a preliminary ecological assessment had been carried out, and that a construction environmental management plan would be carried, which includes monitoring the site through a designated clerk. Members asked whether the units would be placed on stilts. Officers confirmed that this would be the case, and that animals would be able to exist underneath them.

 

 

Member Comments

 

Councillor Maclean Proposed to permit the application, due to the biodiversity mitigations and landscaping plan. Councillor Selwyn Seconded the proposal.

 

Councillor Fowles countered the proposal, and proposed that the site be refused due to biodiversity impacts, and that further detail was required on the business case. Councillor Judd seconded this proposal, and added impact on the AONB and proximity to scheduled ancient monuments as a reason.

 

Members added that they appreciated the issues affecting the sector, and found that the applicants had demonstrated flexibility, particularly referencing the removal of the hot tubs.

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee PERMIT the application

 

Voting record- 8 for, 3 against, 0 abstentions

 

 

For

Against

Andrew Maclean

Daryl Corps

Dilys Neill

David Fowles

Gary Selwyn

Julia Judd

Ian Watson

 

Mark Harris

 

Michael Vann

 

Patrick Coleman

 

Ray Brassington

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages