Skip to main content

Agenda item

25/02687/FUL - Land Parcel East of Willersey Business Park

Proposal

Residential development comprising 60 dwellings with associated roads, accesses, parking and servicing, open space, landscaping and drainage infrastructure.

 

Case Officer

Martin Perks

Ward Members

Councillors Gina Blomefield & Tom Stowe

 

Recommendation

PERMIT subject to no objection from Biodiversity Officer (and associated conditions), the completion of a S106 legal agreement covering matters such as affordable housing, self-build/custom build plots, Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring, and financial contributions to education and library services and Willersey Parish Council.

Minutes:

The proposal was for residential development comprising 60 dwellings with associated roads, accesses, parking and servicing, open space, landscaping and drainage infrastructure.

 

Case Officer: Martin Perks

Ward Members: Councillors Gina Blomefield and Tom Stowe

Recommendation:

PERMIT subject to no objection from Biodiversity Officer (and associated conditions), the completion of a S106 legal agreement covering matters such as affordable housing, self-build/custom build plots, Biodiversity Net Gain monitoring, and financial contributions to education and library services and Willersey Parish Council.

 

The Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee.

Additional details:

·         Members were advised that an updated set of plans had been circulated, accurately reflecting the proposed site layout and play areas.

·         An update was provided following a response from Gloucestershire County Council Highways, clarifying that a new bus shelter near the recreation ground would not be justified, although contributions or improvements to bus stops on Main Street could potentially be justified.

  • A supplementary update included objections and general comments from residents and Willersey Parish Council.

Public Speakers

Public speaker – Councillor Kevin O’Donoghue – Town and Parish Council

The Parish Council did not object in principle but requested deferral for further evidence on three key issues: noise impacts from the adjacent factory, the adequacy and methodology of the £8,000 Section 106 leisure contribution, and the status of former allotment land as open space of potential public value requiring fuller assessment of need and demand before any conclusion was reached.

 

Public speaker – Alastair McGrigor – Objector

Multiple current and proposed developments in and around Willersey could cumulatively increase pressure on already inadequate sewerage infrastructure and the Badsey Pumping Station, with concerns raised about recent sewage flooding incidents. Reference was made to the use of Grampian conditions, with confirmation that similar conditions to those applied at Folly View had been included in the current application.

 

Public Speaker – Councillor Gina Blomefield – Ward Member

Concerns were raised regarding highway safety at the site access, limited village infrastructure, lack of local employment opportunities, and significant pressure on existing sewage and drainage systems. These issues had been addressed through proposed planning conditions, and support was expressed for strong conditions to be secured.

 

Public Speaker – Councillor Tom Stowe – Ward Member

Concerns were raised that development in Willersey should not exacerbate infrastructure issues, particularly relating to a failing sewage and drainage network, with reports of repeated flooding and capacity problems and no clear timetable from Severn Trent for resolution. Concerns were highlighted regarding highway safety at the proposed access onto the B4632, including limited visibility, reliance on speed mitigation measures, and potential risks despite compliance with minimum standards. The importance of effective Section 106 contributions was noted, with a request that development should not proceed without robust mitigation to protect residents’ safety and quality of life.

 

SIB feedback.

·         Fast-moving traffic was reported on the adjacent road, including large industrial vehicles using the former A46 as a busy through route.

·         Concerns that visibility issues could make it difficult and unsafe for vehicles to emerge from the site.

·         The site was not isolated and closely linked to the village, with residential development considered inappropriate without major highway improvements

·         Surrounding countryside described as attractive open fields.

·         Former allotment area observed as overgrown and bramble-covered.

 

Members questions

Members of the Committee asked a series of questions and noted that:

·         The proposed footpath/pavement would be set back within the development site. Existing sections would be upgraded with improved pavement provision and a tactile crossing, alongside a stepped reduction in road speed limits.

·         Highways have been involved and had assessed the proposal using transport statements and technical data (including movements, visibility and speed). While it was not confirmed whether an on-site visit took place, they have not objected and considered the access acceptable.

·         The development would have two pedestrian access points. The principal access to the village would be via the south-west corner, linking directly to the existing pavement, meaning pedestrians would not need to walk along the carriageway.

·         A public footpath provided an alternative route from the proposed vehicle entrance to the church and village school. This offered a shorter route into the village but concerns were raised about how pedestrians, particularly children, would safely cross the road to access it, and it was acknowledged that the footpath may be less suitable in winter due to wet and muddy conditions.

·         The £8,000 Section 106 recreation contribution was considered reasonable because the development included open space and play facilities, reducing reliance on the village recreation ground. The scheme would provide £120,000 towards the village hall, with further income to the Parish Council through CIL receipts.

·         Gloucestershire Highways advised that the bus stop near the recreation ground was not a recognised stop with a bus service, so a new shelter would not be justified.

·         The proposed Grampian condition would require sewer upgrades to be agreed before development commences and implemented before occupation. Responsibility for providing adequate sewer capacity rested with Severn Trent under its statutory duties. The development could be built out, but occupation would not be permitted until the required sewerage upgrades agreed with Severn Trent had been completed.

·         The use of the adjacent site was for outdoor vehicle and material storage, and existing noise controls were considered sufficient.

·         If the Parish Council did not take on the open space, it would be managed by a private management company, with residents paying an annual maintenance fee. 

·         Highway measures, such as speed bumps, would be a matter for Gloucestershire County Council as the highway authority.

  • The hedgerow viewed was outside the application site. If it was ecologically important, it was already protected under hedgerow regulations.

·         Officers confirmed the footpath would be widened to approximately 1.8–2 metres as part of the highway improvements, which was considered standard width and suitable for pedestrians, pushchairs and cyclists to pass safely.

·         Pedestrian/cycle access would link into the approved Auto Sleepers site entrance, which formed part of a one-way system. Vehicles were expected to exit rather than enter at that point, and HGV movements were considered limited. The arrangement includes segregated footways and a tactile crossing, with the pedestrian route continuing through to the improved pavement network.

 

Member comments

·         There was significant development activity just across the local authority boundary, and concerns were raised about the cumulative impact of multiple developments on already small surrounding roads.

 

Members felt that there was not sufficient information to make an assessment as to whether or not the development would have an impact on the highway safety. A request was made for Gloucestershire County Council Highways officers to undertake a site visit and attend the Planning Committee to provide further clarity on highway safety considerations.

 

Councillor Julia Judd proposed DEFERING the application and Councillor Ray Brassington seconded the proposal. The proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee.

 

RESOLVED: to DEFER the application to request attendance of the GCC Highways Officer.

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages