PROPOSAL: Reserved matters application for Parcel H2 for appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale for the erection of 209 dwellings and associated works and infrastructure pursuant to outline permission 17/00520/OUT.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Approve.

49.16        This was a reserved matters application for Parcel H2 for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the erection of 209 dwellings and associated works and infrastructure pursuant to outline permission 17/00520/OUT.

49.17        The Development Management Team Leader (East) advised that the application was seeking approval for access, appearance, layout, scale and landscaping for 209 dwellings – 136 market and 73 affordable dwellings – as well as public open space and infrastructure pursuant to the outline application for 850 dwellings on the wider site.  The current reserved matters application represented the whole of the Phase 3 residential area of the approved outline scheme as defined in the approved phasing plan.  This was the second phase of residential development on the site following approval of the first parcel by the Committee in December 2022.  The principle of residential development at the site had been established through the grant of outline planning permission. The key principles guiding the reserved matters applications had been approved by the planning authority though the outline consent which included the Site Wide Masterplan Document.  The current application sought approval of reserved matters pursuant to the outline planning permission and the approval of the Site Wide Masterplan Document.  The key issues to be considered in this application were access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale and compliance with the approved documents, including the Site Wide Masterplan Document.  As set out in the Committee report, Officers had carefully considered the application and deemed that the reserved matters were in accordance with the Site Wide Masterplan Document aspirations.  County Highways had confirmed the access, internal road layout and car parking provision was acceptable and in accordance with the Site Wide Masterplan Document.  Officers were satisfied that the mix and clustering of affordable housing was in accordance with the requirements of the Section 106 Agreement including being tenure blind and of high quality.  Similarly, the market housing mix was considered acceptable.  In terms of flood risk and drainage, the outline permission included a drainage strategy for the site and the reserved matters must include detailed drainage information for each phase of the development to accord with that strategy.  Several conditions on the outline permission also required the development to accord with the approved flood level.  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 the drainage strategy was suitable, and the Environment Agency had confirmed that all finished flood levels accorded with the strategy.  The Environmental Health Officer had requested further information on the internal and external mitigation measures in relation to noise impact, given the site’s proximity to the M5, along with submission of a Noise Impact Assessment; these had been provided by the applicant at a late stage so the Environmental Health Officer had not had chance to assess them and deem whether they were appropriate.  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 in accordance with the Site Wide Masterplan Document; therefore, it was recommended that authority be delegated to the Development Management Manager to approve the application, subject to confirmation from the Environmental Health Officer that the noise impact would be acceptable.

49.18        The Chair invited the applicant’s representative to address the Committee.  The applicant’s representative indicated that, if approved, the development would be an important contributor to Tewkesbury Borough Council’s housing land supply.  Parcel H2 represented the second phase on a site where the principle of development had been established through the granting of outline planning permission in January 2020 with the application for Parcel H1 being approved by the Committee in December 2022.  The proposed scheme was designed in accordance with the Site Wide Masterplan Document and had been amended throughout the process to account for consultee comments.  Changes made included adding balconies to all apartments, equipping all homes with electric vehicle charging points and solar panels and adding footpath links throughout the layout.  As the site fell within the emerging Garden Town area, the applicant was keen to ensure that the site adopted sustainable principles and had carefully designed cycle storage so that it was no further away from a dwelling than a car parking space.  Residents would also be within a five to 10 minute walk of the local centre, school, sports pitches and play areas that were being provided as part of the wider scheme.  Furthermore, pedestrians had been given priority at all junctions and the main routes through the site would have segregated cycle and footways to ensure safe use for all.  The spine road would be lined with trees and the amount of street trees within secondary roads had been significantly increased following feedback from the Landscape Officer.  A public square sat at the centre of the scheme and would contain paths and benches to foster social interaction and to aid wayfinding.  It would also contain trees and shrubs to act as a green node and link with the wider green infrastructure network, including the north/south green corridor which would be enhanced with substantial planting.  A separate part of the site contained an accessible play area which featured wheelchair friendly surfacing and equipment.  Members would be aware that the Officer recommendation was to delegate approval, subject to agreement on a noise mitigation scheme, and the applicant’s representative confirmed that the developer would be providing acoustic screening, vents and glazing on all affected properties where appropriate.  She indicated that an updated noise survey had been submitted for review.  Moreover, discussions on external materials and boundary treatments were at an advanced stage and the applicant’s representative was confident that an appropriate and high-quality scheme could be agreed with Officers.  In summary, the applicant had worked positively and proactively with Tewkesbury Borough Council and its Officers throughout the process to ensure the scheme accorded with statutory planning policies and approved design parameters, as such, the applicant’s representative respectfully requested that Members approve the application in line with the Officer recommendation.

49.19        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Management Manager to approve the application, subject to confirmation from the Environmental Health Officer that the noise impact would be acceptable, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Management Manager to approve the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The seconder of the motion indicated that his only reservation was that the Environmental Health Officer had concerns about noise from the M5 but this parcel was furthest away from the motorway so this was a worry in terms of the other parcels still to come forward.  Another Member asked for clarification on the number of houses stipulated within the appeal decision for this particular phase and the number of dwellings for the other two phases as he was concerned about the density of 53 per hectare.  In his opinion, the design was ugly and the parking would not work resulting in another estate road where a smaller vehicle would be required to collect waste meaning additional costs for the authority.  In response, the Development Management Team Leader (East) advised that the outline application was for 850 dwellings but he did not have the phasing plan for the numbers being delivered.  This phase had been reduced by six units but they would be incorporated into other sites.  The densities had been cross-referenced with the Site Wide Masterplan Document and, although there were slightly lower densities on some parcels and slightly higher on others, Officers were satisfied the proposals were in accordance with the Site Wide Masterplan Document.

49.20        A Member questioned whether the affordable housing would be affordable rent or social rent and was informed that Page No. 169, Paragraph 8.4 of the Committee report, set out that there would be 44 units for affordable rent and 29 units of affordable housing for sale.  The Member raised concern that this could be interpreted in two ways and the Legal Adviser advised that she expected they would be affordable rent in line with the definition in the National Planning Policy Framework i.e. up to 80% of market rent.  The Member raised concern that 80% of market rent was still very expensive and lot of younger people were struggling to pay that amount so he felt strongly that it was important to secure social rent properties on new developments such as this.  The Planning Officer advised there had been a lot of discussion at the Inquiry regarding the mix of affordable housing and negotiations had taken place with the Council’s Housing Enabling Officer throughout the process in order to secure the best mix based on the demographic of the borough.  Ultimately, the Planning Inspectorate had determined the mix which was now fixed and the reserved matters had to work to those parameters.  Another Member agreed it was important to get as much social housing as possible within housing developments and she sought confirmation as to whether her assumption that there was no social housing on this site was correct.  The Development Management Team Leader (East) confirmed that was correct as he understood it and the Legal Adviser confirmed that the Section 106 Agreement for the outline planning permission stipulated there would only be affordable rent on this site.  The Member appreciated what had been said and she was sure Officers had done their best to negotiate, but developments of this size having no social housing whatsoever set a dangerous precedent in her view.  The Legal Adviser pointed out that there had been changes since the outline permission and Section 106 Agreement were approved in 2019.  The Housing Enabling Officer who spoke at Planning Inquiries made a case based on the data which was available and most Section 106 Agreements now provided for more social housing as that need could be substantiated. 

49.21        A Member sought clarification as to whether this site was part of the Garden Town and, if that was the case, whether the developer had signed up to any protocols and principles put forward for the Garden Town.  The Development Management Team Leader (East) explained that the site was geographically located in the area earmarked for the Garden Town; however, there was nothing in policy to tie this application to that.  The applicant had worked to try to bring in some of the core principles but the Garden Town was at a very early stage in terms of design.  Another Member indicated that she could not support the application as it was within the Garden Town area and she could not see any evidence of the developer complying with Garden Town principles.  Furthermore, she considered that putting three storey flats in this location was outrageous.

49.22        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Management Manager to APPROVE the application, subject to confirmation from the Environmental Health Officer that the noise impact would be acceptable.