Skip to main content

Agenda item

24/02513/FUL Siddington Park

Proposal

Development of land and erection of buildings to expand an existing Integrated Retirement Community (Use Class C2).

 

Case Officer

Andrew Moody

 

Ward Member

Councillor Mike Evemy

 

Recommendation

PERMIT subject to the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement for the payment of financial contributions towards library facilities and travel plan; also the payment of the financial contribution to mitigate the impact of the development upon the North Meadow and Clattinger Farm Special Area of Conservation.

 

Minutes:

Development of land and erection of buildings to expand an existing Integrated Retirement Community (Use Class C2).

 

Case Officer: Andrew Moody

Ward Member: Councillor Mike Evemy

Officer recommendation: PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETION OF A SECTION 106 LEGAL AGREEMENT.

 

The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application who made the following points:

  • The Tree Officer’s condition had already been included in the agenda but had been omitted from the consultee list in error.
  • Revised comments from the Parish Council had been received which raised an objection to the proposal.
  • Site location plan, proposed site block plan, aerial photograph, proposed landscaping, elevations, shadow diagrams and photographs in around the site were shared.

 

Public Speakers

Speaker 1 – John Vale - Objector

The Objector claimed that the scheme was flawed, with officer assessments considered unreliable. They noted that the Council’s Conservation Officer had unresolved concerns and that local residents and the ward councillor objected. The proposed development was described as overdevelopment, causing overlooking and harm to residential amenity. The Shadow Study was criticised for failing to account for the loss of mature boundary trees and reduced privacy. Phase 2 building heights and massing were not seen as responsive to site levels or the surrounding low-rise homes.

 

Speaker 2 – Rob Henderson – Agent

The agent stated that the applicant had worked closely with officers, particularly the Conservation Officer, to refine the design over time. Revisions addressed impacts on neighbouring homes, avoided overlooking and exceeded separation standards. The Care Village required a certain density to function, which was carefully balanced with its setting. Most concerns raised had been resolved, parking was acceptable, biodiversity gains were high, and the scheme had been presented as a successful and appropriate extension of the existing village.

 

17:34 – Councillor Ray Brassington returned to the Chamber but did not vote on the application.

 

Speaker 3 – Councillor Mike Evemy – Ward Member

The Ward Member identified the concerns of the size, scale and impact of the development whilst acknowledging the community value of providing 55 dwellings for older people and accepting that demand had been demonstrated. They expressed disappointment that the scheme contained no affordable housing and would be entirely market-led. The Ward Member concluded that the decision rested on whether 55 market units in six blocks, including one four-storey block, was too large and too close to neighbouring properties at Preston Lye with the potential loss of mature boundary trees. They urged the Committee to give careful consideration to whether the proposal was overly intensive and harmful to neighbouring amenity.

 

Member Questions:

Members asked questions of the officers, who responded in the following way:

  • The site was within a sensitive area identified in the Preston Neighbourhood Plan as Area 6, where recent development had altered the historic agricultural setting.  The only area specifically referred to in the Neighbourhood Plan was to the North-West of Preston Bridge, adjoining the Tesco car park.
  • The site had originally been allocated for employment use in the 2006 local plan but had not been brought forward, resulting in a C2 residential use being established through a 2011 outline permission.
  • Adopted local plan policies and the Gloucestershire Local Housing Needs Assessment identified a significant and increasing need for sheltered, extra care and nursing accommodation.
  • An independent assessment by external consultants and the Council Strategic Housing team, having reviewed both the viability appraisal and the consultants’ advice, was satisfied that affordable housing could not be required in this case.
  • The development included a total of 109 bedrooms and provided 68 parking spaces.
  • Part of the legal agreement, which was still pending completion, included a travel plan to promote sustainable transport and facilitate residents’ travel. Similar travel schemes were already in place for Phase One residents.
  • An additional condition could be added to specify the use of air source heat pumps or solar panels.
  • Conditions could be amended to apply from the first occupation of any units, and references to NPPF paragraphs could specifically cite paragraphs 135(f) and 198.

 

Member Comments:

Members proposed the following reasons to arrange a Site Inspection Briefing:

·         To assess the impact of the proposal on neighbouring properties.

·         To consider the effects on existing trees, including identifying which trees would be lost.

·         To evaluate the massing and siting of the new buildings in the context of Preston Leigh.

 

Councillor Patrick Coleman proposed an All-Member Site Inspection Briefing and Councillor David Fowles seconded the proposal. The proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.

 

RESOLVED: To DEFER the application in favour of a Site Inspection Briefing.

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages