Outline application for residential development, (up to 120 dwellings), including infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping.  Construction of new vehicular access from Foley Road.  Connection to proposed vehicular access through adjacent residential development.

Outline application for residential development, (up to 120 dwellings), including infrastructure, ancillary facilities, open space and landscaping.  Construction of new vehicular access from Foley Road.  Connection to proposed vehicular access through adjacent residential development.

Please refer to the late material circulated before the start of the meeting

Having declared an interest in this item, Principal Planning Officer, Emma Norgate, left the meeting for consideration of this application.

Principal Planning Officer, Tony Pope, referred to the additional consultee responses and representations that had been received, as reported in the late material, and said that the recommendation remained one of refusal, subject to the withdrawal of refusal reason (5), relating to the impact of the proposal on European Protected Species.

Public speaking

Speaking on behalf of the applicant, the public speaker made the following statement: -

‘I am aware that the council’s officers, in their committee report, recommend refusal for this site based on 5 proposed reasons. The first two reasons are essentially based on the fact that the site is not specifically identified for development in the recently approved Core Strategy, and consequently falls to be determined as open countryside, within which built development should not be permitted. It is also suggested that as the Core Strategy only proposes 350 dwellings at Newent, in the period to 2026, then this would exceed the quantum of development, by at least 70 dwellings. The third reason for refusal refers to the lack of a section 106 agreement. The fourth reason for refusal specifically refers to the development, only proposing 35 per cent affordable dwellings. The fifth reason for refusal relates to the lack of information on ecology. Of these proposed reasons for refusal, I can report that, so far as I am aware, the information regarding ecology has now been accepted by the councillor’s officers.

The information collected over the last 8 years demonstrates that the site is not capable of supporting protected amphibians (i.e. newts). The lack of a section 106 agreement tying down the financial contributions can easily be remedied and again is accepted by the officers. So far as affordable housing is concerned, the council’s Core Strategy Policy CSP 5 indicates that this would be ‘sought’, but paragraph 6.38 indicates that, ‘in practice this figure is not likely to be achieved because past experience is that, whilst the 40 per cent is a sensible target, it is unachievable in some cases’. Recent experience by the applicants and by the authority demonstrate conclusively that a requirement for 40 per cent affordable housing, plus substantial contributions towards other section 106 targets, gives rise to viability problems, hence the reason why many of the larger allocations from the old Local Plan had not proceeded. The 35 per cent offer represents a realistic viable solution on a medium size site within the district. This leaves the first two reasons for refusal and whether there is any justification for intruding on to allocated land so soon after the Core Strategy has been approved. The answer to this is clearly ‘Yes’ as far as the applicant is concerned. The new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) not only emphasises the importance of increasing the overall supply of housing in England and Wales as a whole, but also stresses that the house-building sector can assist in increasing employment generally without contributing towards a balance of payments problem. The framework introduces the concept of a presumption in favour of sustainable development, where the policies of the Core Strategy are out of date. It also introduces some amendments to the assessment of a 5-year supply of residential land that should be deliverable within that period. This latter point is highly important as it provides the key reason why this applicant is proceeding with a scheme outwith the Core Strategy. Moreover, it determines whether the Core Strategy is ‘out of date’. In assessing the 5-year land supply, it is important to note that where authorities have been unable to deliver the requisite supply of housing land, the NPPF proposes a 20 per cent flexibility allowance. In the case of the Forest of Dean, the evidence on completion rates shows that in only 3 of the previous 14 years has the expected rate of housing been delivered. Therefore, applying the 20 per cent flexibility allowance, together with the shortfall that has occurred in the first 5 years of the plan period, means that the authority should be able to demonstrate delivery of nearly 2,100 dwellings, whereas the applicant suggests that this figure should be reduced to only 1,600 dwellings, excluding the allowance for small windfall sites), and possibly lower. Whichever of these figures is chosen, it is clear that the council does not have a 5 year supply of land and that this needs to be remedied by the release of additional sites. In this report to the council some 4 to 5 months ago, the Inspector examining the Core Strategy indicated that the Foley Road site caused no harm overall to the council’s strategy and it could be considered in the event that the council was unable to demonstrate deliverability from other sites allocated for housing the core strategy’.

Ward member, Councillor Len Lawton, noted the previous speaker’s comments and refuted the suggestion that the council’s Core Strategy, (as approved by full council on 23 February 2012), was out of date. Referring to the required number of houses to be built in the district by 2026, (CPS.5 of the Core Strategy), Councillor Lawton said that out of the 300 houses planned for the Newent area, 262 were currently built, or being built. Councillor Lawton believed the application had been rushed and said that the number of houses was considerably more than what was required. He said that the proposal was too early, and that at this stage in the development process, additional housing for Newent was not a requirement.

Committee consideration

Councillor Philip Burford moved the recommendation and congratulated the officers on the work involved in recommending that the application be refused. Councillor Roger Yeates seconded the motion and said that he would like to see more employment in the area rather than additional new housing.

Vote

A recorded vote was taken and the committee,

RESOLVED to refuse the application for the reasons referred to in the schedule of applications and subject to the information included in the late material.

For (15)

Councillors Philip Burford, Gethyn Davies, Judy Davis, Frankie Evans, Terry Glastonbury, Val Hobman, Brian Jones, Gabriella Kirkpatrick, Paul McMahon, Graham Morgan, Norman Stephens, Lynn Sterry, Arthur Thomas, David Thompson and Roger Yeates

Against (0)

Abstentions (0)