Agenda item

PROPOSAL:  Permission in principle for residential development of two dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

27.23        This was a permission in principle application for residential development of two dwellings. 

27.24        The Senior Planning Officer advised that, as set out in the Committee report, consideration of applications seeking ‘permission in principle’ were limited to matters of location, amount, and use.  In terms of location and use, Officers gave very significant weight to the site being within the boundary of Joint Core Strategy strategic allocation where there was a requirement of over 2,000 homes.  Members would see from the presentation slide that nearly 1,000 homes had been approved within the area of the strategic allocation and immediately north and south of the application site.  No objections had been received from County Highways in terms of access.  With regard to amount, Officers considered there was potential for two dwellings, as illustrated, though it would be for the applicant to demonstrate at the technical matters stage that two dwellings could be successfully accommodated in accordance with policy and site constraints – in principle, residential use of the site was considered to be acceptable.  Officers acknowledged there were considerable local concerns regarding drainage and foul water disposal arrangements in the area and discussion had taken place with drainage and flooding consultees, including Severn Trent Water, which had led to a suggestion that development could be approved subject to a condition that it would not be able to take place until such time as the public sewer had been upgraded; however, permission in principle approvals could not be conditioned.  In any event, drainage details would be a technical matter left for later consideration.  Whilst it was noted there were concerns in respect of surface water drainage and possible associated flood risk, such matters were not a detail for consideration at this time and fell within the scope of any subsequent technical details consent application.  In the event a technical details consent application was submitted, the Council would have the ability to refuse planning permission if a satisfactory solution to drainage and other matters could not be secured.  Further controls could be imposed at the technical details consent stage by way of conditions; other technical matters to be addressed at that stage would include - though were not limited to - design, highway safety, amenity and ecology and appropriate assessments and mitigation would be required at that stage. Given the application was limited in scope at this stage, Officers considered it complied with planning policies as set out in the Committee report and recommended permission in principle be granted.

27.25        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent reiterated that the application sought permission in principle for two dwellings. Members would be aware that these types of applications dealt with the principle of development from a locational and land use perspective only, and technical details were reserved for later applications.  Whilst the site may currently appear to be within open surroundings, the site formed part of the Joint Core Strategy strategic allocation for Twigworth. The main development of circa. 725 dwellings within the allocation had planning consent and it was material to note that another application of 74 dwellings also had consent within the allocation site and was currently being built out. This site would, therefore, be very much part of the urban area of Gloucester going forward. The principle of housing here was clearly acceptable, subject to the properties respecting the character and layout of the wider strategic allocation. Ultimately, this new dwelling would be set amongst the North Gloucester urban extension and fully complied with planning policy in principle.   The applicant’s agent noted that the Parish Council had raised some concerns and, whilst he sympathised with their views, their comments were not substantive matters that could lead to the refusal of the application, particularly in the context of the permissions for housing granted in the immediate vicinity, which were much more substantial than this.  The Parish Council’s suggestion that the site was contrary to the adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan was, as pointed out within the Committee report, simply not the case – the site formed part of the Twigworth strategic allocation and there were no Neighbourhood Development Plan policies that precluded this type of development, therefore, the principle of housing here was clearly acceptable.  The key consideration for this application was whether the new dwellings would fit in to the wider layout of the housing scheme without compromising the comprehensive delivery of the masterplan and the illustrative design fully met the design expectations of the Joint Core Strategy.  The relationship with neighbouring plots would not result in amenity issues and County Highways confirmed there were no objections to the site access arrangements and that this was considered to be a sustainable location for housing.  He was aware of the local concern over drainage but, as Officers had correctly identified, this was not a matter that could lead to a refusal of permission in principle in this case.  Ultimately, there was a drainage solution for the site and that would need to be established and secured through the future technical details consent application; this was consistent with the advice and the outcomes in relation to all other applications that had been approved along Ash Lane and Brook Lane in the recent past.  The applicant’s agent concurred that the application accorded with the development plan overall and hoped Members would feel able to support it.

27.26        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor. It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  A Member indicated that he was very uncomfortable with permitting the application due to the concerns regarding drainage and sewage; he noted the informative at Page No. 95 of the Committee report which stated that, should the application progress to technical approval, Severn Trent had requested the submission of drainage proposals for comment at the earliest opportunity – he felt that was very sensible and was surprised the application was still before Members for determination in the absence of those proposals.  The Legal Adviser explained that the permission in principle process did not allow consideration of issues such as drainage at this stage; if it was considered acceptable based on location, amount and use, the applicant would need to come back with a technical details consent application which would include the necessary information to allow assessment of whether the drainage situation could be addressed - if it could not, the application could be refused at that stage.  She appreciated Severn Trent had made a submission in relation to the permission in principle application, nevertheless, it could not be addressed until the technical details consent stage.  The Member thanked the Legal Adviser for the explanation and indicated that he was aware of the limited scope within which permission in principle applications could be assessed; however, he continued to be uncomfortable with it.

27.27        Upon being put to the vote, it was

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