Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of 166 new homes including 40% affordable housing provision, 163 sq meters of flexible commercial/community uses (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1 and D1) public open space and associated infrastructure.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

34.44        This was an update report on the application for the erection of 166 new homes including 40% affordable housing provision, 163sq metres of flexible commercial/community uses (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1 and D1), public open space and associated infrastructure.

34.45        The Development Manager reminded Members that the Planning Committee had resolved to permit this application at its meeting on 18 April 2019, not 2018 as stated in the report, subject to various outstanding matters. As set out in the update report those matters in respect of noise mitigation, specifically in relation to the nearby Invista site, and ecology had been resolved subject to conditions and S106 obligations. In March of this year, the County Council provided an amended consultation response in respect of a S106 request for education and libraries. At the time of Committee in April 2019, the request was limited to a primary education contribution of just less than £0.5million. No request was made in respect of pre-school, secondary education or library contributions. The amended request included pre-school, primary and secondary education as well as a library contribution and the figures totalling close to £2.1 million were included at Paragraph 5.6 of the report. Following receipt of this amended request, the developer provided viability evidence to show that the scheme could not afford that level of request, which the Council has had independently assessed. The outcome of this assessment was that the development could afford £345,000 towards additional S106 contributions over and above the affordable housing agreed in 2019 and, as a result, the developer had submitted a draft unilateral undertaking for that sum which allowed for the contribution to be spent on education/library contributions. The developer’s position was that it would be difficult for them to change the agreed quantum of affordable housing (40%) on site, not least because it was felt there was a moral obligation and it had always been the intention to meet the policy requirements on this development. The developer was of the view that the agreed position delivered both policy compliance and much needed affordable housing together with additional financial contributions for local infrastructure which sought to mitigate impacts of the development. National and local planning policies allowed for viability assessments to be produced where developers were concerned about the viability of a scheme. Where such assessments, when independently tested, showed that there were viability issues and the development could not afford to pay for the whole S106 contributions requested, judgements must be made in respect of individual considerations in the context of the development as a whole. The Development Manager drew attention to the recommendation in the report that, in this case, the 40% affordable housing agreed with the developer be maintained, with a £345,000 contribution to education/library infrastructure together with the other contributions set out in the report. This was partly because whilst Local Education Authorities (LEAs) were advised by government to secure as much money via S106 funding as possible, there were other funding streams that could be used to deliver education infrastructure whereas this was not generally the case for affordable housing; it also reflected the priority given to much needed affordable housing across the Borough. Members attention was drawn to Gloucestershire County Council’s statement which reported that LEAs did not get funding from government to deliver new school places to meet demand arising from new development. Nevertheless, the government guidance quoted by the County Council in its statement set out that “While basic need funding can be used for new school places that are required due to housing development, we would expect this to be the minimum amount necessary to maintain development viability, having taken into account all infrastructure requirements”. In essence this meant that the government expected LEAs to get as much money as possible secured through S106 Agreements and developer contributions in order to reduce government contributions. This position was supported by the applicant’s Education Adviser who had stated that where S106 monies could not be secured, basic need funding from the government could be used. Furthermore, the County Council’s statement advised that other options were available to it including use of the authority’s capital resources or borrowing. The Development Manager indicated that, whilst the objection of the Gloucestershire County Council was noted, and it was recognised that this could present the LEA with some difficulties, this position did not provide a robust reason for withholding planning permission. The recommendation was for a delegated permit but ultimately it was for the Planning Committee to make a judgement in respect of priorities between the delivery of on-site affordable housing and the provision of education contributions.

34.46        The Chair invited a representative of the applicant to address the Committee. The representative referred to the fact that this application was considered by the Planning Committee in April 2019 and the resolution was to approve subject to the final outstanding matters being resolved. Since that time, the developer had worked very closely with Officers at Tewkesbury Borough Council to ensure that the outstanding matters outlined in the April Committee report were resolved and to ensure that this application could be determined in line with the resolution. Extensive discussions and consultation had taken place with the necessary statutory consultees being Environmental Health and Natural England as well as consultation with the adjacent landowner relating to the perceived noise impact. Subsequently the developer had agreed a package of measures to be delivered through planning obligations which ensured that the development was able to mitigate any impacts and meet the three tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations in that they were necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; they were directly related to the development; and were fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. The representative referred to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which required that proposals were determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicated otherwise. She maintained that the proposals had been demonstrated to constitute sustainable development in the context of National and Local Development Plan Polices and the outstanding matters had now been resolved to the satisfaction of the statutory consultees and Officers at Tewkesbury Borough Council. In conclusion the representative stated that this development was immediately available to deliver 166 much needed homes in Brockworth which included the provision of a policy compliant 40% affordable homes (66 homes), to support the Council in meeting its housing requirements. On this basis she asked the Committee to agree with the Officer’s recommendation and permit the application to enable commencement at the earliest opportunity.

34.47        One of the local Ward Members for the area advised the Committee that this land had stood empty for 25 years and it was a real eyesore and absolutely awful; when you drove into Brockworth you saw this scrubland covered with rubbish. She maintained that the Parish Council would really like something done with the land and she was definitely in support of the 40% affordable homes. Whilst she understood the position of Gloucestershire County Council, she was of the view that it would need to look at other funding options for education and libraries in this instance and proposed the Officer recommendation of delegated permit. A Member from the Hucclecote area agreed and supported the comments made by the last speaker indicating that Hucclecote Parish Council was very keen to get something done with this land and therefore she was happy to second the motion. Another Member sought further information on how the library contributions had been spent over the last three years and the Development Manager undertook to ask the question of the County Council. The Brockworth local Member indicated that the library in her Parish was very much funded by the Parish Council and run by volunteers.

34.48        The motion, which had been proposed and seconded, was put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED           That permission be DELEGATED to the Development Manager subject to the addition of the conditions in respect of noise and ecology; the addition of the conditions set out in the update report and amendment addition of conditions as appropriate; completion of a Unilateral Undertaking to secure a £345,000 contribution towards education/libraries; and completion of a S106 Agreement to secure the following heads of terms: 40% affordable housing; dog bin and signage contribution (£73 per dwelling); provision of on-site Local Equipped Area for Play; waste and recycling contributions (£73 per dwelling) and Cotswold Beechwood Special Area of Conservation mitigation contribution (£50,000).