Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Residential development (up to 160 dwellings) associated works including demolition, infrastructure, open space and landscaping with vehicular access from the A38; all matters reserved.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

60.2          This application was for residential development of up to 160 dwellings and associated works including demolition, infrastructure, open space and landscaping with vehicular access from the A38; all matters reserved.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 14 January 2022.

60.3          The Planning Officer advised that, at its meeting on 18 January 2022, the Planning Committee had resolved to defer this application to allow discussions to continue and a conclusion to be reached in respect of the financial contributions towards education provision and the proposed tenure mix of the affordable housing.  The application site was located off Brook Lane in Down Hatherley and extended to approximately 7.82 hectares.  The site on which the residential development was proposed comprised 4.89 hectares and lay within the Parish of Down Hatherley.  The remaining area, as defined by the red line on the submitted site location plan, comprised land consented and currently part-built known as ‘Land at Twigworth’ approved under the outline consent in 2016 and was required for access, service and surface water drainage – this additional land was located within Down Hatherley Parish, Twigworth Parish and a small section in Innsworth Parish.  To the immediate north of the site was Norton Garden Centre and several properties lay along Brook Lane located immediately to the west.  To the east were properties along Ash Lane with an intervening parcel of agricultural land separating some from the site.  The ‘Land at Twigworth’ development was situated to the south of the site, beyond a parcel of agricultural land.  Members were advised that the site formed part of the Innsworth and Twigworth strategic allocation in the Joint Core Strategy and was shown to be ‘housing and related infrastructure’ in the Joint Core Strategy indicative site layout proposals map.  This application was made in outline for residential development of up to 160 dwellings and associated works with all matters reserved for subsequent approval.  Whilst access was reserved for future consideration, an application for outline planning permission must indicate the area, or areas, where access points to the development would be situated.  Based on the plans submitted, it was proposed that the access to the site from the public highway would be provided from the new roundabout off the A38 which had been approved as part of the ‘Land at Twigworth’ development.  Although all matters were reserved, the application documents included an illustrative masterplan and parameters plan which indicated how the quantum of development could be delivered. 

60.4          The Planning Officer explained that, since the publication of the January Committee report, several matters which had been reported as outstanding had since been resolved and therefore the Committee report in the Agenda for the current meeting had been updated accordingly to reflect that.  She confirmed that the two outstanding matters which were the reasons for the deferral at the last Planning Committee meeting had now also been resolved following continued discussions and negotiations.  In terms of the contribution towards education provision, the applicant had confirmed they were willing to pay the contributions requested by the Local Education Authority on a without prejudice basis; should planning permission be granted, that obligation would need to be secured via a legal agreement.  Therefore, subject to the completion of the legal agreement, Officers considered that matter had been successfully resolved.  In relation to the affordable housing tenure, the applicant had agreed, on a without prejudice basis, to provide the affordable housing tenure and mix as requested by the Council’s Housing Strategy and Enabling Officer i.e. 35% on-site provision of affordable housing in total, of which 70% of the affordable units would be social rented and 30% of the units would be affordable housing for sale (shared ownership).  Officers considered the proposed scheme for affordable housing would now be policy compliant and the Council’s Strategic Housing and Enabling Officer had confirmed the proposal was acceptable.  Should planning permission be granted, this obligation, along with details of the clustering, would need to be secured via a legal agreement.  Turning to the requirements of the emerging Policy NAT1 of the Main Modifications Tewkesbury Borough Plan which expected all development to deliver a minimum biodiversity net gain of 10%, at the last Planning Committee meeting, Officers had advised that, should permission be granted, it would be reasonable to secure this requirement via condition; however, following continued discussions, Officers considered that, as the Main Modifications Tewkesbury Borough Plan remained an emerging plan, and as there was an unresolved objection to this emerging policy, in this instance and at this particular time, the requirement should be to contribute positively to, and provide net gains for, biodiversity in accordance with the requirements of Policy SD9 of the Joint Core Strategy and guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.  As such, a condition was recommended to secure that requirement.  In conclusion, Officers considered that all outstanding matters previously reported had now been resolved in an acceptable manner.  When taking account of this and all other material considerations and the weight to be attributed to each one, Officers considered that the identified harms would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the overall planning balance, as such, the proposed development would constitute sustainable development in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole.  As all outstanding matters had been resolved, the Officer recommendation had been amended to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure the obligations listed in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, and the imposition of the conditions recommended.

60.5          The Vice-Chair in the chair invited the representative from Down Hatherley Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative wished to make Members aware of the serious flooding events and catastrophic failure of the sewage infrastructure in Ash Lane in December 2020.  The application site itself had been under standing water for most of the last winter period which was a usual occurrence.  He drew attention to the document ‘Flood Risk in Twigworth - A record of failure’, included in the Additional Representations Sheet, and hoped Members had been able to study the evidence.  The Parish Council found it unbelievable that the Lead Local Flood Authority had said that the location for the proposal was entirely in Flood Zone 1 and surface water mapping indicated that the site was not at risk of surface water flooding – this was utter nonsense, as evidenced by the information local people had repeatedly provided. The Environment Agency flood maps were grossly out of date and the flood risk advice Officers were accepting was totally flawed.  A proportion of sewage and waste-water drainage from this site would also be routed via the Ash Lane pumping station; in addition to Down Hatherley, this was the drainage route from Norton, Prior’s Norton, most of Twigworth and much of Sandhurst.  Ash Lane was the pinch-point on this route to the Innsworth sewage works.  A serious, but previously unprecedented, flood event had occurred in Ash Lane last year and the Parish Council would argue that was caused by the irresponsible artificial drainage of the floodwater on the Twigworth Green and Yew Tree Farm developments.  Run-off from local fields rapidly subsumed the system in Ash Lane, the pumping station had failed, the sewage system backed-up, toilets overflowed, sewage spewed out of manholes and many houses were flooded with a toxic mixture of floodwater and raw sewage.  The Parish Council had long argued that no further development could be safely approved unless the waste infrastructure was overhauled and modernised – in a nutshell it was broken, so adding more would be totally irresponsible.  The Parish Council also had serious concerns over the proposed site access as the access road would cross Brook Lane, which was unadopted, hence owned and maintained by local residents.  This raised the question of what rights of access the developers would have across the lane without gaining the permission of those responsible for its maintenance.  Brook Lane was also a bridleway so there was also a question mark over whether it could be legally built across.  The Parish Council and local residents had been unable to gain definitive answers so the Parish Council representative queried whether Tewkesbury Borough Council had succeeded.  Brook Lane was a narrow dirt track, totally unsuitable for anything other than light domestic traffic, so it would be unacceptable for access to and from the site; nevertheless, it was feared many would attempt to use this totally unsuitable shortcut to try to avoid any holdups at the Twigworth roundabout, effectively creating a rat-run along Brook Lane and Ash Lane.

60.6          The Vice-Chair in the chair invited the representative from Twigworth Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative drew attention to the document ‘Flood Risk in Twigworth – A record of failure’, attached to the Additional Representations Sheet ,and noted that the Lead Local Flood Authority was quoted as saying there was zero risk of surface water flooding at the site; however, next to that was a photograph showing the site under water.  A photograph was also provided of Twigworth Green building site which had been taken a year ago – the site, which was located next to Brook Lane, resembled a lake.  Unbelievably, the official surface water flood map indicated that 99% of the site had no surface water flood risk; equally extraordinarily, the Lead Local Flood Authority had decided that this flooding and failure of flood defences did not need to be reviewed.  The Parish Council representative pointed out there was another development adjacent to Brook Lane which had been permitted on 17 November 2019 on the basis there was a very low risk of surface water flooding but six weeks later that site had flooded to the point that no work could happen for over two months – data had showed that rainfall was unusual but not exceptional.  To say these critical flood risk assessments were not fit for purpose was an understatement and the same could be said about flood maps – one area on the northern side of Brook Lane had a flood risk of one in a thousand years but it had flooded last year and at least twice before in the last 20 years.  There was widespread anxiety and anger amongst the residents of Twigworth and Down Hatherley because this evidence continued to be ignored by Tewkesbury Borough Council, the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Environment Agency and the Parish Council representative urged Members to get a hold on this before it was too late.

60.7          The Vice-Chair in the chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the proposal to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that she was representing the residents of Brook Lane who strongly objected to the proposed development.  One of the main concerns was in relation to the increased risk of flooding to the homes situated in Brook Lane and Ash Lane due to overdevelopment of the land and breaching of the ditches and gullies which was already visible next to Brook House where the proposed access would come across Brook Lane.  There was already standing water on the land proposed for development and no adequate additional flood prevention or drainage was shown on the plans.  In terms of access, Brook Lane was privately owned and maintained by residents and the bridleway would be blocked or crossed by the access road to the proposed development.  There had been no communication or consultation with residents about the development or the use of the lane.  The local resident noted that improvements to road surfaces, bollards and street lighting would be required but, again, there had been no communication or consultation on this matter and she proposed that a meeting be arranged between the developers, Planning Officers and residents in order for these issues to be discussed thoroughly.  The junction off Brook Lane onto the A38 was not suitable for a large amount of traffic and access was required along Brook Lane for properties, horses and refuse collectors.  The local resident went on to point out that the A38 was already a very busy road where the 40 mile per hour speed limit was ignored by many and the new housing underway was adding a substantial amount of traffic to a short stretch of this road.  As such, this additional proposed development would seriously increase vehicle movement and endanger pedestrians on the narrow footpaths alongside. In terms of infrastructure, there was already high demand on local schools and the increase from 160 additional properties could not currently be met locally.  Furthermore, there were no local doctor’s surgeries – the local resident indicated that she had to travel to Gloucester to visit her surgery which was already at, or near, capacity.  The planned layout showed a children’s play area directly behind the bungalows in Brook Lane which were owned by elderly and retired people; this showed a lack of respect and compassion for the quality of their lives and privacy – there were plenty of other locations within the proposed development for this to be situated.  The local resident felt that consultation and communication were two key elements which were sadly lacking in relation to this planning application.

60.8          The Vice-Chair in the chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  The applicant’s representative reiterated that the application had been deferred at the last meeting of the Committee to allow discussions to continue in respect of the financial contributions toward education provision and the proposed tenure and mix of affordable housing and he was pleased to report that agreement had been reached on both matters.  In addition to mitigation measures, the development would bring wider benefits including much needed affordable housing with the Council’s preferred tenure mix, a net gain in biodiversity, pedestrian improvements in the vicinity of Norton Garden Centre and bus stop improvements which would be secured by planning conditions and a Section 106 Agreement.  Importantly, the application for outline planning permission accorded with the development plan, and there were no material considerations indicating that the application should be determined in any other way other than in accordance with the development plan, thus planning permission should be granted without delay.

60.9          The Vice-Chair in the chair invited a local Ward Member for the area to address the Committee.  The local Ward Member had been interested to note that Page No. 56, Paragraph 9.4 of the Committee report, set out only two benefits from the proposal one of which related to the development helping to meet the objectively assessed need for housing in the borough; however, the local Ward Member pointed out that it actually met Gloucester City’s needs.  The Lead Local Flood Authority had stated that the site was not at risk of surface water flooding but Members had all seen the Parish Councils’ report and photographs contradicting that and would be aware of the ongoing battle to get flooding evidence for the area updated, something it was now essential to do.  The local Ward Member noted that the planning system had three overarching objectives and, in terms of the social objective, Paragraph 8 b) of the National Planning Policy Framework required development to help support strong, vibrant and healthy communities with accessible services that reflected current and future needs and supported communities – the proposed development did not adhere to this.  Paragraph 11 required plans to align growth and infrastructure and, under Joint Core Strategy Policy A1 – Innsworth and Twigworth, it stated the strategic allocation identified at Innsworth and Twigworth, as shown on policy map A1, would be expected to deliver new primary and secondary schools and facilities as well as mentioning a potential link road between the A38 and A40.  In terms of education provision, it had already been identified that this development did not comply with Department for Education home to school travel and transport statutory guidance, or the Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan, as, at a primary level within the two mile statutory distance, there was no capacity to accommodate children from this development.  At secondary level in this area, Gloucestershire County Council had confirmed the importance of a new secondary school site in the specific areas of housing and identified that, with planned and strategic housing, there would be an eight form entry shortage of places in the area by 2023.  The short term fix of transporting the children was not good enough and, if implemented, needed to be in place until a long term solution had been finalised and signed off.  The local Ward Member was of the view that the application should be refused, or at least deferred, until these matters had been resolved.

60.10        The Vice-Chair in the chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was for authority to be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the completion of a legal agreement to secure the obligations listed in the Additional Representations Sheet, and the imposition of the conditions recommended.  A Member asked what was meant as to the applicant having agreed on a ‘without prejudice basis’.  The Legal Adviser explained her understanding was the applicant was stating that they reserved the right to argue differently on other applications and/or if this application went to appeal.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred for additional information to be gathered in relation to the tenure mix for the social housing requirements, to allow an up-to-date traffic assessment to be carried out and for an independent assessment of the site to be undertaken to establish an appropriate sustainable drainage system (SuDS) for the proposal.  The proposer of the motion noted that the Housing Strategy and Enabling Officer objected to the proposed tenure mix, the Urban Design Officer did not support the illustrative material and the Landscape Officer felt it was not an acceptable proposal from a landscape and open space point of view.  Page No. 38, Paragraph 7.20 of the Committee report, set out that County Highways had conducted a robust assessment of the planning application; however, the traffic base data used was seven years out of date and it was suggested that a projection had been estimated to cover the built out strategic A1 site – unfortunately, the Longford roundabout improvements had been designed with the DS7 modelling and congestion on the A38 had returned to 2017 levels.  Although he was unable to challenge the base data as it had not been provided, he had the benefit of real-life experience as he lived in the area and most rush hours traffic travelling south on the A38 could queue as far back as Twigworth.  The Member went on to point out that, as agreed at the December 2017 Council meeting, the connection between the A38 roundabout and the proposed new A40 gateway project was “imperative to the smooth running of the strategic highway network and the monies would be found”; he proposed that the link be reinstated to allow this application, within the strategic A1 site, to come forward – to suggest the connection was needed, then to say there was no developer funding available was no laughing matter for residents living in Innsworth, Longford and Twigworth.  With regard to Page No. 46, Paragraphs 7.57 and 7.58 of the Committee report, the Member asked whether Officers had seen the Shelter report and its findings as, in his view, the social rented housing numbers must be significantly increased to meet the need for the strategic A1 site area as a whole.  Page No. 47, Paragraph 7.63 of the Committee report stated that the Lead Local Flood Authority raised no objection to the application but the proposer of the motion had grave concerns about the total lack of understanding of the flood issues within the strategic A1 site.  Officers would have received videos and photographic evidence of water being pumped off the Twigworth site after the Lead Local Flood Authority had given assurances water would be retained on site. He felt an independent assessment was vital to establish appropriate SuDS for this application.  He went on to draw attention to Page No. 52, Paragraphs 7.87-7.88 of the Committee report which stated that the “quantum of development could be reduced should it be necessary to ensure a policy compliant level of accessible public open space is secured” and he asked why policies were in place if they were not upheld – in his opinion housing numbers should be reduced to meet the open space policy and off-site sports provision should go to Twigworth, rather than to GL1 and a bowling club in Brockworth as it had done for the Twigworth site.  He agreed with Officers that the housing calculations and oversupply was a matter of planning judgement, as referenced at Page No. 36 of the Committee report; however, it should be borne in mind that the housing requirements and trajectory were a minimum requirement as the new housing calculation would come into effect in December 2022 and the implications for the local plan housing land supply figure made for very uncomfortable reading. 

60.11        With regard to the comments of the Landscape Officer, the Planning Officer explained that was a professional view and it was accepted that the indicative landscape plan did not meet a high standard of design currently but Officers felt this was capable of being addressed by condition.  This application was for outline consent so there was scope to change the layout at the reserved matters stage to ensure it met the requirements for open space etc.  She also clarified that a contribution for off-site sports provision was not required as part of the application and Officers considered that a sufficient level was being provided as part of the strategic allocation. 

60.12        The representative from County Highways advised that traffic data from 2016 had been used as it had not been practical or robust to collect further data in the last few years and it was common to look at future forecast years to uplift the data using a Department for Transport tool which was the industry standard for estimating a likely scenario – this was common across the transport sector as a whole, as well as within the development management process, and was considered a reasonable approach given the current circumstances and as the site had been allocated as part of the Joint Core Strategy.  In terms of the link road, the Secretary of State had deemed that improvement to the Longford roundabout was a suitable way forward and the link road was no longer achievable in its current format; this was not a decision based on the application being considered today.  Provision for the link road would be made if it was deemed necessary as part of the Joint Core Strategy review and any other future development growth but the existing infrastructure was currently considered to be suitable and the link road was not required.

60.13        The representative from the Lead Local Flood Authority explained that, with regard to the SuDS that would be used within site, the Lead Local Flood Authority would be looking for greenfield run-off from the site with water finding its way into the watercourse in Brook Lane at the same rates it discharged currently.  Based on the layout of the site provided, this would be an alleviation basin to the south of the site and a condition should be included on any planning permission granted requiring the submission of a plan for surface water management to ensure that the Brook Lane watercourse would continue to receive the water – this was why the statement ‘SuDS for the site will be managed within the site’ existed as every site was managed on its own basis.  The Lead Local Flood Authority was aware of the flooding issues experienced in Twigworth and had been involved in all of them so was quite clear what caused flooding and better surface water management was likely to be achieved through this application than if it was left unmanaged in the fields so he was of the view that the risk of flooding had been adequately assessed.

60.14        The proposer of the motion to defer the application continued to raise concern about the lack of practical and robust traffic data available for the Committee to make an informed decision and one of his reasons for the deferral was to allow an up-to-date traffic assessment to be carried out rather than a desk based exercise.  He was of the view that Elmbridge Court roundabout was not fit for purpose currently and the development coming forward had not been taken into account so, whilst he understood there were cost implications, it needed to be done.  The seconder of the motion pointed out that the local resident had requested a meeting between the developer, Planning Officers and residents in order to thoroughly discuss the issues around the application and she felt the authority had a duty to listen to the local community, therefore, she asked that this be arranged as part of the deferral.  The proposer of the motion to defer the application confirmed he was happy for that to be included.  Another Member supported the points raised by the proposer of the motion and indicated that the improvements to the A417 Crickley Hill would cause additional problems when the log-jam was released and that traffic joined the rest.  He asked who would be responsible for any issues with sewerage and foul drainage and the Planning Officer advised that Severn Trent Water managed the foul water - her assumption was that, if there was an issue with the pumping station, Severn Trent Water would be responsible for that.  Severn Trent Water had raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions.  The Member went on to query whether a solution had been found for the bridleway and was informed that access was reserved for future consideration as part of the reserved matters application.  Neither County Highways nor the Public Rights of Way Officer had objected to the proposal.  

60.15        Another Member was apprehensive about the application in terms of the potential sewage problem and he asked how many houses had been impacted previously in the area and whether the new development would be connected to the same system.  The Planning Officer advised that she did not know how many houses had previously been affected but, in terms of the foul water disposal for this application, foul water from the northern part of the site would drain to the existing foul sewer that crossed the northern link to Brook Lane and the southern part would drain to the new foul sewers in the Vistry/Bovis development to the south.  Severn Trent Water had been consulted and raised no objection to the proposals.  In terms of the previous issue, that was entirely a matter for Severn Trent Water and had been caused by a blockage at the pumping station on Ash Lane affecting a number of properties downstream of the pumping station.

60.16        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED for additional information to be gathered in relation to the tenure mix for the social housing requirements; to allow an up-to-date traffic assessment to be carried out; for an independent assessment of the site to be undertaken to establish an appropriate sustainable drainage system (SuDS) for the proposal; and for a meeting to be arranged between the applicant, Planning Officers and residents in order for these issues to be discussed.