Accessibility settings

In order to remember your preferences as you navigate through the site, a cookie will be set.

Color preference

Text size

Agenda item

19/00925/FUL - Land off Ash Lane, Down Hatherley

PROPOSAL: Construction of six detached single storey dwellings with associated garages and new vehicular access off Ash Lane.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit

Minutes:

22.56        This application was for the construction of six detached single storey dwellings with associated garages and new vehicular access off Ash Lane.

22.57        The Planning Officer indicated that the application related to a parcel of land located along the western side of Ash Lane in Down Hatherley.  The site covered approximately 0.59 hectares and formed part of the strategic allocation A1 Innsworth and Twigworth in the Joint Core Strategy and was shown to be ‘housing and related infrastructure’ in the Joint Core Strategy indicative site layout proposal map.  The southern boundary of the site was in the ownership of the applicant and comprised a recently constructed housing development of five dwellings, granted under planning permission 18/00361/FUL, and a row of detached properties lay beyond this.  There was a small parcel of land to the northern boundary with existing residential properties behind, residential properties also bordered the east of the site and the land to the west was agricultural and also formed part of the strategic allocation.  This proposal sought full planning permission for the construction of six detached four bedroom bungalows with vehicular access to the development via an existing field off Ash Lane.  Each property would benefit from off-road parking spaces, in addition, three of the properties would have a detached garage and the other three would have an integral garage.  As part of the proposal, a pedestrian and cycle link to the wider strategic allocation would allow for social interaction and provide a movement network for residents of the properties to the facilities within the wider allocated site.  As part of the development, the applicant had indicated a willingness to enter into a legal agreement to secure an off-site contribution towards affordable housing and a financial contribution towards education and library provision and refuse and recycling facilities.  An assessment of the material considerations was included at Pages No. 170-182 of the Officer report.  As set out in the report, Officers had identified no adverse impact of granting planning permission, therefore, in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the presumption in favour of sustainable development indicated that planning permission should be granted.  As detailed in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, due to receipt of comments from County Highways and the Council’s Ecology Adviser, the Officer recommendation had been revised to delegate authority to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to the addition/amendment of planning conditions as appropriate and the completion of a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards affordable housing and a developer contribution towards education and library provision and refuse and recycling.  Since the Additional Representations Sheet had been published the previous evening, two emails had been received from local residents requesting that the application be deferred in order to allow objectors the opportunity to speak and for Members to visit the site; Planning Committee Members had been copied in to both emails.  One of the emails raised a number of issues which the local resident felt had been overlooked and she proceeded to read this out in full.  With regard to safety, the email stated that Ash Lane did not have a clear pedestrian access – no footpath and no lighting – and increased traffic, both vehicular and pedestrians/cyclists, would inevitably lead to further issues.  The application suggested there was a footpath all the way from Ash Lane to the village hall but the email stated this was factually incorrect and to attempt to increase pedestrian access along an already dangerous road would only end in disaster.  In terms of access, the plans showed the proposed pedestrian/cycle access was almost 5.5 metres wide – this was wider than many roads and perhaps suggested a hidden agenda to railroad through vehicular access beyond the current application.  Ash Lane was a private road, therefore, this additional access would effectively change it to a public right of way and the email questioned the legality of this.  Brook Lane was already a public right of way so the six houses would already have pedestrian/cycle access from Ash Lane to the A38 via Brook Lane, therefore, the additional access was totally unnecessary.  Other issues raised included the phase one condition concerning the Down Hatherley Lane and Ash Lane junction not being complied with and the phase one planning permission being based upon an inaccurate Certificate B which did not include access to the public highway.  The majority of other concerns about sewage, flooding etc. were covered in the brief objections section of the Planning Officer report.  With that in mind, the email suggested two options: delay any decision until Members had an opportunity to see for themselves the issues surrounding safety and access; or, remove the additional pedestrian/cycle access from the application.  The Planning Officer proceeded to show a video of the application site serving as a virtual site visit.

22.58        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for the item.  The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Technical Planning Manager to permit the application, subject to the addition/amendment of planning conditions as appropriate and the completion of a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards affordable housing and a developer contribution towards education and library provision and refuse and recycling, and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member raised concern that this was a piecemeal approach to development and he pointed out there were potentially two other sites off the A38 onto Down Hatherley Lane which were also speculative development – in his view, a joined up approach was needed and this should be addressed by the Joint Core Strategy review.  As such, he could not support the proposal.  Another Member raised concern that an email received that morning from an objector had suggested they had not been notified of the Planning Committee meeting and therefore had not been able to take up the opportunity to speak.  The Legal Adviser indicated that she could only assume that the usual procedure had been followed in terms of the scheme for public participation at Planning Committee and the registration process.  The Planning Officer advised that she had checked with the Planning Committee administration team who had confirmed that it was not normal practice to notify people who had commented on applications as to when they would be considered by the Committee.  She also explained there was no requirement for strategic allocations to come forward in one application which meant it would be difficult to refuse on the basis of prematurity.  The policy governing the strategic allocation required approximately 2,295 homes and, whilst there was no requirement for that to come from a single scheme, it was required to come forward in a comprehensive manner which did not compromise the development of other areas, as set out in the Officer report.  The Planning and Enforcement Team Leader (South) confirmed this and indicated that it was inevitable a site of this size would be in the ownership of more than one person and the Planning Officer had sought an illustrative plan to demonstrate how this proposal would not hinder delivery of the rest of the site.  The Planning Officer confirmed that the plan had shown this could be achieved without compromising the future development of the land to the west which was part of the strategic allocation.  The Planning Officer indicated that she was unsure of the two speculative applications the Member had referred to; however, the planning history section of the Officer report included an outline application for up to 32 new homes on land to the south of Down Hatherley Lane and another approval of reserved matters application for the erection of up to 74 dwellings which were both pending.  The Member undertook to follow this up after the meeting.

22.59         A Member drew attention to the plan at Page No. 185 of the Officer report which showed the linear nature of the settlement and he suggested that a landscape buffer zone would have helped to retain that pattern.  The Planning Officer agreed with this but explained that the land was part of the strategic allocation and was earmarked for housing and necessary infrastructure which would be at odds with the previous settlement pattern – any proposal was likely to be the same.  The application needed to be assessed as part of the wider strategic allocation to the west and not as part of the linear development along Ash Lane.  Another Member pointed out that one of the conditions in relation to application 20/00317/OUT – 9 Cowlsmead, Shurdington which had been considered earlier in the meeting was for electric vehicle charging points to be provided; he could not see any reference to this in the current application and questioned whether this was a mandatory condition for all residential development.  In response, confirmation was provided that an additional condition was included on the Additional Representations Sheet requiring the dwellings to be fitted with an electric vehicle charging point prior to occupation.  The County Highways representative confirmed that, going forward, County Highways would recommend that all residential development which provided external car parking should be equipped with an electric vehicle charging point; however, there would be wider material planning considerations which would need to be balanced.

22.60         It was 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 addition/amendment of planning conditions as appropriate and the completion of a legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards affordable housing and a developer contribution towards education and library provision and refuse and recycling.

Supporting documents: