Accessibility settings

In order to remember your preferences as you navigate through the site, a cookie will be set.

Color preference

Text size

Agenda item

19/00758/OUT - Land at Homelands Farm, Gotherington Lane, Bishop's Cleeve

PROPOSAL: Hybrid planning application seeking full planning permission for 65 residential units (to include affordable housing, public open space, associated highways and drainage infrastructure) and outline planning permission, with all matters reserved except for access, for up to 2,000sqm (GIA) small scale employment use (B1 use class) and associated demolition, parking and open space.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

Minutes:

60.43        This was a hybrid application – a full planning application for 65 residential units (to include affordable housing, public open space, associated highways and drainage infrastructure) and an outline planning application, with all matters reserved except access, for up to 200sqm (GIA) small scale employment use (B1 class) and associated demolition, parking and open space.  The application was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 18 February 2020 to allow Officers to address the issues raised in respect of education matters.

60.44        The Planning Officer advised that, following the deferral of the application at Planning Committee in February, Officers had held discussions with Gloucestershire County Council and had reviewed the additional information submitted by the applicant’s agent in respect of the outstanding education matter.  In considering this information, the County Council had now withdrawn its objection to the proposal, subject to financial contributions being secured for education – pre-school, primary and secondary – via a Section 106 Agreement.  As set out in the original report, the County Council’s objection on the grounds of there being insufficient primary school spaces to meet the needs of the development formed the main reason for refusal.  As that objection had now been withdrawn, the Officer recommendation had been amended to a delegated permit, subject to the drafting of planning conditions in line with consultee recommendations and as set out on the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, and the resolution and completion of necessary planning obligations.  The applicant had previously confirmed they would be happy to enter into the required Section 106 Agreement for education, although Officers were still in the process of reviewing whether the County’s request met the relevant tests and would be justified in the context of the Community Infrastructure Levy regulations.

60.45        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent explained that the proposal was for a mixed use development of housing and employment with the latter in outline to give maximum flexibility to respond to occupiers’ needs.  He pointed out that the proposal had been developed over the last two and half years to establish what the need in the area might be.  At the last Committee meeting, they had provided a Counsel opinion on the way the issue of education had been dealt with and that information was set out in the Additional Representations Sheet with Paragraph 35 outlining the benefits and possible adverse effects of the scheme and how they weighed in the planning balance.  As Gloucestershire County Council had withdrawn its objection, there were now no technical objections to the proposed development and the applicant had been working with Officers to consider draft conditions and an appropriate Section 106 Agreement.

60.46        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Technical Planning Manger to permit the application, subject to the drafting of planning conditions in line with consultee recommendations and as set out on the Additional Representations Sheet, and the resolution and completion of necessary planning obligations, and he invited a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application in accordance with the officer recommendation.  The seconder of the motion expressed her disappointment that the County Council had withdrawn its objection but, unfortunately, she could see no planning grounds to refuse the application.  A Member raised concern that a future application could come forward for additional housing in the area currently proposed for business use and he questioned whether anything could be done to ensure it was retained for that purpose.  The Technical Planning Manager clarified there were no guarantees and Members must make a decision on the application before them; should another application be submitted in future that must also be determined on its planning merits.  The proposer of the motion pointed out that the business use element of the proposal was on a piece of land that had been allocated as employment land in the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan but it only took up half of that allocation and he asked if there was a reason for that.  In addition, he felt that Members would benefit from an explanation as to the education matters which had resulted in the deferral at the previous Planning Committee meeting as that had not been discussed at the time.  Education in Bishop’s Cleeve - particularly primary education - was a critical issue and the site now proposed for housing had at one stage been put forward as a potential site for an education facility which the County Council had decided was not needed, as such, he would like to understand specifically what the County Council objection had been to this particular proposal.  In response to the first question regarding the land earmarked for employment use in the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, the Technical Planning Manager indicated that he did not know why the whole area had not come forward for business use; however, there were existing buildings to the east of the application site which were still in use so it may well be intended to continue using those buildings at this stage.  In terms of the County Council’s position at the last Committee, there was simply not enough capacity – current or planned – to be able to take any pupils arising from additional housing; the County Council had also submitted an objection to the Tewkesbury Borough Plan on that basis.  What had come to light since that time, as correctly submitted on behalf of the applicant, was that, in any event, the County Council had a statutory duty and objecting to an application because it could not meet that need would be very difficult.  His understanding was that the County Council had reflected on that and withdrawn the application on the basis that there was a plan for a new school in Bishop’s Cleeve and discussions were ongoing with regard to its location; whilst Members may not agree that the planned site was the correct one, that was not a matter for the Committee.  It would be very difficult for a local education authority to say to an Inspector at appeal that it had a site for a new school that would only meet the needs of existing development which could potentially be overcome for example,  by the applicant offering to pay for additional places to make it a three-form entry school as opposed to a two-form entry school.  It was noted that the County Council had stated that Officers would be happy to meet local Members outside of the planning process to discuss its plans for moving forward in more detail.  The proposer of the motion thanked the Technical Planning Manager for the explanation which helped greatly with his understanding of the complicated issue.

60.47         A Member raised concern that the site had originally been allocated for 30 homes but this application was for 65 and he could not support a proposal for that number of houses.  Another Member pointed out that Bishop’s Cleeve was now larger than Tewkesbury but had no real infrastructure and he felt that Members needed to stand up to developers.  He indicated that he would be requesting a recorded vote on this application at the appropriate point. During the debate which ensued, a Member advised that she would not be supporting the application on the basis of the lack of an education facility and residents’ strong feelings about the proposed new school site.  A Member reminded the Committee that, when the application had been considered at the meeting in February, she had specifically asked for a firm offer from the County Council regarding the school and she did not feel that it had gone far enough in giving any guarantees; in her view the situation had not changed since the deferral, as such, she could not support the proposal.  The seconder of the motion for a delegated permit recognised that several Members were unwilling to support the proposal and, if they could provide an appropriate planning reason for refusal, she would be happy to reconsider her position.  The proposer of the motion agreed with the seconder and wished to respond to some of the comments that had been made during the debate.  As far as education was concerned, he wanted to understand the County Council’s position in terms of the wider context, not in terms of this particular application – the need for Gloucestershire County Council to find a suitable site to provide a significant educational facility for Bishop’s Cleeve was a different question and that issue was not relevant to this application.  In terms of the point about the likelihood of winning an appeal should the application be refused, he reiterated his earlier comment in relation to the importance of choosing the right battles; this site was allocated for residential development within the Tewkesbury Borough Plan so the Council had already determined that it was suitable for housing, whether that be 30 or 65 houses.  He stressed that he was not proposing a delegated permit because he wanted to see yet more housing in Bishop’s Cleeve but the reality was that the authority had accepted it as a housing site and refusing the application would be a futile gesture.  In putting forward some justification for a refusal, a Member suggested that, whilst the benefits arising from the proposal were substantial, the identified harms, particularly the absence of capacity to meet the needs of primary age children arising from the development, significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits in this case; and the lack of social infrastructure to support the proposal would fail to achieve a healthy, inclusive and safe community and would not represent sustainable development contrary to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.  The Technical Planning Manager explained that the justification provided by the Member reflected the Officers’ position at the last Committee when there was an objection to the proposal from the local education authority; however, that was no longer the case.  Despite there being no firm plan at this stage, the County Council was the statutory provider of school places and there was no justifiable reason for refusal – having taken advice, this was a very clear and firm stance and to refuse the application on those grounds would put the authority in a position an Inspector would find unreasonable and it would therefore be at risk of costs being awarded should there be an appeal.  The Member indicated that it was not just the school position but the total lack of any social infrastructure whatsoever and that had not changed since the last meeting of the Committee.  In terms of refusal reasons, another Member suggested that the proposal was deviating from the masterplan for 30 houses and three different developers had promised two community buildings but not one brick had been laid so he felt the lack of infrastructure was a good enough reason.  A Member went on to express the view that the site had been earmarked for a school in the masterplan and it was probably an oversight that it had not been stipulated at the time that, should the school not come forward on the site, the land should form part of the open space; he felt this was a lesson everyone could learn in future when masterplanning sites in order to prevent situations like this.

60.48         The Chair indicated that he had a proposal on the table for a recorded vote on the motion for a delegated permission in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  Upon receiving the appropriate support, the vote was recorded as follows:

For

Against

Abstain

Absent

R A BIRD

R D EAST

E J MACTIERNAN

L A GERRARD

G F BLACKWELL

D J HARWOOD

A S REECE

R J G SMITH

J H EVETTS

A HOLLAWAY

 

P D SURMAN

M A GORE

M L JORDAN

 

M J WILLIAMS

J R MASON

P W OCKELTON

 

 

R J E VINES

P E SMITH

 

 

P N WORKMAN

 

 

 

60.49         With seven votes in favour and six against, it was therefore

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Technical Planning Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the drafting of planning conditions in line with consultee recommendations and as set out on the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, and the resolution and completion of necessary planning obligations.

Supporting documents: