Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Reserved matters application for 47 zero carbon dwellings including layout, scale, appearance and landscaping pursuant to original outline application 19/01084/OUT granted at appeal ref: APP/G1630/W/21/3280979

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Approve.

40.26        This was a reserved matters application for 47 zero carbon dwellings including layout, scale, appearance and landscaping pursuant to original outline application 19/01084/OUT granted at appeal. 

40.27        The Principal Planning Officer advised that the principle of development on the site was established through outline consent reference 19/01084/OUT which was granted at appeal in April 2022; access to the site was approved at outline stage.  The site was located to the north of Fleet Lane and to the west of Downfield Lane and the western boundary of the site adjoined the rear gardens of existing dwellings which fronted onto Goodiers Lane.

40.28         The site was currently open grazing land with mature hedges on the roadside boundaries.  The appeal Inspector for the outline scheme concluded that the development would result in moderate harm to the character and appearance of the area through the introduction of built development on a greenfield site but that there would be scope through the reserved matters to retain the existing hedges and provide landscaping in order to soften the impact.  The submitted scheme proposed retention and reinforcement of the existing boundary hedges as well as incorporating areas of open space to the corners of the site. Officers considered that helped to soften the impact of the development and provide a transition between the site and the adjoining open countryside.  Overall, Officers felt that the proposed density of development, layout and design of the house types reflected the context of the site adjoining a rural settlement and was in keeping with existing residential development adjoining the site. The layout incorporated several areas of open space and the proposed landscaping of the development was considered to be appropriate and acceptable.  As set out in the Committee report, the application was recommended for approval.

40.29         The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant indicated that, rather than reiterate the robust Committee report which recommended approval, he would introduce the developer to those unfamiliar with the company.  He indicated that it was a privately owned regional property developer based in Gloucestershire, specialising in bespoke residential developments, with sites in and around the south?east of England and a successful history of developments locally.  It had built a solid reputation for developing carefully crafted, high quality homes and enhancing local communities.  Good design was a defining element to this process and each project had a unique character suitable for twenty-first century living which responded sympathetically to the site and its surroundings.  This approach was evident within the proposals and was noted within the Committee report.  This had, in part, been enhanced further through engagement with the Parish Council and it had been a rewarding opportunity to evolve the designs with the Parish Council to ensure the proposals best responded to this important location.  The aim with all sites was to enhance the communities in which they built and create homes that people wished to live in, now and for future generations to come; this site was no exception to that approach. The developer’s high standards and track record for quality developments had been recognised numerous times and resulted in many awards over the years.  One of the many construction advances, in addition to the high?quality and sustainable materials that formed part of this proposal, was the commitment to delivering 100% of the homes, both open market and affordable, as zero carbon making this site one of the first, if not the first, of its kind to be built in Tewkesbury, which would mark a significant milestone for the Council.

40.30         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to approve the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member drew attention to Page No. 143, Paragraph 4.13 of the Committee report, which stated that Severn Trent Water had no objection but drew attention to assets on the site, and asked what this referred to.  In terms of Paragraph 4.15 which set out that Twyning Parish Council had no objection subject to the resolution of certain details, the Member asked who was responsible for this.  With regard to Paragraph 5.1 of the report, a third party representative had noted that self/custom built had been mentioned in the application but not identified and he was unsure how this was relevant to the site in question.  Furthermore, he noted the comment about controls being needed to prevent loss of hedgerow and asked what the controls would be.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer explained that, with regard to the comment from Severn Trent Water, there was a drainage easement through the site so Severn Trent must have equipment on the site but she was unsure of its nature.  She advised that two of the dwellings in the scheme were to be custom built as specified in the Section 106 Agreement at the outline stage.  The landscape management plan was dealt with as part of the information included on the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which had been discussed with the Parish Council prior to the Committee.  Hedgerow retention should be included within the landscape management plan and it would be part of the conditions of implementation for this to be retained during the course of the development.  The Member acknowledged the intention for the hedgerow to be retained but similar promises had been made on other sites where hedges had subsequently been removed so he was seeking real assurance that the hedgerow would be retained in this instance.  In terms of Severn Trent Water’s assets, there was a large water main beneath the site and he believed the plans suggested that houses would be built on top of that, which was concerning.  He asked if this had been looked into and sought assurance there would be no houses built above the water main.  The Principal Planning Officer understood that the water main would run under the main road through the site.  In terms of hedgerows, the Development Management Team Manager (East) pointed out that the applicant was present at the meeting and had heard the concerns expressed.  Removal of the hedgerow would represent a breach of the condition and the enforcement team would take action if required.

40.31         A Member indicated that she had been expecting something exceptional in terms of design and was sadly disappointed with its ‘cut and paste’ nature; nevertheless, the sustainability credentials were fantastic.  She asked what the solar panels would look like, i.e. whether they would be tiles or large ones on top of each house, and where the air source heat pumps would be located for each property as she was aware they emitted a humming noise so wanted to ensure there would be no disturbance to neighbouring residents.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that additional conditions could be included to address both of these issues.  The Development Management Manager advised that the scheme had been designed with the assets in mind and the Development Management Team Manager (East) drew attention to Page No. 149, Paragraph 8.23 of the Committee report which referred to the landscape management plan and advised there would be a mix of new and old planting throughout the site – this had been written into the plan and a condition had been added to the reserved matters to secure that.  A Member continued to raise concern regarding the potential placement of houses over the water main and the Development Management Team Manager (South) pointed out that the landscape plan at Page No. 157 of the Committee report appeared to show the easement and all dwellings were set outside of that. 

40.32         A Member noted that the developer had aspirations to deliver a zero carbon development which exceeded the building regulation requirements and she asked if this could be included as a condition of the planning permission.  The Legal Adviser explained that building regulation requirements were the minimum standard the developer would be required to provide and it would be unreasonable to replicate this as a condition in the planning permission.  The documents submitted by the applicant demonstrated intentions to deliver dwellings over and above building regulation requirements and the plans were conditioned so there would be a requirement to comply with those. 

40.33         It was proposed and seconded that the application be approved in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to the inclusion of additional conditions to stipulate the details of the solar panels and air source heat pumps.  A Member indicated that he had voted against the outline application when it had been considered and refused by the Planning Committee, as such, he did not feel able to support the reserved matters application; however, he was in favour of the green credentials of the site and the developer had delivered another scheme in Twyning which was superb so he had every belief that this would be a very good site when finished.

40.34         Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be APPROVED, subject to additional conditions to stipulate the details of the solar panels and the air source heat pumps.