Agenda item

Introduction:

LW introduced this application for eight dwellings on land to the rear of St Lawrence’s Church, which seeks revisions to an almost identical scheme permitted in 2015.  A similar application was made last year and due to come to Committee until it became clear that land ownership issues concerning the access lane made the application invalid.  The main changes are to fenestration, an increase in height, and a reduction in width of the access lane with the inclusion of the pedestrian footpath.  In 2016, Ubico started using wider vehicles, which would make roadside collections unsuitable.  The applicant has agreed to make a private arrangement with an alternative refuse-collecting service, and has drafted a 106 agreement which has been agreed by all parties.  It also secures the land to the north of the site for church-related purposes, or garden/recreational use.  The application is at Committee at the request of Councillor Fisher, and the recommendation is to permit.

Public Speaking:

Mr Mark Snape, of Centaur Homes Ltd, in support

Full permission was granted for a similar scheme in 2015, and this revised application only required due to an error on the land ownership certificate submitted by a previous applicant.  The revised application alters the access arrangements and the external design.  Due to changes in design standards, access had to be amended from a shared surface, approved in 2015, to one including a dedicated pedestrian footpath.  Since 2015, Ubico has increased the size of its refuse vehicles, which can no longer access the site.  Objections have been raised to the scheme in relation of refuse collection matters;  to remedy the situation, and avoid the need for residents to carry their bins the Church Road, where they would block the footpath, a private bin collection service is proposed, funded by residents of the development through a dedicated management company.  This has been secured by an S106 agreement, agreed by all parties, which allows the Council to have control over the approval of the private waste collection service prior to occupation of the dwellings, both now and in the future.   GCC Highways has not raised any technical objection to the access.  The external design alterations are minor in detail, and officers have not raised any objection.  Concerns related to ecology have been addressed through the process, and mitigation measures will be provided as part of the scheme, as they were in 2015.  In all other respects, the development remains as permitted in 2015.

Councillor Clucas, in objection

As with the previous application at this site, she and local residents have a number of concerns about the scheme.  The 2014 officer report included consultee comments from the county ecologist, referring to a number of badger setts in this particular part of Swindon Village.  This valid point is reflected in the report, and monitoring and mitigation will encompass all land space.  However, this means that it is not possible to look seriously at the historical implications of building on this land, as highlighted by the County Archaeologist.  When considering the Swindon Village area, the JCS inspector was aware of the importance of the historic context and the conservation area, and the need to maintain a green halo round the village.  The Florence Convention, adopted by English law in 2005,  protects areas in their historical context and stipulates that development must be in keeping with the locality.  The protection of the church and its view from the surrounding area is also an issue of concern.Regarding access, is pleased the management company will look after refuse collection,  but this doesn’t include fire engines, emergency vehicles, delivery lorries, building lorries.  There is a potential danger here which cannot be avoided, not only for residents already living in the area, but also to those moving into the new properties.  There may be fire hydrants, but with no proper access for emergency vehicles, sprinklers will be needed in the new properties.  To sum up, the history of the site is not addressed; the height of the properties is not addressed; access to emergency and other big vehicles is not addressed; and protection of the view of the church is not addressed, despite the planning inspector acknowledging the importance of this on a previous occasion. 

Member debate:

BF: the Parish Council and Councillor Clucas have both raised the issue of refuse collection; Swindon Hall, a historical house divided into flats, is about 100m up the road and has a similar narrow and restricted access.  Ubico provides a smaller vehicle to collect its bins; why can’t the same arrangement be made for this new development?  If a bin lorry can’t turn round at the bottom of the road, and drive out forward,  the same will apply to furniture vans and delivery lorries, and this could cause dangerous situations on Church Road.  Questions the validity of the highways survey, which completely missed the school bus, and cannot resolve the turning circle.  A reduction in the number of dwellings or change in the lay-out is needed, as Ubico vehicles aren’t that big compared with other delivery vehicles – much larger ones will need to be able to access the houses at times.  Didn’t like the design previously; considers it to contravene policy CP7, which requires design of the highest standard – this isn’t.

SW:  was very much in mind to vote in support of this, as it was permitted last time, and if the business of the dustbin lorries can be addressed, there is no arguing with that.  However, Councillor Clucas raised a lot of issues, including badgers - there appears to be nowhere else for them to go ; also furniture vans (as well as ambulances and fire engines) – these are not small Bedford vans, but large vehicles, which will turn up in Church Road and could end up blocking the highway for several hours.  This problem isn’t addressed by getting a private company to empty the bins; this is just the tip of the iceberg. In view of these additional problems, is struggling to support the proposal.

[Councillor Rowena Hay arrived at this point.]

MC:   is also interested in Councillor Clucas’s points, and would like more information on the private bin collection.  As an ex-delivery driver, can confirm that if a property is difficult to access, drivers will park irresponsibly – they have to deliver in a certain time, regardless of any inconvenience to other road users – and if necessary will drive down narrow road, making a mess of verges etc.  There are many potential problems arising from this issue as it stands.  Would like to hear officer comments on the refuse collection issue. 

CH:  will the private refuse collection have to comply with the current recycling arrangements put in place by Ubico and agreed with the rest of the county?  Do we have the capability, should we change the arrangements for recycling. To make sure that the private contractor complies with the new requirements?  Can officers explain the following:  one of the drawings shows a dark line at the top of the road – is this a gate?  If so, it shouldn’t be there, unless there are exceptional circumstances; gated communities are isolating and wrong.

LW, in response:

-       To BF, the issue regarding the access lane is to do with the width of the access at the junction with Church Lane, not the width of the lane of turning circle.  Highways officers were happy with the  2016-17 application, confirming that emergency vehicles and normal delivery vans would be able to reach the site.  Regarding removal lorries, companies usually have different-sized vehicles, and it will be up to the occupiers to notify the company in advance about the access issues;

-       A recent survey was carried out regarding badgers, and confirmed that a wildlife corridor on the perimeter of the site will allow free movement for badgers.  The ecology report suggested a condition which has been included;

-       The private refuse collection service will be set up prior to the development, and the scope, method, frequency of collection, receptacles, details of recycling, will all be covered.  Details of how the company will set up a contract with the council, with all details, how breaches will be dealt with, ensuring that the Council has all the details if needs from the management company, will be set up prior to occupation;

[Councillor Savage arrived at this point.]

-       all recycling will be in accordance with CBC policy, and if this changes in the future, the company will have to adapt;

-       is not sure about the gate referred to by CH, but if there is one, it will be removed.

HM:  has two points to make.  Remembers the previous application in 2015, but as there are some new Members since then, can officers remind Members why the most obvious access from the cul-de-sac hasn’t been considered?  Regarding badgers, they are nocturnal creatures, and note that Condition 19 refers to hours of operation during the construction phase; can we ensure that these won’t affect the nocturnal habits of the badgers?

LW, in response:

-       the most obvious access is from Manor Court, but there is a ransom strip here and the land is not available. We have to consider the scheme as it is presented;

-       regarding hours of operation, can look into this and change the hours, taking the badgers into consideration.

BF:  for the record, there is no gate at the top of the site – this is long gone.  It is a public footpath, and has to be left open.  Is still concerned about Ubico – to turn off Church Road, the vans will have to cross the centre, and there is no way they can do this – they are fixed bed vehicles, not articulated.  If Ubico says it is dangerous to swing out, all vehicles will be in the same situation, and accidents are likely to occur.  There is a 30mph speed limit along here, and not many people break it – it is a narrow, tight road, with walls on both sides.  The proposed arrangement will cause a highway problem and could lead to accidents.  The police don’t record all the incidents that occur, but there have bee cars on their rooves along this stretch, and we don’t want to see that repeated.  The whole thing needs rethinking.

CN:  wheel-washing is normally a standard condition but is sometimes missed.  Can we make sure it is included here, and make sure that it is enforced?  This condition needs to be in place right at the start – this is when it will be most muddy.  It has become quite an issue elsewhere, and if construction vehicles are coming out on the corner, it could be even worse.

LW, in response:

-       wheel washing is part of Condition 19, and should be enforced from the start and throughout the remaining stages;  planning officers don’t routinely check conditions with enforcement officers.

MJC, in response:

-       is not aware of the cases CN is referring to, but there have been cases on conditions not worded quite as they should be.  Over the last 18 months, this has been reviewed, and conditions have been run past enforcements officers to make sure they are happy with the working and trigger points.   It should be OK here.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

9 in support

4 in objection

2 abstentions

PERMIT