Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Outline application for the erection of five dwellings with access from Greenacres, with all other matters reserved.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit

72.29        This was an outline application for the erection of five dwellings with access from Greenacres, with all other matters reserved.

72.30        The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised a parcel of land to the south-west of Greenacres, a small, residential cul-de-sac dating from the early 1990’s. The application was set to the south-west of that development and comprised an undeveloped parcel of land which sloped down to the south and lay adjacent to the settlement boundary to Twyning.  In terms of the principle of the development, the proposal was within a Service Village but outside of a defined settlement boundary and conflicted with Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy; however, in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and given the Council’s current land supply position, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework as a whole.  It was considered that, whilst the proposal would result in some harm to the landscape by reason of encroachment, the harms would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the social and economic benefits associated with the delivery of up to five dwellings within a Service Village location.  Significant concerns had been raised in respect of flood risk and drainage and the applicant had confirmed that flood modelling and drainage works had started and a scheme of works for the site was proposed which would seek to address the drainage impacts of the proposed development and also alleviate existing local surface water issues off-site; the principles had been submitted and technical assessment was awaited.  The specific details would be subject to further consideration once the assessment had been submitted.  Since publication of the Committee report, a further representation had been received from a member of the public which reiterated concerns already received.  The applicant had also submitted a further representation in respect of the application.  The Council’s Conservation Officer had confirmed that the proposal was unlikely to result in harm to the setting of the Grade II listed Freeman’s Court and would be acceptable on heritage grounds.  As such, the Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the results of the pending drainage assessment and those details being considered acceptable.

72.31        The Chair invited a representative from Twyning Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative explained that, under current conditions, this application would be expected to be permitted; however, the Parish Council was aghast at the suggestion that the site was fit for human habitation and that the Officer recommendation was delegated permit.  The history of the site was there for all to see and it was difficult to understand the Officer recommendation given the compelling flood risk evidence.  The Committee report referred to the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer having flood concerns and indicated those concerns were graded as ‘grave’ which mirrored his previous comments on the earlier application which led to that being sensibly withdrawn.  No mitigation methodology had been provided aside from some vague references to a gully and the promise that water would not add to flooding elsewhere; Members had been provided with photographic evidence that this casual solution was nonsense and it was contrary to relevant paragraphs in the National Planning Policy Framework, Joint Core Strategy, the emerging Local Plan and the Twyning Neighbourhood Development Plan.  The Parish Council considered this a very poor application beset with inaccuracies which demonstrated its ‘cut and paste’ nature.  Notwithstanding all the other issues, to build houses on a field with high levels of flooding – a risk to life – made no sense at all.  This location channelled water from the fields to the north which was the source of the problem and no amount of on-site water management solutions, however vague, would change the topography.

72.32        The Chair invited an objector to the application to address the Committee.  The objector indicated that the site was outside of the settlement boundary of the Neighbourhood Development Plan, would not help the already major sewage issues affecting the village, the school was at full capacity, the lack of public transport was shameful and forced those who lived there to have a car, plus the Service Village had already exceeded its quota of new homes.  Furthermore, the site was within Flood Zone 1 and she questioned whether any Member would knowingly buy a house with that categorisation.  She noted the application had previously been withdrawn more than once due to inadequate drainage solutions and the high risk of flooding.  She reminded the Committee that the area had flooded in 2007 and sat in water after rainfall with significant parts of the site at high risk of surface water flooding.  The biodiversity of a scruffy area of scrub should also not be underestimated and she questioned where birds, insects, small mammals and reptiles were supposed to go if every inch of land was under tarmac.  These areas were much needed to absorb rain which in itself could become a more frequent and therefore serious threat as climate change accelerated.  The objector was very much hoping that the sense the Committee showed in its consideration of the Agenda Item 5b would continue and this application would also be refused.

72.33        The Chair invited a local Ward Member to address the Committee.  The local Ward Member indicated that what concerned him about the application was the lack of detail about how flooding and surface water run-off would be dealt with.  He understood the planning history of the site showed that previous plans had been withdrawn because those issues could not be overcome; he had also been made aware that Severn Trent believed the drainage system to be at capacity and it could take years to increase that.  He was fully aware that Twyning itself had experienced a number of flooding issues over the years due to problems with sewers with manhole covers being lifted in the High Street due to water pressure following heavy rain. The site was on high ground and the water would flow into an already overwhelmed drainage system.  Despite assurances those problems could be overcome, he wished to see full written details.

72.34        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the results of the drainage assessment and those details being considered acceptable, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed that the application be deferred pending further details to address the drainage situation.  The proposer noted that Page No. 145, Paragraph 7.26 of the Committee report stated that an update would be provided at Committee but that had not been supplied.  The Chair clarified that the application before Members was in outline therefore the details would be provided at the approval of reserved matters stage.  There was no seconder for the proposal.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The seconder of the motion indicated that, unfortunately, he could not find a planning justification for refusing the application given the delegated authority recommendation.  The Planning Officer clarified that if Members were minded to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application this meant that, if the applicant could demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Development Manager, as informed by the advice of the Council’s drainage experts who would review the details put forward, that the drainage issues could be dealt with, the application would be permitted; if they could not then the scheme would fail and it would be refused.  A drainage strategy had been put forward setting out the principles so it was a case of going through the technical details to ensure the proposal was capable of providing alleviation for surface water run-off as well as drainage for the development itself.  On the basis of this advice, the seconder of the motion withdrew his support for the motion.  A Member sought clarification as to whether the reserved matters application would require a Committee determination, should Members be minded to permit the application before them today, as she was concerned about the plan for the design of the houses which was a consideration for the reserved matters stage.  In response, the Planning Officer advised that, subject to outline planning permission being granted, a reserved matters application would be required to deal with appearance, layout, scale and landscaping – the only matter being dealt with at this stage was access.  The Legal Adviser explained that that reserved matters applications for up to 20 dwellings would be dealt with by Officers under the planning scheme of delegation.  As the proposal was for less than this, its reserved matters approval application would not automatically come to Planning Committee; however, there was an option for Members to call-in the application for a Committee determination.  The Chair expressed the view that the reserved matters application ought to come back to the Committee given the concerns that had been raised.  The Member who had seconded the motion for a delegated permit, and subsequently withdrawn this, indicated that he would be willing to second the motion on the assurance that the reserved matters application would come back to the Committee.  The Member who had proposed the deferral welcomed the reserved matters application coming back to the Committee for determination; nevertheless, whilst he recognised this was an outline application, Members had been told they would have an update on the drainage details at today’s meeting and that had not been provided so he could not support the motion for a delegated permit.  Another Member asked if it was possible to defer the application in order for a full application to be submitted on the basis that Members were not happy with the proposal and wanted more detail.  A Member agreed that a full application would be a safer route to follow given the concerns expressed and would allow the Committee to make an informed decision.  In response, the Development Manager advised that was not an option as the applicant could not be compelled to submit a full application – Members were being asked to determine the outline application before them on the basis of the principle of development on the site and the access arrangements. 

72.35        Upon being put to the vote, the proposal to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to the results of the pending drainage assessment and those details being considered acceptable and any subsequent matters being brought to the Committee for determination, was lost.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be deferred pending further details to address the drainage situation.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be DEFERRED pending further details to address the drainage situation.