Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Resubmission of planning application 22/00269/FUL for the construction of a single dwelling and associated infrastructure.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse. 

27.49        This was a resubmission of planning application 22/00269/FUL for the construction of a single dwelling and associated infrastructure.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 11 August 2023.

27.50        The Planning Officer advised this was a full application forthe erection of a single storey four to five bed dwelling.  The application site comprised a grassed area located to the east of a residential bungalow. The site contained a number of derelict and overgrown timber structures on its north-east and south-east boundary. There was established vegetation on the boundaries of the application site and trees which were protected by a Tree Preservation Order on the north, west and east boundaries.  The site was bounded by Shurdington Road to the southeast and there was an existing access from the northeast corner of the site onto the A46. The site did not fall within a recognised settlement boundary as defined in the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and was within designated Green Belt land.  The new dwelling was single storey and positioned to face Shurdington Road, which was similar to the arrangement of the existing properties. The dwelling would be constructed from timber cladding, natural stone and render with a flat roof.  The Officer recommendation was to refuse the application for the reasons as stated within the Committee report.

27.51        The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that the original planning application was submitted in February 2022, but it was not validated until July 2022. That application was withdrawn to ensure all other matters such as design, Green Belt, drainage, ecology and energy efficiency were addressed.  She advised that they had carefully considered the plans over a long time, particularly because the site was located in Green Belt and, whilst they were disappointed that the application was before the Committee today with a recommendation for refusal, Members would note that the reasons for refusal related to perceived impacts on the Green Belt and the perceived non-compliance with spatial plan polices - there were no technical reasons for refusal. Members would have seen from the site visit that the site lay amongst a collection of houses within Chargrove and was visually screened by those buildings and the mature trees along the garden boundary. The site did not protrude into the countryside and was wholly contained. Their brief to the architect had been to purposefully design a single storey, low profile building to ensure that it was visually unobtrusive.  They had sought planning advice and a barrister’s opinion on the relevant Green Belt matters and had been advised that the proposal may be considered acceptable because it was located on previously developed land, included the removal of existing buildings and had a low visual impact, and, due to the contained nature of the site, it did not have a negative impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The applicant’s agent had circulated the legal advice they had received prior to the Committee so Members would have seen its conclusions that the assessment set out in the planning statement was reasonable and logical; she noted that the Council had not provided them with any contradictory legal advice.  Officers had confirmed that the site was classed as previously developed land and it was claimed within the Committee report that the site was undeveloped which was clearly confusing and contradictory to the accepted status of the site. They understood that Tewkesbury Borough Plan Policy RES4 allowed new housing in small scale settlements, such as Chargrove, in order to support the vitality of rural communities and, where the rural communities were located in the Green Belt, that new housing was acceptable providing they complied with the Green Belt exceptions highlighted in the National Planning Policy Framework. For the reasons mentioned, they felt this proposal complied with these policy requirements and hoped Members could agree. 

27.52        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted as it would not cause additional harm to the openness of the Green Belt.  The proposer of the motion felt the site visit had been beneficial in putting the proposed development in the context of nearby buildings and the village landscape.  Whilst he could not deny the site was not within Shurdington, the dwellings next to and behind it looked to Shurdington for the village’s services including a church and a public house with a supermarket also in the vicinity.  The plot of land was between a care home and a block of offices with a row of houses behind so this would constitute infilling in his opinion.  The two existing structures were dilapidated and unappealing and the proposal would be a smaller footprint so he felt it would be an improvement to the area rather than a detriment. 

27.53        A Member supported this view and whilst there was an argument in the Committee report that the site was not part of Shurdington village, it had always been part of it in his eyes and in historic censuses was defined as being in Chargrove. The Development Management Team Manager (Northwest) advised that Officers agreed that the proposal amounted to infilling, it was not considered that it was located within a village.  As such, in terms of applying the relevant Green Belt policies, as Chargrove was not a defined settlement and was outside of a built-up area, it was considered that the application site was previously developed land, therefore, the policy requirement was whether the development would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development.  Officers were of the view that, whilst there were structures on the site and the new dwelling would have a smaller footprint, they were dispersed around the edges of the site so, due to the siting of the new dwelling, the impact on the openness of the Green Belt would be greater.  The Development Management Manager advised that these were not just the views of Officers but those of the Inspector who had determined the previous refusal and considered the site was not within a village location, and the Parish Council which had objected to the application on the basis that the site was located in the Green Belt and outside of Shurdington village development boundary.  A Member queried whether there was a legal definition of openness and indicated that she did not feel the site contributed to the openness of the Green Belt so would be better used for something else in her view.  In response, the Legal Adviser explained that it was not set out in statute or policy but case law had established it was the absence of built development on land; in practice it was a case of looking at visual impact, mass and the surrounding landscape.  The seconder to the motion to permit the application expressed the view that the previous refusal was for three two storey dwellings which was not comparable in terms of what was being proposed here.  The Development Management Manager reiterated the advice of One Legal that the impact on openness was the built development itself; that impact had been assessed against policy and remained a concern in principle given the characteristics and the location as set out in the Committee report.  The proposer of the motion felt that removal of the existing sheds would contribute to the openness of the Green Belt and, in his view, the proposal would be a betterment of the site with the removal of the old sheds.  A Member sought clarification that the existing sheds were to be removed and the Planning Officer confirmed that was the case as far as she was aware. 

27.54        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be PERMITTED as it would not cause additional harm to the openness of the Green Belt, subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions delegated to Officers.