Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of two detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

20.26        This application was for erection of two detached dwellings with associated parking and amenity.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 14 July 2023.

20.27        The Planning Officer advised that the application sought planning permission for the erection of two detached bungalows.  The site originally formed part of the residential curtilage of Mill Croft Cottage, a large, detached property on the north-eastern outskirts of Brockworth.  The site contained a number of trees and was surrounded on three sides by new residential development with a large care home to the rear of the site.  It was important to note that the site had a covenant attached to ensure that any structures were single storey.  The bungalows would have a pitched, tiled roof and would be constructed from red brick.  Clarification was provided that the site had been visited by the Council’s Ecologist on 18 January 2023 and a survey had been carried out in April and May 2023.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application, subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report.

20.28        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that the principle of residential development on the site had already been confirmed in the 2018 planning permission.  The design of the scheme was informed by, and responded positively to, its setting as required under policies in the Joint Core Strategy and the Tewkesbury Borough Plan – set back distances, heights, building lines, roof pitches and materials had all been derived from context.  The layout had also been informed by the passage of the sun in order to benefit from solar gains in the winter with shading to avoid summer overheating.  The houses would have large well-proportioned south-facing gardens and exceeded minimum space standards.  They would have high levels of insulation, air source heat pumps and areas of green roofs and so would provide very high quality living accommodation.  The site had been inspected by a qualified ecologist who had confirmed there were no buildings or trees present on the site which could support a bat roost.  Some objections mention the presence of bats and, as per the ecological assessment, that was to be expected on a site of this nature and measures were proposed which would benefit them by providing new roosting opportunities.  The existing trees on site were out of scale with the setting and, in many cases, had a limited lifespan, or had outgrown, their position.  One objection stated they were causing a huge nuisance, damaging paths and blocking sunlight.  The proposals would almost double the amount of green verge along the street frontage and would provide a large number of more appropriate trees and plants to this area, facing the public realm, as well as to the rear, and the applicant was more than happy for details to be agreed under condition.  The proposed new parking crossovers had safe visibility distances and a swept path analysis had confirmed that access was possible even with cars parked along the other side of the road.  There was no pavement over which cars would need to pass so there was no potential for cars meeting pedestrians either.  The new crossovers would enlarge the width of the public highway and provide additional space for public vehicular movements along Sparrow Hawk Way.  The site was in a sustainable transport location with many facilities within easy safe walking distance and space was set aside for secure cycle parking so the scheme aligned with policies aiming to encourage sustainable modes of transport and reduce reliance on travel by car.  The applicant’s agent advised that most of his work was on sensitive sites in very busy residential areas of central London and he had undertaken works to his own home not far from the site on a very narrow single track lane so he was used to working mindfully in close proximity to neighbours.  The works were relatively minor in nature but the applicant would be more than happy to agree a Construction Traffic Management Plan under condition which may include restrictions on the timings of deliveries and the type of vehicles used.  In summary, the proposals would provide very high quality accommodation and design, and had been informed from the outset by input from ecologists, arboriculturists and transport consultants.  They would improve and expand the public facing green areas and the quantum and quality of planting within them.  Technical Officers all concluded there were no reasonable grounds for refusal under local and national planning policy so the applicant’s agent respectfully asked that the Committee considered this along with the Officer recommendation and permitted what was intended and expected to be an exemplary scheme.

20.29        The Chair invited a local Ward Councillor for the area to address the Committee.   The local Ward Councillor advised that the driveways for the two properties were directly onto Sparrow Hawk Way - one directly opposite the driveway to No. 14 and the other opposite the entrance to the car park.  Sparrow Hawk Way was the narrowest part of the development and an extra four cars on that part of the development would make access for emergency service vehicles, refuse collection and residents’ access to their properties even worse than it was already.  These houses would encourage people to park on that side of the road making it impossible for people to park, or gain access to Sparrow Hawk Way.  The impact of the construction traffic and the contractors’ vehicles that would be needed to clear the site of trees would be significant – many children walked through Sparrow Hawk Way to get to and from school and the amount of construction traffic and disruption would make it very unsafe for them.  The intended development was not in the best interests of public health or public safety and would be detrimental to both – it did not serve the interest or needs of the Brockworth community and was unsustainable which should be at the forefront of everyone’s mind given that the Council had declared a climate emergency.  Tewkesbury Borough Council had sent a letter to residents of Sparrow Hawk Way to inform them of the planning application but she was aware that not all had received it - including one of the houses directly opposite the proposed development - and it had arrived two weeks after it was dated.  It might be more acceptable if the access to the two houses was a shared driveway with the existing driveway at Mill Croft Cottage and the trees could be kept on the side backing onto Sparrow Hawk Way; the local Ward Councillor felt that should be made a condition of the development.  In terms of the bat survey, she understood a report had been received last night so residents had not had time to read and respond to it, therefore, she felt a deferral would be appropriate. 

20.30        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member asked how many of the neighbouring properties had received letters notifying them of the application as the whole estate would be impacted.  In response, the Planning Officer explained that, when the application was validated, all neighbours sharing a boundary to the site were consulted; the consultation period was 21 days but the Council consulted for 28 days to allow for delays with the post so she was unsure why the neighbours had not received the letter.  In response to a query, the Planning Officer advised that Officers did not follow-up with residents to check they had received the letter.  A Member noted that a number of objections had been received regarding land impact and loss of ecology and green spaces.  This was part of larger development in the area and she asked if the green space had been taken into account.  The Development Management Manager advised that he had not checked the details of the previous application but this was residential garden so the likelihood was that it did not form part of the plan for the wider scheme.  Another Member indicated there were two parking spaces per property and he asked why there was no additional allowance for visitors bearing in mind the narrowness of the road and the congestion.  The County Highways representative explained that visitor parking spaces were not required for this scale of development.  There were instances where on street parking may occur but, in terms of the development itself, he was satisfied that two spaces met with requirements.  In response to a query regarding electric vehicle charging points, the County Highways representative was unsure if they had been included in the application but they were required under building regulations in any case.  A Member asked whether the County Highways representative had visited the application site as she was concerned that emergency vehicles would be unable to get through and felt that the additional access onto an already narrow road should have been looked at on the ground.  The County Highways representative indicated that he had not dealt with this case himself but his understanding was that a site visit had not been carried out; however, County Highways was aware of the parking constraints and how they were affecting the community. 

20.31        A Member sought clarification regarding the situation with the bat survey as there seemed to be conflicting information from the Planning Officer and local Ward Councillor.  In response, the Development Management Team Manager (East) indicated that he understood that the applicant had completed all relevant survey requirements and the Council had consulted the Ecology Consultant and, whilst there may be foraging bats coming through, there was no roosting provision on the site.  Residents had raised concern about seeing bats on site and Officers had requested additional information to establish whether that was the case but the applicant had further confirmed that the site had been checked and there were no bats.  The Council’s Ecologist had confirmed there were no roosts on the site and the ecology proposal for the site was acceptable. 

20.32        A Member questioned whether access off the driveway had been considered rather than off Sparrow Hawk Way and the Development Management Team Manager (East) indicated that he did not believe that had been requested but the advice from County Highways was that the access proposed in the application was acceptable.  A Member indicated that she was concerned about displacement of the traffic; as had been seen on the Planning Committee site visit, the area was overwhelmed with traffic, Mill Lane – the main road off Shurdington Road – already experienced problems and the access proposed in this application would only make things worse.  The County Highways representative explained that the off-street parking provided accorded with guidance and it would be unreasonable for a development of this size to provide mitigation for the wider issues.  County Highways was satisfied there would be no displacement onto the adjacent carriageway as a result of this development.

20.33        A Member proposed that the application be deferred pending further information regarding the bats and the Development Management Team Manager (East) advised that Officers considered that matter to have been assessed and checked with the Council’s Ecologist.  The Member understood that the bat report had only been received the previous night and that it was unreasonable to expect residents to accept that the findings were correct without having chance to assess it.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) explained that his understanding was that the ecological assessment had been carried out on the ground and, whilst there may be foraging bats, that was not a reason to refuse the application as there were no roosting bats.  Clarification had been sought from the Council’s Ecologist that they were happy with that approach and no further information had come forward from the neighbours to contradict that.  The Development Management Team Manager reiterated the comments made in the Committee report as there had been various rounds of consultation with 16 further comments submitted after further re-consultation, as set out at Page No. 119 of the Committee report and the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which confirmed that issues around bats had been raised during the consultation feedback and had been investigated by the Planning Officer and the Council’s Ecologist which had been taken into account as part of the report today.  The Member indicated that she continued to have concerns about the access and the safety of the road – the County Highways representative had stated that County Highways was aware of the dangers of the road and the lack of access for emergency vehicles.  Another Member asked what difference this application would make given that the road already existed and the Development Management Manager reiterated that, as referenced earlier in the meeting, the policy test was whether the impact would be severe.  The proposal before Members dealt with its own parking requirements and, as had already been stated, it was not for this development to try to resolve existing issues on the highway network.  There was not considered to be a severe impact on the wider network from this proposal which was acceptable and reasonable in highway terms.

20.34        A Member questioned why the previous planning permission for a single dwelling had not been developed and the Planning Officer explained that outline planning permission had been granted in 2018 but she did not know why a reserved matters application had not been submitted.  Another Member felt this was a difficult decision to make and he recognised that local residents did not want houses in this location which was currently a green space in a very urban area; however, the Tree Officer did not consider the trees were worthy of protection and, whilst he did not want to support the proposal, he was struggling to come up with any planning reasons to refuse it.  An application for a dwelling had already been permitted so there was a precedent – he was sure most of the Members on the Planning Committee site visit had walked into the garden and felt it would be tragic to build in that location but, notwithstanding that, it was an urban environment and there were no planning reasons to refuse it.  The Legal Adviser clarified that the site was a residential garden and not protected green space, the trees were not protected and there was nothing stopping the existing owner from removing them as part of garden maintenance or landscaping.

20.35        A Member sought confirmation as to whether it was possible to relook at the access to make it less intrusive for residents.  In response, the Development Management Manager advised that there was a proposal before Members in terms of design and the access which was proposed was similar to other developments on the estate.  This had been assessed to be safe and whilst he understood that development of the site raised a lot of difficult issues including loss of trees etc. it was an urban environment and a relatively sustainable location, and the Committee report had sought to balance the competing interests in order to come up with a clear and balanced recommendation.  A Member indicated that the density of the area had been striking to him and he felt the proposal would be overbearing in that context so questioned whether the application could be refused on that basis.  The Development Management Manager pointed out that it was the existing trees which were casting shadow and creating an overbearing impact.  The proposal had been assessed in terms of the impact of removing the trees and replacing them with a single storey dwelling and there were comments in the report regarding a suitable landscape scheme to provide appropriate replacements in keeping with the existing urban area.  Another Member indicated that the principle of development had already been established when planning permission had been granted in 2018 and she noted the Parish Council had raised no objection to that application.  She did not believe there were any bungalows in the area currently and there was a real need for that type of accommodation across the borough.  The statutory consultees were satisfied and she could not find any planning reasons for refusing the application and questioned if there was any appetite for it to be deferred.  A Member proposed that the application be deferred to explore alternative arrangements for access and parking and to allow County Highways to undertake a site visit to make an assessment on the ground.  The Development Management Manager explained that the issues referenced had already been assessed and the County Highways representative had confirmed that, whilst County Highways was aware of wider issues in the area, it was unreasonable for those to be addressed by this development; furthermore, a transport assessment had been undertaken which included parking, as such, he advised against a deferral on that issue.  There was no seconder for the proposal to defer the application.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The proposer of the motion indicated that, whilst it was an unpleasant proposal to make, he could see no planning reason to refuse or defer the application. 

20.36        Upon being put to the vote, it was

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