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 at Land Parcel East of Willersey Business Park.

 

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, highways and Willersey Parish Council

Minutes:

The proposal was for residential development comprising 60 dwellings.

 

Case Officer: Martin Perks

Ward Member: 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, highways and Willersey Parish Council.

 

The Chair invited the Case Officer to introduce the application. The Case Officer shared the application details with the Committee including additional pages:

·         Members were advised of two additional Parish Council representations, relating to foul drainage and a Section 106 contribution towards a Multi-Use Games Area.

 

Public Speakers

Public Speaker – Kevin O’Donoghue – Parish Council

The Parish Council requested a larger Section 106 contribution towards recreation, arguing that the proposed on-site provision did not adequately cater for older children or adults and that a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) was needed to serve the growing village population. Concerns were raised regarding foul drainage, with a request that a pre-occupation condition be added to ensure sewerage improvements were completed before any dwellings were occupied.

 

Public Speaker – Councillor Gina Blomefield – Ward Member

Whilst welcoming the additional highway mitigation measures, concerns remained that they did not address existing highway safety issues, particularly given cumulative development and the proximity of a proposed industrial access.

Concerns were also raised regarding the adequacy of the existing footway and sewerage capacity. Support was expressed for the Parish Council's proposed condition requiring drainage improvements to be completed before occupation of the development.

 

Members questions

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

·         The requested highway contributions had been accepted. Biodiversity net gain calculations remained under discussion, although protected species and habitat issues had been resolved.

·         No solar panels were proposed as part of the application.

·         A Gloucestershire Highways site visit had been undertaken. Cumulative impacts from surrounding developments had been considered, and the proposed highway mitigation measures were considered proportionate and sufficient to provide safe and suitable access for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, including at the public footpath crossing opposite the site.

·         The proposed recreation provision complied with planning policy, with an £8,000 contribution secured towards the village recreation ground. A Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) was not considered necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and therefore could not be required through a Section 106 agreement. The Parish Council would also receive Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding, which could be used towards future infrastructure projects.

·         Severn Trent had not yet identified whether network improvements would be necessary. The recommended Grampian condition required drainage details and any necessary upgrade programme to be agreed before development commenced and was considered sufficiently robust while allowing flexibility for Severn Trent to determine and implement any required works.

·         A deferral was not considered necessary, as foul drainage was regulated under separate legislation and Severn Trent had a statutory duty to provide a connection.

·         The residential travel plan contribution would fund the monitoring and implementation of sustainable travel measures over a five-year period. Public transport contributions would be used to improve existing bus stops within the village, with the final specification to be agreed through the Section 106 Agreement.

·         Education transport contributions were calculated to mitigate the impact of the development on home-to-school transport provision, based on projected pupil numbers and a three-year funding period.

·         The highway works were required to be completed before occupation of the development. The Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to introduce revised speed limits would be progressed separately under the Highways Act and was not considered necessary to condition before occupation.

·         The precise cause and scale of the sewerage capacity issues had not yet been identified but were understood to relate to the sewer network rather than the treatment works themselves. Responsibility for identifying and delivering any necessary improvements rested with Severn Trent under its statutory duties, with the planning condition requiring an agreed drainage scheme and implementation programme.

 

Member comments

 

Councillor Fowles proposed that consideration of the application be deferred pending the outcome of Severn Trent's investigations into the existing foul drainage network, expressing concern that the nature and extent of the identified capacity issues remained unknown.

 

Councillor David Fowles proposed DEFERRING the application and Councillor Daryl Corps seconded the proposal.

The proposal was put to the vote and rejected by the Committee.

RESOLVED: to REJECT the proposal to defer the application.

 

·         Concern was raised that the development did not include solar panels, given the Council's declaration of a climate emergency and its environmental policies.

·         Concern was raised regarding the site's proximity to the adjacent industrial estate and the potential for future amenity issues, including noise, dust and fumes.

·         There were no sustainable highway grounds for refusal, given the advice and recommendations of the Highway Authority.

·         Objections related not to the principle of development, but to whether the supporting infrastructure, particularly foul drainage, was capable of accommodating further housing.

·         Ongoing uncertainty surrounding sewerage capacity, although it was acknowledged that the proposed Grampian condition reflected current planning guidance and appeal decisions.

·         Appreciation was expressed to the Gloucestershire Highways Officer for attending the meeting and providing clarification on the proposed highway mitigation measures

 

Councillor Julia Judd proposed PERMITTING the application and Councillor Coleman seconded the proposal. The proposal was put to the vote and agreed by the Committee

RESOLVED: to PERMIT the application.

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages