THE LEIGH PARISH COUNCIL
: leighpc@hotmail.co.uk : theleighpc.org.uk
MINUTES OF THE ADDITIONAL PARISH COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 7th October 2024 AT 7.30PM AT THE LEIGH PARISH CHURCH
Present: Cllr. J. Arkell (Chair), Cllr A. Bowness, Cllr. L. Glazebrook, Cllr K. Morton and Cllr R. Theyer
Attendance: K. Tilling (Parish Clerk), Cllr H Mclain and Cllr P. Mclain and 12 members of the public.
1. Apologies:
There were no apologies.
2. Declarations of interest:
Pursuant to the adoption by the Parish Council on 25th July 2023 of Leigh Parish Council’s revised Code of Conduct, effective from 25th July 2023 and set out in the minutes of 25th July 2023, Parish Councillors are invited to declare any interest they may have in the business set out on the agenda to which the approved Code applies. The following declarations were made Cllr Morton declared an interest in the planning application 24/00545/FUL and 24/00613/FUL. Councillor Morton was granted dispensations to remain in the room when the respective applications were discussed. Both dispensations have been granted for a twelve-month period and will be made available if either of these applications comes back before a future Parish Council meeting.
3. Minutes to be approved (deferred from last meeting)
Outstanding minutes from the previous meetings were approved and no amendments required. Proposed by Cllr Morton. Seconded by Cllr Theyer and all unanimous.
4. To discuss planning consultation requests and consider responses for the following:
Following on from last month’s cyber incident at TBC, the systems are slowly being brought back into use It was not known what extension periods have been given to outstanding applications.
24/00613/FUL: Part parcel 1180, The Leigh, Gloucester. Full planning permission for the erection of two detached dwellings, including associated landscaping, access, and parking. There was limited discussion about this application at the September meeting because residents were unable to view the supporting documents on the planning portal.
This application seeks to build two houses along the straight bit of road just off Church Lane, adjacent to The Elms. This application is like other recent applications and therefore the comments will mirror these. There is no support from the parishioners for these dwellings – there are approx. 50 houses in the Leigh and over a third of residents have submitted an objection comment.
Flooding and water runoff is the overarching concern for the residents within the Leigh. Research has shown that the average person uses around 142 litres of water per day. A family of four will use around 500 litres of water every day or 50 to 100 gallons per person per day per house (200 to 400 gallons per day for a family of four). According to Water UK, the majority of people believe their household only uses under 20 litres of water a day. The land around the village cannot take any further volumes of wastewater as old storm drains are broken, the water table is now consistently high, ditches are full, and the treatment package plants are not used appropriately. All the comments on the planning portal are valid and indicate that residents are worried about the pressures of dealing with excess water. Residents do not believe that this location can deal with any additional water run-off. The report of the soil conditions prepared for application 24/00388/APP give a very clear picture of the permeability of the land in the area – non-existent. Recent work on this site to dig trenches has seen them fill with water in a matter of hours. The Parish Council have asked residents to take photos of this to show that the water does not drain away. Planning agents do not seem to understand that there are no public sewers within the whole Parish. This is confirmed in the Leigh NDP statement and on the Severn Trent area maps. There is a large ditch at the front of this land and there must be a priority in protecting this main water holding/drainage system especially as it collects much of the winter water.
It was noted that like other similar applications, none of the objections are personal but based around the applicants meeting known current building policies, National, Borough and Local.
It was noted that the land proposed for building appears on the Agricultural Land Classification Map Southwest Region (ALC006) and shows that it is classified as “Excellent”. Supporting documents suggest that the land is of poorer quality, the Ecological Report did confirm that the grass onsite and on the adjacent road verge had recently been mown, assessing plant species composition difficult. There is an obvious contradiction here.
Looking at the scale and design of the houses, residents were confused over a bungalow with dormers. The TBC planning Officer has suggested that even 1.5 storey houses are not recognised by TBC so these are clearly 2 storey houses and will be taller than their nearest neighbour. Questions were also raised about two large houses sharing one access. The access has been kept to a minimum to ensure that the smaller amount of hedge is removed although this is unlikely to work in the long term. The turning circle is not big enough from the lane. Recent work in the field has shown that the width of the lane struggles with larger vehicles as the verges have now been churned up by the utilities company gaining access to the field. Large lorries making deliveries to the site will not be able to access the site easily or safely and will damage the surrounding verges further. Residents were aware of the restrictions on the removal of the hedge.
The Parish Council would like to know how the Biodiversity Net Gain requirements will be met for this site as it seems that they are to be met off site which is not acceptable and does not meet the requirements of the Parish Council’s own Biodiversity Policy.
There is currently no comment from Highways and the Parish Council would expect to see a detailed one. The Highways comments made for application 24/545/FUL are very applicable for this site and support the local comments that this site is not in a sustainable location, the road is too narrow, not safe without a pavement and lighting and too far away from a bus stop with a limited timetable. Access to the site is off a single-track lane with no passing places, made even more difficult when flooding closes Blacksmith Lane and most of the villagers must drive out this way.
It was also noted that there is no housing need for large houses in the village partly because of the number of houses being built within the parish at Coombe Hill and because existing houses on the market have not sold. Application 24/00202/PIP was refused in June 2024 on the grounds of it being in a “location where new housing is strictly controlled, it would not complement the form of the settlement nor be well related to existing buildings in the settlement, nor does it represent a sustainable location for development by failing to provide safe and suitable access to services and community facilities by sustainable transport methods.”
Brawn Farm has been referred to the Planning Committee for a decision so in the interests of consistency and transparency, the Parish Council have asked that the Borough Councillor also ask for this application to be treated in the same manner. There are too many similarities for it to be treated differently.
24/00545/FUL: Brawn Farm, The Leigh, Gloucester. Full planning permission for three detached dwellings (with plot 1 being a self-build dwelling), including access, parking and landscaping following demolition of existing detached dwelling and ancillary barns and sheds. Further updates following new documents on the planning portal and the recent cyber-attack that saw the whole computer system being shut down for several weeks by Tewkesbury Borough Council. There is now a heritage report on the portal submitted by the Conservation Officer recommending refusal. The current dwelling is classed as a historic farmstead and is deemed by the Conservation Officer as a farmhouse that “is clearly of sufficient local heritage interest to be considered a Non-designated Heritage Asset. The NPPF defines a heritage asset as A building, monument, site, place, area, or landscape identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, because of its heritage interest. The heritage interest of Brawn Farmhouse relates to several criteria which are featured in a Supplementary Planning Document for Tewkesbury Borough entitled Local Heritage List: Selection Criteria. The selection criteria are based upon the criteria identified in Historic England’s guide (Advice Note 7: Local Heritage Listing). The building does not yet appear on Tewkesbury Boroughs Local Heritage List. The Conservation Officer recommends refusal based on the following policies: Paragraph 203 of the NPPF, Policy SD8 of the JCS and Policy HER5 of the Local Plan. Modern detached houses are not in keeping at this location. There are several comments from GCC Highways, some in great detail and all reflecting a similar view as discussed at the Parish Council meeting. This location is not a sustainable location. Each dwelling will rely solely on private vehicles. The structural report explains that the house is in danger or collapse. As already reported, a nearby house in worse condition was rebuilt sympathetically so the parishioners know it can be achieved. Again, it was reiterated that the financial side of renovated verses new build is not a planning consideration. It is acknowledged that a renovation will take significantly longer and cost more but would be accepted by those living closest to this site. The flora and fauna on this site can be argued from both sides. Any study is only a snapshot of what it is happening on a given day when a study is undertaken. Changing seasons, weather and other mitigating factors will impact on an ecology report. It was hoped that the planning agents would eventually understand that there are no mains sewers in the whole parish and that flooding, and drainage is a main concern for most of the parishioners. The Parish Council are acutely aware of Planning Agents using the ‘tilted balance’ argument to push through planning applications in an area where they would not normally be permitted. However, there are still reasons to refuse, and the Parish Council will continue to remind TBC of this fact. This application has been referred to Planning Committee which means it will be heard by Planning Committee Members rather than a delegated Planning Officer. It was referred to Committee as it fails to meet several policies. Parishioners are concerned that this will set a precedence for other applications currently awaiting decision.
24/00388/APP: Land at Church Lane, The Leigh. This application was first discussed at a Parish Council meeting on 12th June 2024 and then on 11th September 2024. A few issues were raised at that those meetings including drainage and allotment access. Details about the drainage were put on the portal but continue to cause concern for existing parishioners. The outfall still shows that it goes to a ditch with no flowing water and ownership of this ditch needs to be confirmed. The understanding is that ditches must have flowing water. Every application within the Leigh Village is now looked at closely for flooding and drainage impact. Biocycles struggle to meet the needs of large houses and owners are ignorant of how to operate them successfully. Drainage systems need to be more imaginative with treatment and contained water stored within a proposed site, rather than being allowed to disperse treated (hopefully) or untreated water into the neighbourhood. Everyone that lives lower than these houses is at risk of increased water run off and the associated flooding. The Parish Council would expect to see consultee responses from those that deal with land drainage and flooding so that their expertise can confirm whether the information provided by the applicant is sufficient to prevent further foul or grey water issues within the vicinity.
It was also reported that the footings are already in for these two dwellings. This application is still yet to be approved and the Parish Council consider this reckless as permission may require conditions to be met by the applicant prior to start of any construction work. Further complaints have been received about the lane being closed at this time of year and the unpredictability of the weather. Shutting one of only two roads in and out of the village for such a long period of time purely to accommodate the utilities being installed to accommodate these new houses is not popular. If Blacksmith Lane is flooded due to excessive rain etc then this lane will have to reopened and work stopped if necessary. Parishioners are monitoring the construction work on site and will raise issues with enforcement if necessary.
5. Update on Highways Issues
The verge cutting has been done by GCC.
A replacement drain has been installed and work is on going to try and get the water running rather than flooding outside Wellcroft. Much of the drainage system is old and broken. Cllr Theyer has been clearing ditches in that area.
The area around the Croft flooded again recently. Water levels were not suitable to drive through. A new drain has been requested.
The drain on the A38 and opposite in the bus stop still need looking at. The culverts are blocked and require cameras to see if they are just blocked or broken as well.
The Leigh Parish Drain – goes into Glos Trust for Nature Conservation land.
Wharf/Coombe Hill – road just past the gate is a series of large potholes. Who is responsible for this stretch of road? Is it GWT.
Work for the traffic light upgrade is currently at the stage where GCC are asking Contractors to quote. Looking to start in 2025.
Wharf drainage – also need GCC to come back and look at the way that water run off has changed since the landslide. The installation of the concrete blocks and the larger lorries driving over the edge of the existing road have caused water to now flow to the right of the lane rather than the left causing flooding to garages at the bottom of the land inside the bund. Water continues to weaken the bank – a recent small-scale landslip near the top closest to the new houses is evident.
6. Feedback from Housing Survey Discussion
Tim Gwilliam from GRCC came to the September meeting to talk about the possibility of a Housing Needs Survey. His justification for pressing to meet with the Parish Council was an outdated survey. Our Parish Survey was conducted in 2016 as part of the Neighbourhood Plan process. He suggested that if the Parish Council had an up to date one it might be a defence against speculative builds. He was aware that the Leigh Village was outside of the Service Village at Coombe Hill and talked about the village considering a rural exception site where the village would control the building of any new houses. This was greeted with great skepticism and a reluctance for any survey that would give developers a chance for a speculative build based on any survey results. Parishioners were told that anyone can ask for survey and get GRCC to undertake the work. The Parish Council felt that further discussion was needed at the following meeting to capture more parishioner views and there was a Parish Councillor missing at the September meeting.
Two weeks later the Parish Council received an email from Mr Gwilliam at GRCC informing us that a Housing Needs Survey was going ahead. A letter to the chair stated “that surveys to addresses in your parish will be posted on or before October 4th, 2024, and we hope to share with the Council the findings of the Housing Needs Survey in December 2024. GRCC will begin advertising and marketing it through our own channels and we will also share any relevant marketing to the Council”. The Parish Council was then asked to help publicise the survey. The Parish Council felt that this had been rushed and would not be supported until further views were gathered. The surveys went out without the support of the Parish Council. Some surveys had the wrong Parish name on suggesting that this was all done in great haste The Parish Council have been made to feel that they were tricked and put in a difficult/unpleasant situation where parishioners might think they their views had been ignored. The Parish Council trust in GRCC has sunk to an all-time low. TBC are behind this urgent need for a survey, and they could well use the outcome of any survey permission to outline further areas that could be designated for building. Parishioners at the meeting felt the survey was very underhand and a waste of time. A letter will be sent to Mr Gwilliam’s line Manager outlining the concerns of the Parish Council and the way the survey came about. It was left to individuals to decide whether to complete and return the questionnaire.
7. To consider and approve any new CIL spending
Parish Councillors agreed to meet in two weeks’ time to discuss and formalised what was going to be ordered using CIL money. Suggested date was 23rd October. The car parking outside the church has been done and marking of bays are still to be completed. It was suggested that a luminescence strip is needed on the wooden pole as someone is likely to hit it despite it being close to the edge. The screen has been purchased. Work to finalise the Coombe Hill signs will be discussed at the special CIL meeting. Parish Council were asked if CIL money could be used to purchase and install a safety ring at the Coombe Hill basin. However, this is private land and belongs to the GWT and it is their responsibility to ensure public safety on their land.
Further discussion about installing defibrillators – possibly a mobile one rather than a fixed installation. It would still need to be maintain and this has an ongoing cost that would be there after the CIL money has gone.
Two of the bus shelters need to be moved on at Coombe Hill. Check with Highways if permission is needed and whether planning is required. Dog bins will be on Highways land and again just need their permission. The Swift boxes just need putting up on the houses down the Wharf.
8. Any other business.
Clarification on who to contact when caravans are parked on an agricultural field. What were the rules regarding designated traveler sites within the county, was there a surplus and if not, why did they allow the change of site at Fieldview?
Meeting closed 22.00