PROPOSAL: Reserved matters application for Phase 2 (parcel H1) for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 114 dwellings (use class C3) pursuant to outline permission 17/00520/OUT.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Approve

37.2          This was a reserved matters application for Phase 2 (parcel H1) for access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 114 dwellings (use class C3) pursuant to outline permission 17/00520/OUT.

37.3          The Development Management Team Leader advised that, as detailed on the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, further to the preparation of the Committee report, the Landscape Adviser and Environment Agency had confirmed they had no objection to the application.  Severn Trent Water had been provided with additional information by the applicant on the sewage outfall and a response was awaited.  Members were therefore requested that this be resolved at Officer level as per the recommendation for delegated approval.  She confirmed that the applicant had technical consent from Severn Trent Water to make that connection but this needed to be tied up at the planning end.  She went on to advise that this was a reserved matters application seeking approval for access, appearance, layout, scale and landscaping for 114 dwellings – 75 open market and 39 affordable dwellings – as well as open space and infrastructure, pursuant to the outline application for up to 850 dwellings on the wider site.  The current reserved matters application represented the whole of the phase 2 residential area of the approved outline scheme which was defined in the approved phasing plan.  This was the first phase of residential development to come forward on the site.  The principle of residential development at this site had been established through the grant of outline planning permission and the key principles guiding the reserved matters applications had been approved by the Local Planning Authority through the outline consent and the approval of a Site Wide Masterplan document.  The current application sought approval of reserved matters pursuant to the outline planning permission and the approved Site Wide Masterplan document and the key issues to be considered in this application were access, appearance, landscaping, layout, scale and compliance with the approved documents, including the Site Wide Masterplan.  A number of matters which were the subject of other outline planning conditions were also considered within this application including affordable housing, housing mix, surface water and foul drainage. 

37.4          As set out in the Committee report, Officers had carefully considered the application and were of the view that the reserved matters were in accordance with the Site Wide Masterplan document aspirations and of an appropriate design.  County Highways had confirmed the access, internal road layout and car parking provision were acceptable and in accordance with the Site Wide Masterplan.  Officers were satisfied that the mix and clustering of affordable housing was in accordance with the requirements of the Section 106 Agreement attached to the outline permission, including being tenure blind and of a high quality; similarly, the market housing mix was considered acceptable for this phase of development.  In terms of flood risk and drainage, the outline permission included a drainage strategy for the site and the reserved matters must include comprehensive drainage details for each phase of development to accord with that strategy.  Several conditions within the outline planning permission also required the development to accord with approved flood level parameters.  A detailed drainage strategy and finished floor level information had been submitted with the application.  The Lead Local Flood Authority had been consulted and had advised that the surface water drainage strategy was suitable and the Environment Agency had confirmed that all finished floor levels accorded with the approved drainage strategy.  As mentioned earlier, the only outstanding matter concerned the outfall for the foul drainage and, subject to those details being agreed, the proposed drainage arrangements were considered acceptable.  Taking all of this into consideration, Officers were of the view that the proposed development would be high quality and appropriate in terms of access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping and would be in accordance with the Site Wide Masterplan document.  It was therefore recommended for delegated approval to enable the final foul drainage details to be resolved.

37.5          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent commended the Officer’s report and indicated that she intended to provide a short summary of the key points.  She explained that the principle of development had already been established and the site had the benefit of an outline planning permission which was granted in January 2020.  Since this application was first submitted in December 2021, the applicant had worked positively with the Council throughout the application process to produce a design that met national and local design policies and the parameters set as part of the approved outline application.  The proposed scheme had been designed in accordance with the approved Site Wide Masterplan document and had been amended to appropriately take account of feedback received from Officers including changing house types to successfully address the street scene and open space and proposing higher quality boundary treatments to dwellings.  As set out in the Committee report, the scheme provided high quality design in line with the approved design code and planning policies.  The applicant had worked actively with County Highways to ensure a safe and efficient access to the local highway network was achieved and improvements had been made to the junction design and visibility splays, with the provision of pedestrian crossings throughout the scheme to allow for clear pedestrian priority and improved cycle parking and access arrangements for mid-terrace plots which met the aims of the design code and highway planning policies.  The proposed development included a significant amount of landscape enhancement and planting, particularly along the east/west green corridor where hedgerows were retained and enhanced.  Informal landscape edges to the east and north were also proposed within the site to allow integration to adjacent and existing green infrastructure.  Furthermore, street trees within secondary roads had also been significantly increased following feedback received from the Council’s Landscape Adviser.  The revised scheme was supported by Officers and positively integrated the built and natural features together.  In summary, the application complied with the outline design parameters and local and national planning policies and the Committee report comprehensively explained the reasons why that was the case.  Therefore, she respectfully requested that Members grant delegated approval in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

37.6          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Manager to approve the application, subject to confirmation from Severn Trent Water that the foul drainage strategy was acceptable, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to approve the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member understood this was the second appeal site at Fiddington and he noted that the amount of affordable housing being provided had reduced from 40% to 35% so he asked if it was too late to change this.  In terms of the tenure, he raised concern that social rented housing was needed in the borough but this application would provide affordable rented properties which were not always truly affordable.  In response, the Development Management Team Leader explained that this was the first Fiddington site and confirmed that 35% affordable housing was being provided overall which had been approved by the Inspector through the appeal – the appellant had argued that, because it had been put forward as a strategic site in the Joint Core Strategy and had only been taken out due to the highway issues raised in respect of the A46, which were then considered acceptably resolved, it should still attract 35% affordable housing and the Inspector had agreed with the appellant.  In terms of the housing mix, the evidence had changed since the outline application had been submitted and the tenure types were in accordance with what would have been requested at the time.  The Member went on to raise concern about the potential implications for the Garden Town and the Development Management Team Leader advised that, at the time the appeal was heard, and as the Inspector had stated in their report, the Garden Town was little more than an idea and there was still no policy position around it.  Notwithstanding this, the Site Wide Masterplan document ensured that national design guidance principles had been taken into account and Officers were trying to ensure as far as possible that these sites were providing high quality design with a good mix of green and blue infrastructure, as suggested by the Garden Town principles.

37.7          Another Member drew attention to Page No. 46 of the Committee report and noted that proposed condition 3 made reference to cycle storage provision; however, it was his understanding that this was a standard policy included by another local authority and the Committee had resolved this should not be insisted upon.  In response, the Development Management Team Leader explained that cycle storage had been proposed originally by the applicant through the course of the application and Officers were keen to ensure there were opportunities for cycle storage.  She advised there were cycle stores already within the flats and a lot of the properties also had garages which would be appropriate cycle storage if, and when, the condition was applied, so it was about where additional storge was needed for properties which did not have it – this could be a shed in the garden.  The Member sought clarification as to whether the applicant had asked for cycle storage provision to be included within the development as opposed to Officers requesting it to be included and the Development Management Team Leader indicated that this had been negotiated through the scheme and cycle storage had been requested by County Highways.  She reiterated that garages could be used and the applicant had taken on board the request as good practice in terms of ensuring that the site provided sustainable transport opportunities in line with the principles of the Site Wide Masterplan document.  The Legal Adviser explained that Policy TRAC2 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan related to cycle network and infrastructure and the previous debates at the Committee had been about ensuring that conditions around cycle storage were not included as standard and were proportional – this was a site for a large number of houses so she was unsure why Members would feel it would not be proportionate to provide cycle storage in this instance.  A Member indicated that his interpretation of Policy TRAC2 was that cycling infrastructure was about making it easier for people to cycle, e.g. safe cycle lanes.  In his view, if people had bicycles they would find somewhere secure to put them.  His concern was that this condition placed an onus on Officers to check that cycle stores were being used for that purpose which was unrealistic and resource intensive at a time when the authority should be looking to reduce costs.  The Development Management Team Leader confirmed that a segregated cycle and pedestrian way was included along the main spine road and would link to the facilities on the A46 so would be integrated into the whole Fiddington 1 and 2 development.  Another Member was disgusted to hear the arguments against the provision of sustainable transport measures and indicated that this went against the principles of the Garden Town which promoted sustainable transport.  From her recollection, the Committee did not remove the policy in relation to cycle provision and she wished to distance herself from that claim.  In her opinion, any conditions which promoted sustainable transport should be applied and should not be removed.  Another Member pointed out that the Garden Town promoted the principle of sustainable modes of transport so, if Members were against that principle, they were against the Garden Town,

37.8          Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to APPROVE the application, subject to confirmation from Severn Trent Water that the foul drainage strategy was acceptable, in accordance with the Officer recommendation.