Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of 2 no. dwellings and provision of associated vehicular driveway, parking and turning areas and landscaping.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

7.34          This application was for the erection of two dwellings and provision of associated vehicular driveway, parking and turning areas and landscaping.

7.35          The Development Management Team Leader (North) advised that the application site comprised an open parcel of land immediately to the south of the dwelling known as the Butts, Gotherington, as well as the existing private street serving the dwellings known as The Butts and Mayflower, from Shutter Lane to the north.  Permission in Principle was granted on 2 April 2020 for the erection of two dwellings on the application site; that was the first stage of the process and solely established that the site was suitable in principle for the erection of two dwellings.  The current application was submitted as a full application rather than an application for technical details consent because of changes to the red line on the site location plan relating to a slight enlargement to accommodate an adjustment to the driveway to deal with the root protection area of a tree.  The proposal was for two detached, five bed dwellings on this parcel of land as well as provision of an associated vehicular driveway, parking and turning areas.  Each proposed dwelling would be two storey, designed with reconstituted facing Cotswold stonework and reconstituted diminishing course stone Cotswold tiles.  Each one would also include a timber-clad one and a half storey element projecting from the front elevation, comprising a double garage at ground floor level and an office above at first floor level.  The application site was located within the Gotherington settlement boundary, as defined within the Gotherington Neighbourhood Plan, and Policy GNDP01 of the plan specified that, within the settlement boundary of Gotherington village, small infill housing development would be supported within built-up frontages when it was consistent with the scale and proportion of existing houses and gardens in the adjacent area.  The site was also located within the Gotherington settlement boundary as defined within the emerging Tewkesbury Borough Plan proposals map.  Members were advised that the application required a Committee determination due to an objection from Gotherington Parish Council which had raised concern regarding the vary narrow access road and sharp corner for the manoeuvre of construction traffic, and the removal of a footpath.  The Highways Authority had been consulted on the application and concluded there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe impact on congestion so there were no justifiable grounds on which an objection could be maintained.  In terms of the public right of way, the submitted site layout plans were annotated to show room was provided for its retention.  The Planning Statement also confirmed that provision had been made to ensure the public rights of way bordering the site remained unaffected by the proposed development.  The applicant’s agent had confirmed in writing that the existing outbuilding within the application site, currently sited on the public right of way, would be removed and a revised site layout plan had been submitted to show the building as being removed.  It was recommended that any approval of planning permission should be subject to condition to secure that building’s removal prior to the construction of the proposed development.  Whilst the application site was not subject to any landscape designations and was within the settlement boundary of Gotherington, meaning that the proposed dwellings would largely be viewed in the context of existing surrounding built development with some screening along the western site boundary and fencing and some vegetation along the southern boundary, the proposed development would introduce built development into a currently open parcel of land and there would be clear views into the site from the adjacent highway and the network of public rights of way in the vicinity of the site.  In that context, whilst the encroachment into the countryside would be limited, the harm did weigh against the proposal in the overall planning balance.  Furthermore, the first floor window in the western side elevation of the adjacent dwelling, known as Waterdale, would result in direct overlooking to this adjacent site.  Although the window appeared to be non-obscurely glazed, the approved plans for the adjacent dwelling showed that the window would serve an ensuite bathroom which was a non-habitable room.  As set out by the applicant’s agent, this was a situation that any future purchaser of the proposed dwelling at Plot 2 would knowingly buy into and the planning application would not be forcing it on pre-existing occupiers.  Having regard to the policies of the development plan and the responses of technical consultees, subject to the imposition of suitable planning conditions, there were no objections in respect of design, impact on trees, heritage assets, highway safety, green infrastructure – including the existing public rights of way – drainage or biodiversity.  Taking this all into account, it was considered that any adverse impacts of permitting the application would not outweigh the benefits and it was recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the Committee report.

7.36          The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application, subject to conditions, and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member questioned how waste collection vehicles would be expected to access the properties and was advised that residents of other properties in the vicinity took their bins to the bottom of the lane where there was sufficient room for refuse vehicles and the residents of these properties would be expected to do the same.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

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