Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

Click Here To View

62.1           The Development Manager submitted a Schedule comprising planning applications and proposals with recommendations thereon.  Copies of this had been circulated to Members as Appendix A to the Agenda for the meeting.  The objections to, support for, and observations upon the various applications as referred to in Appendix 1 attached to these Minutes were presented to the Committee and duly taken into consideration by Members prior to decisions being made on those applications.

17/01078/FUL – Land off Broadway Road, Part Parcel 9070, Toddington

62.2           This application was for the erection of six dwellings with associated vehicular access.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 9 February 2018.

62.3           The Planning Officer reiterated that this was a full application for the erection of six detached four and five bed dwellings with a new access road on agricultural land to the rear of existing dwellings on the B4077, located within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  In terms of the history of the site, two dwellings had been granted permission on a site to the north-west after the original scheme was scaled down from 11 dwellings.  The larger site for 11 dwellings included the current application site.  She explained that 11 dwellings were considered to be unacceptable due to the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; whilst it was considered that two dwellings would cause some limited harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it was felt to be an appropriate design response to the site and a logical proportionate extension to the built environment of the village.  She drew attention to Page No. 571, Paragraph 6.16 of the Officer report, which stated that the Council had not been able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply at the time the decision had been made.  She clarified that there had been a five year housing land supply at the time but the Council had been in negotiation with the applicant for well over a year in the context of there being no five year supply.  The decision to permit the scheme was taken on the basis that, despite being contrary to Policy HOU4, Toddington/Newtown had been identified as a Service Village in the emerging Joint Core Strategy and, therefore, a suitable location for some limited residential development.  It was considered that the benefits of the application for two dwellings, and the location of the site adjacent to a Service Village, outweighed the conflict with the development plan in respect of Policy HOU4 and other identified harms, including harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’s landscape and scenic beauty. 

62.4           The current scheme was for six dwellings immediately adjacent to the extant permission for two dwellings and, therefore, in combination, represented a very similar scheme to the one for 11 dwellings that was initially rejected by Officers on the grounds of harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The Planning Officer pointed out that it was being considered in a different policy context with an established five year housing land supply and the adopted Joint Core Strategy.  The application was contrary to the adopted development plan and the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application on four grounds.  In terms of the principle of development, Toddington/Newtown was a named Service Village but the proposal did not accord with the Joint Core Strategy for distribution of development in respect of Policy SD10 (4ii) as it was not considered to be an infill plot within an existing built-up area.  The applicant had submitted further information, included in the Additional Representations Sheet attached at Appendix 1, suggesting that, given the recent appeal decisions for two individual plots on Cleeve Hill, the site should be considered as an infill site in the context of the Joint Core Strategy definition.  These were under-developed plots, well-related to the existing development and Officers did not see them as comparable to the current application which was for six dwellings and in a very different context.  In respect of defining what constituted an infill plot, there was no set of rules that could be universally applied; each application must be taken on its own merits, taking account of the local context.  It was not felt that the case could be made for an infill plot in this instance and the harm that would arise to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty would be significant, unlike the two individual plots at Cleeve Hill.  In any case, the Council could demonstrate a five year housing land supply and the development plan was not absent, silent or out of date in respect of new housing development.  Recent significant development in the Service Village meant there was no current urgent need for new housing land supply in Toddington itself.  On that basis, the proposal was considered to be contrary to Policy SDP2 and Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy and it should be determined in accordance with the development plan.  The second reason for refusal related to the form, character and design of the scheme.  Policy SD4 of the Joint Core Strategy required new development to respond positively to and respect its site and surroundings; however, this application represented back land development that did not reflect the existing settlement pattern and was not considered a positive design response, contrary to Policy SD4 of the Joint Core Strategy.  The third reason for refusal related to the impact on the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The site was located wholly within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in a prominent location entering Newtown from the north and would be viewed in combination with the two permitted dwellings.  It was considered that it would encroach on and erode the soft rural edge of the village and would not reflect the existing settlement pattern.  As such, it would result in significant and unacceptable harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, contrary to Policy SD7 of the Joint Core Strategy.  The final reason for refusal related to affordable housing and the Planning Officer explained that there was an error in the report as the applicant had submitted Heads of Terms for the provision of a commuted sum for off-site affordable housing.  This offer had been revised, as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, to take account of the scheme in combination with the two extant dwellings.  Whilst this offer still stood, should Members be minded to refuse the application, it was considered that the affordable housing reason should be included to enable affordable housing to be secured in the event of a planning appeal.

62.5           The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  He reiterated that this was an application for six houses in the Toddington Service Village as defined by the Joint Core Strategy.  The Joint Core Strategy pointed to new small scale housing growth in these villages and that was evidenced by the granting of planning permission for six houses on adjoining land only a few months earlier and four dwellings to the rear.  These neighbouring developments were under construction, as was the Newland Homes scheme for 30 plus dwellings just down the road.  Toddington had seen only 20% growth as part of its Service Village requirement and this application would only increase that to 22% - well below the 30% plus additions permitted in most of the other Service Villages to date.  This application was recommended for refusal based on a technicality of whether the development was in the built-up area and whether it was classed as infilling.  He made reference to the recent appeal decision on the Joint Core Strategy interpretation of infilling which was attached to the Additional Representations Sheet.  Here the Inspector had correctly established that infilling simply meant development of an under-developed plot well-related to the existing built-up area; this differed from the makeshift definition chosen in the Officer report.  He indicated that it was also established that under-developed simply meant a plot “currently free from development”.  The Inspector had clarified that infill did not need to be frontage development along a road; the appeal case was actually in backland form and abutted the countryside on two sides which was very similar to the case before Members and clearly fitted with the Joint Core Strategy in his view.  He was confused by the criticism of the form and density of the proposal in the Officer report and pointed out that this had been purposely copied from the neighbouring development to the south – he questioned how it could be harmful when it reflected exactly what had been built next door.  He also raised concern as to why the scheme was described as overly dense at eight dwellings per hectare when the Newland Homes scheme was considered to be an appropriate density at 17 dwellings per hectare.  He went on to indicate that the proposal had also been criticised for creating a second row of housing which was said to not reflect the single depth linear form of the village; however, Members would have seen that the Newlands Homes scheme provided a form of four deep housing which, ironically, was said to be “well-designed and reinforces local distinctiveness”.  The suggestion seemed to be that no more housing was needed post-adoption of the Joint Core Strategy; far from it, the Joint Core Strategy was a pro-growth strategy which relied on suitably sized schemes coming forward.  The best way to keep supply ticking over was to permit small scale schemes like this, built by local people, which the local community was happy to absorb and he highlighted that neither Toddington nor Stanway Parish Council had objected to this application.  A housing embargo would only result in another long period of undersupply which, as before, would open the flood gates for large scale housing in rural villages; small pockets of development was wanted, not village swamping and he hoped that Members would support the application.

62.6           The Development Manager indicated that the reference to the Coach House appeal decision was not, in the Officers’ view, particularly relevant to this case as it was a single plot and a very different context.  In terms of the appeal decisions, the appeal site for the proposed new dwelling included the Coach House and the Inspector had therefore considered it to be an under-developed plot in that context.  He reiterated that it was a completely different context for a single dwelling and each case needed to be considered on its own merits.  In terms of the criticism of the Officer report, he stressed that Officers certainly did not take the view that there was no need to deliver more housing.  Policy SD10 was a permissive policy in certain contexts; however, Officers maintained the view that this application was contrary to policy.  This was a matter of planning judgement, as was the case for the two dwellings permitted previously.  There were other material planning considerations which justified a departure from the development plan in respect of the two dwellings and the context in terms of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was very different to the application for two dwellings which was considered to cause limited harm.  Members would see from the Landscape Officer’s comments, and the Officer report, that the current proposal would result in significant harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in the Officers’ view and that was a key reason for the recommendation to refuse the application.

62.7           The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member explained that he had visited the site and seen what was happening in the area and the fact remained that Toddington had been identified as a Service Village which could accommodate growth, therefore, the proposal should be considered in a positive light.  The site was ideally situated in terms of its proximity to the local shop and the linear pattern of development which had once characterised the village had been altered by other housing developments in the area.  He did not believe that the proposal would result in significant harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, particularly when weighed against the fact that Service Villages needed to be developed.  For these reasons, he was not able to support the proposed refusal.  Upon being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application was lost.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be permitted on the basis that - by reason of its location, form, density and layout - it would not have an unacceptable impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, or the character and appearance of the village, and the economic and social benefits of delivering housing in this Service Village location - including contributions to affordable housing provision - would outweigh the conflicts with planning policies outlined in the Officer report.  The Planning Officer advised that, if Members were minded to permit the application, it should be subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the affordable housing contribution for the commuted sum for three dwellings off-site which had been offered by the applicant.  She also suggested the inclusion of a number of conditions relating to site levels and fluvial flood levels, landscaping, tree protection, highways, visibility splays, footway access, on-site parking, foul and surface water drainage, and the removal of permitted development rights.  The proposer and seconder of the motion confirmed they would be happy to amend their proposal to a delegated permit, subject to the completion of a Section 106 obligation in respect of affordable housing and to impose appropriate conditions and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 obligation in respect of affordable housing and the imposition of appropriate conditions.

16/01025/FUL – Wellington Meadows, Old Lane, Toddington

62.8           This application was for a proposed agricultural building.

62.9           The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to a Section 106 obligation to secure non-implementation of the extant planning permission reference 94/6064/0802/FUL and removal of the existing hardstanding, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to a Section 106 obligation to secure non-implementation of the extant planning permission reference 94/6064/0802/FUL and removal of the existing hardstanding.

17/00187/FUL – The Abbey Old House, Cowl Lane, Winchcombe

62.10         This application was for the demolition of a single storey wing, lean-to glasshouse and low garden wall, and erection of a single storey extension.

62.11         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

17/00188/LBC – The Abbey Old House, Cowl Lane, Winchcombe

62.12         This was a listed building consent application for the demolition of a single storey wing, lean-to glasshouse and low garden wall, and erection of a single storey extension.

62.13         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to grant consent and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be granted consent in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be GRANTED CONSENT in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

17/001184/APP – Land South of A46, Pamington Lane, Ashchurch

62.14         This was a reserved matters application to outline planning permission 14/00972/OUT relating to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale of the proposed development of plot numbers 46-54, 69-87, 96-102, 107-109, 118-123 and 132-150.

62.15         The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  He explained that the application sought to amend and substitute 17 plot numbers as identified in the Officer report.  By way of background, he advised that Linden Homes had submitted the reserved matters application jointly with Bloor Homes in 2015; since that application received consent, Bloor Homes had decided not to progress with the scheme and Linden Homes was taking forward the whole development.  As a result, it was seeking to substitute a number of plots, the majority of which were the previously approved Bloor house type designs.  This would create a more comprehensive scheme, as set out in the design compliance statement submitted in support of the application.  The road layout would remain the same as previously approved with only minor tweaks to plot drives to incorporate the plot substitutions.  The landscape and public open space designs remained as approved, with only minimal amendments to on-plot landscape designs where they had been affected by the house type substitution.  The replacement house types had been designed to reflect the approved designs.  He clarified that none of the affordable housing plots, or plots 1-45 to the west of the access road, were impacted by the revised application.

62.16         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to approve the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member queried whether the estate could adequately accommodate refuse and emergency vehicles if there was on-street parking.  In response, the Development Manager confirmed that County Highways did look at proposals in terms of refuse and emergency vehicles and no issues had been raised in relation to this particular application.  He recognised that this had been a problem on other estates in the past but Officers were satisfied in terms of this scheme.  Another Member drew attention to the streetscene elevations set out at Page No. 597/D of the Officer report, in particular the last house on the right of the bottom row with double eaves, and she questioned where this was on the layout plan on Page No. 597/C.  The Development Manager explained that it was on the northern edge facing MoD Ashchurch but was greyed out as it did not form part of the current application.

62.17         Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

17/01339/FUL – Tug Hill House, Hawling

62.18         This application was for demolition of a garage and annex; and erection of a single and double storey side and rear extension.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 9 February 2018.

62.19         The Chair invited a local resident to address the Committee.  He indicated that the low eaves and ridgelines of the original building had been added to significantly and the application now proposed further extensions, one of which would be higher than all other buildings despite being at a lower level – it would be the size of a house and more bulky than any other part of the building.  He did not consider this to represent good design of the type required by the Council’s policies or those within the National Planning Policy Framework, particularly when concerning a building recognised as a heritage asset.  He agreed with the Planning Officer that the proposed additions would have a more dominant appearance when the property was viewed as a whole but he did not agree that turning the block at right angles with its gable end facing the lane had reduced the dominance.  There were other public views from which the higher and larger extension would be seen and an extension dominating the original building could not represent good planning and design, or comply with policies that sought to respect the character, scale and proportion of the existing or original dwelling.  Historic England advice, referenced at Page No. 600, Paragraph 5.4 of the Officer report, supported this view stating that proportion, height, massing and bulk were some of the main issues to be addressed and setting out that it was not normally good practice for new work to dominate the original asset - or its setting - in either scale, materials or siting.  He considered that the cumulative increase in floor space at Tug Hill would be excessive and referred to the reason for refusing the previous application, set out at Page No, 600, Paragraph 5.1 of the Officer report, which was equally applicable to this application as the proposal included an extension that would be taller than the host building and, with its bulk, would represent poor design.  If a balanced judgement were to be made, this application should be refused for a similar reason to the 2016 proposal with reference also being made to the applicable policies of the Joint Core Strategy.  He hoped Members would take these comments into account and refuse the application.

62.20         The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  He indicated that the applicant had consulted directly with the Council’s Planning and Conservation Officers and, as part of that process, had pushed the footprint back and located the proposed extension further away from their neighbours, removing any first floor windows overlooking their property, keeping the ground floor glazing below the level of the existing wall and lowering the ridge and eave lines.  The design of the rear garden room had also been amended in accordance with the Conservation Officer’s advice.  He pointed out that the applicants had produced several more drawings for their neighbours to help them to understand that the impact to them would be minimal.  In his view, the applicants could not have been more reasonable, consultative or respectful of the neighbours, or the area in general.  In terms of subservience, which seemed key to the application, he indicated that this was not just about the setting of the lower ridge line but about how the designs were perceived in general.  Whilst a lower ridge line may be a good guide, it was not a definitive measure of subservience; it was about the relationship of the extension to the host building, massing, the shape and pitch of the roof, materials used and so on.  The Conservation Officer was the Council’s heritage and design expert and his guidance in respect of subservience had been accommodated.  Anecdotally, he advised that the applicant had originally approached architects which had advised them to exploit a loophole in permitted development rights which would allow the current footprint to be extended by up to five times.  The fact that the applicants had refused to pursue this because they felt it was underhand and disrespectful summed up their character.  They had done everything they could to make the application work, not just for them but for their neighbours and the village, and he hoped this would assist Members with their decision.

62.21         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed that the application be refused on the basis of its size and bulk and the impact on the neighbouring listed building; however, there was no seconder for the proposal.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

17/01042/APP – Crane Hill Farm, Woolstone

62.22         This application was for the erection of a general purpose agricultural building.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 9 February 2018.

62.23         The Development Manager advised that the current application had been submitted as a prior notification under Class A, Part 6 Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015.  He explained that certain agricultural buildings could be built under permitted development and the local authority could require prior approval based on siting, design and/or external appearance only.  Officers considered that prior approval was needed in this instance due to its prominent location in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and further information had been requested.  The applicant had subsequently provided this information and Officers considered that the proposal was acceptable in terms of siting, design and external appearance, therefore, it was recommended that prior approval be approved. 

62.24         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that prior approval be approved in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member noted that Oxenton Parish Council had objected to the proposal and he asked that the building be sited as low as possible.  A Member indicated that he had noted on the Committee Site Visit that there was a substantial ditch to the front which was likely to be lost given the size and scale of the proposed building and he questioned how water would be managed considering its location on an escarpment where water could only flow one way i.e. down towards neighbouring properties.  Another Member felt it was very important to consider the comments made by both Oxenton and Gotherington Parish Councils in relation to the impact of the building on a very sensitive site.  She reiterated the height of the proposed building and the need to try to filter the views toward it.  The proposer and seconder of the motion indicated they would be happy to include a levels condition in their proposal.  In terms of the ditch, the Development Manager clarified that the only matters that could be considered for this type of application were design, external appearance and siting; however, when the level details were received he undertook to consult the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer to ensure that they were not going down to a level that would result in an unacceptable impact.

62.25         Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That PRIOR APPROVAL be APPROVED in accordance with the Officer recommendation, with the addition of a levels condition.

17/01223/FUL – Land Adjacent to Farthing Cottage, Farm Lane, Great Witcombe

62.26         This application was for an extension to a holiday let and associated works.

62.27         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

17/01293/FUL – Land at Stallards Butts, Evesham Road, Bishop’s Cleeve

62.28         This application was for the erection of five detached houses and construction of a new vehicular access (revised proposal to 17/00858/FUL to reduce the garage size to plot 1).

62.29         A Member indicated that there seemed to be a conflict with the dates referenced at Page No. 611, Paragraph 2.2, and Page No. 613, Paragraph 5.5, of the Officer report.  In response, the Development Manager explained that an application for five detached houses on the site was permitted at Planning Committee in October 2017, subject to the completion of a Section 106 obligation; however, planning permission had not been formally issued until January 2018 subsequent to the Section 106 obligation having been completed.  Another Member raised concern that plots 1 and 2 were proposed to be four bed dwellings and yet the garage for plot 1 was being reduced.

62.30         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

17/01348/FUL – Kayte Farm, Southam Lane, Southam

62.31         This application was for change of use of an existing agricultural building for the storage of caravans. 

62.32         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

16/00738/OUT – Parcel 3745, Cheltenham Road East, Churchdown

62.33         This was an outline application for residential development comprising 465 new family homes, public open space, landscaping, drainage and other facilities with associated vehicular and pedestrian access.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 9 February 2018.

62.34         The Planning Officer clarified that the application sought outline planning permission for 465 dwellings and associated infrastructure with all other matters reserved.  The proposal would provide public open space and 35% affordable housing in accordance with the Joint Core Strategy policy requirement for strategic allocations.  The application site was located to the south-west of Parkside Drive and Dancey Road, Churchdown and formed part of the wider strategic allocation as set out in the Joint Core Strategy.  The indicative parameters plan showed how the site would be laid out with a single point of access from Cheltenham Road East with emergency only access to be provided from Parkside Drive.  There would be a landscaping buffer between the dwellings and Cheltenham Road East with an area of open space to the western corner of the site and a landscape strip along the northern boundary.  The application site was a strategic allocation in the Joint Core Strategy covered by Policy A2 which related to the wider Churchdown allocation that spanned Cheltenham Road East and the A40.  The policy set out that the three parcels which made up the allocation were expected to deliver 1,100 new dwellings, employment and community facilities with primary accesses from Cheltenham Road East, Pirton Lane and the A40.  In addition, the policy required the delivery of green infrastructure, flood risk management and community facilities. 

62.35         He advised that Churchdown Parish Council had raised concerns around the proposal being premature in terms of the Joint Core Strategy, loss of Green Belt, highways, traffic, flooding, education, infrastructure, open space and emergency access to Parkside Drive, amongst other things.  Since that representation was received, the Joint Core Strategy had been allocated and the land removed from the Green Belt.  With regard to the specific issues, the application had been assessed both on its own merits and in terms of the wider strategic allocation to ensure that development could be brought forward without prejudicing the remaining two parcels of land.  The Planning Officer clarified that the applicant and owner of the site had no control over the other two parcels of land and they were some way behind in the planning process in terms of coming forward.  The Joint Core Strategy housing trajectory expected 50 dwellings to be delivered across the allocation in 2019 and this was an opportunity to consider an application to meet those housing requirements.

62.36         In terms of specific impacts, the proposal had been considered by statutory consultees and their comments were set out in the Officer report.  Concern had been raised in highway terms regarding the impact on Cheltenham Road East and the Elmbridge Court roundabout and it was reiterated that the highway impact had been assessed in terms of this application and the wider cumulative impact of the strategic allocation as a whole.  Policy A2 relating to the application stated that the parcel of land had to be accessed from Cheltenham Road East and Pirton Lane and the proposed access to the site was in compliance with that.  Highways England had assessed the proposal and was satisfied that the development would not adversely impact the strategic road network.  The local County Highways Authority had assessed the traffic generation of the development and the wider strategic allocation and was satisfied there was sufficient capacity on the road network to accommodate the development.  The northern and western parts of the site were subject to flooding and the application had been assessed by the Lead Local Flood Authority which had raised no objection, subject to a condition in respect of the submission of precise details on attenuation which was usual for a large application such as this.  The proposed conditions were set out in the Officer report.  With regard to education, school places in the area were limited and the education authority required contributions to be used flexibly, either to provide resources to existing schools or to provide a new school.  Policy A2 did not require the provision of a school on the allocation, and the application proposal was too small to generate the need for a school on site, but there may be something which the education authority wanted to explore or use the funds towards.  In addition, the application would provide areas of public open space including pockets of play areas within the residential development, larger parcels of open space to the north-west corner and a landscape buffer across the site to provide transition to open countryside.  Officers were working through the requirements but would be seeking a contribution to improve the local playing pitch provision and to increase the capacity at local facilities such as John Daniel’s field.  The application was recommended for delegated permission in order to allow Officers to conclude the Section 106 negotiations and finalise any further action required as regards conditions.

62.37         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  He explained that the site had been discussed extensively with Officers over the last four years which had resulted in the resolution of technical issues and, consequently, its allocation in the Joint Core Strategy.  The site would bring forward 465 dwellings, a policy compliant level of affordable housing provision and an agreed amount of Section 106 contributions towards education, highways infrastructure and local green space.  The Joint Core Strategy was predicated on the timely delivery of housing at the strategic allocations and South Churchdown was identified in the trajectory to begin delivering in 2019 – this was the only parcel of land within the allocation that was able to begin to deliver much needed homes within this timeframe, subject to planning permission being granted.  The impact on the local road network in this location would be mitigated through improvement measures identified within this proposal; of critical importance was the Elmbridge roundabout.  Ongoing discussions had been held with County Highways and the agreed solutions had been robustly assessed.  The access from Cheltenham Road East had also been subject to rigorous assessment and, in order to comply with the wording in Joint Core Strategy policy, had been designed to facilitate a signalised crossroads enabling access to the southern part of the allocation if required in the future.  In addition, they had worked with the Council’s Urban Design Officer to ensure the site was safe and accessible for pedestrians and that provision had been made for crossing points across Cheltenham Road East to promote pedestrian movement throughout the South Churchdown site.  With regard to flood risk, the site had been assessed by the Environment Agency and the Lead Local Flood Authority which had raised no objection and the application dealt comprehensively with surface water, drainage and flood risk mitigation.  No other objections had been raised from stakeholders.  Granting planning permission would not prejudice the remainder of the South Churchdown allocation and would allow housing to begin to be delivered in a planned for and joined up manner.  On that basis, he hoped that Members would feel able to support the delivery of this allocated site.

62.38         The Chair invited a local Ward Member to address the Committee.  She reiterated that the application site formed part of the Joint Core Strategy strategic allocation South Churchdown which was for the construction of 1,100 dwellings.  As a Member of the Joint Core Strategy Member Steering Group, she had asked if developers would be able to cherry pick parts of the strategic site for development and had been assured by Planning Officers that all strategic sites would need to be masterplanned to ensure the best outcomes with regard to access and infrastructure as per Policy SA1.  As such, she had been surprised to see this application being recommended for delegated permission.  Pages No. 628-629, Paragraphs 6.1-6.6, of the Officer report attempted to give reasons for the omission of a masterplan but she disagreed that the application complied fully with Policies SA1 and A2 of the Joint Core Strategy.  She considered that the provision of contributions towards education was a major reason why the application should be refused; Churchdown Parish Council and some of the individual objections cited the lack of school places as a reason for refusal and she totally agreed.  The revised Education Contribution Statement received by Officers on 2 October 2017 – which had not been included in the Committee papers – clearly stated that there was no capacity in the local schools, both primary and secondary, to admit any of the children from this site and that the full development of the South Churchdown strategic allocation would require the addition of a three form entry primary school, hence the need for a masterplan.  She questioned where the new school would be built if the site was split.  Whilst she appreciated that the developer would make Section 106 contributions towards education, as set out at Page No. 637, Paragraph 16 of the Officer report, this money would be no use to the children of the families in the 465 dwellings who would not be able to find local school places.  She pointed out that the school in Longford had been built during the first phase of development and that was what should be happening here.  Paragraph 16.1 of the Officer report referenced community, education and library provision and stated that “Policy INF4 of the Joint Core Strategy highlighted that permission would not be provided for development unless the infrastructure and public services necessary to enable the development to take place were either available or could be provided; Policies INF6 and INF7 of the Joint Core Strategy supported this requirement.  The National Planning Policy Framework stated that the government attached great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places was available to meet the needs of existing and new communities”.  In light of there being no masterplanning on the Churchdown South strategic site, and given that there was currently no capacity in the local schools for the children of families moving into these homes, she asked that the Committee reject the application.  If it was permitted it could set a precedent for developers to cherry pick parts of strategic sites with no regard to the overall site development.

62.39         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to resolving the outstanding highways, open space and community facility contributions; additional/amended planning conditions; and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure various Heads of Terms, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused on the basis of prematurity and the lack of a comprehensive masterplan for the South Churchdown strategic allocation and due to the inadequate provisions for education and the adverse highways impact that would result from additional traffic generated by the development.  The proposer of the motion indicated that she was deeply concerned about the education aspect and lack of school places in the area. The roads in the area were already congested, particularly at peak times, and she felt that local knowledge must be taken into consideration.  The seconder of the motion pointed out that some of these issues could be resolved with a masterplan for the strategic allocation. 

62.40         A Member indicated that he was extremely concerned about what the local Ward Member had said in relation to the lack of school places in the area and he questioned how a development of 465 houses could be delivered without the infrastructure to support it.  The Development Manager reminded Members that the site was part of a strategic allocation in the Joint Core Strategy and, whilst he noted Members’ concerns, he clarified that highway issues had been debated during the development plan process.  This was an outline application and it needed to demonstrate there would be satisfactory solutions and to show that the delivery of 465 houses would not cause an unacceptable impact on the network when the detailed applications came in.  He reiterated that specialist consultees had been consulted on the application including Highways England, which was responsible for the strategic road network i.e. A40 and M5, and County Highways, which looked after the local road network, and both had been heavily involved throughout the Joint Core Strategy process.  The consultees had considered the application in terms of the 465 houses proposed and also in the wider context of the strategic allocation.  The same was true of education; Gloucestershire County Council had been involved as the local education authority and had been consulted throughout the Joint Core Strategy process as well as on this particular application where the importance of the wider strategic allocation had also been stressed.  Gloucestershire County Council had indicated that, subject to conditions, there was no reason to withhold planning permission.  Prematurity was a very difficult argument - as had been demonstrated in one of the Bishop’s Cleeve appeals - particularly given the views expressed by the specialists involved, and that was the context in which Officers had made their recommendation.  In terms of education, the Planning Officer explained that the education authority had assessed that the development would generate an additional 130 primary school pupils once built-out in its entirety and a Section 106 contribution had been requested in order to provide additional education capacity in surrounding schools. Whilst the wider strategic allocation was large enough to require a new primary school, it was unclear when other schemes may come forward, therefore it would be necessary to secure some land within the development site to allow temporary provision of school places if needed – this might be an expansion of existing schools or a temporary location for a new school. 

62.41         Whilst he understood that Officers relied on the advice given by the specialist consultees, the Member expressed the view that it would have been beneficial for representatives to attend the Committee in order to explain their position and answer any questions Members may have.  Another Member raised concern that the Committee had not been provided with a copy of the Education Contribution Statement, referenced by the local Ward Member in her speech.  A Member indicated that he would like the opportunity to question the Lead Local Flood Authority.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded, that the application be deferred in order to secure more detailed information on education, highways and drainage matters and to invite statutory consultees to attend the Committee. 

62.42         During the debate which ensued, a Member reiterated that this was a strategic site and Members had been clear throughout the development plan process that it should come forward in a comprehensive way. She could not see how the proposed infrastructure to link the sites would go ahead if nobody else wanted to build on the rest of the land.  Another Member pointed out that this had happened before with the South Cheltenham site – Members had been advised by Officers that if the development went ahead it would be done comprehensively and yet planning permission had been refused for the site within the Cheltenham Borough area leaving the site within Tewkesbury Borough without a school or shop.  He totally agreed with the local Ward Member that a masterplan was crucial and that the strategic allocation should not be delivered on a piecemeal basis.  A Member indicated that she had been surprised at the level of noise generated by existing traffic when she had visited the application site and she had concerns about the cumulative impact of the new development. 

62.43         A Member pointed out that the Council had spent a long time producing a development plan for the area and it was important that it now started to deliver the housing which was set out in the Joint Core Strategy.  Notwithstanding this, he appreciated the points that had been made about the lack of information and felt this could be addressed through a deferral; however, he urged Members to consider the bigger picture – the Joint Core Strategy had been adopted and housing would be delivered in Churchdown regardless of personal opinions as to whether this was wanted or not.  The Development Manager reiterated the strategic nature of the site and the importance of delivering housing in terms of the five year housing supply going forward and the trajectory of the Joint Core Strategy.  He was not suggesting permitting all development at any cost but it was necessary to consider the advice of the specialist consultees.  He explained that South Cheltenham was a very different context and this site had been removed as an allocation during the Joint Core Strategy process.  Ideally sites would come forward with a single developer and a single development but that had not happened, nor was it likely to happen.  This proposal had been treated as part of a wider scheme and consultees had been asked to consider it in that way as Officers were keen to ensure that permitting this application would not prejudice the remainder of the strategic allocation coming forward.  Members had indicated that they needed additional information and, if they were minded to defer the application, he would endeavour to ensure that the specialist advisers were available when the application was brought back before the Committee.  In the event that they did not come to the meeting, a Member asked that full reports be provided and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED to secure more detailed information on education, highways and drainage matters and to invite statutory consultees to the Committee meeting.

17/00449/OUT – Local Centre Plots 7 & 8, Cleevelands, Bishop’s Cleeve

62.44         This application was for the erection of up to 30 dwellings (Class C3).  The application had been deferred at the last meeting of the Committee in order to investigate the marketing of the site for live-work units, to provide further advice generally on the site’s status and for Officers to have further discussions with the developer.

62.45         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  He noted the concern that had been raised at the last meeting in terms of the live-work units at Cleevelands and whether they had been adequately marketed.  He clarified that the previous outline planning permission for Cleevelands had now lapsed so it was not possible to submit any further reserved matters applications - for live-work units or anything else - and the current application was essentially writing a new chapter for the local centre.  He drew attention to the letter from Bruton Knowles, the key property consultant for the area, set out at Pages No. 651/C-651/E of the Officer report.  The site had been marketed for live-work units and the employment element but there had been no expressions of interest since March 2013.  The only serious expression of interest had been from a private investor that was considering a speculative development of small commercial units; however, having conducted their own research, they had come to the conclusion that the site was unsuitable for taking forward.  There had been no other expressions of interest in either of the uses at the Cleevelands local centre.  He reiterated that there had been attempts to find potential developers and occupiers for the live-work units; however, if such plots were delivered in the current planning context, they would remain vacant which was not a positive planning solution.  It would be better if the local centre was completed in some form and he hoped that Members would support the application.

62.46         In response to a Member query regarding housing numbers, the Development Manager clarified that the sum total of dwellings on site was 520 through reserved matters approvals; should this application be permitted this would bring the total number of dwellings permitted on the Cleevelands site to 550.  The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manger to permit the application, subject to the completion of Section 106 Agreements to secure 40% affordable housing and contributions towards the village hall (£40,974.90), libraries (£5,880) and education (£224,881), and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the completion of Section 106 Agreements to secure 40% affordable housing and contributions towards the village hall (£40,974.90), libraries (£5,880) and education (£224,881).