Skip to main content

Agenda item

22/03495/FUL- Land West Of Worwell Farmhouse, Cirencester Road, Tetbury

Description

Mixed use development comprising healthcare facility, 27 dwellings (including 11 affordable units), landscaping, site access, internal estate road and associated works at Land West Of Worwell Farmhouse Cirencester Road Tetbury Gloucestershire GL8 8RY

 

Ward Member

Councillor Chris Twells

 

Case Officer

Harrison Bowley

 

Recommendation

DELEGATED PERMISSION subject to;

i) completion of S106 in respect of Affordable Housing,

ii) completion of S106 in respect of library contribution, and

iii) subject to the finalisation of discussions regarding the Highways Officer’s conditions and legal arrangements for the payment of Travel Plan monitoring contributions

 

Minutes:

Members asked what the number of affordable housing and social rented housing would be delivered on the site. The Case Officer provided the figures as follows – eleven affordable houses, of which three were first homes and eight were affordable rent.

 

Members asked for further information on the sequential testing undertaken, and asked the Case Officer to clarify whether there were other suitable sites for the development, as there was difference of opinion on this. The Case Officer stated that as there was no legal requirement for sequential testing. The Case Officer stated that following the submitted sequential test, there was insufficient evidence to prove that this was the only potential site for development, therefore lessening the weight of the Public benefit in the Case Officer’s view. However, the Case Officer also stated that there was no other application that had come forward or any allocations in the Local Plan.

 

The Case Officer also stated that the sequential test had been undertaken by Phoenix Healthcare Group, who were not the applicant.

 

Members stated that they did not believe that the proposal was compliant with INF2, and asked what weight should be given to this. The Development Manager stated that Members could provide this whichever weight they chose, as it was an adopted Local Plan policy.

 

Members asked about the 25 year lease for the healthcare centre stated in the report, and what the implications of this were. The officer stated that the tenancy would be 30 years with the option of automatic renewal at the end of the initial tenancy.

Members asked about the number of parking spaces, The Case Officer advised that there were 56 parking spaces and 20 full-time equivalent staff members.

 

Members also asked whether the decision would set a precedent. The Development Manager stated that planning applications were all considered on their own merit, on a case-by-case basis, with no weight given to precedent.

 

Members referred to paragraph 10.56 and the comments regarding quality of design. The comments from the conservation officer stated that there was ‘unfortunate repetitive monotony’, Members asked if there had been successful negotiation with applicant in improving this. The Case Officer stated that the applicant had been engaged and that this was the final submission. While the Case Officer stated that improvements would have been preferred, the site did relate to the existing modern housing development. The Development Manager also added that there is a balance to be struck on all developments, and in this case the merits were the Healthcare centre. Developing on this point, Members also asked what weight should be given to the design. The Development Manager stated that this is not something Officers can advise on beyond the earlier Officer judgement stated.

 

Members asked whether this site would be considered without the inclusion of the healthcare centre. Officers stated that it was the possible benefit of the healthcare centre that swayed the balance, and without it the scheme would be unlikely to be supported

 

Members also asked whether the condition on the healthcare centre, which stated that it must be built in three years or by the occupation of the 20th dwelling, whichever is sooner, and why this was included. The Case Officer advised that this was also a result of negotiating, and that the initial Officer opinion was that this would have been immediately commenced with the first dwelling. Members also asked if this meant that it could be a maximum of 6 years before the healthcare centre was built, which the Case Officer confirmed as a possibility. Officers also added that additional assurance that the healthcare centre would be built could be controlled through a section 106 agreement, which would be legally binding.

 

Officers also advised that there had been significant negotiation with the developer, and that therefore the development of the healthcare centre was unlikely to be brought forward through a stricter condition without risking the deliverability of the site, which in turn risked being appealed.

 

Members noted that all major development in the AONB should be avoided at all cost, as per the NPPF, which was stated in the Officer’s report.

 

Members asked whether there was room for expansion on the site. Officers advised that this would be speculation, but that the NHS commissioning group were satisfied with the standard of the centre, and that it met their needs for future proofing.

 

Member comments

 

Members thanked the members of the Public for their patience, and Officers and Colleagues for a thorough examination of the issues.

 

Members referenced the loss of AONB, and poor architectural merit of the application, and the lack of public transport. Although it was recognised that not bringing forward a new site for the GP practice could have negative consequences (on patients, recruitment of staff etc.), Members also stated that there would be future opportunities for healthcare practices in the future due to the work of the Gloucestershire integrated care group.

 

Members stated that the Council should work with the County Council to facilitate an improved proposal for a GP practice to come forward.

 

Councillor Coleman made a proposal to refuse the application on the premises mentioned in the members questions and comments. The proposal was seconded by Councillor Fowles.

 

The Development Manager proposed some suggested grounds for refusal based on Members comments;

 

1.    The application site lies within an area of open countryside outside of the defined settlement development boundary for Tetbury with inadequate provision of public transport. The development, consisting of a residential aspect and healthcare centre, would therefore be contrary to Local Plan Policies DS4 and INF2. It is acknowledged that public benefits would arise from the development, most notably the provision of healthcare infrastructure, affordable housing, and high energy performance design, but notwithstanding this, the harm as identified, is considered, in the balance, to outweigh the public benefits of the scheme. The proposed development is contrary to Local Plan Policies DS4 and INF2.

 

2.    The site is located within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural

Beauty (AONB). Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way (CROW) Act 2000 states that relevant authorities have a statutory duty to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the AONB. The development would result in the loss of an open, rural space and would erode the transitional, edge-of-settlement qualities of this part of the town. The development would therefore result in landscape and visual harm to the special qualities of the AONB and would be contrary to Local Plan Policies EN4 and EN5, and Section 15 of the NPPF.

 

3.     The proposed development, consisting of a residential aspect and healthcare centre, would result in a scheme that lacks a contextually sympathetic layout and clear architectural distinction. The development would neither achieve a high quality contemporary design, nor a more traditional vernacular appearance and would lack characterful variety of scale, form and massing. The design of the development would therefore be of a poor quality, out of keeping with the local townscape and inconsistent with the requirements of the Cotswold Design Code. The development would therefore be contrary to Cotswold District Local Plan Policies EN1, EN2 and the Cotswold Design Code; Policy 2 of the Tetbury and Tetbury Upton Neighbourhood Plan 2015- 2030; and Section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee REFUSE the application for the reasons set out

 

Voting record: for – 8, against 1, abstentions 1, absent 1*

 

*As Councillor Watson had left the room, he did not vote

 

For

Against

Abstained/did not vote

Andrew Maclean

Dilys Neill

Ray Brassington

Daryl Corps

 

Ian Watson

David Fowles

 

 

Gary Selwyn

 

 

Julia Judd

 

 

Mark Harris

 

 

Michael Vann

 

 

Patrick Coleman

 

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages