Agenda item

Outline application for 13 houses of which 9 are custom build houses and 4 affordable together with associated access, parking & amenity spaces with all matters reserved except access (amended description).

The Senior Planning Officer (Majors) introduced the report and explained that the application was an outline application for 13 dwellings, 9 of which would be custom build and the remaining 4 would be affordable housing. He highlighted the following information:

·         Access to the site was proposed at the top of Dozule Close.

·         The site was identified as a draft allocation (sites PS42 & PS16) of the Draft Local Plan.

·         It was adjacent to an established settlement.

·         The site would bring benefits by the way of social housing, and it was felt that outweighed any harm.

·         There would be approximately 30m distance between the nearest proposed dwelling and the existing dwellings on Dozule Close.

·         Access to the rear gardens would remain accessible for drain maintenance.

·         There were no objections raised from Gloucestershire County Council (GCC) Highways or from Biodiversity Officers however, they had included some recommended conditions.

 

Councillor Studdert-Kennedy, Ward Councillor, asked the committee to refuse the application for the following reasons. The Parish Council and the local residents directly affected were not in favour of the application being approved. It was felt that sufficient development within the village had already taken place. The buildings proposed would be higher than the existing dwellings which caused concern. Further concerns were raised over the drainage of the land. Page 85 stated that full weight was given to the 2015 Local Plan however the report mentioned weight given to the draft allocations within the new draft Local Plan. The examiners had stated that the draft Local Plan would not be approved without amendments which questioned the weight attributed to it. After the development at Mankley Field was approved, the Inspector gave assurances that the application site should not be built on.

 

Ms Summers, a local resident, spoke against the application and asked the Committee to reject the application for the following reasons:

·         There was a local consultation hearing scheduled for the 18 May to discuss the site being included in the draft local plan as a development allocation.

·         The Parish Councillors objected to the development and the Parish Council had requested for Leonard Stanley to be re-classified as tier 4 settlement due to its lack of employment opportunities, services and facilities.

·         The planning permission for this application shouldn’t be granted ahead of the consultation and approval of the draft Local Plan.

·         The entrance to the site was near an entrance to the local primary school which children also utilised to walk to the Church.

·         The roads were not suitable for the construction traffic. If permission was granted, she asked Councillors to consider a shorter access.

·         Consideration should be given to the mental health and wellbeing of residents who had already experienced 3 years of noise pollution from the Mankley Field development and were assured at that time that this land would not be built on.

·         The construction of two storey dwellings next to single storey bungalows would be overbearing.

·         The proposed drainage system was not sustainable and would require regular maintenance to avoid flooding.

·         Concerns for local wildlife utilising the site as a wildlife corridor or habitat as the site was allocated in the Mankely Field Proposal to support displaced wildlife.

·         The land was cleared in February 2022 before any ecological surveys could be carried out in the appropriate seasons.

 

Mr Davis, the Agent, spoke in favour of the application and asked the Committee to support the proposal for the following reasons. The application consisted of 13 dwellings, 9 of which were proposed to be custom build. Due to this, the outline application had been brought forward in order to allow individual purchasers to design and develop their homes. The layout of the site had been designed to prevent overlooking, the two storey houses were proposed adjacent to the playing field with no first-floor windows facing west towards existing properties. And next to the existing single storey properties were proposed dormer bungalows. There were four affordable houses proposed within the applications, 2 two-bed and 2 three-bed semi-detached properties. They had worked with an ecologist to ensure a bio-diversity net gain of over 10% within the site. The scheme engineers had carried out robust testing and consultation with Severn Trent regarding the flooding concerns which would be monitored under condition 8. A land drain was proposed across the western side of the site to address any flooding issues from heavy rainfall. Any concerns regarding the construction traffic would be managed under condition 10.

 

Ms Litton, a Parish Councillor, spoke on behalf of Leonard Stanley Parish Council and asked the Committee to reject the application for the following reasons:

·         Loss of a valuable green field.

·         The Parish and District Councils objected to the Mankley Field development being developed which was later overturned during appeal. This was due to not having a Local Plan in place at that time and being unable to demonstrate a 5-year land supply.

·         The Parish Council was given assurance during the Mankley Field development that this land would not be built on.

·         The site was important to Biodiversity prior to being cleared with a mechanical digger which would have destroyed the ancient hedgerow growing along the boundary without intervention.

·         A housing needs survey in 2018 identified that Leonard Stanley needed 7 affordable houses. The Mankley Field development had provided 50 additional affordable houses therefore the target had been exceeded.

·         The field was outside the settlement boundary and the application did not meet the criteria for an exception site.

·         The draft Local Plan was still undergoing its examination therefore full weight should be attributed to the current Local Plan.

·         Concerned with vehicles travelling to and from the proposed site as they would need to navigate through the entire village and pass by the footpath leading to the primary school which would be unsafe and bad for the environment.

·         Large concerns regarding flooding on the site and the conditions mentioned would be unenforceable.

·         Leonard Stanley village character was being destroyed by the large number of developments in the area and the loss of green spaces.

 

The Senior Planning Officer (Majors) advised that the application was on a greenfield site adjacent to a settlement but it was not a green belt location.

 

Members of the Committee then had the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officers. In response to queries it was confirmed that:

·         Limited weight could be given to the Draft Local Plan due to where it was in the process. The current Local Plan still carried full weight regarding planning applications.

·         The application was a departure from the current Local plan however, the site was considered to be in a sustainable location.

·         The application site was within the allocations for development in the draft local Plan.

·         The application did not qualify as an exceptions site as it was not 100% affordable houses.

·         A custom build property was a dwelling designed and built by the developer and then personalised for the customer.

·         This was an outline application which established the principle for development, if approved the reserved matters application would follow which was where the detail of plot sizes and other matters could be considered.

·         Each application was assessed on its own merits, and the reasons listed for granting this application shouldn’t set a precedent for development of other sites outside of settlement boundaries.

 

Councillor Cornell questioned whether the construction traffic could be restricted around the primary school hours. The Senior Planning Officer (Majors) confirmed that there was a requirement for a construction management plan to be submitted under condition 9.

 

Councillor Jones proposed to refuse the application as it directly contradicted policy CP15 of the current Local Plan. The application site was outside of the settlement boundary, was not an exception site and did not meet any of the qualifying criteria. Councillor Green seconded.

 

Councillors debated the possible additional refusal reasons which included; Loss of open space, loss of wildlife corridor, contradiction to Local Plan Policies CP2, CP3, ES8, ES13 and ES15.

 

The Principal Planning Lawyer informed the Committee of the NPPF paragraph 12 which stated that proposals contrary to a Local Plan would be refused unless material considerations indicated otherwise; therefore he urged them to identify the harm caused by the conflict with the local plan policies as part of their refusal reasons.

 

Councillor Schoemaker stated that in order to represent the community the Parish Council and the residents’ thoughts and feelings should be considered.

 

Councillor Brown echoed Councillor Jones’ comments regarding Local Plan Policy CP15.

 

Councillor Schoemaker debated whether the proposal was being considered too soon.

 

The Chair highlighted encroachment into the countryside as potential harm.

 

Councillor Jones stated that the proposal did not meet any of the 6 exceptions within Policy CP15 therefore the additional criteria was irrelevant.

 

The Majors & Environment Team Manager explained that identifying the harm would reinforce the refusal reason should the application go to appeal. 

 

The Principal Planning Lawyer clarified that as the land was an unallocated site it would be classed as a green field site therefore it could amount to encroachment into the countryside. He further clarified that because the proposal was contrary to Policy CP15 it could be arguable that it potentially caused harm to the plan-led system. This would be contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

 

Councillor Jones agreed that those were his initial feelings regarding the departure from the Local Plan and why he was looking to refuse.

 

Councillor Cornell debated the sustainability of the decision should the draft Local Plan be approved then this site was in a development allocation.

 

After being put to a vote, the Motion was Carried with 8 votes for and 1 vote against.

 

RESOLVED To refuse the application and to delegate to the Head of Development Management in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair to agree the wording of the refusal reasons.

 

The meeting was adjourned for a period of 15 minutes.