Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Outline planning application for the erection of up to 250 dwellings, community sports pavilion and outdoor sports pitches as well as associated highway, drainage and green infrastructure including trim trail, outdoor play and community orchard.  All matters reserved except for access.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

7.18          This was an outline application for the erection of up to 250 dwellings, community sports pavilion and outdoor sports pitches, as well as associated highway, drainage and green infrastructure including trim trail, outdoor play and community orchard with all matters reserved except for access.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Wednesday 24 May 2023.

7.19          The Senior Planning Officer advised that the application site extended to approximately 15.1 hectares and was located to the south of Wheatpices on the edge of Tewkesbury.  The site was in open countryside and outside of the defined settlement boundary of Tewkesbury which was along the north edge of the site; however, the site was in close proximity to local services at Wheatpieces, which had a primary school, community centre and convenience store, and within walking and cycling distance of the wider area of Tewkesbury.  The proposed dwellings would comprise a mixture of house types and tenures including one, two, three, four and five bedroom homes.  Of the 250 houses, 100 would be affordable with 60% social rented and 40% shared ownership and, due to the size of the site, it had been possible to negotiate a range of housing including five bedroom social rented units which were uncommon on smaller sites.  In terms of the application site itself, new outdoor sports pitches were proposed along with a new community sports pavilion.  The parameters plan showed the sports pavilion was of sufficient size to include four changing rooms – this was beneficial for women/girls football and allowed separate changing rooms for home and away teams - two official changing rooms for the referee, community area and kitchen facility.  The exact details of the sports pavilion would be agreed at the reserved matters stage; the Section 106 Agreement was currently being progressed and would result in the transfer of the sports pitches and pavilion to Tewkesbury Colts Football Club with the proviso that there was a fallback position within the agreement that the area would come to Tewkesbury Borough Council if Tewkesbury Colts ceased to exist.  It was envisaged that the sports pitches would also be used by the wider community whilst being managed by Tewkesbury Colts.  It was noted that visual impact of the development would be relatively modest due to the flat nature of the landscape and the intervening hedgerow which meant there was limited visibility from Rudgeway Lane which allowed accessibility into the site.  He also clarified that the flood zone was to the east of the site rather than the south as he had stated on the Planning Committee site visit.

7.20          He advised Members that the application site was not allocated for housing development and did not meet any of the exceptions of Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy or Policy RES3 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, as such, the application conflicted with Policy SP2 and SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy and Policy RES3 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and the conflict with these adopted development plan policies was the starting point for decision-making.  In this instance, Officers felt there were material considerations which weighed in favour of the development, including the proximity and accessibility of the application site to community infrastructure, the benefits of additional community facilities and the range of affordable housing provision.  These material considerations must be weighed against the harms of the development which was a matter for the overall planning balance.  It was considered that the proposal would provide a significant number of dwellings in a sustainable location which would contribute to the Council being able to maintain a five year supply of deliverable housing.  Furthermore, there were economic benefits associated with a development of this scale.  Whilst Officers had identified some harms arising from the development, including landscape harms, loss of agricultural land and minor harm to designated heritage assets, they considered these were outweighed by the benefits and it was therefore recommended that authority be delegated to the Development Management Manager to permit the application, subject to any additional/amended planning conditions and the completion of Section 106 Agreements to secure the heads of terms listed within the Committee report, subject to any amendments arising from ongoing discussions.

7.21          The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  The applicant’s representative advised that they had worked collaboratively with Tewkesbury Town Colts Football Club, Tewkesbury Borough Council, statutory consultees and the local community from the outset, as a result, they were pleased to see that Officers were recommending the application be permitted.  The proposal represented a genuinely exciting opportunity to provide the long-awaited and much-needed provision of a new community sports pavilion and associated pitches within the heart of the community, alongside up to 250 new dwellings including 100 affordable homes.  To show their commitment to the delivery of the new community sports facility, it had been agreed that the first reserved matters application submitted would be for the community sports pavilion; further to this, they would commence construction of the pavilion prior to the occupation of the 25^th dwelling.  The applicant’s representative explained they were committed to addressing the climate change emergency and would ensure all of the new dwellings, including the community sports pavilion, were constructed to meet the latest building regulation standards which would mean all homes were built with enhanced materials and fitted with photovoltaic panels and electric vehicle charging points.  In addition, a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain would be provided on site including 400 metres of new native species hedgerow and a community orchard.  Given the importance of this application to Tewkesbury Town Colts Football Club, the applicant’s representative indicated he had been asked to say a few words on their behalf.  He explained that the club was established in 1975 and was the largest junior football club in North Gloucestershire with over 500 members, including around 100 girl players.  The club was proud to be a leading example for promoting female sport in the county and its continued efforts had a profound impact both on and off the pitch.  In recognition, Gloucestershire Football Association had awarded the Colts ‘Club of the Year’ in 2017 and, for the first time in the club’s long history, the under 13 girls team had become County Cup Winners this year.  Despite the on and off field successes, the club did not currently have a home and rented football pitches in six different locations across the borough on annual lease agreements; four of the locations lacked access to basic hygiene and welfare facilities.  Furthermore, given the structure of the lease agreements, the long term use of the pitches was not secure.  Subject to a favourable decision from the Planning Committee today, the club planned to create a unique facility in the county which was able to host female-only games and training sessions – not only would it provide female players with access to hygiene and welfare facilities, it would provide the club with pitch security which would support the retention of the existing girls’ teams and allow the club to increase membership.  The applicant’s representative hoped that Members would feel able to support the Officer recommendation to permit the application and, thereafter, the delivery of the new community sport pavilion and up to 250 much-needed homes.

7.22          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Management Manager to permit the application, subject to any additional/amended planning conditions and the completion of Section 106 Agreements to secure the heads of terms listed within the Committee report, subject to any amendments arising from ongoing discussions, and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member sought clarification on recommended condition 21 which stated that the development proposals would not be occupied unless, or until, the proposed improvement schemes identified for M5 Junction 9 as shown in the PFA Consultants ‘Proposed Improvements to M5 Junction 9’ drawing ref: H556/12, had been completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with National Highways, and were open to traffic.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer explained this had been requested by National Highways and he confirmed that the work had been completed.  The Member drew attention to Pages No. 74-75, Paragraph 4.1 of the Committee report which outlined the objection from Ashchurch Rural Parish Council and sought clarification on whether allotments were to be included; arrangements for transfer of the management and maintenance of the facilities; and connectivity, including the Public Right of Way.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that the community orchard was currently proposed to be located in the south-east corner of the site – there were no allotments proposed but this was an outline application to establish the principle of development and, if permitted, Officers could negotiate their inclusion with the applicant if that was required by Members.  In terms of management of the site, this needed to be finalised but it was anticipated that it would be via a private management company run by the applicant.  The Member also noted there were no bungalows proposed within the affordable housing despite this being a requirement of the Ashchurch Rural Parish Neighbourhood Development Plan and she asked if that could be negotiated with the developers.  The Senior Planning Officer explained that the affordable housing mix had been agreed with the Council’s Housing Enabling Officer based on the housing need in the evidence base and there had been detailed discussions in order to achieve the proposed mix which included larger affordable housing units than would generally be provided.  In terms of the market housing, condition 7 required submission of a housing mix statement so the inclusion of bungalows within the market housing could be explored.  The Member raised concern that bungalows were much-needed but not often available and she hoped the applicant would take that into consideration when the layout and design for the site came forward.  She went on to indicate that this area was popular with horse riders and there was bridleway at the top of the site which was well-used so she was keen to ensure that the interaction between horses and residents was considered and did not cause any issues for either party.  The bridleway crossed the road going into the development and she indicated that she would like to see a Pegasus crossing required as part of the Section 106 Agreement. 

7.23          Another Member supported these points and asked that bungalows be included as part of the mix as he agreed there was a lack of that type of housing in Tewkesbury.  He also supported the comments made by the British Horse Association around the access arrangements, trail setting and increased fragmentation of groups.  He sought assurance that the local schools were able to accommodate the additional pupils estimated to arise from the development as he understood that John Moore Primary School which was located on the Wheatpieces estate was oversubscribed.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that the Local Education Authority had a statutory duty to ensure there were sufficient school places for all children in the borough.  Gloucestershire County Council had been consulted on the application and had responded with a request for a Section 106 contribution of £772,687.50 towards secondary education provision; this was based on an assessment of how many pupils would be derived from the development in dwellings of two bedrooms or more in conjunction with pupil ratios and how many school places were available.  In this instance, the County Council had not asked for a contribution towards primary school places recognising that, although the closest was John Moore Primary School and that could not accommodate all of the pupils arising from the development, there were four other primary schools within two miles of the site and there was sufficient spaces within those schools which were within walking distance.  In terms of secondary schools, Tewkesbury School was 1.9 miles from the site and Cleeve School and Winchcombe School were within six and eight miles respectively but they did not have sufficient collective capacity to accommodate the development meaning that expansion was needed which was why the Section 106 contribution had been requested.  The Member questioned whether Officers were confident there were suitable routes for children to walk or cycle safely to all of the schools and noted that concerns had been raised with regard to Queen Margaret’s Primary School in particular which he felt ought to be considered.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed this would be considered in terms of relative sustainability – there were cycle routes within the facility and the site was a lot more sustainable than a number of Service Villages.  The Member indicated that he had been struck by the magnificence of the hedge running through the site which had been teaming with birds when the Planning Committee had visited the previous day and he noted that Landscape Adviser’s view, set out at Page No. 88, Paragraph 8.31 of the Committee report, that retention of the site’s hedgerows was readily achievable. With that in mind, he asked if provisions could be put in place for its retention in greater quantities than were currently being proposed as it would take decades for replacement hedges to achieve the same level of biodiversity.  The Senior Planning Officer advised this had been investigated and, in terms of that part of the hedge, more had been lost throughout the design process compared to the masterplan in the papers which was incorrect and showed a larger hedge.  He explained this had been necessary to provide a circular bus route.  The previous scheme had broken the linear hedgerow and created more space for the Locally Equipped Area of Play (LEAP); however, it had been felt it would be better to lose a section of the other hedgerow rather than break that one.  If the hedgerow was retained across the northern boundary, it meant only one row of dwellings could be included resulting in close board fencing backing onto the Public Right of Way and a poor streetscene.  Officers had been working with the applicant to achieve a balance but it was inevitable there would be some losses.  It was necessary to ensure that the site contained as many houses as possible in order to maintain the Council’s five year housing land supply and the illustrative masterplan was the result of balancing of a number of decisions – whilst the hedgerow had been lost, there was a better bus route and better retained hedgerow with useable spaces in the middle of the site.  He gave assurance that nobody wanted hedgerow to be lost for the sake of it and there would be significant new hedgerow planting on the eastern boundary of the site which was currently open field.  The Member asked that, if the application was granted permission, the developer be asked to retain as much of the mature hedgerow as possible.  He went on to question how the 10% biodiversity net gain would be measured and was informed that the applicant would submit a Biodiversity Net Gain Assessment as part of the Landscaping and Ecological Management Plan which would be considered by specialist ecologists who would advise the Council as to its suitability.  The Member asked if there was a standard framework to measure it and was advised it was a DEFRA metric so was a national standard. Another Member supported the comments which had been made regarding retention of the hedgerow and indicated that there were Great Crested Newts within 250 metres of the site.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that the applicant had been issued with a Great Crested Newt District Licence by Naturespace which prescribed long term working practices and maintenance/management – he provided assurance there would be an extensive and well modelled method statement to protect Great Crested Newts.

7.24          A Member sought clarification as to the density of housing per hectare and was advised that the residential component of the development was 36 per hectare but for the site as a whole it was 16 per hectare.  The Member noted that a library contribution had been requested as part of the Section 106 Agreement and he indicated that he had raised concern previously that it was not clear how that money was actually spent.  In terms of the Section 104 Agreement from Severn Trent, he believed that was something which should be fleshed out at this stage if possible.  He also asked why it was not possible to insist on developers providing solar panels and electric vehicle charging points as well as air source heat pumps given the high quality standard of the builds, particularly in terms of the affordable housing as this was excluded from government grants to retrofit – he felt the authority should be requesting these things as a minimum standard.  With regard to the sustainability of the dwellings, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that every dwelling, including affordable housing, would have an electric vehicle charging point and he believed the developer had circulated a briefing note to Members setting out its sustainability credentials.  In terms of seeking energy efficiency in dwellings, it was important to bear in mind the development plan policy as any conditions imposed must be reasonable, necessary and justified.  The developer was building homes in accordance with building regulations to achieve sustainable developments.

7.25          A Member expressed his disappointment that only three paragraphs of the lengthy Committee report made reference to flooding, particularly given the questions raised by Tewkesbury Town Council.  Whilst the report suggested the site was at low risk of flooding, the site would discharge into a watercourse which flowed into Tewkesbury and it was not clear if consideration had been given to the impact on the Tirle Brook or what measures would be taken to ensure the development did not affect residents downstream.  It was important that surface water from the site did not arrive in the vicinity of the floodplain more quickly than the Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS) could cope with.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the Lead Local Flood Authority had been consulted on the application and had considered the Flood Risk Assessment submitted by the applicant.  It was noted that the site was within Flood Zone 1 which was the lowest risk of flooding.  This was an outline application to establish the principle of development and it was not possible to carry out a detailed survey until the levels were known; notwithstanding this, a condition was proposed which required submission of a detailed Surface Water Drainage Strategy which would include outflows into the Tirle Brook and management/maintenance of attenuation ponds.

7.26          A Member asked whether management of the community spaces within the site would be carried out by the developers’ management company and was informed that was the most likely scenario but was still being finalised through the Section 106 Agreement – the landscaped areas around the trim trail would be maintained by a management company and the sports pavilion and playing pitches would be managed and run by Tewkesbury Town Colts Football Club.  In terms of traffic, a Member noted that the main route was down Bluebell Road through the existing housing development and she asked whether consideration had been given to the additional traffic on that road given there would be more children on bicycles and walking etc.  She made reference to the suggestion from Tewkesbury Town Council that movement of traffic generated by construction should be timed to avoid commuting hours to and from school/work.  The representative from County Highways advised that all of the impact assessments which had been carried out suggested there was no need for traffic calming and he indicated that the existing situation with on street parking along Bluebell Road could act as traffic calming in its own right.  Three traffic surveys had been undertaken by Streetwise to establish the base traffic with an automatic traffic counter put down between 18 May and 24 May which had counted 826 vehicles, 85% of which were travelling at a speed of 25mph.  On 8 June a manual count had observed 156 vehicles in the AM peak and 180 vehicles in the PM peak.  A queue survey had also been carried out which had observed a three vehicle queue in the AM peak and two in the PM peak. The likely impact of the development on the road had been assessed using standard peak modelling software and had raised no significant concerns.  He clarified that the highways impact assessment considered the peak hours to be between 8:00am and 9:00am and 5:00pm and 6:00pm.  A Member asked whether the new development could be serviced by a standard sized waste vehicle or if a smaller vehicle would be needed as on-street parking could limit the road width.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that he was not aware of any restrictions; however, all matters were reserved including the internal access and he would expect that to be tracked at the reserved matters stage.  The Chair asked whether Rudgeway Lane was an adopted highway and if hedges on either side were within Gloucestershire County Council’s ownership.  The representative from County Highways indicated that he did not have that information to hand but could provide it following the meeting.  The Chair assumed the hedgerows on both sides were to be retained and asked if there were plans to improve Rudgeway Lane in any way given that it would be a pedestrian access and cycleway.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer explained that the access points to the main development were for cyclists and pedestrians only; there would be no vehicular access via Rudgeway Lane.  The applicant would work with the natural parameters and retain the hedgerow where possible.

7.27          It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to investigating the viability of a Pegasus crossing in respect of the bridleway as part of the Section 106 Agreement, ensuring that a three metre constant access was maintained across bridleways whilst the development was built, consideration being given to any improvements which were required to Rudgeway Lane given that it would be a multi-use lane for horses and cycling, any additional/amended planning conditions and the completion of Section 106 Agreements to secure the heads of terms listed within the Committee report, subject to any amendments arising from ongoing discussions.  The Senior Planning Officer indicated that these points could be discussed with the applicant and the application would be brought back to the Committee if there were any issues.  A Member queried whether retention of the hedgerows would be picked up at a later stage and the Senior Planning Officer advised that a parameters plan would need to be approved at the reserved matters stage and Officers would do what they could at that point to retain as much of the hedgerow as possible.

7.28          Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Management Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to investigating the viability of a Pegasus crossing in respect of the bridleway which would cross the only access route, ensuring that a 3 metre constant access across bridleways whilst the development was built, consideration being given to any improvements which were required to Rudgeway Lane given that it would be a mutli-use land for horses and cycling, any additional/amended planning conditions and the completion of Section 106 Agreements to secure the heads of terms listed within the Committee report, subject to any amendments arising from ongoing discussions.