12/00218/FUL - Armscroft Park PDF 393 KB - Democracy ...

GLOUCESTER CITY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE : PLANNING
DATE : 12 TH JUNE 2012
ADDRESS/LOCATION : ARMSCROFT PARK
APPLICATION NO. & WARD :
12/00218/FUL
KINGSHOLM AND WOTTON / ELMBRIDGE
EXPIRY DATE : 13 TH JUNE 2012
APPLICANT : GLOUCESTER CITY COUNCIL AND LXB
RETAIL PROPERTIES (GLOS) LTD
PROPOSAL : FLOOD ALLEVIATION WORKS INCLUDING
LAND RE-GRADING, NEW FOOTBRIDGE
ACROSS BROOK IN ARMSCROFT PARK,
REPLACEMENT BRIDGE AT BLINKHORNS
BRIDGE LANE AND ASSOCIATED
LANDSCAPING WORKS
REPORT BY : ADAM SMITH
NO. OF APPENDICES/ : SITE PLAN
OBJECTIONS
3 REPRESENTATIONS
ADVICE LETTER OF 28 TH MAY 2012 FROM
COUNCIL’S APPOINTED DRAINAGE
CONSULTANTS BWB CONSULTING
1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSAL
1.1 The application site comprises part of Armscroft Park either side of the Wotton
Brook and also extends to the south east to include part of Blinkhorns Bridge
Lane and the brook as far as the railway embankment.
1.2 There are residential areas adjacent to the site to the east and west. St
Peter’s Primary School is adjacent to the north west. To the south of the park
is the Allstone aggregates and waste business. The Wotton Brook flows south
to north through the park. There are existing bridges across the brook at the
north and south of the park.
1.3 The proposals are for flood alleviation works linked to the Railway Triangle
proposals. Members will recall that the endorsement of the Triangle
application was associated with financial contributions to off-site drainage and
ecological mitigation works. The current application proposes the
implementation of those contributions.
PT

1.4 The works involve the re-grading of land – lowering levels – in two locations
either side of the brook, one at the south east of the park on the east side of
the brook (up to 1 metre lowered), and one at the north of the park, on the
west side of the brook (up to 1.5 metres lowered). These are worked-up
proposal for the areas shown indicatively in the Committee Presentation for
the Railway Triangle scheme on 1 st December 2011.
1.5 The material from this re-grading would be redeposited in two sculpted areas,
one at the south of the park next to the changing rooms building (the mound
to be up to 2 metres in height), and one adjacent to the western boundary of
the park (up to 2.3 metres in height). This regrading avoids the two formal
rugby pitches at the centre and south of the park. The dilapidated posts at the
north of the park would be removed.
1.6 The lowered and raised areas would be replanted, with a variety of habitats
created – wildflower meadow areas, wetland meadow and a variety of tree
species. Bird and bat boxes are also proposed.
1.7 Two bridges are also proposed – one new bridge across the brook mid way
along the brook’s route through the park, and a second bridge as a
replacement for the existing one at the southern end of Blinkhorns Bridge
Lane.
1.8 The bridge in the park would be 2.1 metres wide, hardwood decked with
painted steel railings. The existing bridge at Blinkhorns Bridge Lane sits down
into the adjacent banks (18.2m AOD) and the bridge deck is quite deep. The
replacement bridge would be a more lightweight structure raised up to over
19m AOD (the 1:100 year plus climate change flood water level) in the middle
arched section. The levels either side will be graded to tie back into the
existing road.
1.9 The Wotton Brook is proposed to be widened in various places by up to 1.5
metres between the Gallows Bridge culvert and the park (this will not be for
the full depth of the channel - the wider it is the more likely an increased risk
of sedimentation).
1.10 The application is to be considered by the Planning Committee due to being
on City Council land, the City Council being part-applicant and the nature of
the works.
2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
11/00902/OUT
2.1 This is the application for the Railway Triangle, a hybrid application
comprising: application for full planning permission for retail foodstore (6,800
square metres gross) and petrol filling station, associated car parking and
servicing works, access road from Metz Way and associated junction and
alterations to Metz Way and footpath/cycleway, internal site access roads,
alterations and improvements to the underpass and link to Blinkhorns Bridge
Lane, and associated landscaping and re-grading works; application for
PT

outline planning permission (all matters reserved) for business (Use class B1),
industrial (Use class B2), storage and distribution, cash and carry and trade
uses (Use class B8) (15,264 square metres); car showroom (1,024 square
metres); retail (Use class A1), financial/professional services (Use class A2),
restaurant/cafe (Use class A3), public house/bar (Use class A4) and hot food
takeaway uses (Use class A5) (761 square metres); and associated car
parking, access, servicing, landscaping and re-grading works. Proposals
include demolition of existing buildings.
The application has been endorsed by the Planning Committee and is
awaiting completion of the s106 agreement before release of the planning
permission.
The S106 agreement includes a contribution of some £133,000 towards
drainage and ecology to mitigate the effects of the development.
3.0 PLANNING POLICIES
3.1 The following planning guidance and policies are relevant to the consideration
of this application:
Central Government Guidance
National Planning Policy Framework
3.2 The NPPF has now been published and is a material consideration in
determining this application. It consolidates and reduces the length of existing
national policy documents and is to be applied to the preparation of local and
neighbourhood plans and to development management decisions.
Decision-making
The NPPF does not alter the requirement for applications to be determined in
accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate
otherwise.
The NPPF is underpinned by a presumption in favour of sustainable
development. In terms of applicability to the planning system the NPPF refers
to sustainable development comprising of economic, social and environmental
roles.
The NPPF advises that authorities should approve development proposals
that accord with statutory plans without delay, and also grant permission
where the plan is absent, silent, indeterminate or out of date. This should be
the case unless the adverse impacts of allowing development would
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against
the policies of the framework as a whole, or specific policies in the NPPF
indicate development should be restricted.
Authorities should seek to approve applications where possible, looking for
solutions rather than problems.
PT

The NPPF sets out 12 core planning principles that may be summarised as
follows – planning should;
▪ Be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people and should be kept up to
date;
▪ Not be just about scrutiny but a creative exercise to enhance and improve
places;
▪ Proactively drive and support sustainable economic development;
▪ Always seek high quality design and good standards of amenity;
▪ Take account of the different roles and character of different areas,
promoting the vitality or our main urban areas, protecting green belts;
▪ Support the transition to a low carbon future, taking account of flood risk and
coastal change, and encourage the re-use of existing resources;
▪ Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment and
reducing pollution;
▪ Encourage the effective use of land by reusing brownfield land;
▪ Promote mixed use developments;
▪ Conserve heritage assets;
▪ Actively manage patterns of growth to make fullest use of public transport,
walking and cycling, and focus significant development in locations which are
or can be made sustainable;
▪ Take account of and support local strategies for health, social and cultural
wellbeing and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services.
The NPPF goes on to cover, more succinctly, most of the issues addressed in
the existing PPGs and PPSs, the main points of which are briefly summarised
as follows:
Building a strong, competitive economy
The Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does
everything it can to support sustainable economic growth.
The NPPF retains a recognition of town centres as the heart of communities
and encourages the pursuit of policies to support their vitality and viability.
The sequential and impact tests for planning applications for main town centre
uses that are not in an existing centre and are not in accordance with an up to
date Local Plan.
Where an application fails to satisfy the sequential test or is likely to have
significant adverse impact on one or more the ‘impact’ factors, it should be
refused.
Requiring good design
Emphasis is retained on good design, seeking to ensure that development will
function well and add to the overall quality of the area, establish a strong
sense of place, optimise the potential of the site to accommodate
development, respond to local character and history while not discouraging
innovation, ensure safe and accessible environments, and are visually
attractive as a result of good architecture and appropriate landscaping
PT

Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take
opportunities for improving areas.
Promoting healthy communities
Encourages the involvement of all sections of the community. Decisions
should aim to achieve places which promote;
▪ Opportunities for meetings between members of the community who might
not otherwise come into contact;
▪ Safe and accessible environments;
▪ Safe and accessible developments.
To deliver the required social, recreational and cultural facilities and services,
decisions should;
▪ Plan positively for the provision and use of shared space, community
facilities and other local services;
▪ Guard against the unnecessary loss of valued facilities and services;
▪ Ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop,
and are retained for the benefit of the community;
▪ Ensure an integrated approach to considering the location of housing,
economic uses and community facilities and services.
Building on existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land
should be restricted unless compliant with certain criteria.
Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
Seeks to secure reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, supporting the
delivery of renewable and low carbon energy and associated infrastructure.
In terms of flooding, authorities should direct development away from high
flood risk areas, but where development is necessary, make it safe without
increasing flood risk elsewhere.
The sequential and exception test principles are maintained. The aim of
sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest
probability of flooding. Development should not be permitted if there are
reasonably available site appropriate for the proposed development in areas
with a lower probability of flooding. For individual developments on sites
allocated in development plans through the Sequential Test, applicants need
not apply the Sequential Test.
Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
The aims of contributing to and enhancing the natural and local environment
remain. Impacts on biodiversity should be minimised. Developments should
be prevented from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from soil,
sire, water or noise pollution, and remediating and mitigating land where
appropriate.
The reuse of brownfield land is encouraged.
Plan making
PT

It is also of note that the NPPF sets introduces guidance on the use of local
plans – from 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may
continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004, even if
there is a limited degree of conflict with the NPPF. In other cases and
following the 12 month period, due weight should be given to relevant policies
in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF.
The Development Plan
3.3 Section 38 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 has
established that - “The development plan is
(a) The regional spatial strategy for the region in which the area is situated,
and
(b) The development plan documents (taken as a whole) which have been
adopted or approved in relation to that area.
If to any extent a policy contained in a development plan for an area conflicts
with another policy in the development plan, the conflict must be resolved in
favour of the policy that is contained in the last document to be adopted,
approved or published (as the case may be). If regard is to be had to the
development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the
planning Acts, the determination must be made in accordance with the plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”
Regional Guidance
Regional Guidance historically comprises Regional Planning Guidance 10,
with the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) due to supersede these. As
Members will be aware there have been significant complications with the
progress and status of RSSs. The Government’s revocation of the RSSs was
challenged successfully, and a subsequent Government direction to consider
the intention to revoke was also challenged. The Court of Appeal ruling on this
latest challenge says that there may be circumstances in which the intention
to abolish the RSSs would be material to a development control decision but
only in very few cases. In terms of plan-making however, the ruling is that it
would be unlawful for a Local Planning Authority preparing development plan
documents to have regard to the proposal to abolish regional strategies.
RPG10:
The Spatial Strategy - Gloucester is a Principal Urban Area, in which
economic and housing development should be focused, in sustainable
locations.
Policy EN.1 – Landscape and Biodiversity
Encourages protection and enhancement of such resources.
Policy RE.2 – Flood risk
Authorities should direct development away from river and coastal floodplains,
promote sustainable drainage systems and adopt a sequential approach to
the development of sites.
Regional Spatial Strategy:
PT

Reached Proposed Changes stage July 2008. Gloucester is a ‘Strategically
Significant City’, which are the primary focus for development.
Development policy E
All development should deliver the highest standards of design.
Development policy F
Major regeneration developments should contribute to the delivery of
sustainable communities and high quality of life by providing high standards of
design and access, low levels of energy and car use.
Development Policy G
Promotes best practice in sustainable construction.
Policy ENV.1 – Protecting and enhancing the region’s natural and historic
environment
Seeks to protect and enhance the quality, character, diversity and local
distinctiveness of the natural and historic environment
Policy ENV.4 – Nature Conservation
Seeks to maintain and enhance the distinctive habitats and species.
Policy F.1 – Flood risk
Establishes priorities including protecting flood plains, adopting a sequential
approach to development in flood risk areas and using development to reduce
risk of flooding through location, layout and design.
The local policy framework comprises of the following documents:
• Structure plan:
The adopted plan is the Gloucestershire Structure Plan Second Review
(Adopted November 1999 and ‘saved’, the intention was that this would be
until the Regional Spatial Strategy was adopted). The Gloucestershire
Structure Plan Third Alteration reached Proposed Modifications stage in
July 2004 and January 2005, although the Second Review is utilised for
development control purposes.
Transport
Policy T.1 requires that new development should be located so as to
minimise the length and number of motorised journeys, accessible by non
car-borne travel. Policy T.3 encourages cycling, Policy T.8 establishes the
necessity of minimum and maximum car parking limits.
Policy NHE.2
Development will be required to protect and wherever possible enhance
biodiversity.
Policy F.1
PT

Provision will not be made for development where it would be at direct risk
from flooding and/or would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. Local
Plans will define area of flood risk.
Policy P.1
Provision will only be made for development where it does not have an
unacceptable effect in terms of:
a) The environment and local community in terms of air, noise or light
pollution;
b) The quality of surface or ground water; or
c) Contamination of the land or soil.
• Local Plan:
The statutory development plan for Gloucester remains the City of
Gloucester Local Plan (Adopted 1983 and partially saved until the Local
Development Framework is adopted).
• Subsequent to the 1983 plan there has also been the City of Gloucester
(Pre-1991 Boundary Extension) Interim Adoption Copy October 1996), and
City of Gloucester First Stage Deposit Local Plan (June 2001).
• Regard must also be had to the 2002 Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan.
This has been subjected to two comprehensive periods of public and
stakeholder consultation and adopted by the Council for development
control purposes. This cannot be saved as it is not a formally adopted
plan, however with it being adopted for development control purposes it is
still judged to be a material consideration. Appeal reference
APP/U1620/A/07/2046996 dated 18 th
March 2008 confirms the degree of
weight that may be afforded to the 2002 Revised Deposit Draft Local Plan.
It is considered that particular weight may be afforded to those policies
that attracted a limited number of, or no objections during the consultation
stages. In his decision the Inspector stated the following;
“Although the local plan is not part of the development plan it has been
adopted for development control purposes and I give considerable weight
to it having regard to the amount of public consultation that it
underwent….”
2002 Plan allocations
The site is within or includes:
Public Open Space – OS.1
Landscape Conservation Area – LCA.1
2002 Plan Policies
The aims of the following additional policies from the City of Gloucester
Second Deposit Local Plan (2002) are relevant in considering this application:
FRP.1a – Development and flood risk
FRP.3 – Obstacles in the floodplain
FRP.5 – Maintenance of water courses
FRP.11 - Pollution
B.7 – Protected species
B.10 – Trees and hedgerows on development sites
LCA.1 – Development within Landscape Conservation Areas
PT

BE.5 – Community safety
BE.12 – Landscape schemes
BE.21 – Safeguarding of amenity
TR.31 - Road Safety
OS.1 – Protection of Public Open Space
Emerging Plan
In terms of the emerging local plan, the Council is preparing a Joint Core
Strategy with Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Councils and has recently
published for consultation a Developing the Preferred Options Document in
December 2011. In addition to the Joint Core Strategy the Council is
preparing a local City Plan which is taking forward the policy framework
contained within the City Council’s Local Development Framework Documents
which reached Preferred Options stage in 2006.
On adoption, the Joint Core Strategy and City Plan will provide a revised
planning policy framework for the Council. In the interim period, weight can be
attached to relevant policies in the emerging plans according to:
• The stage of preparation of the emerging plan
• The extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies;
and
• The degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to
the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework.
3.4 All policies can be viewed at the relevant website address:- Gloucester Local
Plan policies – www.gloucester.gov.uk/planning; Gloucestershire Structure
Plan policies – www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=2112 and
Department of Community and Local Government planning policies -
www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/.
4.0 CONSULTATIONS
External consultees
4.1 The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposals, noting that these
works are considered to provide benefits that may reduce the risk of flooding
to local residents, and that the works will require flood defence consent from
the Environment Agency.
4.2 The Highway Authority raises no objections.
4.3 Elmbridge Neighbourhood Partnership has not commented.
4.4
Internal consultees
BWB Consulting has been employed to review the Flood Risk Assessment
and Fluvial Modelling. BWB concludes that:
▪ The improvements are sufficient to reduce flood risk through the
improvement reach, mitigating the impact of the additional flows from the new
outfall;
▪ The floodplain storage in the park should more than compensate for the
additional runoff from the Triangle development;
PT

▪ Flood levels downstream of the improvement reach will be unaffected by the
proposals.
4.5 The Landscape Architect generally supports the scheme but recommended
that a surfaced path should be provided between the existing and new
footbridges to the north of the park. It was furthermore noted that care should
be taken not to allow overlooking of gardens from the mounded areas,
although it was considered that this had been taken into account as the new
contours tie in with the existing.
4.6 The Environmental Health Protection Service Manager has raised no
objections.
5.0 PUBLICITY AND REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Members may be aware that two public consultation evenings were held
about the proposals prior to the application being submitted.
5.2 112 properties were notified directly of the application. This includes
neighbours to the site and people who submitted written comments at the
earlier public presentation evenings. Ward Councillors for Elmbridge and for
Kingsholm and Wotton were also notified. Two site notices were posted and a
press notice was published. The Press Notice consultation period expires on
the 8 th June 2012. Three representations have been received at the time of
writing.
5.3 Two representations have been received from one resident. The first may be
summarised as follows:
▪ Part of the Project Brief for the supporting Technical Note is not addressed
and the application should not be determined without it;
▪ It is difficult to accept that the statements in the Flood Risk Assessment
about the Wotton Brook flooding adequately describe the causes of the 2007
floods. If they cannot properly investigate the cause then how can they devise
the solution? Please find out where the palisade fencing is that is noted to
have been removed, and why the main contributors (such as Network Rail,
the EA and City Council) are not mentioned;
▪ The submitted documents are confusing because of the variety of names
given to structures. A map was attached to seek to clarify this;
▪ Disappointed and frustrated that the explanation and material provided at the
consultation evenings prior to the application (a video of the floods including a
tree on Network Rail land that caused a blockage when various car parts,
tyres and packaging materials from upstream built up against it) has not been
used advantageously.
(I sent comments in respond seeking to address the points).
The second representation may be summarised as follows:
▪ Despite the response I am not much further forward;
▪ It is strange that LxB would set a Project Brief including a number of tasks
and then accept a Technical Note that omits one of them;
PT

▪ There must be, or have been, something in the pipeline for works upstream,
otherwise why would it have been mentioned;
▪ Unaware of any palisade fencing being removed despite that being
mentioned;
▪ This was an ideal opportunity to put the record straight on the contributory
factors to the 2007 floods, and this just has not been done;
▪ The proposal involves an additional outfall to the brook opposite the
resident’s property – the water from the outfall would be would be travelling
along his part of the watercourse;
▪ The resident’s attempts to get obstructions removed and action taken prior to
the 2007 floods were frustrated by Network Rail and the EA, and he has not
been able to see any of the modelling work;
▪ Has attempted to get involved in the current application process. Who will
stand up and be counted if it is not right?
A further representation was submitted by another local resident. This
followed on from the above comments and expresses similar concerns. The
resident notes that flood water flows through the tunnel arch as well in heavy
rain. He also encourages the Council to get on with the works.
5.4 The full content of all correspondence on this application can be inspected at
the 4 th floor reception, Herbert Warehouse, The Docks, Gloucester, prior to
the Committee meeting.
6.0 OFFICER OPINION
6.1 It is considered that the main issues with regards to this application are as
follows:
• The delivery of mitigation measures
• Flooding issues
• Ecology
• Landscaping
• Highways
• Residential Amenity
EIA Screening
The size and nature of the application proposals mean that the Council is
required to ‘screen’ the application to determine if it is EIA development –
which would require the production of an Environmental Statement. It was
determined under Officer delegated powers that the project is not EIA
development.
The delivery of mitigation measures
6.2 The proposed works relate directly to the effects of the Railway Triangle
scheme in respect of drainage matters and ecological matters.
6.3 Drainage from the Triangle site to the Brook will be throttled to 30 litres per
second with on-site storage to retain water in time of heavy rainfall. Even so
that development would change the discharge regime in the locality, and
PT

Members had explicitly expressed their desire to see the effects of the
proposal on drainage in the area addressed comprehensively when they were
considering the planning brief.
6.4 The proposals would deliver a replacement bridge at a higher level at
Blinkhorns Bridge Lane (to assist the current ‘bottleneck’ effect that can occur
here in times of heavy rainfall), two temporary storage areas adjacent to the
brook for times of high flow, and localised channel widening.
6.5 Development on the Triangle would also have effects on the ecological
interest of the site. The application proposals involve the provision of
enhanced grassland habitat, wetland habitat, tree planting, provision of
different microclimates in the earth mounds, a range of habitats suitable for
invertebrates, and the erection of bird and bat boxes. A new bridge is also
proposed in the park.
6.6 The works are partially on County Council land. The County has no objections
but has mentioned that the works will need to preserve the swale from the
redeveloped St Peter’s School site adjacent (the spoil mounds do not affect
the swale location).
Flooding issues
6.7 The brook and its immediate environs within the park are in Floodzones 2 and
3. The area of Blinkhorns Bridge Lane immediately north of the rail lines is
also Floodzone 2/3. Clearly the flood mitigation works need to take place at
the Brook and ‘flood control infrastructure’ is defined as ‘water compatible
development’ in the NPPF Technical Guidance.
6.8 The proposed works involve the provision of detention areas with a combined
capacity of 5,000 cubic metres. This capacity should be easily sufficient to
cater for the 30l/s additional discharge from the triangle site (detention volume
of 2,592 cubic metres required). It is also understood that the railway culvert
acts as a control on this stretch of the watercourse.
6.9 The flood detention areas are not proposed as permanent water bodies, and it
is anticipated that they would take around 24 hours to drain following a flood
event that fills them.
6.10 The bridge replacement at Blinkhorns Bridge Lane would provide a higher and
more lightweight bridge which, as well as lifting the structure away from the
water and reducing the ‘bottleneck’ effect, also assists in limiting the build up
of debris – which itself can exacerbate flood problems.
6.11 The Environment Agency considers the works to provide benefits that may
reduce the risk of flooding to residents, especially with the removal of the
existing access bridge which is the primary restriction to flow in the locality of
Armscroft Gardens.
6.12 A local resident has raised several issues relating to flood risk. On the issue of
the ‘missing’ part of the project brief – the modelling work was done by Atkins
PT

(who maintain the Wotton Brook model), who were asked to undertake the
modelling for the current application in conjunction with work commissioned
by the EA to look at parts of Wotton Brook upstream in the vicinity of the
industrial areas. As the application modelling was completed first it was
issued in this format. The confusion seems to have arisen because a brief
was prepared to deal with two matters – only one for this application. The EA
has conveyed that it will not make any changes upstream that would have a
detrimental effect downstream. In terms of the difference of opinion about the
fencing – it seems the consultant who produced the report had understood
from the EA and local residents that there used to be a palisade fencing
across the bridge also, which was removed following the 2007 floods given
the build up of debris against it in the floods. Clearly the local resident is not
aware of this having occurred.
6.13 Understandably local residents feel strongly about flood risk issues and
reference is made to the causes of the 2007 floods, and to obstructions on
land upstream. The application under consideration is for works downstream
of the Gallows Bridge culvert.
6.14 It is those works that have been assessed and which are due for
determination. There may or may not be merit in investigating issues
upstream but this application does not involve those matters.
6.15 Officers employed expert advice from BWB Consulting to review the flood
statement and fluvial modelling. Further clarification was provided to assist
BWB’s considerations. BWB advises that the works will mitigate the effects of
the new outfall from the Triangle, reduce flood risk through the improvement
reach, more than compensate for the runoff from the Triangle development
and not affect flood levels downstream.
6.16 As such, and with the support of the Environment Agency, it is considered that
the proposals should be beneficial in flood risk terms.
Ecology
6.17 The frequent mowing/management regime has limited the ecological value of
Wotton Brook and the adjoining grassland. This species-poor environment
would be replaced with improved, diverse habitat. The nearest statutory and
non-statutory sites are so far away that considering the scale and nature of the
works, no significant effects are likely. It is not considered that the proposals
would affect any protected species.
6.18 The proposals provide for a number of significant enhancements to, and new
provision of, wildlife habitats. These provide for, among others, invertebrates,
bats, birds, as well as plants and trees themselves. Enhanced grassland
habitat, new wetland meadow habitat, vegetated bunds, areas of
compacted/shallow soils on the southern bund, new tree planting, and the
erection of bird and bat boxes would all contribute to improved ecological
value for the area.
6.19 Overall the works would result in significant biodiversity benefits.
PT

Landscaping
6.20 The works seek to improve the variety and quality of planting within the park.
Two relatively young trees would be removed, but there is significant new
planting proposed. The landscape officer’s request for a surfaced path
between the northernmost bridges has been satisfied.
6.21 The parkland subject to the works will still be useable, they will just add to the
contouring of the park. This may or may not be seen as adding interest but
fundamentally it will not result in it being un-useable by the public. There will
be no net loss in public open space. For the vast majority of the time the
lowered detention areas would be dry and could be used as with the rest of
the park. The periods when water is retained would likely be very sporadic
and then not for an extended period of time.
6.22 Policy LCA.1 seeks to protect such Landscape Conservation Areas –
preventing development that would detract from the qualities and character of
the area unless in exceptional circumstances. I consider that the proposals
are sensitively designed and landscaped and would at the very least
preserve, and likely significantly enhance, the landscape qualities and
character of the park.
Highways
6.23 There would be no movement of spoil away from the site. Some vehicles
movements will be necessary to get equipment, machinery and planting to the
park. This is not likely to cause any significant effect on the highway network.
6.24 There is no objection from the Highway Authority and I consider that the
proposals are acceptable in highways terms.
Residential amenity
6.25 The bund at the west of the park would involve, at maximum, a rise of the
ground level of 2.3 metres, but because it would be tailored into the existing
levels at the edge of the park, the bunds would not permit any harmful
overlooking to neighbouring residents. Even where the proposed contouring
projects further out into the park at a higher level, this would be more than 20
metres from the boundaries to houses. There is vegetation along the
boundary as well.
6.26 The bund at the south would be up to 2 metres in height, but there are no
residential properties nearby that would be affected. With the proposed
planting it should in fact contribute to screening the waste and aggregates
business to the south.
6.27 Clearly the works would create some local disruption to the condition of the
parkland and while the contractors are on site. This would be for a temporary
period while the improvement works are instated, and with a restriction on
times of work, and a suitable management plan I consider that the amenities
of local residents would be protected.
PT

7.0 CONCLUSION
7.1 The application seeks permission to deliver the drainage and ecological
mitigation measures secured by the approval of the Railway Triangle scheme.
The proposals would improve the flow of the brook and reduce flood risk for
local properties and would enhance the ecological value and planting in the
park. Fluvial modelling has assessed the implications of the works and is
judged to be satisfactory. Subject to conditions no significant harm would be
caused to local residents.
7.2 The proposals would deliver significant benefits and I recommend that
conditional full planning permission is granted.
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER
8.1 That subject to no new material planning issues being raised by the 8 th June
2012, planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions.
Condition 1
The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the 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.
Condition 2
The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
submitted plans referenced;
▪ 11-10-04 Rev. F received by the Local Planning Authority on 28 th May 2012;
th
▪ ‘Armscroft Park Bridge’ received by the Local Planning Authority on 4 April
2012;
th
▪ ‘Blinkhorn’ foot/cycle bridge received by the Local Planning Authority on 29
May 2012;
▪ The Brook widening details at Appendices E and F of the submitted Flood
Statement Ref. G18147 dated February 2012 received by the Local Planning
th
Authority on 5 March 2012;
except where otherwise required by conditions of this permission.
Reason
To ensure that the development is undertaken in accordance with the
approved plans.
Condition 3
The railings to the Armscroft Park bridge shall have a powder coated finish.
Reason
PT

To preserve the quality and character of the park in accordance with the aims
of Policy LCA.1 of the City of Gloucester Second Deposit Local Plan 2002 and
the NPPF.
Condition 4
No development shall commence until details of a treatment preventing
access to the brook at the gaps between the extremities of the existing bridge
at Blinkhorns Bridge Lane and the approved replacement bridge have been
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority (this
treatment shall be designed so as to minimise impediment of flood flows). The
approved treatment shall be implemented in full alongside the construction of
the bridge.
Reason
The approved replacement bridge is narrower than the existing and would
leave gaps to the brook edge. This needs to be addressed in the interests of
public safety with a view to flooding issues, in accordance with the aims of
Policies FRP.1a, FRP.3 and BE.4 of the City of Gloucester Second Deposit
Local Plan 2002 and the NPPF.
Condition 5
No development including demolition or site clearance shall be commenced
on the site or machinery or material brought onto the site for the purpose of
development until full details regarding adequate measures to protect trees
and hedgerows have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. This shall include:
(a) Fencing. Protective fencing must be installed around trees and hedgerows
to be retained on site. The protective fencing design must be to specifications
provided in BS5837:2005 or subsequent revisions, unless agreed in writing
with the local planning authority. A scale plan must be submitted and
approved in writing by the local planning authority accurately indicating the
position of protective fencing. No development shall be commenced on site or
machinery or material brought onto site until the approved protective fencing
has been installed in the approved positions and this has been inspected on
site and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such fencing shall
be maintained during the course of development.
(b) Tree Protection Zone (TPZ). The area around trees and hedgerows
enclosed on site by protective fencing shall be deemed the TPZ. Excavations
of any kind, alterations in soil levels, storage of any materials, soil, equipment,
fuel, machinery or plant, citing of site compounds, latrines, vehicle parking and
delivery areas, fires and any other activities liable to be harmful to trees and
hedgerows are prohibited within the TPZ, unless agreed in writing with the
local planning authority. The TPZ shall be maintained during the course of
development.
Reason
PT

To ensure adequate protection to existing trees which are to be retained, in
the interests of the character and amenities of the area in accordance with
policies B.10 and BE.4 of the Second Deposit City of Gloucester Local Plan
(2002).
Condition 6
No development shall commence on site or machinery or materials brought
onto the site for the purpose of development until a detailed planting
specification has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The submitted design shall include scaled drawings and a
written specification clearly describing the species, sizes, densities and
planting numbers.
Reason
To ensure a satisfactory and well planned development and to preserve and
enhance the quality of the environment in accordance with Policy BE.12 of the
Second Deposit City of Gloucester Local Plan (2002).
Condition 7
All planting, seeding or turfing set out in the approved plans and specified in
the approved details of landscaping (as pursuant to Condition 5 above) shall
be carried out concurrently with the development or (if necessary) in the first
planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the earthworks,
whichever is the sooner.
Reason
In order to protect the visual amenities of the area in accordance with policies
BE.4 and BE.12 of the Second Deposit City of Gloucester Local Plan (2002).
Condition 8
Excavation, demolition and construction work, and the delivery of materials,
shall be limited to the hours of 0800 hours to 1800 hours Monday to Friday
and 0800 hours to 1300 hours on Saturdays and no excavation, demolition,
construction or deliveries shall take place on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
Reason
In the interests of the amenities of the locality, in accordance with policy
BE.21 of the Second Deposit City of Gloucester Local Plan (2002).
Condition 9
No works of excavation, demolition or construction shall commence until a
Works Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include;
▪ The location of the contractors’ compound/s;
▪ Measures to avoid damage to the rugby pitches;
▪ Measures to avoid mud being transferred to the highway;
PT

▪ Measures to minimise disruption to local residents in terms of noise, impact
on the local highways and the use of remaining areas of the park.
Excavation, demolition and construction works shall only be undertaken in
accordance with the approved Works Management Plan.
Reason
To protect the amenities of local residents, preserve highway safety and
accord with the recommendations in the supporting reports, in accordance
with the aims of Policies BE.21 and TR.31 of the City of Gloucester Second
Deposit Local Plan 2002.
Reasons for Approval
The application has been carefully assessed. It is considered that the
proposals would deliver benefits to the local area in terms of flood risk and
ecological value, while preserving the character and quality of the Landscape
Conservation Area and maintaining useable public open space. Fluvial
modelling of the works, highway safety and residential amenity have also
been carefully assessed and subject to conditions no significant harm would
be caused. The application is considered to comply with Policies FRP.1a,
FRP.3, FRP.5, FRP.11, B.7, B.10, LCA.1, BE.5, BE.12, BE.21, TR.31 and
OS.1 of the City of Gloucester Second Deposit Local Plan 2002 and the
NPPF.
Note
The applicant is advised that the works will require flood defence consent from
the Environment Agency.
Note
Should any temporary access be needed from Coronation Grove then a
license will be required from Gloucestershire Highways (tel. 08000 514514).
Note
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) – Birds
All birds, their nests and eggs are protected by law and it is thus an offence
to:
intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird
intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst it is in
use or being built
intentionally take or destroy the egg of any wild bird
intentionally (or recklessly in England and Wales) disturb any wild bird listed
on Schedule1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young,
or disturb the dependent young of such a bird. The maximum penalty that
can be imposed - in respect of a single bird, nest or egg - is a fine of up to
£5,000, six months imprisonment or both.
The applicant is therefore reminded that it is an offence under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) to remove or work on any hedge, tree or
building where that work involves the taking, damaging or destruction of any
PT

nest of any wild bird while the nest is in use or being built, (usually between
late February and late August or late September in the case of swifts,
swallows or house martins). If a nest is discovered while work is being
undertaken, all work must stop and advice sought from English Nature and
the Council's Ecologist.
Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Conservation (Nat.
Habitats & C.) Regs 1994 – Bats
It is an offence for any person to:
Intentionally kill, injure or take a bat. Under the Habitats Regulations it is an
offence to deliberately capture or kill a bat.
Intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to any place
that a bat uses for shelter or protection. This is taken to mean all bat roosts
whether bats are present or not.
Under the Habitats Regulations it is an offence to damage or destroy a
breeding site or resting place of any bat. This is an absolute offence - in other
words, intent or recklessness does not have to be proved.
The applicant is therefore reminded that it is an offence under the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and Conservation Regulations 1994 that
works to trees or building where that work involves the disturbance of a bat is
an offence if a licence has not been obtained by DEFRA. If a bat is discovered
while work is being undertaken, all work must stop and advice sought from
English Nature and the Council's Ecologist. You can also call the UK Bat
helpline on 0845 133 228
Decision: ....................................................................................................................
Notes: .........................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................
Person to contact:
Adam Smith
(Tel: 396702)
PT

12/00218/FUL
Armscroft Park And Wotton Brook
Off Coronation Grove
Gloucester
Planning Committee 12.06.2012
© Crown copyright and database rights 2011 Ordnance Survey 10019169
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil
proceedings.

Adam Smith - Principal Planning Officer
Gloucester City Council
Herbert Warehouse
The Docks
Gloucester
GL1 2EQ
Our Ref: TG/RG/BMW2091
Contact: Robin.Green
Direct Dial: 0121 212 8710
Date: 28 th May 2012
Dear Adam
ARMSCROFT PARK, GLOUCESTER -APPLICATION REF. 12/00218/FUL
Further to your instruction on the 17 th May 2012, we have undertaken a verification of
the fluvial modelling reports supporting this application, specifically to verify whether
they demonstrate that the proposed flood mitigation works will not increase the risk of
flooding downstream of the new outfall of the railway triangle development. The results
of the exercise are discussed below.
Introduction
BWB Consulting were approached by Gloucester City Council to verify the fluvial
modelling reports which accompanied a planning application for off-site flood mitigation
works within Armscroft Park, which are being proposed to offset the impact of a new
surface water outfall from the ‘railway triangle’ development. Specifically it was
requested to verify that the reports demonstrate that the proposals will not increase the
risk of flooding downstream of the new outfall. The reports reviewed as part of this
appointment include:
• Tomasons Ltd, 2012. Armscroft Park, Gloucester - Flood Risk Statement.
(G18147)
• Atkins, 2012. Armscroft Modelling Technical Note - I2.
• Environment Agency consultation response - Ref: SV/2012/106163/01-L01
It is reported that the mitigation works include flood detention areas within Armscroft
Park to compensate for the additional runoff volume from the railway triangle
development. As well as improvements to the Wotton Brook to increase channel capacity
between the development’s outfall and Armscorft Park, and a replacement of the
restrictive Blinkhorn’s Bridge, to compensate for the increase in flows resulting of the
new outfall.

Flood Risk Statement
The Flood Risk Statement utilises the Manning’s Equation to compare estimates of the
pre- and post-mitigation bridge and channel capacities. The equation appears to have
been applied correctly, but this approach is considered too simplistic for supporting a
significant change to channel hydraulics in a sensitive flood risk area, as it omits the
impact of surcharging and hydraulic interactions with the upstream and downstream
system (e.g.: backwater effect). However, the exercise does suggest that the proposals
will increase the efficiency of the fluvial system through the improvement reach. It also
demonstrates that the upstream ‘Gallows Bridge culvert’ is the hydraulic control on flows
reaching the improvement reach. The report compares the proposed 30l/s discharge rate
from the railway triangle development against the flows through the culvert, which
represents a 0.4% increase to the 1 in 100 year flows.
The report estimates the maximum runoff from the development site over a 24hr period
(2592m 3 ), and offers to provide 5000m 3 of floodplain storage within the park, thereby
over compensating for the runoff volume from the development.
However, it is considered that the potential upstream flood risk benefits or downstream
impacts of the proposals have not been quantitatively or qualitatively assessed
sufficiently within this report alone.
Modelling Technical Note
The modelling technical note utilises the Environment Agency’s ISIS-TUFLOW hydraulic
model of the Wotton Brook to compare the proposed mitigation (with additional inflow
from the development) against the existing conditions. It should be noted that the
proposed flood detention basins are not referenced within the technical note; therefore it
is assumed that these have been omitted from the modelling exercise.
A hydraulic model offers a much more comprehensive and robust assessment of the
complex in-channel hydraulics and interactions, but it relies on the model providing a
stable and accurate representation of the fluvial system – this review assumes that the
model is fit for purpose.
As part of the modelling exercise it is reported that the existing and post-mitigation
models were tested against the following scenarios: 1 in 100 year; 1 in 100 year plus
climate change; and a 25% and 50% blockage of Blinkhorn’s Bridge at the 100 year plus
climate change event. Flood levels for the scenarios were compared at 5 locations along
the improvement reach and 2 additional locations within Armscroft Park.
The report shows that water levels within the improvement reach are lowered as a result
of the flood mitigation works (by between 440mm to 20mm). It is reported that the most
significant betterment is observed upstream of Blinkhorn’s Bridge (reductions of up to
440mm), where the replacement bridge resolves the significant surcharging as observed
on the existing structure – i.e.: instead of flood flows passing over the old bridge they
pass under the new bridge. It is considered that this would offer betterment to the local
flooding issues; it is also likely that the elevated soffit and larger bore area of the
redesigned bridge would reduce the risk of debris accumulation and blockages. The
report also demonstrates that the replacement bridge performs better than the existing
during the hypothetical blockage scenarios.
The impacts of the proposed works downstream of Blinkhorn’s Bridge are shown to be
less pronounced, a reduction in flood levels of between 20mm and 60mm; it is reported
that this is a result of the widening of the channel. Peak flood levels within Armscroft
Park, downstream of the mitigation works, are shown to be essentially unaffected.

Flood levels upstream the Gallows Bridge culvert are shown to be impacted by between
20mm and -30mm, despite the downstream water levels being significantly reduced (the
head differential increased). It is argued that this is a result of flows being throttled by
the culvert; therefore the risk of increased pass-on flows would be mitigated.
EA Consultations
It is reported that the EA were consulted during the pre-application stage, and following
a review of the planning application as a statutory consultee the EA has stated that they
have no objection to the principle of the scheme (ref: SV/2012/106163/01-L01). A
follow-up discussion with John Foulds (EA - Development and Flood Risk Engineer) was
undertaken as part of this appointment which revealed that: the EA were satisfied that
the Gallow Bridge culvert is the control on flows, so pass-on flows will not be increased
significantly as a result of the scheme; and that the channel improvements and
replacement bridge will help reduce flood risk between the new outfall and the park; and
that any potential increase to the flood risk within the park resulting from the additional
discharge from the development would be more than offset by the proposed flood
detention areas.
Summary
The hydraulic modelling technical note demonstrates that the proposed improvements to
Blinkhorn’s Bridge and the Wotton Brook channel between the new outfall and Armscroft
Park is sufficient to reduce flood risk through the improvement reach, thereby mitigating
the impact of the additional flows from the new outfall.
An additional 5000m 3 of floodplain storage within Armscroft Park is being offered as part
of the works, this is almost twice the estimated runoff volume from the ‘railway triangle’
and although this element is omitted from the hydraulic modelling exercise, it is believed
that it should more than compensate for the additional runoff volume from the
development.
The technical note shows that flood levels downstream of the improvement reach will be
unaffected by the proposed mitigation due to the upstream restrictive culvert, this
demonstrates that pass-on flows and downstream flood risk will not be significantly
affected.
Yours sincerely
Robin Green
Senior Engineer - Water Environment