Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Outline planning application for the development of eight dwellings (including affordable housing contribution) together with open space, access, parking, landscaping, drainage and associated works.  All matters reserved except for means of access and layout.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

16.10        This was an outline application for the development of eight dwellings (including affordable housing contribution) together with open space, access, parking, landscaping, drainage and associated works.  All matters were reserved except for means of access and layout.

16.11        The Planning Officer explained that the site was located on the south western edge of Maisemore outside of, but abutting, the settlement boundary as defined in the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  The site was essentially closed on three sides with the south west boundary fronting onto open countryside.  The site was not subject to any formal or informal landscape designation.  It was currently accessed off Persh Lane via a gravel track, although access could also be gained off Blacksmiths Lane; a public bridleway ran to the north east of the site which incorporated Blacksmiths Lane.  Members were advised that the application proposed up to eight dwellings and was in outline form with access and layout to be determined at this outline stage and appearance, scale and landscaping to be reserved for future consideration.  In terms of the principle of development, the proposal did not comply with the Council’s housing policies due to its location; however, in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, due to the Council’s current housing land supply position, these policies were deemed to be out of date and the weight that could be afforded to them was reduced.  In this situation, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole; this was known as the tilted balance.  As set out in the report, some landscape harm would arise as a result of development on a greenfield site but that was considered to be limited and would not outweigh the clear social benefits of providing much-needed housing in the borough.  The Planning Officer confirmed that no other overriding harms had been identified.  On that basis, the application was recommended for delegated permission, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the affordable housing.  It was noted that this had been changed from ‘permit’ as set out in the Officer report.  The Planning Officer proceeded to show a video of the application site serving as a virtual site visit for the Committee.

16.12        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that the scheme represented an opportunity for a small housing development in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework’s presumption in favour of sustainable development, in the context of a local shortfall and national priority to significantly boost housing land supply.  Maisemore was a service village, therefore modest growth was supported in principle, albeit normally within the adopted settlement boundary.  Eight homes, including three affordable homes, was a proportionate scale of growth for the village, notwithstanding other recent developments.  The site was well-related to the village envelope and would read as a modest, well-integrated addition, slotting in between existing development north and south, typical of the historic pattern of organic growth in this area.  A safe access from Persh Lane had been demonstrated, hence no objection had been raised by the Highways Authority.  Very minimal increase in peak hour traffic was anticipated and even that was likely to be overstated given the ‘new normal’ of greater homeworking.  Pedestrian access to Blacksmiths Lane to the north was included, helping to integrate the development with the wider village community and reduce car use.  The scheme had been thoughtfully designed to provide a soft, informal edge to the village with generous green space including a new pond and play area and properties facing outward rather than backing onto the countryside edge.  The layout and number of homes – typical reserved matters – were being fixed at this early stage, giving confidence this was the scheme that would be developed; an entirely new application would have to come forward in order to vary it.  Minimising environmental impact had been a key focus with all significant trees being retained; whilst there was a small loss of hedgerow, this had been more than compensated for with the level of new planting.  Furthermore, the applicant had already committed financially to a mitigation scheme for great crested newts, which could have been deferred, in order to give Members’ confidence that this endangered species would be protected.  The applicant’s agent indicated that almost all development had a degree of harm, and therefore attracted some objection, but that must be balanced against the benefits as had been shown very clearly in the Officer report.  This scheme would provide a modest but significant windfall of housing, including a bonus of three affordable village homes, and the harm had been minimised through careful planning, hence the lack of any technical objection. In due course it would be appropriate for the Parish Council to be involved with the detailed design of the scheme.  The applicant’s agent hoped that Members could rely on the Officer report, which was very thorough and balanced, and support the recommendation to grant delegated permission for this sustainable development opportunity.

16.13        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the affordable housing, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused on the basis that it would result in unacceptable encroachment into the countryside; due to the concerns raised by the Parish Council; and on the grounds that it was not in a service village.  The proposer of the motion indicated that he could not support this application for a number of policy reasons, similar to those in respect of the Gotherington application that had been refused at the last meeting of the Committee.  A Member noted that the Parish Council was concerned about the speed limit on Persh Lane and she questioned whether it was possible to impose a reduced speed limit by condition, should Members be minded to grant delegated permission.  The County Highways representative explained that speed limit legislation was outside of planning control and he warned Members against mixing legislation. The approach speeds along Persh Lane were 22mph and 25mph and driver behaviour was unlikely to be altered in any event.  Another Member noted that access to the site was very narrow and he sought assurance that it would be suitable for emergency vehicles, particularly fire appliances.  In response, the County Highways representative confirmed that the access was suitable for emergency vehicles; the lane was frequented by agricultural vehicles, which tended to be larger vehicles, and he had no concerns about it being able to service likely traffic to and from the site.  In relation to the comments made by the proposer of the motion to refuse the application, the Technical Planning Manager reminded Members that each application must be considered on its own merits and there were very specific factors in relation to the Gotherington application that had led Members to take a contrary view to Officers.  The same approach needed to be applied to this application and Members must decide if there were specific factors which significantly and demonstrably outweighed what Officers had characterised as limited harms.  Members had heard from the County Highways representative who was satisfied in respect of the issues raised by the Parish Council and the Technical Planning Manager clarified that Maisemore was a service village within the Joint Core Strategy; the main issue appeared to be encroachment into the open countryside.  It was the Officers’ view that this would be limited as the development had been sympathetically designed with landscaping but this was a matter for Members’ judgement.  Notwithstanding this, the presumption in favour of sustainable development was a high bar to overcome so it was important to be clear about the precise reasons for refusal in this case.

16.14         A Member pointed out that the plan at Page No. 92 of the Officer report only showed three passing places along Persh Lane, which was not ideal, but she presumed it was considered by Officers to be workable and might slow traffic down.  Another Member noted that the Officer report for a later application on the Agenda referenced best and most versatile agricultural land but the land in relation to the current application had not been given a grading.  In response, the Planning Officer indicated that it was a pastoral field but he was not aware of any particular grading.  The Member felt that it was difficult to know how the site could potentially be used without a grading.  If the Council was able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply then she was sure the application would be recommended for refusal given that it was outside of the settlement boundary and did not comply with either the Tewkesbury Borough Plan or the Joint Core Strategy.  A Member noted that the Parish Council objection had set out that there were no schools or health facilities within Maisemore and the Planning Officer confirmed this was correct.

16.15         A Member indicated that she was in agreement with the Officers and would be voting against the proposal to refuse the application.  Another Member shared this view and felt the application should go ahead given it was in line with the Joint Core Strategy which included Maisemore as a service village.  Whilst he was aware that Maisemore was identified as a service village in the Joint Core Strategy, the proposer of the motion to refuse the application pointed out that the site was not included for development within the Tewkesbury Borough Plan or the Joint Core Strategy, the site adjoined land within Flood Zones 2 and 3 and the village already experienced major problems regarding sewerage so he felt this would be overdevelopment of a very small village.  The seconder of the motion to refuse the application raised concern that the layout seemed to suggest there would be more than eight houses so she feared this was just the start of a bigger development.  In response, the Technical Planning Manager reminded Members they must determine the application based on the scheme before them rather than what they thought might happen in future.  He clarified that the Joint Core Strategy was not designed to allocate sites of the scale proposed, therefore the site would not be included.  He also confirmed that the site itself was located within Flood Zone 1 and there were no objections in terms of flood risk.  Whilst he recognised that sewerage and drainage had been an issue in the village, which had been discussed at length by the Parish Council, housing schemes had been permitted at nearby Rectory Farm and Bell House Farm on the basis that Severn Trent Water had a responsibility to ensure that adequate drainage was provided and to undertake any upgrades associated with that, as such, in his view this was not a reason to withhold planning permission.  In addition, it would be difficult to refuse the application on the grounds of overdevelopment as it was unclear what impact this would have which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.  He reiterated that landscape harm was a matter of judgement for the Committee but evidence would be needed if Members wished to refuse the application on that basis; the Officer view was that the impact would not be unacceptable, given the titled balance.

16.16         The proposer of the motion to refuse the application clarified that this was on the basis of landscape harm due to inappropriate encroachment into the open countryside which was contrary to Joint Core Strategy Policy SD10; insufficient foul and fresh drainage; and as it was not a designated site within the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  The seconder of the motion indicated that she was happy with the reasons suggested.  The Technical Planning Manager reiterated that he would be wary about refusing the application on the basis of drainage given there was insufficient technical evidence to demonstrate that it was inadequate or that it could not be secured via an appropriate planning condition.  Upon being taken to the vote, the motion to refuse the application was lost.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Technical Planning Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the affordable housing.