Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Reserved matters application pursuant to application ref: 19/01071/OUT (outline planning application with means of access from Ashmead Drive (all other matters reserved for subsequent approval) for the erection of up to 50 dwellings (Class C3); earthworks; drainage works; structural landscaping; formal and informal open space; car parking; site remediation; and all other ancillary and enabling works) for 50 dwellings including appearance, landscape, scale and layout.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated approve.

45.26        This was a reserved matters application pursuant to application ref: 19/01071/OUT (outline planning application with means of access from Ashmead Drive (all other matters reserved for subsequent approval) for the erection of up to 50 dwellings (Class C3); earthworks; drainage works; structural landscaping; formal and informal open space; car parking; site remediation and all other ancillary and enabling works) for 50 dwellings including appearance, landscape, scale and layout.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 17 November 2023.

45.27        The Senior Planning Officer advised that the application sought approval of reserved matters following an upheld appeal determined in 2021.  The development would deliver 50 dwellings, comprising 40% affordable homes and 30 market homes, the make-up of which was set out in the Committee report.  Vehicular access into the site was to be provided from Ashmead Drive as per the outline planning consent, albeit slightly realigned by a non-material amendment approved in January 2023.  The proposal also incorporated public open space inclusive of a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) and play area in the form of a Locally Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) to the north of the site, Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) balancing ponds and landscaping throughout the site.  There were no listed buildings located within the site. The Conservation Officer raised no objection to the proposal noting that, in the signed statement of common ground for the outline application planning appeal, the Council accepted the following position regarding built heritage: "The appeal site has no impact upon the setting of The Holt, The Malt Shovel, Whites Farm, The Homestead nor the Shady Nook all of which are designated by Historic England as Grade II Listed buildings."  Following considerable consultation activity, first by the developer with the local community before the application was submitted, and during the life of the application, including the Parish Council and the Community and Place Development Officer, the scheme had been significantly revised to make the internal footpaths more user friendly by reason of revising sharp changes of direction, making the LEAP more informal by having changes of level and seating and adding in play equipment. The MUGA has been changed to include a green coloured surface, not totally enclosed by fencing and unlit.  The original proposal incorporated post and rail fence to boundaries which was now proposed to be metal estate fencing to reduce maintenance issues and improve visual appearance. To improve the visual appearance of the site, changes had been negotiated with developers to remove wooden appearance cladding from all house types and use reconstituted stone, introduce brick built garages to give greater variety to the visual appearance of the estate, amend the fenestration of an affordable one bed maisonette unit, and revise the design of a five bed detached unit to remove the dormer windows to ensure that the attached garage block was visually a subservient building and the visual amenity of the site as a whole was consistent.  Considerable public concern has been raised to this proposal, the overwhelming issue being the MUGA with many residents objecting to its provision on the scheme; however, the MUGA was a requirement of the appeal Inspector and was supported by Community Officers.  The Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, set out responses to a number of questions raised by Members following the site visit.  The Officer recommendation was for delegated approval subject to amended/additional conditions to reflect the revised plans.

45.28        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant advised that a collaborative approach had been taken to this application having engaged with the local community on multiple occasions and worked closely with Officers to ensure the scheme was both high-quality and consistent with the outline consent.  They had commissioned a local housing need report, which identified a specific need for bungalows in Gotherington; 13 bungalows had since been included and strategically sited. At local request, existing public footpaths had largely been retained in situ, informing the site’s layout and land use distribution, with an additional eastern boundary footpath now included. The Lead Local Flood Authority had confirmed that the proposal accorded with the agreed outline drainage strategy, including a large SuDS pond to the south, upon the lowest part of the site, as supported by a comprehensive ground investigation.  As identified in the Committee report, the outline planning permission required a MUGA, LEAP and Multi-Use Community Area to the north of the site. Officers had confirmed that to not provide any of these spaces, or to locate them elsewhere, would conflict unacceptably with the outline permission, given the extent to which the location and form of these spaces informed the principle of development being established; however, further to a specific public consultation event on this matter and discussion with several Officers, improvements had been made and deemed agreeable as reported.  The MUGA and LEAP had been separated, allowing the MUGA to move southwards, with the Environmental Health Officer confirming that to move it any further would be to move it closer, not further away, from existing and future residents.  The metal cage around the MUGA has been removed to address noise concerns and improve the visibility of the MUGA through natural surveillance. Additionally, whilst flood lights would assist the MUGA’s useability during the autumn/winter, they were not proposed at local request.  The LEAP design had been updated to include more informal play experiences, such as long grasses, mounds and boulders, rather than just physical equipment, at the Landscape Officer’s request. Additionally, more informal landscape design features comprised the multi-use community space, including a new wildlife pond, viewing platform and casual seating.  The home designs had been amended to better reflect the architectural character of the area, with enhanced arboricultural mitigation measures incorporated further to specific Officer requests.  All homes would be fitted with air source heat pumps and electric vehicle charging units and there would Biodiversity Net Gain in excess of 10%.  The applicant hoped he had demonstrated that they had worked pro-actively with key stakeholders to appropriately balance preferred design solutions with the requirements of the outline planning consent, such that the proposal was high-quality and capable of achieving Members’ support today.

45.29        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Management Manager to approve the application, subject to amended/additional conditions to reflect the revised plans, and sought a motion from the floor.  A Member indicated that an email from residents suggested that new plans dated 20 November 2023 had been uploaded to the planning portal and she asked if there had been any significant changes to those which were dated 7 August.  On the site visit, Members had been told there was an electricity substation to the west of the site beyond the MUGA and the vehicular access to maintain that was from the footpath across the whole site so she questioned if bollards could be installed to prevent use by authorised vehicles.  She sought clarification as to the treatment for each of the Public Rights of Way, if it was possible to offer the affordable housing to local people first, whether the dark wood had all been removed from the drawings on Page No. 130 of the Committee report and who the Designing Out Crime Officer was as referenced at Page No. 109, Paragraph 4.15 of the Committee report.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the drawings on the website dated 20 November 2023 would be the approved drawings, should Members be minded to approve the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation, and provided a footpath to the MUGA from the LEAP, amended internal footpaths and changed the materials used.  In terms of the substation, as set out on the Additional Representations Sheet, it was proposed there would be a lockable gate on the entrance and the footpath surfaces would be bound gravel which was a reasonable non-slip surface appropriate to a semi-rural area.  He saw no reason why nomination rights for local people in relation to the affordable housing could not be incorporated into the Section 106 Agreement for a limited time, should Members so wish.  He confirmed that all dark wood had been removed and the Designing Out Crime Officer was part of an advisory body which the Council could consult on proposals as an employee of Gloucestershire Constabulary; they had been asked to look at this application due to the issues raised by the community mainly in connection with the placement of the MUGA and antisocial activities associated with them in other places. 

45.30        A Member asked whether young people had been involved in the consultation with developers as the main users of the MUGA and LEAP.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer advised that it would not be normal in terms of a development of this size to specifically seek to consult all areas of the community in terms of all age groups, Special Educations Needs, disabilities etc.; however, the Inspector had considered the MUGA to be appropriate for the site, it had been located so that it was accessible to both this and other developments and consideration had been given as to what would be suitable for this type of community.  The Development Management Team Manager (Northwest) advised that play facilities had been designed having looked at the existing standards for play and the need the development would create.  The Landscape Officer had a lot of experience with play areas and incorporating them into a landscape setting in a wider development and, following consultation, the playground had been increased within the scheme with additional informal play incorporated into the LEAP area as well as additional equipment, some of which was suitable for less able-bodied members of the community.  The consultation may not have picked up everyone but the planning process would ensure the vision served the development and community as best it could.  The Member did not disagree it would benefit the community but she was concerned there was no cage on the MUGA which hindered usability in terms of what could be played there and the fact there was no lighting also had an impacted in that respect.  The Senior Planning Officer advised the development had been discussed with the Community Development Officers who were aware of what communities were saying - not everyone would agree or disagree but it was important to consider all sectors of the community and that was what had happened. 

45.31        A Member expressed the view that the LEAP provision was to be commended, particularly as it included features such as an accessible roundabout which were far easier to include at the outset than retrospectively.  This highlighted the level of thought which had been put into the development.  She was surprised to hear that nomination rights could be included at this point and the Development Management Team Manager (Northwest) advised that the Council’s standard Section 106 Agreement for affordable housing included a clause which meant that units were allocated using a cascade mechanism starting with local people followed by those with a connection to the area before moving to those from adjoining areas and then further afield.  Another Member shared the concerns raised regarding the consultation with young people as she felt there would have been a different response in terms of the need for lighting and caged sides had they been included.  The lights on the MUGA in Brockworth went off at 2100 hours and she felt that it was far better to be able to see a group playing football etc. than it being dark when antisocial behaviour was more likely to occur. 

45.32        In response to a query as to who was responsible for maintenance, the Development Management Team Manager (Northwest) advised that the public open space was generally the responsibility of the management company.  The Member asked whether it would ultimately be passed to the local authority and who would ensure the responsibility was transferred correctly.  In response, the Legal Adviser explained that this would be set out in the Section 106 Agreement which usually had an obligation for it to be transferred to a management company which residents contributed towards and became shareholders of so they would have a say in how it moved forward.  The Section 106 Agreement could require a certain set-up in perpetuity for the lifetime of the development.

45.33        It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Management Manager to approve the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to the inclusion of nomination rights for local people in the Section 106 Agreement and the restriction of vehicular access to the substation for members of the public.  The proposer of the motion considered that Officers had done a lot of work regarding the design on what was a controversial site for Gotherington.  She had an issue with the lack of bungalows in the area and felt it was important that nomination rights were given to local residents.  She continued to have concerns regarding use of the road to the substation given that it was a route to the MUGA, LEAP and other public footpaths; she felt that bollards were necessary so the public could not access it.  In terms of the MUGA, a Member indicated there were concerns regarding noise and the chance of balls hitting people’s houses which may result from there being no lighting; there was a successful MUGA in Winchcombe which was lit to enable young people to use it in the evening and he felt that needed to be addressed here.  The proposer of the motion explained that Gotherington had no street lighting whatsoever which was a different scenario to Brockworth and Winchcombe – the existing playing field had no external lighting and she would not wish this to be imposed on residents.  The MUGA was a considerable distance away from any property so she felt it was unlikely that a ball would hit any properties.

45.34        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Management Manager to APPROVE the application, subject to amended/additional conditions to reflect the revised plans, the inclusion of nomination rights for local people in the Section 106 Agreement and the restriction of vehicular access to the substation for members of the public.