PROPOSAL: Erection of 3 No. detached dwellings and the demolition of a Gymnasium building (Use class D2).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

34.31        This application was for the erection of 3 no. detached dwellings and the demolition of a gymnasium building (use class D2).

34.32        The Planning Officer advised that the application site comprised a narrow strip of land located immediately adjacent to the recent housing development at Rectory Close, Ashleworth. The site was presently accessed from Lawn Road via an access track serving a building to the southern part of the site. The application sought permission for three detached dwellings, together with associated parking and landscaping, which would have a back-to-back relationship with Rectory Close. In terms of the principle of this development, the proposal lay outside of the settlement, 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Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), due to the Council’s current land supply position, these policies were deemed to be out of date and the weight that could be afforded to them reduced.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, which was known as the tilted balance. As the Officer’s report indicated there would be some harms from the conflict with Policy, reliance on private transport for all but basic services, as well as a degree of harm to the local landscape, but this was considered to be localised and limited. While concerns had been raised from adjoining occupiers, it was considered that the proposal would have an acceptable relationship and layout and would not adversely affect the living conditions of these occupiers. In conclusion, the Planning Officer stated that on balance it was considered the harms identified would not outweigh the clear benefits of providing much needed housing in the Borough and therefore the application was recommended for permit subject to the conditions set out in the report.

34.33        The Chair invited a local resident to speak who indicated that there had been 15 detailed written responses from members of the public objecting to this application. The application was not significantly different to one that was refused 3 years ago and was also turned down on appeal. The proposed site was outside the village boundary and therefore represented a further encroachment of building on what was previously open countryside. This site was higher than the road and open and visible on the approach to the village. There would be no room on the site for large delivery vehicles during and after construction; the exit was one of limited visibility onto a road that was only wide enough for one vehicle. The submitted Tewkesbury Borough Plan did not include Ashleworth as a “service village” and the Parish had already had one development completed in the last few months which represented a 17% increase in the size of the village. The resident was of the opinion that to allow more development would be detrimental to community cohesion as identified in Tewkesbury’s Housing Policy. He maintained that the work the applicant had carried out to improve visibility was unlawful and had been ineffective. The proposed development was in an environmentally sensitive area, but the applicant had paid no regard to this in attempting to improve visibility by cutting the height and depth of the hedges. Furthermore, the applicant did not own all of the access from the road onto the site; half of the access was owned by the adjoining paddock owner and he had written to the Council stating this to be the case. The recently built houses that backed onto this proposed development would undoubtedly lose light and privacy as the proposed development was so close as to overshadow their boundaries. There was no safe pedestrian access from Lawn Road to the site which was against current planning guidelines. Increasing volumes of traffic were already an issue in the narrow lanes particularly sections of Lawn Road where there was only room for single file traffic; there was no footpath in this section of the village and it had become hazardous for pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders. Residents in Lawn Road had reported a reduction in water pressure due to the increased demand in the area and the sewage system regularly overflowed raw sewage onto the roads. In addition, there was a risk of flooding caused by the proposed development being sited on land much higher than that used to build Rectory Close. The resident referred to the Ecological Report making a number of recommendations for protecting wildlife which included; hedgerows to be maintained and cut outside the bird nesting season (March to August) and grass to be cut over three consecutive days and clearance to be undertaken by hand tools such as strimmers only. In conclusion, the resident stated that on 8 May the owner of the site had brought a large machine onto it and significantly reduced the height and depth of all the mature boundary hedgerows.

34.34        The Agent for the application advised the Committee that the site was located on what was now the edge of the village of Ashleworth, a village with a number of primary and secondary amenities and services including a school and various community facilities; Ashleworth, in his view, was perhaps one of the largest and most sustainable of the non-service villages in the Borough. The Agent reminded the Committee that permission had been granted for 42 new dwellings in the village at the last meeting which was the second phase to an earlier development of 35 dwellings that had now been completed by Redcliffe Homes. Those applications had been granted on the basis of them being well related to the village and in the context of the Council’s 5-year housing supply shortfall which triggered the tilted balance. The application site directly abutted this site and the proposed development of three detached dwellings would back onto those properties from Phase one of the Redcliffe Homes development, therefore the sites were clearly in the same context. The policy context upon which this application must be determined was identical to that of the neighbouring Redcliffe Homes scheme; the Council’s housing supply was still short and the tilted balance in favour was similarly engaged for this application. It was also important to note that under the Council’s emerging policy RES3 of the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan, new housing was to be supported on appropriate sites within non-designated service villages which included Ashleworth. He referred Members to the Planning Officer’s report which, in the context of the tilted balance, favoured the development and indicated that any adverse landscape implications associated with the countryside were minor and were certainly not enough to warrant a refusal of permission in this case. The Agent endorsed the Planning Officer’s view; that this scheme of three dwellings would fit in with the built form and appearance of the locality particularly in the context of the neighbouring development at Rectory Close; that the dwellings were acceptably designed and that the additional planting proposed along the site boundary would mitigate visual impact. There were no objections from technical consultees including County Highways and the Council’s Urban Design and Environmental Health Officers. It was noted that the Parish Council was opposed to development in Ashleworth generally and had pointed out the fact that planning permission was previously refused on this site for housing several years ago. However, as was pointed out in the Planning Officer’s report, the context was very different now to then; at that time the Council had a housing supply and the neighbouring Rectory Court Scheme had not been built which had meant the site was isolated from the edge of the village. The emerging Local Plan that supported new housing in non-service villages also did not exist at that time, so the context was completely different. In conclusion, the Agent strongly urged the Committee to follow the advice of the Planning Officer and permit this application, particularly when a development of 42 dwellings on a neighbouring site had been found to be acceptable in August the same conclusion could only be reached for a scheme of only three dwellings.

34.35        In opening up the application for debate, a Member proposed refusal on the grounds of over development, the site being within a non-service village and flooding and drainage concerns. Another Member referred to Page No.114, Paragraph 7.24 of the Officers report, which stated that the observations of Severn Trent Water were awaited, and she questioned whether they had been received. The Planning Officer stated that, in light of the comments expressing concern about water issues, Severn Trent Water had been asked to comment and had responded that this was a small scale development to which they had no objection and did not require any further conditions; a drainage condition had been included in the report which would now not be required. The proposer of the motion maintained that flooding and drainage, with sewage flowing into the road, was a problem and that Severn Trent Water’s response did not take account of the additional 42 houses permitted at the last meeting. A proposal was made that the application should be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and the Chair indicated that he would take this motion if the motion to refuse should fall, subject to a seconder being received. The motion to refuse the application was seconded but upon being put to the vote it was lost with the majority voting against. The Chair then sought and received a seconder for the motion to permit the application and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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