Skip to main content

Agenda item

23/02101/FUL - Land and Properties at Berkeley Close, South Cerney

Summary

Demolition of 56 no. existing REEMA non-traditional residential units and 21 lock up garages, stopping up of existing highway and the erection of 84 no. new residential units, the retention and refurbishment of 2 existing residential units, together with associated new proposed adopted highway, access drives, open space, external works and landscaping at Land and Properties at Berkeley Close, South Cerney Gloucestershire GL7 5UN

 

Case Officer

Andrew Moody

 

Ward Member

Councillor Juliet Layton

 

Recommendation

PERMIT subject to the completion of a S.106 unilateral undertaking to control the future occupancy of the dwellings as affordable housing.

Minutes:

The Case Officer introduced the application, highlighting the design of the houses and apartments. The application was for the demolition of 56 no. existing REEMA non-traditional residential units and 21 lock up garages, stopping up of existing highway and the erection of 84 no. new residential units, the retention and refurbishment of 2 existing residential units. It also included an associated new proposed adopted highway, access drives, open space, external works and landscaping at Land and Properties at Berkeley Close, South Cerney Gloucestershire GL7 5UN.

 

Public speakers

An Objector, Nigel Bailey addressed the Committee, highlighting the loss of green points

 

Councillor Philip Nicholas, from South Cerney addressed the Committee, also highlighting the loss of green space.

 

A representative of the applicant, Millie Nicholls, (employed by Bromford Housing) addressed the Committee. They explained that there would be additional housing and improved accommodation resulting from the proposal.

 

The Ward Member, Councillor Layton addressed the Committee supporting the application. Councillor Layton explained that the application fits in with the corporate strategy of additional affordable housing, and explained that it was deferred to the Committee solely due to the footpaths on page 107 being owned by the Council.

 

Member Questions

 

Members asked what REEMA was. It was explained that this was reinforced prefabricated concrete housing.

 

Members discussed biodiversity net gain, making reference to the mandatory requirement which had recently been introduced. The Case Officer explained that the biodiversity officer had no objections to the application.

 

Members asked officer about the loss of green space, and whether the Case Officer felt that the development was suitable in light of this.

 

The Case Officer stated that in their view, the improvement in the environmental friendliness of the housing, the added play areas and the highway crossing overrode the loss of green space but it was ultimately up to Members to decide for themselves.

 

Members asked whether it would have been possible to refurbish the existing houses, which were not in good condition, to improve the environmental credentials. The Case Officer stated that two were being refurbished but that they were not privy to such discussions.

 

Members asked what would happen to the four houses that were in private ownership. The Case Officer explained that they would remain the same. 

 

Members asked if any agreements were in place in regard to the Council’s ownership of the footpaths. The Case Officer stated that the footpath only became apparent in the unilateral undertaking phase, and that there was no arrangement but that it was not a material planning consideration, and a matter for the Council’s Assets team.

 

Members discussed the South Cerney Neighbourhood Development Plan, POLICY SC10 of which designated the area as a local green space, development of which would be supported only in specific circumstances. Officers noted that the green space allocated was believed to not be greatly utilised.

 

Members asked what the tenure for affordable housing was. The Case Officer explained that the application was for a mix of social and shared ownership.

 

Member Comments

 

Councillor Andrew Maclean proposed refusing the application. Councillor Maclean commended the houses, stating they were great quality houses, and energy efficiency. However, parking concerns and the contradiction with Policy SC10 of the Neighbourhood Development plan led them to propose refusing it.

 

Councillor David Fowles seconded the proposal, agreeing with Councillor Maclean’s statements and stating that the applicant should have done more to engage with the Town and Parish Council and the Objector.

 

Some members disagreed, stating that they felt that the much improved quality of housing overrode these concerns.

 

The Interim Development Management Manager drew the committee’s attention to the lack of quality of the open space, and suggested that the Committee may wish to defer the item in order to allow the applicant to engage with community concerns.

 

After hearing this, the proposer and seconder of the proposal both agreed that they wished to change their proposal to deferring the application instead.

 

Some Members disagreed, stating that this would slow down the process.

 

RESOLVED: That the Planning and Licensing Committee agree to defer the application for a period 6 months to explore the possibility of green space retention.

 

Voting record

 For 6, Against  4, abstention 0, Absent/Did not vote 1

 

For

Against

Abstain

Andrew Maclean

Dilys Neill

 

 Daryl Corps

Gary Selwyn

 

David Fowles

Mark Harris

 

 Ian Watson

Ray Brassington

 

Julia Judd

 

 

 Michael Vann

 

 

 

 

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages