Agenda item

Erection of 4 dwellings.

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application and explained that it was for the erection of 4 dwellings, and then proceeded to show the plans for the site and highlighted the following considerations:

• There was a mature area of land with dense hedge boundaries and a protected walnut tree in the centre.
• Access was via a steep, narrow lane to the A419.
• Site was within the Brimscombe settlement limits.
• Site was outside of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the conservation area.
• There was a Public Right of Way (PROW) running through the site from the East to the North.
• Site was within the catchment of Rodborough Common Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
• The application was called to Committee on the grounds of non-compliance with HC01 and ES7 of the Local Plan.
• The site was privately owned.
• It had previously been used as a play area in the 1970’s however the equipment was removed in the 1980’s. The site had never been designated as a play area within the Local Plan or any subsequent documents although it has been used by the public.

The Senior Planning Officer showed further plans for the site and ran through the proposed design, layout and materials that would be used. They explained that there had been no objections from the Tree Officer or from Gloucester County Council (GCC) Highways subject to relevant conditions and that the site would bring further enhancements to the access road. There would be a new tactile crossing and the current carriage way would be widened to 4.5m with a 1.5m footway on the East side of the road, without removing parking area from Queens Road.  

The Head of Development Management explained that there had been a written representation received from the applicant who was unable to attend the meeting, which had been circulated prior to the committee.

Councillor Watson spoke as a Ward Member for Chalford and stated that they were objecting to this application with the full support of the community and the Parish Council. There had been a previous planning application refused on the site already and numerous issues had been brought to their attention which included:

• The application went against the emerging Local Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) with regard to preserving open space and recreation and met none of the exception criteria.
• It contradicted the Stroud District 5-year plan to optimise public spaces for public wellbeing.
• The site did not meet any identified local housing needs for smaller, affordable homes.
• It was in breach of international conventions by removing vital public space for rest, recreation and leisure for local children and vulnerable residents.
• There was no traffic assessment completed after the flats had been refurbished and there were other large developments evolving within the Parish and the infrastructure would not be able to cope.
• There would be no community benefit to this development and there was an overwhelming display of objection from the community with 45 comments made in objection on the portal for a site that only had 33 neighbours, most of whom had been present at the meeting.
• The site, previously owned by Stroud District Council (SDC), was sold with verbal reassurance that the land would be available for the flats amenity and continued public use.
• The residents of the 24 flats on Queens Court utilised the field as their only direct useable safe outdoor space.
• The landlord had not completed the refurbishment of the flats to a safe and sanitary standard with unresolved sewage issues, flat roof problems, dangerous fire escapes and inadequate parking.
• The parish Council had requested to register the space as an Asset of Community Value.

Councillor Watson proceeded to list out a number of misrepresentations and inaccuracies made throughout the application including when the area was a dedicated play area. They highlighted the ecological loss of the site which consisted of:

• Loss of trees and hedges to widen the road and only the central walnut tree on the site was protected.
• Loss of wildlife corridor if the land were to be built on and loss of biodiversity range.
• The site was cleared prior to the ecological assessment taking place.

Councillor Watson then summarised with the following points:

• The site would overlook the flats on Queens Court
• Previous applications were rejected due to the proximity of the AONB and the development boundary.
• The application was in contradiction of HC1, ES6, ES7, ES13 of the Local Plan and paragraph 174 of the NPPF. It also violated United Nations Human Rights Considerations Articles 30 and 31 regarding the rights of recreation for children and those with disabilities.

Mr Harris, a Parish Councillor, spoke on behalf of Brimscombe and Thrupp Parish Council in objection of the application. They stated that the Parish Council was not against development as it was looking to welcome around 300 homes in the coming years however asked Committee to reject the application for the below reasons:

• The application undermined the preservation of green space and removed the amenity from people who used it as a play area.
• The unity of objection within the community was high.
• The site of development was a designated green space within the proposed NDP.

Mr Bignall, a local resident, spoke on behalf of all residents present at the meeting against the application. He asked the Committee to reject the application for the following reasons:

• Many of the reasons that the previous applications had been rejected historically remained and had not been addressed in the current application.
• The planning permission for the play area granted in 1973 was still relevant and contradicted point 2.4 of the application.
• Paragraph 2.7 of the application stated that the play area could be defined as previously developed land which was untrue.
• The application could be refused under paragraphs 98 – 103 of the NPPF.
• The community had demonstrated that the field was not surplus to requirement, there had been no assessment completed and the community did not want it to be developed.
• The current owners had not maintained the site.

The Senior Planning Officer gave the following answers in response to questions asked:

• The hedge along the Eastern side of the road would be removed in order to accommodate the footpath.
• There were no documents provided which showed that the land was sold with any covenants which would prevent development.
• A nearby public space (Charlea Community Gardens) would be available for residents to utilise, a PROW which led up to open country side and local canal walks were also available for residents to use.

In response to Councillor Green, it was confirmed that there was adequate space for the road and footpath to be widened without encroachment onto ocean court land or to the Queens Court parking.

The Senior Planning Officer responded to questions asked as follows:

• The Officers responsibility was to assess the information provided and weigh up the planning balance. In this case it was not felt that a refusal could be sustained.
• The previous application for 4 dwellings made in 2019 was refused due to the following 5 reasons: CP14 (due to poor design and layout), HC1 (out of keeping with the pattern of form of development), Biodiversity refusal due to insufficient information submitted, landscape and tree refusal reasons also. This application had sufficient layout and has received no objections from the Tree Officer or the Biodiversity Officer.
• The management plan formed part of the conditions which would need to be signed of prior to development.
• The design guide gives measurements when considering overlooking, this application exceeded those measurements and therefore it was not felt to be overlooking the flats at queens Court.
• The planning permission given to the site in 1973 did not designate the site as a play area however, it did allow for the erection of the play equipment.

The GCC Highways, Principal Highways Development Management Officer confirmed that the road was unadopted and therefore, bin lorries would not collect the waste directly from the proposed houses. It was confirmed that there would be other options for those residents in terms of waste collections.

Councillor Brown questioned that the site was privately owned therefore the owner could potentially fence it off and deny public use of the land at any time. This was confirmed for the majority of the land excluding the PROW which travelled through the site.

Councillor Fenton Proposed to refuse the applications. Councillor Green seconded.

Councillor Fenton defined the refusal reason for being the loss of open space which was recognised as being of value to the community and asked councillors for any input.

Councillors debated the following refusal reasons: ES13 – protection of existing open space, ES7, CP14 and HC1 of the Local Plan and paragraph 174 of the NPPF. It was agreed to agree the exact refusal reasons in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of Committee if the vote was carried.

Councillor Ryder debated the potential refusal given that the land was privately owned and that the Officer’s recommendation was to approve. They also commented on the voice of the community and that this site was very different to the recent comparative application, The Berryfields.

Councillor Brown shared similar concerns with the strength of the refusal reasons however supported the refusal for ecological reasons.

Councillor Schoemaker debated the wellbeing of the local residents due to the loss of the open space if the applications were to be approved.

Councillor Gray commented that there were a large number of material reasons for the application to be refused.

Councillor Miles raised concerns with the refusal reasons and stated they would abstain from the vote.

Councillor Patrick debated that the job of the Councillors was to listen to the community and weigh up the decision and they felt that refusal was the correct decision.

After being put to a vote the Motion to refuse the application was carried with 8 votes for, 0 votes against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED To refuse the application and to delegate to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair to agree the wording of the refusal reasons.