Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Outline application for residential development for up to 52 units and associated works with all matters reserved for future consideration except for access.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

57.8          This was an outline application for residential development for up to 52 units and associated works with all matters reserved for future consideration except for access.

57.9          In introducing the report, the Development Manager explained that the application site lay to the eastern edge of the village, north of the recently completed development on Fleet Lane. To the west was the rear boundary of properties in Goodiers Lane. Downfield Lane was to the east with open fields beyond, whilst to the north was, again, open agricultural land. The application was made in outline and was supported by an illustrative layout which indicated how up to 52 units could be accommodated on site with a green buffer indicated along the southern and eastern boundaries and the proposed drainage feature in the south west corner would form part of this. The remainder of the boundary up to the “dogleg” did not have a buffer largely because of the long gardens on those particular properties. To the north west of the site the landscape buffer was shown on the illustrative plan as an orchard/allotment area which would be on the highest part of the site. The Development Manager showed a large selection of photographs to the Committee containing a variety of views across the site and its setting in the context of the village and surrounding area including Bredon Hill and other developments in the area. The applicant had also provided a number of “verified views” which in essence superimposed what the houses could look like on the site in response to concerns about the view from Twyning Green and the impact of the development on those views in particular looking out towards Bredon Hill. The Development Manager stated that, whilst the houses could be seen so could Bredon Hill and beyond, and with the proposed landscaping it was his view that there would be minimal impact on Bredon Hill and the wider views. The application site lay outside the development boundary as set out in the Neighbourhood Development Plan which was made in 2017. Consequently, the application was contrary to the development plan policies relating to the provision of housing. However, in line with Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework, those policies were considered to be out of date as the Council was unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites at this time. Therefore, the tilted balance applied, and the presumption was that planning permission should be granted unless there were any adverse impacts of doing so which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Those benefits, as set out in the report, would be mainly related to the provision of housing, 40% of which would be affordable units in accordance with the Joint Core Strategy policy. Those benefits should not be underestimated, particularly in the context of the housing land supply shortfall. There would also be economic benefits both during and post construction. Concerns had been raised by the local community in respect of the conflict with the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) which was understandable as it had involved a great deal of hard work, however all development plan policies for the provision of housing including those contained within the NDP must be considered out of date in the context of the five-year supply position. Therefore, the fact that the site was outside the development boundary in the Neighbourhood Development Plan must be given reduced weight in the decision-making process. In landscape terms, whilst there would inevitably be an intrusion into the open countryside, Officers considered that this intrusion could be mitigated as shown on the illustrative layout with landscaping and the green buffer.  Particular concerns were raised regarding views out from the village green, however, as shown on the ‘verified views’ submitted by the applicant, it had been demonstrated that views out towards Bredon Hill in particular would not be unduly interrupted by the proposed development. It was also noted that none of the views identified as important in the Neighbourhood Development Plan would be affected by the proposed development. Objections had also been raised in respect of infrastructure, however, there were no objections from consultees in respect of highways and drainage infrastructure subject to conditions and there was no objection from the Local Education Authority subject to s106 contributions towards education provision. No objections had been raised in respect of design, biodiversity or heritage matters. In respect of highways matters, as well as concerns around the inability of the local road network to cope with the additional traffic arising from the development, specific concerns had been raised about the absence of a footway between the site and the nearby primary school. The Local Highway Authority had advised that, given the low number of vehicles likely to use this route during peak hours, such a footway would not be necessary and, overall, it did not object to the application subject to conditions and securing a travel plan and monitoring fee. There had been discussion in particular around foul drainage and existing problems in the area during times of significant rainfall. Nevertheless, Severn Trent Water, as the statutory undertaker, had raised no objection and confirmed the developer would have the legal right to connect into its system. The existing problems were subject to continued investigation by Severn Trent Water and a scheme was being prepared which would be considered for funding later this year. Whilst a previous scheme was rejected following a cost benefit analysis, Severn Trent Water had indicated that the latest proposals would likely be more viable largely as a result of that body looking at a wider area which would result in a greater cost benefit. Notwithstanding this, a condition was suggested on the late representations sheet which would replace condition 21 in the report and require drainage details, following an investigation of foul sewerage improvements, to be agreed before work could start. There was sympathy with the frustrations of the local community, particularly in respect of the conflict with the Neighbourhood Development Plan. Whilst there would be conflict with development plans, including the Neighbourhood Development Plan, the weight to be attached to those policies must be reduced in line with Paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Having carefully considered all the material considerations, it was not considered there were significant and demonstrable harms which would outweigh the benefits set out in the report and it was therefore recommended that permission be delegated to the Development Manager subject to finalising the proposed conditions and securing the planning obligations set out at Paragraph 8.9 of the Officer report.

57.10        The Chair invited the representative of Twyning Parish Council to provide the views of the Parish Council. The representative advised that the Committee had a very important decision to make and not just for Twyning. The 52 new houses outside the development boundary and in a Landscape Protection Zone would irreversibly change the rural character, settlement pattern and local amenity of Twyning and was contrary to all the current ‘made’ and emerging plans and policies including the National Planning Policy Framework. If Twyning’s Neighbourhood Development Plan housing policies, adapted to local needs and services, were overridden then all local influence on residential development in the Borough’s Neighbourhood Development Plan areas would disappear. This may mean that the Committee’s decision could create a ‘free for all’ for developers with no local reference point for local housing policy. Three months ago, the Planning Committee comprehensively refused an application for development outside the Neighbourhood Development Plan boundary which “did not meet the strategy for the distribution of new development in Tewkesbury Borough” with six out of the seven reasons given for the refusal decision referring to the Neighbourhood Development Plan. The weight of the Neighbourhood Development Plan was enough to tilt the planning balance, even in light of the Council’s housing land supply position. The Parish Council felt the Borough Council had made a responsible decision to refuse in November and nothing had changedsince then. Although this application differed in both location and design, it could not justify a complete reversal in the interpretation of National Planning Policy Framework Paragraphs 11 and 14. The National Planning Policy Framework itself did not suggest time expiry meant that Twyning’s policies were automatically out of date (Peel Holdings) and the Committee’s decision would set a precedent for the future. Housing supply figures were highly contested and should not be exaggerated as a material consideration or be the sole determinant.  The planning balance assessment ignored, deferred or glossed over significant ‘harms’. If the golden thread of policy was sustainability, surely a decision could not be made where fundamental and substantive gaps existed: Gloucestershire County Council had stated that it had “significant concerns regarding sustainability and lack of pedestrian and public infrastructure” in a nearby application and the Council was not obliged to agree with the recent Appeal Inspector. The Borough Council’s documents enumerated that the actual housing supply figure was 4.35 years and, with allocations in the emerging Plan, 7.2 years. The Parish Council felt a knee-jerk reaction must be avoided particularly since Twyning had an oversupply of houses built over the last 5 years. The Parish Council representative maintained that the Committee could not simply accept all Neighbourhood Planning Document housing policies were out-of-date and decisions should be consistent and not made simply to make up housing numbers or avoid subsequent appeals. The Council had reinforced the policies in the Twyning Neighbourhood Development Plan by replicating most of them in the emerging Local Plan - Twyning Parish Council was supportive of that approach and now asked for the Borough Council’s support by refusing the application.

57.11        The Chair invited an objector to address the Committee. He advised that there were practical reasons for his objection in terms of access, highway safety, infrastructure, landscape and lighting.He explained that, contrary to Policy TP1 of the Neighbourhood Development Plan, the development would cause a severe adverse traffic impact and increase the volume of traffic within the Parish that could not be acceptably mitigated, particularly where the road network was narrow and pedestrian facilities were non-existent. Contrary to Policy TP2, it made no attempt whatsoever to improve traffic flow, safe walking and cycle links. In fact, quite the opposite, residents of the new development would have to walk on the carriageway to access the village centre. Trip rates and traffic speed analysis supporting the application were of course selective and did not reflect the true situation. The road provided access to an extensive park home and caravan site comprising some 125 units, in addition to the 22 homes on the nearby Newland development, significant farm traffic and was on National Cycle Network route (NCN 45). In terms of infrastructure, there was no indication in the application or acknowledgement in the conditions that took into account the respective easements requirement for both the foul sewer and water main that crossed the site. In addition, the application was contrary to Policy LF1 in that it was likely to adversely affect infrastructure, services and facilities. It was also contrary to Policy GD7 in that there was no attempt to show that the development would not lead to an adverse impact on the foul water drainage infrastructure and sewage treatment systems. The Committee was already aware that the sewer network was chronically over capacity, flooding roads, gardens and the sewage treatment works. The Parish did not believe that condition 21 was enforceable on Severn Trent particularly since Condition 22 of the Persimmon development contained similar wording but was completely ignored by the Borough Council’s enforcement department, such that the site was occupied for six months before a connection to the sewer was even made. Severn Trent Water acknowledged the problems with the Twyning network and documentary evidence had been provided from them that suggested the likely upgrade solution would not be affordable. That being the case, the houses could be built but not occupied. It was accepted that the sustainable urban drainage solution was an industry standard but he questioned the wisdom of adding to the existing gully system. To do so would increase the risk of flooding to adjacent properties where the water ran into the River Avon. There was no provision in the application to comply with Policy GD7 (1 and 2). Referring to landscape concerns, the objector indicated that the development, which was outside the Neighbourhood Development Plan development boundary and contrary to policy GD1, represented a further expansion of the built settlement and was an encroachment into the open landscape contrary to Policy GD4 of the Neighbourhood Development Plan. The emerging local plan designated this as a Landscape Protection Zone. Finally, in terms of lighting, the application proposed for street lighting was contrary to Policy GD8 in the Neighbourhood Development Plan.

57.12        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. She explained that she was from SF Planning, speaking on behalf of the applicant, Newland Homes Ltd. Throughout the application process they had worked proactively with Planning Officers which had resulted in a positive recommendation. She felt the Officers’ report was very comprehensive so she would keep her speech brief. Right from the outset, the proposals had been guided by landscape architects in order to respond to landscape considerations. MHP Design had been commissioned to provide an initial overview of landscape and visual matters early on in the process and their recommendations had been incorporated into the scheme. A low density development of 20 dwellings to the hectare was proposed with significant areas of public open space including a community orchard and allotments. As Members would know from their other developments locally, including Twyning Green, Newland Homes offered high quality, thoughtful design, distinct from the more predictable designs from large national housebuilders and big PLCs; and this was certainly what they were proposing for this site. They had evolved an organic arrangement of homes that allowed for passive surveillance of streets and spaces and proposed to incorporate architectural styles and materials that reflected the local vernacular. A mix of house types and sizes were proposed including bungalows which it was felt would appeal to older people and also those wishing to downsize which would, in turn, free up larger dwellings for those in the market needing to upsize. The layout before the Committee also included wide landscape buffers along both Fleet Lane and Downfield Lane as well as improvements to the boundary hedgerows, and the planting of native trees both within the site and within the hedgerows. Having considered the comments made by the Parish Council, and some village residents during the application process, the applicant had offered an alternative access drawing which showed a footpath connecting the site to the Green, from where many of Twyning’s services and facilities could be easily accessed. As explained in the Officers’ report, this would necessitate the narrowing of the carriageway and the introduction of a traffic control system. The Highways Authority had advised the footpath was not necessary to make the development acceptable and Officers did not feel this would meet the statutory tests for conditions. Newland Homes was also aware of County Highways’ suggestion that the proposed dwellings were provided with an extra room to facilitate working from home. Again, although a condition requiring this would not meet the statutory tests, this idea would be considered at the reserved matters stage of the planning process. The dwellings built by Newland Homes were generously proportioned, with many able to accommodate a home office or study. She trusted the Committee would acknowledge the lack of harm associated with the scheme, borne out by no objections from technical consultees.

57.13        The Chair invited one of the local Ward Member’s to address the Committee. He feared that the recommendation to permit this application would be a real kick in the teeth to all those residents who had spent many hours, over many years, producing the Twyning Neighbourhood Plan and voting on it only to be told that just two years after its adoption it would be disregarded in respect of the new dwellings. The site was outside the residential housing boundary – it was not supported by the existing Borough local plan and neither was it included in the emerging local plan. The report made clear that the Neighbourhood Development Plan remained an integral component of the adopted development plans and, whilst he understood the pressure on the Committee following the Ashmead Drive decision, he asked that it continue to judge each application on its merits and stand up for the local neighbourhood plan and not consign localism to the bin. Among its many faults, the Member found the failure to provide a footpath linking the site to the heart of the village absolutely staggering. This was an estate of 52 houses, expected to use the school, the shop, the pub, the village hall and the play park and yet no safe pavement access was to be provided. The residents were expected to walk in the road which he found unbelievable – he could not imagine a single member of the Planning Committee would believe that was right. He felt that, in this day and age, planning should be delivering integrated, cohesive communities, not something stuck out on a limb where occupants risked serious injury in the face of vehicles on unlit roads. He considered it disgraceful that this application should even be considered for permission without safe pedestrian access being provided and asked the Committee to refuse it.

57.14        The other local Ward Member for the area proposed that the application should be refused. He informed the Committee that over six years ago work had commenced on the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) and after four years of hard work and thousands of volunteer hours ably assisted by officers a plan was achieved. However, at that time those volunteers and also Councillors had no idea that the Plan would have less effect after just two years. Twyning, along with other villages in the Borough, had thought that they had produced a good plan, a plan that mapped out housing in the village up until 2031. He maintained that to allow this application would open the floodgates for all the Borough’s villages to be overrun by development in inappropriate places. There were many reasons why the application should be refused, and the lack of weight given to the NDP was at the top. Other reasons included; the lack of a footpath from the school and shop - at a time when everyone was being encouraged to walk instead of drive this was an unbelievable omission on safety grounds alone as the road would only get more dangerous and primary school children and wheelchair users would be expected to walk on it; the school was not able to cope with additional numbers resulting in children having to be transported by car out of the village to other schools; there was only one bus a week which served the village which was a shopper bus; drainage, this was already a problem with raw sewage flowing down the roads and whilst Severn Trent had confirmed that the developer would have the right to connect into this system Severn Trent did not have the money in place to upgrade the drainage system and therefore the situation could only get worse with this application which was completely unacceptable; finally, the site was outside the village boundary and in a landscape protection zone. He referred to the Parish objection and the huge number of emails received from residents expressing concerns about this application and maintained that if permitted the development would set a precedent for further encroachment into the countryside with a consequent effect on the local environment. Attention was drawn to Page No. 51 of the Officer report and the comments of the Commission for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) which stated that Twyning had already had a substantial amount of new houses built and should not be expected to take anymore until there had been a satisfactory cohesion between the village and the new developments. The Local Member also felt that it was worth noting that there was an application currently being considered for one dwelling in the next field along and the comments from County Highways on that application was that the location was not considered suitable for permanent residential use in terms of sustainability due to the lack of public transport, footway linking to the bus stop, school and shop, employment and other amenities, therefore the Local Highway Authority recommend an objection.  In summary the Local Member indicated that the reasons for refusal of this application were the NDP, capacity of the school, safety, traffic, lack of footpath, drainage and damage to the environment; the development conflicted with SP2, SP10, RES1 and RES4, GDP and TP1 of the Twyning NDP. The Committee’s decision was of course very important to the residents of Twyning, but the implications were far wider and he urged Members to refuse it. He indicated that such a decision may end up at appeal but as a Council it was essential Members looked after and protected their communities as that was what they were there for. In conclusion he indicated that for the reasons he had outlined significant and demonstrable harm would arise from the proposed development. In seconding the proposal for refusal, a Member expressed concerns about the affordable housing element of the development which was shown as 40% but she believed that it was in fact only 20%.

57.15        During the debate which ensued, a Member referred to one of the objections from the Parish about a large Severn Trent Water Main with a 14 metre easement crossing this site which he felt was very concerning and asked to see a diagram of where this was in relation to the development. The Development Manager indicated that he did not have a plan showing the location of the Water Main but he indicated that this would be a matter for the applicant to agree with Severn Trent Water; the application was only in outline with an indicative layout and if it could not be achieved in terms of numbers of dwellings because of constraints within the site such as existing easements then this was a matter to be resolved further down the line. In terms of the other application referred to, he reminded Members that each application had to be considered on its own merits and whilst he did not have the details to hand of this application it appeared that the fact that this site was further out, albeit only a small distance, meant it was further detached from the village settlement and therefore different considerations would apply. Commenting on some of the other points that had been made the Development Manager indicated that there was sympathy with those people in the community who had worked so hard on the NDP equally the Council had worked hard on its Local Plan and it was extremely frustrating for all to be in a position where national policy dictated that those plans had to be given reduced weight as a consequence of the Council’s lack of a 5 year land supply. The weight to be ascribed to any material consideration was for the decision-maker. Officers had looked at the development in the round and in the knowledge of the expectations of Government Inspectors in situations where there was no 5 year land supply and a recommendation on the application had been made on this basis so, whilst Officers were sympathetic to the community, it was their professional judgement that reduced weight must be given to the NDP and the development looked at favourably in accordance with Paragraph 11 of the framework. In terms of the school, the Local Education Authority, who was the specialist statutory consultee in this respect and the body with the statutory duty to deliver school places, had raised no objection to the application therefore it would be very difficult in these circumstances to robustly justify an objection on education matters. The drainage position had been explained in the Officer introduction and the Officer’s view was that this was a matter which could be addressed by condition and to suggest that Severn Trent had no money to put in place a solution was not quite the understanding of the Development Manager having spoken to that body recently it was confident that the revised scheme it had prepared would provide a solution to the drainage problems and would receive funding from its Board based on an improved cost benefit analysis; the amended condition proposed required investigation of the foul drainage improvements that may be required and drainage details to be agreed before work could start on site which would satisfactorily address this matter. In terms of the footpath it was the judgement of Officers and the Local Highway Authority that this was not required and, although this was something that Members could take a different view on, the applicant would maintain that he had followed the advice of the statutory consultee on this matter; nevertheless if the Committee felt that the footpath link was necessary to respond to the concerns of the community it was the understanding of the Development Manager that the applicant would be willing to provide the link and this was something that could be secured through the Section 106 agreement. In respect of landscape this was again a matter of judgement. The site was in a Landscape Protection Zone and there would be landscape harm but Officers had taken the view that the site related reasonably well to the existing settlement, the applicant had already completed a site to the south of Fleet Lane and this proposal would sit alongside the existing edge of that settlement by Downfield Lane and with the proposed buffers and additional strategic landscaping mentioned by the Agent in her speech, Officers felt mitigation against any harm could be achieved. In summary there were matters of judgement which the Committee, being very familiar with the area, could consider as grounds for refusal but in terms of the school, drainage and footpath link in the absence of objections in those respects from any of the statutory consultees responsible for those areas this was a concern in terms of being able to robustly defend those matters in the event of a potential appeal should the Committee refuse the application. The Chair invited the representative of the Local Highways Authority to comment and he indicated that he did not have to hand the application for one house near to this site and therefore was unable to comment but was happy to discuss the matter with the local Ward Member after the meeting to ensure consistency of process, although he stressed that this application had been assessed on its own individual merits and it did not necessarily follow that comments on one application would be tied to another nor set a precedent although he understood the point being made.  He went on to comment on the footpath link as this had also been a matter of concern to the Committee, this issue was one of consistency and user experience for both pedestrians and car drivers; footways were not common within this community and there was little if any benefit in providing a short section of narrow footway link to a junction which effectively had no continuous footways there afterwards. Speeds and volume of traffic were not high in the area and would certainly not meet the severe impact tests which would be necessary to demonstrate refusal; the County Highways consideration was that the best most consistent and understandable approach was to mimic the environment already experienced in Twyning and to let people understand that they are walking the carriageway but they could step on to the verge should they need to do so; this mimicked the experience that other users and existing residents currently experienced. The Local Highways Authority representative stressed that the footpath link was not supported in this instance for the reasons he had explained.

57.16        It was apparent that Members were very concerned about permitting a development which would only exacerbate the sewage problems in the village and were not confident that the proposed stronger condition would deliver a solution for the existing residents; there was a recognised deficit in capacity and Members expressed a strong preference for this to be resolved in a satisfactory manner before any further development took place which would only increase the problems. Throughout the Borough there were problems with drainage and sewage running down the roads where development after development had connected into the existing drainage systems which then became overloaded in periods of persistent heavy rain. There was already a problem at Twyning and to permit this development on the basis that Severn Trent were preparing a scheme to resolve the problem that had yet to receive any approval for funding was a hostage to fortune and the proposed condition would not guarantee that these issues would be resolved before further development only worsened what was already a very bad situation.  Other Members referred to the Neighbourhood Development Plan which the village had worked so hard to produce but now seemed to have limited value because the Council did not have a 5 year land supply which was felt to be completely ridiculous and unacceptable. The Committee was of the opinion that the harms outlined by the local Ward Member clearly outweighed any benefit from the development and provided substantive reasons to refuse the application. Other Members raised queries on the Section 106 agreement; the need to include contributions for refuse vehicles as opposed to just bins; the calculations used for the number of people occupying the dwellings which affected the amount of the Section 106 contributions and the size of the affordable homes built on the site.  In terms of the calculation of the number of people that were likely to arise from a development this was done on the basis of some empirical work undertaken a number of years ago which calculated the number of people between 2.3 and 2.4 per dwelling, the number of bedrooms did not necessarily equate to the number of people that would be in the dwelling and therefore was not a good indicator. In terms of affordable housing as set out in the report the number of bedrooms per property was based on the need for that accommodation as advised by the Council’s Affordable Housing Officer, the exact mix of the market housing would be something to be agreed at the reserved matters stage and would be based on the evidence held by the Council in the form of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment. As regards the allocation of Section 106 monies for refuse vehicles, this was something that would require further work, not everything could be funded from Section 106 monies there were other streams of funding to be considered and the more that was added to a Section 106 agreement the greater the impact on the viability of the development. Any changes to the process would need to be considered in a structured manner rather than through individual planning applications. In terms of the application, the Development Manager reiterated that there was conflict with the development plan which was very clear in terms of the neighbourhood plan, the JCS and the emerging Borough Plan and the weight to be given to the development plan documents in the context of any application was for the decision-maker so it was well within the remit of the Committee to take a different view to Officers and ascribe more weight to the conflict with those development plan documents in terms of the appropriateness of housing in this location. In relation to drainage, the Development Manager could add nothing further to what he had said earlier in that the Officer view was based on the technical consultee response but it seemed to him that Members were concerned that it had not been demonstrated in this case that foul sewage from the proposed development could be disposed of adequately without exacerbating existing problems with foul sewage in the area. As far as landscape was concerned, Officers had based their view on that of the Council’s Landscape Advisor but Members could take a different view having seen all the proposals before them it seemed that there were still concerns about the intrusion into the landscape in the landscape protection zone. In terms of any other grounds that may be considered for refusing the application the Development Manager was of the view that it would be extremely difficult to mount a robust defence in relation to the footpath link and the school given the clear responses of the statutory consultees with the Local Education and Highway Authorities clearly saying that there was no grounds for objection in this respect. In conclusion the Development Manager stated that if Members were minded to refuse this application the reasons would be limited to the conflict with the Development Plan, the exacerbation of existing sewage problems in the area and the harm to the landscape.

57.17        The proposer of the motion to refuse the application indicated that he was happy with the three reasons for refusal as summarised by the Development Manager. Before taking the vote, the Legal Advisor sought clarification as to whether there would also be a technical reason for refusal in relation to the fact that the Council has not yet received planning obligations in respect of affordable housing and all of the other items set out in Paragraph 8.9 of the report. Upon confirmation, the motion was put to the vote and it was

RESOLVED           That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons; conflict with the Development Plan, it has not been demonstrated that the foul sewage arising from the development can be disposed of without adding to the existing sewage problems in the area, intrusion into the landscape in the landscape protection zone and absence of planning obligations in respect of affordable housing and all of the other items listed in Paragraph 8.9 of the Officer report.

57.18        The meeting adjourned at 11.55am for a comfort break.

57.19        The meeting reconvened at 12.15pm with the same membership present.