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

19/00953/APP - Yew Tree Farm, Tewkesbury Road, Twigworth

PROPOSAL: Application for the approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale) pursuant to outline planning permission reference 17/00852/OUT for the erection of up to 74 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS).

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Approve.

Minutes:

34.2          This application was for the approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) pursuant to outline planning permission reference 17/00852/OUT for the erection of up to 74 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS). The application had been deferred at the last meeting to allow for further consultation with interested parties; particularly in respect of plot 53 to the south west corner of the site. Prior to the last meeting the applicant had indicated an intention to remove plot 53 following concerns regarding residential amenity. The applicant now wished to retain plot 53 with amendments to address those concerns. Further consultation had been undertaken based on the revised plans now before the Committee.

34.3          The Planning Officer advised that this application followed the outline permission for up to 74 dwellings which was permitted in late 2018, the site formed part of the Innsworth and Twigworth Strategic Allocation and the principle of this development had already been established through the outline permission and therefore this application related solely to the approval of the layout, appearance, scale and landscaping. Access was not reserved for future consideration and had been approved as part of the outline permission. The permitted access was a simple priority junction directly off the A38. This had been incorporated in the layout before the Committee together with access within the site for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians which had not previously been approved. The Highways Officer was satisfied that the proposed arrangements were acceptable from a highway’s perspective. In terms of the layout, condition 5 attached to the outline permission required all applications for the approval of the reserved matters to be generally in accordance with the principles and parameters described in the approved Design and Access Statement and the Illustrative Masterplan; this had therefore determined the detailed design of the scheme to a large degree. As set out in the Officer’s report it was considered that the road layout, block sizes and location of the public open space generally were in accordance with that shown on the Illustrative Masterplan. In terms of appearance and scale, the scheme adopted a more traditional architectural approach. The proposed dwellings varied in size and comprised 1,2,3,4, and 5 bedroom detached, semi-detached and terraced properties. The dwellings were predominantly 2 storey with a number of 2.5 storey units at key focal points. The scheme also incorporated a pair of bungalows fronting onto the public open space. With regard to the Park Homes that had been sited close to the south west boundary of the site, revised plans had been submitted that showed plot 53 moved further to the east. The window-to-window distance between the rear of plot 53 and the façade of the Park Home directly to the rear was now in excess of 20 metres, which was considered acceptable. In addition, the plans showed further screen planting to the rear garden area of plot 53 which would provide a degree of privacy to any future occupants. This screen planting was proposed to be set back from the site boundary to allow for a small grassed corridor between the garden of plot 53 and the site boundary. This strip would not be in the ownership of plot 53 and would be managed by a management company as part of the wider green infrastructure for the site. This relationship was now considered to be acceptable. In conclusion, the Planning Officer indicated that a number of concerns had been raised in respect of the proposed drainage; however, as set out in the report, these details would be dealt with under a separate condition discharge application and were not being considered as part of this application. He stressed that the drainage strategy outlined in the report was a potential solution subject to detailed design and justification but in any event would require approval from the Council prior to any works commencing on site. On this basis, the application now before the Committee was therefore recommended for approval. The Development Manager reminded Members that they were only considering the reserved matters as described in the application the main site access had previously been approved and issues relating to drainage/flooding would be considered separately under the planning condition application.

34.4          The Chair invited a local resident speaking against the proposal to address the Committee.  The local resident stated that it was necessary to cut through the red tape that appeared to be in front of the Committee as a “reserved matters” Agenda Item. He requested the Committee to review this application in total including full history and applications going forward. He gave the following reasons for this request: in 2013 this site was refused planning permission for 58 dwellings (reference 13/00570/OUT) for several reasons, one being the drainage strategy information was not sufficient; in 2017 the developer submitted another application (reference 17/00852/OUT) for 74 dwellings; the minutes of the July 2018 Planning Committee raised significant concerns over the flood risk for the area; the resolution was for the Committee to delegate the decision to the Technical Planning Manager; Planning permission was granted in December 2018 with no evidence of Committee endorsement, however the drainage strategy supporting this application stated the solution was to either discharge the water into a watercourse in Brook Lane or the existing sewage system; there was no evidence of underwriting this solution by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) or Severn Trent; this approval was considered a serious breach of process, as the solution to flood mitigation was flawed, not proven or endorsed by the appropriate authorities; the current application (19/00953/APP) still had serious and significant issues on flood risk management and the solution in the current application before the Committee had also been rejected by Severn Trent and the LLFA. The objector questioned how this application could be approved only reviewing building layout without considering flooding concerns; the layout was important as the flooding solution could impact the size of the proposed SuDS and it could increase in capacity reducing the number of dwellings. He indicated that the Committee should be aware of a further application 20/00088/CONDIS as a new solution to the drainage strategy. This had yet to be submitted to the Committee but again the proposal had inadequate information and was not proven. The LLFA had raised significant concerns over this proposal on the basis that it was “lacking in detail with no information on how it is technically feasible” The objector maintained that it appeared the developer was trying to seek planning permission by a series of osmosis applications in the hope that the red tape process and previous history would not be considered in respect of this application. In conclusion he requested that the Committee defer this application and conduct a full detailed investigation into the actions of the Technical Planning Manager to ensure the process of delegated planning approval through the historic proposals had been executed with due diligence and did not expose the Committee to an embarrassing position. He maintained that authority could be delegated but not responsibility.

34.5          The Agent then addressed the Committee and advised Members that this reserved matters application had been the subject of pre-application discussions during the determination of the application over the last 12 months. He maintained that the proposal delivered a scheme which was in accordance with the allocation set out within the development plan, the outline planning permission, all other relevant planning policies and was broadly in accordance with the layout that was approved as part of the original outline planning consent. He reminded Members that this reserved matters application had been due to be discussed at the Planning Committee meeting in September but due to an outstanding objection in relation to the arrangement of plot 53, located in the south western corner of the site, and its relationship to a Park Home which had been newly erected adjacent to the site the application had been deferred to allow the applicant to submit a revised scheme that dealt with the objection and which could be formally consulted upon. Subsequently the applicant submitted a revised scheme which Officers were now happy with as reflected in the Case Officer’s report now before the Committee. The revised design retained plot 53 in a form and layout as was previously proposed but it had been moved further east to achieve an acceptable window-to-window distance between plot 53 and the Park Home directly to its rear. Additionally, a landscape corridor and further screening following the plot’s southern and western boundary was proposed providing separation and a degree of privacy between that plot and the existing Park Homes with that corridor being in the overall control of a Management Company. The Agent maintained that with these changes in place and considering the overall scheme, which had been the subject of significant consultation with the authority, it was demonstrated that this reserved matters application achieved a design of the scheme which was in line with planning policy. It would deliver 74 new homes, including 40% affordable homes on what was an allocated site with outline permission. Furthermore, the proposals provided a betterment in terms of drainage relative to what had been expected in the outline permission and a net biodiversity gain could be achieved through the introduction of ecological mitigation measures and enhancements as put forward in the Ecological Management Plan.  It was his view that the proposals met the three overarching objectives to achieve sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) providing 74 homes which would contribute to the housing supply in the Borough.  On this basis he hoped that the Committee would be able to support the Officer’s recommendation to approve the application as set out in the report.

34.6          The Chair invited one of the Local Ward Member’s for the area to speak and he advised the Committee that there were several issues in relation to this site. He maintained that on the first site visit Members had nearly been run over looking at the access to this development but regardless of his opinion that was approved and the cumulative traffic impacts were not considered in this application. He reminded the Committee that this site counted towards the housing numbers of Gloucester City Council and would not affect Tewkesbury Borough’s five year land supply. However, in his view the crux of the matter was flooding and in particular surface water management; JCS Policy INF2 advised that development proposals must not increase the level of risk to the safety of occupiers of a site, the local community or the wider environment either on site or elsewhere. In terms of the question as to whether flooding was relevant, in his opinion the answer was yes as due to the area, the whole design had to be built around it, the LLFA was a consultee and the application before Members contained a specific drainage strategy plan that included the surface water. He drew Members attention to the LLFA response to this application as follows “the drainage strategy described in information provided on the 10 March is based on discussions following objections to the proposal to discharge surface water to the Severn Trent foul sewer. It was agreed that the surface water culvert under the A38 would be a good place to discharge the surface water from the site but that the culvert is not currently understood. It’s not recorded on any maps as a watercourse and is only known to exist through survey work carried out by developers. I believe that the strategy will prove to be the best solution for the site but only if it is supported with the evidence that the culvert is adequate. Without adequate survey of the culvert and a plan to take any action required to ensure the culvert is adequate for the purpose …the LLFA will object to this proposal the evidence is not all there where it goes etc. we still don’t even know where the culvert discharges”. The original strategies of using the foul sewer had been ruled out and Brooke Lane which was now a another large development site and unfeasible. Since then the LLFA had further commented in August saying “The information supplied is no more than a plan lacking in detail with no information to show how it is technically feasible/viable and that it will manage flood risk to the site and elsewhere. The proposed scheme differs considerably from the scheme agreed in the planning permission …verbal agreements made during the development stage are inadequate for formal agreement of a detailed design at a potentially contentious location. The plan fails to show how the controlled discharge from the attenuation basin reaches the breakout chamber that connects to the culvert under the A38”  The local Member maintained that this material consideration was potentially enough to enact Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and revoke the existing permission. In conclusion, he maintained that this application could be refused as premature and violating policy INF2 or should at least be deferred until the culvert was understood as without a fully agreed and signed off surface water plan in place and, as other reasonably afforded options appeared to have been ruled out, this application was not practical or sustainable and directly violated Joint Core Strategy policy INF2.

34.7          The other local Member representing this area stated that following the last meeting of the Planning Committee he had emailed Officers asking for certain pieces of information to be brought before the next meeting, one of which was a report and photographs on the culvert that had been mentioned by his fellow Councillor in the last speech. That information had not come forward and, whilst he had lots of other questions, he wished to suggest that this application be deferred until the Committee had a full understanding of the flow of water through the culvert and its capacity; information he had requested but not received.  He maintained that this was relevant to the application as part of it included a sustainable drainage system (SuDS) and the water flows going into that system and overflows would go into the culvert. He also asked for further information on Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 referred to by the previous speaker as he was unaware as to what this was and felt some clarification would useful. The Development Manager understood this was a sensitive matter in this particular area and other areas of the Borough but the fact remained that outline planning permission had been granted and that permission included a condition which required the drainage details to be addressed. As was alluded to by one of the speakers it may be that the layout could possibly need to change if the current proposed drainage system solution was found not to be satisfactory and if the layout did need to change to accommodate a solution then the applicant would have to submit another reserved matters approval as had been the case on other previous sites. He stressed that granting reserved matters approval for this layout did not mean the development would necessarily go ahead in this manner because the drainage still needed to be addressed through the condition. He understood that this was not the most straightforward way, particularly for the developer, but the fact that the drainage was not addressed did not mean that the Committee could not approve the reserved matters application before them today. He reiterated that the considerations needed to be restricted to those matters referred to in the application description. In terms of Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for clarification this included a power to revoke or modify planning permissions; revocation was a seldom used tool and in the few times that it had happened it was normally done with the agreement of the developer; there were also significant compensation issues associated with revocation. In this case there was no evidence to support a revocation. The advice of the LLFA had been consistent throughout which was that there was a solution to the drainage but it had just not been fully agreed at the moment. The Chair indicated that the advice seemed to be quite clear and the grounds upon which a deferral was sought were not relevant to this application. The Member disagreed on the basis that the SuDS was part of the application and even though he accepted the explanation given it did not follow that he necessarily agreed with it. He could not support a sustainable drainage system when all the information was not available, the LLFA was not satisfied as was highlighted by the last speaker and therefore he wished his proposal for the reserved matters approval to be deferred to stand. The Member also sought clarification as to whether this site was part of the Strategic A1 “up to 725 dwellings” appeal site. Another Member of the Committee referred to the fact that several of the speakers had indicated that the LLFA had objected to this application but it clearly stated within the Officer’s report that the LLFA  was satisfied with the drainage strategy albeit that the details needed to be submitted separately to the Council as part of a condition discharge application. She maintained it was clear that the drainage strategy was not something being considered as part of this application but questioned whether that application could be called in for Committee consideration. The Development Manager firstly indicated that this was a separate site subject to a separate outline planning consent and was not part of the Twigworth 725 dwellings appeal site; in terms of the drainage issue, clearly SuDS appeared in the description of the development as that allowed for the space to be provided for the system in outline but the detail was covered by the relevant condition application that had been submitted but was currently under consideration. Normally conditions were generally technical matters dealt with by Officers but if Members did wish this condition application to come before them because of the issues that had been raised then this could be facilitated although the Development Manager was concerned that these were very technical matters involving specialist consultees and people specifically employed by the Council as consultants to address them therefore he was not convinced what benefit there would be in bringing that condition application to Members; however, this was a matter for the judgement of the Committee. Debate continued on the drainage strategy and why the detailed solution could not have come to the Committee before the reserved matters application and that the application should be deferred to allow for the detailed drainage strategy to be considered. The Development Manager cautioned Members to consider whether it would be reasonable to defer an application based on something they were not being asked to determine and was outside the scope of the reserved approval application before them today; the drainage solution would be addressed separately by condition. He personally felt that such action could be considered to be unreasonable and there was also the possibility of a non-determination appeal to be considered.  The local Member referred to the problems of flooding in the area and, whilst he was not opposing the development itself, he could not reconcile being asked to make a decision without all of the information which he had asked for the day after the last meeting of the Planning Committee. Accordingly he proposed that this application be deferred for the up to date information including both photographs and a report on the capacity of the culvert as it affected the surface water which would not only go into the SuDS but also the local brooks at a determined rate. The proposal was seconded. A Member of the Committee indicated that the reasons being advocated for a deferral did not relate to the application in front of the Committee and the drainage issues being discussed were separate to that of the reserved matters which was about layout and not the disposal of excess water. He indicated that, whilst it might be unusual there was no reason why the Committee could not consider the drainage condition application and it seemed to him that some Members were trying to confuse two separate issues. The Development Manager indicated that a representative of the LLFA was present at the meeting and he wondered if it might be useful to get an update on the position as well as the LLFA’s view on the Strategy. He endorsed the views of the previous speaker in that the detailed drainage strategy was a separate matter and if Members wished the condition application to come before them then of course this could be accommodated. The LLFA representative stated that the authority was happy with the layout of the SuDS, the pond, the size of the pond and the rate of discharge from the site seemed reasonable. Information was still needed from the developer, which would be through the separate discharge of the condition application, as to where the surface water was going to go which he was confident could be managed through that process; there was no objection to the site as it was currently proposed but the authority would be monitoring the condition in relation to the detailed Drainage Strategy to ensure that the site would not be increasing flood risk to the area. The Chair indicated that the motion for deferral would be put to the vote and the proposer sought a recorded vote; upon receiving the necessary support, the vote was recorded as follows:

For

Against

Abstain

L A Gerrard

R A Bird

P E Smith

D J Harwood

G F Blackwell

 

M L Jordan

R D East

 

E J MacTiernan

J H Evetts

 

P W Ockelton

M A Gore

 

R J G Smith

J R Mason

 

M J Williams

A S Reece

 

P N Workman

P D Surman

 

 

R J E Vines

 

34.8          The motion was declared to be lost with 8 votes in favour, 9 against and 1 abstention.

34.9          On the proviso that the Committee would see the condition application in relation to the drainage of the site, it was proposed and seconded and upon being put to the vote, it was

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

Supporting documents: