PT01099A

GLOUCESTER CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE : PLANNING DATE : 4TH

DECEMBER 2012

ADDRESS/LOCATION : SITE A - FORMER ST GOBAIN & WELLMAN GRAHAM FACTORIES, BRISTOL ROAD/ TUFFLEY CRESCENT

SITE B - FORMER CONTRACT CHEMICALS,

BRISTOL ROAD APPLICATION NOS. & WARD : 12/01032/MOD & 07/00474/OUT PODSMEAD EXPIRY DATE : 4th

DECEMBER 2012

APPLICANT : DOOBA INVESTMENTS V LTD PROPOSAL : VARIATION OF LEGAL AGREEMENT

ASSOCIATED WITH PLANNING PERMISSION REFERENCE 07/00472/OUT (SITE A) AND REVISION OF THE HEADS OF TERMS IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION NO.07/00747/OUT (SITE B) TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS AND PROVIDE A COMMITMENT DELIVERING THE TIMELY REGENERATION OF THE SITE.

REPORT BY : BOB RISTIC NO. OF APPENDICES : 1. PARAMETERS PLAN 2. 1ST

SEPTEMBER 2009 COMMITTEE REPORT

1.0 BACKGROUND 1.1 The application relates to three former factory sites, which are in two different

land ownerships. Site A comprises the former St Gobain and Wellman Graham industrial sites and site B comprises the former Contract Chemicals site.

1.2 Two separate planning applications were submitted in 2007. Application no.07/00472/OUT in respect of Site A was for a ‘Mixed use development comprising residential (231 units), employment (b1 and showroom) and d1 (community building) uses together with 1.1ha of public open space, new vehicular access onto Bristol Road and Tuffley Crescent and

PT01099A

remediation of the land in accordance with the accompanying illustrative master plan. (appearance, scale, layout and landscaping are retained as reserved matters)’. Application no.07/00474/OUT in respect of Site B was for a ‘Mixed use development comprising residential (109 units), employment (b1 and showroom) uses, 0.56ha of public open space and remediation of the land in accordance with the accompanying illustrative masterplan (appearance, scale, layout and landscaping are retained as reserved matters)’.

1.3 At the September 2009 Planning Committee, Members resolved to grant outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the two sites subject to the completion of S.106 agreements in respect of both sites.

1.4 Planning permission for Site A was subsequently granted permission and an

associated legal agreement signed on 17th September 2010. The owner of Site B chose not to draw down the permission or complete the S.106 agreement due to concerns with amount of the S.106 contributions and the viability of the development scheme as proposed.

1.5 This application in respect of Site A seeks to vary the obligations within the

legal agreement attached to planning permission 07/00472/OUT. At the same time the owner of Site B is also seeking a review of the planning obligations agreed by members at the September 2009 committee meeting as part of application no.07/00474/OUT.

1.6 The applicant has advised that the original viability appraisal was undertaken

at the peak of the market in 2007 and was based on 340 dwellings across both sites A & B, with a mix of 133 houses and 207 apartments. This appraisal had demonstrated that the development was viable and could provide an affordable housing contribution of 15%, which equated to £3,258,085, as well as other contributions towards education, public open space and highways as set out at section 6 of this report.

1.7 The applicant has advised that the current economic climate has resulted in

a significant change in market conditions and major house-builders are now seeking a much greater proportion of family housing (3, 4 and 5 bed units) compared to at the peak of the market. This shift away from flats in favour of family housing would lead to an overall reduction in the number of units that could be accommodated on the site and subsequent impact upon viability, and the applicant’s ability to meet the previously agreed S.106 contributions.

1.8 Given the above change in the market conditions and the applicant’s failure

to engage a developer for the site, a new viability appraisal has been undertaken on the basis of 235 dwellings across both sites, which comprises a mix of 19 apartments and 216 houses. The applicant considers this to be a more realistic mix of accommodation in the current market and one which would be more likely to attract a delivery partner or house builder.

PT01099A

1.9 The submitted revised viability appraisal demonstrates that the level of S.106 contributions previously agreed make the site unviable and the financial burden particularly with regards to affordable housing is preventing the development being brought forward.

2.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY 2.1 The recent planning history for Sites A & B is set out below: Site A 12/01029/FUL - Variation to conditions 2, 3 and 4 of permission ref.

07/00472/OUT, changing the periods for submission of Reserved Matters from 5 to 3 years and for Commencement of Development thereafter from 3 to 1 year, and to substitute the originally submitted illustrative masterplan with a land use parameters plan – Pending

11/01018/NMA - Non material amendment to outline planning permission ref:

07/00472/OUT, to revise the description of development to read: Mixed use development comprising residential (up to 231 units), employment (B1 and showroom) and D1 (community building) uses together with 1.1ha of public open space, new vehicular access onto Bristol Road and Tuffley Crescent and remediation of the land in accordance with the accompanying illustrative parameters plan (Appearance, Scale, Layout and Landscaping are retained as Reserved matters) - Pending

11/01017/FUL - Amendment to Condition 4 attached to outline planning

permission ref: 07/00472/OUT to substitute the originally submitted illustrative master plan with a land use parameters plan – Grant

07/00472/OUT - Mixed use development comprising residential (231 units),

employment (B1 and showroom) and D1 (community building) uses together with 1.1ha of public open space, new vehicular access onto Bristol Road and Tuffley Crescent and remediation of the land in accordance with the accompanying illustrative masterplan (Appearance, Scale, Layout and Landscaping are retained as Reserved matters) - Grant

Site B 07/00474/OUT - Mixed use development comprising residential (109 units),

employment (B1 and showroom) uses, 0.56ha of public open space and remediation of the land in accordance with the accompanying illustrative masterplan (Appearance, Scale, Layout and Landscaping are retained as Reserved matters) – Pending Decision

3.0 PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 Relevant policies from the City of Gloucester Second Deposit Local Plan

(2002) are:

BE.15 - Provision of Open Space in Major Development BE.18 - Vehicular Circulation and Parking in New Residential Development

PT01099A

BE.21 - Safeguarding Amenity H.1 - Allocations for Mixed Use including Housing – Site MU9 H.4 - Housing Density and layout

H.15 - Provision of Affordable Housing BE.21 - Safeguarding of Amenity

TR.31 - Road Safety 3.2 All policies can be viewed at the relevant website address:- Gloucester Local

Plan policies – www.gloucester.gov.uk/planning; Gloucestershire Structure Plan policies – www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=2112 and Department of Community and Local Government planning policies - www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planning/.

4.0 CONSULTATIONS 4.1 GHURC - Strongly support the redevelopment of these sites, which form part

of the 2006 Area Regeneration Framework. The continued weakness of the property market and mortgage finance have served to undermine previous viability of many development projects resulting in developers seeking lower density developments. GHURC considers it appropriate for the Planning Committee to review viability and urges members to approve the proposal in the basis that it would secure rapid remediation of the site and its subsequent development.

County Council – No objections - the developer is proposing to pay the

revised (increased) education and library S.106 contributions as required. Highways – No objections are raised subject to securing a residential and

business travel plan, including monitoring fees and bond. Housing Enabling Officer – Loss of affordable housing is disappointing.

Provisions should be made for viability to be re-tested if the dwellings are not delivered. The applicant should be required to engage with housing associations/registered providers to secure grant where available to deliver affordable housing on site.

Landscape Officer – The proposed public open space (POS) and associated

contributions fall short of what would typically be expected by the Authority. 5.0 PUBLICITY AND REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The occupiers of 180 Neighbouring properties were notified of the applications

by letter. In addition site and press notices were also posted. 5.2 There have been no representations. 5.4 The full content of all correspondence on this application can be inspected at

the 4th

floor reception, Herbert Warehouse, The Docks, Gloucester, prior to the Committee meeting.

PT01099A

6.0 OFFICER OPINION 6.1 The applicant has advised that the redevelopment the site is unviable due to

the current economic climate, the significant cost of decontaminating the sites and as a result of the burden of S.106 contributions previously agreed. As a result, the applicant is seeking a variation to the S.106 in respect of Site A and a variation to the heads of terms in respect of Site B in order to allow for the development to be delivered.

6.2 The government has indicated that councils should consider developer

requests to review S.106 agreements where schemes are deemed unviable. In a letter to all planning authorities dated 31st

March 2011, the government’s chief planner states the following:

‘…to further ensure that development can go ahead, all local authorities should reconsider, at developers’ request, existing Section 106 agreements that currently render schemes unviable, and where possible, modify those obligations to allow development to proceed; provided this continues to ensure that the development remains acceptable in planning terms…’

6.3 This approach is emphasised in paragraph 173 of the NPPF which deals with

ensuring viability and deliverability and states: ‘Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and

costs in plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable’.

In relation to planning obligations, the NPPF states in paragraph 205 that: ‘Where obligations are being sought or revised, local planning authorities

should take account of changes in market conditions over time and, where appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled’.

6.4 A Ministerial Statement by Eric Pickles in September 2012, further highlights

the government’s desire to remove barriers to development and states that: ‘…It is vital that the affordable housing element of Section 106 agreements

negotiated during different economic conditions is not allowed to undermine the viability of sites and prevent any construction of new housing. This results in no development, no regeneration and no community benefits at all when agreements are no longer economically viable’.

PT01099A

6.5 The statement goes on to explain that the government will be introducing legislation which will allow any developer to appeal S.106 obligations and development which is considered unviable because of the number of affordable homes. As such Central Government ‘would encourage councils to take the opportunity before legislation comes into effect to seek negotiated solutions where possible’.

6.6 The viability appraisal that underpinned the heads of terms in the original

Section 106 agreement was prepared at the peak of the market in 2007. Taking into account substantial remediation costs, when offset against the high land values at the time it was agreed that the development could viably provide 15% affordable housing at a cost of £3,258,085 as well as a raft of other contributions towards highways, education and public open space/play facilities.

6.7 The applicant has advised that the economic climate has changed

significantly since the previous viability appraisal was undertaken and since the granting of outline planning permission. The applicant has since been unable to engage a house builder to develop the site principally due to the level of S.106 contributions previously agreed and in combination with the deflated housing market and land values, making the redevelopment of the sites unviable.

6.8 The applicant has re-assessed the development and has concluded that the

most marketable scheme in the current economic situation would comprise approximately 235 dwellings across both sites, (105 dwellings less than previously proposed). The housing mix associated with the current appraisal has also changed in favour of more family housing as opposed to the previous appraisal which was based on 310 dwellings and a development dominated by apartments.

6.9 A detailed viability appraisal has been prepared and reviewed by the council’s

surveyor. The appraisal demonstrates to the satisfaction of officers that the development remains undeliverable because it is not viable to proceed on the basis of the financial contributions required under the previously agreed Section 106 Agreement.

6.10 The previously agreed and currently proposed contributions are summarised below:

Agreed Viability

Sites A & B 2007

Revised Viability Sites A & B

2012 Housing – No. Residential units

340 235 (Approx)

Affordable contribution £3,258,085 Nil

Highway contribution £789,000 £160,525

PT01099A

Library £50,000 £46,060

Off-site POS £165,000 £165,000

Play equipment commuted sum

£25,000 £25,000

POS commuted sum £110,000 £110,000

On Site POS 1.66 ha 1.66 ha

Education £21,500 £711,728

Total £4,418,585 £1,218,313 6.11 Affordable Housing The applicant has demonstrated that as a result of the cost of site acquisition,

deflated housing market and substantial costs associated with the remediation of the site that the previously agreed 15% level of affordable housing is no longer viable. As a result the applicant has requested that the affordable housing requirement is removed in its entirety.

6.123 In addition the applicant has provided sensitivity testing which has

demonstrated that the cost of providing affordable housing at levels of 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%, with associated deficits ranging from £1.45 million to £6.33 million. It is evident from the appraisal that affordable housing can not be provided in the current climate and that the obligation previously agreed is impacting the delivery of the scheme.

6.13 Notwithstanding the proposed removal of the affordable housing contribution

the applicant has confirmed that they raise no objections for the revised Section 106 agreement to include a clause that allows any public sector funding available to be used to acquire units on the site in the event that grant funding is achieved and available in the future.

6.14 While it is acknowledged that there is a considerable demand for affordable

housing within the city and the provision of Affordable Housing is a material consideration, it is necessary to consider this in the light of the Government’s current approach to Affordable Housing and S.106 contributions and strike a careful balance between the benefits of this site being brought forward in the short/medium term with no guarantee of affordable housing being delivered on the site; as opposed to insisting upon a contribution that is likely to lead to the sites ‘being mothballed’ for the foreseeable future.

6.15 Should members agree to vary the S.106 as proposed, it will be necessary to

ensure that the Section 106 agreement provides necessary incentives to ensure that the development is brought forward swiftly and that any delays would trigger re-assessments in viability with a view to any surplus profit being used to provide affordable housing.

PT01099A

Transport 6.16 The applicant has advised that the contribution towards off site highways

works are no longer affordable or reasonable and that the £789,000 towards these Highways works previously agreed should be waived. Gloucestershire County highways have reviewed the implications of the proposed reduction in the number of dwellings upon the site, the revised dwelling mix and the proposed loss of off site contributions.

6.17 The Highways Authority have advised that the development would not result

in a net increase in vehicle trips when compared to the former commercial uses upon the site. As such the previously negotiated off-site highway contribution can not be justified in light of the NPPF which states that development should only be refused or prevented on transport grounds if the residual cumulative impacts of the development are severe.

6.18 The NPPF and highways Authority recommend the implementation of Travel

Plans for all development generating significant amounts of movement such as in this case. The applicant has agreed to provide a residential and business travel plan and future monitoring to a cost of £160,525, which will need to be supported by a performance bond/cash deposit in accordance with Gloucestershire County Council guidance on Travel Plans.

6.19 In addition to the travel plan contribution, the developer has proposed

revisions to the approved site access arrangements to reflect the reduced number of dwellings being proposed. The revised details have been assessed and are considered acceptable in terms of capacity and highway safety.

Education & Libraries 6.20 The impact of the revised mix of house types on the site, comprising less

apartments and more family housing would result in a substantial impact upon the demand for spaces at local schools.

6.21 The applicant has agreed to increase their contribution towards education and

libraries from £71,500 to circa £762,500. This revised mix and increased contribution is inline with County Council policy and is considered necessary to offset the impacts of the development.

Public Open Space Provision 6.22 While the contributions proposed would remain the same as those previously

agreed it should be noted that the submitted parameters plan shows three areas of on site POS, with a combined area of 1.66ha. However, one of those is 0.13ha in area and therefore does not meet this Authority’s council’s minimum size standard of 0.2ha for open space. This land is in the form of a long, linear strip which isn’t considered as usable, active open space, as it principally serves as a buffer to the adjacent industrial site. It is considered that this should not form part of the POS provision on site, particularly as the POS proposed would still fall short of the 2.74ha for the number of units proposed. Officers are currently in discussions with the applicant to ensure

PT01099A

that the 1.66ha of POS previously agreed is of a usable size, shape and in accordance with this Authority’s standards.

6.23 Additionally this Authority would typically require £559,000 to offset the on site

POS shortfall which would pay for improvements to sport and play facilities on existing open spaces nearby. However, the applicant has proposed off-site contribution of £165,000 the same amount as previously agreed, and significantly short of the councils requirements.

6.24 A contribution of £70,000 has also been offered to provide two LEAP play

areas this sum is also short of the minimum £50,000 per LEAP which would be required to provide high quality play areas to which would meet the LEAP standard and the new on-site POS will need to be laid out with paths, seating, lighting (if required), fencing, signage etc at the developer’s expense prior to adoption.

6.25 While the overall POS package offered for this site does not provide sufficient

land or funds to create high quality open spaces and facilities this will need to be weighed against the council’s general aspiration to see this site developed and remediate and the current economic situation.

6.26 It is evident that the agreed S.106 contributions are affecting the delivery of

the development and the applicant has demonstrated that the level of contributions previously agreed have resulted in the scheme being unviable in the current climate. Should members agree to the reduced S.106 contributions I consider it necessary to tie any agreed reduction into a strict set of measures to ensure that the development is actually delivered within the current economic climate and the short/medium term proposed by the applicant. This is to ensure that that the site is not ‘parked’ until the economic climate improves to a position where contributions towards affordable housing and POS could have otherwise been provided.

6.27 The measures proposed to ensure the delivery of the site are outlined below: The applicant has agreed to reduce the time in which to commence

development from the previously agreed 5 years to submit reserved matters and 3 years to commence works, to 3 years to submit reserved mattes and 1 year to commence works.

In addition to the reduction in the time period to commence works, I consider it

necessary to include the following clauses within the revised Legalagreement to ensure that development is actually delivered on site and ensuring against minimal works being undertaken on the site for the purposes of keeping the permission ‘live’ and avoiding contributions as a result of any upturn in the market over the long term.

i) If the number of units proposed at the reserved matters stage exceed

the 235 dwellings (upon which the current viability has been assessed) by more than 10% (24 additional dwellings), then review of the viability will be required to ascertain whether any additional development value

PT01099A

or changes in market conditions which would allow for Affordable Housing units and or commuted sums be provided by the developer.

ii) That the development is delivered in accordance with a strict timetable to be agreed with the applicant. If triggers tied to occupations of units are not met within the specified periods then a review of viability would be required, with further reviews every 2 years thereafter or as otherwise agreed by the City Council in order to ascertain whether affordable housing units and/or commuted sums can be delivered by the developer.

iii) In the event that grant funding is available, affordable housing shall be delivered on site proportionate to the amount of grant provided: this shall be on a pro rata basis using the figures set out in the applicants sensitivity testing

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The Council has clearly expressed its desire to see these vacant industrial

sites regenerated and this is reflected in the Planning Brief for the sites which was adopted in 2003 and the sites allocation within the Second Deposit City of Gloucester Local Plan.

7.2 Given the ongoing economic downturn, it is considered that reduction in S.106

obligations should alleviate the financial burden upon the applicant and make the redevelopment of the sites more viable in the current climate.

7.3 Whilst the provision of Affordable Housing and POS is a material

consideration, it is necessary to consider the shortfalls in the light of the Government’s approach to Affordable Housing and S.106 contributions and also weigh the economic and social benefits of this site being brought forward and ensuring that the Section 106 agreement provides suitable incentives to bring development forward as quickly as possible.

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER 8.1 It is recommended that in respect of Site A that: Delegated powers be granted to the Development Control Manager to vary

the legal agreement attached to planning permission 07/00472/OUT and to finalise the precise wording of the varied S.106 agreement in accordance with the details set out below:

Contribution SITE A

No. of dwellings Up to 231 Affordable Hous. -

Travel Plan £110, 401

PT01099A

On Site POS 1.1ha On Site POS £75,653

Play Equipment Commuted Sum

£17,193.75

Off Site POS £113,478.75 Delivery of LEAPs 1no LEAP

Education - Early Years £49,778 Education – Primary £414,822

Library £30,576

• Viability is re-tested if the number of dwellings proposed at the reserved matters stage exceeds 235 + 10% in total across both sites, or 156 + 10% on Site A.

• That the dwellings are actually delivered on site in accordance with a strict timetable, with reviews of viability following if this is not met.

• That the applicant works with a registered provider and that if grant funding is available, affordable houses shall be provided on site.

In respect of Site B that: Delegated powers are granted to the Development Control Manager to grant

outline planning permission for application no.07/00474/OUT, subject to conditions and to finalise the precise wording of the S.106 agreement in accordance with the details set out below.

Contribution SITE B

No. of dwellings Up to 109 Affordable Hous. -

Travel Plan £50,124 On Site POS 0.56ha On Site POS £34,347

Play Equipment Commuted Sum

£7,806.25

Off Site POS £51,521.25 Delivery of LEAPs 1no. LEAP

Education - Early Years £26,478 Education – Primary £220,650

Library £15,484

• Viability is re-tested if the number of dwellings proposed at the reserved matters stage exceeds 235 + 10% across both sites, or 79 + 10% on Site B. • That the dwellings are actually delivered on site in accordance with a strict timetable, with reviews of viability following if this is not met. • That the applicant works with a registered provider and that if grant funding is available, affordable houses shall be provided on site. • That the site is remediated prior to the delivery of the access drive

PT01099A

•

That the development does not commence until remediation has been completed on both sites to ensure that there will be no migration of contamination between the two sites.

Decision: .................................................................................................................... Notes: ......................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................... Person to contact: Bob Ristic (Tel: 396822)

PT01099A

GLOUCESTER CITY COUNCIL

COMMITTEE : PLANNING DATE : 1ST

SEPTEMBER 2009

ADDRESS/LOCATION : SITE A - FORMER ST GOBAIN & WELLMAN GRAHAM FACTORIES, BRISTOL ROAD/ TUFFLEY CRESCENT

SITE B - FORMER CONTRACT CHEMICALS,

BRISTOL ROAD APPLICATION NOS. & WARD : SITE A: 07/00472/OUT SITE B: 07/00474/OUT PODSMEAD EXPIRY DATE : 10 JULY 2007 APPLICANT : GMV THREE LTD REPORT BY : GROUP MANAGER DEVELOPMENT

SERVICES : ROB EATON NO. OF APPENDICES : 1. SITE PLAN

2. PREVIOUS COMMITTEE REPORT DATED 6TH JANUARY 2009

3. PREVIOUS COMMITTEE REPORT DATED 5TH

MAY 2009

1.0

BACKGROUND

1.1 At the January 2009 Planning Committee Members resolved to grant outline planning permission in respect of two applications for the redevelopment of two adjoining industrial sites off Bristol Road for residential and employment purposes subject to the completion of legal agreements requiring, amongst other things, the two sites to be brought forward together comprehensively (references 07/00472/OUT and 07/00474/OUT). A copy of the previous report is attached.

1.2 The need for the comprehensive redevelopment of the two sites to be secured

by way of legal agreement accords with the Planning Brief for the site which states the following:-

• Without such a commitment, any of the sites could revert to its established

use and create problems of noise, traffic or contamination which could seriously jeopardise the success of, or prevent, any partial scheme.

PT01099A

• To develop an individual site in isolation, without a guaranteed phasing plan would leave the remaining site or sites as a constraint on development for non-employment use and would fail to realise the most efficient use of land.

• The need to provide buffer strips and potential noise amelioration features

between any residential development and any remaining industrial units would also be increased by piecemeal development and would again prevent the realisation of the most efficient use of land.

• Additionally it would not, in the long term, allow for the proper planning of

the overall site. A comprehensive scheme with a phasing plan guaranteed by legal agreement with each landowner/developer would ensure the proper planning of the area in terms of access, layout, public open space and playspace provision, and the relationship of the appropriate mix of house types and land uses.

1.3 An update report formed part of the agenda for the May 2009 Committee

meeting (see attached copy). This report raised four significant issues for the Council in terms of the delivery of the comprehensive regeneration set out in the Planning Brief. The main issues were considered to be as follows:- • Bad neighbour (B2 Industrial) uses next to proposed residential uses • Contamination • A comprehensive redevelopment of the site not being secured. • Access

1.4 At the request of the applicant the applications were deferred by members to

allow officers to further progress negotiations with the two landowners. 2.0

PROGRESS MADE SINCE MAY 2009

2.1 Since May the two landowners have entered into detailed discussions with each other and Council Officers and as a result we have been able to agree a route forward in broad accordance with the council’s objectives for the development of the sites and which addresses the four main areas of concern as set out in the May Committee report:-

Bad Neighbour (B2 Industrial) Uses Next To Proposed Residential Uses

2.2 One of the reasons given in the planning brief for the need to ensure that the sites are developed comprehensively was to ensure that the situation does not arise whereby only one of the sites is developed (or developed significantly quicker) with the result that residential properties are located adjacent to B2 Industrial Uses resulting in unacceptable levels of noise and general disturbance for the residential occupiers.

PT01099A

2.3 Since the May committee report was drafted both landowners have now signalled their intent to pursue the redevelopment of the sites, either as a joint venture or as individual parties. It would therefore appear more likely that both sites will be redeveloped at some point in the future.

2.4 The previous concerns with regards to potential disturbance from adjoining

undeveloped sites to future residential development, have been somewhat overcome, not only as a result of the discussions between the two landowners, but also by the fact that commercial buildings have now been removed from the SGWG sites, and that the remaining buildings on the Contract Chemicals site are vacant and in a poor state of repair. It should also be noted that planning permission would be likely to be required for any new significant industrial buildings or any significant material alterations to existing buildings.

Contamination

2.5 The Bristol Road sites are known to be contaminated, especially (but not exclusively) the Contract Chemicals site. A concurrent and holistic development of both sites would enable the necessary remedial works to proceed in a logical and efficient manner.

2.6 The applicant (who owns the SGWG site) and the landowner of the Contract Chemicals Site have agreed to a further clause to the S106 to restrict any development until remediation works have been completed on both sites that prevents the migration of contamination from one site to the other. Further remediation works would still be required within each individual site which would have to be carried out prior to each phase of development. This would be controlled by condition.

2.7 The Council’s Land Contamination Officer considers this approach to be acceptable subject to the council retaining sufficient powers to enforce the complete remediation of the sites.

The Comprehensive redevelopment of the site

2.8 The two applications are in outline form with all matters reserved, except for access. As such the design and layout of the site has yet to be submitted (although there is an illustrative layout).

2.9 The two land owners have agreed in principle to work under an informal

partnership arrangement to deliver the implementation of the two consents albeit they may be developed separately and in a phased manner.

2.10 Given the limited potential of the sites to re-establish commercial uses without

the benefit of further consent from the local planning authority, I consider that the objectives of the development brief have been satisfactorily addressed.

PT01099A

2.11 With regards to phasing, considering the size of the proposed development, the applicants have requested that the permission allow for the option to develop the site in phases.

2.12 There is no objection to this approach, subject to conditions and clauses in the

S.106 agreements to control it properly and ensure that contamination issues are resolved prior to each phase being implemented.

Access

2.13 The two outline applications submitted show the access to the sites to be off Tuffley Avenue and Bristol Road. Both of these access points are located within the SGWG site. As such it is important that should the two permissions be implemented separately there is a mechanism in place to ensure that access is provided through the SGWG site (Site A) to the Contract Chemicals site (Site B) to prevent it from becoming landlocked with no access to a public highway.

2.14 The two landowners have proposed that they enter into a separate legal

agreement whereby the owners of site B agree and pay a fair and reasonable allocation of the total cost associated with delivering the access road.

2.15 Further to this the applicants have proposed that the S106 include the

following clauses:

1) The access road for Site B is to be built by the owners of Site A to within 1 metre of the boundary. The road is to be built to adoptable standards satisfactory for the development of Site B.

2) The owners of Site A are to satisfactorily remediate their landholding to prevent any migration from Site A to Site B then develop subsequent phases.

3) The final metre of the access road for Site B is to be delivered (without ransom payment) to the boundary once;

• Site B has been satisfactorily remediated to prevent contamination migration across to Site A.

• The owners of Site B agree to give up their bad neighbour planning use relating to Site B.

• The owners of Site B agree that the primary access to Site B shall be the newly adopted road.

• The owners of Site B pay a reasonable proportion of the cost in delivering the access road (probably by separate legal agreement between the parties).

4) The owners of Site A will grant to the owners of Site B full access rights across the road. This road is to be adopted.

PT01099A

2.16 It is considered that the above clauses would ensure access is secured to both sites.

2.17 It should also be noted that an adoption agreement will be required with the

County Council, as well as a 278 agreement to allow the new formation of a new access onto the existing highway network

3.0

RECOMMENDATION

3.1 It is considered that since May 2009 discussions between the two landowners have resolved the Council’s previous concerns relating to the development, particularly with regards to contamination.

3.2 Both landowners have also stated that they wish to see the sites redeveloped,

thereby meeting the council’s aspirations to see a comprehensive development for the site and thereby reducing the risk of bad neighbour uses restarting.

3.3 The applicant and adjoining landowner have also confirmed that they are

willing to include a clause within the S106 agreement preventing any development taking place on either site

until remediation works have been completed on both sites that prevents the migration of contamination from one site to the other.

3.4 The Council is satisfied that the proposed draft clauses to secure the ransom free delivery of an access to site B is acceptable subject to the completion of the relevant S106 agreements.

3.5 Given the significant progress between the two landowners to resolve the

outstanding matters and given the scale of the development and current market conditions I consider it reasonable that the site is developed on a phased basis.

4.0

CONCLUSION

4.1 The Council wishes to see these vacant industrial sites regenerated for residential and employment use and this is reflected in the Planning Brief for the sites that was adopted in 2003. Given the circumstances, it is considered that the safeguards outlined above would allow for the development to progress in broad accordance with the aspirations of the brief while allowing for reasonable flexibility in the delivery of the development.

5.0

RECOMMENDATION OF THE GROUP MANAGER, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES

5.1 It is recommended that:

1) Delegated powers be granted to the Development Control Manager to finalise the precise wording of conditions in broad accordance with those

PT01099A

set out in the January 2009 committee report, and where appropriate allow for a phased approach, and

2) That outline planning permission is granted for both applications

(07/00472/OUT & 07/00474/OUT) for the following reason, subject to the completion of the relevant S106 agreements.

Reasons for Approval

The proposed development would regenerate a large area of disused industrial buildings in close proximity to residential properties. It is considered that the application proposal would make best use of land within a sustainable urban area and replace the existing ‘bad neighbour’ uses. It is considered that the proposed development can be accommodated on the site without detriment to highway safety, neighbouring amenities, pollution control and nature conservation. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Policies BE.7, BE.21, H.1 H.7, H.13 and TR.31 of the Second Deposit City of Gloucester Local Plan (2002).

Requirements of Legal Agreements:-

07/00472/OUT (SGWG Site)

Affordable Housing Contribution : £2,240,773 Highways Contribution : £542,641 Library contribution : £34,388 Off site Public Open Space : £113,480 Play equipment : £17,194 Public Open Space commuted sum : £75,653 Public Open Space : 1.1ha Education : £14,787

• A requirement to ensure the provision of a ‘ransom free’ access between the Contract Chemicals site and the public highway as indicated on the illustrative master plan, and subject to a separate agreement between the two landowners for the owners of site B to reimburse the costs to the owners of site A to construct the access road to that part of the site (see paragraph 2.15 of this report).

• The provision of a community facility. •

That development does not commence until remediation has been completed on both sites to ensure that there will be no migration of contamination between the two sites.

PT01099A

07/00474/OUT (Contract Chemicals Site)

Affordable Housing Contribution : £1,017,312 Highways Contribution : £246,359 Library contribution : £15,612 Off site Public Open Space : £51,520 Play equipment : £7,806 Public Open Space commuted sum : £34,347 Public Open Space : 0.56ha Education : £6,713 •

• That the site is remediated prior to the delivery of the access drive

That the development does not commence until remediation has been completed on both sites to ensure that there will be no migration of contamination between the two sites.

Decision: .................................................................................................................... Notes: ......................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................................................... Person to Contact: Bob Ristic Tel: 396822 E-mail: bob.ristic@gloucester.gov.uk