Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Outline planning application for the erection of up to 29 dwellings and associated works with all matters except for access reserved for future consideration.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit

7.49          This was an outline planning application for the erection of up to 29 dwellings and associated works with all matters, except for access reserved for future consideration. 

7.50          The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised an agricultural field set to the south of The Pheasant public house in Toddington and was an allocated site in the adopted Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  The application was submitted in outline with all matters except access reserved for future consideration and the scheme proposed a development of up to 29 dwellings, of which, 12 would be affordable.  An indicative site layout had been submitted which demonstrated how the frontage properties would be accessed directly from the B4632 with a further estate road to serve the remainder of the site.  The eastern part of the site would provide public open space which would extend up to the boundary with the Heritage Railway.  It was considered that the proposal would comply with the requirements of site specific Policy TOD1 and other relevant policies in the plan.  Since publication of the Committee report, the Council’s Ecology Adviser had confirmed the proposals would achieve a biodiversity net gain of just over 10% and they had no objections, subject to conditions to secure ecological enhancements and protections.  Similarly the Lead Local Flood Authority had confirmed that the surface drainage proposals were acceptable.  A further representation from a member of the public had been received which reiterated objections set out in the Committee report.  The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure 40% affordable housing, home to school travel contribution, libraries, on-site public open space and maintenance and waste, recycling and dog waste bins.  It was noted that the education contribution referenced at Page No. 325, Paragraph 8.11 of the Committee report was not required.

7.51           The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent congratulated Members on the adoption of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan which meant that the site was now allocated for residential development, was within the settlement boundary for Toddington and the proposal fully accorded with the new plan which suggested an indicative 25 dwellings – this proposal was for 29 dwellings which would be an effective and sensitive use of the land.  The report set out how the technical aspects of the application would be addressed such as highways, landscape, drainage, ecology, housing mix and affordable housing.  The Committee report identified there was some landscape harm and that was inevitable to an extent, just as it was with 90% of the allocations within the plan also being on greenfield sites.  This site was not in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that, supported by a landscape-led design approach, meant that the benefits of the proposal certainly outweighed any harm.  Whilst it was noted that an objection had been raised by the Parish Council and five representations had been received objecting to the proposal, the application was compliant with relevant policy at a national and local level and, following its adoption, the scheme was fully in line with the Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  The applicant’s agent urged Members to support the Officer recommendation and delegate authority to permit the application.

7.52           The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to permit the application, subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure 40% affordable housing, home to school travel contribution, libraries, on-site public open space and maintenance and waste, recycling and dog waste bins, and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member raised concern about the speed of the road outside the development.  She indicated that Toddington had two B roads running through it and the Stow to Tewkesbury road had a speed limit of 40mph – there was a similar development along that road with houses fronting directly onto the road.  She also pointed out that the quarries at the top of the hill had recently reopened so huge lorries now travelled through the village from 0600 hours onwards.  As such, she would like to include a provision within the application to ensure the speed limit was reduced outside the proposed development, ideally to 30mph but she would accept 40mph to match the other B road. In terms of the site itself, she indicated there was no street lighting in Toddington at all and she hoped that, if outline permission was granted, the developer would ensure there was none on this site to prevent light pollution – this had been very sensitively dealt with on the other built-out development in Toddington to the satisfaction of the Parish Council and villagers.  She thanked the applicant for looking at providing smaller properties on the site – she would have liked to have seen some one bed properties within the market housing but she appreciated this site was quite restricted in numbers.  The County Highways representative advised that as part of the application, the applicant proposed to relocate the 40mph sign changing the speed limit south of the main access; additional changes to 30mph would be subject to separate consultation.  The Member indicated that the applicant’s agent had stated this was a Toddington development; however, as Members would know, as part of the boundary review, it would actually be in Stanton, Stanway and Didbrook Parish, therefore, Toddington Parish would not receive any of the Community Infrastructure Levy money despite the fact the residents would use Toddington facilities.  That was something that was trying to be addressed in the Boundary Commission review so she hoped that would be resolved. 

7.53           It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The seconder of the motion noted there was a successful public house next door to the application site where lots of people sat in the garden.  That obviously could generate noise and he asked if provisions could be put in place to ensure a good relationship was maintained between the public house and residents.  Similarly, the Gloucestershire-Warwickshire Railway ran alongside the site which was a great asset to the borough but one which could also generate noise so he asked what attenuation measures would be put in place.  The Planning Officer advised that public house car park was located between the public house and the application site and the public open space would act as a buffer.  No issues had been raised by the Environmental Health Officer in respect of noise and, in any case, the background noise levels were fairly high due to the existing road.

7.54           With regard to the Section 106 Agreement and the home to school travel contribution which had been agreed, a Member made a general comment that she would like to see a commitment from the Borough Council  to open discussion with the County Council in relation to school provision in the borough as she felt there was a serious lack of facilities and that would only get worse with all of the development coming forward.  A Member drew attention to Page No. 319, Paragraph 7.12 of the Committee report, which stated that there were no schools in the immediate vicinity and a contribution of £63,350 was sought towards the provision of a school bus service and he asked how long that contribution would last for and what happened when the money ran out.  In response, the Planning Officer advised that the contribution towards bus transport would go into a pool which would be used for villages in the borough; if and when that money ran out, it was a County Council function and would need to be addressed by that authority.  With regard to the Section 106 contributions, a Member expressed his frustration that there was no indication of what the contribution towards libraries was actually for – a point he had raised on many other occasions.  Based on this and the query in relation to education, he asked for a breakdown of what the various contributions would be spent on in order to make an informed decision.  The Planning and Enforcement Team Leader (South) advised that, when the County Council and other consultees came back with their requests, they usually gave detailed justification for those requests.  It was a question of how much information Members needed to have in the Committee report but consideration could be given to providing more detail in future and being better prepared to answer those questions if they were raised at Committee.  A Member mentioned that Toddington had a village school but it had closed because development was not being allowed in smaller villages so there were not enough children to attend – hopefully now, with the Tewkesbury Borough Plan in place, it would be able to re-open.  With regard to the contribution towards the school bus service, the County Highways representative advised that the £63,350 was subdivided into £42,350 for the cost of an estimated yield of 11 primary school pupils at a cost of £550 per pupil per year over a duration of seven years and £21,000 for an estimated yield of five secondary school pupils at cost of £840 per pupil per year over a duration of five years.  The Planning and Enforcement Team Leader (North) noted the request to open a dialogue with the County Council about financial contributions for school transport and indicated that would be raised with the Head of Development Services following the meeting.

7.55           Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure 40% affordable housing, home to school travel contribution, libraries, on-site public open space and maintenance and waste, recycling and dog waste bins, in accordance with the Officer recommendation.