Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of up to 85 dwellings with public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS); all matters reserved except for means of vehicular and pedestrian access from Sandhurst Lane and a pedestrian access onto the A38.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Minded to refuse.

33.10        This application was for erection of up to 85 dwellings with public open space; landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS); all matters reserved except for means of vehicular and pedestrian access from Sandhurst Lane and a pedestrian access onto the A38.

33.11        The Senior Planning Officer advised that this application was brought to the Planning Committee further to the applicant’s appeal against non-determination of the application to the Secretary of State. The Council must therefore advise the Secretary of State of its views on the proposal.  The application site comprised a field of approximately 5.3 hectares, located on the northern side of the A38, Tewkesbury Road, Twigworth.  Existing residential properties on Tewkesbury Road lined the site and the site backed onto them.  Sandhurst Lane bounded the site to the east and the site was bounded by the tree-lined, private access lane to the west which led to the ‘Nature in Art’ Gallery and Museum; open fields/farmland lay to the northern boundary. The supporting Design and Access Statement noted that the site was currently in use as agricultural land for arable crop production use.  It did not fall within any national or local landscape designation and the south-western corner of the site, and the adjoining land beyond to the west and the north, were within Flood Zone 2 with the adjoining fields to the north and west within Flood Zone 3. The village settlement boundary, as defined by the adopted Down Hatherley, Norton and Twigworth Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP), ran along the southern and eastern boundaries of the site. As such, the site itself, with the exception of a small portion which lay between existing built development fronting the A38, fell outside of the identified settlement boundary.  A Public Right of Way ran parallel and just beyond the northern boundary of the site, continuing across Sandhurst Lane in an easterly/south-easterly direction until it reached the A38. The Twigworth Strategic Allocation site, which had been granted outline planning permission for 725 dwellings, was on the opposite side of the A38.

33.12        A number of heritage assets lay in relatively close proximity to the site including Twigworth Court, which lay to the western side of the Nature in Art access, and The Manor House, located towards the entrance to Sandhurst Lane on its eastern side.  Furthermore, a number of existing utilities either crossed the site or were located in close proximity to it.  A public sewer ran along the eastern site edge at the rear of the existing housing and a water main and low voltage cable ran along the southern boundary to the ‘Nature in Art’ access/lane. In addition, existing electricity and BT services run along the Sandhurst Lane frontage.  The current application sought outline planning permission for the erection of up to 85 dwellings and an indicative masterplan had been submitted to accompany the application which proposed a single point of vehicular access off Sandhurst Lane. The accompanying Design and Access Statement noted the presence of a remnant orchard within the south-eastern and eastern parts of the site adjoining the A38, containing a pond and mature trees which were proposed for retention within the indicative masterplan as part of new ‘wildlife areas’ to serve the development.   An assessment of the main material considerations was set out at Pages No. 99-115 of the Committee report and a number of key harms and benefits had been identified.  In terms of the principle of development, the application site was not allocated for housing development and did not meet any of the exceptions of Policy SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy or Policy RES3 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan.  The application therefore conflicted with Policies SP2 and SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy, Policy RES3 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Policy H2 of the Down Hatherley, Norton and Twigworth Neighbourhood Plan.  With regard to landscape and visual impact, Officers had sought the advice of an external landscape consultant who had concluded that, whilst the A38 provided a strong and defensible boundary and the landscape impact was, on balance, acceptable, it did not meet the landscape protection aims and objectives of Policy SD6 of the Joint Core Strategy and Policy E2 of the Down Hatherley, Norton and Twigworth Neighbourhood Development Plan. The application site comprised approximately 4.2 hectares of grade 2, 3a and 3b best and most versatile land; such land had some protection from development by virtue of national policy. The applicant’s argument to negate these concerns was that the site was small and the loss was not significant but that argument could be repeated for any land, leading to the gradual loss of such land to agricultural production and the suggested reasons for putative refusal reflected this issue.  In terms of highways and access, Officers noted that, whilst County Highways had some concerns relating to details of access to the site, the harms identified were not such that the application should be refused on the basis of highway danger or road safety for all users and it was considered that the concerns raised could be appropriately addressed through conditions recommended by the County Highways at the reserved matters stage. Officers therefore considered that the access arrangements put forward at this outline stage were acceptable in principle and would accord with relevant development plan policy.  In relation to design and layout, Paragraph 50 of the Down Hatherley, Norton and Twigworth Neighbourhood Development Plan stated that “A matter of profound importance to Twigworth is that, whatever growth level is ultimately determined, it should be delivered steadily over the plan’s period through a series of modest developments and not on a large site delivered in a short space of time. The NDP proposes an organic, piece by piece, approach to support sustainable growth in Twigworth in line with the available infrastructure.”  Notwithstanding the applicant’s attempts to argue that the submitted revised proposal overcame the previous reason for refusal, Officers considered that the quantum, non-linear character, layout, and location of the development proposed remained contrary to Joint Core Strategy Policy SD4, Policies RES3 and RES4 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Policy H2 of the Down Hatherley, Norton and Twigworth Neighbourhood Development Plan with regard to the location and character of development in the area.  In terms of residential amenity, Officers considered that the level of maximum residential development proposed, as set out on the illustrative masterplan, could be accommodated within the site without detriment to the residential amenity of existing adjoining occupiers within the village.  Officers were satisfied that the application was acceptable in terms of affordable housing, biodiversity and ecology, drainage and flood risk and heritage impact and were not contrary to policy.  Putative refusal reasons 4 and 5 addressed the fact that a Section 106 Agreement had not yet been completed; however, it was expected that those reasons could be satisfied prior to the inquiry.

33.13        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was minded to refuse and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member noted that Page No. 101, Paragraph 8.9 of the Committee report stated that the Down Hatherley, Norton and Twigworth Neigbourhood Development Plan had been made on 28 May 2019; Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework stated that Neighbourhood Development Plans needed to be two years or less, therefore, she sought clarification as to whether it was correct that it could be used as a reason for refusal and if that would be tested at appeal.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed that, whilst the Neighbourhood Development Plan would be said not to be up to date, it was a relevant matter in so far as it contained the views of the local community as to where development should be located and would be tested at appeal.  The Legal Adviser explained that the plan period for the Down Hatherley, Norton and Twigworth Neighbourhood Development Plan was 2011-2031 but it had only been formally made and adopted in 2019 and was still applicable.  The weight those policies could be afforded in terms of the five year housing land supply position would be explored at appeal but, just because the tilted balance was engaged did not mean those policies should be ignored; they may attract less weight when other factors were taken into account, for example, if they did not comply with the National Planning Policy Framework, but the Down Hatherley, Norton and Twigworth Neighbourhood Development Plan was made at the time of the National Planning Policy Framework so it should be in compliance and Officers would have considered this when producing the report and balanced it in the round.  In this case, the policies should still apply and be given weight in the decision-making process.  In terms of the updated position regarding the lack of a five year housing land supply, the Senior Planning Officer explained that was not so important here as the Council had, in its previous decision taken not too long ago, decided that the proposal for development of the land was objectionable and that decision was also taken at a time when the Council was unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply.  The Legal Adviser explained that the policies within the Down Hatherley, Norton and Twigworth Neighbourhood Development Plan did not allocate housing and were not, therefore, the important policies for applying the tilted balance in this case so she confirmed it was appropriate to reference the plan in the refusal reasons. 

33.14        It was proposed and seconded that the Council be minded to refuse the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That the Council be MINDED TO REFUSE the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.