Item No: 01 Application No. S.11/0799/OUT Site No. PP-01460411 (29) Site Address Port Industrial Estate, Port Lane, Brimscombe,

Town/Parish Brimscombe And Thrupp Parish Council

Grid Reference 387018,202278

Application Type Outline Planning Permission

Proposal An outline planning application for the demolition of six industrial buildings at Brimscombe Port to create a mixed use development comprising up to 234 dwellings, commercial, retail and leisure uses, associated parking and construction of two new access roads.

Applicant’s Mr Bruce Hall Details Springers, Watledge, Nailsworth, Stroud, GL6 OAR

Agent’s Details Miss Deborah Earls Lyndon House, 62 Hagley Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, West Midlands B16 8PE

Case Officer John Longmuir

Application 21.04.2011 Validated

RECOMMENDATION Recommended Resolve to express support for the principle of the proposed land uses but Decision the storey heights and extent of development need further consideration and the application is deferred for consideration at a future meeting.

CONSULTEES Comments British Waterways Received Not Yet Received Parish / Town Ms K Chapman The Environment Agency Head Of Regeneration Cotswold Canal Trust Regeneration & Culture GCC Revised Consultation

CONTRIBUTORS Letters of Objection S A Riddiford, 50 Nursery Drive, Brimscombe I Leighton-Boyce, 1 Fern Cottages, Water Lane A Russell, 1 Terrace House, Port Lane A Wiltshire, Penrith House, London Road D Haydock, White House, Port Lane M B Minnett, 2 Port Terrace, Brimscombe Hill S A Riddiford, 50 Nursery Drive, Brimscombe H Bojaniwska, 5 Orchard Lane, Brimscombe, Stroud ,

Letters of Support N Carter, Suite 7 To 9 The Mill, Brimscombe Port Business Park L Norman, The Lindens, Brimscombe Hill A Hertbert, 66 Bourne Estate, Brimscombe C Anderson, 1 Cleeve House, Brimscombe Hill

Letters of Comment A Barker, 3 Jubilee Cottages, Bourne Lane Brimscombe, B Sindle, 57 Bourne Estate, Brimscombe D Gardiner, 48 Nursery Drive, Brimscombe E M Caraher, Clevedale, Brimscombe Hill M Farmer, Burkert, Brimscombe Port,, Cllr Martin Whiteside, Hillside, Claypits Lane, Thrupp, Stroud, C Stonham, 71 London Road, Brimscombe F Fickling, 5 Golden Valley, Brimscombe N Cuddihy, 22 Albert Road Brimscombe Stroud, N Brojer, 3 Port Lane, Brimscombe J Bashford, 141 Thrupp Lane, J Bashford, 141 Thrupp Lane,

OFFICER’S REPORT

Site and surroundings The application has a site area of 4.2ha. It takes in the land between the A419 London Road and the railway line, between the Brimscombe Hill road and the former garage to the east (now a “hand” car wash). The carpet warehouse on the corner of Brimscombe Hill and London Road is excluded.

The application site is largely based on the port area. This was infilled in 1962, following its closure in 1933. Historically this was an inland port, capable of handling 100 vessels at a time. Goods from large sea going Severn Trows were transferred to Thames barges to navigate the narrower canal to the east. This link was promoted by local clothiers as well as London merchants to connect with the Midlands. The Stroudwater Canal was finished in 1779 and the the following year.

Some of the historic port buildings survive, including the Salt Warehouse and the Port Mill, both are listed. However much of the site is covered by car parking and twentieth century industrial buildings. The whole site is within the Industrial Heritage Conservation Area. The Cotswolds AONB lies close to the north and south.

The canal restoration In January 2006 British Waterways was awarded Heritage Lottery funding of £11.3 million and South West Regional Development Agency £7.48 million for the restoration of the 6 mile stretch from Brimscombe Port to The Ocean at Stonehouse. British Waterways withdrew in 2008, leaving the District Council to pick up the leadership. It is a requirement for the HLF funding that Brimscombe Port is restored to water.

Proposal The reinstatement of canal channel, including reuse of original walls and structures. An island would be created, served by several pedestrian bridges. Up to 234 dwellings in a mix of flats and houses, of which 30% would be affordable. Up to 1413 sqm of retail/commercial, largely on the ground floor. Up to 2121sqm of food/drink/leisure. Up to 3101sqm of employment. Retention of 2881sqm of existing employment New community building/enterprise centre run by the Parish Council. One food store up to 929sqm(10,00ft.) Non food retail where no one store exceeds 464sqm (9,500ft), up to 2850sqm in total, which would be in lieu of some residential and commercial floorspace as above Demolition of six industrial buildings.

The new development would be served by a new access from London Road, which would entail a bridge onto the island site. Parking would be to a minimum of 1 per dwelling, with the other land uses in accordance with GCC standards. Cycle parking would also be provided.

At the foot of Brimscombe Hill works are required to bring the canal onto the site. There are two options according to land ownership negotiations. The Brimscombe Hill road could be aligned with a new bridge over the canal and river. Alternatively Brimscombe Hill road could be relocated approximately 10m to the east and a bridge installed over the new canal.

The proposal has a master plan with 4 distinct zones. The first is the western end, which is dominated by Port Mill. There would be little change here except the provision of the canal. The next area is the environs of Port Mill, including the Salt Store. Development would be arranged to allow views of the Mill and limited to 3 storey. The third area is the northern section of the site, which fronts London Road. Heights would be up to 4 storey. The other zone is the island with development up to 5 storey. Phasing across the zones has not been specified.

As well as submission of a master plan, a roofscape/massing study is being undertaken.

Relevant Planning Policies Local Plan policies GE1 protects residential amenity, in particular privacy, overshadowing and overbearing problems. GE2 guards against unacceptable atmospheric/environmental pollution to water, land or air. GE5 highlights the need for highway safety for all uses. GE7 looks at the need to respect infrastructure, services and amenities. The need for community services is highlighted. EM1 supports B1, B2 and B8 development within settlement boundaries especially if it can be integrated with housing, leisure, commercial and community facilities. EM3 covers key employment sites, and Brimscombe Port is identified as such, EK16. The Policy states: “Employment needs take precedence and where redevelopment for alternative uses or changes of use from employment will not be permitted” EM6 allows for extensions to employment. EM9 promotes tourism related uses.

HN8 allows for residential development within settlements provided that: (1) the scale, layout and design are compatible with the settlement and its character. (2) The density is as high a level that is acceptable in townscape and amenity terms. (3) There is a mix of dwellings. (4) There is no encroachment into the countryside. (5) There is no loss of natural or built features. (7) There is provision of amenity space.

BE5 protects Conservation Areas. It requires (1) Respect for open spaces, the patterns of building, layout and trees. Development should not harm the character or appearance (2) The scale, design, proportions, detailing and materials are appropriate. (3) There is no loss of historic character (4) views are protected .

BE12 Seeks to protect the setting of listed buildings.

NE4 Aims to protect important species, and promote a range of habitats as envisaged by the Gloucestershire Biodiversity Plan.

NE5 protects and enhances wildlife corridors, and NE7 highlights the importance of aquatic ecology.

NE8 protects the AONB, and also its setting. In terms of development: “the nature, scale and siting are sympathetic to the landscape”. The design and materials should complement the character of the area. Important landscape features and trees should be retained. Major development will not be permitted unless…. in the national interest and that there is a lack on alternative sites”.

TR1 locates development in main settlements and accessible locations. There needs to be provision of non car transport, layouts which encourage walking/cycling and appropriate levels of car parking. TR2 promotes pedestrian and cycle accessibility. TR4 encourages cycle routes, Ebley Mill to is relevant here. TR12 requires appropriate car parking levels.

RL8 is highly relevant here: “Development on the historic route of, or adjacent to, the Stroudwater, Thames and Severn and and Sharpness Canals will be permitted provided that the development does not prevent the improvement, reconstruction, restoration or continued use of the related canal and its towpath for the purposes of through navigation and public access. Where appropriate planning obligations will be sought that contribute towards the improvement or restoration of the related canal and towpaths. Any development adjacent to a canal should relate to its setting.”

SH15 seeks to resist the loss of community facilities in particular shops, public houses, village halls. Reference is made to look at alternative provision and the need to prove lack of viability.

Other local policy considerations Industrial Heritage Conservation Area. Volume 1 Summary and Overview. Volume 2 Character Parts. SDC Restoration Position Statement and Development Checklist Cotswold Canal: Landscape Masterplan and Design Guide. Draft for consultation January 2011. IHCA Management Proposals SPD. November 2008 IHCA Design Guide November 2008 Regenerating Brimscombe Port and The Canal: The wishes of Thrupp Parish Council and local residents.

SDC Cotswold Canals Brimscombe Area Action Plan. October 2007. In 2007 the Council started the process of preparing an Action Plan for the Brimscombe area. This took in a much larger area than this application site. The Action Plan was the subject of an initial round of public consultation and a Sustainability Appraisal. However, at the advice of the Government Office for the South West the Action Plan was not proceeded with on the basis that the much larger site was so strategic and therefore should sit within a Core Strategy. The issues raised were: flood risk, land contamination, River Frome water quality and wildlife quality, biodiversity, foul drainage, waste management, water resources, energy supply, climate change issues, and green space.

A sustainability appraisal was produced as part of the AAP and considered five options which are as follows:

Option 1 ‘do nothing’ approach

Option 2 ‘heritage focused’ mixed use approach (100% of historic water extent)

Option 3 ‘employment influenced’ mixed use approach A 100% of historic water extent B 70% of historic water extent C 40% of historic water extent D 15% of historic water extent

Option 4 ‘housing led’ mixed use approach A 100% of historic water extent B 70% of historic water extent C 40% of historic water extent D 15% of historic water extent

Option 5 ‘retail and leisure influenced’ mixed use approach A 100% of historic water extent B 70% of historic water extent C 40% of historic water extent D 15% of historic water extent

The conclusions of the sustainability appraisal was that employment should form an important part of the redevelopment.

National planning policy and legislation Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990. This is a consideration in terms of the setting of listed buildings and the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Both aspects should be protected from harm.

PPS 1 includes policy which is aimed at providing sustainable development and development which is of a high quality in terms of its design. It aims to protect the countryside and important buildings and areas such as listed buildings and Conservation Areas. In this case reference to the IHCA should be made and the development should accord with the Management and Design Guide.

PPS 3 which specifically relates to housing again aims to provide development which is sustainable and includes the potential development of Brown Field or Previously Developed Land within the scope of new development. It should provide for a mix of development and provide affordable housing. New development should have good access to jobs and services.

PPS 4 relates to Sustainable Economic Growth and sets out objectives for economic growth. It also covers retail uses, in terms of their implications and preferred locations. It stresses the importance of employment and the role employment provides in a prosperous economy.

PPS 5 relates to the Historic Environment and includes reference to development that affects Listed Buildings and development within Conservation Areas.

PPS 9 relates to biodiversity and the need to preserve and enhance biodiversity as an integral part of social, economic and environmental development proposals.

PPS 13 relates to transport and the aim of providing sustainable development using a wide range of opportunities from walking to the use of public transport thus reducing the reliance on the private motor vehicle for journeys.

PPS 25 relates to Development and Flood risk and sets out policy in this respect. It requires Flood Risk Assessments to be carried out in appropriate circumstances including a sequential approach so that development is directed away from high risk areas and where development is exceptionally allowed it reduces the risk of flood risk on site and in surrounding areas.

The Draft Revised Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West incorporating the Secretary of State’s proposed changes (Draft RSS - 2008) was scheduled to be Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the South West (July 2008) adopted in June 2009. However, this has not yet taken place and the future of the RSS is uncertain at this stage. Whilst it remains a material consideration in the determination of any planning application, a number of ministerial statements have been made and the Courts have also issued decisions in respect of the standing of RSS’s. The weight attributed to it remains uncertain, though in recent appeals Inspectors appear to give it little weight.

Consultations The Environment Agency, Natural England, English Heritage, County Highways and the Parish Council have been consulted. The scheme is also of considerable interest to local people. A full up to date report will be given on late pages.

The principle of employment and mixed uses Policy EM3 identifies the site as a key employment area, whereby employment takes precedence and alternative uses will not be permitted. Because this proposal involves mixed uses it may not appear to wholly comply with this policy.

At the time of Local Plan adoption, November 2005, the importance of Brimscombe Port to the canal restoration was not foreseen. Whilst the broad line of the canal was known, the funding and impetus for the canal was not in place. Furthermore the use of the port as a temporary terminus for the first phase was not confirmed.

The canal will bring increased employment through tourism opportunities as well as encouraging investment by creating an improved and interesting environment. Therefore the mixed uses proposed here have wider economic benefits.

The proposal leaves the western area largely untouched, where established large scale employment remains intact. The proposal only involves the demolition of 6 sheds, which employ 35 people, and it is possible that they may be relocated in the scheme. Much of the floorspace has been vacant for a considerable time. They are in poor repair and prospects for any intensive reuse appear remote. The cost of demolition and clearance would be significant, and traditional B1, B2, B8 uses would have to compete with the commercial attractiveness of the M5 corridor. The A1/A2/A3/A4 uses proposed do offer more intensive employment compared with traditional roles 17sqm/job compared to 41sqm/job.

The food retail proposed is up to 929sqm, which can be conditioned. This size is to cater for the immediate neighbourhood needs. It is not the size of facility which attracts “weekly shopper”, rather it would serve day to day needs, like a grocery shop. Servicing, parking and siting would need very careful consideration at the reserved matters stage.

The non food units would be limited to 464sqm, again this can be conditioned. The size of these units should prevent the sale of bulky goods. Instead they are aimed at a niche market for antique shops, outdoor sports/leisure, arts and crafts. These types of retailers and customers would be attracted to the waterside environment. They would also be mutual support with the food/drink outlets. Consequently they are not felt to be in competition with Stroud town centre. They also help employment provision on the site, especially at the typically average generation rate of 19sqm/job.

Therefore the redevelopment of Brimscombe Port supports the canal and its resulting employment prospects. The redevelopment also offers new employment prospects rather than a vacant site with dilapidated marginal buildings.

Principle of residential development The canal and port area has been infilled. The reinstatement of water at the Port is a requirement of the HLF funding and therefore critical to the canal restoration. A considerable area will have to be dug out. HLF funds are insufficient and therefore some enabling development will be required, otherwise the heritage and economic benefits of the canal will not result. The element of residential development in the proposal offers the best prospects to fund these enabling works.

The site is inside the settlement boundary and the principle of residential development is permissible if Policy EM3 is satisfied. The settlement boundary location confirms the site’s sustainability which is also evident from its location within the “Stroud Urban Area” as shown in the Local Plan.

The site’s location within the settlement boundary also confirms that the development would not encroach into the countryside. Thus the basic tenants for residential development are satisfied. The site is also “brownfield”. PPS3 (Housing) paragraph 36 states: “ The priority for development should be previously developed land in particular vacant and derelict sites and buildings”.

This level of housing is also very welcome in terms of residential land availability. PPS3 paragraphs 54 and 57 require that a minimum of 5 years of land is provided. The Council is currently assessing the up to date position but 234 dwellings would be a significant addition. This is an important consideration since developers may question land supply to justify developments outside settlement boundaries. There is also a “deliverability test” with all residential development sites. The methodology for counting a 5 year land supply, in particular the need, may be questioned too. Against this background, 234 dwellings here would be helpful, especially as they would be “deliverable” as Brimscombe Port redevelopment is a requirement of the HLF.

This application is in advance of the Core Strategy. However it is not considered prejudicial. Firstly development would only meet some housing needs and a significant proportion would remain to be allocated elsewhere. Secondly it meets the sustainability considerations inherent in any Core Strategy. In addition as a brownfield site, there should not potentially be any landscape harm. It also accords with PPS3.

The principle of an outline application There is no legal presumption against outline applications in Conservation Areas. The scale, appearance, landscaping and appearance are all aspects left for the reserved matters. If any of these aspects is found to be inappropriate then the reserved matters should be refused. Consequently an outline application and the acceptance of the principle of development should not prejudice consideration of the design and appearance. A full application here would entail elevational drawings of every single building proposed. Across a 4.2ha site that could be onerous.

This application seeks to establish the principle of new land uses so that a developer can be encouraged to come forward. Some of the uses proposed do not comply with the 2005 Local Plan employment allocation, and potential developers may be discouraged by this policy.

However this application also requests consideration of more than just the principle of land uses. It seeks up to 234 dwellings as well as employment floorspace and parking. It also seeks up to 3, 4, and 5 storeys across different parts of the site. Consideration does need to be given to the possible implications for the scale of this development.

PPS5 paragraph 68 states: All applicants to provide a level of information that is proportionate to the significance of the asset and the potential impact upon that significance of the proposal”. PPS5, paragraph HE7.5, highlights the importance of scale, height, massing, alignment and materials as considerations. The Council’s own guidance on the canal recommends that outline applications are accompanied by reasonable level of detail to assess implications. PPS5 paragraph 80 isolates some key factors including views in/out, the topography, the diversity or uniformity in style as well as the distinctiveness of buildings/spaces.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, requires “special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance”, in Conservation Areas. PPS1 paragraph 13(iv) key principles: “Design which fails to take account of the opportunities for improving the character and quality of an area should not be accepted”. Para 38 emphasises “local distinctiveness”.

Cross sections have been submitted which illustrate the relative heights to the surroundings, the existing buildings on the site as well as those previously here. They provide some help with the perceptions of height although cannot provide the same level of information as a three dimensional drawings.

The master plan shows the maximum extent of the building by the use of colour coding on the base plan. However it does not show the footprint of each building. Rather it shows the overall pattern of development across the site, as a maximum limit of development. It usefully shows the extent and pattern of water.

The precise footprint of buildings will have implications for views in/out as well as the roofscape, since changes in the building line will break up the massing. It is also important to consider how and whether the amount of development will affect the views into and out of the Conservation Area. Officers have requested a massing study to show how the result could look. This study would therefore test whether a scheme could satisfactorily provide the suggested level of development as well as the suggested storey heights. This study will not show any detailing such as fenestration but focus on the building’s form, shape and articulation. The study would allow for the establishment of a set of design parameters which would show how massing would need to be designed in the reserved matters. A set of massing/footprint parameters could be conditioned akin to a design code approach.

Conservation Area implications Building heights and building massing are important considerations. The site will be visible from Minchinhampton Common, , Chalford as well as closer viewpoints on Brimscombe Hill and London Road. It is also visible at all levels; ground level, the same height levels as the buildings proposed as well as from above. Thus the site has a 3 dimensional quality to it. Roofscape and massing are therefore very important.

The Master Plan and Design/Access statement show buildings up to a maximum of 5 storey in the centre, up to 4 storey facing London Road and 3 storey elsewhere. This would place the highest buildings on the lowest part of the site, and furthest away from the main viewpoints along London Road and Brimscombe Hill. This approach also means that the taller buildings are away from the historic buildings on the site. The tallest buildings would tend to be seen against open water which allows the chance for the observer to “absorb” the view as the foreground is low level. Similarly London Road is considerably higher than the site and this would reduce the perception of heights. Viewpoints from the south tend to be higher, and the heights would be regarded as dominating when viewed from above.

The cross sections show some of the existing buildings are tall and the former Polytechnic building was also large.

The above suggests that the proposed storey heights may be justifiable. However the massing and resulting roofscape needs consideration.

Regular rows of blocks of 5 storey with a uniform regimented pattern of windows would look inherently wrong. Traditionally the mills/industrial areas in the Stroud Valleys have evolved by a less uniform juxtaposition of varying heights, ridgelines, gable positions and gable widths. The roofscape appears stepping up, down and across. There is an absence of uniformity to the heights, articulation, widths and footprints which all create organic, informal, haphazard arrangements. Fenestration and materials would vary too.

This traditional massing creates a broken form which is interesting to the eye. It also allows the buildings to step down to human level. It creates interesting varied spaces where there is variation in enclosure/openness and opportunities to provide views, glimpses or deflected views. It makes interesting spaces. Shaddows/light create interest from above. It is also historically correct and therefore should look appropriate. The scheme should look as through Brimscombe Port was still in existence but have evolved in the years subsequently.

This approach has been advocated to the consultant architects preparing the massing study. The study and its findings to form the design parameters are both outstanding at the time of writing this report. No officer recommendation can be made until this issue has been clarified.

The scheme also has implications for the historic value of the canal and its associated Conservation Area. The canal line is being restored broadly along its original route, which is hugely beneficial to the Conservation Area. The Port historically had an island, and this is being re-established which again is historically a considerable gain. In doing so it also opens up a view corridor, along a spine of water, for views from Bourne Mill westwards and vice versa. This should enhance the sense of arrival at Brimscombe.

62% of the original area is being restored to water. Whilst it would be desirable to get closer to the full historic extent of water, this would not economically feasible. More water means more digging and conversely less development land to pay for it. The shape of water would maximise its setting for the portside and buildings and goes a significant way towards to its origins: it is a substantial improvement over the existing situation.

The listed buildings on the site would have an enhanced setting as the waterside context would be preferable in appearance and historically to the current situation of dilapidated modern buildings, access roads and car parking. The new building will not compete in height terms to the existing and therefore the listed buildings should predominate.

The six buildings proposed for demolition detract from views inside the port and views from London Road and Brimscombe Hill and similarly offer no value to the historic form. Their removal would be a positive gain to the Conservation Area.

Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty The site and the valley are outside the AONB, but both hillsides above the site are taken in. To the north the boundary begins just to the rear of the domestic curtilages and to the south the railway line forms the boundary. There is considerable visibility of the site from the AONB and vice versa. NE8 and PPS7 place emphasis on the protection of the AONB and its setting. Views out of the AONB would be greatly influenced by the roofscape, materials and juxtapositions, use of spaces. This again points to the need for a massing study to devise a set of parameters. Views to the AONB from the site will need the plotting of viewpoints and use of spaces. This needs to be realised in refinements to the master plan.

Archaeology Some ground investigations took place in 2005, and revealed the original port walls. In 2007 Halcrow undertook a desk study and walkover survey on behalf of British Waterways.

There is evidence of remains of Mill buildings dating back to the medieval period. There was considerable activity here in 1785 with the opening of the canal. The study shows high potential for artefacts and structural remains. The development could impact in the dredging and infill removal, the removal of contaminated ground, the access and building works.

The study concludes that further pre-development investigation is warranted to confirm the location of the island, the narrow boat dock area, the extent and foundations of the company HQ, the weighing machine, the basin walls and to locate the former swing bridges.

It is evident that this is a very important site for industrial archaeology. The County Archaeologist has requested a pre-determination investigation.

Highways A new access is proposed on London Road. This is positioned at a point with reasonable visibility from both directions in relation to the speed limit. At this point there is some difference in land levels between London Road and the site but not enough to require substantial earthworks. A transport assessment has been submitted to cover these details, and in particular the traffic generation anticipated from the level and type of development.

The access road would subdivide into the site and this provides the opportunity for corners/junctions to slow speeds: potential for traffic calming by design.

The proposal also entails works to Brimscombe Hill to reinstate the canal. Two options are proposed due to uncertain negotiations with land availability. There would entail extensive works including bridges, but this is unavoidable due to the need to provide canal height clearances and modern road standards. Pre-application discussions with County Highways have taken place and their detailed comments are awaited.

The site has the opportunity to encourage walking and cycling because it fronts both London Road and the canal towpath. The permeability must be encouraged in the layout and also provision of cycling parking through condition.

The application details suggest a parking space for each dwelling and other uses according to GCC standards. This is limited and measures would be needed to ensure that sustainable travel is encouraged. This may be in the form of real time bus information to residents, car club provision. Parking design will need to be considered at the detailed design stage but may involve undercroft parking to temper its prominence.

Flood risk The site is within zone 3 flood risk, whereby the principle of residential development is not normally supported. However the site is currently hard surfaced. The proposal involves substantial removal of hard surfacing and the creation of open water. This will have 2 benefits. Firstly it allows for better disposal of surface water run-off. Secondly because the canal water levels can go up and down, it offers the capacity to absorb water run off at times of heavy rain. Therefore in principle the development should improve prospects against flooding. A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted to examine the detailed arrangements and comments are awaited from the Environment Agency.

Residential amenity A contaminated land survey has been undertaken. The site has a long history of noxious industrial processes. Soil sampling has revealed some contamination of metals, hydrocarbons and ground gases. A remediation is proposed and is currently being analysed.

The nearest residential neighbours are on London Road. These are over 25m away, and development would therefore meet the Council’s residential design standards. Those to the west, at the foot of Brimscombe Hill, would overlook the area zoned for little change. To the south there are also neighbouring dwellings but these again surpass the 25m standard.

Privacy for new residents will largely be a matter for the detailed design at the reserved matters stage.

The adjacent housing on London Road is tall with windows overlooking the site. The submitted cross sections show that the levels at Brimscombe Port are considerably lower than the adjacent housing. The housing to the south is similarly elevated. Consequently the overbearing/overshadowing implications are not felt to be significant.

An open space is shown on the master plan adjacent to the canal side. This would allow for a play area for residents and visitors. A canal orientated feature would be sought rather than standard equipment.

London Road is very busy and the housing on this frontage would be affected. However appropriate fenestration and/or internal layout should remedy the situation. Similarly air quality was assessed in the Environmental Statement and should not be troublesome.

Noise and disturbance may occur during construction piling, but working hours should be limited to sociable hours.

Conditions can be imposed covering working hours, dust, wheel washing to minimise disturbance, in the form of a Construction Environment Management Plan. These details would be submitted and approved governing day to day working practices.

Ecology There are no known statutory or non statutory significantly habitats on the site. A desk top study with an extended phase 1 habitat survey was carried out in September 2010. The study showed habitats of no more than local ecological value. The report does however recommend further surveys to check for bats, badgers, otters, water voles and great crested newts. The vacant buildings proposed for demolition could house bats and the adjacent river may support otters, newts and voles. It is therefore recommended that these aspects are researched further.

Community building and other planning obligations The Parish Council are offering their existing facility, the sports and social club for the canal in return for a new facility at Brimscombe Port. They would like to be in the hub of the new community and close to the Salt Warehouse, 600sqm is requested. This would include a café and some potential area for employment. This would need to be agreed in a Section 106 Agreement.

30% affordable housing has been mentioned elsewhere in the report. Payment to provide off site recreation facilities is normally required for new residential development. However the canal and port water are being provided here, which is a type of recreational benefit. This mirrors the approach on part of Ebley Wharf. In any event, the costs of the providing the canal and water as well as contaminated land and the new access would question the viability for any other payments.

Sustainability The site is located within a settlement boundary and the defined Stroud Urban Area. Accordingly it is a sustainable location for mixed use redevelopment. Promotion for walking/cycling needs to be achieved in the detailed design, and bus use fostered by conditions. Energy efficiency in buildings warrants further investigation, especially in terms of passive solar, photo voltaic panels, water/ground source heat pumps and insulation. A condition can require submission of waste management minimisation programme, which would involve the reuse of non contaminated building materials.

Conclusion and Recommendation Officers recommend that the Committee resolve to support the principle of the range of land uses proposed. However there are implications of the suggested heights and also the potential amount of development sought. These issues need to be addressed by a massing study, a set of design parameters to be conditioned, and a more refined layout. These should be the subject of further consultation and considered by the Committee at a subsequent meeting. There are also some matters of detail such as archaeology and ecology which warrant further investigation.

This approach will allow Officers to discuss the scheme with potential developers, which may have otherwise been discouraged by substantial infrastructure costs and by a rigid Local Plan policy, which is against anything other than employment uses. The developers can also be encouraged to engage with the community.

HUMAN RIGHTS In compiling this recommendation we have given full consideration to all aspects of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to the applicant and/or the occupiers of any neighbouring or affected properties. In particular regard has been had to Article 8 of the ECHR (Right to Respect for private and family life) and the requirement to ensure that any interference with the right in this Article is both permissible and proportionate. On analysing the issues raised by the application no particular matters, other than those referred to in this report, warranted any different action to that recommended.