Agenda item

MJC introduced the application as above, for 90 dwellings including 40% affordable housing.  The site has been removed from the greenbelt under the JCS, and identified as suitable for 175 houses in the emerging Cheltenham Plan.  The outline is an indicative lay-out, with the necessary open space, landscaping and infrastructure.  Consideration was deferred last month pending a comment from Historic England.  It has no objection to this application; had concerns regarding Phase 2 – the heritage report identifies an ancient monument in the north of the site, on land in Tewkesbury borough.  Officer recommendation is that the scheme be permitted, subject to conditions regardinig S106, affordable housing, education and library contributions.

Public Speaking:

Mr Phil Staddon, agent, in support

This is an important and much needed development, representing the first planned scheme in a new era of planned growth for Cheltenham.  It is a housing opportunity identified by the JCS inspector as one of a number of sites which should come forward in the short term to help address the lack of new housing land supply in the town.  This has been confirmed by this week’s adoption of the JCS, and through the latest version of the Cheltenham Plan, which allocates this site for housing development.  Has worked closely with GCC and CBC, and provided a comprehensive master plan approach to ensure everything is joined up.  Commissioned a major research project on flood risk, which demonstrates that the sites are outside the 1:1000 year flood risk.  CBC has confirmed that the smaller Phase 3 nursery site was not affected by the July 2007 flood event, and the agent’s flood risk work is fully endorsed by the Environment Agency.  The LLFA technical issues simply concern the position of the balancing pond which can be addressed by condition.  The only neighbouring property will not b unduly affected, with extensive landscaping around it retained.  The indicative layout is spacious with generous gardens, off-street parking and large areas of landscaped open space.  The S106 agreement will guarantee 40% affordable housing – 36 homes, 27 of which will be rented; this is desperately needed and can be delivered quickly with CBC support.  The S106 also guarantees payments to invest in local schools and libraries.  The scheme will be high quality, attractive and sustainable.  The applicants thank officers for their assistance and support and hope that Members will support the scheme.  If they do, work on the detailed planning application will begin straight away, helping to deliver much-needed new homes in the borough as soon as possible.

Member debate:

CN:  the agent talked about guaranteeing 40% affordable housing.  This is something we don’t often hear.  What is special about this application?

BF:  this site has been taken out of the greenbelt and is now available as development land.  If Phases 2 and 3 don’t materialise, Phase 1 can stand alone, butcan we still be sure of a contribution to schooling?  This is in effect an urban extension and All Saints Academy is already full.  Schooling will be a problem and this is a concern – where will the children go?

CH:  looking at this outline application, with a good amount of space around, it looks a very liveable environment; is looking forward to seeing the actual plans.  The lay-out of houses, including the 40% affordable, is ideal for solar panels – both rental and social landlords are often amenable to this.  Can we ensure the roofs are designed to make maximum benefit and best use of solar energy?   Will quiz this when final plans come to us.

HM:  the update letter from TBC talks about a conflict with Policy SD10 in the JCS.  Can officers expand?

AH:  echoes CH’s comments, and understands that this is a concept site plan, but will the lake/pond will still be there in final design?  It provides a great opportunity to encourage wildlife, be more biodiverse.

MJC, in response:

-       Re TBC’s comment, this needs to be understood in context.  Policy SD10 of the JCS identifies this land for new houses etc, to be allocated by district plans.  TBC is saying this site not allocated, but the  emerging plan will allocate this land.  It is a sound and safe allocation, and officers are happy to give it weight.  TBC is simply flagging up the JCS policy, and is less familiar with what we are doing with our own plan;

-       To CN’s question about affordable housing. We are entering a new era – greenfield sites bring less risk, less cost, and are more viable that brownfield sites.  With a five-year supply now in place, it is harder for applicants to challenge issues.  Now that proposals can be plan-led, with viable sites allocated, we can deliver what need to deliver, and proposals have to be policy compliant;

-       The applicant has been up-front about this – the site can take 40% affordable housing - did not want to do battle over this.  This is a good opportunity to deliver housing quickly; the applicant has signed an undertaking and can move quickly to the next stage;

-       To CH, officers have spent a lot of time with the applicant on this – renewables – hopes this will be designed well.  There are a lot of south-facing roofs, and solar panels should work well;

-       To BF, re schools, the applicant is required to comply with county policy, but it is for the county to decide where to spend the money in the most appropriate way;

-       To AH, re lay-out of pond, this is an important part of the scheme – landscape-led attenuation of any potential drainage/flooding problem.  It will go forward to reserved matters scheme.

SW:  has been 12-14 years on planning, and agrees that this proposal looks wonderful – but we should beware of Greeks bearing gifts.  Will be over the moon if we get all that is promised, but this is an outline; the full application will be different.  MJC is happy with the applicant so hopefully all will be well.  The scheme looks great – footpaths etc;  parking may be an issue, but is happy to vote in support at this stage.

CN:  for the record, this is described in the report as the largest site in the Cheltenham Plan, with 175 houses. In fact Leckhampton is the largest – it has 250 houses.

MJC, in response:

-       There is a typo in Condition 20 – pedestrian vehicular access – need to add the extra word.

Vote on officer recommendation to permit

14 in support – unanimous

PERMIT