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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5