PROPOSAL: Residential development of 37 dwellings (Class C3); vehicular and pedestrian access; landscaping; drainage attenuation; and other associated works.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated permit.

27.2          This application was for residential development of 37 dwellings (Class C3); vehicular and pedestrian access; landscaping; drainage attenuation; and other associated works.

27.3          The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which referenced an objection from a member of the public on the basis that the roadside plots were still too close to the main road, where noise would be an issue, and that too many dwellings would cause traffic issues; and a letter from an Associate Trustee from the Harvey Centre, which had been circulated separately in full along with a copy of the response from the applicant’s agent.  The crux of the representation was that the Harvey Centre was a community centre which operated on the aDjoining site and, in the mind of the Trustees, the narrow access between the building and the boundary of the application site would preclude the expansion of the Centre, which planned to develop a nursery – with the lease agreement due to be signed later this week – and a community shop, and their view was that the development would prevent widening the access.  The representation put forward three possible options for Members to consider in their determination of the application: including a stipulation in any planning decision issued for an improved access point to the Harvey Centre to be agreed with the Centre and the developer; to defer the application in order to explore options to safeguard future use of the Centre and to incorporate improved access for the Centre; and to consider any provision for lowering the speed limit on the A48.  The response from the applicant’s agent indicated that they supported the expansion of the Centre and the general principle of the development of a nursery and community shop and had advised that a meeting had taken place at a late stage when the first set of plans had been produced so there had not been time to incorporate the requests from the Harvey Centre.  The application site would not necessarily preclude the widening of the access, as Members would be able to see from the presentation slides, as it was public open space and not built development or a private garden.  The applicant’s agent had also mentioned there had been no objections from County Highways regarding the current speed limits.

27.4          Members were advised that the application site was bounded by existing development to the west and enclosed within the settlement boundary of Minsterworth to the east with the A48 to the north and Church Lane to the south.  There were a number of Grade II listed buildings close to the site including Snowdrop Cottage and Street End Cottage to the southwest and Lower Moorcroft Farmhouse to the east.  The left half of the site was grassland with the working part of the farm to the right containing a number of farm buildings.  There were two accesses from the A48, one currently serving Elms Farmhouse and the other serving the northeast corner which was used for farm storage.  The development now proposed 37 dwellings in total – reduced from 40 with Elms Farmhouse now also to be retained – with larger houses on the eastern side and 15 affordable dwellings spread throughout the site.  The existing boundaries would be retained with the exception of the two accesses on the northern perimeter – the existing access to Elms Farmhouse was to be moved to create a spine road which wrapped around the application site.  Very few trees were to be removed aside from a handful to the northwest which were generally poor quality.  As the application site was within the existing settlement boundary, the development would comply with Policy RES2 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  In terms of landscape impacts, Officers considered that the development integrated within the pattern of development and boundaries.  Overall landscape impacts and the disruption of views in the site were considered acceptable and were further mitigated by recommended conditions for landscaping, tree planting and boundary treatments.  Housing density achieved an appropriate balance and the development was expected to achieve 55% biodiversity net gain.  All built development and infrastructure would be at lowest risk of flooding, though public open space in the southeast corner encroached into the River Severn flood plain.  A drainage solution had been agreed with the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Council’s Land Drainage Engineer – as there was no mains drainage, a package treatment plant was proposed which would outfall to the nearest watercourse and, as an additional safeguard to preserve water quality, operation of the plant would be subject to an Environment Agency licence and Building Regulations approval.  The applicant was keen to emphasise the development’s ability to contribute to carbon emission reduction so, in terms of design and construction, air source heat pumps, vehicle charging points and bicycle storage would be provided for every dwelling.  Although Officers could not currently insist on solar panels, the developer had committed to this; if they were installed, a condition would be included on any planning permission requiring those details to come forward for approval.  There were no remaining technical consultee objections; however, in terms of community opinions, the Parish Council has raised concerns about housing density which Officers considered was appropriate.  In terms of lighting, Members would be mindful that a balance must be struck between amenity and street safety and, in this instance, an indicative lighting plan had been prepared to meet Bat Conservation Trust Standards. Other community and neighbour concerns were set out at Pages No.37-38, Paragraph 5.1 of the Committee report, with significant concerns having been raised regarding the rural setting, loss of wildlife, drainage and highways.  Officers considered these had been satisfactorily addressed in the Committee report or mitigated by conditions, as set out at the end of the Committee report.  Finally, the Senior Planning Officer returned to the late representation from the Harvey Centre and explained that Officers understood the intention was to widen the access which could involve part of the land in the current application site; however, their view was: that access to the community centre was unrelated to the current scheme which must be determined on its own merits; there had been no objections from County Highways regarding road layouts or speed limits; it would be unreasonable to impose a condition for unrelated development outside of the application site; this was a private matter between Harvey Centre and the applicant, or successors in title, with which the local planning authority was under no obligation to assist; and it would not be a justified ground to defer determination.  On that basis, the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Management Manager to permit the application, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

27.5          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that the proposal represented a high-quality scheme from a well-respected independent, regional housebuilder with a proven track record of delivery.  The site was incorporated into the settlement boundary as part the new Tewkesbury Borough Plan meaning that the principle of residential development was considered acceptable. The scheme was capable of being delivered without delay and therefore made a welcome contribution to the borough’s shortfall in housing land supply.  The scheme would deliver 15 affordable homes – a policy compliant 40% – made available for social rent and shared ownership, in a village which had limited affordable housing.  The houses were designed to a very high specification, incorporating solar panels and air-source heat pumps. There was no energy or carbon reduction policy target in the borough, nevertheless, this scheme represented a vast improvement over and above Building Regulation requirements. The submitted energy assessment showed the scheme’s energy demand to be 89% less than the national benchmark and carbon emissions would be reduced by 94%.  The scheme was framed by a generous natural and public open space, including new planting to reinvigorate the existing orchard and walking loops to connect to the A48, Church Lane and the adjacent play area. This represented 55% biodiversity net gain – significantly above the mandatory 10% requirement from November 2023.  The scheme proposed to demolish various unsightly and deteriorating agricultural structures made of breezeblock and corrugated sheet metal. The scheme had been amended post-submission to ensure that a brick barn, identified by the Conservation Officer as having heritage value, was retained. This barn remained within the application boundary but would be transferred back into the ownership of Elms Farmhouse so the buildings could maintain their collective use. The location of the site in the centre of Minsterworth was no longer appropriate for the commercial keeping of livestock and various complaints had been made in recent years regarding odour and noise nuisances arising, which was an inevitable tension when housing was built adjacent to existing agricultural operations. The farm was not large enough to run sustainably without undertaking contracting work which brought with it significant agricultural vehicular movements to and from the site.  The applicant’s agent hoped Members would feel able to conclude that this planning application was universally policy compliant with no technical objections, supported in principle by the Parish Council, and endorse the Officer recommendation for a delegated permit.

27.6          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Management Manager to permit the application, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member questioned how the water treatment plant would be impacted if the watercourse flooded and was advised that the drainage scheme had been reviewed by the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Council’s Land Drainage Engineer who raised no concerns.  The Senior Planning Officer indicated that, as far as he was aware, the system would continue to operate as the attenuation pond had a large capacity and a hyrdobrake system which allowed it to discharge into the watercourse at the appropriate point.  Clarification was provided that the attenuation pond was entirely outside of the flood zone.  The representative from the Lead Local Flood Authority explained that the applicant had been asked to model a scenario where the River Severn flooded and prove it would still drain effectively without putting properties at risk; he confirmed that scenario had been modelled and checked in terms of surface water drainage.  The Member asked if the water treatment plant would continue to work if it was under water and the representative from the Lead Local Flood Authority advised that the Lead Local Flood Authority did not assess foul drainage; surface water and foul sewage were separate on the site with the foul sewage going through the water treatment plant.  The Senior Planning Officer clarified that the package treatment plant was outside of the flood zone and would be capable of operating.  The outfall drainage to the watercourse would be subject to Building Regulations which would need to be approved before installation and operation.  The Member drew attention to the Environmental Health Officer’s comment that there would be potential harm to amenity in relation to noise from traffic on the A48, and other representations which referenced noise, and asked what mitigation would take place to alleviate that, particularly for residents closest to the road.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the Environmental Health Officer had concerns about noise and had recommended a condition requiring a ventilation strategy; this had been omitted from the recommended conditions included in the Committee report but could be included to ensure the strategy came forward.  The Member noted that recommended condition 12 required an acoustic assessment to be submitted prior to the operation of any heat pumps which she understood was related to address the noise generated by the ventilation solution but she was particularly referring to traffic noise which she did not believe was being mitigated based on the Committee report.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that the condition requiring submission of a noise strategy would include both the means for ensuring ventilation and insulation from the road and a requirement for the strategy to be assessed by the Environmental Health Officer. 

27.7          Another Member shared the concerns raised regarding the treatment plant and was not convinced the proposals would result in a satisfactory outcome.  She had taken on board what the Senior Planning Officer had said in relation to the development of the Harvey Centre but she was of the opinion that this proposal would impact upon its expansion.  Policy RES5 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan stated that proposals for new housing development should provide an acceptable level of amenity for the future occupiers of the proposed dwelling(s) and cause no unacceptable harm to the amenity of existing dwellings.  Whilst she recognised the Harvey Centre was not a dwelling, she felt this development would preclude it from expanding and would like to see a formal agreement with the developers to be able to extend the northwest corner so it could secure the required access.  The Harvey Centre would be signing the lease for the nursery on Friday and had firm plans to run a café and shop and, alongside this development of 37 houses, it would be a valuable asset.  The residents of Minsterworth were happy with the design and understanding of the development on the whole but the potential preclusion of expansion of the Centre was a remaining issue and she asked if it was possible for the application to be deferred in order to establish a firm plan for the northwest corner of the site.  In response, the Development Management Manager advised that, as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet and explained by the Senior Planning Officer, this issue had been raised relatively late in the day; however, the Harvey Centre’s response had been summarised on the Additional Representations Sheet and circulated in full.  Officers had previously visited the site and taken on board both the Harvey Centre’s representation and the response from the applicant regarding existing use rights of the site and the highway access being set well-back.  On that basis, there was nothing which suggested the proposed development would preclude the suggested enhancements to the Centre coming forward on the site and he urged Members to determine the proposal on its own merits based on the application before them today.  Whilst it was within Members’ gift, he strongly advised against a deferral.

27.8          A Member drew attention to Page No. 44, Paragraph 8.44 of the Committee report which set out that Policy SD9 of the adopted Joint Core Strategy stated that the biodiversity and geological resource of the Joint Core Strategy area would be protected and enhanced in order to establish and reinforce ecological networks that were resilient to current and future pressures, and that the adopted Tewkesbury Borough Plan Policy NAT1 set out that proposals would be required to deliver a biodiversity net gain across local and landscape scales including designing wildlife into development proposals, and he asked whether it was possible to negotiate with the developer to fit swift bricks within the walls of the new dwellings should Members be minded to delegate authority to permit the application.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer advised that recommended conditions 4 and 5 required submission of a Construction and Ecological Management Plan and a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan and he could endeavour to secure additional swift nesting provision as part of that.  Another Member noted that the dwellings would have bicycle storage and she asked if there was any provision for cycling on the A48.  In response the County Highways representative advised that the A48 had a speed limit of 50mph and there were presently no designated cycling facilities along that route.

27.9          It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred in order to obtain full information in relation to the drainage strategy for the site.  The proposer of the motion indicated that the Parish Council felt that the sewage treatment plant capacity was insufficient and there was no mains foul drainage in Minsterworth.  The information received regarding the water treatment plant was inadequate and she was not happy to determine the application without full information.  A Member indicated that he would like a Planning Committee Site Visit as part of the deferral and the proposer and seconder of the motion confirmed they were happy that be included.  The seconder of the proposal asked whether investigation into the northwest corner could also be included in the deferral to come up with a complete design for the development.  In terms of the design, the Development Management Manager advised that the relevant technical consultees had been consulted on the proposal and the design was as presented to Members today – nothing had been suggested in terms of an alternative design proposal.  The Legal Adviser explained that the representation from the Harvey Centre had been circulated and, whilst the concerns raised were recognised, unfortunately, these were based on aspirations of the Centre and were not materially relevant to determination of this application.  There was no requirement to mitigate this impact as a result of this proposal.  The Harvey Centre could consider applying for part of the Section 106 community contributions secured from the development to assist with the future development of the Harvey Centre.  It was worth noting that the Harvey Centre was on a former school site with capacity for the traffic generated by the school, which was likely to be less than that generated by the Centre, and the access was suitable for that level of traffic.  She had every sympathy with the Centre but the Committee was not able to force the developer to make any provisions for the Harvey Centre in this case.  The seconder of the motion indicated that she knew the school very well and there had been no specific access for it, which had caused significant traffic issues – in her opinion, traffic had not been adequately catered for at that time and she continued to believe that traffic would become a real problem over the years.  She indicated that the response from the applicant’s agent stated that the layout and design of the scheme did not necessarily preclude the ability to form a vehicular access into the Harvey Centre site in the future across the shared boundary; she felt this demonstrated that this development was inextricably linked to the Harvey Centre and she would like to see that statement written into an agreement.  The Legal Adviser understood the Member’s point of view and advised that, if the application was deferred, Officers could potentially ask the developer if they would be willing to agree to that but it was not legally possible to impose a requirement of that nature.  The seconder of the motion sought clarification regarding the application of Policy RES5, as she felt this development would cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of the Harvey Centre, and the Development Management Manager advised that amenity in pure terms was not technically impacted.  There had been positive comments from the Harvey Centre and the applicant in terms of community use of the adjacent site and that would not be precluded in terms of the existing access.  It was unreasonable to include a formal agreement regarding future community use as part of the current proposal and that was the very clear advice being given by himself and the Legal Adviser.

27.10        Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be DEFERRED in order to obtain full information in relation to the drainage strategy for the site and for a Planning Committee Site Visit.