Agenda and minutes
PDF 49 KBVenue: Council Chamber
Contact: Democratic Services
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Minutes of Previous Meeting To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 28 June 2021. Minutes: Councillor Ted Fenton requested that it be noted that his name was missing off the draft minutes as in attendance. This has been rectified.
Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting of the Sub-Committee held on 28 June 2021, copies of which had been circulated, be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman. |
|
|
Apologies for Absence and Temporary Appointments Minutes: An apology for absence was received from Councillor Mike Cahill, due to the recent death of his son. He was due to attend, although he is not a member of this Committee. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest To receive any declarations from Members of the Committee on any items to be considered at the meeting. Minutes: There were no declarations of interest received.
However Councillor Andrew Beaney affirmed that he had no connection to Mill House Hotel application.
|
|
|
Applications for Development Purpose: To consider applications for development, details of which are set out in the attached schedule. Recommendation: That the applications be determined in accordance with the recommendations of the Business Manager – Development Management.
Minutes: The Sub-Committee received the report of the Business Manager – Development Management, giving details of an application for development, copies of which had been circulated.
20/01165/FUL - Mill House Hotel Station Road The Planning Officer, Joan Desmond introduced the application for redevelopment of site to provide a new 33 bedroom hotel and ancillary facilities including restaurant, spa, gym, swimming pool, alehouse, bakehouse, and servicing together with associated parking and landscaping and reinstatement of former mill leat. (Amended plans and description). The Chairman advised Members that the agent had advised that the required archaeological field evaluation work would soon be undertaken and if Members resolved to grant permission subject to a S106 agreement, this would allow time for the works to be completed prior to any permission being granted. James Roberts addressed the Committee, and following questions from Cllr Nathalie Chapple he confirmed to the Chair that the sites facilities were to be open to the public and not just for residents of the hotel. The Planning Officer then presented her report including the late representations and concluded as follows: The re-development of this site for improved hotel accommodation is considered to be acceptable in principle and would be supported by Tourism policy E4 of the Local Plan. The main issue relates to the scale of the proposed development, given its location within the Cotswolds AONB. The development comprises major development and the NPPF advices that ‘Planning permission should be refused for major development in the AONB other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest.' The report details the exceptional circumstances put forward by the applicant, notwithstanding their view that the development does not comprise major development. Whilst it is not disputed that the existing hotel facilities will need investment including modernisation works and that the proposal would bring benefits, it has not been demonstrated that an alternative smaller scale hotel development is unviable (e.g. Boutique hotel concept) or that there is a need for this scale of development. Also no other sites (outside the designated area) have been considered. This is major development within the AONB and no convincing evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances apply in this case to justify the development. Whilst it is recognised that the latest iteration of the plans is an improvement, the proposed development would still have a harmful impact on the scenic beauty of the area and would fail to conserve and enhance the landscape. The development would be visually intrusive with clear views from various public vantage points including the public right of way that passes through the site and beyond and from the adjoining roadside. The LO, has noted that only minor changes have been made to the treatment of the NE boundary with the loss of the existing cypress hedge and limited scope for significant new planting and it is still not considered that a Landscape-led Development approach has been adopted in this instance ... view the full minutes text for item 14. |
|
|
Applications Determined under Delegated Powers and Appeal Decisions Purpose: To inform the Sub-Committee of applications either determined under delegated powers and any appeal decisions.
Recommendation: That the reports be noted. Minutes: The report giving details of applications determined under delegated powers was received and noted.
The Chair outlined the Appeal Decisions report, and informed the Committee that the first Appeal noted on the report, fell on the Uplands border but was in actual fact a Lowlands Appeal, and therefore should be omitted from this report. The second Appeal on the report was noted.
The Planning Officer Phil Shaw informed the committee that Planning Department had planned some training on the Appeal Process, which can only benefit the Council by enhancing the Appeal Process Knowledge.
Councillor Davies wanted it noted that the Committee were aware of the increase in planning applications, and thanked the planners for their commitment and hard work.
|