Agenda item

52.1           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.

16/00601/FUL – Teddington Hands Service Station, Evesham Road, Teddington

52.2           This application was for the retention of a transport café and temporary showers for truck stop use; retention of temporary containers and structures connected with the haulage business and proposed additional vehicle parking; and retention of fuel and Ad Blue tank.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 18 November 2016.

52.3           The Chair invited the applicant, William Gilder, to address the Committee.  Mr Gilder indicated that he had relocated his business to Teddington in 2013 and, since that time, it had grown substantially increasing from 40 employees to over 140.  The premises needed to expand in order to secure the future of the business.  The growth had already benefited local people and suppliers; currently 35 employees were from within a six mile radius and some of them were mothers with children who were able to fit their work around family life.  He also pointed out that £5.4M had been spent with local suppliers during the previous year.  The community had been enhanced in other ways including the provision of a shop supplying local produce; provision of a café; facilities for driver training to help produce the next batch of Heavy Good Vehicle (HGV) drivers; and through working with Tewkesbury and Winchcombe Schools, encouraging school leavers to take apprenticeships in transport.  This demonstrated that the business was highly sustainable.  The overnight parking facility for outside hauliers had also expanded and over 400 vehicles had been parked during the last month.  The site was safe and secure with decent showers, toilets and restaurant facilities.  Lack of overnight parking was a real problem for hauliers; lay-bys and industrial estates filled up with trucks each night which were then targeted by thieves for their loads and fuel.  He had engaged with three different Landscape Officers within the Council, each of whom had different opinions which had made addressing landscaping issues very challenging; however, he believed that the extensive sympathetic scheme being proposed mitigated any landscape harm and provided a barrier between the site and the surrounding area.  According to the current Landscape Officer, the site could be seen from a public footpath on top of Teddington Hill; from that same footpath it was also possible to see a travellers’ site; Ashchurch Army Camp, Junction 9 of the M5 and the Teddington Hands roundabout which was used by almost 18,000 vehicles per day, 1,400 of which were his company’s HGVs.  It was intended to ensure that the site was sympathetic to the area and blended into the countryside.  As the Council’s own Landscape Consultant had stated, the scheme would be effective in screening vehicles from the surrounding road network.  This was a worthy application which would create employment and provide a valuable service and he asked Members for their support.

52.4           The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a proposal from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted.  The proposer of the motion explained that he rarely disagreed with the Officer recommendation but, in this instance, he felt that the proposal would have limited impact in respect of landscape harm as the site was already affected by noise and light pollution from the A435 which could be seen from Dixton Hill and surrounding areas, along with the travellers’ site and Ashchurch Industrial Estate.  The application was valuable in economic terms and he felt that it should be permitted.  The seconder of the motion indicated that he had travelled past the site many times and the landscaping which had been undertaken to date had been very successful at screening it.  The overnight lorry park which had recently been granted planning permission had been welcomed as facilities for drivers were relatively limited and, given the economic growth which was anticipated within the Borough through the Joint Core Strategy, applications such as this were much needed.  A Member indicated that he had a lot of sympathy with the applicant and he was minded to support the proposal, however, additional planting would help to enhance the overall appearance and he queried whether this could be insisted upon.  The Chair suggested that, if Members were minded to permit the application on the basis that the landscape impact would be limited in this particular location, compared to a similar proposal in the open countryside, it may be more appropriate to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application in order to secure a comprehensive landscaping scheme. 

52.5           In response to the comments made, the Planning Officer indicated that, if Members were minded to delegate permission, Officers would enter into discussions regarding the height of the bunding which was 4.7m in the centre and 3.65m at the end.  This had been discussed at length with the Council’s Landscape Officer who felt that it would be more appropriate if the bunding was 3.65m the whole way around.  They would also seek to bulk up the screening; it was considered that copse planting would help to break up the visual impact of the bunding and assimilate better with the landscape.  As this would involve a physical alteration to the scheme, Members were advised that it would be more appropriate for Officers to discuss this with the applicant and gain some agreement in terms of broad principles rather than imposing conditions on the planning permission.  A Member raised concern that Officers had already spent a lot of time discussing the proposal with the applicant and had failed to reach a consensus.  In response, the Chair indicated that the discussions would be starting from a different position if Members were minded to delegate permission and he was confident that an agreement could be reached; if it was not, the application would come back to the Committee in any case.  The proposer and seconder agreed to amend their motion to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to suitable landscaping measures and other conditions as appropriate.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to suitable landscaping measures and other conditions as appropriate.

16/00762/FUL – 107 Cambrian Road, Walton Cardiff, Tewkesbury

52.6           This application was for use of land for residential purposes including reconfiguration of wooden fencing. 

52.7           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.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

16/00969/FUL – Morrisons, Ashchurch Road, Tewkesbury

52.8           This application was for the variation of condition 1of planning application 15/01316/FUL to allow for extended opening hours from 0700 to 2200 Monday to Saturday and from 0900 to 1700 on Sundays.

52.9           The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a proposal from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member understood that shops were limited in terms of the hours they could trade on Sundays and he queried whether the proposal would be in accordance with the relevant legislation.  In response, the Development Manager explained that it was his understanding that shops could open for a certain number of hours on Sundays but there was flexibility in terms of when they did that; this application would provide that flexibility. Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

16/00539/OUT – Land At Truman’s Farm, Manor Lane, Gotherington

52.10         This was an outline application, with all matters reserved except for access for the development of up to 65 dwellings (including 26 affordable homes) including access, landscaping and other associated works.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 18 November 2016.

52.11         The Planning Officer drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.  He advised that comments had now been received from County Highways which raised no objection to the application, subject to a number of conditions including the requirement for a highway safety improvement scheme at Gotherington Cross junction which must be completed prior to the occupation of the sixteenth dwelling.  The Council’s Ecologist had also raised no objection subject to conditions and the full comments were set out at Appendix 1.  In light of the representations received, the application complied with the development policy framework and the proposal met the tests within the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010.  It was recommended that additional provisions be included within the Section 106 Agreement to ensure provision for the long term implementation of the Landscape and Ecology Management Plan and the maintenance plan for flood risk management measures.  In terms of affordable housing, the Council’s Strategic Housing and Enabling Officer had advised that the 40% affordable housing should not all be provided on site as there was an oversupply within the Parish, as such, half would be provided on site and a financial contribution would be sought for the remainder. 

52.12         The Chair invited Councillor Rodney Churchill, representing Gotherington Parish Council, to address the Committee.  Councillor Churchill explained that Gotherington’s Neighbourhood Development Plan had completed the regulation 16 phase some weeks ago and a Referendum was expected in spring 2017.  The Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan identified three small development sites whereas the Tewkesbury Borough Council Local Plan identified two; this development site was rejected as unsuitable in both plans.  Approving the development would remove prime cherished agricultural land and would harm and destroy the rural nature of the village and its social cohesion.  The Special Landscape Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty made the site very special and the Cotswold landscape and Gloucestershire-Warwickshire railway were enjoyed by walkers, cyclists, horse-riders, families and visitors from far afield.  The design conflicted with the existing linear village design as it proposed an urban style estate and the housing density was much higher than elsewhere with two storey houses going against the character of adjacent bungalows.  Furthermore, it was too close to other properties and would restrict their light and seriously impact the residential amenity available to residents.  He pointed out that there was no local employment, secondary school, doctors, dentist or library in the village.  65 houses would mean an extra 140 cars travelling through the village, exacerbating an existing traffic situation when high numbers of parked cars at school times caused severe congestion with buses and agricultural vehicles unable to pass without mounting the pavement.  The village road had many bends making exit from cul-de-sacs dangerous.  New builds at Gretton and Winchcombe had resulted in a significant increase in traffic and Gotherington had become a rat-run.  The addition of a new crossing point east of Manor Lane presented a significant risk to pedestrians due to an extremely poor line of sight for them and oncoming motorists.  The developer’s transport statement in relation to public transport was totally misleading and out of date; the 527 and T and D bus services no longer visited the village so there was no regular public transport.  In addition, Gotherington School was at maximum capacity which meant that children from the proposed development were unlikely to secure a place leading to limited social integration which was contrary to Paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 of the Officer’s report.  The site was on the periphery of the village and was too far from the Freeman Field’s play facilities for small children to walk.  Oxenton Parish Council had noted that the Tirle Brook and its sewage system were already overwhelmed and, in heavy rain, sewage was discharged onto the road at Grange Farm and into gardens which would be worsened by the development.  Manor Lane already provided a positive edge between the village and the countryside with single storey bungalows so two storey houses would destroy the visual amenity.  The Joint Core Strategy Inspector’s interim report stated that scattering large amounts of housing around Tewkesbury’s villages was not the most sustainable approach and Members must refuse the application.

52.13         The Chair invited Christine White, representing Neighbours Bordering Truman’s Farm, to address the Committee.  She stated that the Council could not permit this development when the many harms vastly outweighed the benefits.  The Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty of Nottingham Hill directly relied on the Special Landscape Area.  Truman’s Fields and the heritage railway sat in the heart of the wide valley between Dixton and Nottingham Hills and, if approved, thousands of railway passengers, stopping at Gotherington Halt, would look towards Dixton Hill to see a close and dominating view of houses and parked cars.  The Campaign for Rural England confirmed that those who walked or rode in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty would also have a clear view of the estate concluding that “the proposed development would have a significantly adverse effect on the landscape, sufficient to warrant refusal”.  Gotherington’s countryside could not be allowed to be destroyed when there were other potential building plots which would not have such an adverse impact.  In terms of encroachment, there would no longer be a gap between the village and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  This development would encourage building into the third Truman’s field, joining up with the Garden Centre and houses near Gotherington Halt.  The Neighbours Bordering Truman’s Farm believed that it was only a matter of time before the third field was promoted by a developer and the encroachment would continue; to accept houses on Truman’s Fields would open the door to encroachment.  The character of Gotherington was important to its residents; as you travelled east there was a gradual tapering away as historic cottages signalled the entrance to the countryside and a housing estate at the end of the village would be wholly incongruous, destroying the atmosphere, character and amenity of east Gotherington.  Furthermore, houses planned to back directly onto homes in Manor Lane and would take away the privacy and amenity of peace and tranquillity.  Residents would suffer from a huge increase in the number of comings and goings from vehicles and pedestrians at all times of the day and night which constituted unacceptable harm.  The development would destroy the character and amenity of Gotherington and the beauty of its countryside forever, with harms indisputably outweighing any benefits, and the Neighbours Bordering Truman’s Farm urged Members to reject the application outright.

52.14         The Chair invited the applicant’s agent, Paul Fong, to address the Committee.  Mr Fong indicated that he had some sympathy with the Parish Council and local residents but the Borough Council did not have a five year housing land supply or an adopted development plan.  The Joint Core Strategy had not yet been agreed and the proposal to remove Twigworth from the strategic allocations would mean that an additional 1,300 houses would need to be found.  The benefits of this proposal spoke for themselves: a valuable affordable housing contribution with 50% being provided onsite; 10% of the properties would be bungalows which would assimilate with the village; and the provision of Section 106 contributions including £229,383 towards primary school provision, £62,343 towards pre-school provision, £182,978 towards secondary school provision and over £200,000 towards sports facilities.  The government had set a bold agenda to deliver 300,000 houses per year and the Council’s general strategy for new housing growth was to develop service villages in sustainable locations such as this.  No objections had been received from statutory consultees and the Landscape Consultant had advised that any impacts would be localised and would not adversely affect the character of the Special Landscape Area and the adjacent Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Overall, the planning balance was in favour of permitting the development.

52.15         A Member sought clarification as to the number of applications which were currently valid for housing development in Gotherington.  The Planning Officer explained that, as well as this application for 65 houses, Members would be considering another application for 50 houses later in the meeting.  Members had recently permitted an application for 10 houses, pending the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and a further application for 90 houses on land south of Ashmead drive was also pending; there may be other minor applications but these were the significant ones and would result in a total of 215 houses.

52.16         The Chair confirmed that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the conditions set out in the comments received from the County Highways Authority and the Council’s Ecologist (with the exception of condition EC03) in Appendix 1 and in the Officer’s report, and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the heads of terms set out within the Officer’s report, as well as provision for the long term implementation of the Landscape and Ecology Management Plan and provision for the long term implementation of the maintenance plan for the Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)/flood risk management measures, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused.  The proposer of the motion indicated that, as Members would have seen from the Committee Site Visit, the proposed site was located in a very sensitive landscape area.  The site was in open countryside within the Special Landscape Area and bounded the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and she believed that the proposal would have a considerable impact on the character of the area and views, particularly to and from Nottingham Hill.  As Members had seen, the land was not flat, it rose from Gretton Road up to the boundary of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and any development would have a significant impact on the openness and character of the landscape.  She pointed out that the Cotswold Conservation Board and Campaign for Rural England had also confirmed their objections in relation to the landscape impact issues.  She went on to indicate that the Officer’s report stated that the site was in Flood Zone 1.  In 2016, there had already been flooding recorded by residents of Manor Lane and Gretton Road and there were concerns that the proposed development would add to the problems, both up and down stream.  Furthermore, the Parish Council had identified that there were problems with the sewage pipes at the end of the village.  In terms of other issues relating to the site, it had been identified that there were a number of animal species present within the site that were protected under UK and European law and the play and other facilities which would normally be expected within a development of this size could not be located on the site due to the sensitive nature of the landscape.  The site was considered both within the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment and the Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan and neither had put it forward as suitable for housing which was an indication that the impact of any development on the site would be detrimental.  As Members had heard, there were a lot of applications for housing in Gotherington and, if all were approved, the number of houses would increase by 31% which represented a substantial expansion of the village.  As the Inspector had found in recent cases at Alderton, she believed that an increase of this size would have a detrimental impact on the community in Gotherington.  The village hall could not accommodate more people; even now clubs were restricted on their activities and numbers.  The developer was proposing a mix of properties within the proposed site, including bungalows which were encouraged within the Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan, however, the site was so far away from any of the facilities that elderly occupants would effectively be cut off from the village causing additional community cohesion problems.  She went on to explain that there was no room for a footpath directly from the site down to the school without having to cross the road.  The Committee Site Visit had been carried out at 0930 hours, missing the rush hour traffic when cars were parked along the length of Gretton Road with parents delivering their children to Gotherington School, effectively making it a single lane road for traffic to manoeuvre.  At weekends, when Prescott Hill Climb was on, there was a constant flow of traffic to and from the venue making it a very busy road.  She believed that the application should be refused on the grounds of the harmful impact to the Special Landscape Area and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; the proposal would not be sympathetic to the sensitive edge of the settlement location and would significantly encroach upon the character and appearance of the Special Landscape Area and the foreground of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; the proposal would represent an isolated site in respect of connectivity to the village of Gotherington and its facilities; and the development would have a disproportionate effect on the village in terms of cumulative impact which would have a detrimental effect on social wellbeing, community cohesion and the vitality of the village.

52.17         A Member indicated that he would be supporting the proposal to refuse the application.  He pointed out that the government had introduced the Localism Act in 2011 and had allowed residents of towns and villages to draw up their own Neighbourhood Development Plans so that they could have their say about development in their areas.  Gotherington had worked very hard to produce a plan and, recognising that there would be growth, had identified where that would be best placed within its community.  The Committee had heard from local residents, the Parish Council and the Ward Member who had stated that this was not the right site for growth and Members should listen to them.  A Member agreed that this was totally the wrong location for housing and he made reference to the inadequate drainage in the areas which had resulted in part of the Gloucestershire-Warwickshire railway being washed away.  Another Member expressed the view that the proposal would cause significant landscape harm and would be totally unacceptable in terms of the number of properties and the proposed design which would be at odds with the existing linear pattern of development.  If Members were minded to refuse the application, it was suggested that the fact that the current sewage system was overwhelmed, and there was no proposal to alter that, and the danger to highway safety in terms of the crossing arrangements should also be addressed within the refusal reasons. 

52.18         The Development Manager explained that landscape harm was a judgement for Members to make.  In terms of the isolation of the site and connectivity, whilst there were issues around accessibility, Gotherington was a service village within the Joint Core Strategy and it would be very difficult to sustain a refusal reason on that basis.  With regard to wellbeing and social cohesion, it was noted that, in the event that both this scheme and the application which was due to be considered later in the meeting were permitted on top of the existing commitments, this would result in a 30% increase over and above the existing number of houses in the village.  Whilst this would undoubtedly have an impact, it must be considered in the context of this particular village, and other service villages where development had been permitted, and this level of increase was proportionate to that.  Part of the policy for service villages in the Joint Core Strategy was that they should be considered in terms of their relationship with Cheltenham and Gloucester; Gotherington was less remote from Cheltenham than areas such as Toddington and Alderton, which had already seen an increase in housing, and more weight should be given to its designation as a service village as a result.  In terms of the sewage issue, the Planning Officer confirmed that Severn Trent Water had raised no objection to the application on the basis that the sewage connection could be made and would be acceptable.  With regard to the conflict between vehicles and pedestrians, Members were reminded that County Highways had raised no objection to the application, subject to conditions.  Officers were acutely aware of the problems already experienced by vehicles travelling through Gotherington, particularly at school pick up and drop off times, but traffic was calmed naturally and speeds reduced by the very nature of the place.  With that in mind, and considering the lack of objection from County Highways, it would be difficult to sustain an objection on highway safety grounds. 

52.19         The proposer of the motion accepted the Development Manager’s advice in terms of refusal reasons; however, she continued to have concerns over the social cohesion aspect.  She drew attention to Page No. 418, Paragraph 16.4 of the Officer report, which set out that, when considered cumulatively along with the permitted 17 dwellings at Shutter Lane and the resolution to permit 10 dwellings at Gretton Road, the proposal would result in a 20% increase to the number of houses in the village.  This would be sizeable enough to have an adverse effect on the social wellbeing of the community compared to other service villages in the Borough and she believed that should be addressed within the refusal reasons taking account of the fact that other sites were favoured within the Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan.  The Development Manager explained that, whilst it was true that the government had introduced localism, the Neighbourhood Development Plan was subject to the same rules as any other development plan; there were housing land supply issues and, even when it had been adopted, the Neighbourhood Development Plan may immediately be out of date in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework.  In terms of social cohesion, his advice would be that a refusal reason could be included based on the addition of 65 dwellings, as well as those already permitted within the village, which would result in cumulative development of the village that would be of a scale disproportionate to the existing settlement and, as such, the proposed development would fail to enhance the vitality of Gotherington and would have a harmful impact on the social wellbeing of the local community, risking the erosion of social cohesion.  A Member pointed out that the Joint Core Strategy Inspector had stated that a lack of housing supply should not be addressed by distributing housing across the rural community and the Development Manager confirmed that, whilst that was true in terms of what the Inspector had said, it could not be taken into account as the housing figures were not yet fixed.  Members were advised that, if they were minded to refuse the application, it would also be necessary to include technical reasons related to the Section 106 Agreement not being signed.  In response to a query, Members were informed that this was an outline application so, from an Officer point of view, there were no objections on design grounds at this stage.

52.20         The proposer and seconder of the motion indicated that they were happy with the changes to refusal reasons suggested by the Development Manager and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be REFUSED with reasons for the refusal to be drafted by Officers on the basis that the proposal, by virtue of its urban character and prominent open location would represent significant encroachment into the surrounding landscape which would be unsympathetic to the settlement edge of Gotherington Village and would therefore have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the landscape within a Special Landscape Area which served to protect the foreground setting of the adjacent Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; the proposed addition of 65 dwellings, in addition to those already permitted in the village, would result in cumulative development of the village which would be of a scale disproportionate to the existing settlement, as such, the proposed development would fail to maintain or enhance the vitality of Gotherington and would have a harmful impact on the social wellbeing of the local community risking the erosion of community cohesion; in the absence of an appropriate planning obligation, the application does not provide housing that would be available to households which could not afford to rent or buy houses available on the existing market, it does not make adequate provision for on-site or off-site playing pitches with changing facilities and sports facilities to meet the needs of the proposed community, nor for the delivery of education, library and community infrastructure, nor the long term implementation of the ecological management measures required to make the development acceptable in biodiversity terms and the long term maintenance of off-site drainage infrastructure essential to make the development acceptable in flood risk terms.

16/00663/APP – Part Parcel 0085, Land West of Bredon Road, Tewkesbury

52.21         This application was for the reserved matters details of layout, scale, external appearance and landscaping for the development of 68 residential units along with public open space and associated drainage and highways infrastructure, pursuant to outline permission ref: 14/00211/OUT. 

52.22         The Development Manager advised that this application had been deferred at the last Planning Committee meeting to enable further drainage information to be submitted and assessed to ensure that the development would not be at risk of flooding, nor would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.  The original Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the outline planning application established the need for a surface water connection to the drainage ditch to the north and that was what was being proposed.  The Additional Representations Sheet set out further details in respect of the proposed surface water drainage; the on-site storm water sewer system had been designed to accommodate the 1:100 year plus 30% climate change event without causing flooding of the site.  Due to the relatively small catchment area associated with the development, the agent had suggested that the storm water flows reached the system relatively quickly and therefore began to discharge prior to river flood levels reaching the site.  The applicant had also introduced a flap valve on the outfall to prevent flood waters backing up into the system.  In terms of periods when the outfall may be submerged, it was felt that providing additional storage volume within the site was not sustainable and would have serious consequences in terms of viability and delivery of the proposed housing.  Therefore, it was proposed to utilise a high level storm water outfall set just above the maximum flood level which would discharge surcharged flows onto the existing floodplain in an extreme event.  At the last meeting, Members had raised concern about the proposal to locate some of the surface water attenuation features within Flood Zone 3 and the Development Manager confirmed that the built form would be located solely within Flood Zone 1, the lowest risk area.  The County Highways Officer was broadly happy with what was proposed, however, there had been some discussion in respect of the tracking of refuse vehicles in two small areas of the site.  Whilst the Additional Representations Sheet stated that the recommendation was to approve the application, Members were advised that this had been amended and it was now recommended that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to approve the application, subject to confirmation from County Highways that those arrangements were acceptable. 

52.23         A Member questioned where the surface water attenuation features were actually located and the Flood Risk Management Engineer advised that the high level overflow was in Flood Zone 2 which was acceptable in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework.  The outfall flat valve arrangement was in Flood Zone 3 and was designed to stop river water from coming back out of the system.  If there was more water on the site from additional rainfall, the flat valve would still discharge because of the height differential.  The Member raised concern that, if the outfall was submerged, the level of water discharging into the floodplain would increase and there was a danger of water rising up into Flood Zone 2 where there was some development.  Members were informed that there was a natural perception that would be the case, however, levels did not just rise and fall in a linear manner and the point of discharge did not make a difference in this instance.  The Member went on to indicate that she had read that the levels of the proposed housing would be raised and she understood that was unacceptable in terms of the impact of climate change on future flooding.  The Flood Risk Management Engineer clarified that all development would be within Flood Zone 1 which was the lowest risk area and raising levels by 600mm to avoid the maximum level of flooding anticipated in catastrophic events, which fortunately had not been experienced here, was standard practice.

52.24         The Chair invited the applicant’s representative, Rhian Powell, to address the Committee.  She indicated that she was the Planning Manager for Bellway Homes and this reserved matters application followed the grant of outline planning permission in 2015.  The principle of 68 dwellings on the site had therefore been established and it was only the detailed matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping that were before Members for approval.  As Members were aware, the application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 25 October 2016 which the applicant had been disappointed with, although they understood that the main concerns were with regard to flood risk and drainage and they had been working with Officers on those particular points.  She wished to clarify that the scheme was entirely in accordance with the drainage proposals considered to be acceptable by the appeal Inspector at the outline stage.  All of the built development was located within Flood Zone 1; the only part of the site located within Flood Zones 2 and 3 was the retained Public Open Space area.  Existing site levels were not being altered within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and, as required within the outline planning permission, the finished floor levels of the new units would be set at a minimum of 600mm above the flood zone level, or 13.75 AOD.  Sufficient attenuation storage was provided on-site in order to ensure that development met the greenfield run-off rate, including climate change.  Forms of sustainable urban drainage would also be incorporated into the scheme including areas of permeable paving and water butts.  Overall the proposal had been considered in detail by the Environment Agency and the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer; both had confirmed that they had no objections and the scheme would not be at unacceptable risk of flooding and would not increase the risk of flooding downstream.  A separate application had been submitted for a surface outfall connection to an existing drainage ditch to the north of the site.  This was fully in accordance with the drainage strategy approved with the outline planning application; however, the connection lay outside of the original site which was why the separate application was required.  It was also worth noting that an earlier application for 23 units was also approved showing a surface water outfall in this location and that could be implemented today.  Both the Environment Agency and Flood Risk Management Engineer had confirmed that the surface water outfall application was acceptable.  She confirmed that all of the drainage infrastructure would be adopted and maintained by Severn Trent Water with the cellular storage below private drives maintained by the private management company.  With regard to the proposed layout and design of the scheme, she advised that the applicant had worked closely with the Council’s Urban Design Officer to make revisions to the layout and amend the house type elevations and this had been found to be acceptable.  In summary, the scheme provided 68 much needed residential dwellings for Tewkesbury, including 35% affordable homes, and should be approved.

52.25         The Chair confirmed that the Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to approve the application, subject to the resolution of outstanding highways matters i.e. vehicle tracking, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to approve the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A local Member indicated that Members had not wanted to see housing in this area but the outline planning permission had been allowed on appeal.  The problem was that any overflow from the tank which would hold the water would go into the floodplain so, whilst these houses would not flood, the ones further down would be affected, as they had been in 2007.  He doubted that the rise in the flood level would be ‘negligible’, as the applicant’s representative had stated, and he indicated that he could not support any application which could potentially increase flooding in Tewkesbury.  Several Members shared this view but felt that they were being held to ransom by the government.  A refusal was likely to result in a further appeal with the decision ultimately being overturned and therefore they had no choice but to support the proposal.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to APPROVE the application, subject to the resolution of outstanding highways matters i.e. vehicle tracking.

16/00668/FUL – Land West of Bredon Road, Tewkesbury

52.26         This application was for the provision of drainage headwall and surface water outfall connection from proposed residential development in the south to existing drainage ditch.

52.27         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  It was noted that the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer had confirmed that the drainage details were suitable and therefore the Officer recommendation was now for permission.  The Chair sought a motion from the floor and it was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

16/00965/FUL – Parcel 7561, Malleson Road, Gotherington

52.28         This was an outline application for the construction of up to 50 dwellings, the formation of a new vehicular access onto Malleson Road, pedestrian and cycle links to Malleson Road and Shutter Lane, the laying out of public open space and landscaping, and associated infrastructure.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 18 November 2016.

52.29         The Chair invited Councillor Howard Samuels, representing Gotherington Parish Council, to address the Committee.  Councillor Samuels advised that Gotherington had been designated as a service village and accepted that it had responsibilities to provide 71 dwellings as identified by the Joint Core Strategy.  The Localism Act of 2011 stated that decision-making should be at a local level and this had been the driver behind the Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan.  93% of residents had voted that they wanted to see multiple sites for development with approximately 16 dwellings on this particular site to mirror the houses on the opposite side of Malleson Road.  Having 50 dwellings on this site would be at odds with the rest of the relatively small cul-de-sacs off Malleson Road and they certainly did not want to establish a housing estate which would be completely alien in a linear village such as Gotherington.  He pointed out that the Inspector for the Joint Core Strategy had said in March 2016 that scattering such a large amount of housing around the Tewkesbury villages would not be the most sustainable approach.  This development site lay between Malleson Road and Shutter Lane and was known as Lower Gotherington.  Shutter Lane, with its medieval parts and listed buildings, already had 17 dwellings being developed and if the developers had their way a further 50 dwellings would border another part of the Lane; in other words, the bulk of Gotherington’s housing commitment would be centred around the same area.  This would equate to a further 80 vehicles and, according to the latest figures of 2.3 per household, would mean a minimum of 115 people; a significant increase to the present population.  An estate of this size would be difficult to absorb into village life and would certainly damage the social cohesion of the village.  A recent application to the east of the village had just been reduced in size from 27 to 10 dwellings as the Council’s Urban Design Officer felt that there should be a tapering off of the village settlement yet, to the west of the village, the proposal by the developers was to increase the size from 16 to 50 so he trusted that the same would apply to this application.  Therefore, the Parish Council asked Members to refuse the application for 50 dwellings and agree only to the 16 as detailed within the Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan endorsed by the Parish Council and local residents.

52.30         The Chair invited Ian Butler, a local resident speaking against the application, to address the Committee.  Mr Butler indicated that a large number of objections had been received from people who strongly opposed the development which was not compliant with the National Planning Policy Framework.  Section 6, Paragraph 55, stated that housing should be located where it would enhance or maintain vitality of rural communities but this application was for 50 houses in an unsuitable location, going against the known and democratically expressed wishes of that community.  Section 7, Paragraphs 58 and 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework, set out that planning policies and decisions should aim to ensure that developments functioned well and added to the quality of an area; establish a strong sense of place; respond to local character and history; be visually attractive; and address connections between people, places and the integration of new developments into the natural, built and historic environment.  This application clearly failed to meet each of those criteria; it would not function well or add to the quality of the area and it would overwhelm the overloaded infrastructure, schools, medical services and local roads.  Gotherington already had a strong sense of place and a vibrant thriving community of all ages.  The proposal was not in keeping with the rest of the village and the Council’s Urban Design Officer had previously stated that any development should taper to the edges.  An urban estate completely out of character with a rural village would be a total eyesore and did not comply with the National Planning Policy Framework.  Page No. 438, Paragraph 6.8 of the Officer report, set out that the site constituted Grade 2 farmland and, as such, the proposal would result in the loss of 3.64 hectares of Best and Most Versatile (BMV) land which conflicted with the National Planning Policy Framework and weighed against the overall planning balance.  In terms of social cohesion, the village school and clubs were oversubscribed and Bishop’s Cleeve Secondary School was also at capacity.  Children of this development would be unable to go to school or join clubs with their village peers and there would be increased isolation and disconnection as a result.  Furthermore, the inadequate bus service ran once an hour during the day, not evenings or Sundays, and the 100 or more vehicles which would be generated by the development would pose a grave safety risk in the village and at the A435 junction; widening the junction was not the solution.  He also pointed out that there was no mention of the horse riders who used Malleson Road.  Opposite the development site there had been sewer blockages which had resulted in gardens being filled with raw sewage, a problem which would be exacerbated by a further 50 additional homes, and the advice given by Severn Trent Water contradicted the residents’ experience.  Gotherington was at least 30 minutes from the nearest manned Fire Station and a large increase in the number of houses increased the risk of domestic fires yet the emergency services were not considered in the application or the Officer’s report.  He stressed that the local residents were not anti-development and their engagement with the Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan showed how invested and active they all were to ensure that properly planned development could be undertaken without destroying the vibrant, cohesive community and that they would not have to live with the consequences of poor planning decisions.  Policy directives gave Members clear authority to dismiss this unwelcome, premature and opportunistic application and he considered that there was no other logical and defensible conclusion than to reject the application.

52.31         The Chair invited Owen Jones, speaking on behalf of the applicant, to address the Committee.  Mr Jones explained that the applicant, Charles Church Developers Ltd. had an unrivalled reputation for quality and design.  This application was to develop a parcel of land to the west of Gotherington which had a role to play in accommodating new housing in the future.  The land was not within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Special Landscape Area and part of the site was included in the emerging Neighbourhood Development Plan as it had received the most support from the community as a future development site.  50 new properties were proposed ranging from two bedroom bungalows to five bedroom homes and the arrangement of the development reflected the morphology of the village’s linear pattern south of Malleson Road.  The Landscape and Conservation Officers had raised no objection, either in principle or in terms of the arrangement of the built form and no other objections had been raised by any statutory consultees. He pointed out that half of the site was open space and there had been positive discussions with the Parish Council around the future use and management of this community asset.  A satisfactory and safe means of access could be provided along with improvements to Gotherington Cross and there was no further risk in terms of drainage.  A number of planning obligations had been discussed including affordable housing provision, open space, education, recreation and library contributions and the development would be a positive addition which would increase the supply of housing and would be in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out within the National Planning Policy Framework.  He provided assurance that, if Members were minded to permit the application, the applicant would continue to work with Officers to achieve the highest possible design when it was dealt with at the reserved matters stage.

52.32         A Member sought an update on the status of the highway safety scheme at Gotherington Cross junction as he could not see a definitive statement of what was being proposed.  The Planning Officer explained that the scheme had been designed on behalf of Gloucestershire County Council and the developer had agreed to fund its implementation.  A condition to that effect had been included in the Officer recommendation.  The scheme itself had been detailed in the transport assessment which had been submitted with the application and included various different improvements to the junction.  A Member expressed the view that traffic lights and a roundabout would be the safest option and she hoped that the proposals would be adequate.

52.33         The Chair confirmed that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, 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.   A Member questioned whether the plan at Page No. 449/B of the Officer report was an accurate representation of the layout of the site and was informed that it was indicative at this stage and, if Members were minded to permit this outline application, the applicant may come back with an alternative scheme within the reserved matters application. In response, the Member queried whether a condition could be included in the planning permission to ensure that the layout within the plan was adhered to and he was advised that this was possible if Members felt strongly that the reserved matters should be substantially in accordance with the outline indicative plan. 

52.34         The local Member indicated that the Parish Council and local residents had worked hard to formulate the Gotherington Neighbourhood Plan which was being submitted for inspection imminently.  A great deal of residents were very disappointed that this site had been put forward for residential development but Members and Officers knew that there must be sound planning reasons to justify a refusal given that the Council was not able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply; this was enormously disappointing for her as the local Member.  She advised that the Parish Council had made a request to have the first option on additional green spaces and she asked that this be a condition of the planning permission, should Members be minded to delegate authority to the Development Manager to approve the application.  The Development Manager advised that it would be important to set out exactly what the Parish Council wanted and he would not recommend conditioning the outline application on that basis. 

52.35         A Member expressed the view that it would be difficult to sustain a refusal on sound planning grounds, particularly given the proximity of the site to Cheltenham.  The proposer of the motion pointed out that one benefit of delegating authority to permit this application was that the Council would be able to retain some influence and control over the fundamental details which mattered most to residents on the ground whereas if the application was refused, and subsequently allowed on appeal, that control would be lost.  Gotherington had been identified as a service village within the Joint Core Strategy and this site was included within the Neighbourhood Development Plan; in his view this was the most sensible site for the development of the village and there were benefits in terms of securing highway safety improvements to a very dangerous junction.  The proposer and seconder of the motion went on to confirm that they were happy to include a condition to secure the illustrative masterplan and, upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and the inclusion of a condition to secure the illustrative masterplan.              

16/00714/FUL – 20 Beverley Gardens, Woodmancote

52.36         This application was for a single storey side/rear extension with dormer window to the rear.

52.37         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.

16/00877/FUL – Land Adjacent to Churchdown Community Centre, Parton Road, Churchdown

52.38         This application was for a two storey medical centre (Class D1) including ancillary pharmacy and associated car parking and landscaping. 

52.39         The Chair invited Dr Jeremy Halliday, a representative for the applicant, to address the Committee.  Dr Halliday indicated that he had been a senior partner at the surgery for 25 years and the application sought to establish new premises for Churchdown.  The current premises had a net internal area of 350sqm which, by modern standards, was a facility for 7,000 patients; the surgery currently had a patient list of 14,000 and this could potentially rise to between 18,000 and 21,000 with the planned housing development in Churchdown over the next five years.  This was recognised by the NHS, which was fully funding the scheme, as the medical centre was the number one priority for primary care development within Gloucestershire.  Therefore, any changes to the scheme would require a business case to be submitted to the NHS which could put the facility at risk.  It was noted that the proposal was also supported by the patient participation group.  Dr Halliday indicated that the objections on the basis of location and access had been taken on board and the developer had confirmed that the access was standard for this type of facility.  In terms of car parking, the current premises had eight spaces whereas the new development would include 67 spaces, the maximum permitted by the NHS.  The surgery would generally open from Monday-Friday between 0900 hours and 1700 hours; there was no intention of opening evenings or weekends.  The surgery would be more than happy to share the car parking with the local community centre next door so the proposal would increase parking available for the community.  The land had been provided by the Churchdown Community Association and the last piece of the jigsaw was to gain planning permission from Tewkesbury Borough Council so he urged Members to support the proposal without delay.

52.40         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.  The proposer of the motion explained that the Churchdown Practice covered a large area including Badgeworth, Staverton, Down Hatherley and Innsworth and she fully supported the plans to create a two storey medical centre which was much needed.  She welcomed the additional parking spaces which would be provided given the large catchment area for the surgery which meant that people had no option but to arrive by car and she hoped that the proposal would be supported by Members.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

16/01059/FUL – 3 Finch Road, Innsworth

52.41         This application was for a pair of semi-detached dwellings, associated access, parking and landscaping.

52.42         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.  A Member noted that the consultation response from the Highways Authority was ‘standard advice’ and she sought clarification as to what that meant.  The Development Manager explained that, because of capacity issues, the Highways Authority did not look at every application individually and they had provided some standing advice against which to measure proposals e.g. details of visibility splays etc.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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

16/01086/FUL – 7 Ashlea Meadow, Bishop’s Cleeve

52.43         This application was for a loft conversion with rear dormer and side window.

52.44         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 put to the vote, it was

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

16/01096/FUL – 42 Brookfield Road, Churchdown

52.45         This application was for the separation of part of the rear garden to 42 Brookfield Road and erection of a new four bedroom detached house with integral garage served by new private drive.

52.46         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.