Agenda item

PROPOSAL:  Full planning application for the erection of 126 dwellings and associated vehicular access, public open space, landscaping and other infrastructure including the demolition of the existing property known as Roseleigh along with associated outbuildings and the agricultural building located to the north of Banady Lane.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

19.2          This was a full planning application for the erection of 126 dwellings and associated vehicular access, public open space, landscaping and other infrastructure including the demolition of the existing property known as Roseleigh along with associated outbuildings and the agricultural building located to the north of Banady Lane.

19.3          The Principal Planning Officer advised that the site was situated to the east of Stoke Orchard to the north of Stoke Road and extended towards Dean Lane to the north.  The plans and photographs within the presentation showed the site location and the relationship with Stoke Orchard and the Juliana Group employment site to the immediate west.  The development site was mostly agricultural land and comprised two adjoining parcels of land in a loose figure of eight shape. The site was relatively flat and not subject to any landscape, heritage or ecological designations.  The application proposed 75 open market dwellings - a mix of two, three and four bedroom dwellings - along with 51 affordable dwellings which were mainly two and three bedrooms with some four bedroom houses, one five bedroom house and six affordable bungalows.  There had been 24 objections from local residents during the course of consulting and reconsulting on the revisions to the scheme, many of whom were concerned with highway matters, particularly the narrowness of part of the pavement link along Stoke Road.  Following consultation with the Urban Design Officer, improvements had been made to the proposals including a reduction in density and better links to the open space around the perimeter of the site.  As a result of concerns raised by Officers in relation to the proximity of the nearby factory site, further work had been done to mitigate noise levels in order to protect the residential amenity of potential occupiers.  The Parish Council supported the application in principle and had identified a number of community needs which the applicant had generally accepted.  Although the proposal was not policy compliant in terms of the locational policies in the Joint Core Strategy and Tewkesbury Borough Plan, these received less weight in the planning balance given the lack of a five year housing land supply, or any other material considerations which would, as a result of granting planning permission, cause adverse impact.  Therefore, Officers considered the proposal was acceptable in principle, and it was recommended that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application, subject to any additional or amended conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

19.4          The Chair invited the representative from Stoke Orchard and Tredington Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative advised that Stoke Orchard and Tredington Parish Council fully recognised and accepted its designation as a Service Village and had sought to actively engage with the developer regarding the proposal which would effectively increase the size of Stoke Orchard by approximately 30%.  The Parish Council had previously indicated its support for the proposed Roseleigh development conditional on two key areas being addressed: various concerns about the plans, e.g. the proposed number of bungalows, as well as the various points raised by County Highways; and, the provision of an appropriate level of Section 106 funding made directly to the Parish.  Initial discussions with the developer had led to the Parish Council holding a residents' meeting, from which points were collated and summarised resulting in the developer leading its own meeting to address the concerns and queries. This had been followed-up with a second meeting to show how they had been addressed.  The Parish Council's close involvement with its Community Centre, previous community surveys and the recent consultation process meant it had a very clear understanding of residents' needs.  The Parish Council had presented a Section 106 document, based on a careful assessment of community needs going forward, should Roseleigh be permitted.  Key aspects of meeting those needs were an extension to the Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) and community facilities that were specific to the Parish.  The Parish Council trusted that the considerable efforts made to work collaboratively for the benefit of the community would be recognised appropriately.

19.5          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised this was a scheme for residential development of 126 dwellings on the edge of the built-up area of Stoke Orchard.  Stoke Orchard was a designated Service Village in the Joint Core Strategy and a location where new housing was expected to be brought forward to assist in meeting the housing needs of the borough.  As such, the development of this site fitted squarely with the Joint Core Strategy as a whole.  The Committee report confirmed that the village was able to absorb a development of this size and nature, in a way that would respect the social cohesion of the village.  As Members had heard, Stoke Orchard and Tredington Parish Council also supported the principle of this development in recognition of its Service Village status and the need to create a stronger community in the village. This support was conditional upon several improvements and assurances on the scheme which had been addressed.  During the course of the application, the scheme had been amended from 136 to 126 dwellings as a direct result of the positive dialogue that had taken place throughout the process with Officers, consultees, the Parish Council and local residents.  Numerous changes had been made to the proposal following feedback received through the two residents’ public exhibitions, such as the inclusion of bungalows, lowering of net density across the site, relocation of play areas, and a series of off-site highway improvements.  Comments from the Council’s Urban Design, Landscape and Environmental Health Officers, as well as the County Highways, had also been addressed.  A package of much-needed Section 106 community infrastructure contributions had been negotiated, again in collaboration with the Parish Council, totalling over £195,000 in community contributions that would benefit Stoke Orchard residents, and over £540,000 in highway safety and sustainable transport improvements, not to mention almost £2m in Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) receipts that would be payable through the development.  A collaborative approach between developer and residents really did yield the best forms of development, and this was a prime example of that.  At a time when the Council needed to find new sources of housing due to its supply shortfall, this site fitted the bill perfectly; it was at the edge of a Service Village, outside the Green Belt and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it was not at risk of flooding and was unaffected by any other environmental designations – there were no planning reasons for restricting development of the site.  It would deliver 126 much needed dwellings, 51 of which would be affordable, and would contribute significantly towards the Council’s housing supply.  It would also deliver the community and social infrastructure improvements already referenced which, as the Parish Council had said, would hugely benefit the village’s existing and future residents.  The Officer’s recommendation was right in its conclusion that the benefits of the scheme far outweighed any negatives. The planning balance pointed firmly in favour of the grant of planning permission and the support of the Parish Council spoke volumes - as Members would know, it was not often that local support was forthcoming for housing proposals.  As such, he hoped Members would feel able to take Officer advice and permit the application.

19.6          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application, subject to any additional or amended conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member drew attention to the site layout plan at Page No. 68 of the Committee report and asked whether the block of properties to the right of the depot would be built right up against the acoustic fencing.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the Environmental Health Officer had looked at the latest acoustic report and had recommended that the acoustic fence be as shown in that report.  The Environmental Health Officer had also suggested amendments to the length of the fence on the northeast of the site.  Recommended condition 14 related to noise mitigation and required details to be submitted to, and approved by, the Local Planning Authority.  The Member noted that the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, referred to a letter of objection in respect of a Barn Owl nest in the agricultural barn and she asked whether a condition could be included to ensure that, if the application was permitted, the developer would be required to work with the objector to find alternate boxes for the Owls.  The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that recommended condition 7, which required the submission and approval of a Construction, Environmental and Ecological Management Plan, could be amended to reflect that.

19.7          A Member indicated that the National Planning Policy Framework, Joint Core Strategy and Tewkesbury Borough Plan had sustainability at their heart and he asked what specific things were being done by the developer to reduce carbon emissions and promote renewable energy sources.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the applicant had produced an energy statement which showed it would ensure all dwellings were carbon reduction compliant in accordance with building regulation requirements but had gone further by saying that photovoltaic collectors would be used on the development.  The Member asked why the energy statement was not included in the Committee report and was advised that not all documents associated with an application were included in the Agenda pack but the energy statement could be viewed on the planning portal.  Notwithstanding this, she agreed the Committee report was lacking in terms of any reference to the energy statement.  The Member pointed out that an energy statement had been included in relation to one of the other Agenda Items so there was an inconsistency which needed to be addressed.  He went on to indicate that Page No. 52, Paragraph 8.97 of the Committee report set out that the Sports England calculator tool had suggested the contribution towards sporting and community facilities should be £367,882 but, according to Page No. 52, Paragraph 8.100 of the Committee report, the applicant was proposing £161,950.  He noted that the Parish Council representative had stated the Parish Council was happy with the proposed contribution; however, this was less than half of the Sports England calculation and he asked if it was usual for the Sports England calculator to be used for developments of this size.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that, as set out at Page No. 51, Paragraph 8.92 of the Committee report, there were three tests all Section 106 contributions needed to meet – necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.  Officers had negotiated with the applicant whose view was that the Sports England calculator was nationally prescribed and there was no strong evidence to support some of the items within the calculation.  Officers had looked at the amounts of each requirement, and the need for open space generally, and felt what had been proposed by the developer was satisfactory.  In terms of how other applications were dealt with, she was sure the Sports England calculator had been used but perhaps not been made explicit and she accepted there was an inconsistency.  The Member raised concern that he was unclear whether the £161,950 being sought was a good or bad figure; whilst the Parish Council was happy with that amount, it would have liked more and the Sports England calculations would have gone towards fulfilling those additional requests.  A Member sought clarification as to whether the community centre could be accessed by pedestrians without having to use Stoke Road.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that pedestrian access would be via Banady Lane and Dean Lane but there was a short section where pedestrians would need to go onto Stoke Road but this was the part of the road with a pavement.

19.8          With regard to Page No. 48, Paragraph 8.63 of the Committee report and the clustering of affordable housing, a Member indicated that she was unhappy with clusters of up to 16 homes and asked if that could be reviewed – she recognised the developer was not keen to have clusters of less than 16 but she did not think that was a good idea in terms of community cohesion.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer explained that Officers had advised the developer they would like to see smaller clusters and an amended layout had been provided but had still showed clusters of up to 16.  Notwithstanding this, on balance, it was not possible to recommend refusal on those grounds given that the Head of Service: Housing was happy with the affordable housing on the whole.  The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that, whilst the clusters were large and at the higher end of what Officers would like to see, the affordable housing was well-integrated overall.  The Legal Adviser explained that clustering may not be in the control of the developer as Registered Providers which took on the affordable housing often preferred it to be in groups for management purposes.  In relation to Page No. 49, Paragraph 8.73 of the Committee report, the Member noted that, with regard to the foul water drainage, Severn Trent Water had been consulted and raised no concerns over capacity of the mains network or the ability to connect to it subject to informatives and the Principal Planning Officer confirmed those informatives would be included.

19.9          It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to an amendment to condition 7 to require the developer to work with the objector to find alternate boxes for Barn Owls.  A Member indicated that, whilst she shared the concerns regarding clustering of the affordable housing and was always disappointed that this tended to be in the middle of developments rather than in green, open areas, she welcomed the proposed mix and tenure, particularly the inclusion of six bungalows and one bed properties which would help those who were looking to downsize.  Another Member echoed these sentiments but would like to see the Council pushing developers to provide smaller clusters.  He felt it was important to make clear whether the clustering was being led by the developer or Registered Providers and asked if that was known in this case.  The Principal Planning Officer advised that the applicant’s agent had indicated the proposed clustering was based on their discussions with the Registered Provider.  The Member felt this needed further consideration outside of the meeting as the Council’s policy for smaller clusters seemed to be at odds with the requirements of Registered Providers and therefore what developers were willing to put forward.

19.10        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Associate Director: Planning to PERMIT the application, subject to any additional or amended conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and an amendment to condition 7 to require the developer to work with the objector to find alternate boxes for Barn Owls.