PROPOSAL: Hybrid planning application seeking:

A. Full permission for the use of land as public amenity space (Including community woodland, pedestrian access, play space and biodiversity enhancements).

B. Outline planning permission for seven affordable (discounted market) dwellings with all matters reserved for future consideration.

C. Outline planning permission for eight market dwellings with all matters reserved for future consideration.

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Refuse.

62.9           This was a hybrid planning application seeking full permission for the use of land as public amenity space (including community woodland, pedestrian access, play space and biodiversity enhancements); outline planning permission for seven affordable (discounted market) dwellings with all matters reserved for future consideration; and outline planning permission for eight market dwellings with all matters reserved for future consideration.  The Planning Committee had visited the application site on Friday 16 February 2024.

62.10         The Principal Planner advised that the application site comprised 2.4 hectares of land retained by the applicants after the farm was developed into Brickhampton Golf Club, club house and driving range in 1990. In 1994, eight new houses were built on the original footprint of the farmhouse and buildings at Greenfields and Fairways Drive.  The site was not located within the settlement boundary of Churchdown and Innsworth but the settlement boundary ran along the southern boundary of the site, Highgrove Estate.  To the west, the site was bound by the Nato Allied Force Base and the majority of the site was bound to the north and east by Brickhampton Golf Club with the middle portion of the site bound by the residential development at Greenfields and Fairways Drive.  The application site was physically separated from Highrove Estate by a small watercourse and a strong line of trees and hedges which provided a high degree of physical separation between the site and the settlement boundary.  In relation to site designations, the site was located within the Green Belt and a Public Right of Way ran along the eastern boundary.  In terms of consultees, there were objections from Churchdown Parish Council due to Green Belt policy and highway safety, and from the Housing Strategy and Enabling Officer due to physical separation of the affordable units from the market sale units and the proposed tenure type not meeting the identified need for the borough.  Having assessed the scheme, Officers believed the application should be refused as it was not an appropriate location for new residential development; the proposal would result in harmful encroachment into open countryside and would appear as an unacceptable intrusion, diminishing the existing sense of transition between the settlement and the open countryside; it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would unacceptably reduce its openness and conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt; the applicant had failed to demonstrate how the affordable housing would be provided in a seamless and integrated manner and the proposed tenure type did not meet the identified need for the borough; the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the pedestrian connections shown on the illustrative masterplan could be achieved; and, in the absence of a completed planning obligation, the proposed development did not adequately provide for education and affordable housing contributions or refuse and recycling facilities.

62.11         The Chair invited a local resident speaking in objection to the application to address the Committee.  The local resident advised that he was speaking on behalf of residents who had set out clear and significant policy-based conflicts in their written submissions dated from November 2022 to September 2023; they endorsed the Officer’s recommended reasons for refusal.  The main issue in the determination of this application was the Green Belt and the proposal was, without any doubt or question, inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  It did not constitute any of the permissible exceptions for allowing development in the Green Belt.  It would seriously and significantly reduce openness and conflict with the purposes of the designated land.  Moreover, this harm would occur in a segment of the Green Belt where the expert evidence assessed land to be of the highest value in terms of its contribution to Green Belt purposes.  As a result, the proposal would cause very significant harm to the Green Belt.  The applicant had singularly failed to demonstrate any credible evidence that very special circumstances existed that would outweigh that considerable harm.  The current absence of a five year housing land supply did not trigger the tilted balance in this case and Green Belt protection prevailed.  The Council would undoubtedly need to approve greenfield developments on unallocated sites in the coming years but they did not need to do so on Green Belt land, and doing so would drive a coach and horses through national and local planning policies.  Local residents had pointed out in 2022 that the claimed affordable housing content was an illusion and provided no sound basis for allowing this application - the scheme did not include any affordable housing by any meaningful definition.  They had also set out that, irrespective of the Green Belt designation, this was an unsustainable location for new housing. The nearest shop was the Tesco store at Churchdown, which was a walked route of 1.75 kilometres - the notion of walking a round trip of 3.5 kilometres for basic provisions was unrealistic. Overall, the proposal was in serious conflict with national policy and clearly not in accordance with the development plan. There were no material considerations that would direct a determination other than in accordance with the plan.   The local resident urged Members to make a sound planning decision and refuse this unacceptable development and protect the Green Belt which national and local policy said was of ‘great importance’.

62.12         The Chair invited the applicant to address the Committee.  The applicant explained that he was born in Churchdown and had been involved in the development of the golf course and its residential houses since 1969.  He was not a property developer but, as with the golf course and houses, had looked to ensure the retained land was developed in a sustainable manner with a balanced mix of community assets, affordable and market houses for local residents and their families.  The application had been with the Council for 18 months and appeared before the Planning Committee today with a recommendation to refuse based on a few key points which Members were not obliged to follow.  He intended to set out how and why Members could make their own decision to grant planning permission in a way that would respect the integrity of the development plan policies and not weaken its protection over other land in the borough.  Firstly, the site was in the Green Belt but a perfectly legitimate conclusion could be reached that the housing element of the site was infill to the neighbouring developed areas of the golf centre, the residential houses, the Highgrove Estate, Nato base and Churchdown.  Officers had recommended against this because of the existing trees and hedges bordering the site but had not provided any landscape advice for making such an objection or that infill would significantly harm the openness of the remaining Green Belt.  They also omitted to mention the Council’s 2017 Green Belt Report on the site which said that its removal from the Green Belt was unlikely to constitute a significant loss of the physical or perceptual gap between areas of urban development and would have minimal impact.  Those arguments were reassurance that, although it was Green Belt, it was land that would not fundamentally weaken that protection and should be considered for housing given that the Council could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply and due to the urgent need for more affordable housing which this site would deliver.  If there was a real concern regarding the type of affordable housing being offered, that could be negotiated as part of the Section 106 terms and should not be a reason for refusal.  The need for affordable housing in Churchdown and Innsworth was supported by Gloucester Homes and the Council’s own data stated that 471 local residents were actively looking for this type of accommodation.  In terms of footpath connection, nobody was arguing pedestrian connection was inadequate to allow development to take place and they were offering to improve the quality of that provision through cooperation with adjoining landowners.  Finally, Officers stated that the application’s potential harms to the Green Belt outweighed its many positive benefits, and the principle of very special circumstances could not be made for approving it, but then offered no balanced explanation for that.  Members could make a decision today to approve the application to help Tewkesbury Borough get back on track with its housing shortfall and help local people in Churchdown and Innsworth who needed homes and he urged them to take it.

62.13        The Chair indicated that the Officer recommendation was to refuse the application and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member advised that he had walked home from the Planning Committee Site Visit along the access road to the golf club which was the sole means of access to the site from the main road and had found it very difficult with it being necessary to duck, or move out of the way whilst a vehicle passed, due to the height of the land.  He questioned whether the safety of that access had been assessed.  In response, the County Highways representative advised that no objection had been raised by County Highways on safety grounds but he did take this point – the access was narrow and not an ideal surface.  Whilst it was necessary for pedestrians to move out of the way if a vehicle approached, there were passing places; however, the road was neither ideal or convenient for walkers, especially people with disabilities.  In terms of accidents, there had been two near the site in the last five years, one of which was now outside of the five year period.  The junction itself had a good accident record and, in terms of sustainability, it was possible to walk from Cheltenham Road East to the site until reaching this particular road.  The Principal Planner confirmed there was one pedestrian route with the possibility of the Public Right of Way for those residents who chose to be car-free.  A Member noted that the applicant had referenced the removal of the site from the Green Belt in the Council’s Green Belt Report in 2017 and he asked why this was perceived differently now.  In response, the Principal Planner clarified that, as set out in the Additional Representations Sheet attached at Appendix 1, the quotation in relation to the Green Belt Review related to purpose two of the Green Belt which sought to prevent the merging of neighbouring towns and the Council’s view was that it continued to conflict with purposes one and three in relation to checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and safeguarding the countryside from encroachment – the Green Belt Report had stated that it conflicted with those two purposes and there had been no change from that position.  Another Member questioned whether all three aspects of this proposal should be determined together and confirmation was provided that it was essentially three applications in one; Officers had assessed them individually and cumulatively and, in the event the application was refused and went to appeal, the Inspector would consider all three parts.

62.14        It was proposed and seconded that the application be refused in accordance with the Officer recommendation.  The proposer of the motion expressed the view it was a comprehensive Committee report and nothing had changed in terms of the Green Belt position.  The seconder of the motion felt there were numerous reasons to refuse the application, all of which were set out in the Committee report.  A Member agreed that the application must be refused on the basis it was in the Green Belt but, if that was not the case, the proposal would provide sustainable housing in the area with connectivity to Cheltenham and Gloucester for businesses and amenities, therefore, it was far more sustainable than the previous Agenda Item which had been permitted and was a good proposal.  Sadly, the application must be determined within the constraints of the Green Belt assessment and she could see no very special circumstances which would allow Members to permit the application.  There may be a case for removing the site from the Green Belt via the Strategic and Local Plan but Green Belt outweighed all other considerations in her view, therefore, she supported the motion to refuse the application.  The seconder of the motion indicated that she agreed to a certain extent and could see no way the application could be approved, particularly in light of the previous application on the golf course site which had been refused for the same reasons.  She felt there were issues with some of the elements put forward as benefits, for instance, she did not see the community woodland and play area being a significant benefit to the community given other facilities in the vicinity and the tenure mix being proposed would result in two distinct areas of private and affordable housing which went against planning policy.  She questioned how affordable three to four bedroom houses on a golf course in the Green Belt would actually be.  Another Member shared this view and noted the applicant had referenced over 400 people on the housing register looking for this type of housing; however, they were actually looking for social housing, not very expensive houses reduced by 20%.  The applicant had also suggested there could be a link to Imjin Barracks and she felt there were several reasons why this would not be an option, not least security.  She did not feel that such “benefits” could be taken into account as they were not realistic options.

62.15         A Member expressed the view that very special circumstances existed as outlined at Page No. 49, Paragraph 8.19 of the Committee report which set out exceptions to the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt including limited infilling in villages.  Whilst Page No. 52, Paragraph 8.35 of the Committee report stated that Officers did not consider the site to be infill development, the Member pointed out that decision lay with the Planning Committee as decision-makers.  Page No. 52, Paragraph 8.37 of the Committee report set out that points 1, 2, 3 and 4 as outlined at the top of Page No. 52 were considered by Officers to be benefits which had the potential to amount to very special circumstances and the proposal would provide affordable housing and contribute to housing land supply.  Case law established that very special circumstances did not have to be unique or unusual and a number of elements could combine to give a cumulative and positive set of circumstances.  In his view, there would be very little potential harm to the Green Belt which would be outweighed by very special circumstances and he would not like to see the application be refused and go to appeal given that the Inspector had previously approved 1,500 houses on Green Belt land at Brockworth; he pointed out that the Council had also recently approved 49 dwellings at Badgeworth which was in both the Green Belt and Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.  Another Member shared this view given that the site was surrounded by housing, the golf course and the Ministry of Defence site so he felt housing would sit well in that location.  Green Belt was a very strong issue but a common sense approach was needed and, in this case, he felt any harm would be limited.  The seconder of the motion expressed the view that the Green Belt was very important and needed to be preserved; permitting the application would set a dangerous precedent.  Officers clearly considered that no very special circumstances had been advanced by the applicant and, based on the evidence before them, she was inclined to agree.  The proposer of the motion indicated that, whilst on the Planning Committee Site Visit, he had reflected on the view that the proposal constituted infilling and agreed with Planning Officers who had identified there was a strong boundary between the site and the Highgrove Estate with outlying dwellings around the golf course – infilling was a red herring in his opinion.  In terms of the public open space constituting a community woodland and play area, he pointed out there was a recreation ground not a significant distance from the site and he did not think an additional playground would be used except by the residents of the affordable housing and the separation of tenure types was contrary to policy.  In terms of the bigger picture, this was a major section of land preventing the sprawl of Gloucester and should be treated as sacrosanct.  Consideration had been given to removing the land from the Green Belt in 2017 but the fact was that it remained and to put any stock in the arguments for taking it out when they were not substantiated at the time would be foolhardy.  As such, he remained of the opinion the application should be refused.

62.16         In response to a Member query, the Principal Planner advised that very special circumstances were not required if the proposal was considered to be limited infilling; however, Officers believed it was inappropriate development as set out in Paragraph 152 of the National Planning Policy Framework and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.  A Member asked whether it was acceptable for the play area and attenuation pond to be in such close proximity and was advised it was not unheard of and, should the application be permitted, there would be a requirement for additional detailed information regarding the attenuation basin.  The Development Management Team Manager (South) advised that attenuation basis were designed with safety aspects, such as ledges, in mind.

62.17         The Development Management Team Manager (East) advised that affordable housing provision had been omitted from proposed refusal reason 6 within the Committee report and the proposer and seconder of the motion to refuse the application indicated they would be happy to amend the motion to include that.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED          That the application be REFUSED in accordance with the Officer recommendation, subject to an amendment to refusal reason 6 to refer to affordable housing provision in relation to the absence of a completed planning obligation.