Agenda item

PROPOSAL: Erection of 48 dwellings with associated infrastructure and amenities along with demolition of an existing dwelling on land to the west of Willow Bank Road, Alderton.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated permit.

45.9          This application was for the erection of 48 dwellings with associated infrastructure and amenities along with demolition of an existing dwelling on land to the west of Willow Bank Road, Alderton.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 17 November 2023.

45.10        The Senior Planning Officer advised that the application was submitted in full and proposed the erection of 48 dwellings, including 40% affordable housing provision.  Vehicular access to the development would be achieved via a new vehicular access off Willow Bank Road and a secondary pedestrian access to the site was proposed via the existing vehicular track located between No. 56 and No. 54 Willow Bank Road.  The dwellings would be located throughout the site, with the majority of the existing vegetation belt running north/south within the northern part of the site being retained.  A Locally Equipped Area of Play (LEAP) and an orchard were also proposed as part of the application.  Existing hedgerows bounding the site to the south, west and north were to be retained and a Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) attenuation pond was proposed in the south west corner.  The site itself extended to 2.62 hectares and was currently used for grazing horses. The site was located within the Special Landscape Area as defined within the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and was located outside of, but immediately adjacent to, the residential development boundary of Alderton as defined in the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan.  In respect of the principle of development, the application lay outside of the defined settlement boundary of Alderton and in conflict with the spatial strategy of the development plan and Policies SP2 and SD10 of the Joint Core Strategy, Policy RES3 of the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Policy H1 of the Alderton Neighbourhood Development Plan.  This was the starting point for the determination of the application; however, the Council was in a situation where it could not demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing sites, therefore, in accordance with Paragraph 11d and footnote 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework, these policies were treated as out-of-date and should not be afforded full weight in the decision-making process.  Due to the absence of a five year supply of deliverable sites, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole.  In the circumstances of this application, the appeal site was immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary of Alderton which was defined as a Service Village in the Joint Core Strategy. Taking account of the proximity of the site to the settlement boundary, and the quantum of dwellings proposed, Officers did not consider that the harms arising from the conflict with the spatial strategy amounted to an adverse impact that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development.  Officers also acknowledged there had been significant residential development in Alderton in recent years - should this planning permission be granted it would be an additional 193 dwellings so far in the plan period, amounting to a 69% increase in size of Alderton Village.  Officers recognised in the Committee report there would be a moderate harmful impact on the social wellbeing and cohesion within Alderton arising from this proposed development; however, in recent years this matter had been dealt with at appeals and the Inspectors had frequently commented that it did not amount to significant harm.  Notwithstanding this, Officers had negotiated a comprehensive package of planning obligations to enhance existing community infrastructure to accommodate the increased population which was considered would assist in mitigating the impact of the development with regard to community cohesion and social wellbeing.  In terms of landscape impact harms, mitigation measures had been secured via the Section 106 obligations which included a contribution to allotments and playing pitches.  The application site was relatively well screened by existing hedgerows and trees and Officers considered that the landscape harms were a matter which weighed moderately against the proposals in the planning balance.  Overall, Officers concluded this was a case where the tilted balance was engaged through the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework.  The delivery of 48 market and affordable houses would provide a significant social benefit and there would also be associated economic benefits from the proposal.  Officers considered that the harms arising from the proposed development would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits in the overall planning balance.  It was noted that residents had objected based on the impact on Willow Bank Road and the Senior Planning Officer advised there was a separation distance of 2.5 metres between the rear elevations and the existing dwellings and hedgerow was proposed to be planted along the boundary to mitigate the impact.

45.11        The Chair invited a representative from Alderton Parish Council to address the Committee.  The Parish Council representative indicated that the Parish Council understood that Tewkesbury Borough Council was unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and that there was a new Interim Housing Position Statement which sought to provide guidance on which types of locations and housing schemes would be acceptable; however, for a number of reasons, the Parish Council did not consider that this scheme/location was appropriate.  This site had previously been refused planning permission after a similar tilted balance argument fell in favour of refusal due to the site location being an almost separate self-contained and introverted development with very little connection and integration to Alderton; this lack of integration remained and, as the identified harm to social wellbeing and community cohesion had attracted moderate weight – the village had since had a further two estates, another 75 units, allowed at appeal - the Parish Council considered the cumulative impact of such rapid expansion over the last seven years now attracted significant weight.  The Interim Housing Position Statement sought to guide development to appropriate and sustainable locations and, whilst the village was identified as a Service Village, it had few and declining facilities.  There were no secondary or further education facilities, no employment opportunities, no medical facilities, no meaningful retail or leisure facilities and all facilities must be accessed by car which did not address carbon reduction or climate change objectives.  The design and layout reflected a homogenous suburban estate which paid little regard to the interrelationship between urban form and countryside which currently consisted of bungalows abutting the countryside. This scheme was two storey which would cause significant visual intrusion into the open countryside.  The mix of dwellings did not reflect local needs for smaller units; there was an abnormally high proportion of four or more bedroom executive style houses which did not respect the Council’s housing needs assessment.  The Parish Council understood that such schemes needed to be assessed on a case by case basis but with landscape harm, significant social harm due to cumulative impact, a backland introverted site with limited connection to the village, an inappropriate housing mix, failure to achieve meaningful Biodiversity Net Gain and failure to comply with the Council’s spatial strategy for allocating housing close to existing sustainable centres of Tewkesbury, Cheltenham and Gloucester, the tilted balance argument should once again fall in favour of refusal.

45.12        The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident indicated that he had been aware that planning permission had been refused when purchasing his property in 2019.  The main reasons for refusal were car headlights to the front of 37 Willow Bank Road - that issue had now moved further down to 59 Willow Bank Road – and on the basis that it was a backland scheme, classed as a separate self-contained introverted development, with little connection and integration with Alderton, causing harm to social cohesion.  From what he could see there had been no change aside from the proposed thoroughfare between 54 Willow Bank Road and 56 Willow Bank Road.  He felt it was totally unacceptable for people to be able to walk back and forth, day and night, past his side ground floor bedroom windows causing disturbance and loss of privacy.  He did not believe this was the right place to build yet more homes in Alderton and he could honestly say he had never in his wildest dreams visualised a four bedroom two storey house with the gable end only three metres from his west facing rear fence - it could not have been in a worse position for his property which had the shortest garden at under 20m and would cast an enormous shadow in the evening covering the majority of it.  He was aware that the size of this property and the distance from his dwelling was within acceptable regulations but he asked for a compromise by reducing this single property to a two bedroom bungalow which would reduce the impact greatly.  He recognised that housing was needed across the country and that it was common practice for social, affordable and private homes to be built on the same development but he felt there was a difference in choosing to buy a private property on these sites, where you accepted that neighbouring properties would be rented and part-owned, and having that decision made for you.  Whilst he felt this was the wrong place to put another estate of houses, if the Committee was minded to permit the application he urged them to consider revisiting this plot to see if the developer could reduce the size of that particular property in order to have less of an impact.  He welcomed any compromise that would improve this life changing decision Members were about to make on his behalf.

45.13        The Chair invited the applicant’s agent to address the Committee. The applicant’s agent firstly thanked Officers for their professionalism in dealing with this application. Being a Planning Officer was no easy job but they had been robust in ensuring the application before Members was as good as it could be which was reflected by there being no Officer or statutory consultee objections. Whilst Officers were strongly supportive, they understood that Alderton Parish Council and many local residents did not want more housing in the village, in this location in particular.  This created a difficult situation but it was absolutely not their intention to be in conflict with the borough’s communities; although there was clearly a need for more homes across the borough - not least affordable homes - that was not how all existing residents saw it.  The applicant’s agent felt that the best thing developers could do was to minimise the impact on residents and ensure tangible and funded benefits actually reached the existing community and that was what they had tried to do.  In previous applications in Alderton, they had been told the community did not feel like they had benefitted from the development process. As such, they had sought guidance from Officers who, in conjunction with the Parish Council, had drafted a list of things in the village that required funding.  A contribution of £150,000 had been agreed via the Section 106 Agreement to directly fund a wide range of things the community valued, including money towards school bus services; sports facilities, including the village playing field; improvements to the village hall; compostable toilets at the allotments; and recycling bins.  It was hoped that as many people as possible would benefit and that investment in community facilities would support social cohesion. In addition, a local lettings condition had been suggested so existing residents were considered first for the affordable homes.  It was recognised that the location of the site within the settlement would impact those who lived closest and, in order to minimise that, the number of homes had been reduced from 56 to 48; the homes had been positioned to maximise the distance between new and existing properties; additional landscaping would strengthen the existing mature hedges; the access was located to minimise disruption to neighbouring properties and was positioned to avoid headlight glare into any homes opposite the site.  The applicant’s agent reiterated that they accepted the development would affect those who lived nearest but hoped Members would see they had tried to minimise the impact on existing residents whilst ensuring real benefits for this community.  He indicated that the applicant was fully committed to delivering a zero carbon scheme of high-quality, low energy homes, with priority given to local people for the 19 much-needed affordable homes.

45.14        The Chair invited a local Ward Member for the area to address the Committee.  The local Ward Member indicated that the principle reason for objecting to this application was around unsustainability and the specific location which was unacceptable for many reasons including landscape grounds.  Alderton as a village had already had far too much development; it was a Service Village based on a single shop which opened far too infrequently.  Whilst he recognised that applications for housing must be considered when they came forward, he took issue at the comment there was strong support for this scheme.  At the heart of it was impact on the community and the village was being swamped bit by bit with the level of recently added new housing without the necessary infrastructure to support it - the main sewage line out of the village was suspended across the field due to inadequate infrastructure.  This was an unsafe and inappropriate location for new housing and planning permission should be refused to give relief to the residents of Alderton.

45.15        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Development Management Manager to permit the application, subject to any additional or amended conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement, and sought a motion from the floor.  A Member queried how many houses had been envisaged for Alderton when it had been included as a Service Village in the Joint Core Strategy and whether reliance on the private motor car was still an important factor when considering sustainability.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer advised that none of the individual Service Villages in the Joint Core Strategy had been given a specific requirement for housing in the plan process but there was a general requirement for 850 dwellings across all Service Villages.  From memory, the housing background papers which formed part of the Joint Core Strategy evidence base mentioned 56 houses for Alderton; however, 850 was now out of date due to the lack of a five year housing land supply and local housing need so the figure had increased from 56.  It was certainly the case that the amount of development in Alderton was well beyond the evidence base initially identified in the Joint Core Strategy and the Council had highlighted this at a number of appeals and inquiries yet the figure of 56 was an indicative requirement, not quoted in planning policy, and this needed to be considered in terms of how it played into the benefits and harms, i.e. what was the difference between 56 houses and 100 houses in terms of harm, and that was what Officers considered in the planning balance.  With regard to sustainability, Service Villages had been allocated in the Joint Core Strategy on the basis of a minimum number of services in terms of shops, public houses and schools with some having more than others.  Inevitably new residents of Alderton would be reliant on the private car to some extent but that in itself was not a reason to refuse the application.  The Member indicated that he had been under the impression that numbers had been allocated to individual Service Villages and expressed the view that reliance on the private car may as well be removed as a factor when considering sustainability of housing developments.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that Policy SP2 stated that, in Service Villages, lower levels of development would be allocated by the Tewkesbury Borough Plan and Neighbourhood Development Plans proportional to their size and function and reflecting their proximity and accessibility to Cheltenham and Gloucester, taking into account environmental, economic and social impacts.  The allocations were informed by the housing background papers which had looked at the characteristics of Alderton and considered that somewhere in the order of 50 or 60 houses was appropriate.  Policy SD2 was out of date due to the lack of a five year housing land supply and could not be given full weight in the plan-making process so the figure of 850 houses was no longer up to date and it was necessary to look at the planning merits of the case and tangible harm arising from an increased population.  Reliance on the private car was a material consideration but this needed to be considered in the context of Tewkesbury Borough as a whole and the options in terms of sustainability, for instance, Alderton did have a bus service.  The Development Management Manager advised that a lot of learning had gone on over the last 12 months in terms of the housing land supply position and specific appeal decisions in other villages as well as Alderton, as referenced within the Committee report - Page No. 65, Paragraph 8.20 of the Committee report set out that two planning permissions had been allowed at appeal despite Officers and Members being of the view that the cumulative growth in Alderton in such a short space of time would have a negative impact on social wellbeing and cohesion.  Whilst Officers shared Members’ concerns, the Committee report gave a thorough and up-to-date picture of the balance which had to be made between the benefits, harms and neutral aspects of the application; it was not a straightforward assessment based on housing numbers but was also about the impact and mitigations - the applicant had responded positively to some of these legitimate and reasonable concerns.

45.16        A Member noted the Parish Council had raised concern regarding the increased risk of off-site flooding and inadequate capacity in the gulley system off Willow Bank Road but the Lead Local Flood Authority had raised no objection to the application and he sought a comment on that.  The Senior Planning Officer advised that the Lead Local Flood Authority had raised concern with the original application and a revised drainage strategy had been submitted in response to those comments.  The revised strategy attenuated into a SuDS pond in the southwest corner of the site, run-off was at greenfield rate into the field to the south and Officers were satisfied with this revised scheme.  Another Member noted comments made by the applicant’s agent regarding working with the local community to mitigate impact but the comments made by the local resident today had resonated with her and she questioned whether this could be addressed as part of the delegation to Officers, should Members be minded to permit the application.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer confirmed he had visited the resident’s property and looked closely at the plans both before and after visiting.   As set out in the Additional Representations Sheet, attached at Appendix 1, Officers had liaised with the applicant and agreed for the side facing bedroom window to be removed from Plot 13.  In addition, discussions with the applicant suggested there may be scope to reduce the scale of that property and, if Members were minded to grant delegated permission, that could be explored with the applicant; however, it should be borne in mind there would be some changes to the proximity of the affordable housing to accommodate that.  The Development Management Manager advised that Officers looked at rear to rear distances which were expected to be 22 metres or more; where it was rear to gable that distance was expected to be reduced.  A higher threshold would be achieved over and above what would ordinarily be asked for in terms of the rear to gable relationship but it was within the gift of the Committee to look at that if there was a strong desire to do so.  The Member appreciated that the separation distances went beyond the usual expectations but she felt there was a human element to consider as well and if it was possible to address these concerns to satisfy the majority of people it would make for a better community.

45.17        A Member asked whether the Council had been able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply when the original application was refused and the appeal dismissed.  She noted that 134 public objections had been received, which equated to roughly one fifth of the adult population of Alderton, and she questioned when that was classed as significant, rather than moderate, harm to a community.  In addition, she sought clarification as to how the figures in the Section 106 obligations in relation to delivering school transport had been determined and how the developer would be held accountable for delivery.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer advised that the Council did not have a five year housing land supply at the time the appeal scheme was dismissed but the overriding reason for the dismissal was the vehicular access arrangements; cars would have travelled through what was now the pedestrian access with residential dwellings on either side and headlights shining into the dwelling to the east.  Other harms including social cohesion and landscape harm were seen to have a minor impact.  The current arrangements were materially different to the dismissed appeal in terms of vehicular access.  Whilst Officers fully understood the concerns of the community, the number of objections was not a determinative factor in itself, it was about what was raised in the objections which, in this case, was symptomatic of concerns regarding social cohesion and social impacts which Officers had worked with the applicant to try to mitigate.  The County Highways representative explained that, over the course of the application process, the County Council’s Education and Transport teams had been informed of the level of development and, whilst he did not know the detail of this particular case, the figure within the Section 106 was calculated using a specific formula.  The Legal Adviser explained that the Section 106 Agreement was a legal obligation between the landowner/developer and Gloucestershire County Council which, as a public body, had to act reasonably and in the public interest.  The Section 106 Agreement would specify exactly how the money would be spent within a certain timeframe and would usually include a clause to cover it not being spent within that time – the County Council was under a contractual obligation to use the money for the specified purposes.

45.18        A Member noted that the applicant’s agent had stated that the homes would be zero carbon but she could not see any solar panels on the plans and asked how that would be achieved.  In response, the Senior Planning Officer explained that the applicant had advised that the scheme would be zero carbon but that was a matter for the developer; Tewkesbury Borough Council did not have a planning policy to insist on the developer delivering such a scheme.  Some units did have solar panels but this was a matter outside of the planning process.  The County Highways representative advised that building regulations required all new build dwellings to have charging facilities for electric vehicles.  A Member noted that condition 15, set out at Page No. 87 of the Committee report, required a residential welcome pack promoting sustainable forms of access to the development to be provided to each resident at the point of first occupation of the dwelling and she asked how this would be enforced.  The County Highways representative advised that the contribution would be secured via the Section 106 Agreement and that condition 15 was a standard condition.  A Member asked whether County Highways had looked solely at the access out of the site or if the junction with the B4077 had also been considered as that was where the majority of residents left the village and the development would generate increased traffic onto that junction which was an accident hotspot, particularly the junction between Gretton Road and the Hobnails Inn where there had been a fatal accident along that stretch of fast road.  The County Highways representative advised that the transport assessment forecast very few traffic movements as a result of the development with 29 and 27 two-way vehicle movements in the AM and PM peak hours respectively.  Willow Bank Road had a traffic flow of less than 200 so there were no issues from a capacity point of view.  The highways report showed there had been two personal injury accidents in the vicinity of the site within the last five years, on or near the junction between Willow Bank Road and the B4077, which were classified as serious but there was no pattern of highway safety deficiencies which indicated there was a problem with the road network.

45.19        In response to a request for a summary of the benefits of the scheme, the Senior Planning Officer advised that these were outlined at Page No. 81, Paragraphs 9.6-9.8 of the Committee report and included the delivery of market and affordable housing which had been given significant weight in the Officer report – some may have given greater weight to the affordable housing which had significant social benefits.  There would also be economic benefits during and post construction through the creation of new jobs and supporting existing local services.  Whilst the harm to social cohesion was recognised, there were also benefits of expanding the population of Alderton which currently had an older demographic and there would be benefits through the Section 106 Agreement contributions which were directly and reasonably related to the development itself and would bring wider community benefits in terms of enhanced facilities.  The harms, as set out at Page No. 82, Paragraphs 9.9-9.12 of the Committee report, included harmful conflict with the planning process, social cohesion, landscape impact and some harm to residential amenity; however, this had to be considered in the context of the tilted balance and whether those harms significantly and demonstrably outweighed the benefits and Officers did not consider the harms to be unacceptable in this instance.  A Member drew attention to Page No. 79, Paragraph 8.115 of the Committee report which set out that Gloucestershire County Council had sought transport contributions towards the secondary age establishments with spare capacity rather than increasing capacity at the closest school; however, a lot of parents would not be able to afford to use a bus service and she asked if it was possible to subsidise the cost via the Section 106 Agreement.  In response, the County Highways representative understood that would be the case.

45.20        A Member indicated that he could not support this development; an application for housing on this site had already been dismissed at appeal at a time when the Council did not have a five year housing land supply and he felt this should be refused on the same grounds.  The site would not be well screened, residents would be dependent on the private car as there was no reliable bus service and the offer in the shop was limited and opening hours were sporadic.  The Development Management Manager advised that access was the main reason for the previous appeal dismissal and, as previously advised, this had been revised in the current application to address those concerns.  Negotiations had taken place with the developer to mitigate the concerns in respect of social cohesion as set out in the Committee report.  He reiterated there had been a lot of learning over the last 12 months in terms of how appeal decisions we approached on these types of schemes and the Officer recommendation was based on an assessment of a broad range of issues.  Very clear reasons would be needed if Members were minded to refuse the application and he was not sure those had been put forward as yet.  The Legal Adviser explained that Officers were suggesting that this scheme addressed the issues regarding the previous appeal decision and reliance on those points to justify a refusal in this instance could be grounds for unreasonable behaviour in the event of an appeal.  It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused on the basis that it was outside of the Alderton settlement boundary in an unsuitable location due to the lack of services and reliance on the private motor car, landscape impact, harmful cumulative impact of development including on the social cohesion, wellbeing and vitality of Alderton and the design and layout of the scheme regarding the amenity impact on No. 54 and No. 56 Willow Bank Road.  The seconder of the motion indicated that the Inspector’s appeal statement contained anecdotal comments about use of the shop and there was no evidence that people moving into the area would sustain the services; there was already pressure on medical facilities in Winchcombe and she did not feel Alderton could sustain this level of development.

45.21        A Member expressed the view that there must come a point where Alderton had too much development and continuing to allow applications for housing would destroy the community cohesion in the village.  When she had first become a Borough Councillor eight years ago, Alderton had around 200 houses which had since increased by 69%.  The only bus service which could be relied upon was the one which went to Winchcombe School and a contribution was being sought from Gloucestershire County Council towards diverting the existing bus service in the area to provide a transport solution for secondary school students.  Elderly people could not shop locally due to the small range of goods stocked but there was no contribution towards a bus service to and from Winchcombe meaning people would have to rely on their cars to get around.  She believed that enough was enough and it was not sustainable to allow further development in that area.  The Inspector’s appeal decision in 2015 indicated that substantial expansion was causing harm to social wellbeing and community cohesion and the vitality of Alderton itself which was contrary to Paragraphs 17 and 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  Whilst there had been some amendments to the vehicular access to the site to reduce the burden on No. 54 and No. 56 Willow Bank Road, there was still a route between the two houses and impact at the bottom of the garden.  As had been seen on the site visit, the majority of properties on Willow Bank Road were bungalows which would potentially be looking onto two storey homes.  In her opinion, and that of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) and the Parish Council, enough was enough and the application should be refused on the grounds given by the Inspector in 2015 i.e. unacceptable harm to social cohesion and the living conditions of the occupants of No. 54 and No. 56 Willow Bank Road.  Furthermore, County Highways had not checked the junction onto the main road where there were recorded accidents.  She was happy to support a refusal and considered that further development should not be allowed without the infrastructure or community facilities needed for this amount of homes. 

45.22        Another Member indicated that he would like to support the motion to refuse the application in principle; however, on this occasion he did not feel able to.  There had been significant residential development in Alderton with a number of planning applications having been allowed on appeal despite the case being made that there had been enough development in the village and he was concerned that, if this application was refused, it would go to appeal and the Inspector may consider the Council had behaved unreasonably.  Another Member shared this view and indicated that no planning application, especially one of this size, was without its harms but, on balance, she felt it should be permitted.  The reasons for the previous appeal being dismissed had been addressed and the impact on social cohesion had been mitigated as far as it could be.  She pointed out that more people worked from home and were able to shop online which had not been taken into account when considering reliance on cars.  A Member indicated that, once again, he found himself frustrated with the planning system.  The 2015 appeal Inspector considered that a 36-37% increase in the size of the village was substantial and there was no suggestion that the 69% increase now faced was not substantial; the Inspector had also recognised the unacceptable harm to occupants of Willow Bank Road yet he was in agreement with the previous speaker that an appeal would not go in the Council’s favour.  Impact on social cohesion had been rebutted in recent planning appeals so it appeared this no longer held the weight it once did and he would not wish for the Council to incur massive costs for no gain, therefore, he could not support the proposal to refuse the application.  The Development Management Manager recognised the serious concerns the Committee had with the proposal but these had been explored in planning terms in the assessment and the balance was set out in the report.  The social cohesion and health and wellbeing points had been well debated and there was some comfort in the Section 106 contributions being provided for a range of facilities including artificial grass pitches, indoor bowls, sports halls, swimming pools, community centre, playing pitches and allotments.  Legitimate concerns had been raised regarding the impact on residential amenity for occupants of No. 54 Willow Bank Road and that could be addressed under delegated authority, should Members be minded to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

45.23        A Member indicated that ideally the application would be refused on the basis there were significant harms and he also wanted to know when enough was enough; even the Inspector at some point must agree that time would come.  The application was before Members due to the tilted balance being engaged so there was an assumption it would be permitted and he understood that the risk of appeal and costs being awarded against the Council weighed heavily.  He personally felt there had been enough development in Alderton, which was losing its identity, and that villages ought to be protected.  The Development Management Manager clarified that the Officer recommendation was not an assumption on the basis that the tilted balance was in play; the application had been carefully assessed on the difficult planning issues, taking into account the policy implications and the balance that must be struck in terms of learning from recent appeal decisions throughout the borough.  Officers had taken a view on the relative impact of this scheme, for instance, the moderate impact of the harm to social cohesion – there may be other considerations on other sites which may be more significant and weigh more heavily in the planning balance. 

45.24        Upon being put to the vote, the motion to refuse the application was lost.  It was subsequently proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Development Management Manager to permit the application subject to any additional or amended conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement and further discussions with the developer to mitigate the impact on residential amenity of No. 54 Willow Bank Road.  A Member asked if it was possible to strengthen the proposal by removing the end property from the design on the basis that it was too imposing on No. 54 Willow Bank Road.  She drew attention to condition 12, set out at Page No, 86 of the Committee report, which required visibility splays to be permanently kept free of all obstructions and she asked whether double yellow lines would be used to stop parking and if that was enforceable.  With regard to condition 14 she sought clarification as to what was meant by an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing on Willow Bank Road.  In response, the County Highways representative advised that the uncontrolled crossing would be a dropped kerb with tactile paving.  As correctly stated, visibility splays would be required to be kept clear of physical obstructions and whilst it was possible to consider double yellow lines if parking was blocking the splays, that was not something which was proposed at this stage.  The Member raised concern that it would be unenforceable and asked how it was intended it would be monitored.  The Legal Adviser indicated that if complaints were received the Planning Enforcement team would investigate and take appropriate steps otherwise it would be a breach of the planning conditions.  The County Highways representative advised that traffic regulations could be enforced but this would be periodic which was no different to any other access with a condition for a visibility splay.  In terms of the end property, the Development Management Manager advised that the separation distances were acceptable in planning terms and it would not be reasonable to take away a property through the delegation as that would also impact on the housing mix on site; however, it was possible to look at the scale of the property.

45.25        Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Development Management Manager to PERMIT the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to any additional or amended conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement and further discussions with the developer to mitigate the impact on residential amenity of No. 54 Willow Bank Road.