Agenda item

PROPOSAL: The erection of 47 dwellings and associated vehicular access, public open space, landscaping and other associated infrastructure.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.    

57.43        This was an application for the erection of 47 dwellings and associated vehicular access, public open space, landscaping and other associated infrastructure.

57.44        The Planning Officer explained that this application related to a parcel of arable farmland, covering approximately 2.3 hectares, which was located along the A46 Shurdington Road. The site bordered Green Lane and an existing residential property to the west, beyond that lay the existing Perrybrook development. The A417 ran along the eastern and northern boundary and the A46 ran along the southern boundary. The site was not subject to any landscape designations although the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was situated on the opposite side of the A46. The application site formed part of the Strategic Allocation A3 ‘North Brockworth’ as allocated in the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy and was shown to be ‘Green Infrastructure and other supporting infrastructure’ in the Indicative Site Layout Proposals Map. An existing outline consent for 1,500 homes and subsequent reserved matters approval for some parcels of land had already been granted planning permission, known as the Perrybrook development. This consent did not cover the application site. The current application was submitted in full and sought permission for 47 dwellings and associated vehicular access, public open space, landscaping and other associated works. The proposed development would deliver a mix of open market and affordable tenures, overall 36% of the dwellings would be ‘affordable’. The dwellings would include a mix of sizes from one bedroom to four bedroom houses. The proposed dwellings would be two storey in height and of traditional proportions but with a contemporary architectural design. A palette of materials was proposed to include red brick, render and timber. A single point vehicular access to the development would be created off the A46 Shurdington Road. A pedestrian access point was proposed along the western boundary to Green Lane and along the south-western boundary through the proposed community orchard, again, this would open out onto Green Lane. The development would include areas of green space and additional landscaping across the site, with an attenuation pond and foul water pumping station to the east. A local area for play, as well as a community orchard was to be provided. An assessment of the principle of the development and other material considerations could be found on Pages No. 166-179 of the Agenda. As set out in the report, Officers considered that, when taking account of all the material considerations and the weight to be attributed to each one, the identified harm which would arise from the poor degree of connectivity with the adjoining development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal which would include supply of housing both market and affordable, the economic benefits that would arise from the proposal and the local highway infrastructure improvements. A number of updates had been reported in the additional representations sheet from which the Planning Officer highlighted the following, Brockworth Parish Council had submitted an electronic petition with 473 signatures and a paper petition with 132 signatures objecting to the proposed development; at the time of writing the Committee report there were a couple of outstanding matters in respect of developer contributions which needed to be resolved and, following further consideration and recalculation, Officers considered a contribution of £49,217 instead of the previously requested £49,256 towards the refurbishment and improvement of the Henley Bank Sports Centre, which was open to the community, would be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and in respect of the contribution to the Travel Plan discussions were continuing as to whether this contribution would be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Given these points it was recommended that the granting of planning consent be delegated to the Development Manager subject to the addition/amendment of Planning Conditions as appropriate and the completion of an agreement to secure onsite affordable housing and other developer contributions directly related to the development and considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The Planning Officer stated that she had also recommended an additional condition requiring details, in particular elevational details, in relation to the proposed foul water pumping as none had been provided as part of the application and due to an omission two conditions needed to be added that had been requested by Gloucestershire County Council Local Mineral and Waste Planning Authority; firstly the requirement to provide a detailed site waste management plan and secondly to ensure that provision was made for the facilitation of the recycling of waste generated during the occupation phase.

57.45        The Chair invited the representative of Brockworth Parish Council to present the Parish Council’s views. He explained that it was felt that the infrastructure in Brockworth was under siege which was exacerbated by the current and projected build statistics of over 2,000 houses inflicted without consideration toward residents who still had a right to elements that provided a basic quality of life that negotiated living/relaxation/traffic/work. The latest permitted and proposed planning applications clearly demonstrated that residents were not being considered; the infrastructure in Brockworth had not been appropriately investigated or matched to the exponential growth of housing and development. The proposed site for the 49 houses was a ‘bolt on’ to Perrybrook that was not envisaged with the planning. The 49 homes were planned to be built upon and occupy valuable green space; this was a rare commodity even for new residents as every other space was manufactured and controlled by developers who allowed residents to walk within a little parcel of their land which did not represent what residents needed to be mentally healthy. This was always part of Green Belt space that was originally dedicated to serve Brockworth and now Perrybrook. The site had its exit onto the A46, which was dangerous and congested. He indicated that the video shown to Members was not representative of non-pandemic times and felt that it was an absolute catastrophe that this should be shown as it did not represent the true scale of traffic congestion in the area.  The crossing and additional public transport requirements coupled with the threat to foot traffic with no footpath clearly showed a lack of realistic discovery when contemplating impact. Highways projections did not look into the overall impact taking account of Mill Lane, A46, A417 slip roads, the roundabout, superhighways phases 2/3/5, schools, the rugby club and the proposed special needs school being built on the Parish football pitches. There was no easy access from this site on foot to services or incentives to cycle and the elderly would have difficulty to navigate to anything. Over 600 residents had signed a petition in opposition, no mean feat in a pandemic, and this clearly demonstrated the mood of the community. The Parish Council was led to believe that there were no minimum house limits on Perrybrook, surely the argument existed that there was no minimum green space allowance either. Residents had the right to walk and exercise in designated open space not ruled by anyone, they had the right to drive in safe conditions with the correct cycle and footfall infrastructure and to feel they had some say in their future. There was a further planning permission for another 16 houses at Henley Bank Kennels which would be affordable houses on a greenfield site and which would have no traffic impact according to County Highways so there was absolutely no need to permit these houses, Brockworth did not need them they had more than enough. The Parish Council representative implored the Committee on this occasion to listen to the residents of Brockworth.

57.46        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. He advised that the proposal sought full permission for 47 dwellings within the settlement of Brockworth, of which a policy compliant total of 17 dwellings would be affordable. The proposal included areas of public open space, sustainable drainage and childrens play areas and the site was not the subject of any restrictive land use designations. The site fell within the North Brockworth Strategic Allocation, as defined by the Joint Core Strategy, where the principle of new housing was acceptable. Whilst the site allocation referred to 1,500 dwellings, a figure that had been delivered, it was clear that this was not an upper limit. It was therefore entirely policy compliant to boost the delivery of housing on the land. This was particularly important now, at a time when the Council was acknowledged to have a substantial undersupply in its 5-year housing requirement. The agent noted that the Council’s Officers were advising that the supply situation was higher than was found in the recent appeal decision at Gotherington but, either way, the Council’s supply was acknowledged to be somewhere between 1.8 and 4.3 years, which was a serious shortfall. This situation triggered the ‘tilted balance’, which was an expectation that permission was granted unless there were such ‘substantial’ and ‘demonstrable’ impacts that overwhelmingly justified a refusal. This was an extremely high level of test and, for the reasons set out by the Officers, that high level test was not met here. This was a development of high-quality design, layout and materials and would integrate into the wider settlement. The application had been accompanied by a variety of technical assessments, all of which demonstrated that the development would not cause any adverse effects that could not be mitigated. Both Highways England and the County Highways had advised that the site access arrangements complied with published highway standards. An acceptable drainage solution had been provided and statutory consultees and advisors had concluded that there would be no undue effects on the landscape, biodiversity, air quality, noise or amenity. The applicant had agreed to provide a policy compliant contribution towards affordable housing, public open space, education and sustainable transport which was to be secured by means of Section 106 Agreement. It was understood that the Parish Council had objected and that there had been a local petition. The Agent sympathised to a degree with the view that Brockworth had taken a fair amount of development in recent years. However, this needed to be put into context. Firstly, the petition had been signed by a mere 5% of the Brockworth population, which would indicate an acceptance of this scale of development from the vast majority. There was also a need to be mindful that this site fell within a designated housing site and at the urban edge of Gloucester. Brockworth was one of the most sustainable settlements in the Borough, with access to the full range of services and amenities, including a District Centre, Business Park and schools and it was clear that 47 dwellings could easily be absorbed into the settlement. It was hoped that Members would agree the application represented the perfect opportunity to deliver much needed housing in a highly sustainable location and that the Council’s best defence against speculative schemes in smaller rural settlements was to boost housing on allocated sites such as this.

57.47        One of the local Ward Members, in responding to some of the points raised by the applicant’s agent, indicated that the amenities at Brockworth were creaking, there was no doctors surgery and she was of the opinion that at the earliest it would be another 5 years before one would be provided; the Parish was bursting at the seams with housing and the reason only 5% of the population had signed the petition was because it was really difficult to engage the community anymore as generally the view was that the Parish would get what it was given and it was pointless to object - but she stressed that no more housing was needed. She referred to the access arrangements and stressed that the A46 was a very busy road that in normal conditions was chock-a-block heading towards Stroud and Cheltenham it was almost impossible to get onto the road so she had no idea how it was going to cater for another 47 houses. In terms of the Planning Officer’s reference to Henley Bank Community Centre being open to the community she understood that this was no longer run jointly with the Council and if a contribution of £49,000 was to be made to the facility then she would wish to see some sort of access arrangements for the community as they were not being allowed to use the swimming pool and the gym currently excepting that the country was currently in lockdown. In conclusion, she urged Members not to grant permission for any more housing in Brockworth as enough was enough. One of the other local Ward Members for the neighbouring area proposed that the application be refused on the grounds of road safety; normally when out of lockdown the road was gridlocked which would result in the failure of emergency vehicles being able to access the site in a quick and timely manner; there was a bus stop to one side of the proposed access so when a bus was stationary the view onto the A46 would be impeded and unsafe, there was also a slip road on the other side, when the traffic did flow on the A46 it was extremely fast moving and with an open view blocked by a bus it would be very dangerous for traffic to access onto the A46. In addition, the site was allocated by the Perrybrook estate as green infrastructure, so if this was not going to be the case then further green space would be lost to the area leaving less than half an acre of green area. She was also of the view that the site was underassessed in terms of affordable housing, it was stated that the affordable element would account for 40% of the housing on the site yet the development was for 47 houses the majority being 3 or 4 bedroom houses with the 4 bedroom houses able to hold up to 7 people which equated to 224 people not 109 people using the assessment of 2.4 persons per household and therefore not only was the affordable housing provision being underestimated so was the number of cars coming from the development on to an exceptionally busy road. In summary, she indicated that the application should be refused because of the inadequate infrastructure and road network. She maintained that it was necessary to undertake a full traffic impact assessment taking account of current developments and future permissions in that vicinity in non-pandemic times so that the Committee could fully appreciate the problems in this area. When the COVID restrictions had been lifted the A46 would be impossible in the mornings it would be nose to tail with traffic, she had been contacted by Badgeworth and Shurdington Parish Councils as well as residents from Hatherley who used this road and were concerned about any further increase in traffic volume. In response to questions raised the Planning Officer stated that this land was not within the site boundary of the Perrybrook development however it was included in the strategic allocation on the Proposals Maps in the Joint Core Strategy; with regard to the petition this was being dealt with as further objections to the application and the Planning Officer had been through all of the comments but they contained no new material or raised any new considerations that had not already been dealt with in the Officer report other than loss of Green Belt but this site was no longer in the Green Belt having been removed as part of the boundary review during the adoption of the Joint Core Strategy; in respect of the impact on the Special Area of Conservation an appropriate assessment was carried out during the course of the application in accordance with the Habitats Regulations which was reviewed by Natural England and the Council’s Ecological Officer the details of which were found to be acceptable however a condition was being recommended in relation to the provision of a home information pack to all residents setting out alternative areas for recreation to visit; with regard to the impact on the Cotswold AONB, Natural England following liaison with the Cotswolds Conservation Board raised no objections to the development subject to mitigation measures, suitable landscaping and management of the eastern and northern boundaries being incorporated into the design, the Council’s Landscape Advisor and Tree Officer also had no objections to the development but there had been some minor changes to the landscaping and these would be secured by condition should the application be permitted. Following further clarification being sought, the Planning Officer explained with the aid of maps that this site was not considered as part of the green infrastructure for the Perrybrook estate as it was outside the application site but it was included as green infrastructure as part of the strategic allocation albeit that the maps were indicative. A Member indicated that it was clear that it was the intention for this site to be green infrastructure and this was an important part of the strategic plan for the area and therefore it should remain as green infrastructure. Further questions were asked in relation to the density of the scheme and what traffic impact assessment had been used for County Highways to state that it had no objection to the application. In terms of density, the Planning Officer confirmed that it was 21 dwellings per hectare and the Local  Highways Authority representative indicated that a transport assessment was submitted alongside the planning application as part of the evidence base so that it could be considered as part of a stand alone package. That assessment included a microsimulation model which used traffic data from 2018 and future growth with development impact; so the data was pre-COVID lockdown restrictions as well as looking forward to the impact of future development. Microsimulation models were difficult to interpret but they did provide a robust representation which showed that there would be no significant change and there certainly could not be considered a severe impact in terms of NPPF tests; the assessment was based on data which the Highways Authority was satisfied with and considered to be robust.

57.48        From the discussion that ensued it was apparent that a number of Members had concerns about this development primarily in terms of the loss of green infrastructure, landscape impact and highway safety.  The Development Manager reiterated that the strategic allocation plan, which accompanied the Joint Core Strategy was, as highlighted in the presentation, indicative only. He was of the view that there were other areas of green infrastructure which were not shown on the indicative plan but had actually been provided. The Officer report set out what the calculations were in terms of the amount of green infrastructure required by the JCS and, even with the development of this site, the requirement would still be delivered, this therefore caused a problem in terms of any issues over the quantum of green infrastructure. This was not a site which was available for public use in the same way as the open spaces were on the Perrybrook development which had large areas of playing fields that were not far away from this development site and had reserved matters approval. In landscape terms just looking at the site, the highways infrastructure around the junction of the A417 and Shurdington Road and the fact that this site sat back onto Perrybrook itself it would be difficult in the context of it being an allocated site, in the view of the Development Manager, to justify any refusal on the basis of landscape impact. Finally, in terms of transport, whilst the Development Manager appreciated the concerns raised, Members had heard the view of the Local Highways Authority representative in terms of the robust analysis that had been carried out on the highway impacts and both Highways England and the Local Highways Authority had no objections to the proposals, neither body felt that the proposals would offend the policies in the JCS or NPPF and on that basis it would be very dangerous to take a view contrary to this based on what an Inspector would see as anecdotal information in comparison to the people who were in charge of the safety and safe operation of the highway network. This was a very difficult position and the Development Manager indicated that his advice to the Committee would be that, if Members did wish to consider a refusal on highway grounds, then before making a decision they should take independent advice on that. This was not meant as a criticism of the Local Highway Authority, as its view was very clear, but for Members to take a different view then they should only do this based on an independent view.

57.49        Members spoke again about the problems with this site and stressed how traffic patterns had changed since 2018 because of other development that had taken place. The Chair sought guidance from the Development Manager as to whether it would be feasible to defer the application for further clarification in relation to the green infrastructure and highway matters. The Development Manager indicated that in terms of green infrastructure he was not sure what further information could be provided, it was only shown on the illustrative plan as green infrastructure and as set out in the report, even with the development of this site, the requirements of the JCS in this respect would be met. He also reminded the Committee of the decision making process in respect of the Council’s 5 year land supply and the tilted balance that required significant and demonstrable harms, as Members were aware from previous appeal decisions how high that bar can be. An Inspector looking at this site which falls within an allocation, which allocation provided for the amount of green infrastructure, without this site would in the view of the Development Manager think that this reason would not even come close to being significant and demonstrable. He reiterated that if Members wished to consider refusing the application on highway grounds then they should only do so after taking an independent view on this issue which would mean a deferral of the application. Based on the very clear advice that had been given, the Chair asked the proposer of the motion to refuse this application whether she would consider revising this to a deferral to get an independent assessment of the highway issues and this would also allow those Members who required it to get a better understanding of the green space considerations; he was of the view that, if the Committee refused the application today, it could be putting the Council at a great deal of risk. The Member indicated that she was not prepared to withdraw her proposal to refuse this application for the reasons of high volumes of traffic on the A46 which would also cause delays for emergency vehicle access, the proposed access onto the A46 being obscured and unsafe, general highway movements in the area not being fully assessed and the loss of green infrastructure affecting the whole of Brockworth but required for the mental health and wellbeing of the residents. The motion to refuse was seconded and a Member referred to the Officer’s report at Page No. 170 which he maintained gave additional reasons as to why this development should be refused in terms of the contents of paragraphs 7.25, 7.26 and 7.29 in relation to promoting healthy communities, promoting social interaction and integration which was a requirement of Policy SA1, A3 and SD4 of the JCS. The Member maintained that this was the worst possible area to build in terms of traffic and as had been mentioned earlier there was no doctors surgery in the area despite 1,500 houses being built; he was of the view that at best the application should be deferred for another 5 or 6 years but as it currently stood he could not support this application. Another Member raised concerns in respect of noise and questioned whether a need for bunding had been considered and he concurred with the points as regards connectivity as the site appeared stuck out on a limb. Other Members agreed that connectivity to the adjoining development should be added as a refusal reason as well as health issues relating to the loss of a green space that was included in the strategic allocation. The Development Manager commented on the recent thread of discussion indicating that his advice could not be stronger in that to refuse this application on highway grounds would put the Council at risk of an adverse costs award should the refusal go to appeal but, if Members felt that this was the direction they wished to take, the application should be deferred for an independent review to be undertaken. In terms of the green issue, characterising it as a loss was difficult to defend as that land was not currently available for this purpose so there was no loss of a facility that could be used - the loss was only on the basis of it being green undeveloped land. In relation to the connectivity issue the Officers report was quite clear that this was a failing of the scheme but, again, it was the view of Officers that this did not amount to a significant and demonstrable harm and although Members could make a different judgement the Development Manager did not think that this would be a robust reason when taking into account the benefits of the scheme and the Council’s 5 year land supply.

57.50        A motion was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred for an independent view on the highway issues. The Chair indicated, on the Legal Advisor confirming it would be a procedural motion, that he would be taking this motion first. A Member indicated that if the deferral was agreed then he would wish to see a complete traffic impact assessment for the whole area taking account of all the development that had taken place not just this site. A request for a recorded vote received sufficient support and upon the motion being put to the vote, it was recorded as follows:

57.51        It was noted that Councillors J R Mason, M J Williams and P N Workman had left the meeting prior to the vote on this item and so did not take part in the recorded vote.

57.52        The motion was carried and it was

RESOLVED           That the application be DEFERRED for an independent view on the highway issues.