Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Variation of conditions 2 (approved plans), 3 (materials), 4 (levels), 5 (boundary treatments), 11 (Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation Strategy), 12 (external lighting scheme), 14 (blocking up of existing access), 18 (written Scheme of Investigation and Building Record) and 19 (surface water drainage) of planning permission ref: 20/00956/FUL. 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

60.63        This application was for variation of conditions 2 (approved plans), 3 (materials), 4 (levels), 5 (boundary treatments), 11 (Ecological Enhancement and Mitigation Strategy), 12 (external lighting scheme), 14 (blocking up of existing access), 18 (written Scheme of Investigation and Building Record) and 19 (surface water drainage) of planning permission ref: 20/00956/FUL.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 11 February 2022.

60.64        The Planning Officer advised that planning permission had already been granted on the application site for demolition of the existing dwelling and the erection of five dwellings in October 2021 following the resolution of the Planning Committee in September.  The Committee had resolved to permit the extant scheme, subject to changes to the colour palette of each dwelling to buff and red brick - in accordance with design options put forward by the applicant - and to remove a condition for the provision of cycle storage.  The current application was made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act for a minor material amendment to the extant planning permission which sought to amend the approved plans to vary the proposed external materials of the dwellings.  The amendments would see a change in the materials with both red brick and buff brick dwellings.  The current application also provided additional information on levels, boundary treatment, ecological enhancement and mitigation, external lighting, access arrangements, historic building recording and surface water drainage to negate the requirement for these conditions to be reimposed.  In terms of boundary treatments, numerous objections had been received from residents due to safety and ecological concerns regarding the estate railings fence along the footpath between Dunstan Glen and Paynes Pitch when taking account of the change in levels.  The applicant had submitted revised plans in response to the comments from residents removing the estate railings from the front of the proposal and the north of the footpath in favour of retaining the existing close board fence adjacent to the footpath.  Officers had raised some concerns that the boundary treatment layout would create an unmanaged area of land adjacent to the footpath, whereas in the permitted scheme this was to be an open landscaped area where fruit trees would be planted.  It was therefore recommended that a condition be included on the planning permission to enable to Council to control the maintenance of the enclosed area in future.  In terms of other matters, due to the known presence of hedgehogs and birds within the area, and as the proposal would impact on habitats on the site, condition 11 of the extant planning permission required the submission of an Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Scheme to secure suitable mitigation and compensation measures prior to commencement of the development.  The current application included an Ecological Mitigation and Enhancement Scheme setting out measures to protect species; this had been considered by the Council’s Ecological Adviser, who had also been made aware of the concerns raised by residents, particularly regarding the potential impact on hedgehogs.  The Ecological Adviser had received the submitted details and the biodiversity mitigation lighting strategy and felt the documents provided appropriate mitigation and enhancement for protected species and habitats.  It was noted that the mitigation and compensation for hedgehogs exceeded that provided in other schemes which was welcomed.  Members were advised that the additional information submitted with regard to drainage, historic building recording and levels was considered to be acceptable.  Overall, it was felt that the proposal would comply with national and local planning policy and it was therefore recommended that permission be granted.

60.65        The Vice-Chair in the chair invited a local resident, speaking in objection to the application, to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that he wished to address three topics, the first being the safety issue regarding the fencing serving the footpath from Paynes Pitch to Dunstan Glen which did not comply with Policy SD4 of the Joint Core Strategy which set out that designs should contribute to a safe environment.  He drew attention to the boundary enclosure plan, set out at Page No. 298 of the Committee report, which showed 75% of the footpath was fenced off, leaving 25% exposed to a steep gradient running the length of the footpath.  The current proposal faced the unprotected gradient and the existing fence, which needed to be replaced, that ran the length of the footpath on its opposite side; the alternative was a new fence 1.5 metres in front of the existing fence which would mitigate against the gradient – so residents would either look out onto an old fence, which came with child safety issues, or look out onto a new fence which would mitigate those safety issues.  He felt the application should be conditioned to implement the fence along the full length of the footpath and to install new fencing where the existing 1.8 metre fencing was being retained, as endorsed by the Planning Officer.  His second point related to the extension of the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) serving the Dunstan Glen Hedgerow and he indicated that the current proposal conflicted with Policies SD6 and SD9 of the Joint Core Strategy and Policy CHIN3 of the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan.  He pointed out that agreement had been reached between the applicant, Tewkesbury Borough Council Officers and local residents to extend the TPO to mitigate the loss of hedgerow by the incorporation of the new heavy duty trees and failure to extend the TPO would put the new trees at unacceptable risk – this statement was supported by the Tree Officer, as such, the application should be conditioned to implement the extension of the TPO.  His final point was in relation to saving the community orchard and he indicated that agreement had been reached between the applicant, Tewkesbury Borough Council Officers and local residents to create an orchard to part mitigate the loss of the hedgerow.  The applicant had, on four known occasions, tried to release ownership of this land with the resultant loss of the community orchard.  Residents and the Tree Wardens in Churchdown were willing to work with the maintenance company, which had the ultimate responsibility for the land, to further mitigate the loss of the hedgerow and the community would self-fund the planting of Damson, Victoria Plum and Cherry trees as well as creating a butterfly-friendly environment.  As such, he felt the application should be conditioned to ensure the orchard was retained in perpetuity for the community.

60.66        The Vice-Chair in the chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. The applicant’s agent thanked Officers for a thorough report and the recommendation that planning permission be granted.  He indicated that this was a straightforward application seeking approval of adjusted materials and details further to imposed pre-commencement planning conditions.  Planning permission had already been granted for this development and Members would recall they agreed with Officers that the development was acceptable in planning terms.  All details submitted had been assessed by Officers and consultees who deemed them to be acceptable.  He noted that some concerns had been raised by local residents, principally in relation to the proposed boundaries and external materials.  Several concerns had also been raised in terms of the proposed landscaping scheme.  The applicant’s agent clarified that this application did not propose to amend the scheme and land to the west was always intended to be enclosed.  In view of the comments received from neighbouring residents, which included concerns about the proposed use of railings and the open nature of the land, a boundary treatment plan had been submitted which amended the proposed treatment in this area to close boarded fencing to match the existing treatment, and included land regrading, and the applicant’s agent indicated that he was happy with the conditions outlined by the Planning Officer.  In terms of external materials, the applicant still proposed to use buff and red brick to match surrounding properties – these were as originally approved and accepted; however, it was intended to simplify use on the facing elevations to ensure better consistency with the surrounding area.  The applicant’s agent noted that comments regarding ecological impact had been fully considered within the Committee report and no objections had been raised by the Council’s Ecological Adviser in respect of the mitigation and enhancement scheme submitted which included provision for connectivity across the site for hedgehogs and other small mammals as well as protection during construction.  In light of current major supply chain constraints, the applicant’s agent stressed it was critical that these conditions were approved in a timely manner to ensure development could be commenced promptly – the applicant was a local builder, employing local trades, all of which relied on the delivery of sites such as this.  The original application had experienced significant delays and it was hoped Members would today agree with the recommendation before them.

60.67        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 expressed the view that she would be happy to support the Officer recommendation, subject to the addition of conditions.  She firstly thanked the Planning Officer and the developer who had been very co-operative and she appreciated them going out of their way to meet the community needs; however, there were a few outstanding points which she felt needed to be addressed.  With regard to the fencing, she would like to see it all replaced – so all to be blue on the boundary treatments plans - and for a condition to be added to extend it along the length of the alleyway on the grounds of public safety – as Members had seen on the Planning Committee Site Visit, the gradient on the other side of the Public Right of Way dropped from 1.8 metres to 1.3 metres so she felt this would be a sensible approach.  In terms of the community orchard, the Committee report stated this was being put in place as mitigation for the loss of trees, which she welcomed, and although it appeared to be closed off from the community, she had been assured by the Planning Officer this was commonplace and there would be a single gate access so she wished to see a condition included to ensure the community orchard was retained in perpetuity.  The future of the adjoining piece of land had not yet been agreed; however, she noted that the Officer report stated that the Council would be assuming responsibility for this plot rather than the developer which raised doubt about the entire strip so she felt a condition was warranted.  She pointed out that a tree on the west boundary had been identified as the best location for the bat boxes based on an expert report but she questioned whether that was the case given it was right next to a streetlight and within metres of a security light on the property at No. 23.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the replacement and extension of the fencing could be dealt with through a condition regarding the boundary treatment but it was not possible to include a condition to control the land for use by the community.  Officers could speak to the Council’s Ecological Adviser to check whether the location of the bat boxes was correct.  The Member asked whether any action could be taken to ensure the community orchard was retained as a community asset and the Legal Adviser explained there was no particular planning justification in this case – its size meant it was not considered as public open space, therefore it would be inappropriate to impose a condition on that basis.

60.68        It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted subject to the inclusion of conditions to secure the replacement of all of the fencing and extension of the fencing along the entire length of the footpath and the potential re-location of the bat boxes to move them away from the streetlight, subject to the Ecological Adviser reviewing the information and finding that to be necessary.  The proposer of the motion indicated that Members on the Planning Committee Site Visit had seen for themselves the safety implications of the change in gradient and the need to replace and extend the fencing along the cycle path – it was a route to school and therefore would be used by a lot of children.  He also shared the concerns raised about the proposed location of the bat boxes.  Another Member questioned why the developer wanted to amend the colour scheme for the houses given there had been a detailed discussion about the facades the last time the application had been considered by the Planning Committee.  In response, the Planning Officer advised that it was within the applicant’s gift to request approval of an alternative scheme and he clarified that it would be the same type of brick so the material would not be different.  A Member recalled that the Committee had been shown three different options and had chosen the scheme at the bottom of the plan; he was led to believe that was half red brick and half render but he understood that render was not allowed on the site for ecological reasons meaning that it was necessary to use buff brick, resulting in a house built of two different colour bricks – this had not been fully explained to the Committee.  The Legal Adviser clarified that her recollection was that the original scheme proposed to use a grey colour palette which had not been considered favourably, therefore, a plan had been submitted with three different proposals giving different options using red and buff brick – she did not believe any of the options had included render. Members had opted for the bottom proposal on the plan and she suspected that the developer had subsequently decided he preferred the top option on the plan which was why Members were now being asked to make a decision on the proposal before them. 

60.69        A Member queried whether a commuted sum was being put forward for the management of the community orchard area and the Planning Officer explained that was not expected for a scheme of this size and it was likely that a management company would maintain the land. The Member went on to question if that would be paid for by residents of the estate and the Legal Adviser confirmed that would probably be the case.

60.70        The proposer of the motion expressed the view that he would like the colour scheme which had been agreed by the Planning Committee previously to be retained and included as part of his proposal; however, the Legal Adviser clarified that was not an option which had been presented to Members as part of the current proposal, therefore, should the Member wish to retain the previously agreed colour palette, he would need to make a proposal to refuse the current application.  The seconder of the motion pointed out that she had spoken with residents who were more than happy with the proposed colour change.  In terms of management of the orchard, she suggested there may be a further conversation to be had with residents who had been enthusiastic about taking on the piece of land. 

60.71        The Legal Adviser clarified that the motion Members would be voting on was for the application to be permitted – with the colour palette proposed by the applicant which was the top picture on the plan – subject to the inclusion of a condition to replace and extend the fencing from the west to east including along the length of the footpath area which was going to be open and subject to confirming that the Ecological Adviser was happy with the location of the bat boxes, given their proximity to the street light, with condition 11 being amended as appropriate based on that advice.  Upon being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED           That the application be PERMITTED subject to inclusion of a condition to secure the replacement and extension of the fencing from the west to east including along the length of the footpath area which was going to be open and confirmation that the Ecological Adviser was happy with the location of the bat boxes, given their proximity to the street light, with condition 11 being amended as appropriate based on that advice.