Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Construction of 145 residential dwellings with associated infrastructure.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated permit.

45.53        This application was for construction of 145 residential dwellings with associated infrastructure.

45.54        The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that the application site was between Cheltenham Road East, which formed the northern boundary of the site, and the A40 Golden Valley dual carriageway which formed the southern boundary, and comprised approximately eight hectares of land.  The northeastern boundary of the site adjoined existing residential development which currently formed the edge of the built-up area of Churchdown. To the west of the site was the Gloucester North Community Fire Station.  The current application sought full planning permission for a development comprising 145 dwellings, of which 35% would be affordable. The site extended to approximately 8.1 hectares, of which approximately 3.9 hectares would be public open space.  The site would be accessed via a new junction from Cheltenham Road East towards the northeastern part of the site and would be offset from the junction with the Bellway site to the north. The proposal would provide pedestrian and cycle connections to existing development at Yew Tree Way and Oakhurst Close to the east along with routes throughout the site and public open space.  It was considered that the proposal would provide an appropriate mix of housing and would be of an acceptable design and layout which would be in keeping with the varied character of Churchdown. The proposal would also have an acceptable impact upon the highway network, biodiversity, flood risk and amenity for existing and future residents. As an update to the affordable housing, the applicant had now agreed an affordable housing mix of 60% social rent and 40% shared ownership, as advised by the Council’s Housing Enabling Officer, and was reflective of the evidence-based need in the area.  The proposal would deliver a significant amount of on-site public open space along with contributions towards highways education and off-site sports; these contributions had been agreed with respective consultees and were acceptable.  National Highways was still considering details in respect of the bund adjacent to the A40 and noise attenuation. It was considered that those matters could be resolved in an appropriate manner which would allow the holding notice to be withdrawn.  The recommendation remained delegated permit as set out in the Committee report.

45.55        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant advised that their planning application for 145 homes on this allocated site had been submitted in July 2022 and, since that time, they had been working closely with Council Officers, consultees and stakeholders to refine the scheme, resulting in a positive recommendation from the Planning Officer. The design approach had carefully considered local area characteristics, the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan and the Character Area Good Practice Assessment Guide. This had resulted in a scheme that would integrate well with the surrounding area and would be of high quality, providing good private and public amenity space. The designs had been tested against Building for a Healthy Life which was recognised within the National Planning Policy Framework as the benchmark for high quality design.  Almost 50% of the site had been set aside as public open space, the largest area being located on the western part, providing a meandering play area, footpaths, meadow areas and woodland planting, along with the provision of an attenuation basin. The site frontage and eastern part of the site had generous landscape buffers, providing connecting footpaths, allotments and swales, and good separation to existing neighbours. A noise bund and acoustic fence was proposed along the boundary with the A40 ensuring high levels of private amenity for new and existing residents. These enhancements provided great ecology and wildlife benefits equating to a 34% Biodiversity Net Gain for habitats and 15% for hedgerows which was considerably more than emerging standards of 10%. Additional impact assessments and traffic modelling had been undertaken by National Highways which supported the application.  All homes on the site would be zero carbon, achieved by providing air source heat pumps for heating and hot water and renewable energy derived from solar panels. This, and the high levels of fabric efficiency, meant the dwellings obtained an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) rating at the top of A which was equal to an energy efficiency rating of 100+ and well in excess of the requirements in the building regulations, putting their homes in the top 2% energy performance of those built nationally.  They were a climate considerate developer and the business had achieved carbon neutral status for a second year.   This development would provide substantial Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) contributions which would directly benefit the local community with 25% specifically set aside for the Parish Council. Contributions would be provided towards the local highways network, including the delivery of a new toucan crossing, local education provision, libraries, playing pitch provision and a local community centre.  Plans showed the delivery of 145 homes would make a significant contribution to the Council’s housing supply with 51 homes delivered as affordable housing and seven being self or custom build.  It was intended to commence development on the site immediately, with completed homes expected this time next year.

45.56        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Management Manager to permit the application, subject to any additional/amended conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and sought a motion from the floor.  A Member noted that the proposal would provide pedestrian and cycle connections to existing development at Yew Tree Way and Oakhurst Close to the east, along with routes throughout the site and public open space, and raised concern there was no natural access through Oakhurst Close and her feedback suggested opening up the play area to make it accessible to the new development.  With regard to Page No. 223, Paragraph 8.26 of the Committee report, she noted that County Highways had advised that a Section 106 contribution towards the signalisation of the B4063 Cheltenham Road East arm of the Elmbridge Court roundabout was required and she asked for further detail in relation to that.  The County Highways representative advised that this was required to improve queuing, particularly at the AM peak.  National Highways was still considering the implications and the wider contribution could be used for any other access improvements in the local area or beyond; there was nothing specific in mind for that contribution in terms of an alternative to signalisation of the roundabout at this stage.  With regard to Page No. 223, Paragraph 8.27 of the Committee report, the Member noted that National Highways had a holding recommendation that the application was not permitted until there had been further consideration of the site drainage and possible impacts upon the National Highways drainage asset at the A40 and she asked whether there was any update in relation to that.   The Development Management Team Manger (South) advised this was still in the hands of National Highways but there was no reason to believe that the details submitted by the applicant would be unacceptable; however, the planning permission could not be released until National Highways was satisfied with that infrastructure.  In terms of Page No. 226, Paragraph 8.51 of the Committee report, the Member asked whether the housing mix had been established and if nomination rights could be included on a strategic site and was informed that the housing mix had been agreed at the last minute with the applicant, and Officers were satisfied with that, and it was possible to include nomination rights. 

45.57        A Member asked for an indication of the thinking behind the access onto the A40 and was advised that it was a policy requirement for the strategic allocation in Churchdown to make provision for a potential access onto the A40; this development in itself did not require that but it was on an area of land which could be safeguarded via a Section 106 Agreement to potentially provide a new roadway connection in the future, should it become necessary to ease traffic onto Elmbridge Court.  Another Member recalled that, historically, concerns had been raised regarding education provision in this area and he sought confirmation there would be adequate spaces for children from the new development in local schools.  The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that the education situation had been assessed by Gloucestershire County Council which was satisfied that any impact could be successfully mitigated through the Section 106 contributions being sought.  Further to a query regarding the figures for education contributions set out at Page No. 230, Paragraph 8.77 of the report, the Development Management Manager (South) advised that ‘pre-school’ should read ‘primary’, ‘primary’ should read ‘secondary’ and ‘secondary’ should read ‘Post-16’.  A Member questioned whether the housing would go towards Tewkesbury Borough Council’s unmet housing need and was informed they would be going to Gloucester City; however, there was a duty to cooperate and deliver the housing policies in the Joint Core Strategy.

45.58        It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Management Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member expressed his dissatisfaction that the houses would be going towards Gloucester City Council’s housing numbers.  The proposer of the motion shared this disappointment but indicated that it had been agreed in the Joint Core Strategy so nothing could be done at this stage.  She was still unclear how the access through Oakhurst Close would work but she was sure there must be plans.  She raised concern that one cottage would now be completely surrounded by development and, having spoken to the residents, she asked that anything that could be done to mitigate the impact to them was done.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Management Team Manager (South) to PERMIT the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.