Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Residential development for between four to eight dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

60.50         This application was for residential development of between four and eight dwellings. 

60.51         The Planning Officer advised that the application was for permission in principle for residential development of between four and eight dwellings on land to the west of the A38 in Minsterworth.  The application had been brought to the Committee following an objection from the Parish Council.  Members were reminded that, as with all planning in principle applications, the matters for consideration were limited to location, amount and land use.  The proposal was located outside of the emerging settlement boundary for Minsterworth and conflicted with Joint Core Strategy Policy SD10; however, Officers considered the proposal to be well-located in respect of neighbouring development and that it would not extend westward into the countryside to any greater extent than the adjoining development.  Officers were satisfied that up to eight dwellings could be accommodated on site in a linear form and both the land use and amount of development was therefore accepted.  Taking account of the Council’s five year housing land supply position, it was concluded that the adverse impacts of the proposal would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and it was recommended that permission in principle be granted.  Members would recall considering permission in principle applications for the neighbouring parcel of land, immediately to the north of the current application site, in August and October 2019; on both occasions permission was refused on the grounds that it would conflict with the development plan and would cause landscape harm.  An appeal had been lodged against the refusal which had subsequently been allowed and an overview of the Inspector’s decision was included in the Current Appeals and Appeal Decisions Update at Agenda Item 6.

60.52         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 indicated that he had huge reservations regarding the application due to the dangerous road but he recognised that was not an appropriate reason to refuse a permission in principle application.  The Chair sought clarification as to whether a full application would need to be submitted if a permission in principle application was granted and whether the proposal could be refused at that point should the access be considered dangerous or unsuitable.  The Technical Planning Manager explained that it was a two part process; permission in principle was somewhere between pre-application advice and an outline planning application and the second stage was a technical details application which looked at the technical issues.  If it could be demonstrated that the development was unsuitable for a variety of reasons – including highway reasons – then it could be refused on that basis at the technical details stage.  If there was no prospect whatsoever that development would be acceptable on the site then permission in principle could be refused but, in terms of the application before Members, permission in principle had already been granted on appeal for the adjoining parcel of land to the north and, given that the Inspector had taken the view that it was not possible to say there was no prospect of access being achieved on that site, it would be difficult to say that development could not take place on this site as access could theoretically be gained from the adjoining site. 

60.53         The Chair sought a comment from the County Highways representative who explained that, from a highways perspective, it was a simple exercise to state whether access could or could not be achieved and he provided assurance that County Highways wanted to achieve an appropriate form of access off a classified road - particularly in view of the specific safety issues in this case as evidenced by the speed camera in situ - so this would be thoroughly assessed at the technical details stage, should Members be minded to permit the permission in principle application.  A Member felt that the Inspector’s decision to allow the appeal had given solace to the applicant when the proposal would never be suitable in highway safety terms and he indicated that if a full application had been put forward then it would at least be possible to secure affordable housing; he did not believe that solace should be given to speculative developers.  The Technical Planning Manager provided assurance that developers understood the process and that the technical details would be considered at that stage.  Given the appeal decision and the Inspector’s conditions he did not think it was possible to determine there was absolutely no way that an acceptable access could be achieved from the site and it was to be borne in mind that a costs claim had been made by the appellant at the previous appeal, albeit one that had been successfully defended in that appeal.  With regard to the point about affordable housing, he explained that the two developments together would be likely to breach the threshold of 10 for affordable housing; this was a very new situation and he had not seen any case law on it but, from his perspective, the Technical Planning Manager did not see why that could not be taken into account at the technical details stage.  The Legal Adviser clarified that planning policy guidance set out that local authorities may agree planning obligations at the technical details stage but these could not be secured at the permission in principle stage.  A Member indicated that, when applications were refused and went to appeal, if they were overturned by an Inspector then the local authority could lose control over what happened on site and she sought clarification as to the situation with permission in principle applications.  The Technical Planning Manager advised that the authority would probably retain more control if the permission in principle application was allowed as the technical details application was still to come forward; the technical details stage was much more controlled than the reserved matters stage where a lot of the issues would have been dealt with at the outline stage.

60.54         Having considered the information provided and views expressed, it was 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.