Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Planning in principle for the erection of four dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit

25.6          This was a Permission in Principle application for the erection of four dwellings.

25.7          The Senior Planning Officer advised that a Permission in Principle 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 application related to a parcel of land to the south of Down Hatherley Lane and to the east of Ash Lane.  The site was generally level, measuring 0.44 hectares in area, with access to the site proposed from Down Hatherley Lane to the north.  The proposed site layout demonstrated how the quantum of development could be delivered on the site.  The scheme sought to make use of, and share existing access to, The Bungalow onto Down Hatherley Lane to the north.  The site was not subject to any formal landscape designation but was in an area of safeguarded land.  It was noted that the Planning Committee had approved a number of similar Permission in Principle applications within the immediate vicinity of the application site.  Members were advised that the Government’s guidance set out that the scope of the first stage of Permission in Principle was limited to the location, land use and amount of development.  The site layout, design, access, landscaping, drainage and any other relevant technical matters would be considered at the technical details stage.  Given the scale of the proposed development, the proximity and close relationship of the site to the existing properties, and the extant permissions, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

25.8           The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  It was proposed that the application be refused on the basis that it was a piecemeal approach.  The proposer of the motion indicated that the main difference from when the previous Permission in Principle applications in this area had been considered was that the Council was now able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply.  In his view, development of the site should be part of a wider project and not piecemeal as would be the case if this application was permitted.  There was no seconder for this proposal.

25.9           A Member drew attention to Page No. 39, Paragraph 7.7 of the Committee report which referenced Policy RES4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and she pointed out that its purpose was to allow a small amount of development within villages; however, given the amount of applications that had been approved in this area and the number of properties that could potentially come forward as a result, she questioned whether this has been fully assessed, particularly as regards “small amount” against RES4 requirements being met.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer clarified that a full assessment against RES4 had not been taken into consideration due to the type of application submitted i.e. Permission in Principle.  

25.10         It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

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