Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of eight dwellings to include new access, landscaping and associated works.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit  

60.28        This application was for the erection of eight dwellings to include new access, landscaping and associated works.

60.29        The Development Manager advised that the proposal included a range of detached and semi-detached house types including two three-bed, three four-bed and three five-bed properties.  A new site access was proposed directly off New Road and a landscaping scheme had been put forward which proposed the retention of a number of trees and the inclusion of replanting. The site was located within Flood Zone 1, and therefore was at low risk of flooding, and was not within a critical drainage area or an area of special designated control.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

60.30        The Vice-Chair in the chair invited the representative from Woodmancote Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative indicated that the Parish Council had supported the development in principle from the outset but objected to the two and a half storey plot design which was out of keeping with the character of the village and contrary to the draft Neighbourhood Development Plan that was at regulation 16 stage.  Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy required the Planning Committee to decide if the proposal would be compatible with the character of the local environment and Planning Officers had recommended the application for permission on the basis that it was not detrimental to the character of the local environment – the Parish Council did not believe that was the same thing and he asked that the Vice-Chair in the chair seek a formal opinion from the expert team on this technical point.   Woodmancote Parish Council would like the Committee to refuse the application on the basis that it would be incompatible with the character of Woodmancote; however, if the applicant was to resubmit the application with the two and a half storey element removed then the Parish Council would support it.  The Parish Council representative had noted that the applicant had been permitted to lawfully destroy the biodiversity habitat that existed in the disused orchard of Poplar Farm and then carry out a survey of the baseline biodiversity, post-clearance.  Therefore, it was hardly surprising that the requirements to enhance biodiversity on the site, via proposed conditions 4, 7 and 9, were minimal and the Parish Council asked for this matter to be revisited.  With regard to condition 6, which required drainage plans for the disposal of foul and surface water to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, the Parish Council representative pointed out that the proposed drainage strategy was apparently based on an agreement between the applicant and Severn Trent Water which had been approved by the flood engineering team at Gloucestershire County Council; however, neither Severn Trent Water or the County Council had been in possession of the correct facts at the time, in particular, the County Council did not realise that the combined sewer was only 300mm diameter and Severn Trent Water had used fluvial flood risk data and was unaware of the long history of surface water flooding in Woodmancote.  This had now been explained to Severn Trent Water and the Parish Council felt that condition 6 needed to be amended to state that the current drainage proposal was not acceptable.

60.31        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 he wished to object to the application because, as currently proposed, it would increase surface water run-off and the risk of flooding to his property and those of his neighbours.  The design proposed a hydro-brake system which, if well-designed and installed, could be helpful under normal circumstances; however, the Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) Manual required overwhelming of the system to be regarded as an eventuality and the system should be designed so exceedance was properly managed in order to minimise risk to people and properties.  Surface water run-off would be increased because half of the site would be concrete and tarmac compared to now and, without additional measures, run-off to his property, and those of his neighbours, would be unacceptable, therefore, he wished to see condition 6 amended to ensure risk was minimised.  Even a system of adequate size and design would not work without regular inspection – inspection and maintenance needed to be done on a regular basis in perpetuity but the applicant had provided no information about who would be responsible and how that would be done.  The local resident believed that establishing such arrangements should be a condition of the planning permission.

60.32        The Vice-Chair in the chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  The applicant’s representative advised that the proposals included the comprehensive refurbishment and enhancement of the existing building at Poplar Farm as well as a sensitive development of eight new houses.  He explained that Poplar Farm was now in a precarious state and it was imperative that steps be taken to address this rapidly deteriorating listed building and bring it back into viable use which was what the proposals sought to do.  The proposals had been carefully designed in conjunction with a highly qualified and experienced conservation consultant who had been closely involved with this project since its inception two years ago.  It was intended to remove the unsympathetic late twentieth century extensions and replace them with new single storey extensions to better reveal the historic building.  Following discussions with the Council’s Conservation Officer, and subsequent changes being made, the proposals now had his full support and would breathe life into this important listed building.  It was proposed to build eight bespoke, high-quality new homes in the wider grounds and the proposed design for the development had followed an iterative process which sought to respond to the constraints and opportunities of the site and wider area.  The local character of the architecture across the village had been studied extensively and the range of styles in Woodmancote had been noted.  The proposed houses had taken reference from existing nearby buildings in relation to design and they were comparable with surrounding development in terms of size, scale and density and would use materials that reflected the surrounding area.  The applicant’s representative noted that some comments had suggested the houses would be three storey and he clarified that was not the case – they would be two storey with the loft converted, like many others in Woodmancote.  The site was located within the existing built-up area of Woodmancote and the principle of residential development there was entirely acceptable.  The new homes would be visible and experienced jointly with the listed building from within the site, and to some extent outside of the site; however, the new homes would not be harmful to the setting of the listed building as confirmed by the Council’s Conservation Officer who raised no objection to the proposals.

60.33        The Vice-Chair in the chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member noted that the applicant had seemed to address this application, and the following two applications on the Agenda which related to the same site, within their speech.  He wished to express the view that restoring the listed building to a fair standard should not be used as a plea bargain for building new houses.  The Development Manager apologised that he had not previously clarified that Agenda Items 5d, 5e and 5f would be presented in the round and, with regard to the comments about the listed building, he advised there had been a lot of unsympathetic additions to the listed building which was unfortunate.  The Member understood that the owner of the listed building had a duty of care to maintain it and the Development Manager acknowledged that was the case but pointed out that the applicant was not necessarily the owner.  Another Member questioned why the unsympathetic additions had not been brought to the Planning Committee, or whether they had been carried out without permission in which case he questioned why they had not been identified by Building Control.  The Development Manager indicated that it was not clear when and how the extensions had happened but he assumed from the photographs that were displayed at Committee that it had been incremental over the years.

60.34        It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member sought clarification on the status of the Woodmancote Neighbourhood Development Plan and also noted there were no comments from the Lead Local Flood Authority on the proposal.  The Development Manager confirmed that the Neighbourhood Development Plan was yet to be adopted but still carried moderate weight.  Flood risk had been considered and the expert advice was that it was low risk which was what the Planning Officer decision had been based upon.

60.35        Upon being put to the vote, it was

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