Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of four dwellings following the demolition of existing agricultural buildings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

40.2          This application was for erection of four dwellings following the demolition of existing agricultural buildings. 

40.3          The Development Management Team Manager (East) advised that this was a full application for the demolition of a range of existing agricultural buildings and the erection of four dwellings and associated infrastructure. The application related to a parcel of land at Moat Farm located to the northern edge of the village of Gotherington. The site had previously been utilised for agricultural and equestrian uses and currently comprised a number of existing agricultural buildings, formed around a yard area, which were associated with the surrounding agricultural land that was also in the applicant’s control. The site was currently accessed off Malleson Road via an existing domestic access and a farm track to the south-west.  The north-western corner of the site was located within a designated Special Landscape Area, which provided the foreground setting for the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, to the north of Gotherington, and to the east of the site was a public footpath which linked to Malleson Road.  The nearby Moat Farmhouse was considered to be a non-designated heritage asset.  It was noted that the site was wholly located within Flood Zone 1.  It was proposed that the site would be laid in a courtyard arrangement and the amenity space would project out from the dwellings, leading to a concentrated built form in the centre of the site. The buildings were designed to reflect the existing functional agricultural character of the site. The finished materials would include timber cladding, standing seam roofs and metal sheet cladding in order to maintain the functional appearance of the site.  An assessment of the main material considerations was set out in the Committee report and identified a number of key harms and benefits.  The application site was located adjacent to Gotherington which was identified as a Service Village in the Joint Core Strategy hierarchy and was recognised by Joint Core Strategy Policy SP2 as a location where dwellings would be provided to meet the identified housing needs of Tewkesbury Borough; however, the site was predominantly outside of the defined settlement boundary and was not allocated for housing through the development plan. It was therefore necessary to assess whether there were any material considerations which indicated whether a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.  The Committee report set out the impacts that the application was likely to have upon the landscape character of the area, amenity to existing and proposed residents, the highway network and the nearby heritage asset.  No objections had been raised by any statutory consultees and whilst the site was located outside of the settlement boundary, it was considered to represent sustainable development on the edge of a Service Village.  Given the current position regarding the Council’s five year housing land supply, although there was some harm arising from the conflict with the spatial housing policies, significant weight should be given to the provision of sustainable housing where none of the identified harms would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the overall planning balance.  It was therefore recommended that the application be permitted, subject to the conditions listed within the report.  An outline application for 42 dwellings on the site had been refused by the Planning Committee in 2014 and an appeal dismissed by the Planning Inspector on the grounds of landscape impact and the setting of the heritage asset.  Members were advised that a late representation had been received from the County Archaeologist after the publication of the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, responding to the concerns raised by the Parish Council regarding the destruction of ridge and furrow and the medieval moat.  The County Archaeologist had advised that the ridge and furrow was not of any particular merit and was not a scheduled ancient monument; however, the moat could be of some interest and recommended the inclusion of a pre-commencement condition to carry out mitigation on the site.  The applicant had accepted this condition and was happy to move forward on that basis. 

40.4          The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that his family had lived and run businesses at Moat Farm for the past 60 years and had decided it would be a good opportunity to create a unique, individual, self-built development on the footprint of the existing agricultural buildings.  The one house and three bungalows had been designed for their own occupation.  It would mean a lot to them to be able to remain at Moat Farm, in the village where they had lived for most of their lives, and they intended to use local trades for the majority of the construction work.

40.5          The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member sought clarification as to whether the applicant was on the self-build register.  In response, the Development Management Team Manager (East) advised that when an application was submitted, there was an opportunity to declare the proposal as self-build on the application form by ticking the relevant section; it was also expected that this would be included in the description of development.  In this instance it had not been declared as self-build and the applicant was not on the self-build register; however, this did not preclude the applicant from self-building.  In response to a Member query regarding how the farm would continue without the existing agricultural buildings, the Development Management Team Manager (East) explained that the applicant had advised that, once the existing farm buildings had been removed and residential development implemented, the remaining land would be rented by a nearby farmer who would not require any buildings.

40.6          It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to the inclusion of a standard pre-commencement archaeology condition to allow mitigation to take place regarding the moat, and, upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be PERMITTED in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to the inclusion of a standard pre-commencement archaeology condition to allow mitigation to take place regarding the moat.