Agenda item

Application for determination:

Residential development of 180 no. dwellings (Class C3); vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access from Winnycroft Lane; public open space and landscaping; drainage attenuation, acoustic barrier and other associated works (Environmental Impact Assessment development).

This application was deferred at the previous Planning Committee meeting.

The Senior Planner presented the report detailing an application for a Residential development of 180 no. dwellings (Class C3); vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access from Winnycroft Lane; public open space and landscaping; drainage attenuation, acoustic barrier, and other associated works (Environmental Impact Assessment development).

During his presentation, the Senior Planner highlighted the fact that since the publication of the agenda, an updated drainage strategy system had been submitted so the issues outlined in paragraph 18.5 of the report were no longer pertinent and could be disregarded as an objection.

He highlighted the fact the public right of way would be redirected through the site.

He stated that since the deferral of the application at the previous planning meeting, the applicant and officers had had numerous discussions regarding concerns about the application. He said that the applicant and the officers had agreed a revised Heads of Terms. He said that there had been more discussions about a Heritage Management Plan. He said that the City Archaeologist had suggested that Historic England, the applicant, and the Authority could enter into a Heritage Partnership Agreement. The applicant was content to enter discussions regarding this matter. The applicant had also provided a revised Heritage Plan. However, officers had not yet had a sufficient opportunity to examine it in depth. However, from the City Archaeologist’s point of view, a Heritage Partnership Agreement was a potential avenue that could make the application more appropriate, though it may have to be required through a S106 agreement or planning conditions. He also said that the applicant now proposed to provide a greater contribution to public open space provision, though they would reduce the amount they would spend on Education contributions. He concluded by stating that the recommendation was still for refusal for the reasons set out in the report.

A local resident spoke in opposition to the application.

He said that the application should be rejected on the following grounds:

-          He asked the Committee to consider the impact the application would have on the local community. With the granting of other applications in the area, additional pressure had already been placed on local residents. The granting of the application would further add to this.

-          The impact of other local developments (Winnycroft) should be assessed in further detail before judging the impact the application before the Planning Committee would have.

-          There was a great crested newt colony in the scheduled ancient monument and the effect on them may be catastrophic.

An operations director at Bromford spoke in favour of the application.

He stated that the application should be granted on the following grounds:

-          It was unique for an application of the one in front of the committee to have the support of so many community groups and people, including the Member of Parliament for Gloucester (Richard Graham MP)

-          There would be a local lettings agreement that put Matson’s residents first.

-          Bromford were committed to long term plan to protect the scheduled ancient monument

-          They had increased their Public Space Provision contributions.

-          The applicant would still contribute more than £1 million to education.

-          The applicant had made changes to the Drainage design which can be dealt with via conditions.

-          They had been collaborative throughout the process.

-          The applicant had increased affordable homes contribution percentage from 50% to 76%.

Members’ Questions

The Senior Planner responded to Members’ questions concerning the Great Crested Newt colony, whether the City Archaeologist’s  objection would remain if a Heritage Partnership Agreement was agreed, whether the proposed bond by the applicant would be sufficient to protect the monument, questions about how noise would be mitigated, how the Moat would be protected to ensure no one fell in, whether the public right of way officers objected to the application, whether there was a bridal path running through the site, whether Highways England had been consulted, whether there were other Heritage Partnership Agreements in Gloucester, whether there would be disruption to local residents during the construction phase and whether the Heritage Partnership Agreement would need to be secured via conditions as follows:

-        Officers were aware of the Great Crested Newts on site. It had been reviewed by the Ecological Consultant and they were satisfied that the development would not affect the Newts. The applicant would have to secure a Great Crested Newt Licence prior to any development.

-          The City Archaeologist’s  objection to the application would remain even with a Heritage Partnership Agreement as he objected to the principle of development. However, the City Archaeologist was more satisfied with the application in comparison to the previous meeting. The applicant had recently submitted a revised Heritage Plan, but officers had not yet had an opportunity to thoroughly assess it.

-       The applicant had put forward a bond (£50,000) for the protection of the scheduled ancient monument if it was needed to be drawn upon. This could be looked into in the partnership agreement.

-       There would be a buffer of open space, paths will be mown in. There would be some restricted access, the applicant was overproviding in terms of Green Space (though the exact amount was debated with officers). 

-       The Moat would have to be secured to stop any member of the public falling in. There was currently fencing around the Moat. Some of the meadow planting around the site would also restrict access. There may have to be a condition to provide details of the long-term monitoring of the site.

-       The public right of way officers were not objecting to the application.

-       There was not a bridle path going through the site.

-       There would be a creation of an acoustic bund between the new dwellings and the M5.

-        Highways England were consulted but did not respond as the site did not encroach on their land. The acoustic bund would have to be maintained by the applicant.

-       The applicant originally proposed maintaining the bund.

-       There was a heritage partnership agreement with Llanthony Priory. Therefore, the idea of a heritage partnership agreement was not unique to the application before the committee.

-       There would be some disruption during the construction phase. However, it could be dealt with Planning conditions.

-       Based on the discussions with the City Archaeologist, the requirement for a Heritage Partnership Agreement would probably necessitate the need for a condition as well as well as it is forming a part of the S106 agreement.

Members’ Debate

Councillor J.Brown noted that there were objections from Historic England and several other parties to the application. She said that she was impressed with the speech from Councillor O’Donnell during the previous Committee meeting and that she understood that Matson required affordable housing. She said that however, quality housing should not come at the expense of everything else, including the scheduled ancient monument. She stated that she would vote in line with the officer recommendation for refusal.

The Vice-Chair stated that he wanted to praise all those in involved in dealing with the application since the deferral at the previous Committee meeting. He said that a large amount of hard work had gone into seeking improvement and clarification of the matters that were of concern at the previous meeting. He said that the fact that the body of the Scheduled Ancient Monument itself would not be affected by the granting of the application was important. He said that he believed that the benefits of the application outweighed the effect it would have on the Scheduled Ancient Monument and that he would vote in favour of the application and against the officer recommendation.

Councillor Dee stated that she was leaning towards being in favour of the application owing to the large percentage of affordable houses the scheme would provide.

The Chair stated that he agreed with the points raised by the Vice-Chair.

Councillor Gravells noted that he could not think of any greater public benefit for the area than 76% affordable housing and that he would be supporting the application and voting against the officer recommendation.

The Chair moved, and the Vice-Chair) seconded a motion to delegate permission to the Planning Development Manager to approve the application subject to conditions outlined in the report, agreed to by the Planning Development Manager and a S106 agreement, as the adverse impact on the Scheduled Ancient Monument did not outweigh the benefits of the application.

RESOLVED that: - delegation be granted to the Planning Development to approve the application subject to conditions outlined in the report, agreed to by the Planning Development Manager and a S106 agreement, including a Heritage Partnership Agreement, as the adverse impact on the Scheduled Ancient Monument did not outweigh the benefits of the application.