Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Demolition of an existing log cabin and the cessation of the extant log cabin development and erection of a new single dwelling and associated landscaping.  Change of use of part of the site from lawful residential/holiday curtilage back to agriculture/paddock land. 

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

31.19        This application was for the demolition of an existing log cabin and the cessation of the extant log cabin development and the erection of a new single dwelling and associated landscaping; change of use of part of the site from lawful residential/holiday curtilage back to agriculture/paddock land.

31.20        The Development Management Team Leader advised that the site was located on a parcel of land situated on Birdlip Hill, Witcombe set within an area of open countryside forming the lower slopes of the Cotswold Escarpment within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Currently, a single detached log cabin which was used as holiday accommodation and an internal access track and gates were located on the land.  The site was outside of any defined settlement boundary and within Flood Zone 1 as shown on the Environment Agency’s plans.  There was extensive planning history associated with the application site which currently benefited from an extant permission granted on appeal in 1998 allowing the erection of 10 holiday log cabins with associated sports facilities, proprietors accommodation and new access.  It was noted that the access and the single holiday log cabin had been constructed.  This permission formed the basis of the applicant’s fallback position.  Members may recall the most recent planning application which was brought before the Planning Committee in November 2019 seeking outline consent for the demolition of an existing log cabin and the cessation of the extant log cabin development and the erection of a new single dwelling.  Members had refused that application as the proposal would be located in an isolated countryside location that was not well-served by public transport, pedestrian or cycling facilities and did not meet the strategy for the distribution of new development, subsequently the application site was not an appropriate location for a new market dwelling; and, on the basis of the information provided at the time, the proposed development would result in an unwarranted and visually intrusive impact on the open character and visual attractiveness of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  The scheme presented to Members today had been submitted as a full application and had sought to address the previous reasons for refusal.  The application was supported by information that was not previously available as part of the outline scheme including a detailed design of the proposed new dwelling, a visual landscape assessment, comparison sketches, ecological appraisal, energy assessments and a landscaping scheme.  Officers had initial concerns regarding the proposed design of the new building and how it would enhance or conserve the scenic beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Officers recommended that the design be presented to the Gloucestershire Design Review Panel.  The applicant had agreed to this and, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it had not been heard until July 2021 when the Panel had resolved that the site was in a very sensitive part of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and successful redevelopment could only be achieved with a thoroughly thought out proposal which brought together landscape and architecture as integral components of the design.  The Panel had also concluded that the current proposal had failed to achieve this high standard of design and, for that reason, could not be supported.  Following these results, the applicant had submitted additional supporting information which included a revised landscape assessment, landscape mitigation proposals, more detail regarding lighting impacts and a revised design of the building.  The Council’s invitation to the applicant to take this information back to the Gloucestershire Design Review Panel for assessment had been declined.  As a result, the application had been assessed by Officers on the basis of the additional information and the revised design; this assessment was set out in the Committee report and identified that a material change of policy had occurred since the submission of the previous application in terms of the adoption of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and the confirmation that the Council could now demonstrate a five year housing land supply.  As such, the application had been determined with the planning balance as a straight balance of benefits against harm.  In summary, the proposal would result in a new market dwelling in a location with poor accessibility other than by private car and was not well served by opportunities for sustainable modes of transport.  In terms of design, the scheme would have a visually intrusive and urbanising impact on the open character and attractiveness of the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would not achieve a high enough standard to enhance its character.  Officers considered those harms were not outweighed by the minor economic benefits.  As set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, the applicant’s agent had submitted an updated Ecology Addendum to the Council on Monday 17 October 2022.  The update had been sent to the Council’s Ecological Adviser for comments but none had been received as yet.  The Officer recommendation to refuse the application remained unchanged.  Notwithstanding this, should Members be minded to permit the application, it was recommended that authority be delegated to the Development Manager to permit the application subject to satisfactory assessment of the ecology update.

31.21        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that Members would recall the site had permission for 10 holiday log cabins, granted on appeal in the 1990s.  All parties accepted that permission had been implemented through the construction of a single log cabin meaning that it was extant and could be completed at any time.  The last application came before Members three years ago as an outline application and, at that meeting, the then Development Manager advised that Officers had no objection in principle to a single dwelling replacing the log cabins but there were concerns with allowing an outline application as there would be no certainty over design and the impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Members had reaffirmed their support in principle and invited the applicant to come back with a full application to provide comfort over design – a contemporary design was supported.  The applicant’s agent advised that a full application had duly been submitted two years and 10 months ago and the application before the Committee today was the very same one.  Almost three years and four Planning Officers later, and having spent an extraordinary amount of time and money providing the various technical reports and plans requested, it appeared to have got nowhere.  Shortly after the application was submitted, the original Planning Officer requested that the application be taken to the Gloucestershire Design Review Panel and, despite reservations and at huge cost, the applicant had agreed.  The application had finally been considered by the Panel in November 2021 where constructive comments had been received suggesting further design rationale, a few design changes and a robust Landscape Masterplan – the contemporary design had been supported.  The plans had subsequently been revised and the applicant had invested in a Landscape Strategy.  What followed over the next few months was simply unacceptable with the application being reallocated to three further Officers over a period of six months.  In July 2022, the application was allocated its fourth Planning Officer; at that time, the Council’s Landscape Adviser had been reconsulted and confirmed no objection.  The applicant’s agent had also been told by the fourth Officer that, although the design was perhaps not his personal choice, given how far down the line the scheme was, they would not be asked to fundamentally redesign it.  The applicant’s agent had therefore been shocked to be told only two months later that Officers fundamentally did not like the design and intended to refuse – a clear moving of goal posts and totally unreasonable after three years.  This had raised two questions: if Officers were fundamentally opposed to the design concept, why was the applicant made to go to the Gloucestershire Design Review Panel which had required them to wait for 18 months; and why were they encouraged to waste three years of time and money carrying out landscape strategies and design justification which were seemingly never going to make any difference.  If Officers were fundamentally opposed to the design, they could have refused the application three years ago.  The applicant’s agent was sorry to say that they had lost all faith with the process and now looked to Members to make a reasonable and balanced decision.  The current proposal was 115% smaller than the combined floor area of the log cabin scheme and the residential curtilage was 44% smaller, furthermore, there was now a robust Landscaping Strategy.  The applicant’s agent felt this was the best chance to deliver a positive design for the site.

31.22        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 permitted on the basis that the proposal would have a more favourable impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty than the log cabin development which could be built under the extant planning permission.  The proposer of the motion indicated that, as stated by the applicant’s agent, an outline application had been considered by the Committee in November 2019 and the Chair at the time had felt that more information was needed and that a full application was required.  The applicant had duly gone away and come up with another proposal which was before Members today.  Granting planning permission for a single dwelling would do away with the extant planning permission for 10 log cabins on the site which he felt would be a huge improvement given the site’s location in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  He noted from the Additional Representations Sheet that County Highways had objected to the proposal; however, no objection had been raised in 2019, nor in 2016 when no objection had been raised subject to conditions.  In his view, a single dwelling would have a more acceptable impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty than 10 log cabins which could feasibly be built in accordance with the extant planning permission.  The seconder of the motion felt that the principle of development had already been established and the issue over the last three years was in relation to design.  The applicant had done all they could to produce a design in accordance with Officers’ wishes and the question was whether this would fit in with the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – did Members really want to see 10 log cabins on the site or something which would improve the area.  The Development Management Team Leader advised that, should Members be minded to permit the application, this should be a delegated permit to allow for appropriate conditions; to secure a Section 106 Agreement in order to ensure the rest of the site was changed from residential/holiday use back to agriculture/paddock land, which the applicant’s agent had agreed they would be happy to enter into; and, as he had previously advised, pending a response from the Council’s Ecological Adviser in relation to the Ecology Addendum which may require additional mitigation.  The seconder of the motion indicated that he was reluctant to agree to a delegated permit given the history of delays with this application; whilst he understood the technical reasons for delegation, timing was a concern to him.  Another Member also raised concern as to what the timeframe might be.  In response, the Legal Adviser explained that the Committee report had been written on the basis of a refusal and, if permitted, it would be necessary to include relevant conditions.  Indicative conditions could include the development being carried out in accordance with approved plans, tree protection, external lighting and ecology, if necessary to reflect the consultation response which was awaited from the Council’s Ecological Adviser.  She did not envisage this would result in a long delay in granting planning permission.  It was also necessary to secure a Section 106 Agreement in order to stop the log cabin development from going ahead as that was the basis upon which planning permission would be granted in accordance with the motion currently on the table – that would not be achieved without a Section 106 Agreement in place.  She advised that it was a very simple agreement to enter into so she did not anticipate this taking a long time to achieve.  The Development Management Team Leader confirmed that was the case and he was sure the applicant would be willing to move as quickly as possible.  He explained that the Ecological Adviser had been consulted the previous day so a response was imminent. 

31.23        A Member sought clarification from Officers as to whether they believed a refusal would stand up at appeal and the Development Management Team Leader confirmed that it would not have been recommended for refusal if that was not the case.  The Member went on to indicate that the original proposal for the log cabin development had also been recommended for refusal so, by the same logic, Officers would also have considered that could be defended on appeal; however, that development had been allowed on appeal so he asked why Officers believed that the Council would win an appeal in this instance.  In response, the Development Management Team Leader advised that almost thirty years had passed since the appeal during which time there had been considerable material changes to planning policies.  A Member expressed the view that a decision must be made on the merits of the application, not on the history of its fruition and the time wasted as far as the applicant was concerned.

31.24        The proposer and seconder of the motion to permit the application confirmed they were happy to amend the proposal to a delegated permit and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Manager to PERMIT the application on the basis that the proposal would have a more favourable impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty than the log cabin development which could be built under the extant planning permission, subject to the inclusion of appropriate conditions; a Section 106 Agreement to ensure the rest of the site was changed from residential/holiday use back to agriculture/paddock land; and, to allow for any additional mitigation required by the Council’s Ecological Adviser in response to the Ecology Addendum.