PROPOSAL: Residential development of up to 30 residential dwellings, associated works (including demolition), open space, infrastructure and landscaping with vehicular access from the A46(T).

OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: Delegated permit.

68.2          This was an outline application for residential development of up to 30 residential dwellings, associated works (including demolition), open space, infrastructure and landscaping with vehicular access from the A46(T).

68.3          The Principal Planning Officer advised that this was an outline application for up to 30 dwellings on a site off Fiddington Lane but with vehicular access provided through the adjacent larger development site to the south which would then lead west and north to the access through the wider development and reach the A46 near Dobbies Garden Centre.  As well as the development site itself, the red line of the application included not only the access but an area to the east on the opposite side of Fiddington Lane for an attenuation pond and a strip of tree belt land to the north-east for a proposed pedestrian access towards the Cotswold Outlet development which was currently under construction.  The development site was currently used for horse grazing and was relatively flat and surrounded by hedgerows for the most part.  Immediately to the north was a small lane which led westwards to a Public Right of Way and some residential properties on the north side of the lane and further equestrian land which was also in the ownership of the applicant.  To the east over the lane was a development site recently allowed at appeal for up to 120 dwellings which would share the attenuation pond for its drainage requirements.  The applicant had provided an indicative plan which showed vehicular access to the south but also pedestrian/cycle access potential to the northern lane and a Local Area for Play (LAP).  There was an objection from Network Rail in respect of the potential for increased use by pedestrians of the Homedown Level Crossing but, given the distance from the crossing, the greater proximity of the alternative Natton Lane underpass and the detailed discussions at the recent appeal inquiry for the 120 dwelling site opposite, it was considered that an objection could not be sustained on those grounds.  Although the proposal was not policy compliant in terms of locational policies set out in the Joint Core Strategy and Tewkesbury Borough Plan, they received less weight in the planning balance given the lack of a five year housing land supply or any other material considerations which would, as a result of granting planning permission, cause adverse impacts and Officers considered the proposal was acceptable in principle, subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement – it was noted there had been positive discussions with the application regarding the majority, but not all, of the identified Section 106 obligations.  Therefore, as set out in the Committee report, it was recommended that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application, subject to the conditions as set out in the Committee report, and any additional or amended conditions, and completion of the Section 106 Agreement.  There was a proposed time limit for negotiations and if an agreement was not concluded within the 12 week period the Associate Director: Planning would be given delegated authority to refuse the application as set out in the Committee report.

68.4          The Chair indicated that there were no public speakers for this item.  The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application, subject to the conditions as set out in the Committee report, and any additional or amended conditions, and completion of the Section 106 Agreement, and he sought a motion from the floor.  A Member asked how likely it was that the Section 106 Agreement would be completed within the 12 week time period and was advised that this would depend on negotiations with the applicant and getting agreement on the affordable housing conditions but Officers were optimistic it could be achieved from a legal perspective.  In response to a query regarding the self-build and custom issue, Members were advised that the applicant had been asked to respond on this; the advice which had been given by the Inspector in relation to the appeal site across the road was that it was down to the local planning authority to ensure land was being allocated in order to meet requirements rather than developers having to provide it themselves and that was relevant in this instance.

68.5          The Member sought an explanation as to how the issue regarding the Public Right of Way footpath AAS8 was being resolved and whether the attenuation pond would need to be increased if it was to be shared with another development.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the Lead Local Flood Authority had been consulted on the attenuation pond and raised no objection – it was a larger pond than was required for a 30 dwelling development so had built-in capacity for the site over the road as well.  Another Member drew attention to Page No. 34, Paragraph 2.2. of the report and sought clarification as to the class of agricultural land.  With regard to Page No. 41, Paragraph 8.17 of the report which talked about sustainable travel links, the Member asked what links were being assessed and the timeframe for delivery.  In terms of affordable housing, the Member asked whether social housing had been considered.  The Member noted there had been no detailed update in terms of the position regarding the Section 106 Agreement and indicated that he would like Officers to be increasingly robust with developers to ensure Section 106 obligations were maximised.  As a procedural point, Officers tended to list the relevant Joint Core Strategy and Tewkesbury Borough Plan policies but did not refer to Neighbourhood Development Plan policies; he felt those were equally important and should be given the same attention.  In response, the Principal Planning Officer advised that the agricultural land grading was unknown and, in terms of affordable housing, the Head of Service: Housing was happy with what was being provided but this was an outline application and the tenure would reflect the mix of development on site and the size of the dwellings.  There would be 40% compliance in terms of the number of affordable dwellings on site which would be set out in the Section 106 Agreement.  With regard to the Section 106, the majority of what was being asked for had been agreed but the applicant was disputing the Council’s evidence in respect of some of the other issues relating to contributions to the leisure centre and swimming pool.  She confirmed that the relevant policies from the Ashchurch Rural Neighbourhood Development Plan were set out within the Committee report but not referenced in the conclusion section.  The County Highways representative advised there would be no vehicle traffic on the route of the Public Right of Way to the north of the site and there would be active travel links to the north.  It had recently been decided to put a link to the north-east of the site to the 120 dwelling site opposite and there would be a link from the roundabout on Fiddington Lane. The main vehicular access was to the south of the site and had already been constructed with a footway and cycleway partially constructed to the south – this was proposed to be access only for emergency vehicles and buses.  There were also links through the site to serve the development as well as a link through the appeal site and an active travel link to the north of the site which could potentially be extended further down to Claydon; the speed limit was currently 30mph at the roundabout at Fiddington Lane before increasing to 40mph and 50mph and it was proposed to reduce this to 30mph down to Claydon Lane.  The Member indicated that it would have been beneficial for this information to be set out in the Committee report in order for Members to understand it more fully and make an informed judgement.  The County Highways representative advised there was a lot of development in the area and the various linkages were quite comprehensive so it may be beneficial to hold a separate session for the Committee to explain those at some point.

68.6          A Member drew attention to Page No. 36, Paragraph 4.15 of the report which related to the consultation response from Cleeve Ramblers which had raised concern that the Design and Access Statement was incorrect in stating there were no Public Rights of Way routing through the site.  The Principal Planning Officer clarified that the Cleeve Ramblers were referring to the red line of the access road.  The Public Right of Way crossed the access road and the lane at the top of the site ran in the direction of the M5 east to west and west to east across the road then turned north and went across that line.  Public Right of Way 7 ran southwards where it crossed the road and the developer of that land would be putting in footpath diversions where required with at least one Order in place – this could be temporary whilst development was carried out or permanent but she did not have the details of the wider applications.  In response to a query regarding safeguards for the retention of hedgerows along the east to west boundary, the Principal Planning Officer advised that proposed conditions 19, 20 and 21 required details of the landscaping to be submitted including a landscaping scheme for the whole site, full details regarding adequate measures to protect trees and hedgerows and for any trees and plants which were removed or became damaged or diseased to be replaced within five years of the completion of the development.  In terms of sanctions, this would be an enforcement matter and was not something that could be considered in determination of this application.

68.7          It was proposed and seconded that authority be delegated to the Associate Director: Planning to permit the application in accordance with the Officer recommendation subject to a further condition to prevent construction traffic from using Fiddington Lane.  Upon being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED           That authority be DELEGATED to the Associate Director: Planning to PERMIT the application subject to the conditions as set out in the Committee report, a further condition to prevent construction traffic from using Fiddington Lane, any additional or amended conditions and completion of the Section 106 Agreement.