Agenda item

PROPOSAL: One self-build single storey detached dwelling including re-use of existing access from Sandy Pluck Lane, landscaping and parking, following demolition of redundant former agricultural barns and removal of concrete hardstanding.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse

7.2            This application was for one self-build single storey detached dwelling including re-use of existing access from Sandy Pluck Lane, landscaping and parking, following demolition of redundant former agricultural barns and removal of concrete hardstanding.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Wednesday 24 May 2023.

7.3            The Development Management Team Manager (Northwest) advised that the application site was land between two dwellings – Brook House and Brook Cottage – forming part of a small cluster of dwellings outside of any settlement and in the open countryside.  The site was in agricultural use, comprising a single storey brick barn to the site frontage and a larger concrete framed portal barn to the rear.  An area of concrete hardstanding lay between the two barns.  The site was within the designated Green Belt.  On the opposite side of Sandy Pluck Lane and to the rear of the site were open agricultural fields.  Badgeworth Parish Council was in favour of the application and a number of other representations had been received in support of the proposal.  As outlined in the Committee report, the Planning Officer view was that the site was not an appropriate location for new residential development as it lay outside of any defined settlement boundary and was not considered to fall within a settlement or village, rather, it was a cluster of dwellings remote from the nearest settlement, notwithstanding the more dispersed character of Bentham village.  In relation to the locational policies of the adopted development plan, the development was not considered to constitute infilling within the existing built-up areas of a village, contrary to Joint Core Strategy Policy SD10, neither was it considered very small scale development within or adjacent to the built-up area of settlement not featured in the Joint Core Strategy settlement hierarchy, contrary to Tewkesbury Borough Plan Policies RES3 and RES4.  In terms of Green Belt policy, the development was not considered to satisfy any of the exemptions for the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt as set out at Paragraph 149 of the National Planning Policy Framework, in particular limited infilling in villages.  The proposal was therefore considered inappropriate development by definition and would have an unacceptable impact on the openness of this part of the Green Belt and no very special circumstances had been advanced that would outweigh the identified harm.  The design of the scheme was also not considered to be in keeping with the more traditional character and appearance of nearby development by reason of its size, scale and appearance and would have an adverse impact on the appearance of the area and the landscape character.  Finally, the site was not in a sustainable location, offering no realistic transport choices other than the private vehicle to gain access to the site and facilities.  It was therefore recommended that the application be refused for the reasons outlined in the Committee report.

7.4            The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that this was an application for the redevelopment of a redundant site to provide a new high quality self-build infill dwelling and he trusted that yesterday’s Planning Committee site visit allowed Members to appreciate what the applicant and local residents were trying to achieve.  Firstly, he felt it was important to note that the proposed development had the full support of Badgeworth Parish Council and the neighbouring residents within Sandy Pluck Lane and there were no objections to the application.  Furthermore, there were no technical objections in relation to landscape, drainage, trees, ecology or access.  The application was advanced on the basis that the new dwelling represented limited infilling in a village, one of the defined exemptions to development in the Green Belt both nationally and locally.  The Planning Officer recognised that the proposals would represent infilling but suggested that the site was not located within a village.  The applicant’s agent indicated that, in his view, the characteristics of the village had been misinterpreted in this instance; as Members would be aware, Bentham was a classic example of a dispersed village settlement which had no defined core.  Instead, the village was essentially made up of a series of separated housing clusters fronting the lanes of Bentham, of which Sandy Pluck Lane was one.  He considered that the proposal lay within the village of Bentham and consequently would meet the necessary Green Belt policies and be acceptable in principle, a view also held by local residents and the Parish Council.  The proposed dwelling had been designed at a scale that was reflective of the existing built form on the site and it was noted that the Planning Officer had confirmed that a new dwelling would not be materially larger than the buildings it would replace, which was welcomed, but there was no mention that the proposed dwelling would also be considerably lower in height than the existing barns.  As a single storey dwelling, with design features such as a green roof – and several other design credentials - it would remain a very low key addition in this location which would represent a significant improvement to openness.  Furthermore, Members would be aware that recent contemporary dwellings had been permitted by Tewkesbury Borough Council within Sandy Pluck Lane at Hunt Court Farm and Wind in the Willows to the west.  Sandy Pluck Lane had a mixed character, scale and design of buildings which included single storey dwellings and reflected the rest of the village – in his view, the Planning Officer’s assertion that a single storey contemporary dwelling would be out of character was simply not consistent in this instance.  He could not understand the suggestion it would be an unsustainable location in relation to travel choices - Members would have seen from the site visit there was a bus stop at the end of Sandy Pluck Lane, on Shurdington Road, which was on the Stagecoach No. 10 route with a very regular service at all times of day and Shurdington Road was a well-used cycle route towards Cheltenham.  Finally, the applicant’s agent was concerned that the Officer had also significantly downplayed the substantial benefits of providing a self-build dwelling in this location given there was a historic undersupply of this type of dwelling.  In conclusion, he considered this to be a high quality addition to the area which would meet all necessary policies.  The proposals had the full support of the Parish Council and local residents and the applicant was now seeking the support of the Planning Committee in a positive determination of the application.

7.5            The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member indicated that he had asked what growth was taking place within this area during the Joint Core Strategy plan period and was informed that between 2011 – the start of the Joint Core Strategy period – to date, nine new dwellings had been permitted in Badgeworth, six of which were new builds, one was a barn conversion and two were replacement dwellings.  It was proposed that the application be permitted on the basis that there were very special circumstances arising from it being a self-build dwelling which was supported by the Parish Council and neighbouring residents and it complied with Policy RES4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Paragraphs 137 and 138e of the National Planning Policy Framework.  A Member indicated that she was supportive of a permit but she did not fully agree with the justification.  She advised that the Planning Committee had visited this site before in 2016, albeit they had not had the opportunity to go onto the site and had viewed it from the road.  She thanked the Planning Officer for the comprehensive report but did not agree with some of the assumptions.  She did not believe that very special circumstances were necessary given that, in her view, the proposal met the five requirements of Green Belt Policy in the National Planning Policy Framework and she shared the Parish Council view that Sandy Pluck Lane formed part of the hamlet, therefore, it constituted limited infilling which met the requirements of the test for appropriate development in the Green Belt.  She would second a motion to permit on that basis and for to be delegated to the Development Management Manager to permit the application subject to appropriate conditions.  The proposer of the motion to permit the application indicated that he was happy to amend his motion on that basis.  The Development Management Team Manager (Northwest) suggested that conditions should be included in relation to materials, site levels, landscaping, submission of a surface water drainage scheme, removal of permitted development rights with regard to fences, gates and garage extensions to safeguard the openness of the Green Belt and the landscape character, ecological enhancement conditions recommended by the Ecological Adviser, lighting and tree protection and arboricultural conditions relating to protection and enhancement of trees and hedgerows on the site.  The proposer and seconder of the motion confirmed they were satisfied with the suggested conditions.

7.6            A Member indicated that the Committee would be aware of the overuse of the A46, which was proposed as a cycle route to Cheltenham; whilst he was not an experienced cyclist, he would not consider the A46 to be a suitable route for anyone to cycle.  He noted that County Highways had objected to the scheme on sustainability grounds due to the limited choice of transport modes available and he shared this view and felt that more sustainable transport should be encouraged in the area.  The proposer of the motion for a delegated permission appreciated the Member was new to the Committee, so may not have had the opportunity to read the Tewkesbury Borough Plan which had been approved in 2022, and pointed out that Policy RES4 had been included because there were a host of smaller villages which would otherwise not have any development if policies in relation to sustainable transport were adhered to – if development of villages stopped, those villages would die.  In terms of County Highways, no representation had been made against the Tewkesbury Borough Plan in that regard, therefore, it was necessary to move forward with the Plan in its current form.

7.7            Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Management Manager to PERMIT the application, subject to conditions in relation to materials, site levels, landscaping, submission of a surface water drainage scheme, removal of permitted development rights with regard to fences, gates and garage extensions to safeguard the openness of the Green Belt and the landscape character, ecological enhancement conditions recommended by the Ecological Adviser, lighting and tree protection and arboricultural conditions relating to protection and enhancement of trees and hedgerows on the site.