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

22.61        This was an outline application for up to 42 dwellings including access and associated works (all matters reserved for future consideration).  The application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 21 July 2020 for a Planning Committee site visit to assess the proposal and its effects.  The Committee had visited the application site on Friday 14 August 2020.

22.62        The Planning Officer reminded Members that the application was in outline form and proposed up to 42 dwellings including 40% affordable housing.  Whilst all matters were reserved for future consideration, the application was supported with a Design and Access Statement and illustrative site layout and 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 the development, the proposal did not comply with the Council’s housing policies due to its location; however, as per Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, due to the Council’s current land supply position, these were deemed to be out of date and the weight they could be afforded was reduced.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 Officer report, the development would be highly reliant on the use of the private car to access services and facilities and this was a refusal reason for the adjacent development; however, at appeal the Inspector had noted that, whilst Ashleworth was not categorised as a service village, it was a settlement of reasonable size with some primary and secondary service provisions including a post office, village hall, village shop, primary school, public house, sports pitches, a children’s play area and a place of worship which were generally within walking distance of the site.  The Inspector had also noted the close proximity of Tewkesbury Town and Gloucester City which had higher order facilities and employment opportunities.  Given the Inspector’s findings, it would be difficult to sustain a refusal on that basis and Members should also note that mitigation was proposed in the form of a financial contribution towards public transport provision, as per the adjacent development.  There would also be a degree of harm to the landscape but this was considered to be very 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 and the application was therefore recommended for delegated permission, subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the affordable housing and contributions towards education, libraries, public transport and play facilities.

22.63        The Chair invited the representative speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The speaker indicated that he was surprised there was no reference to the latest updated highways guidance within the Officer report and could only presume that the assessment was based on the original criteria and not the new guidance which had come out in July and referred specifically to accessibility and sustainability.  That guidance required all new developments to ensure they provided sustainable transport choices and were not reliant on private motor vehicle use.  This recent change made the application even less sustainable with sites that had a poor relationship to amenities, services, education and employment by active travel modes unlikely to receive a positive recommendation.  As such, he questioned why this site was recommended for permission.  Members would have seen the Parish Council submission and the objector highlighted the fact that Ashleworth was not a service village but had already taken an increase in housing of around 15% - this application was outside of the residential development boundary and would take growth in the village to around 37% despite reliance on private vehicles given the infrequent public transport service.  He argued that local infrastructure was lacking, pointing out that the public house had closed some years ago and the alternative would not reopen following flooding over the winter.  Those floods had shown the difficulty of commuting when both the A417 and B4213 were closed for considerable periods and long diversion routes were required.  If the latest guidance was applied to this application, it would not pass the accessibility and sustainability criteria and should be refused on those grounds.  Members had been strong enough to overturn Officer recommendations recently on far more sustainable sites than this and Ashleworth was not a location to be used simply because the Council was unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply.  Given the many opportunities coming forward in far more sustainable areas – not least the emerging Golden Valley project and other urban extensions – this development was not merited based on the harms so clearly demonstrated in the Officer report and Members who had attended the site visit would have seen for themselves that the local highways network consisted of narrow and winding lanes so an increase in traffic would only amplify existing problems.

22.64        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that she intended to focus on the matters that had arisen during the debate at the Planning Committee meeting in July.  With regards to drainage and flooding, there were no objections from the Lead Local Flood Authority or Severn Trent Water and the latter had confirmed there was capacity to connect the foul drainage.  As requested by the Parish Council as part of the adjacent development, a 50% allowance had been applied for climate change with regards to the design of the drainage system as opposed to the 40% allowance required by the Environment Agency, therefore, the proposed development would adequately deal with any increase in rainfall.  Concerns had been raised by local residents with regards to the adequacy of the existing drains in the centre of the village; however, as the flood risk assessment confirmed, the sewers the site connected to did not travel through the village centre so the proposed development would not impact on those areas of concern.  The proposed drainage strategy would also significantly reduce overland flow onto Waggon’s Lane as this would be collected within the sewers, attenuation pond and filter drain resulting in betterment for this area.  The drainage consultants had concluded that the site would not be at risk of flooding from any source and the relevant statutory consultees had agreed with those conclusions.  The applicant’s agent also noted that concerns had been raised during discussions regarding the access arrangements and highway implications – it should be borne in mind that Gloucestershire County Highways had raised no objections to the proposals and there was no recorded highway safety problem in the village or its access roads so no factual data to suggest that local roads were unsafe.  Therefore, it was considered that refusal on transport grounds would not meet the stringent tests in the National Planning Policy Framework in that there would be no unacceptable impact on highway safety.  It was noted that the applicant was also agreeable to a financial contribution of £136,000 towards public transport.  At the meeting in July, the Parish Council had raised concerns regarding the proposed development representing a disproportionate increase to the size of Ashleworth and Members had made reference to other appeal decisions in the borough.  In terms of the weight and relevance of those previous appeal decisions, she pointed out that extreme caution should be applied as they concerned different developments, in different villages, some of which were over five years old, and she reminded the Committee that each application should be considered on its own merits.  There was also no evidence to demonstrate that the proposals would adversely impact on the services and facilities in the village.  There were no objections from the education or health authorities, or indeed any other services providers, and the additional population would assist in sustaining the range of facilities and services in the village – this issue was assessed within the Officer report and concluded that there were no adverse impacts on the settlement.  Finally, the applicant’s agent wished to reiterate that the proposals would help meet the Council’s future needs for open market and affordable housing as the proposed development would deliver 40% affordable housing.  In view of these matters, she respectfully requested that Members endorse the Officer recommendation and grant planning permission.

22.65        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 contributions towards education, libraries, public transport and play facilities, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused as the site was in an unsustainable location which was not served by adequate public transport and had poor accessibility to employment opportunities; the development would represent significant encroachment into the open countryside and would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the landscape. 

22.66         The proposer of the motion questioned why the Manual for Gloucestershire Streets July 2020 had not been mentioned and sought clarification as to the number of buses running to and from the village on a daily basis.  In response, the County Highways representative advised that the revision to the Manual for Gloucestershire Streets had been published in July 2020 and this application had been submitted in late 2019; in his view, the applicant had reacted to the available published advice in good faith and it would be unreasonable to assess the proposal against the more stringent standards within the updated guidance given the timescales.  He confirmed there were two bus services running through the community, although they may be impacted by COVID-19 going forward.  The proposer of the motion reiterated that, although it was a settlement of reasonable size with some primary and secondary service provision, Ashleworth was not classified as a service village due to its poor accessibility by public transport – he pointed out that the settlement had scored 0 out of a possible 15 in the Joint Core Strategy Rural Area Settlement Audit in July 2015.  Furthermore, the site was outside of the residential development boundary and this proposal would increase the size of the village by a further 15% or 37% in total – the Member recalled having similar discussions about a recent application in Gotherington.  Paragraph 34 of the National Planning Policy Framework set out that decisions should ensure that developments which generated significant movement were located where the need to travel could be minimised and use of sustainable transport modes could be maximised.  This site was not served by adequate public transport facilities and had poor access to employment opportunities.  The proposal would also be a significant encroachment into the open countryside within a landscape protection zone and would have a harmful impact on the character and appearance of the landscape setting of the Severn Vale.  As such, the proposal did not represent sustainable development and was contrary to Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  His conclusion was that these identified harms would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and the proposal did not represent sustainable development.

22.67         A Member recognised that Ashleworth was not a service village but noted that the appeal Inspector for the development that had been built in front of this site could see no reason for that so she felt this ought to be reconsidered.  At the last Committee meeting, Members had been keen to investigate the cumulative impact of development and it had been stated that the size of the village would be increased by 37% overall should the proposal be permitted; when considering other applications, that had been ruled as disproportionate.  She had hoped to see evidence from the Parish Council to support this but nothing had been produced to demonstrate that it would have a disproportionate impact on the village – rather, it had been suggested that the development would help to sustain services.  Given that Tewkesbury Borough Council was unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, she did not feel there were sufficient reasons to refuse the application, particularly in light of the previous appeal decision for the site in front.  As such, she could not support the motion to refuse the application.  The proposer of the motion felt that Members should determine the application on the basis of what was before them, not the appeal decisions of the past.  He drew attention to Paragraph 123 of the National Planning Policy Framework which set out that, where there was an existing or anticipated shortage of land for meeting identified housing needs, it was especially important that planning policies and decisions avoided homes being built at low densities and that developments made optimal use of the potential of each site.  In this case, there would be a density of less than 20 per hectare compared to densities of 44 per hectare in developments in Longford and Down Hatherley.  The Planning Officer recognised that 22 dwellings per hectare was on the low side but this was appropriate given the rural setting and the illustrative masterplan did reflect that a higher density was not appropriate for this location. 

22.68         Upon being put 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 taken to 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 and contributions towards education, libraries, public transport and play facilities.