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

17/00783/APP – Land Off Nup End, Ashleworth

45.2           This was an application for the approval of reserved matters in relation to appearance, landscaping, layout and scale, pursuant to outline planning application 15/00965/OUT as allowed under appeal APP/G1630/W/16/3150236 for the erection of 35 dwellings. 

45.3           The Chair invited the representative from Ashleworth Parish Council to address the Committee.  He explained that the Parish Council took the view that the development did not respond to National Planning Policy Framework requirements in terms of design.  It did not reflect local character or history, did not add to the overall quality of the area, or establish a strong sense of place.  It was considered that the rather uniform design lacked unique characteristics and was far more suited to an urban environment.  In terms of road traffic, the application did not address problems relating to the entire section of road through Nup End and down the hill to Lawn Road.  The narrow lane was already hazardous for road users with several pinch points, four bends and little footpath provision.  Unreported minor collisions and near misses were not infrequent and the additional traffic from 35 dwellings would make the road significantly more dangerous, even with the proposed lay-by.  The Parish Council took issue with the fact that the road traffic audit was based on a 30 minute site visit at 10:45am on a weekday, when traffic was lighter and slower than in early morning and late afternoon when commuters travelled.  It was incorrect to infer that, despite the absence of signed speed limits, vehicle speeds were self-enforcing due to the character of the village.  Drainage and flooding were matters of considerable concern to the community as, despite the attention of Severn Trent and County Highways for many years, drainage and sewerage systems around the village continued to be unable to cope with heavy - let alone extreme – rainfall.  The Parish often experienced closed roads, sewage being deposited on the public highway and damage to road surfaces and verges.  A major problem area was close to the pumping station at Nup End Lane where, after heavy rainfall, clean and foul water burst through their respective drain covers causing flooding polluted by sewage; this was the point where storm and foul water from the new development was intended to pass.  The Parish Council could foresee severe consequences in times of extreme rainfall; 15cm of rain in 12 hours was not unprecedented and would result in over 50 litres per second running off the new impermeable area.  The applicant stated that the “restriction” process could cope with 17 litres per second which meant over 33 litres per second would be left to run into other residential areas across slopes to the north-east and south.  It was common sense that extreme rainfall would not be contained by the proposed mitigation and Members were asked to examine the proposal very thoroughly before the point of no return.

45.4           The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  With regard to the concerns in respect of flooding, he advised that the proposed drainage scheme had been agreed in principle by the Lead Local Flood Authority.  The discharge of water from the development would be seven litres per second up to a 1/100 year event and included a 40% allowance for climate change which was a betterment from 30% as agreed in the original outline application.  This would be achieved through flow controls in the drainage system to slow the discharge rate and surface water drainage mitigation measures upstream including installation of oversized pipes in the road, permeable parking in driveways and an attenuation pond.  In addition to the betterment associated with discharge rate, it was also intended to upgrade sections of the highway drainage network to a standard that made them adoptable by Severn Trent Water, as well as installing additional gully/pipework to assist in conveying water from ditch to drainage network more efficiently.  He pointed out that statutory consultees had no other technical objections.  Five objections had been received from members of public.  The objections made reference to the provision of farmland access - a contractual obligation from the vendor; the location of the Public Right of Way, which had been addressed; and flooding, which was in accordance with the outline application.  It was also noted that the County Highways Authority did not share the concerns raised about the width of Nup End Lane.  The site sat well in the location and context of Ashleworth, and the application would result in a sustainable development with 40% affordable housing and therefore should be positively considered in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

45.5           A Member questioned whether the applicant had complied with condition 12 of the outline planning permission in respect of road widening.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the applicant was progressing a separate application to discharge several conditions, of which road widening was one.  The details were currently being worked through with the Highways Authority.  Another Member queried why there was no representation from the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer and was informed that the Lead Local Flood Authority was the statutory consultee for major developments i.e. 10 dwellings or more.  The Flood Risk Management Engineer would consider and comment upon applications for less than 10 dwellings where there was a flood risk or drainage issue.  Assurance was provided that the Flood Risk Management Engineer would not normally be expected to comment on a scheme of this nature.

45.6           The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to approve the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  Whilst he accepted the comments made by Officers in relation to flooding, a Member went on to raise concern that the Council’s revised Flood and Water Management Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) contained aspirations for a 70% allowance for climate change and yet this proposal would only achieve 40%.  The Parish Council did not consider the proposed mitigation to be adequate and Members would recall that similar concerns had been raised on the previous site visit in relation to the outline application.  He also indicated that he would need more clarification in respect of the discharge of the road widening condition within the outline planning permission before he could support the proposal to approve this application.  The Development Manager explained that this reserved matters application was for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale; road widening was a separate matter which was covered by condition 12 of the outline planning permission and it was not unusual to deal with this outside of, and after, the reserved matters application.  Road widening did not affect what Members were being asked to consider today.  In terms of the SPD, a 70% climate change allowance was certainly the aspiration in the right circumstances.  At the time the outline application was permitted, this was not the case and the application had been determined on the basis of a 30% climate change allowance.  Members had heard this had been increased to 40% by the applicant which was a betterment compared to the requirements of the outline permission and, given the circumstances, acceptable in planning terms.  In response to a query as to what would happen if condition 12 of the outline planning permission failed to be discharged, Members were advised that this had no bearing on the decision in respect of this application.  If agreement could not be reached in relation to condition 12, the application for its discharge would be refused and the applicant would have two options: either to change its approach in order to come to an agreement with the Council and the Highways Authority, or to appeal the condition.  The Member remained unconvinced this was a separate matter and felt that the two were intrinsically linked.  The Development Manager clarified that the condition only required the highway works to be in place prior to the occupation of the first dwelling; work could not commence until this reserved matters approval application had been approved which demonstrated that this issue should not affect the decision on the current application.  The Member raised concern that construction traffic would be using the lane before the development was built-out which could be very dangerous given the lack of passing places.  The Development Manager noted this point; however, the fact remained that outline planning permission had been granted and the highway work only had to be carried out prior to the occupation of the dwellings.  He pointed out that condition 6 of the outline planning permission required a construction method statement which would include the parking of vehicles, loading/unloading of plant and machinery, storage etc. which was something that had to be dealt with before development could commence.

45.7           In returning to the earlier point in relation to the 70% climate change allowance, a Member questioned why it was not possible to increase the requirement at this stage and whether this could be facilitated through a delegated approval.  The Development Manager reiterated that outline planning permission had already been granted with a condition requiring 30% climate change allowance.  Whilst it was possible to speak to the developers to see if they would be willing to look at a further increase from 40%, the outline planning permission required only a 30% allowance and any betterment over and above that could not be required from the developer.  The Member expressed the view that the Council had a duty to the residents of Ashleworth to provide the best drainage system possible and felt that a delegated approval on that basis would be an appropriate way forward.  The proposer and seconder of the motion confirmed that they would be happy to amend this to a delegated approval in order for further discussions to take place with the developers regarding the potential for increasing the climate change allowance to 70%.  The Chair stated that this could not be a requirement, but could see that it was at least worth a discussion.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to APPROVE the application in order for further discussions to take place with the developer regarding the potential for increasing the climate change allowance to 70%.

17/00896/FUL – Cartref, Stockwell Lane, Woodmancote

45.8           This application was for a two storey side extension with balcony to rear. 

45.9           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.  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.

17/00901/FUL – 34 Pelham Crescent, Churchdown

45.10         This application was for a combined double storey and single storey extension to side and rear.

45.11         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.

15/00045/APP – Land to the West and South of Gloucester Business Park, Brockworth

45.12         This application was for public open space (POS1), sports facilities and associated landscape works comprising: football pitch, rugby pitch, Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGAs), changing room and maintenance room building, allotment area and footpaths. 

45.13         The Development Manager advised that the allotment area was no longer part of the proposal and the description of the development needed to be amended accordingly.  He explained that the original reserved matters application had been considered by the Planning Committee in 2015 where it had been granted delegated approval, subject to the receipt of satisfactory comments from the Community and Economic Development Manager in respect of revised plans and the completion of a Deed of Variation to the Section 106 Agreement in respect of the allotment provision.  The Community and Economic Development Manager had confirmed that the revised plans were acceptable but the applicant had also decided to revise the scheme so that the allotments were provided in an area of land within Stroud District.  This was in line with the original permission and the details within the original Section 106; therefore the Deed of Variation was no longer required.  The application had been brought back to the Committee as Members’ previous decision was based on different plans which had shown the allotments on the current application site.

45.14         The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to approve the application, subject to an amendment to the description to remove the allotment provision, and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be APPROVED, subject to an amendment to the description to remove the allotment provision.