By Carmelo Garcia – Local Democracy Reporter
Plans to build 172 social homes, provide enhanced public spaces, along with new shops and commercial units in Gloucester have been turned down.
Gloucester City Homes has been refused permission to redevelop the Podsmead Estate at Masefield Avenue.
The £45m regeneration project was considered by City planners at their meeting earlier this week.
The developers said the scheme posed a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” which was teh result of significant collaboration between GCH, Homes England, Gloucester City Council, residents and community leaders.
The proposals included the demolition of 64 homes, an investment of £1.3 million in enhanced public spaces, according to Gloucester City Homes.
They said the scheme would lead to improved community amenities, and modern, accessible infrastructure to foster a thriving, sustainable neighbourhood, with an extra investment of £645,000 in enhancing offsite sports and play provision.
The development of 172 new homes across the site, represented an increase of 108 extra units made up of 58 one bed flats, 37 two bed apartments, 19 two bed houses, 43 three bed properties, 13 four beds and a couple of five bed homes.
The scheme included 3,864.24 sq ft commercial and community space to serve as a gateway to the estate with frontage onto Cole Avenue and The Crypt School drop-off area.
The commercial space had been designed to offer flexibility and could accommodate either two larger units or multiple smaller units on the ground floor.
The proposals also included 262 new parking spaces and improvements to the retained open space, public realm and green infrastructure.
This includes replacement play areas, multi-use games area, memorial garden, BMX pump track and community allotments.
Officers told the planning committee on July 1 that their recommendation was “unusual” in that they did not suggest approval or rejection.
They said they did not give a clear recommendation because it was “finely balanced”.
The benefits of the scheme included the extra energy efficient affordable rented homes, improvements to the open space and retail units.
However, the negatives included the loss of 4.7 acres of open space and no contribution to libraries and schools and it was a scaled down regeneration project. It also failed to meet the parking standards.
Councillor Sebastian Field (LD, Podsmead), who represents the area, gave his views on the proposals.
He told those present at North Warehouse that he had always expressed broad support for regeneration.
However, he said he has been concerned over the loss of green space and the amount of concrete, hard standing and plastic pitches that would be part of the development.
“I can see the benefits in a ward which has such a level of deprivation as Podsmead does,” he said.
“And I can see the benefits that this scheme would bring, such as a pharmacy, quality housing, good local facilities and some economic and environmental benefits.
“But I do keep coming back to the loss of green space. The proposed development would result in the loss of approximately 60 per cent of the existing informal amenity green space across the wider regeneration area.
“That is quite a lot. 34 trees are going to be lost. Yes they are to be replaced and to be added.
“But we all know young trees do not capture carbon nearly as well as mature trees.”
He also said officers were concerned the scheme did not comply with planning policies. Cllr Field said these concerns needed to be addressed.
Alexandra Egge, planning consultant speaking on behalf of the applicant, told the meeting the scheme was an opportunity to “catalise the regeneration of the Podsmead Estate”.
It would not only deliver 172 new social homes but enrich the landscape setting and improve local amenities in a sustainable location, she said.
“By delivering 108 additional social homes, this scheme will help address the over 5,000 people on the waiting list for social housing within Gloucester, as of October 2024,” she said.
“And will contribute to a national step change in the delivery of social housing.
“This development will make a meaningful contribution towards meeting the clear and pressing demand for larger social homes within the area.”
She also said housing decamps would be phased without the need for temporary accommodation for residents before moving into their long term home.
The homes would be fully wheelchair accessible and adaptable and more energy efficient.
Councillor Andrew Gravells (C, Abbeydale) said he did not understand why they could not go back to the applicant to ask them to tweak the scheme to address the residents’ concerns.
Chairman Angela Conder (LD, Kingsholm and Wotton) said the committee had to consider the proposal before them. Concerns were raised about the parking on the site.
And Cllr Andrew Lewis (C, Quedgeley Severn Vale) said: “If you get a Tesco Express in there, they are going to park everywhere.
“It’s just not right. It really isn’t right for the people who are still there.
“I will be voting against it, definitely.”
And Cllr Pam Tracey (C, Westgate) said there were already traffic issues nearby and said she couldn’t believe all the houses had been “squeezed in”.
“There’s too many houses in a small space,” she said. “I’ve seen these houses go up before. They look lovely at first then they deteriorate in two years.
“To me they aren’t houses. They are going to look like the army barracks to me.”
Councillor Karen James (L, Kingsway) said the scheme would provide social housing for Gloucester and regenerate one of the most deprived wards in the city.
“I don’t see we can turn it down on grounds such as that,” she said.
“I agree the loss of the open space is regrettable. But there will be quality open space within this development. I would urge people to support it.”
Cllr Linda Castle (LD, Longlevens) agreed there was a need for affordable homes but the council “needed to get it right”.
“Things can’t be rushed through,” she said.
“We are having all these new homes. It’s going to put pressure on local schools.
“Gloucester City Homes are not paying any contribution onwards a primary and secondary school and the County Council says they cannot guarantee places for these children.”
Cllr Gravells proposed deferral and this was seconded by Cllr Tracey for a site visit and to discuss the concerns raised at the meeting.
This was voted down. Cllr Liam Harries (LD, Quedgeley Severn Vale) said if councillors were unhappy they should refuse it and ask the developers to resubmit the plans with amendments. He said the loss of open space was “too much” and had concerns over highways.
“I can’t get it past my head that Scott Avenue won’t become an absolute jammed-up car park,” he said.
Cllr Conder said she did not like the look of the apartment blocks.
“The uniformity of the roof line makes it look like a prison,” she said.
“The loss of open space doesn’t worry me. The pain for the existing residents can’t be got around but most of what is being lost, in terms of the buildings coming down, they are poor quality buildings.
“One day we will have to bite the bullet. If we don’t bite it now, when will we do that?”
Cllr James proposed approving the scheme; this was seconded by Cllr Usman Bhaimia (LD, Barton and Tredworth).
However only two voted in favour while six voted against with one abstention.
Councillors voted in favour of a subsequent motion to reject the scheme.