Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Outline application for residential development of 24 apartments and associated operations (access reserved for future consideration). 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

60.17        This was an outline application for residential development of 24 apartments and associated operations (access reserved for future consideration).

60.18        The Planning Officer advised that this application related to a parcel of land to the north of Longford Lane and to the east of Horsbere Drive which was located within the new residential development at Longford but within Innsworth Parish.  The site itself was rectangular in shape and consisted of an area of rough grassland covering approximately 0.31 hectares, excluding the access road.  The land had open boundaries onto footpaths to the north and west with the south-eastern boundary enclosed by close boarded fencing which formed the boundary to the gardens of dwellings on Whitefield Crescent Road.  Residential properties bordered the site to the south-east; to the north-east was the new primary school – Longford Park Primary Academy; and to the north-west across Horsbere Drive were recently constructed retail units.  The application as originally submitted had been made in outline with all matters reserved for subsequent approval; however, in accordance with Part 3, Article 5(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, Officers considered that, due to the circumstances of the case, the application should not be considered separately from all of the reserved matters and therefore requested details of the scale, layout, appearance and landscaping.  In this case, the circumstances related to whether the development as proposed would be acceptable given that planning permission was refused at the site in July 2020 for the construction of two apartment blocks comprising 33 dwellings and associated parking and landscaping.  That planning permission was refused because the Council considered that, based on the context of the site and its surroundings, the development by virtue of the overall scale and the resulting bulk and massing would not be of an appropriate scale, type and density and therefore would fail to respond positively to, or respect the character, appearance and visual amenity of the site and the surrounding area.  It had also been refused due to the absence of an appropriate planning obligation.  As such, one of the key matters for consideration as part of this application was whether the proposal overcame the refusal reasons for the previously refused scheme.  This application differed from the previously refused scheme in that the number of apartments proposed had been reduced to 24, the number of parking spaces had increased, changes had been incorporated into the proposed landscaping and two storey elements had been introduced into the build reducing the overall maximum building height.  An assessment of the material considerations was included at Pages No. 78-91 of the Committee report.  As set out in the Committee report and the Additional Representations Sheet, Officers considered that, whilst the benefits of the proposed development were not underestimated, when taking account of the material considerations the identified harms would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the overall planning balance.  It was therefore considered that the proposed development would not constitute sustainable development in the context of the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole and it was recommended that the application be refused.

60.19        The Vice-Chair in the chair invited a local Ward Member for the area to address the Committee.  The local Ward Member indicated that objections had been made by various Officers and the vast majority of refusal reasons for the previous application on the site were still relevant as the development would fail to integrate and relate to its surroundings, it would not respect the character of the site or contribute positively to the wider Longford development.  One of the most important points was something raised by the Urban Design Officer who had indicated that its loss as a retail, employment or community use would be disappointing and would have a negative effect on the overall quality of the new place that had been created at Longford; the area would see significant residential growth in the long-term and, without the facilities to serve them, there was a risk of creating very unsustainable developments where people must drive to access facilities.  This point had also been made by the multiple Parish Councils which had objected, as well as some of the many local objections, and seriously risked making the whole Longford development very unsustainable as it would fall well short of what was required to allow easy access to basic amenities.  Furthermore, parking around the school presented issues, as highlighted by residents, and, as always, the outdated flood risk evidence in the area was a problem, along with the lack of available school places.  In terms of planning reasons, he indicated that the development would be contrary to Paragraph 130 and guidance in section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework, Policies INF4, INF6, INF7 and SD4 of the Joint Core Strategy, Policy RES5 of the pre-submission Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Policies CHIN2 and CHIN3 of the Churchdown and Innsworth Neighbourhood Development Plan.  Paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework made clear that planning permission should be refused for development of poor design that failed to reflect local design policies and government guidance on design contained in the national design guide and national model design code.  He urged the Committee to be very careful not to set a dangerous precedent that could potentially undermine the strength behind local plan policies - whether it be the Neighbourhood Development Plan, Tewkesbury Borough Plan or Joint Core Strategy – as this development contravened several.  Therefore, he encouraged Members to support the Officer recommendation for refusal.

60.20        The Vice-Chair in the chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member wished to point out that the application site had been designated as a local centre in the masterplan for the development site and the last phase housing numbers had been increased over and above the originally agreed numbers with the justification being that the increase was to meet the identified need of affordable housing in this area.  He had seen no new information that the local affordable housing figures had increased for this site and, if there were no organisations that wished to develop the site for shops or other community use, he would suggest it be turned into an orchard for the planting of native trees to meet the Council’s green agenda.  The Planning Officer advised that the onus was on the Parish Council and residents to make contact with the developer to ask the question; however, the value of the land for housing was significantly more than it would be as open space and it had been designated for building in the masterplan as a local centre.  Another Member agreed with the point raised in relation to land being set aside for community buildings within large estates subsequently being used for additional housing – Parish Councils did not know what communities might need in the future but this often meant that land allocated for that purpose was not available to help meet those needs at the appropriate time.  This had happened in Bishop’s Cleeve where there was no space for services, facilities or infrastructure among the housing and he found it frustrating that developers were allowed to continue to submit applications for more housing just because nobody had come forward with the community facilities at that point in time. 

60.21        Upon being put to the vote, it was

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