Agenda item

 

Application Number:			16/00383/FUL
Location:	Lilley Brook Golf Club, 313 Cirencester Road
Proposal:	Engineering works to re-profile and re-contour the existing practice facility to create a mini 9-hole golf course by importing 100,000 cubic metres of inert fill material
View:	Yes
Officer Recommendation:				Permit
Committee Decision:			Permit
Letters of Rep:		29	Update Report:		None

 

MP introduced the application as above, a 5.35 hectare parcel of land in the AONB, on the western edge of the golf course, adjacent to Sandy Lane and including access through the site via Cirencester Road.  Having scrutinised a number of matters, including the AONB, ecology and biodiversity, trees and landscaping, archaeology, flood risk, and highway safety, officers consider that the application should be refused on two grounds:  firstly, the lack of information relating the archaeological remains on the site, and secondly the absence of a legal agreement to secure completion of the works.  The application is at Planning Committee at the requests of Councillors Baker and Smith, due to concerns from local residents, and also as a result of an objection from the Parish Council.

 

Public Speaking:

Mr Matthew Kendrick, agent, in support

This application is a re-submission of the previously withdrawn proposal, which raised concerns about drainage and traffic – access was via residential area of Sandy Lane.  Was engaged to look at the proposal and suggest an alternative route using the A-road, and has been discussing the drainage issue with planning officers since March.  There is now a tangible change in what is being proposed. The drainage scheme has an over-engineered capacity – 40% above what is required - and  run-off  will be drastically reduced. The 9-hole course will be well used, by juniors and beginners, providing them with a good introduction to the game.  The applicant is happy to carry out an archaeological survey – which will be expensive - once it has the reassurance that other issues are OK.  The officer recommendation is to refuse, but would request that the decision be deferred instead,  to allow archaeological works to be undertaken.

 

Member debate

SW:  has two main concerns.  The site is in the AONB; the report refers to inert material being brought int.  Is concerned about what type of material this will be – crushed concrete, old brick covered with top soil?  This isn’t what the AONB is made of, and it will have an effect on areas outside the gold course.  Would like to see material similar to what is there already.  Secondly, there have been no geological studies done.  Bringing in thousands of tons of material without knowing what is underneath is not advisable.  A proper study should be done.  The cost would not be outrageously expensive, and it would be invaluable to the application to get something of that nature done.  On the question of whether the application should be deferred or refused, do the officers consider that deferral would allow the applicant time to do all that is needed?

 

HM:  we don’t get this type of application very often, so would appreciate some clarification on two points:  firstly, there is no environmental impact assessment even though the site is bigger than the 1 hectare which she understood makes it necessary; and secondly, the NPPG calls infill of this size a ‘waste development’ – as this proposal seeks to re-profile the golf course, is this not a county issue and is CBC therefore the right authority to be determining it?

 

PB:  is he right in thinking that if the application is refused on two specified grounds and the applicant  later comes back with a new scheme, it cannot be refused on any other grounds?  Can officers clarify?  If the officer recommendation is overturned and the scheme is supported by Members, would want to see a lot of conditions applied to it – how would this be done?  Would like to hear DP’s professional view on whether a flood alleviation scheme could be introduced to reduce surface water run-off.  The agent referred to a reduction of 40% but there is no reference to this in the officer report.  Is also interested to hear officer comments about on-going maintenance of any flood alleviation scheme – who will be responsible, what will be involve, and what will be the cost?

 

MP, in response:

-       Doesn’t know where the inert materials will be coming from, but understands that it will be inert soil, and soil-forming and granite-forming materials.  The Environment Agency have seen the application and not raised any concern.  If planning permission is granted, some type of material would need an environmental permit, and CBC would need to give permission, which it would only do if the material was appropriate;

-       To SW, no geological study has been carried out, but it could be requested if Members wish;

-       To HM, there is a section about the environmental impact assessment in the report at para. 6.3, which states that the proposal is defined as a Schedule 2 development – a golf course in the AONB.  The local authority had to screen the proposal for significant effects on the environment.  The NPPG states that very few Schedule 2 developments require an EIA, and the local authority is satisfied that one is not required in this case;

-       Para 6.2 of the report deals with HM’s question as to whether CBC is the right authority to be considering this application.  As the predominant purpose of the application is to form a 9-hole golf course, and not to dispose of waste materials, the local authority is the correct one to determine it;

-       The lack of a legal agreement, however, is a county matter;

-       To PB, as the recommendation is to refuse, conditions are not suggested, but if Members decided to permit the application, would be added following discussion with the Chair and Vice-Chair;

-       To PB, regarding refusal reasons, if Members refuse in line with the officer recommendation, it would be inappropriate at a later stage to introduce other reasons for refusal.

 

DP, in response:

-       The LLFA is concerned with the management of surface water, not with flood alleviation schemes;

-       It has considered this development and the management of surface water it proposes.  Mr Kendrick is not correct in saying that the existing run-off rate will be reduced by 40%; it is the future run-off rate that will be reduced;

-       Mitigation will be required to manage any future impact of climate change over the next 100 years, and will need to attenuate sufficient volume of water to manage a 40% increase;

-       If no development takes place, there will be no mitigation measures.  If development takes place, there will be attenuation, and the immediate post-development situation will be kept the same.

 

PB:  so this scheme will not reduce the current flow of water off the site?

 

DP, in response:

-       It will control the run-off position post development to the existing rate.

 

PB:  could the scheme be improved to reduce the current run-off?

 

DP, in response:

-       From a practical point of view, yes it could, but the developer is not required to reduce the run-off.  The primary aim of any flood alleviation scheme is to ensure that new development won’t increase the flood risk.  The developer is not obliged to provide measures to improve the situation over and above its current position.

 

PB:  but the developer could do so?

 

DP, in response:

-       Yes, but there is no expectation that they should.

 

KS:  the flood issue is the biggest concern about the application – is not getting adequate levels of reassurance from the officer report.  The LLFA states that provision to avoid increase in flood risk will be ‘broadly compliant’, which makes her nervous, having seen videos on YouTube in which Sandy Lane has become a river.  Water runs off the hill and if the landscape is to be re-profiled, needs reassurance that the flood risk will not increase.  Is it reasonable to add this to add this as a condition relating to the refusal reasons, to show that Members were concerned about flooding, which could get worse?  Professional advice is that it could be managed, but doesn’t understand what the measures will be to achieve this.  Doesn’t want to turn the application down on these grounds if the experts say it will be OK, but needs to understand how it will work.

 

BF:  is pleased that the applicant has agreed to an archaeological survey of the site, and envisages other information regarding the site’s history coming to light; the Romans lived in a settlement in this area – a grave was round there in 1939.  Although this site is officially part of the AONB, a lot of so-called land around Cheltenham is in fact man-made, and this is too.  Is on Planning Committee of Gloucestershire County Council, which gives permission to remove large quantities of gravel and stone from the AONB.  These are working areas, farming areas, which only changed their status in the last 100 years.  It is important to know if any archaeological remains are to be found on this site before 4.5m of material is placed on top – it should be mapped for history.  Agrees with both the refusal reasons put forward by officers; Members should go with their recommendation.

 

AL:  for clarification of the flood issue:  if the application goes forward, the situation won’t get worse; if the application doesn’t go forward, the position re flooding is likely to deteriorate over the next 100 years?  Can this be explained further?

 

HM:  has two further concerns.  Firstly, is this proposal a major development?  Planning says no, Cotswold Conservation Board says yes.  Secondly, the transport plan states that inert material will be brought to the site down Charlton Hill; this is falling away and in a bad state, particularly for vehicles travelling down the hill; 31 lorries a day up and down the hill will have a negative impact here.  Has emailed the highways officer for his views on this but had no reply to date.  Is very concerned about the state of the road.

 

PB:  is obviously not anti-sport, and has sympathy with the chairmen of sports clubs trying to raise money, and knows that golf clubs in particular are going through a tough time and need to increase their revenue.  Supports the principle behind this scheme; the club has been going for 94 years and is a significant part of the town’s sports heritage.  Also congratulates the club for withdrawing the previous scheme and coming back with something more reasonable.  However, has to represent the residents of Charlton Park, who are concerned about flood risk, not for the next 100 years but for the next 10-15 years.  There was significant flooding in June this year, and the issue remains a significant one.  This scheme doesn’t do what it should – it misses the opportunity to make things better for local residents right now.  The revenue raised from the scheme will mean £500k to the golf club – how much of that is likely to be spent on flood alleviation?  This is a significant opportunity for the golf club to benefit the community and deliver a scheme which actually reduces the water flow off the site. 

 

The Local Plan policy UI2 requires new development to ‘reduce quantities or rate of surface water run-off’.  That rule should be applied to this application to address residents’ worries.  It is a huge opportunity to support the local community - it has suffered from horrendous flooding which is only likely to get worse.  The LLFA has provided its expert opinion, but experts are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.  There is so much information in the report from people who know we shouldn’t accept the flood scheme as it is presented – clever, articulate arguments.  As ward councillors, wants more detail: what materials will be used, what are the implications? Unlike the Southfield scheme on the land adjacent, this isn’t a scheme to to help prevent the golf club from flooding  - it is allowing someone to drop 100k tonnes of material in the AONB with no end product, and should be refused .   And how serious is the golf club about this scheme?  If he were involved, would be waxing lyrical about the benefit to the town, its young people etc.  Not one member of the golf club has written in support of the scheme; there has been no mention of its benefits.  It is being proposed to bring £500k revenue – end of story.  A better scheme is needed. This should be refused, noting that the big issue for local residents is the risk of further flooding.

 

CH:  would like advice.  The agent has said the applicant will be happy with a deferral to allow for an archaeological dig to take place; what are the consequences of deferral over refusal?  If the application is refused, we have got to be clear about the grounds for refusal.  Deferral will allow the applicant to do further work.  If this is the outcome, the applicant should also be more explicit about the benefits to youngsters and sport in the town, and about how water run-off will be reduced.  They need to explore that controls of inert materials may be possible.  Clay?  What sorts of controls would the golf club have over what type of inert materials come in?  Could this be conditioned or an informative?  It might make a difference regarding water attenuation.  A geological survey is OK if the purpose is clear, but whether it will inform us of anything is dubious. 

 

As an aside, we’re concerned about the amount of land needed for house-building for the JCS etc, but if each local authority lost one golf course the problem would solve the problem round the country.

 

MP, in response:

-       To HM, regarding major development in the AONB, this is covered in the report, and the view taken is that this proposal does not constitute a major development in the AONB.  Is there any particular point of this that HM would like clarified?

 

HM:  the Cotswold Conservation Board says different.

 

MJC, in response:

-       There is no definition of what is major and what not – each proposal has to be considered on its own merits.  In considering the impact on the AONB, the Cotswold Conservation Board has someone whose remit and overriding purpose is to look after the AONB.  CBC’s own landscape architect is not making comments in that regard.  Both say that in the long term there will be no impact on the AONB, and it is therefore not considered to be a major development.  It will be busy for 18 months, but ultimately there will be no perceivable difference.

 

MP, in response:

-       To HM’s question about the Charlton Hill, highways officers have provided detailed responses and asked that all traffic approaches from the south.  They have looked at likely trip generation and don’t feel that the impact will be significant.  They are aware that heavy goods vehicles will be engaged in the work but have raised no objections;

-       To PB, a lot of his questions need to be answered by DP, but with regard to Local Plan Policy UI2, as set out in the report, this seeks to  prevent the development of increased run-off.  There is a  difference in policy between development and re-development.  

 

PB:  is this proposal development or re-development?

 

MP, in response:

-       Officers have looked at it as development.

 

PB:  the NPPF Paragraph 100 states that new development should reduce the impact of flooding. 

 

DP, in response:

-       Regarding water run-off, must stress the point that his role is to ensure that any development doesn’t increase the flood risk.  Is satisfied that this scheme won’t;

-       LLFA officers consider the proposal is ‘broadly compliant’ – this is based on calculations of existing run-off, calculations of  post-development run-off, and assessment of the catchment.  The swale at the bottom will act as an attenuation basin of sufficient scale and defined capacity to attenuate surface water.  These key considerations have all been addressed, and  details such as the indicative route for channels from the attenuation basin to existing water course are still to be provided will be addressed in conditions;

-       Regarding the detail of the engineering design – actual outputs are all identical, agreed,  and officers are satisfied the proposal will not increase the flood risk;

-       inert fill will be used, as as officers do not know what the drainage capacity of those materials will be, they have considered the existing site with its moderate drainage capacity and also a worst case scenario;  they are satisfied that there will be sufficient capacity to deal with increased rainfall in the future;

-       the application has fully met requirements, and is ‘broadly compliant’ though detail is still needed.  Regarding performance, all key considerations have been met.

 

MJC, in response:

-       CH asked about the consequences of deferral over refusal. The officer recommendation is to refuse on two grounds; the applicant has suggested a deferral to allow time for an archaeological survey, in the hope that this will secure planning permission – but officers are not hearing from debate that that will happen.  If Members are uncomfortable about the flooding issue, they can vote to add it as an additional refusal reason.  This isn’t what the applicant wants to happen, but if it does, more work will be needed; 

-       Regarding the inert materials and where they come from, all matters are covered by an environmental permit provided by the Environment Agency.  For Members’ comfort, we could say we want to know what these are, as well as the EA; must be led by the EA here;

-       On the flooding issue, and whether this scheme is development or re-development:  this is development under Policy UI2 – and must therefore seek to avoid increasing the run-of rate;

-       When brownfield land is redeveloped, the concept is that run-off should be equal to greenfield land;  here we have a greenfield site, attenuating to certain level, and have to ensure it won’t be any worse, post development;

-       If the application is refused on flood grounds, this is dangerous territory; the LLFA has considered the proposal – it scrutinises drainage issues on major applications now, rather than the local authority.  Its advice is helpful, stating that the application ticks all the boxes.  It states that there is still some work to do but this is a standard approach;

-       Any outstanding issues would be covered by conditions, and these would not be discharged until DP and his team are happy;

-       If the application is refused, CBC will be going against its professional advice.  As Members know, this is likely to mean that costs would be incurred at an Appeal, and the reasonableness of the decision would be questioned; DP has given sensible advice and Members should take it.

 

GB:  three Members are wanting to speak.  This is an important subject and a good debate, but would ask Members only speak if they wish to add something new, not to repeat what has already been said.

 

KS:  with reference to HM’s comments on the condition of the main road, it’s a good thing that the inert material won’t be brought to the site via Sandy Lane.  It is worrying that Highways officers have no objection to the proposed route.  There is subsidence in the area – a lot of movement over a long period of time.  We need specific comments from Highways officers regarding the condition of the road, not about road safety.  Could we make it a condition that if the condition of the road gets significantly worse as a result of traffic associated with this development, the applicant will have to pay the bill for its repair?

 

PB:  disagrees with officers  - this proposal is redevelopment not development.  That is the whole point, and why it should be used to make the flood risk better.  Why does the NPPF say what it says?  Would like this to be added as a refusal reason. 

 

CH:  to MJC’s earlier response about the Environment Agency  -   what exactly will the EA look at?  If inert material is to be used, will be be inert or not?  This is important in relation to the drainage qualities  of material.  If  CBC looks at it, officers and Members can be satisfied with the findings, but outside  professional advice is different.  Can we be sure that the proposal complies with SUDS for development, and will make the drainage situation better than it has been? There is a difference here, and still an argument as to whether this scheme should be classed as new development or redevelopment?  CBC should look at it as well – this should be a condition

 

DP, in response:

-       SUDS is very pertinent here – scheme will provide for attenuating excess water that runs off development, including increased rainfall due to climate change.  In doing so, it will reduce flood risk in future, and provide resilience against climate change;

-       It will make the situation better and provide betterment over a lifetime.  A key principle of sustainable drainage is that it has to be sustainable through climate change.

 

AL:  regarding refusal or deferral, if the application is refused for the two reasons suggested by officers, these will be the only refusal reasons we can use in the future.  If the application is deferred, does that also restrict the grounds for refusal at a later date?  If so, the applicant will presumably be hoping for a refusal as the flood attenuation issue would then be resolved – only the archaeological survey and S106 agreement would be required for a resubmitted application to stand a good chance of being permitted. 

 

HM:  agrees with AL.  We should defer to give the application the opportunity to address the refusal reasons, and give Highways officers the opportunity to discuss the state of the road with Amey.

 

SW:  is still concerned that a geological study should be done.  Officers will say that the applicant’s agent is here and has heard the debate and concerns raised by Members.  Would like a condition that it be done by the next time the application comes forward – the cost should not be too great.  Without knowing what is underneath the site, considers any proposal here a non-goer.

 

MJC, in response:

-       Officers have recommended refusal on two grounds – lack of an archaeological study and lack of a legal agreement.  The possibility of deferral has been brought up by the applicant; PB has moved to refuse on flooding issue as well as the reasons put forward by officers;

-       If the proposal is deferred without bottoming out the flood issue, this will be a big risk.  The applicant is looking for Members to be OK with all issues before doing the archaeological survey;

-       PB has moved to refuse on the flood issue;  Members therefore need to vote on officer recommendation first, then vote on PB’s move to refuse on flood grounds; then vote on the move to defer.  NJ will guide Members further.

 

KS: thought the process was to take the vote on deferral before the vote on the motion.

 

GB:  a deferral won’t resolve the flooding issue.  Need to  vote on whether to add this to the officer recommendation.

 

NJ, in response:

-       From a legal point of view, cannot support the flood issue as a refusal reason.  Members have received expert advice from the LLFA, and it could be seen as unreasonable to use the flood issue as a reason to refuse the application, given that expert advice..  It may also have costs implications at any subsequent appeal if perceived as unreasonable.

 

GB:  are Members happy to vote now?  This is a serious matter and they have had a good discussion. 

 

Vote on adding flood issues to the refusal reasons proposed by officers

4 in support

6 in objection

2 abstentions

NOT CARRIED

 

PT:  are we going to ask for a geological survey as well as an archaeological one?

 

GB:  we can add this as another refusal reason.

 

Vote on adding requirement for geological survey to refusal reasons

3 in support

6 in objection

3 abstentions

NOT CARRIED

 

Vote on officer recommendation to refuse on two grounds:  archaeological study and S106 agreement

9 in support

2 in objection

1 abstention

REFUSE

 

CH:  as an aside,suggested that, in view of issues raised today, Members would benefit from some training hydrology, flood alleviation etc.  They need to be better informed to achieve better understanding of the issues.

 

MJC:  confirmed that this will be part of next year’s training schedule.