Agenda and minutes

Councillor Conder declared a prejudicial interest in agenda item 6 (9 Denmark Road - 24/00141/FUL) due to the close proximity of her property to the application site. She withdrew from the chamber during the discussion and voting on the item.

Councillor A.Chambers declared a non-prejudicial interest owing to being an elected County Council Member for the areas of Coney Hill and Matson, Robinswood and White City.

Councillor Castle declared a non-prejudical interest in agenda item 7 (Longlevens Rugby Club) as the local ward member for Longlevens.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the previous meeting held on Tuesday, 4th June were confirmed and signed as a correct record by the Chair.

Late Material had been circulated in relation to agenda item 5 (Former Holly House - 23/00954/FUL).

Application for Determination:

Erection of 35 affordable dwellings, upgrade of existing access and other associated works.

Officer Report

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report detailing an application for the erection of 35 affordable dwellings, upgrade of existing access and other associated works.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the submitted Site Section Plan (Section A-A) incorrectly identified the closest neighbouring property as number 15 Tern Close. It should have read 16 Tern Close. Reference to no. 15 Tern Close in paragraph 6.39 in the report should also be amended to no. 16 Tern Close.

Public Speeches

A representative of Bromford addressed the Committee in favour of the application.

She stated that the application should be granted on the following grounds:

• Gloucester had over 4,700 people on its waiting list; granting the application would reduce this.
• Bromford Housing was already working cooperatively with the City Council to help combat the housing shortage.
• Application sites, including the Holly House site, would be part of the 629 new homes in the City of Gloucester that Bromford planned to deliver. This equated to £153 million of investment over the next six years.
• Bromford had a neighbourhood coaching model that put residents at the heart of the community.
• The applicant would maintain the site in the long term and recruit local people during the construction process, where possible.
• The 35 proposed dwellings on a disused brownfield site would provide much-needed properties for families and a range of other people.
• Bromford was selected by the NHS as the preferred developer.
• The homes were a mix of two, three, and four bedrooms.
• The two bungalows were of the M4(3) category, meaning they were wheelchair accessible.
• Each property would be socially rented, which was the most affordable type of rent.
• Each dwelling would have its own garden.
• Properties would be energy efficient.
• Bromford had carefully considered how to protect trees on site.
• The proposed site would be supplemented with 39 new trees.
• Bromford had a strong understanding of the local area, as it was adjacent to another Bromford site.
• The application had the support of the local ward member (Cllr Millard). 

Members’ Questions

The Principal Planning Officer responded to members’ questions concerning whether the properties would remain as social housing, in the event that the developer changed, whether any play areas had been identified in the locality and whether it should be included in the application, whether the driveways had any grass on them, whether the greenery to the front of the dwellings were to be maintained by residents, how long would the developer maintain the landscape for, whether each dwelling had parking, why the biodiversity net gain would be off site, whether the developer could be encouraged to work with Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust to make the most effective use of the landscape, whether adequate funding would be provided for planting and maintaining, the proposed (tanked) permeable paving for some vehicular areas, whether the tanked water could be used for communal watering, Japanese Knotweed on nearby properties and whether local residents would have a stake in where trees would be planted as follows:  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11.

Application for Determination:

Conversion of care home into 18no residential units comprising 15 x 2bed and 3 x 1 bed (as amended).

Officer Report

The Planning Manager presented the report detailing an applicatio­­n for the conversion of a care home into 18no residential units comprising 15 x 2 bed & 3 x 1 bed.

Public Speeches

A Planning Agent addressed the Committee in favour of the application.

He stated that the application should be granted on the following grounds:

·       The prior concern raised by the Local Ward Member regarding the proposed external stair tower had been addressed, and the proposal would omit it entirely.

·       The Conservation Officer no longer raised any objections to the scheme and believed that the application would not harm the character and appearance of the Denmark Road Conservation Area.

·       There would be a mix of dwellings.

·       Outdoor amenity space was being provided for 12 of the 18 dwellings, and balconies were being provided for 5 of the dwellings.

Members' Questions

The Planning Development Manager responded to members' questions

concerning the Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA), concerns about why affordable housing was not being provided, apprehensions about the Conservation Officer’s comments, whether there had been a viability assessment that led to the conclusion that it qualified for Vacant Building Credit (as it had been occupied up until 2023), whether the working hours during the construction phase were standard, more details about the proposed gravel mesh, and whether the property had been on the market as follows:

·       The report referred to the non-designated heritage asset a couple of times. It was referenced in paragraph 6.13 of the officer’s report.

·       The building itself was not a non-designated heritage asset, so limited weight should be attached to that as a material planning consideration.

·       The Case Officer concluded that the building qualified for Vacant Building Credit, and this conclusion was agreed upon by the Housing Strategy Team.

·       The Conservation Officer was now satisfied. The Officer was not a statutory consultee. The Conservation Officer had concerns with the roof but raised no overall objection.

·       The Case Officer had thoroughly reviewed the scheme and concluded that it qualified for Vacant Building Credit, with agreement from the Housing Strategy Team. Vacant Building Credit was introduced to prevent brownfield and vacant buildings from remaining unoccupied, and that was a key consideration.

·       The proposed construction hours were standard; however, members could propose a later start time if they deemed it reasonable to impose a condition.

·       His understanding was that there would be a grid system with gravel contained within each section of the mesh, preventing the migration of the material and the movement of surface water.

·       He was unsure whether the property had been on the market. However, there was an assessment included in the Planning Statement.

Members’ Debate

Councillor Harries stated that he was content to support the application but would propose an amendment to condition 12 to change the Saturday construction times from 7:30am–1pm to 9am–2pm.

The Planning Development Manager noted that he did not believe this would be an unreasonable request, if members wished to condition a change in construction hours on Saturday.

Councillor Lewis stated that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

Application for Determination:

Erection of 6x floodlighting columns and floodlights for the main pitch and training areas at Longlevens Rugby.

Officer Report

The Planning Officer presented the report detailing an application for the erection of six floodlighting columns and floodlights for the main pitch and training areas at Longlevens Rugby.

Members' Questions

The Planning Officer responded to members' questions regarding the direction of the light from the floodlights, whether noise had been considered, the timing of floodlight operation, and whether a condition could be included requiring the Rugby Club to install solar panels as follows:

·       The floodlights would likely be directed downwards, and steps had been taken to ensure there was no light spillage towards nearby properties.

·       Environmental Health had been consulted and raised no objections.

·       The test for whether a condition could be imposed was whether it was required to make the scheme acceptable. He did not believe that requiring solar panels would be necessary to make the scheme acceptable.

·       The floodlights would operate only between the hours of 15:00 and 21:00, Tuesday to Saturday.

Members’ Debate

Cllr S Chambers highlighted experiences in her ward where floodlights had been installed and noted that it had been a positive experience, and that floodlights were targeted so that there was little light spill. She stated that it would be positive that children would have better access to getting active, if the application received consent and that she supported it.

Councillor Lewis stated that he had no issues with the application and that he would support it.

Councillor A. Chambers stated that he believed that it was a good application and that he would support the officer recommendation.

The Chair moved and Councillor S.Chambers seconded the proposal to accept the officer recommendation as laid out in the report.

The Decision

RESOLVED that planning decision is GRANTED subject to the conditions outlined in the officer report.

To consider a schedule of applications determined under delegated powers during the months of June, July and August 2024.

RESOLVED that the delegated decisions of June, July and August 2024 were noted.

Tuesday, 1st October 2024.