Agenda item

Erection of 160 dwellings comprised of 53 two-bed, 83 three-bed, 6 four-bed, 6 five-bed houses & 12 Flats, with all matters reserved except for access

The Majors & Environment Team Manager introduced the proposal which he confirmed was an outline application with all matters reserved except for access. It was for the erection of 160 dwellings on land which formed part of the former RAC Quedgeley, and which is a protected employment site in the current Local Plan. The applicant’s viability argument was that the site is not viable as employment use and the district valuer had confirmed this position. As the site is unlikely to come forward as employment use, an alternative use for the site is sought despite this deviating from the Local Plan. Indicative layouts in the proposal suggest that a noise bund and landscaping around the perimeter of this site will provide noise attenuation between the residential buildings and the commercial buildings. Recent discussions with Gloucestershire Highways had resulted in an amendment to Condition 9 so that one cycle space would now be provided per bedroom rather than per dwelling. An electric vehicle charging condition would be added. It was noted that the proposal would now be within the boundaries of the new Parish of Hunts Grove.

Councillor Mossman, Ward Councillor for Hardwicke, joined the meeting to speak on behalf of the ward community and Hunts Grove Parish Council. He highlighted the following points:

1. The site is clearly identified in all plans for employment use only and is protected against change of use for any other purpose. There is a surplus of outstanding permissions for housing in the area and residents will need employment. It is unacceptable to allow the last piece of industrial land to change to residential use. There is a need to keep the carbon footprint of people travelling away to work to a minimum so employment land is very important. The proposal goes against SDC Policy CP11, CP5, EL1, EK13, SO2, NPPF Paragraph 12, and the Hardwicke NDP.

2. Environmental Health has set noise levels to be achieved, but given the experience of residents in other areas of Hunts Grove, it is very unlikely that noise levels could be reduced sufficiently to achieve the required levels for this application to be successful. This is particularly because of the industrial activity which surrounds the site on three sides.

3. The Hardwicke Neighbourhood Development Plan took four years of hard work to achieve and it was approved by SDC in 2017. It is now as important to consider as SDC policies and MPPF codes.

4. GCC’s consideration of the proposal concluded that it would generate additional requirements for school places. It is unacceptable that the applicant has indicated he is unable to afford the contribution for education requested by GCC.

Councillor Mark Ryder joined the meeting to speak on behalf of Hardwicke Parish Council and highlighted the following points:

1. If the application was to be approved it would go against the SDC Local Plan, the Hardwicke Neighbourhood Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2. Noise levels have been compromised in other parts of the Hunts Grove residential development which are not as close to the industrial activity as this site. This impact is permanent and the Council is now unable to change this position. 3. The application conflicts with

3 paragraphs of the MPPF, 11 policies of the SDC Local Plan, and 3 core policies of the Hardwicke Neighbourhood Development Plan.

4. Land must be protected for employment use. If 160 residences are erected in the middle of an industrial site it will compromise both residential and industrial occupiers forever.

The Majors & Environment Manager clarified that the proposal is a protected employment site but, as viability testing has shown that there is no sign of it coming forward as an employment site, the best alternative use of the brown field site is sought. The Environmental Health Officer had reviewed the submitted noise data which concluded that the majority of noise will be from highway traffic and that the noise bund and landscaping should be sufficient to alleviate this. He explained that there was no space in the finances of the scheme to provide an education contribution.

Rob Linnell joined the meeting to speak on behalf of the applicant. He confirmed that the proposed site has remained undeveloped for 18 years and that, despite significant marketing, limited interest for employment usage has been received despite there being a strong local market for employment land. A viability assessment demonstrates that the development of an employment scheme would incur considerable losses, and the district valuer has confirmed an employment development to be unviable. Rob Linnell referred to Paragraph 120 of the NPPF which states that where there is no reasonable prospect of an application coming forward to the use allocated in the plan, applications for alternative uses should be supported. The applicant has demonstrated the development to be viable with a 25% provision of affordable housing which would contribute to one of the Council’s core objectives. The applicant has addressed all technical and environmental matters raised by consultees resulting in no technical objections to the proposal. Full design details will be brought forward at the Reserved Matters stage for the committee’s consideration. The utilisation of the site as a residential development, with the provision of affordable housing, complies with the requirements of the NPPF and would contribute to boosting delivery of housing in the district.

Councillor Kay asked whether the site would not perhaps be suitable for either employment or residential use given its contamination. The Majors & Environment Team Manager clarified that a remediation strategy for the site could be put in place, but the cost of this affects the viability of the scheme, which is why a residential use has been proposed which yields higher land revenues. Councillor Kay asked whether sufficient time for interested employment providers to come forward had been allowed as once the land is determined for residential use this precludes any future employment use. The Majors & Environment Team Manager confirmed that the site had been marketed as an employment site for a significant period of time, the applicant is a commercial property developer, and the district valuer has stated that the viability is unlikely to change in a positive way in the medium term. Councillor Kay asked why the recommendations suggested by Highways England were not included in the set of recommendations in the report, and the Majors & Environment Team Manager confirmed that the highway works had already been put in place.

Councillor Williams asked why the other three sides of the site are viable but the proposed site is not. The Majors & Environment Team Manager explained that the other land did not have the abnormal costs associated with removal of contamination, and it was also part of the wider Hunts Grove development which could have affected viability figures. Councillor Williams asked whether the mix of dwellings proposed could be changed at a later date by the developer. The Majors & Environment Team Manager confirmed that the viability figures are based on the mix of housing in the proposal, but a condition had been added to the recommendations to ensure levels of control, and the mix will be addressed at the Reserved Matters stage.

Councillor Cooper expressed concern that viability seemed to be presented as the primary justification for an application which contravenes many policies and goes against the Local Plan, and asked what flexibility remained. The Head of Development Management explained that the NPPF recognises that, where sites do not come forward for their intended use, Councils should look to permit alternative developments where they meet unmet need in the area. Members were asked to consider the application on its own merits despite being in conflict with the Neighbourhood Development Plan and the Local Plan.

Councillor Jones asked if more detail could be provided on how the applicant will carry out traffic monitoring as suggested in the proposal. The Majors & Environment Team Manager explained the applicant would be required to provide a travel plan to encourage residents to use sustainable means of transport other than private cars. The developers would have responsibility for promoting other options and this would be controlled by a S106 agreement. The effectiveness of the plan would be monitored with expert input from Highways’ personnel.

Councillor Kay suggested that it would have been helpful if an environmental impact assessment had been provided for the proposal. The Head of Development Management explained that there was no expectation that that level of detail would be provided in an outline planning application. She clarified that the purpose of the application is to get clarity as to the principle of the development on this site.

Councillor Miles asked whether, at the next stage of scrutiny of the application, the provision of community facilities would be considered. The Majors & Environment Team Manager confirmed that in Reserved Matters details of layout including open space would be looked at as well as pedestrian and cycle links to the wider Hunts Grove development.

Councillor Williams proposed and Councillor Cooper seconded a Motion to refuse the application. It was clarified that the Motion was to refuse the application for being noncompliant with the following policies: CP11, CP5, CP2, SO2, EI1 (site EK13), NPPF paragraph 12, the Hardwicke Neighbourhood Development Plan EC1 and GEN1. The Committee agreed delegated authority to refuse subject to the Chair and Vice-Chair’s agreement.

On being put to the vote the Motion was carried with 7 votes for and 1 against.

RESOLVED    To REFUSE planning permission for Application S.18/1947/OUT with the refusal reasons to be agreed with the Chair and Vice-Chair.

The meeting closed at 9.08 pm

Chair