Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscape, layout, scale) for Phases 4 and 6 comprising development of new homes, landscaping, open space and associated works pursuant to outline permission 12/01256/OUT.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Approve.

49.7          This was an approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscape, layout, scale) for Phases 4 and 6 comprising development of new homes, landscaping, open space and associated works pursuant to outline permission 12/01256/OUT.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 17 February 2023.

49.8          The Development Management Team Leader (East) advised that the reserved matters application sought approval for appearance, landscape, layout and scale for 435 dwellings over two phases. Phase 4 would deliver 226 dwellings and Phase 6 would deliver 209 dwellings; combined the application would make provision for 149 affordable homes.  The application also sought to secure public open space and infrastructure pursuant to the outline application across Perrybrook for up to 1,500 dwellings on the wider site.  The principle of residential development at this site had been established through the grant of outline planning permission.  The key principles guiding the reserved matters applications had been approved by the planning authority through the outline consent which included approval of a Site Wide Concept Masterplan Document.  The current application sought approval of reserved matters in line with the Site Wide Concept Masterplan Document and the key issues to be considered were access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale and compliance with the approved documents including the Design and Access Statement.  A number of matters which were the subject of other outline conditions were also considered within this application including affordable housing, housing mix, surface water and foul drainage.  As set out in the Committee report, Officers had carefully considered the application and were of the view that the reserved matters were in accordance with the Site Wide Concept Masterplan Document and Design and Access Statement aspirations and were of an appropriate design.  County Highways had confirmed that the access, internal road layout and car parking provision were acceptable and in accordance with the Site Wide Concept Masterplan Document.  Officers were satisfied that the mix and clustering of affordable housing was in accordance with the requirements of the Section 106 Agreement attached to the outline permission, including being tenure blind and of high quality, similarly, the market housing mix was considered acceptable for this phase of the development.  In terms of flood risk and drainage, the outline permission included a drainage strategy for the site and the reserved matters must include detailed drainage details for each phase of development to accord with that strategy.  Several conditions on the outline permission also required the development to accord with the approved flood level parameters.  The detailed drainage strategy and finished floor level information had been submitted with the application, the Lead Local Flood Authority had been consulted and had advised that the drainage strategy was suitable and the Environment Agency had confirmed that all finished floor levels accorded with the approved drainage strategy.  Concerns had been raised by some of the existing residents around the Brockworth area regarding the impact of construction traffic on existing sites which were being built out and the effect on the existing road networks.  The applicant had advised that access into Phase 4 would be via the Linden development to the north, which the developer had permission to use, until the new roundabout to the west had been constructed at which point that would be used to complete Phase 4 and Phase 6 to the south.  Taking all of this into consideration, Officers were of the view that the proposed development would be high quality and appropriate in terms of access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping and would be in accordance with the Site Wide Concept Masterplan Document.  As such, the Officer recommendation was to approve the application.  With regard to the north side of Phase 4 and the potential noise impact from the A417, Members were informed that bunding would be in place at the top of the site and the applicant had redesigned the layout of the site to accord with the noise levels.

49.9          The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the proposal to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that his property immediately adjoined the site under discussion today and he had sent a letter to the Planning department in May 2022 making 13 points regarding the development.  He wished to object very strongly that the external wall of one of the new houses would immediately abut his garden with no space whatsoever in between; nowhere else in the proposals was there a house positioned right on the boundary of the entire site.  The impact would be that the sun was blocked in the afternoon, casting his garden into deep shadow with resulting loss of light, view and amenity.  He noted that the plan he had commented upon did not accord exactly with the one which had been displayed at the meeting today.  If he had a neighbour whose garden backed onto his and they were proposing building a two storey wall right up against his boundary he was sure it would be thrown out by the Planning department so he did not see why a developer should be allowed to do the same just because it was part of a much larger scheme.  If this application was approved, he asked that it be on the proviso that the layout was changed in that corner of the site.  The local resident went on to point out two mature Oak trees on the field currently, only one of which would be preserved.  Old Oak trees were of great ecological value as they were home to hundreds of insects, birds and other forms of life and he objected strongly to the second Oak tree being felled.  Earlier plans had shown a landscape buffer strip with pedestrian access between the new development and the houses on Ermin Park and Maple Drive but that had quietly been eliminated or reduced to a few inches.  He asked how that would be maintained and how self-seeding nuisance trees, such as Ash or Sycamore, could be removed if that became necessary.  He felt it was important that the landscape strip be reinstated so that the houses did not suffer loss of amenity.  His final point was about the provision of local health services as the population of Brockworth was being doubled.  In his view, no further planning permissions should be granted until it was established that adequate health services were in place - it seemed irresponsible to build hundreds of houses for families if no spaces were available at a GP practice anywhere in the area.

49.10        The Chair invited a local Ward Member to address the Committee.  The local Ward Member indicated that Phases 4 and 6 were previously agricultural fields with the Horsbere Nature Corridor running through the middle; this was considered a special area by many local residents and the Public Right of Way meant that it was possible to walk from Court Road to Churchdown Lane in Hucclecote uninterrupted.  It was also an important ecological area due to the abundance of plants and wildlife.  Residents were unhappy with the proposal to build a bridge through the nature corridor and wanted mitigation measures to be put in place to protect the special area and prevent the Public Right of Way from being cut off.  There were two Oak trees within the ecology of the site, which had been there his whole lifetime, and one was being felled to make way for a parking space – in his view it should be possible make amendments to the site layout to ensure the second tree was retained.  He pointed out that travel options around the site were limited and the main road through the site was 50mph – he would not want his children riding bicycles on a road of that speed.  Furthermore, there were no bungalows on the site for the older generation which he felt needed to be addressed.  In his view, the worst part of the development was the extra traffic that would be brought to Brockworth with construction traffic travelling its entire length.

49.11        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to approve the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member noted that the local resident who had spoken against the development had mentioned that the external wall of one of the new properties would abut his garden and she asked for clarification as to where his property was located.  The Development Management Team Leader (East) pointed out on the site layout plan a property where the wall abutted the boundary and the Member asked whether the Committee was able to move particular properties on the plan as part of its decision.  In response, the Development Management Team Leader (East) explained that the application had been considered on its merits in terms of the proposal as a whole, including the interfaced distances and separation from neighbours, and the representations received had been taken into account.  If the Committee wished to make any changes of that nature then a redesign of the scheme would be required.  A Member proposed that the application be refused.  She indicated that the traffic order condition required traffic to travel via Valiant Way, Mill Lane and Delta Way.   There was no permission for construction traffic to use Hurcombe Way, Vicarage Court or Court Road.  Phase 5 was not allowing traffic through that site despite the condition allowing access for each phase through all of the areas.  Valiant Way, where the new roundabout was due to be constructed, was right next to this phase and it seemed illogical that traffic would need to travel around Mill Lane and Shurdington Road all the way through Brockworth, bypassing Phase 5 to get to Phases 4 and 6 – this was unacceptable in her view.  She echoed the comments regarding the danger of the cycleways on Valiant Way, a 50mph road, and raised concern regarding the lack of connectivity between the development and the rest of the estate, including the local supermarket, as everyone living there would be required to drive to access services.  The Public Right of Way should not be cut off and she would appreciate if one of the last remaining green spaces in Brockworth could be retained.  Another Member felt there were a number of concerns which needed to be addressed and the local resident speaking in objection to the proposal had mentioned a landscape buffer zone being included in the design at one time which now seemed to have disappeared.  He noted there was a white strip on the plan and suggested that could be a buffer if it was moved to the right so there was separation between the houses.  He was also concerned about the new roundabout as it seemed to go off to the north-east which did not seem necessary if it was purely to serve this site.  He agreed this was a suitable location for housing but suggested it might be beneficial to defer the application so the applicant could take on board the design issues raised and come up with something more appropriate.  The proposal to refuse the application was subsequently withdrawn and it was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred.

49.12        In terms of the point raised by the local resident regarding a property being built directly on his border, a Member noted there was some open space at the other end of the terraced houses and he suggested that it might be possible to move that property to that location so the resident did not have a two storey brick wall in his garden.  Another Member shared the local Ward Member’s concerns regarding the speed of cars travelling on Valiant Road and through the proposed development – although a roundabout was due to be constructed he did not believe that would slow traffic sufficiently – and he asked what was being done by the County Council to promote active travel to encourage people to walk and cycle and whether there would be properly constructed cycleways.  In response, the County Highways representative advised that the main spine road would be 30mph and County Highways was satisfied with the design.  The side roads would be 20mph and would accommodate cyclists and vehicles without the need for segregation.  The seconder of the motion to defer the application felt that, given the concerns raised, the best solution was to give the developer an opportunity to improve the proposals.  A Member asked if Officers were clear as to the reasons for the deferral and whether what was being asked for could be achieved and, if not, what the consequences would be.  With regard to construction traffic, the Development Management Team Leader (East)  confirmed the developer had agreement to go through the Linden Homes site to the north to access Phase 4 – that was in place and was the route that would be used as he had stated in his introduction.  As he had already mentioned, the neighbouring amenity had been assessed and distances had been measured and deemed appropriate.  He confirmed that a landscape buffer was included on the illustrative masterplan and, although it had been reduced in size from that plan, there would be a buffer between properties.  In terms of the Oak trees, he advised there were three Tree Preservation Order trees on the southern part of the site, two of which were to be removed – one had died and had been assessed by the Tree Officer, who was happy with its removal, and it had been agreed at the outline consent stage to remove the other, which was deemed the lesser quality of the two, as part of the design.  On that basis, the Development Management Team Leader (East) indicated that, if Members wished to defer the application on design grounds, it would be useful to have a clear idea as to what Members wanted to achieve so that could be discussed with the applicant.

49.13        A Member indicated that he had been struck by the local resident speaking in objection to the proposal regarding the issue with the house being built across the boundary of his garden as it seemed that structure would block a lot of light to his garden in the afternoon.  He appreciated the point about the design specification requirements being met but he felt a small amount of redesign would be appropriate under the circumstances and one of the things to focus on would be those three houses and their position.  A Member noted that, as a reserved matters application, this could not be refused; however, the Committee had a chance to improve the proposals and he shared the concerns which had been raised regarding site access and that it was inappropriate for construction vehicles to travel through the whole of Brockworth, particularly when the new roundabout could be used and would be less intrusive for existing residents.  He understood that the Horsbere Brook would be culverted but that meant water would travel to his Ward and he asked what assessment had been done around the impact of culverting in that particular location in terms of water flows and indicated that he would like more information on water flows to be provided.  The Development Management Team Leader (East) explained that, when the outline planning permission had been granted, a condition had been included requiring a construction management plan for the whole site – there was no requirement at each phase to submit a new plan and the applicant had agreement to access the site via the north through the Linden development.  The application for the roundabout at Valiant Way was with the local planning authority and it was anticipated a decision would be made in June following which work could commence; once complete, it would open up the site for construction in the southern part and to finish elements in the northern part.  The Member sought clarification as to whether he was correct in thinking that the Committee was not able to refuse the application but could defer and the Legal Adviser explained that this was a reserved matters application so the principle of housing had already been approved.  Construction traffic was part and parcel of the outline conditions and discharged under those, as such, it would be hugely difficult to form a case based on that issue.  The deferral reason would need to be confined to concerns over appearance, landscape, scale and internal layout – it was not possible to ask for the access points to be relocated as part of the reserved matters application.  Members would need to clarify the reasons for a deferral, whether that be in terms of design or other matters, and it was important to recognise there was a possibility that the developer may decide that was not a situation they could tolerate and subsequently go to appeal.  The Development Management Manager drew attention to Page No. 132 of the Committee report which talked about foul and surface water drainage for the site.  Paragraph 8.50 stated that the Lead Local Flood Authority, Severn Trent and the Environment Agency had all considered the submitted strategy and raised no objection to the approval of reserved matters in accordance with the engineering and management plans submitted. 

49.14        The proposer of the motion to defer the application raised concern that the property which had been pointed out on the site plan as being the one belonging to the local resident who had spoken in objection to the proposal was incorrect.  In terms of construction traffic, she understood that the agreed access was via Mill Lane, Valiant Way and Delta Way – there was no agreement to use Court Road.  In light of the comment about the location of the local residents’ property, a Member sought further clarification as to where exactly this was and the Development Management Manager confirmed there was a general acceptance that the plot being discussed was to the southern end of the scheme rather than the original location suggested earlier in the meeting.  As had been already been referenced, the relationship with adjacent residents had been considered and the relationship that had been identified here was not a direct one so his advice would be that a deferral on that basis would be difficult in terms of what was appropriate on site in planning terms.  The proposer of the motion to defer the application indicated that her other concerns related to the local playing area being in the middle of an attenuation pond, the bridge over the Public Right of Way being too low, the removal of the trees to make way for a parking space, the lack of connectivity to services and the arrangements for cycling.  The seconder of the motion to defer the application indicated that his initial point related to the separation of the new buildings and the existing dwellings but he could not understand why the buffer could not be moved to the left to create a larger buffer zone.  In response, the Development Management Team Leader (East) explained that the area the Member was referring to was outside the remit of the reserved matters application, and he assumed outside of the applicants’ ownership as well.  In addition to this, the Development Management Manager pointed out that the layout had been carefully considered in terms of the local noise environment.  There was significant highways infrastructure around the site so there would need to be some separation between the highway and the proposed residential development.  In terms of the footpath, it was noted the vehicular bridge was too low for pedestrians to walk underneath so they would need to be redirected over the road and reconnected to the existing footpath.

49.15        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be DEFERRED for concerns to be addressed in respect of construction traffic, design issues relating to neighbouring residential amenity to the east, the landscape buffer to the eastern boundary, the local play area/attenuation pond, the bridge over/redirection of the public right of way, the Oak tree being removed for a parking space, the lack of connectivity to services/surrounding areas and the arrangements for cycling.