The Planning Committee of Tewkesbury Borough Council met on Tuesday 20 October 2026 to discuss several planning applications. Key decisions included the delegated permit for 43 affordable dwellings at Knightsbridge Nurseries, the permit for extensions at 2 Battle Road, Tewkesbury, and the permit for an agricultural building at Teddington Grove Farm. However, the committee refused the application for a new dwelling at Land At Parcel 6958 Greenway Lane, Shurdington, and also refused the retrospective application for Shire Cars Limited in Shurdington.

Knightsbridge Nurseries, Tewkesbury Road, Elmstone Hardwicke

Outline permission was granted for up to 43 affordable dwellings at Knightsbridge Nurseries. The application had been deferred from a previous meeting to address concerns about the sustainability of the site and the impact of proposed junction improvements on highway safety. Additional information provided by the applicant, including revised access proposals and speed limit reductions, addressed these concerns. The Highway Authority confirmed that safe and suitable access could be achieved, and the residual transport effects would not be unacceptable. The recommendation to permit the application was carried.

2 Battle Road, Tewkesbury

Planning permission was unanimously granted for single and two-storey extensions to the dwelling at 2 Battle Road. The application, which involved the demolition of an existing garage, had been called in by a councillor due to the applicant being a council employee. Concerns raised by Tewkesbury Town Council regarding the proposed render and timber cladding were addressed through negotiated revisions, omitting the render and retaining the timber cladding. Officers considered the extensions to be of an appropriate size and design, in keeping with the existing dwelling and the wider street scene, and not resulting in undue harm to residential amenity.

Land At Parcel 6958 Greenway Lane, Shurdington

The committee refused the application for the erection of one dwelling house on land at Parcel 6958, Greenway Lane, Shurdington. Officers recommended refusal due to concerns that the proposal did not meet the stringent criteria for exceptional design quality required for isolated homes in the countryside under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Despite the applicant's agent arguing for the design's exceptional quality and wider benefits, councillors echoed the officer's concerns. Councillor Clement Brown supported the refusal, stating that while the design was appealing, it was not suited to the Cotswolds setting and conflicted with numerous policies. Councillor Jordan, while liking the design, agreed that the conflicts with policies on Green Belt, landscape, sustainability, and highway access outweighed the perceived benefits. The recommendation to refuse was carried.

Teddington Grove Farm, Teddington

Permission was granted for the erection of an agricultural building at Teddington Grove Farm. The building is intended for pigs, machinery, hay storage and woodland management. Concerns raised by local residents regarding potential odour from pigs and manure were addressed through an odour management plan, which will be a condition of the permission. The Cotswolds National Landscape Board offered a neutral comment, acknowledging that while the building would alter the immediate landscape, its agricultural nature and appearance were considered appropriate. Environmental Health also raised no objection, subject to conditions. The application was called in by Councillor Mel Gore due to concerns about landscape impact. The recommendation to permit was carried.

Shire Cars Limited, Main Road, Shurdington

The retrospective application for the demolition of an existing garage building and the erection of a new vehicle garage workshop and office/reception building at Shire Cars Limited was refused. Officers maintained their recommendation for refusal, citing significant adverse impacts on the residential amenity of the neighbouring property, Tynings Reach, due to the building's mass, height, and proximity to the boundary. Despite proposed amendments by the applicant, officers concluded these did not sufficiently address the fundamental concerns. The development was also considered intentional unauthorised development, attracting substantial weight against the proposal. The refusal was carried unanimously.