Agenda item

Outline application for the erection of up to 26 dwellings (all matters reserved except access) & associated infrastructure.

The Senior Planning Officer (Majors) introduced the application and explained that it was an outline application with the exception of the access area. She then showed the proposed plans for the site and highlighted the following points:

·         The proposal was for 26 dwellings.

·         All internal layouts were indicative, which meant that they could be changed at a later date when the reserved matters application came forward.

·         The proposal sought to remove a small portion of the retaining wall to the Northeast of the site in order to make room to widen the access. The Conservation Officer had requested further information due to the wall being classed as curtilage listed, further information had not been provided.

·         The application had been assessed against Local Plan Policy HC4 and was found non-compliant with HC4.1, HC4.3 and HC4.4.

·         Refusal reason 1 had been amended to include the following paragraph ‘The supporting information submitted by the applicant fails to evidence local need for the number and type of dwellings proposed and has also failed to demonstrate that local need cannot be met elsewhere in the locality. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to address the environmental issues presented by the presence of protected species and Japanese Knotweed. The applicant has failed to submit a draft Section 106 agreement which secures the dwellings as affordable.’

Councillor Evans spoke as a Ward Member for the area and asked the Councillors to refuse the application as per the Officers recommendation. He further stated that there were over 100 objections on the Stroud District Council (SDC) Planning Portal including objections from Cam Parish Council. He then highlighted the main objections from residents which included:

·         Concerns regarding the access to the site due to its proximity to the Nursery and a popular footpath. Lines of sight for the access would be limited due to the narrow twisting roads, made worse during drop off and pick up time at the Nursery.

·         Concerns regarding the location of the site due to it being outside of the settlement boundary as defined in the Cam Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP).

·         There were other more suitable sites available in Cam for this type of development and Brownfield sites should be prioritised.

·         The development of the proposed site could lead to flooding issues for existing residential properties due to run off surface water.

·         The site was a valued green space and provided screening from the M5.

·         The current biodiversity of the site would be lost if developed and this would also have a visual impact on the landscape.

·         Concerns regarding the sustainability of the affordable housing.

·         There was a lack of suitable infrastructure in the village and local facilities such as doctors and dentists were already at capacity.

·         There were not enough employment opportunities in Cam to support more residents.

Councillor Andrewartha from Cam Parish Council spoke against the application and highlighted the following concerns:

·         Calling the application an exception site did not make it one.

·         The Cam NDP laid out the areas for development making exception sites unnecessary.

·         The reason for Local Plan Policy HC4 was to allow for affordable housing developments in rural areas. Cam already had many large developments in progress with affordable housing included.

·          The application contravened Cam NDP Policies.

·         Between 2006 – 2022, Cam and Dursley had delivered 16.5% of total new housing in the District with little or no improvements to infrastructure, healthcare services and flooding.

Mr Coupe and Mr Willetts, local residents, spoke against the application and asked the committee to reject it for the following reasons:

·         Overwhelming response of objections from local residents.

·         Non-compliance with the Cam NDP

·         Negative impact on an iconic building and setting and the character & landscape of the surrounding area.

·         Harmful to biodiversity in the area.

·         The housing need could be met in a more suitable location within the Parish.

·         Non-Compliance with Local Plan Policies.

·         Site was outside of the settlement boundary.

·         The Flood Risk Assessment that was submitted had a lack of evidenced hydrographical data.

·         Assumptions to flow capacity had been made without any evidence or checks. Further to this they failed to address the topographical levels of the area and its constraints.

·         The proposed site had a known history of flooding.

·         Policy ES4 of the Local Plan stated that new developments must be located outside of areas of flood risk and provide betterment to flood risk.

·         The proposed 400m₃ plus of water storage would occupy a large portion of the Northeast of the site and presented additional health and safety concerns. Further reducing the viability of the site.

Councillors were given the opportunity to ask technical questions of the Officers, the following answers were given in response:

·         According to residents, the housing need assessment completed by the developer utilised a basic questionnaire which was delivered to residents in Cam and did not explore options for alternative sites.

·         The type of housing included in the proposal was indicative and would be confirmed at the reserve matters stage should the application be approved.

·         In order to be classed as an exception site, the application should only be used for affordable housing however due to the lack of a draft Section 106 agreement, this could not be confirmed.

·         There had been communications with the developer to inform them of what was required in order to proceed and to suggest the use of the term ‘affordable housing’ in the application which was not accepted.

Councillor Patrick proposed and Councillor Fenton seconded the officer recommendation to refuse the application.

Councillor Haydn Jones raised concerns regarding the lack of the Section 106 agreement and the number of Policies the application contravened. He also thanked Officers for referring to the Cam NDP within their report.

Councillor Schoemaker stated that he was concerned with the road safety impact and the burden of additional traffic.

Councillor John Jones debated that due to the proximity of various protected areas, there would be a number of contributions required which could result in the affordable housing option becoming unviable for the developer.

Councillor Miles echoed Councillor John Jones’ concerns and stated that there was no mitigation proposed for badgers residing on the site or a plan to address this.

Councillor Gray stated she was concerned over the stability of the types of housing proposed, there was a lack of detail provided and no evidence to support that the houses would be affordable. There was also very little engagement from the Developer who hadn’t come to represent themselves this evening.

Councillor Patrick echoed Councillor Gray’s comments regarding the absent developer.

After being put to a vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.

RESOLVED To refuse the application.

Councillor Haydn Jones Left the meeting.