Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Outline planning proposal for up to 100 dwellings together with associated public open space and equipped children’s play space, landscaping, access and associated infrastructure.  All matters reserved except access.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

16.37        This was an outline planning application for up to 100 dwellings together with associated public open space and equipped children’s play space, landscaping, access and associated infrastructure with all matters reserved except for access.

16.38        The Technical Planning Manager explained that the site lay behind the existing linear development facing onto the A38 at Twigworth.  The site was bound by Sandhurst Lane to the east and the land to the Grade II* listed Wallsworth Hall/Nature in Art to the west, with agricultural fields to the north.  The site was outside of the settlement boundary as defined in the now made Down Hatherley, Norton and Twigworth Neighbourhood Development Plan, although it was adjacent to that settlement boundary at the site’s southern and eastern extent.  The Orchard Park caravan site lay to the south of the A38 and to the east and south of the caravan park was the Twigworth element of the Joint Core Strategy strategic allocation A1 where development had already been permitted.  This application was in outline, although access was to be considered at this stage, and an illustrative masterplan had been submitted to show how the development could look.  A single point of vehicular access was proposed from Sandhurst Lane leading to the development with a play area to the east and swales proposed as part of the drainage solution.  Landscaping was proposed around the site boundaries with the landscape buffer along the boundary with the lane to Wallsworth being of particular note so as to address the concerns of Historic England regarding the setting of the Hall.  Members were advised that Twigworth, Norton, Down Hatherley and Sandhurst Parish Councils all objected to the application, mainly in respect of conflict with the Neighbourhood Development Plan and concerns regarding highways and drainage.  The County Highways Officer had originally raised concerns; however, following the submission of further information, those concerns had been addressed.  Similarly, following further work, Highways England was satisfied that once the upgrade to Longford roundabout - required by the Innsworth and Twigworth planning permissions – had been completed, there would be an acceptable impact on the A40.  As Members would appreciate, flood risk and drainage had been carefully considered given the location of the site and both the Lead Local Flood Authority and the Council’s Flood Risk Management Engineer required further information to be satisfied that the drainage strategy could be achieved.  On the basis of that further information, both consultees had indicated that they had no objection to the application and Severn Trent Water was similarly satisfied that it had no concerns regarding foul drainage, subject to conditions.  Given that the Council could not currently demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, the presumption was that planning permission should be granted in line with the National Planning Policy Framework unless there were areas or assets of particular importance which provided a clear reason for refusal, or there were any adverse impacts of granting planning permission which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole.  As set out in the Officer report, there were no clear reasons for refusal related to areas or assets of particular importance.  There were also very obvious and real social and economic benefits arising from the delivery of new housing and those benefits should be afforded substantial weight as set out in the report.  The development would also provide open space which could be enjoyed by the wider population, although that was a prerequisite of any sustainable scheme and was given less weight.  Whilst harm arose from conflict with the housing policies of the development plan, including the Neighbourhood Development Plan, these policies were given reduced weight as the Council was unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply.  There was also harm as a result of encroachment into the landscape and the impact on the form and settlement pattern on the west side of the A38 and the loss of grade 2 and 3a agricultural land.  Reasons for refusal were recommended in relation to the absence of obligations in respect of affordable housing and social infrastructure; however, the applicant had indicated that they would agree to such obligations so in the event of an appeal those matters could be addressed.  Overall, whilst the benefits of the scheme would be substantial, Officers considered that the identified harms – particularly the conflict with the Neighbourhood Development Plan - would result in unacceptable impacts which significantly and demonstrably outweighed those benefits and, for that reason, the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application.  The Technical Planning Manager proceeded to show a video of the application site serving as a virtual site visit for the Committee.

16.39        The Chair indicated that a member of the public had registered to speak in objection to the proposal but was unable to join the remote meeting, as such, in accordance with the addendum to the Scheme for Public Participation at Planning Committee, the statement would be read out by an Officer.  The statement set out that the objector considered the overall impact of this development would be profoundly negative and would add to the challenges faced by the village.  It went against the real world experiences of the village that he had personally witnessed, having worked and lived in the area for over 30 years, and was contrary to the stated desire of the Parish and its community who wanted to see modest development over time.  The village had suffered from flooding for many years and ponds and wells close to the proposed site confirmed a naturally high water level, even under normal conditions.  Just this year, Nature in Art had to close to the public due to floods making its drive impassable; gardens of houses on the A38 close to the site had flood water in them; and Sandhurst Lane had flooded.  The reality was that actual flooding was a genuine and ongoing experience disrupting residents’ lives.  Building 100 houses on the site proposed would only exacerbate the problem and pose a significant and increased threat to existing dwellings which included precious listed properties.  The existing drainage was already inadequate and regularly struggled to cope, as did the culverts and brooks – adding this number of houses could only make matters worse.  In addition, the impact of climate change had to be taken into account; considering the flooding history in the area, this development would not help residents to protect themselves from climate change threats and was likely to make the village more vulnerable rather than more resilient.  The junction of Sandhurst Lane and Tewkesbury Road was already a dangerous spot and was frequently used by very large tractors and farm lorries as well as cars and horses.  Regular hold-ups on the A38 often attracted traffic to the lane as a shortcut making an already tortuous route more dangerous still.  A development of this size using the lane as its main point of access could only add to these problems and further congestion and accidents were an inevitability, made worse by the increased number of cyclists on the road and the lack of pavements, so the safety of local people would be put at risk.  Finally, the significant size of the proposal could only have a negative impact on the rural character of Twigworth which was valued by residents.  The site was precious greenfield land, not allocated for housing development, and, given that the larger development was already underway to the south east, the importance of maintaining this greenfield land and its biodiversity was especially crucial.  The objector therefore urged the Committee to reject the proposal as an intrusive and inappropriate development.

16.40        The Chair invited a local Ward Member for the area to address the Committee.  The local Ward Member expressed the view that the application rode roughshod over local policies, local knowledge and the evidence that backed that up to provide accurate, robust and appropriately relevant planning decisions.  His concerns included a single point of access off Sandhurst Lane which was an accident-prone, small lane with passing places regularly used by farm vehicles and which flooded on a regular basis.  The phrase ‘blot on the landscape’ could be used here as the proposed development would be a harmful encroachment into the countryside that failed to comply with Policy SD4 of the Joint Core Strategy and Policy H2 of the Down Hatherley, Norton and Twigworth Neighbourhood Development Plan and would also result in the loss of best and most versatile agricultural land.  The Neighbourhood Development Plan laid out plans for the area, complete with gradual growth and the nature of future development, and a site of this size would undermine that.  This was supported by the Council’s Urban Design Officer who considered that the scale of the development would have a negative impact on the rural character of the Twigworth settlement.  Furthermore, the proposal was contrary to the landscape protection aims and objectives of Policy SD6 of the Joint Core Strategy.  All of the local Parish Councils objected to the proposal, along with residents, there were no policies in the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan which allowed for the type of development proposed and additional housing need for Twigworth had not been established through the development plan.  Therefore, the proposal also conflicted with Policy SP2 and SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy.  The site fell outside the defined settlement boundaries proposed within the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Policy RES3 stated that, outside of the defined residential boundaries, the principle of new residential development would be considered acceptable where it was very small scale in rural settlements in accordance with Policy RES4.  The accompanying reasoned justification advised that, within the rural areas, i.e. those parts of the borough located outside of a defined settlement boundary, a restrictive approach was required to new residential development consistent with advice at Paragraph 79 of the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy so to not undermine the spatial strategy and its distribution of development.  Taking into account the Secretary of State’s comments in the Oakridge, Highnam appeal decision, even without the five year housing land supply or the Neighbourhood Development Plan allocating sites, the decision represented an expression of how the community wished to shape its local environment.  With this in mind, the planning evidence all pointed towards supporting the Council’s local plans and refusing the application in line with the Officer recommendation.

16.41        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.  A Member drew attention to Page No. 154 of the Officer report and the comments made by the Parish Councils in relation to the Sandhurst Lane/A38 junction, and Page No. 156, Paragraphs 4.6 and 4.9 which referenced the proposed pumped solution for discharge to the ditch course to the north of the site and the need for access to maintain the drainage.  He recalled that Officers had previously stated that the Environment Agency was not happy with electric pumping to Cox’s Brook as the electricity could go off, as it had done during the 2007 floods.  Landowners between the site and the brook would not allow a pipe to go through in any case so there remained an issue in relation to flooding and drainage which was generally the case in Sandhurst.  He also raised concern that Norton Primary School was already at capacity so he was unsure how it would accommodate more children from the new buildings if the development was allowed to go ahead.  With regard to the Section 106 contributions required by the County Council, a Member questioned why a library contribution was required and he indicated that he would like to know before the next Committee meeting how many libraries there were in the county which were staffed and paid for by the County Council.

16.42         Upon being taken to the vote, it was

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