Three terraced homes at 32 Tudor Walk, Berry Hill, Coleford

What was proposed

The application sought three two-storey terraced homes with parking and landscaping, following demolition of the existing bungalow.

“The proposal seeks permission for the construction of three terraced two-storey dwellings with associated parking and landscaping and demolition of existing bungalow.”

“The application is part-retrospective due to the previous dwelling having been demolished.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was an empty, levelled residential plot on Tudor Walk, surrounded by closely spaced detached, semi-detached and terraced homes.

“The application site is currently an empty and levelled plot which slopes gently down and away to the east. The site previously comprised of a now demolished detached single-storey bungalow set within a generous residential plot fronting, and accessed off, Tudor Walk, a class 4, two-lane residential street. The surrounding context is residential, containing a mixture of detached, semi-detached and terraced properties.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because the site was sustainable and the identified harms did not outweigh the housing, land-use and economic benefits.

“The proposal would deliver three additional dwellings, and a net gain of two, on previously developed land within an established settlement, in a highly accessible and sustainable location. These benefits attract significant weight. There would also be a more efficient use of land for housing, a small contribution to housing supply which would attract moderate weight. Finally, there would be a small economic uplift during construction and occupation, attracting minor weight.”

“In accordance with paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Council’s current housing land supply shortfall engages the tilted balance, requiring that permission be granted unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework as a whole.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A local resident spoke against the application, while no parish or supporting speaker and no ward member spoke.

What members debated

Members questioned garden sizes, narrow walkways, privacy, parking, roof height, character, intensification and whether fewer homes would be better.

“A: The Planning Officer confirmed the information is on page 39 and went on to say the rear garden sizes range from 60 to 80 square metres. The Planning Officer stated there are no recommended sizes for a rear garden, however there is a very vague target in our recommended design guide for one hundred square metres.”

“A: The Planning Officer explained at the start of this process, the two main concerns were character and privacy. The Planning Officer stated the property directly to the rear had been visited to assess it properly and a whole breakdown of living conditions have been completed. The Planning Officer said the residential design guide gives guidance on back to back distances that are considered acceptable, which is a distance of twenty-one metres.”

Minutes

The vote

Seven councillors voted for permission, one abstained and one voted against.

“The Chair summed up what was to be voted on. That the Committee are accepting the Officers recommendation to Grant Permission subject to the condition’s details in the Schedule.”

“For (7) Councillors David Wheeler, Trevor Roach, Beth Llewellyn, Andrew McDermid, Patrick Kyne, Simon Phelps, John Francis Abstain (1) Councillor Dave Tradgett Against (1) Councillor Jonathan Beeston…”

Minutes

The decision

The committee granted permission subject to the conditions in the schedule because members identified no material planning grounds for refusal.

“Councillor John Francis proposed that they accept the Officers recommendation to Grant Permission, subject to the condition’s details in the Schedule due to there being no material grounds for them to refuse it.”

Minutes