Agenda item

Application for Determination:

Erection of 35 affordable dwellings, upgrade of existing access and other associated works.

Officer Report

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report detailing an application for the erection of 35 affordable dwellings, upgrade of existing access and other associated works.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that the submitted Site Section Plan (Section A-A) incorrectly identified the closest neighbouring property as number 15 Tern Close. It should have read 16 Tern Close. Reference to no. 15 Tern Close in paragraph 6.39 in the report should also be amended to no. 16 Tern Close.

Public Speeches

A representative of Bromford addressed the Committee in favour of the application.

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

• Gloucester had over 4,700 people on its waiting list; granting the application would reduce this.
• Bromford Housing was already working cooperatively with the City Council to help combat the housing shortage.
• Application sites, including the Holly House site, would be part of the 629 new homes in the City of Gloucester that Bromford planned to deliver. This equated to £153 million of investment over the next six years.
• Bromford had a neighbourhood coaching model that put residents at the heart of the community.
• The applicant would maintain the site in the long term and recruit local people during the construction process, where possible.
• The 35 proposed dwellings on a disused brownfield site would provide much-needed properties for families and a range of other people.
• Bromford was selected by the NHS as the preferred developer.
• The homes were a mix of two, three, and four bedrooms.
• The two bungalows were of the M4(3) category, meaning they were wheelchair accessible.
• Each property would be socially rented, which was the most affordable type of rent.
• Each dwelling would have its own garden.
• Properties would be energy efficient.
• Bromford had carefully considered how to protect trees on site.
• The proposed site would be supplemented with 39 new trees.
• Bromford had a strong understanding of the local area, as it was adjacent to another Bromford site.
• The application had the support of the local ward member (Cllr Millard). 

Members’ Questions

The Principal Planning Officer responded to members’ questions concerning whether the properties would remain as social housing, in the event that the developer changed, whether any play areas had been identified in the locality and whether it should be included in the application, whether the driveways had any grass on them, whether the greenery to the front of the dwellings were to be maintained by residents, how long would the developer maintain the landscape for, whether each dwelling had parking, why the biodiversity net gain would be off site, whether the developer could be encouraged to work with Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust to make the most effective use of the landscape, whether adequate funding would be provided for planting and maintaining, the proposed (tanked) permeable paving for some vehicular areas, whether the tanked water could be used for communal watering, Japanese Knotweed on nearby properties and whether local residents would have a stake in where trees would be planted as follows:

• The legal agreement would stipulate that the properties would be used as Social Rent Dwellings.
• The applicant was not proposing to pay for sport or public open space contributions, owing to the viability assessment. The officers’ judgement was that the provision of 35 affordable dwellings outweighed this. There would be  an area of open space at the entrance to the site.
• Some of the trees would be street trees. These would be maintained by Gloucestershire Highways. Regarding the maintenance of the open space, Bromford would be responsible for those areas.
• Bromford had stated that they would maintain the landscape in perpetuity unless a different arrangement (e.g. a management company) was made.
• There was parking for each plot. The number of parking spaces proposed exceeded the minimum requirement, with each plot having either 2 or 3 parking spaces.
• The applicant had maximised on-site planting and had engaged in a robust dialogue with the ecologist. There was a need to provide some off-site planting to ensure a net gain in biodiversity.
• Given the dimensions of the site, if properties fronted the river, this would result in properties backing onto the main access road. The proposed layout was considered to be the most logical and appropriate in terms of the overall design. There would be  a wildlife corridor along the riverbank, and planting would be maximised for wildlife benefit.
• There was a construction and ecological management plan, with the ecological management plan focusing on the long term.
• The proposed permeable paving (tanked) for some vehicular areas was related to maintaining water quality.
• The run-off rates would be mitigated.
• She was not aware if it would be possible to use water collected from the (tanked) permeable paving areas to water landscaped areas. 
• The applicant could only deal with matters relating to the site. Discussions could take place with the developer regarding any knotweed off-site, but they cannot require the developer to address off-site issues.
• A detailed landscape scheme had been provided and reviewed by the landscape officer.
• The off-site biodiversity gain would be at a site in Tewkesbury. 

The Planning Development Manager responded to members' questions regarding concerns raised about biodiversity net gain being off-site in Tewkesbury as follows:

• A broker agreement had been arranged for a site in Tewkesbury in cases where an applicant could not provide biodiversity net gain on site. They were working on setting up a site in Gloucester for the future. In response to an additional question about whether the local primary school could have been contacted and asked if they wished to be used for biodiversity net gain, the Planning Manager responded that they needed to secure fully brokered sites.

The Highways Officers responded to members’ questions concerning the speed table and whether larger vehicles could pass through the site as follows:

• The speed table at the entrance was on West Lodge Drive. The proposed speed table was approximately 50-70m from the nearest dwelling.
• Highways had confirmed that a refuse vehicle could pass through the street. When it came to the Section 38 process, there would be an option to review the technical details of the kerb specification.

Members’ Debate

Councillor Tracey stated that she liked the development and would support the officer's recommendation.

Councillor A. Chambers questioned whether fire engines would be able to pass through the site. The Highways Officer confirmed that this had been tested and they could.

Councillor A. Chambers stated that there had been issues with fly-tipping, anti-social behaviour, and the maintenance of greenery in the area, and that approving the scheme would help combat these. He believed that it was a good scheme overall.

Councillor Wiederhold noted that the late material stated there would be more education spaces required, and that the application was not offering contributions towards education. He questioned whether officers were satisfied that school places in the area would be sufficient. In response, the Principal Planning Officer explained that any additional school places would need to be funded by the County Council, as the applicant had undergone a viability assessment, and the scheme would not be viable if they were required to make education contributions.

Councillor Jones commented that it would have been good to secure contributions towards libraries as part of the scheme. He was pleased to see that the application included solar panels and EV charging points. However, he questioned what Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) the dwellings would have and how well insulated they would be. In response, the Principal Planning Officer noted that she was unaware of the specific EPC ratings or certification but referred to paragraph 6.81 of the officer’s report, which set out the proposals to reduce energy demand.

Councillor S. Chambers stated that she believed it was a good application but raised concerns about the biodiversity net gains being off-site in Tewkesbury. She suggested that this should be looked at in the future. She added that it was positive the application would provide much-needed affordable dwellings, and although she would have liked to see more double-bedroom homes, the application was overall a positive one.

The Chair proposed, and the Vice-Chair seconded, a motion to accept the officer’s recommendation. 

The Principal Planning Officer provided a further update in terms of the request from the Highway Authority for £5,000 towards consultation and costs involved in the application process for the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) required to install a raised table speed cushion fronting the access to West Lodge Drive. Although the report includes this in the agreed Heads of Term for the S106 Agreement, the Highway Officer was seeking clarification as to whether this money could instead be secured as part of the TRO/highway approvals. The Principal Planning Officer requested this matter be delegated to the Head of Place and only included in the S106 if necessary.

The Decision

RESOLVED that the grant of planning permission is delegated to the Head of Place, subject to the conditions set out in the officer report as amended in the late material and the completion of a Section 106 agreement to provide the Heads of Terms set out in paragraph 6.111 of the officer report with the option that the £5,000 contribution towards the application process for the TRO be removed if it can be secured via the separate TRO/highway agreement