PROPOSAL: Erection of one infill dwelling.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Approve

5.12          This was a permission in principle application for the erection of one infill dwelling.

5.13          The Planning Officer explained that the application was for permission in principle which was a form of planning consent which established that a site was suitable for a specified amount of housing-led development in principle.  If permission in principle was granted, the site must then have the technical details approved before development could proceed.  The current application was the first stage of the process and sought solely to establish whether the site was suitable in principle for a new dwelling.  The government’s guidance set out that the scope of the first stage of permission in principle was limited to location, land use and the amount of development; any other technical matters would be considered at the technical details stage.  He went on to advise that the site itself was currently associated with a property known as The Bungalow which was located on the east side of Ash Lane.  The site was currently accessed from a main driveway off Down Hatherley Lane with a secondary access off Ash Lane, which was a private road - it was proposed that this access would serve the new property.  The site was not located within any recognised settlement boundary and was not subject to any site allocation or formal landscape designation but it was located within an area of safeguarded land.  Given the context of the site, Officers considered that, whilst the site did not front onto Ash Lane, any dwelling on the site would still relate reasonably well to existing built form in this location and would therefore represent infilling in the context of Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy.  It was also considered that there would be an acceptable impact on the landscape and it was feasible that an appropriate access could be provided.  In terms of the safeguarded land, the proposal would not strictly accord with Policy SD5 of the Joint Core Strategy; however, given the scale of the development proposed, the proximity of the site to existing properties and the intervening land to the east – which was in multiple ownership – it was considered that the proposal would not prejudice the purpose of the safeguarded land.  In light of the Council’s housing land supply position, it was not felt there would be any adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme, subject to securing appropriate details at the technical details stage, as such, the application was recommended for approval.  The Planning Officer proceeded to show two videos showing the approach to the application site from Ash Lane along Down Hatherley Lane and panning around the site.

5.14          The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member questioned whether it was correct that the safeguarded land could not be approved without specific support of a Joint Core Strategy review as stated by the Parish Council and, if that was the case, he sought clarification as to the current position in terms of the review.  He queried whether the application would have been refused if it were still in the Green Belt and drew attention to Page No. 95, Paragraph 6.3 of the Officer report which set out that, on the basis of the stage of preparation of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, the emerging policies of the plan could be afforded limited to moderate weight; however, this was contrary to the Inspector’s analysis and findings in respect of both the Fiddington and Stoke Road appeals where limited or no weight could be given to the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan - as the plan had only been submitted the previous day, he assumed that its status remained the same.  In response, the Technical Planning Manager explained that it was a matter of judgement as to whether safeguarded land weighed against any particular proposal.  The purpose of safeguarded land in this case was to provide a future major development opportunity to meet the needs of the borough going forward; on that basis, the judgement was that a small piece of land that was already part of a garden did not impact on the ability of the wider allocation to come forward.  This had been taken into account bearing in mind that the tilted balance was in play as per Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  Whilst he understood the concern regarding the impact on the Joint Core Strategy review, Officers did not feel that allowing this development on this site would impact materially on its progress.  In terms of the Green Belt, the Technical Planning Manager pointed out that two houses had been permitted next to the application site when still in the Green Belt.  In terms of the Fiddington and Stoke Road appeals referenced by the Member, the Inspector and Secretary of State had given particular weight to the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan; however, Officers felt this should be given greater weight.  Also, Members should be mindful that the tilted balance was in play with this application.  The Legal Adviser clarified that the Fiddington appeal had been heard in May 2019 and the Pre-Submission version of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan had been approved for consultation, and so moved on, since that time.

5.15           A Member drew attention to the plan at Page No. 100 of the Officer report which showed the existing layout to be linear in form whereas the proposed development would be moving away from that and he sought an Officer comment in that regard.  The Technical Planning Manager felt this was a good point and explained that the proposal had been considered in the context of the wider area to the west and the bungalow on the site which was itself set back from the road.  This was not an unusual occurrence in the area and Officers felt that the proposal would be relatively well related to the surrounding area which was the reason for the recommendation for approval. 

5.16           Initially the local Member expressed the view that there may be some benefit in visiting the site; however, another Member indicated that he knew the area very well and did not share this view.  He noted that safeguarded land was addressed at Policy SD5 of the Joint Core Strategy which set out, at Paragraph 7(iv), that safeguarded areas were not allocated for development at the present time.  Planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land – except for uses that would not be deemed inappropriate within the Green Belt – would only be granted if a future review of the Joint Core Strategy deemed the release of this land necessary and appropriate.  The crucial role of safeguarded land was to ensure that land identified for possible future growth to meet development needs in a development plan was not fettered by piecemeal development.  This application could not by any definition be regarded as anything other than piecemeal development, it would not be acceptable within the Green Belt and public transport was non-existent other than on the A38, as such he proposed that the application be refused.  The local Member seconded the proposal and confirmed that he no longer wished to propose a Planning Committee Site Visit.  He indicated that there were already six new houses on the left hand side and he understood that another six were proposed behind that so the lane was getting very busy and, as nobody had been identified as owning the lane, he was concerned as to who would take responsibility when something went wrong.  The Technical Planning Manager explained that the access road was very much a matter for residents who he understood all had collective responsibility for the upkeep of the road and presumably the residents of any new residential properties would also have a responsibility in that respect.  In terms of the comments made regarding piecemeal development and safeguarded land, he reiterated that this was a matter of judgement in this case.  Given the particularities of the site, and its location in relation to the strategic allocation, as well as the fact that it was within the garden of the bungalow, Officers did not feel the proposal would in any way prejudice the adjoining safeguarded land coming forward in future.  Although there was a judgement to be made, the Technical Planning Manager reiterated that the tilted balance did apply and, should Members be minded to refuse the application, there must be significant and demonstrable harm to outweigh the - albeit limited - strengths of the proposal.  In response to a query, the Planning Officer confirmed that planning permission had been granted for two additional houses in the gap following onto Ash Lane.

5.17           A Member indicated that she could not support the motion to refuse the application given that the Officers had presented an excellent case stating that allowing the property to be built on the safeguarded land did not prejudice its purpose.  Another Member felt it should be borne in mind that planning permission had been granted for two houses on the plot of land immediately to the south of the driveway four years earlier when the land had been in a designated Green Belt area.  The proposer of the motion to refuse the application reiterated that the site was not a strategic allocation, nor was it a service village and he did not feel that the piecemeal approach was justified as safeguarded land should be for bigger developments, therefore he stood by his proposal.  The Chair sought clarification as to the reasons for refusal and the proposer of the motion indicated that the site was not strategically allocated and was not within a service village, there were no public amenities serving the site with the nearest being located on the A38, it would be piecemeal development and a decision would need to be taken via a Joint Core Strategy review to make it permissible.  The Technical Planning Manager understood the reasons; however, with regard to the suggestion that the proposal was premature to the Joint Core Strategy review, he explained that the government guidance was very clear that an argument of prematurity was unlikely to be successful unless the proposal would prejudice the purpose of the safeguarded land.  In terms of services, there was an excellent bus service along the A38 which was considered to be within reasonable walking distance of the site.  In addition, there would be new services and facilities coming forward as part of the strategic allocation and the nearby Twigworth development which had a small local centre associated with it.  In his view it would be difficult to substantiate a reason for refusal, particularly in the context of the tilted balance and the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the National Planning Policy Framework.  A Member felt there was a need to re-evaluate how public transport was addressed within the development plans in light of the situation with COVID-19 and the latest government advice about its usage.  The Legal Adviser indicated that Paragraph 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that refusal of planning permission on the grounds of prematurity would seldom be justified where a draft plan had yet to be submitted for examination and, where planning permission was refused on the grounds of prematurity, the local planning authority would need to indicate clearly how granting permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process. The Technical Planning Manager clarified that the Tewkesbury Borough Plan had been submitted for examination but the Joint Core Strategy review, to which the proposer of the motion was referring, had not.  The proposer of the motion confirmed that his refusal reason was not on the basis of prematurity but on the grounds of piecemeal development which was likely to increase if this application was allowed.

5.18          Upon being taken to the vote, the motion to refuse the application was lost.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation.