Agenda item

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

72.1           The Technical Planning 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, together with a plan in respect of application 18/01180/FUL, 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.

18/00940/FUL – 3 Saffron Road, Tewkesbury

72.2          This application was for erection of a two-storey side and rear extension (revised application ref: 13/00211/FUL).  The application was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 19 February 2019 for a Committee Site Visit to assess the Town Council’s concerns.  The Committee had visited the application site on Monday 18 March 2019.

72.3          The Chair invited the representative from Tewkesbury Town Council to address the Committee.  The Town Council representative explained that the Town Council had consistently objected to this application on the grounds that it created a ‘right to light’ issue for the Tudor Room which was situated to the rear of 3 Saffron Road.  The Town Council held the title to the property which accommodated a bar and meeting room for users of the George Watson Memorial Hall, of which it was sole trustee.  She advised that the Town Council had made improvements to the venue, including refurbishment to the bar, stage provision and staff resources for promoting and marketing the hall.  A marked increase in bookings meant that the Tudor Room had become a popular venue and the room was used for both daytime and evening events including parties, weddings and corporate meetings and by schools and community groups.  The Hall’s recent increase in bookings was recognised in the exceedance of the set income target; this was an important resource for revenue income for the Town Council, benefitting the local economy and the community.   The Hall had regular weekly uses, such as pole dancing classes and an NHS care session, and evening events including Northern Soul dance, Tewkesbury Town Band and larger music nights with confirmed bookings up to 2020.  Page No. 651, Paragraph 5.13 of the Officer report described usage of the Tudor Room as ‘sporadic’ but this was far from the case with 59 bookings over a period of 92 days between March and May and potentially more to come.  The report also described the effect of the proposed extension being ‘as it would have been in the event that the previous 2013 proposal were implemented’.; however, she indicated that the drawings for the 2013 proposal clearly showed that the proposed extension was only one storey high along the wall closest to and parallel with the Tudor Room, whereas the current proposal was for a much higher wall with gables above which would cast a much larger shadow on the building which lay just one metre to the north.  She went on to explain that natural lighting levels were already quite low in the Tudor Room and, prior to the Committee meeting on 19 February 2019, Members and Officers had received modelling information from the Town Council demonstrating that the proposed development would cast the rear wall and window of the Tudor Room into shade for a significant part of each afternoon, making the room darker, cooler and damp, thus rendering it less attractive to potential users.  It was likely that the Town Council would face higher costs in trying to counteract this effect, which ultimately would impact on users and parishioners.  For these reasons, the Town Council urged the Committee to refuse the application.

72.4          The Chair sought clarification of the status of the ‘right to light’ argument.  In response, the Technical Planning Manager advised that this was separate legislation and the Committee should be mindful of that whilst making a judgement on the effect it may have in planning terms; the Council’s position was clearly set out within the Officer’s report.  In terms of what the Town Council representative had said in relation to the usage of the building, and the light which it already received in comparison to the previous and current applications, the Council’s view remained unchanged and Members would have seen this for themselves on the Committee Site Visit.  This was a material consideration which had to be weighed in the balance of the impact on the light to the room and Officers believed there would not be an unacceptable impact given the previous planning permission.  He explained that there was a two storey element which had been reduced to a single storey lean-to closest to the window to the Watson Hall; because there had been a two storey element, it was not felt there would be a marked difference in relation to the light received in the room.  The Legal Adviser clarified that, as a land matter, the Town Council may have a right to light above and beyond what was acceptable in planning policy terms. 

72.5           A Member noted that an additional representation from Tewkesbury Town Council, covering the points raised in the speech given by the Town Council representative, had been circulated to Members but was not included on the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, and assurance was provided that this would be included in the version attached to the Minutes of the meeting.  The Member went on to indicate that it was evident from the Committee Site Visit that the wall had not been built in accordance with the plan and she understood that the Planning Enforcement Team had been notified.  In response, the Technical Planning Manager clarified that Members were required to make a decision based on the plans before them and he gave assurance that the build would be monitored so that it was being constructed in accordance with those plans; should that not be the case, there were enforcement powers available and they would be utilised. 

72.6           A Member indicated that he had been surprised from the Committee Site Visit at the proximity of the buildings to the Watson Hall and he questioned whether this would be adequate in terms of fire regulations.  Another Member echoed this and also raised concern as to whether the footings were correct.  The Technical Planning Manager explained that footings were a building regulations matter and this would be taken up with the relevant bodies.  In terms of proximity in respect of fire regulations, again, this would not be a planning matter, but he suspected this application was no different to any number of buildings in the Town Centre which were very close together.  A Member went on to indicate that Page No. 651, Paragraph 5.12 of the Officer report set out that a gap of one metre between the extension and the Watson Hall would be maintained as a maintenance strip and expressed the view that this would be needed fairly soon as it had been very difficult to get around the corner into the courtyard on the Committee Site Visit. 

72.7           The Chair reminded Members of the need to determine the application before them.  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.  The proposer of the motion indicated that she had great sympathy with the Town Council; however, there were a number of similar businesses in Tewkesbury Town with a very limited amount of natural light which were reliant on artificial light and there were measures that could be taken to improve the atmosphere and ambiance, for instance, installing rooflights to bring more natural light in.  The Council had a duty to provide more places for people to live and, with a heavy heart, she considered that there was no real planning reason to refuse the application   The seconder of the motion sought assurance that the development would be closely monitored by Building Control given the concerns that had been stated regarding the footings etc. and the Technical Planning Manager confirmed this would be raised with the appropriate teams.  Upon being put to the vote it was

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

18/01180/FUL – Rose Cottage, Main Street, Dumbleton

72.8          This application was for replacement of two first floor windows and retention of three windows and a door on the front elevation.

72.9          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.  A Member noted that the Council’s previous Conservation Officer had objected to the proposal and he questioned what had changed to make it acceptable.  The Planning Officer explained that an application had been submitted in late 2017 as windows had been fitted previously without planning consent.  He confirmed that the previous Conservation Officer had no concerns regarding the sash windows but had suggested that changes be made to the top two windows.  The application had subsequently been withdrawn and negotiations had taken place which had resulted in the Conservation Officer’s concerns being addressed and the application before Members was for retention of the lower sash windows and the door with the two top windows to be changed in accordance with the details submitted with the application.  A Member pointed out that the plans appeared to be showing completely different windows to those described in the report and the Planning Officer circulated a copy of the plan showing the replacement window details as proposed.  He confirmed that the top two windows were referenced as three-light casement windows which was more in line with what was there previously, prior to the fitted windows.  In response to a Member query, the Planning Officer indicated that he understood the window panes would be equally sized and the window opening itself would remain the same; he confirmed this was in line with the design recommended by the previous Conservation Officer.  

72.10        During the debate which ensued, Members raised concern about the size and spacing of the windows and it was suggested that it would be preferable for the windows to stay as they were.  The Chair queried whether this could be achieved through a delegated permission as he shared concerns over the proposed replacements in terms of the thickness of UPVC windows and the size of the actual window panes themselves.  The Technical Planning Manager confirmed that, should the Committee wish to revert back to what had been fitted, a delegated permission would be an appropriate way to deal with that.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application subject to the amendment of the application to the retention of five windows and a door on the front elevation, and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Technical Planning Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the amendment of the application to the retention of five windows and a door on the front elevation.

18/00794/APP – Land Behind Newton Cottages, Ashchurch Road

72.11        This application was for the approval of reserved matters pursuant to outline planning permission 14/00343/OUT (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for 44 dwellings and open space (access previously approved). 

72.12        The Planning Officer advised that further landscape details had been submitted as required by the Council’s Landscape Adviser, but Officers were yet to receive any feedback.  There had been positive discussions with the applicant regarding amendments to improve the external appearance in terms of the layout of the windows and detailed design, and affordable housing had been discussed with the Council’s legal advisers who had confirmed that an off-site financial contribution could be secured through a deed of variation to the original Section 106 Agreement.  As such, the application was recommended for a delegated approval, subject to resolution of the outstanding issues relating to levels, landscaping, design of housetypes and off-site affordable housing, as set out at Page No. 661 of the Officer report.  It was noted that the recommendation at Page No. 657 of the Officer report was incorrect and should state ‘Delegated Approve’.

72.13        A Member noted that the Parish Council had raised concern that no solar panels were shown on any of the properties and she asked whether there were plans to include them.  The Planning Officer confirmed that no solar panels were proposed as part of the application and there was no requirement for them to be provided in the original outline planning permission; whilst it could be raised with the applicant, there was no planning mechanism to require them as part of this application. 

72.14         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for the application.  The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Technical Planning Manager to approve the application, subject to resolution of the outstanding issues relating to levels, landscaping, design of housetypes and off-site affordable housing, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager to approve the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member noted that the Parish Council was concerned with drainage and flooding and queried why the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer had not been consulted on the proposal despite Page No. 657, Paragraph 1.2 of the Officer report referring to the site being located in various flood zones.  Given that this development was for 44 dwellings, and taking into account the Council’s Flood and Water Management Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), he was of the view that it was significant enough to warrant comment from the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer.  The Planning Officer drew attention to Page No. 660, Paragraph 5.20 of the Officer report which set out that the impact on surface water drainage had been considered at the outline application stage and was covered by a condition in the outline planning permission which required the specific details to be approved prior to the commencement of development.  Another Member noted that Page No. 658, Paragraph 3.5 of the Officer report mentioned that a dog waste bin would be provided in the informal open space to the southern part of the site and she sought clarification that Ubico would be required to empty that bin given that normal refuse bins could be used to dispose of that waste.  The Technical Planning Manager indicated that this was not a matter for the determination of this application but it was useful information and he would speak to his colleagues at Ubico on that matter.

72.15         Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Technical Planning Manager to APPROVE the application, subject to resolution of the outstanding issues relating to levels, landscaping, design of housetypes and off-site affordable housing.

18/00535/FUL – Car Park at Church Road, Churchdown

72.16        This was an application for a temporary change of use of parking space for stationing of mobile catering vehicle for six months.

72.17        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that the applicant would take care to keep the site clear of rubbish and to keep disturbance to a minimum.  He confirmed that CCTV would be available to help reduce crime and anti-social behaviour.  The applicant had many years experience in the business and would be grateful for the opportunity to provide a service to the community.

72.18        A Member questioned what the benefit of a six month temporary permission would be, bearing in mind the comments that had been received from Gloucestershire Police about potential anti-social behaviour issues in the location.  The Technical Planning Manager explained that a temporary permission would give time to establish whether any of the perceived concerns came to fruition; a six month period would be long enough to establish whether the van was being used regularly and if it was causing any problems in reality.  The applicant’s agent had indicated that CCTV would be available and that was something which Officers could check.  If after the six months it was clear that there were issues, a further application could be robustly refused at that stage.  In response to a query as to whether the applicant had applied for a street trading licence, the Technical Planning Manager advised that this was not a planning consideration but, should planning permission be granted, a note could be included in the decision notice to explain that the applicant needed to apply for a street trading licence before he started trading. 

72.19        The Chair indicated that 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 refused on the basis that the proposal was likely to give rise to anti-social behaviour and have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of nearby residents including noise from the vehicles and odours arising from its use.  A brief debate ensued regarding use of the car park and concerns were raised as to whether there would be enough spaces for residents and local businesses.  A Member pointed out that there were already shops and restaurants in the area and questioned whether there was a need for a mobile catering van.  A Member drew attention to Page No. 663, Paragraph 3.3 of the Officer report which stated that the application would only result in a reduction of one car parking space, from 50 spaces to 49 spaces, but she felt that would not be the case in reality and asked whether this could be guaranteed.  The Technical Planning Manager drew attention to Page No. 665, Paragraph 5.10 of the Officer report and explained that the applicant had confirmed the takeaway business would operate between the hours of 1700 and 2300 and he did not anticipate the car park being full at those times.  A Member disagreed with this view as this would be the peak time for use by patrons of the nearby club which had a bar and skittle alley.  A Member pointed out that the consultee response from Gloucestershire Police appeared to conflict with Page No. 664, Paragraph 5.5 of the Officer report and wondered which was more accurate.  Another Member agreed that the location did not make sense and he could not support the proposal.  The Technical Planning Manager stressed that there was no evidence that loss of one to three car parking spaces would have a harmful impact; the County Highways Officer had raised no objection and there was additional on-street parking in the area so the Committee did not have evidence to robustly justify a refusal reason on those grounds.  In terms of the issues relating to anti-social behaviour, Members needed to consider whether they outweighed the benefits to the community.  There was a difference between fear of anti-social behaviour and having actual evidence – there was currently no evidence but there was a fear and the Police had provided comments which should be taken into consideration.  A Member indicated that the Police were frequently asked by local residents what they were doing about anti-social behaviour and he felt that they should be supported in trying to take action by objecting to this proposal.  Another Member shared this view and pointed out that the Police did not have the manpower to deal with anti-social behaviour arising from this type of outlet and he could not support the proposal.  A Member expressed the view that the application should be refused and he pointed out that litter was a problem with mobile catering businesses and he suspected there would be issues in respect of the recycling bins on the car park because of waste contamination.  Car parking was vital for the economy and tourism and, as the borough did not have an oversupply of car parking, he was concerned that permitting this application may lead to similar applications in other car parks. 

72.20        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be REFUSED on the basis that the proposal was likely to give rise to anti-social behaviour and have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of nearby residents including noise from the vehicles and odours arising from its use.

19/00024/FUL – 47 Pecked Lane, Bishop’s Cleeve

72.21        This application was for the demolition of a detached rear garage and erection of a two storey side and single storey rear extension. 

72.22        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that the two upstairs bedrooms were very small and the extension would allow an extra room to be created and provide room for his family to grow.  The new downstairs layout would allow the existing garage to be knocked down and brought forward, stepped back from the front line of the house and in line with the dining room at the front.  This would take up the drive area running down the side of the house and into the garden of the existing garage still leaving enough off-street parking for four to five cars.  He believed the design would work well as there would be an external/internal passageway running through the new garage and extension, leaving access to the back garden if needed.  He noted that there was an objection from the Parish Council on overdevelopment grounds but Pecked Lane contained a mix of housing and the majority had been extended at some point.  He and his family liked living in the area and hoped this proposal would allow them to stay there.

72.23        The Chair indicated that 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.

19/00029/FUL – Cuckoo Farm, Southam Lane, Southam

72.24         This application was for retention of a storage barn.

72.25         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.  A Member understood that an agricultural use application for a proposed new agricultural building for the storage of hay and farm machinery had been determined as ‘prior approval not required’ in October 2018 and the applicant had subsequently gone ahead with the development; however, the barn had been built in a different location and was a different size from that set out in the application and she sought clarification as to where it should have been located and the difference in size.  Another Member indicated that it was approximately two to three metres away from where it should have been and was one or two metres higher than any of the surrounding buildings.  It was worrying that it had not been built in accordance with the plans and he was looking for assurance it was only being used for agricultural storage and hay.  The Planning Officer clarified that the building was sited approximately 30 metres further to the south than in the agricultural use application but was the same size and was in close proximity to adjacent agricultural buildings.  A Member raised concern that the building had not been built in the correct location, particularly as it was within the Green Belt; whilst she recognised there was separate planning policy for agricultural buildings within the Green Belt, this was an enormous building compared to existing buildings and was somewhat of an eyesore.  She felt it would be beneficial for Members to see this for themselves.  In response to a Member question as to whether the barn was sited at a different level to that permitted, the Planning Officer stated that the whole site was fairly flat.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be deferred for a Planning Committee Site Visit and, upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED for a Planning Committee Site Visit in order to assess the impact of the siting of the building.

18/00549/OUT – Racecourse Garage, Evesham Road, Bishop’s Cleeve

72.26         This was an outline application for the demolition of the existing car sales office building and canopy and the erection of six dwellings with all matters reserved.

72.27        The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  The applicant’s representative indicated that the starting point for the application was the appeal inspector’s decision in 2013 which had determined that nine houses was too many for the site.  This had been addressed by reducing the amount by one third to six new homes.  The application for six houses gave a better feeling of relative openness; ensured the site would not look overcrowded; eliminated potential parking issues on Cantor’s Drive by having County Highways approved accesses from the Cheltenham Road; and ensured there would be no loss of local business as a major part of the business was already internet-based with the plan to make it 100% online going forward.  He pointed out that the site was originally a petrol-filling station before becoming a car sales site and the contaminated land report that had been produced previously may now need updating, even though nothing untoward had been found.  It had also been requested that a noise assessment be produced to make certain that residents could enjoy their new homes; this application removed the potential noise and disturbance of a commercial site right on the doorsteps of Cantor’s Drive and nearby homes.  He went on to indicate that the housing now being proposed would be of good quality and would remove the brownfield site from the entrance to the village and a comprehensive landscaping scheme would help soften the impact on the important gateway to the village.  The application had been the subject of long and detailed discussions with the Planning Department which had resulted in an acceptable proposal and he thanked the Planning Officer for her guidance on these sensitive matters.

72.28        The Planning Officer drew attention to Page No. 675, Paragraph 3.4 of the Officer report which stated that the proposal had been subject to revisions, including a reduction in the number of dwellings proposed and changes to the illustrative site layout in response to Officer concerns and consultee responses; this meant that a new notification and consultation period had been carried out which had expired the previous day.  One objection from a local resident had been received too late for inclusion on the Additional Representations Sheet; however, no new matters had been raised, therefore the Officer recommendation had been changed from a delegated permit to permit.

72.29        The Chair indicated that 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 put to the vote, it was

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

18/00803/FUL – Deanwood Lodge, Church Road, Maisemore

72.30         This application was for internal reconfiguration and refurbishment of an existing elderly and dementia care home into a 13 bed residence for people with learning difficulties; external works included the installation of additional windows and doors and the removal of an existing external escape stairway. 

72.31         The Planning Officer drew attention to Page No. 687, Paragraph 5.21 of the Officer’s report where it was stated that it was likely that the applicant would be required to enter into a legal agreement to secure the future occupation of the units and advised that this was still being considered so there was no further update in this regard; however, the Officer report only made reference to securing an appropriate planning obligation and it was necessary to update that to include appropriate conditions in case that was a suitable option.  The Officer recommendation had therefore been amended to a delegated permit, subject to securing the form of occupation by appropriate condition and/or planning obligation.

72.32         The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  The applicant’s representative explained that Deanwood Lodge was a 47 bed care home for the elderly which had closed in mid-2018.  This application was for a 13 bed residence to provide assisted living units for persons with learning difficulties and autism, some of whom also had physical conditions, as opposed to people with mental health conditions.  It would provide a chance for them to learn to live independently, for example, how to cook, clean and pay bills.  All would be referred by the NHS or Gloucestershire County Council and would be supported by professional staff; support would range from around four hours per day to 24 hours per day.  He clarified that there would be less residents, less staff and fewer deliveries and comings and goings than there had been previously and the physical changes to the building were minor.  The developer had a proven track record of operating this type of use without any adverse impacts and he hoped that the Committee would support this important facility.

72.33         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to securing the form of occupation by appropriate condition and/or planning obligation, and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member indicated that he had noted that, when the Parish Council had debated the proposal, several concerns had been raised regarding on-street parking in Church Road and he questioned whether it was possible to condition the application to require residents, staff and visitors to the care home to use the on-site parking.  The Parish Council had previously requested County Highways to paint double yellow lines along Church Road as cars often had to wait to make a right hand turn at the junction due to the way vehicles were parked along the road; unfortunately, this had not been possible as it could not be policed by County Highways. The Technical Planning Manager understood these concerns but it was considered that the development would not result in an intensification of the use of the site over and above the former care home use and parking would be available on site.  In the same way it was not possible for County Highways to police the double yellow lines, the Council would not be able to enforce a condition restricting parking along Church Road.  The Member recognised the value of the establishment being proposed, and that 13 beds was less than the 47 beds within the previous dementia care facility, and proposed that authority be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to securing the form of occupation by appropriate condition and/or planning obligation, in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  This proposal was duly seconded and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Technical Planning Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to securing the form of occupation by appropriate condition and/or planning obligation.

18/00109/APP – Land at Perrybrook to the North of Brockworth and to the South of the A417, Brockworth

72.34        This was an approval of reserved matters application (appearance, layout, landscaping and scale) comprising Phase 3 of outline planning permission 12/01256/OUT for the erection of 225 dwellings with public open space, play area and associated infrastructure, and including the discharge of outline conditions (as amended): 2 (reserved matters time limit), 5 (design compliance), 8 (surface water drainage strategy – all phases), 9 (floor levels – flood risk), 10 (sewage disposal – phase 3), 12 (trees), 24 (noise assessment – phase 3) and 28 (waste minimisation).

72.35         The Planning Officer drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, in relation to the amendment of condition 6 in respect of specifications of proposed window systems, ventilation and the acoustic fence.  She advised that the wording of the condition had been discussed with the Council’s Environmental Health Officer who was satisfied that the proposed window and ventilation systems set out in the acoustic report were satisfactory and it was therefore proposed that the condition be amended to remove the reference to the need for future details in that regard but to retain the need to secure further details of the acoustic fence.  In terms of the two conditions in relation to highways, discussions had been ongoing since the publication of the Officer report and she advised that condition 8 had been satisfactorily resolved following receipt of amended plans in relation to the plots so County Highways was happy that it could be removed.  In respect of condition 9, County Highways was still discussing the details required with the applicant; however, the Officer recommendation was for a delegated approval in order to resolve minor matters concerning highways and any other revisions to conditions and, should Members be minded to approve the application, it was possible that condition could be resolved and removed prior to issuing a decision notice which would achieve a cleaner planning permission going forward.

72.36         A Member questioned what the density would be and whether there had been any police assessment of blind spots etc.  He also noted that parking for Unit 56 ran through a retained hedge and sought an explanation as to why that would not have to be removed.  He also pointed out that the Council’s Housing Enabling Officer had no objection and sought assurance that the 40% model for affordable housing was being used.  Furthermore, the report stated that the Environmental Health Officer had no objection as the noise assessment appeared satisfactory and he asked for confirmation that it was satisfactory.  In respect of flooding and drainage, he indicated that the outline planning permission had been granted before the County Council had become the Lead Local Flood Authority and prior to approval of the Council’s Flood and Water Management SPD.  He believed a Surface Water Management Plan had since been produced for Brockworth so he was surprised there had been no comment on the application from the Lead Local Flood Authority.  He drew attention to Page No. 690, Paragraph 1.3 of the Officer report which set out that the banks of the Horsbere Brook were immediately south of the site and fell within Flood Zone 3.  He had major concerns about the Horsbere Brook which carried all flow from Birdlip, the M5, A46 and A417, creating a potential ponding area, and fed into some of the other developments.  He recognised there was a huge investment in flood defences but felt they would still be under capacity and there was a significant safety issue for children given that a walking area was proposed alongside the Brook.  He pointed out that the Flood Risk Management Group was already concerned with the erosion of the banks of the Horsbere Brook in the area that Tewkesbury Borough Council had responsibility for. 

72.37         In response, the Planning Officer explained that the density had been agreed in the outline planning permission which was for 1,500 houses across the whole site.  One of the conditions on that planning permission related to phasing and there was an identified number of dwellings per phase.  Phase 3 was for 225 dwellings so the application brought forward was in accordance with the phasing plan.  The Local Planning Authority was required to look at how it had been laid out and Officers felt this was appropriate for the number of dwellings and that the density it created was acceptable.  She confirmed that Gloucestershire Constabulary had been consulted on the application but had not made a representation.  In terms of Unit 56, there were a number of retained hedges identified within the outline planning permission and it was intended to remove a small section of the hedge to improve pedestrian connectivity - this had been discussed with the Urban Design Officer and Landscape Officer who had no objection.  With regard to affordable housing, 40% had been agreed for the whole site of 1,500 dwellings and, within that, a percentage had been identified for each phase of development in accordance with the scheme.  She went on to advise that the Environmental Health Officer considered the noise assessment to be satisfactory and explained that any acoustic report was based on modelling as it was not possible to take measurements until the dwellings were built out.  The modelling had been carried out in accordance with best practice and therefore the report demonstrated that the proposal was acceptable.  The Lead Local Flood Authority had not been formed when the proposal had been granted outline planning permission but had still been consulted on this application and had decided not to comment; in such circumstances, the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer would pick up the drainage information and had done so in this case.  With regard to Horsbere Brook, this was located within Flood Zone 3 and the entire application was in Flood Zone 1.  The application included significant new landscaping and all green infrastructure in relation to the brook would be retained.  No fencing was proposed for safety barriers as part of the application and that was not normally something which would be required.  She pointed out that quite a few residents had access across the brook into the area of land currently.  The Member indicated that, at peak flow, the water which ran off the escarpment and surrounding highway network into the Horsbere Brook would be very fasting moving until it reached the flood defence which, given the amount of development in the area, he felt would be under capacity.  He had real concerns regarding the site and could not support the application as it stood.  The Technical Planning Manager took on board the comments and indicated that the question of fencing could potentially be investigated as part of the delegation; however, it was not something which could be insisted upon.

72.38         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was for authority to be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager to approve the application, subject to the resolution of minor matters concerning highways and other revisions to conditions, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager to approve the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Technical Planning Manager to APPROVE the application, subject to the resolution of minor matters concerning highways and other revisions to conditions.