Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of the site to include the demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings, erection of a replacement dwelling and change of use of land to residential.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

66.9          This application was for redevelopment of the site to include demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings, erection of a replacement dwelling and change of use of land to residential.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 11 March 2022.

66.10        The Planning Officer advised that the main considerations relevant to the application were whether the current proposal remained compliant with the Council’s replacement dwelling policies and if it was acceptable in Green Belt terms.  The National Planning Policy Framework considered that the replacement of buildings in the Green Belt was appropriate provided that the new building was the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaced.  Saved Local Plan Policy HOU7 stated that the replacement dwelling must be of a similar size and scale to the existing dwelling, respect the scale and character of existing property in the area and have no impact on the landscape; Policy RES9 of the Pre-submission Tewkesbury Borough Plan stated that the replacement dwelling must respect the size of the plot and the scale and character of existing characteristic property in the area; however, the proposed size increases in relation to replacement dwellings in the Green Belt would not be permitted where the proposed dwelling would be disproportionately larger than the original dwelling, taking into account the impact of any previous extensions.  Therefore, the proposed dwelling did not comply with Policies HOU7 or RES9.  A case had been put forward by the applicants that the proposal would be an exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt on the basis that it was redevelopment of previously developed land and, whilst Officers agreed with that, the proposed development should not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development.  The proposal would be a large, two-storey consolidated form in a more visually prominent position on the site and would be six metres greater in height than the existing barns and stables.  The proposal had significant areas of hard landscaping and the residential curtilage to the south west would be increased, therefore, the residential development would encroach further into the open countryside.  It was proposed to relocate the public footpath as part of the scheme and to provide additional landscaping to reduce the visual impact of the development; however, the proposed landscaping would enclose the site from surrounding fields which in turn impacted openness.  It was considered that the proposal would form a substantial enclosed plot not well-related to the existing settlement pattern and would encroach into the open countryside.  If Members were minded that the proposal represented inappropriate development in the Green Belt, Very Special Circumstances could be used to justify the development. The Very Special Circumstances put forward by the applicants included the removal of the existing barn and replacement with a high quality dwelling, landscaping and relocation of the public footpath; however, Officers did not consider that the Very Special Circumstances would outweigh the harm to the openness of the Green Belt.  The dwelling would be large and contemporary occupying a more prominent position on the site and would appear as an incongruous feature in the landscape, contrary to the more traditional form and character of dwellings along Sandy Pluck Lane.  It was considered that the site would be more residential in character and the mitigation of the soft landscaping would not outweigh the harm in this instance, therefore, the Officer recommendation was for refusal.

66.11        The Chair invited the applicants’ agent to address the Committee.  The applicants’ agent indicated this application sought to redevelop an existing site in the Green Belt and there were two mechanisms which allowed such a scheme to be supported – Paragraph 149(g) of the National Planning Policy Framework or by applying Very Special Circumstances; Members were entitled to adopt either approach.  Whilst this was acknowledged within the Committee report, Officers had concerns regarding the size, scale and siting of the current proposal.  The applicants’ agent advised that the application had been submitted in August 2021 and, since then, the applicants had sought to positively engage with Officers to understand their concerns and seek to address them.  Due to COVID-19 restrictions, pre-application engagement had not been an option prior to the submission of the application.  The applicants had been very clear that they wished to work positively, amending the scheme where necessary; however, it was not until the Committee report was published that the applicants had been informed of the specific concerns being raised which did not give an opportunity to seek to address them.  The applicants’ agent stressed that his clients were committed to this scheme – it was their dream site and would be their new family home.  Despite the Committee report, concerns raised and limited engagement to date, the applicants still wished to engage proactively with Officers to address their comments and, in doing so, were willing to revise the proposal – they were not developers seeking to maximise profits and were committed to a high-quality, sensitive design.  With this in mind, if Members felt unable to support the scheme before them, the applicants’ agent urged them to defer the application to allow for proactive discussions to take place with Officers, something which sadly had not been forthcoming so far.

66.12        A Member raised concern about the quality of the Committee report which contained 16 spelling and grammatical errors and she expressed the view that conclusion was badly written and difficult to understand.  The Development Manager confirmed that Committee reports were proof-read before sending to print and he apologised that this one had seemingly slipped through the net. 

66.13        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.  Upon being put to the vote, the motion fell.  A Member indicated that he had listened to the applicants’ agent and it seemed that negotiations and discussions had not been easy so he sought advice as to the best way forward in terms of whether a deferral or a delegated permission would allow the applicants to come forward with a better design.  The Development Manager advised that either of those options were open to Members – as was permitting the application before them – it would be up to the applicants to decide whether they came forward with a revised scheme.  The Member asked whether a condition could be included within a delegated permission requiring the applicant to come back with a better design and the Development Manager clarified that was not possible.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted on the basis that, with the removal of the existing buildings, the replacement dwelling would not result in a substantial impact upon openness of the Green Belt.  A Member felt it was quite obvious from the Planning Committee Site Visit that other properties in close proximity, which had been granted planning permission last year, were much more imposing than the one before Members today.  The Planning Officer advised that, should Members be minded to permit the application, she recommended the inclusion of conditions in relation to the time period for commencement of development; the development being carried out in accordance with approved plans; materials; landscaping scheme and planting; ecological enhancement; external lighting; surface water drainage; foul water drainage; removal of permitted development rights, removal of existing buildings on the site prior to occupation of the proposed dwelling; and relocation of the public footpath.  The proposer and seconder of the motion confirmed they were happy with the suggested conditions.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be PERMITTED on the basis that, with the removal of the existing buildings, the replacement dwelling would not result in a substantial impact upon openness of the Green Belt, subject to the inclusion of conditions in relation to the time period for commencement of development; the development being carried out in accordance with approved plans; materials; landscaping scheme and planting; ecological enhancement; external lighting; surface water drainage; foul water drainage; removal of permitted development rights, removal of existing buildings on the site prior to occupation of the proposed dwelling; and relocation of the public footpath.