Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Residential development of up to 28 units, including means of access and landscaping. 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

60.26        This application was for residential development up to 28 units, including means of access and landscaping.

60.27        The Planning Officer advised that the site was located outside, but adjacent to, the settlement boundary of Alderton as shown in the Neighbourhood Development Plan and was within a Special Landscape Area with the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty located to the north of Beckford Road.  The site was predominantly within Flood Zone 1, although the southern areas of the site close to the watercourse were within Flood Zones 2 and 3.  The application was made in full for the erection of 28 dwellings, 11 of which would be affordable, and the proposal was for a mixture of one, two, three and four bedroom properties including detached, semi-detached and terraced properties.  Access would be provided directly off Willow Bank Road.  As set out in the Officer report, the proposal was contrary to the development plan; however, as the Council could not currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing, the tilted balance was engaged and there was a presumption in favour of granting permission unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  Officers were of the view that, on balance, the adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in this case and the application was recommended for refusal for a number of reasons, primarily as the site was contrary to the development plan in respect of its location but also as the proposal would risk the erosion of social cohesion due to the cumulative increase in dwellings within Alderton in a relatively short period of time; it would have a harmful impact on the landscape within the Special Landscape Area; it would not provide an appropriate mix of dwelling sizes that reflected the local housing evidence base; it would fail to ensure that future residents could access sustainable means of transport; and the access was unsafe.  There were also a number of technical reasons for refusal due to lack of a signed Section 106 Agreement which was needed to secure the required affordable housing, education facilities, off-site play facilities, recycling facilities and library facilities.  In terms of ecology, as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet attached at Appendix 1, the proposal was now considered to be acceptable from an ecology perspective and therefore that recommended refusal reason had been removed.

60.28        The Chair invited the representative from Alderton Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative explained that the Parish Council’s reasons for objecting to the proposed development were well summarised in the report from the Planning Officer and the problems with the scheme were numerous.  He pointed out that this matter was being taken seriously by the village with over 100 letters of objection received.  The Parish had a Neighbourhood Development Plan in place and this application was an important test of that Plan which did not provide for this development; furthermore, the site was outside of the settlement boundary and it was not included within the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan which had reached an advanced stage.  Alderton had already seen a 26% rise in new homes over the past few years which was a huge increase for a small rural village; there also continued to be small infill developments in addition to this so the Parish Council believed that Alderton had already done its bit for new housing stock.  The Parish was surrounded by fields owned by developers, or where developers had speculative interests, and this was part of a process where a historic village on the fringe of the Cotswolds would become nothing more than a series of housing estates surrounding a small older centre.  One of the main reasons for the first development from the applicant being allowed on appeal was because it was for 24 – to become 25 – houses and the obvious way to defeat opposition was to simply provide for staged increases, as such, this development should be looked upon as 53 houses in two stages; he pointed out that the Parish Council could not remember any comments from the developer about a second stage at the time of the first development.  The Parish Council representative went on to explain that the village had tried hard to engage the 200-250 new residents in community life but this had been very limited - at times non-existent - and having a further 75 people living on the fringe of the village down a long cul-de-sac, and driving out of the village every day, would do nothing for social cohesion.  He also pointed out that both the Landscape Adviser and Urban Design Officer objected to the proposal from a landscape perspective.  His final comment was that the Parish Council consultation response contained a number of quotes from appeal inspectors, including those who had approved developments in the village, about the potential harm from any further significant development in the village.

60.29        The Chair invited a local resident speaking against the proposal to address the Committee.  The local resident explained that Alderton took pride in being a welcoming village with a vibrant community spirit; however, the strongly held view of residents was that yet another new build estate would have a detrimental impact on that village.  There were over 100 objections to the planning application on the Council’s website with one of the main concerns being that Alderton had already had its fair share of new houses.  She pointed out that it had taken hundreds of hours and a huge amount of effort from many residents to prepare the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan which had finally been adopted in 2018 and clearly laid out what the future of the village should be.  This development site was within the Special Landscape Area and would further close the historic gap between the village and the B4077.  Residents had moved to Alderton because of the beautiful surrounding fields and the views towards the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Cotswold hills; if further expansion outside the village boundary was allowed, those open views would be lost forever.  She raised concern that the applicant had already removed much of the hedgerow along the approach to the village from the main road as part of the previous development and any further loss of the remaining hedgerow from Arch Bridge would further urbanise the village.  As an owner of a bed and breakfast business, guests commented upon the negative impact on the landscape and the disappointment of coming to a rural village only to see exactly the same new build houses they had left at home; this was echoed by residents that lived in nearby villages and those who drove along the B4077.  She was pleased that County Highways supported her views on the safety and sustainability of the proposed development; given climate change, it made no sense to build houses in areas where cars were essential and she indicated that the bus service in the village was dismal and could not be used for commutes to and from work.  In addition, there were insufficient local facilities so residents were reliant on cars to access medical services, employment, leisure and retail – cycling or walking to places outside of the village was far too dangerous.  She explained that she overlooked the proposed site and she had witnessed flood water on, or very close to, some of the lower part of the site on at least three occasions this winter.  In addition, the recent increase in housing had not helped the falling pupil numbers at the school, or increased footfall in the village shop, so she could see no reason why the additional properties would benefit the village in any way and she asked that Members refuse the application.

60.30        The Chair indicated that the applicant’s representative had been due to speak in favour of the proposal; however, due to the exceptional circumstances associated with the coronavirus and the government advice in relation to that, the representative was not able to attend in person and it had been agreed that, on this occasion, the statement would be read out by the Planning Officer.  The statement set out that the applicant was grateful for the hard work of Officers to progress the application, although clearly they did not agree with the conclusions.  The applicant believed that the development could contribute much needed housing to Tewkesbury Borough’s housing land supply shortfall in a highly sustainable location, including 11 affordable homes and a mix of market houses, of which four were two bedroom bungalows.  The proposed development would contribute pupil places to the local primary school, which was undersubscribed, and over £100,000 directly to the Parish Council via the Community Infrastructure Levy.  Section 106 contributions would also provide around £200,000 of financial contributions toward pre-school and secondary education.  Figures from the Home Builders Federation stated that a development of this size would support around 87 local jobs within the construction industry and supply chain.  The proposal would provide an improved outward facing edge to the village with high quality homes in a palette of materials in keeping with the local vernacular and 162 new trees would be planted to reduce localised flood risk and create a pleasant green environment with open spaces and equipment for natural play.  Alderton was considered to be a sustainable location for development within the Joint Core Strategy and, given the substantial need for housing – both within the borough and nationally – the applicant believed that the proposal was well-designed, national planning policy compliant and able to deliver the housing required immediately.  The applicant had resolved all highways and flooding comments with statutory consultees having no objection to the proposal and, should planning permission be granted, it would be in a position to commence development within the next twelve months with housing completions in a timely manner thereafter.  With that in mind, the applicant requested that the Committee permit the application.

60.31        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 refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The proposer of the motion raised particular concern about flooding, as outlined by the Parish Council.  He pointed out that Alderton had been subject to speculative development for some time but the facilities within the village, such as the village shop, were neither well-used nor viable with poor public transport creating reliance on the car.  The seconder of the motion indicated that Alderton Parish Council and the Neighbourhood Development Plan group had carried out consultation and collected evidence to demonstrate the impact of this development, and other developments, on social cohesion.  Page No. 172, Paragraph 7.7 of the Officer report set out that the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan was adopted as part of the development plan in 2018 but did not contain policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement; whilst there were specific reasons for this, it meant that Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework was not engaged.  The Member felt this needed to be looked at as there were a lot of Neighbourhood Development Plans which allocated existing developments or did not allocate sites at all so this could have a significant impact.  Another Member agreed this needed to be considered as a matter of urgency; however, he could not support the proposal as he could see nothing in the report to convince him that the authority would be able to defend an appeal should the application be refused.  He disagreed with the housing land supply figures which he believed were considerably lower and, although he could not dispute the hard work of the Parish Council, he could not support a refusal when this would potentially be at the expense of the Council and would result in the local community losing control over the development.  In response to these comments, another Member recognised that the housing land supply figure was constantly changing and, though the developer was seeking to take advantage of the fact that the Council could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply and preferred to provide development outside of the strategic plan areas that had been allocated for that purpose, he was of the view that this particular battle was one worth fighting.  He did not agree with the comments made by the applicant in their statement and made particular reference to the fact that any jobs generated via construction of the development would not benefit local people.  As such, he would be supporting the proposal to refuse the application.  The proposer of the motion pointed out two appeal decisions for housing developments in Alderton where the Inspector had been in agreement with the Council so it was possible to take on developers and win in the right circumstances.

60.32        Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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