Agenda item

Erection of 52 dwellings with associated access, parking & landscaping, together with a new sports pavilion with associated facilities.

 

The Principal Planning Officer introduced the report and showed the committee aerial shots of the site, the outline of the site and the development plans for the site.

He then talked through the characteristics of the site, areas for consideration and explained that the Officer recommendation was to approve the application subject to conditions and a S106 agreement. The Principal Planning Officer also drew the Members attention to the changes outlined in the Late Pages submitted.

He explained in detail the key issues for the Committee to consider which included:

·       Provision of 100% affordable housing stock and the weight applied to this benefit.

·       Provision of sports pitches and open space.

·       Impact of the development on the character of the area.

·       Ecological impact on the nature reserve containing the great crested newt population.

·       Impact on residential amenity in particular to properties along the Bristol Road.

·       General environmental impacts such as flood risk and impact on surface water drainage.

·       Highways safety, impact with access onto Bristol Road.

 

Councillor Housden spoke as a Ward Member for Stonehouse, he asked the committee to reject the application and laid out his reasons which included:

·       Application conflicts with Local Plan Policy CP3.

·       The Council had already approved 1,350 homes in 2016 which were still currently under development in Great Oldbury, Stonehouse.

·       Application contradicts the Stonehouse Neighbourhood Development Plan (SNDP) which was adopted by Stroud District Council (SDC) in February 2018.

·       During the development for the SNDP, which was completed in 2017, a call for suitable sites was requested and Wycliffe College were consulted. No suitable sites were put forward by Wycliffe College at that time.

·       Contradicts the Local Plan Policy ES13 – the whole or partial loss of open space within settlements.

·       The promise of community use of its future facilities was questionable as several local organisations had already been denied use of the current facilities.

·       Application falls below standards laid out in Policy H2 of the SNDP for providing off street parking.

·       Access to the development would cross over the existing cycle lane.

·       SNDP page 47 – Play spaces should be provided or in lieu, financial contributions made. ES15 also states similar requirements.

·       SNDP page 55 - 5.3 Protect and enhance green spaces & 5.4 Protect and enhance the heritage and wildlife assets.

·       The development does not meet requirements of Local Plan Policies ES6, ES13, SA2 and of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) policies 171 and 174.

·       SNDP Policy ENV6 regarding views and vistas.

·       Highways concerns over the access and increased use of the road.

 

Councillor Ross also spoke as a Ward Member for Stonehouse, she described the first application made by Wycliffe in 1994 and explained it was refused due to the strength of feeling in the community and the overwhelming support for the field and the views. She informed the Committee during the development of the SNDP, Wycliffe’s Operations Manager was consulted and provided assurance that there were no plans to release any of the field for development. Less than 10 years later they had submitted the application without any public consultation. She expressed that the application had not taken any of the public’s feelings into account in particular the impact on the nearby residents and would not benefit the community. She expressed concerns with the access stating that it was dangerous. She drew the committee’s attention to the fact that only 16 of the 52 houses ‘may’ be available for rental. She asked the committee to reject the application for those reasons.

 

Town Councillor Gary Powell spoke on behalf of the Stonehouse Town Council. He explained that Park Estate, Ryelands Road, Little Australia, Verney Fields, Boakes Drive Estate, Court View, Arrowsmith Drive, Great Oldbury and half of Bridgend had been built on green land since 1948. He expressed his concerns for the current sports field under threat of development and questioned whether Wycliffe could sell other assets in order to raise funds for their pavilion. He then expressed his wishes to keep the beautiful scenery and uninterrupted views that the Berryfields provide to Stonehouse.

 

Claire Cleave, a local resident spoke in opposition of the application and expressed her concerns which included:

·       The whole of The Berryfields is protected outdoor play space.

·       Potential damage to their foundations due to the close proximity of the proposed road and the impact of noise and fumes.

·       Would have created a lack of privacy in their home.

·       Highways concerns and issues.

·       Adverse impact on Nature.

·       Fly-tipping.

·       Open car park being used inappropriately.

·       Risk of graffiti on boundary walls.

·       Security risk opening ground floor windows.

·       Huge stress caused to residents.

 

Glyn Davis, a local resident, expressed his concerns over the highways safety issues as a nearby resident and as a previously employed Principal Highways & Road Safety Officer. His concerns included:

·       Gloucestershire County Council had not followed conventional methods to assess junction capacity. The data accepted was not a true reflection as it was gathered during the school holidays and avoided peak times.

·       The potential danger of the junction with accidents likely to increase in intensity and severity if the application was approved.

·       Consultant engineers had not collected basic data for road safety and GCC Highways had not demanded the information from the applicant.

·       Cost of housing needs to be balanced against the road safety issues and the effect it would have on the local community.

·       Over 280 objections to this application had been submitted.

 

Craig Macdonald, Head of Development for the Guinness Partnership, spoke in support of the application. He reiterated that the entirety of the homes within this application were affordable homes. He informed the committee that over 500 affordable homes are required per annum within the Stroud District. He expressed the desperate need for new and affordable homes. He stated that the land in question was inaccessible to the public and hadn’t been used by the college for some time but with the new development it would improve the recreational offering of the space. He stated that the development was designed to complement the character of the area and to provide sensitivity to current residential dwellings. They had also created a green corridor along the western boundary to provide an informal open space and minimise the impact of the development. 

 

Councillor Brine informed the committee that when the application was first issued he was not a member of the Development Control Committee and that as a resident of Stonehouse, he sent a letter of objection. He explained he had not been involved with the application since and had come to the committee with an open mind to listen to all the information provided to make an informed decision.

 

Councillor Jones asked questions regarding highways and received answers on the following topics:

·       Alternative access through the existing roundabout could not be considered as this was not submitted with the application.

·       The applicant had submitted comprehensive traffic surveys and evidence which GCC Highways had considered.

 

The Highways Officer answered questions regarding the requirement of a ghost lane, the increase in traffic on the existing roads and access. The Highways Officer also advised that they appraise every application and base this on their own evidence and carry out internal checks.

 

Councillor Ryder questioned whether they could request a condition to be added to ensure that both parts of the development are delivered. The Principal Planning Officer informed the committee that the condition would not be appropriate considering the six tests for conditions and that he was confident both developments would take place simultaneously.

 

Councillor Brine asked whether the application had gone far enough to meet the 2030 strategy and whether the Committee could just deal with the recreation element today. The Principal Planning Officer advised the developer had committed to a fabric first approach which would deliver between 4-10% over current building regulations in terms of efficiency and that the development was before the Committee as a whole.

 

Councillor Patrick asked for confirmation regarding the number of social housing units on the site. It was confirmed that a proportion of houses would be for social rent and the remainder will be for shared ownership, there were 2 options outlined in the draft S106 agreement. The options were that the site would either have 30% affordable housing or 100% affordable housing, the developer had advised that if they go with 100% affordable housing there would be 15 social rent and 37 shared ownership units.

 

Councillor Smith voiced his concerns over the ecological impact of removing the open space and questioned whether the development would bring an ecological gain. The Principal Planning Officer explained that the creation of the green corridor would provide fruit, swales, planting and allow species to move through the area safely which was the ecological gain.

 

After a question raised from the Chair, the Principal Planning Officer explained why the Greater Crested Newt (GCN) population was considered as unviable.

 

Councillor Schoemaker questioned whether they could increase the proportion of social rented houses. The Housing Strategy and CIL Manager explained that they were unable to demand a higher percentage of social housing as it would affect the funding. She explained that the Council’s policy was for 30% affordable housing and that was what would be referenced as required in the s106 agreement as set out at page 70 of the Agenda.  If the s106 required above this, then Homes England’s position would be that they would not provide funding for the 100% proposal.  She also reassured the Committee that only around 3% of shared ownership properties were ever purchased. 

 

Councillor Gray questioned how the application protected and enhanced the green spaces currently available as set out in the Local Plan. To which the Principal Planning Officer informed the Committee that they had mitigated the loss of the green space by providing the green corridor/informal open space.  The majority of the site was currently not publicly available, nonetheless but there was still the question regarding views and impact on that of the loss of an open field.  

 

Councillor Patrick received answers on the following topics:

·       Consideration regarding pollution had been given to the existing residential properties where the Principal Planning Officer had identified an impact on their residential amenity

·       The effect of the low level planting on privacy to the existing dwellings.

·       The proposed green corridor would not provide habitat for the Great Crested Newts, through the Great Crested Newt Licensing Scheme a financial sum would be provided to benefit populations in the rest of the District.

 

Councillor Ryder received answers around the oversite of the management company employed and securing the costs surrounding that for the residents. It was confirmed that the management company would be secured under the S106 agreement however there was a condition included in the report that states that the development complies with the landscape and ecological management plan which would set out the requirements. The Chief Planning Lawyer confirmed that further details could be added to the S106 to include provisions that the management company should be set up before the houses are sold.

 

Councillor Jones expressed his concerns with highway safety and questioned why the figures weren’t checked by the Highways Authority. The Highways Officer confirmed they had checked the data provided to them and for that level of development, that was sufficient enough evidence.

 

The Chair proposed refusal, Councillor Brine seconded.

 

The reasons for refusal were outlined as follows by Councillor Brine and the Chair:

·       Issues with access and highways

·       Loss of views

·       Loss of sports facilities

·       Garden provision does not meet 20 square metre stated in design statement

·       Non-compliance with the SNDP

·       Non-compliance with Local Plan policies ES13 and ES6.

 

Councillor Brine stated that the issues with access had not been addressed and that alternatives had not been considered appropriately. He stated that there were other sites within the District that could accommodate the affordable housing that was needed.

 

Members discussed the following issues:

·       Access of the site

·       History of the Berryfield sites

·       Build-up of traffic waiting to leave the site

·       Privacy of existing residential dwellings

·       Lack of public consultation

·       Highways concerns

·       Biodiversity and harm to wildlife.

 

Councillor Smith debated whether the Ecological aspect could form part of the reasons for refusal.

 

After debating the issue and receiving advice from the Head of Development Management, the Chair withdrew his suggestion to use Highways Objections in the refusal proposal, the seconder agreed.

 

The Councillors debated and reviewed the reasons for refusal and amended them to be:

·       Non-Compliance with Local Plan Policy ES13 – open spaces and character of the area.

·       Non-Compliance with Local Plan Policy ES6 – Biodiversity.

·       Non-Compliance with SNDP including ENV 6 and the impact on the view from the AONB.

·       Non-Compliance with NPPF 171, 174a & 174b.

It was also proposed by the Chair that the final wording for refusal would be delegated to the Head of Development Management in Consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

 

After being put to a vote, the Motion for refusal was carried with 8 votes in favour and 1 against.

 

RESOLVED To REFUSE permission for application S.20/2161/FUL with refusal reasons to be delegated to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair.