PROPOSAL: Erection of between one and six dwellings.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Permit.

51.15        This was a permission in principle application for the erection of between one and six dwellings.

51.16        The Planning Officer advised that the site was located just outside of the defined housing development boundary, within a Special Landscape Area and a gap of local importance.  As explained within the Committee report, the Council could not demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing land and therefore the most important policies for determining the application were deemed out of date.  On that basis, the decision must be determined in accordance with paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework.  There would be some harm arising from the development through conflict with development plan policies and the spatial strategy relating to housing and landscape harm; however, the site was considered to be broadly sustainable and there would also be economic and social benefits as a result of the development.  It was considered that the identified harms would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, as such, the Officer recommendation was to permit the application.

51.17        The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to permit the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member sought clarification as to the scope of a permission in principle application and was reminded it was limited to location, land use and amount.  In response to a query as to whether the existing barns would be taken down, the Planning Officer advised as far as she was aware the corrugated metal structure would be removed as part of the development.  A Member noted that this application required a Committee determination due to an objection from the Parish Council on the grounds of the dwellings being too tall compared to existing properties and not being in keeping with the character and appearance of the street; however, his understanding was that these matters could not be considered at this stage of the process.  In response, the Development Management Team Manager (East) advised that these were not the exact comments made by the Parish Council in their entirety.  As detailed in the Committee report, the application had originally been for a greater number of units and this had been reduced through negotiation following which the Parish Council had been reconsulted.  It was possible to consider some elements of landscaping as part of the layout which was why it had been deemed appropriate to bring the application to Committee for determination.  A Member noted that the site was allocated as a gap of local importance within the Tewkesbury Borough Local Plan; she was concerned that applications such as this were eating away at the gap between Gotherington and Bishops Cleeve and asked if that was a reasonable consideration in relation to this permission in principle application.  The Development Management Team Manager (East) confirmed that the policy formed part of the development plan and had been taken into consideration in the planning judgement in relation to this application; in this instance, it was considered that the harm was outweighed by the benefits of bringing housing forward. 

51.18        It was proposed and seconded that the application be permitted in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The proposer of the motion recognised that the argument in respect of the strategic gap could not be relied on in terms of a reason for refusal but felt there were discussions to be had at the technical matters stage regarding design and layout given the need to be sensitive to the site and she asked that subsequent applications be brought to the Committee for determination.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

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