Eight dwellings at Part Parcel, 2691 Tewkesbury Road, Twigworth, Gloucester

What was proposed

The application sought eight homes, associated access, landscaping and infrastructure, with four detached and four semi-detached dwellings.

“This application seeks full planning permission for the construction of 8 residential dwellings. (4 detached properties and 4 semi-detached) The layout of the development provides two pairs of semi-detached dwellings facing the road frontage. The other four dwellings are located linearly behind the four front facing dwellings.”

“Each detached property would be provided with off street parking alongside an integral double garage which would also be the bin/bike store. Each detached dwelling would be delivered with four bedrooms on the first floor with a kitchen / living area, snug, utility and office on the ground floor.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site was an undeveloped 1.01-hectare parcel outside Twigworth’s settlement boundary, beside the A38 and near services and buses.

“The application site comprises an undeveloped parcel of land at Twigworth Fields. The site is approximately 1.01 hectares in size and is fairly rectangular in shape. The site is bound to the east by the A38, Vine House to the north, Woodvine House to the south and Stonehaven, Sunnyside and Twigworth fields to the west. The site is located within Twigworth, albeit outside the Twigworth settlement boundary located to the south.”

“The site is within Flood Zone 1 as defined by the Environment Agency’s Flood Maps for Planning. The Cheltenham and Gloucester Green Belt is located to the immediate east and is bound by the A38, the site is therefore outside the Green Belt. The site would be accessed off the A38. A Public Rights of Way Footpath Twigworth Footpath 4 runs in an east to west direction along the northern boundary of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An outline scheme for up to ten homes received delegated authority for permission in 2017, but no decision was issued because the legal agreement was not completed.

“Application Number Proposal Decision Decision Date 15/00898/OUT Outline application for the erection of up to 10 dwellings, with all matters to be reserved for future consideration No Decision Issued was given delegated authority to permit at planning committee but S106 not completed 11.04.2017 (Committee Decision Date)”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended permission because housing, economic, biodiversity and highway benefits significantly outweighed policy conflict and limited landscape harm.

“The proposal would provide economic benefits such as temporary employment opportunities during its construction phase; secondary employment through future residents’ spending in the local area and using expanded local services. The proposal would also increase expenditure in the local area. These economic benefits attract limited weight given the number of units.”

“Harm arises from the conflict with development plan policies and the spatial strategy relating to housing, particularly Policies SP2 and SD10 of the JCS, RES2, RES3 & RES4 or the TBLP and Policy H1 of the Down Hatherley, Norton and Twigworth NDP. There is also the introduction of development in an undeveloped field with associated limited harm to the character and appearance of the area.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways, ecology, conservation, archaeology, waste, minerals and Severn Trent raised no objections subject to conditions, while land drainage objected over drainage information.

“Ecology (Protected species) – no objections, subject to conditions…”

“Minerals and Waste Planning – No objection subject to waste management plan…”

Officer report

Concerns from local people

Four letters raised concerns about highway safety, traffic, flooding, drainage, ecology, pollution, privacy, light, noise, plans and community facilities.

“Highway safety, traffic, parking – increased traffic on A38, has been an increase in number of incidents. Access to A38 is very dangerous…”

“Community facilities -There are almost no community facilities in the local area.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish council representative opposed the scheme because of sewage problems, while the applicant’s agent supported it as sustainable, suitable and carefully assessed.

What members debated

Members questioned sustainability, foul drainage, network upgrades, overflowing sewage and the legal limits of planning conditions concerning Severn Trent.

“PL.16.06.26 process, a condition could be placed on an application to ensure that all surface water was discharged to a watercourse rather than into the foul network, which had been an issue historically. A condition could also be imposed to ensure that no dwelling was occupied until the appropriate drainage infrastructure was in place.”

“A Member asked who would be responsible for clearing up any incidents of overflowing sewage as described by the Parish Council representative and was advised that responsibility for the operation of the network lay with Severn Trent; if there were pollution issues, the Environment Agency and Environmental Health would be involved.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee resolved to delegate authority to permit the application in line with the officer recommendation.

“The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Director: Growth to permit the application, subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and he sought a motion from the floor.”

Minutes