Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Residential development of up to 21 apartments, associated infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping with all matters reserved (amended description).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated permit.

40.14        This was an outline application for residential development of up to 21 apartments, associated infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping with all matters reserved (amended description).  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 13 October 2023.

40.15        The Senior Planning Officer drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which set out that the application site fell within Longford Parish rather than Innsworth Parish, as stated in the Committee report; this was due to a recent boundary change.  Seven additional representations had been received from members of the public objecting to the proposal on the grounds that Longford had enough housing, there should be additional shop parking, the proposal was visually unattractive, the GP surgery was at capacity, the estate did not need more people and cars, risk of flooding, contribution to antisocial behaviour and the development being unwelcome next to the school.  These aligned with the substantial number of objections that had been received and considered during the consultation period.  Whilst the application was submitted in outline and was only seeking to establish the principle of delivering up to 21 apartments, quite a lot of information had been included – this was unusual but illustrated how the scheme might appear in future.  If Members were minded to permit the application, it would be subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure affordable housing and other contributions for environmental mitigation.  Heads of terms had been agreed and the development would also be Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) liable.  Longford was deemed by Officers to be a sustainable site.  A similar scheme had been refused at the start of last year for 24 apartments; however, as well as reducing the number of apartments, there had also been amendments to the articulation of the apartment blocks which the Urban Design Officer considered added architectural interest, as well as good use of materials and colour, albeit this was indicative at this stage.  Members would be aware there was substantial opposition to the development, in part because there continued to be local expectation of the site being used for community purposes; this was based on the masterplan which followed the 2008 outline planning permission; however, delivery of the masterplan was dependent on subsequent reserved matters applications.  He drew attention to Pages No. 113-114, Paragraph 3 of the Committee report, which outlined the relevant planning history, in particular 11/00385/FUL which had a decision date of 17 May 2013.  That planning permission included a condition that all reserved matters were required within three years of that date i.e. by 17 May 2016; after that date the outline planning permission effectively lapsed so reserved matters applications could only be submitted before that date.  A number of reserved matters applications had been made between 2013 and 2016 for infrastructure, a school and a Co-Op but there was no reserved matters application for the current application site, therefore, since 2016 there had been an opportunity for any development to be proposed on the site.  The outline and reserved matters applications had now all lapsed and the masterplan had no relevance to how this application was considered.  In terms of the relevance of the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that, notwithstanding that the site was now in Longford Parish, the boundaries of the Neighbourhood Development Plan were unchanged, therefore it remained a material consideration in determining the application.  In conclusion, Longford was an urban fringe settlement of Gloucester, as named in the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, where the principle of new residential development was supported.  Having regard to the indicative plans submitted and the Council’s housing land supply situation, Officers considered there was sufficient likelihood of acceptable development coming forward at the reserved matters stage.

40.16         The Chair invited a representative from Longford Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative indicated that this application for flats would create a blot on the landscape that would seriously detract from the character of the new place at Longford.  It was in an area where residential development had been rejected twice and the vast majority of issues from the previous applications which had been refused on this site remained relevant.  Whilst the previous outline planning permission had expired, the need for infrastructure still existed.  The proposed development was squeezed in and would still fail to integrate and relate to its surroundings, or respect the character of the site, which was mainly two storey houses, and would fail to contribute positively to the wider Longford development.  More importantly, with regard to the previous application, the Urban Design Officer had stated that its loss as a retail, employment or community use would be disappointing and would have a negative effect on the overall quality of the new place that had been created at Longford and, in the long-term, this area would see significant residential growth without the facilities to serve them, risking the creation of very unsustainable developments where people must drive to access facilities.  The Parish Council felt that more dwellings without infrastructure was unsustainable.  This application failed to adhere to the social objective within Paragraph 8b) of the National Planning Policy Framework which was was to help support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, with accessible services that reflected current and future needs and supported communities.  As highlighted by local residents, parking around the school caused issues, there was outdated flood risk evidence in the area, a lack of available school places and issues with foul water controls among other things.  The development would also be contrary to Paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy CHIN2 and CHIN3 of the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan.  As Members would be aware, planning guidance was subjective so the application could be refused.  The Parish Council felt the Committee needed to be very careful not to set a dangerous precedent that could potentially undermine the strength behind local plan policies as, if approved, the development could be used as justification for unsustainable development across Tewkesbury Borough.   As such, the Parish Council urged Members to refuse the application.

40.17         The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that the original planning for the development at Horsbere Mews designated the land in question for a commercial space with parking, opposite another which was built in the early stages of the development.  The developer later proposed its first application for apartments, citing specifically that the existing commercial development had not been adopted – the residential development itself only half-complete.  As of October 2023, the existing commercial development had been fully adopted and heavily used for over 24 months, with parked vehicles regularly overflowing onto Horsbere Drive itself.  He pointed out that, for a significant period of time during the consultation period for the application, the online portal for objections had been unavailable meaning many residents were unable to register their objections - he was aware of significantly more public sentiment against this proposal than evidenced.  In terms of the local residents’ main concerns, the overall scale, bulk and massing of the apartments remained unsuitable for this development, as was the case when it was refused in July 2020 and February 2022.  There were no existing apartment blocks on this development and their addition would contrast poorly against the small homes they would sit beside.  The introduction of circa. 42 additional private vehicles to an area with demonstrably poor traffic management, only a few metres from a busy primary school and with an extant shortage of parking spaces, would be of significant detriment both to traffic management and highway safety.  The proposed apartments would be built only a few metres west of several existing homes on Whitefield Crescent, significantly reducing the sunlight to the living spaces within. It would also expose bedrooms and indoor and outdoor living spaces to overlooking from the occupants of the proposed apartments.  Since the residential part of this development was completed 24 months ago, it has suffered from prolonged sewage leaks as the drainage system had been overwhelmed and it would be irresponsible to build further housing until sufficient drainage has been installed to sustain it.  On behalf of his fellow residents, he asked that the Planning Committee recognise the continuing legitimacy of its previous judgements and the concerns of local residents and refuse the application.

40.18         The Chair invited a local Ward Member from the area to address the Committee.  The local Ward Member reminded the Committee that the whole site was determined by a Planning Inspector and a part of that decision was for a local centre that would make the site viable for 550 new homes.  The previous two applications in 2020 and 2022 had rightly been refused by the Planning Committee and aside from the total number of flats being reduced from 24 to 21, nothing else had changed.  As was the case today and with both previous applications, Tewkesbury Borough Council could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply. Given the context of the site and its surroundings, the development as proposed, by virtue of the overall scale and the resulting bulk and massing, would not be of an appropriate scale, type and density and therefore would fail to respond positively to, and respect the character, appearance and visual amenity of the site and the surrounding area. It therefore followed that the development would fail to represent good design and this weighed heavily against the proposal. In terms of the policy justification for refusal, the development would be contrary to Paragraph 130 and guidance in section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies INF4, INF6, INF7 and SD4 of the Joint Core Strategy, Policy RES5 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Policy CHIN2 and CHIN3 of the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan.  With regard to the local centre, the loss as retail, employment or community use would be disappointing and would have a negative effect on the overall quality of the new community that had been created at Longford.  Long term, this area had seen significant residential growth and, without the facilities to serve the dwellings, there was a risk of creating very unsustainable developments where people had to drive to access facilities.  If this application was agreed, it would give the green light to developers to take more profit rather than deliver local centres, with badly designed cramped housing and limited or total lack of local facilities.  The indicative plans provided were simply that and, once outline planning permission had been granted, the developer could come back with a scheme for even more apartments.  He hoped Members would follow the same approach as the previous applications and refuse this application.

40.19         The Chair invited Councillor Hands, speaking as a local Ward Member, to address the Committee.  She indicated that, in 2020 and 2022, applications for flats on this piece of land were refused by the Planning Committee and nothing has changed in terms of the site or surrounding areas; reducing the amount of flats from 24 to 21 did not make any difference to the previous refusal reasons.  When the initial application was won on appeal, the Planning Inspector had stated that the piece of land in question was to be set aside for commercial/community use. Residents were sold homes and moved in good faith that where they were going to live would be adequately equipped for the growing community. Being close to Gloucester City did not justify the loss of community land. The school on site was oversubscribed, the current local centre on the opposite side of Horsbere Drive was full and the car park was too small for the current volume of traffic using the centre.  Section 8, Paragraph 92 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that decisions should aim to achieve healthy, inclusive and safe places. and she believed that applied here; the building of 21 flats on communal land would add to the current lack of community meeting places and the lack of school places. She noted that County Highways had no objection to the application; however, the developments to the left and right of Horsbere Drive had been complete for over six and four years respectively and, in that time, none of the roads have been handed over by the landowner/developers for adoption by County Highways. Currently, streets were full of cars parked on the kerb or over driveways during the evenings and weekends with a substantial amount of cars parking dangerously at school drop off and pick up times. This dangerous parking put the safety of pedestrians, including a large number of primary school age children, at risk on a daily basis.  The addition of a potential 42 or more cars, notwithstanding visitors, with ‘up to’ 35 parking spaces would only add to that and, as the roads were not adopted, Traffic Regulation Orders could not be obtained for double yellow lines nor could active enforcement take place to control the sheer volume of cars parking in the area on a daily basis.  The potential, and only viable, access to the proposed flats was through a small estate road off a bend into what was currently a turning area - the objection from Waste Services had addressed this in terms of access for refuse lorries.   She was speaking as a local Ward Member to represent residents who did not object to development of this piece of land in general - in fact, the way it had been left to become an unkempt unattractive entrance to their community was unacceptable to them – but did object to placing an inappropriate development in terms of bulk, design and amenity rather than providing community facilities which they had been led to believe would be built when purchasing and renting their properties.  She asked Members to consider refusing this application in favour of a sustainable, well designed community area for the residents of Longford.

40.20         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Management Manager to permit the application, subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member sought clarification as to whether the tree/landscaping objection and the urban design comments at Page No. 115, Paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 respectively, were from Borough Council Officers and the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the first response was from a tree and landscape consultant and the second from an urban design specialist.  The Member noted that Innsworth Parish Council’s objection did not appear to be listed in the consultation responses and the Senior Planning Officer advised that, as far as he was aware, no response had been received from Innsworth Parish Council.  He noted that a substantial response had been received from Longford Parish Council setting out its concerns.  The Member drew attention to Page No. 120, Paragraph 8.19 of the report which stated that no concerns had been raised by the urban design specialist regarding scale and massing yet Page No. 115, Paragraph 4.3 talked about lack of ground level amenity space.  The Development Management Manager advised that this was addressed at Page No. 120, Paragraph 8.20 of the report.  In terms of the comment made by the various public speakers that no changes had been made compared to the previous refusal, he advised that the original scheme was for 33 units whereas this was for 21 and there had been a change in the format of the application in terms of the design issues raised.  One of the public speakers had alluded to the fact that, should the outline planning permission be granted, the developer could seek to increase the number of units on the site through the reserved matters applications and, whilst that was the case, it did not mean that would be considered favourably by the Committee; the proposal before Members today was for 21 units and that was what needed to be assessed.  The indicative scheme sought to address concerns raised previously by adding more variety and articulation through height differentials and change of materials and, on balance, considering all the issues around the sustainable location, site history and the material considerations for an outline proposal, although there were unresolved concerns for certain consultees, these were capable of being addressed through submission of detailed reserved matters applications.

40.21         A Member noted that local residents were expecting the site to be developed for community use and she asked who would have been expected to build that and why it had not happened. The Senior Planning Officer explained that outline consent was granted in 2008 and included a Section 106 obligation for £544,000 of community funding albeit that had not been allocated for anything in particular.  Delivery of the masterplan approved as part of the outline consent could only happen within the lifetime of that planning permission which had now lapsed; notwithstanding this, the Section 106 had already generated the community funding.  Another Member indicated that this was being referred to as an existing application and she asked why that was the case – she looked at it as a new application.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed it was a new application and any reference to the existing scheme was simply to identify it as the current scheme rather than either of the two previous schemes.  The Member asked what weight the Inspector’s appeal statement carried in terms of the land being retained for a community asset and was advised that the Inspector was obliged to consider the application within the remit of that specific application at the time and was therefore considering the community benefits of the scheme in terms of the wider application site which was considerably bigger than this.  The community facility had not come forward during the lifetime of the planning permission therefore the relevance of the masterplan had fallen away.  The Legal Adviser made the general point that whilst land may have been put forward for community use in one application, that did not necessarily prevent someone putting in an application for an alternative use – it did not matter that the previous consent allocated this site for community use as this did not preclude an application coming forward for residential development now.  The Development Management Manager reminded Members that each case must be determined on its own merits; clearly the two previous proposals for residential units on the site had not been supported but perhaps more relevant was that the principal reason for the last refusal was design.

40.22         A Member asked if County Highways had visited the application site or carried out a desktop assessment and the County Highways representative confirmed that a site visit had been carried out.  Another Member noted that Officers had given reassurance that the concerns raised by the urban design specialist and the tree and landscape consultant could be addressed through reserved matters applications; however, he failed to see how concerns about dominant parking, the views from the lower windows of Block B facing Longford Lane being straight into the sloping bank and lack of ground level amenity space could be addressed.  He also questioned whether it was appropriate to have an apartment with a balcony overlooking the school which was the other side of the road.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer advised that there was a substantial response from the urban design specialist and, whilst the concerns were outlined at Paragraph 4.3 of the report, in the round their comments had been very positive.  Broadly speaking, the urban design specialist did not have an issue with the number of units provided and felt that their scale and height was appropriate to the surrounding context of the site.  It was the Planning Officers’ responsibility to weigh up all of the competing interests and consultation responses to come up with a balanced opinion.  In terms of the sunlight issue, the windows were set back in Block B and, in any event, the south facing sunlight would not be limited for the south facing block to the degree mentioned in the consultation responses; Officers did not think it was a significant issue and not one which would warrant refusal.  In terms of parking, it was considered that 35 parking spaces for the apartments with an additional five for visitors was sufficient; this would be assessed at the reserved matters stage and, if it was not policy compliant, either an amendment could be sought, or it could be refused.  He appreciated the concern in respect of the school but it was at a distance where it would be very difficult to justify refusal from a privacy and overlooking perspective.  The Development Management Manager (South) advised that there were existing dwellings at Horsbere Drive with a similar relationship and outlook to the school.  In response to a query as to what use classes A1 to A5 represented in terms of the earlier applications, and how many interested parties had approached the planning authority with a view to developing the site for commercial/community use, the Development Management Manager advised that former use classes A1 to A5 were retail use, e.g. shops, wine bars, takeaways etc.  Information was not retained in relation to enquiries but no formal applications had been made.

40.23         It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Management Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The proposer of the motion recognised the concerns regarding the proposal but felt it would be very difficult to justify a refusal.  The seconder of the motion noted that the landscape and tree consultant and the urban design specialist had both raised concern but Officers had stated they could be resolved at the reserved matters stage and that determination of this application was based on the principle of development only.  Should the motion be carried, she expected all reserved matters applications relating to the site to be brought to the Planning Committee for determination.  A Member pointed out that the site was bordered on three sides by very busy roads and all traffic accessing the estate used the main roundabout.  The entrance to the development was through an established settlement which was not designated as a through road and she felt this would cause problems with access for existing and new residents as well as refuse collections.  There were parking issues on the road serving the school as well as problems with speeding vehicles but County Highways had raised no objection to the proposals.  If Members were minded to permit the application, she asked for further investigations into the suitability of the access.  In terms of the windows from Block B facing onto a bank, she felt this would impact quality of life for those residents and she raised concern regarding the air quality given that the site was bordered on three sides by busy roads and asked for this to be looked at if the application was permitted.  In terms of drainage and sewage, this was a serious issue which needed to be addressed for the whole area which suffered from a failing sewage system.  With regard to aesthetics and design, she reiterated that, although supportive of the scheme overall and in terms of its scale and height, the urban design specialist felt there was insufficient provision for walking and cycling, lack of ground level amenity space, dominant parking and limited sunlight to ground floor apartments facing Longford Lane.  The site itself was the entrance to the estate and set the tone for the area.  There were currently no flats on the estate so the proposed apartments would be totally out of keeping with the general layout on a prominent corner and would conflict with the rest of the design.  She found it bizarre that the indicative plans included roof gardens which highlighted the lack of outdoor space and she felt that the suggested extension of the balcony by 0.5 metres was little compensation.  She went on to reference overlooking of Whitefield Crescent and the impaired view from the school area as well as the lack of social housing.  If this application was permitted, the site would have a greater number of units than the original scheme and she felt that new development should be resisted at all costs.  Local services were stretched and there would be increased pollution as a result of residents travelling to Cheltenham and Gloucester.  She questioned whether the land had been actively marketed robustly for community assets, although she appreciated that was not up for discussion today.  The Joint Core Strategy, Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan all set out that community uses were an essential part of sustainable communities and open spaces and green infrastructure should be prioritised.  In response, the Development Management Manager noted these comments and concerns and indicated that a range of issues had been considered in bringing the application forward with the recommendation before Members today and the clear concerns of the community could be fully considered at the reserved matters stage.  He reiterated that the urban design specialist was generally supportive and the concerns raised could be addressed through the detail of the scheme.

40.24         A Member expressed support for one and two bedroom apartments as this tenure type was lacking within the borough and they were much needed by those looking to downsize.  This was a sustainable site on a bus route and next to a shop so there were some positives associated with the scheme.  Another Member advised that, having listened to the arguments and relooked at the plans, the entire site would be taken up by the footprint of the flats and car parking which would result in indiscriminate parking by people dropping off and picking up children from school or popping to the shops, as had been seen on the Planning Committee Site Visit.  Whilst he felt that the site needed something done to it, he did not see how it could be sustainable for residential development.  The Development Management Manager reminded Members this was an indicative scheme for up to 21 units so that number could be reduced and the plans were indicative and did not show the final scheme.  The concerns raised by the urban design specialist could be addressed by a change to the footprint and these were all matters to consider at the reserved matters stage.  Whilst he understood Members’ thoughts, he stressed that the plans were indicative both in terms of layout and facades.  With regard to parking, there was no requirement for this application to deal with existing concerns and County Highways had provided comments in relation to parking provision for the development.  There would be a benefit in terms of having more parking spaces than were set out in the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan and there was adequate provision to deal with the requirements of the scheme.  A Member continued to be of the view that the site was completely unsuitable for flats, regardless of their design, particularly as none would be affordable units.  The Chair agreed this was a difficult decision but no other suitable scheme had been put forward for the site which was now available for any use and he reminded Members of the risk of losing an appeal if there were no defendable grounds for refusal. 

40.25         Upon being put to the vote, there was an equal number of votes for and against.  The Chair exercised his casting vote and it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to a Section 106 Agreement.