PROPOSAL: Permission in principle application for the erection of up to six infill dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit. 

27.33        This was a permission in principle application for the erection of up to six dwellings. 

27.34        The Senior Planning Officer advised that this was similar to the previous application and was for up to six dwellings on ‘backland’ development between two existing dwellings on Ash Lane.  Access to the site was shown on the illustrative layout between the two existing dwellings and he confirmed there were no highway concerns and the site was a sufficient size to accommodate up to six dwellings.  A smaller part of the site had been granted permission in principle for two infill dwellings in 2021 and technical details consent had been granted in 2022.  The policy position was the same as the previous Agenda Item and the issues regarding drainage and flood risk which had been raised applied again in this case.  Third party concerns had been raised relating to the illustrative layout of the site; however, along with detailed drainage matters these would have to be addressed at the technical details consent stage.  He drew attention to the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, which indicated that Page No.113, Paragraph 5.2 of the Committee report needed to be updated to reflect that 10 letters of support for the application had been received.  It also set out that the applicant’s agent had indicated that the comment by Severn Trent regarding a pumping station being close to the site was erroneous and the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that, whilst it was not as near as Severn Trent had thought, it was in the vicinity of Ash Lane and the advice from Severn Trent regarding proximity to the pumping station was still applicable.

27.35        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee.  The applicant’s agent indicated that, as had been heard from Officers, Down Hatherley was a sustainable location for new housing in principle and had seen new small scale development in recent years.  This site already had full planning permission, granted in 2022, to build two larger properties and the scheme before Members today would make a more efficient use of the land.  Drawings had been provided to demonstrate six dwellings, which are envisaged to be bungalows, could easily be accommodated on the plot.  Tewkesbury Borough Plan 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 such as this would be acceptable in principle.  The proposed dwellings would be in character with the wider village which included development along Ash Lane set back from the main frontage. As such, the development was in accordance with the development plan and there was no policy conflict.  Neighbouring residents and the Parish Council had commented on drainage due to occasional issues with the sewers in the vicinity when stormwater had entered the system; this issue was being dealt with on a wider basis by Severn Trent which had raised no objection to this application. Further details on foul and surface water drainage were being worked on and would be provided as part of the technical details consent. The Committee report confirmed that: the site was not Green Belt; the proposal would constitute infilling in Down Hatherley; Severn Trent had no objection; the Council’s Land Drainage Engineer had no objection; Gloucestershire County Highways had no objection; and the Environmental Health Officer had no objection.  National and local planning policy recognised that small scale housing development was vital to sustain villages such as Down Hatherley and the applicant’s agent therefore asked that permission in principle be granted in line with the Officer recommendation and the decision on the previous two Agenda Items.

27.36        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 drew attention to Page No. 118, Paragraph 8.18 of the Committee report which set out that Severn Trent had indicated on 12 May 2023 that it had received and assessed the modelling report which showed a high risk of flooding, therefore it was unable to accept any new flows until upgrades had been delivered and he asked if there were any timescales for when the upgrades would be in place.  In response the Senior Planning Officer advised that discussions with Severn Trent continued to take place.  It had been recognised by Severn Trent that there were problems in the area but the upgrades were not within the current capital programme so there was no confirmed budget for that work.  Another Member noted that County Highways had raised no objection to the application and she questioned how a vehicle would be able to turn into the site given that it was a single lane road, and how emergency vehicles in particular would access the site.  In response, the County Highways representative explained that comments were limited to ‘objection’ or ‘no objection’ so that was a matter to be discussed at the technical details consent stage.  A Member assumed that, given Severn Trent could not connect to the existing sewerage system, there would need to be an underground storage tank or something similar and he asked whether County Highways was confident that a tanker could access the site.  The County Highways representative indicated that he was not able to comment on Severn Trent’s statement.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that, whilst he appreciated Members’ concerns, a septic tank solution was not the only potential solution - there were other possible options such as a package sewage treatment plant but, at this stage, it was not known what would be feasible.  Members were required to determine the application based on whether the site was suitable for the number of dwellings put forward by the applicant in terms of location, amount and access and it would be necessary to wait for the technical details consent to come forward to see what the applicant was proposing and that would be the time to have a discussion as to whether it was acceptable and appropriate.  The Development Management Manager provided assurance that the technical details consent stage would be subject to consultation so there would be a further opportunity for comments at that point.  A Member queried what the density would be and the Senior Planning Officer indicated that he did not have that information.  Another Member noted that Joint Core Strategy Policy SD10 discussed infilling outside of the Green Belt and, whilst he was aware there was no hard and fast definition, in his view, this development did not constitute infilling on the basis it was an expansion to the rear as opposed to between dwellings.

27.37        Upon being put to the vote, it was

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