Agenda item

Application for determination

 

Contact: Development Control – tel: (01452) 396783

Councillors Williams and Toleman had declared personal non-prejudicial interests as Board Members of Gloucester City Homes.

 

Councillor Smith declared a prejudicial interest as she lived near the site and could be affected by the impact of increased traffic. She left the meeting during consideration of this item.

 

The Principal Planning Officer presented her report which detailed an outline application for the erection of up to 420 dwellings and community space/building as well as associated landscaping, public open space, access, drainage, infrastructure, earthworks and other ancillary enabling works on land at Winnycroft Lane, Matson.

 

She advised that it had been intended to send the late material on Monday but this had not been possible due to e-mail problems. She noted that the highways comments had been omitted from the committee report in error and advised that the reference to English heritage on Page 36 of the late material should read that English Heritage had no objection to the application.

 

She drew Members’ attention to the revised recommendation contained within the late material.

 

Councillor Haigh, ward Member for Matson and Robinswood, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Councillor Haigh welcomed the application and stated that the developer had undertaken considerable consultation in the community. She advised that local residents understood the need for high quality housing and were keen that this development should become part of their community.

 

She hoped that the community would benefit from the S.106 contributions in particular Matson library and improvements to bus services. Traffic on Winnycroft Lane was a serious concern and she hoped that there would be serious mitigation at the junction with Painswick Road.

 

She believed that the sports pitches had not been included at the request of the local community who would have preferred for the monies to be spent on existing sports facilities within the ward.

 

She expressed disappointment at the proposed amount of affordable housing but supported the proposed reviews and asked Members to consider the provision of fifteen per cent affordable housing to be the absolute minimum acceptable on this site.

 

Keith Fenwick for the applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application.

 

Mr Fenwick stated that the application was the result of fourteen months of detailed negotiations with Council Officers who had ensured the robustness of the scheme.

Barwood had been involved with the local community since the summer of 2013 and had produced a proposal that would produce 100 jobs, £4.9 million local spend and £3.43 million for local services.

 

Consultants engaged by the applicant had concluded that the scheme would only be viable with zero provision of affordable housing and Barwood had offered ten per cent on or off site

 

Mr Fenwick noted that the Council’s consultant had suggested fifteen per cent but he believed that this figure was not supported by the same level of evidence as the applicant’s figures.

 

He suggested that in order to prevent the joint working going to waste, should no agreement be reached before the end of January, both parties enter into binding Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) arbitration.

 

Barwood would underwrite the Council’s costs and would be content to be bound by the findings.

 

In conclusion, Barwood welcomed the opportunity to provide a valued extension to an existing community.

 

Councillor Lewis welcomed the application which he would only support on the basis of the provision of fifteen per cent or more affordable housing. He noted the Joint Core Strategy target of forty per cent and asked the Council’s consultant to explain.

 

Lionel Shelley, the consultant engaged by the Council to advise on viability issues, explained that he had run a number of appraisals but he considered the main issue was the base land value. The applicant’s consultant had used a price to value the land but he referred to a recent case in Islington where the Department for Communities and Local Government commented that land values should reflect policy requirements.

 

Councillor Hilton referred to the quantity of late material and asked why the application could not have waited until the next scheduled meeting of the Committee. He noted that the JCS proposed forty per cent affordable housing on sites of ten or more dwellings. He believed that the application was an attempt to circumvent the core strategy. he noted that the site was farm land with no archaeological concerns, no history of contamination and historic buildings  so he called on the Committee to reject the application until a proper level of affordable housing could be achieved. 

 

Councillor Chatterton questioned the Police contribution request. The Solicitor explained that the police had been given an opportunity to make further representations as the original request had not taken into account recent appeals involving Community Infrastructure Levy Regulation 123 which prohibited the pooling of contributions. With the exception of the costs of providing a policing point 98 per cent of the contribution was not pertinent and could not be directly related to the site.

Councillor McLellan questioned the contribution toward education as he was expecting the provision of a site for a school. He was advised that even with the other site being taken into account, the total number of dwellings would not require the provision of a school on the site.

 

He expressed concerns regarding the impact on traffic using Winnycroft Lane and the provision of affordable housing. He noted that the site could change ownership several times before development was fully achieved and each owner would require to make a profit.

 

Jamie Mattock, GCC Highway Officer advised that there was no evidence available to suggest that Winnycroft Lane would be unsafe. Widths varied from 6.5 to 6.7 metres and two cars could pass in 4.1 metres width. She noted that sheep on the highway was not an unusual occurrence but this happened on roads with far heavier traffic on the Cotswolds and in the Forest of Dean. She confirmed that the Highway Authority was satisfied with the proposals.

 

Councillor Williams echoed Councillor McLellan’s comments and she noted that health needs had not been addressed in the report. She stated that the general practitioners were at full stretch and the number of residents would impact on Gloucester Royal Hospital.

 

The Principal Planning Officer advised that there were surgeries in Matson and Abbeydale and that the latter had planning permission for a significant extension. She advised that the provision of medical facilities was a matter for the JCS and the City Plan.

 

In answer to a question from the Chair, she advised that land had been allocated for a surgery at Kingsway which still had not been provided.

 

Councillor Toleman what risks would arise if the Council considered arbitration or at an appeal.

 

The Development Control Manager stated that should Members approve the revised recommendation it would remain to be seen if the Applicant would sign the S.106 agreement. If he did not the matter would come back to Members to consider and if he did there was a provision in legislation for the applicant to request an early review. if the matter went to appeal, an inspector could take the view that no affordable housing was required.

 

The Chair was not happy with fifteen per cent on what may be the last significant greenfield site without contamination in the City.

 

The Senior Planning Policy Officer advised that the JCS policy had not yet been considered by the Inspector and the forty per cent affordable housing policy was yet to be adopted.

 

Councillor McLellan was advised that Section 106 contributions were required to be reasonable, necessary and directly related to the development.

 

The Development Control Manager advised that provision of a site for a school could impact upon other factors and further affect the viability of the proposal.

 

Councillor Chatterton believed that the local school was an academy and not obliged to expand. He referred to Page 11 of the late material where the JCS consultants, PBA, believed that twenty per cent affordable housing was achievable.

 

Lionel Shelley explained that the PBA figures related to a high level assessment which was not specific to each site in the JCS.

 

The Development Control Manager believed that it was important that Members should consider viability taking into account all the S.106 contributions which totalled £3.3 million. The applicant considered that ten per cent affordable housing was viable, the Council’s consultant recommended fifteen per cent and he cautioned against seeking twenty per cent on the basis of higher level analysis.

 

Councillor Hilton moved the recommendation in the Late Material with the amendment that a minimum of twenty per cent affordable housing be required rather than fifteen per cent. The motion was seconded.

 

RESOLVED that subject to no new material planning considerations being raised within the consultation period, the completion of a section 106 agreement to secure the requested planning obligations together with the provision of a minimum of 20% affordable housing (and a review mechanism for the re-assessment of the viability of the scheme), that outline planning permission be granted subject to detailed conditions covering the issues detailed below, (and any further conditions considered necessary) and that delegated powers be granted to the Development Control Manager to prepare the detailed wording of the conditions. The review mechanism referred to will be undertaken upon the completion of 140 dwellings and a subsequent review undertaken at a period of 3 years from the occupation of the 140^th dwelling. At this 3 year period, the assessment shall apply to all the remaining unoccupied dwellings (built and unbuilt) at that time.

 

 

Conditions to be attached will include the following, with any others considered necessary. It will also be appropriate for some of the conditions to be dealt with on a phased basis.

Standard outline conditions

Reserved matters applications requiring all details except means of access to the site.

Approval of plans submitted

Submission of phasing plan with agreement for some conditions to be dealt with on a phased basis.

Full drainage details including full details of any pumping station

Detailed plans of ponds with levels and sections

Provision of buffer to watercourse

Restriction on hours of construction work and deliveries to and from the site.

Provision of car parking for site operatives within the site.

Details of storage of materials and temporary buildings during construction.

Secure fencing to the construction site.

Measures to protect trees during construction works.

No removal/felling of landscape features during the bird nesting season.

Details of proposals to strengthen and improve hedgerows to be retained and proposals for new tree and hedge planting.

Protection of new landscaping for 5 years.

Ecological method statement and management plan including updated survey information in relation to bats and badgers.

Details of existing and proposed levels across the site

Details of noise mitigation proposals (including noise bund and fencing) prior to commencement of works, measures in place prior to occupation and sample testing prior to occupation.

Submission of programme of further archaeological work,

Submission of site investigative report and measures to deal with any contamination found and any remediation work undertaken prior to occupation, with sample testing and details of long term monitoring.

Conditions as recommended by Highway Authority – (there is some overlap with conditions referred to above so these will be amalgamated).

No works shall commence on site until details of the pedestrian crossing improvements along Matson Avenue at Gatmeres Road, Munsley Grove, Hill Hay Road, St Peter’s Road, Red Well Road and Winsley Road shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of the site.

Reason:- To ensure that [the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework

No works shall commence on site until details of capacity improvements to the signalised junction of Norbury Avenue/Painswick Road have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation of the site

Reason: To ensure that cost effective improvements are undertaken to the transport network that mitigate the significant impacts of the development in accordance with paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Prior to the occupation of the dwellings a bus shelter (to include seating and lighting) shall be erected at the existing stop along Matson Avenue located between the junction of Gatmeres Road and Caledonian Road on the south western bound direction in accordance with details to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure that the development is designed to provide access to high quality public transport facilities in accordance with paragraph 35 of the Framework.

 

Details of the layout and access, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before any development begins and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. No dwelling on the development shall be occupied until the carriageway(s) (including surface water drainage/disposal, vehicular turning head(s) and street lighting)  providing access from the nearest public Highway to that dwelling have been completed to at least binder course level and the footway(s) to surface course level.

 

Reason: To minimise hazards and inconvenience for users of the development by ensuring that there is a safe and suitable means of access for all people in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the Framework.

 

No development shall be commenced until details of the proposed arrangements for future management and maintenance of the proposed streets within the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The streets shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved management and maintenance details until such time as either a dedication agreement has been entered into or a private management and maintenance company has been established.

 

Reason: To ensure that safe and suitable access is achieved and maintained for all people as required by paragraph 32 of the Framework

 

No development shall commence on site until a scheme has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by the Council, for the provision of fire hydrants (served by mains water supply) and no dwelling shall be occupied until the hydrant serving that property has been provided to the satisfaction of the Council.

 

Reason: To ensure adequate water infrastructure provision is made on site for the local fire service to tackle any property fire in accordance with Paragraphs 32 and 35 of the Framework.

 

Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted, the vehicular access shall be laid out and constructed broadly in accordance with the submitted plan drawing nos. 21099_08_020_01B and 21099_08_020_02B, and shall be maintained for the duration of the development.

 

Reason: To reduce potential highway impact by ensuring the access is suitably laid out and constructed to provide safe and suitable access in accordance with Paragraph 32 of the Framework.

 

The details to be submitted for the approval of reserved matters shall include vehicular parking and turning and loading/unloading facilities within the site, and the building(s) hereby permitted shall not be occupied until those facilities have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and shall be maintained available for those purposes for the duration of the development.

 

Reason:- To reduce potential highway impact by ensuring that adequate parking and manoeuvring facilities are available within the site, in the interests of highway safety.

 

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The Statement shall:

 

i. specify the type and number of vehicles;

 

ii. provide for the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors;

 

iii. provide for the loading and unloading of plant and materials;

 

iv. provide for the storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development;

 

v. provide for wheel washing facilities;

 

vi. specify the intended hours of construction operations;

 

vii. measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction

 

Reason: To reduce the potential impact on the public highway and accommodate the efficient delivery of goods and supplies in accordance paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

 

NOTES:

The proposed development will involve works to be carried out on the public highway and the Applicant/Developer is required to enter into a legally binding Highway Works Agreement (including an appropriate bond) with the County Council before commencing those works.

 

The proposed development will require a Travel Plan as part of the transport mitigation package (together with a Monitoring Fee and Default Payment) and the Applicant/Developer is required to enter into a legally binding Planning Obligation Agreement with the County Council to secure the Travel Plan.

 

The site is traversed by a public right of way and this permission does not authorise additional use by motor vehicles, or obstruction, or diversion.

The developer will be expected to meet the full costs of supplying and installing the fire hydrants and associated infrastructure.

 

The applicant is advised that to discharge condition 7 above that the local planning authority requires a copy of a completed dedication agreement between the applicant and the local highway authority or the constitution and details of a Private Management and Maintenance Company confirming funding, management and maintenance regimes. maintain a strong sense of place to create attractive and comfortable places to live, work and visit as required by paragraph 58 of the Framework.

 

The developer will be expected to meet the full costs of supplying and installing the fire hydrants and associated infrastructure.