PROPOSAL: Outline planning application with means of access from Ashmead Drive to be determined (all other matters reserved for subsequent approval) for the erection of up to 50 dwellings (Class C3); earthworks; drainage works; structural landscaping; formal and informal open space; car parking; site remediation; and all other ancillary and enabling works.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Consent.

10.4          This was an outline planning application with means of access from Ashmead Drive to be determined (all other matters reserved for subsequent approval) for the erection of up to 50 dwellings (Class C3); earthworks; drainage works; structural landscaping; formal and informal open space; car parking; site remediation; and all other ancillary and enabling works.

10.5          The Planning Officer advised that the application related to an agricultural field located adjacent to the southern edge of Gotherington; it had a gentle slope and was contained by mature hedgerow and tree planting along its boundaries.  The site was located within a Special Landscape Area with the land to the north and east of Gotherington forming part of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The site was outside of, but adjacent to, the settlement boundary as defined in the Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan.  The application was in outline and proposed up to 50 dwellings with all matters reserved for future consideration with the exception of the means of access off Ashmead Drive.  Whilst the application was in outline form, it was supported with an illustrative site layout plan which showed how the site could be developed.  Some Members may recall a previous application on the site which was refused by the Council in 2017 on the basis that it was outside of any defined settlement boundary and would have a harmful impact on the landscape, as well as on the grounds of social cohesion and a number of technical matters relating to the lack of a signed Section 106 Agreement.  The application was subsequently dismissed at appeal, although the Inspector did not find any overriding harm in terms of impact on the landscape.  The findings of the Inspector were material to the current application which was essentially the same as that which was dismissed on appeal.  Notwithstanding this, there had been a material change in circumstances since the appeal decision in 2018; at the time of the appeal, the Council had been able to demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, as such, the housing policies contained within the Joint Core Strategy and Neighbourhood Development Plan attracted full weight in decision-taking.  In contrast, the Council could not currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, therefore, the housing policies in the Joint Core Strategy were deemed to be out of date; unfortunately, this also applied to policies contained within the Neighbourhood Development Plan.  Furthermore, given the time that had elapsed since the Neighbourhood Development Plan was made in September 2017, it no longer benefitted from the protection afforded by Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework which stated that, in situations where the presumption applied to applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicted with the Neighbourhood Development Plan was likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.  This was subject to certain criteria, one of which specified that the Neighbourhood Development Plan must have become part of the development plan two years or less before the date on which the decision was made.  As the Neighbourhood Development Plan was now older than two years, Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework no longer applied; however, the Planning Officer stressed that did not mean that the Neighbourhood Development Plan should be disregarded.  Similar to the position at the 2018 appeal, Officers were of the view that there were no technical matters that would represent a reason for refusal in this instance.  Members would be aware of the recent response from the Cotswolds Conservation Board objecting to the scheme; however, in light of the findings of the appeal Inspector and the Council’s landscape consultant, Officers did not concur with the findings of the Board and were of the view that the only harm that had been identified was the impact on social cohesion and social wellbeing as a result of the scale of growth in a relatively short period of time.  This harm weighed against the proposals but, in the absence of any other reasons for refusal, and given the application of the tilted balance, that harm was no longer considered to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme.  It was therefore recommended that authority be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to finalising a Section 106 Agreement.  It was noted that, as set out on the Additional Representations Sheet attached at Appendix 1, a further response had been received from the County Highways Officer recommending that the condition requiring highway safety improvements to the Gotherington Cross junction be removed on the basis that those works had already been secured.  The Planning Officer proceeded to show a video of the application site serving as a virtual site visit for the Committee.

10.6          The Chair invited the representative from Gotherington Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative confirmed that the Parish Council wished to object to the proposal.  The current application was substantially the same as a previous application which was unanimously refused by the Planning Committee in February 2017 and subsequently on appeal in April 2018.  This proposal sought to build the same housing estate, with the same number of houses, on the same field, accessed via the same cul-de-sac, and had all the same problems as the previous application.  He went on to indicate that the site was located between Gotherington and Bishop’s Cleeve, within a Special Landscape Area and close to the boundary of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The proposed site was not one of the three selected for development within the Neighbourhood Development Plan or the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and sat outside of the settlement boundary.  Development of this site would therefore breach Neighbourhood Development Plan guidelines 4, 5 and 6 which were concerned with the sensitivity of the landscape and protection of Gotherington and its coalescence with Bishop’s Cleeve.  The development would not meet Tewkesbury Borough Plan Policy LAN1 in relation to Special Landscape Areas nor Joint Core Strategy Policy SD6 in relation to landscape, Policy SD7 regarding the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty or Policy SD14 with regard to health and environmental quality which stated that developments should protect and seek to improve environmental quality and not cause unacceptable harm to local amenity, including that of neighbouring occupants.  Paragraph 78 of the National Planning Policy Framework was particularly relevant as it stated that housing should be located where it would enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities - the Parish Council did not believe this application would enhance or maintain the vitality of Gotherington.  Paragraph 94 of the National Planning Policy Framework recognised the importance of a sufficient choice of school places; however, the local school and schools in Bishop’s Cleeve were either full, or very nearly full.  The Parish Council representative went on to indicate that Paragraph 97 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built upon and Paragraph 172 set out that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty; this site was within the context and setting of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  In conclusion, the application failed to meet policy and guidance set out in the Neighbourhood Development Plan, the Tewkesbury Borough Plan, the Joint Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.  Furthermore, development on this site would have a negative and destabilising impact on residents and local services at a time when the village had already seen huge growth.  Therefore, Gotherington Parish Council objected to the application.

10.7          The Chair invited a local resident speaking against the application to address the Committee.  The local resident reiterated that, despite the applicant’s claim, the application was fundamentally unchanged from the one rejected by the Council and at appeal in 2018, other than the inclusion of a Multi-Use Games Area; what had changed was the wider planning framework, most notably that the Council was unable to demonstrate a five year housing supply.  Gotherington had embraced the concept of localism and made a robust Neighbourhood Development Plan with allocated sites which were being delivered; however, being just over two years old, the Plan was deemed to hold little weight under the National Planning Policy Framework.  Therefore the overriding principal was in favour of sustainable development which, in her view, this was not - the primary school was oversubscribed, the bus service limited, there were no safe cycling routes out of the village and limited employment which would result in residents travelling by car.  She pointed out that access to the site was via a quiet cul-de-sac and exiting the village onto the A435 was via a dangerous junction.  The National Planning Policy Framework and draft Tewkesbury Borough Plan aimed to protect environments and valued landscapes but this development was criss-crossed by several footpaths which were extensively used by residents, views from local viewpoints would be negatively affected, as would those from Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty spots such as Nottingham Hill and Woolston Hill.  This visual amenity would be destroyed if footpaths were hemmed in by houses and would result in creeping coalescence with Bishop’s Cleeve, creating an urban sprawl and loss of village identity and character.  The local resident went on to point out that the site was not included in either the Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan or the draft Tewkesbury Borough Plan and did not meet the development criteria for either.  There was no urgent need for more housing in the village, as demonstrated by the recent Housing Needs Survey, and the strength of feeling against the development could be judged by the large number of objections.  There were also significant concerns over social cohesion as the cumulative effect of the 95 dwellings approved since 2011 and these additional 50 houses would represent a 32% increase in the size of the village.  New residents were unlikely to fully integrate into village life if their children were educated elsewhere and working residents would not be able to access the shop as its pre-COVID-19 opening hours were 0915 to 1630.  Community buildings were already too small to comfortably hold village meetings, numbers for clubs were restricted due to capacity and the amount of football pitches was inadequate with several village teams having to play elsewhere – as noted by the appeal Inspector, there was no scope for these facilities to be expanded.  The development risked being an isolated enclave, having an adverse impact on the social cohesion and community spirit much valued by residents.  The local resident explained there had been no community consultation prior to the application being submitted and there was no guarantee that the play facilities would be delivered in a final scheme.  There were no perceivable benefits from this speculative development which sought to take advantage of the loopholes in the planning system and undermine the principles of localism and it should be refused on those grounds.  The local resident also expressed the view that the virtual site visit failed to demonstrate the closeness of Bishop’s Cleeve to the site.

10.8          The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent confirmed this was a re-submission of a scheme for residential development that was previously refused planning permission in 2018; however, a number of amendments had been made to the proposal in response to that decision and there were further material planning considerations that fully justified approval of the application before Members.  He explained that the northern section of the site would be provided as a significant area of public open space which would exceed local standards.  Within this area, the scheme would now deliver a Multi-Use Games Area, Locally Equipped Area of Play and multi-purpose community area on site bringing a currently privately-owned area of agricultural land into public use and providing additional community facilities within the village for all to use.  The development would therefore provide further facilities and space for residents to socially come together and help integrate the development with the existing community.  The applicant’s agent pointed out that the Council had now adopted its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule, therefore the Parish Council would receive 25% of the CIL receipts from this development, currently estimated to be £131,000. Further financial contributions would also be secured via Section 106 Agreement towards matters such as education provision.  On that basis, with regard to social cohesion and social wellbeing in Gotherington, the applicant’s agent considered that the scheme would deliver a number of on-site improvements and facilities, together with financial contributions and CIL receipts for the Parish Council.  This would directly mitigate its impact on the existing community of Gotherington, as well as supporting and enhancing residents’ health and social wellbeing.  The scheme’s impact on the landscape and nearby Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was extensively assessed as part of the previous application and appeal.  As part of that, the Inspector had categorically stated that development in this location would not harm the character or appearance of the surrounding area, including the gap between Gotherington and Bishop’s Cleeve.  This view followed the Council’s own evidence base which identified the site as having the joint lowest landscape and visual impact of any parcel of land adjoining Gotherington; Officers did not consider this proposal, or the previous scheme, to cause visual harm to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Lastly, there was a further material difference to when the previous application and appeal had been determined as the Council now had a five year housing land supply shortfall.  The Officer’s report advised this to be at 4.33 years but the applicant’s agent considered it to be much lower given the findings of the recent appeal decision at Highnam and it was likely to worsen.  As such, this proposal would provide much needed market and affordable housing that would contribute towards meeting the shortfall.  As confirmed within the Officer report, the tilted balance was engaged therefore, where the benefits outweighed the harm, planning permission should be granted.  Accordingly, the significant benefits of the scheme, which included the delivery of market and affordable housing, the considerable amount of public open space and the provision of a Multi-Use Games Area, Locally Equipped Area of Play and multipurpose community area would outweigh the limited identified harm.  The applicant’s agent considered the social cohesion concerns raised by the Inspector had been addressed through the amendments to the proposal, as well as the financial contributions that would arise.  He therefore respectfully requested that outline planning permission be granted, subject to the suggested conditions and financial contributions.

10.9          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was that authority be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused on the basis that the development would represent a significant encroachment into the surrounding rural landscape which would have an urbanising effect and result in the erosion of the rural landscape, contributing further to the coalescence of Gotherington and Bishop’s Cleeve; it would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the landscape within the Special Landscape Area which served to protect the foreground setting of the adjacent Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; and it would have a disproportionate effect on the village in terms of the cumulative impact of development and on the social wellbeing of the community; therefore, the totality of the harm was not clearly outweighed by the benefits of the development including the supply of new housing, both market and affordable and, in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts of the proposed development significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits of the scheme and the proposal did not represent sustainable development for which a presumption in favour should apply. The proposer of the motion indicated that, as Members had heard, the Planning Committee had unanimously refused an almost identical application on this site in 2017.  At that time the Council was able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, therefore Policy SD10 was applicable; however, there were a number of other reasons for refusal, namely that the proposed development represented a significant encroachment into the surrounding rural landscaping which would have an urbanising effect and result in the erosion of the rural landscape contributing further to the coalescence of Gotherington and Bishop’s Cleeve; and it would have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the landscape within a Special Landscape Area which served to protect the foreground setting of the adjacent Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The proposer of the motion saw no change to those particular reasons for refusal.  She went on to point out that a comprehensive objection had been made by the Cotswolds Conservation Board, details of which were set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1.  In response to that objection, Officers had stated that they did not believe that the development would have an unacceptable impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; however, she disagreed and believed that the Cotswolds Conservation Board’s conclusions within its objection were correct; therefore, despite the fact that the Council could not currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply, the objection in respect of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty meant that, under Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the tilted balance was not engaged for this particular application.  She noted that Page No. 30, Paragraph 7.18 of the Officer report referenced the Tewkesbury Borough Plan Strategic Gap Policy LAN3 which was designed specifically to prevent coalescence - this included Bishop’s Cleeve and Gotherington and this particular land was detailed within that policy.  As the Plan had recently been submitted to the Inspector, she believed that weight could be afforded to it at this stage of the plan-making process.  The Officer conclusion in this regard stated there would be no harm in relation to the erosion of the gap but she disagreed and believed that the development would harm the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and considered that the threat of erosion to the gap was a significant issue – something which was echoed by the many representations received from the community who feared coalescence and loss of community identity within Gotherington.  Permitting this particular application would decrease the already eroded gap between Bishop’s Cleeve and Gotherington, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and the Council’s own policies.  The Member went on to indicate that the original application had also been refused based on the cumulative effect of development within the village which would be of a scale disproportionate to the existing settlement and, again, she saw no change to this reason for refusal.  Gotherington had 463 homes at the start of the Joint Core Strategy process and, based on the service village designation, was allocated 86 new homes; since that time, 91 houses had been approved so, should these additional 50 homes be approved today, the total amount of new homes to be built in Gotherington would be 141, an increase of 31% which represented substantial expansion of the village.  In her view, this would have a significant detrimental effect on the social wellbeing of the local community, risking the erosion of community cohesion, therefore, the application failed to represent sustainable development within the context of Paragraph 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  Page No. 29, Paragraph 7.13 of the Officer report made reference to an appeal decision for Alderton which was dismissed by the Inspector based on a cumulative increase of considerably less than 31% again in a period where the Council could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply.  In summing up, she believed that the tilted balance was not triggered based on the fact that a sound objection had been received from the Cotswolds Conservation Board in respect of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Whilst the application did have the benefit of delivering market and affordable housing – although the recent Housing Needs Survey for Gotherington had found that no further affordable housing was required based on the current level of affordable homes already approved – significant and demonstrable harms would arise from the development as she had set out in her motion.

10.10        During the debate which ensued, a Member agreed that nothing had changed since the previous application on the site had been refused and he believed that the two fields separating Bishop’s Cleeve and Gotherington should be retained as a strategic gap to prevent coalescence.  In his view, the Council’s inability to demonstrate a five year housing land supply should not be at the expense of the residents of Bishop’s Cleeve and Gotherington when there were other sites for housing identified within the draft Tewkesbury Borough Plan and he would be supporting the motion to refuse the application.  Another Member was in agreement with the case put forward by the proposer of the motion and was surprised that such little weight had been given to the objection from the Cotswolds Conservation Board considering that the creep between Gotherington and Bishop’s Cleeve was very apparent when the area was viewed from Cleeve Hill.  The Joint Core Strategy and Tewkesbury Borough Plan were based on a great deal of evidence about how much new development could be accommodated in various parts of the borough in order to be sustainable and he fully supported the motion to refuse this application.  A Member shared the view that the proposal would result in significant harm - this was recognised at Page No. 41, Paragraph 8.4 of the Officer report which stated that the cumulative growth in Gotherington in a relatively short period of time would have a negative impact on social cohesion and wellbeing and he believed that significant weight should be attached to that.

10.11         A Member sought clarification as to whether the site was within a service village and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and if it could be described as an exception site.  The proposer of the motion had alluded to the numerous objections to the proposal but he pointed out that there had been significantly more in relation to another proposal in Twigworth which had been allowed.  In his opinion, any development would have an impact on its surroundings.  He was very disappointed to find out that, after all the time, effort and money put in by Parish Councils and communities, Neighbourhood Development Plans were effectively defunct after two years meaning it would be necessary for reviews to commence immediately after adoption.  He did not feel that the proposer of the motion had put forward a policy justification for refusing the application and raised concern that the Council was likely to lose any subsequent appeal based on its inability to demonstrate a five year housing supply.  He went on to question whether the Council had a specific policy regarding density or whether it was intended to introduce one.  In response, the Technical Planning Manager confirmed that Gotherington was a service village within the Joint Core Strategy.  Whilst the site was not located within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the National Planning Policy Framework and case law confirmed that the views out of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty were material and could be taken into account when deciding whether great weight should be afforded to the harm that would be caused.  The Cotswolds Conservation Board had also referred to the views into the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty but case law indicated that should not be afforded great weight on the basis that the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty could be viewed from virtually anywhere in the borough.  He also clarified that the site could not be considered as an exception site on the basis of the application that had been submitted.  In terms of the Neighbourhood Development Plan, reference had been made to Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework which contained a number of tests including the fact that a Plan should be recently made i.e. within the last two years; once that time had elapsed, the protection afforded by Paragraph 14 disappeared.  The Technical Planning Manager felt that the proposer of the motion had set out very clearly the policy reasons to justify a refusal, particularly with regard to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty with reference to Policy SD7 of the Joint Core Strategy and Policy SD6 in relation to the wider landscape; the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan also contained a policy in respect of Special Landscape Areas.  He was comfortable if Members wished to take a different view to Officers and give more weight to the comments of the Cotswolds Conservation Board.  In terms of the point about social cohesion, the proposer of the motion had referred to the National Planning Policy Framework and, with regard to the five year housing supply position had mentioned Paragraph 11 in relation to the fact that, if Members took the view that the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was material and sufficient to refuse the application, the tilted balance no longer applied.  He explained that a recent High Court judgement had clarified the application of Paragraph 11 which stated that, where policies were out of date and a five year housing supply could not be demonstrated, subject to the tilted balance planning permission should be granted unless the application of policies in the National Planning Policy Framework that protect areas of particular importance provided clear reasons for refusal.  Footnote 6 indicated that the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was one of those policies, therefore, if it was decided that the view was that there would be such an unacceptable impact, the tilted balance did not apply.

10.12         The seconder of the motion felt that the proposer had provided an extremely comprehensive set of policy reasons for refusing this application.  There had been changes on both sides since the previous application on the site had been refused; however, there were other examples where the Committee had refused an application, in the context of not being able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, which had subsequently been dismissed at appeal with the Committee’s decision being upheld for very good reason.  He pointed out that housing supply fluctuated, therefore it was feasible the Council may be in a different position should this application be refused and subsequently taken to appeal.  He considered the reasons for refusing the previous application in relation to landscape harm and social cohesion remained relevant in this instance.

10.13         The Technical Planning Manager advised that, should Members be minded to refuse the application, it would be appropriate to include a reason for refusal based on housing policy which remained relevant despite the lack of a five year housing land supply.  The development conflicted with Policies SD10 and SP2 of the Joint Core Strategy and Policies 03 and 11 of the Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan – if Members were minded to also give weight to the policies within the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan, it would also be relevant to reference Policy RES3.  Furthermore, there should be one or more refusal reasons based on the fact that, whilst the applicant had indicated they would be happy to enter into a Section 106 Agreement, there was currently no signed Section 106 Agreement in place.  A Member questioned whether Policy LAN3 within the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan should also be referenced for completeness and the Technical Planning Manager confirmed that this policy fitted neatly with concerns that had been raised, as did Policy LAN1 of the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan as well as saved Policy LND2 of the existing local plan which referenced Special Landscape Areas.  Policies 09 and 10 of the Gotherington Neighbourhood Development Plan were also relevant in that regard.  In terms of policies within the National Planning Policy Framework, Paragraph 172 related to Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Paragraph 170 talked about the landscape position in general.  Issues in relation to social cohesion would largely be based on policies within the National Planning Policy Framework which had already been referenced by the proposer of the motions, namely Paragraphs 8 and 11.  There would also be technical reasons for refusal such as the absence of infrastructure which was covered by Policies INF4, INF6 and INF7 of the Joint Core Strategy.  The Technical Planning Manager hoped this provided Members with a more comprehensive picture of the policies they may wish to refer to should the motion to refuse the application be agreed.  The proposer and seconder of the motion felt it was important to be as robust as possible and they would be happy to include these additional refusal reasons.  A Member thanked the Technical Planning Manager for his detailed presentation of the policies and indicated that he now felt able to support the motion for refusal.  On a separate matter, he asked that Members be informed of the housing trajectory for the next two years as soon as possible and this request was noted by the Technical Planning Manager.

10.14         Upon being taken to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be REFUSED on the basis that the development would represent a significant encroachment into the surrounding rural landscape which would have an urbanising effect and result in the erosion of the rural landscape, contributing further to the coalescence of Gotherington and Bishop’s Cleeve; it would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the landscape within the Special Landscape Area which served to protect the foreground setting of the adjacent Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; and it would have a disproportionate effect on the village in terms of the cumulative impact of development and on the social wellbeing of the community; therefore, the totality of the harm was not clearly outweighed by the benefits of the development including the supply of new housing, both market and affordable and, in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework taken as a whole, the adverse impacts of the proposed development significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits of the scheme and the proposal did not represent sustainable development for which a presumption in favour should apply.