PROPOSAL: Erection of 10 dwellings, garages, construction of internal estate road, formation of parking areas and gardens/amenity space.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated permit.

51.2          This application was for erection of 10 dwellings, garages, construction of internal estate road, formation of parking areas and gardens/amenity space.

51.3          The Principal Planning Officer advised that this was a full application for a development of 10 dwellings at Aston Cross.  The site was located close to the A46 and immediately adjacent to a similarly designed, and now developed, residential scheme and would take its access through this site; a benefit of the proposal was that it would remove the existing private domestic access from the A46.  The site was outside of the Tewkesbury Town area development boundary but close to it and consisted of the side and rear curtilage of Lunn Cottage which was partly laid to garden and partly open land including an orchard area adjacent to the Tirle Brook.  The proposed layout consisted of two sets of semi-detached dwellings on the northern part of the site facing the main road and six link detached dwellings on the remainder which sat behind the previously developed Queen’s Head public house site.  Members may recall that the proposal was refused by Planning Committee earlier this year on the main ground of its location being outside the settlement boundary, and therefore in conflict with the housing policies set out in the Tewkesbury Borough Plan; it should be noted that the applicant had appealed that decision.  The current application had been submitted on the basis that the Local Planning Authority no longer could identify a five year housing land supply. The Council had agreed this position and, on that basis, taking into account that the site was located immediately adjacent to a residential development and in close proximity to the Tewkesbury Town area, there was no longer an in principle objection to the proposed development.  There were no clear refusal reasons arising from National Planning Policy Framework policies for the protection of areas, or assets of particular importance in this case, and matters of design, ecology, highways and drainage had been resolved subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report.  Therefore, subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement to secure the affordable housing mix on-site and off-site community infrastructure as explained in the Committee report, the Officer recommendation was for a delegated permit.

51.4          The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application, subject to the conditions set out in the report and satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the affordable housing and community infrastructure with authority to amend the terms/wording of the conditions/Section 106 Agreement if appropriate to secure the necessary mitigation relevant to the development, and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member raised concern based on the location of the flood zone that water could go up to the edge of the properties and, as she could not see an attenuation pond in the plans, she asked how run-off would be dealt with.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the Lead Local Flood Authority had been consulted on the application and raised no objections based on the drainage strategy which had been submitted.  There was attenuation within the driveway area which was not shown on the particular plan but was included within the drainage strategy.  Page No. 39, Paragraph 8.22 of the Committee report confirmed that use of the land at risk of flooding as public open space was considered to be acceptable by the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer.  As such, there was no drainage reason to refuse the application.  The Member expressed the view that residential amenity would be impacted and she continued to be concerned about the close proximity of the flood zone; her view was that properties should be moved away from the flood zone.  The Principal Planning Officer reiterated that the statutory consultees had raised no concerns being as this was garden land or public open space.  The Member went on to point out that at the other end of the site the houses were positioned directly onto the A46 which was a very busy road with a traffic lighted junction but she could find no comment from the Environmental Health Officer regarding noise.  One of the proposed conditions talked about acoustics and she asked if that was in relation to those particular properties or another matter.  She also questioned what mitigation would be put in place in relation to noise and residential amenity.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that a noise assessment had been carried out and the Environmental Health Officer had recommended that the noise mitigation measures as detailed in the assessment were carried out as reflected in proposed condition 15.  She explained that the frontage of the dwellings had been designed so there was very little fenestration and with rear gardens on the opposite side.  Another Member raised concern about air pollution given the slow moving traffic which often queued along the A46 as far as the Teddington Hands roundabout and questioned whether an assessment had been undertaken.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the Environmental Health Officer had not raised any concerns in relation to that issue and had not indicated that a noise assessment was necessary.

51.5          With regard to Page No. 42, Paragraph 8.40 of the Committee report, a Member noted that the Council’s Housing Enabling Officer had stated a preference for social rent tenures for the four affordable homes and she asked how much weight that held.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that she had spoken to the applicant’s agent who confirmed the applicant was amenable to three social rent and one shared ownership unit as requested by the Housing Enabling Officer.  A Member drew attention to Page No. 33, Paragraph 1.7 of the Committee report which stated that a planning obligation would be required to secure the affordable dwellings and asked whether that had been secured.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer clarified that the Officer recommendation was for a delegated permit subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure the affordable housing.  The Legal Adviser confirmed that the Section 106 was currently in progress.  A Member noted that this proposal had previously been refused by the Planning Committee and asked if there were any differences between the two applications.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the layout was exactly the same but there were some small changes in terms of materials. 

51.6          A Member indicated that it did not appear that the Environmental Health Officer had been consulted specifically in relation to the potential air pollution issue and sought confirmation it had been looked at.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer indicated that, if the Environmental Health Officer had been concerned about air pollution in that location they would have brought this to the attention of Planning Officers in their response which they had not done on this occasion.  Another Member reiterated that the A46 was one of the busiest roads in the borough, not only at rush hour, due to the series of traffic lights along the road and he was surprised no air quality check had been undertaken.  As such, he asked if it was possible for the Committee to request that an air quality survey be carried out.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) reminded Members there was an open appeal relating to this site which was due for determination imminently and the Council was required to deliver a response to the Planning Inspector which would include where it stood in relation to this application.  There was an expectation that a suite of issues would be covered in the Council’s consultation response including air quality, noise and residential amenity issues.  He would be reluctant to defer the application on that basis and given that the statutory consultee had raised no further objection on that point.  In response to a Member query regarding timescales for the appeal, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the Council’s statement needed to be submitted in January and a decision on the appeal was anticipated in March albeit that was not within the Council’s remit. 

51.7          A Member noted that this application was being considered in a completely different set of circumstances to the earlier application which was now the subject of an appeal as the Council was no longer able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply.  Whilst she recognised there was a development at the bottom of the site, none of those properties aside from the flats faced onto the A46 yet new residents were already complaining about noise from the A46.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) explained that the application which had been refused by the Committee was identical to this in terms of design and layout so those issues would have been looked at by Members previously and had not been identified as reasons for refusal at that time. 

51.8          It was proposed that the application be deferred in order to undertake an air quality assessment.  The proposer of the motion indicated that he had no issue with the principle of residential development on the site but was unhappy with the proximity of the dwellings to the junction and the potential impact on residential amenity in terms of air pollution.  The Development Management Manager (South) stressed that there was an appeal in relation to the site and no concerns had been raised regarding air quality in determining that application; if the Council was to amend its position it could be seen as creating additional reasons for refusal.  He suggested delegating authority to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application subject to the Environmental Health Officer not raising any concerns in respect of air quality and pointed out that it was possible that any issues could be resolved by ventilation and other technical means which could be secured by condition.  The proposer of the motion indicated that he would like to see up-to-date data on air quality based on the proposed layout.  The Development Management Manager (East) advised that the layout had been designed with the front of the development in mind and he was not sure what could be done to improve the situation for the properties fronting onto the A46 without a complete redesign; he reiterated that mitigation may be by internal measures as opposed to the design or layout of the site.  A Member clarified that, having looked at the previous application, it appeared that the Environmental Health Officer had been consulted on air quality and raised no concerns – she felt it would have been helpful for that information to have been included within the current Committee report.  Notwithstanding this, she was unable to support the application.  Another Member expressed the view that mechanical ventilation would be better than moving the properties away from the road and she asked if that could be made a condition.  The Development Management Manager (South) advised that as there was no identified harm or issues in respect of air quality it would be unreasonable to include a requirement for mechanical ventilation.

51.9          A Member indicated that she would be happy to support a delegated permit subject to an up-to-date assessment of air quality by the Environmental Health Officer and the Development Management Manager (South) clarified that an assessment had been undertaken as part of the previous application.  As such, he suggested a delegated permit subject to the Environmental Health Officer having no further concerns; should there be any concerns they would be dealt with in the appropriate manner but his advice was that it would be unreasonable to require an air quality survey at this stage.  A Member found it hard to believe there was no issue with air quality given that this part of the A46 essentially became a car park with Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) engines ticking over for the majority of the time.  He understood it was necessary to accept the views of the statutory consultees but he questioned whether anyone had actually been to the site to assess it.  With regard to the flood zone issue, he asked whether this included the percentage allowance for climate change and was advised that it was the Environment Agency’s identified flood zone which took into account climate change for 1 in 100 year floods.

51.10        The proposer of the motion to defer the application indicated that, given that it had been identified that the Environmental Health Officer had no concerns regarding air pollution in relation to the previous application, a developer was likely to use that argument at an appeal and he did not want to be responsible for costing the Council, and the taxpayer, money and withdrew his motion on that basis.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application subject to the conditions set out in the report, satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the affordable housing and community infrastructure with authority to amend the terms/wording of the conditions/Section 106 Agreement if appropriate to secure the necessary mitigation relevant to the development, and confirmation from the Environmental Health Officer there were no concerns regarding air quality.  A Member indicated that she wished to put on record that, as a Ward Councillor for the area, she had major concerns in relation to properties 8, 9 and 10 regarding fumes and noise pollution from the A46.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Associate Director: Planning to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions set out in the report, satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the affordable housing and community infrastructure with authority to amend the terms/wording of the conditions/Section 106 Agreement if appropriate to secure the necessary mitigation relevant to the development, and confirmation from the Environmental Health Officer there were no concerns regarding air quality.