By Carmelo Garcia – Local Democracy Reporter
A major bid to build up to 795 homes near the M5 in Cam has been given the go-ahead by a planning inspector.
Persimmon Homes had lodged an appeal against Stroud District Council (SDC) for not determining their proposals to develop more than 96 acres of land west of the A4135 Draycott.
The development site is between the existing Shell petrol station and Jubilee Playing field and is made up of farmland that gently slopes down towards the North/Northwest.
The hybrid planning application was put before the council’s development control committee in July where councillors were required to give their view on the plans.
They voted unanimously to resolve to grant permission in line with the professional opinion of council officers.
And now a planning inspector has allowed the appeal.
There was a dispute over whether the more than £4.35m requested in financial contributions for the up 795 homes to go towards transport, education, libraries, police and health services would be sought via a section 106 agreement or bidding for community infrastructure levy from the District Council.
Inspector Andrew McGlone said in his decision notice that “concerns and fears of Gloucestershire County Council, the NHS and GP about whether they would actually secure those monies and mitigate the proposed development’s effects are genuine.
“However, it is for those parties to bid and make their case for the necessary monies from SDC’s environment committee.”
In allowing the appeal, Mr McGlone said there is a shortfall of 1,461 homes in the Stroud district over a five-year period.
“The proposal would contribute to the number of dwellings delivered in SDC in the next five years but only by a proportionate amount because not all the proposed dwellings would be delivered in this timeframe.
“The dwellings within the outline part of the scheme are not expected to deliver within the next five years, and a rate of 60 homes per annum is anticipated.
“Therefore, the proposal would not erase the shortfall, though it would help SDC to meet its ongoing housing requirement.”
He concluded the appeal should be allowed.
“The proposed development would conflict with the development plan, but the material considerations in this case indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.”