PROPOSAL: Erection of a single storey self-build dwelling and associated works.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

62.2           This was an application for the erection of a single storey self-build dwelling and associated works.

62.3           The Planning Officer advised that the application was for a self-build detached bungalow on an area of land opposite the Village Hall in Tirley which also included the formation/alteration of an access onto the main B4213. The application had been called in for a Committee decision by a Member in order to fully assess the impact of the proposal on the area, the impact on the main road and the overall design. She explained that the area itself was an existing paddock bound by mature vegetation / trees along the front boundary and was an undeveloped parcel of land which contributed to the semi-rural character of Tirley. The site was located outside of any defined settlement boundary and the built up area of Tirley with the core of the built up part of the village lying to the northern side of the B4213; the application site was located on the south side where development was sparse. It was considered that the proposal would not constitute infill development as the nearest dwelling on that side of the road was over 70 metres to the north-east and therefore would fail to comply with the relevant policies. Referring to the design of the bungalow, the Planning Officer explained that it would be utilitarian and would lack character and design quality – the appearance and fenestration on the front elevation in particular would be poor with an elongated design and no real focal point. As set out in the report, there were no concerns with regards to residential amenity and the County Highways Officer had indicated that a ‘grampian style’ condition would address his concerns in terms of visibility. Further drainage details had been submitted and the Flood Risk Management Engineer was now generally happy with the proposals. It was considered the development of the site would result in an unacceptable encroachment into the rural landscape which would harm the character of the area by virtue of the urbanising effects of a new dwelling, enlarged access, driveway and hardstanding. Overall, it was considered that the application site was not an appropriate location for new residential development and would conflict with the relevant policies, therefore, the application was recommended for refusal.

62.4           The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. The agent explained that the applicants were long term residents of Tirley, one of whom had lived in the village since her birth in 1957. They resided at a property to the south west of the application site and currently cared for an elderly relative who jointly owned the property. The current property was in Flood Zone 2 and therefore was vulnerable to flooding with the risk having become much more apparent in recent years due to the number of flood events which caused extreme worry and mental strain because of the number of times water had entered the house. The application had been submitted through a desire to build a more sustainable, energy efficient home for themselves on an underutilised plot at the heart of the village and, importantly, the proposed bungalow was on higher ground than their current property and not within a flood zone. The new property would allow the applicant to stay in the village and provide a ‘bolt hole refuge’ for the elderly relative should a flood event occur – this would remove a lot of worry and stress for all concerned. The agent explained that the Committee report confirmed that the Parish Council fully supported the scheme; there was resident support for the scheme; Gloucestershire County Highways had confirmed the proposed vehicle access to the site was safe and suitable; there were no impacts on adjoining neighbours; and the proposals were for a self-build dwelling which was a benefit to the scheme and was supported by Officers. He advised that the proposed bungalow was adjacent to Tirley Village Hall and at the centre of the village with Tirley being a sustainable location for new housing where small-scale development had been seen in recent years. The village had a church, public house and bus stops serving Gloucester and Tewkesbury. The proposed dwelling would be in character with the wider village, which did include development on that side of the main road, as such, the development would accord with Policies SD10 and RES4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan with no policy conflict. Notwithstanding this, the recent appeal at Hill End Road had confirmed the Council did not have a five-year housing land supply with the housing shortfall in the borough being significant according to the Planning Inspector. In addition, the tilted balance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework was engaged adding further weight to the fact that the proposals should be granted planning permission. The applicant’s agent indicated that national and local planning policy recognised that small scale housing development was vital in villages such as Tirley if they were to maintain a good level of services and thrive so, in light of significant material circumstances and additional information, he asked Members to take a different view to Officers and grant planning permission.

62.5           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 deferred for a Planning Committee Site Visit. A Member questioned whether a site visit was necessary as he felt that Policy RES4 had been included within the Tewkesbury Borough Plan for precisely this type of application for organic growth. He could not see what a site visit would add to this seemingly straightforward policy issue and felt that the application should be permitted. The Chair questioned what the site visit would be looking at and, in response, the proposer of the motion for deferral advised that the Committee report had stated that flooding did not occur, but Tirley was well known to flood so she felt this was something that should be considered. Upon being put to the vote, the proposal for a site visit was lost with two votes in favour and 10 against.

62.6           A Member proposed, and it was seconded, that the application be permitted because Policy RES4 was worded to deliver precisely this type of development.  A Member questioned how many self-builds had been completed last year against the Council’s target and the Development Management Manager advised that the Council had a significant stock of permissions over a number of years with around 42 permissions for self-build in the last six years and 121 permissions for single dwelling plots which could be used for self-build – in the last year, there had been 31 permissions for self-build. A Member expressed the view that self-build was a grey area– he could not understand why people would not just seek a straight planning permission rather than self-build and he felt it put local planning authorities in an uneasy position to judge the validity of an application. In response, the Development Management Team Leader South advised that Policy RES4 supported growth at rural settings but, in this instance, the proposal did not comply with paragraph c) as it did not complement the form of the existing settlement, it was not within the continuous built up area of the village but jumped the road and would not relate well to the existing buildings within the settlement of Tirley. In addition, he explained that the definition of self-build was loose - the applicant did not have to build themselves and could instead enlist a builder but it was not an excuse to build somewhere that was not acceptable.

62.7           In response to a query regarding the Council’s five year housing land supply, the Development Management Manager advised that the Council’s stated position was set out at Page No. 34 of the Committee report. There had been a recent appeal decision but that was not binding and the Council was clear that it did have a five year housing land supply. In response to a query regarding the proposed living arrangements for the new property, the Development Management Team Leader South explained his understanding was there were currently two households living in one property but, if permission was granted, the family would move to the new home and the elderly relative would remain in the existing home but would be able to use the new property as a bolt hole in times of flood. A Member could see quite a few conflicts and understood the Officer’s reasoning for a refusal; however this was slightly subjective as the Parish Council felt the proposal would enhance the area. She questioned whether the design could be addressed if the proposal was permitted as it was currently uninspiring. Another Member expressed concern that the Planning Inspector had recently concluded the Council did not have a five year housing land supply yet the Council said it did. In response, the Legal Adviser explained that the appeal decision was not binding; the Council had been in a similar position previously on another aspect of five year housing land supply with some appeal decisions on that agreeing with the Council’s stated position and some not – the Council’s position remained clear and was being robustly defended in ongoing appeals. In terms of the Council’s duty regarding self-build, the Development Management Manager advised that the Council had a duty to keep a register of self-build permissions and have regard to this, as well as a duty to keep enough suitable development permissions to meet the identified need. A number of suitable sites had been identified in the last few years, so the Council was meeting that duty and took concerns about delivery seriously. 20% of planning authorities in the country had permitted no self builds at all but Tewkesbury Borough Council was permitting suitable permissions regularly. As set out in the Committee report, being a self-build was a benefit but did not outweigh the policy conflict.  He also reiterated that there were concerns on the design.  In addition, the Legal Adviser explained that the duty to permit was a rolling duty, and each base year monitoring report showed the Council was meeting its duty.

62.8           The Planning Officer advised that conditions in respect of commencement of development, plans, samples of building materials, landscaping, drainage, a Grampian condition on highways and the condition recommended by the Environmental Health Officer should be included in the planning permission, and the proposer and seconder confirmed they were happy to amend the motion on that basis. Another Member expressed concern about the design and asked that Officers work with the applicant to improve it; in response, the Planning Officer indicated that could be achieved through a delegated permit should the Committee be so minded. The proposer of the motion continued to be of the view that the application should be permitted in principle but took the point on design and if it could be dealt with as a delegated permit he would be happy to support that and this was agreed by the seconder of the motion.

62.9           Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Management Manager to PERMIT the application subject to addressing concerns over design and conditions in respect of commencement of development, plans, samples of building materials, landscaping, drainage, a Grampian condition on highways and the condition recommended by the Environmental Health Officer.