Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Outline application for up to 42 dwellings including access and associated works (all matters reserved for future consideration).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit 

16.29        This was an outline application for up to 42 dwellings, including access and associated works (all matters reserved for future consideration).

16.30        The Planning Officer advised that the application site was located immediately adjacent to the recent housing development completed off Nup End/Lawn Road to the north west of Ashleworth.  The site was currently accessed off an existing farm track located on the north western boundary where there was also a Public Right of Way.  It was noted that the site was located within a Landscape Protection Zone.  As originally submitted, the outline application proposed up to 42 dwellings, including 40% affordable housing, with access to be determined at the outline stage – access was now proposed to be dealt with at the reserved matter stage; however the County Highways Officer had confirmed the principle of the access shown on the submitted plans was acceptable.  Whilst all matters were now reserved for future consideration, the application was supported with a Design and Access Statement and illustrative site layout which showed how the site could be developed.  As set out in the report, Officers were satisfied this demonstrated that the proposed development could be accommodated on the site in an acceptable manner.  In terms of the principle of this 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Planning Policy Framework, due to the Council’s current land supply position, these were currently deemed to be out of date and the weight that could be afforded to them was reduced.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, the development would be highly reliant on the use of the private motor vehicle to access services and facilities and this was also a reason for refusal on the adjacent development; however, whilst it was noted that Ashleworth was not categorised as a service village, the appeal Inspector had found it was a settlement of reasonable size with some primary and secondary service provision including a post office, village shop, village hall, primary school, public house, sports pitches, children’s play area and a place of worship all generally within walking distance of the site.  The Inspector had also noted the proximity of Tewkesbury Town and Gloucester City which had higher order facilities and employment opportunities.  Given the findings of the Inspector, it was considered that it would be difficult to sustain a refusal reason on this basis.  Members should also note that mitigation was proposed in the form of a financial contribution towards public transport provision, as per the adjacent development.  It was acknowledged there would be a degree of harm to the landscape but this level was considered to be localised and limited.  In this case, Officers were of the view that the harms identified would not outweigh the clear social benefits of providing much needed housing in the borough.  The application was therefore recommended for delegated permission, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the affordable housing, education and library contributions and contributions toward public transport and play facilities.  The Planning Officer proceeded to show a video of the application site serving as a virtual site visit for the Committee.

16.31         The Chair invited the representative from Ashleworth Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative explained that the objection submitted by the Parish Council some months ago indicated there were many grounds on which the application should be refused.  He reminded Members that Ashleworth was not a service village and, although these houses may well be needed within Tewkesbury Borough, they were not needed in Ashleworth itself.  The Officer report indicated that the primary reason to permit the development was the lack of a five year housing land supply and the Parish Council questioned why the rural community of Ashleworth should be forced to compensate for this with unwarranted urbanisation.  The additional 41 dwellings would increase the population of Ashleworth by around 40% in just over four years which was clearly not sustainable.  A heavy shower of rain brought threats of residential flooding to the village as the drainage system could not cope and a more sustained period of rain resulted in sewage bubbling out of the drains – he pointed out there was plenty of photographic evidence to support this and Page No. 133, Paragraph 7.36 of the Officer report showed how the proposed development would seriously exacerbate these issues.  Furthermore, Page No. 134, Paragraph 7.39 stated that “…the adjacent development was previously refused by the Council partly on the basis of the site’s location and the reliance of the private motor vehicle to access day to day facilities” and he questioned whether anyone could explain how Ashleworth was expected to entertain this proposal for an additional 41 dwellings.  He went on to point out that access to the village was already a risky business as, approaching Ashleworth from Hartpury, there were approximately three places where vehicles had to stop if another vehicle was approaching from the opposite direction; if one was a large vehicle, it would have to reverse to a suitable passing place.  The other main route into the village from the A417 was from the Cross Hands petrol station and on this route the lane turned uphill towards a series of blind bends enclosed by roadside features such as drystone walls and telegraph poles.  Once again, vehicles coming from opposite directions and reaching these locations simultaneously would need to stop and reverse because walls and big poles did not move out of the way.  Despite equivocal and ambiguous statements in the Officer report about the potential for expanding the local primary school, the Parish Council representative assured the Committee this would not be physically possible given that it occupied a very difficult corner plot.  Page No. 137, Paragraph 7.57 of the Officer report did nothing to allay fears that one potential option would be to close the village school and move all primary pupils to a different and more distant location meaning a rural community would lose another vital piece of social infrastructure.

16.32        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent explained that the developer was also constructing the residential development for 35 dwellings on the adjacent site which had been allowed on appeal in 2016 and the majority had already been sold or reserved.  This site would be a logical and popular extension for people who had expressed an interest in living in Ashleworth.  There had been no objections from the Council’s Landscape Officer who stated that the development would be well-contained, the landscape could accommodate the development without material harm to the wider character and any impacts would be localised.  Furthermore, no objections had been made by the Council’s Ecology Officer and a full suite of ecological surveys – including bats, reptiles, great crested newts and badgers – had been carried out by a qualified ecologist.  Ecological mitigation would be achieved through the creation of a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) feature and dark buffer corridors along the hedgerows to the south and west boundaries.  Further details of the enhancement, habitat creation and long-term management would be included in an Ecological Management Plan secured by condition.  The applicant’s agent went on to advise that the proposal met the Council’s affordable housing policy requirement of 40% and the applicant was agreeable to the mix requested by the Strategic Housing and Enabling Officer.  There were no objections from the planning authority in terms of access, traffic generation, parking or sustainability and, whilst access had now been reserved for later determination, there were no objections to the proposed access arrangements.  In terms of drainage and flooding, there were no objections from the Lead Local Flood Authority or Severn Trent Water.  As requested by the Parish Council as part of the adjacent development, a 50% allowance had been applied for climate change with regard to the design of the drainage system as opposed to the 40% required by Environment Agency guidance, as such, the proposal would adequately deal with any increase in rainfall.  The applicant had agreed to a range of financial contributions towards education, libraries and either an on-site Locally Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) or equivalent off-site financial contribution.  The applicant was also agreeable to a financial contribution toward public transport, similar to that secured on the adjacent site, and travel plans would be provided to future occupiers.  This would all be secured via Section 106 Agreement.  The Council’s Urban Design Officer considered the site to represent a logical extension to the existing phase of development to clearly defined and defensible boundaries.  Finally, these proposals would help to meet the Council’s future needs for open market and affordable housing; this was particularly relevant where the Council could not demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing and where there were no constraints to the development of this site with an experienced developer who knew the local area – guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework was that such applications should be favourably received.  In view of this, the applicant’s agent respectfully requested that Members endorse the Officer recommendation and grant planning permission.

16.33        A Member sought confirmation as to what would happen to the footpath that could be seen on the video when the houses were built and where the car which had been parked at the entrance would be expected to go.  In response, the Planning Officer advised that the footpath would be retained and incorporated into the scheme.  The car parking space referenced by the Member was to service the show home so another space would be allocated to the property in any event once it had been sold.  Another Member noted that County Highways had raised no objections to the application subject to conditions but these did not include the access roads which were very narrow and likely to cause a problem if unaltered.  The County Highways representative explained that the conditions sought pre-dated the changes to the application and had been retained predominately in relation to the street pattern.  The external traffic generated by the scheme would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety and, whilst he understood the Parish Council’s concerns about the existing road, County Highways was satisfied that the vehicles generated would not warrant any mitigation.  A Member indicated that he shared the concerns regarding the access roads and would be uncomfortable without seeing this on the ground.  He also noted that Severn Trent Water had raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions and, in light of the Parish Council’s concerns regarding sewerage, asked for clarification as to what those conditions were.  The Planning Officer explained that the proposal was to connect to the existing drainage system via the recently constructed adjacent development.  Severn Trent Water had looked at the drainage and was satisfied there was sufficient capacity so the condition would be to secure the detailed design which would show how the individual plots would connect.  With regard to the points raised about highways, the Technical Planning Manager reminded Members that the site proposed to use the same access roads as the appeal site which had already been considered by the Inspector so the question was whether the number of vehicular movements to and from the new development in combination would be severe.  The specialist consultee had expressed the view that the impact would not be unacceptable in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework test.  Whilst this application should be considered on its own merits, Members should also be mindful of previous decisions.

16.34         A Member noted that the Parish Council had identified that the cumulative impact of development within Ashleworth was significant and she questioned whether Officers had explored whether this would have a disproportionate impact on the village.  In response, the Planning Officer advised that the baseline of 208 dwellings in Ashleworth was based on the 2011 census.  The adjacent development was for 35 dwellings which was a 17% increase; if this application was permitted, the additional 42 houses would increase this to 37%.  In terms of the social impact, there was no evidence to show how services and facilities within the village would be affected by the development – the additional population generated could assist in maintaining those facilities.  As such, the Officer view was that the increase was acceptable in this case.  The Planning Officer went on to clarify that Ashleworth was not a service village, although the Inspector had noted it did have several services and would also have access to other facilities in the larger settlements of Tewkesbury and Gloucester.  The Member indicated that she took a contrary view to Officers as she felt the cumulative impact would be disproportionate and referenced an appeal decision in respect of a site in Alderton where the appeal Inspector had dismissed the appeal on such reasons where the increase was less than 30% despite the lack of a five year housing land supply, and nothing had changed in that respect. 

16.35         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was for authority be delegated to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to appropriate planning conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed that the application be refused on the basis that Ashleworth was not a service village and there were no policies in the existing Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan to 2011 which allowed for the type of development proposed, therefore, the application conflicted with Policies SP2 and SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy and Policy RES3 of the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  A Member indicated that he was amazed Ashleworth had not been identified as a service village given the amount of services and facilities available, both within the village and the surrounding areas, particularly compared to others such as Alderton.  In terms of the proposal, he was of the view that the Council was likely to lose an appeal, should Members be minded to refuse the application, and would potentially lose any control over the development.  The Chair suggested it may be beneficial to defer the application in order to allow the Planning Committee to visit the site and encouraged views from Members.  A Member indicated that she would be uncomfortable permitting the application as it stood and would welcome a site visit, although it was unclear when this would be able to go ahead given the restrictions in relation to COVID-19; a deferral may also give the Parish Council time to put forward any relevant evidence to demonstrate the disproportionate effect of the cumulative impact of development within the village.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that the application be deferred for a Planning Committee Site Visit.  The Technical Planning Manager recognised that physical site visits had been a difficult issue since lockdown but times were changing and, if Members genuinely felt that it was necessary to visit the site before they could make an informed decision on the application, he was sure that a risk assessment could be undertaken in association with colleagues in Environmental Health to enable a site visit to take place, hopefully in time for the application to be brought back to the next Committee.

16.36        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be DEFERRED for a Planning Committee                           Site Visit in order to assess the impact of the proposal.