PROPOSAL: Construction of two dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated Permit.

20.8          This application was for construction of two dwellings.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 14 July 2023.

20.9          The Planning Officer advised that a Committee determination was required as the application had been called-in by Councillor Gore.  With regard to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, he indicated that four additional letters of objection had been received from members of the public and the Parish Council.  The objections related to the change of Plot 1 from a flat roof bungalow to a two storey dwelling along with other points that had already been raised by objectors.  The Planning Officer had spoken to three of the objectors to clarify that the dwelling at Plot 1 would be 1.5 storey not two storey.  Four of the six original objection letters raised concern with the flat roof bungalow at Plot 1 as originally submitted, as such, a revised scheme had been requested for a pitched roof; however, when the amended plans had been received they had shown a two storey dwelling with a pitched roof.  This was not acceptable on the basis that it would be out of keeping with the area and would have an overbearing impact, therefore, further revised plans had been submitted for a 1.5 storey dwelling which was now provided for Plot 1.  Whilst there was no requirement for the Council to re-consult on the revised plans, the four nearest neighbours and the Parish Council had commented on the amended plans.  The Planning Officer went on to advise that the application site was located within the settlement boundary of New Town, Toddington within the Special Landscape Area but not within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Planning permission was sought for the erection of two new dwellings with associated garages and the existing garage and greenhouse would be demolished to allow for access to the new dwellings.  Plot 1 would consist of a 1.5 storey detached dwelling with rooms in the roof space alongside two garages for use by the new dwelling and the occupants of No. 3 Consell Green; Plot 2 would consist of a two storey detached dwelling with a detached single garage.  Both properties would have front and rear gardens and would be accessed via a gravel surfaced private drive.  As the application was located within the settlement boundary of Toddington, the principle of residential development at the site was considered to be acceptable subject to other policy considerations.  The plot size was larger than those to the east but Officers considered that the width and depth would allow two dwellings to be accommodated without causing overdevelopment.  The dwellings would be in keeping with the design and appearance of the new properties in Consell Green Lane.  The proposal was contained within an existing residential plot and would not encroach into the countryside and, following consultation with the Landscape Officer, there was a 1.2m high timber post and rail fence with native hedging to the southern, eastern and western boundaries which would be in keeping with the existing boundary treatment.  In terms of amenity, the rear elevation of Plot 1 faced Consell Green Lane and the only window at first floor level contained one rooflight serving the bathroom so there were no issues with overlooking or loss of privacy to the east; there were no side windows at first floor level.  At the rear, a separation distance of 21m was provided between the rear dormers and Plot 2 of Consell Green Lane.  Plot 2 had no side windows facing the garden at first floor level and the front elevation contained three rooflights which significantly reduced any impact of overlooking to neighbouring gardens.  Officers felt the plans and the impact on neighbouring amenity were acceptable and there were no objections from statutory consultees – except the Parish Council – on the grounds of highways, drainage, ecology, environmental health and landscaping, therefore the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

20.10        The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that she disagreed with Page No. 63, Paragraph 8.24 of the Committee report as she considered there would be unacceptable adverse impacts in terms of loss of light and overbearing effects upon neighbouring properties and the proposal should not go ahead on that basis.   She was representing residents from the houses along the strip either side of this plot, and many others who lived in Toddington and explained that, when her family had come to the area they had not planned to stay but, once they had lived there, they had realised how beautiful the countryside was and what a wonderful place it was to live.  Toddington had seen some residential development in recent years and they had raised minor objections in relation to those; however, in her view, none of them – even the four new houses built at No. 1 Consell Green -  had directly affected the garden or homes of the existing properties, only the owner of the plot of land.  If this development was allowed, it will set a precedent for everybody in Toddington to build and make money from the plots in their gardens.  Toddington was known for its lovely long plots of garden, usually overlooking the wonderful countryside and hills and would quickly turn into a very cramped, overcrowded, and gloomy place to live.  Their hedge was usually cut to five feet to ensure it got all of the afternoon sun; a two bedroom house at 20 feet high, and the 1.5 storey still at a towering 18-20 feet high, would not be very far away from their house and garden.  Whilst the gardens were beautifully long, they were not very wide, some under 25 feet in width in places.  The new houses would be around 40 feet away from the edge of their garden, closer for the two neighbouring houses, and with the two houses so close together they would loom over them in the garden for most of the full length, taking most of the light from the garden, especially at Mayfield and No. 1.  They had worked hard to own their house and garden and, with the mortgage rises coming to their family in February, it would be a hard time to sit and watch the family home and garden they loved become so overshadowed.  They loved the village of Toddington and did not feel that building in people’s back gardens was good for the wildlife or the feel of the village - less garden space meant less available habitat for hedgehogs and other wildlife that thrived in their gardens or bats over the pond which would not be around with more light from the houses.  The local resident drew attention to Page No. 65, Paragraph 8.37 of the Committee report, which stated that the Highway Authority had no justifiable grounds to object based upon the analysis of the information submitted; however, the speed survey results were incorrect and the average speed was not 36mph.  The results were not only taken at the end of the COVID pandemic, but during the quietest parts of the day between 1040 hours and 1200 hours and 1400 hours and 1510 hours.  Her husband had performed an in depth study of the recordings by the moveable speed sign and, based upon that data, the calculations in report 2214TN01A were incorrect and needed to be disregarded.  She urged Members not to set a precedent for building in the gardens of Toddington as that would affect any existing houses and be detrimental to the village of Toddington and the surrounding wildlife, not to mention the existing residents and families.  It was also very dangerous and could increase the chance of a loss of life on this 40mph busy road with a deadly bend.

20.11         The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  In response to a query as to whether any additional feedback had been received from the Parish Council following the Planning Committee site visit, the Planning Officer confirmed that the Parish Council had been contacted but no new issues had been discussed that had not already been raised in previous objections.  A Member asked if the County Highways representative had visited the application site and he advised he had not; on that basis, another Member questioned what the County Highways judgement was based on.  The County Highways representative explained that, whilst it would be preferable to visit every site, that was not possible due to the amount of applications County Highways was required to comment upon.  This application had been assessed via a desktop exercise and the applicant had submitted transport notes accompanying the application.  In view of that evidence, he did not consider there would be a severe impact arising from the development.  The Member felt that a key concern was safety when accessing the site given the speed of traffic along the road, which was the main route between Stow-on-the-Wold and Tewkesbury, and he was of the view that a check should be carried out given the amount of accidents which occurred.  The County Highways representative advised that a speed survey had been undertaken by the applicant but, given the concerns regarding the road, he had sought data from the ATS speed sign west of the site for September 2022 which had shown that the 85^th percentile majority aligned with the findings of the survey with an average speed of 40.4mph.  On that basis, he was satisfied the evidence provided was robust and the site was safe in terms of visibility.

20.12        It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused on the grounds of highway safety as it conflicted with Policy INS1 of the Joint Core Strategy and Policy RES5 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  The proposer of the motion indicated that she had grown up in the area and knew the site well and, whilst the County Highways representative had not visited the site, the Planning Committee had and Members had noted vehicles travelling at speed down the road.  She raised concern with the plan for a bin collection on the left hand side next to a big bush in the neighbouring garden which would be outside of any ownership in terms of maintenance.  As it stood, she appreciated there was no severe impact in relation to vehicles entering the highway as the existing resident had the option to take the lower access route out of the driveway but she believed there would be a highway safety issue for residents entering/egressing the new plots.  The Legal Adviser advised caution as the policy test for justifying reasons for refusal on highway grounds was that the impact would be severe.  The County Highways representative was very experienced and had advised Members that the impact in this case would not be severe.  She suggested that Members might wish to consider other issues associated with the application and whether they felt any of the other impacts were harmful and would therefore support the motion to refuse the application.  The proposer of the motion explained there was a problem with lorries travelling through Toddington to and from the quarries at the top of Stanway and Stanton – these vehicles travelled at speed and had longer stopping distances which meant that the proposed access would not be safe for residents.  She considered there were other reasons for refusing the application such as overdevelopment of the site and the impact on amenity of neighbouring properties.  In terms of highway matters, the Development Management Manager explained that the County Highways representative had referenced data which was received at the end of 2022, which was relatively recent, and a condition was recommended in terms of the visibility splays.  He echoed the comments made by the Legal Adviser in terms of the relevant test regarding highway safety but noted the concerns raised by Members today in terms of the site and the nature of the traffic.  He suggested it may be beneficial for Officers to seek additional information, working with County Highways, to give Members comfort regarding those matters.  A Member welcomed this way forward and proposed that the application be deferred in order to obtain additional information regarding highway safety.  The proposer and seconder of the motion to refuse the application indicated they would be happy to withdraw the refusal motion subject to County Highways attending a site visit with local Ward Councillors.  She indicated that matters such as the bin storage needed to be addressed.  Another Member asked that accident records and speed measurements also be provided in the information brought back to Committee and the proposer of the motion to defer the application indicated that he was happy for all of this to be included.  This was duly seconded and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the application be DEFERRED in order to obtain additional information regarding highway safety, including accident records and speed measurements, with consideration also being given to the location of the bin storage, and for the County Highways representative to attend a site visit with local Ward Councillors.