Two-bedroom dwelling at 46 Goodyere Street, Gloucester

What was proposed

The application proposed a two-bedroom, three-storey dwelling attached to 46 Goodyere Street, with front and rear dormers, a rear extension, garden and cycle storage.

“The application site is a vacant plot of land situated on the southern side of Goodyere Street towards its eastern end, adjacent to No. 46 Goodyere Street. The site is accessed off Goodyere Street but backs onto the rear garden of no. 31 Falkner Street.”

“The proposal would include a low level brick wall across the front boundary of the site next to Goodyere Street, a new 1.8m timber access gate to the side, concrete block wall to the east boundary will remain as existing and 1.8m close boarded fence would be situated to the rear and east and west side as existing. A bin/ recycle storage area has been shown to the side of the dwelling and cycle storage for 2 bicycles has been shown in the rear garden space.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier permissions were not implemented, while applications for four-bedroom and three-bedroom dwellings were refused for issues including amenity, parking, drainage, design and biodiversity.

“Application Number Proposal Decision Decision Date 16/00661/OUT Outline planning application for residential development with access to be determined Returned 21.06.2016 16/00920/OUT Application for outline planning permission for a single dwelling with access for determination Granted 16.02.2017 19/00046/FUL New building providing two residential units to land aside No.46 Goodyere Street Granted 19.12.2019 19/01310/FUL Single storey extension to rear of property.”

“Application 23/00297/FUL for the erection of a 4 bedroom dwelling was refused in 2023 with refusal reasons relating to amenity, design and an unacceptable proposed parking layout. Another planning application was submitted in 2023 reference 23/00780/FUL, this time for a 3 bed dwelling which was refused for reasons relating to amenity, unacceptable parking layout and design.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal would provide housing in a sustainable location and its adverse impacts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh its benefits.

“Planning balance and conclusion The application has been evaluated against the JCS, GCP and against the core planning principles of the NPPF and whether the proposal delivers ‘sustainable development’.”

“Weighing all of the relevant factors into the planning balance, and having regard to the NPPF as a whole, all relevant policies of the JCS, the GCP and supplementary planning documents and guidance, in applying paragraph 11 of the NPPF, it is considered that the adverse impacts would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Highways raised no objection subject to conditions, drainage accepted a solution in principle subject to further details, and ecology required biodiversity conditions.

“Further to concerns being raised by the local Councillor, objections being raised by neighbouring properties and a petition being submitted. The Highways Authority confirmed the following:”

“I have no objections in principle to this proposal. As an outline design, the applicant has demonstrated that a robust solution could be achieved on site subject to connection approval from Severn Trent Water and percolation test and soakaway design improvements. Should the percolation test show that a soakaway is not viable, then the alternative is acceptable in principle subject to several minor modelling/ design adjustments.”

Officer report

Objections and concerns

Six objections and a 36-signature petition raised concerns about parking, privacy, light, overdevelopment, design, biodiversity, drainage, construction and the loss of green space.

“Barton and Tredworth already densely populated. Cramming in another dwelling will exacerbate the problem • Proposed development will have negative impact on neighbours in terms of loss of light and privacy • Parking already a big issue for the area which causes issues for pedestrian safety and causes issue for emergency vehicles and recycling vehicles • Application proposes no parking so will make the parking situation even worse • Ongoing flytipping issues on and around…”

“Developer admits the required 10% Biodiversity Net Gain cannot be delivered on site. Off site compensation does nothing for the area. • Proposal would be an overdevelopment with no parking or garden space • The use of grey aluminium cladding and modern UPVC windows clashes with the traditional brick character of Goodyere and Victoria Street • Developer claims the house is sustainable.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Councillor Patel raised residents’ concerns, while an agent supported the application on highways, amenity, design, housing supply and sustainable-location grounds.

Members’ debate

Members discussed parking, housing need, design, biodiversity, waste, cycle storage and the use of derelict land, with most supporting the proposal.

“Councillor A. Chambers stated that he could not see a material reason to refuse the application. He noted that there was a significant amount of waste build-up in the area, and the development would help to tidy it up. He highlighted the housing need in Gloucester, with 2,500 people requiring homes, which is one of the main shortfalls in the city.”

“Councillor S. Chambers stated that she had serious concerns about parking issues in the local area. She acknowledged that it was useful to have data, but believed that the 2021 census was slightly outdated. She was concerned about the area reaching a tipping point with too many vehicle movements, and expressed worries about the safety of cyclists and vehicles meeting on the roads.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee delegated authority to the Planning Development Manager to grant permission subject to conditions, notes and a unilateral undertaking relating to Cotswold Beechwoods.

“Councillor A.Chambers proposed and Councillor Jones seconded a motion to Delegate authority to the Planning Development Manager to GRANT subject to appropriate conditions, notes and Unilateral Undertaking relating to Cotswold Beechwoods…”

“RESOLVED that authority was delegated to the Planning Development Manager to GRANT subject to appropriate conditions, notes and Unilateral Undertaking relating to Cotswold Beechwoods.”

Minutes