Accessibility settings

In order to remember your preferences as you navigate through the site, a cookie will be set.

Color preference

Text size

Agenda item

21/00617/PIP - Land at Ash Lane, Down Hatherley

PROPOSAL: Permission in principle for the erection of up to four dwellings.

 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit 

Minutes:

60.22        This was a permission in principle application for the erection of up to four dwellings.

60.23        The Planning Officer advised that the application related to a parcel of land to the east of Ash Lane.  The site was generally level, covering 0.33 hectares and laid to grass; it was not subject to any formal landscape designation but was in an area of safeguarded land.  This application was for permission in principle, as provided for in the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017.  The current application was the first stage of the process and sought solely to establish whether the site was suitable in principle for the erection of up to four dwellings.  The site layout, design, access, landscaping, drainage and any other technical matters would be considered at the technical details stage.  An indicative layout plan accompanied the application which demonstrated how the quantum of development could be delivered on the site.  Based on the plan, two dwellings could be provided fronting Ash Lane and two could be located to the rear of the site; a new access road could be provided running along the northern boundary to serve the two properties to the rear.  It should be noted that planning permission had been granted in April 2021 for the erection of two detached dwellings on the front part of the site and a further planning permission had been granted the previous week for two single storey dwellings on land immediately to the north of the eastern half of the site.  An assessment of the material considerations could be found at Pages No. 113-119 of the Committee report.  As set out in the Committee report, Officers considered that, when taking account of all the material considerations, the harm which would arise from the conflict with Policy SD5 of the Joint Core Strategy would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the overall planning balance when considering whether the location was suitable for housing, therefore, it was recommended that permission in principle should be granted.

60.24        The Vice-Chair in the chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that permission in principle was being sought for four dwellings; however, as set out in the Committee report and by the Planning Officer in their introduction, full planning permission already existed for two of those dwellings at the front of the site fronting Ash Lane.  As such, this application was really only for two additional dwellings to the rear of the site.  It was also material to note that, in October 2021, the Planning Committee had granted full permission for two dwellings directly next to where the proposed dwellings were to be sited.  This application had been put forward on the same basis as that neighbouring approval and under an identical policy context.  Members would recall that several other applications had been permitted for additional housing along Ash Lane in recent years and the site was in very close proximity to the Twigworth urban extension allocated through the Joint Core Strategy.  As set out in the Committee report, this development represented infilling in the context of Joint Core Strategy Policy SD10 and Local Plan Policy RES4.  The land in question had been removed from the Green Belt through the Joint Core Strategy and, whilst it was still classified as safeguarded land, that did not prevent development on it in principle.  Officers had correctly identified that the planning balance fell firmly in favour of the grant of permission, particularly in light of the substantial shortfall in housing supply that existed, and that this was a highly sustainable location due to its proximity to the Joint Core Strategy urban extensions at North Gloucester.  The principle of housing was therefore clearly acceptable, subject to respecting the character and layout of the wider area.  The applicant’s agent noted that the Parish Council had raised some concerns and, whilst he sympathised with those comments, they were not substantive matters that could lead to a refusal in this instance, particularly in the context of other very similar developments in the vicinity including immediately next door.  The Parish Council had suggested that the site was contrary to the adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan but the applicant’s agent indicated that was not the case; there were no Neighbourhood Development Plan policies precluding development of the land.  It was also suggested there was no need for housing in the area; however, there was a well-established borough-wide need to boost housing in light of the five year supply position and the wider housing shortage in the Joint Core Strategy, therefore, the proposal was wholly policy compliant.  On that basis, the key consideration was the scale and layout of the development and whether it would fit into the area.  The illustrative layout showed a form of development that integrated nicely into the wider settlement pattern, including the development next door, and the illustrative design fully met the design expectations of the Joint Core Strategy.  The relationship with neighbouring plots would not result in any amenity issues and County Highways had raised no objection to the site access arrangements at this point and had also deemed it to be a sustainable location for housing.  The application accorded with the development plan and the applicant’s agent hoped Members would be able to fully support it today.

60.25        The Vice-Chair in the chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The seconder of the motion indicated there was no planning reason for refusing the application on any basis therefore Members had no choice but to permit it.  A Member disagreed with that view and indicated that he would have proposed the application be refused on the basis that it was a piecemeal approach to what could be a larger development. In response to a Member query regarding ownership of Ash Lane and who was responsible for maintenance, the Planning Officer confirmed it was a private lane and maintenance was a civil matter for the owners of the land which was not something that could be controlled as part of this application. 

60.26        A Member pointed out that, when the Planning Committee had granted planning permission for two dwellings on the site, Members had recognised the fact that it was a linear settlement and that had been an important consideration in determining the application.  As planning permission had already been granted for two dwellings, he questioned why the permission in principle application was for four dwellings as opposed to two.  In response, the Planning Officer indicated that, whilst she did not know the reason, she imagined it was because there had been a change in site context since the two dwellings had originally been permitted.  She explained that, in October, Members had permitted two dwellings to the north of the site which had changed the site context from the linear form which had previously been more appropriate.  A Member pointed out that, as the site had originally been in the Green Belt, development was required to be a linear form to fit with the rest of the area in order to be deemed as infill, as required by Green Belt restrictions; however, the site had since been removed from the Green Belt and was therefore no longer subject to the same restrictions.

60.27        Upon being put to the vote, it was

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

Supporting documents: