Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Construction of two apartment blocks comprising 33 dwellings and associated parking and landscaping.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

16.17        This application was for the construction of two apartment blocks comprising 33 dwellings and associated parking and landscaping.

16.18        The Planning Officer advised that the application related to a parcel of land to the north of Longford Lane and to the east of Horsbere Drive in Longford.  The site covered approximately 0.31 hectares and was situated within the new residential development at Longford.  Existing residential properties bordered the site to the south east; the new primary school, Longford Park Primary Academy, was to the north east; and to the north west were four recently constructed retail units.  The site was bounded to the south by Longford Lane.  The proposed apartment blocks would be three storeys in height and would front onto Longford Lane, Horsbere Drive and Clock Tower Road with the mix consisting of six one-bedroom units and 27 two-bedroom units.  The application had been submitted on the basis that it would deliver a 100% affordable housing scheme.  Vehicular access to the development would be via Whitefield Crescent and a proposed pedestrian link would run through the site and connect to Horsbere Drive.  A total number of 33 car parking spaces were proposed, set within a courtyard arrangement.  An assessment of the material considerations was included at Pages No. 94-114 of the Officer report which set out that the identified harms would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed development, therefore, the application was recommended for refusal.  It was noted that, since the publication of the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, comments had been received from the Council’s landscape consultant raising concern about the built form and the fact the site would be overdeveloped and dominated by a housing block.  The landscape consultant also found the lack of space to be disappointing, particularly along the streetscene and in terms of meaningful outdoor amenity space.  The Planning Officer proceeded to show a video of the application site serving as a virtual site visit for the Committee.

16.19        The Technical Planning Manager indicated that he wished to make a few comments in terms of clarifying and responding to the issues that had been raised in the letter from the applicant’s agent.  Officers wanted to support any scheme for affordable housing where possible and they had been proactive throughout to try to achieve this. It had always been made clear, including at the pre-application stage, that there were concerns with regard to the scale and massing and he reiterated that this was an amended scheme that was before Members today.  Ultimately, it was considered that the design solution was unsuitable for this location and the terms of reference for entering into Planning Performance Agreements were very clear this was not a passport to planning permission.  He pointed out that the applicant had been insistent that the application be brought to this Committee, therefore it was incumbent upon Officers to express a view on all matters referenced in the applicant’s letter at the point of writing the report. The Officer report confirmed that there were three storey buildings in the wider Longford development and this was not disputed; however, that did not mean that three storey buildings would be acceptable everywhere and Officers had taken a different view to the applicant in this particular instance.  The agent had referenced the comments made by the Council’s Urban Design Officer but their role was that of urban designer - they were not a specialist in architectural design.  The whole team had a responsibility in terms of design and the Urban Design Officer was an important part of that; however, the clear consensus within the senior planner group was that this development did not respect the character of its immediate surroundings and did not constitute high quality design.  It was unfortunate there had been a late change to the material circumstances in terms of the adoption of the Neighbourhood Development Plan and the policy requiring a certain level of car parking.  As set out in the Officer’s report, the County Highways Officer and the applicant’s transport consultant had agreed the methodology for the proposed number of car parking spaces but, in light of the adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan policy, Officers had taken a different view; Officers considered that the references to Kingsholm were not hugely relevant in this context and the Neighbourhood Development Plan policy was clear. Whilst the applicant was critical of the policy, it was, as a matter of fact, part of the development plan.  With regard to the Section 106 Agreement, the issue of education contributions was a significant one for the county - if not the country - and the Technical Planning Manager apologised that the Council had not responded in full to previous correspondence from the agent; however, there was an emerging position and a statement on the matter was being prepared.  Nonetheless, it was clear as a matter of law that contributions – where they were justified by robust evidence – could be lawful.  It was interesting to note that the applicant strongly refuted the assertion they had failed to agree to enter into a Section 106 Agreement yet continued to assert that such obligations would be unlawful.  The applicant’s barrister’s advice in respect of Gloucestershire County Council’s emerging local development guide was appreciated, and it was fully accepted that only limited weight could be given to the document, nevertheless, as a matter of planning judgement it was considered that the County Council had provided sufficient evidence to justify its request for an education contribution.  The applicant talked about the fact that the County Council did not normally require education contributions for affordable housing but the Technical Planning Manager clarified that this was not the case as the County Council always considered the likely number of children arising from a particular number of dwellings and the subsequent infrastructure required which was not dependent on whether this was affordable.  He stressed that Officers always tried to find an appropriate balance between affordable housing and other infrastructure needs within the area but Members may take a different view and that was a matter of judgement for the Committee.  In terms of the applicant’s conclusions, it was for the Committee to decide whether the design was appropriate in this location and whether there were sufficient car parking spaces to serve the development, based on the evidence and in light of the Neighbourhood Development Plan.  Officers did not consider that the contributions requested by the County Council were unlawful.  The Technical Planning Manager reminded Members this must all be considered in light of the presumption in favour of sustainable development; there was no dispute that the principle of development was acceptable and it was recognised that affordable housing was a significant benefit which weighed in favour of the proposal, rather it was the detail that was in question.  From an Officer perspective, it was considered that the harms identified did significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits as set out in the report.

16.20        The Chair indicated that the applicant’s representative had been due to speak in favour of the proposal; however, they had been unable to join the remote meeting and, in accordance with the addendum to the Scheme for Public Participation at Planning Committee, the statement would be read out an Officer.  The statement set out that Members would already have received technical details on this application from their planning consultant which it was hoped had been informative and that, no doubt, the matters it raised would be debated later.  It also stated there was no wish to dwell on those matters, instead it was intended to talk about this site and the fantastic opportunity it raised.  After the marketing for retail at this site had failed, it had been offered to the applicant for affordable housing and it was felt there could not be a more sustainable and suitable site for those on the housing waiting list – it was right next door to existing shops and services, opposite a brand new primary school and with a bus stop just outside the proposed front doors.  The applicant had listened very carefully to feedback from Officers and consultees at the pre-application stage and prepared an application in accordance with that advice.  They had also entered into a Planning Performance Agreement knowing that the proposal formed a suitable basis to allow for a positive recommendation to be made.  The applicant had worked hard with the Council’s Housing Enabling Officer to help secure grant funding for this project from Homes England as well as additional funding to provide some socially rented apartments; it was following the largely positive pre-application advice that funding was secured.  There had been a Facebook campaign objecting to this application but the applicant wished to point out that the majority of those objecting were more than likely to be fortunate enough to have a home - those needing the accommodation proposed rarely had a voice and certainly did not in this case as they would not know about the proposal.  The applicant wished to give those people a voice and pointed out there were 1,800 on the housing waiting list in Tewkesbury Borough.  At the time the application was made, there were 128 households registered as waiting for a one-bedroom property and 90 households waiting for a two-bedroom property in Longford – no doubt that would have risen following the economic consequences of the global pandemic.  The development would allow the applicant to continue its track record of delivering quality affordable homes in a highly sustainable location and to do anything other than permit the application would place Homes England funding at significant risk, and seriously harm the ability to meet what was a desperate need in some cases.  Despite the Officer recommendation, the applicant trusted that the quality of the submission, alongside the work that the team had put into it, would make the proposal worthy of the Committee’s support.

16.21        The Chair invited a local Ward Member to address the Committee. The local Ward Member raised concern that the applicant had attempted to mislead Members in their letter through selective quotation which meant that key phrases had been missed.  For instance, what the Urban Design Officer had actually said was that the loss of a retail, employment or community use would be disappointing and would have a negative effect on the overall quality of the new place that had been created at Longford; long term this area would see significant residential growth and there was a risk of creating very unsustainable developments where people must drive to access facilities.  Paragraph 127e of the National Planning Policy Framework required planning decisions to optimise the potential of a site to accommodate and sustain an appropriate mix of development and support local facilities and, in terms of national urban design, well-designed spaces had a mix of uses including local services and facilities to support daily life.  This mirrored the multiple Parish Council objections and some of the 175 objections received from the public and seriously risked making the whole Longford development very unsustainable.  The applicant had also stated that the Neighbourhood Development Plan parking policies, such as CHIN1, were only to be applied “where possible” – as this piece of land was a blank canvass, this was easily possible and only a conscious decision by the developer could make it difficult.  In terms of the car parking numbers, using Kingsholm Ward to calculate the requirements was farcical as it was within a short walk of Gloucester City centre, bus station, railway, post office, doctors etc.  Using Innsworth with Down Hatherley Ward showed a 26% increase in need, though this was still inaccurate as this was also within walking distance of the post office, doctors, dentists etc. so it would still fall short of what this development required to allow easy access to basic amenities.  Parking around the school would also present issues.  In summary, the development would be contrary to Paragraphs 102 and 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the guidance within section 12; JCS policies INF4, INF6, INF7 and SD4 of the Joint Core Strategy; Policies TRAC9 and RES5 of the pre-submission Tewkesbury Borough Plan; and Policies CHIN1, CHIN2 and CHIN3 of the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan.  The local Ward Member urged the Committee to be very careful not to set a dangerous precedent that could potentially undermine the strength behind the policies - this development contravened several and risked making the overall large development unsustainable.  As such, he encouraged the Committee to support the Officer recommendation for refusal.

16.22        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member queried what percentage of affordable housing was required across the site and raised concern that it should not all be concentrated in one area.  The Technical Planning Manager confirmed that the policy position at the time the site at Longford was approved was for 30% affordable housing which equated to 179 properties of the 595 dwellings overall.  He reminded Members that there was an incredible need for affordable housing and, whilst it was always better to “pepper pot” across developments where possible, clearly there were affordable housing providers who were trying to deliver affordable homes wherever they could and sometimes there was a proposal for all plots to be affordable – this was not ideal in terms of creating a diverse community but should not be determinative in his view.  The proposer of the motion drew attention to Page No. 94 of the Officer report and pointed out that the site was within Innsworth but was still referenced as being in Longford.  He asked what the reason was for increasing the density over and above the masterplan for the last phase of development and why the affordable homes had not been built earlier in accordance with the phasing plan.  He was wary of allowing this amount of affordable housing in one area and questioned whether the Crime Prevention Design Adviser had been consulted.  He also queried why no traffic impact or capacity assessment had been undertaken given this was a major development.  He went on to indicate that the Secretary of State had granted outline planning permission in July 2008 for a development comprising 570 dwellings, community uses, a local centre with a mix of retail uses and associated physical infrastructure and open space.  In March 2011, condition 5 of the planning permission required the submission and approval of a detailed masterplan for the whole site; condition 6 related to the detailed phasing scheme; and condition 7 required the submission of a design code.  A similar application had been refused on the site in 2015 on the basis that the design of the flats and position of the building within the streetscene were not considered to be of sufficient quality, furthermore, there was no empirical evidence of housing need and he was particularly dubious of the comparison with Kingsholm given that Innsworth was a semi-rural Ward.  The outline planning permission provided for 30% affordable housing across the site and its provision was set out in the unilateral undertaking signed in March 2008; this stated a tenure mix of 50% social rented and 50% shared ownership and that affordable housing was to be distributed throughout the site in groups of not more than eight houses or 16 flats.  This application went completely against the masterplan for the site and he hoped Members would support the motion to refuse the proposal.

16.23         A Member queried whether consideration was given to using materials other than red brick and asked if architects could be more imaginative in future to include as much communal space as possible within the design.  The Technical Planning Manager shared these views – Officers always looked for the highest possible quality design which he did not feel had been achieved in the case.  In response to the points raised by the proposer of the motion, in terms of the relationship between the application before Members and the outline planning permission that had been granted in 2008, he recognised it was frustrating when developments were not constructed entirely in accordance with what had been granted permission and he indicated there had been similar issues at Bishop’s Cleeve with the Homelands and Cleevelands developments.  He explained that, when outline planning permission expired, it was no longer possible to submit applications for approval of reserved matters - in this case, land had returned to the previous agricultural use and all aspects of the agreed Section 106 Agreement, masterplan and conditions included on the outline application no longer applied; however, the rationale behind them was not forgotten.  The site had historically been referred to as Longford, despite being in Innsworth Ward, and he apologised for any confusion caused.  In terms of housing numbers, the outline planning permission had been for 570 dwellings but this had ultimately been 595 and he clarified this was not to do with the fact there was insufficient affordable housing; whilst there had been a shortfall in the first two phases, it was always the case that this would be made up in phase three.  A further application had been submitted for phase three, originally for 213 dwellings but reduced to around 190, which was more than the outline application but Officers had taken the view it could be satisfactorily accommodated and appropriate affordable housing had been secured. In terms of the tenure mix and the reference to the previous Section 106 Agreement and pepper potting, he reiterated his earlier comments that, ideally, affordable housing would be fully integrated but this was not always possible.  In principle, 33 affordable houses in one place was not a determinative factor and was not a reason to withhold planning permission in this case.

16.24         A Member expressed her concern about a number of points raised, particularly the loss of affordable housing which was desperately needed in the borough and also what would happen to the piece of scrubland opposite the shops and entrance to the site and if it would be viable for a developer to put whatever they wanted on that land.  She would be uncomfortable voting in favour of the proposal but did not think it could be refused either and therefore would be abstaining.  Another Member expressed the view that the development was too bulky for the size of the site and there would be too many apartments in one place which would ruin the appearance of the overall site.  A Member agreed with the majority of points that had been raised and, whilst she acknowledged the extreme need for affordable housing, she felt this must be in the right place, and of the right size, and yet one third of the proposed apartments were below standard size,  She accepted the need but also felt that accommodation should be decent and not based on getting as many units into one space as possible. 

16.25        The proposer of the motion to refuse the application reminded Members that Innsworth Parish was scheduled for 1,400 houses with up to 40% being affordable across all tenures and he questioned whether 33 apartments were really needed in this location.  The Parish Council had suggested that the land be returned to green open space, such as allotments or orchards, and he felt this would be preferable.  He had one further question about whether the housing numbers would count towards the allocation within Tewkesbury Borough or Gloucester City – his understanding was that Gloucester City already had an uncontested housing supply in excess of five years and he asked whether he would be correct to assume that Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework did not apply on that basis.  In response, the Technical Planning Manager indicated that the housing numbers would count towards Tewkesbury Borough’s figures as the site was not an allocation within the Joint Core Strategy and the tilted balance was in play.  The Legal Adviser confirmed that the housing numbers would be for Tewkesbury Borough Council and it was not a strategic allocation or subject to a Memorandum of Agreement in terms of the housing numbers being attributed to another local authority.

16.26         Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

16.27        The meeting was adjourned at 11:55am for a comfort break.

16.28        The meeting reconvened at 12:10pm with the same membership present.