Skip to main content

Agenda item

23/02682/FUL - Land West Of Worwell Farmhouse, Cirencester Road, Tetbury

Summary

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.

 

Case Officer

Harrison Bowley

 

Ward Member

Councillor Chris Twells

 

Recommendation

REFUSE

Minutes:

­­­The application was for a 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.

 

The officer recommendation was to refuse the application.

 

The Case Officer introduced the item.

 

Councillor Stephen Evans from Tetbury with Upton Town Council addressed the meeting, supporting the application.

 

Mr Warren Hateley addressed the Committee, supporting the application.

 

Dr Peter Hill addressed the Committee on behalf of Phoenix Healthcare Group and  the Applicant. Dr. Hill highlighted the perceived public benefit from the improved healthcare facility.

 

As the application crossed two boundaries, the Chair allowed two Councillors to speak as ward members.

Councillor Nikki Ind addressed the Committee. Councillor Ind stated that she was a member of Greening Tetbury, and Tetbury Town Council, both of which had submitted representations that she had not been involved in producing. Councillor Ind highlighted public benefit of the application, but equally concerns of some residents over damage to the Conservation Area.

 

Councillor Chris Twells addressed the Committee. Councillor Twells stated that some residents felt they were intimidated and could not object to the application. Councillor Twells urged the members to consider the application on its own merits.

 

Member Questions

 

Members made reference to the statement from NHS Gloucestershire. The Case Officer stated that this confirmed that if the application was refused, it would be unlikely that an alternative site would come forward for several years. Therefore, if the Committee felt it was necessary, the Officer advised that it could attribute more weight to the public benefit of the application as a result of the letter. Officers stated that they felt that the letter received did carry a lot of weight, and had it been received at the time of writing the report, officers stated that they would have recommended the application’s approval. Officers stated that it was apparent from the letter that no similar sites were likely to come forward in the short term.

 

Later on, it was also stated by Members that the letter had been received only six days before the Committee meeting, and had represented a change in viewpoint from the letter submitted for the previous application.

 

The Interim Head of Legal Services reminded the Committee that they had refused a previous application on a similar application on the same site, which was also a material planning consideration, which the Committee needed to consider. The Committee would be able to judge how much weight to attribute to the previous application, as it was a relevant material consideration but not legally binding.

 

Members asked if it was possible to invite NHS Gloucestershire to address the Committee at a future meeting. Officers stated that a representative could be invited but the Committee had no powers to summon them.

 

Members asked why a nearby hospital site was not used. The Case Officer stated that although the Forward Planning team had requested full details of the sequential test, this had not been put forward by the applicant. The Case Officer stated that the lack of sequential testing caused them to reduce the level of weight attributed to the public benefit to the application when they recommended refusal. However, they stated that the letter from NHS Gloucestershire may mean that members would wish to attribute more weight to the public benefit.

 

The Case Officer stated that, in planning terms, the housing was not considered to be enabling the surgery due to a lack of a viability statement, but that there was a link between the two regardless.

 

Members asked what affordable housing meant in relation to this application. The Case Officer stated that there are different types of affordable housing, and the development sought to bring forward first homes (with a price cap of £250,000) and socially rented homes.

 

Members asked if the developer could reduce the provision of affordable housing later on. The Interim Development Manager stated that if a viability assessment was submitted, this would need to be considered, but that the Council would not need to automatically agree it.

 

The Interim Head of Legal Services stated that if permission was granted, the Committee would delegate authority to officers to ensure the completion of the necessary S106 agreement.

 

Members referenced the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and asked the officer what would need to be considered as a result. The Case Officer stated that each application needed to be considered on its own merits but development could be allowed on the AONB in exceptional circumstances, and it would be for members to decide on this.

 

Members discussed the highway safety aspect of the proposal. The Case Officer stated that the application included a S106 agreement which would improve the footpath, and there would be an improvement in the lighting.

 

Members asked about the parking arrangements, and whether there was sufficient parking, and if the risk that parking would overflow onto the nearby roads had appropriate mitigation measures. The Highways Officer stated that the applicant had submitted a transport assessment, which had concluded that there would be on average 26 spaces used at any given time, and that they were satisfied with this.

 

The Highways Officer also stated they were happy that the bus stops met national guidelines.

 

Members asked what the Committee could do to ensure that the healthcare centre gets delivered. The Interim Development Manager stated that conditions to do so could be included in the S106 agreement.

 

Members asked which conditions would be included within a potential permission. The Interim Development Manager stated that these were as in the previous application report.

 

The Committee took a 10-minute comfort break before they proceeded onto comments to consider the printed recommendations from the previous application report.

 

Before the members proceeded onto member comments, the Case Officer summarised the conditions which had been copied from the report on the previous application, and provided the following updates;

 

  • Condition 3, ‘the twentieth dwelling’ would change to ‘the sixteenth’
  • Condition 32 ‘three years’ would change to ‘two years’
  • Drawing numbers would be updated to ensure accuracy

 

Officers confirmed the street lighting and other such matters would be dealt with through S106.

 

Members asked about condition 38, which would be updated to reflect standard opening hours.

 

Energy performance was also included within a condition, but the Case Officer stated that BREEAM standards could not be required as there was no such requirement within the local plan.

 

Member Comments

 

Members highlighted the public benefit in enabling improved healthcare provision within Tetbury if the application was permitted, particularly referencing the letter from NHS Gloucestershire. However, it was also stated it was regrettable that a full viability assessment, and sequential testing had not been submitted.

 

Members also asked whether it was possible to split the application for houses and the healthcare practice. Officers advised that the application should be considered as a whole.

 

Members stated that great weight should be given to protection of the AONB, and referenced the loss of views but also stated that the letter from the NHS also bore a lot of weight, and the Committee needed to balance these considerations.

 

Members welcomed improvements to the design of the application since the previous application, which included more vernacular elements amongst other revisions.

 

Members also stated that the development was to a high environmental standard.

 

Councillor Dilys Neill proposed permitting the application and accepting the amended conditions making reference to the public benefit of the healthcare practice.

 

Councillor David Fowles seconded the proposal.

 

Members stated that conditions 3 and 32 should be combined due to being dependent on one another. The Interim Development Manager stated that he had no objection to this, and this would be included.

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee PERMIT the application

 

For 7, Against 3, Abstain 1

 

 

For

Against

Abstain

David Fowles

Andrew Maclean

Mark Harris

Dilys Neill

Daryl Corps

 

Gary Selwyn

Julia Judd

 

Ian Watson

 

 

Patrick Coleman

 

 

Michael Vann

 

 

Ray Brassington

 

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages