Development Control Committee

22 December 2015

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

A meeting of the Development Control Committee will be held on TUESDAY, 12 JANUARY 2016 in the Council Chamber, Ebley Mill, Ebley Wharf, Stroud at 10:00 .

David Hagg Chief Executive

Please Note: i This meeting will be filmed for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council’s internet site ( www.stroud.gov.uk ). By entering the Council Chamber you are consenting to being filmed. The whole of the meeting will be filmed except where there are confidential or exempt items, which may need to be considered in t he absence of the press and public . ii The procedure for public speaking which applies to Development Control Committees is set out on the page immediately preceding the Planning Schedule.

A G E N D A

1 APOLOGIES To receive apologies of absence.

2 DECLARATIONS OF INTE REST To receive declarations of interest.

3 MINUTES - 8 DECEMBER 2015 To approve and sign as a correct record the Minutes of the Development Control meeting held on 8 December 2015.

4. DEVELOPMENT CONTROL - PLANNING SCHEDULE (NOTE: For access to information purposes, the background papers for the applications listed in the above schedule are the application itself and subsequent papers as listed in the relevant file.)

4.1 SOUTH VIEW, STONEHOU SE, GLOUCESTERSHIRE - S.15/1226/OUT Erection of 3 no. dwellings with workspace and 3 no. affordable dwellings.

Page 1 of 206

4.2 THE LAMMASTIDE INN, NEW BROOKEND, BERKEL EY, GLOUCESTERSHIRE. - S.15/1832/FUL Construction of annexe to provide 6 no. holiday lets for use with The Lammastide Inn.

4.3 BENCOMBE BARNS, LAMP ERN HILL, ULEY, GLOUCEST ERSHIRE - S.15/1587/FUL Conversion of 3 Barns to a live/work unit.

4.4 79 REGENT STREET, ST ONEHOUSE, GLOUCESTER SHIRE - S.15/2313/FUL Erection of a new dwelling.

4.5 DOVE COTTAGE, 5 CRAW LEY HILL, ULEY, GLOU CESTERSHIRE - S.15/1250/FUL Proposed new dwelling.

4.6 MISTLE HOUSE, FRAMIL ODE, GLOUCESTER - S.15/2418/HHOLD Erection of garden room and utility to rear of dwelling.

4.7 LAND WEST OF STONEHO USE, NASTEND LANE, N ASTEND, GLOUCESTERSHIRE - S.14/0810/OUT A mixed used development comprising up to 1,350 dwellings and 9.3 hectares of employment land; a mixed use local centre, primary school, open space and landscaping, parking and supporting infrastructure and utilities; and the creation of new vehicular accesses from Grove Lane, Oldends Lane and Brunel Way.

4.8 WIMBERLEY MILL, KNAP P LANE, BRIMSCOMBE, GLOUCESTERSHIRE - S.13/2668/OUT Demolition and clearance of the existing buildings and hardstanding, residential development of up to 104 dwellings, vehicular and pedestrian access, internal access roads, car parking, surface water drainage and related works.

Members of Development Control Committee

Councillor Stephen Moore (Chair) Councillor Paul Hemming Councillor John Marjoram (Vice-Chair) Councillor Haydn Jones Councillor Liz Ashton Councillor Dave Mossman Councillor Dorcas Binns Councillor Steve Robinson Councillor Rowland Blackwell Councillor Emma Sims Councillor Nigel Cooper Councillor Tom Williams

Page 2 of 206

Development Control Committee Agenda Published: 22 December 2015

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

8 December 2015

6.00 pm – 9.50 pm 3 Council Chamber, Ebley Mill, Stroud

Minutes

Membership: Councillor Stephen Moore** P Councillor Paul Hemming P Councillor John Marjoram * P Councillor Haydn Jones P Councillor Liz Ashton P Councillor David Mossman P Councillor Dorcas Binns P Councillor Steve Robinson P Councillor Rowland Blackwell P Councillor Emma Sims P Councillor Nigel Cooper P Councillor Tom Williams P

** = Chair * = Vice Chair P = Present A = Absent

Officers in Attendance Planning Manager Solicitor Team Manager Democratic Services Officer Senior Planning Officer Policy Implementation Manager

DC.055 APOLOGIES

There were no apologies.

DC.056 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

There were none.

DC.057 MINUTES

RESOLVED That the Minutes of the Development Control Committee meeting held on 10 November 2015 are accepted as a correct record.

DC.058 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL PLANNING SCHEDULE

Representations were received and taken into account by the Committee in respect of the following applications.

1. S.15/0677/FUL 2. S.14/2849/FUL 3. S.15/1775/VAR 4. S.15/1297/FUL 5. S.15/2009/OUT

Page 3 of 206

Development Control Committee 8 December 2015 Subject to approval at next meeting DC.059 LAND AT THE STARTING GATE, ELMGROVE ROAD EAST, HARDWICKE, GLOUCESTER – S.15/0677/FUL

The Team Manager explained that the original application had been presented to the Committee in July. Concern had been expressed about the adequacy of parking for the housing, shop and take-away. The original application had been for four houses. The revised application for 3 houses provided dedicated parking for the shops and houses and provided a turning area. The accessible parking spaces had been moved to the front of the shop. The Team Manager added that additional conditions for; litter management and a lockable barrier to the car park, had been attached to the application.

The Ward Councillor, David Mossman confirmed that the provision of a lockable barrier had been agreed with the developer and the manager of the shop.

In replying to Member’s questions the Team Manager confirmed that;

1. The dwellings would be in brick rather than part rendered and this would be in keeping with the surroundings. 2. The revised application provided for a dedicated turning area for delivery vehicles. 3. The street scene may need some work but an open link fence had been agreed

The Team Manager recommended that additional conditions should be imposed in respect of the approval of materials, the provision of a barrier to the parking area, the disabled parking provision, the boundary treatment of the site with the highway and an amendment to condition 3 (v) to ensure vehicles left the site with clean wheels.

Councillor David Mossman proposed a motion to ACCEPT the officer’s recommendation for approval this was seconded by Councillor Steve Robinson. Councillor Mossman thanked the officers for their work in achieving the revised design and noted the positive approach from the developer who had responded to residents comments.

The motion was put to the vote and carried unanimously.

RESOLVED to GRANT PERMISSION for application S.15/0677/FUL in accordance with officer’s recommendations and the additional conditions referred to in the minutes.

DC.060 THE STARTING GATE, ELMGROVE ROAD EAST, HARDWICKE, GLOUCESTER – S.14/2849/FUL

The Team Manager advised Members that this was a revised application and the original application had been presented in July 2015. The application related to the same site as S.15/0677/FUL above and had been deferred pending further negotiations in respect of parking. The parking concerns had now been resolved.

Councillor David Mossman proposed a motion to ACCEPT the officer’s recommendation this was seconded by Councillor Emma Simms.

Page 4 of 206

Development Control Committee 8 December 2015 Subject to approval at next meeting The motion was put to the vote and carried unanimously.

RESOLVED to GRANT PERMISSION for application S.14.2849/FUL as set out in these minutes, with an added condition on litter management.

DC.061 LAND AT BRYNLOE, RANDALLS GREEN, CHALFORD HILL, STROUD - S.15/1775/VAR

The Team Manager confirmed that the application had been deferred from the November meeting of the Committee to allow for negotiators on the height of the building and land levels in respect of plot 3.

The revised application was showing that the height of the building would be 1020mm higher than the previously approved drawing. The Team Manager explained that discrepancies such as this can occur, in the translation of planning drawings into very detailed construction drawings. It was noted that alterations to drop the parapet end to the gable would result in an additional height of 570mm above the approved drawing. Neighbours had expressed their concerns and objections to the application and felt that the alterations did not go far enough.

The ward member, Councillor Elizabeth Peters spoke in opposition to the application. She stated that she had met with the Council’s Enforcement Officer, it had been noted that the footings had been raised three feet above the level of the approved plan. She also commented on the raised ground levels and the fence which had been erected to disguise the building. She suggested that the architects were at fault by giving the builder the wrong information and that they should be held to account. She asked the Committee to refuse the application.

Mr Peter Ramsey spoke on behalf of Chalford Parish Council and referred to a meeting residents had held with the architect where an assurance was given that that the property would be built into the hillside. This had not happened and the residents felt very let down. The revised application did not respond adequately to residents’ concerns. He added that the developer had been advised of the incorrect levels at an early stage but had ignored the advice and was relying on retrospective action.

Mr Richard Searle a local resident spoke on behalf of Mr Tudge. He noted that the foundations had been built off a slab which had contributed to the higher roof level. The proposed mitigations had made no positive impact.

Tom Howard spoke on behalf of his clients and stated that he was aware of the distress caused to residents. He confirmed that plot 2 of the development had been built to the correct height. There had been no deliberate attempt to increase the height of the property at plot 3. Meetings had been held with officers to consider variations to the pitch of the roof. He confirmed that an independent daylight assessment impact had been undertaken.

In replying to questions the following points were dealt with; 1. Development in breach of a planning condition was not a criminal offence. 2. There had been a genuine mistake in moving from the approved plan to a more detailed technical drawing. 3. The architects had agreed to a lowering of the roof, which would be a two stage ridge giving a height of 570mm above the approved plan.

Page 5 of 206

Development Control Committee 8 December 2015 Subject to approval at next meeting 4. If the application were to be refused, an enforcement report would have to be prepared for presentation at a future meeting of the Committee. There would be a right of appeal against any decision of the committee to undertake enforcement action. 5. The options open to the Committee were; permit, refuse or defer. 6. Officers had tried to encourage as big a reduction in height as possible but the builder would need to achieve a building that also worked for their client. 7. A half hip roof had been considered but was felt not to be in keeping with the area but would be possible and would reduce the height.

Councillor John Marjoram proposed that Approval be given; this was seconded by Councillor Liz Ashton. On being put to the vote the motion was lost 4 for the motion and 8 against.

Councillor Emma Simms proposed a motion that the application be DEFERRED and officers to negotiate an amended design. This was seconded by Councillor Tom Williams. The motion was put to the vote; and was carried by 8 votes for, 2 against and 2 abstentions.

RESOLVED To DEFER the application and for officers to negotiate an amended design to bring the height of the building in line with the previously approved plan.

DC.062 LAND EAST OF, A46 CHELTENHAM ROAD AND SOUTH OF THE PARK, PAINSWICK, GLOUCESTERSHIRE - S.15/1297/FUL

The Senior Planning Officer introduced the application which was for the erection of eight 3-5 bedroom market houses and nine 1-3 bedroom affordable dwellings on an exception site. The proposal was at the north-eastern edge of Painswick, adjoining an offshoot, known as The Park. The proposal included a footpath along Sheepscombe Lane and a passing place on the A46. The late papers from the Highway Authority stated no objections subject to certain conditions.

Mr Rob Lewis, Chair of Planning Committee at Painswick Town Council spoke in opposition to the application. He said the Town Council was not opposed in principle to an exception site if it met local need. The Council did consider there was sufficient justification for the number of market homes to cross subsidise the affordable homes. He noted that the development would be within the AONB.

Mr Ron Harrison, a planning consultant, acting for the residents of The Park, Painswick spoke in opposition to the application. He said that the thrust of the opposition centres on three issues;

 An absence of proven need for the form of development being proposed  Its impact on the AONB  The likely impact on the local highway network

Residents considered that the Local Housing Needs Survey, undertaken in 2010 was out of date and was a snapshot in time. The proposal was outside the settlement area for Painswick and failed to comply with the recently adopted Local Plan. Mr Harrison said that the level of cross subsidy did not meet the criteria set out in paragraph 54 of the NPPF.The scale of development would have an adverse impact on the landscape within the AONB. It was a prominentPage site 6 of within 206 Painswick and would be visible from many vantage points. There was concern that the local highway network was sub Development Control Committee 8 December 2015 Subject to approval at next meeting standard and would not accommodate the increased traffic. The Park was a small development of 25 dwellings and the addition of a further 17 homes would exacerbate existing traffic problems.

In support of the application the Policy Implementation Manager highlighted that the affordable housing would be available to people with a local connection, the scale and density of the development would be controlled and the market housing would cross subsidise the affordable homes. The Viability Assessment had been considered by the District Valuer. The Housing Needs Assessment had shown that 31 households had identified a need for affordable homes.

In response to members questions the following points were clarified;

1. The affordable homes would be on the lower part of the site 2. Officers had sought to minimise the landscape impact by locating as many homes as possible on the lower part of the site 3. The affordable homes would provide for a total of 19 bedrooms and the market homes - 33 4. The need for affordable housing was driven by the housing needs survey and reflected the need of rural parishes 5. There had been no major development in Painswick since the housing survey 6. The time between the survey and the proposal was indicative of the timescale needed to come up with a suitable scheme 7. The mix between market and affordable homes was driven by the economics of the site and supported by the District Valuer 8. The proposal was outside the settlement boundary but could be viewed as an extension 9. No other suitable site in Painswick had been identified 10. There would be 2 shared ownership properties and 7 for rent 11. A SUDS scheme would be implemented.

Speaking in opposition to the officer’s recommendations, the Ward Member Councillor Nigel Cooper said he disagreed with the conclusions. He proposed a motion to OPPOSE the recommendations, which was seconded by Councillor Paul Hemming.

Councillor Cooper said that there had been an incorrect interpretation of policies citing; ES7, ES3, CP15, HC4, NPPF14,54,109,112,115 and 116.

He added that the area was a greenfield site and was well outside the settlement boundary. In respect of sustainability the site was almost a mile from local shops and the primary school. The A46 was a dangerous road and in places there was no footpath. The development would be seen for many miles and have an impact on the AONB. He considered that the development could not be justified based on a five year old survey and that the housing numbers equated to 53% affordable homes; however the number of bedrooms equated to 30%. He urged members to oppose that application.

During the debate it was commented that building in the AONB should be avoided unless critical. It was noted that there was need for affordable housing and that exception sites were very difficult to find.

Page 7 of 206

Development Control Committee 8 December 2015 Subject to approval at next meeting On being put the vote the Motion was carried 7 votes for, 4 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED To REFUSE PERMISSION for application S.15/1297/FUL as set out in the Motion.

DC.063 LAND OFF, LOWER SPILLMANS, STROUD, GLOUCESTERSHIRE – S.15/2009/OUT

The Chair, Councillor Stephen Moore, stepped down for the item as he wished to speak to the application. Councillor John Marjoram, Vice Chair, chaired the remainder of the meeting.

The Team Manager advised Members that the application was a resubmission of an application that had been previously refused. The new application was similar to the previous one but provided more information regarding; highway issues, trees and ecology. In terms of parking there would be a neutral impact on the area. Some engineering work would be needed to the site. He suggested two additional conditions: (i) a SUDs drainage and (ii) a detailed levels plan to be agreed. Condition 8 should also be amended to ensure vehicles left the site with clean wheels.

Councillor Stephen Moore informed Members that the previous application was subject to appeal. He reported that residents were concerned that there would be an impact on traffic, the roads were very narrow and dangerous. There would be a loss of open space which would have an impact on wildlife. There would be an impact on parking as there is very little parking available on Rodborough Hill.

In response to Members questions the following points were clarified;

1. The electricity pole would need to be re-sited 2. There would be 8 parking spaces in total, 4 would be for public use 3. Each new property would have 2 parking spaces 4. There would be two way traffic along the road 5. A national consultancy had been used to undertake the ecology report and conditions had been recommended 6. No objections had been raised by the highway authority 7. Badger Sets are at the north end of the site 8. The Council’s Tree Officer had raised no objections to the proposals

Councillor Rowland Blackwell proposed a Motion to support the officer’s recommendations subject to the two additional conditions suggested and the amendment to Condition 8.

The motion was seconded by Councillor Haydn Jones. On being put to the vote the Motion was carried; 8 votes for, 3 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED to GRANT PERMISSION for application S.15/2009/OUT as set out in these minutes and in accordance with officers recommendations.

Meeting ended at 9.50 pm.

Page 8 of 206 Chair Development Control Committee 8 December 2015 Subject to approval at next meeting AMENDMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 8 December 2015

ITEM No: 1 Application: S.15/0677/FUL Address: Land at the Starting Gate, Elmgrove Road East, Hardwicke, Gloucester

Additional conditions No development shall take place until samples of the red brick walling and roofing to be used in the construction of the dwellings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall then only be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To respect the character of the area.

Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted, details of a barrier to the southern parking area shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Works must then be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To reduce traffic conflict.

Prior to the occupation of the first house the boundary to the southern car park and Elmgrove Road East shall be demarcated in accordance with details agreed by the Local Planning Authority. The boundary treatment shall allow views through. Reason: To ensure that the car parking is segregated from the road, but there are through views in the interest of security.

Condition 3 amended to include the requirement to use wheel washing facilities.

ITEM No: 2 Application: S.14/1191/FUL Address: The Starting Gate, Elmgrove Road East, Hardwicke, Gloucester

Additional condition (as from late pages) Prior to first beneficial use of the premises hereby permitted, the applicant shall submit to the Local Planning Authority details of the daily litter management regime on and around the site, indicating who is responsible, the time of the day when undertaken and how the waste would be disposed, which shall be approved in writing. The approved details shall be implemented in all respects in strict accordance with the agreed details and maintained as such thereafter to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenities of the adjoining and nearby residential properties and to accord adopted Local Plan Policy ES3.

ITEM No: 3 Application: S.15/1775/VAR Address: Land at Brynloe, Randalls Green, Chalford Hill, Stroud.

Resolved: Officers asked to negotiate a lowering of the height of the roof to the approved height. Delegated consent to officers if the approved height is maintained. Page 9 of 206

Development Control Committee 8 December 2015 Subject to approval at next meeting

ITEM No: 4 Application: S.15/1297/FUL Address: Land east of A46 Cheltenham Road and south of the park, Painswick, Gloucestershire

Overturn officer recommendation and refuse:

The site is very prominent from several public vantage points. It is within the Cotswolds AONB wherein priority is placed on the conservation of the landscape. The houses would be visible and would spoil wide ranging views across and down the extensive Painswick Valley.

The view would no longer be focussed on open fields with a backdrop of hills rather housing would predominate and detract from the open countryside aspect. The provision of the 9 affordable houses would not outweigh the landscape impact. The proposal is therefore contrary to adopted Stroud District Local Plan Policies ES7, HC4, CP14 and the NPPF 115.

The site is distanced from the centre of Painswick and the settlement boundary, across unfavourable topography. It is also segregated by the busy A46, without a designated crossing point. The site would be both difficult and hazardous for future residents to walk to basic facilities and would be likely to be car dependant. It is not sustainable and therefore contrary to Stroud Adopted Local Plan polices CP1, CP9, SO1, HC4, ES3, CP15 and NPPF paragraphs 49 and 55.

ITEM No: 5 Application: S.15/2009/OUT Address: Land off, Lower Spillmans, Stroud, Gloucestershire

Additional conditions:

The reserved matters details in condition 1 shall include the existing and proposed levels of all the parking spaces and the new 2 houses. Detailed cross sections across the site shall be supplied.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and ensure the practicality of the parking spaces. Prior to the commencement of development, details of surface water disposal shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. These details shall include SUDS techniques to ensure that water run off rates are at least equivalent to the existing surface water run off +30% for climate change. The surface water arrangements shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of the first house, and maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that surface water is properly accommodated.

Amend condition 8 to include the requirement on the use of wheel washing.

Page 10 of 206

Development Control Committee 8 December 2015 Subject to approval at next meeting

Stroud District Council

Planning Schedule

12th January 2016

In cases where a Site Inspection has taken place, this is because Members felt they would be better informed to make a decision on the application at the next Committee. Accordingly the view expressed by the Site Panel is a factor to be taken into consideration on the application and a final decision is only made after Members have fully debated the issues arising.

Page 11 of 206

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

Procedure for Public Speaking

The Council have agreed to introduce public speaking at meetings of the Development Control Committee.

Public speaking is only permitted on those items contained within the schedule of applications. It is not permitted on any other items on the Agenda. The purpose of public speaking is to emphasise comments and evidence already submitted through the planning system. Speakers should refrain from bringing photographs or other documents as it is not an opportunity to introduce new evidence.

The Chair will ask for those wishing to speak to identify themselves by name at the beginning of proceedings. There are four available slots for each schedule item:-

Ward Councillor(s) Town or Parish representative Spokesperson against the scheme and Spokesperson for the scheme.

Each slot (with the exception of Ward Councillors who are covered by the Council’s Constitution) will not exceed 3 minutes in duration. If there is more than one person who wishes to speak in the same slot, they will need either to appoint a spokesperson to speak for all, or share the slot equally. Speakers should restrict their statement to issues already in the public arena. Please note that statements will be recorded and broadcast over the internet as part of the Councils webcasting of its meetings; they may also be used for subsequent proceedings such as an appeal. Names may be recorded in the Committee Minutes.

The order for each item on the schedule is

1. Introduction of item by the Chair 2. Brief update by the planning officer. 3. Public Speaking a. Ward Member(s) b. Parish Council c. Those who oppose d. Those who support 4. Member questions of officers 5. Motion 6. Debate 7. Vote

A copy of the Scheme for Public Speaking at Development Control Committee meetings is available at the meeting.

Page 12 of 206

Item Parish Application Page Start Time No. No. 01 Eastington South View, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire 14 10.00 a.m. Parish Council S.15/1226/OUT – Erection of 3 No. Dwellings with workspace and 3 No. affordable dwellings Link to website http://www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/planning/planning_application_detail.asp?AppRef=S.14/0810/ OUT

02 Hinton Parish The Lammastide Inn, New Brookend, Berkeley 28 Not Before Council S.15/1832/FUL – Construction of Annexe to provide 6 No. Holiday Lets for use 10.30 a.m. with the Lammastide Inn Link to website http://www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/planning/planning_application_detail.asp?AppRef=S.15/1832/F UL

03 Uley Parish Bencombe Barns, Lampern Hill, Uley 35 Not Before Council S.15/1587/FUL – Conversion of 3 Barns to a Live/work Unit 11.00 a.m. Link to website http://www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/planning/planning_application_detail.asp?AppRef=S.15/1587/F UL

04 Stonehouse 79 Regent Street, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire 44 2.00 p.m. Town Council S.15/2313/FUL – Erection of a new dwelling Link to website http://www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/planning/planning_application_detail.asp?AppRef=S.15/2313/ FUL

05 Uley Parish Dove Cottage, 5 Crawley Hill, Uley 51 Not before Council S.15/1250/FUL – Proposed new dwelling 2.30 p.m. http://www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/planning/planning_application_detail.asp?AppRef=S.15/1250/F UL

06 Fretherne With Mistle House, Framilode, Gloucester 61 Not before Saul Parish S.15/2418/HHOLD – Erection of garden room and utility to rear of dwelling 3.00 p.m. Council Link to website http://www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/planning/planning_application_detail.asp?AppRef=S.15/2418/ HHOLD

07 Eastington Land West of Stonehouse, Nastend Lane, Nastend 66 Parish Council S.14/0810/OUT – A mixed use development comprising up to 1,350 dwellings and 5.30 p.m. 9.3 hectares of employment land for use classes B1, B2 and B8; a mixed use local centre comprising use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1, D2 and B1; primary school, open space and landscaping, parking and supporting infrastructure and utilities; and the creation of new vehicular accesses from Grove Lane, Oldends Lane and Brunel Way. Link to website http://www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/planning/planning_application_detail.asp?AppRef=S.14/0810/ OUT

08 Minchinhampton Wimberley Mill, Knapp Lane, Brimscombe 181 Parish Council S.13/2668/OUT – Demolition and clearance of the existing buildings and Not before hardstanding, residential development of up to 104 dwellings, vehicular and 7.00 p.m. pedestrian access, internal access roads, car parking, surface water drainage and related works, various engineering operations including changes to site levels, de- culverting the River Frome and works to create new flow and flood channels, associated landscaping including a play area. (Revised Plan 21st November 2014, revised description of development and plans 13.5.2015). Link to website http://www.stroud.gov.uk/docs/planning/planning_application_detail.asp?AppRef=S.13/2668/ OUT

Page 13 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Item No: 01 Application No. S.15/1227/OUT Site No. PP-04214665 Site Address South View, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, GL10 3SU

Town/Parish Eastington Parish Council

Grid Reference 379005,207148

Application Outline Planning Permission Type Proposal Erection of 3 no. dwellings with workspace and 3 no. affordable dwellings

Applicant’s PJT Developments Details Suite 5 Clarose House, Regent Street, Stonehouse, GL10 2AA

Agent’s Details Mr Matthew Blaken Page 14 of 206 David James & Partners Ltd, Well House, The Chipping, Wotton-under- Edge, Gloucestershire, GL12 7AD

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Case Officer John Chaplin

Application 03.06.2015 Validated

RECOMMENDATION Recommended Resolve to Grant Permission Decision Subject to the following 1. Approval of the details of the scale, design and external conditions: appearance of the building(s), and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters" shall be obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Local Planning Authority before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

3. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission, or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved, whichever is the later.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

4. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in all respects in strict accordance with the approved plans listed below:

Site Location Plan & Proposed Block Plan of 15/10/2015 Plan number = 70379/01/001 REV F

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and in the interests of good planning.

5. The landscaping scheme to be submitted for the approval of reserved Page matters 15 shallof 206 include details of all boundary treatments, the woodland and the planting specifications and timings and the

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area and of neighbouring residents to comply with Policies HC4, HC1, ES1 and ES3 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

6. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first complete planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings, or the completion of the development to which it relates, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the development, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

7. No construction works shall take place until details, including samples and colours where required, of the materials used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall apply notwithstanding any indication as to these matters that have been given in the current application. The materials to be used in the development shall be in accordance with the approved details and retained in perpetuity unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development, in accordance with Policies HC1 and HC4 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

8. No development shall take place until details of the existing ground levels, proposed finished floor levels of the dwellings and the proposed finished ground levels of the site including the access, relative to a datum point which is to remain undisturbed during the development have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Page Authority. 16 of Such206 details shall also provide comparative levels of eaves and ridge heights of the proposed and adjoining properties and details of the levels of any existing or proposed

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

boundary treatments. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: Ground levels must be agreed prior to any works taking place in order to avoid a situation where unacceptable ground level alterations cannot be undone without significant reconstruction work. Ground levels need to be agreed to secure an acceptable finished building height in the interests of the amenities of local residents and to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development, in accordance with Policies HC4, HC1 and ES3 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015.

9. The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the vehicular parking and turning facilities have been provided in accordance with the submitted plan 70379/01/001 Rev F submitted on 15 October 2015, and those facilities shall be maintained available for those purposes thereafter.

Reason: To reduce potential highway impact by ensuring that adequate parking and manoeuvring facilities are available within the site in accordance with Paragraph 35 of the NPPF and Policy EI12 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015.

10. No dwellings on the development shall be occupied until the carriageway(s) (including surface water drainage/disposal, vehicular turning head and street lighting) providing access from the nearest public highway to that dwelling have been completed to at least binder course level and the footway(s) to surface course level.

Reason: To minimise hazards and inconvenience for users of the development by ensuring that there is a safe, suitable and secure means of access for all people that minimises the conflict between traffic and cyclists and pedestrians in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

11. The vehicular access hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the existing roadside frontage boundaries have been set back to provide visibility splays extending from a point 2.4 x 54m back along the centre of the access measured from the public road carriageway edge (the X point) to a point on the nearer carriageway edge of the public road 54m distant in both directions (the Y points). The area between those splays and the carriageway shall be reduced in level and thereafter maintained so as to providePage clear 17 ofvisibility 206 between 1.05m and 2.0m at the X point and between 0.6m and 2.0m at the Y point above the adjacent carriageway level.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Reason: To reduce potential highway impact by ensuring that adequate visibility is provided and maintained and to ensure that a safe, suitable and secure means of access for all people that minimises the conflict between traffic and cyclists and pedestrians is provided in accordance with the section 4 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

12. The details to be submitted for the approval of reserved matters shall include secure, covered cycle storage provision for at least 1 cycle per dwelling, and the dwelling(s) hereby permitted shall not be occupied until those cycle storage facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and maintained for those purposes thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that adequate cycle parking is provided, to promote cycle use and to ensure that the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

13. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall: i. specify the type and number of vehicles; ii. provide for the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; iii. provide for the loading and unloading of plant and materials; iv. provide for the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; v. provide for wheel washing facilities; vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction

Reason: To reduce the potential impact on the public highway and accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies in accordance paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

14. No construction site machinery or plant shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no demolition or construction- related deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site except between the hours 08:00 and 18:00 on Mondays to Fridays, between 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and not at any time on Sundays, PageBank 18or Publicof 206 Holidays.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Reason: To protect the amenity of the locality, especially for people living and/or working nearby, in accordance with Policy ES3 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015.

15. No outside lighting shall be installed or operate on site until a lighting strategy to prevent long-term effects on foraging and commuting bats has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall then only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the proposed development will not adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, a site supporting any legally protected species or habitat and to recognise nature conservation importance in accordance with Policy ES6 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015 and the NPPF.

16. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Environmental Management Plan, including details of pollution control measures for the adjacent ponds has been submitted to, and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved Management Plan shall be adhered to throughout the construction period.

Reason: To recognise nature conservation importance and protect biodiversity in accordance with Policy ES6 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015 and the NPPF.

17. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the mitigation recommendations outlined within Section 5 of the Preliminary Ecological Assessment report, by Burrows Ecological, dated 20th May 2015 and the Additional Ecological Information Burrows Ecological dated 1st October 2015.

Reason: To recognise nature conservation importance and protect biodiversity in accordance with Policy ES6 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015 and the NPPF.

18. Prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted written confirmation from the project ecologist shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority informing that the works have proceeded as per the approved ecological documents and in accordance with the mitigation recommendations.

Reason: Page 19 of 206 To recognise nature conservation importance and protect biodiversity in accordance with Policy ES6 of the adopted Stroud

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

District Local Plan, November 2015 and the NPPF.

Informatives:

1. This application is subject to a legal agreement and the applicant's attention is drawn to the requirements and obligations contained there in and the need to ensure compliance as the development progresses.

2. The proposed development will involve works to be carried out on the public highway and the applicant/developer is required to enter into a legally binding Highway Works Agreement (including appropriate bond) with the county council before commencing works.

3. Article 35 (2) Statement - Some pre-application discussions took place on this project, and Officers have also been in contact with the applicant/agent and the community, acting in a positive and proactive manner. Having received further information from the agent regarding the viability of the scheme, the layout and ecology on balance with the affordable housing the scheme was considered permissible.

4. The applicant should take all relevant precautions to minimise the potential for disturbance to neighbouring residents in terms of noise, dust, smoke/fumes and odour during the construction phrases of the development. This should include not working outside regular day time hours, the use of water suppression for any stone or brick cutting, not burning materials on site and advising neighbours in advance of any particularly noisy works. It should also be noted that the burning of materials that gives rise to dark smoke or the burning of trade waste associated with the development, are immediate offences, actionable via the Local Authority and Environment Agency respectively. Furthermore, the granting of this planning permission does not indemnify against statutory nuisance action being taken should substantiated smoke, fume, noise or dust complaints be received. For further information please contact Mr Dave Jackson, Environmental Protection Manager on 01453 754489.

CONSULTEES

Comments Parish / Town Received Karen Colbourn Development Coordination (E)

Not Yet Received Page 20 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

CONTRIBUTORS Letters of Objection M Lowe, Nupend House, Nupend L And L Hadley, Applegarth, Nupend Mr And Mrs W.R.Harris, Nestings, Nupend D & J James, Pidegmore Farm, Nupend Councillor Stephen Davies, Saul Lodge West, Arlingham Road G Griffiths, Orchard Place, Nupend K Lowe, Nupend House, Nupend M Darwent, Westmead, Nupend J Spencer, Rose Tree Cottage, Nupend I Smith, Vine Cottage , Nupend D James, Pidgemore Farm, Nupend

Letters of Support V. Flemington, Pear Tree House, Regent Street

Letters of Comment B And H Smith, Dovetails, Nupend G Dent, Hillview Cottage, Nupend C Spencer, Northend House, Nupend Bratcher, Arlingham, B Bratcher, Southview Barn, Nupend

OFF ICER’S REPORT

SITE The application site is to the side and rear of the existing dwelling South View and recent barn conversion to the rear. This has history as a caravan site but currently is overgrown with building materials and soil being stored on site. The site is outside a settlement boundary and has no landscape designation.

PROPOSAL Erection of 3 no. dwellings with workspace and 3 no. affordable dwellings

REVISED DETAILS Revised layout plan received on 15 October 2015. Further Ecology information received on 06 October 2015.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY S.14/2724/COU Change of use of former annexe and workshop to 1 no. independent dwelling. Approved.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Eastington Parish Council: Original Comments: Object - Contrary to EP1 of emerging Eastington NDP - outside settlement boundary and comprises more than 1 dwelling. Form of development is contrary to EP1 of emerging Eastington NDP. Contrary to EP3 of emerging Eastington NDP - does not met the special circumstances to permit development of this size within historic hamlet. Highways access - narrow lane not suitable for increased traffic from construction or occupiers. Distance to services. No parking for open space - only useful to nearby properties, could become a nuisance. Ecology assessment limited - pond and woodland.

Revised Eastington Parish Council: Objection remains as previously submitted. Local Residents: 8 Objections received - Objection remains as previously submitted. Same additional traffic along narrow lane. Impact on village. Hedge removed. Outbuilding converted. Contrary to policy. Overdevelopment. Car ownership not suitable for affordable housing.

GCC Highways: No highway objection SDC Consultant Ecologist: Further details required. Environmental Health: Recommends conditions and informative Ward Member: Refuse - not part of local plan or Eastington NDP.

Local Residents: 19 Objections and comments received - Highway safety concerns, significant increase in traffic, narrow lane, cause conflict between farm traffic, walkers and cyclist. Loss of privacy with the loss of the woods. Impact of wildlife and habitat. Impact on drainage. Open space could become a nuisance. Premature to Neighbourhood plan. Overdevelopment - Intensity and density of development is too great and out of keeping and character with rest of the village. Unsustainable location - no local shops or services. At odds with development pattern and size ratio of the Hamlet. No suitable for affordable housing. Set a precedent in Nupend. 2 houses would be more favourable. 1 Support comment - communities need to grow. Offer opportunity for younger couples.

REASONS FOR DECISION The reasons for the Council's decision are summarised below together with a summary of the Policies and Proposals contained within the Development Plan which are relevant to this decision:

Page 22 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

The NPPF promotes sustainable development and seeks to avoid new isolated dwellings except in certain circumstances. Policy HC4 of the Local Plan is also relevant and refers to rural exception sites and permits housing in rural areas where there is a local need which cannot be met in any other way and the benefit of the affordable housing are retained for future occupiers and there are no other over-riding environmental or other material planning constraints. Paragraph 54 of the NPPF allows for some open market housing on rural exception sites if it would facilitate the provision of significant affordable housing provision to meet local needs.

Local Plan Policy ES3 seeks to maintain quality of life by preventing an unacceptable level of noise, general disturbance, smell, fumes, loss of daylight or sunlight, loss of privacy or an overbearing effect. Additionally the policy seeks to maintain highway safety including public rights of way.

Local Plan Policy ES7 addresses landscape character and seeks to ensure that all forms of development make a positive contribution to the District's character and appearance, paying particular attention to the locally distinctive qualities of its surroundings. This is in line with chapter 11 of the NPPF.

The emerging Eastington Neighbourhood Plan has undergone a pre-submission consultation. The extent to which there are any unresolved objections to relevant policies in the emerging neighbourhood plan and the degree of consistency of this plan with the NPPF are yet unknown; therefore, the policies within the Eastington Neighbourhood Plan can only be given little weight at this stage.

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT The application site is located outside of a defined settlement boundary and is not identified within the Local Plan as an allocation. However, the Local Plan does make provision within Policy HC4 for 'rural exception sites'. This allows exceptions to normal planning policy. Whilst sustainability considerations are important the policy does allow for small schemes to consider the need and this to be balanced against the location. National policy (NPPF para. 54) and the adopted Local Plan (para. 4.40) also outline that some market housing on exception sites can facilitate the provision of affordable housing to meet local needs. This proposal is for 3 affordable dwellings cross subsidised with the market dwellings and as such the site can be considered as a rural exception site. The agent’s viability study has been subject to an independent assessment which has supported the justification for the site to provide 50% market housing.

The agent has submitted evidence from the Eastington Parish Housing Needs Survey Report (2013) that outlines an identified need for affordable housing in the area. Whilst some of this has been met by other developments it is evident that there is still a need within the area.

This has been supported by Policy Implementation Manager who also highlights that the proposal provides three affordable homes that will contribute to meeting the affordable housing need evidenced by the Eastington Housing Need survey (2013). The survey showed a need for 16 new affordable homes, predominantly 2 or 3 bedroom, with the majority required as affordable rent, with one unit required for shared ownership purchase. It is therefore considered that the applicationPage 23would of 206 represent an opportunity to provide a small contribution to the need in the local area as well as enhancing and maintaining the vitality of this rural community.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Whilst it is acknowledged that the site is not located adjacent to an existing settlement boundary the site is still close to local facilities. Employment opportunities are also located in the nearby for example in Stonehouse industrial estates and Eastington Trading Estate. A workspace element of the open market housing has also been suggested. here are other developments are proposed in the area but these are unlikely to meet the specific local need. The West of Stonehouse allocation will provide at least 30% of the 1350 dwelling as affordable housing. However, these are meeting a district wide need and do not address the specific local need identified for Eastington. The site only provides 3 dwellings, and given the identified need for affordable housing as well as limited other suitable sites, affordable need outweighs the slightly less than ideal location.

A full S.106 legal agreement is proposed to limit the occupation of the 3 affordable dwellings to retain the affordable housing for the long term. The site is small in scale but will contribute to the community by providing a mix of units. The legal agreement limits 3 affordable units to a local connection.

Therefore, on balance the principle of the development would be compliant with Policy HC4. The consideration of any other over-riding environmental or other material planning constraint will be addressed later in the report.

DESIGN/APPEARANCE/IMPACT ON THE AREA This is an outline application with the appearance, scale and landscaping reserved for future approval.

The layout does form part of the application and the division of the plots as outlined ensure that the site would not appear cramped or overdeveloped. Sufficient space allows the provision of adequate private amenity space for the eventual occupiers in accordance with the Council's Residential Design Guide. Whilst the small shared access is not a prominent local feature the space between the properties and surrounding the site is not significantly different from the surrounding area and it is considered this would not harm the semi-rural character of the surrounding area. The plot size of units 1-3 are smaller but this relates to the attached nature and size of these units.

Objections have been received in respect of the impact on the character and appearance of surrounding area. Whilst the detailed design is reserved consideration, the principal of development and impact on the character of the area does need to be given consideration at this stage.

The surrounding area does contain a number of various designs, with no overriding clear vernacular or style. This should inform the detailed design process and it is considered that this small scheme would not be overly dominant on the character of the area given it position and limited scale. With an appropriate design it is considered the proposal would not therefore harm the character and appearance of the street scene at this point or significantly affect the wider semi-rural character.

Therefore, whilst the design and appearance have been reserved it is considered that an appropriate scheme can be designedPage so 24that of the 206 proposed dwellings will not appear overly prominent and would be in keeping in the design, appearance and scale.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

A small open space area was proposed. However, given the location and limited support this has been removed.

LANDSCAPE IMPACT The site is not located within any landscape designation and with the position of the site and the generally level local topography it is not overly prominent within the wider landscape. There are no elevated vantage points to the site with the main viewpoints being along the lane and across the frontage of the site.

The site has a simple form that would wrap around the existing built form of South View and would be located within the existing pattern of development in this particular area without appearing as an intrusion into open countryside. The mature trees to the east of the site also provide a back-drop and soften the impact and view from this direction.

Suitable landscaping would be required at the reserved matters stage with appropriate protection measures to ensure the mature trees are protected. This and appropriate boundary treatment along the lane further soften the appearance of the site.

It is therefore considered that the scheme would have no detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape.

ECOLOGY An ecological appraisal and further clarification has been submitted. Further clarification regarding the hedging and woodland area can be required during the reserved matter stage with the landscape strategy addressing the details to provide a suitable scheme. The agent has outlined that these features, the hedging and woodland area will be retained. Whilst some of the frontage hedge may have to be altered to provide the access, a suitable replacement and enhancement can be provided as part of the landscaping scheme. The project ecologist considered the habitats within the site to be suboptimal for use by reptiles and further survey work has determined an absence of reptiles on site. No potential bat roosting features were found.

HIGHWAY IMPACT There has been concern about an increase in traffic movements which would impair highway safety given the narrow nature of the local highway network. However, GCC Highways have considered the proposal and have no objection.

The proposal uses the existing site access, which previously has been used as a 6 pitch touring caravan site. The proposed dwellings would generate 30 vehicle trips, this is a substantial increase from the previous use as a touring caravan site. The required visibility for a new access in a 30 mph speed limit on a classified road is 54 metres in each direction. No details of the visibility splays have been submitted, however, the County Highways Officer’s initial assessment shows that this is likely to be achievable and would need to be demonstrated at reserved matter stage. Consideration of the impact on the hedge and the need to retain as much as possible or provide a suitable replacement/enhancement will be needed.

The internal driveway is appropriate Pagewith a 25 4.8m of 206 vehicle lane, with the provision of a footway for plots 1, 2, and 3, this gives the minimum reversing space of 6m for a standard car. Due to the rural locality reliance on the private motorcar would be likely, even though 3 of the units

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

are to be live/work, adequate parking provision would be 2 spaces per dwelling. Any garages attached or ancillary to the dwelling would need to comply with the minimum dimensions listed within MfGS but given the plot size there is sufficient space to provide this provision.

Each dwelling should also have at least one cycle storage space in accordance with 9.38 MfGS and to comply with the minimum dimensions outlined by 8.2.22 MfS. If there is no separate cycle storage provided, it can be accommodated within the garage space to ensure covered, secure and convenient provision is provided, however in doing so this may affect the decision as to whether or not the garage should count towards the car parking provision.

There is sufficient space within the site to allow the internal layout to have an adoptable standard turning head. This would accommodate refuse and service vehicles and allow them to enter and leave the site in forward gear without causing a detriment to highway safety.

The County Highways Officer has also highlighted the Public Rights of Way bounding the site. These will not be interrupted by the development but the safety of users during construction must be provided for.

Whilst the concerns of local residents are appreciated with the limited scale of the development and lack of County Highway objection it would be difficult to uphold an argument that the scheme would cause a severe impact on highway safety.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY The location of the site and plot size creates some distance to the nearest unconnected residential properties. This space between properties reduces the potential for the scheme to be overbearing or cause overshadowing and loss of privacy. The retention of the trees to the east of the site also provides some screening to the neighbour on this side.

Whilst the design and appearance have been reserved it is considered that an appropriate scheme can be designed so that the proposed dwellings will not significantly harm the residential amenities currently enjoyed by local residents.

CONCLUSION AND PLANNING BALANCE The provision of affordable housing is a key Council priority and the Housing Need survey has an identified housing need within the Parish. The proposal is therefore considered as an exception site.

The need for affordable housing is also a pressing consideration. The site is not immediately adjacent to a settlement but it is reasonably accessible to local services.

Whilst the concerns of local residents are also appreciated as addressed above it is considered that the site will not appear overly prominent or dominant on the character of the surrounding area, will not have a severe impact on highway safety and will not significantly affect residential amenities.

Therefore, on balance the proposal is recommended for permission subject to a legal agreement in respect of the affordable housing provision. Page 26 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

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.

Page 27 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Item No: 02 Application No. S.15/1832/FUL Site No. PP-04363144 Site Address The Lammastide Inn, New Brookend, Berkeley, Gloucestershire Town/Parish Hinton Parish Council

Grid Reference 368422,202062

Application Full Planning Permission Type Proposal Construction of Annexe to provide 6 No Holiday Lets for use with the Lammastide Inn.

Applicant’s Mr S Winearles Details Lammastide Inn, New Brookend, Berkeley, Gloucestershire, GL13 9SF

Agent’s Details Mr Malcolm Hunt Page 28 of 206 Frome Lodge, High Street, Chalford, Stroud, Gloucestershire GL6 8DJ

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Case Officer John Chaplin

Application 03.08.2015 Validated

RECOMMENDATION Recommended Refusal Decision For the following 1. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate the need reasons: or viability of the proposed holiday accommodation or how this relates to the existing business. Without the details of the need or viability the proposal would result in the creation of a residential development in an unsustainable location, remote from facilities and services. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies EI10 and CP1, CP3 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015.

2. Due to the built form and scale, the proposal would erode the well defined gap between existing buildings, intensify the built form and would be harmful to the established open and rural character of the surroundings. The style and finish of the development also does not particularly relate to the character and appearance of the existing public house. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies EI10 and ES7 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015.

3. Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the development will not have severe impact on the local highway network, that safe and suitable access and an appropriate level of parking for the existing public house will be provided or that the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up and exploited. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies CP13, CP14, EI10 and ES3 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015 and paragraphs 32 and 35 of the NPPF.

4. Due to the proximity to the boundary, the first floor Juliet balconies would result in a degree of impact and a perceived loss of privacy to the neighbouring residential property and increased potential for noise and activity close to the boundary. The proposal is therefore not overly neighbourly and would be contrary to Policies EI10 and ES3 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015.

CONSULTEES Comments Parish / Town Received Development Coordination (E) Not Yet Page 29 of 206 Received

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

CONTRIBUTORS Letters of Objection Mr And Mrs S Ellis, Westerings, New Brookend

Letters of Support H And J Withers, Ashton Villa, New Brookend Mr And Mrs Castledine, Berkeley Heath, GL13 9EW

Letters of Comment

OFFICER’S REPORT

SITE The application site is a pub and restaurant located within Brookend. This small group of dwellings has a mainly linear form with the majority of development to the east end of the road. The hamlet has no settlement limit and is part of the wider open countryside of the Severn Vale.

The pub is constructed of painted brick under a plain tiled roof and is located in a large plot with beer garden and seating to the front and rear. Access and car parking is located to both side of the building.

PROPOSAL Construction of Annexe to provide 6 No Holiday Lets for use with the Lammastide Inn.

REVISED DETAILS Further supporting statement submitted.

MATERIALS Walls: Brick Roof: Concrete Double Roman Roof Tiles Fenestration: UPVC

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY In 2002 (S.02/1868) the public house was granted planning permission for extensions to provide guest bedroom accommodation and a restaurant conservatory.

S.02/1696 Outline application for erection of detached dwelling (resubmission following refusal S.01/1350). Refused and appeal dismissed. Previous refusals for residential development in 1986, 1996 and 2001.

Hinton Parish Council: No objection Pageto the 30 structur of 206e or siting of the building, however, there needs to be adequate parking for the lets and users of the pub.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

GCC Highways: Further information required.

Environmental Health: Recommends conditions & informative

Local Residents: 2 Support comment received - support local pub which is at the centre of the community. Limited accommodation in the area. Will not have a detrimental effect on local community. Other rural pubs closing. Draw in visitors and support local businesses.

3 Objection comments received - highlights planning history of previous refusals. Loss of privacy and overlooked from first floor Juliet balconies. Overbearing and cause a loss of light and shadowing. Increased activity near the boundary. Increase noise and disturbance. Lack of licensing controls for holiday let guests. Different hours and activities to pub. Limited space, impact on layout and character of the area. Out of character. Impact on landmark building. Height, style and colour out of place. Does not reflect the architectural features of the pub. Not in keeping. Does not look like holiday let but clearly like 3 residential dwellings. Question the sustainability and the apparent easy convertible design. Question the need and viability. Disturbance during construction. Increased traffic, loss of onsite parking and an increase in parking on the highway to the detriment of highway safety. Loss of space used by delivery lorries. New build residential development outside settlement boundary contrary to Policy. Set a precedent for future development.

Support petition also received with 29 signatures raising no objections and supporting the viability of the pub.

Policy EI6 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015 seeks to protect individual and village shops, public houses and other community uses that provide key services and facilities, especially in rural settlements, and which often play an important role in community life. A development or change of use may be considered on part of the site to enable a continued community use. Distance to local facilities and the viability have to be considered. This is consistent with the NPPF para 28 and other legislation relating to permitted development rights and Assets of Community Value. Page 31 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Tourism is important to the economy of Stroud, particularly in the attractive rural areas, and the policy positively supports sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which benefit businesses in rural areas. Policy EI10 sets out the approach to providing new tourism opportunities in the district and directs developments to accessible locations inside settlements higher up the defined settlement hierarchy (Policy CP3 sets out the settlement hierarchy, to which this sequential approach relates).

Policy EI10 does provide for exceptional cases in lower tier settlements where there is evidence that the facilities are in conjunction with a particular countryside attraction and it is demonstrated how the proposal could assist rural regeneration and the well being of communities. It needs to be demonstrated that no suitable alternative existing buildings or sites exist which are available for re-use or a countryside location is essential for the proposed use. That the scale, design and use of the proposal is compatible with its wider landscape setting and would not detract from any acknowledged biodiversity interest nor the character and appearance of the landscape or settlement and would not be detrimental to the amenities of residential areas. The development also has to be served by adequate access and infrastructure and have reasonable access to local services. This approach is consistent with the NPPF para 28.

However, in the lower tier and unclassified settlements or the countryside, the Council favours the principle of re-use, rather than new-build or the provision of temporary structures such as tents or caravans.

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT This proposal is to provide 6 units of holiday accommodation in conjunction with and to diversify the existing Lammastide public house. Whilst wanting to support rural pubs, no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate the need or viability of the 6 proposed holidays lets and how this relates to the existing business. It is not known if the existing business needs 6 units to remain a viable concern and how this would affect the financial viability of the business.

There may be some walkers coming along the canal/surrounding area, however, it has not been shown that there would be a specific demand in this location for this scale of development. Is there a sufficient need for 6 holiday units of this type in this location? Without the details of the need or viability it would also be difficult to link the units to the pub or control the use of the flats. The creation of a row of new separate open market dwellings could easily result should the demand or business case for holiday accommodation not proceed. The pub has also recently been advertised forPage sale 32on ofright 206move.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Whilst the site is located within a small hamlet this does not have a settlement limit and is considered a rural location. Apart from the pub it is distanced from most local shops and services and is not considered sustainable. No details of local bus services have been provided and apart from walking to the local attraction of the Purton Hulks, occupiers would be reliant on the use of a private car. There are some pavements however, the unlit rural nature and distance would discourage pedestrians from walking to Newtown, Wanswell or Berkeley. With this unsustainable location the site is not an area where the Local Plan seeks to provide new build residential developments such as dwellings or tourism developments such as holiday lets.

DESIGN/APPEARANCE/IMPACT ON THE AREA The proposal has a linear two storey form with a pitched roof above and is positioned to the side of the public house. The public house is located within a large plot with space to the neighbouring property. Whilst there are two storey dwellings in the wider area the immediate setting of the pub has open agricultural fields to the side and rear and there are two single storey bungalows on the same side of the road on the other side of the site. This creates a pleasant generally open and rural character and setting to the pub and surrounding area. The built form and scale of the proposal would erode the well defined gap between existing buildings and intensify the built development. This would be harmful to this open and rural character of the surroundings.

The materials and terraced form create a style and finish to the development that also does not particularly relate to the character and appearance of the public house.

HIGHWAY SAFETY The Parish Council and local residents have raised the need to provide adequate parking for both the proposed holiday lets and the existing public house and restaurant. The proposal would result in the loss of 6 parking spaces and a further 6 spaces would be required to be used by the occupants of the proposed holiday lets. County Highways have also questioned this and are seeking further information and a parking survey to demonstrate how the loss of this number of space from the pub would impact on the surrounding highway network. The agent has suggested more parking spaces can be provided elsewhere on the other side of the pub. He does not consider this necessary so no plans or details of how this can be provided have been submitted. Given the existing car park fills the space to the side it is unclear how this can be provided. The impact of increasing the hardstanding and parking is also a concern.

Local residents have also highlighted the site of the holiday lets is currently used by delivery/beer lorries to the public house. It has not be demonstrated that with the proposed new building and associated parking an appropriate access and turning space will still be available for large delivery lorries identified by local residents.

Therefore, insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate the scheme would provide and retain sufficient parking for the public house and access for deliveries. This could lead to a situation detrimental to highway and pedestrian safety on the surrounding highway network with vehicles parking and reversing onto the public highway.

Page 33 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY The proposed building is located close to the boundary with the neighbouring residential property. Whilst the side elevation is blank the two storey design does provide first floor Juliet balconies facing to the rear. Whilst mainly facing to the rear these would provide an angled view to the garden area of the neighbour and even with the hedge boundary there is a degree of impact and a perceived loss of privacy.

Concern regarding overlooking has also been raised by the neighbours opposite. Whilst the introduction of front first floor windows are noted compared to the existing bungalow it is considered that the position and width of the road creates sufficient space to mitigate any significant loss of privacy.

The concern regarding noise and disturbance from occupiers either on holiday or attending events or parties also is noted. Whilst the site is currently a public house, activity is not so concentrated this close to the boundary. The nature and hours of the use is also different to the established public house and it would be difficult to control noise and activity. Whilst this would depend on the occupiers the layout and proximity to the boundary is not overly neighbourly.

CONCLUSION Whilst wanting to support local businesses and country pubs, this has to be balanced against all other planning considerations. With limited information and details of any business plan justifying the need and scale of the development and how this would relate to the public house it is considered that other material planning concerns (regarding the impact on the appearance, character and setting, unsustainable and limited access of the location, parking and highway safety and potential impact on residential amenities) do not outweigh any benefit.

The proposal is therefore recommended for refusal.

ARTICLE 35 (2) STATEMENT Little if any pre-application discussions took place on this project, however, the case officer was in contact with the applicant/agent and the community, acting in a positive and proactive manner. The agent has been advised of the concern regarding the proposal and the likely recommendation of refusal. Due to the conflict of this particular proposal with adopted policy it is not possible to support the proposed development and seek solutions to the planning issues.

Page 34 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Item No: 03 Application No. S.15/1587/FUL Site No. PP-04288272 Site Address Bencombe Barns, Lampern Hill, Uley, Gloucestershire

Town/Parish Uley Parish Council

Grid Reference 379181,197375

Application Full Planning Permission Type Proposal Conversion of 3 Barns to a Live/work Unit

Applicant’s Howard Tenens Distribution Ltd Details Tenens House, Kingfisher Business Park, London Road, Thrupp, Stroud Gloucestershire GL5 2BY Page 35 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Agent’s Details Mr Timothy Roberts Tim Roberts Planning, Garden Cottage, Mumbleys Lane, Thornbury, South Gloucestershire BS353JZ

Case Officer John Chaplin

Application 27.07.2015 Validated

RECOMMENDATION Recommended Permission Decision Subject to the following 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the conditions: expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in all respects in strict accordance with the approved plans listed below:

Site Location Plan of 02/07/2015 Plan number = 21452/01

Site Plan Proposed of 02/07/2015 Plan number = 21452/02

Proposed plans and elevations of 02/07/2015 Plan number = 21452/02, 03 & 05

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and in the interests of good planning.

3. The materials to be used in the development shall be in accordance with the approved details (outline in the agent emails sent on 21 & 22 Sept 2015) and retained in perpetuity unless otherwise approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To enable the local planning authority to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development, in accordance with Policies CP15 and ES7 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015. Page 36 of 206 4. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, details of

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

the boundary treatment shall be submitted and approved. The boundary treatment used in the development shall be in accordance with the approved details and retained in perpetuity.

5. No construction site machinery or plant shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no demolition or construction- related deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site except between the hours 08:00 and 18:00 on Mondays to Fridays, between 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and not at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the locality, especially for people living and/or working nearby, in accordance with Policy ES3 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015.

6. The live/work unit hereby approved shall be occupied as a single planning unit and not sub-divided or sub-let at any time. The work unit may only be used ancillary to the occupation of the live unit.

Reason: The use of the work unit for separate use not ancillary to the main dwelling may have implications on residential amenity, highway safety and the wider amenities of the surrounding area which would require further consideration by the Local Planning Authority.

7. The employment/work floorspace (Barn 2) of the live/work unit hereby approved shall be finished ready for occupation before the residential floorspace (Barn 1) is occupied and the residential use shall not precede commencement of the employment use of the unit. The work unit (Barn 2) then must not be converted or used solely for living accommodation or residential use unless consent has been approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To safeguard the provision of employment/work space to support the appropriate rural employment opportunities in accordance with Paragraphs 4.58 – 4.60 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015 and paragraph 28 of the NPPF.

8. The employment/workPage 37 of 206 floorspace (Barn 2) of the live/work unit hereby approved shall not be used for any purpose other than for purposes within B1a (Business - Office) in the Schedule to the

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification.

Reason: To protect the amenity of local residents and the area generally from noise and disturbance and in the interest of highway safety in accordance with Policies ES3 and ES7 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015.

9. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the bat and bird related mitigation recommendations outlined within Section 5 of the submitted Building Survey and Assessment for Protected Species Report – Just Ecology dated July 2015. Prior to the first occupation written confirmation from the project ecologist shall also be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority informing that the works have proceeded as per the approved documents and in accordance with the mitigation recommendations.

Reason: To recognise nature conservation importance in accordance with Policy ES6 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015 and the NPPF.

10. No works shall commence on site on the development hereby permitted until the existing roadside frontage boundaries have been set back to provide visibility splays extending from a point 2.4m back along the centre of the access measured from the public road carriageway edge (the X point) to a point on the nearer carriageway edge of the public road 35m distant in both directions (the Y points). The area between those splays and the carriageway shall be reduced in level and thereafter maintained so as to provide clear visibility between 1.05m and 2.0m at the X point and between 0.26m and 2.0m at the Y point above the adjacent carriageway level.

Reason: To reduce potential highway impact by ensuring that adequate visibility is provided and maintained and to ensure that a safe, suitable and secure means of access for all people that minimises the conflict between traffic and cyclists and pedestrians is provided in accordance with the paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework and CP13 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015.

11. No works shall commence on site on the development hereby permitted Pageuntil the38 offirst 206 5m of the proposed access road, including the junction with the existing public road and associated with visibility splays, has been completed to at least binder course

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

level, and any gates set back at least 5m from the carriageway edge and hung so as to open away from the highway.

12. The buildings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the vehicular parking and turning facilities have been provided in accordance with the submitted plan, and those facilities shall be maintained available for those purposes thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that a safe, suitable and secure means of access for all people that minimises the conflict between traffic and cyclists and pedestrians is provided in accordance with the paragraphs 32 and 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework and CP13 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015.

Informatives:

1. Article 35 (2) Statement - Little if any pre-application discussions took place on this project, however, the case officer has been in contact with the agent, acting in a positive and proactive manner seeking clarification regarding the proposed materials and the ecological and highway implications. With this further information the scheme was considered permissible.

2. Please note that the site is traversed by a public right of way and this permission does not authorise additional use by motor vehicles, or obstruction, or diversion.

CONSULTEES Comments Karen Colbourn Received Parish / Town Development Coordination (E)

Not Yet Cotswolds Conservation Board (E) Received

CONTRIBUTORSPage 39 of 206 Letters of

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Objection M. Shearer, Bencombe Gables, Uley A McKay, Uley Parish Council, 1 The Old Printhouse Kate And Mark Easy, 1 Bencombe Cottages, Lampern Hill Benjamin Browne QC, Angeston Grange, Uley

Letters of Support Letters of Comment

OFFICER’S REPORT

SITE The application site consists of a group of rural buildings, 2 constructed of stone with clay pantiled roof and a 3rd open steel frame building. Part of the buildings appear to be used as a stable with horses present in the surrounding fields. An access track connects the barns with the highway on Lampern Hill with Bencombe Farm to the east. The site is located within the Cotswold AONB and is outside of any defined settlement boundary.

PROPOSAL Conversion of 3 Barns to a Live/work Unit

REVISED DETAILS Additional highways information and clarification colour of the fenestration.

MATERIALS Walls: Natural Stone as existing Roof: Reclaimed double roman interlocking pantiles Fenestration: Timber painted dark green

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY S.09/0597/FUL Construction of 2 agricultural barns (retrospective). Approved 02/2301. Erection of three barns to replace existing. Approved.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES Full details of all statutory consultations and public representations are available to view on the electronic planning file. A summary of the consultation responses and public representations also appears below. Uley Parish Council: Object – has been built with lintels in place to allow for this conversion in contravention of previous permission. Proposal would be contrary to existing conditions restricting use. Contrary to barn conversion policies. Outside development boundary and is not considered suitable for residential use.

GCC Highways: No Highway Objection Environmental Health: Recommends conditions & informative SDC Consultant Ecologist: Recommends conditions

Local Residents: 4 Objections received - future plans to create a sellable house with no farmland or worker attached. AccessPage 40 cannot of 206 be improved without character being significantly changed. Highway safety concerns, access unacceptable. Increased traffic.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Access should be through Lye Farm. Unsustainable location. Other nearby refusal. Previous conditions restrict use to agriculture and that it should not be converted. Suspicion of intention to circumvent planning.

Policy CP15 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015 seeks to protect the separate identity of settlements and the quality of the countryside by limiting development outside settlements. However, CP15 recognises that sometimes it is impossible for some kinds of development (including barn conversions) to be accommodated within settlements and establishes criteria for such development, in order to help sustain, enhance and revitalise our rural communities. Development will only be permitted in the countryside if it does not have an adverse impact on any heritage assets and their setting, does not lead to excessive encroachment or expansion of development away from the original buildings and of particular relevance to the re-use of an existing building or buildings, these are appropriately located and are capable and worthy of conversion. Any such conversion should involve a building that positively contributes to an established local character and sense of place. In the case of replacement buildings they must bring about environmental improvement. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) also promotes sustainable development in rural areas. Chapter 3 and paragraph 55 are of particular relevance.

National policy encourages flexible working practices, such as the integration of residential and commercial uses within the same unit. Live/work units can have a part to play in the rural economy and are generally supported by the Local Plan para 4.58 - 4.60.

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT This proposal is to convert the existing group of barns into a live work unit. The previous history of the site is noted but the applicationPage 41 of 206has to be considered on its own merits and assessment made on the current situation and the submitted details. The restrictive use of

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

the building imposed by the previous planning conditions does not restrict the consideration of this proposal.

The retrospective nature of the previous application is also noted but this should not prejudge this application. The proposal therefore has to be considered as barn conversion and assessed against the policy requirements for this type of development.

Consideration has been given to the condition of the existing building. Whilst a structural survey has not been submitted, the buildings appear to be substantial, sound and of permanent construction having been recently built (2009). The new Local Plan does not place the same requirement for emphasis on demonstrating this. The buildings have to be capable and worthy of conversion. Whilst of a modern construction, the buildings are constructed from stone and do have a rural character. It would therefore be difficult to defend a refusal reason purely on the basis that the buildings are not worthy of conversion.

The scheme does not involve extending the barns and the existing buildings appear readily capable of conversion and without needing complete reconstruction. Openings for windows and dormers could easily be provided given the construction/provision within the existing structure. The open frontages can be easily enclosed with glazing and fenestration. It is proposed that the steel framed barn (No.3) will be partly enclosed and used as a carport.

The buildings appear to have been used for stabling and related storage. No marketing has been submitted, but due to the limited size and location of the buildings they are not ideal for a straight employment or possible community use. However, the live work unit proposed does retain some employment on site.

Whilst not applicable in this case the principle behind the government's new flexible permitted development for agricultural buildings also has to be considered and shows the general support for rural conversions.

Whilst the site is not located in an overly sustainable location the proposal is to convert existing rural buildings which dictate the position. Therefore, due to the above it is considered the principle of development is acceptable.

DESIGN/APPEARANCE/IMPACT ON THE AREA The proposal converts the existing buildings utilising the existing structure and materials. Whilst some alterations are made to the buildings and fenestration these respect the form and rural character of the buildings.

A limited curtilage has been provided with the main amenity space being provided by the central courtyard area. Details of the boundary treatment of the corner areas can be approved via condition and with the existing buildings on site it is considered the scheme would have limited harmful impact on the wider character and setting of the surrounding area and this part of the AONB.

An ecological survey report has been submitted. This survey shows that the barns have negligible potential for roosting batsPage and nesting42 of 206 birds but sets out precautionary mitigation measures for the avoidance of impact. These can be required via condition with a confirmation from the project ecologist that the works have been carried out.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Local residents have highlighted another recent application which has been refused. This does not appear to be directly comparable to the application site in the nature or proposal. In any event, the LPA are obliged to determine the application on its own particular merits.

Whilst the application buildings maybe visible from the nearby Listed buildings at Bencombe House, with the distance, difference in levels and separation it is considered that the conversion of these existing buildings will not cause significant harm to the setting of the nearby Listed Buildings.

HIGHWAY SAFETY Concerns have been raised about the safe use of the access. Whilst this is acknowledged along with the existing low key use, the existing unrestrictive agricultural access could be used by large agricultural vehicles at a greater frequency without consent.

A speed survey has been undertaken which shows a 85th percentile speed of 26mph in both directions. The agent has also submitted a plan of the access to demonstrate that this average speed of vehicles warrants visibility splays 2.4m x 35m (set out in MfS). The site entrance can provide suitable visibility and any access gates set back, the County Highways Officer is satisfied that the site can provide a safe and adequate access onto Lampern Hill and has no objection.

Therefore, whilst understanding the local concern, the traffic and movements of one live work unit is unlikely to have such a severe impact given the existing potential use to warrant a refusal. The live work unit also has the potential to reduce the need to travel off site to work. The restricted nature and gradient of the lane may also help reduce vehicles speeds. There is sufficient space within the site to provide space for the provision of parking and turning.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY There is substantial separation from the nearest dwelling and consequently there no significant amenity implications in terms of shadowing, privacy or overbearing implications. The position of the access track and given its existing use is also unlikely to have a material impact. RECOMMENDATION The barns themselves are of appropriate construction and appearance and the conversion of the barns can be readily accommodated without the necessity for extensive building works. National and local planning policies are supportive of the reuse of rural buildings and there are no overriding reasons to refuse the application. Permission is therefore recommended.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Item No: 04 Application No. S.15/2313/FUL Site No. PP-04520084 Site Address 79 Regent Street, Stonehouse, Gloucestershire, GL10 2AA

Town/Parish Stonehouse Town Council

Grid Reference 380462,204962

Application Full Planning Permission Type Proposal Erection of a new dwelling.

Applicant’s Mr Roger Telphia Details 2-4 Summer Hill Terrace, Birmingham, West Midlands (Met County), B1 3CA, Mr Michael Idowu Page 44 of 206 Agent’s Details 101A Albion Street, Jewellery Quarter, Birmingham, West Midlands, B1 3AA

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Case Officer Hannah Minett

Application 12.10.2015 Validated

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in all respects in strict accordance with the approved plans listed below:

Proposed plans and elevations of 19/11/2015 Plan number = 100 Version number = REVISED SCHEME

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and in the interests of good planning.

3. No construction site machinery or plant shall be operated, no process shall be carried out an no construction-related deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site except between the hours 08:00 and 18:00 on Monday to Fridays, between 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and not at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the locality, especially for people living and/or working nearby, in accordance with Stroud District Council Local Plan Policy GE1 and in accordance with the provisions of Circular 11/95.

4. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match the external surfaces used on 79 Regent Street.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

5. No windowPage or door45 of openings206 other than any windows shown on the approved plans shall be formed in the first or second floor of

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

the development hereby permitted, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining residential property.

6. The dwellling hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until provision is made for the parking, on a properly made-up surface, of a minimum of two cars within the curtilage. This provision shall be maintained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient parking spaces are made available.

Informatives:

1. In accordance with Article 35 (2) the Local Planning Authority have worked with the Applicant. The case officer contacted the applicant/agent and negotiated changes to the design which has enhanced the overall scheme; these have been detailed in the Officer Report.

2. The application site is within 250 metres of a suspected landfill site, the applicant/developers attention is drawn to the fact that there is the potential for production and migration of landfill gas. You are reminded that the responsibility for safe development rests with the owner and/or developer. Accordingly, the applicant/developer is advised to seek independent expert advice, regarding the possibility of the presence, or future presence, of gas and whether any precautionary measures are necessary. The Council’s Environmental Health Section will make available to you, free of charge, any information or data which it has in relation to the land to which the application applies.

CONSULTEES Comments Environmental Health (E) Received Contaminated Land Officer (E)

Not Yet Received

CONTRIBUTORS Letters of Objection Stonehouse Town Council, Town Hall, High Street J Dickson, North Berryfield, 11 Bristol Road P Edmonds, 7 Bristol Road, Stroud P Beard (PracticePage Manager), 46 of 206 Regent Street Surgery, 73 Regent Street

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Letters of Support Letters of Comment

OFFICER’S REPORT

DESCRIPTION OF SITE The application site is within Stonehouse and comprises part of an existing residential curtilage associated with The Orchard, a large detached two storey house used as a House of Multiple Occupancy (HMO). The site is accessed from Regent Street via a drive serving the doctors surgery and other residential development. The site has several tall trees and is otherwise rough grassland which has been fenced off from The Orchard. The site is surrounded by residential development on all boundaries, the majority of which comprises of large detached dwellings with generous gardens. There is a listed building 40 metres to the east.

PROPOSAL The applicant is seeking planning permission for the erection of a four bedroom dwelling to be used as a HMO (C4).

Revised details As a result of negotiation with officers the proposal has been reduced in the scale and form from a six bedroom to a four bedroom dwelling. This would have appeared cramped.

There were also concerns that the proposed dwelling would be an extension of the planning unit at No. 79 Regent Street, given the red line bounds both the application site and No. 79 Regent Street. The proposed use would then fall within a Sui Generis use and require consideration as a combined larger HMO. It was ultimately concluded however that given the physical separation with existing fencing between the sites and the internal layout of the proposed dwelling lends itself to operate independently, the proposed dwelling would be considered as a separate, small HMO under class C4.

The agent has also confirmed that the proposed dwelling will operate separately and has submitted a location plan with an amended red line around the application site only.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY S.13/2745/FUL - Erection of a detached dwelling. Permission 27/01/2014 S.13/2112/HHOLD - Erection of detached garage - Permission 14/11/13

CONSULTATION RESPONSES Public There have been numerous objections to the originally submitted scheme which are available to view in full online. In summary, these make reference to the following issues; - Overdevelopment, the house is too large for the plot, inappropriate scale with surroundings, too tall; - Lack of amenity space, overbearing effect on neighbouring dwellings due to height, proximity, loss of sunlight, loss Page of privacy 47 of 206 as many of the bedroom windows of the

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

proposed dwelling will look in to neighbouring bedroom windows, would be invasive and encroach onto neighbours' privacy excessively;

- No construction plan- how will construction vehicles access the site, access to the house far too narrow. No dust control scheme, no ecological assessment;

- Would result in the loss of many mature trees on the site which provide visual amenity, privacy and habitat;

- The road is unsuitable for further development, already a shortage of parking resulting in visitors to existing HMO parking in private doctors surgery car park, unclear where parking is proposed, not enough room on the site for proposed parking, more vehicles will come to HMO than private dwelling including delivery vehicles, staff and visitors who will end up parking in doctors surgery car park;

- Negative impact of HMO on social cohesion, will create more noise and anti-social behaviour, could be dangerous for children in the area, no explanation of why they want another HMO in the area.

Stonehouse Town Council Object to original scheme on following grounds: - Overdevelopment, the house is too large and too close to existing houses; - Lack of good access to the site as well as parking on the site; - Loss of privacy for neighbours; - Loss of trees; - Excessive concentration of HMOs in Regent St.; and - Applicant's Design and Access Statement is very weak and unclear.

Policy Considerations Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local Plan Policy HC1 permits development within settlement limits subject to suitable scale, density and layout that is compatible with the character and appearance of the area. Development should not intrude into open countryside or cause loss of or damage to open space or to wildlife habitat. Natural or built features capable of retention should be incorporated and appropriate levels of amenity space and vehicular provision should be included.

Chapter 7 of the NPPF stresses the importance of high quality design as well as Core Policy CP14 which promotes high quality sustainable development. Policy ES3 maintains an acceptable quality of life by ensuring development does not cause an unacceptable level of noise, general disturbance, smell, fumes, loss or daylight or sunlight, loss of privacy or have an overbearing effect. Page 48 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Principle of Development The site lies within the defined settlement limits where there is a presumption in favour of development subject to design and amenity considerations and to a satisfactory means of access being provided. A dwelling was permitted on the site in 2014 under reference S.13/2745/FUL. In this respect the principle of further residential development on the site can be supported.

Impact on Character and Appearance of the Area The existing character of the area is very varied. Regent Street appears as relatively high density, particularly towards the Town Centre to the north and on its eastern side. At the southern end, the western side is less dense and has a much higher amount of natural vegetation, which gives it a softer appearance. Originally, 79 Regent Street had a very large curtilage with vehicular access onto Bristol Road to the south. There is a large amount of history on the site however 79 Regent Street lawfully changed from a private dwelling to a HMO in November 2014 and two high density detached dwellings were permitted on the southern portion of the site in February 2012.

While the proposed three storey dwelling would be smaller than 79 Regent Street, the plot is significantly narrower and smaller than the majority of sites in the surrounding area. This would result in a much more cramped form of development than in the wider setting and it is acknowledged that responses from the Town Council and residents express concern that the site would be overdeveloped and not in keeping with the area. Weight must however be given to the fact that the proposed dwelling has a very similar siting, scale and form as the dwelling previously approved on the site under reference S.13/2745/FUL. Furthermore, the revised scheme has reduced the massing and built form of the dwelling to a considerable scale and the design is in keeping with the local area and the density of the proposed site similar to the two dwellings recently built to the south of the site. In terms of materials, the use of facing brick is appropriate however no specific details have been submitted and so it is considered appropriate to condition external materials to match those used on No. 79 Regent Street. On balance, the scale, form and siting would be considered acceptable.

Impact on Amenity Public consultation responses have expressed concerns regarding loss of privacy and loss of light, largely due to the close proximity of the dwellings. It is acknowledged that the dwelling would be surrounded by neighbouring properties to each boundary. While the close proximity could have a somewhat overbearing impact on the outlook from No. 79 Regent Street, there are no first or second floor windows proposed on the side facing elevations of the proposed dwelling and as such, the dwelling would not lead to any significant overlooking into neighbouring properties. Furthermore, there is a sufficient separation distance between dwellings to the front and rear and existing boundary treatment would screen the ground floor windows of the existing and proposed dwellings.

As a further precaution, a condition is recommended restricting the insertion of any further doors or windows. With such conditions in place, the proposal would not be significantly detrimental to neighbouring occupier's amenities and satisfies Policy ES3.

On balance, the proposed scheme is not considered to harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers to the extentPage to warrant 49 of a206 refusal.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Highway Safety The Town Council and a large number of residents expressed concern that the HMO would exacerbate an already dangerous situation, in regard to a shortage of car parking spaces and volume of traffic of visitors and staff to the doctors' surgery and 79 Regent Street since becoming a HMO.

Initially, officers had concerns over the lack of parking, however given the revised scheme has reduced the number of bedrooms in the proposed dwelling from six to four, the proposed scheme would provide adequate parking. It should be considered here that a HMO falling within use class C4 can change to a private dwellinghouse (C3) without requiring planning permission, where no more than two car parking spaces are required in order to meet the Council's parking standards.

Other Issues A large number of consultation responses expressed concern over the high concentration of HMOs within Regent Street and subsequent social problems of an additional HMO. In particular, comments have raised concern that the use would result in danger to local residents. No justification of the additional HMO in the vicinity has been provided by the applicant, however the NPPF encourages inclusive communities that are safe and in other examples, planning inspectors acknowledge the concern but consider them to be largely perceived fears rather than real. It is officers' opinion that planning permission could not be refused on this ground.

RECOMMENDATION The scheme proposed is considered to accord with the policies in the development plan and is considered acceptable. As such, it is recommended that planning permission is granted.

Page 50 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Item No: 05 Application No. S.15/1250/FUL Site No. PP-04219636 Site Address Dove Cottage, 5 Crawley Hill, Uley, Dursley

Town/Parish Uley Parish Council

Grid Reference 379037,198972

Application Full Planning Permission Type Proposal Proposed new dwelling

Applicant’s Mr & Mrs Lamerton Details 5 Crawley Lane, Uley, Gloucestershire, GL11 5BJ, United Kingdom

Agent’ s Details Mr Simon Littlewood Page 51 of 206 Elevation One Building Design Ltd, 25 Uley Road, Dursley, Gloucestershire, GL11 4NJ

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

United Kingdom

Case Officer John Chaplin

Application 02.06.2015 Validated

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended by Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in all respects in strict accordance with the approved plans listed below:

Site Location Plan of 27/05/2015

Site Plan Proposed of 07/10/2015 Plan number = ML-010/02

Proposed floor plan of 07/10/2015 Plan number = ML-010/03

Proposed floor plan of 07/10/2015 Plan number = ML-010/04

Proposed Elevations of 07/10/2015 Plan number = ML-010/05

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans and in the interests of good planning.

3. No construction works shall take place until details, including samples and colours where required, of the materials used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall apply notwithstanding any indication as to these matters that have been given in the current application. The materials to be used in the development shall be in accordance with the approved details and retained in perpetuity unless otherwisePage 52 approved of 206 by the Local Planning Authority.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development, in accordance with Policies HC1 and ES7 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015 and the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. No construction works shall take place until details of the existing ground levels, proposed finished floor levels of the dwellings and the proposed finished ground levels of the site including the access, relative to a datum point which is to remain undisturbed during the development have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Such details shall also provide comparative levels of eaves and ridge heights of adjoining properties and details of the levels of any existing or proposed boundary treatments. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: In the interests of the amenities of local residents and to ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development, in accordance with Policies CP8, HC1, ES3 and ES7 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015.

5. The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until space for parking has been laid out in accordance with the approved plans and shall thereafter be similarly maintained.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy ES3 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015.

6. The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the highway widening shown on drawing no. ML-010/02 received on 07 October 2015 has been constructed in accordance with details first submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Policy ES3 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015.

7. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a construction method statement has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period and shall provide for:

i) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii) loading Pageand unloading 53 of 206 of plant and materials; iii) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

iv) wheel washing facilities; v) measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and neighbour amenity and to comply with Policy ES3 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015.

8. No construction site machinery or plant shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no demolition or construction- related deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site except between the hours 08:00 and 18:00 on Mondays to Fridays, between 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and not at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

Reason: To protect the amenity of the locality, especially for people living and/or working nearby, in accordance with Policy ES3 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015.

Informatives:

1. Article 35 (2) Statement - Pre-application discussions took place on this project and the case officer has been in contact with the applicant/agent and the community, acting in a positive and proactive manner. Having negotiated changes to the design and layout which have enhanced the overall scheme it is considered the scheme is permissible and in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. The Construction Method Statement referred to the above condition will be of key importance due to the restricted nature of the highway and the proximity to neighbouring dwellings. The applicant and or successors in title are therefore advised that the information submitted should be comprehensive.

3. The area of land to be provided to the Highway Authority as a passing place shown shaded on the site plan is likely to require a dedication agreement for which the applicant would need to apply. For further details please contact the GCC Highways Legal Agreements Team [email protected].

4. If a protected species (such as any bat, reptile, moth and butterfly or any nesting bird) is discovered using a feature on site all work at the locality should cease. A suitably qualified ecological consultant or NaturalPage England 54 of 206 should be contacted and the situation assessed before operations can proceed. This action is necessary to ensure compliance with the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

amended) and the Conservation (Natural Habitats & c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended).

5. The applicant should take all relevant precautions to minimise the potential for disturbance to neighbouring residents in terms of noise, dust, smoke/fumes and odour during the construction phrases of the development. This should include not working outside regular day time hours, the use of water suppression for any stone or brick cutting, not burning materials on site and advising neighbours in advance of any particularly noisy works. It should also be noted that the burning of materials that gives rise to dark smoke or the burning of trade waste associated with the development, are immediate offences, actionable via the Local Authority and Environment Agency respectively. Furthermore, the granting of this planning permission does not indemnify against statutory nuisance action being taken should substantiated smoke, fume, noise or dust complaints be received. For further information please contact Mr Dave Jackson, Environmental Protection Manager on 01453 754489.

CONSULTEES Comments Parish / Town Received Historic England SW

Not Yet Cotswolds Conservation Board (E) Received

CONTRIBUTORS Letters of Uley Parish Council, 1, The Old Printhouse, Church St. Objection M Ball, Dingle View, Crawley Lane

Letters of Support M & MC Ball, Dingle View,, Crawley Lane, T Murphy Wadhams, 2 Crawley Lane, Uley

Letters of Comment V Coffey, The Old Bakery, 1 Crawley Lane Mr And Mrs Auger, 10 Crawley Hill, Uley C Elliot, Devonia Farm, Crawley Lane, Mr And Mrs Auger, 10 Crawley Hill, Uley Dr Elliot, Devonia Farm , Crawley Lane Mr And Mrs Townsend, Cartref,, 6A Crawley Lane,

OFFICER’S REPORT

Page 55 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

SITE The application site is an overgrown part of the garden of the existing dwelling 5 Crawley Hill. It is located adjacent to the main Crawley Hill but would have access from Crawley Lane which runs below the site. The site is slightly elevated with the rising slope between these 2 roads. The site is not located within the defined settlement but is within the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

PROPOSAL Proposed new dwelling

REVISED DETAILS Revised design and layout plans submitted on 07 October 2015.

MATERIALS Walls: Natural coursed stone, timber cladding and render Roof: Slate Fenestration: Grey/olive timber and untreated hardwood

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY None

Uley Parish Council: Object - Outside development boundary, set an unacceptable precedent along narrow country lane. Other applications have been refused. Does not meet HN10. Historic England: No objection GCC Highways: No objection Environmental Health: Recommends conditions & informative

Local Residents: Support comments received - Currently an unsightly gap. Large enough to allow access & parking. Welcome use/asset of the site. Will enhance the quality of the locality. Contribution to housing need. Makes good use of the space in the lane. Comments received - Impact on Crawley Lane during construction - obstruction and inconvenience. Request a Traffic management plan. Cause deterioration of road surface. Should include parking and turning space. Impact on wildlife - slow worms on site.

Revised plans Uley Parish Council: Object no reason to change objection - Crawley Lane is single track road with a lack of turning. Would lead to reversing onto busy Crawley Hill. Worst for construction vehicles which would block lane. Concerned about the glass atrium causing light pollution in visible position given the AONB and Uley Bury ancient monument and Valley. Against recommendations of emerging Uley and Owlpen Community Design Statement. Contrary to Local Plan. Set a precedent. Page 56 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Local Residents: 2 further Comments received - Not within Local Plan. Crawley Lane single track and narrow lane. Would add additional pressure on inadequate lane and access. Turning for transit van not possible. Surface of lane deteriorated and not suitable. Construction difficult and disruptive. Could set a precedent.

1 further Support comment received - Lack of turning at the end of the lane is a separate issue. The speed of vehicles on Crawley Hill needs to be addressed but is beyond the scope of this application. No evidence of significant light pollution, there are many other conservatories, street lights and security lights in the area. Could be mitigated by using low energy/wattage lamps. Other developments affect the condition of the lane. Turning space not necessary as site is located at lane entrance.

The core planning principles of the NPPF (Paragraph 17) seek to enhance and improve the places in people live, support sustainable development, secure high quality design, protect important landscape features, encourage the use of renewable sources, conserve and enhance the natural environment, re-use previously developed land, promote mixed use developments, conserve heritage assets, encourage sustainable transport and improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all. This is echoed in Core Policy CP1 of the Local Plan.

Policy ES3 seeks to maintain quality of life by preventing an unacceptable level of noise, general disturbance, smell, fumes, loss of daylight or sunlight, loss of privacy or an overbearing effect. Additionally the policy seeks to maintain highway safety including public rights of way.

Chapter 4 (Paragraphs 29-41) of the NPPF promote the need for sustainable transport. It outlines Governments objectives with regard to offering people access to a real choice about how they chose to travel. It requires access to sustainable transport modes and recognises that sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas. Local Plan Policy ES3 maintains highway safety including public rights of way. Policy EI12 details the Councils parking standards.

Chapter 6 (Paragraphs 47-55) of the NPPF establishes Governments objectives for housing provision and allows for a rolling 5 year housing supply (plus 5% additional buffer). It also considers the location of new housingPage in57 sustainablof 206 e locations with the requirement for affordable housing provision. Policy HC1 of the Local Plan specifically provides guidance on small scale housing inside settlement boundaries. Whilst this site is outside consideration still

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

has to be given to the plot size, height, size and design of the proposed unit as well as the possible impact on car parking provision. Local Plan Policy CP2 details the Council's strategic growth and development locations and Policy CP3 details the Districts settlement hierarchy. Local Plan Policy CP9 details the Councils requirements for affordable housing and their integration.

Chapter 7 (Paragraphs 56-68) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stresses the importance of quality design in the provision of sustainable development. It stresses Governments objectives for inclusive design, innovation and raising design standards. Local Plan Policies of relevance include CP8 and CP14.

Paragraphs 28, 109-125 of the NPPF apply to development in rural areas. These highlight the need to protect landscape character like the AONB, maintain rural housing and communities and minimise impacts on biodiversity. This is supported by Local Plan Policy ES7 which place priority on the protection of the AONB and conserves the distinct landscape types in the District.

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT The site is located outside of any defined settlement limits and as such would not normally be considered suitable for further development unless specific circumstances are identified. The local plan policies seek to promote sustainable pattern of development by locating development near to essential services and transports links and is consistent with the NPPF which promotes sustainable development and seeks to avoid new isolated dwellings except in certain circumstances.

Uley is defined as a 3rd tier settlement within the settlement hierarchy. Whilst there are a limited level of facilities and services within the village they do provide the best opportunities outside the large settlements for growth.

Whilst the site is located outside the development limit it is still located near to the village with a footpath link providing a short walk into the settlement. Being located near the main road also provides access to the nearby bus stops and routes through the village to Dursley or to Stroud.

The site is also surrounded by a number of existing dwellings extending along Crawley Lane and up Crawley Hill. With this built up nature it is therefore difficult to consider the site as being open countryside and the proposal would not represent an isolated dwelling in the countryside.

The slight step away from the village is noted but given the other limited harm addressed elsewhere in the report, on balance, it is considered it would be difficult to resist the principle of development and defend an argument that the site was so unsustainable and environmentally harmful to warrant a refusal.

DESIGN/APPEARANCE/IMPACT ON THE AREA The revised drawings have improved the character and appearance of the proposed dwelling. This now has a steeper pitch and provides a more cottage-like appearance with the fenestration detailing. However, a modernPage 58 design of 206 is retained with the glazed link section and timber which helps break up the mass and form. The proposed natural stone and slate would be appropriate for the surrounding area. The dwelling is also set into the bank and it is

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

therefore considered the proposal would not appear out of keeping or significantly harm the character of the area.

The site is located near the Uley Bury Camp scheduled monument. The proposed dwelling would lie at the foot of the eastern slope of this hill fort. It will be seen within the context of other buildings as well as being partially screened by the topography and trees. It is therefore considered the scheme will not have an impact or harm the views which form part of the significance of the monument. This has been confirmed by Historic England who have no objections.

Concern has been raised regarding the glass atrium that links the main sections of the building causing light pollution in a sensitive area within the AONB. This concern is noted however, the link is limited in scale and as the site is surrounded by other residential properties the development would not appear as a new isolated form of lighting or create a significant additional amount of residential light. Therefore the wider impact would be limited.

The plot size is large enough to accommodate the development providing amenity space for both the existing and proposed dwellings without appearing cramped or overdeveloped. Being located within other residential properties it is considered the proposal would not appear isolated or overly prominent in wider views and therefore not cause significant wider harm to the surrounding landscape and setting.

On sites capable of providing less than four dwellings Policy CP9 seeks a financial contribution for affordable housing where viable. The Policy Implementation Manager has considered this scheme and has confirmed that this application is unable to make a contribution to affordable housing for viability reasons.

Whilst the plot is slightly unkempt at present it is located within an existing residential garden which could be cleared at anytime and does not provide significant ecological interest. A local resident has highlighted the possibility of slow worms on site. However, it is extremely unlikely that the population of slow worms and other reptiles that could be affected is sufficiently valuable for the impact to be significant. However, in order to comply with the Wildlife and Countryside Act, an informative is recommended highlighting the applicant’s responsibilities should protected species be evidenced on site.

HIGHWAY SAFETY Concerns have been raised about the traffic generated from the proposed dwelling and during the construction phases. These concerns are appreciated given the narrow nature and surface of Crawley Lane. However, the site is located at the beginning of the lane and as a single dwelling it will not generate a significant amount of additional traffic or have a severe impact on highway safety. The proposal includes widening a section of the lane which would be an improvement that could be used by all residents. On site parking has been provided. The proposed public turning head has been removed from the scheme following discussions with GCC Highways who felt it position at the beginning of the lane would not make it overly beneficial for the majority of residents further along the lane and was unlikely to be adopted by the GCC.

Whilst it is accepted there maybe somePage short 59 of term 206 disruption during the construction phase, the developer needs to give this careful consideration given the nature of the site and the lane. A construction method statement can be required via condition.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY The proposed dwelling is located within the existing large plot of 5 Crawley Hill and is elevated above Crawley Lane and the neighbouring properties to the North. However, the proposed position does create a distance between the development and these neighbours with further protection created from the neighbour's boundary treatment. There is also space to the neighbour to the side who is slightly higher up the Hill. With the space and position of the proposed dwelling compared to neighbouring properties it is considered that the scheme will not significantly harm the privacy of the neighbouring residents. The space also results in there being no significant overshadowing or overbearing problems.

Page 60 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Item No: 06 Application No. S.15/2418/HHOLD Site No. PP-04557340 Site Address Mistle House, Framilode, Gloucester, Gloucestershire

Town/Parish Fretherne With Saul Parish Council

Grid Reference 375101,210249

Application Householder Application Type Proposal Erection of garden room and utility to rear of dwelling.

Applicant’s Mr & Mrs T C Lever Details Mistle House, Framilode, Gloucester, Gloucestershire, GL2 7LH

Agent’s Details Abigail Snook Page 61 of 206 The Pike House, Kingshill Road, Dursley, Gloucestershire, GL11 4BJ

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Case Officer Sarah Crawley

Application 13.10.2015 Validated

RECOMMENDATION Recommended Refusal Decision For the following 1. The design of the proposed development is based primarily upon reasons: the extension for which planning permission was granted in 1993. That development appears as a slightly quirky addition to the original structure. However, the proposed extension detracts from the design concept of the 1993 scheme as it cuts into the form of the existing extension and would result in a cluttered and confused appearance contrary to Policy HC8 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015.

Informatives:

1. In accordance with Article 35 (2) the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant/agent. The case officer had previously contacted the agent to negotiate changes to the design which could have enhanced the overall scheme. Unfortunately these suggestions were not considered acceptable to the applicant.

CONSULTEES Comments Contaminated Land Officer (E) Received Not Yet Parish / Town Received Cotswold Canal Trust (E)

CONTRIBUTORS Letters of Objection Letters of Support Letters of Comment S Kitching, Little Orchard, Framilode

OFFICER’S REPORT

DESCRIPTION OF SITE The site comprises a semi-detached dwelling situated to the east of the Stroudwater canal in Framilode. The property has a vehicularPage access 62 of 206 from the eastern part of the site leading to a

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

parking area. The main amenity area lies to the east of the property. The site lies within a Conservation Area, a Key Wildlife Site and is within Flood Zones two and three.

PROPOSAL The proposal is the erection of a utility and garden room extension to the eastern rear elevation of the property. This is a resubmitted application after a refusal earlier this year. Although the agent and the authority had discussions over potential alternative designs the applicant wished to pursue the scheme as originally submitted.

MATERIALS Brick, timber cladding and glazing.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY Application S.10879/G permitted "Erection of extension to provide new kitchen and bedroom" in 1993.

Application S.15/0483/HHOLD was for essentially the same development and was refused in April this year.

CONSULTATION RESPONSES Public The owner/occupier of "Little Orchard" commented "I do not believe that it is in the interests of the present owners or of future owners of this property to build over the top of the waste tank. The present plans appear to show the proposed development covering approximately half of the said tank."

Town/Parish None

Consultations The Senior Contaminated Land Officer noted the proximity of the site to a former landfill site and so recommended a landfill informative be applied to any planning permission.

The Gloucestershire Centre for Environmental Records has noted the presence of UK Biodiversity Action Plan Priority Species and other Nationally Important or Legally Protected Species however the closest record was over 115m from the site and these records relate primarily to the River Frome. The development site is managed garden land at present and there is considered to be little potential for detrimental impact upon protected wildlife.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

The NPPF is a material consideration in planning decisions. The NPPF was published on 27 March 2012. This is a key part of the reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, to protect the environment and to promote sustainable growth.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITY Policy ES3 precludes development that would lead to an unacceptable level of: noise, general disturbance, loss of privacy or overbearing effect; environmental pollution; noise sensitive development in unacceptable locations; increased risk of flooding, detrimental impact upon highway safety or adverse effect on contaminated land where a risk to health or environment.

Due to the position, height and design of the proposed extension in relation to the neighbouring dwellings there would be no unacceptable overbearing effect, impact on light levels or loss of privacy arising from the development. Any alterations to neighbouring property would be a civil matter.

HIGHWAY SAFETY Policy ES3 precludes development that would lead to an unacceptable detrimental impact upon highway safety.

The proposal would have no direct impact upon vehicular access or parking arrangements which would remain adequate to serve the enlarged dwelling. The potential increase in vehicular movements associated with the proposed development is not considered to result in any significant detrimental impact upon highway safety.

DESIGN/APPEARANCE/IMPACT ON THE AREA Policy HC8 permits extension of residential properties subject to appropriate height, scale, form and design which is in keeping with the existing dwelling and the wider setting. Sufficient appropriate space must be retained for vehicular parking and the opportunity to enhance the energy efficiency of the property should be exercised.

The design of the proposed development is based primarily upon the extension for which planning permission was granted in 1993. That development appears as a slightly quirky addition to the original structure. However, to base the design of a further extension upon this non-original element of the building erodes the original character of the property. The proposed extension would cut into the existing extension and as such would result in a cluttered and confused appearance.

There would be adequate parking and amenity space remaining to serve the enlarged dwelling.

HERITAGE IMPACT Policy ES10 seeks to preserve, protect and enhance the historic environment. An assessment of the heritage asset will be required. Proposals that conserve and where appropriate enhance any heritage significance and setting including views will be supported. Any harm or loss would require clear and convincing justification as to why any heritage interest should be overridden. Page 64 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Whilst the site lies within the Conservation Area the largely contained position of the proposed development is such that it would not be readily evident from the public domain. Whilst the design is not considered appropriate due to the generally screened position the development is not considered to have a significant impact upon the Conservation Area or its setting.

FLOOD RISK The site lies within Flood Zones two and three. However, the structure is partially a replacement building and flood resilience measures are proposed as part of the development. Due to the minor nature of the works proposed the development is not anticipated to have any significant detrimental impact upon flooding risk.

RECOMMENDATION The application is considered to comply with the relevant policies and is therefore recommended for permission.

Page 65 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Item No: 07 Application No. S.14/0810/OUT Site No. Site Address Land West Of Stonehouse, Nastend Lane, Nastend, Stonehouse

Town/Parish Eastington Parish Council

Grid Reference 379295,206467

Application Outline Planning Permission Type Proposal A mixed use development comprising up to 1,350 dwellings and 9.3 hectares of employment land for use classes B1, B2 and B8; a mixed use local centre comprising use classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1, D2 and B1; primary school, open space and landscaping, parking and supporting infrastructure and utilities; and the creation of new vehicular accesses from Grove Lane, Oldends Lane and Brunel Way.

Refer to Appendix A for Site Location Map

Applicant’s Robert Hitchins Limited & Redrow Homes Limited Details C/O Pegasus Group, Pegasus House, Querns Business Centre, Whitworth Road, Cirencester Gloucestershire GL7 1RT

Agent’s Details Pegasus Group Pegasus House, Querns Business Centre, Whitworth Road, Cirencester, Gloucestershire GL7 1RT

Case Officer David Lowin

Application 02.04.2014 Validated

RECOMMENDATION Recommended Resolve to Grant Permission Decision (Subject to the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Agreement) Subject to the following Conditions within report. conditions:

CONSULTEES Comments Development CoordinationPage 66 of (E) 206 Received Parish / Town Highways England

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Natural England (E) Karen Colbourn Environmental Health (E) Archaeology Dept (E) Gloucestershire Education Dept (E) Gloucestershire County Strategic Public Rights Of Way Officer (E) Policy Implementation Officer (E) Contaminated Land Officer (E) Mr David Lesser The Environment Agency (E) County Ecologist(E) Severn Trent Water Ltd (E) Health And Safety Executive Highways England Wales And West Utilities Limited (E) Network Rail(E) Sport England Cotswold Canal Trust (E) Standish Parish Council Stonehouse Town Council Whitminster Parish Council Arboricultural Officer (E) Natural England (E) Historic England SW

CONTRIBUTORS Letters of Objection J Rigelsford, 11 Broadfield Road, Eastington Stonehouse Town Council, Town Hall, High Street K.M.Redford, 2 Cressington Cottages, Westend G Redford, 2 Cressington Cottages, Westend H Cogan, 8 Oldends Lane, Stonehouse D And J Spencer, Orchard House, Nupend E Beach, Endslea, Nastend Lane J Lee, Sans Souci , Oxlynch Lane Psan, 1 Stable Cottages, Bread Street Mr G Bloyce, 4 More Hall Park, Randwick G Redford, 2 Cressington Cottages, Grove Lane A Lazenbury, Nupend Cottage, Nupend Mr W K Evill, 65 Mill Farm Drive, Paganhill S Younge, 1 Cressington Cottages, Grove Lane, S Ashton, 2 Dotloe Farm Cottages, Nupend C Watkins, The Feathers , Middle Street Mr Cole, Lindine, Nastend I Stuart, Church End, Paul Mead P McCurry, 2 Crowcumpill Cottage, Gloucester Road P McCurry, 2 CrowcumpillPage 67 of Cottage, 206 Gloucester Road, Standish, GL10 3BS

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

N Lilley, 6 Perth , Stonehouse J Telling, The Old Nursery, Kings Stanley J Peacey, Jade Lodge, The Butts, Rodborough, S Reakes, J. Beales, Little Court, , Bristol Rd, M Gregory, 94 Ryelands Road, Stonehouse M Gribble, Bridlepath Cottage, Westend L Hughes, Castle House, Eastington Mr D W T Lee, The Croft, Oxlynch Lane M A West, The Sheilings Broad St, Kings Stanley A Coull, Nastend Farm, Nastend Major B & Mrs.J.Middlemiss, The Leaze, Oxlynch Lane Mr D Clarke, Courtand, Nastend D Beaumont, The Crooked Cottage, Sturmyes Road, France Lynch E Davies, Ingleside, Bath Road, Eastington R Waite, 1 Palmers Court, Stonehouse Mr R Madden, 4 Westend Cottages, Nupend S Paskey, 61 Bath Road, Eastington Mrs. I.E. Smith, Vine Cottage, Nupend G Griffiths, Orchard Place, Nupend Mr And Mrs Lauppe, William Morris House, Chipmans Platt Mr And Mrs Willey, Half Acres, Nupend C Sunman, White Oaks, The Hithe L Amery, 13 Bowbridge Lock, Stroud W A Fletcher, Julian Cottages, Middle Street P.R.O'Neill, Recreation Cottage,, Slad, Mrs P Fothergill, 37 Home Orchard, Ebley M Carlyon, 215 Slad Road, Stroud J Bayly, 4 Vale View, Field Road, Whiteshill A F Niblett, Bourne Cottage,, Middle Street,

Letters of Support N Davenport, 23 Springhill, Uplands

Letters of Comment A Franks, Beech Cottage, Newtown A Coull, Nastend Farm, Nastend A Lazenbury, Nupend Cottage, , Nupend, Mr P Widdows, 1 Westend Cottages, Westend M Safizadeh, Westend House, Westend Mr P Widdows, 1 Westend Cottages, Westend C Sunman, White Oaks, Rodborough A Stayte, 29 Bridge Mead , Ebley C Twitchett, (ORR) Office Of Rail Regulation, 2nd Floor R Crockford, Upton, Pearcroft Road J Bower-Robinson, 17 Bath Road, Tetbury W Purchese, 5 Golden Jubilee Way, Dudbridge D Clarke, 4 RickyardPage Way, 68 of Whitminster 206 C Townley, 4 Thompson Road, Uplands L Perry, 1 Hillcrest, Springfield Rd

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

S Pickover, 81 Renard Rise, Stonehouse , GL10 2BT

OFFICER’S REPORT

THE PROPOSAL A mixed use outline application comprising up to 1,350 dwellings and 9.3 hectares of employment land for use classes B1, B2, and B8; a mixed use local centre comprising use classes, A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D1, D2 and B1; primary school, open space and landscaping; parking and supporting infrastructure and utilities with all matters reserved except the creation of new vehicular accesses from Grove Lane, Oldends Lane and Brunel Way. An environmental statement has been submitted as part of the application, it covers the following subject areas:

Socio economics Ecology and Conservation Landscape and visual assessment Traffic and transport Air quality Noise and vibration Hydrology, drainage and flood risk Ground conditions Culture heritage and archaeology, soils and agriculture.

An indicative Masterplan, design strategy statement and parameter plans dealing with land uses, building heights, green infrastructure (GI), and movement and access are also part of the application.

The illustrative masterplan shows the main vehicular access to the application site being from a new access onto Grove Lane with a change to the priority giving priority to traffic entering or leaving the application site. The details of this new access are not reserved matters and detailed plans for this and the other vehicular access points have been submitted. The other new access points to be formed are adjacent to Oldends Lane to the west of the existing level crossing, and off the existing employment estate at Brunel Way. The disposition of land uses is set out in the illustrative masterplan and explained in the submitted design evolution document and expressed in the submitted parameter plans. In summary the employment areas are sited immediately to the west of the main Bristol to Birmingham railway line, with further employment land site shown to the immediate north of the existing employment areas lying to the north of Brunel Way. The Local centre, incorporating a community hall and area for health provision and the primary school site are proposed to the immediate north of this employment land.

The settlement of Nastend is shown protected by a substantial are of open space to the south of the settlement and a significant buffer area to the north, The areas reserved for the provision of sports areas including sports pavilion are to be sited at the northwestern area of the site between part of the housing area and to the southeast of Nupend.

The masterplan and parameter plans show the pattern of footpaths through the site which connect to already existing public rightsPage of 69 way of 206 adjoining the application site. Generally the existing pattern of footpaths and bridleways on the site are respected within the masterplan.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

The parameter plans show the presumed densities of residential development on the site, which in summary is higher in the east and adjoining the local centre and are significantly lower at the northern edge of the site where it abuts open countryside and around the settlements of Nastend and Nupend.

The internal application site road layout is also illustrated on the masterplan and within the design evolution and parameter plans, and shows a main ‘district distributor entering the site at Grove Lane nad then by the sports are splitting into two to form a circular route via the local centre and housing areas with a spur to the new access at Old ends Lane.

The master plan and design evolution document as well as the parameter plans show for illustrative purposes a linear area of open space separating the application site from the employment areas and Nastend. Sustainable urban drainage ponds are shown in this area.

The submitted design evolution document and design vision informative (submitted in December 2015) were informed by discussions by SDC and the applicant with the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) to provide guidance for subsequent applications for approval of reserved matters to ensure high quality design and distinctive neighbourhood characters.

SITE The site covers approximately 98 hectares, predominantly comprising agricultural land to the west of Stonehouse and Stroud where the incised valley of the River Frome opens out into the Severn Vale. The proposed development will involve the loss of some 9.2 ha of best and most versatile agricultural land (Grade 3A), approximately 10% of the application site, distributed in a random pattern across the site. The application site is bound to the east by the Bristol to Birmingham railway line, to the southeast by the small settlement of Nastend and the Oldends Industrial Estate. In the west the site extends to Grove Lane and the village of Nupend, whilst the northern boundary is bounded by agricultural land. The application site predominantly comprises agricultural land containing a number of hedgerows and trees that form field boundaries. The local field pattern is medium to small in scale with enclosure by hedges and hedgerow trees frequently bordered by ditches, the masterplan generally respects the existing field boundaries and the trees and hedges sited in those areas.

Established trees are found throughout the application site, being particularly associated with field boundary hedges, lanes and settlement areas. A number of mature oaks are a notable feature in the landscape to the northern margin of the application site.

The local topography comprises gently rolling agricultural land with pasture, cultivated fields and set-aside land. The highest parts of the site are to the Western side, adjacent to Nupend and north of Nastend Farm. The land slopes gently downwards to the south and eastwards the River Frome and its tributary stream, Nastend Brook that runs generally along the eastern side of the site.

Between the River Frome and the site is the course of the Stroudwater Canal that runs parallel to the A419 road leading from the M5 to Stonehouse. Page 70 of 206 Public rights of way (PROW), footpaths and bridleways criss-cross the site to create a dense network of paths linking the hamlets of Westend, Nupend and Nastend. Paths also link to

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Oldends Farm and to the Stroudwater Business Park/Oldends Industrial Estate employment area at Oldends and Stonehouse.

A landscape and visual assessment of the site has been undertaken and is included within the Environmental Statement which accompanies the planning application as noted above. The site is outside any landscape designations.

The character of the landscape has been defined as predominantly rural vale landscape. The close proximity of large urban areas, the substantial commercial/industrial areas of Oldends and the main highway and railway infrastructure greatly influence local landscape character and visual amenity.

The small scale and enclosed landscape, visually screens all but long distance views of the high ground to the East. From the Cotswold Scarp the site is seen in the context of established urban and commercial built form within the Stroud Valley and clustered local settlements within the Severn Vale.

The application site includes within its red line a narrow area of some 61m in length and with a width of 6.5m immediately north of the Oldends Lane level crossing intended to provide the area where a disabled compliant pedestrian and cycle bridge could be sited, subject to approval from Network rail, and provision of a similar site on the east side of the midland main line to provide a ‘landing’ area.

REVISED DETAILS Revised amendment to the submitted Environmental Statement (ES) dealing with detailed air quality matters, (the impacts of the committed energy from waste site at Javelin Park) and noise, (clarifying the impact of railway noise) were submitted on 11 November 2015, and advertised in accordance with the ES regulations. In addition a revised Ecological assessment was submitted dealing with survey results on predicted visitation impact on the Severn Estuary European site and further results of recording of riparian mammals. A non technical summary of those revisions detailed above was also submitted.

In addition on the 11 November revised drawings of the non reserved matters concerning access of the application were submitted showing revisions to:

Grove Lane Access H414-10E Brunel Way Access H414-11B Oldends Lane Access H414-12C

Finally on 10 December the applicants submitted a Design Strategy informative.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

S.14/2083/FUL - Construction of a two storey B1, B2, B8 production unit with ancillary car parking, loading yard and vehicular access, permitted 24.7.15. 1.83 hectares, 8,077sqm on land immediately south of phase E4 as shown on the indicative masterplan, located North West of the Oldends level crossing and immediately adjacent to the midland main line. This consent safeguards land adjoining thePage railway 71 of for 206 use in the future potentially for a pedestrian and cycle access bridge that is DDA compliant

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Summary of Objections

132 objections (including those direct to Members of Committee) have been received in respect of the proposed development as originally submitted. The issues raised are summarised as follows: • The site is not allocated in the Local Plan (apart from employment). • This application is premature to the both the emerging Eastington Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan the emerging Local Plan • SDC has a 5-year land supply without counting the ‘windfall’ element of housing defined as that housing which is not in the plan. SDC has declined to use windfall figures despite the fact that it has used it in previous appeals. Its inclusion would further reduce the need for such applications as this. • The ‘West of Stonehouse’ settlement has now been removed from the local plan, Stonehouse is no longer a Core Priority Tier 1 strategic site and therefore should be recognised as Tier 2 with modest growth requirements over the planning period. These proposals do not represent ‘modest growth’ and continue to treat the area as a strategic site. • No case is made within the application to justify the need for additional housing locally. The Parish Council Survey does not demonstrate need. At the Stroud Local Plan Inquiry in 2002/2003 the Inspector found ‘no pressing need’ for development. ONS population predictions do not justify a need. • The proposed development will increase congestion and create gridlock with accesses in Grove Lane and Oldends Road impassable. The A419 is at a standstill at commuter times. Residual impact of the proposal will be severe including the 10 year build time. • Proposal fails to include any upgrade to the road network infrastructure – it only includes widening that will not deal with the pressure • New motorway junction required • Grove Lane should be a ‘no right turn’ from the new estate as people use Grove Lane as a rat run to get to the A38 • Proposal will create a dormitory village / new town; too far to walk into Stonehouse and cut off by the railway line therefore heavily reliant on the car. The proposal is therefore in an unsustainable location • Proposal will bring people in from other areas that will commute out of the immediate area providing no benefit to Stroud • Proposal will destroy the communities of Nastend (12 houses) , Nupend (50 houses) and Eastington • Housing and development will be visible along the entire stretch of the M5 from Gloucester to Cam • Loss of productive agricultural land • Lack of community consultation on a design vision foe the development • Use of Greenfield land illogical when so much brownfield land available which should be developed first • Smaller development sites spread around the district would represent a better option than one large site • Due to the application sitesPage proximity 72 of 206 to the Stroudwater Canal, from which the proposed development will benefit, a Section 106 contribution to the canal project should be required. No such contribution forms part of the proposal. The canal

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

provides numerous benefits to the locality such as tourism, jobs, a safe cycling route, fishing and a linear green park. • The planning application states that at the Stonehouse meeting of 86 attendees only 7 objected. This is incorrect as more people attended, all of whom objected. • Negative impact upon wildlife and the removal of niche environments • Inappropriate development in terms of scale and form that is out of character with the Stroud Area/Cotswold Edge. • The character is more urban/semi-urban than rural • The proposal will harm the setting of the Cotswold area of Outstanding Natural Beauty • Increase in light pollution • Drainage issues will be exacerbated given ground conditions with loss of natural soakaways that will lead to an increase in flooding e.g. the road at Nastend that has been adversely affected in recent events. • The Flood Risk Assessment is old and flawed • Contrary to the wishes of Parishioners/intent of Localism Bill • Loss of existing footpath routes • Proposal includes Industrial Units when many in the District are unoccupied or permissions not built due to lack of demand • Crime rate will increase • The proposed primary school is likely to undermine existing schools • Disruption due to noise, dust and traffic disruption • Loss of privacy and light • Loss of village facilities / shops in surrounding existing communities • Proposal will undermine the communities of Stonehouse and Eastington • Will impact broadband speeds • The proposal will affect the viability of Stroud • Stroud District Council and the applicant should respond to Network Rail’s objection by ensuring that meaningful discussions, concerning the safety of the level crossings likely to be affected by this development, are entered into at the earliest opportunity. • Community Consultation where it was promised that “all comments received will be carefully reviewed and taken into account”, most of the above points will almost certainly have been raised, yet none are considered in the ‘no development’ option criteria within section 4.2.2 of the Environmental Statement showing a fundamental failure to provide a balanced view within the planning application. • The houses H4 and H5 near Nupend and H9 near Nastend are too close to the existing hamlets, a green space should be required to retain their identity. Buffer zone details not defined • Industrial Area E1 and E2 should be open for restricted hours as housing surrounding it • Local Action Group – Don’t Strangle Stroud, The proposed ‘West of Stonehouse’ settlement, although adjacent to Stonehouse, is completely separated by the railway line. This makes access to Stonehouse high Street impossible, other than by car. It becomes therefore a new unsustainable development not part of existing infrastructure.

1. The size of the proposed settlement is disproportionate and unnecessary: 1,350 houses in the Parish of EastingtonPage with 73 of 750 206 homes overwhelm the existing community.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

2. It sits alongside the Hamlets of Nastend (12 Homes) and Nupend (50 homes). The scale would destroy these unique settlements with over 400 years of history.

3. Such a large number of houses adjacent to, but disconnected by a railway line from Stonehouse would more likely focus on retail facilities accessible from the motorway network than Stonehouse High Street.

4. This number of additional homes would add up to 12,000 journeys a day to the already congested A419, the only major road from junction 13 on the motorway to the major centre of population and jobs in Stroud and the Stroud Valleys (40% of the district’s population). The effect on the A419 and the M5 slip-road congestion should not be underestimated. The critical importance of this arterial road to Stroud where 60% of all jobs in the district are based is not recognised by this development.

5. Stroud is a struggling market town, increasing traffic congestion will further weaken it’s viability.

6. Increased congestion will threaten the viability of a number of commercial and retail employers as it will be quicker and easier for shoppers to commute to Gloucester for retail and commercial outlets. This is likely to affect the economic growth of Stroud District adversely.

7. Protecting the main arterial road to the District’s major centre of population and its jobs has to be a priority . Developing brownfield land within the centre of population should be the priority.

8. Eastington Parish has a population of 1,500. A new development of 1,350 would add around 3,200 additional population to the parish, overwhelming it with, effectively, a dormitory housing estate. The district already has a problem with unbalanced, excessive, out-commuting.

9. The site has no connection to any existing community. It is simply a vast estate near to a motorway junction. It will encourage further out-commuting from the district which already has a much higher than average level of out commuting.

10. The Stroud population is set to increase, according to the office of National Statistics from around 113,000 today to 126,500 by 2031 (12,500 more people). Stroud district has over 4,000 granted planning permissions today. If all of those are realised they will accommodate an additional 9,400 people. In addition the SDC plans a further 2,000 additional permissions, (4,700 people). This is a further 14,100 people in all. It is recognised that some of the permissions will not happen but housing permissions that take the population projection above the ONS projection to 127,000 without this large planning application seems to have more than provided for the districts needs.

11. In addition to all of the existing (4,000) permissions, SDC has an evidence based report from Evans Jones indicating a further 2,700 windfall allocation. This proposal is excessive. Page 74 of 206 12. As the West of Stonehouse settlement has now been removed from the Local Plan Stonehouse is no longer a Core Priority Tier 1 strategic site and needs to be included

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

in Tier 2. As a Tier 2 it is recognised as requiring some modest growth over the planning period. This proposal is not ‘modest growth’, it treats the area as a strategic site

13. This application is premature to the emerging Local Plan and is contrary to the SDC Full Council decision of July 2013. Developers are not democratic but consideration of their plan should be.

14. This application is premature to the emerging EPC Neighbourhood Plan which is properly registered and proceeding speedily.

15. We understand that most new businesses that are created in this area are done so by owners who like to live here, recruit from here, and enjoy the existing rural environment. Such estate building of this size, would therefore discourage entrepreneurs, new businesses and jobs.

16. We should use brownfield sites before we allocate agricultural green-field ones. The latest guidance from Government ministers advises this. We have much brownfield and derelict land in the Stroud valleys which the guidelines indicate we should use first.

17. The agricultural land proposed for this estate currently produces fodder for milk production. We are advised that food production is becoming as critical as energy production here, and globally. We should not support loss of milk production while we have so much brownfield land in our district, much of it in desperate need of rejuvenation.

18. SDC has a 5-year land supply without counting the ‘windfall’ element of housing defined as that housing which is not in the plan. However the National Planning Policy Guidelines allows and encourages this windfall to be included. SDC has declined to use it currently despite the fact that it has used it in previous appeals. Its inclusion would reduce further the need for such applications as this.

19. Eastington Parish is Tier 3 and without any allocation of housing in the emerging Local Plan.

20. No developers have claimed or even attempted to substantiate that any of the existing Planning Permissions granted by SDC are undeliverable or unviable within the Plan period. The full number of granted Planning Permissions, 4,200, therefore stands in full confirming an 8 to 10 year land supply.(see N Boles letter)

21. Sustainability: WoS is in essence a stand alone new settlement and it fails to relate to the existing settlement of Stonehouse. It seems to us to be too small to stand alone and yet too remote to be a logical addition to Stonehouse.

22. The LPA has consistently increased jobs by around 200 a year. It has built houses at a little less than 400 a year. In the years when higher numbers of houses have been built job creation has not risenPage within 75 ofthe 206 district. One out of every two houses built goes to a commuter these additional houses if approved would simply further distort this ratio contrary to agreed LPA policies.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

23. Average household income in the LPA is less than £30,000 pa. Recently built 2 bed houses in the area are selling for around £160,000+ requiring a family income of £45,000 minimum to afford to purchase a new home.

24. The Stonehouse area currently provides the highest proportion of lower cost rental homes. This new settlement if approved will further encourage this current distortion further unbalancing the community.

25. The large employers on the industrial estate tend to employ commuters at around 60% to 70%. No evidence has been submitted that suggests this proposed new settlement will do anything other than further exacerbate this problem.

26. Nick Boles words: "We have recently published planning guidance to ensure that emerging plans [Local & Neighbourhood] are taken into account in respect of inappropriate speculative development". This will be purely speculative and opportunistic development and contrary to both emerging plans [LP & NDP].

27. This is premature with reference to the emerging LP as it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh any benefits of this development.

28. We reserve the right to submit evidence at a later date.

Page 76 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Eastington Parish Council: 08/12/2015

Introduction Eastington Parish Council [EPC] has already submitted representations on this planning application (letter dated 21 July 2014). However since then circumstances have materially changed through the recent adoption of the Stroud Local Plan. Whilst previously EPC objected to the principle of development it now reluctantly accepts the allocation of land for some 1,350 dwellings and some 10 hectares of employment land within the parish.

In making these further representations EPC wishes to be constructive in seeking to work with the Local Planning Authority and the Applicants in aiming to achieve a sustainable form of development that from a social and environmental perspective will integrate as comfortably as possible into the community. To achieve this objective will be a tremendous challenge because the extensive scale of the proposed development will have a huge impact on local infrastructure, particularly the highway network and the visual and social character of the existing village. In accepting that major development is now going to take place in the parish, EPC fervently hopes that SDC will seek to ensure that it is designed to the highest possible standard and becomes a flagship for the future; something that the district can be justly proud of.

It is not the intention to comment in fine detail but to group observations under the following headings: Vision and social integration; traffic impact; environmental/landscape impact; other issues. In doing so reference will be made to Policy SA2 of the Local Plan which provides the guiding principles against which the application should be considered.

Vision The original justification within the draft local plan for the development this land was that it would be a logical extension of Stonehouse and thus would both rely on and help enhance, the services and facilities that the town provides. It became clear during the Examination in Public of the Local Plan that this vision is impossible to achieve because of the lack of connectivity caused by the virtually impermeable barrier of the railway line. Nevertheless the Inspector accepted the allocation and the key question now is what form it should take. It surely must be accepted that it cannot function adequately as an urban extension of Stonehouse and it is remote from the centre of Eastington. Indeed it proposes almost twice as many dwellings as currently exist in Eastington and thus could completely overwhelm the village unless handled with care.

Unless it is merely to become a glorified housing estate in the middle of the countryside, it is EPC’s view that the design and social vision should be carefully reappraised. This accords fully with the introductory paragraph to Policy SA2 which states that “A development brief incorporating a design vision and a masterplan” etc should be approved by the District Council. EPC fully supports this intention and would be happy to work with the Council and the applicants. It is not intended as a negative observation, but if this exercise is to be done constructively, then it must be accepted that the masterplan as submitted, must also be reappraised. Indeed, it is clearly impractical to work up a development brief/design vision, as required by the policy, after the grant of planning permission. That would be a case of putting the cart before the horse. Page 77 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

In saying this, EPC would draw attention to the advice in Section 8 of the NPPF about the need to promote healthy communities and the importance of involving the community in the design and decision making process.

In reconsidering the vision it seems to EPC that two key points emerge. Firstly that the proposed development should be seen as a stand-alone settlement and secondly that further thought must be given to the way that it will sit comfortably within the social and environmental framework of the parish.

As a stand-alone settlement it is critically important to establish a community identity and to provide a range of services and facilities to serve future residents. Point 3 of Policy SA2 identifies this need but in reality what should it mean? It is insufficient merely to provide a few shops, even with the addition of a community hall. The starting point should be to create a focal point for this new community. A place where people can gather, meet friends and hold community events as well as providing for local shopping needs. If one were to think of this as a new village, one would imagine a village green and playing field around which might be a pub, a village hall, a few shops, a cafe/ coffee/wine bar and a church. This should be a key factor in the design philosophy of the settlement as a whole. Indeed it is entirely consistent with the advice in Paragraph 70 of the NPPF.

In this context EPC considers that the “village centre” should be masterplanned at the outset in order to ensure that adequate space is provided to meet all subsequent needs.

For the avoidance of doubt, EPC would be opposed to a large supermarket, but it is considered that more than just “top-up” shopping facilities will be required to minimise car usage.

The proposed new primary school is an essential element of community facilities. EPC would point out that the existing village school is full to capacity and therefore it is essential that the new school must be constructed and opened early in the development programme.

The question of community identity and how it might be integrated with the existing structure of the parish is obviously of much concern to EPC, particularly as it will become responsible for the expanded village. One imagines the new settlement as one of the hamlets that distinguish the character of Eastington and it might be foolish to duplicate facilities, particularly when one considers the cost of maintenance etc. If EPC is to be expected to become responsible for the future control and maintenance of any of the community facilities then it must be properly involved in deciding exactly what should be provided and how and where they will be delivered.

Indeed whilst EPC would be willing to consider accepting responsibility for future maintenance and operation of community facilities, it is considered unreasonable to expect existing parishioners to subsidise new ones. Therefore EPC is unwilling to do so unless adequate funds are made available by the developers, through a Section 106 Agreement, to cover the first ten years running costs after commencement of development. This will need to be properly assessed and costed before any commitment is entered into.

Transport Page 78 of 206 EPC is extremely concerned at the impact the new development will have on the local highway network, particularly the A419 and the roads through Alkerton which are already

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

used as rat runs. The nationally accepted TRICS database suggests that somewhere between 10,000 and 12,000 extra vehicle movements will be generated by the residential element of the development alone. In addition there will be even more generated by the 10 hectares of employment development. Most will decant on to the A419, which is already known to be at capacity. In particular the growth of traffic at peak hours is likely to cause grid lock on the A419. An unwanted knock on effect will be further growth of traffic through the middle of Alkerton as people are forced to bypass the A419 and use the byroad through the Stanleys.

The NPPF states clearly at Paragraph 32 that “All developments that generate significant amounts of traffic movements should be supported by a “Transport Statement or Transport Assessment” and that decisions should take account of whether:

• opportunities for sustainable transport have been taken up to help reduce the need for major transport infrastructure, • safe and suitable access is achievable, • improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of development.

With regard to the first bullet point it is noted that bullet point 12 of Policy SA2 requires a design brief to consider opportunities to improve transport connectivity with Stonehouse. In theory this is a worthwhile objective, although meaningful solutions are thought unlikely to be achievable in practice. Nevertheless EPC would be happy to discuss any suggestions that might be thrown up through the design brief process.

The only proposal that seems to have been suggested by the Applicant is that of relatively limited contributions to the establishment of local bus services. This seems to EPC to be totally inadequate. If the objective is both to improve connectivity and as the first bullet point of Paragraph 32 suggests, to try to reduce the need for major highway infrastructure improvements, then a much more comprehensive approach is necessary.

This brings us back to the third bullet point. Other than some localised improvements which were already planned before the submission of this planning application, it seems that no thorough assessment has been made of the impact of the present proposals and what further improvements are required to mitigate the impact of a very significant growth in traffic.

EPC do not believe that enough attention has been given to this problem. It requests SDC to insist on the submission of a more thorough traffic impact assessment and to request the County Council to seek adequate funding from the developers for highway improvements, not just to the junctions which will directly service the new development, but at least from the M5 through to the start of the Ebley bypass.

A more technical commentary on this matter was provided to Stroud District Council by Helix Transport Consultants on behalf of the parish, and a copy is attached.

Environmental/landscape impact EPC is very concerned at the likely impact on the existing character and visual quality of the parish. The emerging NDP has identifiedPage the79 ofimporta 206 nce of the historic settlement pattern in defining the character of the parish today. In essence Eastington is not a tightly grouped settlement but one that comprises a number of hamlets, each with its own separate identity,

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

but each contributing to the whole. The largest today is Alkerton, where can be found a few shops, two pubs, a chapel, the village hall and the playing fields and memorial hall. However the original Eastington is the present hamlet of Churchend within which is the parish church and primary school.

The NDP has established the importance of maintaining the separation between the various hamlets. Indeed it is a key objective of the Plan and has been supported recently at appeals. In refusing a proposal for up to 30 dwellings at Bath road, Eastington [LPA Ref S.14/1049/OUT] the Inspector remarked on the important role of the site as a visual break between the two “distinct settlement areas which differ in character” of Middle Street and Eastington [Alkerton]. She said that “In developing much of the gap between Eastington and Middle Street the appeal proposal would have an urbanising impact that would detract from the rural setting of both settlements and their individual characters”. She continued that “On this basis, having regard to the need to take account of the different roles and character of different areas, I find the proposal would have a serious harmful impact”. It is also relevant to the present application that she remarked on the relevance of the sites amenity value to the local community arising from the numerous public footpaths which cross it. She said “That value stems largely from it being an accessible and undeveloped open area for walking and enjoyment of the countryside of which it is in part, and also from its role in retaining the separate identities of Middle Street and Eastington”. She believed that the amenity value, demonstrated by the evidence of well used public footpaths, was consistent with the Frameworks aim of promoting healthy communities.

Similarly in refusing the Bath Road Bungalow appeal [application ref S.14/1709/OUT] for a handful of dwellings, the Inspector remarked that “It would have an urbanising effect that would seriously detract from the character and separate identities of Eastington and Middle Street and it would have a detrimental impact in terms of landscape value and character”.

The present planning application proposes development between the hamlets of Churchend, Westend, Nupend and Nastend. It also will have a serious impact on some very well used public footpaths which are of great amenity value to the existing community.

Far from helping to maintain and protect the separate identities of the affected settlements, elements of the development, as currently proposed in the indicative masterplan, would have completely the opposite effect. This would not only be contrary to Draft NDP Policy EP3, which seeks to maintain the separate identity of the hamlets which form the character of the parish, but also Local Plan Policy CP 15, from which the NDP policy is partly drawn. In preparing the NDP, a Landscape and Character Assessment has been undertaken as part of the evidence base to support of Policy EP3 of the draft NDP. It is from this Assessment that the following comments are drawn.

Firstly, after crossing the A419 at Chipman’s Platt roundabout, the approach from Churchend to Westend and Nupend should not be compromised by new housing immediately to the east of Grove Lane. At present this comprises two paddocks dividing the road from an ancient bridleway which is very well used as a public footpath.

Development of this strip of land alongside Grove Lane would have a severe urbanising effect and would completely underminePage the 80 policyof 206 objective of maintain separation between settlements.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

As the road branches to rise up the hill, the open aspect of a further paddock is dominated at the top of the rise by the front elevation of a substantial house. This is an important element on the approach to Nupend in defining its setting. Indeed, Nupend is situated on the top of a low hill which means that any new development towards the top of the slope will detract from the setting of the hamlet. To some extent this seems to have been recognised by the proposed location of playing fields, although a further extension of this open space in a westerly direction would be desirable.

Bearing this in mind it is suggested that housing areas marked on the indicative masterplan as H1, H2, H6 and the upper areas of H4 and H5 should remain as open space.

The ground slopes down from Nupend to Nastend, so by maintaining an open “collar” around Nupend and containing new development on the lower land “behind” the bridleway, the sense of division between the various hamlets should reasonably be maintained, subject to more structural landscaping around the periphery of Nastend. This could be further supported with a restriction on the height of buildings and dwellings to no more than 2.5 storeys.

The bridleway referred to earlier links Westend [adjoining the chapel] with Nastend from where it rises up the slope through the middle of the proposed development. The landscape quality of the bridleway and associated land alongside it, is of a high quality in the section between Westend and through Nastend. It should be carefully protected and enhanced and not allowed merely to become an urban pathway bounded by back garden fences. The retention of the housing areas H1, H6 and H7 as open space is very important in helping achieve this objective. In essence the bridleway would become a natural boundary to the new development and be enhanced by further structural landscaping.

The effect of these comments is demonstrated on the attached plan.

What is suggested is consistent with the objectives of bullet point 7 of Policy SA2. EPC strongly supports these objectives so long as they are applied in a meaningful way. Structural landscaping to achieve buffers around Nupend and Nastend in particular, must be set out clearly through the design brief and not left to the reserved matter stage when it would be far too late.

Other Matters EPC would make the following additional comments: • Construction traffic will obviously be a cause of nuisance for existing residents. If a Construction Method Statement has yet to be agreed it is requested that EPC be consulted. • Play areas should be delivered to coincide with each phase of new housing. • Litter and dog waste bins should be installed by the developers in each phase of house building, rather than be left to the parish or SDC through a Section 106 agreement.

Finally EPC should point out that the NDP is now at an advanced stage of preparation and arguably is a material consideration in dealing with this planning application. The previous draft is already with SDC. It is in the course of final editing prior following comments from your Policy colleagues and EPC reservesPage the81 ofright 206 to submit the final draft very shortly.

Appended to this response;

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

West of Stonehouse, Policy CA2 – Representations to the Stroud District Local Plan Inquiry on Transportation Matter May 2015 - DOC.NO WOS/TM-001

Map of Eastington Parish showing area of land to be preserve as non developed land

Both appendices are available on the planning file dated 8/12/2015.

Stonehouse Town Council: 18/07/2014

The Council sees no justification for this number of houses in this particular location as it is neither in the current adopted Local Plan nor in the emerging Local Plan and was specifically dropped from the draft emerging Local Plan. The Council can identify other brownfield sites suitable for development to fulfil the housing needs of Stonehouse.

The two access points off Oldends Lane would create a bottle neck with a rat run along the B4008. The number of HGV movements when mixed with residential traffic are not anticipated by the developer who has merely relied on the Traffic Management Zone being in place to deter traffic movements along the B4008 which we know will not be the case.

In common with neighbouring parishes we believe the site will tip the "at over capacity" A419 to unacceptable increased congestion, noise and air pollution from the Horse Trough roundabout to the M5 junction.

In particular there should be no access points to the proposal site/employment land from Oldends Lane. The area of orchard adjacent to the railway line should be protected as a community orchard to mitigate the loss of open countryside. There is a lack of buffer zone to maintain wildlife and clean air.

The proposed development will cause increased use of the level crossings at Oldends Lane. We would concur with the comments of Network Rail that this would create an unacceptable risk with pedestrians and cars using the crossing together at peak times. Not only this, but the tailback under the narrow railway bridge will be considerable extending towards a school.

We would also concur with comments by Gloucestershire Constabulary regarding the pressures on policing in this area. This Council has worked hard to reduce crime and anti- social behaviour and we regard the proposed community as a threat to this work with a lack of cohesion between settlements.

Stonehouse is a designated neighbourhood plan area and we respectfully ask Stroud District Council to reject this application and allow localism to take precedence. We can find our own housing solutions.

Standish Parish Council: 05/07/2014

In response to your request for some initial comments by July 21 st , 2014, to the above outline application for 1,350 homes, a school,Page 82 shopping of 206 centre, open space and employment development, Standish Parish Councillors wish to make clear they strongly object to this scheme.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Standish Councillors’ view was supported by a public meeting held at Standish Village Hall on June 26 th , 2014, during which residents first received an overview of the proposal and secondly went on to give a clear mandate – on a show of hands - to their parish council to oppose the development on their behalf.

In essence Standish PC notes that infrastructure to support this major development is entirely lacking and asserts that existing roads and services like doctors will simply not be able to cope with this additional number of residents.

To detail Standish Councillors’ views in more depth they oppose this plan because:

1) Highways – there are already considerable tailbacks and congestion caused simply by the existing volume of vehicles on the A419 motorway feeder road from Stonehouse past this site to and from the M5. Yet more vehicle movements would only increase traffic jams and incite motorists to seek the alternative and already sub-standard and accident prone B4008 through Standish. Pollution from such an overall traffic is an additional concern of this council.

2) There are no proposals included for pedestrian and cycle links into Stonehouse which presents West of Stonehouse as a standalone settlement, making it entirely unsustainable as its residents would be wholly dependent on car transport.

3) Railway lines divide this land from Stonehouse with only the Oldends Lane level crossing and a narrow bridge further up Oldends Lane, again making this proposal unsustainable in that its residents would not be able to seamlessly access services in their nearest town (Stonehouse).

4) Meadows within the scheme site are rich in biodiversity and should at all costs be protected.

5) This development would have a hugely adverse effect on views from the nearby AONB.

6) The impact on doctors, dentists, police and similar local services cannot be overstated. These services would simply become swamped. Whitminster Parish Council:

Council is opposed to the proposed development for the following reasons;

The proposal is for a substantial number of residential units that is unplanned, out of kilter and contradictory to the draft local plan. A housing development of this size needs to be carefully considered and form part of the comprehensive plan rather than considered in isolation without due regard to unintended consequences.

The proposed development will give rise to a significant loss of agricultural land.

Without significant improvements in Pagethe local 83 ofroad 206 network and public transport infrastructure the development is likely to cause severe worsening of existing congestion making it difficult for those from Stonehouse, Stroud and the Valleys to travel west to junction 13 of the M5 and

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

for those residents in towns and villages west of the M5 motorway, including Whitminster, to travel into Stroud and access local employment.

The proposed development does not provide any solution for existing traffic problems relating to Grove Lane and hence poses a significant risk to highway safety at the A38 Grove Lane junction and to the amenity of local residents.

Gloucestershire County Council:

GCC Archaeologist

I advise that the archaeological implications of this development have been investigated by undertaking an initial desk-based assessment (CgMs Consulting, report dated May 2012), followed by geophysical survey (Bartlett-Clark, report dated January 2013) and then trial- trenching (Headland Archaeology, report dated November 2013). I note that the results of these investigations are considered within an Environmental Statement submitted in support of this planning application.

The results of the archaeological investigations were positive, since significant archaeological remains were found to be present at several locations. In the southern part of the application site geophysical survey revealed a D-shaped enclosure measuring c. 60m across, which was investigated by the excavation of Trenches 98 and 99. The enclosure boundary was confirmed as a ditch measuring up to 2.4m wide by 0.7m deep, containing several episodes of infilling. Investigation of the interior of the enclosure contained linear ditches, pits and a post-setting. Finds indicate that the enclosure functioned during the mid – late Iron Age and that activity continued into the Roman period. The enclosure very probably represents a small settlement of farmstead type.

Approximately 200m to the south-west of the settlement enclosure, investigation of Trench 115 revealed a ditch measuring c. 1.7 m wide by 0.6m deep associated with a sherd of Roman pottery. The same trench also revealed a shallow gully, and both features are interpreted as elements of a Roman agricultural landscape.

Little evidence was found during the evaluation for further Iron Age or Roman features. However, a number of trenches revealed discrete features which may relate to settlement or other activity of this date. These include a post-setting found in Trench 182 (in the north-west part of the application site), a ditch and a pit found in Trenches 47 and 46 respectively (located in the north-eastern part of the application site), and Trench 44 also produced post- settings and linear gullies of potentially early date.

It is clear from the results of the evaluation that the archaeological deposits are not of the first order of preservation, since they have undergone erosion from medieval and later ploughing with the result that all surfaces associated with the remains have been destroyed. For that reason it is my view that the archaeological remains are not of the highest significance, so meriting preservation in situ .

Nevertheless, the results of the evaluation indicate that there is good potential for the recovery of information relating toPage Iron 84 Ageof 206 and Roman settlement and agricultural landscape. For that reason it is my view that, the archaeological deposits on this site have the potential to make a contribution to our understanding of the archaeology of

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Gloucestershire and the wider region. On that basis I am pleased to confirm that I have no objection in principle to the proposed development, with the proviso that an appropriate programme of archaeological excavation and recording should be undertaken in advance of the development proceeding.

To facilitate this work I recommend that a condition based on model condition 55 from Appendix A of Circular 11/95 is attached to any planning permission which may be given for this development, ie;

‘No development shall take place within the application site until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant and approved in writing by the local planning authority’.

Reason: to make provision for a programme of archaeological mitigation, so as to record and advance understanding of any heritage assets which will be lost, in accordance with paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework I would be pleased to provide the applicant on request with a brief outlining the scope of the archaeological recording work.

GCC Youth Support Services

The youth support services contribution GCC would be looking for from this development (based on the agreed youth support formula of £21 per new house per year for 8 years), for 1,350 new houses would be £28,350 pa for 8 years, or a lump sum of £226,800, payable in equal instalments 12 & 24 months after commencement.

Page 85 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

GCC Ecology (Biodiversity):

National Planning Policy Framework policy area 11 including paragraphs 9, 99, 165 and 176 together with Natural England’s Standing Advice to Local Planning Authorities are relevant considerations. The advice of the District Council’s consultant or in-house ecologist will help the LPA to consider the biodiversity matters arising from this development proposal. The comments here are only of a strategic and general nature. The Environmental Statement (ES) and other documents have not been reviewed in detail for their ecology content.

The land in question has potential biodiversity value mainly associated with the boundary features (field margins, hedgerows, small woods & ditches) but also the presence of a riverine corridors, trees, scrub, buildings, grassland and a pond. The development would result in retention of many habitat features but also notable loss of hedgerow and woodland habitat with likely consequential impacts on protected species particularly residual effects. A large area of land (suitably managed) would become unavailable for wildlife to colonise so to be acceptable the development must deliver a comprehensive mitigation, enhancement and aftercare management scheme that leads to a verifiable benefit for biodiversity in the long- term that is realistic and sustainable. A scheme of this type may be being put forward but residual impacts are a concern. New habitats are being promised along with enhancement of retained features. Overall with appropriate safeguards plus mitigation, enhancement and management measures in place a net gain for biodiversity is being claimed. However Stroud District Council needs to scrutinise the application carefully to see if appropriate biodiversity outcomes can be delivered through any consent granted.

A programme of ecological survey and assessment work has been presented in the Environmental Statement (ES) accompanying this application. The applicant’s conclusions of the impacts on biodiversity have been presented under the title of ‘Ecology and Nature Conservation’ in the Non-Technical Summary. Impact on protected sites includes the need to screen for likely significant effect on European Site(s) for example the Severn Estuary and Cotswold Beechwoods from increased informal recreation and water or air pollution (The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, Regulation 61). The Planning Authority must carry out its own screening assessment to see if the development could have a likely significant impact on European Sites (Habitats Regulations Assessment – HRA Stage One). If this were concluded to be the case then an Appropriate Assessment (HRA Stage Two) would need to be undertaken to determine impact on site integrity taking account of conservation objectives. The Council must consider if it agrees with the assertions of the applicant in its application and in doing so consider any additional information it thinks is relevant and also be mindful of the views of Natural England. It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species (such as great crested newts, bats, otters, water voles, badgers, reptiles and nesting birds), and the extent that they may be affected by the development, is established by the Planning Authority before planning permission is granted or refused. An example of this is the installation of lighting which could disturb bats foraging in the area. On this matter we note that lighting has been considered and that retention of dark corridors is proposed.

The site is a location where the provision of strategic and more local Green Infrastructure needs to be conserved and enhanced. Green Infrastructure can facilitate linkage to and improvement of the ecological networkPage as defined86 of 206 by Gloucestershire’s Nature Map (see http://gloucestershirebap.org.uk/actionplan/nature-map.php ) and the county’s main rivers. The proposal in general makes a contribution in this respect but it does appear to be

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

restricted to mainly on-site benefits only and not to wider Green Infrastructure delivery (e.g. the River Frome/Canal corridor). This is important given the number of new residents that will exist so some additional contribution to this by the developer is probably justifiable and would ensure from an ecology perspective that there is a certain overall biodiversity benefit.

The installation of a sustainable drainage system is welcomed with the creation of ponds and watercourse enhancement which should achieve some biodiversity gain. However this needs looking at carefully to see whether a more ambitious wetland ecosystem treatment ‘WET system’ would be appropriate to incorporate too to provide other biodiversity and environmental benefits. Sustainable Drainage and waste water treatment should not just simply be deferred to the reserved matters stage as it is significant in terms of the development footprint and how it will function when occupied. We see at 3.6.8 to 3.6.10 of the ES that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is being promised which should be assembled as a reserved matter linked to biodiversity mitigation, enhancement and management measures which in themselves would be reserved or S.106 matters.

GCC Community Infrastructure: 12/03/15

Would seek contributions of £1,104,894.00 or adequate provision within on site primary school. In addition as contribution towards libraries of £264,600.00 will be sought.

(The details of the draft S106 relating to library contribution and education provision are set out below)

GCC Highways:

The planning application is for a mixed-use development including 1,350 dwellings, a 9.3Ha extension to the Stroudwater Business Park, a local centre and a primary school, with all matters reserved except access. The development is included as Site Allocation SA2 within the Stroud District Local Plan.

The development will be accessed from the A419 via Grove Lane, with a proposed distributor road which will link Grove Lane with Oldends Lane. A further access to primarily serve employment elements of the proposed development will be provided from Brunel Way within the Stroudwater Business Park.

The Transport Assessment (TA) and Framework Travel Plan (TP) were submitted with the planning application in April 2014. As would be expected for a development of this scale, there has been significant ongoing discussion between the applicant, the applicant’s consultant PFA, Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) and Highways England (HE) through the determination period to agree the transport details of the proposals. Much of this discussion is summarised in this response.

Page 87 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Planning Policy Stroud District Local Plan On the 19 th November 2015 Stroud District Council (SDC) adopted a new Local Plan. This Plan replaces the 2005 Local Plan entirely and now provides a positive planning policy framework for the District for the period up to 2031. Land West of Stonehouse is allocated under Site Allocations Policy SA2 for 1,350 homes and 10 Hectares of B1, B2 and B8 employment land. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, March 2012) is the primary national planning policy relevant to the proposed development. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The NPPF has been demonstrated to have been taken into account in the preparation of the Local Plan. It is also a material consideration in planning decisions. The main principles of the NPPF relevant to planning applications in transport terms are set out in Section 4 Paragraph 32:

All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Assessment. Plans and decisions should take account of whether:

• The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; • Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and • Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused where the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe.

Access Proposals

Vehicular Access

Grove Lane Grove Lane has been realigned such that a route is provided into the proposed development site, which becomes the major road. Grove Lane itself, which runs between the Chipmans Platt Roundabout and the A38, meets this realigned route into the site as the minor arm. This change in priority is appropriate due to the likely changes in future traffic patterns. It is discussed within the TA that the change in priority will also discourage drivers from using Grove Lane as a cut through to the A38. This is accepted, although the extent to which it will contribute to that aim is considered to be minimal.

The existing service station/hotel access onto Grove Lane is the sole egress from the facility. This access has been built out to meet the re-aligned Grove Lane just to the north of the junction with the route into the site. The re-aligned road layout will need to accommodate a fuel tanker exiting the service station, turning right onto Grove Lane, and then turning right towards Chipmans Platt Roundabout. Swept Path Analysis has been provided to demonstrate that this movement can be made by a fuel tanker, in addition to the 16.8m articulated lorry as shown in the TA AppendixPage 88 ofO. 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Grove Lane is currently subject to a 50mph speed limit between Chipmans Platt Roundabout and the lane leading to Nupend. It is proposed to reduce the speed limit to 30mph between Chipmans Platt Roundabout and the separate residential access on Grove Lane. Consultation has been undertaken with the Police regarding the acceptability of such a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). Gateway features and footways have been incorporated into the design shown in H414-10E in order to achieve the reduction in actual vehicle speeds necessary to make a TRO reducing the speed limit to 30mph acceptable.

The road into the proposed development site has been designed with horizontal curvature at the lower end of the range for a 50kph design speed (DMRB TD 9/93). The 4.5m x 70m visibility splay to the right from Grove Lane is therefore appropriate. It must be noted that the same level of visibility will need to be demonstrated to the left at the point when the Reserved Matters Application for the internal site layout comes forward.

Considering the changes being made to the Grove Lane layout and speed limit, speed surveys are not considered necessary or appropriate to determine visibility requirements. Therefore the Applicant’s approach of providing visibility for the residential access to the north based on design speeds and allowing a margin for speeds in excess of the speed limit is appropriate. As well as the DMRB standards quoted, the proposed visibilities meet the “deemed to satisfy” requirement in Manual for Gloucestershire Streets (MfGS), which is based on data on recorded traffic speeds for roads of set speed limits. Visibility splays for the re-aligned service station access road will be provided to the same standard. This will include visibility along the proposed access route into the development, meaning that the build out of land to the west of Grove Lane and south of the service station access is likely to need to be maintained to retain visibility.

Brunel Way The Brunel Way access point is designed to provide access for the employment land uses, although a route into the main site is likely to be available. 2.4m x 56m visibility splays are provided. This meets the Y distance of 54m required by the “deemed to satisfy” standards for a 30mph speed limit as set out in MfGS.

The minimum junction spacing for an industrial access road is 90m on the same side of the road, or 45m opposite. This has been achieved and the location is therefore acceptable. MfGS requires that junction corner radii of 15m are provided for Industrial Access Roads. The original plans showed radii of 12m, which have been amended to 15m in Drawing H414-11B. The plans show a 3.2m footway/cycleway on the east side of the access road. As a principle this is welcomed. However the existing footway on Brunel Way is not sufficiently wide to accommodate cycling. Signage and appropriate tactile paving will need to be provided to guide cyclists onto the main carriageway at Brunel Way to avoid conflict with pedestrians. This has been updated in Drawing H414-11B.

Oldends Lane Access This access point is the extension of an existing stub to the north of Brunel Way. There are therefore no visibility requirements for the new access point. However, the extension of this existing stub will introduce southbound traffic past the Brunel Way junction which was not present previously. A visibility splay of 2.4m x 54m, the “deemed to satisfy” splay for a 30mph speed limit, is required to the north fromPage Brunel 89 of W206ay, as shown in Drawing H414-12C.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

The provision of a shared pedestrian/cycleway to the east of Oldends Lane is welcomed, as is the proposed reduction in hedge height to aid visibility at the level crossing.

This section of Oldends Lane, particularly the existing stub, is used as on-street parking. This is likely to remain possible following the construction of the new access, although it may be used less due to the intensification of traffic use. Cars parking here may be displaced onto Brunel Way but this is unlikely to have an unacceptable impact on road safety or capacity.

Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) The Stage 1 Road Safety Audit highlighted several issues with the proposed access to Grove Lane and these are outlined below. The issues raised are accepted as confirmed in the updated designers response received on the 28 th August 2015.

• Proximity of the new junction of Grove Lane (north) with Grove Lane (south) and the modified access/exit to the service area resulting in the risk of rear shunts. This problem was raised based on the existing speed limit of the adjacent highway being 50mph and recommended that the location of the service area access should be relocated further north and made one way out onto Grove Lane. Additional information and a further site visit was undertaken by the Auditor in July 2015 and the Auditor has confirmed that the introduction of a 30mph limit immediately upon entry to the new access/spine road and the introduction of a 10m corner radius upon entry to the Grove Lane would result in vehicles travelling at low speeds. Adequate forward visibility was also confirmed by the designer from the roundabout access across the proposed grass verge to the relocated access to the service area reducing the risk of rear end shunts and side on collisions. Significant consultation has been undertaken with both the Police and GCC Road Safety Partnership with regard to the proposed change in speed limit to which support was given subject to additional measures such as gateway features being incorporated into the revised access design as shown on drawing no H414/10 Rev E.

• The tight turning radii of the exit from the Service area to Grove Lane may result in large vehicles struggling to undertake the manoeuvre and drivers travelling northbound may turn left from the southern section of Grove Lane and collide with a large turning vehicle. The Auditor was provided with additional information showing the vehicle swept path of large vehicles using the access (reproduced at Appendix A4 of the Designers Response received 28 th August 2015) which was accepted and also recommended a change in speed limit from 50mph to 30mph. The proposed change in speed limit is covered in the first bullet point above.

• The traffic island at the Grove Lane junction may be used by pedestrians and could result in a pedestrian/vehicle strike. The recommendation was for adequate carriageway widths to be provided and this has been accepted and demonstrated with the vehicle swept path referred to above.

• No pedestrian link from Grove Lane to the Service area could result in trips/falls and vehicle/pedestrian conflict. This problem has been accepted and a footway and uncontrolled crossing facilities have been provided as shown on drawing no H414/10 Rev E. Page 90 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

It is considered that the safety issues raised in the Audit relating to the Grove Lane access have been adequately addressed.

The Stage 1 RSA has not identified any problems with the Brunel Way access. Two problems are raised with the Oldends Lane access design. These both relate to providing sufficient visibility for the footway/cycleway by the level crossing. The RSA recommendations are accepted and can be addressed by detailed design and through a note which has been added to Drawing H414/12B.

Appropriate pedestrian and cycle provision has been provided within each of the junction designs. The safety of these facilities has been assessed through the Stage 1 RSA.

Conclusion The proposed vehicular access arrangements will ensure that safe and suitable access can be achieved for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists in line with the NPPF Paragraph 32.

Pedestrian/Cycle Accessibility. Each of the access junctions provides safe and suitable access for pedestrians and cyclists in line with the NPPF Paragraph 32. The key for the development is identifying desire lines and routes between the development and local facilities, and addressing any barriers.

The TA has provided four plans identifying barriers to pedestrian and cycle movement on key routes between the development and key facilities. This formed the basis for discussions with GCC on improvements to the pedestrian and cycle network to be provided by the developer. GCC has reviewed these plans and formed a view on which items it would be appropriate for the developer to address. This has considered:

− What level would be appropriate; − Where the most benefit can be derived; and − Whether an improvement could realistically be delivered within the applicant’s gift, e.g. vegetation maintenance and improvements requiring third party land would not be deliverable by the applicant.

It is understood that the applicant has agreed the provision of Mini Stop Lights with Network Rail for railway crossings.

The proposed pedestrian and cycle works to be provided by the developer has been fully addressed in File Note H414-FN37, and is summarised below. These improvements will be secured by a planning condition.

Route 1: to Maidenhall School The route between the development and the B4008 Gloucester Road along Oldends Lane is an important route both to the school and the town centre. Furthermore, Maidenhall School is a secondary school, a facility which is not proposed to be provided on site. It would be expected that a reasonable number of school children will walk to the school from the development.

The developer has agreed to addressPage points 91 of 1, 206 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11. Additionally, GCC has identified that there will be a desire line for a crossing point over the B4008 Gloucester

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Road between Oldends Lane and Woodcock Lane. The developer has agreed to provide this through dropped kerbs, tactile paving and a short section of footway.

Route 2: To Park School, town centre and Stonehouse Railway Station Items 1-6 are discussed above. It is considered most efficient to focus on Oldends Lane as the more direct route for crossing the railway line to the town centre. Therefore items 12-25 are not requested in order to focus on routes likely to draw more pedestrian/cycle movements. The applicant has agreed to provide measures to address points 26-31.

Route 3: To Eastington Primary School The developer has agreed to provide appropriate pedestrian crossing facilities on the east arm of the Chipmans Platt roundabout to address Item 39 as part of the overall junction improvement scheme.

Route 4: Cycle routes to Stroud. The developer has agreed to provide measures to address points 46, 48, 49, 50, 51 and 56.

Conclusion The development identifies and provides the opportunities for walking and cycling. These opportunities can be undertaken within the transport network and will cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. The pedestrian and cycle measures also provide safe and suitable access for all people. Thus the development accords with NPPF paragraph 32 in respect to pedestrian and cycle access.

Public Transport Accessibility A significant level of discussion on public transport accessibility has been undertaken between Gloucestershire County Council and PFA on behalf of the developer. The developer has reached a private agreement with Stagecoach as the current bus operator for services in the area regarding enhancement to existing services which will be made to provide public transport accessibility for the proposed development. GCC has been party to the outcomes of the discussions and in its role as the LHA is required to ensure that the proposed agreement delivers appropriate public transport accessibility to meet the needs of future site users. Whilst this is a private agreement, in order to be acceptable in planning terms GCC requires confidence in the deliverability of the services and needs to be in a position to deliver the service in the event of either the operator or developer defaulting on the arrangement. To this end a legal agreement will be entered into whereby the developer provides GCC with a bond for the value of the increased level of service. This would enable GCC to provide the necessary enhancements to public transport service if required.

Public transport service enhancement will necessarily be delivered in a phased manner as it relies on infrastructure and level of development which is required to be served. The level of service which will be secured by legal agreement is summarised as follows.

Phase 1 (0-300 dwellings) − Phase 1 will involve the diversion of existing Service No. 61 (Stroud – Stonehouse – Dursley) to be achieved as soon as practically possible in connection with first occupations. − This service will be diverted intoPage the 92site of at 206 the western access off Grove Lane, where turning facilities will be provided; and diverted into the site at the eastern access,

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

subject to availability of running time, where turning facilities will be provided no further than 250 metres from the centre of Oldends Lane mini roundabout. − The service to run with a regular 60 minute core frequency between 07:00 and 19:00 Mondays-Fridays; and between 08:00 and 19:00 on Saturdays. No Sunday service is proposed in Phase 1. − The service will be operated with a fully-accessible low-floor bus seating not less than 25 seats, such as an Optare Solo or larger.

Phase 2a (300-600 dwellings) − Phase 2a will be introduced in conjunction with the 300th residential occupation or no later than four years after the first occupation, whichever is the sooner. − This service will be provided by the diversion of the existing Service No. 66 E & S, with Service No. 64 then being extended and diverted to Gloucester each hour to replace the facility currently provided by Service No. 66 between Stonehouse and Hardwicke via the current route (B4008). − The service will run with a half-hourly frequency between 07:00 and 19:00 Mondays- Saturdays, and hourly in evenings and on Sundays. − This pattern of service provision will also, in all probability, retain some access to the Service No. 61 if the western turning facility is retained.

Phase 2b (600+ dwellings) − Phase 2b will be introduced on the opening of the spine road to be achieved in conjunction with the 600th residential occupation. This will enable the diversion of the Phase 2a service provision through the site via the spine road.

In addition to level of service, the development will need to include appropriate public transport infrastructure. This has been discussed with the developer and will be secured by planning condition. This will include bus shelters, timetables, seating, and Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) to be provided within 400m of every dwelling, along with adequate turning facilities being provided prior to the spine road being opened. This planning condition does not specifically relate to on-site provision, and could include improvements or additional off-site infrastructure where it meets the criteria of being within 400m of dwellings.

Road Safety The TA includes an analysis of personal injury accident data for the five year period September 2008 to August 2013. This has been reviewed and it is observed that no junction or link currently experiences a higher accident rate than would be expected. The DfT computer programme COBALT (Cost and Benefit to Accidents – Light Touch) has been used to predict accidents which would be expected to occur at junctions and links for comparison purposes. The details of the accident types and clusters have also been reviewed. Three collisions have involved vehicles making U-turns at the A38 central refuge on the southbound approach to the A38/A419 roundabout. This is likely to be due to vehicles turning left from Grove Lane at the Grove Lane/A38 junction, and then making a U-turn as the right-turn is banned at the junction. The effect of the proposed development on traffic flows in this location has been examined (discussed in depth later in this response), and it is considered that the development is unlikely to exacerbate this existing accident issue. The data does not identify any further safety issues which couldPage be exacerbate 93 of 206d by the proposed development.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Development Sequencing The development will be delivered through a phased approach. The Local Planning Authority (LPA) has advised that the details of development phasing will be provided through the Reserved Matters applications. A planning condition will be placed on any Outline Planning Permission requiring details of how safe and suitable access can be provided for each phase of development to be submitted and agreed by the LPA.

Traffic Impact Assessment Principles of Modelling Exercise PFA has used a network-wide PARAMICS model to assess the traffic impact of the proposed development. This model enables the assessment of interaction between junctions, as well as the effects of traffic diverting to different routes due to congestion. GCC considers that the use of network-wide PARAMICS modelling to assess the impact of the proposed development should be supplemented with local junction modelling and this has subsequently been provided. The parameters used in the modelling exercise have been reviewed by both GCC and HE and refined through further discussion with PFA on behalf of the applicant.

PARAMICS Model A review of the PARAMICS models submitted with the application has been undertaken. This was in addition to the full baseline model audit undertaken by SIAS Ltd, the company which developed the PARAMICS software, in 2013. Minor comments were raised and these have been subsequently addressed. Therefore GCC considers that the PARAMICS model is appropriate for the purpose of assessing the traffic impact of the proposed development, notwithstanding the need for additional standalone junction modelling.

Assessment Scenarios The TA provides PARAMICS modeling assessment of the following scenarios: 1) 2012 Base Year 2) 2024 Forecast year with no development 3) 2024 Forecast Year with Local Plan Employment Allocation on LWoS 4) 2024 with full development proposals 5) 2024 with full development plus A419 highway improvements. These are the improvements initially proposed within the TA. Through post-application discussions, the following additional scenarios have been identified and modelled: 6) 2024 with full development plus SEP A419 improvements. 7) 2024 with full development plus agreed A419 mitigation package.

2024 has been chosen as the future assessment year, as it is 10 years from the registration of the application, and corresponds with the anticipated completion of the development.

The TEMPRO/NTM exercise used to calculate 2012-2024 growth factors provides growth rates of 1.0734 and 1.0888 for AM and PM peak periods respectively. This exercise uses the category “Urban: Principal”. This is appropriate considering the importance of the A419 corridor and the B4008 through Stonehouse to the assessment of traffic impact.

Scenario 3 includes the employmentPage land 94in ofPolicy 206 SA2 (appendix E) of the Local Plan pre- submission draft. This scenario was presented as an earlier draft of the Stroud Local Plan solely included employment rather than housing. This scenario is now redundant as the Local

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Plan has been adopted to include the full residential and employment land uses proposed by this planning application. However the data remains available within the TA for information and reference only.

Scenario 5 only includes those mitigation measures originally proposed by the TA. This involved minor amendments to the Chipmans Platt and Horsetrough Roundabouts. The scope of mitigation has extended through post application discussions with PFA. Scenario 6 includes junction improvements proposed as part of the SEP scheme. These improvements have been developed and refined to form the fully agreed mitigation package, which is modelled in

Scenario 7.

Trip rates The residential trip rates have been calculated using a TRICS assessment, taking categories Houses – Privately owned, and Houses for rent, as proxies for private and affordable housing. There are a number of different ways these trip rates could have been calculated, including using combinations of Mixed Private, Mixed non-private, and Mixed Private/Non- Private. Furthermore, most residential developments in TRICS will have a mixture of affordable and market housing. GCC has undertaken sensitivity tests considering alternative methodologies. It was found that the residential trip rates applied to this development by the applicant are within a reasonable range. Furthermore, the modelling assessment has been undertaken for up to 1500 dwellings, as opposed to the 1350 dwellings included in the application. Therefore the residential trip generation provides a robust assessment.

The use of the “Industrial Estate” category in TRICS is considered reasonable to assess a mix of B1/B2/B8 land uses as applied for in this Outline Application. It must be noted that further Reserved Matters applications will need to reflect an appropriate mix of land uses in line with this category. For instance a higher proportion of B1 floorspace would generate a significantly higher level of traffic and would result in a need for further assessment to support a future application.

Further discussions between PFA, HE and GCC have identified that it would be appropriate to apply a planning condition to ensure that the proposed mix of employment development would not exceed the level of traffic impact assessed within the TA. This condition has been recommended by HE and states that B1 employment should not exceed 35% of the total, and B2 employment should not exceed 35% of the total, both equating to a maximum of 11,393 sqm of Gross Floor Area (GFA) each. This is supported by GCC.

PFA has presented a comparison of the proposed industrial estate traffic generation derived from TRICS, and surveyed traffic generation from the Stroudwater Business Park and Stonedale Road Industrial Estate. This showed that the TRICS methodology would result in a higher traffic generation than locally surveyed sites and is therefore accepted as a robust methodology.

Primary school trip rates have been reviewed and are considered to be acceptable. The applicant rightly states that there will be a level of self-containment for a site of this scale. This means that whilst trip generationPage is calculate 95 of 206d for each land use in isolation, some of the trips for the employment and school developments will be from the residential element. Therefore it is reasonable to agree and apply reduction factors to avoid double counting trips

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

generated. The assumption that 10% of employment traffic will come from the local residential area is reasonable and accords with assumptions made for similar sites within Gloucestershire.

The primary school self-containment/linked trips assumptions are also reasonable. This assumes that 75% of trips to the primary school will be from on-site, and 25% will be from off- site. However, 50% of AM departures and 50% of PM arrivals are assumed to be to/from off- site to reflect that some children will be picked up or dropped off as part of a home-work trip.

The proposed development will generate 1,056 vehicle arrivals and 1,503 vehicle departures in the 3 hour period between 0700 and 1000 hours. Of those, 796 arrivals and 1,243 departures will travel to/from off-site. The proposed development will generate 1,493 vehicle arrivals and 1,249 vehicle departures in the 3 hour period between 1600 and 1900 hours. Of those, 1,368 arrivals and 1,123 departures will travel to/from off-site.

Trip Distribution The distribution of the proposed development traffic onto the surrounding highway network has been based on the results of the Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) survey and traffic counts undertaken in May 2012.

The use of ANPR to validate base year models is reasonable and this has been accepted through the baseline model audit process. Proposed residential development trips have been distributed using the distribution determined for internal residential zones within Stonehouse. This methodology has also been applied to primary school trips. Employment trips have been distributed using ANPR survey results for the Oldends Lane employment zone. The distributions generated by this methodology have been compared with those which would arise from using Census Journey to Work data and found to be similar. This validates the use of ANPR data to determine traffic distribution.

The PARAMICS modelling allows for traffic diverting onto alternative routes to account for route choice to avoid congestion. Therefore the level of development traffic which will occur on any one link does not necessarily correspond with the changes in traffic flows on that link in future with the proposed development and mitigation package in place. Nevertheless, peak hour development traffic flows are shown in PFA Figure 1 attached to this response. The future levels of traffic flow under each scenario accounting for diversion of background traffic can be seen in Figures 2 and 3, also attached to this email. This is discussed in the traffic impact section below.

Off-site Highways Impact Principles The impact of the proposed development has been assessed based on journey time impact along the B4008 and A419 corridors from the PARAMICS modelling. Additionally the PARAMICS model has been used to derive traffic flows at individual junctions in each assessment scenario. This has been used to assess the impact of the proposed development using standalone junction models with industry standard modelling software.

File Note H414-FN38 provides traffic capacity results for “Scenario 7”, which includes the fully agreed mitigation package for thePage A419. 96 ofThe 206 slight exception to this is the Oldends Lane roundabout, where the mitigation modelled has been updated with a minor amendment subsequent to undertaking the modelling. This amendment is shown in Drawing H414/29 Rev

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

B and includes widening to the A419 East approach. As this amendment will result in capacity improvement, it is considered that the results presented in Scenario 7 represent a robust assessment as it does not include this benefit.

SEP Scheme GCC has been awarded provisional Strategic Economic Plan (SEP) funding through the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) subject to approval of the Full Business Case. The original SEP bid included concept plans for:

− Improvements to the Chipmans Platt roundabout to widen A419 approaches; − Rationalising the Oldends Lane junction into a four-arm signalised crossroads; − Improvements to the Downton Road signalised T-junction; and − Replacing the Horsetrough roundabout with a signalised crossroads.

As concept plans, the SEP schemes have been required to go through a further stage of modelling and design development to become preliminary designs. This has been undertaken through this planning application and has resulted in updates to the designs which will be discussed in the following sections.

GCC retains control of the scheme designs for each of the locations within the SEP funding. The developer has identified and modelled capacity improvements which are required to make the LWoS development acceptable in traffic capacity terms. The capacity benefits identified will be carried forward into the detailed design. Additionally, GCC retains the ability to provide further enhanced capacity and to incorporate design additions to provide improvements for all users. This will be undertaken through the detailed design process which is included within the delivery programme agreed with the LEP.

GCC notes the review of the A419 design proposals undertaken by Sustrans in November 2015. Having reviewed the comments it is felt that the potential exists through the detailed design process to enhance the designs to improve provision for cyclists within the designs. It is also important to ensure that the most appropriate balance of user needs is achieved along this route, whilst also taking into account the need to accommodate the residual cumulative traffic from the now adopted allocation in the new Stroud Local Plan. Traffic congestion along the A419 corridor is a specific issue raised in the LTP 3 review under Connecting Places Strategy CPS 5 – Stroud and is recognised as an important transport link connecting Cirencester to the M5. It also has the highest concentration of work related bus travel in the county (9%). Therefore addressing congestion and limiting impact on bus journey times are also afforded significant weight during the decision making process.

It has been agreed that the improvement schemes to Chipmans Platt, Oldends Lane and Horsetrough Roundabout are required to mitigate the traffic impact of the proposed development. These improvements meet the CIL tests and will therefore be secured by planning condition, although delivery will be through the SEP scheme. The developer has agreed to deliver the Chipmans Platt roundabout scheme in advance of SEP funding in order to meet the desired development programme. The developer will be able to recover limited costs for this scheme from the SEP funding when it is available.

Chipmans Platt Roundabout Page 97 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

The SEP scheme has been developed to that shown in Drawing H414/14 Rev B. Importantly, this includes widening the A419 exits as well as entries to ensure that traffic will evenly use both lanes on the A419 approaches, fully realising the capacity benefits. The proposed design provides pedestrian facilities on the east of Grove Lane, and the east of Spring Hill, with footway tying into existing footway on the A419 with widening where necessary. Dropped kerbs and tactile paving crossings are provided over the A419 East arm, suitable for use by both pedestrians and cyclists.

PFA has demonstrated that the proposed scheme needs to be provided prior to the occupation of the 201 st dwelling, and therefore this is the threshold for delivery which will be included in the planning condition. This has been agreed with HE as their concern is the impact of traffic queues on the A419 (W) approach on the M5 Junction 13 southbound off- slip. The 201 st dwelling has been identified as the point at which the proposed development has a “severe” impact on the interaction between the queue from the A419 West approach and the M5 southbound off-slip.

The baseline modelling and site observations show the existing junction to be congested at present. The A419 West approach is at capacity in both AM and PM peaks at present. The A419 East approach is close to capacity in the AM peak, and over capacity in the PM peak. These capacity issues will be exacerbated in the future year with the addition of background traffic growth, without the proposed development.

The future year modelling with the mitigation design (H414/14B) shows that the proposed junction will accommodate background traffic growth and the proposed development traffic with spare capacity in the AM peak.

The A419 East approach will operate at capacity in the future PM peak with the development in place. However this is a significant improvement in comparison with both the current and future baselines without the proposed development, and is acceptable. The A419 West approach will operate with spare capacity in the future PM peak with the development in place. This is an improvement over the existing and likely future performance of the junction in the PM peak without the proposed development. All other arms will operate with spare capacity in the future year scenario with the development in place.

Oldends Lane Drawing H414/29 Rev B shows the proposed mitigation scheme for Oldends Lane Roundabout. This has been developed iteratively with consultation between PFA, GCC and stakeholders. The proposed scheme takes into account third party land constraints, with highways land ownership shown on the plan. This is the main reason why the proposed design has moved away from the concept of the signalised crossroads which was included within the SEP bid.

The primary constraint is limited land availability on Oldends Lane meaning that widening at the mouth of the junction has not been possible, although the flare length has been increased by upstream widening. The proposed enhancements can be summarised as follows:

1. Widening of the Oldends Lane approach to two lanes over 75 metres with related alterations to the access to thePage SKF 98 works; of 206 2. Realignment of the A419 eastbound exit to achieve enlarged traffic island/refuge; 3. Widening of the A419 eastbound approach, and altering lane markings;

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

4. Extending the road markings on A419 westbound approach; 5. Modifying the central island to ease swept paths on circulatory carriageway east to west; 6. Introducing Trief kerbs on western quadrant to protect pedestrians and cyclists on footway/cycleway; 7. Introducing Toucan style crossing east of roundabout to ‘carry’ National Cycle Route No. 45; 8. Altering the existing shared footway/cycleway along the former alignment of Oldends Lane; 9. Providing the option to realign footway/cycleway between Sperry Way and Bonds Mill to give enhanced priority to users of the National Cycle Route No. 45; and 10. Related items such as repositioning a street light column outside the footway/cycleway, placing a bus stop flag on a pole located on a section of footway, repositioning gullies from wheel tracks and cutting back vegetation currently obscuring traffic signs.

In addition to the proposed highways improvements at this junction, the development traffic impact at the Oldends Lane junction is mitigated by the creation of the spine road through the development. The spine road will provide an additional route for some existing and development traffic which would otherwise use the A419. The timing of the delivery of the spine road is therefore critical to relieving traffic impact at the A419/Oldends Lane junction.

As the Oldends Lane junction is currently at capacity, it is necessary to determine the point at which the development will have a “severe” impact in order to identify the point where the proposed mitigation becomes necessary. GCC’s position is that a “severe” impact occurs at the point when there is a material change in traffic flows. Whilst there is no current guidance on the definition of material, the old DfT Guidance on Transport Assessment (GTA) guidance, which was replaced by the Planning Practice Guidance (2012) considered 5% to be material in a congested network. We feel that it is reasonable to use this definition and therefore consider the appropriate trigger for the Oldends Lane works to be when the development adds 5% additional traffic to the junction. This results in a threshold of 300 dwellings and 3.25 acres of employment at which point the proposed scheme will need to be provided.

Subsequently, the point at which the spine road becomes necessary is the point at which the further increase in traffic exceeds the capacity benefit provided by the proposed Oldends Lane scheme. This has been shown to be 600 dwellings and 6.5 acres of employment land.

Horsetrough Roundabout The baseline junction testing and on-site capacity observations show that the A419 South arm is at capacity in the AM peak, and the A419 West arm is at capacity in the PM peak. For consistency it is reasonable to work on a similar basis to A419/Oldends Lane, i.e. by considering a 5% increase in traffic flows on a congested junction as a material and therefore “severe” impact requiring mitigation.

An optioneering exercise for the Horsetrough roundabout has been undertaken. This has considered minor amendments to the existing layout, the signalised crossroads originally included in the SEP bid including adaptations, and significant enhancements to the roundabout. It has been shown that Pageneither 99 the of 206minor amendments originally included in the TA, nor variations on the SEP signalised crossroads, provide sufficient capacity to accommodate either future background traffic growth or the proposed development.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

The proposed scheme can be seen in Drawing H414/24 Rev A. This incorporates the principles and land take of the SEP signalised crossroads, but retains a roundabout as the most efficient method of control due to traffic patterns. Both A419 approaches have been widened to address congestion on the A419 South in the AM peak, and the A419 West in the PM peak. A left-turn slip has been provided on the A419 South. A crossing point on the A419 is provided to the west of the junction to supplement the crossing closer to the roundabout. The A419 South exit is widened to provide a full two-lane exit, enabling even lane usage on the A419 West and therefore making most efficient use of road space. The B4008 North approach is also widened to provide a longer two lane approach than currently available. GCC notes the comments on the proposed design which have been provided by Sustrans. It is considered that the comments raised can be addressed as the scheme progresses through further design development, whilst retaining the fundamental benefits which are required to make the development acceptable.

The proposed design has been modelled in the future year using ARCADY, an industry standard software package used for modelling roundabouts. The results show that all arms will operate within capacity in the future year with the development in place in both AM and PM peaks. The B4008 Ebley Road approach will approach capacity in the AM peak, with other arms within capacity. Notably the A419 South approach, which would be over capacity without the proposed improvements, will operate with a significant level of spare capacity, providing a major benefit to both existing and future users.

In the PM peak the A419 West will approach capacity, although this will be an improvement over existing conditions and is therefore acceptable. The B4008 Bath road will also experience a Ratio of Flow to Capacity of 0.9, indicating very limited spare capacity. However, at present the RFC is 0.88, and in future without the development it will exceed 0.9. Therefore the traffic impact of the proposed development will be mitigated by the proposed scheme.

Downton Road Signals The SEP scheme provides amendments to the A419/Downton Road traffic signal controlled junction. This includes carriageway widening on the A419 westbound exit to enable ahead traffic on the A419 east to use both lanes. The developer has modelled the SEP scheme, which shows that the junction can accommodate development traffic and future traffic growth without exceeding capacity. All arms will operate below 90% saturation in the 2024 AM peak with the development. All arms will operate below 100% saturation in the PM peak, although the A419 west and Downton Road will approach capacity.

PFA has also modelled the existing junction in 2024 both with and without the proposed development. The modelling shows that development traffic will not have a “severe” impact on the performance of the junction. This means that delivery of the proposed scheme is not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Thus whilst the scheme will be delivered using SEP funding, no condition will be attached to the planning permission requiring the scheme to be provided before a certain level of occupation.

M5 Junction 13 Highways England (HE) is the HighwayPage Authority100 of 206 for the M5 Junction 13, and has therefore led the discussion and analysis with the developer. HE has raised a concern with the development traffic impact on the M5 Northbound on-slip. A scheme has been agreed

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

between the HE and applicant to enhance the merge from the slip road to the main M5 northbound carriageway to address HE’s safety and capacity concerns regarding the impact of increased traffic from the development.

PARAMICS Model statistics Journey times The PARAMICS model has been used to assess traffic capacity across the wider network, incorporating traffic diversion due to congestion and interactions of queues between junctions. The model has been run to produce journey time statistics for the A419 corridor and the B4008 corridor. This enables comparison of network performance at a wider scale. It also enables the initial impact of the development to be considered over the situation in the future year with no development, and also the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation to be evaluated.

At present it takes just under eight minutes to drive the A419 corridor in the eastbound direction in the AM peak. This would exceed eight minutes in 2024 without the development, and exceed 10 minutes with the development and no mitigation. The full mitigation scheme agreed will reduce the journey time to below the level experienced at present. The modelling shows a similar pattern in the PM peak, although the development without mitigation would result in major increases in journey times. The proposed mitigation will reduce journey times to below the existing level.

In the westbound direction, existing journey times of nine minutes would reach ten minutes in 2024 AM peak with the development but no mitigation. This will reduce to six minutes with the proposed mitigation in place. In the PM peak, the results would be similar, with the mitigation resulting in lower journey times than at present.

The B4008 route through Stonehouse has also been modelled. In the northbound direction, journey times will increase from just under five minutes in the 2024 AM peak without the development, to just under six minutes with the development and with mitigation. This is not considered to be a “severe” impact. In the PM peak the existing journey time of five minutes is shown to not materially increase in the future year with the development and mitigation in place, remaining at approximately five minutes.

In the southbound direction the development will have a minimal impact on journey times. Journey times will remain at approximately four and a half minutes both with and without the development.

Traffic Flows The PARAMICS modelling identifies traffic levels which will be travelling along each road within the model in each scenario. This accounts for both background traffic growth and development traffic, and also traffic diversions which would occur as a result of changes in network congestion and some routes becoming preferable to others. In general the modelling shows the majority of traffic flow increases occurring on the A419 as the mitigation package results in this becoming the preferable route for many journeys for which the route choice is available. In this way the A419 mitigation package provides indirect mitigation for development traffic which would route through Stonehouse and use the B4008 as it draws existing traffic away from the B4008Page and onto 101 theof 206 more strategic route.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

In the AM peak, two way traffic flows on Oldends Lane to the east of the level crossing will be approximately 460 vehicles in 2024 both without the development, and with the development and mitigation package. Without mitigation this traffic level would be approximately 700 vehicles with the development in place. The results are similar in the PM peak with approximately 500 two-way vehicle flows in 2024 without the development and with development and mitigation. Without mitigation this level would be approximately 750 two way vehicles. Thus the A419 mitigation package mitigates the potential development traffic impact on traffic queues at the

Oldends Lane level crossing through traffic diversion. The level of traffic on the B4008 north of Stonehouse will increase by approximately 50 two way vehicles in the 2024 AM and PM peaks as a result of the proposed development. Traffic flows on the B4008 within Stonehouse itself will be 1150-1250 two way vehicles in the AM and PM peaks both without the development and with the development and A419 mitigation. Without mitigation traffic flow levels would be approximately 150 two way trips higher.

GCC and stakeholders are aware of local concerns regarding potential increases in traffic using Grove Lane as a cut-through between the A419 and A38, even despite the recent ban on the right turn from Grove Lane to the A38. The modelling shows that two way traffic levels on Grove Lane between the site access and A38 will reduce as a result of the mitigation package, due to improved journey times on the A419. The accident data shows that accidents have occurred on the A38 south of Grove Lane as a result of U-turning vehicles, which could be due to traffic rat-running along Grove Lane, turning left, and then making a U- turn. The analysis of traffic flow changes which would occur as a result of the proposed development shows that traffic volumes on Grove Lane will decrease through reductions in congestion on the A419, and thus the proposed development is unlikely to exacerbate this existing issue.

Traffic Impact Conclusions The traffic impact assessment and design exercise has identified appropriate mitigation schemes for the locations where the development would otherwise have a “severe” impact. It has also identified appropriate development thresholds at which each of the schemes will need to be delivered. In summary, the proposed mitigation will provide significant capacity improvements to the A419 approaches at both the Chipmans Platt and Horsetrough roundabouts. This contributes to improved peak hour journey times along the A419 in both directions. Traffic congestion along the A419 corridor is a specific issue raised in the LTP 3 review under Connecting Places Strategy CPS 5 – Stroud and is recognised as an important transport link connecting Cirencester to the M5. It also has the highest concentration of work related bus travel in the county (9%). Therefore the proposed mitigation complies with LTP3 aims.

Improvements are also provided at the Oldends Lane/A419 roundabout. These represent cost effective transport improvements in line with NPPF Paragraph 32. Furthermore there is limited opportunity for the developer to propose greater enhancements in this location. The main capacity benefit which the development provides to mitigate traffic impact at the Oldends Lane roundabout is the spine road through the development. This will provide a relief function and draw some existing traffic and some development traffic away from the A419/Oldends Lane junction. Page 102 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

The improvements proposed for the A419 junctions also mitigate development traffic impact on the Oldends Lane level crossing, Grove Lane, and routes through Stonehouse such as the B4008. This is due to A419 capacity improvements drawing traffic onto the strategic route which would otherwise be travelling along more local routes, with a neutral effect in terms of traffic flow changes.

In conclusion the traffic impact assessment has shown that the development will not have a residual “severe” impact at either a local junction or network wide scale due to the proposed mitigation package.

Travel Plan A Framework Travel Plan (TP) has been provided with the application. H414-DOC05 FTP Issue 2 is accepted following minor amendments to Issue 1. The Framework TP is designed to set the parameters for individual sites/users to prepare and implement subsidiary Travel Plans (TPs), and has been considered as such. Individual TPs will need to be agreed with GCC at the time of detailed planning applications for each site. Each TP will need to include site-specific information relevant to the operation of that organisation/land use. Individual TPs will need to be in line with GCC’s Travel Plan Guide for Developers.

Residential Travel Plans in Gloucestershire need to be operated based on Option 1 or Option 2 as set out in GCC’s Transport Planning Advice Sheet No.7: Residential Travel Plans http://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=44239&p=0

Under Option 1, the developer commits to funding and implementing the Travel Plan and pays a monitoring fee to GCC. Additionally a bond/deposit is required, repayable on successful completion or retained to implement remedial measures will be required. Under Option 2, GCC absorbs all risk and is responsible for implementing the Travel Plan. This option requires a non-refundable monitoring fee and contribution of £225,900. The developer has chosen funding Option 2 and this will be secured through a legal agreement.

As stated in the TP, the Framework Travel Plan Co-ordinator (TPC) role will be funded by the developer, and the workplace and school TPCs will be funded by the workplaces, and school, themselves.

Recommendation The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states at paragraph 32 that “development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe”. The Highway Authority considers that this development will not have a severe impact on the local highway network. The NPPF states that “safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people”, and that “opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure.” It is considered that the development proposals will meet these criteria. It is recommended that no highway objection be raised to this application, subject to the following obligations and conditions being attached to any permission granted:

Obligations Travel Plan – residential & employmentPage 103 of 206 Residential travel plan to be provided in line with Advice Sheet 7 (GCC) and that includes payment for GCC to undertake total cost at 1350 dwellings £225,900

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Employment travel plan to be submitted within 6 months of occupation including monitoring cost – travel plans to be submitted prior to occupation in accordance with approved framework.

Chipmans Platt Roundabout will be front funded by Hitchins. Inclusion of clause to allow Hitchins to invoice GCC to recover cost of junction improvements up to the value of £500,000 (PFA confirmed total costs email 28/09/15 £492,760).

Public Transport Sc106 to indemnify GCC from costs of delivery Public Transport Service including bonding to the value of £525,000. This could be either a rolling or reducing bond as appropriate.

Condition 1: Chipmans Platt Roundabout No more than 200 dwellings shall be occupied until the highway improvement works at Chipmans Platt Roundabout have been completed broadly in accordance with drawing No. H414/14 Rev B.

Reason: To ensure that cost effective improvements are undertaken to the transport network that mitigate the significant impacts of the development in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition 2: Oldends Lane Roundabout No more than 300 dwellings and 3.25 acres of employment use shall be occupied until the highway improvement works at Oldends Lane have been completed broadly in accordance with drawing No. H414/29 Rev B. Reason: To ensure that cost effective improvements are undertaken to the transport network that mitigate the significant impacts of the development in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Condition 3: Horsetrough Junction No more than 600 dwellings and 6.5 acres of employment shall be occupied prior to details of the highway improvement works at the Horsetrough Junction being submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority broadly in accordance with drawing no. H414/24 Rev A or other wise agreed in writing by the LPA.

Condition 4: The development spine road No more than 600 dwellings and 6.5 acres of employment use shall be occupied prior to the development spine road linking Oldends Lane to Grove Lane has been completed. Reason: To ensure that safe and suitable access is provided and that cost effective improvements are undertaken to the transport network to mitigate the significant impacts of the development in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition 5: Off-site pedestrian/cyclistPage improvemen 104 of 206ts

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Prior to occupation of the 200 th dwelling the approved off site pedestrian/cyclist improvements as detailed in PFA Consulting’s report H414-FN37 shall be completed in all respects.

Reason: To ensure that the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition 7: Public transport infrastructure Prior to the commencement of any phase of development details of public transport infrastructure to include bus shelters with timetable, seating and Real Time Passenger Information within 400m of any dwelling along with adequate turning facilities prior to the spine road being opened to through traffic shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, together with a timetable to be agreed for the implementation of these works and the works to be provided in accordance with the agreed timetable.

Reason: To ensure that the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up and to have access to high quality public transport facilities in accordance with paragraphs 32 and 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 105 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Condition 8: Grove Lane Access Prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby permitted the means of access to the western end of the site as shown on drawing no. H414/14 Rev E from Grove Lane shall have been completed in all respects and made available for use.

Reason: To reduce potential highway impact by ensuring that there is a safe and suitable access prior to occupation in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework

Prior to any works commencing on site from the western end of the site details of the access serving the site from Grove Lane for construction purposes shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be completed in all respects and made available for use.

Reason: To reduce potential highway impact by ensuring that there is a satisfactory access at the commencement of construction works, in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition 9: Oldends Lane Access No works shall commence on the proposed area of development to the east of the site solely accessed from Oldends Lane until the first 20m of the proposed access road, including the junction with the existing public road (Oldends Lane), associated visibility splays, as shown in drawing no. H414/12 Rev C, has been completed to at least binder course level, and shall be retained as such thereafter unless and until adopted as highway maintainable at public expense.

Condition 10: Oldends Lane Access: occupations Prior to beneficial occupation of the residential or employment element of the proposed development the site access from Oldends Lane shall be completed in all respects in accordance with drawing no. H414/12 Rev C, and shall be retained as such thereafter unless and until adopted as highway maintainable at public expense.

Reason: To reduce potential highway impact by ensuing that there is a satisfactory access for pedestrians and vehicles, in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition 11: Brunel Way Access No works shall commence on the proposed area of development to the south of the site solely accessed from Brunel Way until the first 20m of the proposed residential access road, including the junction with the existing public road (Brunel Way), associated visibility splays, as shown in drawing no. H414/11 Rev B, has been completed to at least binder course level, and shall be retained as such thereafter unless and until adopted as highway maintainable at public expense. Page 106 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Reason:- To reduce potential highway impact by ensuring that there is a satisfactory access at the commencement of construction works, in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition 12: Brunel Way Access: occupations Prior to beneficial occupation of the employment element of the proposed development the site access from Brunel Way shall be completed in all respects in accordance with drawing no. H414/11 Rev B and shall be retained as such thereafter unless and until adopted as highway maintainable at public expense.

Reason: To reduce potential highway impact by ensuing that there is a satisfactory access for pedestrians and vehicles, in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition 13: Reserved Matters

No building within a phase shall be occupied until the carriageway(s) (including means of surface water drainage and disposal, vehicular turning head(s), parking and street lighting) providing access from the nearest public highway to that building have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority and once approved completed to at least binder course level and the footway(s) to surface course level.

Reason: To minimise hazards and inconvenience for users of the development by ensuring that there is a safe and suitable means of access for all people in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition 14: Fire Hydrants

Prior to the commencement of any building within a phase of development a scheme for the provision of fire hydrants served by mains water supply shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and no building shall be occupied until the fire hydrant serving that building has been provided in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: To ensure adequate water infrastructure provision is made on site for the local fire service to tackle any property fire in accordance with paragraphs 32 and 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition 15: Future maintenance of streets No development shall be commenced until details of the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The streets shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details until such time as either a dedication agreement has been entered into or a private management and maintenance company has been established.

Page 107 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Reason: To ensure that safe and suitable access is achieved and maintained for all people as required by paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework and to establish and maintain a strong sense of place to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit as required by paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Condition 16: Construction Method Statement and Transport Plan No development within a phase shall take place until a Construction Method Statement and Transport Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing to the local planning authority. The approved Statement for that phase shall be adhered to and shall address and provide for: i. The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; ii. The unloading and loading of materials; iii. The storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; iv. Wheel washing facilities; v. Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; vi. A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; vii. Details of the site access/routeing strategy/signage during the construction period.

Reason: To reduce the potential impact on the public highway in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative Notes:

Highways England in its role as the Highway Authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN) which includes the M5, has recommended three planning conditions be attached to the proposed development. These do not contradict GCC’s position and are supported by the LHA. The conditions are recommended in order to: − Ensure that the employment development contains an appropriate mix of use classes (up to 35% B1 and up to 35% B2, with the remainder B8) in line with the level of traffic impact assessed in the modelling exercise. − Ensure that the Chipmans Platt mitigation scheme is implemented prior to the 201 st dwelling to mitigate the impact of traffic queues from this junction on the A419. GCC has recommended a similar condition, meaning that these conditions should be rationalised by the LPA to avoid duplication. − Ensure that the proposed M5 northbound on-slip upgrade is implemented prior to the development resulting in an increase of greater than 30 peak hour trips on this slip road.

The proposed development will involve works to be carried out on the public highway and the Applicant/Developer is required to enter into a legally binding Highway Works Agreement (including an appropriate bond) with the County Council in its role as the local highway authority before commencing those works.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

The site is traversed by public rights of way and this permission does not authorise additional use by motor vehicles, or obstruction, or diversion.

The developer will be expected to meet the full costs of supplying and installing the fire hydrants and associated infrastructure.

The applicant is advised that the Local Planning Authority requires a copy of a completed Dedication Agreement between the applicant and the local highway authority or the constitution and details of a Private Management and Maintenance Company confirming funding, management and maintenance regimes.

Sport England:

No comments.

EPR Ecology Consultants: 19/08/2014

Insufficient information is available to assess the effect of this Scheme on the Severn Estuary SPA and SAC, Frampton Pools SSSI, the River Frome Key Wildlife Site, Barn Owls, Brown Hares and the local Great-crested Newt meta-population, as set out above. It is therefore not possible to determine whether the Scheme complies with legislation and policy.

11/06/15 The following further information is required:

1. A project specific visitor survey and/or impact analysis to demonstrate that no likely significant effects will arise. If such effects are identified, sufficient information will be required to enable SDC to be confident that mitigation measures could be devised to address any impact without affecting the deliverability of the development.

2. Consideration of the contribution of this scheme to the cumulative effects on the way the River Frome corridor supports riverine mammals and other valuable populations in terms of its structure and function.

3. Firm commitments to the improvement of the structure and function of the River Frome corridor.

4. Consideration of the survey long-term results of GCN surveys at Stonehouse Newt Pond and other GCN surveys in the area, consideration of the likely causes of decline and a clear plan to implement the actions needed to restore the meta-population within the retained area.

5. Given that, without successful mitigation, the effects could be significant, a detailed and costed management plan is required, with a clear commitment to funding, implementation and monitoring. The objectives should be measurable and monitoring designed to flag up failure to achieve objectives. A process and funding for remedial action is also required. Page 109 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

07/12/15 – amended comments:

1. Please find our amended comments below, in respect of the ecological information submitted with the Environmental Statement Addendum dated November 2015 for Land West of Stonehouse and the draft S106, which you forwarded after receiving my comments of 30 November. Please be aware that the Adopted Local Plan Policies SA2 (3.29) and ES6, together with the HRA (4.7) of the Local Plan and the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulation 2010 (‘the Habitats Regulations) provide the relevant guidance.

River Frome KWS 2. The River Frome KWS is designated for riparian mammals. Despite there having been no recent targeted surveys, there have been regular records of Otters and occasional records of Water Voles along the Eastington – Stonehouse section of the Frome corridor. Water Shrew has also been noted near the river in Eastington. There have been local projects to enhance this area, including mink control aimed at restoring the water vole population.

3. The applicants’ Visitor Survey shows that 90% of local people use the canal tow path for recreation. There is no reason to suppose that the people resident in the West of Stonehouse development would not do the same. The scheme is therefore very likely to increase traffic on the tow path and associated footpaths in the Frome corridor.

4. This increased pressure could combine with that arising from walkers displaced from the footpaths in the Frome corridor to the west of Chipmans Platt during the construction period for proposals at Junction 13 and from the Cotswold Canals Trust.

5. Policy ES6 seeks not only conservation of natural features, but also enhancement. Without mitigation this increase in recreational pressure will certainly not enhance the River Frome KWS and may harm it and the features for which it is designated, through increased disturbance (particularly by dogs) and the erosion of banks if paths are over- used.

6. I understand that the proposed canal restoration works will aim to encourage the restoration and enhancement of the Frome corridor for Water Vole (as described in paragraphs 2.9 and 2.10 of the Addendum) and Otters. This could be compromised by increased levels of recreational pressure.

7. Mitigation to avoid a likely significant effect is therefore required.

River Severn SPA 8. As required in the HRA of the Local Plan, a Residents’ Survey has been completed to assess the likely increase in recreational activity along the Severn arising from this proposal. The questionnaire survey was issued to 4,129 residential addresses close to the Site, of which 553 were completed. The aim of the survey was to “generate information on current recreational behaviour patterns, and with the specific goal of providing evidence to assess whether there is likely to be any significant adverse effect on the Severn Estuary PageSPA as110 a resultof 206 of the development proposals.”

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

9. Though not the most popular site, 35% of survey respondents said that they visited the Severn Estuary, albeit infrequently. This would equate to around 473 of the new households.

10. The survey also found that 41% of people visit the countryside and open spaces for the purpose of dog walking, and that of those people, 44% let their dogs off the lead. Based on 35% of new households visiting the Severn Estuary, this would equate to around 194 visiting with a dog, of which 85 would be let off the lead.

11. This level of visitation, even if infrequent, could contribute to an in-combination effect on the features for which the SPA was designated. We therefore disagree with the conclusion at paragraph 2.21 of the Addendum, which states that “potential recreational effects being cited by SDC would not occur.” (our emphasis). The survey results do not support this statement.

12. We also therefore disagree with the statement at paragraph 2.22 that “ Based on the above visitor survey results it is considered that it has been demonstrated that likely significant effects on the Severn Estuary SPA will not arise either alone or in combination with other developments, with there being a number of alternative open spaces that would be used in preference to the SPA. As such, it is not considered that any mitigation or avoidance measures are necessary, particularly in the context of the extensive green infrastructure proposed as part of the West of Stonehouse development. Therefore, it is considered the proposals are in accordance with the objectives of Policy SA2.” (our emphasis). Again, the survey results do not support this statement.

13. Mitigation to avoid a likely significant effect is therefore required .

Mitigation to avoid likely significant effects on The River Frome KWS and the Severn Estuary SPA 14. We require the Applicant to provide both on-site and off-site impact avoidance measures, tailored to attract people who might otherwise visit the Severn Estuary. These should draw on the information gathered from the residents survey on features that attract people to existing open spaces and influence their choice of sites (Questions 4 and 5) and changes that would encourage them to visit these sites more or less often (Question 15).

15. As the Addendum states, extensive green infrastructure is proposed as part of the development and so there is considerable scope to include some tailored impact avoidance and mitigation measures. Possibilities for on-site features to encourage dog walkers in particular might therefore include (but are not limited to) the provision and on-going maintenance and management of an all-weather circular walking route, areas where dogs can exercise safely off the lead, and dog waste bins, as well as clear signage and information for dog walkers. It will be necessary to provide routes that are sufficiently long to attract walkers at the first occupation of the development.

16. Off-site measures should focus on improving infrastructure along the Stroudwater Canal towpath, as this is an Pagearea that111 ofis 206highly likely to be visited by residents of the proposed development – the residents’ survey found that 90% of respondents currently visit the towpath for recreational purposes. The Addendum also states at

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

paragraph 3.35 of Appendix 1 that “Residents who go to Stroudwater Canal most often are significantly more likely (54%) to visit more often if there were better path surfaces or routes.”

17. The Applicant should therefore contribute to the Cotswold Canals Trust’s plans to improve the robustness of the towpath for dog walkers, so that it can provide an alternative destination to the Severn Estuary without harm to the wildlife of the River Frome. This could include implementing access management and maintenance measures such as (but not limited to) extending, improving and maintaining all- weather path surfaces, increased signage targeted at dog walkers, a regular warden presence, and the provision of dog waste bins.

18. SDC is currently developing a Severn Estuary Impact Avoidance Strategy. At present there is insufficient information to determine whether the above mitigation is likely to be sufficient to avoid the likely significant effects on the SPA. It is therefore recommended that this issue is revisited at the reserved matters stage, by which the time the Impact Avoidance Strategy will be more advanced. If necessary, appropriate contributions can be required at that point (see Condition below).

Great-crested Newts 19. Given SDC’s commitment to enhance biodiversity through development, in my June 2015 review I advised that:

‘There should be consideration of the survey results from GCN surveys at Stonehouse Newt Pond and other GCN surveys in the area, consideration of the likely causes of decline, and a clear plan to address these issues within the retained area.’

20. I can find no reference to this in the Addendum to the ES.

21. Enhancement proposals are required .

Proposed conditions and draft S106: 22. I have suggested the following conditions pertaining to all the ecological issues arising from this scheme, not just those addressed in the Addendum.

i. In order to protect biodiversity, prior to the start of works on site, the LPA shall agree a Construction Environment Method Statement. Development shall proceed in full accordance with the CEMP. This condition shall be discharged when the LPA has received written confirmation from the Project Ecologist that the scheme has been constructed in full accordance with the agreed CEMP.

ii. In order to avoid likely significant effects on the River Frome KWS and the Severn Estuary SPA, prior to the start of works the LPA shall receive from the applicant and shall agree a Green Infrastructure Plan, which shall demonstrate how the on- site open spaces will be managed to provide attractive recreational opportunities. This shall set measureable targets for each phase of development, clear monitoring and remediation procedures and appropriate long-term funding and implementation obligations.Page 112 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

iii. In order to avoid likely significant effects on the River Frome KWS and the Severn Estuary SPA, prior to the first occupation of the each phase of development the relevant phase of the agreed Green Infrastructure Plan shall be implemented. This condition shall be discharged in line with the phasing of development, when the LPA has received written confirmation from the Project Ecologist that relevant phase of the Green Infrastructure Plan has been implemented as agreed.

iv. In order to conserve and enhance biodiversity, prior to the commencement of development works on the site the applicant shall submit, and the LPA shall agree, a Biodiversity Management Plan, which shall demonstrate how biodiversity will be conserved and enhanced within the application site. This shall set measureable targets for each phase of development, clear monitoring and remediation procedures and appropriate long-term funding and implementation obligations.

v. In order to secure the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity, the relevant phase of the agreed Biodiversity Management Plan shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the each phase of development. This condition shall be discharged in line with the phasing of development, when the LPA has received written confirmation from the Project Ecologist that relevant phase of the Biodiversity Management Plan has been implemented as agreed.

vi. In order to avoid likely significant effects on the Severn Estuary SPA, reserved matters applications shall trigger appropriate contributions to the emerging Severn Estuary Impact Avoidance Strategy.

23. Further, I understand that the ‘Canal Contribution’ in the draft S106 is calculated to enable the Cotswold Canals Trust to make the relevant stretch of tow path sufficiently robust to both accommodate the likely increase in recreational pressure and enhance links to other footpaths. This will add to the package designed to avoid likely significant effects on the Severn Estuary SPA and to protect the River Frome KWS.

Conclusions 24. Providing the suggested conditions and draft S106 Agreement are implemented, I am confident that the development can proceed in accordance with Policy SA2, ES6, the HRA of the Local Plan and Habitats Regulation 61.

Page 113 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

SDC Policy Implementation Manager - Planning, Housing & Regeneration: 8/12/15 Confirms that the affordable housing has been agreed in line with Policy and is reflected in the draft S106 the main terms of which are set out below.

Highways England (formally Highways Agency): 18/06/2014

Secretary of State for Transport directs that planning permission be not granted for a period of 3 months to give the applicant time to provide additional information to enable the Highways Agency to satisfactorily assess the impact of the development on the SRN, specifically M5 J13.

1. Clarification on development phasing and how this relates to Travel Plan monitoring

2. Trip generation for residential and education proposals better tailored to local travel characteristics i.e. census mode splits

3. Revised trip rates calculated for employment land uses, reflecting that B1 office development represents a worst-case scenario in terms of peak hour trip generation

4. Clarification on how trip distribution and assignment has been identified for M5 Junction 13 and other SRN junctions further afield

5. Junction assessments updated to take account of any trip generation, distribution changes made as a result of comments set out in this note (Agency note), and to include all SRN junctions that receive an impact in accordance with Agency policy requirements.

6. Collision data to consider SRN junctions further afield if these are shown to receive traffic impact in accordance with Agency policy requirements

7. The provision of queue length analysis for forecast model scenarios from the Paramics model

8. The SRN slip road merges and diverges assessment in accordance with DMRB TD22/06. Until such time as information is provided to address the outstanding concerns the Agency will be unable to confirm that the development is acceptable.

17/10/2014 The latest information sets out to address three outstanding issues that remains of concern to the Agency.

The Agency now accepts the point that the A410/Grove Lane/ Spring Hill Roundabout improvement scheme would ensure queues do not extend back towards the SRN and impact on the operation of M5 Junction 13. No further assessment is required.

Whilst PFA accept the use of a Page planning 114 of condition 206 to protect the SRN from potential increases in employment traffic, beyond that assessed and included in the TA. The Agency rejects the development mix suggested by PFA, but has put forward further consideration for

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

the applicant via an attached audit note. This issue requires further consideration before the Agency can agree this point.

Assuming agreement can be reached on the above point, PFA are required to progress an amendment to the M5 Junction 13 northbound merge slip road, providing a single lane merge as identified in the PFA drawing layout H414/21. PFA are required to progress this through the provision of a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) and non motorised user (NMU) audit, in accordance with Agency policy requirements, before the Agency can provide sign off on this scheme.

23/02/15 No objection but directs the conditions to be attached to any planning permission which may be granted.

07/12/15 Highways England has no comment to make on the revised plans.

SDC Environmental Protection Manager: 08/04/2014 and 24/11/2015

Further to the above application I would recommend that the following conditions be applied to any eventual permission:-

1. For the proposed residential areas of the development I would recommend that, prior to construction, a detailed noise assessment should be required setting out the measures to be taken to ensure that there is no detriment to the amenity of existing and proposed local residents. For guidance purposes, the following standards should be achieved:-

a) sound levels within habitable rooms during the hours of 07:00 to 23:00 shall not exceed 35 dB L Aeq,16hour , with windows closed and an alternative means of ventilation provided; b) sound levels within bedrooms during the hours of 23:00 to 07:00 shall not exceed 30 dB L Aeq,8hour , with windows closed and an alternative means of ventilation provided; and c) sound levels on balconies and within garden areas during the hours of 07:00 to 23:00 shall not exceed 55 dB L Aeq,1hour .

2. Employment Area E4 should be restricted to land use class B1 or offices to provide additional noise buffering for existing dwellings on Oldends Lane.

3. Prior to commencement, a Construction Environmental Management Plan will be required to set out proposed actions to minimise disturbance to local residents during the construction of the proposed development, I would request that it should contain the following in addition to the usual requirements:-

• a scheme specifying the provisions to be made to control dust emanating from the site; • a commitment to prohibitPage bonfires 115 of on 206 the site during the development;

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

• details of how it is intended to utilise “best practicable means” to minimise noise levels; and • a scheme demonstrating how it is intended to liaise with local residents during the construction process, including how complaints will be handled.

4. No construction site machinery or plant shall be operated, no process shall be carried out and no construction-related deliveries taken at or dispatched from the site except between the hours 08:00 and 18:00 on Mondays to Fridays, between 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and not at any time on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

5. For the proposed employment areas, I would recommend that, prior to construction, a detailed noise assessment should be required detailing the measures to be taken to ensure that there is no increase in the general background noise environment from the development, assessed in accordance with BS 4142:2014.

For guidance purposes, the following standards should be achieved:-

The mechanism proposed within section 10.4.20 of the Environmental Statement may be applied but the proposed Rating Levels need to be adjusted to account for the lower background levels measured at locations U4 and S4. Thus, the initial Rating Levels (prior to adjustment for cumulative effects) would be 41 dB L Aeq,1hour daytime and 38 dB L Aeq,15min night-time, expressed as a Rating Level at the boundary of any dwelling. However, as proposed in the Environmental Statement, it is likely that there will be a number of units in each area, which could provide a cumulative increase in noise. It is therefore proposed that the Rating Levels for each individual unit within the relevant employment area should be reduced by 5 dB, i.e. 36 dB L Aeq,1hour daytime and 33 dB LAeq,15min night-time, expressed as a Rating Level at the boundary of any dwelling.

[Noise restriction conditions will be imposed on successful applications for approval of reserved matters, the construction hours and the construction environmental management plan recommended are reflected in the conditions recommended to be placed on this outline application].

Environment Agency: 01/07/2014

Having assessed the Environmental Statement (ES), dated March 2014, prepared by Pegasus Group, together with other relevant supporting documentation, we have no objections, in principle to the proposed development at this outline stage. We do however wish to provide the following comments for your attention, and have advice and recommendations on planning conditions if planning permission is granted.

Page 116 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Involvement to Date As you are aware we previously provided comments in our response dated 17 August 2012, Ref: SV/2012/106425/01-L01 to your request for a Screening and Scoping Opinion, and recommended given the scale and nature of the development that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the proposal be undertaken. At that time we were aware that the site had been identified as a possible strategic allocation, as part of the Stroud Local Plan, and we provided comments and recommendations at that time as part of the consultation process in respect to the proposed allocation. We are also aware from continued consultation with your Strategic Planners on the emerging Local Plan (Submission Draft, dated December 2013) that whilst the whole of this current application site has not been brought forward as a possible mixed use development at this time, the plan does identify 9.3 hectares of land to the north of Stroudwater Industrial Estate, (Site SA2) for B1-B8 employment uses, which does fall within this application site boundary.

From our involvement in assessing the emerging Local Plan, and the supporting evidence base (namely the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) Consultation Draft, dated 17 July 1013), it is worth noting we have raised issues based on the information contained in the IDP, which has highlighted some significant constraints to development where waste water infrastructure is concerned, and we will refer to this in more detail later in our response. Whilst we accept the Local Plan has only been subject to formal examination in part at this stage, we would still expect the supporting evidence base, policies and any site specific recommendations to have been taken into consideration and incorporated within the design of this application.

Flood Risk, Hydrology & Drainage Having assessed the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) prepared by Phoenix Design Partnership Ltd dated March 2014, and Chapter 11 of the supporting ES we have the following comments to make:

Fluvial Flood Risk The proposal is for a mixed used development that has been correctly identified as having a flood risk classification of ‘More Vulnerable’ as defined in Table 2 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), Paragraph: 066 Reference ID: 7-066-20140306.

The site incorporates all 4 flood zones based on our flood map extents as shown in Appendix B of the FRA, though we are aware that the site has been assessed as part of your Authority’s Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) work, as detailed in section 4.8 of the FRA.

In this instance given the Oldbury/Colliers Brook is designated an ‘Ordinary Watercourse’ that the Level 2 SFRA work is more appropriate to define flood risk. We would advise that a combination of the two models using the worst case scenario be used to define flood zones 3a (High Risk) and 2 (Medium Risk), whilst the Level 2 SFRA work is used to define Flood Zone 3b (Functional Floodplain) and the extents used from any culvert blockage scenarios.

It is clear from both the results and the Indicative Masterplan that all the proposed development is to be located within Flood Zone 1 (Low Risk) area, which is in accordance with both the site specific policy recommendations resulting from the outputs of the Level 2 Page 117 of 206 SFRA work undertaken (Site 23), and the sequential approach as advocated in Paragraph 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

We also acknowledge that the work undertaken as part of the Level 2 SFRA, has provided the basis for applying the Sequential Test, as required by the NPPF and in the accompanying PPG.

Surface Water Drainage In line with our strategic approach to the management of surface water (in accordance with the Flood and Water Management Act) we can confirm that the overarching principle as set out in sections 5 and 6 of the FRA are in line with the standard requirements set out within the NPPF, with discharges being limited to the existing greenfield run off rate and attenuation being provided for the worst case 1 in 100 year storm event including an allowance for climate change (30%).

We also support the inclusion of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and welcome the commitments set out in the proposed drainage strategy and section 11.5.27 of the ES (hydrology, Drainage & Flood Risk) that the green infrastructure for the site will include ponds, basins, swales and open channels, in addition to at source SuDS such as permeable/porous surfaces and rainwater harvesting.

We acknowledge this is an outline application at this stage, and therefore accept the matter of detailed design can be dealt with by way of a condition at the reserved matters stage. In line with our strategic approach any subsequent detailed design should be agreed in principle with the Lead Local Flood Authority (in this instance Gloucestershire County Council), and your own Land Drainage Engineer.

We also acknowledge and welcome in line with our previous recommendations both at the Screening stage and through our strategic consultations that a Water Framework Directive (WFD) Compliance Assessment has been carried out and included in Appendix 11.1 of the ES. We note this further assesses, surface water run-off, attenuation and water quality, alongside other components and activities which we will comment on in more detail, where relevant later in our response.

We do note however on drawing 273-002-01 Rev F, which forms part of the preliminary surface water drainage strategy that ponds B and E2 encroach into the extent of Flood Zone 3 as defined by the level 2 SFRA modelling. The latter pond may also be impacted upon should a blockage occur at the downstream culvert, resulting in the levels set out in paragraph 4.9 of the FRA. We would therefore expect the layout to be altered to reflect this information, to avoid any loss in floodplain storage.

To ensure the above, we would recommend the following worded condition be attached to any permission granted:

Page 118 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

CONDITION: There shall be no storage of any materials including soil or raising of ground levels within that part of the site liable to flood as shown highlighted on Drawing No. 273-001 Rev C.

REASON: To ensure that there will be no increased risk of flooding to other land/properties due to impedance of flood flows and/or reduction of flood storage capacity.

Foul Drainage Infrastructure As part of our screening response and through on-going strategic consultation, we have highlighted the need to ensure under the requirements of the WFD that any new development demonstrates there is available foul water infrastructure and capacity within that infrastructure to meet the additional demand without causing deterioration in the water quality of the receiving water body, in this case the River Frome.

We do therefore welcome that this issue does appear to have been recognised and investigated as part of the proposals.

It would appear from the evidence submitted and confirmation provided throughout the relevant sections of the ES, Drainage Strategy, and WFD Compliance Assessment that Severn Trent Water (STW) has carried out a ‘Sewer Capacity Assessment’ (SCA), (included in Appendix 11.2 of the FRA and Drainage Strategy), which has concluded that the current sewerage network can accommodate all of the proposed development, that no modifications to the sewer network are required, and that the foul flows from the development will not generate any additional flooding.

However, we wish to bring to your attention that in our discussions with your Strategic Planners and STW, sewer capacity and infrastructure issues at this location have been highlighted. Our most recent discussions during May [ 2015] this year indicate that improvement works in this location are planned by STW and that strategic scale development will need to be phased accordingly.

Our Environment Officer has also raised concerns about the potential for development of this scale to impact on the water environment, as we understand there are issues with the network and surcharging sewers under storm events causing pollution. Our WFD data suggests that currently both water quality (ammonia/phosphate) and invertebrates may be impacted by Stanley Downton sewage works (in comparison with data taken upstream and from the other arm of the river Frome). STW is aware of these issues and the planned works should improve the situation, but we would welcome clarification as to whether the improvement works are intended to accommodate a development of this scale.

Given that the information from STW submitted with the application indicates there are no issues then we are not minded to raise an objection on this matter. However as there appear to be conflicting views on the situation regarding both the sewerage network (pipes) and the treatment capacity (the Stanley Downton sewage treatment works), we would advise you discuss this matter with your strategic planners in the first instance, and have regard to policy CP6 in the emerging Stroud Local Plan. It may also be advisable to seek a further definitive view from STW on the situation. WePage would 119 welcomeof 206 clarification that you are satisfied with the foul drainage infrastructure and capacity issues, and whether the development will be phased in accordance with the delivery of infrastructure provision.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Protection and Enhancement of the Water Environment The land-use change of a development of this size could, if not appropriately mitigated and designed, adversely impact on the water quality and ecological status of the Frome Waterbody, to which the proposed development drains. The Oldbury/Colliers Brook (a tributary of the Frome and locally significant as a key wildlife site) flows through the proposed development site. The habitat quality of this feature, associated ditches and the receiving watercourses will need to be protected and enhanced. Currently the lower reaches of the river Frome are failing to meet good ecological status under the WFD on phosphate elements (see comments above under foul drainage infrastructure section). Other pressures include barriers to fish passage, altered hyrdromorphology as a result of historic straightening and over deepening, and urban runoff.

We therefore welcome the fact the developer has undertaken a WFD Assessment in appendix 11.1. We largely agree with the assessment, and providing the appropriate mitigation measures are implemented at the detailed stages then the development would be acceptable in terms of the WFD and ecological protection and enhancement.

The assessment has identified various aspects of the development that will need to be carefully designed in terms of the ecological impact of the development. These include the provision of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS), watercourse buffer zones, watercourse crossings and outfall structures. We have the below comments regarding mitigation measures and other considerations to protect and enhance biodiversity of the riverine corridor and other associated aquatic habitats within the project area and downstream.

Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) In addition to our comments above in the flood risk, hydrology and drainage section, we would advise that it is important that the developer adheres to the findings of their WFD Assessment in the detailed drainage design. We would expect the detailed design on the SuDS ponds to be installed on the site to be designed to maximise biodiversity as well as providing water storage and quality improvements. We would expect to see a full range of SuDS techniques and appropriate treatment trains as per CIRIA guidelines. The development should deliver SuDS that enhance the local ecological community and provide a suitable level of pollutant removal of runoff, and storm water attenuation to minimise impact on watercourses and the currently failing WFD Water Body (River Frome).

Watercourse buffer zones In the Environmental Statement Section 6.5.38 says “streams will be well buffered from any built form by species- rich grassland and new tree planting”. The distance has not been specified. Sufficient space will need to be provided between proposed buildings and the watercourse to ensure a safe, attractive and wildlife friendly corridor with adequate access for maintenance.

Page 120 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

It is important that land levels are not raised adjacent to any watercourse and a lower corridor is retained or created. Maintaining a more naturalistic topography will help maintain or enhance the character of the river corridor. Moreover lower river walls or banks enable better views and enjoyment of the water environment.

Any replacement or complimentary planting along the stream corridors (and across the site) should use native species with proven local provenance. We would recommend that any trees/ hedgerow removal should be replaced at a minimum of a 5:1 ratio. Trees and plants of proven local provenance significantly reduce the risk of alien diseases and pests being introduced or spread. Using native and locally common species will integrate planting into the local environment. Planting at a 5:1 ratio will increase the probability of plants surviving to maturity. As noted within the ES Part 6.3.56, invasive species are present on site adjacent to the watercourse. We would expect the developer to adopt a management plan for invasive species including the removal of Japanese Knotweed and Himalayan Balsam from the watercourse corridor. This should help to reduce and prevent the further spread of these invasive species, and assist in wider aims of eradicating invasive species from the River Frome catchment.

As these issues are generally matters for the detailed layout and landscaping we do not consider the buffer distance and watercourse corridor design and management measures need to be specified at this outline stage. However we would expect any detailed designs to incorporate an adequate river corridor buffer that maintains and enhances a robust wildlife corridor, appropriate planting and suitable management including of invasive species.

Watercourse crossings An important ecological requirement of the development is that any crossing must, as far as possible, ensure that wildlife can move through the river system under a range of flood flows. Design Manual for Roads and Bridges DMRB Volume 10 (Highways Agency, 2001) provides guidance on much of the above; part 4 relates to otters. We would expect any detailed designs to accord with this guidance.

We would encourage the use of open span or open arch bridges rather than culverting watercourses to maintain mammal passage and the natural bed of the stream for both terrestrial and aquatic species. Only if open span or open arch bridges are technically unfeasible should culverts be considered. If a culvert is to be used it will need a depressed invert (600 mm below design bed level) to avoid the introduction of a hard bed or invert with the risk or creating a `step` and hydraulic jump at the inlet to the culvert or adversely affect the sediment transport function of the watercourse .

Appropriate water depth, water velocity and flow variety will need to be maintained or created so as to provide adequate swimming space for fish, avoid the introduction of physical or behavioural barriers and create suitable resting areas below the entrance.

Given that the detailed design of watercourse crossings is not necessary at the outline stage, you may feel that a suitable condition could secure these aspects at the detailed stage. However we would note that the design would need to be submitted as part of a Flood Defence Consent (FDC). As therePage are 121 only of Ordinary 206 Watercourses at the site then the developer will need to apply to the LLFA for FDC. We would therefore advise the developer

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

to adhere to these guidelines, and those proposed in the submitted WFD Assessment, when submitted their FDC application(s).

Outfall structures The potential impact of outfall structures into the existing watercourses has been referred to in the WFD Assessment. Whilst it may be possible to use existing outfalls, opportunities to rationalise them should be examined. The WFD Assessment states surface water outfalls will be kept to a minimum and will discharge to a short section of channel as opposed to direct to the watercourse. We welcome this mitigation measure, it has been the convention for many years to site outfalls on the river bank and it is becoming increasingly apparent that the proliferation of engineered structures is adversely affecting the natural functioning and appearance of watercourses. We are currently advocating that new outfall structures are set back from the bank as far as is practical with a smaller outfall discharging into a ditch or swale, ideally a sinuous attractive feature. This has the following advantages: avoiding the introduction of a fixed point on the river bank therefore allowing greater geomorphologic flexibility in the channel; the structure is less vulnerable to erosion and costly remedial work; the energy in the flow from the outfall can be reduced; reduced visual impact and an off stream fish refuge can be created.

Again, these aspects will be a requirement of FDC and we would expect the developer to adhere to this advice in any detailed submissions, both to the LLFA for FDC and at any future Reserved Matters planning stage should you see fit to condition these ecological elements of the proposed development.

SDC Water Resource Engineer: 15/04/2014

The FRA adequately demonstrates that the site is suitable for development without flood risk and without causing an increase in flood risk to others, including allowances for climate change. It also demonstrates how SuDS will be used to manage surface water from the development, and to ensure that water quality in the Colliers Brook and downstream watercourses is not adversely affected. Phasing of the SuDS build will need to be agreed to ensure that any development is preceded by the SuDS requirements to ensure that flood risk off site is always managed.

I have no objection to this development with detailed drainage designs forming reserved matters based on principles defined in the FRA.

Cotswold Canals Trust: 25/04/2014

The Cotswold Canals Trust neither supports nor objects to the proposed development. However as this is a major proposal for a development very close to the route of the Stroudwater Navigation which passes immediately to the south of the proposed site we wish to make the following comments.

Page 122 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

The Trust is firmly of the view that, should the development receive planning permission, it will require facilities for local travel as well as recreation that cannot be provided within the area of the proposed development itself. The CCT therefore draws SDC's attention to all the following: The 2005 SAVED POLICY RL8 which states:

"Where appropriate, planning obligations will be sought that contribute towards the improvement or restoration of the related canal and towpaths."

The CURRENT DRAFT LOCAL PLAN also has many supportive references to the restoration of the canals.

"There are opportunities to utilise the canal corridor to achieve wider objectives, including improving transport infrastructure, extending public access and making public realm improvements".

In addition˜Strategic Objective SO4 - transport and travel' says: "Development in the Stroud Valleys will contribute funds to the restoration of the canal and towpaths, as well as potentially designing in new links across the development sites, thereby improving direct access for surrounding communities as well as those occupying the development."

The guiding principles for the Stonehouse cluster include: "Focus on canal restoration and canal corridor conservation and regeneration; improve physical accessibility between canal and town centre".

Most significantly, Delivery Policy ES11 Maintaining, restoring and regenerating the District's canals. "Reasonably related financial contributions may be sought via Community Infrastructure Levy or, where appropriate, via legal agreements for contributions towards the improvement or restoration of the related canal and towpaths".

CiL regulation 122 sets out what matters it is lawful for a Section106 to seek contributions for, in summary contributions must mitigate only the effects of the development applied for, they may not seek contributions towards wider community benefits, CIL will do this, and such contributions within a section 106 must be reasonable and proportional to the development applied for.

24/7/2015 Yesterday afternoon we were contacted by Karen Coleburn (of SDC) with regard to this development but we have not been contacted by the applicant yet and nor has there been any communication. Recently apart from across the room at the Local Plan Public Inquiry where the applicant seemed to be trying to wriggle out of as much as possible. So far nothing whatsoever has been discussed properly, let alone offered, in respect of this development.

If you look back through your records, you will find that we objected to the planning application and made representations to the Local Plan Inquiry along with a very large number of other people on the groundsPage that 123 this of 206development was offering very little to assist the canal restoration project apart from the a contribution towards the towpath. The root of the problem seemed to be the elimination of the use of CIL contributions in respect of this,

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

and apparently every other major development, within the proposed housing allocation. The outcome of this is still awaited but I think it is important that the views of a very substantial number of objectors are taken into account in this matter.

With regard to the towpath, it is obvious that this is going to be very heavily used by those who move into this new development and that it needs to be upgraded. Furthermore, it has the prospect of providing an excellent outlet for recreational use as well as forming an off road sustainable commuting route into Stroud and also Gloucester for cyclists. The towpath between The Ocean (where the railway crosses at Stonehouse) and Stroud has almost all been upgraded for multi-user use as part of the Phase 1A canal restoration project led by SDC.

There is a particular problem in installing an adequate multi-use towpath along the Bonds Mill embankment west of The Ocean in that the top of the embankment is too narrow. To fix this will require a new canal edge (with good erosion protection) to be created further into the canal and backfilled to create the necessary width. We consider it essential that this work is included within the scope of the S.106 requirement in addition to simply widening and improving the surface elsewhere. Only doing the length Eastington to Stonehouse does not recognise the value of a westward link to the Gloucester & Sharpness Canal to make the connection with Gloucester? Obviously we would prefer both.

Timing of the work will be important as we are in the process of submitting a bid to the Heritage Lottery Fund for £15 million to enable the Phase 1B canal restoration to take place. SDC are a partner in this project which is why I have copied in Dave Marshall. We would want any developer contribution to count as matched funding and that imposes a window during which the work would need to be carried out. Probably the best way forward would be a Developer financial contribution to cover the work (based on a commercial valuation) to the Trust and we would have the work done at the appropriate time (which at the moment looks like 2018-19 which would probably fit quite well with the timescales of the development). Because of the need to fit in with the main HLF Phase 1B project, a S.106 that has triggers in it related to the stage of the development itself would not be satisfactory as this makes the funding unpredictable. A backstop date could be agreed to cover the eventuality of the HLF matched funding opportunity not being exercisable.

(Following receipt of this consultation response a fully costed proposal to upgrade the canal footpath in line with the adopted policy was received (30/11/15) from Jon Pontefract Canal Project - Volunteer Manager and has resulted in a contribution being included in the S106).

Gloucestershire Constabulary: 11/06/2014

I write on behalf the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Gloucestershire (OPCC Gloucestershire) and Gloucestershire Constabulary in connection with the above planning application for 1350 dwellings on land west of Stonehouse. This proposed development will impact on local policing provided by the Constabulary and will require mitigations to OPCC Gloucestershire’s capital facilities. To address these points, this letter sets out a request for an appropriate level of developer contribution with supporting informationPage to124 justify of 206 how the requested developer contribution has been arrived at in line with relevant planning guidance.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Our current request for a policing contribution does include automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) - £381,183.53

Why we seek Contributions A primary issue for Gloucestershire Police is to ensure that new development of this scale makes adequate provision for the future Policing needs that it will generate. Like some other public services our primary funding is insufficient to be able to add capital infrastructures to support major new development when and wherever this occurs. Further there are no bespoke capital funding regimes, eg like Building Schools for the Future or the Health Lift, to provide capital re investment in our facilities. We fund capital infrastructures by borrowing. However, in a service where 90% of our budget is staffing related, our capital programme can only be used to overcome pressing issues with our existing facilities eg the new custody facility, technological replacements and upgrades or to re provide essential facilities like vehicles once these can no longer be used. This situation has been recognised by the Association of Chief Police Officers nationally for some time and there are public statements which explain our particular funding difficulties.

Faced with unprecedented levels of growth being proposed across our c county Gloucestershire Police have resolved to seek developer contributions to ensure that existing levels of service can be maintained as this growth takes place.

We are a regular and constant participant in the statutory Planning process evidencing the impact of growth through work with local Councils in their Plan making, preparation of guidance, preparations for CIL and the consideration of individual Planning applications including attendance at appeals. Police nationally encourage this approach to offset the impact of growth on the Police service.

The Policing impact of 1,350 additional houses at the site.

The proposed development will increase the population of this settlement by at least 3,240 people. It is a fact that 1350 new houses will bring additional Policing demands and particularly as there is no Policing demand from what is currently open fields. I do not doubt that there will be a corresponding increase in crime and demand from new residents for Policing services across a wide spectrum of support and intervention as they go about their daily lives at the site, in the town and across the County.

Empirical data indicates the direct and additional impacts of the development on local Policing that will be manifested in demand and responses in the following areas-

• At least 469 additional calls and responses per year via our control centre. • Attendance to at least an additional 94 emergency events as a result of the proposed development each year. • At least 375 non emergency events to follow up with public contact as a result of the proposed development each year. • 92 additional recorded crimes as a result of the development per year based on local parish area crime and household data. In addition at least 126 recorded anti social behaviour incidents each year as a result of the development. • The demand for increased patrolPage cover. 125 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

• Additional vehicle use relating to a contribution towards the replacement of a vehicle over a 4 year replacement period. • Additional demand for access to beat staff from the Stroud Local Policing units. • Additional Policing cover and interventions in all the areas described when considering staffing and functions above and for additional accommodation from which to deliver these.

Planning Policy justifications for a Policing contribution

National Policy The National Policy position to support our request exists in NPPF. Securing sufficient facilities and services to meet local needs is a Core Planning Principle [para 17]. Planning is to deliver facilities and services that communities need [para 70] and Supplementary Planning documents can assist applicants in this. Plan policies should deliver the provision of security infrastructure and other local facilities [para 156]. Plan policy and decision making should be seamless [para 186]. Infrastructure Planning should accompany development planning by LPAs [177] who should work collaboratively with infrastructure Providers [162]. NPPF seeks healthy and inclusive environments where crime and disorder and the fear of crime do not undermine the quality of life [69].

The key statutory tests for the use of Section106 Agreements are set out in R122(2) of the CIL regulations 2010 and echoed in paragraph 204 of the NPPF March 2012. This regulation introduced into law three tests for planning obligations. Obligations should be:-

• necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms • directly related to the development • fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development

Local Planning Policy The currently relevant Local Plan for Development Control Purposes remains the Stroud District Local Plan as adopted in November 2005 and covering the period to end 2011. This Local Plan contains saved Policy GE 7 which states:

“Where development is acceptable in principle under the policies of this plan, development proposals will be expected to have regard to existing levels of infrastructure, services and amenities.

Where development gives rise to the need for the provision of new or extended public and community services, the Council will assess the nature and extent of planning obligations required as a result of new development in accordance with National Planning Guidance

Planning permission will not normally be granted until the Planning Authority is satisfied, by imposing conditions, or where these are not appropriate or adequate, by seeking a legal agreement, that an appropriate level of infrastructure, services and amenities required as a consequence of and directly related to, the development is capable of being, and will be, provided within the timescale of the proposed development and in accordance with an agreed phasing programme.” Page 126 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

This policy establishes a level of policy support for developer contributions towards infrastructure and services, which includes the Police.

Stroud District Council does not have a Supplementary Planning Document dealing with developer contributions or planning obligations.

The Stroud District Council’s Submission draft Local Plan 2014 includes Policy CP 6 which provides guidance on infrastructure and developer contributions and states:

“The Council will work with partners to ensure that infrastructure will be in place at the right time to meet the needs of the District and to support the development strategy. This will be achieved by:

1. The preparation and regular review of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) for the District that will set out the infrastructure to be provided by partners, including the public sector and utilities

2. Securing contributions to all aspects of land use, infrastructure and services that may be affected by development, in accordance with the District Council’s identified priorities and objectives for delivering sustainable communities

3. The preparation of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)charging schedule that sets out the level of developer contributions towards new or upgraded infrastructure to support the overall development strategy

4. Negotiating appropriate planning obligations to mitigate any adverse impacts of proposed development – while avoiding duplication of payments made through CIL. Where implementation of a development would create a need to provide additional or improved infrastructure and amenities, would have an impact on the existing standard of infrastructure provided, or would exacerbate an existing deficiency in their provision, the developer will be expected to make up that provision for those local communities affected. Where the developer is unable to make such provision, the Council will require the developer to make a proportionate contribution to the overall cost of such provision through a legal agreement and/or Community Infrastructure Levy.

Various types of contribution will be used, including the following:

1. In-kind contributions and financial payments 2. Phased payments and one-off payments 3. Maintenance payments 4. Pooled contributions 5. A combination of the above.”

We have also delivered planning representations to the Joint Core Strategy Authorities, Cotswolds, Forest of Dean and Stroud district Council outlining the need for developer contributions to deliver new policing infrastructure.

Developer Obligations towards PolicePage Infrastructure127 of 206 On the basis that an increase in population arising from the development proposals would impact on the ability of the Police to deliver an effective and efficient service, it is reasonable

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

that developers contribute towards mitigating these impacts via Planning Obligations. In the Association of Chief Police Officers guidance from Ian Dove QC infrastructure is defined :-

“The first point to note is that “infrastructure” is not a narrowly defined term. Section 216 of the Planning Act 2008 provides a list of “infrastructure” but is clear that that list is non- exhaustive. That fact is demonstrated by the use of the word “includes” prior to the list being set out. In my view there is no difficulty in the proposition that contributions towards Police infrastructure can be within the definition of infrastructure for the purposes of the 2008 Act. In policy terms this is reinforced by the reference to security infrastructure in paragraph 156 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Furthermore infrastructure is of course not limited to buildings. In the context of the police’s infrastructure the kind of items which could be included have been provided in my instructions and includes equipment such as vehicles and bicycles, communications technology and surveillance infrastructure such as CCTV equipment.”

The Police contribution request

A total contribution request of £381,183.53 is sought to mitigate the additional impacts of this development because our existing infrastructures do not have the capacity to meet these and because, like some other services, we do not have the funding ability to respond to growth proposed. We anticipate using rate revenues to pay for staff salaries and our day to day routine additional costs (eg call charges on telephony and Airwaves, vehicle maintenance and so on).

Police expect to agree a programme to procure these additional facilities and have no difficulty including this as a clause in a legal agreement. We are committed to procure these items subject to the contribution sought. Contributions are only sought that are related in scale and kind to the development and so some infrastructures will not be entirely funded as a result. Police will pay the remaining amount if no other developers contribute towards Policing in the Stroud local policing area. This will mean that funds will have to be diverted away from other areas of deployment whilst seeking to maintain our priority as far as front line Policing is concerned.

As a further justification of our request, we confirm that the contribution will be used wholly to meet the direct impacts of this development and wholly in delivering Policing to it. Without the development in place it is reasonable to forecast the impacts it will generate using information about the known Policing demands of comparable local development. We believe the Framework encourages this and there is no more reliable comparators than those used in this request.

The development should make provision to mitigate the direct and additional Policing impacts it will generate and cannot depend on the Police to just absorb these within existing facilities with limited capacities and where Police have no flexibility in our funding to do this. This has been the situation since 2010 when Gloucestershire Police started to seek contributions. It is not forced by current spending reductions although strictures across the public sector re- enforce the need to ensure developments mitigate the direct additional impacts they cause.

Because of the very serious implicationsPage 128 for ofPolici 206ng of major developments, like this one, Police nationally have taken advice about the best way to proceed in the transition period prior to the CIL regime. As a result Gloucestershire Police no longer make requests based on

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

a formula but solely in relation to the development under consideration; its direct impacts on Policing and the necessary mitigations that it should provide.

What follows is a detailed explanation of Methodologies used to calculate the contribution and our application of the NPPF tests to justify each part.

Mitigation of impacts and methodologies identified by Gloucestershire Police.

Baseline background. At October 2012 total floor space occupied by the Force to deliver Policing to this County was 32409 m2. We employed 1,199 police officers and 132 PCSOs and 633 police staff to do this.

Existing households in the County (2009/10) was 49,500 in the Stroud local policing area. 136 police officers and 21 PCSOs delivered policing services in Stroud local policing area. 21 police staff supported delivery of policing services directly to the Stroud local policing area.

Households to staff for Stroud is 96:1 Floorspace to staff Forcewide is 16.78 m2.

Equipping staff. Additional staff needed to Police the development will require additional equipment.

For a Police Officer the additional equipment items are uniform £898, Workstation £1186, IPLDP probationers induction training £5854. Uniformed officers work in shifts where workstations can be shared and as a result start up cost will be £8422 per uniformed officer. For other staff the additional equipment items are workstation £1853 and training £300, total £2153.

The average cost of employing and equipping a new member of police staff is £3688.

Because the development is forecast to generate the need to employ 9 additional members of staff the contribution for equipment should be £58,458 from this new development. (Based the average cost of equipping a member of staff - 8422+3688 -: 2 X 9)

The Force could not have officers attending this development with less than adequate equipment with un-necessary risks to themselves and occupiers served.

Is the contribution necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms? Crime and community safety are Planning considerations and the Councils Core Strategy content further demonstrates this. The Framework identifies the need to achieve security in new development and makes provisions to deliver this through the planning system. Deployment of equipped staff is fundamental to delivering community safety and mitigating crime.

Is it directly related to the development? The Policing demands of this development are identified and Police mitigation of these can only be delivered by adequately equippedPage 129 staff. of 206

Is the contribution fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development?

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

This is a residential development and the Policing demands it will generate are known by comparison with local residential development. Demand and mitigations have been determined by the scale of the development.

Police vehicles In managing and responding to crime a number of different vehicles can be deployed ranging GRV patrol cars, unmarked general support vehicles, Public Service Unit vans and minibuses, scientific [eg SOCO] vehicles, pursuit vehicles - 4x4 and high speed, motorcycles and so on. Current fleet deployment to the Stroud area is 32 vehicles serving 49,500 existing households. The average equipped cost of a vehicle is £17,300. We replace vehicles on average every 4 years and although there is some resale value it is minimal. Based on this existing level of deployment to the locality we forecast additional demands as a result of this application.

3 units (vehicles) at value £553,600

Existing households Stroud 49,500 = £11.81 per H hold In relation to this particular development additional vehicle costs to deliver Policing and meet community safety needs will be £15,098 . This will be required when the cycle of replacement in the Stroud area and the building of the new development coincide. Impact of the development without the contribution will be pressure to spread existing transport more thinly. Residents of the new development and their representatives will expect the same degree of cover as elsewhere in the locality and existing residents will expect existing cover to be maintained and not reduced as a result of the new development.

Is the contribution necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms? Use of vehicles is fundamental to deliver community safety and address crime especially at

Neighbourhood level.

Is it directly related to the development? Fleet deployment is related to the known Policing demands of comparable development in the locality. The direct demand from the new development can be accurately forecast. Delivering Policing direct to this development will not be possible without additional vehicles to do so. Is the contribution fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development?

This is a residential development and the Police vehicle demands it will generate are known by comparison with deployment to other local residential development. Level of demand and mitigations have been determined by the scale of the development and demonstrate only a proportion of a vehicles’ time will be spent policing it. We do not therefore seek the cost of a whole vehicle.

Police Database capacity. This is a secured stand alone information source integrating a variety of data nationally and allowing this to be compared over time in relation to individuals and locations. Additional hits as a result of the development to access existing crime information and add more crime data to be accessed by more staff generate a need to add capacity to this system. Dedicated hardware is used with our contribution to this at £165,420 per annum. In addition, local serversPage are replaced130 of 206 every 5 years at £5k

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

To serve the existing households in the Stroud district costs £0.56 per household per year. An additional 1350 houses equates to £756 per annum.

We require a one off cost of £756 to increase capacity. Failure to increase PND capacity in step with growth the subject of this application will directly impact the capacity of the Force to rapidly access and respond to crime information.

Is the contribution necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms? Deployment to adequately deliver community safety will not be met where this is prejudiced by insufficient capacity in the Police PND system.

Is it directly related to the development? The additional demands of this development in relation to this infrastructure have been identified as have mitigations.

Is the contribution fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development? This is a residential development and the Policing demands it will generate, in terms of PND use, are known by comparison with other local residential development. The development is not built and this is a reasonable way to forecast this impact. Demand and mitigations have been determined by the scale of the development.

Control Room telephony Police control room call handling equipment is used to capacity at peak times. Our call handling centre at Waterwells directs all calls and deploys resources to respond and continue monitoring. We know the capacity of the technology and the calls it currently handles [fixed around minimum times with callers] and will be expected to handle as a result of the new development. In order to deal with all our calls across the County telephony, lines and licences are required at a total cost of £ 22,530 per year. This currently cost 8p per household.

The proposed 1350 additional houses in the Local Policing Area are forecast to generate 469 additional calls per year. We request a one off contribution of £113.53 to pay for additional lines and licences.

There will be a call handling impact and delays in response times if we attempt to serve this development with our current telephony systems.

Is the contribution necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms? Crime and community safety are Planning considerations and the Councils Core Strategy content further demonstrates this. NPPF identifies need to achieve security in new development and makes provisions to deliver this through the planning system. These considerations will not be met where Policing delivery is prejudiced by insufficient telephony capacity to take calls and deploy responses in good time.

Is it directly related to the development? The additional demands of this development in relation to this infrastructure have been identified as have mitigations.

Is the contribution fairly and reasonablyPage related 131 of i n206 scale and kind to the development?

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

This is a residential development and the Policing demands it will generate, in terms of use of control room telephony, are known by comparison with other local residential development. Demand and mitigations have been determined by the scale of the development.

ANPR CCTV Deployment These cameras are server linked to identify number plates of vehicles in use for crime. Recent public consultation saw significant support for the extension of this intelligence led solution to counter both local and travelling criminality impacting on the communities of Gloucestershire. There are plans to extend coverage of this technology initially in to Cheltenham and subsequently throughout the county.

Expansion of this system should be considered in conjunction with any new or planned development, enabling the Constabulary to put the right resource at the right place against the right risk and providing the opportunity for detections to become less resource intensive.

We will install these as resources permit however our financially constrained programme makes no provision for the impacts of additional areas of housing.

Unit cost is £9,000 which includes installation and APN links. There are annual running cost £2,484 per year for data from O2 and our managed provider Wireless logic.

We require 2 ANPR cameras on the A419/Grove Lane Roundabout and arterial route between junction 13 of the M5 and Stroud at a cost of £18,000.

Is the contribution necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms? Deployment of CCTV technologies significantly increases detection and deterrence with reduced need for staff presence and particularly contributes towards achieving community safety at neighbourhood level. This will be prejudiced where new development places additional demands on existing deployment without mitigation and the ability of these technologies to deliver safety is undermined where new development adds network gaps.

Is it directly related to the development? The additional demands of this development in relation to this infrastructure have been identified as have mitigations. The nature of the development and its size and location in relation to the existing settlement and camera deployment are a direct consideration in these technologies. Is the contribution fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development? This is a residential development and the Policing demands it will generate, in terms of additional crime and vehicle movements, are known by comparison with other similar residential development in the locality. Demand and mitigations have been determined by the scale of the development.

Premises Within the Stroud local policing areas Neighbourhood Policing is delivered from premises at Stroud and Dursley. 94 additional members of staff will need to be accommodated to serve the development. Occupation of local and Force wide premises is maintained to capacity. Premises cost is amount of floorspace per staff member (15.6m2) x number of staff generated by the development (9) x Build and build cost (£1,900m2) giving a total of £285,408 from this development. The latter is the build cost in use by Force Estates and has been externally verified by consultants.Page 132 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

This will be a contribution towards the refurbishment and upgrading of Stroud Police Station and a contribution to building works required to upgrade our response facility. Gloucestershire Police own the freeholds of these buildings and have in house expertise able to deliver property projects.

In relation to the new premises there are proposals and estimated capital costs to replace the main police stations in Gloucester and Cheltenham and other premises which require refurbishment and upgrade. This programme does not take into account the predicted growth and our requirements across the County to deliver policing as demand increases. It is estimated that some 90,000 new dwellings will be built over the next 10 to 20 years.

A number of functions necessary to Police the new development at Stonehouse are no longer fit for purpose.

It is estimated that the total cost of our countywide estates strategy which does not take into account the predicted growth will already be in the region of £14 million (Appendix A). Clearly we will be unable to fully fund this programme without contributions and our future provision of infrastructure will be severely restricted.

Our infrastructure requirements have been made clear in the Stroud Strategy IDP report.

Is the contribution necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms? Crime and community safety are Planning considerations and accommodating staff in the optimum location to serve the development is essential if this is to be achieved. Is it directly related to the development?

The additional staffing needs the development will generate have been established by reference to existing local deployment reflecting the actual Policing demands and crime patterns of the locality. In a similar vein the premises requirements that result from the need to accommodate additional staff at these levels is known. A direct relationship between the development, additional staffing and accommodation is demonstrated and it is appropriate to mitigate this through the planning system.

Page 133 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Is the contribution fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development? This is a residential development and the accommodation needs of staff delivering Policing to meet local demands of development of this nature are known. It is based on the scale and kind of residential development.

Additional Equipment for policing point serving the locality . This new development will increase the demand for local accessibility to Policing. Police are delivering policing points to existing communities and have a model for these reflected in current provision to serve existing residents from Parish Council offices, libraries and similar premises. The provision of a room in the community hub is requested and in addition a contribution of £2000 to equip it with the necessary mobile information technology functionality.

In association with this policing point Police expect to meet the demand for additional local crime initiatives as a result of new development. We have restricted funds to deliver crime prevention initiatives to existing and new development which pays for equipment such as Smartwater kits (fluid, sprays, detectors) or signage for local occupiers to use. We request that the developer contribute £1 per new unit towards the cost of these initiatives. A smartwater kit for example costs £16.

Is the contribution necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms? Crime and community safety are Planning considerations and ensuring accessibility for the public to Policing is important to community safety, combating and reducing crime and the fear of crime.

Is it directly related to the development? The use of a room in the community hub as a local policing point and a proportionate contribution towards equipment there is sought.

Is the contribution fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development? This is a residential development and accessibility to beat Policing for residents is an increasing part of the service. More policing points are being provided to existing communities but there is no capacity to extend these to cover additional areas of housing. The contribution is based on the scale and kind of residential development and is proportional.

SUMMARY OF CONTRIBUTION REQUESTED

Start up equipment £ 58,458 Vehicles £ 15,098 PND additions £ 756 Additional call handling £ 113.53 ANPR £ 18,000 Premises £ 285,408 Policing point equipment £ 3,350 Total £ 372,183.53

Page 134 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Conclusion

Without the necessary contribution the development will be unacceptable in planning terms and permission should not be granted as indicated in NPPF Guidance. The lack of capacity in existing infrastructure to accommodate the population growth and associated demands occasioned by the development means that it is necessary for the developer of the site to provide a contribution so the situation might be remedied. The request is directly related to the development and the direct Policing impacts it will generate based on an examination of demand levels in the parish, settlement, adjacent areas and existing Policing demands and deployment in relation to this. The request is wholly related to the scale and kind of the application development.

I am happy to provide a phased payment approach to the contributions on the understanding that our total funding request is agreed under the S106 terms when planning permission is granted. However I am unable to estimate when funding will be required until we have established the phasing of your build. Therefore I believe this needs to be discussed and I would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to clarify any of the issues of developer contributions towards necessary Police infrastructure prior to determination of the planning application.

(The concerns of the policing authority are understood however such concerns have been raised in the past but have not ever been incorporated into SDC decisions and discussions are continuing to incorporate capital projects within the to be formulated CIL schedule. In addition the funding of capital items as well as operational costs is already catered for as part of the GCC council tax precept).

Natural England: 06/05/2014

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (as amended) The proposal is for 1,350 houses and 9.3ha of employment land on a 98ha site at Nastend, west of Stonehouse. The site is 1km from the boundary of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The site is 5km from the Severn Estuary Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Area (SPA), Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar site which includes internationally important populations of waterfowl, invertebrate populations of considerable interest, large populations of migratory fish, including rare species and estuarine habitats of European importance. The site is 5km from Woodchester Park SSSI (notified for Greater Horseshoe maternity roost, grassland and woodland flora), 5km from Rodborough Common SAC (notified for grassland) and 2.7km from Frampton Pools SSSI (notified for standing water habitat).

The site is also 30m from the River Frome Key Wildlife Site.

Protected Sites Given the distances involved, Natural England does not consider the proposal will have a significant impact on international or nationally designated sites. Page 135 of 206 Protected Landscapes

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

The site is 1km from the boundary of the Cotswolds AONB and is visible from important public viewpoints, such as Haresfield Beacon (located on the Cotswold Way National Trail), from within the AONB. Although some distance from the site, the proposed development is very large and could have an adverse impact on views from the AONB if the development is not designed very carefully and with the longer distance views in mind. For example, green roofs on industrial buildings will be less obvious than white roofs when viewed from the AONB. The Cotswold Conservation Board should be consulted.

Protected Species

We have not assessed this application and associated documents for impacts on protected species.

Soils and Land Quality From the documents accompanying the consultation we consider this application falls outside the scope of the Development Management Procedure Order (as amended) consultation arrangements, as the proposed development would not appear to lead to the loss of over 20 ha ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land (paragraph 112 of the National Planning Policy Framework).

For this reason we do not propose to make any detailed comments in relation to agricultural land quality and soils, although more general guidance is available in Defra Construction Code of Practice for the Sustainable Use of Soils on Construction Sites, and we recommend that this is followed . If, however, you consider the proposal has significant implications for further loss of ‘best and most versatile’ agricultural land, we would be pleased to discuss the matter further

Biodiversity enhancement The development should aim to enhance the biodiversity of the site through the retention and enhancement of watercourses, trees and hedges on the site. These features should be part of a connected mosaic landscape that links to linear landscape features outside the site to provide important commuting routes for wildlife. This is particularly important given the proximity of the site to the River Frome Key Wildlife Site.

The application provides opportunities to incorporate features into the design which are beneficial to wildlife, such as the incorporation of roosting opportunities for bats and the installation of bird nest boxes for house martins, house sparrows and swifts and habitat enhancement. The authority should consider securing measures to enhance the biodiversity of the site.

This is in accordance with Paragraph 118 of the NPPF. Additionally, we would draw your attention to Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (2006) which states that ‘ Every public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity ’. Section 40(3) of the same Act also states that ‘conserving biodiversity includes, in relation to a living organism or type of habitat, restoring or enhancing a population or habitat ’. Page 3 of 3 Page 136 of 206

Green Infrastructure (GI)

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Well-designed green infrastructure (GI) should be a key part of the scheme, delivering ecological mitigation and enhancements. Green infrastructure can perform a range of functions including improved flood risk management, provision of accessible green space, climate change adaptation and biodiversity enhancement. Evidence and advice on green infrastructure, including the economic benefits of GI can be found on the Natural England Green Infrastructure web pages.

7/12/15 A further consultation response was received from Natural England as follows:

Thank you for your consultation on the additional information relating to this application, which includes an ES Addendum on visitor surveys and the potential for likely significant effects on the Severn Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar site.

The Local Planning Authority (LPA) as competent authority under the Habitats Regulations has concluded that mitigation is required in order to ensure no likely significant effects on the Severn Estuary. The LPA recommends the provision of further on-site green infrastructure to cater for local recreational needs and a contribution towards plans to improve the Stroudwater Canal towpath which would provide an alternative destination to the Severn Estuary. It is the LPA’s conclusion that with this mitigation in place, there are no likely significant effects on the Severn Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar.

Based on the evidence we have at this time and our understanding of the issue and possible mitigation measures more generally, Natural England agrees with the LPA’s conclusion of no likely significant effects with the proposed mitigation. We advise that this mitigation is secured through planning conditions, as proposed by the LPA’s retained ecologist.

Stroud District Council has commissioned an investigation of the effects of recreation on the Severn Estuary SAC/SPA/Ramsar site. If this study changes our understanding of the recreational impacts on the Severn Estuary by reserved matters stage then the best available information at that time would need to be considered (as confirmed in recent case law, case 101704 [DE]). Therefore further Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) could still be required at a later date. . Severn Trent: 01/05/2015

Thank you for the consultation, please find my comments below;

Condition: The development hereby proposed should not commence until written confirmation is provided to the Local Planning Authority confirming whether any necessary off site drainage improvements will need to be completed by Severn Trent Water.

Reason: To prevent flooding from the existing public sewerage system, and to afford Severn Trent Water time to investigate any necessary capacity improvements. (We would expect to be able to discharge a condition such as that within 2-3 months.)

Condition: The development herebyPage proposed 137 of should 206 not be occupied until any necessary off site sewerage improvements have been delivered by Severn Trent Water Ltd.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Reason: To prevent flooding from the existing sewerage system as a result of new development. To allow Severn Trent Water time to deliver any necessary capacity improvements. (We would expect to be able to discharge this condition within 2 years if improvements are necessary. If they aren’t we will have confirmed that under the previous condition and discharge the two together on the grounds that nothing needs to be done.)

And finally: Condition No surface water from the development hereby proposed should discharge to local foul sewers.

Reason: To prevent the public foul sewerage system from flooding under storm conditions.

(Through the IDP (Infrastructure Development Plan) evidence for Stroud District Council’s Local Plan Severn Trent Water the proposed site is within Stanley Downton sewage treatment works catchment. Comparison of current dry weather flow against consented dry weather flows indicates there is reasonable spare capacity at this treatment works. Should additional capacity be required in order to accommodate future development above the existing capacity then STW do not envisage any issues as there are no land or other physical constraints preventing expansion.

Severn Trent Water confirmed that a maintenance programme is underway which includes capacity upgrades to accommodate long term developments. Work planned for completion in 2017. While it is envisaged that there will be some spare capacity to accommodate the initial phases of any development to the west of Stonehouse, it is expected that capacity improvements will be required to accommodate later phases. As a worst case this may require replacement of the existing pumping station and duplication /upsizing of the existing 1.3km risking main.

Severn Trent Water confirmed that a project is ongoing to ensure this capacity at the Stonehouse pumping station. This will be sized accordingly to accommodate employment and residential allocations and completion will be phased to coincide with development). Wales and West Utilities: 08/04/2014

Offer no objection but advise of the presence of their intermediate / high pressure gas main(s) in proximity to this site. No excavations are to take place above or within 10m of the confirmed position of these mains without prior consultation with Wales and West Utilities.

Page 138 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Public Rights of Way (PROW): 07/04/2014

There is an opportunity within this scheme to link the public bridleways to enable people to enjoy a longer ride away from the main carriage roads. In the event that this application is permitted, a Temporary Closure will be required to ensure public safety. Please contact Public rights of Way on the above number for further details on this. The paths proposed to be diverted will need to be processed before any construction work is started.

Network Rail: 29/04/2014

After studying the details submitted with this proposal and consultation with our Level Crossing Manager, Network Rail objects to this proposal in its current form for the following reasons:-

The proposed development will undoubtedly cause an increase in the use of the level crossings at this location; we note from the attached plan of the proposed development that area E4 goes up to Stonehouse 2 footpath level crossing and area E5 north east corner butts up to Stagholt footpath level crossing.

These areas are earmarked as employment areas and as such could attract additional usage on these crossing with residents using Little Australia Footpath level crossing to get from the residential areas of Stonehouse; we believe that developing this site has the possibility of importing additional risk to the railway and therefore Network Rail objects on the grounds of safety at this location. The increased use of these crossings cannot be looked upon favourably by Network Rail.

Should the Applicant/Council wish to discuss the matter of the level crossings further with regard to minimising potential safety issues, please contact the Level Crossing Manager, Richard Atkinson email [email protected] to agree potential improvements and investigation to the level crossings to minimise the risk of accidents from the envisaged increased use that will result from this proposal.

Until the above issues have been resolved by the applicant to Network Rail’s satisfaction then our objection will stand as we have serious concerns for the safety of the railway that this proposed development will cause. (following detailed discussions with Network Rail a revised consultation response was received on 20/11/15 as follows).

For the avoidance of doubt I can confirm Network Rail remove our objection to this outline planning application on the basis of the incorporation of the suggested worded condition about the level crossing (the required condition is set out within the recommended conditions) as well as our usual requirements of Asset Protection and Safety Fencing.

Contaminated Land Officer: 08/4/2014

I have no comment or objection. Page 139 of 206 Historic England:

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

In line with the planning Act 1990 and guidance from the Secretary of State the primary designations that are considered within this response are the Stroud Industrial Heritage Conservation Area and the highly graded listed buildings.

Fundamental to our advice to local authorities is the requirement of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in Section 66(1) for the local authority to “have special regards to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest which it possesses”. Section 72 (1) of the Act requires a local planning authority to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

When considering the current proposals, in line with Para 129 of the NPFF, the significance of the asset’s setting require consideration. When considering development that has the potential to affect setting English Heritage’s guidance the setting of Heritage Assets should be referred to. The key principles for understanding setting are set out in page 5 of the guidance.

The accompanying Environmental Statement divides the impact of the proposed development into two different phases, construction and operational. The cumulative impacts are also reviewed. In relation to the operational impact the conclusion drawn by the consultants is that the impact as a whole on the setting of designated assets would be moderate or negligible on the basis that the impact would be offset by landscaping and design mitigation. As the application is Outline we would suggest that at this stage it is difficult to give a view as to how effective any mitigation provided will be.

Listed Buildings Within a 1km radius of the site there are five highly graded listed buildings. To the southeast of the site beyond the Bristol Road and railway line are Stonehouse Court Hotel (grade II*), Church of St Cyr (grade II*) and a churchyard monument (grade II*). Given the distances between the asset and the proposed development site, topography, and the presence of the Oldends Industrial site the intervisibility will be limited. From site inspection we would also suggest that the new site and the assets are not seen together from any primary viewpoint.

Southwest of the site is the grade II* Church of St Michaels and Angels. Due to the topography and distance the impact of the development is likely to be minimal. That said as this is an outline application the degree of impact can only be conclusively assessed once detailed designs are submitted.

Encircled by the development site is Nastend House (grade II*). The house dates from the late 16 th century with a front wing from the 17 th century. It was altered in the 18 th and 20thy centuries. The right hand return has a jetty at attic level, with moulded timber bressumer and probably originally also had first floor jetty. The building is of a status and as noted within the Environmental Statement, along with other buildings, forms the core of this small settlement. The wider setting of this building, and this hamlet, is the open agricultural landscape. We are unable to confirm these are views over the wider landscape from within the house. The proposed development would be to the north of the site, from Nastend House, and so views looking southwards would be maintained.Page 140 Directly of 206 to the north a green buffer would, to a degree, enable Nastend House to maintain its immediate setting. That said the sense of the

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

wider setting from a wider perspective as a rural landscape would be lost and therefore harm caused. It is our view that the harm caused would be less than substantial.

Conservation Area

The Stroud Industrial Heritage Conservation Area was designated in 1987. The portion that runs to the south of the site is the Stroudwater Settlement. The proposed development site is divided from the conservation area by a main road and a portion of land that would be left ‘predominately in existing use’. Whilst the wider setting of the conservation area would be visually intruded upon its core character and setting would, we feel, be maintained.

If the council is minded to support the scheme then we recommend close involvement with your Conservation Officer at the stage of discharging Reserved Matters to ensure that the detrimental impact on settings of Nastend House and The Stroud Industrial Heritage Conservation Area are minimised.

Officer for Nuclear Regulation- Programme: 25/04/2014

ONR has no comments on this application, since it does not fit the consultation criteria.

SDC Housing Strategy Manager: No objection.

Planning Strategy Consultation Response

Thank you for consulting Planning Strategy regarding the above named planning application.

Relevant Local Plan Policies Stroud District Local Plan (2015): Policies CP1-6, SA2, CP9, HC3, CP12, CP13, CP14, ES1, ES11, ES14, ES15, ES16

Relevant Local Plan History The site is a strategic mixed use allocation identified in the adopted Local Plan and was recently considered by the Local Plan Inspector at examination (2015).

Policy Considerations The Local Plan has very recently been adopted and full weight should be given to its contents, in accordance with paragraphs 12 and 15 of the NPPF. There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development as applied locally through the policies contained within the Local Plan. Consequently, decision makers should approve proposals that accord with the Local Plan without delay, but should refuse proposed development that conflicts with the Local Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The application is for the development of land allocated in the adopted Local Plan for a mixed use development including 1,350 dwellings, local centre and 10 hectares of land for B1, B2 and B8 land. The land uses set out in the application are therefore in accordance with the strategic allocation West of StonehousePage (Policy 141 of SA2 206) in the adopted Local Plan.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

The allocation policy SA2 includes 20 criteria to address a number of detailed matters. Whilst it is understood that this application is in outline at this stage, it will be important that any permission ensures that the criteria set out under Policy SA2 are satisfied, or can be satisfied, at reserve matters stages.

A design vision and masterplan should be produced and approved to ensure that the development is of a high design quality and delivered in an integrated and coordinated way, to include green infrastructure and a structural landscaping framework.

The proposed housing is intended to form a significant part of the delivery of the District’s future housing requirements, also making an important contribution towards the Council’s 5 year land supply and should therefore be supported.

It will be important that at least 30% of the housing proposed on-site is affordable and that a minimum of 2% are developed as self build or custom build housing.

It is noted that the application proposes 9.3 ha of employment land rather than the 10 ha identified in the Local Plan. However, it is also noted that the application proposes additional B1 uses at the local centre. It is also noted that unallocated land of 1.8 ha at Oldends Lane immediately adjacent to the site has recently received permission for B uses. On balance, it is considered that the employment provision proposed will be in accordance with policy, provided that suitable phasing arrangements are put in place to ensure that employment land is developed and completed in parallel with housing completions.

Suitable community infrastructure to meet the needs of the development should be negotiated to meet the requirements identified in Policy SA2. This includes the on-site provision of a two form primary school and sports pavilion/community building.

A key part of Policy SA2 is to investigate improvements to transport connectivity with Stonehouse and Stonehouse town centre. Whilst specific improvements are not identified in the Local Plan, potential improvements for investigation could include improvements to level crossings, measures to secure a safe pedestrian bridge crossing at Oldends Lane and other improvements to the local cycle and pedestrian network including canal towpath improvements. Contributions towards new and enhanced bus services are required and should also help with connectivity improvements. Necessary highway improvements should be provided in accordance with a detailed transport assessment and the views of Highways England and the local Highways Authority.

Contributions towards the reopening of the Stonehouse Bristol Road railway station should be sought, subject to confirmation from Network Rail that this forms part of their future plans.

Negotiations over suitable infrastructure contributions must ensure that overall the site remains viable and deliverable. Conclusions The proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the Local Plan and therefore, in accordance with the NPPF, should be approved without delay.

Recommendations Page 142 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

It is recommended that the application is approved as being in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Arboricultural Officer:

With regard to the submitted outline application, my comments are as follows. Existing tree preservation orders.

There are two tree preservation orders (TPOs) that relate to the land. Those being: 504 (2) and 506 (a).

TPO 504 (2) was served on the 18 th January 2002 in response to a planning application that had been submitted at the time. No objections or representations were received by the Local Planning Authority, and the order was confirmed without amendment on the 21 st March 2002.

Tree preservation 506(a) was served on the 30 th July and confirmed without modification on the 17 th October 2002. The original order 506 was revoked as the owner of Oldends Farm objected to the serving of an area order on his land.

Proposed access. Site Access and Services. The Provision of permanent and temporary site access is an important part of the layout design stage (s), and full details will normally be required in support of any planning application.

For safety reasons, site access layouts and visibility splays clearance may require the removal or pruning of trees and hedges. As is the case here. Where there is such likelihood, applicants will be expected to liaise with the appropriate Highways Authority, and seek clear guidance of their requirements, prior to submission of an application. In general, permanent and temporary site access designs will be expected to minimise tree and hedgerow removals, and ensure the long term retention of all important trees and hedges. The ecological and historical value of the hedges to be removed must be assessed prior to the outline application being determined.

The need to make provision for temporary site access must be given due consideration. Sites may require temporary access for long or wide loads and provision may be required for unusually high vehicles or plant. The need to provide adequate operational space within the site, for specialised heavy plant (including cranes) must be also considered. Any resulting short and long term implications for trees and hedges which are to remain must be carefully assessed, and full details submitted as part of any planning application.

Drainage and service layouts must be designed in such a way as to allow for installation and future maintenance without adversely affecting trees and their root systems. The provision of common service trenches may help to minimise potential conflicts. Full details of service layouts should be submitted with any planning application. Service layout planning and installation should be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the National Joint Utilities Group (NJUG) Publication No 10. Guidelines for the planning, installation and maintenance of utility services in proximity to trees.

Going forward, the reserved mattersPage application 143 of mus206 t consider the following;

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Incoming occupiers of properties will want trees to be in harmony with their surroundings without casting excessive shade, or otherwise unreasonably interfering with their prospects of reasonably enjoying their property. Layouts may require careful adjustments to prevent trees, which are to retain from causing unreasonable inconvenience to future occupiers, leading inevitably to requests for consent to fell.

Development layouts, even if no affecting trees directly, may not be acceptable if they would result in undue pressure, in short or long term, for felling or excessive pruning of important trees.

Site Layouts which merely avoid the exclusion zones may not, therefore, necessarily be adequate. Other factors must be taken into account in ensuring that trees which are to retain can reasonably be retained to maturity, thereby providing maximum amenity benefits with minimum maintenance requirements. In considering the juxtaposition of trees and buildings, site layout designs will be expected to ensure that trees which are to retain are given adequate space including sufficient allowance for future growth, without the need for excessive or unreasonable pruning.

The predicted mature height, branch spread and crown form of individual trees should be assessed in conjunction with site factors such as aspect, topography, soil conditions and exposure. The ultimate mature size of any individual tree will be dependent on site specifics and a qualified assessment should be sought.

Site Layouts must ensure that trees at maturity will not dominate buildings, inevitably leading to concerns about safety and ultimately to requests to fell the tree or heavily prune.

Site layouts should ensure that the garden areas are of adequate size, are large enough to enable normal domestic use and can reasonably accommodate the trees, including allowance for future growth. Garden areas should normally be sufficient to allow reasonable extension of the main dwelling and other permitted development rights without reducing the amount of usable garden space to unacceptable levels.

Site layouts must ensure that due consideration is given to the pruning requirements of retained trees, (full details should be included in the tree survey). Where pruning regimes, present or future, are recommended as a way of reducing the adverse effects of trees on development, the Council will carefully assess whether such proposals are consistent with prudent Arboriculture management, are likely to meet the suggested long term objectives and whether they are reasonable, enforceable and can practically be implemented. All tree works will be expected to comply with current arboriculture best practice, and meet the requirements of British Standard BS3998 Recommendation for tree works.

Layout DesignCriteria:

Tree Preservation orders: A Guide to the Law and Good Practice (March 2000) states:

Tree planting provides for the future amenity of a site and its surroundings, supplements existing tree cover or enhances areas where tree cover is sparse. Page 144 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

The aim of this section is to provide the necessary guidance to ensure that the new tree planting on development sites contributes to the creation of a high level of amenity, and an attractive environment, and relates to the character of a site and its surroundings.

• Tree Planting should be recognised from the outset as an integral part of any development scheme and should be purposefully designed to complement the proposed features of the devilment, and those existing features intended for retention. On sites, which have no trees whatsoever, it is especially important to plan for the planting of trees as part of the development.

• Tree Planting will be expected to contribute, on an effective scale, to the conservation or enhancement of the landscape, providing an overall environmental benefit in terms of public amenity and nature conservation.

• Tree Planting schemes should be appropriate for the intended use of the development and will be expected to contribute to the establishment of a well –structured framework of diverse ages, sizes and species with the potential to be managed constructively over decades or even centuries.

• Developers should recognise the functional role of tree planting in enhancing the physical characteristics of a development through providing shelter, screening, enclosure, softening the harsh outline of the buildings, defining space or directing routes and views, or simply in lending enhancement to the visual amenity of an area.

• Particular attention should be given to the use of tree planting in enhancing public areas within developments and views into the sites from surrounding public viewpoints.

• In locations where nature conservation objectives are recognised, planting schemes will be expected to maximise the benefits to wildlife, through the use of a range of native trees and shrubs suited to the ecology of the locality. Due consideration should be given to layout configuration, planting density, choice of species mixes, proportions and edge characteristics. Such schemes should always be prepared with input in the form of professionally qualified ecological advice.

Accordingly I recommend that the following condition be attached to any grant of permission:

No development shall commence on the non reserved matters until a scheme for the landscaping of those aspects of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall include details of hard landscaping plans, written specifications, including cultivation and other operations associated with tree, shrubs, hedges or grass establishment. schedules of plants noting species, plant size, and proposed numbers/ densities and an implementation programme must be submitted to the local authority planning department.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Stroud District Local Plan, adopted November 2015. Core policy CP 14. Point 8. Page 145 of 206 PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

National and Local Planning Policy Planning law (Section 38 (6) Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004) requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The adopted Stroud District Local Plan, (19th November 2015) is the Development Plan for Stroud District (The Plan). Due weight should be given to policies in this Plan according to the degree of consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework. Members will note that the Inspectors report dated 2 nd November 2015 on the examination of The Plan found that The Plan, with modifications as now adopted, was consistent with national policy in the NPPF, Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) and recent Government and Ministerial statements,(paragraph 213 Inspectors letter 2 nd Nov). It is noteworthy to set out the Stroud District Local Plan Examination Inspector’s conclusions on this strategic allocation as stated in Paragraph 111 of his report dated 2 nd November 2015.

“Despite all the local opposition to the proposed WoS development , I consider that this is an appropriate , effective , positively prepared and fully justified proposal which would be sustainable, viable, deliverable and soundly based, without having an unacceptably adverse impact on the character and role of Stonehouse, the local environment and landscape, or on existing and future traffic conditions. It is an important development which would make a significant contribution to the provision of housing and employment land in the district, fully in accordance with the strategy of the SDLP, is fully supported by the prospective developers, and has a realistic prospect of completion within the current plan period.”

The National Planning Policy Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions. The NPPF was published on 27 March 2012. This is a key part of the reforms to make the planning system less complex and more accessible, to protect the environment and to promote sustainable growth.

The core planning principles of the NPPF (Paragraph 17) seek to enhance and improve the places in people live, support sustainable development, secure high quality design, protect important landscape features, encourage the use of renewable sources, conserve and enhance the natural environment, re-use previously developed land, promote mixed use developments, conserve heritage assets, encourage sustainable transport and improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all. In summary the relevant matters within the NPPF are:

Chapter 1 (Paragraphs 18-22) of the NPPF are committed to securing economic growth to create jobs and prosperity. Government is dedicated to ensuring that the planning system does everything possible to support sustainable economic growth.

Chapter 5 (Paragraphs 42-46) Page of the 146 NPPF of 206 requires high quality communications infrastructure as being essential for sustainable economic growth.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Chapter 8 (Paragraphs 69-78) of the NPPF details how planning can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. It sets out objectives for the provision of high quality public spaces which encourage the active and continual use of public areas.

Chapter 10 (Paragraphs 93-108) of the NPPF establishes Governments objectives in supporting the delivery of a low carbon future which would aid in reducing greenhouse gas emissions , minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to the impacts of climate change. This chapter considers the implications of development on areas prone to flooding by virtue of proximity to watercourses or management of surface water.

Chapter 11 (Paragraphs 109-125) of the NPPF details Governments objectives with regard to protecting and enhancing valued landscapes such as the AONB whilst minimising impacts of development on biodiversity. It requires assessment of noise generating developments or the location of development in noise sensitive environments. It also considers pollution and land contamination.

Chapter 12 (Paragraphs 126-141) of the NPPF is of relevance when assessing proposals on sites with listed buildings and settings on or adjacent to them.. It establishes the importance of the historic environment, heritage assets and archaeology and provides guidance on conservation and enhancement.

The Development Plan

As noted above the relevant Development Plan comprises the Stroud District Local Plan 19th November 2015 (The Plan). The Plan’s strategic objectives are set out in policies SO1 to SO6 as follows:

• Accessible Communities, development to be sited within or adjacent to large settlements to allow access to existing facilities

• Local Economy and jobs, seeks to concentrate employment and new residential development within the M5/A38 corridor and at Stroud.

• Town Centres and rural hinterland, concentrating development within or adjacent to the District’s larger settlements. Stonehouse being a first tier settlement.

• Transport and travel, development to be within or adjacent to the District’s larger settlements. Page 147 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

• Climate change and environmental limits, priority to be given to sites for development close to the District’s main settlements to reduce travel by car

• New development shall incorporate sustainable drainage measures (SUDS) • Minimise impact on the distinctive qualities of the District’s area, in particular biodiversity.

Applying those strategic objectives in The Plan Policy CP2 sets out the strategic growth and development locations which inter alia includes the site the subject of this report (West of Stonehouse).

Site allocation Policy SA2 allocates land West of Stonehouse, consistent with the submitted application’s site area, as a site appropriate for mixed development. The allocation of the application site in the Local Plan plays a critical part in satisfying the overall strategy of the Plan to provide jobs and growth, and to ensure that SDC maintains a rolling five year land supply.

The Policy requires that a development brief including a design vision, incorporating a masterplan will detail the way in which the land uses and infrastructure will be developed in an integrated and co-ordinated manner addressing the following matters:

1. 1350 dwellings , including at least 405 (30%) affordable dwellings, unless viability testing indicates otherwise. 2. 10 hectares of B1,B2 and B3 employment land 3. A local centre, incorporating local retail and community uses to meet the needs of the development. 4. A two form entry primary school and contributions to secondary school provision 5.Contribution to local community services 6. Accessible structural natural green space , allotments and formal public outdoor playing space , including sports pavilion /community building 7. Structural landscaping buffer around Nastend and to the East of Nupend incorporating existing hedgerows and trees. 8. Long term management and maintenance of open spaces to deliver local biodiversity targets. 9 The acceptable management , maintenance and disposal of surface water , including sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS). 10. Restored watercourse corridor that enhances biodiversity and water quality and improves flood storage and flow rates. 11. Adequate and timely infrastructure to tackle wastewater generated by development in agreement with the relevant water authorities. 12. Opportunities to improve transport connectivity with Stonehouse and in particular the town centre for pedestrians, cyclists, public transport and private car. 13. Cycle and pedestrian routes through the development , connecting Nastend and Nupend with the town centre, Stroudwater Industrial Estate and Oldends Lane and footpath links from the development to the surrounding rural network, including improvements to the canal towpath. 14. Primary vehicle access from the A419 Chipmans Platt roundabout and additional vehicular access from Brunel Way and Oldends Lane. 15. Traffic calming measures withinPage the 148 development of 206 and locality , as approved by the Highways authority. 16. Bus stops and shelters at appropriate locations to serve the new development.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

17. Contributions towards bus services to improve bus frequencies and quality and to connect the development with Stonehouse and Stonehouse town centre. 18. Contributions towards the provision of a new railway station at Stonehouse, subject to the plans of Network rail. 19. Address any identified constraints and recommendations referred to in the Stroud infrastructure Delivery Plan in this location. 20. Phasing arrangements to ensure that employment land is developed and completed in parallel with housing land completions and community and retail provision is made in a timely manner.

The application needs to be considered in terms of compliance with the above Policy SA2 and the twenty detailed considerations within the policy as set out above

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

The principle of the development is in compliance with the provisions of the Development Plan which is in compliance to National Policy (NPPF) as set out above. The application provides a mixed development in accordance with Policy SA2, illustrated by a Master Plan submitted as part of the illustrative material with the application, a design vision informative and if permitted will be the subject of conditions requiring that subsequent applications for approval of reserved matters will be in general accordance with the masterplan and design strategy.

The submitted material also includes parameter plans which detail the density of the residential areas, the height of development, the pedestrian and cycleway linkages within the site and a Green Infrastructure (G1) Plan. These plans will together with the ‘design‘ documents and the masterplan inform and set criteria to judge subsequent applications for approval of reserved matters. The submitted material also includes a consideration of landscape impact of the development which demonstrated to officer satisfaction that the effect of the development is acceptable. It is also noteworthy that as part of the consideration of the application site as a potential allocated site at the draft stage of the Local Plan a landscape assessment was undertaken. The site was assessed as having ‘medium-low sensitivity’ in landscape impact assessment terms, characterised as a landscape resilient to change and/or of limited intrinsic value as a landscape resource. In addition the Local Plan Inspector as quoted above was also satisfied with the landscape impact of the development (paragraph 111 refers).

The phasing of the development will be controlled by the provision of infrastructure, in particular the highway works detailed as part of the draft S106 and recommended planning conditions as set out below will provide an orderly implementation of the overall scheme.

The report will now consider whether the application has successfully addressed the twenty requirements required by the Policy as detailed above.

1. The application provides for up to 1350 dwellings of which 30% will be affordable, secured by a Section 106 agreement which sets out a delivery schedule, dwelling sizes and tenure mix. Delivery Policy HC3 of the adopted plan requires 2% of total dwellings to be self build in line with current government policy Pagesubject 149 to ofSDC 206 identifying demand via the mechanism of a local register. To date the register has not yet been completed and the details of location

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

and numbers of plots to be provided can be dealt with at approval of reserved matters stage and controlled by a recommended planning condition on this application.

The draft S106 deals with public open space makes provision for children’s play facilities and these facilities are shown on the indicative masterplan and are acceptable.

2. The application provides for some 9.3 hectares of employment land and delivery is linked to the delivery of housing via a section 106 agreement to satisfy the overall strategic aim of the Development Plan to facilitate jobs and growth. The applicant has also agreed to develop a marketing plan in conjunction with SDC to bring forward employment on the allocated sites. The application site does not include a further area of land of some 1.83ha at Oldends Lane already has the benefit of a grant of planning permission under S14/2083/ FUL on 24/7/15 for employment use. The application complies with the requirements of the Local Plan in this respect as recommended by the Planning Strategy response to the application as the additional land (1.83 Ha) mitigates satisfactorily the shortfall on the 10ha identified in the Policy. In addition the local centre has the potential to incorporate additional B1 uses.

3. The masterplan shows a local retail centre incorporating community uses, including a community hall and provision of land for health services, a GP surgery. The size of the retail facility is proposed to be conditioned to ensure that the level of provision will not adversely affect Stonehouse Town centre. The delivery of the community hall is controlled by the proposed Section 106 and will provide at a defined stage of the development a fully equipped community hall together with a dowry payment of £30,000. Eastington Parish Council have indicated that they are prepared to accept a conveyance of the hall and the ancillary areas for parking together with the dowry payment. If the Parish ultimately decide to not accept the transfer of the asset the S106 provides for the facility to be vested within the management company that is to be set up by the developer together with open space, sports and community health facilities.

4. The developer has via a unilateral section 106 agreement agreed to provide a one point five form entry primary school and accommodation for 94 pre school places, the contribution to secondary school provision after discussions with GCC are not needed. The delivery of the school is controlled by the agreement, and secured by a bond to be in place prior to development commencing. There are four Section 106 Agreements each of which deal with specific areas (Education provision, Highways, Public open space and community provision and affordable housing), of which two are unilateral as the developer considers that the tariff monitoring fee required by GCC to be illegal following recent court rulings. Advice on this matter has been sought from the Legal Services Manager and Monitoring Officer who concurs with the applicant’s position.

5. The draft Section 106’s to be signed with SDC provide as set out above for contributions to local community services including the community hall in addition refuse and recycling facilities, and on site play areas within the residential areas, and a contribution of some £264600 towards library services divided into four separate contributions triggered at various stages of completion of residential properties.

6. The masterplan provides for structural natural green space, formal play areas and sports pitches, together with the provisionPage of a 150sports of 206pavilion and changing facilities designed to Sport England standard. The delivery of these facilities is enshrined within the Section 106 agreement and future maintenance will be undertaken by the management company to be

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

set up by the applicant. The provision of allotments will be dealt with within areas of natural green space as required by locally assessed need undertaken during the assessment of applications for approval of reserved matters.

7. The masterplan shows a structural landscaping buffer around Nastend and to the east of Nupend, which will be maintained by the management company. The detailed extent of that and other buffer areas will be dealt with in subsequent applications for approval of reserved matters guided by the illustrative masterplan and the design strategy informative.

8. The long term management and maintenance of open spaces will be vested in the management company that the applicant will set up as part of the overall section 106 procedure.

9. The masterplan and information submitted as part of the Environmental Statement incorporates a sustainable urban drainage scheme (SUDS), which has been found to be acceptable by the drainage authority and are controlled by provisions within the Section 106. Further applications for approval of reserved matters will provide details of this scheme for SDC approval to be managed and maintained by the management company.

10.The masterplan incorporates restoration of the watercourse corridor and assists in the provision of a SUDS scheme. Detailed works to this area will be the subject of applications for approval of reserved matters.

11.The applicant has supplied information on the provisions for the disposal of wastewater, and these outline proposals have been found to be acceptable by the relevant water authorities.

12. The applicants submitted transport assessment details improvements to public transport serving the site which are to be secured by a unilateral Section 106 agreement the details of which are set out in this report where GCC response is reported, these improvements will ensure that the site is served by a frequent bus service connecting the site, via the main distributor road to Stonehouse town centre on a frequent basis. The application also reserves an area of land to the immediate west of the Oldends lane level crossing for the siting of a DDA compliant pedestrian bridge.

13.The applicant’s masterplan and supporting documents detail pedestrian and cycle routes through the development, utilising in part existing public footpaths and bridleways, such that the proposed development is linked to Nastend, Nupend, Stonehouse and the Stroudwater Industrial Estate. The applicants have agreed to contribute £62500 to the improvement of the canal towpath in the area between Eastington and Stonehouse to mitigate increased recreational usage from the development. The payment date is regulated by provision in the Section 106 agreement to be the occupation of the 250 th dwelling.

14.Detailed revised drawings have been submitted, as noted above, for the three new access points to the developments; at Chipmans Platt, Brunel Way and Oldends Lane.

15. The applicant has agreed to a Section 106 Agreement which deals with the provision of highway measures within the developmentPage 151 to of provide 206 appropriate highways in conformity to the masterplan and the County Council’s highway standards, these and external highway improvements are secured by the Section 106 and a Section 38 Agreement made with GCC.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

16. The provision of appropriate bus stops and shelters forms part of the recommended planning conditions to provide adequate new public transport provision for the site and the Section 106 agreement provides detailed trigger points for the enhancement of bus services.

17. As set out above the section 106 that deals with highway and transport issues provides for a payment to the bus company to provide services into the site and connecting it to Stonehouse and its town centre, with trigger points to increase the frequency of that service as the development proceeds.

Within the red line of the application site, but not owned by the developer, there is a narrow strip of land adjacent to Oldends Lane level crossing which is reserved for the potential provision of a base for a DDA compliant pedestrian and cycleway bridge over the main line. The consent detailed in relevant planning history above has allowed for in the design of the approved employment building this reserved area.

18. The application does not provide a contribution to a new railway station at Stonehouse, the policy on this issue is caveated by a Network Rail requirement. Network Rail have been consulted on whether they have any plans for such a facility and have responded that they have no present plans for a new/ reopened station at Stonehouse.

19. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (November 2014) at section 6.3 deals with the local Plan allocation the subject of this application. The document notes that there are no identified infrastructure projects that would suggest substantial delays to delivery of the strategic site.

20. The section 106 Highways and transport agreement sets out the phasing of infrastructure associated with the site and the timing of that work. The S106 dealing with public open space and community issues also contains clauses which require employment land to be brought forward as residential occupations are achieved as detailed in point 2.above. The application is judged to be in compliance with Policy SA2 in all respects, and this view is supported by the strategic policy officers response to the application.

Other Material Policy Matters and issues Policy ES16 requires that major residential schemes contribute to public art, in this case it is considered that such public art can be secured though the detailed design of individual phases of the development and the laying out of areas of public open space. The design vision together with the masterplan and parameter plans will provide an appropriate context for the siting and content of public art.

Policy ES12, together with CP4 and CP5, requires that the layout and design of new development provides a well designed, socially integrated and high quality development. The illustrative masterplan, the design evolution document, the parameter plans and the design strategy together provide at this outline stage a clear ‘design brief’ for the subsequent applications for approval of reserved matters applications to be judged both against these policies and the requirements of the NPPF at section 7 ‘Requiring good design’.

Policy HC3 requires that such strategic sites shall be compliant with Government aspirations to encourage self build housing sitesPage to 152be availabof 206 le. In order to comply with this policy a suggested planning condition is set out (No. 45).

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Core Policy CP5 requires that strategic sites will be constructed at an appropriate density to the local area, the illustrative material submitted with the application demonstrates that the density of those areas of the site which affect the adjoin areas will be developed in accordance with that principle. The mix of housing and the density to be delivered will be controlled by recommended conditions on this outline by requiring the density and the number and mix of affordable housing to be delivered by means of subsequent applications for approval of reserved matters and providing guidelines for the form and nature of that housing. The submitted masterplan, design vision and parameter plans provide for play areas, landscaping and community facilities in conformity to Policy CP5 and are judged to be acceptable and policy compliant, though details will be judged when dealing with subsequent applications for approved matters utilising the material now submitted as well as National Policy and the emerging neighbourhood plan of Eastington.

REVIEW OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES The summary of objections from the public, ‘don’t strangle Stroud’, and the Parish Council’s of Standish, Eastington, and Whitminster and Town Council of Stonehouse are set out above. The objections to the scheme in terms of policy and the specific allocation have been superseded by reason of the adoption of the Stroud District Local Plan in November 2015 and the recognition as part of his consideration by the Inspector that the Plan is sound and accords with the policies of the NPPF.

Specific concerns raised to individual aspects of the application have been considered as part of the consideration of the proposals by statutory consultees and appropriately qualified officers of this Council whose considerations are set out in this report. The principle concerns as commented on below are considered not to raise such significant other material matters that the recommendation of approval is put at jeopardy.

The comments seeking capital expenditure to produce a new or reopened railway station have been explored with Network Rail who have no plans to provide an additional station. Many comments relate to the capacity of highway infrastructure to deal with the proposed development. The Examination Inspector and the considerable modelling work by the applicant and a significant ongoing dialogue with GCC and Highways England have resulted in both statutory consultees recommending planning conditions that deal with the impact and an overall agreement that the mitigation measures are acceptable and proportional.

Comments are made on the emergence of Neighbourhood Plans and their relevance to this proposal. Whilst neighbourhood plans are currently in production, the weight to be accorded to them in the determination of applications increases as they move towards a referendum, the plans in preparation are at a relatively early stage and have yet to undergo examination or referendum and in any event have to accord to the Development Plan, the Stroud District Local Plan 2015. It is noteworthy that the Eastington Plan is likely to be past Examination and potentially post referendum prior to the determination of the first application for approval of reserved matters which will accord the emerging plan considerable weight in the determination of such applications.

In addition comments are made that the scheme by virtue of its location does not provide an opportunity to improve connectivity with Stonehouse. The developers have been requested to consider in detail this matter and Page have 153 tested of 206 in viability terms the provision of a railway bridge to replace the railway crossing at Oldends Lane. The result of that exercise included significant compulsory purchase and a cost that would preclude the achievement in full of

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

other policy requirements such as road improvements, affordable housing, and school provision. In any event whilst the bridge would solve the perceived problem of the level crossing it would not deal with the other ‘pinch point’ on Oldends Lane the single carriageway arch under the railway embankment east of the level crossing. Nevertheless the improvements to public transport detailed elsewhere in this report will provide for the residents and employees in the application area a good regular bus service to Stonehouse and its station. In addition the illustrative masterplan shows a network of footpaths connecting all areas of the application site to footpaths leading into Stonehouse as well as other settlements in the area. In addition land is reserved adjacent to the existing Oldends Lane level crossing to allow a pedestrian and cycle waybridge that would be DDA compliant to be erected on the western side of the main line. This reservation is secured by an extant full planning permission, the details of which are set out in the relevant planning history. On the eastern side of the main line the land needed for the other support for such a structure is used as part of a playing field and is not within the applicant’s control.

The statutory consultees responses as set out above include both Highways England, Gloucestershire County Council Highways , SDC’s ecology consultant, Natural England, SDC’s arboriculture officer, Environmental health officer and drainage responses from SDC officers, the drainage authority and SDC planning strategy officer The responses deal with the major issues that the application raises and are supportive of the proposal.

Page 154 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

ARTICLE 35 (2) STATEMENT

The case officer was in very regular contact with the applicant/agent and the community, acting in a positive and proactive manner, seeking dialogue and solutions. Copies of this correspondence are on the file. Significant pre-application consultations were undertaken by the applicant, the details of that exercise are set out in the document dealing with community consultation submitted as part of the outline application and are detailed on the application file.

RECOMMENDATION The proposal is considered to comply with the provisions of Policies, CP2, CP4, CP5, ES16, ES12, HC3 and SA2 of a Development Plan, the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, (19 th November 2015) the guidance contained within the NPPF and supplementary planning documents and supported by statutory consultees. The proposal will not materially affect the amenities currently enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers. The proposal does not materially affect adversely the setting of any listed building. The proposal would not adversely affect any protected species or habitat.

It is recommended that the application is resolved to be approved subject to the signing of the two Section 106 agreements with SDC that deal with affordable housing and public open space, community facilities, and bringing forward employment sites at the same time as residential occupation. In addition the signing of two unilateral Section 106 agreements dealing with the provision of highway infrastructure, improved public transport and educational facilities and contribution to library services as agreed with GCC the general principals of those agreements are set out below. In addition the Notice of decision will contain the following conditions:

Reserved matters 1. Details of the layout, scale, external appearance of the buildings, and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called the “reserved matters”) within each part of the development hereby permitted shall (with the exception of the site accesses herewith approved) be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development is commenced within that reserved matters area (hereinafter referred to as “a phase”). The development shall be carried out as approved in accordance with the submitted plans and drawings.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.

Time limits 2. Applications for the approval of reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than 5 years from the date of this permission.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Page 155 of 206 3. The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

Design 4. Submissions for the approval of the reserved matters for any phase shall be submitted in general accordance with parameter plans (H.0324_08-2F, H.0324_08- 3F, H.0324_08-4F and H.0324_08-5F), approved indicative masterplan, reference H.0324_08-1F, the Design and Access Statement (reference H.0324_27-1, dated March 2014) and design strategy informative submitted to the Council in December 2015 and be supported by a design and landscape statement describing how the proposals for that phase contribute to the overall design vision as submitted as part of this outline application and objective for the development as described at paragraph 3.4 of the Design and Access Statement dated March 2014 and should have regard to the Design Strategy Informative appended to this permission.

Reason: To accord with Policies CP14 (9), ES12 and SA2 of the Stroud District Local Plan (19 th November 2015)

5. No work to construct any building shall commence on site until details and samples of the material to be used for the external walls and roofs for that building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: Tto accord with Policy ES12 of the Stroud District Local Plan (19 th November 2015)

Protection of existing trees and hedgerows 6. Within each phase of the development hereby approved no hedges or trees shall, with the exception of those required to implement the approved accesses, be removed or felled unless the removal or felling is part of an approved landscaping scheme.

Reason: To accord with Policy ES8 of the Stroud District Local Plan (19 th November 2015).

7. Details of fencing for the protection of existing trees within any phase of the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The fencing shall accord with BS 5837:2005 (Trees in Relation to Construction). Before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought into that phase for the purpose of the development, the fencing shall be erected in accordance with the approved details. The fencing shall be retained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from that phase. Nothing shall be stored or placed within any fenced area, and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor any excavation be made without the prior written consent of the Local PagePlanning 156 Authority.of 206

Reason:

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

To accord with Policy ES8 of the Stroud District Local Plan (19 th November 2015).

8. No development shall commence on the non reserved matters until a scheme for the landscaping of those aspects of the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall include details of hard landscaping plans, written specifications, including cultivation and other operations associated with tree, shrubs, hedges or grass establishment schedules of plants noting species, plant size, and proposed numbers/ densities and an implementation programme must be submitted to the local authority planning department.

Reason. To comply with the requirements of Stroud District Local Plan, adopted November 2015. Core policy CP 14. Point 8.

9. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping for each phase shall be carried out and completed in the first planting and seeding seasons following last occupation of that phase. Any trees, plants or areas of turfing which within a period of five years from the completion of that phase of the development become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Head of Development Services of Stroud District Council or an officer of equivalent rank gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in accordance with Policies ES12 and SA2(6) of the Stroud District Local Plan (19 th November 2015).

Landscaping/public open space/ecology 10. The details submitted under condition 1 shall include all areas of landscaping, public open space, play areas, allotments and nature conservation/biodiversity areas, indicating the facilities to be provided and management measures for the following species: bats, breeding and wintering birds, Great Crested Newts, reptiles and invertebrates where appropriate. Development shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in accordance with Policies ES12, CP14, ES6 and SA2(6) of the Stroud District Local Plan (19 th November 2015)

Page 157 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Archaeology 11. No development shall take place within a phase (excluding works to the existing public highway) until a programme of archaeological work for that phase has been secured in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.

Reason: In accordance with Policy ES10 of the Stroud District Local Plan (19 th November2015) to safeguard heritage assets and paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Access and highways 12. The accesses shall be carried out and completed in strict accordance with the details shown on the following approved plans: H414/10 Rev E Grove Lane H414/11 Rev B Brunel Way H414/12 Rev C Oldends Lane

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt.

13. No building shall be occupied until the access parking and turning facilities serving that building have been provided in accordance with the details approved pursuant to condition 1.

14. The employment development hereby approved shall not exceed a total of 32,550sqm gross floor area. Development of use class B1 shall not exceed 35% of the total gross floor area (11,393sqm) and development of use class B2 shall not exceed 35% of the total gross floor area (11,393sqm). The use classes referred to in this condition are those defined in The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended).

Reason: In accordance with Policy SA2 of the Stroud District Local Plan ( 19 th November 2015) to create a mixed use development and to accord with the Transport assessment submitted as part of the outline application.

15. No more than 200 dwellings or any other development mix generating the same level of peak hour traffic shall be occupied or brought into use until a scheme to improve the Chipmans Platt roundabout generally in accordance with PFA Consulting's drawing no. H414/14 has been constructed and is available for use by the travelling public.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

16. No more than 550 dwellings (based on a 30% affordable and 70% private mix) or any other development mix generating greater than 30 peak hour trips on the M5 Junction 13 northbound on-slip based on agreed trip rates and distributions to be submitted to and approved by the LPA shall be occupied or brought into use until a scheme to improve the M5 Junction 13 northbound on-slip as shown on PFA Consulting's drawing no. H414/21 has been constructed and is available for use by the travelling public. No occupation or use of the development beyond the threshold stipulated shall occur until the approved works have been completed.

Reason: To ensure that timely cost effective improvements are undertaken to the transport network that mitigate the significant impacts of the development in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SA2 of the Stroud District Local Plan ( 19 th November 2015).

17. No more than 300 dwellings and 1.3 hectares of employment use shall be occupied until the highway improvement works at Oldends Lane have been completed generally in accordance with drawing No. H414/29 Rev B.

Reason: To ensure that timely cost effective improvements are undertaken to the transport network that mitigate the significant impacts of the development in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SA2(14) of the Stroud District Local Plan ( 19 th November 2015).

18. No more than 600 dwellings and 2.6 hectares of employment shall be occupied prior to details of the highway improvement works at the Horsetrough Junction being submitted and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority generally in accordance with drawing no. H414/24 Rev A or other wise agreed in writing by the LPA.

Reason: To ensure that timely cost effective improvements are undertaken to the transport network that mitigate the significant impacts of the development in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SA2(14) of the Stroud District Local Plan ( 19 th November 2015)

19. No more than 600 dwellings and 2.6 hectares of employment use shall be occupied prior to the development of the spine road linking Oldends Lane to Grove Lane has been completed.

Reason: To ensure that safe and suitable access is provided and that timely cost effective improvements are undertaken to the transport network to mitigate the significant impacts of the development in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SA2(14) of the Stroud District Local Plan ( 19 th November 2015). Page 159 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

20. Prior to occupation of the 200 th dwelling the approved off site pedestrian/cyclist improvements as detailed in PFA Consulting’s report H414-FN37 shall be completed in all respects.

Reason: To ensure that the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SA2(13) ) of the Stroud District Local Plan ( 19 th November 2015).

21. Prior to the commencement of any phase of development details of public transport infrastructure to include bus shelters with timetable, seating and Real Time Passenger Information within 400m of any dwelling along with adequate turning facilities prior to the spine road being opened to through traffic shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, together with a timetable to be agreed for the implementation of these works and the works to be provided in accordance with the agreed timetable.

22 . i) Prior to the first occupation of any dwellings hereby permitted the means of access to the western end of the site as shown on drawing no. H414/14 Rev E from Grove Lane shall have been completed in all respects and made available for use and:

ii) Prior to any works commencing on site from the western end of the site details of the access serving the site from Grove Lane for construction purposes shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall be completed in all respects and made available for use.

23. No works shall commence on the proposed area of development to the east of the site solely accessed from Oldends Lane until the first 20m of the proposed access road, including the junction with the existing public road (Oldends Lane), associated visibility splays, as shown in drawing no. H414/12 Rev C, has been completed to at least binder course level, and shall be retained as such thereafter unless and until adopted as highway maintainable at public expense .

Page 160 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Reason: To reduce potential highway impact by ensuring that there is a satisfactory access at the commencement of construction works in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework. and Policy SA2 of the Stroud District Local Plan (19 th November 2015).

24. Prior to beneficial occupation of the residential or employment element of the proposed development the site access from Oldends Lane shall be completed in all respects in accordance with drawing no. H414/12 Rev C, and shall be retained as such thereafter unless and until adopted as highway maintainable at public expense.

Reason: To reduce potential highway impact by ensuing that there is a satisfactory access for pedestrians and vehicles, in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SA2 of the Stroud District Local Plan ( 19 th November 2015).

25. No works shall commence on the proposed area of development to the south of the site solely accessed from Brunel Way until the first 20m of the propose access road, including the junction with the existing public road (Brunel Way), associated visibility splays, as shown in drawing no. H414/11 Rev B, has been completed to at least binder course level, and shall be retained as such thereafter unless and until adopted as highway maintainable at public expense.

26. Prior to beneficial occupation of the employment element of the proposed development the site access from Brunel Way shall be completed in all respects in accordance with drawing no. H414/11 Rev B and shall be retained as such thereafter unless and until adopted as highway maintainable at public expense.

27. No building within a phase shall be occupied until the carriageway(s) (including means of surface water drainage and disposal, vehicular turning head(s), parking and street lighting) providing access from the nearest public highway to that building have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority and once approved completed to at least binder course level and the footway(s) to surface course level. Page 161 of 206 Reason:

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

To minimise hazards and inconvenience for users of the development by ensuring that there is a safe and suitable means of access for all people in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SA2 of the Stroud District Local Plan (19 th November 2015).

28. Prior to the commencement of any building within a phase of development a scheme for the provision of fire hydrants served by mains water supply shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority and no building shall be occupied until the fire hydrant serving that building has been provided in accordance with the approved scheme.

29 No development shall be commenced until details of the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The streets shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details until such time as either a dedication agreement has been entered into or a private management and maintenance company has been established.

Railways

30. If not already in place, the Developer must provide a suitable trespass proof fence (of at least 1.8m in height) adjacent to Network Rail’s boundary and make provision for its future maintenance and renewal. Network Rail’s existing fencing / wall must not be removed or damaged”.

Reason: In the interests of public safety.

31. Prior to the first occupation of the residential or employment sites is permitted a ‘level crossing monitoring scheme’ shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority following consultation with Network Rail setting out details for monitoring usage of the Stonehouse 2 pedestrian level crossing, identifying thresholds. The developer shall, if the thresholds set out therein are exceeded, complete a public footpath diversion/closure application or erect signage in consultation with GloucestershirePage 162 of County 206 Council, the Local Planning Authority and Network Rail and/or allow improvements to the boundary within its land in the location of the Stonehouse 2 pedestrian crossing.”

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Reason: In the interests of public safety.

Drainage 32. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment, including Surface Water Drainage Strategy, (FRA (dated March 2014). No development shall take place within a phase until details of foul and surface water disposal serving that phase has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and completed before any buildings within that phase are occupied unless otherwise agreed.

Reason: In accordance with Policies SA2 and ES4 of the Stroud district Local Plan (19 th November 2015)

33. There shall be no storage of any materials including soil or raising of ground levels within that part of the site liable to flood as shown highlighted on drawing No. 273- 001 Rev C.

Reason: In accordance with Policies SA2 and ES4 of the Stroud district Local Plan (19 th November 2015).

34. The development hereby permitted should not commence until written confirmation is provided to the Local Planning Authority confirming whether any necessary off site drainage improvements will need to be completed by Severn Trent Water.

Reason: In accordance with Policies SA2 and ES4 of the Stroud district Local Plan (19 th November 2015).

35. The development hereby permitted should not be occupied until any necessary off site sewerage improvements have been completed.

Reason: In accordance with Policies SA2 and ES4 of the Stroud district Local Plan (19 th November 2015).

36. No surface water from the development hereby permitted shall discharge to local foul sewers.

Page 163 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Reason: In accordance with Policies SA2 and ES4 of the Stroud district Local Plan (19 th November 2015)

Construction Method Statement, Transport Plan and Construction Environmental Management Plan

37. No development within a phase shall take place until a Construction Method Statement and Transport Plan has been submitted to, and approved in writing to the local planning authority. The approved Statement for that phase shall be adhered to and shall address and provide for:

1 The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

2 The unloading and loading of materials;

3 The storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

4 Wheel washing facilities; and

5 Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction;

6 A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works;

7 Details of the site access/routing strategy/signage during the construction period.

Reason: To reduce the potential impact on the public highway in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policies ES1and SA2 of the Stroud district Local Plan (19 th November 2015)

38. Prior to commencement, of development a Construction Environmental Management Plan and method statement will be submitted to and approved by the LPA setting out the proposed actions to minimise disturbance to local residents and ecology during the construction of the proposed development scheme including protection of ecology, specifying the provisions to be made to control dust emanating from the site including;

• A commitment to prohibit bonfires on the site during the development; • Details of how it is intended to minimise noise levels; and a scheme demonstrating how it is intended to liaise with local residents during the construction process, including how complaints will be handled.

This condition shall be discharged in full when the LPA has received written confirmation from the Project Ecologist that the scheme and consequent approvals of reserved matters havePage been 164 constructed of 206 in full accordance with the agreed CEMP.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Reason: In accordance with Policies ES1and ES3 of the Stroud district Local Plan (19 th November 2015).

39. In order to avoid likely significant effects on the River Frome KWS and the Severn Estuary SPA, prior to the start of works the LPA shall receive from the applicant and shall agree a Green Infrastructure Plan, which shall demonstrate how the on-site open spaces will be managed to provide attractive recreational opportunities. This shall set measureable targets for each phase of development, clear monitoring and remediation procedures and appropriate long-term funding and implementation obligations.

Reason: In accordance with Stroud district Local Plan 2015 policy SA2.8.

40. In order to avoid likely significant effects on the River Frome KWS and the Severn Estuary SPA, prior to the first occupation of the each phase of development the relevant phase of the agreed Green Infrastructure Plan shall be implemented. This condition shall be discharged in line with the phasing of development, when the LPA has received written confirmation from the Project Ecologist that relevant phase of the Green Infrastructure Plan has been implemented as agreed.

Reason: In accordance with Stroud district Local Plan 2015 policy SA2.8.

41. In order to conserve and enhance biodiversity, prior to the commencement of development works on the site the applicant shall submit, and the LPA shall agree, a Biodiversity Management Plan, which shall demonstrate how biodiversity will be conserved and enhanced within the application site. This shall set measureable targets for each phase of development, clear monitoring and remediation procedures and appropriate long-term funding and implementation obligations.

Reason: In accordance with Stroud district Local Plan 2015 policy SA2.8.

42. In order to secure the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity, the relevant phase of the agreed Biodiversity Management Plan shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the each phase of development. This condition shall be discharged in line with the phasing of development, when the LPA has received written confirmation from the Project Ecologist that relevant phase of the Biodiversity Management Plan has been implemented as agreed.

Reason: In accordance with Stroud district Local Plan 2015 policy SA2.8.

43. In order to avoid likely significant effects on the Severn Estuary SPA, reserved matters applications shall trigger appropriate contributions to the emerging Severn Estuary Impact AvoidancePage Strategy 165 as of required206 by the Stroud District Local Plan.

Reason:

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

In accordance with the Stroud District Local Plan 2015 Policy ES6.

Hours of Construction/Demolition 44. Demolition or construction works outside a building shall not take place outside 0730 hours to 1830 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 hours to 1700 hours on Saturdays nor at any time on Sundays or Bank Holidays).

Reason: In accordance with Policy ES3 of the Stroud district Local Plan (19 th November 2015.

Self Build Housing 45. Applications for approval of reserved matters of individual residential phases of the development shall unless otherwise agreed by Stroud District Council allocate within each phase a site or sites for self build development .

Reason: In accordance with Policy HC3 of the adopted Local Plan (2015).

INFORMATIVES a) No work should be carried out on the application site that may endanger the safe operation of the railway or the stability of Network Rail’s structures and adjoining land. In view of the likely close proximity of some works to the railway boundary the developer should contact Richard Selwood at Network Rail.

[email protected] before works begin b) The proposed development will involve works to be carried out on the public highway and the Applicant/Developer is required to enter into a legally binding Highway Works Agreement (including an appropriate bond) with the County Council in its role as the local highway authority before commencing those works.

Further guidance on the local highway authority's requirements can be found in its document entitled ' Manual for Gloucestershire Streets' which is available on Gloucestershire County Council's website c) The site is traversed by public rights of way and this permission does not authorise additional use by motor vehicles, or obstruction, or diversion.

The developer will be expected to meet the full costs of supplying and installing the fire hydrants and associated infrastructure.

The applicant is advised that to discharge condition 29 the LPA requires a copy of a completed dedication agreement between the applicant and the local highway authority or the constitution and details of a Private Management and Maintenance Company confirming funding, management and maintenance regimes. d) For the proposed residential areas of the development that applications for approval of reserved matters pursuant toPage this 166 permission of 206 include a detailed noise assessment setting out the measures to be taken to ensure that there is no detriment to the

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

amenity of existing and proposed local residents. For guidance purposes, the following standards should be achieved:-

i) sound levels within habitable rooms during the hours of 07:00 to 23:00 shall not exceed 35 dB L Aeq,16hour , with windows closed and an alternative means of ventilation provided;

ii) sound levels within bedrooms during the hours of 23:00 to 07:00 shall not exceed 30 dB L Aeq,8hour , with windows closed and an alternative means of ventilation provided; and

iii)sound levels on balconies and within garden areas during the hours of 07:00 to 23:00 shall not exceed 55 dB L Aeq,1hour .

iv) For the proposed employment areas of the development applications for approval of reserved matters pursuant to this permission shall include detailed noise assessment detailing the measures to be taken to ensure that there is no increase in the general background noise environment from the development, assessed in accordance with BS 4142:2014.

SECTION 106: FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS A summary of the contributions contained in S106 agreements and obligations to mitigate the effects of the developments are set out below:

Public Transport

A financial contribution up to a maximum of £525,000 payable in instalments - £200,000 prior to 300 occupation, followed by £140,000, £95,000, £60,000 and £30,000 on subsequent anniversaries. Indexed to CPT.

The specific Bus service enhancements to be achieved are summarised below.

Prior to 1 st occupation served off the western access , to provide a turning facility sufficient to accommodate a 12.8m MAN 18.240 single deck bus together with a bus stop incorporating bus boarder kerbing and a shelter at the western access and no further than 250 metres from the centre of the Chipmans Platt roundabout.

Prior to 1 st occupation served off the eastern access, to provide a turning facility sufficient to accommodate a 12.8m MAN 18.240 single deck bus together with a bus stop incorporating bus boarder kerbing and a shelter at the eastern access and no further than 250 metres from the centre of the Oldends Lane mini roundabout.

To use its reasonable endeavours to provide the spine road linking the western and eastern accesses prior to 600 th occupation and thereafter to provide bus stops at intervals of approximately 300 metres along the identified bus routes.

Developer to enter into Bus Service Enhancement Agreement with Stagecoach prior to 50 th occupation. Page 167 of 206

Travel Plan (Residential)

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

A financial contribution of £242,700 payable to in 2 instalments, £112,800 prior to commencement and £129,900 prior to 600 occupations. Indexed to RPI (Commercial Travel Plan dealt with by condition on submission of applications for approved matters approval.)

Off-site Highways Implement improvements to the Chipmans Platt roundabout as agreed with GCC and complete prior to 200 residential occupations. GCC to reimburse when and if, it receives LEP funding.

Land West of Stonehouse: Bus service provision Stagecoach West agrees that a phased service build-up to serve the site is appropriate and prudent.

Three phases are proposed; they are outlined below.

Phase 1 Phase 1 will involve the diversion of existing Service No. 61 (Stroud – Stonehouse – Dursley) to be achieved as soon as practically possible in connection with first occupations.

This service will be diverted into the site at the western access off Grove Lane, where turning facilities will be provided; and diverted into the site at the eastern access, subject to availability of running time, where turning facilities will be provided no further than 250 metres from the centre of Oldends Lane mini roundabout.

The service to run with a regular 60 minute core frequency between 07:00 and 19:00 Mondays-Fridays; and between 08:00 and 19:00 on Saturdays. No Sunday service is proposed in Phase 1.

The service will be operated with a fully-accessible low-floor bus seating not less than 25 seats, such as an Optare Solo or larger.

Phase 2a Phase 2a will be introduced in conjunction with the 300th residential occupation or no later than four years after the first occupation, whichever is the sooner.

This service will be provided by the diversion of the existing Service No. 66 E & S, with Service No. 64 then being extended and diverted to Gloucester each hour to replace the facility currently provided by Service No. 66 between Stonehouse and Hardwicke via the current route (B4008).

The service will run with a half-hourly frequency between 07:00 and 19:00 Mondays- Saturdays, and hourly in evenings and on Sundays.

This pattern of service provision will also, in all probability, retain some access to the Service No. 61 if the western turning facility is retained.

Phase 2b Page 168 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Phase 2b will be introduced on the opening of the spine road to be achieved in conjunction with the 600th residential occupation. This will enable the diversion of the Phase 2a service provision through the site via the spine road.

Funding Stagecoach will fund the costs of diversion into the site under Phase 1.

The Developer(s) will fund the costs of the turning facilities including turning circle, bus stop and waiting facilities including bus shelter in accordance with Bus Stop specification in Manual for Gloucestershire Streets (Appendix L). The turning circle is to be sufficient to accommodate a 12.8m MAN 18.240 single deck bus.

While no developer funding shall be payable in conjunction with Phase 1, a Bus Service Enhancement Agreement is to be entered into with the Developer(s) no less than 90 days before the service is required, and the service above shall be operated under the terms of that Agreement until such time as the Phase 2 is initiated.

Either party may exercise a break clause on the 250th residential occupation to postpone the implementation of the Phase 2 service provision.

Under Phase 2, the Developer(s) is to make the following payments to Stagecoach West.

West of Stonehouse Phase 2a and 2b Service (66 or as TBC) diversion Mondays- Saturdays minimum 2 buses per hour frequency enhancement Revenue support contribution £

Year 1 contribution £200,000 Year 2 contribution £140,000 Year 3 contribution £95,000 Year 4 contribution £60,000 Year 5 contribution £30,000 TOTAL £525,000

Funding shall be payable over the revenue support period over each calendar year in 13 prorated equal instalments, at four weekly intervals in arrears, until such time as the 5 year revenue support period above ceases.

All contributions are subject to an inflationary increase in line with the CPT Bus Operators' Cost index for Southern England.

From the date of inception of the Phase 2a frequency enhancement payments according to the schedule below will commence and the annual anniversaries thereafter, save that , should the initial Phase 1 and Phase 2a bus service prove successful and at Stagecoach’s sole discretion, Stagecoach may operate the Phase 2b bus service within the funding proposed ata frequency of 3 buses per hour or 20 minutes overall as part of the Phase 2 overall revenue support period, which shall not prejudice the ongoing support of the service thereafter according to the schedule set out below. Page 169 of 206 For the avoidance of doubt, Stagecoach may elect to apply the funding towards the

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

operation of the service frequency enhancement, serving the site via either Phase 2a or Phase 2b route, towards operating the service at a higher frequency than every 20 minutes from time to time, should it consider this appropriate, and with the agreement of developers, such agreement not to be unreasonably withheld.

There is a condition relating to off-site footpath and cycleway improvement to be implemented prior to 200 occupations which will cost some £75,000.

There is also a condition requiring works to improve the northbound on slip at junction 13, prior to 500 occupations.

Open Space, Recreation and Communities

On Site Play and Recreation Facilities Provision 1. With each submission of an ARM (Approval of reserved matters) the Owners shall provide to the District Council for approval:

a) A scheme for the provision of On Site Play and Recreation Facilities in respect of that Phase (“the Open Space Scheme”) such scheme to include details of how the On Site Play and Recreation Facilities are to be laid out and equipped as a local area of play to at least the standard of ‘Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play’ published by Fields In Trust (and applicable as at the date of the relevant ARM) or such other standard as the District Council may agree.

b) A scheme of ongoing maintenance for the On Site Play and Recreation Facilities (including details of the maintenance programme and the funding arrangements for the same) which will be put in place to ensure the long term management and maintenance of the relevant Phase to a standard which is at least as high as the standard to which the District Council would maintain public open space owned or managed by it (‘the Management Plan’).

2. Following the implementation of an ARM for the relevant Phase:

a) Where the location of the On Site Play and Recreation Facilities within the relevant Phase and the layout of the Development within that Phase permits, the Owners shall construct and lay out such parts of the On Site Play and Recreation Facilities within that Phase (which have been first approved by the District Council pursuant to paragraph 1) as can be safely completed and made available for use by the general public as soon as practical, having regard to the timing and nature of construction works to be undertaken within that Phase; and

b) The relevant Phase of the On Site Play and Recreation Facilities which has been approved by the District Council pursuant to paragraph 1 shall be constructed and/or laid out by the Owners as appropriate in accordance with the conditions of the Planning Permission, the ARM and the said approved scheme and in any event prior Pageto the 170 end of of 206 the planting season following completion of the relevant Phase; and

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

c) On completion of the works referred to in Paragraph 2.1.2 above the Owners shall give the District Council notice of that fact and the District Council shall confirm on inspection whether such Phase of the On Site Play and Recreation Facilities has been satisfactorily completed in accordance with the conditions of the Planning Permission and the ARM and if so shall certify the same to the Owners (‘the On Site Play and Recreation Facilities Certificate’).

d) Within 3 months from the date of any On Site Play and Recreation Facilities Certificate the Owners shall implement and thereafter secure the on-going delivery of the Management Plan relevant to the particular Phase and serve on the District Council one or more notices in writing proposing that the future ownership of the On Site Play and Recreation Facilities the subject of the said On Site Play and Recreation Facilities Certificate should be vested in: (a) a public authority or statutory undertaker (to be agreed by the District Council) or (b) a Management Company or (c) any other person (subject to compliance with provisions of this agreement).

Canal Contribution To pay the Canal Contribution to the District Council prior to first Occupation of the 200 th Dwelling £62500

Refuse and Recycling Contribution To pay 50% of the Refuse and Recycling Contribution to the District Council prior to first Occupation of the 250 th Dwelling and the remaining 50% prior to first Occupation of the 750 th Dwelling.

3. Changing Facilities To construct:

a) The First Changing Rooms substantially in accordance with the First Changing Rooms Specification, such that a building control completion certificate in respect of the First Changing Rooms is issued prior to the date of first Occupation of the 500 th Dwelling and also to ensure that the sports pitches associated with the First Changing Rooms are in a playable condition to the written satisfaction of the District Council prior to the date of first Occupation of the 500 th Dwelling;

b) The Second Changing Rooms substantially in accordance with the Second Changing Rooms Specification, such that a building control completion certificate in respect of the Second Changing Rooms is issued prior to the date of first Occupation of the 1000 th Dwelling and also to ensure that the sports pitches associated with the Second Changing Rooms are in a playable condition to the written satisfaction of the District Council prior to the date of first Occupation of the 1000 th Dwelling.

4. Community Hall Page 171 of 206 Not to allow first Occupation of the 700 th Dwelling until the Owners have offered to transfer the Community Hall to the Parish Council.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

The Parish Council may accept the Offer Notice by serving an acceptance notice on the Owner at any time within 6 months of service of the Offer Notice (Prescribed Period.

Not to allow first Occupation of the 1000 th Dwelling until the Owners have:

a) constructed the Community Hall substantially in accordance with the approved plan and Sport England’s Design Guidance Note for Village and Community Halls, and a building control completion certificate in respect of the Community Hall has been issued;

b) fit out the interior of the Community Hall to an agreed specification to the reasonable satisfaction of the District Council;

c) Paid the Community Hall Commuted Sum to the Parish Council in the amount of £30000

d) subject to paragraph 4.5, following compliance with paragraph 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3, transferred the Community Hall to the Parish Council on the terms as set out. and,

e) subject to paragraph 4.5, paid the Parish Council’s reasonable legal costs in connection with the transfer of the Community Hall.

Subject to paragraph 4.5, to consult and collaborate with the Parish Council during the design process (but, for the avoidance of doubt, this shall not require the Owners to construct a Community Hall that is substantially different from that specified in paragraph 4.3.1 above).

In the event that the Parish Council does not serve an acceptance notice within the Prescribed Period the Owners may either:

retain the Community Hall and will insure and maintain or procure the insurance and maintenance of the Community Hall in perpetuity; or

the Community Hall Commuted Sum will be paid to a Management Company and the Community Hall will be transferred to such Management Company on the terms as are set out in the Fourth Schedule and such Management Company will insure and maintain or procure the insurance and maintenance of the Community Hall in perpetuity

5. Healthcare Facilities To reserve the Healthcare Facilities Site for a period of 10 years from the date of this Agreement and, during that period, to use its reasonable endeavours to secure use of the Healthcare Facilities Site for Healthcare Provision PROVIDED THAT in the event that the Owners are unable to secure use of the Healthcare Facilities Site for Healthcare Provision within the said 10 year period, then the Healthcare Facilities Site shall no longer be requiredPage to be 172 used of 206 for Healthcare Provision and the Owners

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

covenant to use the land for such purposes as are permitted in relation to the Local Centre as may be agreed by the District Council.

6. Employment Provision

To prepare and submit to the District Council within 6 months following the grant of Planning Permission the Marketing Plan in respect of the Employment Land for approval by the District Council.

As soon as is commercially expedient following agreement of the Marketing Plan, to commence the marketing of the Employment Land (or such part or parts thereof as have been agreed to be marketed) in accordance with the Marketing Plan.

To notify the District Council of the date on which the marketing of the Employment Land (or relevant part of it) commenced.

To continue to implement the Marketing Plan until all parts of the Employment Land has been occupied for the relevant employment purposes.

Not less than every six months, to review the Marketing Plan with the District Council, report on progress made in relation to the implementation of the Marketing Plan (including a written summary of marketing activities undertaken, details of interested parties and of Offers received and transactions completed) and, where appropriate, make such changes to the Marketing Plan as may be agreed with the District Council with a view to ensuring the Marketing Plan is achievable and reflects the then current market conditions.

a) Prior to the first Occupation of the 400 th Dwelling, to provide parcel E4 as a fully serviced site;

b) Prior to the first Occupation of the 700 th Dwelling;

i) to provide parcels E1, E2 and LC1 as fully serviced sites and ii) to have secured an Offer for parcel E1, E2 or E4 (the “First Offer”);

c) Prior to the first Occupation of the 1000 th Dwelling; i) to provide parcels E5 and LC2 as fully serviced sites and ii) to have secured an Offer (other than the First Offer) for parcel E1, E2, E4 or E5; and

d) Prior to the first Occupation of the 1,100 th Dwelling, to provide E3 as a fully serviced site.

7. Affordable Housing

The Affordable Housing shall be provided in the following sub-proportions or as otherwise agreed by the Council in writing in accordance with paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 above Page 173 of 206

1. If less than 1350 dwellings are constructed pursuant to the Permission then:

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

a) 15% rounded up to the nearest whole Dwelling of the total number of Dwellings permitted by the Permission shall be Affordable Rented Housing Units of which:

10% rounded up to the nearest whole Dwelling shall be 1 bed 2 person flats. 10% rounded up to the nearest whole Dwelling shall be 2 bed 4 person flats. 66% rounded up to the nearest whole Dwelling shall be 2 bed 4 person terrace or semi detached houses. 8% rounded up to the nearest whole Dwelling shall be 3 bed 6 person semi detached houses. 6% rounded up to the nearest whole Dwelling shall be 4 bed 8 person semi detached houses. b) 15% rounded up to the nearest whole Dwelling of the total number of Dwellings permitted by the Permission shall be Intermediate Affordable Housing Units of which:

10% rounded up to the nearest whole Dwelling shall be 2 bed 4 person bed flats. 70% rounded up to the nearest whole Dwelling shall be 2 bed 4 person terrace or semi detached houses. 20% rounded up to the nearest whole Dwelling shall be 3 bed 6 person semi detached houses.

Page 174 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

2. If 1350 Dwellings are constructed pursuant to the Permission

a) 202 of the total number of Dwellings shall be Affordable Rented Housing Units of which:

20 shall be 1 bed 2 person flats. 20 shall be 2 bed 4 person flats. 134 shall be 2 bed 4 person terrace or semi detached houses. 16 shall be 3 bed 6 person semi detached houses. 12 shall be 4 bed 8 person semi detached houses.

b) 202 of the total number of dwellings permitted by the Permission shall be Intermediate Affordable Housing Units of which:

20 shall be 2 bed 4 person flats. 142 shall be 2 bed 4 person terrace or semi detached houses. 40 shall be 3 bed 6 person semi detached houses.

8. Education and Libraries

Bonds The Developer and the Owners will not cause or permit the Commencement of Development until such time as the Bondsman shall have entered into one or more First Bond(s) securing:-

a) the Library Contribution in the sum of two hundred and sixty four thousand six hundred pounds (£264,600) (“the Library Basic Sum”) or such sum as may be equal to the Library Basic Sum multiplied by the library Variable Factor; and

b) the Education obligations hereof in the sum of Six Million Pounds (£6,000,000) (“the Education Basic Sum”) (being the estimated cost of providing the School) or such sum as may be equal to the Education Basic Sum multiplied by the education Variable Factor.

Six (6) months before the expiry of the First Bond (if the same has not already been released in full by the Head of Legal Services in accordance with clause 3(a) of the First Bond) the Developer and the Owners shall procure that the Bondsman (which for the avoidance of doubt need not be the same Bondsman as in the First Bond but shall fulfil the criteria specified in the definition of ‘the Bondsman’ in clause 1 of this Deed) shall have entered into the Further Bond with the Council.

9. Library Obligations

For the purpose of providing a contribution towards new furniture and/or increasing stock and/or computer resources and/or the cost of extending opening hours and/or the cost of capital works in libraries in Stonehouse and/or Stroud the following sums shall be paid to the Council by the Developer and the Owners. Page 175 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

a) £66,150 (together with any payments in accordance with Clauses 14 and 15) on or before the expiry of six (6) months following Commencement of Development. b) £66,150 (together with any payments in accordance with Clauses 14 and 15) on or before the First Occupation of the 250th Residential Unit. c) £66,150 (together with any payments in accordance with Clauses 14 and 15) on or before the First Occupation of the 500 th Residential Unit. d) £66,150 (together with any payments in accordance with Clauses 14 and 15) on or before the First Occupation of the 1000 th Residential Unit.

School Construction The Developer and Owners shall construct the School on the School Site in accordance with Schedule Four hereto such that a completion certificate within the meaning of that schedule can be issued (i) in respect of Phase 1 on or prior to the 31 st May following the date on which the 250 th Residential Unit is First Occupied pursuant to the Planning Permission and (ii) in respect of Phase 2, either on the 31 st May following the date on which the 500 th Residential Unit is First Occupied pursuant to the Planning Permission or in accordance with such timeframe as may be agreed with the Council pursuant to clause 3.3.3.

The Developer and Owners shall comply with the following in providing the School: i) All requirements of Part III of the Act. Copies of all relevant permissions approvals and certificates shall be provided to the Council on transfer of the School Site (or Phase 1 of it). ii) All construction shall be carried out to meet all the Building Regulations requirements current during the construction of the School. The Department for Education – Advice on Standards for School Premises current during the construction of the School shall be followed where those are set at a higher level standard or requirement than the Building Regulations. iii) The design shall comply with the guidance and regulations then current in the Department for Education guidance with which a school built by the Council must comply set out below: Building Bulletins BB100 – Fire BB101 – Ventilation BB103 – Area guidelines for mainstream schools BB94 – Inclusive School Design BB93 – Acoustic Design of Schools BB91 – Access for Disabled People to School Buildings: Management and Design BB90 – Lighting Design for Schools BB87 – Guidelines for Environmental Design BB85 – School Grounds: A Guide to Good Practice BB78 – Security Lighting Crime Prevention on Schools Series BB75 – Closed Circuit TV Surveillance Systems in Educational Buildings Crime Prevention in Schools Series BB71 – The Outdoor ClassroomPage 176 of 206 BB69 – Crime Prevention in Schools: Specification, Installation and Maintenance of Intruder Alarm Systems

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

BB67 – Crime Prevention in Schools: Practical Guidance Regulatory Information The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1999 DfES Circular ‘The School Premises Regulations’ DfES Constructional Standards iv) The Developer will supply to the Council three sets of the design documentation. v) The School shall be constructed in accordance with the Specification the detailed design and detailed specification (the second and third being as approved pursuant to paragraph 3.13 of the First Schedule) subject to any amendment thereto as may be requested from time to time by the Developer and as has been agreed in writing by the Council. vi) The Council’s Representative shall be provided with full contract and construction documentation by the Developer, be given access to the School Site at all times during construction of the School and be invited to all contract progress meetings. The function of the Council’s Representative shall be to ensure that the standards agreed for design construction and materials are adhered to throughout the construction of the School. For the avoidance of doubt the Council’s Representative (or any other servant contractor or agent of the Council given access to the School or the School Site) shall have no role or responsibility in relation to health and safety matters save in respect of his personal conduct to comply with all health and safety requirements pertaining. vii) For the duration of the construction of the School the Developer shall arrange, at their own cost, for the use and to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council’s Representative (or other authorised officer of the Council) of site office accommodation with telephone heating toilet and working and lighting facilities. This may be shared accommodation. viii) Defects shall be identified and their rectification monitored in accordance with the procedure at Schedule Four Part II. ix) The procedure and timescale for handover for the School shall be in accordance with that in Schedule Four Part II. x) The construction of the School shall only be carried out by the employment of a contractor or sub-contractor approved in writing by the Council xi) In the event of the Developer entering into a contract with a contractor or subcontractor they shall do so using the appropriate current Joint Contracts Tribunal 2011 contract terms and conditions or such other form or contract as the Developer considers appropriate given the subject matter of the contract and is approved in writing by the Council. xii) The Developer shall give the Council at least ten days notice of commencement of works for the construction of the School. xiii) Reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure that the construction of the School is properly supervised and the Developer will provide stage certificates to the Council as to compliance with the designPage and Specification177 of 206 on completion of each of the following stages:

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Completion of the superstructure On the School being watertight Completion of all first fixings Completion of the School or relevant Phase of it

the Council Representative being invited to attend the meetings intended to result in the issue of those stage certificates and for the avoidance of doubt the Developer hereby agrees that in the event that the Council’s Representative raises an objection in writing to the issue of a stage certificate in accordance with this clause that certificate will not be issued until that objection has been considered . xiv) The Developer shall be responsible for the rectification (at their own expense and within a reasonable time limit specified by the Council) of any defects arising in any part of the School (but not caused as a result of damage after Handover) for a period of twelve months from the date of issue of the completion certificate pursuant to Schedule Four Part II Paragraph i and thereafter until the issue of a final certificate pursuant to Schedule Four Part II Paragraph ii. xv) Four weeks after the date of issue of a completion certificate pursuant to Schedule Four Part II Paragraph i and in any event prior to the expiry of twelve months there from the Developer shall provide five sets of “as built” drawings, site plans, land surveys, capable of showing the School Site at scales from at least 1:500 to 1:2500 identifying site boundaries and dimensions and reference points in paper and electronic form in accordance with BS 1192:2007 full specifications, plans and details of all services and guarantees of materials and installations. xvi) A programme for the timing for the detailed design construction and handover of the School in accordance with this Deed shall be submitted to the Council before construction of the School or relevant Phase of it commences. The programme shall be updated by the Developer on a monthly basis with detailed reasons for the failure to meet any target dates, or slippage in the forecast and proposals for recovering any such slippage but for the avoidance of doubt this paragraph is without prejudice to the Councils right’s in accordance with paragraphs 3.5 and 3.6 of the First Schedule. xvii) All construction shall be undertaken in accordance with Health and Safety Executive requirements and the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations then current in respect of which the Developer shall be “the Client”. xviii) For the avoidance of doubt the School will be constructed to be ready for occupation upon handover in so far as the Developer is reasonably able to do so subject to timely performance of the Council and its servants contractors and agents pursuant to Schedule Four Part I Paragraph xx and Schedule Four Part II Paragraph iii. xix) In respect of each Phase, the Developer is to provide such of the following as are applicable to that Phase: fixtures and fittings on, in and outside the School including fixed gym equipment, wall bars, line markings, storage facilities, a fully operating kitchen suitable for cooking school meals (including kitchen units), W.C.’s, basins, sinks, showers, floor finishes,Page window 178 of and 206 door furniture, built-in cupboards, blinds, fitted electrical equipment, telephone points, fire fighting equipment, shelving, notice boards, cloakroom fixtures and fittings together with all external works on the School

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Site including landscaping, external lighting, security measures, gates, paths, cycle path facilities, boundary fences and boundary treatment, all connections to mains services including wiring for voice and data telemetry from the service to the point of use but excluding telephony and computer installation and commissioning. All Service Media and equipment as provided or supplied by the Developer to be operational at handover. xx) Interactive electronic white boards, projectors including telephony and computer installation and commissioning and other freestanding equipment will be provided by the Council and fixed by the Developer such fixing to include connection to services. xxi) The accommodation shall be provided at least to the areas specified in the Schedule of Accommodation annexed to this Deed. xxii) All buildings comprised within the School shall be designed, specified and the construction supervised by the Developer engaging a RIBA Architect and such specialist consultants and construction firms as are necessary (to be approved in writing by the Council). xxiii) The Council shall be given the room tender sheets and such comments as it may give shall be considered prior to tender documentation being completed.

Part II The Developer will request that the Council: i) Issue a completion certificate to the Developer upon (aa) completion of the School or relevant Phase of it to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council; and (bb) the delivery to the Council of the Health and Safety file in relation to the School or relevant Phase of it in accordance with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations. (cc) the delivery to the Council of an environmental consultant’s certificate in favour of the Council certifying that the School Site is suitable for use (i.e. not contaminated land within the meaning of Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990) as a site for a primary school in accordance with the terms of this Deed. ii) Issue a final certificate to the developer in respect of the School or relevant Phase of it upon - the expiry of twelve months from issue of the completion certificate, and - the Developer making good to the reasonable satisfaction of the Council such works as may be required pursuant to Schedule Four Part I Paragraph xiv, and - the Developer having delivered to the Council any additional matters in its possession necessary to be added to the Health and Safety file in relation to the School in accordance with the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations, and - the Developer having delivered to the Council the items required by Schedule Four Part I Paragraph xv. Page 179 of 206 HUMAN RIGHTS

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

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.

Page 180 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Item No: 08 Application No. S.13/2668/OUT Site No. PP-03034892 (251) Site Address Wimberley Mill, Knapp Lane, Brimscombe, Gloucestershire

Town/Parish Minchinhampton Parish Council

Grid Reference 387435,202014

Application Outline Planning Permission Type Proposal Demolition and clearance of the existing buildings and hardstanding, residential development of up to 104 dwellings, vehicular and pedestrian access, Internal access roads, car parking, surface water drainage and related works, various engineering operations including changes to site levels, de-culverting the River Frome and works to create new flow and flood channels, associated landscaping including a play area. (Revised Plan 21st November 2014, revised description of development and plans 13.5.2015).

Page 181 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Applicant’s Mr Alvin Lindley Details Wimberley Park, Knapp Lane, Brimscombe, Gloucestershire, GL5 2TH

Agent’s Details Mr David Hutchison Pegasus Planning Group, Pegasus House, Querns Business Centre, Whitworth Road, Cirencester, GL7 1RT

Case Officer Pippa Moore

Application 05.12.2013 Validated

RECOMMENDATION Recommended Resolve to Grant Permission Decision Subject to the 1. Before any development is commenced, approval shall be following obtained from the Local Planning Authority in writing of the details conditions: of the layout (plot 50 only as defined on plan ref. C.0480_24) scale, appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters").

Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved.

Reason: To comply with the requirements of Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. The Reserved Matters applications submitted pursuant to condition no.1 shall be in broad accordance with the guiding design principles of the addendum to the Design and Access Statement dated May 2015..

Reason: In the interests of ensuring the development proceeds in accordance with the approved parameters in the interest of good design.

3. Plans and particulars submitted pursuant to condition 1 above shall include the following details:

i. Details of access arrangements including surface material finishesPage for 182 the ofhighways, 206 footpaths, cycle ways, private drives and all other hard surfaces;

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

ii. The soft and hard landscaping of the site and details of screen walls, fences and other means of enclosure

iii. details of existing and proposed ground levels and proposed finished floor levels and building heights;

Reason: to ensure that sufficient information is provided in the interests of good design.

4. No building hereby permitted shall be occupied until surface water drainage works have been implemented in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The detailed design should follow principles as detailed in the drainage strategy submitted with the planning application. Before these details are submitted an assessment shall be carried out of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles set out in Annex F of PPS25 (or any subsequent version), and the results of the assessment provided to the Local Planning Authority. Where a sustainable drainage scheme is to be provided, the submitted details shall:

i. provide information about the design storm period and intensity, the method employed to delay and control the surface water discharged from the site and the measures taken to prevent pollution of the receiving groundwater and/or surface waters;

ii. include a timetable for its implementation; and

iii. provide a management and maintenance plan for the lifetime of the development which shall include the arrangements for adoption by any public authority or statutory undertaker and any other arrangements to secure the operation of the scheme throughout its lifetime.

Reason: To ensure that the development is provided with a satisfactory means of drainage as well as to reduce the risk of creating or exacerbating a flooding problem and to minimise the risk of pollution for the lifetime of the development.

5. The finished floor levels of the development hereby permitted shall be set no lower than 62.64m AOD (600mm above the modelled 1 in 100 year floor level including an allowance for climate change).

Reason: To ensurePage that 183 the ofdevelopment 206 is free from flooding and remains safe for the lifetime of the development in accordance with Chapter 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

6. The first Reserved Matters submitted pursuant to condition 1 shall include details of the siting and design of a single clear spanning pedestrian footbridge over the River Frome with a soffit level set at a minimum of 600mm above the modelled 1 in 100 year flood level (including an allowance for climate change).

Reason: To ensure that the development provides safe pedestrian access which is free from flooding and remains safe for the lifetime of the development in accordance with Chapter 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

7. For the purposes of condition 6 above the pedestrian bridge shall be solely sited in the general location marked A, B or C on the Indicative Footbridge and Maintenance Margin Locations Plan (ref. C.0480_22E). It shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the 100th dwelling hereby approved.

8. In the event that the pedestrian footbridge is to be sited in the general location marked "C" on the Indicative Footbridge and Maintenance Margin Locations Plan (ref. C.0480_22E) the siting and design of the bridge shall allow for maintenance vehicle access to the River Frome between the bridge position and plot 44.

Reason: To ensure vehicular access to the River Corridor for the ongoing maintenance of the corridor, in the interests of water management in accordance with Chapter 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework

9. The first Reserved Matters submitted under condition 1 shall include a continuous maintenance margin with a width of up to 8m on the northern side of the River Frome and a continuous maintenance margin with a width of up to 4m on the southern side of the River Frome between the positions identified as " A" to "B" and "B" to "C" on the Footbridge and Maintenance Margin Locations Plan (ref. C.0480_22E).

Reason: To ensurePage vehicular 184 of access206 to the River Corridor for the ongoing maintenance of the corridor, in the interests of water management in accordance with Chapter 10 of the National Planning Policy

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Framework

10. The River Frome maintenance margins shall be left unobstructed at all times and shall be landscaped in accordance with details that shall first be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The details shall include a timetable for implementation and shall proceed and be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure suitable landscaping and management of the maintenance margins to enable access to the River Corridor for the ongoing maintenance of the corridor, in the interests of water management in accordance with Chapter 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework

11. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until further details of the proposed means of maintenance vehicular access to and from the maintenance margin on the southern side of the River Frome between the positions identified as "P" and "C" on the Footbridge and Maintenance Margin Locations Plan (ref. C.0480_22E) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall then proceed and be maintained in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: Information required as part of the detailed design phase in order to ensure vehicular access to the River Corridor for the ongoing maintenance of the corridor, in the interests of water management in accordance with Chapter 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

12. No development comprising the erection of the buildings hereby permitted shall take place above slab level until the River Frome Culvert has been reopened. The works to reopen the River Frome Culvert shall accord with the Sections detailed on drawings C.0480_23C-1 and C.0480_23C-2.

Reason: To ensure that the development is free from flooding and remains safe for the lifetime of the development in accordance with Chapter 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

13. Following demolition but prior to the commencement of development a scheme to deal with ground contamination, controlled waters and/or ground gas has been submitted to and approvedPage by the185 of Local 206 Planning Authority. The scheme shall include all of the following measures, unless the Local Planning Authority dispenses with any such requirement specifically in

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

writing:-

i. A Phase I site investigation carried out by a competent person to include a desk study, site walkover, the production of a site conceptual model and a human health and environmental risk assessment, undertaken in accordance with BS 10175:2011 Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice.

ii. If identified as required by the above approved Phase 1 site investigation report, a Phase II intrusive investigation report detailing all investigative works and sampling on site, together with the results of the analysis, undertaken in accordance with BS 10175:2011 Investigation of Potentially Contaminated Sites - Code of Practice. Where required, the report shall include a detailed quantitative human health and environmental risk assessment including off site receptors.

iii. If identified as required by the above approved Phase II intrusive investigation report, a remediation scheme detailing how the remediation will be undertaken, what methods will be used and what is to be achieved. A clear end-point of the remediation should be stated, such as site contaminant levels or a risk management action, as well as how this will be validated. Any ongoing monitoring should also be outlined. No deviation shall be made from this scheme without prior written approval from the Local Planning Authority.

No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until:-

1. Any previously unidentified contamination encountered during the works has been fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme submitted to and approved the Local Planning Authority.

2. A verification report detailing the remediation works undertaken and quality assurance certificates to show that the works have been carried out in full accordance with the approved methodology has been submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority. Details of any post-remedial sampling and analysis to show that the site has reached the required clean-up criteria shall be included, together with the necessary documentation detailing what waste materials have been removed from the site.

Reason: InformationPage required 186 of as206 part of further investigations, in order to protect the health of future users of the site and ground and surface water receptors from any possible effects of contaminated

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

land in accordance with the guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework in particular, Paragraph 120.

14. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details (including samples) of the walling, roofing and fenestration to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building works hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This shall include a schedule of which materials shall be used on each buildings. Development shall then only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: Information required as part of the detailed design phase in the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

15. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the proposed Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) including details of its siting, the hard surfaced areas, means of enclosure and boundary treatments and details of the play equipment, and any signs and lighting (if applicable) together with a programme for their implementation, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The features shall then only be developed in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with the approved implementation programme.

Reason: Information required as part of the detailed design phase in order to ensure that adequate recreation facilities are provide on site.

16. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first complete planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings, or the completion of the development to which it relates, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of the development, die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

Reason: In the interests of the visual amenities of the area.

17. The development hereby permitted shall not commence on site until a plan indentifying the trees and/or hedges to be retained and those to be removed as part of this development, and the method and timetable for implementation of the protection of the retained trees/hedgesPage during187 of 206 construction has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall then proceed in accordance with the approved details.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Reason: Information required as part of the detailed design phase in order to ensure the health and safety of the trees on the site and to ensure continuity of the visual amenity that they provide and the ecological habitat potential and to comply with Policy ES6, ES8 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015 and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

18. The development hereby permission shall not commence until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall:

i. specify the type and number of vehicles; ii. provide for the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; iii. provide for the loading and unloading of plant and materials; iv. provide for the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; v. provide for wheel washing facilities; vi. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction vii hours of working viii measures to protect the water course during construction ix measures to protect ecological habitat during construction phase.

Reason: The provision of further information in order to reduce the potential impact on the public highway during the construction phase in accordance with Policy ES3 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015 and the National Planning Policy Framework Chapter 4.

19. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the proposed improved connection of the PROW to the canal towpath has been submitted to an approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, together with a timetable for the implementation of the highway works. The works shall then be completed in accordance with the approved timetable and shall be maintained as such thereafter unless and until adopted as highway maintainable at public expense.

Reason: Information is required as part of the detailed design phase to ensure that there suitable access details are provided to reduce potential Pagehighway 188 impact, of 206 in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

20. The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the highway works as shown on approved plan H816-101 Rev D, shall be completed in all respects and the works shall be maintained as such thereafter unless and until adopted as highway maintainable at public expense.

Reason: To reduce potential highway impact, in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

21. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until details of the highway works has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, including:

i. Bus infrastructure improvements at the bus stops on Toadsmoor Road ii. Improvements to the existing steps on Knapp Lane providing access to Toadsmoor Road iii. 30mph speed limit signage along Knapp Lane

The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the approved works have been completed, the works shall be maintained as such thereafter unless and until adopted as highway maintainable at public expense.

Reason: Information is required as part of the detailed design phase to ensure that suitable access details are provided to reduce potential highway impact, in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

22. No house building operations shall commence on site until the first 20m of the proposed access road which provide access to the site from Knapp Lane, including the junction with the existing public road and associated visibility splays, has been completed to at least binder course level and the works shall be maintained as such thereafter unless and until adopted as highway maintainable at public expense.

23. No building on the development shall be occupied until the carriageway(s)Page 189 (including of 206 surface water drainage/disposal, vehicular turning head(s) and street lighting) providing access from the nearest public highway to that dwelling have been completed

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

to at least binder course level and the footway(s) to surface course level.

24. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until a Management Strategy, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, for the management and maintenance for the following; i. Drainage - proposals outlined in the approved Drainage Scheme, ii. Open space areas - including any formal and informal play areas, iii. Ecological enhancement measures as outlined in the approved plans, and iv. The River Frome maintenance margins v. All other areas of open space not subject to adoption by public authorities, The Management Strategy shall include a programme for implementation, long term management responsibilities, maintenance schedules and details of any Management Company proposed and its terms of reference. The areas shall then be managed in accordance with the approved Strategy.

Reason: To ensure that adequate safeguards are provided to ensure the ongoing management of these spaces within the development in accordance with Policies CP14, ES3, ES4, ES6, ES8 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015 and the guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework.

25. The development hereby permitted shall be implemented in accordance with the Bat Report by Ecology Solutions Ltd (November 2013), Ecology Survey Report by Applied Ecology Ltd (August 2013) and Ecological Assessment by Corylus (November 2012) and the approved plans, with particular reference to the need to fully accord with all the recommendations and evaluation made within the reports.

Reason: To protect features of recognised nature conservation importance in accordance with Policy ES6 and CP14 of the Local Plan and Chapter 11Page of the190 NPPF. of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

26. Prior to the commencement of development, a plan detailing the position of fire hydrants on the site to be served by mains water supply shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall then be carried out in accordance with the approved details with the hydrants provided prior to the occupation of the units to which they relate.

Reason: In the interest of community safety.

27. No development shall take place within the application site until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To make provision for a programme of archaeological mitigation, so as to record and advance understanding of any heritage assets which will be lost, in accordance with paragraph 141 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

28. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans and documents:

Master plan dwg no. C.0480_14N-2 Sections Location Plan dwg no. C.0480_23C Sections through River Frome Corridor dwg no. C.0480_23C-2 Indicative Footbridge and Maintenance Margins Locations dwg no. C.0480_22E Extent of Plot 50 dwg no. C.0480-24 General Road Arrangement Road 2 dwg no. H.816-301 Rev G General Arrangement Road dwg no. H.816.302 Rev F Tracking for Refuse Vehicle (Northern) dwg. H.816-TRO1 Rev E Tracking for Refuse Vehicle (Southern) dwg. H.816-TRO2 Rev E

All received by the LPA on the 14th May 2015.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of good planning.

CONSULTEES Comments Contaminated Land Officer (E) Received Mr David Lesser Environmental Health (E) The Environment Agency (E) Development CoordinationPage 191 of Revised 206 Details (E) Natural England (E)

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Parish / Town Historic England SW Brimscombe With Thrupp Parish Council Archaeology Dept (E)

Not Yet Property Shared Services Centre British Waterways Received Canal Team (E) Gloucestershire Education Dept (E) Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust (E)

CONTRIBUTORS Letters of Objection D Miles, Pencarrow, Quarhouse Lane, Brimscombe W B Peytan, The Dockyard,, Brimscombe, A Holman, Hyde Green Cottage, London Road, Brimscombe P Wilkie, The Old Coach House, Hyde Brimscombe And Thrupp Parish Council, Broadstone Close, Barnwood P Cole, Foresters Lodge, London Road S Cole, Foresters Lodge, London Road G And T Callow, Hyde House Cottage, Knapp Lane, Hyde, Stroud, G Wheeler-Carmichael, Hyde Grange (Knapp Lane), Chalford, Stroud, G Foxley, Badgers Bank, Knapp Lane, Hyde, Chalford J Leake, 4 Knapp Cottages, Knapp Lane, Brimscombe B Flectcher, Cristley, London Road J And R Leake, 4 Knapp Cottages, Knapp Lane, Brimscombe, B Fletcher, Cristley, London Road J Clifford, Knapp House, Knapp Lane Mr W B Petyan, The Dockyard, Brimscombe Graham Foxley, Badgers Bank, Hyde Mr And Mrs Wilkie, Old Coach House, Hyde N Webb, Pencarrow,, Quarhouse Brimscombe C And I Shearman, Ivy Cottage, Hyde Mr T Howell-Hughes, Greendale, Churchill Road R Watt, 4 Knapp Cottages, Knapp Lane Mr & Mrs I R Shearman, Ivy Cottage, Hyde

Letters of Support Letters of Comment Mr & Mrs Shearman, Ivy Cottage, Hyde Minchinhampton Parish Council, The Trap House, West End Chalford Parish, Chalford Parish Centre, Gerals Way Cotswolds Conservation Board, Fosse Way, Northleach G Wheeler-Carmichael, Hyde Grange, Chalford Page 192 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

OFFICER’S REPORT

SITE

The application site consists of a largely linear site known as Wimberley Mills located at the bottom of the Frome valley. The site is currently made up of a series of occupied and unoccupied commercial buildings as well as hard surfaced areas. The land sits alongside the canal to the north boundary with the River Frome culverted through the site.

The land is broadly flat at the northern most part of the site and then rises steeply at the southern boundaries. The site has a mix of mature and semi mature hedgerow and trees.

There is a public right of way running through the site from the southern edge across to the north eastern corner.

The site falls within the Industrial Heritage Conservation Area, as well as forming part of a designated flood plain.

The site is within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

PROPOSAL

The proposal seeks outline permission for the erection of up to 104 dwellings with the matters of layout and access being considered and all other matters reserved. In relation to Plot 50, the matter of layout is also a reserved matter for future consideration because the position and design of the bridge is yet to be determined and this will have some bearing on the position of the house on plot 50.

The proposed access is taken from the existing access into the industrial site from Knapp Lane.

REVISED DETAILS

Revisions have been made to the initial scheme to clarify the proposal and remove the sheltered housing units. Further revisions have been made to the layout of the scheme and the supporting documentation including an Addendum to the Design and Access Statement.

RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY

S.12/2264/OUT – an application for the redevelopment of the site for 96 dwellings and up to 20 sheltered units was withdrawn in March 2013.

The site is an allocation in the adopted Local Plan, November 2015 as part of the Stroud Valley Allocation SA1 which promotes a mixed use redevelopment of this site.

Page 193 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Public: A number of objections to the proposed development, covering the following issues;

* Access – Knapp Lane and Toadsmoor Road junctions including the bridge, drivers wanting to go south may find using Knapp Lane attractive and highway safety aspects of this have not been addressed * Traffic generation exacerbating existing congestion * Flooding * Unsustainable Location with limited access to facilities. * Wildlife impact * Loss of Employment * Impact on operation of other commercial premises in the area. Conflict of proposed residential use with existing industrial use. * Development appears cramped and out of keeping, limited parking provision will add to traffic problems

Minchinhampton Parish Council: Object – access, the safety of potential traffic to use Knapp Lane, and the lack of affordable or social housing,(adopted policy reference HN5). Cllrs had concerns about access, traffic flows, and site clean-up costs. Car parking was inadequate leading to displacement to other areas. There was also potential for traffic congestion under the bridge which would itself need reconstruction. Site clean-up costs have been under estimated. The application misses the opportunity to look at canal regeneration to enable manageable traffic to go through. The Knapp Lane South junction needs serious re- consideration.

Brimscombe with Thrupp Parish Council: (adjoining Parish) Object – Knapp Lane and Toadsmoor/A419 Junctions are already overstretched with traffic and any additional traffic without road improvements will cause significant highway problems

Chalford Parish Council: (adjoining Parish) – we are concerned that the increase in traffic will add to the existing congestion at the junction of Toadsmoor Road and the A419. While we would not wirsh to oppose the redevelopment of brownfield sites to meet housing needs and generate employment opportunities, we believe improvements to the road junction are required.

Local Highway Authority: The LHA has considered the information provided and originally objected on the basis that the submission has not demonstrated that a safe and suitable access can be provided. Further work has been undertaken regarding a road safety audit. The LHA has been reconsulted and raises no objection subject to conditions. This is on the basis that the NPPF states at paragraph 32 that development should not be refused on transport grounds unless the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. It is considered that impacts are not severe.

GCC Archaeological Officer: Recommend that no objection is raised providing that a condition requiring a scheme of investigation to be secured be added to any permission granted. Page 194 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

SDC Housing and Policy Implementation Manager: The District Valuer has confirmed that the scheme is not financially viable if affordable housing is included within it. However, I would expect there to be a s.106 agreement with an overage clause such that if the scheme yields a profit in excess of 20% gross development value, 50% of this excess should be secured to provide affordable housing.

Environmental Protection Manager: no objection and makes suggestions of conditions controlling delivery times and dust management. The need for conditions controlling contaminated land has also been requested.

Environment Agency: has no objection to the proposed development subject to conditions controlling the associated impacts of the development.

Natural England: identify the potential impact on Rodborough Common SAC and advise that appropriate mitigation is provided in line with the interim strategy. No comment is made on protected species.

Historic England: The application should be in line with national and local guidance, and on the basis of the Council’s specialist conservation advice. However, there are some concerns about the loss of building 4 which exhibits some characteristics of value.

Gloucestershire Police: make comments on the layout of the site and make suggestions on the physical changes that could be made to improve security. A request for a contribution towards policing is outlined.

Severn Trent Water: no objection but suggest condition regarding surface water run off

Ecologist: no objection subject to a condition requiring an ecology mitigation and enhancement plan.

Water Resources Engineer: Comments on the increase in number of dwellings from 96 to 104 and suggests a condition relating to surface water drainage.

PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS - NATIONAL AND LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015 is the Development Plan for Stroud District. This plan has recently been found sound by the Appeal Inspector and adopted and is therefore considered consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework. The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the Government’s core planning principles and a statement on achieving sustainable development. The document then provides guidance in a series of 13 chapters covering the range of planning considerations.

Core Policy CP1 of the adopted Stroud District Local Plan, November 2015 and the core planning principles of the NPPF (Paragraph 17) seek to enhance and improve the places in people live, support sustainable development, secure high quality design, protect important landscape features, encourage the use of renewable sources, conserve and enhance the natural environment, re-use previouslyPage developed 195 of 206 land, promote mixed use developments, conserve heritage assets, encourage sustainable transport and improve health, social and cultural wellbeing for all.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Local Policy CP2 sets out the overall strategy for distributing future housing growth and meeting the District's strategic housing needs throughout the Plan period. This spatial plan is backed up by CP4 which, together with CP5, aims to ensure that future development responds to local needs and local characteristics, and is well built and well integrated into local communities. Policy SA1 identifies Wimberley Mills as a site suitable for mixed use development, subject to viability and site specific circumstances. SA1 indicates 100 dwellings and employment uses would be appropriate.

Policy CP15 seeks to protect the separate identity of settlements and the quality of the countryside and only seeks to permit essential development under identified circumstances. This aims to discourage unplanned development outside of the main urban areas and defined settlement boundaries.

Local Policy CP14 (together with ES12) places the quality of design and development right at the heart of the Local Plan and stresses the importance of careful design and layout in achieving development (of all kinds) that is truly integrated into its setting, with good, safe and convenient connections to surrounding facilities and amenities. This is consistent with Chapter 10 (Paragraphs 93-108) of the NPPF which establishes the Governments objectives in supporting the delivery of a low carbon future which would aids to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, minimise vulnerability and provide resilience to the impacts of climate change. This chapter considers the implications of development on areas prone to flooding by virtue of proximity to watercourses or management of surface water. Local Plan Policy ES4 considers water resources, quality and flood risk. Chapter 7 (Paragraphs 56-68) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) also stresses the importance of quality design in the provision of sustainable development.

Local Policy CP13 sets out what will be expected of new development, in terms of sustainable travel and transport planning. Chapter 4 (Paragraphs 29-41) of the NPPF also promote the need for sustainable transport. These outline the need to offer people access to a real choice about how they chose to travel and require access to sustainable transport modes. Sustainable transport solutions will vary from urban to rural areas is also recognised. Local Plan Policy ES3 maintains highway safety including public rights of way. Policy EI12 details the Councils parking standards.

Local Plan Policies ES6 - ES9, ES11, ES13 and ES14 have particular regard to landscape character, green space and biodiversity, stressing the need to avoid harm and erosion, as well as identifying opportunities to enhance and reinforce the quality and quantity of the District.

Local Plan Policy CP9 details the Councils requirements for affordable housing and their integration and seeks to ensure an adequate and well-targeted supply of affordable housing across the District. Page 196 of 206 Local Plan Policy CP7 sets out how new development will be expected to contribute towards meeting the needs of all sections of the community and should help to encourage community

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

cohesion through the provision of facilities for community use, for health, social care, leisure, education or play. This is consistent with Chapter 8 (Paragraphs 69-78) of the NPPF which details how planning can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities and sets out objectives for the provision of high quality public spaces which encourage the active and continual use of public areas.

Local Plan Policy ES10 and Chapter 12 (Paragraphs 126-141) of the NPPF are relevant when assessing proposals on sites designated as Conservation Areas, or listed buildings and their setting. They establishes the importance of the historic environment, heritage assets and archaeology and provides guidance on conservation and enhancement.

The proposal should also be considered against the guidance laid out in SPG Residential Design Guide (2000), SPG Residential Development Outdoor Play Space Provision, SPG Stroud District Landscape Assessment, SPD Affordable Housing (Nov 2008) and SPD Housing Needs Survey (2008).

For the full content of the Stroud District Local Plan Policies (adopted November 2015) mentioned above, together with the preamble text and associated supplementary planning documents are available to view on the Councils website http://www.stroud.gov.uk/localplan.

Full details of the NPPF are available to view at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/2116950.pdf

PARISH PLANS

Where there are prevailing Parish Plans in place, these form part of the Development Plan. At the time of writing there are no Parish Plans which have been consulted on or adopted as part of the Development Plan.

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

The site lies within the Stroud Urban Area and is identified in policy SA1 as a site suitable for mixed use redevelopment. Policy SA1 sets out criteria against which applications should be assessed. The policy sets out 11 criteria including provision of affordable housing (where viable); contributions to education and community uses; outdoor playspace/accessible greenspace and/or landscaped canalside public realm; landscape; drainage; flood risk; improvements to river corridor for biodiversity and flood risk improvements; cycle and pedestrian routes; towpath restoration; contributions to bus services.

The Local Plan acknowledges that several mill sites along the valley bottom are underused and redevelopment could achieve sustainable locations for living and to support canal conservation, recreation and tourism opportunities. The key priority for Wimberley Mills is to deculvert the River Frome, to take the site out of the flood plain. The intention of the Wimberley Mills and Dockyard sites is to achieve satisfactory access through Knapp Lane and Toadsmoor Road to the A419. The Local Plan aspires to have residential and high quality employment space at Wimberley Mills.

The site is a brownfield site and thePage NPPF 197 strongly of 206 encourages the reuse of brownfield land, such as this site, outlined in Chapter 11 of the NPPF. Para 111 states;

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

“Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value.”

The NPPF places a number of objectives and promotes a sequential type of approach in the consideration of residential development land. The allocation of the site for redevelopment in the Local Plan has addressed the sequential approach promoted in the NPPF.

In considering applications there has to be a balance between some of the somewhat competing objectives. In this case, the site is a brownfield site which the NPPF places a priority for redevelopment ahead of greenfield development, and is located inside the settlement boundary and has reasonable access to facilities, shops and services albeit localised. The site has footpath access and links to surrounding facilities and should not be considered as unsustainable. Brownfield sites such as this pose unique challenges for redevelopment and may not be able to achieve all the aims of the policy. In these cases a balance has to be made as to whether the benefits of the proposed development outweigh any negative impacts.

CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The main issues relating to this development are loss of employment land; impact on highway safety; flood risk; design and landscape; heritage impact and ecological impact. These are discussed below.

LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT LAND The proposed development is for residential development with no provision for mixed uses or commercial uses. The application has been accompanied by an appraisal of the commercial opportunities for the site. The site is allocated for mixed use development.

The proposal involves the loss of the key employment site, and needs to be considered against the objectives of the Local Plan Policy and its intentions. The main objective of including mixed uses is to ensure that there are sufficient levels of employment site available to provide jobs across the District as part of the relationship of providing jobs alongside housing and creating sustainable communities. This is balanced against the provision of housing.

The Local Plan process looked at eh need to protect employment sites. Evidence was gathered which seeks to identify trends and requirements for employment provision in the future plan period. To defend a decision on the basis of the loss of employment land, evidence would need to show the demonstrable harm that would result from the loss of this land, and that there is an identifiable demand for this provision. If the site has no future demand, then its ongoing protection is unreasonable. Therefore, this application has to demonstrate that there is no demand or future need for employment uses on the site.

Current Employment There is limited demand for the current occupancy on the site with occupancy rates reducing to approximately 21% of the site with limited interest in the remaining 79% of the site.

The site has been marketed since PageFebruary 198 of2008 206 with limited interest and rents that have been secured are on short term basis which are unsustainable in the long term compounded by the physical constraints of the site.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Continued Employment Uses Having had regard to authorised uses of the site, consideration should also be given to the potential continued employment uses. Review work has assessed against a number of indicative criteria such as the ownership, building age, building quality, general external environment, void periods, existing tenants, market attractiveness, and accessibility – strategically and locally.

The conclusions for continued employment use (B1, B2 and B8) are heavily restricted given the highly restricted nature of the site and the level of capital investment required for remediation/demolition/conversion and the lack of suitable HGV access limits the site’s commercial attractiveness. This is further impacted by the lack of road frontage and limited site size as well as proximity to sensitive adjoining land users. The market attractiveness of this site has to be weighed up against the attractiveness of the other opportunities that exist elsewhere in the District.

Alternative Commercial Uses As indentified above, the site has a number of limitations which restrict the market attractiveness and these issues equally apply to other non B-Class uses such as retail, leisure and healthcare. The significant issues for commercial use are the lack of road frontage, limited space and access issues.

Overall, the applicant has demonstrated that there is no demand for the site as a continued employment site.

Alternative Sites There are other sites in proximity of the site such as Brimscombe Port, Bath Road Trading Estate, Inchbrook Trading Estate as well as those further afield such as Stroudwater Business Park, Oldends Lane Industrial Estate and Severn Distribution Park at Sharpness. The majority of alternatives sites are located more centrally within the District with road frontages and/or good transport links.

Conclusions The purpose and objective of the emerging policy to promote mixed use schemes is to protect for the demand and need for employment space in Stroud urban area and the wider District area and to provide for sustainable communities. The application has demonstrated the very limited commercial opportunities for the site which have demonstrated that there is not a viable mixed use scheme.

Overall, the considerations will need to evaluate the harm and benefits associated with these key issues which can then be addressed in the planning balance at the end of this report. In coming to a recommendation, the decision maker will need to have regard the balance of the need for the development and the benefits associated and whether these outweigh the harm that may be attributed to the development.

HIGHWAY IMPACT

Paragraph 32 of the NPPF places the test of ensuring that a development does not have a severe impact on highway safety. This is an important point as it infers that a level of impact is acceptable providing that the resultant impact is not severe. It must also be noted that the impact on the highway is directly related to the proposed development and not pre-existing concerns or issues. Page 199 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

In considering the impact of the development on the highway network, Gloucestershire County Council as Local Highway Authority (LHA) has been consulted. The LHA has assessed the application and, following receipt of additional information, have not objected, subject to conditions.

The LHA comments are lengthy and are available in full on the Council’s website. The comments consider the proposed development and assess the highways impact against the fallback position i.e. the impact that could be present if all the buildings on the site were occupied for their authorised use. This assessment concludes: “On the basis that the extant use of the site would generate almost double the amount of traffic of the residential proposal, the Highway Authority is unable to object on congestion grounds or the safety of users along Knapp Lane, as the impact can not be considered to be 'severe'. Consideration was given to a Traffic Regulation Order, but this is not considered necessary to make the proposed development acceptable. Other elements such as works to the highway; access for service vehicles (via the tunnel at Knapp Lane); access to public transport; layout of development; construction traffic; and public rights of way have all been considered. The overall conclusion of the LHA is “The National Planning Policy Framework states at paragraph 32 that "Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe". The Highway Authority considers that this development will not have a severe impact on the local highway network. The NPPF states that "safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people", and that “opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure.” It is considered that the development proposals will meet these criteria. It is recommended that no highway objection be raised to this application” subject to the conditions being attached to any permission granted.

Significant objections have been made with reference to the potential impact of the proposed development on Knapp Lane as well as the limited access under the bridge and onto Toadsmoor Road. These have been given weight in the determination of this application but the decision maker has to have regard to contributing material factors. The road is a public highway which the public have the ability to pass and re-pass, in combination, the site is currently a commercial site which could also (in theory) use Knapp Lane and the restricted height bridge. This fall back position is very significant consideration . On balance, whilst these concerns are acknowledged, there are no demonstrable grounds for refusing this application on highway safety concerns.

DESIGN :

The application seeks outline planning consent but with the matter of layout under consideration at this stage (except for plot 50).

Layout and Design Approach:

The layout of the site is determined by the constraints of the site resulting from the topography changes and the re opening of the river corridor. This has had the effect of creating a linear development site which is split into three main areas. The layout approach considers the relationship of the builtPage form 200 to ofthe 206 surrounding natural characteristics such as the river, the canal and the level changes. The design seeks a modern approach, providing strong building lines and edges to the canal frontage. This provides a firm boundary to the

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

canal with fenestration at higher levels which replicates the physical relationship of industrial buildings to the canal, as well as ensuring security to these units.

In the middle section of the site the proposal reflects the relationship to the river with the indicative elevations within the Addendum to the Design and Access Statements outlining a modern approach combining industrial building lines and materials into domestic scale. This approach is echoed with variation in the upper (third) lines of dwellings.

The site is within the Industrial Heritage Conservation Area (IHCA) and the design emphasis seeks an appropriate balance of industrial scale development within a domestic scale. Subject to appropriate conditions and careful control of details and materials, the design approach is innovative and should be supported within the IHCA.

The innovative layout of the site has required a different approach to the provision of amenity space which will be provided through a range of wider communal areas and smaller decked areas or roof terraces to individual properties. This as a concept is acceptable subject to appropriate control mechanisms on long terms management responsibilities and this can be controlled by condition.

LANDSCAPE IMPACT:

The proposed development would be visible to the wider Cotswold Area of Outstanding Beauty (AONB) but this impact would be one of minimal impact on the characteristics of the wider AONB. The site is at the bottom on the valley. It is visible to the public vantage but the visibility of the site does not render a scheme unacceptable.

The landscaping details would be considered as part of the detailed reserved matters but the indicative information has demonstrated that the scheme can provide an acceptable level of internal landscaping, thus minimising the impact on the wider landscape setting.

The prominence to the IHCA has a greater impact to the character of the area and this has been considered above.

Overall, the scheme would not have a significantly detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the AONB.

FLOODING & WATER MANAGEMENT

The site is a former mill complex with large sections of the river being culverted under the hard surfacing of the site and also underneath some of the buildings.

The site falls within designated Flood Plain Zones 2 and 3 and the guidance within Chapter 10 of the NPFF and accompanying Technical Guidance in the NPPG are a critical consideration. Within the designated flood plain, especially those in Zone 3, guidance in the NPPF seeks to steer development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding.

The scheme seeks to make a series of hydrological enhancements. The application proposes to re-open the river through the sitePage which 201 is of curr 206ently culverted through the site. This has multiple benefits to the site, firstly in terms of reducing the risk of flooding down from a Flood

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

Zone 3 to a Flood Zone 2. This has been confirmed by the Environment Agency. Other benefits include ecological and landscape improvements.

The effective downgrading of the flood risk of the site to Flood Zone 2 removes the need for the Sequential and Exception Tests to be applied to the site. The decision maker needs to have regard to the impact of the development and the risk of flooding. These aspects have all been taken into account in the allocation of the site as part of the Local Plan process.

The Environment Agency (EA) has been involved in discussions relating to the proposed development on the site and has formally commented to the proposed development. Their comments are detailed and are available in full on the web site.

The extensive discussions with the EA demonstrate that they are satisfied that the scheme is acceptable from a flood risk, biodiversity and a controlled water perspective subject to appropriate control mechanisms. The River Frome, which runs across the site, is currently culverted and the culverted section of the river cannot convey flows. The proposed development opens up the river. Modelling has demonstrated that this will improve flows significantly such that the flood classification is reduced from zone 3b to zone 2. Conditions are proposed relating to the opening up of the river; the access details; footbridge requirements; and ongoing management. Land contamination conditions are proposed to ensure that controlled waters are not contaminated. The conditions require details of remediation and work along with the control of the impact of contaminated land on human health with the Environmental Health department.

The Water Resources Engineer has advised that the application is acceptable in principle subject to approval of a specific drainage scheme, which can be secured through planning conditions.

Overall, subject to a series of planning conditions, the scheme has demonstrated that is acceptable in water management terms and that the scheme provides for a number of benefits the environment.

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT

This is a brownfield site which has the potential for ecological value. The site has been subject to a number of ecological surveys identifying the impact of the development on such habitat. The site has potential for ecological habitat for a variety of species given the presence of water and mature landscaping. The ecological surveys highlighted the potential for bats on the site but there was no evidence of badgers, otters, water voles, white claw crayfish and great crested newts.

The ecological surveys have indicated that only the eastern part of Building B1 has some potential for bats. The demolition of this building would be the subject of a licence from Natural England which subject to details and timing of demolition is likely to be acceptable.

The site offers foraging potential within the mature trees, wooded areas and the adjacent canal. The scheme will require the approval of the landscape for which the indicative plans show substantial tree/hedgerow Page retention. 202 of The 206 majority of the site is proposed for development within the areas of existing built form. The reinstatement of the river corridor offers a significant ecological enhancement.

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

The details of the landscaping of the river corridor and its long term management is the subject of planning conditions as are the contents of the submitted ecological reports.

Habitat Regulations Assessment (HRA) - Under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, Competent Authorities have a duty to ensure that all the activities they regulate have no adverse effect on the integrity of any of the Natura 2000 sites (Together SPAs and SACs make up the network of Natura 2000 sites). The effect of the Regulations is to require Local Planning Authorities to ensure that no likely significant adverse effect arises from any proposed development scheme or Local Plan. The effect of this legislation together with the Natural England and Rural Communities Act 2006 is to impose on local authorities a legal duty of care to protect biodiversity. If local authorities think harm or “likely significant effect” could occur they are legally obliged to not approve the proposed plan or project unless appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures can be put in place. The various Habitat Regulation Assessment iterations concluded that proposed residential growth in the Local Plan within the catchment could have a likely significant effect, in the absence of appropriate mitigation.

Over the last year SDC has collaboratively worked with Natural England (NE), the National Trust (NT), the Rodborough Commoners and Stroud Valleys Project (SVP) to devise an agreed interim impact avoidance strategy for housing within an identified 3km catchment. The Interim Strategy for Avoidance of Likely Significant Adverse Effects on Rodborough Common Special Area of Conservation (SAC) was adopted at Environment Committee on 19th March 2015 (Agenda Item 10).

The application includes a contribution towards the mitigation of the recreational impact on the Rodborough Common SAC and accordingly the LPA can be satisfied that the scheme will not result in a significant or adverse impact on the SAC.

AMENITY

The proposed layout ensures that the distances from existing properties to those proposed are in excess of the minimum requirements of the adopted guidance in the Residential Design Guide. The proposed dwellings by virtue of the layout proposed would not have any significant impact on the amenity of the other proposed dwellings.

Overall, the scheme would not give rise to any significant loss of privacy, overbearing effect or loss of light, and Policy GE1 of the Local Plan would be satisfied as would guidance with the Framework.

The construction of this site could give rise to some concerns on residential amenity concerns but these could be satisfactorily be addressed by conditions relating to construction times and delivery times.

There are adjoining commercial premises which may have an effect but this is not considered to be significant detrimental. The emerging allocation of this site for housing should also be noted. Page 203 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

HERITAGE IMPACT Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act requires that, ‘special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving the character or appearance of Conservation Areas.’

Wimberley Mills is classified as a ‘Non-landmark Mill’ in the Council’s Industrial Heritage Conservation Area statement. These are mills that have lost most of their historic buildings and much of their previous site form. The existing original buildings on such sites have often gone through several phases of adaptation that have seen their former prominence much reduced and their millponds, like many, have been filled in and concreted over. This extra open space has been used to create car parking or room for larger modern industrial units. The 20th century buildings on the site are very typical of the IHCA, and can be deemed to be a significant contributor to its inherent gritty, not pretty, character.

The one surviving 19th century, two-storey building on the Wimberley Mills site is almost unrecognisable due to replacement windows and doors, however the shallow brick headed segmental windows tell of its origins. Attached, is a brick element with a corrugated roof. This is perhaps the most interesting structure on the site, having the words ‘Critchley Bros Pins’ written in large letters so as to be visible from the main road and the railway. The loss of this one roof is the most regrettable part of the application.

The loss of any distinctive part of a heritage asset has to be carefully considered. Since the advent of the NPPF, the public benefits of the scheme have to form part of that consideration. Bearing in mind the relatively poor condition of the buildings, their unfortunate loss can be deemed to be outweighed by the benefits of the provision of housing.

ARCHAEOLOGY The site is acknowledged to have a series of historic mill buildings dating back from the mid 19th Century, and that the site represents a complex of some significant to the understanding of the industrial development of the locality. The County Archaeologist has considered the application and makes reference to the historic importance of the site and makes a requirement for a condition for a programme of archaeological work. This accords with the guidance within the NPPF para. 128, Chapter 12.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING:

Policy CP9 of the adopted Local Plan 2015 seeks sites of this size to provide affordable housing of 30% of the net units proposed where viable. The applicant has provided information to demonstrate that there are abnormal costs associated with the redevelopment of this site. The District Valuer has reviewed the financial justification and agrees that the scheme would not be viable if affordable housing is required. Consequently officers are recommending that no affordable housing is required, however a S106 agreement will be required and this will have an overage clause such that if the scheme yields a profit in excess of 20% gross development value then 50% of the excess should be secured to provide affordable housing.

Page 204 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

OBLIGATIONS

1. Primary Education £303,992 (based on no current capacity and therefore 0.25 pupils per qualifying dwelling – thus 26 dwellings x £11,692 per pupil place)

2. Libraries £20,384 (based on £196 per dwelling)

3. Rodborough SAC £20,800 (based on £200 per dwelling)

4. Affordable housing: no affordable housing required as part of the redevelopment however an overage clause to be included. to the effects suggested in the preceding section above. The scheme also provides for an on site LEAP as well as a series of localised improvements to the highway network including street lighting, signage, and bus stop improvements. These are controlled by planning conditions.

The proposed development would give rise to an off site recreational impact for youth/adult provision subject to compliance with the CIL tests in identifying a harm to be mitigated, a proportionate contribution towards a specific scheme. Given the scheme has demonstrated that there are unusually complex associated costs of the development, it has been demonstrated that the scheme cannot contributed towards youth/adult recreation.

The proposed development is in close proximity to the canal although the canal projects are not currently working in the vicinity of the site. Given the viability matters, the scheme does not make a contribution towards the canal.

Gloucestershire Police has sought a contribution towards policing, this is not considered to be CIL compliant as being related to the development. This is not a speculative development forming part of the emerging housing allocations.

PLANNING BALANCE

The consideration of this application requires decision makers to have regard to Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework alongside other planning considerations. The National Planning Policy Framework is a pro-growth and the basis of Paragraph 14 is the promotion of sustainable development unless the

“adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole, or where specific policies in this Framework indicated development should be restricted. “

There are no specific policies in the Framework which indicate that this application must be refused and therefore, the decision maker is required to assess the impacts of the development and whether these significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The above sections have discussed the material considerations and highlighted the benefits and impacts of the proposed development. In turn it is then required to assess these factors as a whole in reaching a balance.

Page 205 of 206

Development Control Committee Schedule 12/01/2016

The NPPF seeks to boost housing provision. However the Local Plan Inspector has agreed the housing figures set out in the Local Plan as being compliant with the NPPF. The application is an allocated site in the Local Plan, identified for 100 dwellings and business uses. Consequently this site is important for the 5 year land supply requirements..

The scheme would comply with the housing element of Local Plan allocation and bring about a level of benefits associated with additional housing, including jobs/economic growth allied with the construction and occupation of the houses. It would also result in regeneration of an underused brownfield site.

There are benefits associated with opening up the River Frome, both in terms of reducing flood risk and improvements to the ecological interest of the river corridor.

Concerns have been expressed with regard to highway safety and flooding. Whilst these concerns are acknowledged, the relevant consultees have not objected to the proposed development for reasons set out in the above report. The benefits of the proposed development are considered to outweigh any disadvantages.

RECOMMENDATION

Officers recommend that Members resolve to grant permission for the proposed development for the grounds detailed above, subject to a S106 agreement to secure: Primary Education £303,992 (based on no current capacity and therefore 0.25 pupils per qualifying dwelling – thus 26 dwellings x £11,692 per pupil place) Libraries £20,384 (based on £196 per dwelling) Rodborough SAC £20,800 (based on £200 per dwelling)

Affordable housing: no affordable housing required as part of the redevelopment however an overage clause to be included such that if the scheme yields a profit in excess of 20% gross development value then 50% of the excess should be secured to provide affordable housing.

Article 35(2) statement

The application was subject to discussion with the agent as part of formal pre-application discussions where these issues were identified and as part of the application, the agent was informed of the grounds for refusal.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Page 206 of 206