62 affordable homes at Land South Of Pershore Road, Evesham

What was proposed

The application proposed 62 affordable dwellings, landscaping, associated works and access from Hamilton Road, including bungalows, houses and open space.

“The application seeks full planning permission for 62 affordable dwellings and associated works, including landscaping and access via Hamilton Road.”

“The layout shows a generous amount of tree planting both within the open space and the street scenes, formal paths throughout the open space and water management features. The majority of the area that remains undeveloped would be sited within the open space shown on the indicative plan. Access to the site would be via Hamilton Road towards the south-east corner of the site at a point where there is already a gap in the established hedge to provide pedestrian access.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The site was undeveloped countryside outside Evesham’s development boundary, beside the River Isbourne, with flood zones, a public right of way and heritage designations.

“The site comprises an area of undeveloped countryside sited between the existing properties on Lingfield Road and the River Isbourne and sits outside the development boundaries of Evesham set out in the Development Plan. It slopes noticeably from east to west in the southern section of the site from the existing properties down to the river which runs along the sites west edge. The northern section of the site also slopes…”

“The development site does not fall within any designated ecologically sensitive area although it is within close proximity to, and indeed the larger site abuts the boundary of the River Isbourne which is designated as a Special Wildlife Site. The closest Listed Building is the Grade II Listed 3, 5 and 6 Brookside located to the west of the northern most section of the site across the river.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier outline application for up to 126 homes was refused in 2014 because of harm to the Significant Gap and unresolved planning obligations.

“W/13/01127/OU Outline planning application for residential development (up to 126 dwellings) with new accesses onto Pershore Road and Hamilton Road, open space, car parking and associated infrastructure. Refused April 3rd 2014”

“The application was refused on the grounds that;”

Officer report

What local people said

There were 178 objections concerning traffic, flooding, wildlife, infrastructure, open space and public rights of way, alongside one letter supporting affordable homes.

“Traffic is already unacceptable around Eastwick Park, Davis Road, the Cheltenham Road junction and the surrounding area. More houses will make the situation worse. It will be chaos. • Loss of wildlife habitat – wildflowers and diverse species – badgers, foxes and deer are present in the area. • Overdevelopment of the area – Evesham has had a lot of development over the last 5 years. • Local infrastructure (doctors / dentists etc.) is already overstretched.”

“To add more houses without improving the road infrastructure is negligent. • There is an environmental impact of more vehicles queuing longer. • Air quality should be tested at peak times. • The site is prone to flooding - Flood waters from the River Isbourne reached the back of properties on Linghfield Road in 2007. • The developers could apply for development of the land to the north as well.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A speaker addressed the committee against approval and another spoke in favour; a site visit had also taken place.

What members debated

Members discussed congestion, traffic forecasts, construction access, horse-rider safety, flooding, housing design and whether the active travel contribution should cover more than Hampton Bridge.

“Councillor Clatworthy stated that he believed that all matters remained on the table for debate, regardless of the reasons for deferral at the previous meeting and shared his concerns regarding access to the site in general and, in particular, the movement of construction traffic. He was concerned for the safety of walkers and horse-riders when the bridleway and footpath were diverted. Councillor Clatworthy stated worried that problems with flooding would be worsened.”

“Councillor E A S Sims shared Councillor Clatworthy’s concern for the safety of horse riders. Councillor E J Kearsey was pleased with the application since its deferral. She welcomed the changes to layout believed that the new improvements to the internal sizes would better meet the housing needs, but was disappointed that it had taken a deferral to achieve these goals.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application in line with the officer recommendation, subject to generalising the Hampton Bridge contribution to active travel infrastructure generally.

“To approve the application in line with the Officer’s recommendation, subject to changes being made to the section 106 contribution for Active Travel Infrastructure for Hampton Bridge, which needs to be generalised for Active Travel Infrastructure generally and to delegate authority to the Director of…”

“PC. Planning and Infrastructure to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure the obligations and planning conditions listed in the Officers report and Annex and below, allowing for any subsequent amendments to the obligations and planning conditions as required by the Director of Planning and Infrastructure –”

Minutes