Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Permission in principle for residential development of up to six dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

27.28        This was a permission in principle application for residential development of up to six dwellings.

27.29        The Senior Planning Officer advised that the application related to a parcel of land in Ash Lane which was an unadopted private road but had the feel of an adopted road and was lined on both sides by existing housing. The application was for a permission in principle, as provided for in the Town and Country Planning (Permission in Principle) Order 2017 and followed a recent successful application for permission in principle for up to four dwellings as part of the current application site and a previous full planning permission for two dwellings granted in April 2021 for the western part of the site.  Since the extant permission in principle for up to four dwellings had been granted there had been several changes which supported the current proposal for up to six dwellings on the site: the site area had been increased with additional land along the length of its northern boundary, facilitating an increase in the amount of development that could be accommodated on the site; and the immediate site context had changed with new housing developments to the north of the site, located to the rear of frontage housing on Ash Lane, being granted permission. The construction of two of these dwellings abutting the northern boundary of the application site had been completed which changed the relationship of the site with the existing built form of the area.  In terms of the principle of development, the site had been removed from the designated Green Belt as part of the boundary review during the adoption of the Joint Core Strategy and now formed part of the wider ‘safeguarded land’ to be retained for strategic purposes. Criterion 7 (iv) of Policy SD5 of the Joint Core Strategy set out that safeguarded areas were not allocated for development at the present time and planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land, except for uses that would not be deemed inappropriate within the Green Belt, would only be granted if a future review of the Joint Core Strategy deemed the release of the land necessary and appropriate and proposed development - that review was currently underway.  The National Planning Policy Framework allowed for limited infilling within the Green Belt and the planning history of the site indicated that the principle of development was already established on the site. The Neighbourhood Development Plan did not define a development boundary in Down Hatherley and that plan indicated there would be no allocations for housing in the Parish.  Having regard to the planning history of the site and the nature of the proposal as essentially ‘infilling’ in an already built-up frontage to the unadopted Ash Lane, the principle of a residential development at this site was considered acceptable and already established in terms of the National Planning Policy Framework and development policy, in particular, Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy Criteria 4ii. The Tewkesbury Borough Plan did not include Down Hatherley within the settlement hierarchy; however, Policy RES4 set out that, to support the vitality of rural communities and the continued availability of services and facilities in the rural areas, very small-scale residential development would be acceptable in principle, within and adjacent to the built-up area of other rural settlements, subject to the development complying with a number of criteria. For these reasons it was considered that the proposal would relate reasonably well to existing buildings and would be proportionate to the size and function of the settlement.  It was noted that concerns had been raised by Severn Trent Water, Down Hatherley Parish Council and the Council’s Land Drainage Engineer with regard to drainage and flood risk, as set out at Paragraphs 8.18-8.26 of the Committee report.  Within the scope of the permission in principle stage there was no objection to development of the site for residential purposes in terms of location and land use, access or amount of development. Nevertheless, the recommendation to permit the proposal would include an informative that set out the requirements for drainage to be considered for any subsequent technical approval.

27.30        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent advised that this application also sought permission in principle, this time for six dwellings; however, as set out in the Committee report, it was important to note that permission already existed on this site for a total of four dwellings across the land. As such, for all intents and purposes, this application was for two additional dwellings on a site that already had consent to be developed.  The Committee would be aware that several planning applications for new housing had been granted along this stretch of Ash Lane in recent times, including on the site immediately next door. This application was advanced on the same basis as the extant consent for housing on this site and the neighbouring approval, and under an identical policy context.  It was also in very close proximity to the Twigworth Urban Extension.  As set out in the Committee report, this development represented ‘infilling’ in the context of JCS Policy SD10 and Tewkesbury Borough Plan Policy RES4. The land in question had been removed from the Green Belt through the Joint Core Strategy and, whilst it was still classed as ‘safeguarded land’ that did not prevent development in principle. Officers had correctly identified that the planning balance fell firmly in favour of the grant of permission, particularly in light of the fact that the site already had an extant permission.  It had been established through previous assessments that the principle of housing was acceptable, subject to the properties respecting the character and layout of the wider area which was a matter for technical details consent.  The Parish Council had suggested that the site was contrary to the adopted Neighbourhood Development Plan but the applicant’s agent indicated that was not the case as there were no Neighbourhood Development Plan policies precluding development of this land, as had been confirmed by Officers. The key consideration was therefore the scale and layout of the development and whether it would fit in to the area. The illustrative layout showed a form of development that integrated nicely into the wider settlement pattern and fully met the design expectations of the Joint Core Strategy.  The relationship with neighbouring plots would not result in amenity issues and County Highways had confirmed there was no objection to the site access arrangements and that it was a sustainable location for housing.  As with the previous Agenda Item, the applicant’s agent was aware of the local concern over drainage, but as Officers had correctly identified, that was not a matter that could lead to a refusal of permission in principle in this case.  He concurred that the application accorded with the development plan overall, and hoped Members would feel able to support the application. 

27.31        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 noted that Ash Lane had the appearance of an adopted road but was not one and she confirmed it was privately maintained, as such, she sought assurance that arrangements could be put in place for access for these properties at the appropriate point. The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that would be the case.  A Member indicated that he did not wish to repeat the comments he had made in respect of the previous Agenda Item but they also applied in this case.

27.32        Upon being put to the vote, it was

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