Link to homepage

Agenda item

21/00903/FUL - Caerleon, Tewkesbury Road, Twigworth

PROPOSAL: Erection of two detached dwellings including associated car parking.




48.2          This application was for the erection of two detached dwellings including associated car parking.

48.3          The Planning Officer explained that Condition 6, set out at Page No. 49 of the Committee report, had been amended slightly to read: “The electric vehicle charging point shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted plans and shall comply with BS EN 62196 Mode 3 or 4 charging and BS EN 61851 and Manual for Gloucestershire Streets.  The electric vehicle charging points shall be retained for the lifetime of the development thereafter unless they need to be replaced in which case the replacement charging point shall be of the same specification or a higher specification in terms of charging performance.”  She also pointed out an error at Page No. 39, Paragraph 1.2 which should state that the application site measured approximately 0.6 hectares and was triangular in shape.  The Planning Officer went on to advise that the site was within the strategic allocation for residential development and outside of the Green Belt.  The site had been subdivided and a new dwelling erected within the curtilage of Caerleon.  The proposal would further subdivide the site into two plots; plot 2 would be a two storey, three bedroom dwelling of a similar design to the recently constructed dwelling and plot 3 would be a three bedroom dormer bungalow.  Plot 3 would be sited further towards the front boundary and, although almost all properties in the immediate vicinity were set back from the road, this form of development was evident in the wider area.  The subdivision of the plot would result in two smaller plots; however, there were other plots in Down Hatherley and Twigworth of similar size.  The use of similar design features and materials would ensure the development would integrate with the local character.  The plots would be subject to noise from the main road but the agent had agreed to noise mitigation measures for triple glazed windows and doors to be conditioned.  The boundary hedge indicated on the plans had been removed and replaced with a boundary fence which was unauthorised and contrary to the semi-rural character of the area.  A condition was recommended for a hedge to be planted on the front boundary to soften the development with a boundary fence behind as a noise mitigation measure.  The existing access would serve the development and two parking spaces were provided for each dwelling.  County Highways had raised no objection with regard to highway safety or impact on the highway network although, as already referenced, a condition was recommended for the provision of electric vehicle charging points.  The Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer had no objection to the proposal subject to a condition for surface water drainage.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

48.4          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that, as set out in the Committee report, the application sought permission for two additional dwellings on an existing residential plot on the southern side of the A38; this was in addition to a single plot that was supported by the Planning Committee in December 2019.  Whilst the site may appear to be within open countryside currently, Members would be aware that it formed part of the Joint Core Strategy strategic allocation for Twigworth.  The main development of approximately 725 dwellings within the allocation had planning consent and it was material to note that another application for 74 dwellings within the allocation site had also been permitted as well as one for approximately 32 dwellings adjacent to this site.  Therefore, this site would very much be part of the urban area of Gloucester going forward.  The principle of housing here was clearly acceptable, subject to the properties respecting the character and layout of the wider strategic allocation.  Whilst he sympathised with the Parish Council’s concerns, the applicant’s agent respectfully pointed out that the comments raised were not substantive matters that could lead to refusal of the application.  The Parish Council suggested that the site was contrary to the adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan but, as pointed out by Officers, that was not the case; the site formed part of the Twigworth strategic allocation and there were no Neighbourhood Development Plan policies which precluded this.  It was also suggested there was no demonstrated need for the development; however, there was a well-established boroughwide need to boost housing, particularly in light of the five year housing land supply position, and this proposal was wholly policy compliant.  The key consideration in this case was whether the new dwellings would fit into the wider layout of the housing scheme, without compromising the comprehensive delivery of the masterplan.  As set out in the Committee report, the proposal involved the subdivision of an existing plot and the two dwellings would be sited so as to nicely integrate into the wider development.  The design and layout reflected the character, scale and density of the surrounding development in the area and fully complied with the design expectations of the Joint Core Strategy.  The relationship with the neighbouring plot would not result in issues of overlooking, loss of light or overbearing impact.  In that regard, the designer had ensured adequate amenity space for each property and that window-to-window distances complied with normal standards.  The development would make use of the existing site access which fully complied with the highway standards - County Highways had no objection to the proposal and had confirmed it was a sustainable location for new housing.  The applicant’s agent concurred that the application accorded with the housing policies of the development plan and hoped Members would feel able to support it.

48.5          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.  A Member noted that the site location referenced at Page No. 39 of the Committee report was ‘Caerleon, Tewkesbury Road, Twigworth’; however, he understood the site was in Down Hatherley rather than Twigworth and he asked for clarification on that.  In response, the Legal Adviser explained that Twigworth was probably the postal address; the site was located in Severn Vale South Ward and within Down Hatherley Parish, as set out at Page No. 39 of the Committee report.  Another Member drew attention to Page No. 42, Paragraph 4.3 of the report which stated that the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer had advised that the details submitted were inadequate for a drainage strategy and Condition 7, set out at Page No. 49 of the report, required an assessment of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system to be undertaken prior to the details of the surface water drainage works being submitted and implemented.  The Member asked whether the application should be recommended for delegated permission on that basis.  In response, the Development Management Team Leader (North) advised that, whilst the details had not been submitted as part of the application, the Flood Risk Management Engineer was confident that a solution could be found and the condition was proposed because there was a prospect of resolving the issue – this was a common scenario.

48.6          Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

Supporting documents: